Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Blatant Confirmation Bias and Gullibility of Materialists

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

UD regulars might want to check out this thread at The Skeptical Zone.

And follow it all the way through. In it you’ll get to see:

(1) EL make assertions (and doubles down on them) about a book she later admits she didn’t even bother to read, assertions which were demonstrable false;

(2) Keiths jump from the possibility of error/fraud in scientific studies on psi/the paranormal to the conclusion that the results must have been fraud/error;

(3) Countless groundless, blanket assertions best epitomized by Alan Fox’s blanket statement “It doesn’t happen”, who remains silent on how he knows psi events “don’t happen”;

(4) DNA_Jock completely misrepresent a past comment of mine on TSZ that concerned a video on spoon-bending saying I called it convincing evidence; I corrected him; he doubles down; I quote and link to the comment in question which explicitly proves him wrong (in fact, the opposite was true); and then he triples down on his misrepresentation.

(5) So-called “skeptics” defend as honest, good science the publicity-seeking, non-scientific antics of James Randi, a stage magician with deep, vested interests both professionally and financially in the outcomes of his “Randi Challenge” tests, who publicly and privately ridicules and attacks those whom he is supposed to be testing

Keep in mind that what I am ultimately doing in that thread (which at one point I explicitly explain, which doesn’t deter them one bit) is exposing their obvious, irrational confirmation bias and gullibility for all things that support their a priori materialist worldview.  These guys will swallow whole what any third-hand skeptical website or stage magician tells them as long as it confirms their materialist view; they will deny, misrepresent, mis-remember, ridicule and denigrate all information and scientific research that appears to conflict with their worldview.

The confirmation bias and gullibility of their mindsets runs throughout the entire thread and is, IMO, breathtakingly obvious to any objective observer.

Comments
Lizzie went back to TSZ, where the measures are much less objective.Mung
May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
Elizebeth Liddle: Yes, I do, but I have a methodology for arriving at that knowledge. I hold something to a be a reliable measuring instrument, if the instrument, used by many different measures on many different objects firstly, gives consistent results with a minimum of variation (internal consistency), and secondly, gives results consistent with a range of other measures, each of which also has internal consistency (that gives me the external consistency of the measure).
Really? You go thru all that to measure a gosh darn piece of wood? You don't go down to the hardware store, get a tape measure, and put it up against the wood and the trust the measurement? My god, how are all these houses getting built around here? I wonder if these butt-crack-displaying, clanky-tool-belt wearing, six-pack-waiting-in-the-truck construction workers go thru all these mental gyrations each time they take a measurement. You must live some kind of tortured existence.
Mine is that it is meaningless to talk about a statement being “objectively true” in the absence of anyone making the claim,
So if there were no humans (or similar) making the claim "2 + 2 = 5 is false", it wouldn't nevertheless be true?mike1962
May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
SB @ 120
Truth is the correspondence of the mind with reality– if there is no mind, there is nothing for reality to correspond with. In that sense, there can be no truth without the possibility of error.
I find that irrefutable. In the materialist view, there can be no truth. Everything 'just is' -- everything is a physical/material thing. Only an immaterial mind can make the comparison between "what is" (reality) and "what isn't" (falsehood, non-truth). As you said, there can be no truth without the possibility of error and error cannot exist in a world where the only possibility is "what is" and where there is no mind to discern the difference.Silver Asiatic
May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
It doesn't make sense. The idea that there is 'error' is teleological. It's goal oriented. Even the idea of 'trial' is the same. In the materialist model, there can be no trying something for success or error. Materialism is only about "what is". Error and falsehood is about "what isn't". Obviously, "what isn't" can't exist physically. So, if a materialist says "there is such a thing as error" -- then that refutes materialism, since error or 'false things' are necessarily immaterial.Silver Asiatic
May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
We are told that evolution is a trial and error process. Does that even make sense if error does not exist?Mung
May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
Mung, sadly familiar. And yet, right now some of the very same folks have spun on a dime to underscore the points in this thread in other threads. But, acknowledge the force of a point? Nah! Oh, well. KFkairosfocus
May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
It's the zero concession policy. Examining the foundation might expose cracks we just don't want to see. So better we not look. IDiot: Error exists: Critic: No it doesn't. IDiot: Do you means to say I am in error? Critic: No, you're just offering your subjective opinion. IDiot: Is that wrong? Critic: No, it's just false. IDiot: Are you saying it's untrue? Critic: It might be true for you, but for me it is not true. IDiot: You don't approve of holding erroneous beliefs? Critic: It's not for me to say. IDiot: But you did say. Critic: Did not. IDiot: If you don't think I am in error, why are you here arguing with me? Critic: I just love to see you IDiots make fools of yourselves. IDiot: Because we are in error? Critic: No. You just don't know what you're talking about. IDiot: Is that bad? Critic: Morality is subjective. IDiot: Why do you believe that? Critic: Because it's true. IDiot: When you say it's true, you mean it's not false. Critic: More like it's like a fast flowing mountain stream that doesn't know where it's going but always seems to get there in the end. IDiot: Huh? Critic: Would you say the stream is in error? IDiot: If it's the stream have you been drinking from, yes.Mung
May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
Mung, spot on. And the attempt to dismiss those of us who say that error exists is undeniably so would entail that , , , errors exist. KFkairosfocus
May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
If A = B, and B = C, then A = C. This has been demonstrated empirically.
...empirical data is information that is derived from the trials and errors of experience. http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Empirical_methods
IOW, it assumes error exists.Mung
May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
SB, over and over again, despite careful, repeated correction. To the point where such blindness reveals a major point of failure on the part of systems and schemes of thought that cannot ever acknowledge the reality of self-evident truth. For, once such is acknowledged, whole systems of thought pivoting on little errors in the beginning (as Adler pointed out, citing the very same Angelic Doctor) will collapse. The only other point that is as momentous, is the note that the classical square of opposition is fully valid, once we accept the natural language force of the A form, All S is P -- that S is non-empty, and render the O form, as not every S is P (following Ackrill's rendering of Aristotle in De Interpretatione 6–7 and with reference to Prior Analytics I.2, 25a.1–25 also). But then, this last is highly technical and is not normally debated. Let's just say that it marks the divide between modern and classical understanding of logic to the point that this needs to be clear before all else. KFkairosfocus
May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus
And in particular, it is a strawman caricature to simplistically present self evidence as being effectively synonymous with obviousness.
Excellent point, KF. How often have we heard it said that firmly held convictions often held to be "obvious" truths were later overturned by disinterested science?--as if a self-evident truth could be overturned by anything--as if a self-evident truth is mere subjective opinion.StephenB
May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle
Mine is that it is meaningless to talk about a statement being “objectively true” in the absence of anyone making the claim, and that no scientific claim ever is. Rather, we iteratively improve our models (make them closer approximations to truth, if you like) by a process of testing them against data.
Truth is the correspondence of the mind with reality-- if there is no mind, there is nothing for reality to correspond with. In that sense, there can be no truth without the possibility of error. The difficulty with your position, however, is in your assumption that the empirical method of testing hypotheses is the only way of arriving at truth. On the contrary, I can reason my way to many truths that have nothing to do with science, provided I begin with a true premise, which is not hard to establish. Indeed, the claim that empirical testing is the only way to establish truth is self-refuting; it cannot be proven by empirical testing. Accordingly, one can know an objective truth without knowing it fully; factual knowledge does not require completeness. There is a lot about you that I do not know, but I do know that you are a human being, not an animal and probably not an angel. I also know that all humans are predictably alike in their nature and gloriously different in their persons. My knowledge of these facts is objective; it corresponds with the real world. It is not mere subjective opinion.
Conclusions are only “true” in science in the sense that they are corroborated by independent observers, preferably by independent lines of enquiry. That is what is called “objective” evidence in science (as opposed to “subjective” evidence).
Scientific conclusions are true only insofar as they are in correspondence with reality. It is possible for scientists to corroborate and be wrong, especially when it is in their professional interests to be wrong. Indeed, it is usually the minority that rescues the majority from their folly, at which time the minority is vindicated and a new majority is established. So the key point is not if they corroborate but when they corroborate. Philosophical truths, however, are unchangeable. Error changes; truth doesn’t. What was true 2000 years ago was no less true then than it is today. Materialists do not understand the logical necessity of unchanging truths. That is why they are illogical. Among other things, they reject the unchanging standard of reasons rules, which is the only rational yardstick that we can depend on. When the principle of causality becomes inconvenient, they just throw it out.StephenB
May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
EL, 101:
what is “obvious” is not necessarily true, or even right, as you can readily confirm by looking at what has been justified on the grounds of being “obvious” over human history.
But who in this thread or generally, seriously argues that the obvious is the true? Perhaps you have forgotten Solomon's warning that there is a way that seems right to a man but ends in death? As, it is deception? I do believe that over the years we have repeatedly argued that the SELF-EVIDENT is seen to be true by those who understand it based on experience of the world, and to be necessarily true, on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial. But, that is a very different thing. First, one has to be in a place to say understand what error is, and to appreciate self reference, to see that Josiah Royce put his finger on something when he pointed to the proposition error exists as very special. One so special that the attempted denial at once entails the original proposition, so that it is undeniably true. Not merely a generally accepted fact . . . where even the skeptic is assuming its truth. But, as we have seen for years, many are inclined to cling to the absurd because such a self-evident truth has such powerful worldview consequences: truth exists as what accurately refers to reality, in some cases it can be known, even to undeniable certainty, so any scheme that tries to imagine that knowledge or truth are unattainable beyond opinion or perception or consensus etc must collapse as any and all such systems -- their name, nowadays, is Legion -- are in grand error, and more. And so, to the ones desperately clinging to absurdities it is by no means obviously true and for sure they will not admit it to be necessarily and undeniably true on pain of patent absurdity. So, error exists, becomes a veritable pons asinorum. The Angelic Doctor, as ever, is so wise:
Now a thing is said to be self-evident in two ways: first, in itself; secondly, in relation to us. Any proposition is said to be self-evident in itself, if its predicate is contained in the notion of the subject: although, to one who knows not the definition of the subject, it happens that such a proposition is not self-evident. For instance, this proposition, “Man is a rational being,” is, in its very nature, self-evident, since who says “man,” says “a rational being”: and yet to one who knows not what a man is, this proposition is not self-evident. Hence it is that, as Boethius says (De Hebdom.), certain axioms or propositions are universally self-evident to all; and such are those propositions whose terms are known to all, as, “Every whole is greater than its part,” and, “Things equal to one and the same are equal to one another.” But some propositions are self-evident only to the wise, who understand the meaning of the terms of such propositions . . . . Now a certain order is to be found in those things that are apprehended universally. For that which, before aught else, falls under apprehension, is “being,” the notion of which is included in all things whatsoever a man apprehends. Wherefore the first indemonstrable principle is that “the same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time,” which is based on the notion of “being” and “not-being”: and on this principle all others are based, as is stated in Metaph. iv, text. 9.
As I noted in the just linked: "we have two facets here, First, standing by itself a SET has an objective character and is a first principle, a point of certain knowledge. But, that brings up the second aspect: we need to understand it, that we may grasp it. And, that may well fail, primarily by way of ignorance, secondarily by way of commitment to a contrary ideology that makes it difficult or even nearly impossible to acknowledge that which on the actual merits is self-evident." And in particular, it is a strawman caricature to simplistically present self evidence as being effectively synonymous with obviousness. As the same just linked summarised:
Where also of course, self-evident does not merely mean perceived as obvious to oneself, which could indeed be a manifestation of a delusion. Nay, a self evident truth [SET] is best summarised as one known to be so and to be necessarily so without further proof from other things. That is, a SET is: a: actually true — it accurately reports some relevant feature of reality (e.g.: error exists) b: immediately recognised as true once one actually understands what is being asserted, in light of our conscious experience of the world (as in, no reasonable person would but recognise the reality that error exists) c: further seen as something that must be true, on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial. (E.g. try denying “error exists” . . . the absurdity is rapidly, forcefully manifest)
KFkairosfocus
May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Your #67, kairosfocus You said it, KF: 'Stop the madness!' It makes you giddy if you try to follow their weird 'arguments' for long.Axel
May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed appears to be flummoxed. :)Mung
May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
EL says, Which is why independent corroboration is so important in trying to figure out what is likely to be true. I say, Where can we find this "independent corroboration" you keep speaking of?? check it out. http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/no-man-is-an-island/ The fact is there is no way for you of your own power to climb beyond the web of connections that encompass your worldview. The only collaboration you will accept to be of value is one coming from someone that shares most of the core of what you already accept as true and looks at the world from a similar perspective. This is nothing personal it is the plight of all us finite humans The only way for collaboration to be truly independent is for it to come from a selfexistent being. {Read non-materieal) The only way we material creatures can receive such "independent collaboration" is if said being has the ability and desire to communicate with us in a way that is meaningful to us. There is only one worldview in town that holds this kind of communication as a realistic possibility AFAIK peacefifthmonarchyman
May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
My method is the standard empirical method.
See your statement quoted @ 114. How did you arrive at the truth of that statement (quoted in @ 114) using "the standard empirical method"? I'd really like to know. I'm sure we all would like to know.Mung
May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
In a nutshell. Elizabeth Liddle:
If you can’t establish the truth of the premises how can you know your conclusion is correct, however impeccable the logic?
Exactly! You do understand! Now why do you believe that? What methodology did you use? Bookmark this statement for future reference.Mung
May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
kf: In short, not even skeptics can live by the standards they would push on us all. Then they get all pissy when I call them hypocrites.Mung
May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
WJM: If that is the case, why are you picking up a ruler in the first place? Because I liked the pretty colors.Mung
May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Joe, you're wrong. Elizabeth does believe in objectivity (science demands it), she just can't explain what grounds her belief in objectivity. It's amazing really how attractive science is. But it cannot explain why.Mung
May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
WJM
EL: If you are subconsciously sabotaging your view of the obvious, the only way possible, that I know of, to ascertain this is to embark on a path of deliberately and vigorously attempting to undermine and disprove your own view. Assume you’re wrong, and set out to prove it to yourself. Try to develop a sound argument against that which you currently hold as true.
Yes, I agree.
If we agree that minds are indeed capable of utterly fooling us even against the profoundly obvious, then you owe it to yourself to consider that you may be deceiving yourself about some very fundamental aspects of your existence.
Absolutely. See the strapline of my blog :)Elizabeth Liddle
May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
EL: If you are subconsciously sabotaging your view of the obvious, the only way possible, that I know of, to ascertain this is to embark on a path of deliberately and vigorously attempting to undermine and disprove your own view. Assume you're wrong, and set out to prove it to yourself. Try to develop a sound argument against that which you currently hold as true. If we agree that minds are indeed capable of utterly fooling us even against the profoundly obvious, then you owe it to yourself to consider that you may be deceiving yourself about some very fundamental aspects of your existence.William J Murray
May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
EL said:
A statement is neither “simply put” nor “straightforward” if you cannot give clear definitions of your terms.
My capacity to provide straightforward statements with clear definitions is not determined by your capacity to deny or confuse at your end. That is, after all, what what started this conversation; the capacity of the mind to generate profound self-deception to the point one cannot even see the obvious. It is apparent to me upon reading the rest your post that this is exactly what is going on; if you are going to challenge the statement that "the Earth orbits the sun" on a precision technicality to perpetuate the obfuscation of simple philosophical arguments, then argument is useless. You are committed to not understanding the point (subconsciously, I would presume) via semantics and sophistry which, in your mind (again, I presume) are very important distinctions. But, they are not. Charitably, they are trivial misdirections subconsciously generated and masquerading as substantive objections to avoid sight of the obvious, which would be devastating to your worldview identity narrative if accepted.William J Murray
May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
Lizzie @98 Do you mind if I quote you? Also, do you have the encryption code to unlock it?phoodoo
May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
Barry:
EL @ 91: The statement “the Earth has been orbiting the Sun since before humans existed” is a conclusion, made by human discerners, based on the available evidence. It is “objectively true” in the sense that independent researchers looking at the evidence, indeed looking at independent sets of evidence, can come to the same conclusion. Barry crushes that assertion with a reduction ad absurdum at 100. EL @ 102: all scientific conclusions are provisional, not “objectively true” A scientific conclusion is objectively true under certain circumstances at 91. No scientific conclusion is ever true at 102. Madness; sheer madness.
Only in the specific sense I gave, Barry, immediately after using the phrase, in scare quotes. It is not a term that I think has much usefulness, but if it was used in the sense I defined in 91, it would not be at odds with the 101. Conclusions are only "true" in science in the sense that they are corroborated by independent observers, preferably by independent lines of enquiry. That is what is called "objective" evidence in science (as opposed to "subjective" evidence). If you want to call a claim supported by objective evidence "objectively true", then fine - but in that case "objectively true" conclusions remain provisional. Which is why I don't use the term.Elizabeth Liddle
May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
I am not "having you believe" that the paragraph is "objectively true", in the sense that WJM argues for. I think the sense that WJM argues for is incoherent. And it is perfectly possible that my paragraph is false, or, at least, inaccurate. It is, nonetheless, what strikes me as making sense.Elizabeth Liddle
May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
EL @ 91:
The statement “the Earth has been orbiting the Sun since before humans existed” is a conclusion, made by human discerners, based on the available evidence. It is “objectively true” in the sense that independent researchers looking at the evidence, indeed looking at independent sets of evidence, can come to the same conclusion.
Barry crushes that assertion with a reductio ad absurdum at 100. EL @ 102:
all scientific conclusions are provisional, not “objectively true”
A scientific conclusion is objectively true under certain circumstances at 91. No scientific conclusion is ever true at 102. Madness; sheer madness.Barry Arrington
May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
Liddle:
Both statements are “true” in that they are good predictive models. But both statements are “false” in that they are incomplete. Neither are “objectively true” in the sense you mean, because they are statements made by human observers and modelers. However both are “objectively true” in the way that “the moon is made of green cheese” is not, in that they are corroborated, as reliable approximations, by many lines of independent enquiry pursued by independent obervers.
We can know that our opponent’s position is incoherent when they implicitly insist on an exception for themselves to their own otherwise universally applicable proposition. Here, EL would have us believe that the paragraph I quoted is objectively true in the sense WJM argues for even as she rejects that it is possible for a proposition to be objectively true in the sense WJM argues for. Madness. Sheer madness.Barry Arrington
May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
Barry:
Hmmm. For 1,500 year independent investigators looked at the evidence, indeed they looked at independent sets of evidence, and concluded that Ptolemaic cosmology was correct. Under EL’s formulation of the phrase, during that 1,500 year period it was “objectively true” that the sun orbited the earth.
No. That is the corollary of William's position. Mine is that it is meaningless to talk about a statement being "objectively true" in the absence of anyone making the claim, and that no scientific claim ever is. Rather, we iteratively improve our models (make them closer approximations to truth, if you like) by a process of testing them against data. Which is how we got from Ptolemy to Copernicus to Kepler to Einstein and beyond. All models are false, but we can iteratively make them less so. Which is why all scientific conclusions are provisional, not "objectively true". But we can evaluate them, nonetheless, by objective methodology.Elizabeth Liddle
May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply