Discussion on answer by armand: Is the Skeptic's Prayer a legitimate scientific experiment?

lupe

09:57

@microondas I'm a big fan of "Eric the God eating penguin". And would agree - the rules for good experimental design is that the experiment should distinguish between outcomes. The sceptics prayer fails to distinguish between "Actions that happen by chance alone and are attributed to this experiment", "Actions as the result of a god", and, the placebo side, "Actions preformed differently by the experimenter as the result of seeking a god"

A better experiment would be to get two people. One goes "Dear god, please remember the following string of random letters, and tell them to my friend", and, in a different room, ideally in different buildings, said friend prays to receive the string of random letters. There's no specific miracle, just information exchange.

Idran

15:49

@lupe I already know they're going to reject that concept with a response along the lines of "how dare you order God around".

@pygosceles "I have not presupposed any results. I know that the God of Israel is the true One." This is the problem here. The point of the Skeptic's Prayer isn't to convince you. It's to convince the person performing the experiment. What you know to be true is irrelevant when determining if it's a legitimate scientific experiment, you have to consider it from the perspective of the person who is performing it.

What I was telling you, and what many others have told you, is that if two or more people can perform this experiment towards different entities, divine or mortal or fictional or whatever, and receive the same results, then it is not a valid experiment. Because the experiment does not then tell you in and of itself which result better models reality.

And I know you will claim that only the experience of the one directing the prayer towards God is valid, but the ones performing the experiment cannot distinguish that without already holding that belief. That is what makes it unscientific.

It does not impugn your faith to say that the Skeptic's Prayer is unscientific. It does not invalidate your belief, because your belief doesn't need scientific proof to be valid. You yourself have already pointed out that not all truths have to be empirically supported. So why are you so concerned with this particular example being an example of empirical support?

pygosceles

16:10

@lupe Is all experimental evidence null and void?

Yes, and the person performing the experiment needs to be honest and sincere. Nothing written down in a manual can force the experimenter to stay within the rails and honestly report experimental outcomes, not matter how true it is.
Your speculative example has failed to produce results. The God of Scripture has produced millions of positive results.
The skeptic's prayer is scientific because it is true science, it is true experimentation, and it results in true knowledge when performed properly. The aversion of so many to actually performing the experiment properly or reporting its results…

Let me know if you ever find positive evidence for your hypothetical.
As of right now it is purely hypothetical and it ignores reality. Let me restate it in more familiar terms:
"Alice believes that 2+2=4 and received what she feels is confirming evidence for her belief. Bob thinks that 2+2=5 and has cited some arbitrary circumstances of his life to say that he is sure that 2+2=5. To an observer unschooled in mathematics, their claims and supporting evidence appear identical."
Saying that "therefore" Alice and Bob's quandary is unsolvable because their approaches and perceived quality of re…

microondas

16:26

Your 2+2=4-or-5 example is PERFECT. If Alice says 2+2=4, and Bob says 2+2=5, and they arrived there with the same method, we can use another method to determine which one is correct. NOW, what method can we use to determine which of their conclusions is correct regarding their skeptic's prayer?

Idran

@pygosceles In the "truth table" you linked to me yesterday. The category of "unverified truth".

microondas

@pygosceles "The skeptic's prayer... results in true knowledge when performed properly." Sure, if you presuppose that the conclusion YOU (pygosceles) like is the correct conclusion, then anyone who reaches the conclusion you like has clearly done it right. That's a lovely circle you've drawn there.

Idran

@microondas Plus the circular logic of "The skeptic's prayer is scientific because it is true science". With shades of "no true Scotsman" being implicitly thrown at us.

Frankly, I feel like claiming you can't have faith in a truth without it being empirically supported is against the entire concept of faith. If you needed someone to prove to you that a divine being exists, then you don't actually have faith in them.

microondas

How incredibly convenient, pygosceles, that you can hand-wave away anyone who tries the skeptic's prayer and gets the answer you don't already believe in, with a dismissive "yeah but you did it wrong".

Idran

So even if the Skeptic's Prayer was scientific, it wouldn't really be worthwhile, because needing to use it to confirm the existence of a god means you don't really have faith in that god anyway.

microondas

16:36

@pygosceles I want you to ask this question of yourself. I don't need or even care about how you'd answer it to me. Just sit with it. Here's the question: why do you hold the things you don't believe (or the things that contradict what you already do believe), to a higher standard of evidence/justification than the things you already believe? If you are confident in the things you hold to be true, the most rigorous skepticism won't threaten it, and will only further confirm it.

Again, I am not asking you to answer it here, because it's off topic. But I want you to truly, honestly, ask it of yourself.

@Mark Thanks @Mark for the links. I found it interesting to read the Christians' POV on the topic. That said, I think the skeptic's prayer is a flimsy (mis-)application of skepticism, and reading the answers from Christians it seems like the skeptic's prayer gives them (Christians) two convenient cop-outs: 1. "If the SP doesn't convince them of a god they just haven't done the prayer correctly/earnestly, that's all" and 2. "See, we dabble in skepticism too"

Mark

17:35

@microondas If you would like to learn more about Christian epistemology, this question may be of interest too:

JMac

@pygosceles The "proper" way to do the skeptics prayer is not "true science" in the way that any other modern science is done. It's entire design encourages confirmation bias, which is something every other field of science tries to eliminate. It seems really dishonest to call the skeptics prayer true science when its "experimental" setup would be rejected in any rigorous branch of science.

Mark

1

Q: What is an overview of perspectives on whether the existence of the Christian God can be established solely through the use of reason and evidence?

Note: I'm interested in the Christian perspective on the question Can God's existence be established through reason and publicly accessible evidence? that I recently asked on Philosophy Stack Exchange. Feel free to read that question and the answers that people have posted for a broader context. ...

2

And my answer to said question: christianity.stackexchange.com/a/99847/61679

pygosceles

@microondas What is that other method? Describe it, then we will see how it applies to the current problem.

microondas

@JMac pygosceles, in a reply on the original question, also implied that they doubt the validity of biological evolution, so I have my doubts that they have a solid grasp on what science (as an academic field, and method) actually is

@pygosceles I'm asking you. You seem to have a method to distinguish.

pygosceles

@Idran @Idran There is no such thing as an unverifiable truth. It occupies a virtual spot in the truth table as a "grey area", and people might think some things are unverifiable because they have failed to verify or acknowledge a verification of them, but that still does not falsify that they are verifiable. The decision that something is unverifiable but true can only be made in ignorance. Given indefatigable persistence and revelation, there is no truth that cannot be known.

@microondas @microondas Again, I presuppose nothing. Am I not allowed to know anything? Do people not really know things, they only like or dislike them? I like the fact that 2+2=4, I do not like the claim that 2+2=5 because it is false. You are committing a fallacy of correlation implying causation. The fact that I happen to like or dislike something is not at issue. The fact of certain things being true is what we are talkig about, and how any reasonable person can be convinced of them.

@Idran @Idran There is such a thing as true science. There are true Scotsmen. By definition, what results in knowledge is scientific. Do you dispute the definition of science?

@Idran "I feel like claiming you can't have faith in a truth without it being empirically supported is against the entire concept of faith."
Not at all. Let me explain the seemingly foreign concept of faith. Faith is confidence that motivates us to act and discover things we do not yet know for certain. It is an inherent propensity of all beings that act under any amount of uncertainty. Uncertainty is not faith, faith is the determination to overcome or act properly notwithstanding one's uncertainty, which might be relevant or irrelevant to a certain end. Intelligent and rational beings hav…

@microondas @microondas It is at least as convenient that scientists may dismiss any experiment that fails to demonstrate the existence of hypothesized dark matter can handwave away a negative result by saying we conducted our experiment improperly. Would you mind not bringing the double standards to our next theoretical physics lunch meeting?

@Idran @Idran Faith isn't certainty of everything in advance. Faith is the process by which new knowledge is acquired. Faith necessitates the presence of both uncertainty and knowledge. It is the boundary where the two meet. Faith is the transduction of uncertainty into knowledge by assimilation with what is known to be true. Faith and reason are two arms of the same body, and are inseparable. It is impossible to exercise one without the other. Faith is however the stronger method.

@microondas I hold all claims of truth to the same standard. If you do not think you can know anything, then you could never safely dismiss anything. If you do know something, then you must dismiss known falsehoods. "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" -Sherlock Holmes. The law of mutual exclusion is one that I and all rational beings accept. Skepticism isn't proof, or knowledge either. It's asserted ignorance.

@microondas I am unconvinced of theories such as the Big Bang, abiogenesis, macroevolution and dark matter. Did I not pray to Darwin enough, or leave him enough bananas as an offering? Do I need to sacrifice some offspring to the pseudodeity of natural selection before I can be worthy to know its truth? Do I need to sprinkle some primordial soup on Redi's flask of rotting meat and hold my breath for two hundred million years in order for the miracle of life to occur?

@microondas If this is a copout that is good enough for the irreligious, then is it not good enough for the religious? Or do you hold the religious to a different standard of proof?

Airplane flight is just confirmation bias because someone willed it into existence because he believed hard enough that it could be done. See how easy that was? Every scientific discovery is confirmation bias if you want to move the goalposts that far.

It seems really dishonest to call evolution, abiogenesis or the Big Bang true science when its "experimental" setup would be rejected in any rigorous branch of science.
Do you also see how easy that was too?

@microondas Evolution has been proven to be a sham on its own terms. Would you like for me to repeat one or more of the proofs here?

@microondas As long as you are handwaving away what the independent verification is, taking it as a foregone conclusion, all rational beings will be practically compelled to believe your reasoning is circular.

@microondas And I do have a method to distinguish between claims like 2+2=4 and 2+2=5. I am asking you for yours since you seem to believe everyone present has or ought to have it. How is that different from telling everyone he has a conscience?

Idran

18:56

@pygosceles I just fundamentally disagree on your conception of faith, then, and we're at an impass. I'm not going to convince you, you're not going to convince me, so I'm going to leave you to your version of faith and you can leave me to my version.

lupe

21:38

@pygosceles so, I'm not sure what you're arguing, here. No one prays to Darwin, you think of a theory, and design an experiment that can disprove it. So, in this case, the "experiment" of the sceptics prayer would be laughed out of any undergraduate class on experimental design. You have a poorly defined outcome (prehaps happiness?), with no proposed way of objectively measuring it. You have two uncontrolled variables, time and sincerity,

pygosceles

@Idran How do you define faith? I don't think I have heard your version. There may be more overlap than you think. I think you said that if someone needs proof, then he doesn't actually have faith, and you disagree with the idea that empirical support can be a requirement of faith. Is that accurate? I think we might be seeing eye to eye more than you think.

lupe

Either of which can cause the poorly defined thing you are measuring not to happen.

So the lack of evidence of god to someone preforming the experiment could be down to 1) lack of time 2) lack of sincerity or 3) lack of god. Which one cannot be determined by the person preforming the experiment

Have faith if you want to, but don't try and pretend there's any science happening here.

pygosceles

I was going there in jest to show how it might sound if it we swapped the religious and irreligious labels. I pity those undergraduate classes. They are missing out on practically all useful discovery. No wonder so many are miserable, when discovery is dismissed out of hand as wishful thinking or an impossibility!
My happiness is not poorly defined at all. I have a pretty good signal on what improves it and what threatens it. How is yours?
Sincerity is not uncontrolled. It is entirely within the individual's power.

lupe

21:56

Fascinating. Experiments I do don't depend how sincerely I do them. Accurately, sure. Carefully designed? Sure. But the nice thing is that they work or don't work without taking into account my mental state while doing them

pygosceles

@lupe Sincerity doesn't affect accuracy for you? That's odd. You must be very sincere about being accurate then, to the point that you no longer chalk it up as sincerity. There are actually quite a few aspects of experimentation in all the hard sciences that are affected by your mental state as the experimenter. I'd be hard pressed to come up with an experiment that is completely unaffected by the mental state and intentions of the experimenter. Can you think of any?

lupe

Oh, sure. The whole of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and we're working on getting biology there

Throw a ball in the air, and deeply believe it's going to stay up. It doesn't fall slower

But, ok, we're missing the main point, which is that the skeptics prayer has no distinguishing power, as I said. Can you explain, like I'm five, how conducting it distinguishes between 1) a person who did not believe hard enough, 2) a person who did not wait long enough, or 3) a god that was not there to answer

Because experiments distinguish between possibilities. A bad experiment doesn't distinguish between things.

pygosceles

22:15

One's measurement of the force of gravity will be unaffected by things like whether the person throws the ball upward, downward or sideways with arbitrary force? Sincerely? The results of calculation one obtains are invariant to carelessness and casualness?
It has tons of distinguishing power. The only reason you have advanced to say it doesn't is because you say it doesn't.
No, you can't distinguish between not believing hard enough or waiting long enough and the thing not being there. The very same thing is true of space flight. For those who don't believe, who aren't patient and don't pe…

lupe

22:27

Ah! Ok, I think I'm seeing the cross purposes we're talking at. An experiment is something you design, to test something. Yes, you have to put work into the design. Yes you have to think hard and carefully about how you are going to make sure only the variable you are testing is going to affect your results (or how to control for the others)

The specific claim I am making is that "the sceptics prayer" experiment is deeply flawed, because it has a number of variables other than the variable you are testing (existence of god), that are not controlled.

An experiment, when you preform it, should not be affected by how sincerely you do it. Your experimental design should account for this (and, in fact, we do that, with double blind trials where neither the researcher or the patient knows who is getting placebo or real medicine.)

The claim I'm making is not "it is necessary to believe something will work to persevere with it". It isn't even "there is no way of proving god exists". It is specifically that this experiment is flawed in how it is designed.

And that it cannot distinguish between the three outcomes I stated. Let's take this a different way. If I say "hey, I think this penny I'm holding, if I put it in the microwave, will turn to gold"

And you go "I don't think it will" - well, we can't really test that. If I put it in for 5 minutes on low, and it doesn't change, I could claim it takes 30 on high. Or a different microwave. Or, once 30 doesn't work, 50.

So an experiment has to have bounds. It is reasonable to state that the time might be longer than a human life - I know some forestry scientists who don't expect to live to see their experiments produce results. But it has to have a defined time, and other defined parameters before you start, otherwise you're just playing.

So, in the coin case, an experiment design would say "I think this coin will turn to gold after 30 minutes on high in the microwave"

Transcript for

Discussion on answer by armand: Is th…