"Corrie" wrote
"Eric Miller" wrote
"Corrie" wrote
"Eric Miller" wrote
A valid argument by induction, starting with no assumptions and
simply
looking at the evidence, is:
It rained today. It rained yesterday. It rained the day before.
Therefore it
will rain tomorrow. Logically correct and consistent... and
demonstrably
false (unless you live in Seattle).

It's irrelevant that past events are used to predict future ones, or
that
the truth can't be determined until tomorrow.
What *is* important is that induction can be logically correct and
demonstrably false.
For that reason, induction can't exist in a vacuum, without other
confirmation.


RIGHT. But the situation we have here is NOT that the conclusion is
"logically correct and demonstrably false."

Induction is the observation of multiple specific events and drawing a
general conclusion from them.
If you notice that seagulls, albatross, geese and swan are all birds and are
all white, you can induce that all birds are white.
If your only examples of the weather are rain, then you can induce it will
rain tomorrow. Doesn't matter that you can't verify the truth of the
statement until tomorrow. This is simply the definition of induction.

In a nutshell, if we have:
(1) All planes have wings.
(2) The RV-6 is a plane.
(3) The RV-6 has wings.

Ok, I see what you meant by getting (2) from (1) and (3), but it still
does not follow that I'm using abduction to say that "all other
reasonable materialist explanations having proved unsatisfactory to
account for the evidence, the remaining explanation - though
supernatural - is most likely true." It's simple process of
elimination.

Abduction = "the simple process of elimination", this is just another
definition.

On the other hand, deduction cannot lead to such false conclusion, so
there's no need to confirmation... however, the conclusions that can be
made
are limited without "seeding" it with starting premises... obtained from
the
other types of logic.

HALF-RIGHT. The initial premises do not have to be obtained from
other types of logic. They can simply BE. They can also be incorrect
and/or artificially limiting. And that's my point. When you say,
"People don't rise from the dead, therefore Jesus didn't rise from the
dead," you are seeding your investigation with the conclusion you
expect to reach. When you get to the point of dealing with the
eyewitness evidence, you must force it to fit into the mold of Elvis
sightings. You are prevented by your initial assumptions from taking
it on its own merits.

The premises you say "simply ARE" are simply induction over the long term.
Every day we observe that people don't rise from the dead and reasonably
conclude that it doesn't happen.
In fact, if it DID happen, Jesus' claim wouldn't be remarkable, when we BOTH
agree it is, which supports this premise.

The premise that people don't rise from the grave doesn't prevent me (or
you) from accepting Jesus' claim.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Anecdotal evidence, especially eye witness accounts, especially secondhand
accounts, NEVER qualifies as extraordinary evidence because it's
demonstrably unreliable.
That's what prevents me from accepting the claim.

There's a big difference between concluding a premise is wrong in
advance
and saying that it's not true until demonstrated otherwise. It's the
difference between a closed and an open mind.

The problem is in your initial assumption that it is false. That is
in fact a closed mind. The open mind is in assuming that it may be
either true or false. The difference may seem slight, but it is huge.

I doubt you'd disagree with the premise that "people don't rise from the
dead".
Our disagreement stems from what is considered acceptable evidence.
However, not accepting anecdotal evidence due to unreliability, isn't closed
mindedness.
Anecdotal evidence, no matter how voluminous, can only suggest; hard
evidence is necessary for confirmation.

Maybe this is a stretch, but think about Schroedinger's cat. (Used
to demonstrate the principle that you can't tell whether a particular
proton has decayed or not without measuring it.) Cat's in a box. At
some unknown time, the cat will be fed (nicer way of illustrating it
than the original, right?).

So - right now - is the cat in the box hungry or not? You'd say that
the cat is hungry unless proven full. I say that we can't tell
without opening the box. Big difference. I say that I don't know
whether the cat is hungry or not. But you say that you DO know, and
without opening the box! You don't even have to open the box, since a
hungry cat suits you just fine. But if you do open the box and don't
see any food, you can say that that the cat is hungry. If I suggest
that the cat ate the food, you can say that well, it's fine for me to
believe that, but as far as you're concerned the cat is hungry since
you don't see any food.

And if the box and cat happen to be set up so that the cat eats all
the food the instant it appears, and no food is dispensed if the box
is open, then you'll NEVER have the proof you demand. Your assumption
that the cat is hungry unless proven fed - that is, unless you see it
eating, an impossible situation - will never be met. The cat may be
very well fed indeed, but you'll never believe it.

First, I wouldn't change the experiment because I don't like cats
Second, this isn't just a strawman argument, you're stuffing hay down my
shirt!
When you put words in my mouth, please don't assign me the role of comic
relief.

Speaking for myself...you're completely missing the point of Schroedinger's
Cat, as well as, misstating my position.
Maybe because you're missing an important part of the experiment: when the
box is opened the cat is snuffed.

Although the cat can only be either dead or alive, it's condition is
actually a probability state.
Whether the cat is alive or not is both unknown and unknowable.
You CAN'T open the box to check and see because doing so alters the
experiment (kills the cat).
The act of observing alters the observed (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle).

This is NOT directed at you Corrie, but my pet peeve with the junk
science/crystal/magnets/spiritualist/homeopathic crowd is hijacking
scientific terms (which have precise meanings), that they have
little/no/negative understanding of, and assembling them in random and
nonsense fashion according to what sounds good to the authoring huckster's
ear.

Back to your example to pick a few nits:
- I do NOT say I know whether or not the cat is hungry without opening the
box
- If the box is opened and no food is there, I'd suggest the cat ate it
(non-extraordinary claim)
- On seeing no food, you're the one claiming it wasn't eaten (extraordinary
claim)
- I don't have to see the cat eat the food to believe it's not hungry
- I do have to see the food disappear without assistance from the cat to
believe the cat IS hungry.

To pull the other thread in he Regarding Elvis sightings, I've got
two responses. One. How many Elvis fans are willing to be tortured
and killed rather than recant their belief that Elvis is still alive?
(My guess, zero.)

If you guess zero, then you don't know human nature very well.
If you and I can even *imagine* something, like "penile spoon piercing"
or
"willing to be tortured and killed for the belief that Elvis is alive"
then:
1) there are people that get off on it, and
2) there's a magazine, newsgroup and scores of web pages devoted to it

I'll take your word on the spoon thing. ;-) Show me one person who
has willingly died for what they KNEW to be a lie, when they could
have lived simply by recanting. In the Middle Ages, people would
falsely confess to practicing witchcraft in order to *avoid* torture.
In contrast, the first followers of Jesus were beaten and threatened
with worse if they didn't just shut up and go back to their nets (see
Acts) but did they? Nope. If they were in on the conspiracy - and if
not Peter and James then who? - why in the world would they not simply
have said, "Ok, guys, the jig is up. Back to the boats." No
conspiracy theory I've ever seen fits the available evidence.

You're misstating me again.
I never said people would willingly die for what they knew to be a lie.
But a willingness to be tortured and killed for what you belief doesn't
prove that what you believe is true.

The Heaven's Gate cult believed that they'd meet up with a flying saucer
that would whisk them off to heaven.
Then, over the course of 3 in days in March of 1997, 40 cultists suicided.
I'd certainly say they put their money where their mouth was.
Does that prove the existence of extra-terrestrials and flying saucers?

Ah, but Mark was based on earlier sources, remember? Paul wrote in
the mid-50's - *today* in "Elvis years." Acts was written in the late
50's or early 60's, and Luke not ony traveled with Paul but
interviewed everyone he could get his hands on. The point is, the
*earliest* accounts of Jesus include the conviction - not the faint
hope, but the core conviction - that Jesus had risen from the dead.

See above. Conviction isn't truth and isn't proof.

The authorities at the time had EVERY incentive to prove that claim
false. That claim was the basis for their persecution of the apostles
from Day One. It was a major embarassment. If anyone had means and
motive to uncover a conspiracy to fake Jesus' resurrection, it was the
political and religious leaders in Jerusalem in the weeks immediately
following Easter!

You can't use a lack of disproof as proof..
It could be a fabrication they failed to disprove and still be false.
The explanation could've been lost (or suppressed, remember, history is
liberally written and re-written by the victors) over time.
For that matter, it could've been beneath notice and no attempt to disprove
was made.
None of which would make it true.

That reminds me, though - what defines a "good" person? I think you
(maybe another poster?) opined that you'd go to some sort of pleasant
reward if you were a "good" person. My question is, what's "good?"
There's a spectrum, right? Chucky Manson gets the Down Elevator. The
Pearly Gates jump off their hinges for Ma Theresa. The ends of the
spectrum are easy; let's move in a bit.

What about the gal who only killed two people by hacking them with an
axe, and didn't even write on the walls in their blood? Naw, into the
elevator with Chuck. But what if it was her abusive two-timing
boyfriend and the homewrecker he was in bed with? Welll, maybe...
And back on the other end, how about the saintly Father Mulroney, who
spent decades helping the poor children of the inner city, teaching
them to read...teaching some of the boys considerably more. Welll,
maybe.....

Where do you draw the line? At some point, you get a whole bunch of
average schmoes like you and me, whose lives are a mixed bag of good
and bad thoughts and deeds. Who gets in the elevator with Chucky, who
goes marching in with the saints? How can you be sure which group
you're in? How good is good enough?

On the cosmic grading curve, I know what's an F - no plans to do that.
I see what's an A - no possibility of that, for sure. B is probably
too much to hope for, if I'm honest with myself. So where's the
cutoff between D and C? That's the - excuse the expression - burning
question.

Easy for line for me. A surprising lack of raping, pillaging, murder and
mayhem on my part puts me squarely in the "good" column. Not my job to judge
anyone else... that's more of a hobby

The cutoff between C and D doesn't matter, unless you're a cosmic slacker
trying to squeak by on the bare minimum, you do the best you can and hope
it's good enough.

BTW I have a working theory that Mother Teresa was an intensely selfish
individual that derived secret and perverse pleasure from self-denial,
self-sacrifice and the apparent assistance of others... an Altruistic
Masochist if you will

Eric