Our most basic axioms

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 1,302
Topic's author
#421
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Why do we even have to choose to define it at all? If your correct in your lack of belief in a higher power
What are you asking here? Also I'm not putting forward a claim that might be assessed as "correct" I'm just unconvinced that there is any higher power especially not one that you can't even describe let alone demonstrate. I am justified in not believing in big foot until you can show me one. This doesn't become less true if you readily admit to not having a bigfoot on hand.

I'm missing the part of this line of reasoning that lends more credibility to believing in something you can't prove exists and believing something doesn't exist because you have no experience of or evidence for it particularly if it is unfalsifiable. 

People who believe in bigfoot can't prove they exist but you can't prove they don't so are you on equal footing? Are bigfoot as likely to exist as not? 

You seem to be missing why unfalsifiablility is a problem when constructing a logical necessary. It is specifically because a lack of evidence is not evidence of anything. Only evidence of something counts.




#422
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
You seem to be missing why unfalsifiablility is a problem when constructing a logical necessary.
You gotta quote from me displaying this?
Topic's author
#423
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Do you remember saying that you can't prove a negative?

Well that is not entirely correct. What is actually supportable is that it is unreasonable to believe in something unfalsifiable. It is not a statement to the effect that you don't have to back up your claims but rather why the default is skepticism. 

Not being able to prove (some) (unfalsifiable) negatives is just a good indicator that belief is not warranted. 

Like for example if morality/punishment/reward/meaning cannot be demonstrated and also cannot be falsified then the default is to reject morality/punishment/reward/meaning.

You may not personally agree with the line of reasoning but that is actually what the nul hypothesis states.

IF testing is believing THEN the untestable is the unbelievable. 



#424
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
What is actually supportable is that it is unreasonable to believe in something unfalsifiable.
On the contrary, it is unreasonable to believe in something falsifiable.
Topic's author
#425
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Both things are true. It is reasonable to give equal credence to unfalsifiable claims as you give to those claims which are demonstrated false. You can always revise your beliefs if the claim is somehow proven true or false somehow. 

The time to believe in anything is after you have done sufficient evidence of the claim being made and different kinds of claims might require more rigorous examination before belief is warranted but in no case am I able to believe in something which has insufficient evidence to convince me...

With one exception. My basic axiom.

IF my experience is real THEN I can learn about my environment through the application of the scientific method. 

Or "Testing is believing."

#426
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
IF testing is believing THEN the untestable is the unbelievable. 
So how did you test the meaning of life?
Topic's author
#427
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
So how did you test the meaning of life?
I did not. As far as I know the idea that life has some greater meaning is unfalsifiable. 

UNFALSIFIABLE=UNTESTABLE=UNBELIEVABLE 
In the absence of any reason to believe in some "higher purpose" I am forced to do things for my own reasons. The alternative is to not do things at all. To stand myself in a corner all day long fuming in anger at the idea that standing in the corner could still be interpreted as "doing some thing".

Assuming there is no meaning it is equally reasonable engage with humanity as it is not to and far less lonely. 

#428
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
So if the meaning of life is unfalsifiable then why aren’t you a nihilist?
Topic's author
#429
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
So if the meaning of life is unfalsifiable then why aren’t you a nihilist?
Mostly because like you I get to self identify. You don't get to decide if I am a nihilist or not. Also however it is because I'm not going to agree to any label you haven't defined and you have bot explained what morality/punishment/reward/meaning is or what its implications are and so by extension I literally cannot agree or disagree that it is reasonable to believe in it. I really don't know if I qualify even for your prescriptive definition of a nihilist and your definition does not seem to preclude people from practicing good citizenship all the same if I understand the "sort" of people you think of as nihilists. Before you ask about good citizenship don't worry about it. I'm more saying that it doesn't seem to be justification that compels us to cooperate and by extension care for one another. 
#430
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm more saying that it doesn't seem to be justification that compels us to cooperate and by extension care for one another. 
Then what does it seem?
Topic's author
#431
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Then what does it seem?
That we are social organisms in a system of survival of the fittest (to be social).
#432
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin

You conflate falsifiability with proving a negative and the two aren’t synonymous.
Topic's author
#433
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Let's say I have no answer at all. That doesn't obligate me to accept any particular answer. 

Let's say I don't know what compels us that doesn't mean I have to accept that some unfalsifiable proposition is the cause and I am absolutely justified in saying that an observable phenomenon like biology is more likely the cause than some unfalsifiable phenomena like morals/punishment/reward/meaning.

That is also why I don't think we are compelled to cooperate and care for each other by fairies and magic wishes.

If you want to criticize the idea that being a social organism is sufficient explanation for social behavior that's fine but it is a more reasonable explanation than any supernatural explanation until anything supernatural of any kind is shown to exist. 

In every case without exception throughout history whenever people assign a supernatural explanation to some phenomena that we were then able to investigate more fully the cause it has never turned out to in fact be supernatural. Until this happens for the first time I for one will not believe in anything supernatural over naturalistic explanation. 

#434
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Let's say I have no answer at all.
But you are proposing an answer (human systems of accountability whatever that is) you just want to put your own label on it to avoid answering the tough questions but a label doesn’t shy you away from that assignment.
Topic's author
#435
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Let's say I don't know why humans make systems of accountability. 


So what? What is the larger point you are getting at?

IF I care about human wellbeing BECAUSE I am human and I would like to have my wellbeing be a consideration AND  I don't know why humans are alive or have emotions THEN ???

What about this scenario are you specifically object to? What are the implications? What justification do you think I need before I can dismiss things that are indistinguishable from imaginary (undemonstrated) and to favor one of the remaining apparently real phenomena as likely?

More to the point considering that you have been very clear that you are not actually arguing that any possible position is more or less likely why have you demanded that I make some kind of argument to justify my beliefs? Or more specifically my (not a) belief.


As far as it goes I have the same evidence for reality that you do and like you I have far less evidence to offer for some higher power.
#436
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Let's say I don't know why humans make systems of accountability. 
If you don’t know why then supporting such a thing is by definition ignorance, it’s like voting for a candidate without knowing what they stand for.
Topic's author
#437
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Why do I need to know why I care about some things in order to care about them?

What do you mean by support?

I don't choose my beliefs I am convinced or not by the evidence. I do not decide not to believe in the supernatural I am unable to believe in the supernatural because I am not convinced.
#438
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Why do I need to know why I care about some things in order to care about them?
Because the whys of it all matters.

Topic's author
#439
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Because the whys of it all matters.
Why?
#440
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I said the answer already, I guess you just wrote it off.

If you don’t know why then supporting such a thing is by definition ignorance, it’s like voting for a candidate without knowing what they stand for.

What do you mean by support?
In favor of, agree with, stand for, I mean what else could it mean?
Topic's author
#441
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Let me rephrase. If we don't know why then why does why matter?

Let's assume that I don't know and that you aren't arguing for any reason. Then what? Even if why is important it is unattainable. 

What course of action would you then suggest?

#442
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Even if why is important it is unattainable. 
But it is attainable otherwise it wouldn’t exist, man created the systems that your advocating for at the end of the day.
Topic's author
#443
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik

But it is attainable otherwise it wouldn’t exist
What is attainable? What exists?
man created the systems that your advocating for at the end of the day.
Or perhaps just some behaviors make humans more successful at surviving and reproducing and so we tend towards those behaviors but I think we can agree that humans are the logical source of human systems. 

Not that it matters. If there is no alternative to human systems and we don't know why humans have systems then what?

#444
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
No system is an alternative and it doesn’t require an answer.
Topic's author
#445
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I don't really understand what your objection is and you still haven't even defined morality/punishment/reward/meaning and you haven't completed the syllogisms as I requested. I don't know what you think I need to justify but if you don't have more evidence to offer than I do don't hold your breath. 
#446
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
You don't get to decide if I am a nihilist or not. 
Uh-oh. Don't let Mopac hear you say that.
#447
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't really understand what your objection is
There’s no way you can be this obtuse.

If you don’t know why then supporting such a thing is by definition ignorance, it’s like voting for a candidate without knowing what they stand for.
This is my objection, repeatedly saying you don’t know just reinforces it.
#448
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
How is that responsive to what I said?

It perfectly addresses your statement.

This discussion could run forever......Such is the axiomatic potential of philosophical word games.
#449
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
And if it can't, it cant
Then why are you asking me to prove nihilism?
#450
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Because it's your baby.

You are the one promoting  the objective morality or nihilism contention.