What are the Benefits of Theism?

[Skepdick]

That's quite good. Well done Skepdick.

Can't even wipe my ass with that "compliment".

[Immanuel Can]

My point is that ultimately all ideas lack specific evidence.

That's clearly wrong.

Don't you believe that science is "better" than witchcraft? Don't you believe that reality is better than fantasy? Don't you believe that believing in gravity is wiser than wishing you could fly by leaping off tall buildings?

Of course you do.

[Immanuel Can]

just look at what kind of politicians are elected and those nut jobs are the result of what they public thinks.

There's a real question as to whether all elections reflect the public will at all. But yes, I agree that wisdom in the masses seems to be in a bit of a short supply these days. Can we thank the media for that?

and to be clear there is no such thing a socialist paradise.

That is historically certain. However, that's what they keep aiming at, it seems. Certainly reality has little enough to do with their aspirations.

[Belinda]

humility is a virtue.

Indeed. Despite rarely being adhered to, that is arguably the single most influential maxim in western philosophy. The story of Socrates and the Oracle at Delphi in Plato's Apology is foundational to western thought. Socrates was wise precisely because he knew he didn't know. Fundamentally, it's why things as well established as evolution and relativity are still called theories.

Yes, but natural selection and relativity are not called "theories" because they are not 100% proven. They are called theories because they are not hypotheses but are universally accepted as true enough..

[tillingborn]

My point is that ultimately all ideas lack specific evidence.

That's clearly wrong.

It depends on what you mean by specific, which is why I explained what I mean:

There isn't one piece of evidence I know of that is specific to one idea, and one idea only. All evidence, in my view, can be interpreted in different ways and used to support different ideas.

That is clearly right.

[tillingborn]

Yes, but natural selection and relativity are not called "theories" because they are not 100% proven. They are called theories because they are not hypotheses but are universally accepted as true enough.

There's no real consensus on what makes something a theory and others not. It's quite common to hear 'theory' being described as the highest rank of scientific ideas. The things that evolution and relativity describe aren't theoretical; it is demonstrably the case that living organisms evolve and light bends around massive objects. The theory part in my view, is that these events are due to natural selection and the warping of spacetime respectively. What makes them theoretical is that the same events can be taken as evidence for different theories.

[Belinda]

Yes, but natural selection and relativity are not called "theories" because they are not 100% proven. They are called theories because they are not hypotheses but are universally accepted as true enough.

There's no real consensus on what makes something a theory and others not. It's quite common to hear 'theory' being described as the highest rank of scientific ideas. The things that evolution and relativity describe aren't theoretical; it is demonstrably the case that living organisms evolve and light bends around massive objects. The theory part in my view, is that these events are due to natural selection and the warping of spacetime respectively. What makes them theoretical is that the same events can be taken as evidence for different theories.

They are separate usages of the word 'theory'. Some people who disapprove of natural selection will disparage it saying "It is only a theory".The meaning of this word 'theory' is its use.

[Immanuel Can]

All evidence, in my view, can be interpreted in different ways and used to support different ideas.
That is clearly right.

Actually, no. For if what you were saying were right, a court of law would be impossible. So would scientific judgment...how does one judge between theories if all evidence is equally counterpoised, equally useful?

Misinterpretations do not invalidate better interpretations, and better interpretations are only better if they conform to truth. That's how it is.

[tillingborn]

All evidence, in my view, can be interpreted in different ways and used to support different ideas.
That is clearly right.

Actually, no. For if what you were saying were right, a court of law would be impossible. So would scientific judgment...how does one judge between theories if all evidence is equally counterpoised, equally useful?

I don't know much about courts of law. As I understand, in cases that are decided by a jury, a majority is enough for a conviction. If I am right about that, immediately it has to be conceded that a court load of evidence can support different verdicts. Anyone who knows about law is more than welcome to clarify.
As for scientific judgement, the criterion is 'does it work?' In practise this means that statistical analysis is generated from experimental data to produce mathematical models that account for recorded observations and successfully predict hoped for outcomes. There is usually a margin of error, the tolerance of which is decided according to case specific criteria. 'Why?' is a question that some scientists ask on their days off. So to your question "how does one judge between theories if all evidence is equally counterpoised, equally useful?" the scientific answer is: one doesn't. If one chooses between the sort of theories you describe, it is for precisely the aesthetic considerations I have argued for. Benedictine/Franciscan. Beatles/Stones. Warped spacetime/Gravitons. The thing that saves us from the fate of Buridan's Ass is that we can choose. I gather you have concerns about free will. Have you thought through the implications of being compelled to decide only what the evidence demands?

Misinterpretations do not invalidate better interpretations, and better interpretations are only better if they conform to truth. That's how it is.

Yes, but to know which interpretations better conform to the truth, you have to know what the truth is.

[Immanuel Can]

All evidence, in my view, can be interpreted in different ways and used to support different ideas.
That is clearly right.

Actually, no. For if what you were saying were right, a court of law would be impossible. So would scientific judgment...how does one judge between theories if all evidence is equally counterpoised, equally useful?

I don't know much about courts of law. As I understand, in cases that are decided by a jury, a majority is enough for a conviction.

It's not. It has to be unanimous.

As for scientific judgement, the criterion is 'does it work?'

Then there's evidence it "works," and not everything that happens counts equally for all sides of that question. So again, it's a denial of your theory that evidence can be used equally for all sides.

If one chooses between the sort of theories you describe, it is for precisely the aesthetic considerations I have argued for.

It's not. That may be the way you think -- I can't say -- but the rest of us don't all think like that.

Misinterpretations do not invalidate better interpretations, and better interpretations are only better if they conform to truth. That's how it is.

Yes, but to know which interpretations better conform to the truth, you have to know what the truth is.

Of course you do. But you do know, at least in many cases.

If your theory is that solid metal will float, or rat poison won't kill a human, or gasoline vapours are not combustible, you'll find out right away what the truth is. Just try it once. Then ask yourself what your previous understanding of the evidence was worth.

[tillingborn]

I don't know much about courts of law. As I understand, in cases that are decided by a jury, a majority is enough for a conviction.

It's not. It has to be unanimous.

Thank you, I didn't know that. I've also heard there are occasional miscarriages of justice. If true, it demonstrates why aurgumentum ad populum is a fallacy.

As for scientific judgement, the criterion is 'does it work?'

Then there's evidence it "works," and not everything that happens counts equally for all sides of that question. So again, it's a denial of your theory that evidence can be used equally for all sides.

The apple that fell on Newton's head is evidence for his own theory of gravity, which works extremely well for nearly all practical applications. But that same falling apple is also evidence for Einstein's theory of gravity, and any of the dozen or so alternative theories which are actively being examined by research groups as we speak. What they are trying to do ultimately, is find some piece of specific evidence that supports their claim and their claim only, because in the mountain of data freely available to all the different research groups, nobody has yet found a piece of evidence that rules out all rival possibilities. It simply is the case that all the known data "counts equally for all sides".

If one chooses between the sort of theories you describe, it is for precisely the aesthetic considerations I have argued for.

It's not. That may be the way you think -- I can't say -- but the rest of us don't all think like that.

There are two problems with that. Firstly, how do you know what 'the rest of you' think? Secondly, even if you could demonstrate it, any conclusion you draw from it is an argumentum ad populum.

Yes, but to know which interpretations better conform to the truth, you have to know what the truth is.

Of course you do. But you do know, at least in many cases.

If your theory is that solid metal will float, or rat poison won't kill a human, or gasoline vapours are not combustible, you'll find out right away what the truth is. Just try it once. Then ask yourself what your previous understanding of the evidence was worth.

Thanks to some of the many discoveries that science has made, I have no need to test any of those theories.

[Skepdick]

My point is that ultimately all ideas lack specific evidence. There isn't one piece of evidence I know of that is specific to one idea, and one idea only. All evidence, in my view, can be interpreted in different ways and used to support different ideas.

Uh. That's only true retrospectively at a given point in time. Because "ALL" evidence today is not "ALL" evidence tomorrow, and it's not "ALL" evidence next year. "ALL evidence" is point-in-time-dependent.

In statistics this is called Curve fitting.

Given any finite set of data-points observed up to time T1 you can fit an infinite number of curves through it. Every first order theory has infinite models/interpretations. This is a Mathematical fact

But then your model/interpretation also make predictions about the FUTURE. And in that regard not models/interpretations can be quantitatively/qualitatively differentiated.
Between time T1 and time T2 you acquire new data and that data either fits or your interpretations's predictions or it doesn't.

Some models/interpretations overfit.
Some models/interpretations underfit.
Some models/interpretations have better predictive power than others!

Given two underdetermined theories the one which makes more accurate predictions is the better theory!

That's why falsification matters to intellectually honest people. This is where Philosophers trip up over themselves - they mark their own homework. They claim that future event X is a prediction of their theory - yet somehow only they knew how to derive this prediction.

[Skepdick]

The apple that fell on Newton's head is evidence for his own theory of gravity, which works extremely well for nearly all practical applications. But that same falling apple is also evidence for Einstein's theory of gravity.

Except that Einstein's theory is more generally applicable - it works where Newton's theory falls apart.

Which is why Newton's theory can be derrived from Einstein's theory when one substitutes the operational parameters of Newton's theory into General Relativity.

https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-derive ... relativity

It simply is the case that all the known data "counts equally for all sides".

That is not true at all. Gravitational Waves don't even fit into Newton's theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO

[tillingborn]

Because "ALL" evidence today is not "ALL" evidence tomorrow, and it's not "ALL" evidence next year. "ALL evidence" is time-dependent.

Thank you Skepdick, on behalf of anyone who shares your inability to either read or process this sentence:

It simply is the case that all the known data "counts equally for all sides".

[Skepdick]

Because "ALL" evidence today is not "ALL" evidence tomorrow, and it's not "ALL" evidence next year. "ALL evidence" is time-dependent.

Thank you Skepdick, on behalf of anyone who shares your inability to either read or process this sentence:

It simply is the case that all the known data "counts equally for all sides".

Don't mention it...

You shoot from the hip, but you shoot blanks.

It simply is the case that all the known data "counts equally for all sides".

That is not true at all. Gravitational Waves don't even fit into Newton's theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO