Me: Not Facts but Verisimilitude: in other words I am saying science does not give us a big pile of facts but an approximation of facts which functions as models of reality. That is what verisimilitude means. I guess Skepie doesn/t know that word. then he says:
- 'Science doesn't give us facts. It gives us models of reality. Those models are based on observed facts.'
I say: Unfortunately for our purposes we will only be able to skim the surface of Popper’s thoughts on the most crucial aspect of this theory of science, that science is not about proving things but about falsifying them.
Skepie says:
- Who ever told you that science was supposed to provide proof? [I didn't say it did i was criicizing atheists for thinking it does] Skep: "You didn't get that from Popper or Dawkins, or anyone who understands science. It's a misunderstanding on the part of people who expect certainty. Could that be religionists?"
That is a cute little tactic turnimgit around,Gotdy ehere does heget the stupid idea thatreigiom gve us certainty? "we walk by faith not by sight." Secondly, why would Bible believers seek certainty in science? Clearly we do not do the scientific fortress of fats. Of course he uses his highly insulting term for religious believers, equivalent of the n word. Just like a Dawkamentalist.
Skep
- I've talked to countless theists who don't share your understanding of God. But when I argue with you, the argument is about what you believe, not about the "old man with a white beard".
Of course I'm going to defend my views and not someone else's. Why is that no reasonable?
skep: There are plenty of atheists who have a scientific understanding. There are plenty of atheists who are scientists. And you're arguing against them. So why don't you gear your argument to what they believe?
so I should ignore the countless atheists who do the fortress of facts because there are some who don't? I don't see Skep making any effect to even know there are Christian thinkers who are serious intellectuals. He makes no effort to acknowledge that. If he encounters a major thinker such as Paul Tillich he must be ignorant he's a "religionist."
Skepie acts like no atheists does the FF but anytime proof for God comes up he takes the FF Line we have the pile of facts "religionists" have none.
Now out of the blue he asserts this Popper theory about probability in choosing theories, Here is a valid article that states the theory:
John C. Harsanyi [Popper's]"...methodological rule that out of several alternative hypotheses equally consistent with the empirical data, we should always accept the one possessing the lowest a priori probability (he uses the term logical probability),"[1]
Skep refers to the article I just quoted from:
"... it is as Pix suggested. What he's talking about is the theory that makes the most precise predictions (which is equated with information content) - NOT the theory that is most likely to be true by some measure of probability that could be assigned by theists to their God arguments."
That's what I was wating for. He really had that in mind all along, that this is a disproof of God arguments. Even though Popper says explicitly it's about choosing scientific theories, belief in God is NOT a scientific theory. Popper says it's among many theories where the data is equally strong.Of course he thinks Christians have no data (fortress of facts) so clearly does not apply to religious ideas.
He's so clever he turned the tables on himself. Hey I admit his views are more probable than mine, Now that means you should choose my view. read the theory.
In fact, if I didn't know better, I'd venture to guess that this article is your source of information about Popper. The wording is remarkably similar. But I think you miss the real point of what he's saying. There is one crucial thing Popper said that you left out of your discussion: "Thus, the statements which are of special interest to science are those with a high informative content and (consequentially) a low probability, which nevertheless come close to the truth. That last phrase says that the theory must survive scientific testing and verification. As the article goes on to say: "the severity of the test to which a theory can be subjected, and by means of which it is falsified or corroborated, is of fundamental importance."I just got through pointing out it's about theories with equally strong data, which is the same as high information content. Of course his ego is always on the line so he has to denigrate my education. The only way he can feel good about himself is to put down others.Even if that article was the only thing I ever read about Popper he is still ignoring what it says. It says he;s using the theory wrongly.
I have to laugh because I quoted that article time and time again for several posts trying to get him to understand what's wrong with his use of the theory so he says I talk like the article so that's all I've read.
Here is the kicker. I begin Fortress part 2 (I will poston blog next week) thus:
Above we see that Dawkins, Stenger and company place their faith in the probability engineered by scientific facts. The problem is probability is not the basis upon which one chooses one theory over another, at least according to Popper. This insight forms the basis of this notion that science can give us verisimilitude not “facts.”That shows me using the theory that Pix and Skep are touting,I wrote that about ten years ago I already read it and used and knew and forgot it. He didn't even understand what I said, He quoted it and used it to say I know nothing about Popper.
[1]John C. Harsanyi,"Popper's Improbability Criterion for the Choice of Scientific Hypotheses," Philosophy,Cambridge University Press, Vol. 35, No. 135 (Oct., 1960), pp. 332-340 (9 pages)' also available on Jstor with preview: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3748472
15 comments:
Pix and Skep are two reasons why Mark Passio is so low on Atheism. He considers it to be a dangerous religion (that's what it is, even though atheists will deny it) that is destroying human freedom:
Mark Passio: How the Religion of Atheism is Destroying Human Freedom
I wouldn't blame two two specifically but I think the movement of new atheism is very detrimental.
I didn't say it did i was criicizing atheists for thinking it does
- Right. And I asked you where you got that from. Because you didn't hear me say it. Or Pix. Or Dawkins, or Stenger. But your article was an attack on Dawkins and Stenger. And I have never heard any atheist who thinks that (though I grant there may be some who are not scientifically literate). So who are you arguing against?
Of course I'm going to defend my views and not someone else's. Why is that no reasonable?
- Why is it not reasonable for you to argue against Dawkins and Stenger for their own views instead of the views of some scientifically illiterate atheist?
so I should ignore the countless atheists who do the fortress of facts because there are some who don't?
- Joe, you are the one and only person who I have ever heard talk about this so-called "fortress of facts". The truth is that you just made it up. It does not represent the views of most atheists.
so I should ignore the countless atheists who do the fortress of facts because there are some who don't?
- I'm telling you that you should gear your argument to scientifically-minded atheists rather than the scientifically illiterate (and I seriously doubt they are the majority anyway).
I don't see Skep making any effect to even know there are Christian thinkers who are serious intellectuals.
- I have read the works of many theistic intellectual thinkers - including the early (Aristotle, Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas, etc.) and the more modern (Leibniz, Kant, Plantinga, Feser, etc). The only reason I ever heard of you is because I wanted to learn about theistic philosophy, and I went looking for a cross section of religious thinking. And by the way, I also learned about non-theistic philosophy, too. I'm pretty sure you've never read a lot of the works I have, like Oppy's "Arguing About Gods", which would give you a better understanding of how your arguments measure up to real philosophical scrutiny. You could improve your arguments by reading that kind of material.
Skepie acts like no atheists does the FF but anytime proof for God comes up he takes the FF Line we have the pile of facts "religionists" have none.
- You need to show some evidence that atheists actually believe what you say. You won't find it in anything I have written, because I don't hold that view, and I never did. My position is that nothing is ever proven, but beliefs are justified by objective evidence.
That's what I was wating for. He really had that in mind all along, that this is a disproof of God arguments
- It's time for a little honesty, Joe. You are the one who keeps talking about proof. And I know you like to say that you don't claim to prove God's existence - you only claim that belief in God is "warranted". But that's not true. Look at your cosmological argument, which presents a logical syllogism that concludes with "Therefore God exists." But you have never once heard me say something like "Therefore God does not exist", because I make no such argument.
it's about theories with equally strong data, which is the same as high information content.
- NO. You don't understand what he's saying. It's about theories that make precise and correct predictions.
Above we see that Dawkins, Stenger and company place their faith in the probability engineered by scientific facts. The problem is probability is not the basis upon which one chooses one theory over another, at least according to Popper.
- This only illustrates that you DON'T understand Popper. Because he says probability IS the basis for selecting a theory. He says it right there in that article. But you don't get what he means by probability.
Metacrock:
I didn't say it did i was criicizing atheists for thinking it does
Skep:
- Right. And I asked you where you got that from. Because you didn't hear me say it. Or Pix. Or Dawkins, or Stenger. But your article was an attack on Dawkins and Stenger. And I have never heard any atheist who thinks that (though I grant there may be some who are not scientifically literate). So who are you arguing against?
I said "Dawkins, Stenger and company place their faith in the probability engineered by scientific facts." That is obvious. All scientists do that. That just says they trust modern science.
Joe:
Of course I'm going to defend my views and not someone else's. Why is that not reasonable?
- Why is it not reasonable for you to argue against Dawkins and Stenger for their own views instead of the views of some scientifically illiterate atheist?
You are distorting what I just said as well as the issue. The original issue was you complained because I don't defend ideas of other Christians but just my own, why is that not reasonable? It's not true because I defend the Gospel of Christ that is the belief of all Christians. I defend it in my own way that is reasonable.
Joeso I should ignore the countless atheists who do the fortress of facts because there are some who don't?
- Joe, you are the one and only person who I have ever heard talk about this so-called "fortress of facts". The truth is that you just made it up. It does not represent the views of most atheists.
you must desperate to find something to hold over me. Obviously I made up the phrase it's just means of focusing on a behaver that atheist exhibit, the thing I use that phrase to describe is real and is well known. U o nit know anyone else who calls all believers in God "religionists."
Joeso I should ignore the countless atheists who do the fortress of facts because there are some who don't?
- I'm telling you that you should gear your argument to scientifically-minded atheists rather than the scientifically illiterate (and I seriously doubt they are the majority anyway).
You exhibit the fortress of facts as much as anyone. you have not answered my arguments. I've written tons of articles for sound atheist thinkers. I did one on Jeff Lowder's Holocaine argument a couples of months ago.
JoeI don't see Skep making any effect to even know there are Christian thinkers who are serious intellectuals.
- I have read the works of many theistic intellectual thinkers - including the early (Aristotle, Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas, etc.) and the more modern (Leibniz, Kant, Plantinga, Feser, etc). The only reason I ever heard of you is because I wanted to learn about theistic philosophy, and I went looking for a cross section of religious thinking.
I was thinking more of 20th centiry people like Tillich, Ogden, Abraham, no reason you should Have heard of me. I don't think of myself as being in the league with the gy I named or the one's you named either. I study with Ogden and Abraham they were my profs
And by the way, I also learned about non-theistic philosophy, too. I'm pretty sure you've never read a lot of the works I have, like Oppy's "Arguing About Gods", which would give you a better understanding of how your arguments measure up to real philosophical scrutiny. You could improve your arguments by reading that kind of material.
I've read Oppy My arguments would take him out. I know you have an interest in Philosophy and you have read a lot. To be I was impressed with some of your stuff such as your knowledge of Aquinas.
Skepie acts like no atheists does the FF but anytime proof for God comes up he takes the FF Line we have the pile of facts "religionists" have none.
- You need to show some evidence that atheists actually believe what you say. You won't find it in anything I have written, because I don't hold that view, and I never did. My position is that nothing is ever proven, but beliefs are justified by objective evidence.
I did. It's in FF1 that use that phrase
Joe: That's what I was wating for. He really had that in mind all along, that this is a disproof of God arguments
- It's time for a little honesty, Joe. You are the one who keeps talking about proof. And I know you like to say that you don't claim to prove God's existence - you only claim that belief in God is "warranted". But that's not true. Look at your cosmological argument, which presents a logical syllogism that concludes with "Therefore God exists." But you have never once heard me say something like "Therefore God does not exist", because I make no such argument.
Yes you have atleast imploed bitI think you said it directly
Joe:it's about theories with equally strong data, which is the same as high information content.
- NO. You don't understand what he's saying. It's about theories that make precise and correct predictions.
your premise that Christians must always be wrong is stupid. I was quoting Popper point blank. The other guy says it too, Two source I quoted them word for word.
JOE: Above we see that Dawkins, Stenger and company place their faith in the probability engineered by scientific facts. The problem is probability is not the basis upon which one chooses one theory over another, at least according to Popper.
- This only illustrates that you DON'T understand Popper. Because he says probability IS the basis for selecting a theory. He says it right there in that article. But you don't get what he means by probability.
You don't understand the thery. If you take the less probble then your not basimgom probability. nother quotefrom the paper "Thus the statements which are of special interest to the scientist are those with a high informative content and (consequentially) a low probability, which nevertheless come close to the truth. Informative content, which is in inverse proportion to probability, is in direct proportion to testability. Consequently the severity of the test to which a theory can be subjected, and by means of which it is falsified or corroborated, is all-important." source:":[15] Steven Thornton, “Karl Popper,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2011 edition Edward N. Zalta Editor, URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/popper/ vested 2/6/2012
I said "Dawkins, Stenger and company place their faith in the probability engineered by scientific facts." That is obvious. All scientists do that. That just says they trust modern science.
- No. It's not obvious. You were saying that they don't agree with Popper, but that's not true at all. And you have a garbled understanding of what Popper said about probability. So when you say "the probability engineered by scientific facts", it's meaningless. That's what led to my confusion about what you meant. When I read the SEP article on Popper, I saw that you don't understand what he was saying.
You are distorting what I just said as well as the issue. The original issue was you complained because I don't defend ideas of other Christians but just my own, why is that not reasonable?
- The original issue was your claims about this so-called "fortress of facts". You were attributing that to Dawkins and Stenger (as I understand what you wrote), and my objection is that it doesn't represent their thinking. I only mentioned God as an "old man with a white beard" because I know that's not what you believe. I didn't ask you to defend it. But that illustrates what you are doing to Dawkins and Stenger. The fortress of facts doesn't represent what they believe (or any other atheist that I know of). You obviously didn't understand what I was telling you.
you must desperate to find something to hold over me. Obviously I made up the phrase it's just means of focusing on a behaver that atheist exhibit
- It's not about the phrase. It's the whole idea behind it that you made up. I keep telling you that it doesn't represent what atheists think (except possibly an illiterate minority).
You exhibit the fortress of facts as much as anyone. you have not answered my arguments. I've written tons of articles for sound atheist thinkers. I did one on Jeff Lowder's Holocaine argument a couples of months ago.
- I'm trying hard to have a rational debate with you. The real problem is that you don't understand what I tell you. You have a fixed idea in your mind about what I think (like how I try to disprove God, which is not true at all), and there's nothing I can say that will set you straight about what I think. The same goes for Dawkins and Stenger. To you, they are just part of "the movement of new atheism". And you don't give them credit for having any intelligent thought. You don't listen to what they say, much less understand it. You only listen to some stereotype you have in your own mind.
In the essay I wrote: "According to Popper in choosing between two theories one more probable than the other, if one is interested I the informative content of the theory, one should choose the less probable. This is paradoxical but the reason is that probability and informative content very inversely. The higher informative content of a theory is more predictive since the more information contained in a statement the greater the number of ways the statement will turn out to fail or be proved wrong."
I was thinking more of 20th centiry people like Tillich, Ogden, Abraham
- I was including 20th century philosophers. Have you not heard of them?
I've read Oppy My arguments would take him out.
- Oppy is a highly respected philosopher. Your arguments would be squashed in seconds by him, but he would never waste his time, because your arguments aren't even logically valid.
your premise that Christians must always be wrong is stupid. I was quoting Popper point blank. The other guy says it too, Two source I quoted them word for word.
- I make no such premise. But when you're wrong, you should listen. I quote directly from that article: "For that reason, the more improbable a theory is the better it is scientifically, because the probability and informative content of a theory vary inversely" Yes, Probability IS a basis for determining which theory is better. That's what Popper says. Read his words, and listen to mine. It's low probability, not high probability, but probability IS the basis.
You don't understand the thery. If you take the less probble then your not basimgom probability.
- Sorry, Joe, but you don't understand. Probability IS the basis, according to what Popper is saying. You don't even know what Popper means by that. You can quote his words all you like, but understanding them is something else. And you don't.
According to Popper in choosing between two theories one more probable than the other, if one is interested I the informative content of the theory, one should choose the less probable.
- This reveals confusion on your part. Yes, you're repeating the correct explanation as to what makes it more or less "probable". But you don't seem to understand exactly what is more or less probable. It is the predictive results, not the theory itself. Actually, I think the choice of wording here is unfortunate. Perhaps this will help: The theory that is more probably correct is the one whose predictions are less probable - and here's the key part that you have not acknowledged at all - and whose predictions have been rigorously tested abd verified.
JOE:
I was thinking more of 20th centiry people like Tillich, Ogden, Abraham
- I was including 20th century philosophers. Have you not heard of them?
qho did you mention> you have no idea who Ogden and Abraham are,
I've read Oppy My arguments would take him out.
- Oppy is a highly respected philosopher. Your arguments would be squashed in seconds by him, but he would never waste his time, because your arguments aren't even logically valid.
Bullshit.I know who Oppy is I would put Abraham against him any day. Just because I;m unknown doesn't mean I'm unlearned. you know nothing,
your premise that Christians must always be wrong is stupid. I was quoting Popper point blank. The other guy says it too, Two source I quoted them word for word.
- I make no such premise. But when you're wrong, you should listen.
I am not wrong. You are the ne who needs to listen because we are practically saying the same thing,
I quote directly from that article: "For that reason, the more improbable a theory is the better it is scientifically, because the probability and informative content of a theory vary inversely" Yes, Probability IS a basis for determining which theory is better. That's what Popper says. Read his words, and listen to mine. It's low probability, not high probability, but probability IS the basis.
That is just a different way of putting it. If the less probable idea is to be accepted than probability is not as important as whatever is taking its place in the workings of the less probable theory. John C. Harsanyi said that or something like it.
You don't understand the thery. If you take the less probble then your not basimgom probability.
- Sorry, Joe, but you don't understand. Probability IS the basis, according to what Popper is saying. You don't even know what Popper means by that. You can quote his words all you like, but understanding them is something else. And you don't.
God you are rally stupid you so afraid to think. If the guy you quote doesn't say it exactly you dare not think about it. If low probability is the thing then probability is less important cat you see that? Read the Harzani quote above idiot. he says it.
John C. Harsanyi [Popper's]"...methodological rule that out of several alternative hypotheses equally consistent with the empirical data, we should always accept the one possessing the lowest a priori probability (he uses the term logical probability)
can we say low probability is more important than high?
3:14 PM
im-skeptical said...
According to Popper in choosing between two theories one more probable than the other, if one is interested I the informative content of the theory, one should choose the less probable.
- This reveals confusion on your part. Yes, you're repeating the correct explanation as to what makes it more or less "probable". But you don't seem to understand exactly what is more or less probable. It is the predictive results, not the theory itself.
DA? what would the theory itself mean apart from predictive power? Of course I see that stupid. the thing that makes you so stupid is that you expect people whith whom you disagree to be stupid too.
Actually, I think the choice of wording here is unfortunate. Perhaps this will help: The theory that is more probably correct is the one whose predictions are less probable - and here's the key part that you have not acknowledged at all - and whose predictions have been rigorously tested abd verified.
I do not really get cause I]m, a Christian,
You have the right words but you don't really understand them. Of course but you love Popper like I do
I told you the thread is closed
Post a Comment