To the question What is a half-demon half-angel?, a certain Gary Whittenberger (“former Psychologist, retired (1979-2004)”) commented
Maybe a full human person? No, just kidding. I don’t believe that demons and angels exist. There is no good evidence that they do.
I, Ken Ammi, replied
It’s interesting that you “don’t believe that demons and angels exist. There is no good evidence that they do” since your hidden assumption is that we ought to base our beliefs upon that for which there’s “good evidence” but on what premise from your worldview?
Also, you imply that there is evidence but just not “good” evidence which seems like a subjective preference—something to discuss down the line, perhaps.
Gary Whittenberger
KA1: It’s interesting that you “don’t believe that demons and angels exist. There is no good evidence that they do” since your hidden assumption is that we ought to base our beliefs upon that for which there’s “good evidence” but on what premise from your worldview?
GW1: Of course, we should base our beliefs on good evidence! What are the alternatives? Base them on bad evidence? Or on no evidence at all? Which of these do you support?
KA1: Also, you imply that there is evidence but just not “good” evidence which seems like a subjective preference—something to discuss down the line, perhaps.
GW1: Good evidence is objective, clear, replicated, unequivocal, and/or produced through scientific methodology. What alternative do you suggest?
Ken Ammi
So, the “premise from your worldview” is doubling down on not having a premise, “Of course, we should” which now also means that you asserted a universal imperative, “should” so the question remains and I’ll add: what universal imperative is there, on your worldview, for demanding that we “should base our beliefs on good evidence”?
We are just a the very first step and nowhere near “What are the alternatives?”
After dealing with that, we can deal with the “down the line, perhaps” issue of that what is/counts for “Good” and “evidence” is subjective—and I’ll note that you threw in a universal imperative to adhere to the “scientific methodology” as a mere assertion.
Gary Whittenberger
KA2: So, the “premise from your worldview” is doubling down on not having a premise, “Of course, we should” which now also means that you asserted a universal imperative, “should” so the question remains and I’ll add: what universal imperative is there, on your worldview, for demanding that we “should base our beliefs on good evidence”?
GW2: I am making no demand. You may or may not choose to follow my normative proposition. If you do, you will reap good outcomes for yourself and for others. If you do not, you will reap bad outcomes for yourself and others. And so, I strongly encourage you to base your beliefs on good evidence.
GW2: I agree with this: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for any one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” William Kingdon Clifford (1845-1879), mathematician and philosopher
KA2: We are just a the very first step and nowhere near “What are the alternatives?”
GW2: I disagree. I am ready for you to present your alternatives. Why would you avoid doing that?
KA2: After dealing with that, we can deal with the “down the line, perhaps” issue of that what is/counts for “Good” and “evidence” is subjective—and I’ll note that you threw in a universal imperative to adhere to the “scientific methodology” as a mere assertion.
GW2: I am ready. Make your claims.
Ken Amm
Well friend, at least you realize that there are no universal on your worldview which is why you’ve been reduced to utter subjectivism, “You may or may not choose…If…If…I strongly encourage” which, of course, is on the level of telling me which ice-cream flavor you strongly encourage me to try.
Likewise, you “agree with Clifford but don’t bother saying why and, again, that’s like telling me you agree with him on favorite ice-cream flavors.
See, you opened yourself up to being utterly ignored and rejected since while some may be terribly concerned about your subjective personal preferences du jour—based on hidden assumptions—I’ve no reason to be, right?
Likewise with, “I am ready for you to present your alternatives” and playing the “Why would you avoid doing that?” game: you are the one who just made it crystal clear that this is exclusively about whether or not I feel like pleasing your curiosity or not.
Let that sink in, you may like, prefer, some things over others but that has zero to do with me—or anyone else you’ll ever encounter.
Gary Whittenberger
KA3: Well friend, at least you realize that there are no universal on your worldview which is why you’ve been reduced to utter subjectivism, “You may or may not choose…If…If…I strongly encourage” which, of course, is on the level of telling me which ice-cream flavor you strongly encourage me to try.
GW3: Ken, I am not your friend, so please do not call me “friend.” Let’s go back to the start. I do not believe in angels because nobody has presented good scientific evidence that they exist. If you believe in angels, then present your evidence. You haven’t done that. Instead, you seem to be implying the you don’t need to provide evidence. Why would you think so?
KA3: Likewise, you “agree with Clifford but don’t bother saying why and, again, that’s like telling me you agree with him on favorite ice-cream flavors.
GW3: No, it’s not like that at all. If any person, including you, follows Clifford’s rule, then they will have better outcomes in explanation, prediction, and control during life than if they don’t follow his rule. Therefore, his rule has objective empirical support. Do you advocate the opposite? If so, then defend your opinion.
KA3: Likewise with, “I am ready for you to present your alternatives” and playing the “Why would you avoid doing that?” game: you are the one who just made it crystal clear that this is exclusively about whether or not I feel like pleasing your curiosity or not.
GW3: You are playing the game of evading your responsibility to explain and defend your alternative views.
KA3: Let that sink in, you may like, prefer, some things over others but that has zero to do with me—or anyone else you’ll ever encounter.
GW3: Condescending remark, unhelpful and inflammatory.
Ken Ammi
You’re not my friend? We’ll have to change that.
You say “Let’s go back to the start” but you don’t seem to realize you’re starting at the conclusion. See, the start isn’t “because nobody has presented good scientific evidence” but why, on your worldview, is presenting evidence some sort of universal imperative, what justification do you have from your worldview to demand evidence, for basing your views on evidence, etc.?
Thus, we’re nowhere near “you seem to be implying the you don’t need to provide evidence” but are still stuck at step number one which you can’t seem to even attempt to take.
This is systematic thinking 101.
You then just pass the buck to Clifford’s rule so the question remains and you’ve accomplished nothing. See, the issue now becomes why, on your worldview, is following Clifford’s rule some sort of universal imperative, what justification do you have from your worldview to demand we follow Clifford’s rule. When you punt to “better outcomes” we then need to discuss how you determine better vs. worse and why, on your worldview, choosing the better is some sort of universal imperative.
Thus, in this case again, we’re not at the stage of “then defend your opinion” but awaiting you to do anything except beginning with conclusions.
We’re also not even close to me defending alternative views—especially since I haven’t proposed any.
It’s sad that you’re so emotive that you’re incapable of systematic critical logical thinking so that, for example, you tell me about your subjective feelings, “Condescending remark, unhelpful and inflammatory” rather than actually dealing with issues. FYI: that which you subjectively consider (allegedly) condescending, (supposedly) unhelpful and (so called) inflammatory aren’t standards.
Have you really never once thought about such issues and dealt with them?
Gary Whittenberger
KA4: You’re not my friend? We’ll have to change that.
GW4: You’re off to a bad start.
KA4: You say “Let’s go back to the start” but you don’t seem to realize you’re starting at the conclusion.
GW4: No. The start was this question: “What is a half-demon half-angel?”
KA4: See, the start isn’t “because nobody has presented good scientific evidence” but why, on your worldview, is presenting evidence some sort of universal imperative, what justification do you have from your worldview to demand evidence, for basing your views on evidence, etc.?
GW4: My response to the start was “I don’t believe that demons and angels exist. There is no good evidence that they do.”
GW4: My epistemological justification for requiring good evidence is that in the past when persons have required good evidence for belief, then they have been better able to explain, predict, and control their world than when the have not required good evidence or required no evidence at all. What more justification do you need beyond that?
KA4: You then just pass the buck to Clifford’s rule so the question remains and you’ve accomplished nothing.
GW4: My rule is the same as Clifford’s rule. What I have accomplished is to show you that other experts agree with me, including a well-regarded philosopher and mathematician.
KA4: See, the issue now becomes why, on your worldview, is following Clifford’s rule some sort of universal imperative, what justification do you have from your worldview to demand we follow Clifford’s rule.
GW4: Asked and answered.
KA4: When you punt to “better outcomes” we then need to discuss how you determine better vs. worse and why, on your worldview, choosing the better is some sort of universal imperative.
GW4: The better outcomes are in explanation, prediction, and control.
KA4: Thus, in this case again, we’re not at the stage of “then defend your opinion” but awaiting you to do anything except beginning with conclusions.
GW4: Is your favored alternative that we should require no evidence or poor evidence for forming our beliefs?
KA4: We’re also not even close to me defending alternative views—especially since I haven’t proposed any.
GW4: You have implied one of the two presented above.
KA4: It’s sad that you’re so emotive that you’re incapable of systematic critical logical thinking so that, for example, you tell me about your subjective feelings, “Condescending remark, unhelpful and inflammatory” rather than actually dealing with issues. FYI: that which you subjectively consider (allegedly) condescending, (supposedly) unhelpful and (so called) inflammatory aren’t standards.
GW4: Ad hominem. Unhelpful and inflammatory. Try to stick to the subject matters – the existence of demons and angels and epistemology.
KA4: Have you really never once thought about such issues and dealt with them?
GW4: Another ad hominem. Unhelpful and inflammatory. If you keep making such comments, then I will just ignore you. If you get back on track, then we might have a useful conversation.
Ken Ammi
“off to a bad start” really? My friend and I appreciate being corrected.
That’s not the contextual start, it was your mere assertions which you merely doubled down on.
You seem to be saying that since someone else required evidence then you will as well which is circular and begs the question. But, you do appeal to subjective terminology (beginning with conclusions again) such as, “good…better…good” but how do you even define such concepts on your worldview? That’s the part you sidestepped.
Likewise with Clifford’s rule: I noted you “just pass the buck to” it and you merely doubled down on that which is circular and begs the question (does circularity and question begging even matter on your worldview?). And on top of that, you pull an argument from authority: since “other experts” (“other” besides yourself?) then it must be okay.
You then merely sidestepped “why, on your worldview, is following Clifford’s rule some sort of universal imperative, what justification do you have from your worldview to demand we follow Clifford’s rule.”
See, since you seem to have literally never considered your worldview’s implications and so have never applied them to your worldview then you think that questions such as “Is your favored alternative…” are even cogent when they’re not: you’re merely presupposing where I’m headed but you’re simply mistaken. Thus, this is not a case of “You have implied…” but rather, you have inferred (and incorrectly so).
Please read an academic definition of “Ad hominem” (wait, do ad hominems matter on your worldview?) since I committed no such thing. Also, the subject matters include your jumps to conclusion based on that other people have jumped to conclusions so it must be okay with a dose of subjective terminology such as “good” and “better.”
But that you’ll ignore me because you’re unused to being critical of your own assertion is an Atheist 101 tactic.
Gary Whittenberger
KA5: You seem to be saying that since someone else required evidence then you will as well which is circular and begs the question.
GW5: False. For all claims of which I am skeptical, I ask for evidence. Nothing wrong with that.
KA5: But, you do appeal to subjective terminology (beginning with conclusions again) such as, “good…better…good” but how do you even define such concepts on your worldview? That’s the part you sidestepped.
GW5: Since you don’t accept the requirement of evidence, I am not going to discuss what is “good evidence” with you.
KA5: Likewise with Clifford’s rule: I noted you “just pass the buck to” it and you merely doubled down on that which is circular and begs the question (does circularity and question begging even matter on your worldview?). And on top of that, you pull an argument from authority: since “other experts” (“other” besides yourself?) then it must be okay.
GW5: Clifford and I agree. Nothing wrong with citing him. If you do not accept the requirement of evidence, then you are living in the Dark Ages and there is no value in us continuing this conversation.
Ken Ammi
Friend, you’re going in circles (is that any sort of problem on your worldview?) since the issue is upon what premise from your worldview you “ask for evidence” and your reply now is, “I ask for evidence.”
You then, yet again, merely assert, “the requirement of evidence” about which you’ve merely punted so you’ve not demonstrated any requirement at all.
I’m empathetic why you’re “not going to discuss what is ‘good evidence’” since that issue alone exposes two fundamentals failures of your worldview.
Likewise with Clifford’s rule about which you merely say, “Clifford and I agree” so then perhaps the question should be upon what premise of Clifford’s worldview Clifford based the rule.
FYI: “Dark Ages” is a myth. But what, on your worldview, would be wrong with someone, “living in the Dark Ages”?
You have very strong opinions about issues that you seem to have never thought about before—at least not critically, skeptically, rationally, logically, systematically, etc.
Gary Whittenberger:
KA6: Friend, you’re going in circles (is that any sort of problem on your worldview?) since the issue is upon what premise from your worldview you “ask for evidence” and your reply now is, “I ask for evidence.”
GW6: I am not your friend, so don’t call me “friend.” You are ignoring an important part of my reply which was this: “My epistemological justification for requiring good evidence is that in the past when persons have required good evidence for belief, then they have been better able to explain, predict, and control their world than when they have not required good evidence or required no evidence at all. What more justification do you need beyond that?”
KA6: I’m empathetic why you’re “not going to discuss what is ‘good evidence’” since that issue alone exposes two fundamentals failures of your worldview.
GW6: Because you do not accept the requirement of evidence, there is no point in debating you on the issue of “good evidence.” Your rocket doesn’t even get off the ground.
KA6: Likewise with Clifford’s rule about which you merely say, “Clifford and I agree” so then perhaps the question should be upon what premise of Clifford’s worldview Clifford based the rule.
GW6: I told you and you rejected it.
KA6: You have very strong opinions about issues that you seem to have never thought about before—at least not critically, skeptically, rationally, logically, systematically, etc.
GW6: False. You just disagree with my “strong opinions” and then claim that they are unfounded. Your rocket has exploded on the ground. You are going to get nowhere without embracing principles of evidence. Your epistemology is bankrupt.
Ken Ammi:
Let’s cut to the chase then: we’re going to get nowhere without embracing principles of evidence then do what I’ve been begging you to do time and again, simply justify demanding evidence, on your worldview.
All you’ve done is to double down on asserting that since other people have demanded evidence then you also demand it.
Or that “they have been better able to explain, predict, and control their world” but you don’t seem to understand that on your worldview there’s no such thing as “better” since there’re no standard of well, anything. There’s no universal imperative to do well, anything at all.
Such is why, or so it seems to me, you qualified your statement with, “My epistemological justification” but I didn’t ask you about you, I asked about your worldview, not your subjective personal preference du jour (based on hidden assumptions which you seem to want to avoid like the plague).
Gary Whittenberger
KA6: Let’s cut to the chase then: we’re going to get nowhere without embracing principles of evidence then do what I’ve been begging you to do time and again, simply justify demanding evidence, on your worldview.
GW6: Beg all you want. I’m not going to waste my time justifying the need for evidence.
KA6: All you’ve done is to double down on asserting that since other people have demanded evidence then you also demand it.
GW6: I will triple down on the demand.
KA6: Or that “they have been better able to explain, predict, and control their world” but you don’t seem to understand that on your worldview there’s no such thing as “better” since there’re no standard of well, anything. There’s no universal imperative to do well, anything at all.
GW6: I totally disagree with you on this point. Obviously we are not going to agree, so I agree to disagree.
KA6: Such is why, or so it seems to me, you qualified your statement with, “My epistemological justification” but I didn’t ask you about you, I asked about your worldview, not your subjective personal preference du jour (based on hidden assumptions which you seem to want to avoid like the plague).
GW6: Your resistance to evidence is irrational. If you’d like to embrace the need for evidence, then we can talk more about angels and demons which were the original topics.
Ken Ammi
Are you missing the point on purpose by this point?
We are not discussing “the need for evidence,” we’re discussing you demanding evidence without justification—and that you do so because you’re worldview is such an utter fundamental level failure that you’re literally incapable of justifying demanding evidence on, or from, your worldview, which is why you just keep punting to other people.
And indeed, you just keep demanding without a premise which is why you will always begin with merely jumped to conclusions.
It’s fascinating that I point out the fact that, “on your worldview there’s no such thing as ‘better’…” and since you’re incapable of counterarguing, you just run away with a mere, “I totally disagree with you on this point” but can’t even say why.
Thus, that this is about me resisting evidence is what’s irrational since you either still can’t wrap your mind around a subject with which you’re clearly unfamiliar (but about which you have very strong assertions) or you are so shocked by your worldview’s utter failure that you want to play a game of denial.
During your practice, did you ever deal with a person’s problems by going back to the problems’ roots? Because that’s all I’m asking.
Yet, you seem to be the patient who says, “I don’t care about the roots, I want you to deal with and fix now, now!”
That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.