Thread: About this "99.99...%" thing

I hope this doesn't lead to a further derailing (wishful thinking, I know), but I would like to comment

Originally Posted by Roller

The brain in the vat argument from ignorance is actually one of the biggest problems in epistemology (the philosophy of knowledge.) It's true - we have no way of positively disproving that we are brains in vats. The problem with arguments from ignorance is that it is impossible to disprove anything using their terms - there is always regress to a more skeptical scenario.

So is trying to say that OR should be used a cop out in an effort to gain "knowledge"?

However, if we were to believe every and any possibility - which are infinite - on the slight chance they might be right will result in the collapse of our knowledge system.

Not quiet. We know that (at least in this reality) that objects attract each other, and that the larger the mass of one of these objects, the greater the attraction. This is known and observable, and unless something else is observed, it stands to reason that this will always be so. This is part of our knowledge: In this reality there is Gravity. Knowing that there are other possibilities doesn't change that.

Nothing would be able to be 'known' because we would be believing everything, and in the process forming many, many false beliefs. We would believe many falsities (type one errors) for the sake of a few limited successes (type two hits), which would only be due to pure luck.

Only those who wish to would: you can't hold those who do at fault.

To use your lotto analogy: suppose you buy a ticket for a lotto draw, the prize of which is $10 million. Suppose 50 million other people also bought tickets to the lotto draw. Somebody has to win, granted, and although your chances of winning are 1 in 50 million - very small - you cannot be 100% sure that you will not win. You can say to your friend 'oh I bet I won't win' but you cannot know for certain that you will not win. It would not make sense, though, to take out a loan on a $10 million dollar house based on the fact that it is possible that you might win.

I agree it would not make sense to me, but to one who believes otherwise ... how can you blame him? As it where, he might actually be right. I do, however, understand your point.

In using the argument from ignorance (oh and sorry - that is the actual philosophical name of the argument, I didn't mean to infer that all who use it are ignorant or stupid, sorry!)

Its okay I understand

the foundations of knowledge are eroded, because each argument (unicorns, dragons, spaghetti monsters, brain in vat etc) is just as plausible as the next.

But they are - for the most part - simply academic points: they have little effect on society and the things of life. To my mind, excepting the possibility of their existence doesn't change the world, though I myself do not believe in many of them, and am Agnostic to others

If you believe every possibility - of which there are infinite - then you do not know anything because your knowledge has no critical value.

Only the academic points, but true to a degree.

In rejecting arguments from ignorance it is true that it is entirely possible that one might reject a truth, but the consequences of doing otherwise - that is, using arguments from ignorance - are much worse. Much of human life is dedicated to setting some value on knowledge, and in fact scientific method is the best application of this.

And that I wholeheartedly agree with.

Science is often wrong, and in being conservative and skeptical, science often laggs behind in accepting new theories and can blind itself to truths. However, when faced with the alternatives, science gives us the best chance we have of ever knowing something.

I agree. We seem to think alike in many ways, but disagree with the other possibilities.

Sorry I took that a bit off-topic, but I find it a very interesting discussion.

No need to apologize It was actually my mistake. I tend to enjoy these types of discussions

The main reason I have for being atheist is that belief in god would be rejecting rational and critical thinking. Rational, critical, thinking is the only way we have of determining the reality around us and arriving at truths.

I see what you say, but remember: God is outside of this reality, and cannot be tested for (I think) by science.

However, you are correct. I see your arguments and agree with most of them.

I hope you will forgive me, then, when I say that I believe God's fingerprints have already been found by science, but that is another discusion for another day.

Keep safe

[edit] 'Hola, Neruo

Originally Posted by Neruo

Keeper, after all this time, I thought you would have learned saying "Why not believe in X? Can you disprove X? HA!" isn't valid reasoning.

That is only part of it, my friend

Why don't you believe in Allah, Roswell-UFOs and the Loch Ness monster? Because it is all fucking unlikely to be true, and thus fucking retarded to think they exist.

Maybe I do believe in them. But lets not go further off track.

Same with 'god'.

So you also believe it is against common sense? Okay, thank you

About logic...

"Illogical things happen."
"Logic isn't absolute."

One of these statements is a fact.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

About logic...

"Illogical things happen."
"Logic isn't absolute."

One of these statements is a fact.

Both of those statements are facts. Locic is basically just philosophy with some evidence.

Logic is worthless, here's why: 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999

Originally Posted by Michael

Both of those statements are facts. Locic is basically just philosophy with some evidence.

Technically only one of them is true. It depends on how you look at it.

Hey, sorry it's been a busy weekend, I meant to reply earlier.

So is trying to say that OR should be used a cop out in an effort to gain "knowledge"?

I'm not sure what you mean there...

Not quiet. We know that (at least in this reality) that objects attract each other, and that the larger the mass of one of these objects, the greater the attraction. This is known and observable, and unless something else is observed, it stands to reason that this will always be so. This is part of our knowledge: In this reality there is Gravity. Knowing that there are other possibilities doesn't change that.

If we were to believe every possibility in the universe, there would be no knowledge at all. Even if gravity is a constant fact about our universe, to say one 'knows' it would be meaningless. If everything is to be believed, then knowledge would have no value at all. Think of it as currency - a dollar only has value if it is relatively scarce. If one were to continue making dollars at a limitless rate, then a dollar would be worthless.

Knowledge is only useful in that it has value as a means of understanding the world around us. By slowly and cautiously building up beliefs, we make sure that we do not believe falsehoods, thus preventing further falsehoods from being inferred from these beliefs.

But they are - for the most part - simply academic points: they have little effect on society and the things of life. To my mind, excepting the possibility of their existence doesn't change the world, though I myself do not believe in many of them, and am Agnostic to others

Well no, I do not think that they are simply academic points to be made. Belief is a fundamental aspect to our survival, and believing falsehoods can be ultimately fatal. Accepting that many things are possible is much different from actually believing them. I accept the possibility of God's existence, but I do not believe that the mere possibility provides any basis for forming a belief in such a God. It is possible that I have secret, supernatural powers of flight, but the existence of this possibility does not mean that I should go around jumping off buildings to test whether it is true or not.

Science provides a means by which to test hypotheses, but to get anywhere with knowledge it makes sense to be conservative about forming new hypotheses. If we went around testing every possibility we would waste huge amounts of time and energy.

I see what you say, but remember: God is outside of this reality, and cannot be tested for (I think) by science.

Such a hypothesis is irrelevant. If god is 'outside of reality' and cannot be tested for, then there is no way of confirming or rejecting god's existence. Such hypotheses are impossible to defeat - if he is outside of reality, we have no way of knowing at all. Therefore, however, there is no need to believe in a God at all:

1. If God exists outside of reality, then God cannot influence reality.
2. My disbelief in God is a real and physical state.
3. God, existing outside of reality, cannot answer my prayers or help me in any way.
4. God, existing outside or reality, cannot punish me for disbelief.
5. Therefore, there is no reason at all to believe in God.

Thus a dilemma can be constructed for such a conception of God:

Either: god exists outside of reality, in which case there is no reason to believe in him.
Or: God exists within reality, in which case there is no reason to believe in him until I find physical evidence.

I hope you will forgive me, then, when I say that I believe God's fingerprints have already been found by science, but that is another discusion for another day.

In this case, God does exist 'inside' reality. And yes, this is probably a debate to have in another thread. I will make one point though, and that is that if God exists within this universe, then God is physical. If God is physical, then the best system of knowledge we have to verify his existence is science.

If we are looking to prove god through science, then it must be accepted that the only way to do this is through scientific and logical reasoning. Faith is not science, and faith is not compatible with reasoning or knowledge.

sorry if this is getting a bit off topic, but it should provide plenty of discussion anyway