How much proof is enough?

[hereticspl]

17 minutes ago, Goddess of the Mist said:

You can't convince anyone of anything, or make them believe something they don't want to. People perceive things the way they want to - so that in a sense we create our own reality. But what does it have to do with global warming? If anything, the flat earthers care more about the environment then the average person who is not environmentally conscious. 

You can convince someone of something the real challenge is making them want to believe it. 

[Jodie.Lynne]

1 minute ago, Goddess of the Mist said:

That may be so but they also believe that there's a dome covering the flat earth. It's a "we're all in this together, let's take care of each other" mentality. 

I'm not saying you are wrong, but that hasn't been my impression.

Not that I personally know any F.E's, but the one's that are most vocal, also tend to be bible thumpers. "God gave dominion over the earth to man", and the belief that this life is just a stepping stone to the "real life" in heaven.

One would think that if a person believed that this was just a 'rest stop' before eternal life, then they wouldn't really care about the condition they left it in. Yes?

[Guyver]

4 hours ago, hereticspl said:

Hi again all you um forum folk I have a question for you. With flat earthers getting some media attention of late I wanted to delve into your collective psyche and try to understand a basic question. How much evidence is enough? What kind of proof do you need to be presented with before you will accept new information? With climate change nipping at our ankles I dont think there has ever been a more pertinent time to explore the difference between belief and willful ignorance.

A person who believes the Earth is flat will not be convinced by evidence to the contrary.  They will have to question their beliefs for themselves to come out of that place.  

But climate change is nothing new.  The planet is in a continual state of change.  Only ten thousand years ago there was an ice age, and people survived it.  I think we will also survive global warming.

[Jodie.Lynne]

12 minutes ago, Goddess of the Mist said:

The videos and interviews I've seen with flat earthers seemed to lean towards everyone loving and caring for each other and the environment. 

I'd be interested to see some of those videos & interviews. It would be nice to hear from believers who weren't literalists.

[hereticspl]

1 hour ago, Goddess of the Mist said:

That may be so but they also believe that there's a dome covering the flat earth. It's a "we're all in this together, let's take care of each other" mentality. 

A dome covering the flat earth? I have a similar belief I call it the atmosphere. Special emphasis on the second half of the word.

[Tatetopa]

 

[danydandan]

4 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

 

Actual Size!

[eight bits]

Enough for what?

Reasoning about evidence is self-referential and therefore inherently paradoxical.

That is: the more confident I am that something is true, then the more skeptical I ought to be that any observation bears against that something. That's obviously true in the limit of certainty. There is not, and ought not to be, any evidence whatsoever that is enough to  diminish my belief in the truth of the Pythagorean Theorem. On the contrary, I am certain that any evidentiary argument that "seems" to bear against the truth of the theorem is mistaken.

No suprise, then, that if I'm "nearly certain" of something, then I ought to be skeptical of evidence that I am mistaken. A good example is Hume's advice about reports of miracles: which is easier to believe, that the reports are wrong or that the laws of nature stopped working for a while? Some people go so far as to claim that they would, and should, reject any number of reports as insufficient to establish a "miracle." Other people applaud them.

OK, but then that means I will "get stuck in ruts." No doubt you approve that when Michael Behe comes up with a supposed exception to evolution by natural selection (the "irreducibly complex" analogy to the mouse trap), the science savvy push back (start wearing partial mouse traps as tie clips). Cool. But what about when Tony Blair believed with high confidence (and not without foundation) that Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and then, when his own and allied intelligence agencies repeatedly found otherwise, Blair just as often concluded that they hadn't looked hard enough?

The Blair case is more than annoying, because there are dead people all over the place downstream of his (and Bush's) misplaced confidence. But, was he something worse than merely mistaken, was he irrational?

And suppose he'd been right? We love those hero stories where the lone holdout is vindicated by events (the "twelfth juror" tales and real life hero stories like those surrounding plate tectonics and transposable genes). The heroes are just like Blair, as far as anything under their control is concerned. They just happen to have been right, while Blair just happened to be wrong - either way, a judgment reached by us in hindsight, while the heroes and dupes had to make thier commitments in prospect.

This is hard stuff.

 

Edited March 18, 2019 by eight bits

[Habitat]

6 minutes ago, eight bits said:

No suprise, then, that if I'm "nearly certain" of something, then I ought to be skeptical of evidence that I am mistaken. A good example is Hume's advice about reports of miracles: which is easier to believe, that the reports are wrong or that the laws of nature stopped working for a while? Some people go so far as to claim that they would, and should, rejecti any number of reports as enough to establish a "miracle."

But by talking about it, they give a nod to the possibility of miracles, the people who are really convinced there is no such animal, don't bother talking it up or down, any more than they do about wishbones bringing luck.

[eight bits]

21 minutes ago, Habitat said:

But by talking about it, they give a nod to the possibility of miracles, the people who are really convinced there is no such animal, don't bother talking it up or down, any more than they do about wishbones bringing luck.

Recognizing possibility doesn't help much. To the extent that I think wishbone-pulling is a waste of time, then I will be skeptical of stories about successful wishbone-pullers. Since I'm down to scrupulous doubt (as the lawyers use the term - anything that isn't contradictory is "possible," in some tautological but utterly useless sense), then it is fabulously unlikely that I'll ever be persuaded otherwise, even on the assumption that I'm flat-out wrong wbout wishbones.

The problem is (apparently, based on his public statements) that the qualia of Tony Blair's beliefs about the stockpiles of WMD's was roughly comparable for him with the qualia of my beliefs about the causal efficacy of wishbones for me.

He can only go by what's in his head, just as I can only go by what's in mine.

[Habitat]

7 minutes ago, eight bits said:

just as I can only go by what's in mine.

Or what you assume is in your head, that is feeding into your calculus of the probability of miracles, if you say no amount of reportage of miracles will have you believing in miracles, it might appear that you are already convinced they are not real, but the mere fact you are talking about it, suggests you are not. Tony Blair had to make a decision about WMD, but don't have to make a call about miracles. And you don't announce that claims that wishbones work, will change your mind, because you have already disposed of that long ago. The miracles, though, still rate a mention.

[Rlyeh]

8 hours ago, Goddess of the Mist said:

You can't convince anyone of anything, or make them believe something they don't want to. People perceive things the way they want to - so that in a sense we create our own reality. But what does it have to do with global warming? If anything, the flat earthers care more about the environment then the average person who is not environmentally conscious. 

How is ignorance of the environment caring about the environment?

[Rlyeh]

8 hours ago, Goddess of the Mist said:

That may be so but they also believe that there's a dome covering the flat earth. It's a "we're all in this together, let's take care of each other" mentality. 

Haha.  Which frisbee head thinks like that?

Most would sooner go on witch hunts.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Rlyeh

[eight bits]

30 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Or what you assume is in your head, that is feeding into your calculus of the probability of miracles, if you say no amount of reportage of miracles will have you believing in miracles, it might appear that you are already convinced they are not real, but the mere fact you are talking about it, suggests you are not. Tony Blair had to make a decision about WMD, but don't have to make a call about miracles. And you don't announce that claims that wishbones work, will change your mind, because you have already disposed of that long ago. The miracles, though, still rate a mention.

First, to be clear, I'm not a Humean. I do not claim that there is no amount of reportage, etc. Hume does have his admirers (Sagan and his many fans, for instance), so there are some people who do profess that position.

Forward. The mere fact that I am talking about some problem indicates that I am interested in some aspect of the problem, and that I anticipate that somebody else is interested, too. Talking about a proposition is uniformative about what I believe about the proposition and related matters, and how confident I am in those beliefs.

I have plenty of reasons to talk about Tony Blair's beliefs concerning Iraqi WMD's - especially if I don't share his beliefs. So long as somebody somewhere is interested in the flat earth hypothesis, then I might be drawn into a discussion of it. I'd rather not, though.

As to wishbones, yes, exactly so. I have already disposed of that question long ago. I could be wrong, but since I could be wrong ether way, that consideration, however true, fails to support any single action recommendation on the question.

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, eight bits said:

So long as somebody somewhere is interested in the flat earth hypothesis, then I might be drawn into a discussion of it. I'd rather not, though.

Line-ball who would be the sillier, the flat-earther (who might believe it, or is just wanting to get a rise out of someone, but that doesn't make much difference) or the person arguing with them. No, come to the think of it, the latter are the sillier ! Very few people would be that silly. But very many people are keen to downplay the possibilities of Gods, or afterlives, or miracles, which immediately lends itself to the interpretation they really are not so sure, although they don't concede that. Probably because they are not really that conscious that they do have doubts. But those comfortably convinced they don't have any skin in the "supernatural" game, treat miracles like the flat Earth. With total disinterest.

[+Liquid Gardens]

39 minutes ago, Habitat said:

But very many people are keen to downplay the possibilities of Gods, or afterlives, or miracles, which immediately lends itself to the interpretation they really are not so sure, although they don't concede that. Probably because they are not really that conscious that they do have doubts.

And what evidence or expertise of yours is this 'interpretation' based on?  Should we take your near-daily restatement of this interpretation as an indication that you yourself have doubts, but are not conscious of them, about the beyond you know exists?  Why would you care if other people don't believe in your stories or in gods, isn't it 'silly' of you too to keep stating the same thing to those you think are silly and irrational?  IOW, why do you not apply your psychological expertise and criticisms to yourself when they apply just as readily?

[Stubbly_Dooright]

12 hours ago, Grandpa Greenman said:

13 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

You haven't met a "flatearther" yet, it seems... 

You ask what I need for proof. Who knows what goes on in the minds of flatearther. My roommate is a hollowearther, same kind of mindset as the flatearthers. First he will tell you everything you were taught or been told is a lie.  Then he watches endless conspiracy videos, who affirm at the beginning of every video everything you have been told is a lie.  After sitting there watching this drivel for an hour, I ask, "Is it possible this guy is lying? I mean, if everything I been told is lie, then it is logical that this could be a lie, too."  "No, listen to what he is saying." I listen and point out,  "But the physics his is talking doesn't work."  Then I am told,  "That is because all the physic you been taught is a lie..."   

And can he prove it as a lie? 

I know, probably wouldn’t be able to answer that. *shrugs* 

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

Line-ball who would be the sillier, the flat-earther (who might believe it, or is just wanting to get a rise out of someone, but that doesn't make much difference) or the person arguing with them. No, come to the think of it, the latter are the sillier ! Very few people would be that silly.

I'm not so sure. Richard Feynman wrote about how he liked to reply to the 'written in crayon on butcher paper' treatises from amateur physics cranks that would come to his academic department. He found puzzle interest in the activity - why would somebody believe such-and-such, why precisely is that known to be wrong, and why did Feynman believe whatever he did instead? He enjoyed it, as he enjoyed a lot of off-beat things. I don't see anything silly in it. I'm not worried that somebody else might, or how many somebodies.

For me, the flat earth thing was something i worked through in grade school (a teacher made a class discussion about why we think the earth is round, which we did, besides having been told that it is). For a kid, that was fun, but now? Been there, done that, and find other fun these days. The closest I ever came since then to a real discsussion of the issue is to field the claim that it's a miracle that the Koran shows knoweldge of a round earth. A slightly different question, but still .... and I don't aspire to do that version again, either.

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

But very many people are keen to downplay the possibilities of Gods, or afterlives, or miracles, which immediately lends itself to the interpretation they really are not so sure, although they don't concede that.

It seems to me a lot of people say flat out that they could be wrong, the opposing position to their own is possible, and similar expressions of "not sure, but confident." Why are we looking for psychological hints about what many people simply say in as many words? There may be gods, there may be an afterlife, and maybe some miracle reports are true. That last sentence seems conscious enough to me. But with the may-be maybe's out of the way, what's the way to bet? No, I'm not really asking you personally

 

[Habitat]

9 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

And what evidence or expertise of yours is this 'interpretation' based on?  Should we take your near-daily restatement of this interpretation as an indication that you yourself have doubts, but are not conscious of them, about the beyond you know exists?  Why would you care if other people don't believe in your stories or in gods, isn't it 'silly' of you too to keep stating the same thing to those you think are silly and irrational?  IOW, why do you not apply your psychological expertise and criticisms to yourself when they apply just as readily?

As I have said several times, in these types of discussions, were I not a "witness", and as a result, have not even the slightest doubt the "beyond" is real, I would never have even joined this platform. As for why I keep talking along the same lines, well, I know I have something to talk about, and that this place is almost an echo chamber for people trying to convince themselves I'm wrong, why wouldn't I give what I know to be the truth ? These people are basically talking up "nothingness", and really at the very least, they and others need to be made conscious of why they are doing it. And that certainly is not because they know the truth.

[Habitat]

8 hours ago, eight bits said:

 

It seems to me a lot of people say flat out that they could be wrong, the opposing position to their own is possible, and similar expressions of "not sure, but confident." Why are we looking for psychological hints about what many people simply say in as many words? There may be gods, there may be an afterlife, and maybe some miracle reports are true. That last sentence seems conscious enough to me. But with the may-be maybe's out of the way, what's the way to bet? No, I'm not really asking you personally

 

Some do occasionally say they could be wrong , most don't. The only reason people argue in favour of negatives that we all know can't be proven conclusively, is they'd prefer to be rid of the doubt, and for that to be the case, that doubt must be troubling them. So there is a reason to want to make the call they are apt to do. But really, what is there to be afraid of, other than some residual doubt that a divine retribution, or missing out on some fabulous heaven,  could be real ? It could be real, too, for all I know, but what can we do ? The only antidote I see, is complete adherence to the truth, and for the megaphone "atheist", a good start would be to admit they simply do not know, one way or the other, not try and convince oneself and others with bluster. That, to me, is the "way to go". Ironically, this is the same path as the true man of science, being guided only by what you know to be the truth.

[+joc]

44 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Some do occasionally say they could be wrong , most don't. The only reason people argue in favour of negatives that we all know can't be proven conclusively, is they'd prefer to be rid of the doubt, and for that to be the case, that doubt must be troubling them. So there is a reason to want to make the call they are apt to do. But really, what is there to be afraid of, other than some residual doubt that a divine retribution, or missing out on some fabulous heaven,  could be real ? It could be real, too, for all I know, but what can we do ? The only antidote I see, is complete adherence to the truth, and for the megaphone "atheist", a good start would be to admit they simply do not know, one way or the other, not try and convince oneself and others with bluster. That, to me, is the "way to go". Ironically, this is the same path as the true man of science, being guided only by what you know to be the truth.

Who does that?  No one I know.

[Black Red Devil]

On 3/18/2019 at 10:11 AM, hereticspl said:

Hi again all you um forum folk I have a question for you. With flat earthers getting some media attention of late I wanted to delve into your collective psyche and try to understand a basic question. How much evidence is enough? What kind of proof do you need to be presented with before you will accept new information? With climate change nipping at our ankles I dont think there has ever been a more pertinent time to explore the difference between belief and willful ignorance.

Scientific proof seems to be the most relevant and the only source of information to me because it seems to be making gigantic strides of common sense, through analytical evidence, into areas that religion has claimed for millenniums based on something written by who knows who at the time when Gods chosen creatures were little more advanced than a bunch of Cro Magnon's.  While science is giving us some answers, religious believers, claiming a God is behind it all, give us no proof. 

We've advanced past the point of just going off blind faith, we've become curious and want evidential certainties.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Black Red Devil

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Scientific proof seems to be the most relevant and the only source of information to me because it seems to be making gigantic strides of common sense, through analytical evidence, into areas that religion has claimed for millenniums based on something written by who knows who at the time when Gods chosen creatures were little more advanced than a bunch of Cro Magnon's.  While science is giving us some answers, religious believers, claiming a God is behind it all, give us no proof. 

We've advanced past the point of just going off blind faith, we've become curious and want evidential certainties.

Not all information is open source. You may wonder whether the mystery woman next door is a fabulous lover, but there is only way to find out, and that is if she allows you to discover it. There will be no randomized scientific study. 

[Black Red Devil]

9 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Not all information is open source. You may wonder whether the mystery woman next door is a fabulous lover, but there is only way to find out, and that is if she allows you to discover it. There will be no randomized scientific study. 

Hmmm, so God allows us to disprove some of his theories but withholds the ultimate answer.  Why?

[Habitat]

9 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Hmmm, so God allows us to disprove some of his theories but withholds the ultimate answer.  Why?

But what would be the proof that convinces ?