We’re talking about a crappy AI-generated example here, remember. Now, if we assume that the person in the example is just as dumb as the AI, then maybe. That would be “I see something which I will randomly tag as a ghost, so I believe in ghosts.”
But if we flesh out the example by saying that the person has a hypothesis about what a ghost is, and sees something that matches the model (or think they do) then this evidence (I’m not saying good evidence) might be enough to justify provisional belief. For that person. I think we agree that it is unlikely that the evidence is good enough for a justified belief.
If we change the example to “The reason I believe in werglerats is because I saw a werglerat” we can see how absurd the example is. It sounds more reasonable because we all have models of what a ghost is. Or would be if they existed.
Define what you mean by “hard atheist.” From what I’ve heard from other atheists it means belief that no gods exist versus just lack of belief that any gods exist. It is in no way a statement of knowledge about this.
You keep harping on about the AI source as though that had any relevance at all. It doesn’t. The statement is either question-begging or it isn’t, regardless of its source.
Why would we do that at all? It’s the original statement we want to analyze, not whatever extraneous gloss you want to give it.
You can’t remove the fact that we do have that model from the analysis.
What model? What analysis? A person sees something and thinks it is a ghost? Why a ghost and not a banshee or vampire or alien? Because they have a model of a ghost from popular culture. The model does not come from the observation.
The reason I dissed the AI was that a non-AI example might have gone into more depth on the background of the situation.
How nostalgic. Some years ago a common theist strawman about atheism is that atheism is illogical because no one can prove that no gods exist, and therefore should not assert it, since that puts the burden of proof on the atheist position. I haven’t seen that argument in quite some time.
I’ve been discussing this on line very close to 50 years now, and I’ve seen only one atheist who made the claim represented by positive (not hard, btw) atheism. And he was a dope. I was not the only one thinking so.
I spend way too much time on this subject, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard the term positive atheism. I’m not objecting to it as a possible position, just to one that anyone holds.
To go back to the topic, I don’t know that no ghosts exist, (black ghost, er swan fallacy) but I believe that no ghosts exist never having seen decent evidence for any. The person in the example does think they’ve seen evidence for a ghost. They are certainly mistaken, but that’s different from committing the fallacy in question.
Our analysis of what the words “The reason I believe in ghosts is that I have seen one.” means.
You can’t be this ignorant of actual human interaction to not have experienced exactly as uninformative statements as that coming from actual, live humans.
“Might have” is again you moving the goalposts into some more information-rich version which, I’ll say again, is irrelevant for our analysis. What we have are the words in the sentence " The reason I believe in ghosts is that I have seen one.". Nothing more, but also nothing less.
So, you’ve been arguing atheism for almost 50 years, but have never read Flew, Smith or Martin or even heard the term they all used? Hell, I’m not even an atheist and I’ve at least read their books, albeit 20-30 years ago.
But the term “positive atheism” is all over just the atheism Wiki page. Close to 50 years of arguing on the internet about atheism and you’ve never read the Wiki?
That’s not what they’ve said. Again, you’re filling in your own extraneous gloss here. They literally said they’d seen a ghost. Not “seen evidence for”, “seen a”.
Yeah, they exist. But that’s not important in determining if the statement is this type of fallacy. We’re talking about the process of making an argument here, not the truth of the argument.
Another example - I could say that a rabbit lives near me because I see it across the street. It turns out that what I see is a piece of bush that looks astonishingly like a rabbit. My conclusion is incorrect because my observation is flawed, not because my statement is begging the question.
If the person mistook another lizard for the Komodo dragon their conclusion would be incorrect, but they would not be begging the question. If and when we show that the observation of a ghost was faulty (explained by natural causes) that does not prove ghosts don’t exist, but that the belief is unwarranted. Again, because of incorrect observation, not bad reasoning.
Not exactly. The truth, or rather assuming the truth, of one of the premises is central to the nature of circularity. We can’t completely ignore the truth values in the analysis (not the overall truth of the statement, specifically the truth value of the premise). How much of an assumption of truth is going on is, in fact, what renders it circular.
The overall correctness of the statement and its question-begging nature are unrelated.
I’m not saying the Komodo dragon or kangaroo examples are not question-begging because they’re true statements - the person may have only seen a water monitor, or a bettong. But the existence of very large monitor lizards or hopping marsupials isn’t something that is in serious doubt, and even if it were, it is subject to corroborating scientific proof.
I’m saying the ghost example is question-begging because it’s assuming that what the person saw was, in fact, a ghost, and the existence of ghosts is very much in dispute in a way even exotic animals are not. So the assumption in the statement, that what was seen was in fact a ghost, is not supported by anything except the claim in the statement.
So, if by some chance someone proved that ghosts do exist, this statement would no longer be question begging?
Let’s break it down some. I know you object to me adding anything to the example, but I think you will see my additions stem from it inherently.
The statement is
The reason I believe in ghosts is that I have seen one.
Let’s call the maker of the statement person A.
Now, I think we can say that person A has the concept of a ghost, for if they did not, they would not associate the thing they saw or thought they saw with a ghost.
Second, person A lacked belief in ghosts before they thought they saw one. If they did believe in ghosts before this, the reason for their belief would certainly be different from their having thought they’ve seen one.
Therefore, the act of observing a ghost (however mistaken it is) is the cause of their belief in one.
Now, if they had believed in ghosts they might misinterpret the evidence of their senses into supporting this belief. Plenty of cognitive biases like that. But that’s not begging the question.
The argument, in a sense, is valid, since seeing something is a good reason to believe in it. It is not sound, since person A really didn’t see a ghost (which assumes that ghosts don’t exist, which I’m certainly willing to do.)
The example of question begging / circular reasoning I see the most is the “Because the Bible tells me so” fallacy. It goes like this:
God exists.
Why does God exist? Because the Bible says so.
Why should the Bible be trusted?
Because it is inspired by God.
I hope you agree that this is begging the question whether or not god exists.