5 ms·

Wait, how does probability factor in to this. What is meaning of a 30% valid argument in this context? If you can't prove something, it doesn't mean that the

Wait, how does probability factor in to this. What is meaning of a 30% valid argument in this context? If you can't prove something, it doesn't mean that the answer is probabilistic. I'm not interested in if any particular religion makes sense or doesn't make sense to you. My point is that the the debate over different religions is at its core a philosophical argument not a scientific one. A point you confirmed by making a philosophical argument against religion rather than a scientific one.

Houshalter 13y ago
Probability applies to everything. I'm not going to buy stock in some company just because I can't "prove" it won't go up by 5,000% tomorrow. The scientific method is just a special case of probabilistic reasoning where you try to get so much evidence that your probability estimate is very very close to 100% or 0% (but it's still never completely certain. The evidence could have been faked or just a coincidence, or there could be a better theory out there that also explains the evidence, etc.) All beliefs are just probability estimates of how certain you are that they are true. If you are very certain of something then you must have a high probability estimate that it is true. If you aren't certain then it must be lower. If you say "I'm 90% sure this will happen." Then you should expect to be right about 90% of the time you say that. If what I'm saying isn't intuitively obvious or if you just want to learn more, read this: http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes/ http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes/ In any case the idea that religion isn't disprovable is completely false: http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions_claim_to_be_nondisprovable/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions_claim_to_be_nondisprova...
- eeperson 13y ago
  I understand that statistics are an important tool in 'proving' things scientifically. The problem is, you're making a philosophical argument against religion not a scientific one. Probabilistic solutions don't sense for philosophical questions. For example, what is the probability that P=NP? The lesswrong article you linked to does not disprove religion. You certainly can disprove dogmatic ideas that have surrounded various religions, but that is not the same thing as disproving religion. For example, what if I said I believed that the universe was created by a conscious creator? This is clearly a religious statement, but as far as I can tell there is no way this statement can be addressed scientifically.
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    >For example, what is the probability that P=NP? I would say less than 1%. That is if you were to bet me $1 that next year someone will mathematically prove that, I would bet up to $100 that it doesn't. I am not talking about statistics here but uncertainty. Probability in the Bayesian sense is just a measure of how certain you are of something. I can't prove that the sun won't rise tomorrow. Even if we didn't have any scientific understanding of what the sun was or why it appeared to orbit the Earth, I still would bet at great odds that it would also rise the next day. So what is the certainty that the universe was created by a conscious creator? Well we can look at all the possible explanations and assume they have equal probability. Then you can use Occam's Razor and assume that simpler hypotheses are far more likely to be true than more complex ones (and a god is a rather complex one as it has to explain the existence of an intelligent being with the power and desire to create universes.) You can call this a "philosophical" argument or a "scientific" one, or something else entirely. Science is basically the same thing, assuming simpler theories over more complex ones, and assigning certainty to different theories. Also there is nothing special about religion. All the same arguments would apply when talking about, say, the existence of an invisible pink dragon that resides in my garage. I'm guessing your certainty of that is rather low though.
    - eeperson 13y ago
      That is a gross misunderstanding of both uncertainty and science. Uncertainty is based on measurements made. The 1% you came up with is an entirely made up number. Also, science is explicitly not about assumptions. It is requires testable predictions. The complexity of the solutions does not matter. Otherwise we would still be using Newtonian mechanics for everything. The problem with your dragon example is that it is testable. This moves it in to the realm of science.
      - Houshalter 13y ago
        Science is merely a special case of Bayesian probability theory. You don't have to have evidence in order to assign a probability to something. In fact it's impossible to update probability estimates without already having a prior probability. Anyways you can't say the invisible dragon in my garage is testable. Say you throw flour on it. I just say "maybe the dragon is impermeable to flour." You try to touch it. I say "It moved to avoid being touched." You listen for sounds. I say "it's a quiet dragon." Etc. This is similar to religions constantly changing every time some fact they claim gets proven false. I could always just say "the existence or non-existence of the dragon is outside the realm of science." At the end of the day I still highly doubt you are going to believe there is a dragon in my garage. In fact I doubt you will accept even the tiniest possibility that there is a dragon in my garage. Well maybe tiny possibility but not worth considering. Not any larger than any other crazy idea people can come up with. This is perhaps a very complicated way of reasoning back to the standard idea most scientists will tell you: "It's stupid to believe things without evidence" or "most theories turn out to be wrong." As I said, religion isn't special. Everything here applies to it just as much as the dragon. A good explanation of Bayesian reasoning: http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes/ http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes/

Houshalter 13y ago

Probability applies to everything. I'm not going to buy stock in some company just because I can't "prove" it won't go up by 5,000% tomorrow. The scientific method is just a special case of probabilistic reasoning where you try to get so much evidence that your probability estimate is very very close to 100% or 0% (but it's still never completely certain. The evidence could have been faked or just a coincidence, or there could be a better theory out there that also explains the evidence, etc.) All beliefs are just probability estimates of how certain you are that they are true. If you are very certain of something then you must have a high probability estimate that it is true. If you aren't certain then it must be lower. If you say "I'm 90% sure this will happen." Then you should expect to be right about 90% of the time you say that. If what I'm saying isn't intuitively obvious or if you just want to learn more, read this: http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes/ http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes/ In any case the idea that religion isn't disprovable is completely false: http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions_claim_to_be_nondisprovable/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions_claim_to_be_nondisprova...

eeperson 13y ago
I understand that statistics are an important tool in 'proving' things scientifically. The problem is, you're making a philosophical argument against religion not a scientific one. Probabilistic solutions don't sense for philosophical questions. For example, what is the probability that P=NP? The lesswrong article you linked to does not disprove religion. You certainly can disprove dogmatic ideas that have surrounded various religions, but that is not the same thing as disproving religion. For example, what if I said I believed that the universe was created by a conscious creator? This is clearly a religious statement, but as far as I can tell there is no way this statement can be addressed scientifically.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  >For example, what is the probability that P=NP? I would say less than 1%. That is if you were to bet me $1 that next year someone will mathematically prove that, I would bet up to $100 that it doesn't. I am not talking about statistics here but uncertainty. Probability in the Bayesian sense is just a measure of how certain you are of something. I can't prove that the sun won't rise tomorrow. Even if we didn't have any scientific understanding of what the sun was or why it appeared to orbit the Earth, I still would bet at great odds that it would also rise the next day. So what is the certainty that the universe was created by a conscious creator? Well we can look at all the possible explanations and assume they have equal probability. Then you can use Occam's Razor and assume that simpler hypotheses are far more likely to be true than more complex ones (and a god is a rather complex one as it has to explain the existence of an intelligent being with the power and desire to create universes.) You can call this a "philosophical" argument or a "scientific" one, or something else entirely. Science is basically the same thing, assuming simpler theories over more complex ones, and assigning certainty to different theories. Also there is nothing special about religion. All the same arguments would apply when talking about, say, the existence of an invisible pink dragon that resides in my garage. I'm guessing your certainty of that is rather low though.
  - eeperson 13y ago
    That is a gross misunderstanding of both uncertainty and science. Uncertainty is based on measurements made. The 1% you came up with is an entirely made up number. Also, science is explicitly not about assumptions. It is requires testable predictions. The complexity of the solutions does not matter. Otherwise we would still be using Newtonian mechanics for everything. The problem with your dragon example is that it is testable. This moves it in to the realm of science.
    - Houshalter 13y ago
      Science is merely a special case of Bayesian probability theory. You don't have to have evidence in order to assign a probability to something. In fact it's impossible to update probability estimates without already having a prior probability. Anyways you can't say the invisible dragon in my garage is testable. Say you throw flour on it. I just say "maybe the dragon is impermeable to flour." You try to touch it. I say "It moved to avoid being touched." You listen for sounds. I say "it's a quiet dragon." Etc. This is similar to religions constantly changing every time some fact they claim gets proven false. I could always just say "the existence or non-existence of the dragon is outside the realm of science." At the end of the day I still highly doubt you are going to believe there is a dragon in my garage. In fact I doubt you will accept even the tiniest possibility that there is a dragon in my garage. Well maybe tiny possibility but not worth considering. Not any larger than any other crazy idea people can come up with. This is perhaps a very complicated way of reasoning back to the standard idea most scientists will tell you: "It's stupid to believe things without evidence" or "most theories turn out to be wrong." As I said, religion isn't special. Everything here applies to it just as much as the dragon. A good explanation of Bayesian reasoning: http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes/ http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes/