From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Naive Realism rears its ugly head again?
Date: 7 Apr 92 11:25:30 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

In <1992Apr4.103430.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> In article <gNNNiB10w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) writes:
> > pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> >> In article <agVJiB9w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) wri
> >> > Please explain the difference between an undetectable cause and a nonexiste
> >> > cause.  How do I tell them apart?
> >> Nonexistent causes are never observed and sometimes erroneously cited, wherea
> >> undetectable causes are never observed and may be correctly cited.
> > Since "erroneously cited" in the scientific sense refers to citing something
> > which has not been shown to be true (or has not been shown to exist), you seem
> > to be saying:
> > * nonexistent causes are ones which are never observed and don't exist
> > * undetectable causes are ones which are never observed and do exist
> > Believe it or not, I'd gathered that much from the word "nonexistent".
> > 
> > Your definitions don't actually help me in any way, since the property of
> > existence cannot be tested directly.  If you can't test for existence with
> > 100% accuracy, you can't ever show that something is a nonexistent rather than
> > an undetectable cause.
> 
> To some extent I avoided defining the terms you wanted me to define because,
> as I thought I demonstrated, the terms were fraught with peril.

It's not just your definitions of those terms which are fraught with peril,
as we've now discovered:

> Also, I disagree: In my view, the universe exists, and I claim that 
> this is true  with 100% acccuracy.  

What evidence do you have for this claim?  None, I take it.  And it seems to
me that your difficulty in defining the terms you are using is entirely down
to this assumption you're making.  Throw away the assumption that there's an
objective universe out there, deal just with what you can possibly know,
and then the "nonexistent vs undetectable cause" problem goes away.

> > Yes, but undetectable causes can only become existent causes.  They can't
> > become nonexistent, because it might be that they really exist, they're just
> > still undetectable.
> ??

Exactly that.  If you assume an external reality, you can never demonstrate
that something doesn't exist -- unless you take the Naive Realist view that
all your perceptions of reality are without error.

> > Unless, of course, by "nonexistent cause" you mean "undetectable cause which
> > you think is nonexistent".
> 
> Well, as I say in another post: 'false theory' is preferable to nonexistent
> cause.  Undetectable causes should then be simply unsupported theories.

OK, so shall we go back to your original principle with this new vocabulary
in mind?

I believe your claim was something like:

   "Exactly one thing which exists has no cause, and that thing must be an
    intelligent being; all other things which exist must have a cause."

or, to use your more imprecise phrasing:

   "Nothing causes nothing, only something can cause something."

Incidentally, did you ever explain what a "metaphysical cause" was?

> > These nonexistent causes seem to me to be undetectable causes which you think
> > are nonexistent.  You cannot detect any electrons in the nucleus, and you
> > have a theory which doesn't require them (or doesn't allow them), therefore
> > you think that electrons in the nucleus don't exist.
> 
> Well, some theories are clearly falsified by new knowledge of the 
> behavior of nucleons, for example.

Do what?

You know that the "electrons in the nucleus" theory is incompatible with
today's theories.  So what?  You don't know absolutely that today's theories
are correct.

The only measure for a theory is scientific usefulness.  Scientists look at
theories, look at data, and see how well the theories allow us to predict the
data.  They also examine how well theories agree with other theories which
have predictive power.  Scientists do NOT measure the objective truth of
theories.

> > I have a different approach.  I do not detect electrons in the nucleus,
> > therefore I assume they're not there.  Similarly, I do not detect
> > undetectable objects, therefore I assume they're not there.  From my point of
> > view, saying that something is nonexistent is just a shorthand way of saying
> > that it is undetectable and that we are therefore assuming that it doesn't
> > exist because for some reason we don't think it ought to.  So there isn't
> > really any great distinction in my view between undetectable and nonexistent.
> 
> Do you then assume that all physics at energies greater than the highest
> energy attainable on earth is nonexistent?

Since I'm firmly stuck on planet earth, I've not found it necessary to assume
such things one way or the other.  I have had to assume things about
electrons, in order to perform scientific experiments.  Discussions about
what happens in the centre of hot stars, what happened at the start of the
universe and so on are interesting, but ultimately I don't need to decide how
the universe came into existence.  It's enough to know that it appears to be
here now, and I appear to be in it.
  
> > Now, you want me to accept a principle as valid.  You have led me to believe
> > that this principle depends upon a concrete distinction between undetectable
> > and nonexistent.  I will only accept a principle as valid if it appears valid
> > to me.
> 
> Whooaa!!  As I said before, either you accept the principle or you don't:
> the last thing I want is for someone to accept it merely because I state it.
> I want you to *consider* it.
> 
> > What you think is nonexistent is therefore no help to me; you'll have to tell
> > me how I can decide whether something is nonexistent.  You'll have to explain
> > to me how I can distinguish between undetectable and nonexistent.  Otherwise
> > the distinction won't be valid to me, and hence the principle won't.
> 
> I don't have a general all-in-one truth algorithm; not in science and
> certainly not in religion.

Then since you can't furnish me with the information needed to let me decide
whether your principle is true or not, I'll have to take it as false for the
time being.


mathew

-- 
Hail Eris! / "Our whole economy's based on fear and death; how long can we get
away with this?" --- Jello Biafra / Message for Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy! /
PGP RSA public key available on request / Desperately seeking Negativland's U2
CD / Just another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices