This is Sabio Lantz's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Sabio Lantz's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Sabio Lantz
Recent Activity
Questions: (1) Since protons are made of quarks which I presume take up space in some sort of probability way as electrons do, is "size" easily discussed for these objects? (2) Is the Standard Model complete? Isn't is missing stuff and such a finding could help guide the tweaks needed to get even better approximations?
1 reply
@ cl On Common Sense Atheism you just accused Luke of not being generous in understanding an opponent by not following his own Golden Rule. You wanted him to try and put an opponent's view in the best light before arguing. Could you do the same for the claim that "Extra-ordinary claims demand extra-ordinary evidence". A chap in Leah's site (above) wrote a good condition to supplement the claim: cumulative evidence. For instance, if you claimed to own a Honda, I would require little evidence for several reasons. (1) i know lots of folks own Hondas (cumulative evidence - outside the particular claim) (2) I have no reason to distrust you to date (cumulative evidence) (3) I have little at stake in your claim (following my version that: "Higher stake claims demand higher levels of evidence.") So I can believe easily. But if you told me that "If you jump out that 17th story window, my flying saucer will pick you up and give you the ride of your life", well, for all the above reasons, I would demand more evidence. So, cl, if you see even the slightest hint of truth in what the terse saying is hinting at, could you use the golden rule and try to write a version that captures that truth. For language is a slippery thing -- we should try to help each other. (I admit hypocricy for my admonition but it is a good guiding principal, I think) Looking forward to your version unless you feel it is totally shipwrecked and points at no truth.
1 reply
Darn, I just wrote a long reply, but when I had to "sign in", I lost it. TypePad is a royal pain.
1 reply
@ CL The person who gets to be the arbiter of "higher stakes" is the individual of course. Take for instance if I tell you there is a drug to cure your bald head. Well, some individuals may want lots of evidence before ingesting an unknown drug, others not. Let's say I have evidence that a God lives in the tree in the woods and will save your soul if you lay acorns before it. Some may indeed need not evidence and some may want lots. So I think the folks who would say this are saying, "The cost of acting on your proposition is too high for me at your level of evidence." Pretty simple I think. Concerning your de-capitated chap -- I wouldn't believe you with a video or witnesses, I'd probably have to see it and even then I'd doubt it I were tricked. But the trick here is that I really wouldn't care. Believing such a thing would risk none of my stakes. (Yeah, without ability to follow your threads, I will probably rarely be able to come back -- have you ever thought of switching over to WordPress?)
1 reply
How do I follow threads on TypePad? I didn't see something to check? Or is it automatic?
1 reply
Or maybe something like this gets to the point: Higher stake claims demand higher levels of evidence.
1 reply
How about a libertarian atheist scientist. There,that even strikes more of a balance. Smile. I don't read anything in the constitution about balancing out at the expense of excellence.
1 reply
Sabio Lantz is now following The Typepad Team
May 21, 2010