My apologies for misspelling your name all along. I’m mildly dyslexic.

DD’s written upwards of 20 posts in this series, and I’m going through each and every one of them writing a week-by-week, post-by-post analysis in attempt to be sure I’ve not missed pertinent comments. Believe me, although I’d give anyone here the shirt off my back and buy them dinner and beer if they needed it, you folks and your arguments here (for whatever they’re worth) certainly are not my life’s priority.

I will gladly admit that I have a boner for cl. I look forward to his comments, mainly because of the responses they elicit.

I suggest we set up a cl-clock, similar to the Sylvia Browne Clock, to document how long it will be until he produces his promised rigorous thesis. Phase One of the clock should be “date from announcement of thesis” to “date a hypothetical completion date is offered”. Wasn’t the first mention of an exhaustive rebuttal about three weeks ago? Still no estimated date of completion.

Well, that would pretty much wrap it up for God then. Thanks.

I feel that’s very oversimplified logic – but I’m sure my opinion shouldn’t bother you.

ThatOtherGuy,

Oh, yeah.. because of me. Probably nothing to do with folks like yourself who refuse to take accountability for factually incorrect statements until absolutely forced. That couldn’t have anything to do with it, right? Nor does it probably have anything to do with folks like 5keptical whose claims to be oh-so-rational seem oddly juxtaposed against ad hominem smirks that typically accompany the irrational. It probably doesn’t have anything to do with basic math either – you know – like the fact that I’m constantly conversing 6 people all who seem like they have boners for me or something.

Should I just sit back and let folks like yourself run their mouths while simultaneously and hypocritically adding nothing pertinent to the discussion? Where’s the fun in that? You (and anyone else who claims I’m rationalizing before hearing my case) can jump to conclusions about me all you want. All it does is further betray your appeals to rationalism.

I’ve been busy re-reading all these posts, like I said. Now go ahead and make another reply that has nothing to do with the discussion.

Remember who you’re talking to, here. Post after post have been turned into 40+ comment discussions because of this guy.

Well, that would pretty much wrap it up for God then. Thanks.

Ha! The Loser’s Compromise? I wasn’t aware the discussion had been resolved yet.

It is helpful to understand the difference between honest inquiry and mere obstructive rationalization, so that we can resolve the discussion.

DD:

This is going to be true in any question of objective fact: at most one conclusion will be consistent with the actual real-world truth

cl:

In my friend analogy – although only one hypothesis is correct in actuality – all available evidence was equally consistent with both hypotheses.

What I actually said is true: given a selection of mutually contradictory conclusions about the real world, at most one of them will be consistent with the real world truth. This is because if two conclusions contradict each other, they can’t both be consistent with the real world truth which does not contradict itself.

By switching the topic from true conclusions to ambiguous evidence, cl claims a refutation he has not earned. And in fact, his point reinforces my own (thanks cl!). The whole point of my post above is that we can indeed contrive a biased and selective view of the evidence which does indeed convince us that no knowledge of the truth is possible. That alternative, however, is the Loser’s Compromise, because it seeks to avoid honest and effective inquiry by denying us access to the differences which would allow us to distinguish truth from falsehood.

You have witnessed a car accident. That is considered knowledge from work (objective evidence), good enough for a court of law.

As opposed to “you do not know if a car accident occurred, I therefore declare your lack of information allows me justification to believe the accident did occur”

That is knowledge without work, and would be rejected by me (and a court of law, and science)

It is still the case that the actual real-world truth of things only supports one conclusion.

Correct. I never said it wasn’t.

TOG,

Between the More OxyContin Hypothesis and the Methadone To Quit Hypothesis, how would you suggest we apply the principle of parsimony? Wouldn’t any pronunciation of which hypothesis constitutes the least complex explanation remain entirely arbitrary?

R.C.,

It’s hard to tell which (if any) parts of your comment are directed at me. You griped about my use of the word “conclusions,” but I was just responding to the actual word DD used. Perhaps you should take that up with him? Also, I don’t abide by the axiom “If you don’t know everything, then anything I fill into the gaps of your knowledge is considered true by default.”

I reject claimed knowledge without work..

I don’t. If I witness a car accident, I feel I have sufficient grounds to claim knowledge, and I’ve done zero work. I’d also be interested in hearing your opinions on the concept of philosophical knowledge.

Do you deny that all available evidence was equally consistent with both hypotheses in my friend analogy?

No; it’s true that all the evidence available to you was inadequate. But that just means that, for whatever reason, you were short of definitive evidence. It is still the case that the actual real-world truth of things only supports one conclusion.

The point here is that the belief is considered equally justified. No real conclusions are being compared at all. No one “concludes” Sherlock Holmes existed (unless they are quite detached from reality) They just “believe it”, and claim their belief is equivalent, because they subscribe to the axiom of “If you don’t know everything, then anything I fill into the gaps of your knowledge is considered true by default”.

An example: “No one knows how to describe the state of things before the initial conditions of the creation of Universe (Big Bang). Therefore, I say there was a Creator, who created those initial conditions.”

It took centuries of very hard work (objective evidence) to get close to the knowledge those initial conditions, and then, without any work at all, superior knowledge is claimed.

I reject claimed knowledge without work, as it cannot be differentiated from nonsense. It arises from nothing, or tautologies, and leads nowhere. It lacks any objectively defined attributes, or any mapping functions which can can create defined attributes.

It is merely the “belief” that one is right, a position that can be held by anyone about anything. And who cares about that?

I’ve already shown that to be false with a real-world example.”

And that’s what Parsimony is for.

Yes, some deity COULD be directing evolution with a desire to eventually produce humanity so that he can start loving meaningful relationships with them (after lovingly putting their ancestors through the meat grinder that is natural selection). Or it could just be, y’know. Entirely natural.

Whether or not you are capable of conclusively determining how a landform formed, or what a secretive friend really wants, it is still the case that only one conclusion is really the case.

Correct. It is not still the case that in any question of objective fact at most one conclusion will be consistent with the actual real-world truth, which are the words DD used. In my friend analogy – although only one hypothesis is correct in actuality – all available evidence was equally consistent with both hypotheses.

Do you deny that all available evidence was equally consistent with both hypotheses in my friend analogy? Or are we in agreement now?

I’ve already shown that to be false with a real-world example.

Whether or not you are capable of conclusively determining how a landform formed, or what a secretive friend really wants, it is still the case that only one conclusion is really the case.

Appealing the the Loser’s Compromise would be foolish under these conditions. (sic)

I agree – under those conditions.

This is going to be true in any question of objective fact: at most one conclusion will be consistent with the actual real-world truth,

I’ve already shown that to be false with a real-world example.

To treat all conclusions as equally justified is to prevent oneself from distinguishing between true answers and false ones.

Sure – if that’s our general approach to epistemology – but who treats all conclusions as equally justified?