Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

[otseng]

I'll go ahead and say because of this the agnostic would be more reasonable than an atheist, in the same way atheists think they are more reasonable than Christians. The reason for this is not because of agnostics being all-knowing or arrogant, but rather it's because the PRINCIPLE that agnostics live by. Again, the principle of applying logic and evidence standard to ALL areas would mean that we use REASON more than the atheists that only applies it to matters of religion.

For debate:
Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

[Bust Nak]

That would depend on the context. It could be a reasonable view if it's part of a hypothetical point. Outside of a hypothetical context, I can agree with you.

Why would it being a hypothetical point, change the point itself from a belief to something else?

If you are saying something along the lines of if I believe it then it's a belief, but if I don't (but hypothetically, I would) then it isn't, then it's merely changing from a belief you hold, to a belief you don't hold; as opposed to changing from a belief to a non-belief.

If I say that the view is proven, then that means that every bit of it is supported by logic and evidence. It contains no opinion. A view can not be both an opinion and knowledge at the same time. We've been through this before.

Right, which is why I said, if it is not supported by logic and evidence alone, then it is an opinion, AKA a belief.

Before, you brought up my mentioning of my desire and feelings on the matter. Feelings are not a "belief". Perhaps some may use feelings as a basis for belief but I don't.

Sure you do. You used feelings such as "I love my country" and "I like a good job" as a basis for the belief "the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure."

But then , perhaps it may even happen unconsciously. But even if it did, it would become a nonfactor (or replaced, even) once logic and evidence comes into the picture and those two (logic/evidence) alone are what makes the view true.

Which is why I keep referring to that view while cannot be proven by logic and evidence alone. That's what makes it a belief, because it cannot be turned into knowledge via logic and evidence.

I'm referring to something being truly incoherent and not something where it's disputed. Something that is truly incoherent can not be believed. In reference to the incoherent view, a person wouldn't know what it is, and of course, would not be able to accept it.

To a rational person like myself, sure. But others are perfectly capable of believing something that is incoherent to them. Just look at all the wackier stuff some religious people believe, like an omnipotent God making a rock so heavy that omnipotent God couldn't lift, excising his omnipotence to lift up the rock that is so heavy that he is unable to lift.

So for the record, you're not referring to my covid-19 worldview which is PROVEN, but you're referring to my view on agnosticism. Got it.

No, not on agnosticism as such, but your epistemology.

As for my agnostic worldview, my claim is that agnostics use logic and evidence but that doesn't mean they will always be right. Not even scientists are always right eventhough they apply scientific method. In either case, the agnostic or scientist may misunderstand/misinterpret the evidence or they may even miss a step in their reasoning or be off completely. The main point is that they are still dealing in logic and evidence. That's better than letting "beliefs" and unproven ideologies decide if something is true or false.

Except that's some idealised agnostic that no one lives up to.

I'm claiming that it can't be believed. If it is impossible to believe in such views then there's no sense in asking "how" it can be done.

Cognitive dissonance is a thing you know. It might be stressful, but not impossible.

Your conclusion is not a necessary condition of the premise. You can have something lacking logic and evidence without it being a belief. In my last post, I gave you an example of that with my point on future discoveries.

Besides logic and evidence not always applying to belief, I also explained why it doesn't apply to incoherence at all. You're not considering the definition of the terms or what belief involves.

Right, which is why I said there was still wiggle room. But you got rid of that much when you affirmed that one particular view of yours, is a propositional statement, but is not backed by logic and evidence alone.

Well I had to express the thought to provide an example to you. But in actuality, you would not have a thought about a future discovery because you wouldn't know about it yet. So how can you believe in something that you don't know about? Something you don't know about would also lack logic and evidence.

I believe we would find a mechanism for starting life on Earth. That doesn't count?

But as it relates to my view, you have not shown that my view on covid-19 is logically inconsistent. Claiming that it is not based "only" on logic and evidence, which I assume you say because I brought up my desire, is a moot point because the logic and evidence alone proves it. Most importantly, I accept that the view is true because of that logic and evidence. So the feeling gets weeded out and becomes a nonfactor.

I don't know why you keep insisting on this when logic and evidence alone can't prove that the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure. Your feelings cannot be weeded out. What wiggle room you had, with accepting a view as true, as opposed to merely holding a thought without accepting it as true, went out of the window after you've affirmed that it is a proposition. You are left with a belief, an opinion.

You did not factor in my description for agnostic . An agnostic is non-ideological.

Your description doesn't mean much when it doesn't describe any agnostic.

So the agnostics that rely on an unproven ideology are not real agnostics, and that's by definition per Huxley.

Okay, so now there are no real agnostics. All you so called agnostics who is only agnostic on certain topic, hand in your badges.

If atheists were so non-ideological, why couldn't they think of a way to open the economy while limiting covid-19 deaths?

Because there isn't enough information to make that conclusion with an acceptable level or risk.

Why did it take an agnostic to show that? That's why I say that one good way to demonstrate my point here is by seeing the two groups in action - see how they form views, see their conclusions, etc.

Well, you have one group listening to the advice of leading experts on the issue, then you have another group who thinks they have thought of something the experts hasn't. Not sure that's the point you want to be making.

[AgnosticBoy]

That would depend on the context. It could be a reasonable view if it's part of a hypothetical point. Outside of a hypothetical context, I can agree with you.

Why would it being a hypothetical point, change the point itself from a belief to something else?

If you are saying something along the lines of if I believe it then it's a belief, but if I don't (but hypothetically, I would) then it isn't, then it's merely changing from a belief you hold, to a belief you don't hold; as opposed to changing from a belief to a non-belief.

Because a hypothetical point would make it known that you are presuming or thinking as if the goal is correct, and that you're taking action to meet the goal. If that goal was objective correct, then the action taken to meet that goal would be objectively correct.

I engage in hypothetical arguments with Christians all the time. For instance, some times I assume God's existence to argue about his moral standard. That doesn't mean I believe in God or objective morals.

If I say that the view is proven, then that means that every bit of it is supported by logic and evidence. It contains no opinion. A view can not be both an opinion and knowledge at the same time. We've been through this before.

Right, which is why I said, if it is not supported by logic and evidence alone, then it is an opinion, AKA a belief.

You did not say "IF". You said that my view was not backed by logic and evidence alone. It seems that you are backtracking.

Before, you brought up my mentioning of my desire and feelings on the matter. Feelings are not a "belief". Perhaps some may use feelings as a basis for belief but I don't.

Sure you do. You used feelings such as "I love my country" and "I like a good job" as a basis for the belief "the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure."

I just said I didn't, and I explained how "love" and "likes" aren't even beliefs by themselves. You then just asserted without any supporting reason that it is the basis for my view. I even addressed the scenario involving belief when I clearly said that a belief can turn into knowledge.

Again, even if I started off with just feelings but I ENDED with logic and evidence. In other words, I didn't stay stuck with just feelings. Now I accept my view is true because the logic and evidence proves that. I don't need to accept it as true for any other reason beyond that logic and evidence.

But then , perhaps it may even happen unconsciously. But even if it did, it would become a nonfactor (or replaced, even) once logic and evidence comes into the picture and those two (logic/evidence) alone are what makes the view true.

Which is why I keep referring to that view while cannot be proven by logic and evidence alone. That's what makes it a belief, because it cannot be turned into knowledge via logic and evidence.

I don't know what you're referring to in the first sentence. If a matter can not be proven, then I don't accept it as true. Even if I "feel" good towards the view, that doesn't make it true. I suspend judgement and remain agnostic.

I'm referring to something being truly incoherent and not something where it's disputed. Something that is truly incoherent can not be believed. In reference to the incoherent view, a person wouldn't know what it is, and of course, would not be able to accept it.

To a rational person like myself, sure. But others are perfectly capable of believing something that is incoherent to them. Just look at all the wackier stuff some religious people believe, like an omnipotent God making a rock so heavy that omnipotent God couldn't lift, excising his omnipotence to lift up the rock that is so heavy that he is unable to lift.

That's because there's a dispute about it being incoherent. I'm referring to a scenario was there is no dispute and I was very clear on that.

In my case, you must prove that my view is incoherent. We've already been passed this since the issue you raise now is that my view is not based on logic and evidence alone. The FACT is that the view is proven by logic and evidence alone. No feelings needed. And I'm well aware of the logic and evidence because I gathered the evidence myself. Any feelings that were involved no longer apply because evidence and logic alone resolves the matter.

As for my agnostic worldview, my claim is that agnostics use logic and evidence but that doesn't mean they will always be right. Not even scientists are always right eventhough they apply scientific method. In either case, the agnostic or scientist may misunderstand/misinterpret the evidence or they may even miss a step in their reasoning or be off completely. The main point is that they are still dealing in logic and evidence. That's better than letting "beliefs" and unproven ideologies decide if something is true or false.

Except that's some idealised agnostic that no one lives up to.

Scientists do. Atheists do towards religion. But I would say scientists and agnostics live it out on the scale that I'm referring to in the OP.

Most importantly, many liberal atheists choose not to live up to it. And that's very telling.

I'm claiming that it can't be believed. If it is impossible to believe in such views then there's no sense in asking "how" it can be done.

Cognitive dissonance is a thing you know. It might be stressful, but not impossible.

At least in cognitive dissonance, the views are intelligible. You know what the belief is about. But in the case of 'incoherent' views, you wouldn't know that. And if you don't understand what the view(s) is then you can't act on it.

Your conclusion is not a necessary condition of the premise. You can have something lacking logic and evidence without it being a belief. In my last post, I gave you an example of that with my point on future discoveries.

Besides logic and evidence not always applying to belief, I also explained why it doesn't apply to incoherence at all. You're not considering the definition of the terms or what belief involves.

Right, which is why I said there was still wiggle room. But you got rid of that much when you affirmed that one particular view of yours, is a propositional statement, but is not backed by logic and evidence alone.

Again, you are backtracking.

My view being a proposition is separate from our dialogue about incoherent beliefs.

Well I had to express the thought to provide an example to you. But in actuality, you would not have a thought about a future discovery because you wouldn't know about it yet. So how can you believe in something that you don't know about? Something you don't know about would also lack logic and evidence.

I believe we would find a mechanism for starting life on Earth. That doesn't count?

No, because you know about that thought. You have to know about it to believe. All that it takes to prove my point is just ONE example of something that lacks logic and evidence without a belief involved. Lets use something that would be inconceivable. The ancient Egyptians did not believe in space shuttles, while also lacking logic and evidence for them.

But as it relates to my view, you have not shown that my view on covid-19 is logically inconsistent. Claiming that it is not based "only" on logic and evidence, which I assume you say because I brought up my desire, is a moot point because the logic and evidence alone proves it. Most importantly, I accept that the view is true because of that logic and evidence. So the feeling gets weeded out and becomes a nonfactor.

I don't know why you keep insisting on this when logic and evidence alone can't prove that the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure. Your feelings cannot be weeded out. What wiggle room you had, with accepting a view as true, as opposed to merely holding a thought without accepting it as true, went out of the window after you've affirmed that it is a proposition. You are left with a belief, an opinion.

So now you're saying that feelings can't be weeded out without an ounce of evidence for that claim. And I suppose someone can't weed out incorrect view when they discover it to be wrong. So much for scientists who constantly have to update (or even discard) their views based on new evidence.

You do NOT have a strong case, at all. All you got is just a PERSONAL view that no one can weed out feelings. Why the hek do I need to hang on to "feelings" to support my claims when LOGIC and EVIDENCE comes in and totally validates my claim?

I tell you what, if you don't believe me because I'm just an internet poster, then I would hope you apply that standard to everyone else.

If atheists were so non-ideological, why couldn't they think of a way to open the economy while limiting covid-19 deaths?

Because there isn't enough information to make that conclusion with an acceptable level or risk.

Less than 1% of the low risk population die from covid-19. We allow people to go to work in the midst of other viruses with the same or perhaps even higher mortality rates. We are already allowing people to work in "essential" businesses because EVERYONE knows that it's necessary to avoid harm. Imagine telling people they can't even go out to get food. It's time we also realize that a working economy is also necessary to prevent damaging the economy.

Why did it take an agnostic to show that? That's why I say that one good way to demonstrate my point here is by seeing the two groups in action - see how they form views, see their conclusions, etc.

Well, you have one group listening to the advice of leading experts on the issue, then you have another group who thinks they have thought of something the experts hasn't. Not sure that's the point you want to be making.

Listen to the evidence, first and foremost. I have the evidence to support my view.

[Bust Nak]

Because a hypothetical point would make it known that you are presuming or thinking as if the goal is correct, and that you're taking action to meet the goal. If that goal was objective correct, then the action taken to meet that goal would be objectively correct.

I engage in hypothetical arguments with Christians all the time. For instance, some times I assume God's existence to argue about his moral standard. That doesn't mean I believe in God or objective morals.

Then what I said applies, altering the context means the switch is from a belief you do hold to a belief you do not hold, instead of switching from a belief to a non-belief - the nature of the belief does not change.

You did not say "IF". You said that my view was not backed by logic and evidence alone. It seems that you are backtracking.

Come on.

Socrates is a man.
If man then mortal.
Therefore he is mortal.

You don't read that and say a-ha, you said "IF" man then mortal, you are backtracking. Or would you?

I just said I didn't, and I explained how "love" and "likes" aren't even beliefs by themselves. You then just asserted without any supporting reason that it is the basis for my view. I even addressed the scenario involving belief when I clearly said that a belief can turn into knowledge.

Not it this case you cannot. "Love" and "likes" not beliefs by themselves is a red herring. I said your view that "the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure" is based on feelings. Telling me feelings are not beliefs does not address my point. As for supporting reason, I did give you it, repeated here for your convenience:

You view is not backed by logic and evidence alone.
If it is not supported by logic and evidence alone, then it is an opinion, AKA a belief.
Therefore it is a belief.

Again, even if I started off with just feelings but I ENDED with logic and evidence. In other words, I didn't stay stuck with just feelings. Now I accept my view is true because the logic and evidence proves that. I don't need to accept it as true for any other reason beyond that logic and evidence.

Again, the view I was referring to, cannot be proven by logic and evidence alone. That's what makes it a belief, because it cannot be turned into knowledge via logic and evidence.

I don't know what you're referring to in the first sentence.

This view: "the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure."

If a matter can not be proven, then I don't accept it as true.

Evidence shows otherwise. You hold that view, that view is a proposition, which means you accept it as true. Yet it cannot be proven with logic and evidence alone, which makes it a belief.

That's because there's a dispute about it being incoherent. I'm referring to a scenario was there is no dispute and I was very clear on that.

Yes, that's why I gave you a counter example where there is no dispute. Omnipotence without the "except logical contradiction" clause is indisputably incoherent.

In my case, you must prove that my view is incoherent. We've already been passed this since the issue you raise now is that my view is not based on logic and evidence alone.

That's right, my original point was A->B is incoherent where A is not a proposition statement, you've since changed your mind on whether A is a proposition or not, so that point no longer applies. I don't know why you are re-visiting old ground here.

The FACT is that the view is proven by logic and evidence alone. No feelings needed...

What view are you referring to here? You have lots of view, some are proven by logic and evidence alone, some are not. A subset of those that are not proven by logic and evidence alone, are propositions, and that means they are beliefs - unproven views accepted as true.

Scientists do.

No, they don't, not on all topics. They do towards science.

Most importantly, many liberal atheists choose not to live up to it. And that's very telling.

There is no choose here, you ideal is impossible. Human feelings is a) unavoidable, b) a valuable tool in itself.

At least in cognitive dissonance, the views are intelligible. You know what the belief is about.

Intelligible like "a rock so heavy that an omnipotent God can't lift" is one step higher than "ajkdfakjfbkjabfkb" but still doesn't get you to the level of coherent.

But in the case of 'incoherent' views, you wouldn't know that.

See my counter example: I know what it is about, it's about God lifting heavy rocks.

And if you don't understand what the view(s) is then you can't act on it.

That's a red herring. Unable to act on it doesn't mean unable to accept it as true.

Again, you are backtracking.

My view being a proposition is separate from our dialogue about incoherent beliefs.

What? You view being a proposition or not was what spawned this dialogue about incoherent beliefs. The coherency of A->B depends on whether A is or isn't a proposition. We've since established that the particular A->B was coherent after you affirmed that A is indeed a proposition. But there was still loose end re: whether an incoherent idea can be accepted as true or not. You say it's impossible, I gave you a counter-example, and here we are.

No, because you know about that thought. You have to know about it to believe. All that it takes to prove my point is just ONE example of something that lacks logic and evidence without a belief involved. Lets use something that would be inconceivable. The ancient Egyptians did not believe in space shuttles, while also lacking logic and evidence for them.

Err, what is your point again?

So now you're saying that feelings can't be weeded out without an ounce of evidence for that claim.

What do you mean no evidence? I gave you an actual example. You cannot weed feelings out of the following belief - "the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure" which is formed from, and more importantly, inescapable tied to the feeling of "love" and "like."

Why the hek do I need to hang on to "feelings" to support my claims when LOGIC and EVIDENCE comes in and totally validates my claim?

Don't know. Presumably you don't. Instead you need to hang on to "feelings" to support your claims when LOGIC and EVIDENCE alone cannot validate your claim.

Less than 1% of the low risk population die from covid-19. We allow people to go to work in the midst of other viruses with the same or perhaps even higher mortality rates.

Example?

We are already allowing people to work in "essential" businesses because EVERYONE knows that it's necessary to avoid harm. Imagine telling people they can't even go out to get food. It's time we also realize that a working economy is also necessary to prevent damaging the economy.

If you know that essential businesses are kept open, why are you accusing anyone of failing to take measures into damaging the economy? You simply disagree on the level of acceptable risk vs acceptable damage.

Listen to the evidence, first and foremost. I have the evidence to support my view.

Ah huh, you are still telling me you know more on the topic than leading scientists.

[AgnosticBoy]

Because a hypothetical point would make it known that you are presuming or thinking as if the goal is correct, and that you're taking action to meet the goal. If that goal was objective correct, then the action taken to meet that goal would be objectively correct.

I engage in hypothetical arguments with Christians all the time. For instance, some times I assume God's existence to argue about his moral standard. That doesn't mean I believe in God or objective morals.

Then what I said applies, altering the context means the switch is from a belief you do hold to a belief you do not hold, instead of switching from a belief to a non-belief - the nature of the belief does not change.

I don't see it as a belief because it doesn't involve anyone accepting it. Hypotheticals are used as an example, a thought experiment, as opposed to be offered as something someone must accept or decline as being true.

You did not say "IF". You said that my view was not backed by logic and evidence alone. It seems that you are backtracking.

Come on.

Socrates is a man.
If man then mortal.
Therefore he is mortal.

You don't read that and say a-ha, you said "IF" man then mortal, you are backtracking. Or would you?

But your statement about my view is only true IF it meets your condition. In your example, it would be equivalent to establishing that Socrates was a man before you can draw the conclusion that he was mortal.

I just said I didn't, and I explained how "love" and "likes" aren't even beliefs by themselves. You then just asserted without any supporting reason that it is the basis for my view. I even addressed the scenario involving belief when I clearly said that a belief can turn into knowledge.

Not it this case you cannot. "Love" and "likes" not beliefs by themselves is a red herring. I said your view that "the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure" is based on feelings. Telling me feelings are not beliefs does not address my point.

I never said that feelings make something true. This means that even if that was my basis for wanting to open the economy, I would not claim that it's right or wrong or a "should" even. I would only accept a view as true when logic and evidence proves that it's true.

As for supporting reason, I did give you it, repeated here for your convenience:

You view is not backed by logic and evidence alone.
If it is not supported by logic and evidence alone, then it is an opinion, AKA a belief.
Therefore it is a belief.

Your view is unreasonable. I have the logic and evidence to prove my view. That view STAYS true or as a fact, just as long as the logic and evidence STAYS in place. Having a feeling does not take away from the logic and evidence. It can not be called an opinion just as long as the logic and evidence supports the view, and that's by definition. To be an opinion, there has to be ZERO logic and evidence.

If a matter can not be proven, then I don't accept it as true.

Evidence shows otherwise. You hold that view, that view is a proposition, which means you accept it as true. Yet it cannot be proven with logic and evidence alone, which makes it a belief.

This is clearly wrong. Proposition does not mean the view is true. It refers to views that can be considered as true OR false. Beliefs are considered truth.

Here is a simple way to explain it: Opinion involves ZERO evidence. I have evidence for my view. Therefore it's not an opinion.

That's because there's a dispute about it being incoherent. I'm referring to a scenario was there is no dispute and I was very clear on that.

Yes, that's why I gave you a counter example where there is no dispute. Omnipotence without the "except logical contradiction" clause is indisputably incoherent.

In your mind that may be, but I doubt Christians would agree which is why there is DEBATE on it (i.e. it is disputed).

The FACT is that the view is proven by logic and evidence alone. No feelings needed...

What view are you referring to here? You have lots of view, some are proven by logic and evidence alone, some are not. A subset of those that are not proven by logic and evidence alone, are propositions, and that means they are beliefs - unproven views accepted as true.

The view that the economy can be opened while keeping covid-19 deaths low is proven. It's not a mix of belief and evidence like I accuse atheists of having because there is nothing added to the view or proposition that is not backed by logic and evidence.

Now, if I said the following, "The economy can be opened while keeping covid-19 deaths, and doing this would get Trump reelected", then we got a problem. That last clause regarding Trump is unproven - it is opinion. The view taken entirely would be a valid example of something not supported by logic and evidence alone and that's because some parts are proven and some aren't. Every bit of my view is proven.

Scientists do.

No, they don't, not on all topics. They do towards science.

On all intellectual matters, they do. There is a way to think like a scientist when it comes to religion, politics, and even philosophy. You can't do that if you cling to unproven ideologies and follow your liberal leaders in an unquestionable way. That's what you accuse many Christians of doing when it comes to how they follow the Bible and Church leaders.

Most importantly, many liberal atheists choose not to live up to it. And that's very telling.

There is no choose here, you ideal is impossible. Human feelings is a) unavoidable, b) a valuable tool in itself.

Again, there is a way to think like a scientists on all intellectual matters. Many may say that there isn't a way because they don't want to give up their ideologies.

At least in cognitive dissonance, the views are intelligible. You know what the belief is about.

Intelligible like "a rock so heavy that an omnipotent God can't lift" is one step higher than "ajkdfakjfbkjabfkb" but still doesn't get you to the level of coherent.

I addressed this earlier. You must first show that it is illogical. I'd like to see a debate on it, but the fact that there is a debate shows signs that it's disputed. To the person who accepts it, it's not incoherent. My scenario is about someone who sees a view as incoherent, and is still able to believe in it.

So now you're saying that feelings can't be weeded out without an ounce of evidence for that claim.

What do you mean no evidence? I gave you an actual example. You cannot weed feelings out of the following belief - "the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure" which is formed from, and more importantly, inescapable tied to the feeling of "love" and "like."

If such a view can exist without feelings then feelings can be weeded out. If you have a statement like "I love an open economy", then that can not exist without emotion because "love" is an emotion. And as I've said time and time again, I do NOT accept emotion as a means for truth. Every part of my view on covid-19 is supported by logic and evidence.

Less than 1% of the low risk population die from covid-19. We allow people to go to work in the midst of other viruses with the same or perhaps even higher mortality rates.

Example?

HIV, the flu, etc.

Mortality for COVID-19 appears higher than for influenza, especially seasonal influenza. While the true mortality of COVID-19 will take some time to fully understand, the data we have so far indicate that the crude mortality ratio (the number of reported deaths divided by the reported cases) is between 3-4%, the infection mortality rate (the number of reported deaths divided by the number of infections) will be lower. For seasonal influenza, mortality is usually well below 0.1%. However, mortality is to a large extent determined by access to and quality of health care.

World Health Organization.

Keep in mind that the excerpt gives the covid-19 mortality rate for ALL cases, but my point is about the mortality rate among the LOW risk population which again is less than 1%. That is the population that I'm arguing should not be in lockdown just as we don't lock them down for the flu.

But even if we consider the mortality rate involving all populations of covid-19, which is only 3-4%, then that is not some high number. In fact, as more cases are discovered that don't involve death, the mortality rate will go down. And that is the expected trend given that there are a lot of 'asymptomatic' carriers that aren't tested.

We are already allowing people to work in "essential" businesses because EVERYONE knows that it's necessary to avoid harm. Imagine telling people they can't even go out to get food. It's time we also realize that a working economy is also necessary to prevent damaging the economy.

If you know that essential businesses are kept open, why are you accusing anyone of failing to take measures into damaging the economy? You simply disagree on the level of acceptable risk vs acceptable damage.

The primary goal of keeping the "essential" businesses open is not to help the economy (that's secondary or not even that), but rather it's to make sure people at least have what they absolutely need. But you can bet that the businesses that are closed will cause a big impact on our economy, especially given the increasing number of job layoffs.

Either way, I'm claiming that all businesses or much more than just essential ones, can be opened while keeping covid-19 deaths low.

Listen to the evidence, first and foremost. I have the evidence to support my view.

Ah huh, you are still telling me you know more on the topic than leading scientists.

In terms of solving problems, scientists are only as good as their focus. If their focus is only on avoiding infection, then they'll only deal with evidence that goes towards that. But that doesn't mean there isn't scientific evidence to support to keep covid-19 deaths low AND opening the economy at the same time. There is evidence, but that is not the focus of many scientists. Again, my focus was on finding a way to do BOTH at the same time.

[AgnosticBoy]

Here are 3 questions and points I want to respond to:

1. What is the definition of agnosticism? Why is my definition different?

My understanding of the meaning of agnosticism comes from the writings of the person who coined the term, i.e. Thomas Huxley. In one instance, he stated that it was a label for people who claim ignorance on metaphysical matters (e.g. God's existence) in contrast with those who claim certainty (atheists and theists). This is what many, including modern dictionaries, tend to base their definitions on. What's left out of the dictionaries is Huxley's other statements that go towards the definition of an 'agnostic'. Huxley clearly stated that agnosticism is not a view but rather it's a principle. Asserted negatively, the principle is to not claim to have certainty towards any matter of the intellect unless it is proven. Asserted positively, it is to apply logic and evidence standard to ALL views. This is what I refer to as the agnostic principle. This would involve shunning all beliefs, ideologies, and dogma that aren't proven. In fact, the reason why Huxley claimed ignorance on metaphysical matters is because a lot of metaphysical views (materialism, God, etc) are largely unproven.

So factoring in the FULL and intended meaning, an agnostic is someone who remains uncertain or suspends judgement on all unproven matters. Again, the 'agnostic principle' serves to reinforce this position. In fact, when you apply the principle, it may even lead to views that are backed by logic and evidence and you would want to accept or have firm certainty towards such views. Many who call themselves agnostic nowadays may simply focus on the label without applying the principle or method behind it. These types are not agnostic in the fullest sense of the word.


2. One member suggested that holding a position that involves, "I don't know" or "you can't prove it" may be an easy position to defend but it is impractical when it comes to living life.

Again, getting back to the definition for agnosticism, it is not about not wanting to have a view of your own to defend. It is not about remaining on the fence and saying "I don't know". It is about placing certainty only on things that can be proven. In this case, an agnostic can have views, and base their thinking and life on those views. Now this only applies to matters or moments where only the intellect should apply, like in a debate.

With that said, what makes a view or position easily defensible should NOT be that it lacks a view, but rather that it is a solidly PROVEN view. It's hard to argue against strong logic and evidence. When I'm developing a view, I take the time to weed out any ideology and belief while searching for logic and evidence. I embrace the view after it is backed by logic and evidence. Many do this towards religion or in their scientific practice, but you hardly see it when it comes to politics and philosophy. As an example, look at my covid-19 view. The liberals can't knock it down, especially given their EXTREME view of applying a one shoe fits all approach. Logic and evidence always trumps political ideology.

3. Another member suggested that agnostics should always be right on everything if they use logic and evidence towards everything.

Using logic and evidence, does not ensure that you will be infallible. You will always apply the standard, but there may be new evidence or overlooked evidence or an error in reasoning and understanding. But such a person is still dealing in evidence and logic, even if not perfectly. This is why scientists can be wrong as well despite applying the scientific method.

[Bust Nak]

I don't see it as a belief because it doesn't involve anyone accepting it. Hypotheticals are used as an example, a thought experiment, as opposed to be offered as something someone must accept or decline as being true.

So a propositional statement with a truth value, not supported by evidence and logic alone is still not a belief, an actual individual needs to accept that it is indeed true for it to be a belief?

So the Earth is flat may or may not be a belief, depending on how many flat Earthers there are? Greek religion stopped being a belief when its last follower died?

But your statement about my view is only true IF it meets your condition. In your example, it would be equivalent to establishing that Socrates was a man before you can draw the conclusion that he was mortal.

Right.

I never said that feelings make something true. This means that even if that was my basis for wanting to open the economy, I would not claim that it's right or wrong or a "should" even. I would only accept a view as true when logic and evidence proves that it's true.

And yet you accept the view that the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure as true, the view is a proposition, and it's not backed by evidence and logic alone, still you don't think it qualify as a belief?

Your view is unreasonable. I have the logic and evidence to prove my view.

No, you don't. Not this view: the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure. It's based on your feelings, regardless of whether it is your feelings that makes it true or not.

That view STAYS true or as a fact, just as long as the logic and evidence STAYS in place. Having a feeling does not take away from the logic and evidence.

But it does disqualify as a view that is proven by logic and evidence alone.

It can not be called an opinion just as long as the logic and evidence supports the view, and that's by definition. To be an opinion, there has to be ZERO logic and evidence.

That wasn't your original definition, earlier you said it had to be proven by logic and evidence alone. I quizzed you on that extensively, and now you want to change it to as long as there is a bit of logic and evidence? How do you justify calling something an ideology when there is always a tiniest bit of logic and evidence with many outlandish ideas?

This is clearly wrong. Proposition does not mean the view is true. It refers to views that can be considered as true OR false. Beliefs are considered truth.

Ah huh, and unless you are trying to tell me you hold views that is considered as false, I don't know what point you are trying to make here.

Here is a simple way to explain it: Opinion involves ZERO evidence. I have evidence for my view. Therefore it's not an opinion.

As above, if that's the case, then how is liberalism an ideology?

In your mind that may be, but I doubt Christians would agree which is why there is DEBATE on it (i.e. it is disputed).

That's where you are wrong. The vast majority of Christians agrees with me. The logical status of "rock so heavy that God can't lift" is not debated at all. Almost universally, they exclude logical contradictions from their concept of omnipotence. And those who don't explicitly state that God is not bounded by logic.

The view that the economy can be opened while keeping covid-19 deaths low is proven. It's not a mix of belief and evidence like I accuse atheists of having because there is nothing added to the view or proposition that is not backed by logic and evidence...

That accusation rings hollow when atheists do not hold any beliefs by your definition. More to the point, that's not the view I was referring to. I was very explicit as to which view I was referring to: the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure.

Now, if I said the following, "The economy can be opened while keeping covid-19 deaths, and doing this would get Trump reelected", then we got a problem. That last clause regarding Trump is unproven - it is opinion. The view taken entirely would be a valid example of something not supported by logic and evidence alone and that's because some parts are proven and some aren't. Every bit of my view is proven.

But you just told me that as long as there is some logic and evidence to it, then it's not an opinion. There is some logic and evidence to the idea that a strong economy improves Trumps chances of re-election. You really need to sort your epistemology out.

On all intellectual matters, they do.

Not on all intellectual matters, they do when it comes to one intellectual matter - namely science.

There is a way to think like a scientist when it comes to religion, politics, and even philosophy. You can't do that if you cling to unproven ideologies and follow your liberal leaders in an unquestionable way. That's what you accuse many Christians of doing when it comes to how they follow the Bible and Church leaders.

Many of whom are scientists, do they cling to unproven ideologies or are rational on all intellectual matters. What are you doing to do now? Redefine "scientist" as someone who use logic and evidence (alone? some?) on all intellectual matters? Exclude the thing they don't use logic and evidence on as non-intellectual matters?

Again, there is a way to think like a scientists on all intellectual matters.

Sure, but that's easy because scientists don't use logic and evidence on all intellectual matters.

I addressed this earlier. You must first show that it is illogical. I'd like to see a debate on it, but the fact that there is a debate...

That's not a fact. That's a falsehood. There is no debate on the logical status of a rock so heavy that an omnipotent god can't lift. To those who accepts it, they readily affirm that it is incoherent. This is a perfect fit for your scenario where someone who sees a view as incoherent, and is still able to believe in it.

If such a view can exist without feelings then feelings can be weeded out.

Well, that's moot because it can't.

Every part of my view on covid-19 is supported by logic and evidence.

Supported by some logic and evidence, or supported by logic and evidence alone?

HIV, the flu, etc.

So you are trying to tell me that the flu with a mortality rate of well below 0.1%, has the same or perhaps even higher mortality rates as COVID-19 with a rate of 3-4%? As for HIV, you think the infection risk may be a factor here?

Keep in mind that the excerpt gives the covid-19 mortality rate for ALL cases, but my point is about the mortality rate among the LOW risk population which again is less than 1%. That is the population that I'm arguing should not be in lockdown just as we don't lock them down for the flu.

You need to compare like with like, what is the mortality rate for the LOW risk population for seasonal flu?

But even if we consider the mortality rate involving all populations of covid-19, which is only 3-4%, then that is not some high number. In fact, as more cases are discovered that don't involve death, the mortality rate will go down. And that is the expected trend given that there are a lot of 'asymptomatic' carriers that aren't tested.

Or we can credit the relatively low death rate to the measures we have taken to lower its spread?

The primary goal of keeping the "essential" businesses open is not to help the economy (that's secondary or not even that), but rather it's to make sure people at least have what they absolutely need. But you can bet that the businesses that are closed will cause a big impact on our economy, especially given the increasing number of job layoffs.

Either way, I'm claiming that all businesses or much more than just essential ones, can be opened while keeping covid-19 deaths low.

You are changing the goal post, failing to limit the damage is not the same thing as helping the economy. Making sure people at least have what they absolutely need, is limiting the damage. Besides, I have access to a lot more than what I absolutely need. Online shopping is still a thing, I can get all my usual leisure and luxury item just fine. You simply disagree on the level of acceptable risk vs acceptable damage.

In terms of solving problems, scientists are only as good as their focus. If their focus is only on avoiding infection, then they'll only deal with evidence that goes towards that. But that doesn't mean there isn't scientific evidence to support to keep covid-19 deaths low AND opening the economy at the same time. There is evidence, but that is not the focus of many scientists.

So much for scientists using logic and evidence for all intellectual matters, eh?

Again, my focus was on finding a way to do BOTH at the same time.

Ah huh, and you think you know better than those scientists working in the governments of the world, who are task with focusing on both these things?

[AgnosticBoy]

I don't see it as a belief because it doesn't involve anyone accepting it. Hypotheticals are used as an example, a thought experiment, as opposed to be offered as something someone must accept or decline as being true.

So a propositional statement with a truth value, not supported by evidence and logic alone is still not a belief, an actual individual needs to accept that it is indeed true for it to be a belief?

That is correct. My point is also valid if you consider the definition of proposition and belief. A propositional statement is one that can be judged to be true or false. It does not mean that something is true unlike the term belief. A belief is accepting that something is true.

So the Earth is flat may or may not be a belief, depending on how many flat Earthers there are? Greek religion stopped being a belief when its last follower died?

Well it's a myth but no longer a belief or opinion under the Greek religion scenario you brought up. Beliefs involve acceptance or someone to hold them. For instance, to me, the flat Earth view would not be a belief even though it's a viewpoint.

But your statement about my view is only true IF it meets your condition. In your example, it would be equivalent to establishing that Socrates was a man before you can draw the conclusion that he was mortal.

Right.

So then, you are tasked with showing that my point IS a belief or that it meets your criteria. When you keep saying IF it meets this or that, that's not the same as saying it DOES meet it.

I never said that feelings make something true. This means that even if that was my basis for wanting to open the economy, I would not claim that it's right or wrong or a "should" even. I would only accept a view as true when logic and evidence proves that it's true.

And yet you accept the view that the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure as true, the view is a proposition, and it's not backed by evidence and logic alone, still you don't think it qualify as a belief?

It's a proposition which again means that it can be evaluated as a true or false claim. A belief is a step beyond evaluating for truth. Instead of just evaluating to determine something to be true or false, a belief would involving reaching that determination and ACCEPTing something as truth.

Your view is unreasonable. I have the logic and evidence to prove my view.

No, you don't. Not this view: the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure. It's based on your feelings, regardless of whether it is your feelings that makes it true or not.

Well it is not proven completely because I assume the goal is correct- it's a hypothetical. However, this does not make it a belief. Refer to my previous replies in this post.

That view STAYS true or as a fact, just as long as the logic and evidence STAYS in place. Having a feeling does not take away from the logic and evidence.

But it does disqualify as a view that is proven by logic and evidence alone.

The feeling may play a role in developing the view or be involved with how you feel about the view but it plays no role on establishing the truth.




It's still not opinion just as long as logic and evidence is in the picture. The entire view is supported by logic and evidence.

It can not be called an opinion just as long as the logic and evidence supports the view, and that's by definition. To be an opinion, there has to be ZERO logic and evidence.

That wasn't your original definition, earlier you said it had to be proven by logic and evidence alone. I quizzed you on that extensively, and now you want to change it to as long as there is a bit of logic and evidence?

The only way I would accept such a statement is


How do you justify calling something an ideology when there is always a tiniest bit of logic and evidence with many outlandish ideas?

This is clearly wrong. Proposition does not mean the view is true. It refers to views that can be considered as true OR false. Beliefs are considered truth.

Ah huh, and unless you are trying to tell me you hold views that is considered as false, I don't know what point you are trying to make here.

Here is a simple way to explain it: Opinion involves ZERO evidence. I have evidence for my view. Therefore it's not an opinion.

As above, if that's the case, then how is liberalism an ideology?

In your mind that may be, but I doubt Christians would agree which is why there is DEBATE on it (i.e. it is disputed).

That's where you are wrong. The vast majority of Christians agrees with me. The logical status of "rock so heavy that God can't lift" is not debated at all. Almost universally, they exclude logical contradictions from their concept of omnipotence. And those who don't explicitly state that God is not bounded by logic.

The view that the economy can be opened while keeping covid-19 deaths low is proven. It's not a mix of belief and evidence like I accuse atheists of having because there is nothing added to the view or proposition that is not backed by logic and evidence...

That accusation rings hollow when atheists do not hold any beliefs by your definition. More to the point, that's not the view I was referring to. I was very explicit as to which view I was referring to: the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure.

Now, if I said the following, "The economy can be opened while keeping covid-19 deaths, and doing this would get Trump reelected", then we got a problem. That last clause regarding Trump is unproven - it is opinion. The view taken entirely would be a valid example of something not supported by logic and evidence alone and that's because some parts are proven and some aren't. Every bit of my view is proven.

But you just told me that as long as there is some logic and evidence to it, then it's not an opinion. There is some logic and evidence to the idea that a strong economy improves Trumps chances of re-election. You really need to sort your epistemology out.

On all intellectual matters, they do.

Not on all intellectual matters, they do when it comes to one intellectual matter - namely science.

There is a way to think like a scientist when it comes to religion, politics, and even philosophy. You can't do that if you cling to unproven ideologies and follow your liberal leaders in an unquestionable way. That's what you accuse many Christians of doing when it comes to how they follow the Bible and Church leaders.

Many of whom are scientists, do they cling to unproven ideologies or are rational on all intellectual matters. What are you doing to do now? Redefine "scientist" as someone who use logic and evidence (alone? some?) on all intellectual matters? Exclude the thing they don't use logic and evidence on as non-intellectual matters?

Again, there is a way to think like a scientists on all intellectual matters.

Sure, but that's easy because scientists don't use logic and evidence on all intellectual matters.

I addressed this earlier. You must first show that it is illogical. I'd like to see a debate on it, but the fact that there is a debate...

That's not a fact. That's a falsehood. There is no debate on the logical status of a rock so heavy that an omnipotent god can't lift. To those who accepts it, they readily affirm that it is incoherent. This is a perfect fit for your scenario where someone who sees a view as incoherent, and is still able to believe in it.

If such a view can exist without feelings then feelings can be weeded out.

Well, that's moot because it can't.

Every part of my view on covid-19 is supported by logic and evidence.

Supported by some logic and evidence, or supported by logic and evidence alone?

HIV, the flu, etc.

So you are trying to tell me that the flu with a mortality rate of well below 0.1%, has the same or perhaps even higher mortality rates as COVID-19 with a rate of 3-4%? As for HIV, you think the infection risk may be a factor here?

Keep in mind that the excerpt gives the covid-19 mortality rate for ALL cases, but my point is about the mortality rate among the LOW risk population which again is less than 1%. That is the population that I'm arguing should not be in lockdown just as we don't lock them down for the flu.

You need to compare like with like, what is the mortality rate for the LOW risk population for seasonal flu?

But even if we consider the mortality rate involving all populations of covid-19, which is only 3-4%, then that is not some high number. In fact, as more cases are discovered that don't involve death, the mortality rate will go down. And that is the expected trend given that there are a lot of 'asymptomatic' carriers that aren't tested.

Or we can credit the relatively low death rate to the measures we have taken to lower its spread?

The primary goal of keeping the "essential" businesses open is not to help the economy (that's secondary or not even that), but rather it's to make sure people at least have what they absolutely need. But you can bet that the businesses that are closed will cause a big impact on our economy, especially given the increasing number of job layoffs.

Either way, I'm claiming that all businesses or much more than just essential ones, can be opened while keeping covid-19 deaths low.

You are changing the goal post, failing to limit the damage is not the same thing as helping the economy. Making sure people at least have what they absolutely need, is limiting the damage. Besides, I have access to a lot more than what I absolutely need. Online shopping is still a thing, I can get all my usual leisure and luxury item just fine. You simply disagree on the level of acceptable risk vs acceptable damage.

In terms of solving problems, scientists are only as good as their focus. If their focus is only on avoiding infection, then they'll only deal with evidence that goes towards that. But that doesn't mean there isn't scientific evidence to support to keep covid-19 deaths low AND opening the economy at the same time. There is evidence, but that is not the focus of many scientists.

So much for scientists using logic and evidence for all intellectual matters, eh?

Again, my focus was on finding a way to do BOTH at the same time.

Ah huh, and you think you know better than those scientists working in the governments of the world, who are task with focusing on both these things?

[AgnosticBoy]

I don't see it as a belief because it doesn't involve anyone accepting it. Hypotheticals are used as an example, a thought experiment, as opposed to be offered as something someone must accept or decline as being true.

So a propositional statement with a truth value, not supported by evidence and logic alone is still not a belief, an actual individual needs to accept that it is indeed true for it to be a belief?

That is correct. My point is also valid if you consider the definitions for proposition and belief. A propositional statement is one that can be judged to be true or false. It does not mean that something is true unlike the term belief. A belief is accepting that something is true.

So the Earth is flat may or may not be a belief, depending on how many flat Earthers there are? Greek religion stopped being a belief when its last follower died?

Well it's a myth but no longer a belief or opinion under the Greek religion scenario you brought up. Beliefs involve acceptance or someone to hold them. For instance, to me, the flat Earth view would not be a belief even though it's a viewpoint.

But your statement about my view is only true IF it meets your condition. In your example, it would be equivalent to establishing that Socrates was a man before you can draw the conclusion that he was mortal.

Right.

So then, you are tasked with showing that my point IS a belief or that it meets your criteria. When you keep saying IF it meets this or that, that's not the same as saying it DOES meet it.

I never said that feelings make something true. This means that even if that was my basis for wanting to open the economy, I would not claim that it's right or wrong or a "should" even. I would only accept a view as true when logic and evidence proves that it's true.

And yet you accept the view that the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure as true, the view is a proposition, and it's not backed by evidence and logic alone, still you don't think it qualify as a belief?

It's a proposition which again means that it can be evaluated as a true or false claim. A belief is a step beyond evaluating for truth. Instead of just evaluating to determine something to be true or false, a belief would involving reaching that determination and ACCEPTing something as truth.

Your view is unreasonable. I have the logic and evidence to prove my view.

No, you don't. Not this view: the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure. It's based on your feelings, regardless of whether it is your feelings that makes it true or not.

Well it is not proven completely because I assume the goal is correct- it's a hypothetical. However, this does not make it a belief. Refer to my previous replies in this post.

That view STAYS true or as a fact, just as long as the logic and evidence STAYS in place. Having a feeling does not take away from the logic and evidence.

But it does disqualify as a view that is proven by logic and evidence alone.

That's too restrictive and I'll explain further with a scenario. Suppose there is a scenario where a person accepts a view as true because of feelings, logic, and evidence. Just as long as logic and evidence alone can show that the view is true or fact, then it would still not count as a belief or opinion.

Why? Because of the definition of 'opinion'. Opinions are not based on logic and evidence per definition. I made this point in my last post and you ignored it.

Now here is my case. I already told you several times that I do not accept feelings as a basis for truth, and even if I did at the start then it would be weeded out. Simply put, I don't even need it to to support my case since there is available logic and evidence that could prove it.

Here is what you left out:
The feeling may play a role in developing the view or be involved with how you feel about the view. The feeling may even be a reason that you accept something as true. But again, even if some or all of these were the case.

As far as logic and evidence "alone", that means that my view is supported by those two and that alone proves it true.


In other words, the view is supported by logic and evidence. That alone makes it knowledge or a fact. Remember, a view can not be a fact and opinion at the same time ( I'm referring to a view that has all of its claims proven).

It's still not opinion just as long as logic and evidence is in the picture. The entire view is supported by logic and evidence.

It can not be called an opinion just as long as the logic and evidence supports the view, and that's by definition. To be an opinion, there has to be ZERO logic and evidence.

That wasn't your original definition, earlier you said it had to be proven by logic and evidence alone. I quizzed you on that extensively, and now you want to change it to as long as there is a bit of logic and evidence?

What determines if a view is proven true is when it is backed by logic and evidence. That part doesn't change. That view is a fact just as long as that logic and evidence stays in place.

EXTRA

I'm not referring to a view where only some of its claims are proven and some arent. I'm referring to a view that logic and evidence alone proves that it's true. Any other reason or means offered as support would be extraneous. In my case it would be weeded out..

. Any other reason or means offered as support would be extraneous. In my case it would be weeded out.


How do you justify calling something an ideology when there is always a tiniest bit of logic and evidence with many outlandish ideas?

Here is a simple way to explain it: Opinion involves ZERO evidence. I have evidence for my view. Therefore it's not an opinion.

As above, if that's the case, then how is liberalism an ideology?

Under my scenario, the feelings are extraneous. Logic and evidence suppor my entire view.

In your mind that may be, but I doubt Christians would agree which is why there is DEBATE on it (i.e. it is disputed).

That's where you are wrong. The vast majority of Christians agrees with me. The logical status of "rock so heavy that God can't lift" is not debated at all. Almost universally, they exclude logical contradictions from their concept of omnipotence. And those who don't explicitly state that God is not bounded by logic.

The view that the economy can be opened while keeping covid-19 deaths low is proven. It's not a mix of belief and evidence like I accuse atheists of having because there is nothing added to the view or proposition that is not backed by logic and evidence...

That accusation rings hollow when atheists do not hold any beliefs by your definition. More to the point, that's not the view I was referring to. I was very explicit as to which view I was referring to: the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure.

Now, if I said the following, "The economy can be opened while keeping covid-19 deaths, and doing this would get Trump reelected", then we got a problem. That last clause regarding Trump is unproven - it is opinion. The view taken entirely would be a valid example of something not supported by logic and evidence alone and that's because some parts are proven and some aren't. Every bit of my view is proven.

But you just told me that as long as there is some logic and evidence to it, then it's not an opinion. There is some logic and evidence to the idea that a strong economy improves Trumps chances of re-election. You really need to sort your epistemology out.

On all intellectual matters, they do.

Not on all intellectual matters, they do when it comes to one intellectual matter - namely science.

There is a way to think like a scientist when it comes to religion, politics, and even philosophy. You can't do that if you cling to unproven ideologies and follow your liberal leaders in an unquestionable way. That's what you accuse many Christians of doing when it comes to how they follow the Bible and Church leaders.

Many of whom are scientists, do they cling to unproven ideologies or are rational on all intellectual matters. What are you doing to do now? Redefine "scientist" as someone who use logic and evidence (alone? some?) on all intellectual matters? Exclude the thing they don't use logic and evidence on as non-intellectual matters?

Again, there is a way to think like a scientists on all intellectual matters.

Sure, but that's easy because scientists don't use logic and evidence on all intellectual matters.

I addressed this earlier. You must first show that it is illogical. I'd like to see a debate on it, but the fact that there is a debate...

That's not a fact. That's a falsehood. There is no debate on the logical status of a rock so heavy that an omnipotent god can't lift. To those who accepts it, they readily affirm that it is incoherent. This is a perfect fit for your scenario where someone who sees a view as incoherent, and is still able to believe in it.

If such a view can exist without feelings then feelings can be weeded out.

Well, that's moot because it can't.

Every part of my view on covid-19 is supported by logic and evidence.

Supported by some logic and evidence, or supported by logic and evidence alone?

HIV, the flu, etc.

So you are trying to tell me that the flu with a mortality rate of well below 0.1%, has the same or perhaps even higher mortality rates as COVID-19 with a rate of 3-4%? As for HIV, you think the infection risk may be a factor here?

Keep in mind that the excerpt gives the covid-19 mortality rate for ALL cases, but my point is about the mortality rate among the LOW risk population which again is less than 1%. That is the population that I'm arguing should not be in lockdown just as we don't lock them down for the flu.

You need to compare like with like, what is the mortality rate for the LOW risk population for seasonal flu?

But even if we consider the mortality rate involving all populations of covid-19, which is only 3-4%, then that is not some high number. In fact, as more cases are discovered that don't involve death, the mortality rate will go down. And that is the expected trend given that there are a lot of 'asymptomatic' carriers that aren't tested.

Or we can credit the relatively low death rate to the measures we have taken to lower its spread?

The primary goal of keeping the "essential" businesses open is not to help the economy (that's secondary or not even that), but rather it's to make sure people at least have what they absolutely need. But you can bet that the businesses that are closed will cause a big impact on our economy, especially given the increasing number of job layoffs.

Either way, I'm claiming that all businesses or much more than just essential ones, can be opened while keeping covid-19 deaths low.

You are changing the goal post, failing to limit the damage is not the same thing as helping the economy. Making sure people at least have what they absolutely need, is limiting the damage. Besides, I have access to a lot more than what I absolutely need. Online shopping is still a thing, I can get all my usual leisure and luxury item just fine. You simply disagree on the level of acceptable risk vs acceptable damage.

In terms of solving problems, scientists are only as good as their focus. If their focus is only on avoiding infection, then they'll only deal with evidence that goes towards that. But that doesn't mean there isn't scientific evidence to support to keep covid-19 deaths low AND opening the economy at the same time. There is evidence, but that is not the focus of many scientists.

So much for scientists using logic and evidence for all intellectual matters, eh?

Again, my focus was on finding a way to do BOTH at the same time.

Ah huh, and you think you know better than those scientists working in the governments of the world, who are task with focusing on both these things?

[AgnosticBoy]

So a propositional statement with a truth value, not supported by evidence and logic alone is still not a belief, an actual individual needs to accept that it is indeed true for it to be a belief?

Well lets just say it's not supported by logic and evidence at all, as opposed to just adding the word "alone" like you keep doing. Such a statement would still not be a belief if no one accepts it as truth. If it is not accepted by me, or even perhaps by anyone else, then it is not my belief nor anyone else's. It is a simple statement. You would just call it a false statement or one where its truth is unknown. Again, lets go back to your own dictionary source that was used earlier:

Belief:

something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

So the Earth is flat may or may not be a belief, depending on how many flat Earthers there are? Greek religion stopped being a belief when its last follower died?

In calling something a belief, the number of people does not matter but rather the key point is if it is accepted. As for your religion example, it would not be a belief today if it is no longer accepted by anyone. It was a belief to the ancient Greeks.

Also, consider my point on hypotheticals. Just because I ASSUME God's existence to be true, just to argue about objective morals, does not mean I believe God exists. I don't even need to determine if God is backed by logic and evidence just to ASSUME his existence. This applies to my view on covid-19 that involved a "goal". I assume that the goal is true or that it's something that should be done. If it should be done, then we should take steps to do it.

But your statement about my view is only true IF it meets your condition. In your example, it would be equivalent to establishing that Socrates was a man before you can draw the conclusion that he was mortal.

Right.

Right, what? Care to show me how or why my view is not based on logic and evidence? You must do that before calling it a belief. How can a proven view be a belief or opinion???

And yet you accept the view that the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure as true, the view is a proposition, and it's not backed by evidence and logic alone, still you don't think it qualify as a belief?

It is a hypothetical proposition. I assume its truth. I assume that the goal is to lessen damages, and opening the economy would do just that. By definition, goals should be accomplished.

No, you don't. Not this view: the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure. It's based on your feelings, regardless of whether it is your feelings that makes it true or not.

Feelings are not why I accept the view as being proven or true. Feelings are why I "LIKE" the view but liking something does not make it proven nor true. It is logic and evidence that makes a view true, and that is the only reason I accept it as truth.

That view STAYS true or as a fact, just as long as the logic and evidence STAYS in place. Having a feeling does not take away from the logic and evidence.

But it does disqualify as a view that is proven by logic and evidence alone.

Did you mean to say that it is not based on logic and evidence alone? I ask because if it is already proven by logic and evidence, then what more can we use for proof? All that's required for proof is logic and evidence. I can see that a view may have started out based on feelings, but when logic and evidence is added, and it's enough to prove the view, and the person accepts that, then the feeling becomes extraneous in terms of proof. A person in this case would no longer be holding a "feeling" as a support for Truth.

It can not be called an opinion just as long as the logic and evidence supports the view, and that's by definition. To be an opinion, there has to be ZERO logic and evidence.

That wasn't your original definition, earlier you said it had to be proven by logic and evidence alone. I quizzed you on that extensively, and now you want to change it to as long as there is a bit of logic and evidence? How do you justify calling something an ideology when there is always a tiniest bit of logic and evidence with many outlandish ideas?

My view has always been that what proves that a view true is logic and evidence alone.

In my last post, I was referring to evidence that would show that something is True. It's not different than saying opinions contain nothing proven. Now we can say that parts of a view are proven and parts are not. In that case, my point about opinion would only apply to the unproven parts of the view. I answered to this in my very next reply in this post.

Here is a simple way to explain it: Opinion involves ZERO evidence. I have evidence for my view. Therefore it's not an opinion.

As above, if that's the case, then how is liberalism an ideology?

The parts that aren't proven are opinion. Those opinionated parts contain ZERO evidence or proof.

In your mind that may be, but I doubt Christians would agree which is why there is DEBATE on it (i.e. it is disputed).

That's where you are wrong. The vast majority of Christians agrees with me. The logical status of "rock so heavy that God can't lift" is not debated at all. Almost universally, they exclude logical contradictions from their concept of omnipotence. And those who don't explicitly state that God is not bounded by logic.

That's a contradictory belief and not a incoherent belief. I know what both statements (God is omnipotent/ creating an unliftable rock) mean. To believe they can happen, is a belief in a contradiction. Incoherence would involve not knowing what anything means - having no idea what it means. Someone might call it an incoherent belief, but that would be because they don't understand the difference between the two or may simply not understand what incoherence is.

Now, if I said the following, "The economy can be opened while keeping covid-19 deaths, and doing this would get Trump reelected", then we got a problem. That last clause regarding Trump is unproven - it is opinion. The view taken entirely would be a valid example of something not supported by logic and evidence alone and that's because some parts are proven and some aren't. Every bit of my view is proven.

But you just told me that as long as there is some logic and evidence to it, then it's not an opinion. There is some logic and evidence to the idea that a strong economy improves Trumps chances of re-election. You really need to sort your epistemology out.

I clarified my point. I was referring to evidence on the scale of proof. I was using 'opinion' in sharp distinction with 'knowledge' or 'fact'.

Fact:
2. something known to exist or to have happened:

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact?s=t

You bring up a scenario where there is evidence but it is still less than proof (saying it's likely to happen does not mean you've proven or KNOW it will happen). Something in that case would still be a belief because you don't know for a fact that it would happen. Having a belief based in some evidence is certainly better than having a baseless opinion, but it's still a belief nonetheless. The only thing I accept as truth are facts and you and I could both agree that liberalism is not a factual worldview - not entirely it's not.

On all intellectual matters, they do.

Not on all intellectual matters, they do when it comes to one intellectual matter - namely science.

Science is very wide ranging, correct? Science can be applied to all intellectual matters. All you gotta do is seek verifiable evidence in those matters, and if you can't get it then you remain unconvinced.

There is a way to think like a scientist when it comes to religion, politics, and even philosophy. You can't do that if you cling to unproven ideologies and follow your liberal leaders in an unquestionable way. That's what you accuse many Christians of doing when it comes to how they follow the Bible and Church leaders.

Many of whom are scientists, do they cling to unproven ideologies or are rational on all intellectual matters. What are you doing to do now? Redefine "scientist" as someone who use logic and evidence (alone? some?) on all intellectual matters? Exclude the thing they don't use logic and evidence on as non-intellectual matters?

Or how about you consider the scientists who do use a science approach on all matters rather than arguing as if they don't exist. Zzyzx has claimed to be one of those. Perhaps you fall short of that?

Again, there is a way to think like a scientists on all intellectual matters.

Sure, but that's easy because scientists don't use logic and evidence on all intellectual matters.

I do and I'm not a scientist. So far, it seems you are not willing to give up your unproven ideologies because you've said nothing about that AFTER I told you that is part of what's required. Independents give up on liberal ideology or at least the unproven areas. Not sure why you think others can't.

If such a view can exist without feelings then feelings can be weeded out.

Well, that's moot because it can't.

Prove it! Should I say you reject God because of your feelings? If it is possible to avoid feelings in that case, then you should accept it is possible for feelings not to be a factor in my accepting my view as truth.

Every part of my view on covid-19 is supported by logic and evidence.

Supported by some logic and evidence, or supported by logic and evidence alone?

Logic and evidence alone shows that my view is true. All of its claims are proven as opposed to just some of its views.

HIV, the flu, etc.

So you are trying to tell me that the flu with a mortality rate of well below 0.1%, has the same or perhaps even higher mortality rates as COVID-19 with a rate of 3-4%? As for HIV, you think the infection risk may be a factor here?

No. The 3 to 4% mortality rate is based on ALL (low risk and high risk population) death cases. What I'm claiming is less than 1% are deaths among the LOW risk population.

Keep in mind that the excerpt gives the covid-19 mortality rate for ALL cases, but my point is about the mortality rate among the LOW risk population which again is less than 1%. That is the population that I'm arguing should not be in lockdown just as we don't lock them down for the flu.

You need to compare like with like, what is the mortality rate for the LOW risk population for seasonal flu?

Clearly false. I'm referring to a mortality rate that we would keep the economy open for. That doesn't take referencing the mortality rate for the low risk flu population since we keep the economy open for a mortality rate that would be higher than that (i.e. ALL deaths counting the LOW and HIGH risk for flu).

Do you know how many of the low risk population have died in a covid-19 hot spot like New York? 15 people (source). New York has a total of 173,300 cases as of today. 15 represents MUCH less than 1% of 173,000 (1% is 1,733). In fact, 15 represents MUCH less than the .1% you mentioned for the flu mortality rate (173 is .1% of 173,000).

You gonna shut down the economy for a population that only has 15 deaths? Do you see why protestors think that many of the governors are being unnecessarily restrictive?

But even if we consider the mortality rate involving all populations of covid-19, which is only 3-4%, then that is not some high number. In fact, as more cases are discovered that don't involve death, the mortality rate will go down. And that is the expected trend given that there are a lot of 'asymptomatic' carriers that aren't tested.

Or we can credit the relatively low death rate to the measures we have taken to lower its spread?

No, because my stats comes from people who already have the disease. It was spread to them already. And it is a FACT, that out of those who do have it, those 44 years old and younger, account for a very small percentage of the deaths. Again, refer to my last reply.

The primary goal of keeping the "essential" businesses open is not to help the economy (that's secondary or not even that), but rather it's to make sure people at least have what they absolutely need. But you can bet that the businesses that are closed will cause a big impact on our economy, especially given the increasing number of job layoffs.

Either way, I'm claiming that all businesses or much more than just essential ones, can be opened while keeping covid-19 deaths low.

You are changing the goal post, failing to limit the damage is not the same thing as helping the economy. Making sure people at least have what they absolutely need, is limiting the damage. Besides, I have access to a lot more than what I absolutely need. Online shopping is still a thing, I can get all my usual leisure and luxury item just fine. You simply disagree on the level of acceptable risk vs acceptable damage.

It doesn't cause as much damage as keeping people inside their home entirely, but there is still a negative effect on the economy compared to having it open completely. Please stop spinning it as if it's otherwise.

In terms of solving problems, scientists are only as good as their focus. If their focus is only on avoiding infection, then they'll only deal with evidence that goes towards that. But that doesn't mean there isn't scientific evidence to support to keep covid-19 deaths low AND opening the economy at the same time. There is evidence, but that is not the focus of many scientists.

So much for scientists using logic and evidence for all intellectual matters, eh?

If they were focused on it, then they would use logic and evidence. Simple!

Ah huh, and you think you know better than those scientists working in the governments of the world, who are task with focusing on both these things?

Your statement here proves nothing. Address my evidence and not who is what. You've failed to disprove my OP and now you're failing even on these side matters. You have more questions than proof!

[Bust Nak]

Well lets just say it's not supported by logic and evidence at all, as opposed to just adding the word "alone" like you keep doing. Such a statement would still not be a belief if no one accepts it as truth. If it is not accepted by me, or even perhaps by anyone else, then it is not my belief nor anyone else's. It is a simple statement. You would just call it a false statement or one where its truth is unknown. Again, lets go back to your own dictionary source that was used earlier...

So you are telling me that tales of the Greek pantheon are not beliefs because no one believe them anymore?

In calling something a belief, the number of people does not matter but rather the key point is if it is accepted.

Sure it matters. When that number is zero, it is not accepted by anyone.

As for your religion example, it would not be a belief today if it is no longer accepted by anyone. It was a belief to the ancient Greeks.

But no longer a belief? When referring to Greek mythology, be sure to qualify it as ex-belief.

Also, consider my point on hypotheticals. Just because I ASSUME God's existence to be true, just to argue about objective morals, does not mean I believe God exists. I don't even need to determine if God is backed by logic and evidence just to ASSUME his existence.

That much goes without saying. But it does not apply here since you go beyond assuming something for the sake of argument. You said the goal is true.

Right, what? Care to show me how or why my view is not based on logic and evidence? You must do that before calling it a belief.

Why? Isn't a view that is not based on logic and evidence alone a belief?

How can a proven view be a belief or opinion???

Presumably it can't? But that's moot since I was talking about your unproven view.

It is a hypothetical proposition. I assume its truth.

Well that's not what you said before, nor is it what you are saying below for that matter. You said, and are still saying the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure.

I assume that the goal is to lessen damages, and opening the economy would do just that. By definition, goals should be accomplished.

As mentioned before, if that's all you were saying, you wouldn't be calling on the government to reopen the economy.

Feelings are not why I accept the view as being proven or true. Feelings are why I "LIKE" the view but liking something does not make it proven nor true. It is logic and evidence that makes a view true, and that is the only reason I accept it as truth.

Well, there you go, that doesn't sound very much like a hypothetical proposition, assumed to be true for the sake of argument, now, does it? You really need to get your story straight first.

Did you mean to say that it is not based on logic and evidence alone? I ask because if it is already proven by logic and evidence, then what more can we use for proof?

Nah, I meant to say it's not proven by logic and evidence alone. How can it be already proven by logic and evidence, when it is not proven by logic and evidence alone?

All that's required for proof is logic and evidence. I can see that a view may have started out based on feelings, but when logic and evidence is added, and it's enough to prove the view...

Is it though? You would still have something that is in the middle of the scale of proof.

My view has always been that what proves that a view true is logic and evidence alone.

In my last post, I was referring to evidence that would show that something is True. It's not different than saying opinions contain nothing proven. Now we can say that parts of a view are proven and parts are not. In that case, my point about opinion would only apply to the unproven parts of the view. I answered to this in my very next reply in this post.

Well that's clear as mud. From what I can gathered on one end of scale of proof as you called it below, you have the proven fact with 100% logic and evidence, on the opposite end, you have opinion with ZERO logic and evidence. What is the stuff that populates the vast middle ground between proven fact and opinion?

The parts that aren't proven are opinion. Those opinionated parts contain ZERO evidence or proof.

So can I get you on record in saying parts of liberalism is factual and true then?

That's a contradictory belief and not a incoherent belief. I know what both statements (God is omnipotent/ creating an unliftable rock) mean.

We've been through that before, that's not coherent, it's merely intelligible. Intelligible doesn't get you to coherence. Unintelligible would involve not knowing what anything means - having no idea what it means.

I clarified my point. I was referring to evidence on the scale of proof. I was using 'opinion' in sharp distinction with 'knowledge' or 'fact'...

You bring up a scenario where there is evidence but it is still less than proof (saying it's likely to happen does not mean you've proven or KNOW it will happen). Something in that case would still be a belief because you don't know for a fact that it would happen.

"Less than proof," that sounded to me like less than 100% logic and evidence? That does not gel with what you told me earlier. You said in your last post, and I quote, "To be an opinion, there has to be ZERO logic and evidence." There is a huge difference between less than 100% and ZERO. So which is it?

Having a belief based in some evidence is certainly better than having a baseless opinion, but it's still a belief nonetheless. The only thing I accept as truth are facts and you and I could both agree that liberalism is not a factual worldview - not entirely it's not.

Now it sounds like you are going with less than 100%.

Science is very wide ranging, correct? Science can be applied to all intellectual matters. All you gotta do is seek verifiable evidence in those matters, and if you can't get it then you remain unconvinced.

You don't sound unconvinced when it came to " the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure" is that not an intellectual matters where science applies?

Or how about you consider the scientists who do use a science approach on all matters rather than arguing as if they don't exist.

How about you concede that plenty of scientists don't use a science approach on all matters first?

Zzyzx has claimed to be one of those. Perhaps you fall short of that?

What exactly was Zzyzx's claim? It is impossible to use a scientific approach on all matters, since there are matters other than intellectual matters where science does not apply.

I do and I'm not a scientist. So far, it seems you are not willing to give up your unproven ideologies because you've said nothing about that AFTER I told you that is part of what's required. Independents give up on liberal ideology or at least the unproven areas. Not sure why you think others can't.

I think that because I have evidence and logic to support that view.

Prove it!

That's easy. Goals are set by individual based on their desires. Without desire there is no goal, hence you cannot separate desires from goals.

Should I say you reject God because of your feelings? If it is possible to avoid feelings in that case, then you should accept it is possible for feelings not to be a factor in my accepting my view as truth.

Nah, rejection of God is not a goal, hence the above argument does not apply.

Logic and evidence alone shows that my view is true. All of its claims are proven as opposed to just some of its views.

Sounds to me like you are saying 100% logic and evidence as opposed to non-ZERO amount of logic and evidence here. Did I understand you correctly?

No. The 3 to 4% mortality rate is based on ALL (low risk and high risk population) death cases. What I'm claiming is less than 1% are deaths among the LOW risk population.

Right, so you accept that COVID-19 is more deadly than seasonal flu for both the low risk group and the high risk group, but still think it's a good example to compare COVID-19 with.

Clearly false. I'm referring to a mortality rate that we would keep the economy open for. That doesn't take referencing the mortality rate for the low risk flu population since we keep the economy open for a mortality rate that would be higher than that (i.e. ALL deaths counting the LOW and HIGH risk for flu).

But that makes it that much harder for the HIGH risk group to isolate, plus the LOW risk group are still taking up hospital beds for the serious but not life threatening conditions.

Do you know how many of the low risk population have died in a covid-19 hot spot like New York? 15 people

Do you know how many of the low risk population have died in a seasonal flu hot spot? What am I supposed to be comparing this 15 figure to?

You gonna shut down the economy for a population that only has 15 deaths?

Yes.

Do you see why protestors think that many of the governors are being unnecessarily restrictive?

Also yes.

No, because my stats comes from people who already have the disease. It was spread to them already. And it is a FACT, that out of those who do have it, those 44 years old and younger, account for a very small percentage of the deaths. Again, refer to my last reply.

Sure, but you are not taking into account who is being inflicted. The high risk group were (somewhat) quickly isolated, meaning lower death rate.

It doesn't cause as much damage as keeping people inside their home entirely, but there is still a negative effect on the economy compared to having it open completely. Please stop spinning it as if it's otherwise.

You are the one doing the spinning. Sure there is damage, but measures are being taken to limit that damage, you just disagree on the level of acceptable damage to the economy.

If they were focused on it, then they would use logic and evidence. Simple!

And if they were not focused on it, then they would not use logic and evidence. Also simple!

Your statement here proves nothing. Address my evidence and not who is what.

You are the one who brought up acting like scientists - my statement proves that your claims are at odds with those who have evidence and logic.

You've failed to disprove my OP and now you're failing even on these side matters. You have more questions than proof!

Opinion noted.