Proof and Agnosticism
There are two opposing ideas on proof:
1. That you can never have it.
2. That you can sometimes have it.
If proof is in all cases impossible, then:
1. How do you "prove" that?
2. To say you can never have proof is to say you can never be sure of anything. Yet, you have sex a second time, but do not touch a hot plate a second time. Why? Is past experience a "proof" after all?
3. To debate whether proof is possible - why? If you believe proof is impossible, how do you know the other is disagreeing with you? Can you prove that when he contradicts you he's not actually agreeing with you?
4. To say it's okay for others to believe things are provable, but you don't want to - again, how do you know they say that?
5. To argue that no proof is possible puts you in the position of depending on your adversary. You must assume the truth of what your opposite says in the process of trying to deny it. Try to "prove" that no proof is possible, without using the assumption that proof is possible!
6. And try to do it without using the products of those who do believe in the provability of things - computers, phones, radio, pens, paper, etc. All these things are from the minds of men who "proved" they would work.
Those who believe proof IS possible might not have found a sure fire way of knowing all things yet. But they are ahead in one respect - they are in the game! If proof is possible then:
1. Debate and discussion are meaningful, for one might win, but both will learn.
2. While it doesn't let you know everything, it lets you "know what you know".
3. You do not depend on your adversary's ideas in putting forth your own.
Now there is a concept of Agnosticism, wherein it is suggested that the wise man takes no stance. It is a concept with two meanings, one seemingly true, and one false.
1. Agnosticism: "I have no proof to support any conclusions on this issue of 'do animals think' so I take no sides until I do."
2. Agnosticism: "Since you can't prove to me ghosts don't exist, I will keep an open mind!"
Note the subtle distinction here, in a world that uses the same word for both ideas. In the one, a man is literally claiming "no knowledge - a gnostic" ("a" means "no", like in the word a - theist). He has heard an issue, and lacks the information to take a side.
In the second, he has heard something different. Instead of hearing an issue that involves two roughly equal possibilities (animals thinking in some manner, or not thinking in any manner), he is hearing of an extraordinary claim. It involves not an equal possibility (ghosts exist or do not), but rather a claim in which it is overwhelmingly possible that some people are crazy, lieing, hallucinating or tricked, and highly unlikely that all of man's knowledge of reality is false.
Who determines which issues are capable of being agnostic on, and not others?
Well, the odd thing is that in science, real science, there are NO issues to be agnostic on!
How it works in real science is that you start with your knowledge of the accepted facts of man - in theory this was proven to you in school - and don't believe anything else new without proof of the new thing. (How things are proved is a separate discussion)
When any claim is introduced, such as animals thinking in some fashion, you politely ask, "Proof?". If none is given, you do NOT believe it! It is not a case of it being all right to be agnostic or undecided, it is a case of there is no reason to clutter your mind with every assertion a person wanders by with, whether animal thoughts or ghosts.
Can it be said, "But isn't the person who denies ghosts, introducing a claim? We shouldn't believe him till he proves it!" Wrong. The introducer of any claim is the person who says, "X is", a positive claim. For no one says a thing is not, before hearing another say a thing is.
If I say "Glomding is" I must prove it. If I say, "Glomding is not", I am only asserting that I've heard no proof of Glomding such as would convince me. I do not have to prove my position on the denial, it is sufficient to say, "You provided no credible proof." Note that I must be open to real proof in the saying of this, and should be willing and able to show the introducer's error, if he attempted some proof.
Therefore, claims of animal's thinking and ghosts existing - or God or Oblivion - are introduced claims, not to be agnostic on, but to be denied until the claimer proves it. Oh, sure, this is where someone usually says, "Oh yeah? Well when Thomas Jefferson heard a report of an meteorite, he said that he'd sooner believe a yankee professor would lie, then that a rock fell from the sky! But he was wrong! He should have been agnostic on the issue!"
No. Thomas Jefferson was not wrong. He was correct to refuse to believe the story of the meteorite. Not because it didn't fall, but because he was given no proof. As I believe Carl Sagan once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Until Jefferson had it, he would have been silly to believe in flying rocks. Had he said, "I will be agnostic, neither believing or not" - what clutter! How many other reports of other strange things existed in his time, from astrology to zoroastrianism, all of which he is to hold in his mind as possible? The idea of "no way to know either way" pollutes a man, and takes him quickly to, "no way to know anything".
Agnosticism is a dangerous thing, and the idea of it should be eliminated. It is eliminated in the hard sciences, which is why we have rockets, plastics, vaccines and electronics - to name a few.
It is alive and well in the soft, or social, sciences, which is why we have insanity, wars, riots, crime and injustice - to name a few.
(I note in passing the general public's vague awareness of this in refering to one as Hard and the other as Soft.)
Why has hard science done so well, and the soft sciences so poorly? It is NOT because social sciences don't have right and wrong answers, though the teachers say that. It is because the teachers say that!
Look back in history, to another group who were agnostic and mystical in outlook - the alchemists! So long as these guys figured, "Nothing can be proven, maybe it's this, maybe it's that, but if the gods will it, so will it be." then they failed completely. Was this because there were no right and wrong answers in the field of chemistry, or because they said there were none?
Note when some started to say that there were right and wrong ways to mix things, to select and test things, to catalogue things...they became chemists!
Our social scientists are doing little more then chant over a steaming cauldron of eye of newt and wing of bat - and arguing amongst themselves as to whether the wolf fang should be stole by a virgin or a stripling! The future will make no distinction between the words Shaman, Priest, Psychologist, Astrologer, Social Scientist. Any more then we distinguish between necromancers, wizards and sorcerers in the Alchemical world.
They will all be known as Witch Doctors. Those who were agnostic when it came to what really worked or didn't work, with humans and human societies.
Some, like Desmond Morris, Arthur Koestler, Jared Diamond and even Ayn Rand, have already made steps in the turning the soft sciences hard...but we have far to go.
The first step of the alchemists was not to create plutonium from uranium. It was to admit that wishing (or skepticism about reality) doesn't create anything, chants (or educationese and jargon) don't make false things work, that your fellow sorcerers (or social scientists) agreeing with your mistakes means nothing, and your Godly intentions (or hoped for social benefits) don't mean your right.
With that learned, they could start on the path that has let us receive many good things from them - medicine, X-rays, etc.
And many bad things like Atomic Bombs and Nerve Gas - used by leaders who are educated and advised by all our social scientists!
Let one social scientist learn that agnosticism is false, and proof is necessary for everything. Let it grow from there. We may not see the end of the tunnel, but I'd like us to at least get started down the tunnel.
Dean West
1. That you can never have it.
2. That you can sometimes have it.
If proof is in all cases impossible, then:
1. How do you "prove" that?
2. To say you can never have proof is to say you can never be sure of anything. Yet, you have sex a second time, but do not touch a hot plate a second time. Why? Is past experience a "proof" after all?
3. To debate whether proof is possible - why? If you believe proof is impossible, how do you know the other is disagreeing with you? Can you prove that when he contradicts you he's not actually agreeing with you?
4. To say it's okay for others to believe things are provable, but you don't want to - again, how do you know they say that?
5. To argue that no proof is possible puts you in the position of depending on your adversary. You must assume the truth of what your opposite says in the process of trying to deny it. Try to "prove" that no proof is possible, without using the assumption that proof is possible!
6. And try to do it without using the products of those who do believe in the provability of things - computers, phones, radio, pens, paper, etc. All these things are from the minds of men who "proved" they would work.
Those who believe proof IS possible might not have found a sure fire way of knowing all things yet. But they are ahead in one respect - they are in the game! If proof is possible then:
1. Debate and discussion are meaningful, for one might win, but both will learn.
2. While it doesn't let you know everything, it lets you "know what you know".
3. You do not depend on your adversary's ideas in putting forth your own.
Now there is a concept of Agnosticism, wherein it is suggested that the wise man takes no stance. It is a concept with two meanings, one seemingly true, and one false.
1. Agnosticism: "I have no proof to support any conclusions on this issue of 'do animals think' so I take no sides until I do."
2. Agnosticism: "Since you can't prove to me ghosts don't exist, I will keep an open mind!"
Note the subtle distinction here, in a world that uses the same word for both ideas. In the one, a man is literally claiming "no knowledge - a gnostic" ("a" means "no", like in the word a - theist). He has heard an issue, and lacks the information to take a side.
In the second, he has heard something different. Instead of hearing an issue that involves two roughly equal possibilities (animals thinking in some manner, or not thinking in any manner), he is hearing of an extraordinary claim. It involves not an equal possibility (ghosts exist or do not), but rather a claim in which it is overwhelmingly possible that some people are crazy, lieing, hallucinating or tricked, and highly unlikely that all of man's knowledge of reality is false.
Who determines which issues are capable of being agnostic on, and not others?
Well, the odd thing is that in science, real science, there are NO issues to be agnostic on!
How it works in real science is that you start with your knowledge of the accepted facts of man - in theory this was proven to you in school - and don't believe anything else new without proof of the new thing. (How things are proved is a separate discussion)
When any claim is introduced, such as animals thinking in some fashion, you politely ask, "Proof?". If none is given, you do NOT believe it! It is not a case of it being all right to be agnostic or undecided, it is a case of there is no reason to clutter your mind with every assertion a person wanders by with, whether animal thoughts or ghosts.
Can it be said, "But isn't the person who denies ghosts, introducing a claim? We shouldn't believe him till he proves it!" Wrong. The introducer of any claim is the person who says, "X is", a positive claim. For no one says a thing is not, before hearing another say a thing is.
If I say "Glomding is" I must prove it. If I say, "Glomding is not", I am only asserting that I've heard no proof of Glomding such as would convince me. I do not have to prove my position on the denial, it is sufficient to say, "You provided no credible proof." Note that I must be open to real proof in the saying of this, and should be willing and able to show the introducer's error, if he attempted some proof.
Therefore, claims of animal's thinking and ghosts existing - or God or Oblivion - are introduced claims, not to be agnostic on, but to be denied until the claimer proves it. Oh, sure, this is where someone usually says, "Oh yeah? Well when Thomas Jefferson heard a report of an meteorite, he said that he'd sooner believe a yankee professor would lie, then that a rock fell from the sky! But he was wrong! He should have been agnostic on the issue!"
No. Thomas Jefferson was not wrong. He was correct to refuse to believe the story of the meteorite. Not because it didn't fall, but because he was given no proof. As I believe Carl Sagan once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Until Jefferson had it, he would have been silly to believe in flying rocks. Had he said, "I will be agnostic, neither believing or not" - what clutter! How many other reports of other strange things existed in his time, from astrology to zoroastrianism, all of which he is to hold in his mind as possible? The idea of "no way to know either way" pollutes a man, and takes him quickly to, "no way to know anything".
Agnosticism is a dangerous thing, and the idea of it should be eliminated. It is eliminated in the hard sciences, which is why we have rockets, plastics, vaccines and electronics - to name a few.
It is alive and well in the soft, or social, sciences, which is why we have insanity, wars, riots, crime and injustice - to name a few.
(I note in passing the general public's vague awareness of this in refering to one as Hard and the other as Soft.)
Why has hard science done so well, and the soft sciences so poorly? It is NOT because social sciences don't have right and wrong answers, though the teachers say that. It is because the teachers say that!
Look back in history, to another group who were agnostic and mystical in outlook - the alchemists! So long as these guys figured, "Nothing can be proven, maybe it's this, maybe it's that, but if the gods will it, so will it be." then they failed completely. Was this because there were no right and wrong answers in the field of chemistry, or because they said there were none?
Note when some started to say that there were right and wrong ways to mix things, to select and test things, to catalogue things...they became chemists!
Our social scientists are doing little more then chant over a steaming cauldron of eye of newt and wing of bat - and arguing amongst themselves as to whether the wolf fang should be stole by a virgin or a stripling! The future will make no distinction between the words Shaman, Priest, Psychologist, Astrologer, Social Scientist. Any more then we distinguish between necromancers, wizards and sorcerers in the Alchemical world.
They will all be known as Witch Doctors. Those who were agnostic when it came to what really worked or didn't work, with humans and human societies.
Some, like Desmond Morris, Arthur Koestler, Jared Diamond and even Ayn Rand, have already made steps in the turning the soft sciences hard...but we have far to go.
The first step of the alchemists was not to create plutonium from uranium. It was to admit that wishing (or skepticism about reality) doesn't create anything, chants (or educationese and jargon) don't make false things work, that your fellow sorcerers (or social scientists) agreeing with your mistakes means nothing, and your Godly intentions (or hoped for social benefits) don't mean your right.
With that learned, they could start on the path that has let us receive many good things from them - medicine, X-rays, etc.
And many bad things like Atomic Bombs and Nerve Gas - used by leaders who are educated and advised by all our social scientists!
Let one social scientist learn that agnosticism is false, and proof is necessary for everything. Let it grow from there. We may not see the end of the tunnel, but I'd like us to at least get started down the tunnel.
Dean West
posted by Dean West @ 1:13 AM
2 Comments:
At February 26, 2005 7:25 PM,
Richard said…
Mr. West, the generally accepted interpretation of agnostic is one who asserts that a knowledge of ultimate reality (God) is not possible. This is the only area they claim to be beyond human knowing.
The word derives from gnostic, to know. So agnostic is simply one who does not claim to know.
At February 26, 2005 7:33 PM,
Anonymous said…
Richard,
Call me Dean if you like. I understand what you are saying. It is my belief that the proper course of action is to not believe until there is proof provided. There is no field of knowledge that is outside the province of man's inquiry or abilities.
Take care,
Dean
Post a Comment
<< Home