a common atheist fallacy

[mererdog]

On 6/15/2018 at 9:47 AM, RevBogovac said:

I didn't say "knowledge", I said "science". 

You were replying to me. I said knowledge. You now say you weren't talking about the same thing as me. And this is my bad?

Edited June 18, 2018 by mererdog

[mererdog]

On 6/15/2018 at 4:57 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

I get that.  I'm also aware that there have been medical studies, where the placebo was more effective than the therapeutic agent being tested.    

Well, that's just it. Either the placebo was not a placebo, or there was some other factor involved. As such, simply crediting the placebo would prevent learning the actual cause.

 

As an example, I saw a study where fake acupuncture was more effective at pain management than actual acupuncture.

Digging into the details, I find that the difference is most easily attributed to patient expectations produced when signing consent forms. The fake acupuncture recipients were given a long list of fake potential side-effecfs for the treatment, while the recipients of the real acupuncture were not. Not only were they more likely to think their treatment was effective, but they were more likely to think they needed to quit the study early due to the fake acupuncture giving them dry mouth.

 

By understanding that the placebo is not the cause, we have the opportunity to learn how to get the desired effect without the placebo. 

Edited June 18, 2018 by mererdog

[mererdog]

On 6/15/2018 at 9:47 AM, RevBogovac said:

You're just making a philosophical leap as to justify something that isn't there. 

So, what I am actually doing is discussing applied epistemology. I am talking about the limits of knowledge, the difference between opinion and fact. Far from attempting to justify what is not there, I am warning against the dangers of using lack of knowledge to justify belief that something is not there.

I am a proponent of doubt. I am a salesman for lack of certainty. This is the skeptical position, which is my default position on most subjects.

Moral issues are my skeptical blind-spot.

 

Edited June 18, 2018 by mererdog

[RevBogovac]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

You were replying to me. I said knowledge. You now say you weren't talking about the same thing as me. And this is my bad?

 

No, but I like to use science to build my knowledge, but if you wish to build your knowledge on another basis... go ahead.

 

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

[...] By understanding that the placebo is not the cause, we have the opportunity to learn how to get the desired effect without the placebo. 

 

You just go and do that. I would be quite grateful if/when you succeed. But in the mean time I'll go for the desired effect using the shortest route available...

 

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

So, what I am actually doing is discussing applied epistemology. I am talking about the limits of knowledge, the difference between opinion and fact. Far from attempting to justify what is not there, I am warning against the dangers of using lack of knowledge to justify belief that something is not there.

I am a proponent of doubt. I am a salesman for lack of certainty. This is the skeptical position, which is my default position on most subjects.

Moral issues are my skeptical blind-spot.

 

Too bad, there are a lot of benefits in the practical application of things you might consider "lack of knowledge" as for instance the "self for-filling prophecy" and "positive [self-] enforcement"... But if you choose to discuss the epistemology instead, that might lead to an interesting debate.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

Well, that's just it. Either the placebo was not a placebo, or there was some other factor involved. As such, simply crediting the placebo would prevent learning the actual cause.

 

As an example, I saw a study where fake acupuncture was more effective at pain management than actual acupuncture.

Digging into the details, I find that the difference is most easily attributed to patient expectations produced when signing consent forms. The fake acupuncture recipients were given a long list of fake potential side-effecfs for the treatment, while the recipients of the real acupuncture were not. Not only were they more likely to think their treatment was effective, but they were more likely to think they needed to quit the study early due to the fake acupuncture giving them dry mouth.

 

By understanding that the placebo is not the cause, we have the opportunity to learn how to get the desired effect without the placebo. 

 

I think the ultimate placebo is prayer.  It seems to make people happy.  Some arguments are not worth it.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

So, what I am actually doing is discussing applied epistemology. I am talking about the limits of knowledge, the difference between opinion and fact. Far from attempting to justify what is not there, I am warning against the dangers of using lack of knowledge to justify belief that something is not there.

I am a proponent of doubt. I am a salesman for lack of certainty. This is the skeptical position, which is my default position on most subjects.

Moral issues are my skeptical blind-spot.

 

 

Skepticism, like anything else, can be taken too far.  When no evidence or study is good enough.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 6/16/2018 at 4:52 AM, Dan56 said:

 

 I mistakenly presumed that you would never agree with the bible 😊 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).

 

I wanted to go back and make sure my position is clear.  

 

If you tell me that you can prove God exists -- with objective, verifiable evidence -- then I want to see the evidence.

 

If you tell me that you have faith that God exists -- there's nothing to argue about.  You believe.  Great.  I've got no problem with that.

 

The basic Atheist position is simple.  I don't believe.  Nobody is saying that you can't believe.  

 

 

[mererdog]

57 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Skepticism, like anything else, can be taken too far.  When no evidence or study is good enough.

Of course. I have made that point several times in this thread.  Being skeptical of skepticism is good. It is easy to become unwilling and/or unable to see new information about a subject fairly. It is hard to realize that it has happened to you. The urge to think of ourselves as fair and open-minded makes it painful to look at our prejudices directly. I often have to remind myself that I do not know that Bigfoot does not exist. I simply habe a strong opinion that is not directly contradicted by the evidence that has been available to me up to this point.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

38 minutes ago, mererdog said:

Of course. I have made that point several times in this thread.  Being skeptical of skepticism is good. It is easy to become unwilling and/or unable to see new information about a subject fairly. It is hard to realize that it has happened to you. The urge to think of ourselves as fair and open-minded makes it painful to look at our prejudices directly. I often have to remind myself that I do not know that Bigfoot does not exist. I simply habe a strong opinion that is not directly contradicted by the evidence that has been available to me up to this point.

 

Bigfoot is the classic Black Swan.  There is no good reason to think that it exists -- but it could.  

[mererdog]

28 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Bigfoot is the classic Black Swan.  There is no good reason to think that it exists -- but it could.  

There is no good reason for me to think it exists. That does not mean there is no good reason for someone else to think it exists. There was a period in time where people were reporting seeing black swans, but were not producing other evidence of what they had seen. It was reasonable for them to believe their own eyes, and reasonable for others to doubt their word. 

My wife has a story. We explain it differently, but I wasn't there.

Edited June 18, 2018 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Does it actually matter whether the Bigfoot species exists?  I mean, it's silly,  but so what?  Besides which --  objective evidence could turn up.  It's not likely, but it's possible.

 

The Flat Earth people are crazy.  So are the Hollow Earth people.  Big Foot?  Really.  Why do you care?  It's so trivial.  Not every battle is worth fighting.  Just because it's silly and lacking in evidence -- does not make it worth fighting.  People will always be into foolish crap.  Most of it does not matter.

 

[Dan56]

4 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Bigfoot is the classic Black Swan.  There is no good reason to think that it exists -- but it could.  

 

But Bigfoot has been seen by eye witnesses.. Granted, its usually witnessed by someone named Bubba while he was fishing down on the Bayou, but he swears the 12 pack of beer he had just finished in no way impaired his vision.. It was definitely a large fur covered bear-like creature standing upright.. How much more proof do you need? 😊

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

29 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

But Bigfoot has been seen by eye witnesses.. Granted, its usually witnessed by someone named Bubba while he was fishing down on the Bayou, but he swears the 12 pack of beer he had just finished in no way impaired his vision.. It was definitely a large fur covered bear-like creature standing upright.. How much more proof do you need? 😊

 

Do you think I'm only skeptical about God and Scripture?  I'm also not happy with the evidence for Bigfoot.  Also alien abduction.

 

I'm not being mean.  There are credibility issues.

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mererdog]

17 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Does it actually matter whether the Bigfoot species exists? 

My wife cares, so it matters to me. If "forest brides" are a real thing, it matters to them and to those who care about them. You don't care, but it still may matter to you. It is hard to accurately gauge the impact of something when you know little about it. Like doctors back in the day thinking that hand washing doesn't matter, you know?

Edited June 19, 2018 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

My wife cares, so it matters to me. If "forest brides" are a real thing, it matters to them and to those who care about them. 

 

1.  You don't care, but it still may matter to you.

 

2.  It is hard to accurately gauge the impact of something when you know little about it.

 

3.  Like doctors back in the day thinking that hand washing doesn't matter, you know?

 

1.  People have a right to be silly.  Also mistaken and just plain wrong.  If people want to believe in fairies or the wee folk, this is also not my problem.  Beliefs about God or the gods are also out of reach.  We can encourage critical thinking -- but we can not control belief.  Just as well.  If belief were controllable -- we would not be happy.  Truly -- I don't Know what your issue is.  For your own sake, I urge you to let it go.

 

2.  You might remember that the next time we talk about Reiki or Therapeutic Touch.

 

3.  What doctors do actually matters.  Medical practice evolves.  So does accountability.  So do the rules regarding compensation.  In England, the government does not pay for Homeopathy.  

 

Edited June 19, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

it could be argued that nothing is knowable, if taken to extremes.  if someone is using that, they are by self definition simply baiting or trolling, since they can't learn.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

it could be argued that nothing is knowable, if taken to extremes.  if someone is using that, they are by self definition simply baiting or trolling, since they can't learn.

 

I went back over this thread, looking for what you're responding too.  I can't find it.  What are you responding too?  

[cuchulain]

17 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

I went back over this thread, looking for what you're responding too.  I can't find it.  What are you responding too?  

knowledge, or purity therein.  evidence and the ability to define some as subjective and objective.  mererdog seems to say there is no objective.  i take that to mean nothing is knowable, but its all opinion.  taken to its conclusion, he asserts he cannot learn.  so his posts, by this, are all baiting or trolling.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

In a long past thread, when the discussion was about Agnosticism -- meredog has been purist about what is knowable.  I'm not seeing that here.  Possibly I'm simply not finding it.  I suspect that your reacting to something old that isn't here now.

 

There have been other threads, where people argued that external reality is subjective.  I don't see that happening here.  Still, sometimes the past echoes.  In this instance, I think you're getting stuck on past arguments, instead of current stuff.

[Brother Kaman]

3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

In a long past thread, when the discussion was about Agnosticism -- meredog has been purist about what is knowable.  I'm not seeing that here.  Possibly I'm simply not finding it.  I suspect that your reacting to something old that isn't here now.

 

There have been other threads, where people argued that external reality is subjective.  I don't see that happening here.  Still, sometimes the past echoes.  In this instance, I think you're getting stuck on past arguments, instead of current stuff.

ALL of reality is subjective but that, indeed, is a whole nut her thread.