That is incorrect though. You can still have EVIDENCE that the idea is *NOT* actually true, even if you do not have PROOF that it is not (such as if it contradicted itself). We can have evidence AGAINST THE IDEA that clouds in the sky are actually magical witches which pour water onto the ground below them (aka “rain”). We can make observations about what clouds are, about how they form, how they dissipate, under what other circumstances they do drop raindrops below them and in what circumstances they do not do that, etc. By making those observations about what raindrops are and what clouds are, it is not only rational and reasonable to conclude that they are non-magical phenomena, it is also irrational and unreasonable to conclude that they are. So no, you do not need to know with certainty some statement to be false, for it to be irrational to hold the belief. You can still hold strong evidence that the statement is false, without holding absolute proof that it is.
I think you're missing the point since your example is significantly different from the one where animals speak Japanese. To makes the two examples sufficiently similar we can indeed assume we have a model, the usual model, to explain why rain is falling. Specifically, the model will say that if such and such conditions obtain, rain just falls. Then believing that animals speak Japanese when not being listened to would be similar to somebody believing that in those cases where rain is falling but they don't have direct evidence that the conditions associated with the model obtain, then they will assume that rain falls because of a witch.
I see a lot of words there, but confess to not knowing what you are trying to say. Much of the confusion does rest on your ideas about your terms of “direct evidence” and the “circumstantial evidence” that you used earlier. All evidence is “circumstantial evidence” since its existence is dependent on what circumstances obtain at the time the data is gathered. It really does not make any meaningful difference to say some evidence is “circumstantial evidence” and others is not, since it is all circumstantial by its very nature. The particular circumstances will vary, but there will always be circumstances. You have used the phrase “direct evidence” in contrast to “circumstantial evidence” but that does not have any useful meaning in the same way. All evidence will be “direct” in some way, to some extent. It is all based on observations that we make. Sometimes we will have
FIRST HAND data to rely on, where others will have
EXTERNAL data. A person can have the sensation of feeling intense heat on their body, whereas others will not have that sensation, but can still reasonably infer that the original person did have that sensation through their reflexive body movements, verbal reactions, attempts to reduce that feeling through various body movements, etc. It is all circumstantial though, since it all relies on the circumstances that are present. When you say “direct evidence” it would seem that you mean they are experiencing the sensation of intense heat, where other people do not feel that sensation but infer it based on their external observations.
Yes, in your example, deciding to put out the garbage tin is really a scientific process on a reduced scale.
It is moreso a *rational* process, and scientists and non-scientists alike both try to use the method of rationality for various purposes. Scientists do not use rationality exclusively. Rather, we all use it when trying to make observations of the world around us to collect data and then make logical deductions from that data. The scientific method is just a more formal and more reliable and more accurate means of doing so than are other alternatives like praying to gods, twiddling our thumbs, flipping a coin, etc.
Your garbage example shows you think that it is irrational to believe something for which you don't have direct evidence, namely that one put out the bin because of past observations justifying a model of garbage collection and of the present observation that the relevant conditions obtain today, which is the direct evidence you really think is necessary. Plus, this process is validated by being universally accepted as adequate.
I do not use your term of “direct evidence” so that is not an accurate statement of my viewpoint. All evidence by nature is “direct.” We make observations and collect data, make logical deductions of that data, and if the logic is sound then that constitutes evidence for a claim.
So if we make an argument:
Premise 1: Robert is a person who eats 2 carrots a day, on the typical day.
Premise 2: People who typically eat 2 carrots a day are likely to live longer than other people, all else being equal.
Conclusion: Therefore, Robert is more likely to live longer than other people, all else being equal.
The premises of that argument can have more or less “direct” or “circumstantial” data for them, to support or deny them. The argument on the whole though is not more “direct” or “circumstantial” though. It is just the truthfulness of the premises that can have that characteristic. The logic used to draw a conclusion from certain premises will be either “valid” or “invalid.” If all the premises are believed to be true and the logic used to draw a conclusion from those premises is believed to be valid logic, then we say that the argument on the whole will be “sound.” If any of the premises are believed to be false, or the logic used to draw a conclusion from those premises is believed to be invalid logic, then we say the argument on the whole is “unsound.”
So the above argument would be considered “sound” while the below argument would be considered “unsound:”
Premise 1: Robert is a person who eats 2 carrots a day, on the typical day.
Premise 2: People who typically eat 2 carrots a day are likely to live longer than other people, all else being equal.
Conclusion: Therefore, Robert is more likely to be a serial killer than other people, all else being equal.
So both premises may be considered true by the best data and observations we have available to us, but only the first argument above makes a logically deductive conclusion based on that data. The second argument may have true premises, but the logic used in making the conclusion from those premises (Robert being more likely to be a serial killer) does not follow from the premises. It uses invalid logic, and the argument is “unsound.” Even if it is true that Robert is more likely to be a serial killer than other people are, it is still not a logical deduction from the premises we have observed to be true.
In the case of rain falling, you would predict that rain is going to fall if you had direct evidence that the conditions of your model obtain now, which can only be ascertained by measurement of the relevant parameters in the atmosphere, i.e. direct evidence.
That is also how doctors conclude that a patient of theirs is likely or unlikely to be in pain. They make measurements, make observations, collect data, and so that would also be “direct evidence” to use your phrase there. It is not a firsthand account of feeling the sensation of pain, but still “direct evidence” that a person is likely or unlikely to be in pain, as much as people making measurements of the atmosphere is “direct evidence” that rain is likely or unlikely to fall.
Yet, as I see it, I'm not and I'm satisfied that I have looked at the issue in more details and depth than most people, so I think this makes my position perfectly rational.
The more significant point is comparing your view to the people who actually have done research into the matter, have done formal testing and data gathering, who do engage in discussions with peers of theirs who have done similar research, etc. If they largely believe that your position is erroneous, we are not only “free to assume” and “free to believe" that they are more likely to be right on this issue than you would be, but it is also RATIONAL AND REASONABLE to conclude that they are more likely to be right.
Oh, I accept that the position of scientists is rational but that doesn't make mine irrational. We start with different considerations.
When their “considerations” have been put through more rigorous, defined, repeated testing, peer review, and evaluation to verify their truth than what you did, then your “considerations” are not just different from each other, but their considerations are more likely to be actually true than your considerations are, especially when those considerations disagree with each other. As a human being, you would have to accept that you are subject to having all sorts of cognitive biases that can influence you and what you believe to be true, such as:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/68705/20-cognitive-biases-affect-your-decisions
Everybody tries to make accurate observations and collect reliable data, and then everybody tries to make logical deductions of those observations and data, to draw a true conclusion from it. With that first step, some methods used of data collection are more likely to be accurate than others are. The methods that scientists use of peer review, data collecting that attempts to reduce or exclude biases, etc. are more likely to succeed in making true observations about the world around us than are some of the alternatives that I have mentioned before like coin-flipping, praying to supernatural gods, etc.
We all believe we are making true observations and accurate data collection, we all believe we are using valid logic to draw conclusions from that data, and then we all believe we are making reliable conclusions and so we all believe we have “direct evidence” for our beliefs and viewpoints. Some methods actually are better than others though at accounting for any errors in our thinking. Some are less reliable. Science is just a much more formal and thorough method for doing so, and so we should trust more in the conclusions drawn by people practicing science (scientists) than the conclusions drawn by non-scientists, when those conclusions are in conflict with each other.
They limit theirs to objective cognitive capabilities such as memorisation, linguistic performance, perception tasks, etc. and choose to dismiss qualia and subjective experience as non-existent because they don't know how to get objective evidence of them.
Can you cite any kind of sources for those extraordinary claims?
What scientists are dismissing subjective experience as non-existent? They appear to clearly exist in some pieces of matter and not others. Rocks and trees and planets and various other collections of matter appear to not have qualia and subjective experiences. Animals and humans and other conscious beings, however, appear to have subjective experiences and qualia. What scientists are dismissing qualia and subjective experiences as non-existent? When has that ever been declared, by anyone? Please make specific citations.
Their position is only rational though because their objective is to do their job and be socially valued as scientists and since they don't know how to explain qualia and subjective experience in scientific terms the rational thing is to deny that they exit at all. They couldn't do that if qualia and subjective experience were straightforward concepts. I think it's easy to misunderstand what those mean. This is evidenced by the fact that it took humanity quite a long time to start articulating these ideas in a coherent way, broadly at the start of the twentieth century. And then scientists have theorised a view that the existence of whatever cannot register on any known measuring device can be flatly denied. I take it as a rational attitude but an intellectually dishonest position, unless they just happen to have no subjective experience or qualia personally, which would be very, very surprising but maybe not totally impossible.
Again, please make specific citations of any human being at all, and especially any scientist, denying the existence of “subjective experience.”
That was how I compare my views with that of scientists. The bottom line is that I understand what I mean by 'qualia' and 'subjective experience' and I don't see how the scientific model of how the brain works could ever explain anything in that respect.
Not understanding yourself how something in nature could be explained is not enough reason to conclude that it has no natural explanation though. Science has succeeded so well throughout its history in part by finding natural explanations for phenomena that we previously did not have an explanation for. We just employ other methods, tools, ideas, and collect more data to do so. It takes time, patience, willingness to doubt our own current beliefs and change them if warranted, inventiveness and a desire to come up with new ideas, etc. Science has been remarkably successful in increasing our knowledge of the world around us when people have such approaches, much more than using supernatural beings to “explain” the natural world around us.
Brian
