Common Sense: Toward a skeptical definition

[Piggy]

Been away for awhile, and browsing thru the posts I see several interesting new topics, as well as a lot of tired old illogical arguments. Sadly, some of the latter come from well-meaning skeptics who continue to fall for unreasonable lines of argument which seem to force the withholding of a conclusion where no such deference is warranted.

I'm wondering if maybe we can come to a meeting of the minds regarding a skeptic's definition of common sense.

I'll begin with one proposition: It is a violation of common sense to posit unfounded arguments which contribute nothing except to remove absolute conclusions from the table.

In other words, it is unreasonable to ask people to accept without evidence the plausibility of scenarios which render knowledge itself impossible per se.

Such pseudo-arguments include the hoary "brain in a vat" red herring, the proposition that our experience is a dream (or something akin to it) in which our memory of previous moments is entirely unreliable, and the argument that God put fossils in the rocks when He created the earth.

I often see or hear these types of proposals trotted out when an irrational position has been thoroughly discredited and there's nowhere else for the irrationalist to turn.

The problem is, of course, that if we allow this kind of unfounded argument, then essentially all bets are off. At that point, we might as well give up -- which is precisely the purpose (the sole purpose) of these canards.

As usual, I have much more to say than that, but I'll leave it there for the moment and see if anyone else is interested in the topic.

Cheers.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

How can we phrase our rejection of such arguments in a way that does not appear dismissive, while at the same time avoiding the devolvment of the topic into that of philosophical views?

[Katana]

Common sense = oxymoron

[T'ai Chi]

something like

if

scientific study(fact1, fact2, ...) --> conclusion

is a conclusion brought about from scientific studies, then

opinion(fact1, fact2, ...) --> w*conclusion

where w is between 0 and 1,

is a conclusion brought about by common sense.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think Piggy is more making the point that bringing up debate points. in an argument centered on science/scientific method/scientific process/etc, that are, by definition, not something that can be discussed meaninfully by science makes them moot and they should not be allowed in the discussion.

[Apathia]

I'll give one of the most infamous examples of what Piggy is talking about:

Presuppositonalism

It's a darling of late 20th Christian Creationist Apologetics. It goes:

Epistemology (The study of the ways and means by which we obtain knowledge) always depends upon arbitrarily accepted presuppostions that are outside emperical verification. Science too makes presuppostions that if not accepted would make its method meaningless. Therefore our worldviews are never completely objective, and can't be regarded as air tight knowledge.

Of course they don't stop there after trying to pull the rug out from under the efficacy and conclusions of Science. They go on to say:

But there is a way we can know the truth. It is the only way finite, limited creatures can know anything about Ultimate Reality. it's called Divine Revelation aka The Bible.

The first time I head this it was from a Bahai. Then a few months later, a Christian Pastor was using it. So I told him his problem.
How do we determine who has the correct Divine revelation?

Piggy is talking about arguments like that, that pain everyone into a useless corner.

[calebprime]

Been away for awhile, and browsing thru the posts I see several interesting new topics, as well as a lot of tired old illogical arguments. Sadly, some of the latter come from well-meaning skeptics who continue to fall for unreasonable lines of argument which seem to force the withholding of a conclusion where no such deference is warranted.

I'm wondering if maybe we can come to a meeting of the minds regarding a skeptic's definition of common sense.

I'll begin with one proposition: It is a violation of common sense to posit unfounded arguments which contribute nothing except to remove absolute conclusions from the table.

...

As usual, I have much more to say than that, but I'll leave it there for the moment and see if anyone else is interested in the topic.




Interesting.

For starters, a dictionary definition:

"sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence."

Maybe the definition is problematic because of the second part, with the word "native" (native = innate?)

On the other hand, I like this definition because of "sound" and "practical". We are not merely talking about some consensus about any subject at all. I also like how the definition rules out specialized knowledge. So we are not talking about astronomy. Common sense doesn't tell us, truly, whether the sun is going down or the horizen is going up.

Obviously, common sense doesn't know itself that well; many areas of life are treated as if they are well-covered by common sense but are more problematic: morals, diet, sex...

I don't know how philosophers here feel about G. E. Moore. He was interested enough in the topic in the 20's:

www.philosophypages.com/hy/6k.htm#comm


As far as conspiracy theories go, I do think that the best refutation comes from showing the absurd consequences of the belief and not from getting bogged down in technical details.

So the Conspiracy Theorist may be able to talk circles around you about some of the finer points of ballistics or 3" rebars, or whatever. But to believe the CT, you also have to believe, typically, that some large organization is capable of perpetuating ingenious fraud over a long time without leaving evidence, with sinister hidden motives. The consequences are absurd. I'm sure others have said this many, many times.

It's ok to dismiss the Breatharians with common sense, as Randi has done.

It's ok to evoke common sense when you can show someone that the peculiar belief in dispute contradicts everything else he/she knows and doesn't accord with the way he/she lives her life.

It's also ok to be straightforward about an argument one is using: to say it's common sense and not a subtle or abtruse kind of thinking at all.

Piggy says:

"Sadly, some of the (tired old illogical arguments) come from well-meaning skeptics who continue to fall for unreasonable lines of argument which seem to force the withholding of a conclusion where no such deference is warranted."

Without annoying anyone, Piggy, can you give some examples of that here?

(As new b., I find it bracing to try to think a little more rigorously than usual.)

I'd also like to read your other thoughts.

[Soapy Sam]

I'm wondering if maybe we can come to a meeting of the minds regarding a skeptic's definition of common sense.

I'll begin with one proposition: It is a violation of common sense to posit unfounded arguments which contribute nothing except to remove absolute conclusions from the table.


By tradition, on this forum , canards are "floated" .;)


The trouble with debating definitions is that it goes on for ever. This is most evident in so-called "philosophy " threads, where demands for precision in word use are met by endless recession into special cases and subdivisions - different "types" of "free will" for example, which beg the question of whether any such thing exists at all.

In the OP, you start with a defined violation of common sense before actually defining what is violated. (I am in sympathy with your intent, but it's an iffy way to define something).

There exists only one way to knowledge: Experience.
Codified by formal law and experiment, policed by peer review and open publication, this is "science" in its modern form.
Codified in personal and community memory, it is "wisdom"- recognition that life and the world have pattern and order and that these are observable and predictable. The two are substantially the same except for formalisations of structure and method.

The behaviour patterns arising in a rational person who shares such knowledge is what I call "common Sense".

It is context dependent in some cases. Common sense on a sailing ship may seem counter intuitive to a landlubber in certain cases, for instance, though there will be vast overlap. Some scientists are singularly lacking in common sense outwith their own field. (Sometimes within it).

Someone who knows what happens to people who fall out of trees can extrapolate to what happens in the case of a mast. This is common sense.
It is a human neural ability.

Some people, with specific neural damage, may be unable to do this sort of mental modelling or generalising.

There are cases where common sense is totally wrong. Misinterpretation of NASA photos of the lunar surface is one example. Common sense derives from experience and few people have experience of a horizon curving as the Moon's does, or of sunlight in a vacuum.
Not understanding why a spring makes a flag wave is not a failure of common sense. It's a failure to think.

Relativity. Quantum Mechanics. Lacking direct sensory experience, we have no common sense in these areas, which is why folk talk such rot about QM in particular.

Common sense is what brains do with real world patterns.

[Piggy]

How can we phrase our rejection of such arguments in a way that does not appear dismissive, while at the same time avoiding the devolvment of the topic into that of philosophical views?
Darned if I know. To me, that's part of a larger problem I run into just about every day -- how to avoid passively approving of the nonsense I hear (some of it truly dangerous) while at the same time not simply alienating folks I genuinely like and who I have to work with or live with.

I reckon what I'm after in this thread is the potential of a skeptical common ground regarding what doesn't fly and why.

For instance, the reason that arguments like "brain in a vat" or "God put the fossils there" or "we might be deluded by demons" won't fly is that (1) they are unsupported, and (2) they pull the rug out from under every possible position.

From a skeptical point of view, seems to me, these arguments have no foundation and serve no purpose except to scuttle debate, which makes them irrelevant on their face.

True, the metaphysical herring can be unholstered at this point: Well, that's just your skeptical bias and it shows that your worldview is totally relative. We've all heard it before. But seems to me there's just no way around getting this from certain quarters, and for this reason there's a need to determine if there is common ground among skeptical thinkers as to where common sense is violated.

[Piggy]

Obviously, common sense doesn't know itself that well; many areas of life are treated as if they are well-covered by common sense but are more problematic: morals, diet, sex...
Indeed. This is why general appeals to a generic "common sense" are in themselves suspect. E.g., it's simply common sense that a man who saw his wife shot point blank, while standing 2 feet from the shooter whom he had seen approach at a walking pace for several yards with his face uncovered, would not be mistaken in identifying the perpetrator. But making this "common sense" assumption is, as it turns out, unwarranted.

That's why I'm after something slightly different, something much more specific. My question is: For a skeptic, when do we cross the boundary into nonsense? More particularly, are there types of arguments that we encounter regularly which are nonsensical, irrelevant, etc. per se, and which can be succinctly described?

It's ok to evoke common sense when you can show someone that the peculiar belief in dispute contradicts everything else he/she knows and doesn't accord with the way he/she lives her life.
I would agree with the former, but not the latter. For example, I know the basics of a healthy diet and lifestyle, but I don't usually follow them. Then again, one could argue that my need for a cardiologist before the age of 40 (and despite my ID/avatar, I'm not even overweight) is sufficient to prove the point.

Without annoying anyone, Piggy, can you give some examples of that here?
Without annoying anyone? Probably not.

But here's one possible example, a single-post thread of mine which spun off a pair of threads regarding a similar topic, in which I reject the argument that there is a biologically mandated universal margin of doubt (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56175).

Although it has adherents among generally clear-headed skeptics, I find this assumption to be both unfounded and usually irrelevant to the arguments it is applied to. As far as I can see, it is mere dogma. But it's a tricky case requiring detailed thinking on topics that can be difficult to discuss, so I didn't want to bring that one up in the OP.

I'd also like to read your other thoughts.
You say that now.... ;)

[Piggy]

The trouble with debating definitions is that it goes on for ever.
Amen, brother.

This is most evident in so-called "philosophy " threads, where demands for precision in word use are met by endless recession into special cases and subdivisions - different "types" of "free will" for example, which beg the question of whether any such thing exists at all.
It seems a general plague of online boards that so few posters understand the concept, and usefulness, of stipulative definitions. And that is what I'm on about, of course.... a stipulative (or, to use your term, "context dependent") definition of skeptical common sense.

And don't get me started on the philosophers....

In the OP, you start with a defined violation of common sense before actually defining what is violated. (I am in sympathy with your intent, but it's an iffy way to define something).
I disagree. It is entirely possible and perfectly logical to define certain entities with regards to what they are not, or where their boundaries lie.

For instance, it's simple and useful to define "outer space" as everything outside the Earth's atmosphere. Wait a minute -- the philo objects -- what about the core of Jupiter... is that "outer space"? Sure, I say, why not? From our point of view, all the stars and planets are part of outer space. A perfectly good stipulative definition, quite utile. But we could also define it with reference to other objects and their atmospheres if we liked, and exclude any areas of a certain matter density of our choosing.

Or if someone visiting my home asked where my property is, I could say, "See that fence surrounding us? Cross it and you're leaving my property." Perfectly valid.

In fact, I doubt there is any possible positive definition of skeptical common sense (SCS). Which is why this thread is dedicated to attempting to get at it negatively, by describing cases which are clearly nonsensical.

I'm not after any global definition of SCS, hence the OP title "Toward a definition".

[sillyhead]

I think one can be dismissive without alienating someone. If I find myself entangled in something like that, I just shrug and say that I've already taken philosophy 101 a long time ago, and had exhausted myself by running in circles, and will not participate. It's a matter of choosing my own battles, and when finding myself involved in one that's different than the one I originally chose, getting the hell out of dodge, tactfully, but firmly. And I think it's healthy to draw those kinds of boundaries, ESPECIALLY with people I like and want to spend time with in the future.
Very cool topic, though! I'm enjoying the posts that are getting into the meat of these things.
Thanks,
C

[Piggy]

I think one can be dismissive without alienating someone. If I find myself entangled in something like that, I just shrug and say that I've already taken philosophy 101 a long time ago, and had exhausted myself by running in circles, and will not participate.
Philosophy 101 is one thing... the eternal and holy Word of almighty God is quite another.

There are certain points of view that brook no dissent. And these are very prevalent where I live.

Adding to the problem, if you're dealing with people who care about you, then if you give them reason to fear for your soul, you will cause them some very real anxiety.

Of course, there's much less of that to deal with here on the board, and much more of the philosophical onanism to be dealt with instead.*

*Yes, I know, Onan has been mis-read, but the term's contemporary meaning is what it is.

[sillyhead]

Oh, I'm from southern Mississippi and have family who are fundies, serious fundies. I know what you mean. But our relationship is MUCH better because I've persistently refused to engage in "that" kind of conversation with them. They do have my permission to pray for me, though. (:

ETA: And I've learned how to use their own philosphies against them in order to get out of talking to them about it. IE: "You believe that God answers your prayers, right? Then pray that I'll repent, and that's all you can do, then it's up to His Will, and I will have no choice but to go along with that, right? So you can just stop worrying about me. Now, about that squash casserole recipe...." (:

[Beth]

There are certain points of view that brook no dissent. And these are very prevalent where I live.

You seem that way yourself. In another thread you wrote: I, like Douglas Adams, hold a strong atheist position: There is no God. Period.

This is not an "opinion" or "belief", anymore than it's an opinion or belief that the sun and planets do not revolve around the Earth.

Perhaps some of the opposition you perceive is in response to your own strongly held point of view. I've noticed that when someone holds an extreme position (and yours is extreme), they often have a tendency to evoke in others holding an opposite point of view as much dogmatism about their own position as they perceive their opponent having. If you move a bit towards the center, others likely will as well.

[Piggy]

You seem that way yourself. In another thread you wrote:

I, like Douglas Adams, hold a strong atheist position: There is no God. Period.

This is not an "opinion" or "belief", anymore than it's an opinion or belief that the sun and planets do not revolve around the Earth.

Perhaps some of the opposition you perceive is in response to your own strongly held point of view. I've noticed that when someone holds an extreme position (and yours is extreme), they often have a tendency to evoke in others holding an opposite point of view as much dogmatism about their own position as they perceive their opponent having. If you move a bit towards the center, others likely will as well.

Extremism exists where there is rational room for debate yet reasonable alternatives are rejected on the grounds of mere dogma.

However, there is no reason whatsoever to "move a bit towards the center" on the issues of geocentrism, flat earth, Holocaust denial, creationism, homeopathy, or any other such unfounded nonsense.

These ideas are not nonsense because I declare them so. They are nonsense because they do not hold up to scrutiny, and are in fact disproven by rational inquiry. Rejecting them is in no way extreme or dogmatic.

Similarly, the God theory is unfounded and roundly disproven. My position is not extreme. I cannot "move a bit towards the center" when it comes to utter fantasy. To do so would be dishonest and absurd.

[Piggy]

Before this thread gets derailed, I think Beth's post serves as an example of an ill-formed argument.

Because some extremists claim without evidence that a thing is true, then any claim of truth becomes open to charges of extremism even if reasonable support has been offered. (I couldn't help but note that the evidentiary portion of my post was omitted, and the claim isolated in the citation as though it had been merely asserted.)

So, another proposal: It is a violation of common sense to equate supported claims with unsupported claims on merely superficial grounds.

In this case, my position regarding God was lumped together with unsupported dogmatism on the mere claim that it is "extreme". However, the religious fundamentalists reject dissent on irrational grounds, such as claims of delusion by the Devil, or the necessity of faith; whereas my rejection of the God theory is based upon evidence and rational inquiry.

I do not want to turn this into another thread about theism/atheism. My apologies for bringing it up.

I do not assert here that belief in God is a violation of common sense.

I do, however, assert that Beth's specific objection to my position above is not sensible. And for that reason -- and that reason alone -- the topic is relevant here.

[Euromutt]

I think Instant Sunshine (http://www.instantsunshine.co.uk/) put it best:

"'Common' is derived from the Middle English comun meaning, 'of the people, vulgar, or rude,' while 'sense' is derived from the Latin sensus meaning 'perception' or 'thought.' So, essentially, 'common sense' means 'rude thought.'
Wait, that can't be right..."

[Beth]

My apologies. I thought you were interested in how you might change your behavior to make it easier to get along with those who believe differently from you. Apparently, I was mistaken.

Extremism exists where there is rational room for debate yet reasonable alternatives are rejected on the grounds of mere dogma.

Yet, that is exactly what you are doing in the thread I tood the your quote from. Your position is extremist. Incidently, this is not uncommon in people who hold beliefs similar to yours. In the little research that's been done on atheists, they have been shown to be roughly equivalent to fundamentalists regarding dogmatism of their beliefs.

[Piggy]

My apologies. I thought you were interested in how you might change your behavior to make it easier to get along with those who believe differently from you. Apparently, I was mistaken.
Well, you're not really mistaken. I do want to be able to get along -- of course, in a skeptics' forum I do not feel compelled to disguise my thoughts the way I do with my family, co-workers, and even certain friends. The problem is how to get along with folks while not seeming to passively endorse false ideas. However, actually adopting a position which condones nonsense is not a viable option.

Yet, that is exactly what you are doing in the thread I tood the your quote from. Your position is extremist.
I suppose you could call it extremist in that it is (a) absolute, and (b) in the small minority. But so what? By that definition, the assertion that no unicorns exist would be "extremist", as would (in my area) a clear understanding of quantum mechanics or general relativity. And yet niether of these positions is false, and neither requires (or would benefit from) any sort of movement toward "the middle".

And no, I am not merely asserting in the thread you cited. I have provided explanations and support, but you have chosen to omit/ignore them.

Incidently, this is not uncommon in people who hold beliefs similar to yours. In the little research that's been done on atheists, they have been shown to be roughly equivalent to fundamentalists regarding dogmatism of their beliefs.
I would very much like to see that research. Most atheists I know came to their conclusion on the subject via rational thought. They weren't brought up atheists. One good friend of mine was raised atheist -- the only one I knew as a kid, his father (a biologist) moved here from out West -- but he and his sister weren't taught atheism as a point of dogma, but rather as a supported and reasoned position.

I have no doubt that atheists and fundamentalists score similarly on measurements of the strength of their convictions. However, fundamentalists base their convictions on faith and accepted authority. Atheists, in my experience, base their convictions on evidence and logic.

And this is the difference.

Once again, you're lumping me with the irrationalists on apparently superficial grounds.

In any case, if you want to discuss this further, how bout we move it over to the thread you took the quote from? I don't think chasing this rabbit is useful on this thread.

[Beth]

Well, you're not really mistaken. I do want to be able to get along -- of course, in a skeptics' forum I do not feel compelled to disguise my thoughts the way I do with my family, co-workers, and even certain friends. The problem is how to get along with folks while not seeming to passively endorse false ideas. However, actually adopting a position which condones nonsense is not a viable option.

Given your broad definition of "nonsense" you don't want to mistaken for passively endorsing, I can well imagine that you find it difficult.


I suppose you could call it extremist in that it is (a) absolute, and (b) in the small minority. But so what? By that definition, the assertion that no unicorns exist would be "extremist", as would (in my area) a clear understanding of quantum mechanics or general relativity. And yet niether of these positions is false, and neither requires (or would benefit from) any sort of movement toward "the middle".

No, I don't consider the other assertions to be extremist. I find your claim regarding the non-existance of God being as well-establish as the earth rotating around the sun to be extremist. I'd be quite interested to see a proof with the same level of mathematical certainty based on approximately the same caliber and quantity of objective observations as for the heliocentric orbit. But, forgive my skeptism, I doubt one exists.


And no, I am not merely asserting in the thread you cited. I have provided explanations and support, but you have chosen to omit/ignore them.

Might as well leave them in that thread. They are unimpressive and do nothing but confirm my opinion that you dogmatically hold an extremist position on the subject.

I would very much like to see that research. Most atheists I know came to their conclusion on the subject via rational thought. They weren't brought up atheists. One good friend of mine was raised atheist -- the only one I knew as a kid, his father (a biologist) moved here from out West -- but he and his sister weren't taught atheism as a point of dogma, but rather as a supported and reasoned position.

No problem: Check out "Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers" by Bruce E. Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer.

In any case, if you want to discuss this further, how bout we move it over to the thread you took the quote from? I don't think chasing this rabbit is useful on this thread. I agree.

[Piggy]

Well, actually, we did get something relevant out of it....

I find your claim regarding the non-existance of God being as well-establish as the earth rotating around the sun to be extremist. I'd be quite interested to see a proof with the same level of mathematical certainty based on approximately the same caliber and quantity of objective observations as for the heliocentric orbit. But, forgive my skeptism, I doubt one exists.

The fallacy here is to demand one sort of evidence for any and every claim.

I won't go into detail here -- see the other thread -- but to expect "mathematical certainty" and "objective observations" with regard to God makes no sense, as claims about God are not mathematical, and adherents go out of their way to insist that lack of objective observations of God are irrelevant. (Sure, that's a bit wacky, but so is the concept of God itself.)

The God theory is disproven on other grounds, and there's no justification for rejecting them because they're not of the same type we use to disprove very different notions such as geocentrism.

Nevertheless, there is ample reason to reject the God-concept, including complete lack of valid evidence, superstitious origins, utter lack of explanatory power, lack of generally accepted core qualities, internal contradictions and conflict with accepted science, a history of continual tweaking (even overhauling) of the theory as particulars are disproven, and so on.

In other words, it violates common sense to give serious consideration to an incoherent and jerry-rigged theory that has no objective support yet introduces innumerable problems and contradictions.

<sigh> Looks like it's turned into a God thread. Time to abandon it. Oh well. Tomorrow's another day.

[Beth]

Well, actually, we did get something relevant out of it....



I find your claim regarding the non-existance of God being as well-establish as the earth rotating around the sun to be extremist. I'd be quite interested to see a proof with the same level of mathematical certainty based on approximately the same caliber and quantity of objective observations as for the heliocentric orbit. But, forgive my skeptism, I doubt one exists.


The fallacy here is to demand one sort of evidence for any and every claim.

As I predicted, you cannot produce such a proof.

I won't go into detail here -- see the other thread -- but to expect "mathematical certainty" and "objective observations" with regard to God makes no sense, as claims about God are not mathematical, and adherents go out of their way to insist that lack of objective observations of God are irrelevant. (Sure, that's a bit wacky, but so is the concept of God itself.)
The God theory is disproven on other grounds, and there's no justification for rejecting them because they're not of the same type we use to disprove very different notions such as geocentrism.
Sorry, but if you want to claim the same level of certainty for the non-existance of God that you claim for the heliocentric model of the solar system, you need an equally incontrovertible level of proof. Would you settle for less to establish the existance of God?

Nevertheless, there is ample reason to reject the God-concept, including complete lack of valid evidence, superstitious origins, utter lack of explanatory power, lack of generally accepted core qualities, internal contradictions and conflict with accepted science, a history of continual tweaking (even overhauling) of the theory as particulars are disproven, and so on.

Okay. I have no disagreement that you have ample reason to reject the God-concept. What I have disagreement with is the claim that the rejection of the God-concept is so strongly backed up by evidence that it is on a par with the rejection of the earth-centered solar system, and that everyone should believe as you do and reject the God-concept. The evidence does not justify your position.

In other words, it violates common sense to give serious consideration to an incoherent and jerry-rigged theory that has no objective support yet introduces innumerable problems and contradictions.

<sigh> Looks like it's turned into a God thread. Time to abandon it. Oh well. Tomorrow's another day.

Yes, I should probably post this in the other thread. Sorry. Anyway, over there Undercover Elephant has expressed the ideas I've tried to get across only he did it better.

[Soapy Sam]

As I predicted, you cannot produce such a proof.

Sorry, but if you want to claim the same level of certainty for the non-existance of God that you claim for the heliocentric model of the solar system, you need an equally incontrovertible level of proof. Would you settle for less to establish the existance of God?

should believe as you do and reject the God-concept. The evidence does not justify your position.


Beth you cannot possibly be serious here. We need not even postulate invisible unicorns. I stipulate that there is no lawnmower in my garage. I can show you a photograph of what I claim is my garage and there is no lawnmower there. I have no lawn. I live three floors up.
I cannot show you equations which prove the absence of lawnmower.

Different claims require different standards of proof.

Piggy- I'd still quibble about definition by exception. Yes it's possible in principle, but there may be an infinite number of exceptions. Even simple boundaries may be trickier to establish than you would think. Is your car still your property if parked in my garage? (There is space where the lawnmower should be). I suppose it's the same argument as above, essentially. Some things are easily defined inclusively, others exclusively. Horses for courses.

[Beth]

Beth you cannot possibly be serious here. We need not even postulate invisible unicorns. I stipulate that there is no lawnmower in my garage. I can show you a photograph of what I claim is my garage and there is no lawnmower there. I have no lawn. I live three floors up.
I cannot show you equations which prove the absence of lawnmower.

Different claims require different standards of proof. No argument there. But I'm arguing over piggy's claim that the evidence for the non-existance of god is as well-proven as the evidence that the sun doesn't actually circle the earth. If he want's to claim that the evidence for both are equivalent, then he'll have to produce equivalent evidence. He hasn't and he can't. It simply isn't true.

[Piggy]

If he want's to claim that the evidence for both are equivalent, then he'll have to produce equivalent evidence.
Your error here is to assume that 2 false notions, of very different type, should be demonstrated as false using the same type of evidence.

The type of evidence used depends on the nature of the assertion, not on the conclusion reached.

Would you ask for mathematical evidence that flying horses are purely mythical?

If so, then you're like the drunk who loses his car keys in the gutter, but looks for them under the streetlight because the light is better. I suspect that you want mathematical proofs because statistics is your field. But maybe I'm wrong.

In any case, your insistence on an inappropriate type of evidence is simply wrong-headed. It defies common sense.

[Beth]

Your error here is to assume that 2 false notions, of very different type, should be demonstrated as false using the same type of evidence.

The type of evidence used depends on the nature of the assertion, not on the conclusion reached.

I agree, the type of evidence used depends on the nature of the assertion. However, the strength of the conclusion drawn does depends on the type of evidence used. The difference in the nature of the evidence means that the objective certainty you are claiming is simply not possible to obtain - at least, not the evidence you have available to draw your conclusion from.

You are claiming certainty of a conclusion equivalent to that based on mathematical proofs and extensively corroborated observations without the equivalent of the corroborating evidence that was accumulated in dismissing the theory of an earth-centered solar system.

Would you ask for mathematical evidence that flying horses are purely mythical?

Well, if you want to claim that no flying horses exist anywhere in the universe or out of it with the same level of certainty you are claiming for the non-existance of God, then I will ask for far more extensive and better grounded evidence than to simply claim that no flying horses exist anywhere on earth. The differing nature of the claim does indeed require different sorts of evidence. Alternatively, given the same evidence available for both claims, we can state with reasonable certainty that flying horses (other than on board airplanes) don't exist on earth. We do NOT have the same certainty that flying horses do not exist elsewhere.

In any case, your insistence on an inappropriate type of evidence is simply wrong-headed. It defies common sense.

Well, I'm mainly insisting on it only to make a point - i.e that your level of certainty in your conclusion is unfounded and inappropriate. NOTE: This is NOT the same as saying your conclusion is unfounded and inappropriate.