Do you believe in the chessboard on mars?

[Roboramma]

Who here beleives in the chessboard on mars?

If not, why not?

If so, why?

I am not intending to get into any arguments here. This is just a slightly comical response to the thread, "Are you a..."

Specifically, I wonder what the difference is between belief in god and belief in said chessboard (or any in any thing that we have no evidence for, but cannot disprove. Of course the chessboard could theoretically be disproven, but certainly it hasn't yet.)
Anyway, I am not trying to have one of those "Theists are stupid" threads. I know there are many who are more intelligent than I am. I just wonder how this problem is addressed.

I just thought of one way of addressing it - my point about the chessboard is very specific. It's like I'm asking "Do you beleive that there is a ghost in my refrigerator" rather than, "Do you beleive that a ghost exists somewhere in this universe".
Hmm. If that's a valid critisism then my point can only address those who believe in a specific god, not that some undefined god exists. However, the minute a specific claim is made, the argument presents itself again.

Anyway, feel free to ignore all this serious talk and just respond to the chessboard.
PS, who do you think is winning? Black or white?

[Vagabond]

I am not sure what "chessboard" you are talking about. But, I am fairly certain there isn't anybody playing chess on mars. It's probably a rumor that got started by Edgar Rice Burroughs "chessmen of mars" tho.

I like your Asimov quote.

[brettDbass]

There sure is chess on Mars, of a fashion.

Colin Pillinger was playing chess with one of the team members when an emergency call came in from Nasa. His sudden leap up from the seat knocked the playing board, causing a number of pieces to fall into the balloon deployment mechanism. One piece was never accounted for...

100% FACT*


*Beware of the lie.

[Beerina]

Is this related to the highly regular pyramid-like things seen? That I wouldn't mind a closeup of. I don't think its anything, but it's been far more interesting to me than the idiotic "face" for the past 20 years.

[rharbers]

You've got to have pictures!

[c4ts]

First you need an anthology of stories about the chessboard on Mars...

[AnotherSillyAlias]

Not only is there a chessboard on Mars but there are several swimming pools and the remains of a sauna. A rather well preserved cricket pitch can also be discerned.

[Bikewer]

Back when the original silliness over the "face" on mars started up, I was surprised that the Kermit never caught on:

[epepke]

Who here beleives in the chessboard on mars?

I thought it was the teapot orbiting Mars.

Maybe we could have a religious war. Blood running in the gutters and so forth.

[Wheezebucket]

Are martians any good at chess?

[Meadmaker]

Who here beleives in the chessboard on mars?

If not, why not?

If so, why?

I am not intending to get into any arguments here. This is just a slightly comical response to the thread, "Are you a..."

Specifically, I wonder what the difference is between belief in god and belief in said chessboard (or any in any thing that we have no evidence for, but cannot disprove. Of course the chessboard could theoretically be disproven, but certainly it hasn't yet.)
Anyway, I am not trying to have one of those "Theists are stupid" threads. I know there are many who are more intelligent than I am. I just wonder how this problem is addressed.

I just thought of one way of addressing it - my point about the chessboard is very specific. It's like I'm asking "Do you beleive that there is a ghost in my refrigerator" rather than, "Do you beleive that a ghost exists somewhere in this universe".
Hmm. If that's a valid critisism then my point can only address those who believe in a specific god, not that some undefined god exists. However, the minute a specific claim is made, the argument presents itself again.

Anyway, feel free to ignore all this serious talk and just respond to the chessboard.
PS, who do you think is winning? Black or white?

If you don't mind, I'll address some of the serious talk, after first saying that the chessboard is obviously not real. However, the ruins of the chessboard are clearly visible. White achieved victory in the 17th millenium BC, which led to the anti-matter war that destroyed all evidence of life on Mars, except, ironically, for the pitiful remains of the chessboard.

The difference between belief in the chessboard and belief in one or more gods is that we have some clue about what chessboards are like, and how they are made. We have this idea that moving the vast amounts of earth (or mars as the case may be) requires an advanced civilization that would have left more evidence than just the chessboard. Furthermore, we have another explanation for the existence of what appears to be a chessboard. It could be an artifact of a low resolution camera. (I haven't seen pictures of the chessboard. I'm guessing it's a bit like the face on Mars. Or is it something that doesn't even have pictures, but is purely accepted on faith?)

So, it is not true that we have no evidence for or against the chessboard. If large chessboards are present, we would expect to find other things also present. The lack of those other things is, in fact, evidence.

We can't compare worlds with gods versus worlds without them. We can't say how the world ought to look if God exists, and compare it to how the world actually looks to see if there is a difference. Although, that doesn't stop a lot of people from doing it. How many threads are there that start, "Why doesn't God do....?" Many go on to say that that is evidence that God doesn't exist. All those threads are silly, if you ask me, because there is no way to say rationally how God would do things.

I prefer the Buddhist answer myself, which says that if there is a God, you couldn't possibly understand what he's like, what he wants, or even whether or not he exists, so don't worry about it.

So the difference between belief in God and belief in the chessboard is that in the first case, there is belief in something despite there being no evidence. However, there is also no contrary evidence. When it comes to the chessboard, there is contrary evidence.

[pindar1]

On June 28th, 1986, the German Streichfälschung Mars probe returned to earth from its journey into the orbit of the red planet. A half dozen excited scientists gathered around the wreckage of the craft, eager to see the negatives and soil samples that were removed from the craft's black box. For them it was the culmination of years of developement.

What they found was astounding. Not only could they clearly see the giant chessboard carved into a plateau, just as an astronomer had once reported seeing through his telescope, but they could make out towering figures in strange and exotic shapes, which through the progression of photos could be seen to march across the board, clearly organic life forms.

Overwhelmed by this evidence of life on Mars, one scientist quickly put a soil sample under his microscope. What he saw was astounding, a teeming microworld of tiny creatures he had no name for. But even as he turned to announce this to his colleagues, they began to feel the effects of the alien parasites they had aquired. Several fell where they stood as they were eaten from the inside by the rapidly multiplying microbes. One managed to call into headquarters to report the alien plague. The area was carpet bombed, and everything was covered up. The German government now denies the very existance of the Streichfälschung probe.

But a decade later in 1998, a German man found a small piece of metal inscribed with the cryptic word 'chessboard'. It turns out that one of the scientists managed to scratch this word into his belt buckle before he died. From this the discoverer managed to piece together what happened on the night of 28th of June and finally told the public of the tragic return of the Streichfälschung. German officials still refuse to comment on the issue.

I assume this is the chessboard you are talking about?

[Vagabond]

Are martians any good at chess?

In ERB's version of martian chess the pieces where real people who had to fight for the place on the board and not just gain it by moving.

[c4ts]

I've played that. It was called "Battle Chess."

[Vagabond]

I've played that. It was called "Battle Chess."

Similar but not the same. "martian" chess is played on a 10x10 board and the pieces move differently. The easiest way to win is to trade kings. In regular chess two kings can't even move adjacent to each other.

[Roboramma]

So, it is not true that we have no evidence for or against the chessboard. If large chessboards are present, we would expect to find other things also present. The lack of those other things is, in fact, evidence.

Meadmaker I like your argument. But doesn't it presuppose that the only way that chessboards can exist are the ways that we know of (someone making one)?
What if all the chessboards that people lose aren't really lost by accident, but simply disappear, only to reappear somewhere else, far away. Sometimes they even reappear as far away as mars. One never knows.
Or they could just pop into existance at random intervals. These intervals (both in space and time) are so infrequent that one is only likely to see a chessboard appearing somewhere out in the vastness of space, and the earth's atmosphere is thick enough that any chess-set that was likely to cross our path would burn up. But they just make it through to mars.

Of course, neither of those is how the chessboard came to be on mars.

It was planted there by the interdimensional chess federation for an upcoming game. The game won't take place for another 2000 years, but you know transdimensional beings - they like their chessboards aged.

[Beth]

It seems to me that a chessboard is a physical thing, it exists and we can sense it in some way, or it does not and not being able to sense it indicates that it is not there.

However, the concept of God is always one of a non-physical entity. Therefore, not being able to physically sense god is no more indication of his non-existance than not being able to physically sense justice is an indication that justice does not exist. It can be argued that neither exist :), but lack of a physical existance is not evidence that they do not exist.

[Vagabond]

It seems to me that a chessboard is a physical thing, it exists and we can sense it in some way, or it does not and not being able to sense it indicates that it is not there.

However, the concept of God is always one of a non-physical entity. Therefore, not being able to physically sense god is no more indication of his non-existance than not being able to physically sense justice is an indication that justice does not exist. It can be argued that neither exist :), but lack of a physical existance is not evidence that they do not exist.

I beg to differ. I can physically sense justice. I recoil in abhorrence at it's lack.

[Beleth]

I beg to differ. I can physically sense justice. I recoil in abhorrence at it's lack. Really?
You can look at, say, a prisoner, and detect just from looking at him whether his incarceration is just or not? Without talking to him, or looking up the circumstances that got him in prison?
You should be the most famous judge in the world!

No, of course you can't. Justice is not physically detectable. It is produced from a combination of reason, ethics, and knowledge.

[Beleth]

Who here beleives in the chessboard on mars?

If not, why not?

If so, why? No, because (if memory serves) it looks just like a typical JPEG compression artifact. Besides, it sounds like a cheesy Edgar Rice Burroughs title (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594568545/qid=1137870375/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl14/104-7859168-3454305?n=507846&s=books&v=glance).

[Vagabond]

No, because (if memory serves) it looks just like a typical JPEG compression artifact. Besides, it sounds like a cheesy Edgar Rice Burroughs title (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594568545/qid=1137870375/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl14/104-7859168-3454305?n=507846&s=books&v=glance).

This was already mentioned and there is nothing "cheesy" about it.

[Beth]

I beg to differ. I can physically sense justice. I recoil in abhorrence at it's lack.

I have heard many deists proclaim similar evidence for the existence of their god. If I'm willing to accept your evidece for the existence of justice, I must likewise accept their evidence for the existence of god.

[Vagabond]

I have heard many deists proclaim similar evidence for the existence of their god. If I'm willing to accept your evidece for the existence of justice, I must likewise accept their evidence for the existence of god.

Eh, I was trying to be profound, it wasn't intended to be taken literally.

[Beleth]

This was already mentioned and there is nothing "cheesy" about it.
Indeed it was, and I was being flippant. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Vagabond]

Indeed it was, and I was being flippant. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No problem it happens. They are currently making the first book of that series into a movie. Granting it's successful we might see the chessmen on the screen. But, that is the 5th book so it would be awhile. ;)

[Roboramma]

It seems to me that a chessboard is a physical thing, it exists and we can sense it in some way, or it does not and not being able to sense it indicates that it is not there.

How would you be able to sense the chessboard if it is there?
Would the fact that we haven't seen it yet be evidence that it doesn't exist?

However, the concept of God is always one of a non-physical entity. Therefore, not being able to physically sense god is no more indication of his non-existance than not being able to physically sense justice is an indication that justice does not exist. It can be argued that neither exist :), but lack of a physical existance is not evidence that they do not exist.

The chessboard is something that we can't expect to have seen yet, even if it does exist. God is something that we can't expect to have seen yet (I say yet, because it's possible that god could make itself known if it wanted to), even if it does exist (actually this is only true for those versions of god that are still plausible - any version that we would expect evidence for we can be pretty sure doesn't exist).

I'm not trying to ram this down anyone's throat as though it were very profound, nor do I suggest it's my own idea. Just wondering what the response is. Afterall, you and others have forced me to reconsider my views in the past. :)

[Roboramma]

I thought it was the teapot orbiting Mars.

Maybe we could have a religious war. Blood running in the gutters and so forth.

The teapot is orbiting pluto!

I only want to help you. Your eternal soul is at risk if you maintain this heresy. Read the Holy Tea Brewing Manual, and repent!

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker I like your argument. But doesn't it presuppose that the only way that chessboards can exist are the ways that we know of (someone making one)?

Yes. It does. If some other method of chessboard making were employed, then my argument would be rather useless.

So, what if someone believed the other chessboard theories you mentioned, like free floating chessboards or reappearing lost chessboards or whatever? In other words, if there was no evidence at all, just faith. Would that be like belief in gods or God?

It would be much more similar, but not exactly. Belief in gods came about because there were things that couldn't be explained. Some guy eats pork, and dies. Why? There must be a reason, right? So, someone speculates that maybe there is a supernatural being that hates pork eaters. OK. Problem solved. And, why are we here? The pork hater wanted us to be here, so he could tell us not to eat pork. And why did that horrible flood hit our city? Probably, people were sneaking in pork and eating it. It all makes sense.

Of course, as time goes on, someone discovers that there are little bugs in pork, and they might be the cause of deaths related to swine consumption. And with better weather prediction, some people might start saying that the flood was caused by a cold front, and not by sneaking a pig onto the barbie. But, then, why are we here? Well, that one still isn't explained, so maybe the pork hater is still there, and he didn't really hate pork as such, he just told us that for our own good until we discovered parasites.

Furthermore, there's plenty of argument from authority around. People have believed it for thousands of years, including my mom, so it must be right. My sister in law was hit by a car and miraculously recovered. And besides, those bad people on the other side of the hill say pork eating is ok. You aren't one of them are you? And lots of eyewitnesses in a town over across the river saw a statue of a pig struck by lightning. What more proof do you need? Those who have eyes, see.

The chessboard, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have had much of a history, and no one ever believed it until one day someone said, "Hey, buddy. You hear about the chessboard? Hey, would I lie to you?" So, belief in it is not very much like belief in God.

[Beth]

How would you be able to sense the chessboard if it is there?

Send a mars rover over to look for it.


Would the fact that we haven't seen it yet be evidence that it doesn't exist? Yes, it is evidence. But it is not proof that it doesn't exist. The more places you look and don't find it, the lower the probability that it exists. Once you have searched all possible locations (presuming it isn't mobile which adds another twist to the search) you could conclude that it's existance has probability zero. Most people are willing to accept that something doesn't exist before getting to zero because the cost of the search can become quite high and once you are 99% sure (or 95% or 99.9999% or whatever your personal threshold for belief is) it doesn't exist, you find that sufficient and stop looking.

The chessboard is something that we can't expect to have seen yet, even if it does exist. God is something that we can't expect to have seen yet (I say yet, because it's possible that god could make itself known if it wanted to), even if it does exist (actually this is only true for those versions of god that are still plausible - any version that we would expect evidence for we can be pretty sure doesn't exist).

I'm not trying to ram this down anyone's throat as though it were very profound, nor do I suggest it's my own idea. Just wondering what the response is. Afterall, you and others have forced me to reconsider my views in the past. :)

Many people over many generations have claimed they have experienced the existance of God on a personal subjective level. That's evidence for the existance of God. Not particularly good evidence, few here would consider it adequate to believe in god, but it is evidence. More than the Giant chessboard on Mars has.

[Roboramma]

The chessboard, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have had much of a history, and no one ever believed it until one day someone said, "Hey, buddy. You hear about the chessboard? Hey, would I lie to you?" So, belief in it is not very much like belief in God.

Good points all.

I think that from a personal perspective, belief in god feels very different from beleif in the chessboard. It feels good. It offers answers to questions that we don't have answers for - though there's not necessarily any reason to beleive that those answers are correct.
And I think you're right about history, as well. Though even if all the religious traditions somehow died tomorrow, new ones would probably start. Hell, new ones are starting all the time.

The similarity I see, though, is that we have as much reason to believe in the chessboard (now, anyway, though that could change if we explore mars) as we do to believe in god. And it makes one think.

My own evolution of belief went from being a nominal christian who knew very little about the religion (christian by name only because my parents were, went to church once or twice/year), to an atheist because I couldn't come to terms with the idea of hell, to the realisation that one could believe in god without hell, to a beleif in an undefined deity, until I realised that said deity was little more than the physical laws of nature, and might as well simply be named, "gravity, QM, thermodynamics, etc." rather than "god", espeicially since the one thing that was different - the assumption of intelligence - was the one thing that I had no evidence for - no reason to believe.
So now I just call myself an agnostic atheist.

Anyway, personal stories aside, that evolutoin of belief continues, and I like to ask questions - specifically, "Why do I (or we) believe this?" I prefer not to beleive things that i don't have any reason to, though often I do, without realising it.

I guess I posed this question (poorly worded though it was), because I wonder if there is another answer - is it reasonable to believe things when there is no reason to do so?
And even if not, is it possible that there is good reason to believe in things even when there is no evidence that they are true?

Both are questions that I have an opinion on (and one which i will continue to argue until someone comes up with a point that convinces me, because that's the best way for me to come to a better understanding), but I also don't pretend to have any answers.

[Roboramma]

Send a mars rover over to look for it.
That could take a while. In the meantime you're stuck with the fact that you can't see mars well enough to look and confirm or deny the existence of the chessboard.

Yes, it is evidence. But it is not proof that it doesn't exist. The more places you look and don't find it, the lower the probability that it exists.
True. But considering how little of mars we've looked at, we've very little evidence one way or the other.

Once you have searched all possible locations (presuming it isn't mobile which adds another twist to the search) you could conclude that it's existence has probability zero.

Unless you missed it. Or it was invisible. Or even if it doesn't move on it's own, someone else found it first and took it away.

Most people are willing to accept that something doesn't exist before getting to zero because the cost of the search can become quite high and once you are 99% sure (or 95% or 99.9999% or whatever your personal threshold for belief is) it doesn't exist, you find that sufficient and stop looking.
That's true, except that since there are other possible reasons that you might not have found it, other than it's not being there, it's hard to calculate those probabilities.

Many people over many generations have claimed they have experienced the existence of God on a personal subjective level. That's evidence for the existence of God. Not particularly good evidence, few here would consider it adequate to believe in god, but it is evidence. More than the Giant chessboard on Mars has.

It may be evidence, but we have another very good explanation for why people would make that claim that doesn't require God. I would call it broadly "human psychology", but I think you know what i mean. It contains many different explanations under that heading.
If I showed you a very good card trick as evidence of paranormal powers, you might take that as decent evidence. If I then showed you how I did the trick, you would say that the initial evidence is meaningless.
Why, because it's consistent with both the theory that I have paranormal powers, and the one that I don't. Suggesting that I have paranormal powers requires evidence new evidence now - the first card trick may as well not have happened, for all your conclusion is concerned.

(Oh, and the chessboard is normal sized.;) or maybe it's so large we don't notice it. Or very small.)

[Meadmaker]

It may be evidence, but we have another very good explanation for why people would make that claim that doesn't require God.

True enough, but why would a given individual bother looking for a second explanation? They have an explanation, God, and it works for them. Meanwhile, the chessboard belief does nothing for them.

One of the things I see happen a lot in religious discussiong is the use of phrases like, "we have another very good explanation". Who is this "we"? Can we really say what explanations "we" have? Each individual has his own set of explanations, and he may not be all that familiar with every other possible explanation.

It is that phenomenon that makes me say frequently that religious belief is wrong, but it isn't stupid. The people who believe it have beliefs that are perfectly consistent with what they see, what they experience, and what they live with on a day to day basis. It helps them in their lives, and they are able to lead good and fulfilling lives and contribute to society. Should we chastise them for not looking for alternative philosophies?

I have absolutely no interest in the principles of accounting, and yet they probably have more day to day influence in my life than the problem of accounting for abiogenesis. Am I some sort of fool because I haven't spent a great deal of time understanding the corporate finance of companies I invest in? I don't think so. I know enough to get by, and if my curiousity is ever aroused, I might look into it further. Meanwhile, I have plenty of other things to occupy my time. For example, I seem to enjoy discussing religion with anonymous strangers.

The religious people have evidence from their personal experience and the experience from previous generations. They have a set of beliefs consistent with that evidence. Why should they bother looking for an alternative explanation?

A friend of mine used to have a saying, "The doctors tell me the voices are bad. The voices tell me the doctors are bad. I say, 'Who do I have to live with every day?' ".

Of course he was being flippant, but in the case of God, why should those people who have a subjective experience of God go looking for some alternate, non-godly, explanation? They live with God every day, and it doesn't seem to do them any harm.

[Bri]

Who here beleives in the chessboard on mars?

If not, why not?

If so, why?

I don't personally believe that there is a chessboard on Mars. Why not? Because I have no reason to believe it. However, I cannot fault someone for believing that there is a chessboard on Mars if they have a reason to believe it, mainly because I myself believe in a lot of things that I cannot prove (and so, most likely, do you).

-Bri

[Roboramma]

I don't personally believe that there is a chessboard on Mars. Why not? Because I have no reason to believe it. However, I cannot fault someone for believing that there is a chessboard on Mars if they have a reason to believe it, mainly because I myself believe in a lot of things that I cannot prove (and so, most likely, do you).

-Bri

Absolutely I do. My only response is that the above seems entirely reasonable.

I guess my finding fault or not in that belief would depend upon what their reason was (not requiring proof of course). For the same reason that I can find fault in support for homeopathy, or belief in alien abduction, though their supporters may have reason to believe in those things.

[Bri]

I guess my finding fault or not in that belief would depend upon what their reason was (not requiring proof of course). For the same reason that I can find fault in support for homeopathy, or belief in alien abduction, though their supporters may have reason to believe in those things.

Fair enough, but of course what you feel is a valid reason is simply your opinion as well. People actually have valid reasons for believing in all sorts of things despite a lack of proof. Even though I might not agree with your reasons, that doesn't necessarily make them irrational.

-Bri

[Bri]

On a related note, does changing "chessboard on Mars" to "intelligent life on other planets" affect the equation in any way?

-Bri

[Roboramma]

Fair enough, but of course what you feel is a valid reason is simply your opinion as well. People actually have valid reasons for believing in all sorts of things despite a lack of proof. Even though I might not agree with your reasons, that doesn't necessarily make them irrational.

-Bri

True. And since no two people have the same experience, it's difficult to get the exact same outlook on the truth or falsehood of a claim.

But, I guess part of my question here is, what constitutes evidence? and is beleif without evidence valid?

When I say this, I am disregarding the other very important point that it isn't necessarily wrong or unintelligent to beleive something to be true that you reasonably admit is probably false if you just happen to want to believe it for emotional reasons. I'd rather not, but that's just a personal choise and I can't really say that it's necessarily any better than anyone else's choise. Though there might be certain situations when I'd change that opinion. I have a very woo friend who believes any claim presented to him so long as it feels good. While I find it a little silly, I have never once tried to convert him to skepticism, because, well, he seems happy. Then again, he doesn't try to convince me of these things (well not too much anyway) either, so it's easy to have truce.

[Roboramma]

On a related note, does changing "chessboard on Mars" to "intelligent life on other planets" affect the equation in any way?

-Bri

Good question.

I think it does to a certain extent. This is a similar point to the one meadmaker made up thread.

If we assume a naturalistic explanation, then we do have evidence that life is at least possible elsewhere. But that's about all we know. I think a possitive beleif in intelligent life elsewhere is unwarranted, but like the point that you made in your last post, someone else could do the accounting differently and say that the evidence is so much in favour of it being somewhere that it's almost certain.

I'd have to just say I'm agnostic but hopeful. I don't believe but I hope. And I don't disbeleive either.

But with intelligent life at least there is evidence of a sort (we have evidence that life can spontaniously come about, that if it does it can evolve into more and more complex lifeforms, and even in some (maybe only one) cases intelligent life). We have evidence that the ingredients for life are common throughout the universe, though we don't know how often they all come together such that it would be possible for intelligent life.

There are a lot of unanswered questions, but at least we have somewhere to start. Similarly, as meadmaker pointed out, if we were to follow similar, naturalistic explanations of the chessboard we have very good reason to say it doesn't exist.
But if we allow other explanations, everything becomes unclear, and all the evidence we have one way or the other, sort of meaningless.

[Roboramma]

Fair enough, but of course what you feel is a valid reason is simply your opinion as well. People actually have valid reasons for believing in all sorts of things despite a lack of proof.
Oh, I just wanted to say, that while this is sometimes true, it isn't always. For instance, if someone's reason for believing something was demonstrably false, then my finding fault with it wouldn't be just my opinion. For instance, if someone said they didn't believe the theory of evolution to be accurate because it violates the second law of thermodynamics.

But this is just a quick addendum because I know it's not those cases that we're really discussing right now.

[Bri]

But, I guess part of my question here is, what constitutes evidence? and is beleif without evidence valid?

Like nearly everything else, evidence is subjective, both in terms of quantity and quality. Belief without definitive evidence is simply opinion, some of which is undoubtedly valid, some of which is arguably invalid (particularly opinions which are based on demonstratably flawed logic).

It should also be mentioned that we tend to base whether or not we have an opinion of something on how much importance we place on it. Most of us don't place a lot of importance on the question of whether there is a chessboard on Mars, and therefore most people are agnostic about the subject. There are other subjects about which nearly everyone has an opinion.

While I find it a little silly, I have never once tried to convert him to skepticism, because, well, he seems happy. Then again, he doesn't try to convince me of these things (well not too much anyway) either, so it's easy to have truce.

Tolerance of opposing opinions is very difficult to achieve, but I commend both you and your friend for respecting one another's differing viewpoints. More people should follow your lead.

Hopefully, your friend's willing acceptance of unsupported claims is tempered with some common sense and limited to those things that cannot hurt him (monetarily or physically). Belief in homeopathy to the exclusion of real medicine, for example, could make one "happy" right up until the moment of one's sudden demise.

-Bri

[rharbers]

I still do not understand about this chessboard. In an earlier post I requested pictures. After reading all the posts, I'm lost.

[Bri]

Oh, I just wanted to say, that while this is sometimes true, it isn't always. For instance, if someone's reason for believing something was demonstrably false, then my finding fault with it wouldn't be just my opinion. For instance, if someone said they didn't believe the theory of evolution to be accurate because it violates the second law of thermodynamics.

But this is just a quick addendum because I know it's not those cases that we're really discussing right now.

Good point. You're correct, of course. If someone's opinion is demonstratably false (or based on demonstratably false logic), then it isn't necessarily valid.

-Bri

[Roboramma]

I still do not understand about this chessboard. In an earlier post I requested pictures. After reading all the posts, I'm lost.
There aren't any pictures. But it may or may not be there. I don't know any more about it than you.

As epepke noticed, it was a poor atempt to make (I think) Bertrand Russel's point about the teacup in orbit (the mediocrity of the attempt being exacerbated by the fact that I've only got second hand accounts of his argument). I just didn't feel like using the same old example, it gets booring.

Wow. I need to get to sleep. I just spent two minutes staring at the word booring trying to see if I'd put 2 o's or 3.

[Bri]

If we assume a naturalistic explanation, then we do have evidence that life is at least possible elsewhere. But that's about all we know.

Similarly, it is possible that there is a chessboard on Mars (even if it was somehow smuggled on board the Mars rover).

But with intelligent life at least there is evidence of a sort (we have evidence that life can spontaniously come about, that if it does it can evolve into more and more complex lifeforms, and even in some (maybe only one) cases intelligent life). We have evidence that the ingredients for life are common throughout the universe, though we don't know how often they all come together such that it would be possible for intelligent life.

Given the amount of material out there and the expansiveness of space, we might expect there to be more evidence than there is. If a lack of evidence where evidence should be is considered evidence, then that might be considered evidence against intelligent aliens.

Although science believes that it is theoretically possible to "create" life from its ingredients, we haven't managed to do so (yet), much less create intelligent life. On the other hand, we know for a fact that we can create chessboards.

One might say that there is a better possibility of a chessboard existing on Mars than of the existance of intelligent aliens.

-Bri

[Bri]

Wow. I need to get to sleep. I just spent two minutes staring at the word booring trying to see if I'd put 2 o's or 3.

Not to mention the fact that the word "boring" has only one "o" in it!

-Bri

[Meadmaker]

Good point. You're correct, of course. If someone's opinion is demonstratably false (or based on demonstratably false logic), then it isn't necessarily valid.

-Bri

Sometimes, I find that something is "demonstrably false", but only to someone with a lot of background knowledge on a given subject. In that case the idea of whether an opinion "is valid" has to be considered.


For example, I'm the computer guy in my family, which means my wife frequently comes to me explaining why her computer is broken. The suggestion that operator error is involved rarely meets with a positive reception. At those times, I must walk a very difficult line. I must demonstrate to her that her opinion is perfectly valid and reasonable, however there is an alternative explanation.

I must also do this without appearing to be an arrogant person who thinks he knows everything.

It usually fails. I try to hide when she asks me a computer question.

Relating this to religious opinions, sometimes someone holds an opinion related to religion that is demonstrably false, but the falsity is only apparent if you have studied the situation. How often does it occur that someone brings up arguments about evolution that are based on "I read in a pamphlet that carbon dating of rocks is really inaccurate. How can they say the Earth is billions of years old when the carbon dating doesn't work anyway?"


The problem is that his opinion is perfectly valid. It just happens to be based on wrong information. (The argument is valid, but not sound.) However, that information is very difficult to obtain. Let's be honest, most of us don't know how to determine the age of a rock. We just trust the scientists who tell us how old the rocks are. We are using an argument from authority. So is the guy with the pamphlet. If that's the case, is our opinion truly more valid than his?

I think that's a mistake skeptics often make in arguing with religious and/or woo types. We forget that the information on which we base our opinions is actually pretty obscure stuff. We have to educate people about why their assumptions aren't correct, instead of calling them stupid for having those assumptions.

[Bri]

I think that's a mistake skeptics often make in arguing with religious and/or woo types. We forget that the information on which we base our opinions is actually pretty obscure stuff. We have to educate people about why their assumptions aren't correct, instead of calling them stupid for having those assumptions.

I must agree with your post in its entirety (even though I've only quoted a portion of it).

I will add that some skeptics believe that science can prove more than it actually can, so the argument goes both ways. It's important to be accurate and knowledgable when considering the validity of evidence.

-Bri

[Meadmaker]

Why thank you. I generally agree with you, too.

[Roboramma]

Relating this to religious opinions, sometimes someone holds an opinion related to religion that is demonstrably false, but the falsity is only apparent if you have studied the situation. How often does it occur that someone brings up arguments about evolution that are based on "I read in a pamphlet that carbon dating of rocks is really inaccurate. How can they say the Earth is billions of years old when the carbon dating doesn't work anyway?"

Good post meadmaker. It reminds me of when I first started reading about evolution. I was going to the library and picking up every interesting looking book I could find. But I noticed that there were a number of books around that had an opposing viewpoint - this theory is false, it's based on bad science, its ideological, etc.

So I picked up a few of those as well. In the beginning it was very difficult for me to judge between the two. When one book claimed that radiometric dating was inaccurate, I didn't know enough to know if it was true or not. When it claimed that the fossil record was increadibly weak, again same issue.
Well, I tried to keep on educating myself until I could judge fairly one way or the other, but yeah, it isn't easy when your background knowledge isn't that great to begin with to know who to trust.

Especially when both sides attack the other's integrity.