Happy Atheist Forum

QuoteWe know abiogenesis happened because the Earth was at one time a superheated ball of liquid rock and now we have life.

This is a quote from another post I'm using to illustrate that atheists/theists inevitably apply a philosophical filter to their answers to the Big Questions, thus having tremendous influence over their worldview.

Between neutrality and "knowing it happened", there is a step in there the poster skipped over.  Quite understandable because it's a philosophical step made so fluidly by so many, they've come to accept it as a priori truth.  The step is asking and answering, "What is an acceptable type of explanation?"

Three contestants in this derby:
- Natural explanation: nature and its attendant laws caused the phenomena (like a weed growing in a garden)
- Personal explanation:  a sentient actor caused the phenomena (like coming home and finding a messy living room)
- Conceptual explanation:  a conscious mind created the phenomena (a thought to cheer for the Dallas Cowboys)

The quote above is evidence of a naturalistic philosophy, belief in the Brute Fact that nature and its attendant laws are the cause of all things.  Don't be fooled... despite the claims of many atheists, this philosophy is extra-scientific.  Science says nothing about the types of explanation one can deem viable.  Only philosophy can do that.

The implications of this are many.  For example, if the probability of successful abiogenesis of a robust organism is 1 in 10^1000 during the 300 million year windown in which it could have occurred, those holding to a naturalistic philosophy would still buy that lottery ticket.  They have no other choice! 

In the end, it's one's philosophy about which type(s) of explanation is/are in the running that holds the power over his/her worldview, not mere science.

Me, I think one can approach the scientific dilemmas through science and the philosophical ones through philosophy. And because philosophy is as flawed as the philosofer from whos musings it is derived, I dislike that approach, leaving what I can not attribute to science, common sense or educated guesswork in the don't know-drawer.

Is my world view influenced by philosophy then, or is my approach to philosophy a product of my world view?

QuoteIs my world view influenced by philosophy then, or is my approach to philosophy a product of my world view?

The country of Western philosophy has three cities left standing:
- Naturalism:  nature and its attendant laws constitute the "Brute Fact" of reality
- Theism:  God's existence is the Brute Fact of reality
- Positivism:  One's own consciousness is the Brute Fact of reality

Most people choose their city through a sloppy patchwork of inductive reasoning, defaulting to their upbringing, and/or which city's rules they prefer most.  Which ever Brute Fact you choose--and, by extension, which philosophical city--has profound implications on every other decision in your life, including your worldview.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 02:18:47 AM
- Naturalism:  nature and its attendant laws constitute the "Brute Fact" of reality

I don't subscribe to that as worded.

Reality is a construct which is largely defined by an individual's perception of nature on a personal level.

Quote- Theism:  God's existence is the Brute Fact of reality

Don't subscribe to that either.

Gods are concepts attempting to explain the unexplained by invoking the unexplainable until proven otherwise.

Quote- Positivism:  One's own consciousness is the Brute Fact of reality

Not that either. Consciousness is a process within which personal reality is defined, but being subjective to its holder, its defining properties are flawed.

QuoteWhich ever Brute Fact you choose--and, by extension, which philosophical city--has profound implications on every other decision in your life, including your worldview.

My world view is largely defined by my experiences and accumulated knowledge and is subject to change with changing facts. I do not, nor do I desire to, sit in a philosophical city.

How does one atheist jumping to the conclusion of abiogenesis in a single sentence equate to all atheists don't know how to separate science and philosophy?

What's the context of that quote anyway?

QuoteWe know abiogenesis happened because the Earth was at one time a superheated ball of liquid rock and now we have life.

This seems to me to be merely a statement which puts forward the circumstances to the best of current scientific knowledge:

1) The available evidence indicates that the earth--for a considerable period during its formation--was sterile, simply because early conditions were such that the life which now inhabits it could not have existed on it during that era.

2) Life now exists on earth, thus there must have been some point when it began to exist here.

Panspermia is a possibility, but though pre-biotic chemicals have been found outside of earth, there certainly is no credible evidence that life exists elsewhere in the solar system.

Bandit4god, what is the basic difference beteen your "personal explanation" and your "conceptual explanation"? To me they seem like two aspects of the same idea. Maybe I'm just not subtle enough, but until I understand why they deserve two spots in your "derby," I'm going to combine them under the heading of "conscious entity," which is opposed to "natural processes."

Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 01:43:29 AMThe quote above is evidence of a naturalistic philosophy, belief in the Brute Fact that nature and its attendant laws are the cause of all things.  Don't be fooled... despite the claims of many atheists, this philosophy is extra-scientific.  Science says nothing about the types of explanation one can deem viable.  Only philosophy can do that.

In this particular case, we are discussing a phenomenon, life, which we know to exist as a part of the natural world. The systematic study of the natural world is what is commonly understood when we use the term "science." That type of science is a tool to study the natural world, and does not concern itself with the supernatural by definition. We cannot use science as a means to exclude supernatural explanations, because it simply doesn't address them. On the other hand, science is of no use in furthering any possible understanding of supernatural explanations. So you can "deem viable" any kind of explanation you like, but any effort to support supernatural explanations with science is antinomic.

Science has shown itself to be remarkably effective when it comes to studying the natural world. Since life is a part of the natural world, it is entirely reasonable to apply such a useful approach with a strong track record of success to try to understand it.

In support of a "conscious entity" explanation, we have religious belief and assertions based on that belief. This approach has served humanity for thousands of years, but it has also repeatedly proved to be inadequate when it comes to explaining natural phenomena.

You are welcome to champion it, but I'll stick with what works, thank you.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 01:43:29 AMThe implications of this are many.  For example, if the probability of successful abiogenesis of a robust organism is 1 in 10^1000 during the 300 million year windown in which it could have occurred, those holding to a naturalistic philosophy would still buy that lottery ticket.  They have no other choice!

It's your use of discredited and fallacious arguments such as this which elicited the sardonic and scornful responses you received from some members during your previous time here, bandit4god. I admit that I may have tended in that direction myself on occasion, though I do strive to control the impulse, in deference to the standards of this forum. Still, I'm not going to dignify the above by spending the time coming up with a reiteration of arguments that have already been made. If you think that presenting this chestnut is an effective tactic, please read "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html) by Ian Musgrave. If you have some sort of prejudice against Talk Origins, I'm sure I can find another source which presents essentially the same demolition of the "it's too mathematically improbable to have happened that way" objection to natural abiogenesis.

I wasn't asserting that's the probability of abiogenesis, Rec--just asserting that the "screen" or "filter" applied to the question of life existing necessitates that a naturalist accept any probability, no matter how extreme, because it's the only game in town.

Lets go at this from a different angle...

Imagine the poster of the quote at the start of this thread sat down with a blank sheet of paper.  At the top he writes, "How is it that life exists?"

A few seconds later, he writes just below that, "Natural explanations" and then begins to write out the possibilities.

My point is this: by writing "Natural explanations" at the top of his paper, he is not a making a scientific decision, he's making a philosophical one about the nature of acceptable explanation.  If he instead wrote merely "Possible explanations" and set out to list and test each of them using a combination of logic, inductive probability, and science, he would be coming at the question with a much more expansive philosophical lens.  The great trick of the university today is that we've not only taught students to unconsciously skip this philosophical step, assuming natural explanations a priori.  We've gone beyong that to condition them to consider the step itself as superstitious, foolish, and unscholarly.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 04:08:10 PM
Imagine the poster of the quote at the start of this thread sat down with a blank sheet of paper.  At the top he writes, "How is it that life exists?"

A few seconds later, he writes just below that, "Natural explanations" and then begins to write out the possibilities.

My point is this: by writing "Natural explanations" at the top of his paper, he is not a making a scientific decision, he's making a philosophical one about the nature of acceptable explanation.  If he instead wrote merely "Possible explanations" and set out to list and test each of them using a combination of logic, inductive probability, and science, he would be coming at the question with a much more expansive philosophical lens.  The great trick of the university today is that we've not only taught students to unconsciously skip this philosophical step, assuming natural explanations a priori.  We've gone beyong that to condition them to consider the step itself as superstitious, foolish, and unscholarly.

OK, so that would look something like this, then?

Natural explanations (Oops, better not show my bias)

Possible explanations
Supernatural (Untestable)
Natural

Natural explanations

What a curious response... something can only be true if it's testable?  That, too, is a philosophical stance.  :)

Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 04:08:10 PM
Between neutrality and "knowing it happened", there is a step in there the poster skipped over.  Quite understandable because it's a philosophical step made so fluidly by so many, they've come to accept it as a priori truth.  The step is asking and answering, "What is an acceptable type of explanation?"

Three contestants in this derby:
- Natural explanation: nature and its attendant laws caused the phenomena (like a weed growing in a garden)
- Personal explanation:  a sentient actor caused the phenomena (like coming home and finding a messy living room)
- Conceptual explanation:  a conscious mind created the phenomena (a thought to cheer for the Dallas Cowboys)

Personally I think your logic is flawed b4g. I don't think you can give the three different divisions you've created equal weight, and they are three divisions of your creation. I would contest that what you refer to as 'Personal explanation' and 'Conceptual explanation' are merely the remnants of outdated thought systems and attempts to explain the existence of life and the universe by people a few thousand years ago who had very little real knowledge on the subject. For me they don't even enter into the equation, you're creating a step that doesn't need to exist. A scientific approach starts with the available evidence then works back from there trying to be as objective as possible, I don't see any other logical way to try and understand something. If that leads us to a belief in a creative force behind the universe then so be it, but for most people involved in that field I think it probably doesn't

Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 02:18:47 AMThe country of Western philosophy has three cities left standing:
- Naturalism:  nature and its attendant laws constitute the "Brute Fact" of reality
- Theism:  God's existence is the Brute Fact of reality
- Positivism:  One's own consciousness is the Brute Fact of reality

I subscribe to none of these, but your claim that they are the last three cities seems to imply a filtered world view where one must subscribe to one of them. I don't agree (not only because it's a false dichotomy), I just think there must be good reasons to accept something, good reasons like: empirical evidence, tested theory and individually verifiable results. I can accept, reject and remain neutral on any thing individually without subscribing to any world view. No filter at all.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 04:08:10 PM
I wasn't asserting that's the probability of abiogenesis, Rec--just asserting that the "screen" or "filter" applied to the question of life existing necessitates that a naturalist accept any probability, no matter how extreme, because it's the only game in town.
{snip}

It's the only game in the universe as far as atheists are concerned.  :D

Quote from: BullyforBronto on October 14, 2011, 04:25:48 PM

Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 04:08:10 PM
Imagine the poster of the quote at the start of this thread sat down with a blank sheet of paper.  At the top he writes, "How is it that life exists?"

A few seconds later, he writes just below that, "Natural explanations" and then begins to write out the possibilities.

My point is this: by writing "Natural explanations" at the top of his paper, he is not a making a scientific decision, he's making a philosophical one about the nature of acceptable explanation.  If he instead wrote merely "Possible explanations" and set out to list and test each of them using a combination of logic, inductive probability, and science, he would be coming at the question with a much more expansive philosophical lens.  The great trick of the university today is that we've not only taught students to unconsciously skip this philosophical step, assuming natural explanations a priori.  We've gone beyong that to condition them to consider the step itself as superstitious, foolish, and unscholarly.

OK, so that would look something like this, then?

Natural explanations (Oops, better not show my bias)

Possible explanations
Supernatural (Untestable)
Natural

Natural explanations

bandit4god

QuoteWhat a curious response... something can only be true if it's testable?  That, too, is a philosophical stance.

I'm not making any claims about truth. I'm merely pointing out that one cannot proceed with supernatural explanations. A supernatural explanation is a stopping point. How can it be possible to study or know anything about a cause that is outside of what we can readily observe in nature?

Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 04:08:10 PM
My point is this: by writing "Natural explanations" at the top of his paper, he is not a making a scientific decision, he's making a philosophical one about the nature of acceptable explanation.

Actually, no. Or rather, it is possible in some cases but absolutely unnecessary.

Because science is a tool for understanding nature, a "natural explanation" may well be anchored in science and not philosophy and, for that very same reason, it takes no philosophical leap to use this tool to answer a question relating to nature, the same way as it does not take a philosophical decision to use a hammer to beat down a nail. It is quite simply the tool meant for that particular job.

In the interest of laziness, we often shorten what we say and drop the disclaimers, but that doesn't mean that the tools we are using to explain, in keeping with my current metaphor, how the nailhead you see is a part of a larger unit within the woodwork are philosophical rather than scientific.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 04:08:10 PMI wasn't asserting that's the probability of abiogenesis, Rec--just asserting that the "screen" or "filter" applied to the question of life existing necessitates that a naturalist accept any probability, no matter how extreme, because it's the only game in town.

OK, thank you for clarifying.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 04:08:10 PMLets go at this from a different angle...

Imagine the poster of the quote at the start of this thread sat down with a blank sheet of paper.  At the top he writes, "How is it that life exists?"

A few seconds later, he writes just below that, "Natural explanations" and then begins to write out the possibilities.

My point is this: by writing "Natural explanations" at the top of his paper, he is not a making a scientific decision, he's making a philosophical one about the nature of acceptable explanation.  If he instead wrote merely "Possible explanations" and set out to list and test each of them using a combination of logic, inductive probability, and science, he would be coming at the question with a much more expansive philosophical lens.  The great trick of the university today is that we've not only taught students to unconsciously skip this philosophical step, assuming natural explanations a priori.  We've gone beyong that to condition them to consider the step itself as superstitious, foolish, and unscholarly.

I think I understand your position better now, and you do have a point. There is a sort of "philosophical filter," in that we as a species have learned that the most effective way to learn about natural phenomena is through science. We generally do not teach students to look for supernatural explanations of natural phenomena, though that route was once much more common. Since life is to all appearances a part of the natural world (there is no evidence to the contrary but assertions by those who support a supernatural origin) we teach students who wish to explore the origin of life to seek explanations using science, which by definition only pursues natural explanations for natural phenomena. To me this appears to be a very reasonable filter, in that up to this point supernatural explanations for natural phenomena (e.g. "lightning comes from Zeus") have consistently been shown to be allegorical or downright false. I don't know how acknowledging this filter will further knowledge though. If it became pro forma to do so, it seems to me that it would only be returning to an earlier time in our history when those who wished to understand and write about the natural world had to get the permission of the church to be allowed to publish. Only now it would be a quick nod in the church's direction: "Though a supernatural explanation for this phenomena may be possible *tugging the forelock*, it seems to be a natural phenomena, so I will be pursuing a natural explanation."

EDIT: I see that Asmodean has made a post saying something very similar to my post, and in a more succinct and effective way, I think. Still, since I've written it I might as well post it.

Quote from: BullyforBronto on October 14, 2011, 05:54:21 PM
I'm not making any claims about truth. I'm merely pointing out that one cannot proceed with supernatural explanations. A supernatural explanation is a stopping point. How can it be possible to study or know anything about a cause that is outside of what we can readily observe in nature?

I was unaware that the problem has gotten this bad and how quickly... atheists used to be among the foremost minds in the discipline of philosophy, and now they are claiming the whole enterprise is unnecessary!

Numerous things occur that we cannot observe in nature--take opinion, for example.  By any scientific development imaginable, would an external observer ever be able to look at my brain activity and discern with precision and accuracy my opinion of Tony Romo, quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys?  Should we then consider this opinion, this "supernatural" event, to be outside the realm of study and knowledge?

Or look instead to the meta-point of the fact that you posted a response to me at all.  I'm a person you've never met, as is likely the case with most others you presume will read your post, and yet you have cause to believe that your post will shift my or others' opinion from one position to another.  Because opinion is a mind-event, not naturally observable or testable, your framework would hold that it is outside the purview of study and knowledge!

Quote from: Recusant on October 14, 2011, 06:40:44 PMThere is a sort of "philosophical filter," in that we as a species have learned that the most effective way to learn about natural phenomena is through science.

Including a response to this more recent quote from Recusant as it is related.  (Btw, thanks Recusant for "throwing a bone" that the filter actually exists!)

The above from BullyforBronto and my response is useful in another sense, and that is positing that science has boundaries.  The second greatest trick the modern university pulled is selling the idea that science has no epistemic (knowledge-oriented) boundaries, essentially the inverse of the concept that nature is all that exists.  For this reason, numerous branches of "free-for-all" pseudo-science have sprung up from abiogenesis to Hawking's origin of the universe cosmology to string theory.  Each of these unobservable theories might very well be true, but to seat them in same scientific strata (or, in universities, just down the hallway from!) civil engineering is abject misrepresentation.

Regrounding this in the thread's origin, the filter atheists apply to consideration of the origin of life, it's unclear to me that science reaches that far.  After the Miller-Urey experiment, theories about early earth's oxygen content arbitrarily shifted from "very prevalent oxygen content" to "no oxygen present in early earth" based on no geological, chemical, or physical facts whatsoever.  The opinion shifted expressly because oxygen in early earth would have precluded amino acids from forming naturally.  

So which governing factor drove the "scientific" consensus shift in this case?  Rigorous, fact-based science?  Perish the thought!  The philosophical filter that nature's laws led to life caused the prevailing shift from "oxygen rich" to "no oxygen".

Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 07:08:35 PM

Quote from: BullyforBronto on October 14, 2011, 05:54:21 PM
I'm not making any claims about truth. I'm merely pointing out that one cannot proceed with supernatural explanations. A supernatural explanation is a stopping point. How can it be possible to study or know anything about a cause that is outside of what we can readily observe in nature?

I was unaware that the problem has gotten this bad and how quickly... atheists used to be among the foremost minds in the discipline of philosophy, and now they are claiming the whole enterprise is unnecessary!

Numerous things occur that we cannot observe in nature--take opinion, for example.  By any scientific development imaginable, would an external observer ever be able to look at my brain activity and discern with precision and accuracy my opinion of Tony Romo, quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys?  Should we then consider this opinion, this "supernatural" event, to be outside the realm of study and knowledge?

Or look instead to the meta-point of the fact that you posted a response to me at all.  I'm a person you've never met, as is likely the case with most others you presume will read your post, and yet you have cause to believe that your post will shift my or others' opinion from one position to another.  Because opinion is a mind-event, not naturally observable or testable, your framework would hold that it is outside the purview of study and knowledge!

Quote from: Recusant on October 14, 2011, 06:40:44 PMThere is a sort of "philosophical filter," in that we as a species have learned that the most effective way to learn about natural phenomena is through science.

Including a response to this more recent quote from Recusant as it is related.  (Btw, thanks Recusant for "throwing a bone" that the filter actually exists!)

The above from BullyforBronto and my response is useful in another sense, and that is positing that science has boundaries.  The second greatest trick the modern university pulled is selling the idea that science has no epistemic (knowledge-oriented) boundaries, essentially the inverse of the concept that nature is all that exists.  For this reason, numerous branches of "free-for-all" pseudo-science have sprung up from abiogenesis to Hawking's origin of the universe cosmology to string theory.  Each of these unobservable theories might very well be true, but to seat them in same scientific strata (or, in universities, just down the hallway from!) civil engineering is abject misrepresentation.

Regrounding this in the thread's origin, the filter atheists apply to consideration of the origin of life, it's unclear to me that science reaches that far.  After the Miller-Urey experiment, theories about early earth's oxygen content arbitrarily shifted from "very prevalent oxygen content" to "no oxygen present in early earth" based on no geological, chemical, or physical facts whatsoever.  The opinion shifted expressly because oxygen in early earth would have precluded amino acids from forming. 

So which governing factor drove the "scientific" consensus shift in this case?  Rigorous, fact-based science?  Perish the thought!  The philosophical filter that nature's laws led to life caused the prevailing shift from "oxygen rich" to "no oxygen".

b4g
The question of free oxygen in the early Earth environment has been answered in a variety of ways over the recent decades until a consistent view has emerged. That's the was science progresses. One of the key elements of the scientific method that allows scientific knowledge to progress is a feedback system that self corrects erroneous findings. Science denying theists, like you, attempt to paint this feedback as vice when it is a virtue. You'll not get away with that attitude on this forum.

Are you suggesting that just because people are more scientifically-minded that they throw out philosophy altogether? It's hardly unnecessary, otherwise there would'nt be a thing called philosophy of science, from which ideas that the scientific method are based on come from (falsifiable).

I personally dislike the metaphysical approach that supernatural explanations take because they're based more on the unknown, untestable and unreachable. Theists merely saying that they know isn't enough. We have the natural world, we know that it exists, so it makes all the sense in the world to look for explanations that are based on the natural world. That's what science is. Calling that choice the use of a philosophical filter in attempt to discredit it is ridiculous.

In epidemiological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology) terms, there's a difference between 'justified knowledge', and 'belief'.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 07:08:35 PM
Numerous things occur that we cannot observe in nature--take opinion, for example.  By any scientific development imaginable, would an external observer ever be able to look at my brain activity and discern with precision and accuracy my opinion of Tony Romo, quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys?  Should we then consider this opinion, this "supernatural" event, to be outside the realm of study and knowledge?

???

Opinions can be accurate and inaccurate, and held up against known evidence for comparison. If I said my opinion is that Hitler was actually a decent chap I'd simply be wrong wouldn't I?

QuoteOOr look instead to the meta-point of the fact that you posted a response to me at all.  I'm a person you've never met, as is likely the case with most others you presume will read your post, and yet you have cause to believe that your post will shift my or others' opinion from one position to another.  Because opinion is a mind-event, not naturally observable or testable, your framework would hold that it is outside the purview of study and knowledge!

Your opinion is observable when you move your lips and type on your keypad, and it is testable against known knowledge.

Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 14, 2011, 08:38:34 PM
known knowledge.

Wet water.

I would use "standing facts" because, aside from being a better expression, it implies the possibility of change.

Quote from: Tank on October 14, 2011, 07:25:24 PM
The question of free oxygen in the early Earth environment has been answered in a variety of ways over the recent decades until a consistent view has emerged. That's the was science progresses. One of the key elements of the scientific method that allows scientific knowledge to progress is a feedback system that self corrects erroneous findings. Science denying theists, like you, attempt to paint this feedback as vice when it is a virtue. You'll not get away with that attitude on this forum.

Science would be:
- Consensus theory circa 1930 is that early earth contained considerable quantities of oxygen
- Naturally occurring amino acid formation is one of many precursors to naturally-occurring life
- Miller-Urey and similar experiments circa 1950 reveal oxygen precludes amino acids from forming naturally
- Scientific community scours geological record to find evidence to repudiate the null hypothesis, an oxygen-rich early earth
- Scientific community finds sufficient observable evidence that oxygen existing on the early earth was highly improbable
- Consensus shifts to "no oxygen on early earth"

What actually happened:
- Consensus theory circa 1930 is that early earth contained considerable quantities of oxygen
- Naturally occurring amino acid formation is one of many precursors to naturally-occurring life
- Miller-Urey and similar experiments circa 1950 reveal oxygen precludes amino acids from forming naturally
- Most in the academic community apply a philosophical filter that there must be a natural explanation for life
- Many theories are positied about "no oxygen on early earth"
- Consensus coalesces around a handful of theories based on the prominence of the scientist(s) and articles based on speculative computer models
- Consensus shifts to "no oxygen on early earth"

There is much more of this going on than people realize, and all of it is given a clean bill of science health.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 07:08:35 PMThe above from BullyforBronto and my response is useful in another sense, and that is positing that science has boundaries.  The second greatest trick the modern university pulled is selling the idea that science has no epistemic (knowledge-oriented) boundaries, essentially the inverse of the concept that nature is all that exists.  For this reason, numerous branches of "free-for-all" pseudo-science have sprung up from abiogenesis to Hawking's origin of the universe cosmology to string theory.  Each of these unobservable theories might very well be true, but to seat them in same scientific strata (or, in universities, just down the hallway from!) civil engineering is abject misrepresentation.

It's amusing that you feel justified in labeling research into possible mechanisms for natural abiogenesis, the work of Stephen Hawking on cosmology, and string theory as "pseudo-science." What makes you think you are qualified to make such judgments? The people working in these fields are doing so because there is scientific evidence which justifies their effort to work with it and to try to explain it. None of the three instances you mention conform to the definition of pseudo-science. Still, since you brought up the idea of pseudo-science, let me see if I can try to understand how you define it. Would you agree that trying to shoe-horn supernatural concepts into science, as "creation scientists" do, is pseudo-science?

Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 07:08:35 PMRegrounding this in the thread's origin, the filter atheists apply to consideration of the origin of life, it's unclear to me that science reaches that far.  After the Miller-Urey experiment, theories about early earth's oxygen content arbitrarily shifted from "very prevalent oxygen content" to "no oxygen present in early earth" based on no geological, chemical, or physical facts whatsoever.  The opinion shifted expressly because oxygen in early earth would have precluded amino acids from forming naturally.  

So which governing factor drove the "scientific" consensus shift in this case?  Rigorous, fact-based science?  Perish the thought!  The philosophical filter that nature's laws led to life caused the prevailing shift from "oxygen rich" to "no oxygen".[size]

Why do you maintain that it's specifically atheists who see the scientific paradigm as a reasonable approach to discovering more about the origin of life? Do you have any evidence that all theist scientists think that science cannot inform us about how it may have come about? There are theists who see the process of evolution as valid, but say that their god guided it; I don't see any barriers to them taking the same approach regarding abiogenesis. In fact, I would imagine that there are scientists who believe in religion who are not afraid of any discoveries which lie ahead supporting a natural explanation for the origin of life. If one believes that the natural world was created by a god, then it's not unreasonable to think that natural processes are that god's means of achieving desired ends.

As for the question of reducing atmosphere, the difference between the atmosphere on our planet and the atmospheres on the two neighboring (lifeless, to all indications) planets is evidence that what changed the atmosphere here is life. Neither of those planets has an oxygen-rich atmosphere.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 09:17:12 PMScience would be:
- Consensus theory circa 1930 is that early earth contained considerable quantities of oxygen

The only basis for such a consensus (what you later call "the null hypothesis") was the prevailing uniformitarian paradigm of the time. That paradigm has been modified since to acknowledge the evidence that there have been events and even whole periods in the past which were markedly different than what we consider the norm. This includes the composition of the atmosphere of our planet. By the way, a null hypothesis only exists in science as a hypothesized ground condition which can be compared to an alternative hypothesis. This doesn't necessarily mean that the null has superior standing to the alternative, only that if no evidence supports the alternative, then the scientist reverts to the null until other evidence is discovered.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 09:17:12 PM- Naturally occurring amino acid formation is one of many precursors to naturally-occurring life

Agreed, and precursors to amino acids have been found in interstellar space (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080326161658.htm), and an important amino acid has been found in interplanetary space, associated with a comet. (http://www.universetoday.com/37630/amino-acid-found-in-stardust-comet-sample/) This was not known in 1930.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 09:17:12 PM- Miller-Urey and similar experiments circa 1950 reveal oxygen precludes amino acids from forming naturally
- Scientific community scours geological record to find evidence to repudiate the null hypothesis, an oxygen-rich early earth

That was the null hypothesis of the time, as noted above. It was not then, and is not now, written in stone. Science has advanced quite a bit since 1930, and discoveries about the atmospheres of other planets as mentioned above, would have invalidated the null hypothesis of the 1930s, whatever else may have happened.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 09:17:12 PM- Scientific community finds sufficient observable evidence that oxygen existing on the early earth was highly improbable
- Consensus shifts to "no oxygen on early earth"

As you can see, your picture is too simplistic. There are other factors involved of which you were either unaware, or have chosen to ignore.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 09:17:12 PMWhat actually happened:
- Consensus theory circa 1930 is that early earth contained considerable quantities of oxygen
- Naturally occurring amino acid formation is one of many precursors to naturally-occurring life
- Miller-Urey and similar experiments circa 1950 reveal oxygen precludes amino acids from forming naturally
- Most in the academic community apply a philosophical filter that there must be a natural explanation for life
- Many theories are positied about "no oxygen on early earth"
- Consensus coalesces around a handful of theories based on the prominence of the scientist(s) and articles based on speculative computer models
- Consensus shifts to "no oxygen on early earth"

This is a simplistic and inaccurate caricature of "what actually happened," as I showed above. And in fact, even my explication of the sequence no doubt missed some of the developments that lead to the current consensus regarding a reducing atmosphere on the pre-biotic earth.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 09:17:12 PMThere is much more of this going on than people realize, and all of it is given a clean bill of science health.

Sadly, this last sentence sounds remarkably similar to assertions that I've heard from Creationists who continually opine that there is a world-wide conspiracy of scientists in diverse fields who spend their time lying and spinning interpretations of data to support the theory of evolution.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 09:17:12 PM

Quote from: Tank on October 14, 2011, 07:25:24 PM
The question of free oxygen in the early Earth environment has been answered in a variety of ways over the recent decades until a consistent view has emerged. That's the was science progresses. One of the key elements of the scientific method that allows scientific knowledge to progress is a feedback system that self corrects erroneous findings. Science denying theists, like you, attempt to paint this feedback as vice when it is a virtue. You'll not get away with that attitude on this forum.

With the benefit of hindsight Science would be:
- Consensus theory circa 1930 is that early earth contained considerable quantities of oxygen
- Naturally occurring amino acid formation is one of many precursors to naturally-occurring life
- Miller-Urey and similar experiments circa 1950 reveal oxygen precludes amino acids from forming naturally
- Scientific community scours geological record to find evidence to repudiate the null hypothesis, an oxygen-rich early earth
- Scientific community finds sufficient observable evidence that oxygen existing on the early earth was highly improbable
- Consensus shifts to "no oxygen on early earth"

What actually happened:
- Consensus theory circa 1930 is that early earth contained considerable quantities of oxygen
- Naturally occurring amino acid formation is one of many precursors to naturally-occurring life
- Miller-Urey and similar experiments circa 1950 reveal oxygen precludes amino acids from forming naturally
- Most in the academic community apply a philosophical filter that there must be a natural explanation for life
- Many theories are positied about "no oxygen on early earth"
- Consensus coalesces around a handful of theories based on the prominence of the scientist(s) and articles based on speculative computer models
- Consensus shifts to "no oxygen on early earth"

There is much more of this going on than people realize, and all of it is given a clean bill of science health.

There you are, fixed it for you  ;D

This would be an example of 'Why the fuck didn't you spot the terrorist!?' after the bomb has gone off. The connections simply are not visible until the conclusion has been reached. Science isn't perfect, but it has one critical difference from mythology, scientific claims have to ultimately match reality, mythology does not suffer this handicap to its flights of fancy.

Quote from: Recusant on October 14, 2011, 11:00:57 PM
Why do you maintain that it's specifically atheists who see the scientific paradigm as a reasonable approach to discovering more about the origin of life? Do you have any evidence that all theist scientists think that science cannot inform us about how it may have come about? There are theists who see the process of evolution as valid, but say that their god guided it; I don't see any barriers to them taking the same approach regarding abiogenesis. In fact, I would imagine that there are scientists who believe in religion who are not afraid of any discoveries which lie ahead supporting a natural explanation for the origin of life. If one believes that the natural world was created by a god, then it's not unreasonable to think that natural processes are that god's means of achieving desired ends.

My object is certainly not as you portray it above, to decry natural explanation as a useful form.  Indeed, my object is much more modest than that: to persuade that many have a philosophical filter in place that holds natural explanation to be the only valid type of explanation for all outcomes.

Imagine you walk into your house and find a messy living room (moreso than usual!).  Papers strewn everywhere, furniture smashed, glass broken.  What types of explanation are available to account for what happened?
- Natural:  wind, flooding, animals, earthquake, etc.
- Personal:  someone stormed into your house and acted with specific intent
- Conceptual/positivistic:  You create reality from your own consciousness, and so caused this also

Reasoning inductively, would you have any reason to narrow the aperture to consider only natural explanations? 

This is my point about explanation in other cases as well, especially those on the fringes of retrospective observability.  The universe, like the messy living room, exists.  Life, like the messy living room, exists.  Should we not widen the aperature to reason inductively through the explanatory power of all three types of explanation for this?

Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 12:22:56 AMMy object is certainly not as you portray it above, to decry natural explanation as a useful form.  Indeed, my object is much more modest than that: to persuade that many have a philosophical filter in place that holds natural explanation to be the only valid type of explanation for all outcomes.

A "filter" which precipitates naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena seems eminently reasonable to me. If there were to exist unequivocal evidence supporting the existence of supernatural phenomena, then perhaps one would look outside the scientific method to examine it. I'm not sure how one would construct a rigorous approach to this examination without resorting to the scientific method, however. Nor do I see any necessity for this, since there has been up till now no unequivocal evidence which supports the existence of the supernatural.

I'm going to quote the previous formulation of "possible explanations" here to help with comparing the two:

Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 01:43:29 AM- Natural explanation: nature and its attendant laws caused the phenomena (like a weed growing in a garden)
- Personal explanation:  a sentient actor caused the phenomena (like coming home and finding a messy living room)
- Conceptual explanation:  a conscious mind created the phenomena (a thought to cheer for the Dallas Cowboys)

And now from your current post:

Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 12:22:56 AMImagine you walk into your house and find a messy living room (moreso than usual!).  Papers strewn everywhere, furniture smashed, glass broken.  What types of explanation are available to account for what happened?
- Natural:  wind, flooding, animals, earthquake, etc.
- Personal:  someone stormed into your house and acted with specific intent
- Conceptual/positivistic:  You create reality from your own consciousness, and so caused this also

You seem to have changed the meanings of your three categories here. The two meanings of "natural" have diverged slightly. In A, it was nature and its attendant laws, then in B you write of merely natural phenomena. Under the first formulation, one could easily include human action, since people are a part of nature. Under the second, you seem to try to exclude human action. This allows you to change the second category from (A) sentient actor, which might include any posited sentience, including hypothetical disembodied entities, to (B) people specifically. In A, the second and third categories seemed to deal with the same thing (sentient actor, conscious mind). In B, the third category seems to be presenting some sort of solipsism in which the observer is creating the phenomenon. This is different than the previous third category, which only dealt with a conscious mind creating a phenomenon, and didn't seem to involve a solipsistic perspective. Maybe I missed that the first time around.

I would say that in B, despite your apparent effort to avoid it, I would group the first two categories under the same heading and thus we actually have a dichotomy:

Either the phenomenon is the result of an objective cause (natural events/a person) or all phenomena are subjective, including the one being observed in this instance.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 12:22:56 AMReasoning inductively, would you have any reason to narrow the aperture to consider only natural explanations?

Since I consider solipsism a pointless, masturbatory perspective, I would discard it, and yes, proceed under the assumption that there was an objective, natural cause for the phenomenon. 

Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 12:22:56 AMThis is my point about explanation in other cases as well, especially those on the fringes of retrospective observability.  The universe, like the messy living room, exists.  Life, like the messy living room, exists.  Should we not widen the aperature to reason inductively through the explanatory power of all three types of explanation for this?

Until you revise your three categories yet again, I feel that there is no reason to "widen the aperture."

Quote from: Recusant on October 15, 2011, 02:06:02 AM

You seem to have changed the meanings of your three categories here. The two meanings of "natural" have diverged slightly. In A, it was nature and its attendant laws, then in B you write of merely natural phenomena. Under the first formulation, one could easily include human action, since people are a part of nature. Under the second, you seem to try to exclude human action. This allows you to change the second category from (A) sentient actor, which might include any posited sentience, including hypothetical disembodied entities, to (B) people specifically. In A, the second and third categories seemed to deal with the same thing (sentient actor, conscious mind). In B, the third category seems to be presenting some sort of solipsism in which the observer is creating the phenomenon. This is different than the previous third category, which only dealt with a conscious mind creating a phenomenon, and didn't seem to involve a solipsistic perspective. Maybe I missed that the first time around.

I would say that in B, despite your apparent effort to avoid it, I would group the first two categories under the same heading and thus we actually have a dichotomy:

Either the phenomenon is the result of an objective cause (natural events/a person) or all phenomena are subjective, including the one being observed in this instance.

Yikes, you've gotten yourself completely turned around, Recusant!  I read back over the two, and I meant the same by both:
- Natural laws
- Actions of a conscious/sentient actor
- Consciousness creates... Yeah, this one's baloney

Unless you're on the determinism love-boat, how can you consider the first two the same?

Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 03:25:24 AM
- Natural laws
- Actions of a conscious/sentient actor
- Consciousness creates... Yeah, this one's baloney

Unless you're on the determinism love-boat, how can you consider the first two the same?

2 here is a part of (as it is limited by) 1 as the actor in question can only do his play within the laws governing nature.

Quote from: Asmodean on October 15, 2011, 03:39:05 AM

Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 03:25:24 AM
- Natural laws
- Actions of a conscious/sentient actor
- Consciousness creates... Yeah, this one's baloney

Unless you're on the determinism love-boat, how can you consider the first two the same?

2 here is a part of (as it is limited by) 1 as the actor in question can only do his play within the laws governing nature.

Completely agree.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 03:25:24 AMYikes, you've gotten yourself completely turned around, Recusant!

Did I? Silly me! Ah well, let's look at your latest version. Despite your protestations, this does seem different.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 03:25:24 AMI read back over the two, and I meant the same by both:
- Natural laws

OK, we have a third version of the "nature" category. Now, instead of nature and its attendant laws, or natural phenomena like storms and such, we're down to natural laws alone. Are we talking now about explanations of phenomena, or causes thereof? I can accept that what you term to be "natural laws" (which I would actually call "scientific laws," because they are a product of human understanding through science) serve quite well as explanations, since that is precisely their purpose. On the other hand, they "cause" nothing, since as I said, they are explanations, and I don't think it serves anybody's purpose to confuse an explanation for that which is explained. Now if you had said "natural forces," I would agree that they do cause phenomena, but a natural force is not the same thing as a natural law.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 03:25:24 AM- Actions of a conscious/sentient actor

Good, we're back to the conscious/sentient actor. This is shaping up nicely.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 03:25:24 AM- Consciousness creates... Yeah, this one's baloney

So we're agreed that we will dispense with solipsism. I'm thankful for that, because solipsists make me uncomfortable; I feel embarrassed for them, and would prefer they practice in the privacy of their own homes.

Now we have a new dichotomy. The explanation for phenomena could be:

1) Natural laws (I'll use your term here, though as I explained, I would say either "scientific laws," or "natural forces.")
2) Actions of a conscious/sentient actor

I think that we actually needn't even perceive this as a dichotomy, unless we add something to the second category which says that the conscious/sentient actor is defined as a supernatural entity. If we don't add that qualification, then the conscious/sentient actor could conceivably be considered to have been brought into being by natural forces, and thus would be understood as a manifestation of those same forces. As I mentioned before, I do consider people to be part of the natural world, rather than above or beside it. It is useful in some instances to differentiate between humans and the rest of nature, but I don't think that this discussion is one of those instances. After all, unless you consider humans a supernatural phenomenon, then whether we're differentiated from the rest of nature or not isn't relevant to the topic. To move the discussion along, I might go ahead and redefine category 2 as a supernatural entity, but I think that would be presumptuous of me.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 03:25:24 AMUnless you're on the determinism love-boat, how can you consider the first two the same?

Well, I explained that above. As for determinism, I don't worry about it much, to tell you the truth. If it's false, then I have choices. If it's true, then I only have the illusion of choice, but, happy-go-lucky fellow that I am, I can't tell the difference between the reality of choice and the illusion of choice. So I tend to leave the discussion of whether determinism is true or not to those with nothing better to do.

Recusant

Your patience is amazing. Posts like that fill me with a need to get off my lazy ass and do something productive.

*insert a slightly envious smiley here*

Quote from: Recusant on October 15, 2011, 05:15:59 AM
It is useful in some instances to differentiate between humans and the rest of nature, but I don't think that this discussion is one of those instances.

This is the most important instance imaginable in which to differentiate conscious/sentient actors from "natural forces".  For the purposes of explanation, how does one accurately assess the inductive probability of a given outcome if not first addressing the inductive probability of intent-driven v nature-driven?

Is this not the first, or among the first, branches of inductive reasoning you'd apply if you walked into your house and found your living room was completely trashed?

Quote from: Recusant on October 15, 2011, 05:15:59 AM
After all, unless you consider humans a supernatural phenomenon, then whether we're differentiated from the rest of nature or not isn't relevant to the topic. To move the discussion along, I might go ahead and redefine category 2 as a supernatural entity, but I think that would be presumptuous of me.

I've not brought it up until now for fear that it would cause an unnecessary detour in the discussion, but now it's become unavoidable: I resist the term supernatural as a useful characterization of anything we'll discuss.  A conscious/sentient actor, in whatever form, is just as natural as gravity if it can impact the natural world.  The relevance of the dichotomy to explanation is "intent-driven" or "nature-driven", not "natural" or "supernatural".

Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 06:45:18 PM
The relevance of the dichotomy to explanation is "intent-driven" or "nature-driven", not "natural" or "supernatural".

Intent-driven is a part of nature-driven. Whether it is your consciousness that makes your arm reach out and grab the extra hot jalapeños in the store or gravity that causes the tides, it's all still within natural parameters of this universe.

Quote from: Asmodean on October 15, 2011, 07:05:29 PM

Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 06:45:18 PM
The relevance of the dichotomy to explanation is "intent-driven" or "nature-driven", not "natural" or "supernatural".

Intent-driven is a part of nature-driven. Whether it is your consciousness that makes your arm reach out and grab the extra hot jalapeños in the store or gravity that causes the tides, it's all still within natural parameters of this universe.

Think we might be getting a bit too cute with this...  Would you be ok with a dichotomy of intent-driven and not-intent-driven?

(parenthetically, I'm having to make these kludges to accommodate the philosophical filter at work on this very blog, that nature and it's attendant laws are all that exist.  This led the above poster to conclude that the mind is an emergent property of neurons and synapses, which is a decidedly extra-scientific conclusion)

Thank you Asmodean. It's a pleasure to hear that you might take some motivation from reading this thread. Maybe I shouldn't admit it, but I'm not sure that patience is the main thing going on from my side of the discussion; for some reason I find bandit4god's arguments entertaining more often than not. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rationalskepticism.org%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Ficon_plot.gif&hash=efd57a1767c01828d649e6e0642f6192e850935d)

Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 06:45:18 PM

Quote from: Recusant on October 15, 2011, 05:15:59 AM
It is useful in some instances to differentiate between humans and the rest of nature, but I don't think that this discussion is one of those instances.

This is the most important instance imaginable in which to differentiate conscious/sentient actors from "natural forces".  For the purposes of explanation, how does one accurately assess the inductive probability of a given outcome if not first addressing the inductive probability of intent-driven v nature-driven?

Is this not the first, or among the first, branches of inductive reasoning you'd apply if you walked into your house and found your living room was completely trashed?

Ah, we're talking about trashed rooms? Oh boy, I thought we were still talking about abiogenesis, and that the trashed room issue was merely an illustration. If you'll forgive me, I'm not that interested in figuring out who trashed a hypothetical room, so I'm going to carry on as if we were still discussing the origin of life on earth. In that context, I think we can safely eliminate humans as an explanation. We can't eliminate an "intent-driven" explanation, because for all we know, life might have purposely been seeded on the planet by some interstellar farmers.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 06:45:18 PM

Quote from: Recusant on October 15, 2011, 05:15:59 AM
After all, unless you consider humans a supernatural phenomenon, then whether we're differentiated from the rest of nature or not isn't relevant to the topic. To move the discussion along, I might go ahead and redefine category 2 as a supernatural entity, but I think that would be presumptuous of me.

I've not brought it up until now for fear that it would cause an unnecessary detour in the discussion, but now it's become unavoidable: I resist the term supernatural as a useful characterization of anything we'll discuss.  A conscious/sentient actor, in whatever form, is just as natural as gravity if it can impact the natural world.  The relevance of the dichotomy to explanation is "intent-driven" or "nature-driven", not "natural" or "supernatural".

Well, why didn't you say so! If I had thought that you were championing interstellar farmers as an explanation for life on earth, I think I would have approached the discussion entirely differently. If we are eliminating the supernatural as an explanation, then really I don't have a dog in the fight. The question of whether life on the planet arose on its own, or through some form of panspermia, or through the actions of interstellar farmers is interesting, but really I don't think that we are presently equipped to eliminate any of those explanations.

Let me be as clear as possible. I consider the Christian god to be a supernatural entity. If you, bandit4god, do not agree, then we may be at an impasse. In addition: I consider the possibility that the Christian god exists to be so remote that no matter what cooked up odds against the possibility of a naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis you care to present, that explanation is still more likely to be true, in my opinion, than that YHVH was the origin of life here.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 07:12:07 PM
Think we might be getting a bit too cute with this...  Would you be ok with a dichotomy of intent-driven and not-intent-driven?

Fair enough.

Quote from: Recusant on October 15, 2011, 07:51:11 PM
The question of whether life on the planet arose on its own, or through some form of panspermia, or through the actions of interstellar farmers is interesting, but really I don't think that we are presently equipped to eliminate any of those explanations.

YES!  I could hug you right now, Recusant. The only goals I set out to achieve with this thread were to influence one person to acknowledge the existence of a philosophical filter that biases for natural, non-intent-driven explanations, and consider the origin of life anew through a more expansive explanatory lens.  While interstellar farmers are as far as you're willing to go, it's an achievement nonetheless.

No sarcasm in this whatsoever, I really am thrilled!  Bravo, Recusant!!

Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 08:23:19 PM
YES!  I could hug you right now, Recusant.  This is the only goals I set out to achieve with this thread were to influence one person to acknowledge the existence of a philosophical filter that biases for natural, non-intent-driven explanations, and consider the origin of life anew through a more expansive explanatory lens.  While interstellar farmers are as far as you're willing to go, it's an achievement nonetheless.

No sarcasm in this whatsoever, I really am thrilled!  Bravo, Recusant!!

And again you ruin it.

Intent-driven IS natural.

To elaborate a bit: we do not know the answer to many questions on different scales, be it what to have for breakfast tomorrow or what set off the Big Bang, but we have no reason to assume that the explanation would involve anything other than the natural, thus, making a philosophical bias of natural vs. otherwise unnecessary.

EDIT 2: To elaborate more, let's have a look at life. It is safe to assume that there was no conscious intent-capable life on this planet to start with and that such life is a result of simpler life evolving. Following the example of this planet, the evolutionary chain of life goes from simple to complex to potentially intelligent. Thus, you do not need intelligent life to create life thus, the philosophical bias is again unnecessary.

All I went by here are the safest bets based on evolutionary science. (I would back it up some more, but unlike Recusant, I'm a lazy fuck :P )

Quote from: Asmodean on October 15, 2011, 08:43:13 PM

Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 08:23:19 PM
YES!  I could hug you right now, Recusant.  This is the only goals I set out to achieve with this thread were to influence one person to acknowledge the existence of a philosophical filter that biases for natural, non-intent-driven explanations, and consider the origin of life anew through a more expansive explanatory lens.  While interstellar farmers are as far as you're willing to go, it's an achievement nonetheless.

No sarcasm in this whatsoever, I really am thrilled!  Bravo, Recusant!!

And again you ruin it.

Intent-driven IS natural.

Survival and reproduction, even of molecules. How is that not natural? Because they themselves don't have minds then necessarily there must be a supermind (god) behind it all?

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 15, 2011, 08:49:57 PM
Survival and reproduction, even of molecules. How is that not natural? Because they themselves don't have minds then necessarily there must be a supermind (god) behind it all?

I'm sorry, were you commenting something I implied..? If so, point me to it and I shall properly rephrase it  ???

Quote from: Asmodean on October 15, 2011, 08:55:14 PM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 15, 2011, 08:49:57 PM
Survival and reproduction, even of molecules. How is that not natural? Because they themselves don't have minds then necessarily there must be a supermind (god) behind it all?

I'm sorry, were you commenting something I implied..? If so, point me to it and I shall properly rephrase it  ???

Sorry, I misquoted. I was butting in on your conversation  :-[ with bandit4god and asking if the intent to survive and reproduce (of the earliest organic molecules) couldn't be considered purely natural.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 15, 2011, 09:05:17 PM
Sorry, I misquoted. I was butting in on your conversation  :-[ with bandit4god and asking if the intent to survive and reproduce (of the earliest organic molecules) couldn't be considered purely natural.

No trouble  :) I just know unintentional vagueness to be one of my many vices  :P

Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 08:23:19 PMYES!  I could hug you right now, Recusant.  This is the only goals I set out to achieve with this thread were to influence one person to acknowledge the existence of a philosophical filter that biases for natural, non-intent-driven explanations, and consider the origin of life anew through a more expansive explanatory lens.  While interstellar farmers are as far as you're willing to go, it's an achievement nonetheless.

No sarcasm in this whatsoever, I really am thrilled!  Bravo, Recusant!!

Aw shucks, 'twern't nuthin'. I'm glad that you're pleased, though.

I don't deny that one of the things that my personal filter sieves out when contemplating the origin of life on earth is incorporeal, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent personalized beings who exist in some realm beyond our (or any) universe, yet have a deep interest in, nay, an apparent obsession with human beings. If I considered the existence of such supernatural entities at all probable, I wouldn't be the infidel that I am. On the other hand, I speak only for myself. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rationalskepticism.org%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Ficon_cigar.gif&hash=cda245f088a02df6b31bfe70f819c0e2a76d770c)

Quote from: Asmodean on October 15, 2011, 08:43:13 PM
It is safe to assume that there was no conscious intent-capable life on this planet to start with and that such life is a result of simpler life evolving. Following the example of this planet, the evolutionary chain of life goes from simple to complex to potentially intelligent. Thus, you do not need intelligent life to create life thus, the philosophical bias is again unnecessary.

You're at step 73 of explaining life, Asmo... back up to step 1, the one today's students are conditioned to skip.

Was the outcome/phenomenon a result of intent-driven action or non-intent-driven action?

I'm not saying you'll come to a different conclusion if you ask this question... Following Recusant's example, it merely opens up new and exciting explanatory possibilities!

Quote from: Recusant on October 15, 2011, 10:52:18 PM
I don't deny that one of the things that my personal filter sieves out when contemplating the origin of life on earth is incorporeal, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent personalized beings who exist in some realm beyond our (or any) universe, yet have a deep interest in, nay, an apparent obsession with human beings. If I considered the existence of such supernatural entities at all probable, I wouldn't be the infidel that I am. On the other hand, I speak only for myself. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rationalskepticism.org%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Ficon_cigar.gif&hash=cda245f088a02df6b31bfe70f819c0e2a76d770c)

I always wonder about things on the other side of our filter. They can't be studied (by definition). Nothing much of interest can be said about them. Do they display lawful behaviour? Their only effect, that I can make out,  is to block further research. Once you say, "god did it", that's pretty much the end of the discussion. As always I could be way off the mark but what would be the difference in terms of empirical or intellectual content between positing such supernatural entities and shrugging your shoulders or saying, "I don't know"? 
ciao,
Attila

Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 12:08:42 AM
Was the outcome/phenomenon a result of intent-driven action or non-intent-driven action?

When speaking of life, there is no reason to suspect that it was a result of an intent-driven action. When speaking of my car, there is no reason to suspect otherwise.

Quote from: Asmodean on October 16, 2011, 07:33:23 AM

Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 12:08:42 AM
Was the outcome/phenomenon a result of intent-driven action or non-intent-driven action?

When speaking of life, there is no reason to suspect that it was a result of an intent-driven action. When speaking of my car, there is no reason to suspect otherwise.

Say more on this, because it's an intriguing parallel.  Are you saying that life existing is obviously non-intent-driven and your car existing is obviously intent-driven?

Bandit4god, how do you know that life is not a result rather than the goal?

Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 12:39:16 PM
Say more on this, because it's an intriguing parallel.  Are you saying that life existing is obviously non-intent-driven and your car existing is obviously intent-driven?

All known cars are a product of human engineering with the intent of getting from A to B in shorter time and for less effort than using one's own two feet. There is no reason to suspect that my car is any different.

Intent succeeds forms of life life blindly floating about in the evolutionary chain (I would say the first life forms displaying it were also the first ones to purposefully move in the direction of food). Therefor, there is no reason to assume that life is a product of intent.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 16, 2011, 02:16:26 PM
Bandit4god, how do you know that life is not a result rather than the goal?

This is precisely my question for the group!  As we set out to explain the existence of life, shall we not consider causes driven by intent alongside causes that are not?  To bias toward the latter is applying a philosophical filter on passable types of explanation.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 05:03:45 PM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 16, 2011, 02:16:26 PM
Bandit4god, how do you know that life is not a result rather than the goal?

This is precisely my question for the group!  As we set out to explain the existence of life, shall we not consider causes driven by intent alongside causes that are not?  To bias toward the latter is applying a philosophical filter on passable types of explanation.

But B4G are you even able to trace out a scenario of what a possible explanation (your term) for the existence of life as an intentional act might be? It seems to lead to a dead end. I'm all for positing far fetched hypotheses but only that offer some hope of empirical consequences in the form of testable claims. I don't see any but I'm quite happy to be enlightened.
ciao,
Attila

Quote from: Attila on October 16, 2011, 05:15:26 PM
But B4G are you even able to trace out a scenario of what a possible explanation (your term) for the existence of life as an intentional act might be? It seems to lead to a dead end. I'm all for positing far fetched hypotheses but only that offer some hope of empirical consequences in the form of testable claims. I don't see any but I'm quite happy to be enlightened.
ciao,
Attila

Again, a modest goal: just trying to get the first consideration of explanations (or "brainstorming session") to include intent-driven explanations.

Let's think back to the hero we referred to a few posts back who writes at the top of his paper, ""How is it that life on earth exists?"

An unfiltered list might look something like this.

Non-intent-driven explanations:
Abiogenesis resulting from chemical reactions on earth
Extraterrestrial life arriving by comet/meteor
Life has always existed on a piece of matter that eventually merged with earth

Intent-driven explanations:
Extra-earth actor(s) choosing to seed the planet with life from outside
Extra-earth actor(s) facilitating formation of life by aiding natural processes on earth

Testability and empiricism has come up a few times, but it's worth noting that this concern hasn't stopped the development of string theory or a raft of other "scientific" explanations that cannot be observed.  In this first step, why filter out possible explanations as impossible a priori just because they aren't testable?

Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 08:01:23 PM
this concern hasn't stopped the development of string theory or a raft of other "scientific" explanations that cannot be observed.

Those usually tend to serve a purpose. Inventing an intent-driven explanation for origins of life on Earth is unnecessary since it adds to the list of assumptions without adding anything of explanatory value. (Still does not answer how and possibly why life did emerge)

Aliens choosing to bring life to Earth assumes that by the point it emerged, there was at least one race of aliens capable of interstellar travel AND interested for some reason in populating uninhabited rocks. Life being a result of chemical processes and possibly a good dose of luck makes no such assumption.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 08:01:23 PM

Testability and empiricism has come up a few times, but it's worth noting that this concern hasn't stopped the development of string theory or a raft of other "scientific" explanations that cannot be observed.  In this first step, why filter out possible explanations as impossible a priori just because they aren't testable?

Being unobservable is not the same thing has not having any empirical consequences that are observable. The discovery of Pluto before it could be observed is an obvious example. It was positied due to gravitational effects acting on nearby objects. I take your answer to mean that you have no scenario. Untestable hypotheses have no interest. They are equivalent (but less honest) to saying  "I don't know", that's why I rule them out a priori. If you want untestable then my Secret Bunny who sits on my shoulder and guides my life will answer all your questions. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. You're taking the piss aren't you? Like Recusant I chased the red cape didn't I. Well done!  :-[ Ok, we're done here.
ciao,
Attila

Quote from: Attila on October 16, 2011, 08:18:14 PM
You're taking the piss aren't you?

How's that in American English? :D

You guys keep attacking the intent-driven hypotheses as though they are the terminus of an argument about the existence of life.  This thread argues no such thing!  If one says that they have considered these explanations and thereafter ruled them out through inductive reasoning, I have no beef with that perspective!  My beef is with a philosophical filter that denies intent-driven explanations from being considered at all.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 08:40:25 PM
If one says that they have considered these explanations and thereafter ruled them out through inductive reasoning, I have no beef with that perspective!

...And yet there is no real reason to consider such an explanation so why would one do that?

Is it possible..? Yes, it probably is. Is it plausible? Not really, no. Is it necessary? Again, not really.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 08:40:25 PM

Quote from: Attila on October 16, 2011, 08:18:14 PM
You're taking the piss aren't you?

How's that in American English? :D

You guys keep attacking the intent-driven hypotheses as though they are the terminus of an argument about the existence of life.  This thread argues no such thing!  If one says that they have considered these explanations and thereafter ruled them out through inductive reasoning, I have no beef with that perspective!  My beef is with a philosophical filter that denies intent-driven explanations from being considered at all.

I don't think it's about intent vs. non-intent. It's about silly, boring, irrelevant vs. interesting. Consider a theory to explain the Permian–Triassic extinction event. God farted. Since god is great this was a very big fart full of noxious gasses that wiped out a hug portion of the extant organisms. God didn't mean to fart  (sometime he does but not in this case) and was quite sorry about it so it was not an intent-driven event it was an accident. Nevertheless my bullshit filter would zap it all the same. I hope this reassures you. ;)
ciao,
Attila 

Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 12:22:56 AM
Imagine you walk into your house and find a messy living room (moreso than usual!).  Papers strewn everywhere, furniture smashed, glass broken.  What types of explanation are available to account for what happened?
- Natural:  wind, flooding, animals, earthquake, etc.
- Personal:  someone stormed into your house and acted with specific intent
- Conceptual/positivistic:  You create reality from your own consciousness, and so caused this also

Reasoning inductively, would you have any reason to narrow the aperture to consider only natural explanations? 

This is my point about explanation in other cases as well, especially those on the fringes of retrospective observability.  The universe, like the messy living room, exists.  Life, like the messy living room, exists.  Should we not widen the aperature to reason inductively through the explanatory power of all three types of explanation for this?

Those three categories are self-created by you b4g. If I were to compare the messy room to the universe, it seems to me you're saying  I have two possible explanations;

1) a natural explanation - eg  I've been burgled, there's been an earthquake etc. I can try and ascertain the most likely explanation by examing the evidence in my messy room.

2) a supernatural explanation - fairies did it.

I don't feel I'm applying a philosophical filter by not considering the possibility that fairies messed up my room!

Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 17, 2011, 02:14:29 PM

Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 12:22:56 AM
Imagine you walk into your house and find a messy living room (moreso than usual!).  Papers strewn everywhere, furniture smashed, glass broken.  What types of explanation are available to account for what happened?
- Natural:  wind, flooding, animals, earthquake, etc.
- Personal:  someone stormed into your house and acted with specific intent
- Conceptual/positivistic:  You create reality from your own consciousness, and so caused this also

Reasoning inductively, would you have any reason to narrow the aperture to consider only natural explanations? 

This is my point about explanation in other cases as well, especially those on the fringes of retrospective observability.  The universe, like the messy living room, exists.  Life, like the messy living room, exists.  Should we not widen the aperature to reason inductively through the explanatory power of all three types of explanation for this?

Those three categories are self-created by you b4g. If I were to compare the messy room to the universe, it seems to me you're saying  I have two possible explanations;

1) a natural explanation - eg  I've been burgled, there's been an earthquake etc. I can try and ascertain the most likely explanation by examing the evidence in my messy room.

2) a supernatural explanation - fairies did it.

I don't feel I'm applying a philosophical filter by not considering the possibility that fairies messed up my room!

This is what I was trying to get at with my earlier post(s). OK, there is the possibility that faries did it. But, if I rest on this assumption, that's all I can do. That is, rest on it. Well, unless faries are not supernatural. Then, I suppose the next step would be to perform a longitudinal study of farie behavior and the underlying impetus that creates their urge to mess up one's room.

Supernatural explanations, as I mentioned before, are a stopping point and are, in my opinion, a cop out.

plus maybe I have a Rupert the Bear book in my messed-up room, which has stories with mischievous little fairies in it. Now, if I based my understanding of the universe on said Rupert the Bear book, and assigned some level of truth and historical accuracy to the stories contained therein, maybe I then might have to make that first deductive step between a) natural causes and b) fairies...

Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 17, 2011, 02:14:29 PM
I don't feel I'm applying a philosophical filter by not considering the possibility that fairies messed up my room!

Regardless of how you feel, that's exactly what you are doing.  By not considering the possibility that fairies messed up your room, you're applying the philosophical filter that limits the set of acceptable explanations.  I'll keep saying it, hoping that somehow it will break through:

The object of this thread is not to convince you that intent-driven explanations are correct.  Rather, it's to convince you to include them on the introductory list of possible explanations at the start of your inductive reasoning process.  To do otherwise would be to arbitrarily restrict the solution space based on, well, faith!

Quote from: bandit4god on October 20, 2011, 09:56:00 PM

Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 17, 2011, 02:14:29 PM
I don't feel I'm applying a philosophical filter by not considering the possibility that fairies messed up my room!

Regardless of how you feel, that's exactly what you are doing.  By not considering the possibility that fairies messed up your room, you're applying the philosophical filter that limits the set of acceptable explanations.  I'll keep saying it, hoping that somehow it will break through:

The object of this thread is not to convince you that intent-driven explanations are correct.  Rather, it's to convince you to include them on the introductory list of possible explanations at the start of your inductive reasoning process.  To do otherwise would be to arbitrarily restrict the solution space based on, well, faith!

I think you would need to reword the first part: "By not considering the possibility that fairies messed up your room[...]" doesn't imply a filter, but "choosing not to consider the possibility that fairies messed up your room..." would imply a filter. Just not considering something doesn't mean that one is restricting the possibilities, it might just mean that those possibilities haven't even occurred to the person.

Quote from: Davin on October 20, 2011, 10:48:34 PM

Quote from: bandit4god on October 20, 2011, 09:56:00 PM

Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 17, 2011, 02:14:29 PM
I don't feel I'm applying a philosophical filter by not considering the possibility that fairies messed up my room!

Regardless of how you feel, that's exactly what you are doing.  By not considering the possibility that fairies messed up your room, you're applying the philosophical filter that limits the set of acceptable explanations.  I'll keep saying it, hoping that somehow it will break through:

The object of this thread is not to convince you that intent-driven explanations are correct.  Rather, it's to convince you to include them on the introductory list of possible explanations at the start of your inductive reasoning process.  To do otherwise would be to arbitrarily restrict the solution space based on, well, faith!

I think you would need to reword the first part: "By not considering the possibility that fairies messed up your room[...]" doesn't imply a filter, but "choosing not to consider the possibility that fairies messed up your room..." would imply a filter. Just not considering something doesn't mean that one is restricting the possibilities, it might just mean that those possibilities haven't even occurred to the person.

Sadly, for many the "choice" to restrict the set of possible explanations has been made so many times it comes second nature.  Said differently, the choice can move from conscious "software" to subconscious "hardware"--all the while serving its function as a philosophical filter.

All it takes is One quick scan back through the posts on this thread to see the antibody reaction that takes place when trying to remove the filter from hardware! :)

So...you seriously consider invisible creatures, ghosts, gnomes, and faeries when your socks go missing from the dryer?

If we can logically eliminate certain categories of things from the realm of possibility then there is no reason to consider them again unless a situation occurs that brings into question their elimination from consideration.

edit: station was meant to be situation but I didn't check the spell check suggestion before posting.

Quote from: Whitney on October 20, 2011, 11:48:49 PM
So...you seriously consider invisible creatures, ghosts, gnomes, and faeries when your socks go missing from the dryer?
If we can logically eliminate certain categories of things from the realm of possibility then there is no reason to consider them again unless a station occurs that brings into question their elimination from consideration.

Spot on Whitney. It's stupid and pointless to suggest that I'm applying a philosophical filter by not considering fairies messed up my room. It might also have been dragons, orcs, pixies, gods, walking lemons, marsh mallows etc etc the list of possible non-existent things is endless. As is the list of possible non-existent things that might have created the universe. I'd be applying a million 'philosophical filters' before I even considered the logical possibility that maybe I'd been burgled! I'll stick to not considering illogical possibilities thanks, unless of course I start to find fairy fingerprints in my messed up room, then I might start to consider it may have been fairies.

b4g, if you think scientists/atheists are applying a philosophical  filter in their work, can you accept that they are at least applying a few less filters than you. It seems to me you're applying a supernatural filter to interpret data such as the creation of life. But within that filter are such things as dragons, demons, pixies, fairies, gods etc.You're then filtering 'gods' out of the above selection, and then selecting 'the Christian god' out of the many gods to choose from. This choice is several layers of filtration back.

Surely we get nearer the truth by applying the least filters, and by your own definitions it appears to me that you apply the most filters.

Quote from: Whitney on October 20, 2011, 11:48:49 PM
So...you seriously consider invisible creatures, ghosts, gnomes, and faeries when your socks go missing from the dryer?

If we can logically eliminate certain categories of things from the realm of possibility then there is no reason to consider them again unless a situation occurs that brings into question their elimination from consideration.

edit: station was meant to be situation but I didn't check the spell check suggestion before posting.

It's also quite a waste of time to consider such far-fetched possiblities when they've never once been known to hold water, when socks that go missing in the dryer invariably turn out to be clinging to the inside of a shirt or something else mundane.  I don't think not considering far-fetched possibilities is applying a filter so much as applying common sense.

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 21, 2011, 04:17:01 AM
when socks that go missing in the dryer invariably turn out to be clinging to the inside of a shirt or something else mundane.

Lies!  >:( Lies and unbeliever propaganda!  >:( After the washing machine, one sock of a pair goes missing. Forever. Never to be seen again. After the dryer, the second one has the tendency to disappear too. Asmodean, he is completely out of socks because of that. Not a single sock, Asmodean has.  >:( Explain THAT!

I think the point b4g is making is a generally valid. Take for example a negotiation for the price of buying a product. Where does that negotiation start? It starts in your own head with your expectations. Now if one's expectations, due to the prevailing economic conditions, are that there will be a price rise, then one is subconsciously primed to accept a price rise, one can also be influenced by one's personal relationship with a suppliers representative.  So where I worked price lists had to be submitted by letter (later electronically) 1 month before they were intended to go live. The only way the supplier could avoid a negotiation was for the net cost of the goods they supplied us to go down. They could adjust the buy prices within the range of product but the net effect had to be a reduction in overall cost or they would face a negotiation, and we had some fierce negotiators!

So we accepted our own potential biases and at the same time created an expectation in our suppliers that prices went down or the shit hit the fan.

We all carry the baggage of experience, I think calling it a philosophy is an example of 'over egging the pudding' for effect.

I think one should enter any investigation with as little of this baggage as possible. Take as a recent example the Faster Than Light (FTL) neutrinos. It has become an axiom in physics and cosmology that nothing can travel FTL. Thus when some professional scientist with a huge budget and state of the art equipment dare to suggest that they have found evidence of an FTL phenomenon the first majority reaction is derision not skeptical curiosity.

Unless one is aware of ones own biases and attempts as much as humanly possible to remove/reduce them one is looking at the world through one's own preconceptions.

The vast, vast majority of theists that I have interacted with have absolutely no idea of, or desire to minimise, their biases and prejudices when it comes to assimilating evidence into their world view. They, almost without exception, attempt the fit new evidence into their existing philosophical/biased/baggage-ridden world view. The term 'confirmation bias' was coined as a warning to scientists, it's a warning that the theists I have come across would do well to note.

I think humans are the arch categoriser and pattern matcher. Whenever we encounter something novel we attempt to understand it by fitting it in with our existing understanding of the world. If that understanding is fundamentally theistic we'll do it one way, if that understanding is naturalistic we will see novel things in that light. So the nack is to not interpret prior to full understanding, that is what keeping an open mind really is.

Now personally I do have some key 'philosophical' filters. The first of which is to immediately dis-trust people who lead an argument with 'I believe...' I don't give a flying fuck what somebody/anybody believes because all they are showing me are their biases/prejudices/baggage issues. Show me the evidence and I'll decide for myself thank you very much. The more a person tries to convince me by force of will the more their position is devalued in my eyes. If their position is strong it should need nothing but the evidence to make it stand, just like the Theory of Evolution and unlike Creationism.

So when faced with novel evidence evaluate it with curiosity, critically and sceptically and try to keep one's own baggage out-of-the-way as much as possible.

Quote from: Asmodean on October 21, 2011, 08:30:16 AM

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 21, 2011, 04:17:01 AM
when socks that go missing in the dryer invariably turn out to be clinging to the inside of a shirt or something else mundane.

Lies!  >:( Lies and unbeliever propaganda!  >:( After the washing machine, one sock of a pair goes missing. Forever. Never to be seen again. After the dryer, the second one has the tendency to disappear too. Asmodean, he is completely out of socks because of that. Not a single sock, Asmodean has.  >:( Explain THAT!

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi140.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fr19%2Frebelrc%2Fancient-aliens-guy.jpg&hash=1ea8ab9358a7c80c1a57054729586533f21afc87)

He kinda' looks like the guy married to our dear princess, he does...  ???

Quote from: Asmodean on October 21, 2011, 12:42:59 PM
He kinda' looks like the guy married to our dear princess, he does...  ???

He's the guy from the show "ancient aliens" on history channel. He blames everything that happens, everywhere, on aliens.  Sorry to derail the thread, was just amusing myself lol.

Quote from: Xjeepguy on October 21, 2011, 01:37:11 PM

Quote from: Asmodean on October 21, 2011, 12:42:59 PM
He kinda' looks like the guy married to our dear princess, he does...  ???

He's the guy from the show "ancient aliens" on history channel. He blames everything that happens, everywhere, on aliens.  Sorry to derail the thread, was just amusing myself lol.

Of course he blames aliens, he's a Centauri:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fthumb%2F3%2F3a%2FB5_londo.jpg%2F800px-B5_londo.jpg&hash=7c6121c750eef91b06b0ce0cb0dac40ab53f32b5)

Quote from: bandit4god on October 20, 2011, 11:30:41 PM

Quote from: Davin on October 20, 2011, 10:48:34 PM

Quote from: bandit4god on October 20, 2011, 09:56:00 PM

Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 17, 2011, 02:14:29 PM
I don't feel I'm applying a philosophical filter by not considering the possibility that fairies messed up my room!

Regardless of how you feel, that's exactly what you are doing.  By not considering the possibility that fairies messed up your room, you're applying the philosophical filter that limits the set of acceptable explanations.  I'll keep saying it, hoping that somehow it will break through:

The object of this thread is not to convince you that intent-driven explanations are correct.  Rather, it's to convince you to include them on the introductory list of possible explanations at the start of your inductive reasoning process.  To do otherwise would be to arbitrarily restrict the solution space based on, well, faith!

I think you would need to reword the first part: "By not considering the possibility that fairies messed up your room[...]" doesn't imply a filter, but "choosing not to consider the possibility that fairies messed up your room..." would imply a filter. Just not considering something doesn't mean that one is restricting the possibilities, it might just mean that those possibilities haven't even occurred to the person.

Sadly, for many the "choice" to restrict the set of possible explanations has been made so many times it comes second nature.  Said differently, the choice can move from conscious "software" to subconscious "hardware"--all the while serving its function as a philosophical filter.

So your contention is that everyone has a filter because if it's not concious, then it's subconcious?

Quote from: bandit4godAll it takes is One quick scan back through the posts on this thread to see the antibody reaction that takes place when trying to remove the filter from hardware! :)

You're going to have to support this.

Quote from: Tank on October 21, 2011, 09:48:00 AM
Unless one is aware of ones own biases and attempts as much as humanly possible to remove/reduce them one is looking at the world through one's own preconceptions.

Quite right!  Thanks, Tank.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 21, 2011, 05:39:25 PM
Quite right!  Thanks, Tank.

If that there has been your point all along, why did you start with this philosophical filter thing?

Quote from: Asmodean on October 21, 2011, 06:17:55 PM

Quote from: bandit4god on October 21, 2011, 05:39:25 PM
Quite right!  Thanks, Tank.

If that there has been your point all along, why did you start with this philosophical filter thing?

I totally agree with you Asmo.
We definitely do all look at the world in our own ideosyncratic ways, it's just a case of trying to interpret the evidence of what we experience as objectively as we possibly can.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 21, 2011, 05:39:25 PM

Quote from: Tank on October 21, 2011, 09:48:00 AM
Unless one is aware of ones own biases and attempts as much as humanly possible to remove/reduce them one is looking at the world through one's own preconceptions.

Quite right!  Thanks, Tank.

What for?
Agreeing with you? Or restating your point more succinctly?

Quote from: Tank on October 21, 2011, 09:48:00 AM
Unless one is aware of ones own biases and attempts as much as humanly possible to remove/reduce them one is looking at the world through one's own preconceptions.

Looking at the world through one's own preconceptions = applying a philosophical filter

Quote from: bandit4god on October 21, 2011, 08:25:26 PM
Looking at the world through one's own preconceptions = applying a philosophical filter

No. Bias is not necessarilly a philosophical filter.

Quote from: Tank on October 21, 2011, 06:43:25 PM

Quote from: bandit4god on October 21, 2011, 05:39:25 PM

Quote from: Tank on October 21, 2011, 09:48:00 AM
Unless one is aware of ones own biases and attempts as much as humanly possible to remove/reduce them one is looking at the world through one's own preconceptions.

Quite right!  Thanks, Tank.

What for?
Agreeing with you? Or restating your point more succinctly?

For crediting my point as generally valid and perhaps influencing a few to reconsider the thread in light of your above quote.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 21, 2011, 08:34:49 PM

Quote from: Tank on October 21, 2011, 06:43:25 PM

Quote from: bandit4god on October 21, 2011, 05:39:25 PM

Quote from: Tank on October 21, 2011, 09:48:00 AM
Unless one is aware of ones own biases and attempts as much as humanly possible to remove/reduce them one is looking at the world through one's own preconceptions.

Quite right!  Thanks, Tank.

What for?
Agreeing with you? Or restating your point more succinctly?

For crediting my point as generally valid and perhaps influencing a few to reconsider the thread in light of your above quote.

No problem  :)

Quote from: Asmodean on October 21, 2011, 08:28:08 PM

Quote from: bandit4god on October 21, 2011, 08:25:26 PM
Looking at the world through one's own preconceptions = applying a philosophical filter

No. Bias is not necessarilly a philosophical filter.

I'd agree with that, baggage is just baggage.  I do like the bit about over-egging the pudding, tho.

 Science certainly integrates philosophy into the discipline.   A simple example is mathematics which is rational.