The argument presented there, however, is itself a classic example example of a bad argument, widely known as a straw-man. Regardless of what one thinks of ufology, the ufological argument that some unidentified objects might be extraterrestrial crafts was never predicated on the argument presented above (ie 1. Unidentified objects are observed 2. They cannot be proven NOT to be extraterrestrial crafts. 3) Therefore they are extraterrestrial crafts.) Can anybody actually provide ANY example of somebody arguing that something is true SOLELY on the basis that it cannot proven false? If not, the âBad Argumentâ presented above is ironically itself a text book example of a âBad Argumentâ.
No. . . the argument given is a fallacious one. There was never any suggestion that it was intended to discredit all of âUFO-ology,â (whatever that might be.)
In other words, the author NEVER SAID âThis argument for UFOâs is bad, therefore all arguments for UFOâs are bad,â which would indeed have been a fallacy.
No, thereâs no doubt that the argument is fallacious, but my point it that it is a straw man because nobody actually uses the argument in the first place. Again, I would ask, can anybody actually cite an example of somebody using this argument? If not, the argument presented is a straw man.
Strictly speaking youâre right, very few people make the straw man version of the argument.
However, it is very easy to find people making the weaker case that, âYou canât prove it wrong, so you canât tell me Iâm wrong.â That, too, is a fallacious argument, since it assumes that evidence and proof provide âdefiniteâ answers instead of probabilistic ones, ignores the vast number of cases where I can be very sure a hypothesis is so unlikely as to not be worth the mental effort of consideration even if I donât have an obvious candidate to replace it. Fallacious, and potentially destructive, since once someone points out a possibility, however unlikely, confirmation and status quo biases kick in.
The problem with that as far as I can see would be as follows. You say that there are a âvast number of cases where I can be very sure a hypothesis is so unlikely as to to be not worth the mental effort of consideration even if I donât have an obvious candidate to replace it.â It follows from that there must also be cases where the hypothesis is not so unlikely, and hence not so easy to reject. Also, there must be hypotheticals about which the probabilities of them being true or false simply cannot be calculated in any truly objective and demonstrable fashion. If the probabilities cannot be rigorously demonstrated, then your saying that something is so unlikely it doesnât warrant consideration can only amount to an expression of subjective opinion - you would effectively be saying âI can say something is definitely false without being able to prove it so, so long as I subjectively believe that it is very unlikely.â As an example, in Richard Dawkinsâ book The God Delusion Dawkins considers the fairly inescapable (imo) logic that a properly empirical and evidential response to the question of godâs existence would necessarily conclude in agnosticism, since neither godâs existence nor non-existence can be empirically demonstrated to any reasonable standard. To avoid this problem, Dawkins appeals, as you do, to probability. But having done this, he never explains how the probabilities are calculated! He simply says he considers godâs existence to be highly improbable! Hence, unless the calculation of the probabilities is rigorous and objective, any appeal to probability can only be a spurious attempt to lead scientific credibility to oneâs own subjective philosophical prejudices and confirmation biases.
All I can say is that those odd slot-like eyes are creepy as hell and undermine the cause of a very worthwhile effort, wonks be damned.
Well, anybody who claims that a UFO is of extraterrestrial origin IS making that claim tacitly, arenât they?
I mean, if a hypothetical eyewitness sees a UFO, then tells you its a venusian spacecraft, and accepts no other competing theory as plausible, then, Isnât he really saying the same thing as the cartoon?
Seems to me that rewording the argument like this is pretty useful in showing its flaws. Otherwise the caption under the picture would need to say â-Look! Aliens!â
A aeroplane is a UFO until your parents tell you what it is. If you have parents and if they know what it is and if they tell you.
Ball lighting might appear to be âflyingâ, driven under itâs own power and, in a sense, it is.
And probably also mistaken for an object directed by some kind of intelligence. In the sky.
Did I mention that it was darting around faster than any man made object could? Wow, that was a UFO!
The classic sceptical response is to ridicule the notion, the very notion that it could be aliums.
Sceptics get a bad name as obnoxious pricks for exactly the above kind of misappropriation of intent behind statements which contain words that have become so loaded by their own personal philosophical drive, they fail to maintain any consideration of impartiality in their response.
The quick absence of any consideration that any kind of conscious uncertainty could exist in the mind of the observer who dared to describe an object she couldnât identify, often makes good faith communication with them difficult.
Bad those are just bad sceptics, not representative of the real sceptics. Not real, (dare I say) Scottish sceptics. [unpack that!]
Let me tell you, real sceptics. You are woefully out-fucking-numbered.
Thatâs a good example of how the concept of âgodâ needs to be better defined before you even ask the question of Godâs (non-)existence. For many evangelical Christians for example, God is directly involved in the lives of humans and had been provably active in history, so things like prayer should have scientifically noticeable effects. If you believe in the strict literal historicity of the Bible, there should be more evidence of Godâs existence in archaeology, astronomy etc. The fact that it is not convincing is in itself evidence supporting the non-existence of that particular god (and probably similar gods), but not necessarily evidence against any possible god. In that sense, I donât think itâs unreasonable to be an atheist with relation to any/every concept of god that youâve encountered, but agnostic about the existence of a general undefined concept of âgodâ. I also think you can call yourself an atheist while admitting that you donât have exhaustive knowledge and may be wrong, just as anyone should on this issue, wherever they stand on it. I call myself an atheist because I have a positive opinion on the issue (as I do with lots of things that Iâm not 100% sure about), but Iâm happy to be convinced otherwise.
Youâre assuming they were wrongâŚ
Unfortunately the quoted text
Hence, absence of evidence is taken to mean evidence of absence.
is problematic. Itâs not unreasonable to take absence of evidence as evidence of absence, Whilst absence of evidence does not entail evidence of absence, by the same token it doesnât not entail not evidence of absence (not quite the same thing as evidence of presence). I think the rule that the oiiginal writer may have meant to reference was âabsence of proof is not proof of absenceâ, which is sound
But very, very few people actually make that claim in practice. The tendency is to claim that it MIGHT be of extraterrestrial origin, which is a very different thing. And their reasons for thinking that it might be are not ultimately predicated, as the cartoon implies, on the fact that vague, obscure objects are witnessed in the sky which cannot be proven NOT to be extraterrestrial craft. The belief in extraterrestrial UFOs was predicated on witnesses seeing objects which were apparently (and that word is stressed, obviously) technological in nature, and which exhibited capabilities beyond those of terrestrial aircraft. So, while the belief in extraterrestrial UFOs is open to various criticisms, the argument above still seems to be a straw man to me.
The concept of god (in a monotheistic rather than polytheistic context) can be very simply and clearly defined as a intentional intelligent agency who is either responsible for, or coeval with, the physical universe. This definition agrees with the western theistic tradition going back to Aristotleâs First Mover, and encapsulates a theistic, deistic, or pantheistic definition (although perhaps pantheism might be better left out, as it is sometimes unclear whether it denotes an idea about the physical world, or simply an attitude towards it.) With this definition in mind, godâs existence or non-existence is fairly easy to discuss. If the universe exists solely by virtue of some type of blind physical necessity, then the existence of no type of monotheistic god is possible. If on the other hand, the universe doesnât exist solely by virtue of self -sustaining physical necessity alone, then some type of monotheistic god is clearly possible. Or, you can phrase it as a chicken and egg question: godâs non-existence becomes certain if we what we call consciousness and intentionality derives from blind physicalism of some kind; the existence of some type of god becomes certain if the position is reversed, and what we call blind physicalism derives from a prior state of consciousness and intentionality. So I donât think godâs existence or non-existence is that difficult to discuss; what is difficult, I suspect, is to produce unambiguous evidence in support of either contention (ie direct evidence for or against, rather than evidence which can only arguably be interpreted as favoring either contention.) (When you say that one can be an atheist as regarding certain versions of the god idea, I think this is an abuse of language. One can disbelieve a great number of versions of the evolutionary theory, without this fact denoting any kind of general attitude towards the core idea of evolution. You cannot say, for example, that you are atheist as regards a god of biblical literalism, because this would mean in effect that a great many Christians are atheists; without denoting a general attitude towards the idea of god, atheism would become applicable to just about anybody, and essentially meaningless.)
I think there are different levels to the influence that a god could have on the universe: for example, âgodâ could just be the cause of the universe, essentially creating physical laws that we experience now. Once you limit god to that level of influence, itâs difficult to prove godâs existence or non-existence (or indeed, anything much about god at all - consciousness, personality, reason for creating the universe etc.), but this concept is very different from a god with a personality who cares about individual peopleâs lives and who has repeatedly intervened in history in noticeable ways. As you get farther away from a personal god who is observably active, it gets more and more difficult to prove godâs non-existence, but the question becomes less and less relevant and a new term for âgodâ becomes necessary. (Can humans communicate with god? Has he revealed anything about himself? (Iâm using male terms for the sake of convention) Did god mean for humans to exist on earth? Did he create the conditions for earth to be suitable for life, or was this just an accident? Did god actively create the physical laws of the universe, or did they just happen after the big bang was triggered? Did god even know what he was doing when the universe was created?). By the time youâre asking if a god who is inactive now caused the big bang, I canât provide any evidence one way or the other, but the question becomes pretty much meaningless. If a scientist somehow caused a new big bang through an accident at the LHC, they would not be âgodâ, even if they had done all of the things that the first mover supposedly did (creating new physical laws etc.). Christian non-literalists would presumably still believe in a personal god who is in some ways relevant to humans, but once you get to a god who is only a prime mover without any ongoing control over the universe (i.e. being able to intervene, change laws etc.) and with no relationship to us or who we can know anything about, I donât think âgodâ is the term we are looking for.
They donât even look like eyes to me, though I donât know what else they could be. I wonât say itâs bad art butâŚI donât know how to finish this sentence.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
