Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[-1-]

Yes, an atheist may say "I doubt that the Earth is roughly six thousand years old", he won't say, "i'm skeptical about the world being only six thousand years of age (roughly)." This usage agrees completely with your definitions.

However, in another situation, a young man, 23, lives in gansta's paradise, and his mother may say "I doubt he will live to see 24", and she may say "I am skeptical that he'll reach 24" and both versions convey the exact same sentiment. However, the definitions you gave still apply here, too. When the mother doubts her son will live to see 24, she is pretty sure he won't, but there is an offside chance. The premise (he'll live) is rejected, with the provision of not being an absolute certainty. In the second case, she opines that it is entirely possible for her son to die at or before 24, but maybe he'll outlive that age.

The two definitions you gave are spot on, Ranvier. When apparent equivalencies exist, there is still a refined difference.

[Eduk]

Personally I am happy to accept the intended meaning of words. So a philosopher may define scepticism as one thing where someone else may describe scepticism as something else. The important thing for the audience is to try to understand the intended meaning. So sometimes of course meanings get muddled and many questions must be asked and answered. There are also better and worse definitions. Such is life.

[-1-]

Personally I am happy to accept the intended meaning of words. So a philosopher may define scepticism as one thing where someone else may describe scepticism as something else. The important thing for the audience is to try to understand the intended meaning. So sometimes of course meanings get muddled and many questions must be asked and answered. There are also better and worse definitions. Such is life.

I agree, but sometimes things go deeper than that. If the meaning is doubtful (or someone is skeptical whether differences exist, such as between "morals" and "ethics", in meaning,) then one has the right to ask for clarification. I won't ask anyone to define the difference between an apple and an orange, but if someone states categorically that a globe is different from an orb, and I do ask them to describe how they are different, then that person must describe in a clear way what the difference is. If not, that is, if people are not held to their opinions, and they dont' respect that they must live up to and face challenges when they come up, then the entire site becomes pisswater.

I got absolutely no problem with what you generally wrote and I quoted. I am having troubles because you did not write what happened in particular, you wrote what ought to happen in general, and the way you wrote it could be seen that the actual was the same as the general. In particular, the philosopher was asked, as you wrote must be done, and he did not reply with a definition. This is a huge difference. In general, as you wrote, he must provide a definition when asked; in the actuality, the asking was done, and the ensuing provision of the definition lacked.

[Aristocles]

So, germane to this thread: is anybody claiming skepticism/doubt is a system of belief, albeit a disbelief belief? Then, further, does this relate to atheism and consequent clarity of the OP?

[-0+]

A character in a computer game is controlled to some extent by the program (which may be viewed as controlling the nature of the character's universe) and it may or may not also be controlled to some extent by a player (who may be viewed as supernatural, existing beyond the nature of the character's universe, not controlled by the program). How can this character tell if any particular command it experiences is controlled by the program or the player? Even if the command indicates it is from the player, it could actually be from the program, and vice versa. How can the character tell for sure either way?

This is easy.

But only if the character has a way of establishing the rules of what the program does.

This is a pretty big assumption.

Unless access to the rules is somehow provided, the character will need to reverse engineer the rules from observed behaviour, and to do that it will already need to know how to differentiate between program and player controlled behaviour. How easy is that?

And that assumption is further strengthened by the other assumption, that the program's actions are repeatable and predictable; and the human's actions are random.

This is a big assumption too.

It may just boil down to a question of predictability. The best the character may be able to do is reverse engineer rules of predictability from predictable behaviour, without knowing (or caring) if each predictable behaviour has supernatural origins or not. The origins of any behaviour that is not yet predictable will also be unknown.

The program can tell which input is external to the program or not (assuming all supporting hardware and software is reliable), and this information could be included in the game "universe" which the character potentially has access to. By this means the character could "know" or at least experience a sense that some input is supernatural. Then it may be a question of how reliable that sense is.

If a human has an unusual experience that feels like it has a supernatural source, the human can know this experience is different from "normal" experiences without knowing if the source is really supernatural or not. If John has multiple unusual experiences then he can study them and determine how helpful these experiences are to him compared to other experiences. He may conclude they are worth paying more attention to than other experiences and view them as special. Not knowing if they are supernatural or not doesn't reduce the specialness of the experience.

The human stays not random, and always predictable, means to the character in the game, IN PRACTICAL terms, that there is no supernatural forces present.

If everything is totally predictable then nothing can be said about whether supernatural forces are present or not, but we could say it makes no practical difference if anything is supernatural or not - everything is still predictable, there is no freedom to act outside this predictability, there is nothing of interest left to explore.

If some things are unpredictable, this makes these things more interesting, However, there is still no way of knowing if any of these things are supernatural or not, and we can say that it makes no practical difference if they are supernatural or not in this case too.

We must at one point commit to one side (supernatural forces exist) or to the other side (supernatural forces don't exist) in order to establish a policy of how to proceed, and not for any other reason.

What obligation is there to commit to one side or the other? Politicians may say "if you are not for us then you are against us", but this is logically erroneous as it is possible to be neither for nor against. Likewise it is possible to neither commit to one side nor the other, and it is possible to go a step further and say "it doesn't matter if supernatural forces exist or not: this will not stop us from proceeding".

The policy which the scientific part of mankind adopted is that there are no supernatural forces. This allows them with confidence to proceed with their examinations of nature.

This is questionable. Such a policy, if adopted, would be unscientific. Scientists can have a variety of beliefs regarding the supernatural and still proceed with their examinations of nature. Even if some scientists are committed to belief in God and supernatural forces, they can still accept that there are also natural forces which can be explored.

If their ideology was clouded by "but it could be explained by the act of the supernatural", then the scientists could stretch, yawn, and give up their jobs, in futility.

The idea that something could be explained by an act of the supernatural must also be accompanied by the idea that it could be explained by natural forces. Supernatural forces may or may not exist. Scientists can proceed with their examinations of nature and work to reverse engineer laws of predictability without any concern about whether the supernatural exists or not.

So the committing to the scientific assumption of no supernatural thingies is not logically necessary, and its validity can't be logically proven, but it has tremendous practical value.

What tremendous practical value does committing to this provide? Committing to either side could provide false confidence which could lead to a prolonged search for something that may end up having little or no practical value.

Supernatural is also a bit of a strawman by it's own definition - ie. if we come to find evidence for something by finding out that it is a real effect it's no longer supernatural but natural.

If we look at an instance of a computer game which has its own "nature" (including time, space, laws of nature, etc) and consider that our nature is supernatural relative to the game's nature then it may be clearer to us what is natural and supernatural relative to the game universe. From our position, we can tell a lot about this. However, if we consider what a character in the game can potentially know by simply observing its nature with little if any access to its super-nature, then we can see how challenging it could be for us to tell the difference between our nature and (hypothetical) super-nature.

The situation's bad enough that I'm really starting to wonder if we might not be forced to just rephrase 'supernatural' as anything we presently considered incalculable.

[/quote]

We could just describe everything in terms of predictability without trying to differentiate between nature and super-nature.

[Eduk]

-1- I agree. It's absolutely fair to ask for clarification. And if clarification clarifies nothing it's also fair say so. If the intended meaning isn't clear and attempts at clarity don't help then we are all stuck really.
At best you could make an argument for consistency and normative uses of words and the like. But you can't discuss the initial point if you don't understand the initial point.

[Ranvier]

We could just describe everything in terms of predictability without trying to differentiate between nature and super-nature.

Excellent point

[Steve3007]

We could just describe everything in terms of predictability without trying to differentiate between nature and super-nature.

I agree that's a good point if we're interested in doing science (not sure if it's a good point if we're doing something else). In my view, describing and predicting patterns in observations is all that's really relevant to science. The question of whether those observations are the result of something that we call natural, super-natural or anything else is irrelevant.

[Ranvier]

You're right. It seems that the word "supernatural" has a negative religious connotation as ignorance. It is ignorance in the fact that observed rare phenomena can't be explained yet in terms of mathematics and physics or natural sciences.

-- Updated August 1st, 2017, 12:06 pm to add the following --

Any pursuit to understand the reality should remain objective, without any subjective bias of human rhetoric implied in using such vague words.

[-1-]

We could just describe everything in terms of predictability without trying to differentiate between nature and super-nature.

Excellent point

Horrible point. The very nature of the supernatural is to supersede the laws of the natural; thus produce unpredictable results. This is a horrible idea to wash out the meaning of otherwise useful distinctions in the language and the culture.

That's A. And B. is that I had already alluded to what -0+ describes. I wrote that if the human in the computer game behaves predictably, then from the character's point of view the human is indistinguishable from the program, and therefore it is not of consequence if he is a human or part of the program, from the point of view of predictability.

ONE HAS TO CAREFULLY FOLLOW THE SIMILARITIES OF THE SAME PARADIGM BETWEEN THE CHARACTER OF THE COMPUTER PROGRAM AND THE HUMAN IN THIS WORLD. THE PARALLEL SYMBOLISM WAS BROUGHT UP BY -0+ HIMSELF/ HERSELF, SO IT IS EXPECTED OF HIM/HER TO NOT FALTER FROM THAT. MY ENTIRE ESSAY HE CRITICISED (UNSUCCESSFULLY) WAS BUILT AROUND THAT THEME.

[Fan of Science]

The first premise is false. The number of points on a number line, just between zero and one is infinite, but how is this infinitely complex? You are also misusing the word infinity. Infinity simply refers to the cardinality of a set --- if it's not finite, then it is infinite.

A second basic problem you have is that there are different size infinities. So, even if we somehow established God was infinite, that would not rule out a larger infinity, and if we simply carried forth your assumption about complexity, then that would make that larger infinity more complex.

Basically, one should not use the term infinity to describe a god, since it is a specific mathematical concept that has no applicability to the god concept.

[-1-]

I hope to clear the original argument up for those who will read this post. This following post will not clearly show my point; my point was expressed on page three of this thread, in post #40.

I ask you to please read that post. This follwing is too discombobulated to see any clarity of the original argument. This post is a refutation of criticism by -0+, and it contains references to my original post, but not any clarity as to what I actually said.

--------------

-0+ you criticized all my points, and "independently" came to the same conclusions as I.

Your criticism, for almost or quite the entire part of it, consisted of denigrative attacks: for instance, you described my assumptions with the word "big". What's a big assumption compared to a small or medium assumption? You could have written "impossible to assume" or "improbable assumption" or "not likely to be true", or even "possible, but not likely". In each of these cases, that could cover your naming my claims for assumptions "big assumptions", you never denied the validity of my assumptions. So the assumptions were valid, and you agreed they were valid. I believe all you achieved with this section of the criticism is to soften up the reader, and train his mind to accept that I may have been wrong. You did not dismantle my logic and proved it wrong. You used purely psychological forces, and you cleverly did not go beyond that, lest you be shown to be wrong. You did not say, "-1- was wrong in this assumption", because you could be proven wrong. No, you just called my assumptions "big", and wrote a treatise why they were big, but you never refuted or invalidated or disagreed with any of them.

Later, you gave your version of the system. In essence, your description of the system was the same as mine, except you presented it in a light that mine was wrong and yours was right. What was the purpose of that?

Continuing with your criticism. You called one of my conclusions "questionable" but you did not prove it wrong. You agreed with it, because you did not prove it wrong. Again, just to soften up the audience.

Then came a criticism in two separate points, which I have to defend in its particularity:


-1- wrote:
If their ideology was clouded by "but it could be explained by the act of the supernatural", then the scientists could stretch, yawn, and give up their jobs, in futility.

-0+ wrote:
The idea that something could be explained by an act of the supernatural must also be accompanied by the idea that it could be explained by natural forces. YOU, -0+, ARE IGNORING THE SEPARATION OF SUPERNATURAL FROM NATURAL BY THEIR WAY OF BEING UNPREDICTABLE VS PREDICTABLE IN THIS ARGUMENT OF YOURS. THIS IS WHY THIS POINT IS INCONSEQUENTIAL. Supernatural forces may or may not exist. Scientists can proceed with their examinations of nature and work to reverse engineer laws of predictability without any concern about whether the supernatural exists or not.

-1- wrote:
So the committing to the scientific assumption of no supernatural thingies is not logically necessary, and its validity can't be logically proven, but it has tremendous practical value.

-0+ wrote:
What tremendous practical value does committing to this provide? THE PRACTICAL VALUE IS THAT WE CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE OF SOME OF THE ACTIONS IN THE UNIVERSE. Committing to either side could provide false confidence which could lead to a prolonged search for something that may end up having little or no practical value. YOU TRY TO GET A RESEARCH GRANT SAYING THAT YOU WILL INCORPORATE ALL FINDINGS OF UNPREDICTED RANDOM EVENTS DUE TO SUPERNATURAL FORCES IN YOUR STUDY. I MEANT TO SAY A BIT SARCASTICALLY, THAT YOU CAN'T LEARN TO USE THE UNPREDICTABLE TO PREDICT THE FUTURE. THAT IS THE PRACTICAL VALUE I ALLUDED TO. I'm sorry that I did not spell it out in full meaning in the original post.
============

To other readers of this forum but -0+ : I would like to suggest, if you are confused by my refutation of the criticism by -0+ of my earlier post, that you read my earlier post in full, without the interruptions of make-belief (what I consider make-belief) points by -0+. I hope to clear this argument up, and I hope that reading my original script in full, without interruptions, will make you understand clearly and relatively effortlessly what I had been trying to say. That should do it easier, than this discombobulated text of refutation of criticisms of claims. That was post #40 on page 3 of this thread.

[Ranvier]

A character in a computer game is controlled to some extent by the program (which may be viewed as controlling the nature of the character's universe) and it may or may not also be controlled to some extent by a player (who may be viewed as supernatural, existing beyond the nature of the character's universe, not controlled by the program). How can this character tell if any particular command it experiences is controlled by the program or the player? Even if the command indicates it is from the player, it could actually be from the program, and vice versa. How can the character tell for sure either way?

... and the rest of post #40

Dear -1-, you have a talent for complicating the obvious. I don't know what you do for living (figure of speech, implying profession) but you should have been a lawyer
Metaphors and analogies should be helpful in making a point, not be the object of an argument. That becomes tedious and unproductive task for the sake of arguing but not to make a point.

"But only if the character has a way of establishing the rules of what the program does".

The program and the character are one and the same thing. The character is just an element of the program that can be controlled by human input. This is where the analogy breaks by introducing assumptions hence anything after that is just gibberish reveled in...

"And that assumption is further strengthened by the other assumption, that the program's actions are repeatable and predictable; and the human's actions are random".

-1-
"If one could show that there are supernatural forces acting on things in the universe, then we would find scenarios where things would happen in an unexpected way. This is when a pencil, a ruler, and a chair would fall downward in a room, but an apple and a teacher would fall upward. This does not happen, so we say with confidence, there is no supernatural forces acting in the room".

This is a new analogy to describe "supernatural", I think it's obvious why it's silly giving a silly conclusion...
"If we examine all claims that involve supernatural forces, then we find that there were no supernatural forces".

Giving fallacy of self prophecy in claim...

"The policy which the scientific part of mankind adopted is that there are no supernatural forces??? This allows them with confidence to proceed with their examinations of nature. If their ideology was clouded by "but it could be explained by the act of the supernatural", then the scientists could stretch, yawn, and give up their jobs, in futility".

Ranvier
Please let us refrain from equating science with atheism. One has nothing to do with the other and only gives science problematic reputation by faulty association. Science is a tool of thought and methodology of process to explain reality not a philosophical toy to manipulate pseudo scientific assertions of belief.

-1-
Atheism? Who talked about god or atheism? You did ? I did? Nobody did. I don't know why all of a sudden you pulled god or the lack of it into this.
Supernatural does not start or end with god. There are many aspects of God that are not supernatural, (and many that are) and there are many aspects of the supernatural that have nothing to do with God (while there are many that do.)

I thought this is one of those self explanatory things...I was wrong. Typically we use term "supernatural" in terms of superstition (God) or fiction but I'm open to new suggestions in interpretation.

There is a great difference in knowing and understanding. A blind may know of color red but never will he understand it.

-1-
So I gather from this that you understand the colour red. What is the underlying meaning (which you understand) of the colour red? Pray tell us.
Because I am a seeing being, I see colours properly (tested for it when I applied for a cartographic scriber position) and yet I don't see any meaning in the colour red, or yet I don't understand the colour red.

Another seemingly self explanatory thing but I tend to be wrong... If say please pass the red cup, I hope that you would understand which cup you would be so kind to pass

[Steve3007]

-1-:

The very nature of the supernatural is to supersede the laws of the natural; thus produce unpredictable results.

If the definition of the term super-natural is "that which is wholly random, unpredictable and without pattern" then I agree that it is beyond study by science. But that's not my understanding of the definition of that term.

-- Updated Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:30 am to add the following --

I just did a quick google. Apparently, one possible definition is:

"attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

If so, I take back what I said. But I suspect there's probably a whole other debate to be had as to whether this definition is entirely accurate. Semantics eh.

[Fanman]

I think that because of the diverse nature of the term “supernatural” and supernatural claims, finding a definition that correctly encompasses the term can be problematic. I think that we have a general understanding of what "supernatural" means (hence we understand what each other are talking about), something or phenomena which exist supra to the laws of nature, but if we are striving for a specific definition, because the term supernatural is interpreted in many different ways and covers so many different types of phenomena (and superstition) we may find ourselves having to accept that the term is quite vague. Science has yet to confirm the existence of the supernatural, so as evidence that it exists, we have to rely on people's experiential accounts which are unreliable.

If the supernatural exists, based upon people's reports and sciences inability to confirm such reports, we have to (on current information) assume that it is transcendental of physical or empirical means of testing; yet that it interacts with people in some way or on some level. Which would seemingly make it more an issue of Mind and human senses/perception, than anything physical; yet conversely some people claim to have been supernaturally healed of physical ailments and even diseases. If the supernatural was able to effect the physical, wouldn't there be signs (or evidence) that could be detected empirically? Are human-beings able to comprehend or “sense” something which isn't empirical? I think that the supernatural and supernatural claims definitely raise many questions, but don't answer many. For theists/believers the answer “God did it” or that “its spiritual” may be enough to satisfy any longing questions they may have, but for agnostics and atheists it doesn't satisfy any standards of knowledge. Hence I think we're entitled to question and disbelieve in the supernatural and supernatural claims.