Posted: May 25, 2014 3:44 pm
UndercoverElephant wrote:
Rubbish! Of course your do. If you had no beliefs then you'd be an agnostic. You are nothing of the sort. You have a very strongly-held belief that these things do not exist. You are not satisfied with "they have not been [scientifically] demonstrated". You want/need to go much further than that. That you claim not to have any beliefs on this matter is nothing short of bizarre. You're claiming that if somebody believes in metaphysical framework X, which allows for such things, then they believe something, but if somebody believes in metaphysical framework Y, which doesn't allow for such things, then they don't believe anything. Sorry, but this is pure nonsense.
No. The word "agnostic" means without knowledge. It has nothing to do with belief.
I don't have a strongly held belief that these things do not exist. I have a strong disbelief. There is a massive difference.
UndercoverElephant wrote:
On top of being sure they don't exist, you also strongly believe, incorrectly, that if they did exist they could be scientifically proved.
No. I don't strongly believe. I disbeleve. You either believe something or you don't. Also, I haven't mentioned science anywhere with regards to believing. If a ghost or god came and visited me personally I would believe. It just so happens that there seems to be a complete dearth of them, and not for want of trying.
UndercoverElephant wrote:
Rubbish. "Not having a belief" is AGNOSTICISM. You are not agnostic. You are a strong and committed disbeliever.
You have a positive belief about metaphysics: paranormal phenomena do not exist.
Agnosticism is about knowledge. Not belief. And no, I do not have a positive belief about metaphysics. I have disbelief.
I feel like I'm repeating myself.
UndercoverElephant wrote:
Oh no it isn't. You have indeed said you are right. You have claimed that "these phenomena do not exist"; I merely spoke in terms of what I believe. You have claimed scientific support for your position where none exists; I have not. You have even claimed your beliefs are not beliefs, as if somehow you are right by default.
Bollox. I never said no such thing.
UndercoverElephant wrote:
For you. Others feel differently, as is their right.
I know they do. So what? It doesn't mean anything.
UndercoverElephant wrote:
You are trying to confirm the following:
(1) If paranormal phenomena did exist, science could test for them.
(2) They don't exist.
(3) All believers in such things are suffering from some sort of psychological delusion.
Never said that.
UndercoverElephant wrote:
OK. Except you are not in some sort of privileged position where your attempts at assigning a probability to these things are any better than mine or anybody else's. If you think you are, then you're guilty of confirmation bias.
I don't think I'm privilaged at all. Probabilities happen independant of me. It' s not my fault the chips tend to land on naturalistic explanations more than supernaural ones. Take it up with whoever you think is behind the curtain and don't be complaining to me.
UndercoverElephant wrote:
I think you have. Are you now saying that it is possible that you could be presented with two pictures like those in the opening post, and come to some conclusion other than it was pure co-incidence?
Of course it's "possible", but I've already explained why "possible" is a red-herring. I tend to speak in terms of "probable" or "plausible".
UndercoverElephant wrote:
Yes, I am, and you've asked for it, because you've claimed you have no beliefs when it is abundantly clear that you do have beliefs, and strong ones at that. Your distinction between "positive" and "negative" belief is, in this case, arbitrary and totally unjustified. You believe in one metaphysical model of reality, and I believe in a different one. Neither of them are "positive" or "negative".
I don't have any metaphysical model of reality. I tend to just take it at face value. I don't make any pronouncements about what goes on behind the curtain, or indeed if there even is a curtain.
UndercoverElephant wrote:
The confirmation bias, in your case, comes from emphasising the differences and playing down the similarities. It's exactly the same process as you're accusing me of, but the other way around. You are accusing me of placing too much significance on the similarities, and I'm accusing you of placing too much significance on the differences. Except I'm admitting confirmation bias is possible, and you are point blank denying it!
Try to imagine what this looks like from my perspective, and maybe it will be easier to understand what I'm saying.
I'm not emphasising or playing down anything. I'm simply counting what's alike and not alike. There is one item that is the right kind of thing (the cheese) but not in the same place in relation to the frame or the other objects. Three pairs of items of similar colour, but not the same item, two in roughly the correct place in relation to each other, though not in relation to the frame, and one which you need to use poetic license to conclude it is similar to its countepart. And seven things in one picture not in the other at all.
Tell me where you think my assessment is unfair?
I can easily understand where you're coming from. Just like I can easily understand how if you change the word "Hister" in Nostrodamus's works by shifting it it around a bit you can get the name "Hitler".
UndercoverElephant wrote:
I think you're back-peddling now.
Nope.
UndercoverElephant wrote:
And that's definitely back-peddling...
That sentence was a clear wind-up, so I dont see how.
UndercoverElephant wrote:
Oh yes you do. An agnostic you are not, despite your protestations.
I am an agnostic, how could I be otherwise without special knowledge? I have no secret knowledge about what goes on behind the curtain that I can say with any type of assuredy that your coincidence is anything other than that. I'd love to have access to the mystical goings on in the background, but I'm afraid any such door is firmly shut to me.