tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post8512733825841907292..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: The BasicsMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-60202312867264088072012-09-21T19:01:18.553-07:002012-09-21T19:01:18.553-07:00This article gives an account of the recent splits...This article gives an account of the recent splits in human populations, and a great diagram that goes with my earlier one<br /><br />http://io9.com/5944713/the-earliest-split-in-modern-humanity-was-100000-years-agoMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-3251543872800380332012-09-20T08:28:36.150-07:002012-09-20T08:28:36.150-07:00Thanks Brian. Umm, I think I detect more a desire...Thanks Brian. Umm, I think I detect more a desire to bicker about something (I'm not sure what) than interest in understanding the position I'm outlining. So I'm not sure I want to keep trying to clarify, esp if those efforts to clarify will just produce more sniping. But maybe I'm reading your tone wrong. The fallibilist view about reasoning and evidence that I've been espousing for years here, is, as far as I can tell, consistent. And it's not an exotic view--it's widely acknowledged by epistemologists and decision theorists. My claim was that your post didn't make sense, partly because of poor writing, not because I'm rejecting Aumann. <br /><br />I can add this previously unstated assumption to clarify the point about people being flagrantly irrational about The Basics. Given what the mainstream American with a standard K-12, and college education knows, and what she has an epistemic responsibility to know, it is flagrantly irrational to deny The Basics. They should know better, and are epistemically culpable for the denial. Ptolemy, who was not and COULD not be in possession of the relevant information is not similarly epistemically culpable for not accepting the basics. A person's social, historical, and epistemic context relativizes the list of propositions that she ought to accept in order to be rational. But again, this just isn't a controversial position among the experts on the question. Matt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-71149453854722788902012-09-20T07:08:50.324-07:002012-09-20T07:08:50.324-07:00"Sorry, that doesn't make any sense"..."Sorry, that doesn't make any sense"<br /><br />That didn't stop Aumann from earning a Nobel Prize in economics for it (and other work). Maybe I am misstating it, you should look into it. It makes sense to me.<br /><br />Somewhere a blogger once wrote:<br /><br /><i>A staggering and unsurpassed amount of work, critical reasoning, skeptical scrutiny, vetting, and aggressive efforts at disconfirmation that have gone into justifying this account of the history of everything. That is, the story is the result of the greatest minds in human history using our best methods for investigating the world. <br /><br />The arguments that one might make for some other version of events, or the evidence that one might cite to justify a contrary picture of reality, are all inferior. To prefer one of those alternative accounts of reality is, plainly stated, flagrantly irrational.</i><br /><br />If that is right, I would recommend rethinking your position. Or if the above wasn't intended to apply to math, game theory, etc., then it applies more broadly.<br /><br />The study of rationality as rooted in the study of idealized agents, and not in canons of reasoning, explains a lot of things and finds truths the other method missed. I believe it also explains your recent debate with Rauser. Something analogous to this (I can explain more at length later): there is a rule with an exception and an exception to the exception, and you discuss how the rule applies, and Rauser correctly argues that an exception applies, which you deny, and you are right in general because you are intuiting that an exception to the exception applies.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11958115795753496384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-62657430393323139342012-09-19T13:41:11.665-07:002012-09-19T13:41:11.665-07:00Sorry, that doesn't make any sense, and I stil...Sorry, that doesn't make any sense, and I still don't see any point of disagreement. It does seem like to me that someone else can be correctly applying the canons of deductive and inductive logic to a different body of information than mine and thereby reasonably arriving at some conclusion. That is how Ptolemy came to the rational conclusion that the Earth was at the center of the universe (and not the Sun), afterall. Matt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-75812852537524098072012-09-19T12:16:18.514-07:002012-09-19T12:16:18.514-07:00"After they have concurred on the same, relev..."After they have concurred on the same, relevant body of evidence, S and J cannot conclude about the other that he is being reasonable AND that he believes the opposite of me." <br /><br />True, so long as each is reasonable himself, but that's not a paraphrasing of the theorem, because it exchanges one condition for another. <br /><br />Even without discussing the evidence available to you about the external world, if each person is reasonable, and if you both discuss merely your conclusions (in light of the private evidence available to you) and confidence in them, and never discuss the evidence itself, you cannot conclude the other person has a different subsequent belief than yours and is rational, provided he correctly assumed you are rational.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11958115795753496384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-88325901905377602522012-09-19T07:28:20.534-07:002012-09-19T07:28:20.534-07:00Thanks Brian. But I don't see anything in thi...Thanks Brian. But I don't see anything in this brief description of Aumann's theorem that runs contrary to what I've said. If Smith and Jones are concerned to make progress on their disagreement, and if they are motivated to find the one, best justified conclusion, then they need to share their evidence. If you know something I don't about God, I want to hear it so that my considerations can be as comprehensive as possible. Your link says: "Aumann's agreement theorem says that two people acting rationally (in a certain precise sense) and with common knowledge of each other's beliefs cannot agree to disagree. More specifically, if two people are genuine Bayesian rationalists with common priors, and if they each have common knowledge of their individual posteriors, then their posteriors must be equal." That seems right to me. After they have concurred on the same, relevant body of evidence, S and J cannot conclude about the other that he is being reasonable AND that he believes the opposite of me. Feldman calls it the Uniqueness Condition. There is one and only one conclusion justified by any body of evidence when the cannons of inductive and deductive logic are applied to it. So if Smith and I disagree after sharing info, then I have to conclude that one of us is not being rational--he's either made a mistake, a fallacy, misapplied a rule of inference, or otherwise not been ideally rational. Feldman says we should both suspend judgment in this circumstance. Matt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-3852717778368938142012-09-19T05:18:30.492-07:002012-09-19T05:18:30.492-07:00"S and J are both reasonable, thoughtful peop..."S and J are both reasonable, thoughtful people...Smith and Jones need to share evidence."<br /><br />Surprisingly, that's not necessary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann's_agreement_theoremBrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11958115795753496384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-1884398756226211712012-09-18T12:54:55.484-07:002012-09-18T12:54:55.484-07:00Some more milestones I want to add to this list: ...Some more milestones I want to add to this list: <br />Sudden expansion of early hominid brain size: 800,000 to 200,000 years ago. <br />Emergence of human languages, approx. 100,000 years ago. Matt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-38158670485422207372012-09-14T11:02:45.278-07:002012-09-14T11:02:45.278-07:00Clearly I'm aware of that. What I'm not a...Clearly I'm aware of that. What I'm not aware of is evidence of religious practice among earlier hominids. Hence my wondering if an extra 0 had been added by accident.Asno Mudohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12538890836251895986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-91298845078900146212012-09-14T09:41:51.796-07:002012-09-14T09:41:51.796-07:00There are several "Human" species in anc...There are several "Human" species in ancient history, but the modern (our) "Human" species is homo sapien.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13811377248083409001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-12269888022768636922012-09-14T06:24:32.705-07:002012-09-14T06:24:32.705-07:00You state -
Modern humans (homo sapiens) origina...You state - <br /><br />Modern humans (homo sapiens) originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago. <br />Human religious behavior starts approximately 300,000 years ago.<br /><br />I'm taking it that you meant 30,000 years ago ... or do you have evidence of religious behaviour by earlier homo 'whatever'?Asno Mudohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12538890836251895986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-30301755436363086552012-09-13T16:49:12.637-07:002012-09-13T16:49:12.637-07:00I would like to add: that if one believes things c...I would like to add: that if one believes things contrary to any, well supported, scientific theory, one is responsible to provide an explanation of said belief that incorporates everything else we already know about the universe. In other words, there must be a replacement theory that explains the phenomenon better than the current theory.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13811377248083409001noreply@blogger.com