A, B, or C?
info
Format for printing
Pirate modeJim Lippard has a simple quiz. My answer is "C", of course, and it would be interesting to see why anyone would answer otherwise.
Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/3285/OYRcJuIK/
Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Comments:
Totally OT but PZ you have to highlight these sick freaking liars:
http://yorkdailyrecord.com/story/doverbiology/92434/
Bonsell sat quietly on the stand chewing gum and swiveling in his chair as Jones reviewed the man's Jan. 3 deposition in which he denied knowing anyone, besides his father, who had been involved in donating copies of the textbook "Of Pandas and People" to the Dover school district.
After he finished reading, Jones asked Bonsell when he became aware that his father, Donald, was in possession of an $850 check used to purchase copies of the pro-intelligent design textbook.
Bonsell said he had given the check to his father.
Last week, former board member Bill Buckingham testified he handed the check, dated Oct. 4, 2004, to Alan Bonsell and asked him to forward it to Donald Bonsell. Written in the check's memo line were the words: "for Pandas and People books."
"You tell me why you didn't say Mr. Buckingham was involved," a visibly angry Jones said, staring at Bonsell as he read from his deposition.
What makes it weak?
Should PZ and other bloggers, on posts that simply point to another post and don't add anything of substance, close the comments so that all discussion is redirected to the blog of the linked post? I think it would be polite, and it would make it easier for me to keep up with all the discussion. On the other hand, it might discourage discussion, for people that would rather not comment on a new blog but would otherwise comment here.
It seems to me the hard atheist has stopped looking for answers, just like the hardcore theist.
How does the consistent failure of "the answers" to appear constitute my termination of seeking them? I am open to changing my mind - when presented with evidence.
Got evidence? If not, do not accuse (as you did implicitly) atheists of being dogmatic.
#46473: pdf23ds — 11/01 at 12:54 PM
Should PZ and other bloggers, on posts that simply point to another post and don't add anything of substance, close the comments so that all discussion is redirected to the blog of the linked post?
I say no. Some of those linked sites require membership to participate.
I would answer C, but I think he's basing his argument on the vernacular definition of agnostic rather than the philosophical one. (Which is a bit like basing one's position on evolution on the vernacular definition of theory.)
IANA philosopher, but let me give it a go: Agnostics hold that some things are known, some things are unknown but knowable, and some things are unknown and unknowable. (Agnostics differ widely as to just which things are which.) In the parable, the guilt or innocence of the roommate falls within the domain of "knowable things," so the answer C falls within the realm of agnosticism.
How would you answer this? The roommate is charged with first-degree murder based on the physical evidence and your sworn deposition. His lawyer plea-bargains this down to aggravated manslaughter. As it is his first offence, he is sentenced to 5-10 years in a minimum-security prison, and will be eligible for parole in 3 years. Has justice been served?
a) Yes.
b) No.
c) I don't know.
I'd be curious how you could answer anything other than C.
I'm one of those fence sitter atheist/agnostics. I consider my odds of winning powerball a hell of a lot more likely than the odds of there being a god or an afterlife, but there is that slight chance.
That said, the roommate most likely pulled the trigger, but their is a chance that someone dressed as Santa Clause shot the S.O. then jumped out the window. Of course in this case, the police could check the roommate to see if they had powder residue on them.
How does the consistent failure of "the answers" to appear constitute my termination of seeking them? I am open to changing my mind - when presented with evidence.
Got evidence? If not, do not accuse (as you did implicitly) atheists of being dogmatic.
I guess I'm not talking about evidence, I'm talking about the value of rational speculation. As an example, the 2-D man can't perceive a third dimension. Might there be dimensions we can't perceive? If you are waiting for direct evidence of this it may never come, yet it is completely reasonable to speculate that there may be very real things that we literally cannot perceive.
If you are saying "I know the answer" I'd say you are wrong. I think what you are saying is "There is no evidence to support any answer but mine". Fair enough, but the door is still open a crack...
Like all good atheists, I would be open to any evidence that would exonerate my roommate. However, simply claiming that a mythical being, one not visibly or measurably present in any way, is not sufficient evidence for much of anything.
PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris
Got evidence? If not, do not accuse (as you did implicitly) atheists of being dogmatic.
The atheists are making the assertion that there is no higher power. Therefore, they have the burden of evidence. Of course, they cannot produce evidence due to the nature of the question, so they are forced to make a statement of faith. I explicitly accuse atheists of being dogmatic. While I suspect that there is no higher power, I do not have sufficient faith to say so with any certainty, and I do not have any evidence in either direction.
Just to clarify, if anyone is trying to assert that a specific phenomenon is due to a higher power, I would be equally skeptical of such a claim without evidence. However, the general claim that a higher power exists is one that there is no evidence for in either direction.
Jim H: Hmmph. You took my answer. I too would say C is the most likely, but would like to see more supporting evidence (ie powder on the roommate's hands, evidence that the gun that fired the shot was the same one as the one that shot the SO, indeed, evidence that the SO was dead and due to a gunshot wound) before making a definitive statement that yes, s/he did it. Sorry if that makes me a fence sitter.
NB: In my previous post, I probably should have said "culpability" instead of "guilt or innocence," for reasons which should be pretty obvious after ten or fifteen minutes of paralyzing hairsplitting.
Nonsense. Complete bollocks. The theist is the one making the extravagant assertion in the absence of evidence; the atheist is merely advancing the null hypothesis.
I do not believe there is a Santa Claus, either. That isn't dogma or faith. It's a reasonable conclusion drawn from the absence of evidence for a Santa, and the outright contradictions of the myth with reality (we've mapped the north pole, for instance, and there doesn't seem to be a complex of toyshops there).
PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris
Nonsense. Complete bollocks. The theist is the one making the extravagant assertion in the absence of evidence; the atheist is merely advancing the null hypothesis.
We are not comparing the theist to the atheist here; we are comparing the atheist to the agnostic. You are doing more than advancing a hypothesis; you are asserting a belief and displaying incredulity that a rational mind could not be convinced by your lack of evidence. Bollocks to you, sir. Advance evidence to support your hypothesis or get off my back.
I do not believe there is a Santa Claus, either. That isn't dogma or faith. It's a reasonable conclusion drawn from the absence of evidence for a Santa, and the outright contradictions of the myth with reality (we've mapped the north pole, for instance, and there doesn't seem to be a complex of toyshops there).
Then again, the Santa myth makes physical assertions that you can measure, and reject the myth based on the failure of the physical reality to agree with the myth. Atheists, however, go farther than to reject a particular theism. They reject the notion of any higher powers without any evidence to back up that claim other than that they have no evidence to support the contrary hypothesis. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as you well know. For some reason, atheists hate it when you point out that their position is just as unsupported by evidence as a generic theist who believes in an undefined god or gods. Neither has any evidence for their assertion, and neither can advance a plan to gather any evidence. And yet agnostics are accused of irrationality.
"the outright contradictions of the myth with reality"
On the other hand, the "God" idea seems almost to be constructed purposefully to avoid any possible contradiction with reality. And, you have to admit, it does a pretty good job.
I don't think "the absence of evidence for a Santa" makes disbelief in Santa "a reasonable conclusion" absent some other factor, such as Occam's Razor. And I think part of the reason many theists can sustain their belief is that they give no credence to Occam's Razor in matters theological, and often in other matters.
Hmm. I was a bit slow, I see.
Then again, the Santa myth makes physical assertions that you can measure, and reject the myth based on the failure of the physical reality to agree with the myth. Atheists, however, go farther than to reject a particular theism.
Out of curiousity, which kinds of theism would you suggest that PZ is wrong to reject?
If one was not introduced to the idea of an invisible all-knowing being in childhood, would one come up with it on their own as an adult?
The only reason the agnostic position exists is because of being brought up with superstitious thinking at one time in one's life. If one is not brought up with any superstitious beliefs, would one have any reason to subscribe to them?
clarification: that is: Agnosticism as entertaining the notion that there MIGHT BE, there COULD BE an invisible sky man. If you hadn't been introduced to the idea of the invisible sky man as a child, it would never even occur to you to be a reasonable assertion.
But even if one was never exposed to the idea that doesn't mean that if introduced to it one would take the atheist position. One would probably still say "that's really crazy, but I suppose it can't be disproven". In other words, (a version of) the agnostic position.
Silly side note...
But NORAD tracks Santa every year (http://www.noradsanta.org/) surely that must count as some sort of evidence?
The military wouldn't lie about such a thing would they?
(Cue comments about immaterial pink elephants and such.)
Peeved Chemist--I do not suggest that anyone subscribe to any brand of theism. I only state that it is no more irrational to demand that there is no higher power as it is to demand that there is some higher power. Agnosticism merely recognizes that there is no evidence either way, and therefore neither proposition has greater value.
Dave--The fact that one could not imagine something makes it neither more nor less likely. Could you have imagined that the entire universe is made up of two dimensional particles at the fundamental level if you had never been exposed to that theory before? Does your imagination (or mine) that make string theory more or less viable? I would assert that the vividness of your imagination has no effect on reality.
And the fact that all cultures have, at some point, had their own version of diety suggests that, had I never been exposed to the idea, I would have imagined it on my own. Which makes it neither more not less likely than the alternative.
Next entry: Open Thread
Previous entry: I ♥ dirty hippies
I suspect I am one of those agnostics that atheists tend to think are just being pussies. I simply will not claim that any theory of God/the afterlife is impossible. I do believe that some are far less probable than others. I think the more probable answer to the question is that when we die we are dead. I think one of the least likely answers is that there is a heaven, hell and God waiting to judge us. I do fancifully entertain other notions of answers to these unanswerable questions. It seems to me the hard atheist has stopped looking for answers, just like the hardcore theist.
I'm basically an atheist but that parable is pretty weak.