Is There A Double Standard?

[bluegreenearth]

When reviewing various arguments from theists and non-theists, I often wonder if the people launching objections to these arguments on either side of the debate would apply the same level of skepticism towards their own arguments. Please describe a real-world scenario you've experienced where a non-theist or theist failed to apply the same level of skepticism towards their own argument as they did for the counter-argument. Alternatively, describe a real-world scenario you've experienced where the objection to an argument offered by a non-theist or theist also applied to the counter-argument but was unjustifiably ignored or dismissed.

The debate will be whether a double standard was most likely exhibited in the described scenario or not.

If a double standard was exhibited, was it justifiable and how?

[William]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #101]

Abiogenesis does not equal Evolution.

noun
the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
"to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago"
HISTORICAL
another term for spontaneous generation. [Definitions from Oxford Languages]

It appears the word cannot be explained without also using the word 'evolution'. I think it is appropriate to view the part [Abiogenesis] in relation to the whole [Evolution] it is true that the part does not equal the whole, but that is different from implying that the part is behaving unlike the whole. The part behaves like the whole, and in that, is equal with the whole.

[Realworldjack]

Okay? So what of those who hold that they "tentatively know" the most reasonable explanation, which happens to be in complete contrast to what it is you "tentatively know"?

If their claim is equally consistent with the other relevant demonstrable claims and/or equally succeeds in making novel testable predictions, then neither my claim nor their claim can be objectively identified as the most reasonable explanation. Accordingly, I would be compelled to revise my position from tentatively endorsing my claim to tentatively endorsing neither claim as the most reasonable explanation.

If their claim is more consistent with the other relevant demonstrable claims and/or succeeds in making more precise novel testable predictions, then it will be an objectively more reasonable explanation. Accordingly, I would be compelled to revise my position from tentatively endorsing my claim to tentatively endorsing their claim as the most reasonable explanation.

Next, is the "most reasonable explanation", always, ever the correct explanation?

If by "correct" you mean absolutely true, then the problem of underdetermination prohibits me from having that level of certainty. If by "correct" you mean the most consistent with the other relevant demonstrable claims and/or has the most success in making the most precise novel testable predictions, then "yes" is my answer to your question. If I'm misunderstanding your question, please provide a clarification. Thanks.

You seem to always ever, want to look at things, whatever they may be, from a scientific standpoint. However, science is not in the business of attempting to give answers to every question. Science, is in the business of falsifying claims. If a claim is unfalsifiable, it is outside the realm of science. This does not mean that there would be no facts, evidence, or reasons to believe the claim. It simply means, it is outside the realm of science. The scientific method is not able to tell us if an unfalsifiable claim would be true, or false. Science can only tell us if the claim would be scientifically possible. If science demonstrates to us, a certain claim is scientifically impossible, this does not tell us if the claim would be true, or false. This would only tell us, if the claim is indeed true, science would not be able to explain it.

Having explained this, the resurrection is not an "unfalsifiable claim" since it is based upon facts, and evidence. However, this does not mean the question of the resurrection would be in the realm of science. The point is, while the scientific method is a wonderful thing, which science should adhere to, there are certain things outside the realm of science, and we should not expect science to answer such questions.

[Diagoras]

It appears the word cannot be explained without also using the word 'evolution'. I think it is appropriate to view the part [Abiogenesis] in relation to the whole [Evolution] it is true that the part does not equal the whole, but that is different from implying that the part is behaving unlike the whole. The part behaves like the whole, and in that, is equal with the whole.

Here’s a more comprehensive description of abiogenesis that doesn’t require the word ‘evolution’ in the way you are describing, therefore counters the claim that one is part of the other:

https://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis

In the interest of clarity and accuracy, both abiogenesis and evolution are processes, but the latter - when talking about life - strictly confines itself to ‘changes in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is a different set of theories dealing with the stage of transition from inorganic material to biological life and certainly before the mechanisms for heritable information to be exchanged had developed.

When talking about non-living material, that article further explains how certain characteristics of life (metabolism, reproduction) may have developed separately. Therefore making it harder to definitively delineate between life and non-life. But those processes don’t ‘behave’ like evolution does.

[Diagoras]

The scientific method is not able to tell us if an unfalsifiable claim would be true, or false.

By definition, something unfalsifiable can’t be proved true or false - no matter what method (scientific or otherwise) is used.

Science can only tell us if the <unfalsifiable> claim would be scientifically possible. If science demonstrates to us, a certain claim is scientifically impossible, this does not tell us if the claim would be true, or false.

Proving something impossible does show that the claim is false though, therefore it couldn’t have been unfalsifiable in the first place.

Consider this example:
“And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.”

As a claim about the relative sizes of giants to humans found in the Bible (Numbers 13:32), we can’t test this directly. But there are well-established physical laws (the ‘square-cube’ law, specifically) which prove that giants beyond a certain size are ‘impossible’ due to the pressures exerted on bone. So we can’t seemingly falsify the biblical testimony, but we can - by proving its impossibility.

I would hope you agree that the statement, “I don’t know if it’s true or false, but it’s definitely impossible.” is illogical. Which brings us to your following sentence:

This would only tell us, if the claim is indeed true, science would not be able to explain it.

“It happened, but it’s impossible for it to have happened” is self-contradictory. Either ‘it’ didn’t actually happen the way we thought, or we need to revise our theory that ‘proved’ it impossible. Watch just about any magic trick performance for an example of the former, or consider Einstein’s famous theories for an example of the latter.

[bluegreenearth]

You seem to always ever, want to look at things, whatever they may be, from a scientific standpoint. However, science is not in the business of attempting to give answers to every question. Science, is in the business of falsifying claims. If a claim is unfalsifiable, it is outside the realm of science. This does not mean that there would be no facts, evidence, or reasons to believe the claim. It simply means, it is outside the realm of science. The scientific method is not able to tell us if an unfalsifiable claim would be true, or false. Science can only tell us if the claim would be scientifically possible. If science demonstrates to us, a certain claim is scientifically impossible, this does not tell us if the claim would be true, or false. This would only tell us, if the claim is indeed true, science would not be able to explain it.

Having explained this, the resurrection is not an "unfalsifiable claim" since it is based upon facts, and evidence. However, this does not mean the question of the resurrection would be in the realm of science. The point is, while the scientific method is a wonderful thing, which science should adhere to, there are certain things outside the realm of science, and we should not expect science to answer such questions.

Actually, I had a "pragmatic" approach in mind when I answered your question but can understand how it could be perceived as scientific. Having been previously informed of your belief that the resurrection claim is not unfalsifiable or scientific, I inferred you would be more receptive to receiving a pragmatic answer to your question. Nevertheless, in your response above, I'm unable to identify a direct objection or refutation to the answer I provided to your question. Please clarify exactly where my answer to your specific question was insufficient. Thanks.

[JehovahsWitness]

Proving something impossible does show that the claim is false though ...

Consider this example:
“And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.”

As a claim about the relative sizes of giants to humans found in the Bible (Numbers 13:32), we can’t test this directly. But there are well-established physical laws (the ‘square-cube’ law, specifically) which prove that giants beyond a certain size are ‘impossible’ due to the pressures exerted on bone. So we can’t seemingly falsify the biblical testimony, but we can - by proving its impossibility.

NUMBERS 13: 32, 33

And they kept on giving the Israelites a bad report+ about the land that they had spied out, saying: “The land that we passed through to spy out is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people whom we saw in it are men of extraordinary size.+ 33 And there we saw the Nephʹi·lim, the sons of Aʹnak,+ who are from* the Nephʹi·lim, and in comparison we seemed like grasshoppers, both to us and to them.”

There is absolutely no way to prove the statement in numbers 32 "impossible" and the square cube law specifically cannot be used. Namely because no data (measurements) are provide. All we have is an undefined classification "giants" , a biblical reference ("Nephelim") and a similie (....as /like "grasshoper to a giant") .


Nothing in the bible can be proven to be impossible, mathematical or otherwise.






JW

[brunumb]

"The land that we passed through to spy out is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people whom we saw in it are men of extraordinary size."

All we have is an undefined classification "giants" , a biblical reference ("Nephelim") and a similie (....as /like "grasshoper to a giant") .

Just looking at that simile, what height would a giant have to be, at a minimum, before you would consider yourself as a grasshopper when compared with it?

The estimate for the maximum height of a human being is 9 feet. That hardly makes the average human a grasshopper in comparison.

https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/tall-can-grow.html

[JehovahsWitness]

"The land that we passed through to spy out is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people whom we saw in it are men of extraordinary size."

All we have is an undefined classification "giants" , a biblical reference ("Nephelim") and a similie (....as /like "grasshoper to a giant") .

Just looking at that simile, what height would a giant have to be, at a minimum, before you would consider yourself as a grasshopper when compared with it?

The estimate for the maximum height of a human being is 9 feet. That hardly makes the average human a grasshopper in comparison.

https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/tall-can-grow.html

The text spoke about the impression ("seemed like") the spies had, faced with their enemies. An impression is entirely subjective and unquantifiable it doesnt even have to be true . They could have felt as small as a flea and felt their opponents as big as a mountain ... so what?! We are neither talking maths nor science, but perception and feelings.

Just looking at that simile, what height would a giant have to be, at a minimum, before you would consider yourself as a grasshopper when compared with it?


https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/tall-can-grow.html

Me? You're asking me what I personally would consider a giant? I'm tiny, ... anything over 6"6.

Regardless of how one interprets the verse, the bottom line is we do not have any actual measurements in the passage on which to base a hypothesis?

No actual data does not an impossibility prove.




JW

[brunumb]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #109]

They were men of extraordinary size and they devoured people. At a maximum height of about 9 feet the average person would not have described themselves as relative grasshoppers. No maths required, just basic human nature. It is clearly fiction and your explanation simply doesn't wash. But, good on you for trying to shore up this ridiculous story.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #105]

By definition, something unfalsifiable can’t be proved true or false - no matter what method (scientific or otherwise) is used.

Correct!

Proving something impossible does show that the claim is false though, therefore it couldn’t have been unfalsifiable in the first place.

I said nothing concerning, "Proving something impossible". Rather what I said was, "Science can only tell us if the claim would be scientifically possible". If science were to determine that an "unfalsifiable claim" would not be scientifically possible, this would in no way demonstrate the claim would be, true, or false. Rather, it would simply mean, if the claim is indeed true, science would not be able to explain it.

“It happened, but it’s impossible for it to have happened” is self-contradictory.

This would be true, if this is what I said, but it is not. In fact, I never said, "but it's happened". The bottom line here is, unless you are under the impression, science has all the answers, to all the questions, acknowledging something would not be scientifically possible, is not in any way the same as saying, the claim would be false. In other words, there are those of us who understand science has a particular realm. This realm involves dealing with, "falsifiable claims".

Again, as an example, the reports on the resurrection contained in the Bible is not an unfalsifiable claim since it is based upon facts, and evidence. However, it is outside the realm of science to be able to demonstrate if this event did in fact take place. Rather, science can only tell us if the event would be scientifically possible. If science determines the event to be scientifically impossible, this would in no way demonstrate the event did not take place. It would only tell us that if the event did in fact take place, science would not be able to explain it.