Technically, it proves his belief about science is false.
If he’d said “Science teaches us that human-caused global warming is an urgent crisis.” then “You mean if it’s either not a problem or can be fixed easily, it proves science is false?” applies. And yes, it in fact would.
And then Science would (metaphorically) say, “My bad, thanks for that new evidence, I reject my prior theory and form a new one that accounts for your data and explains this new phenomenon that causes symptoms as if global warming were an urgent problem.”
“Technically, it proves his belief about science is false.”
True, though in the same way, Eliezer’s success in producing an AI, even according to the dodgy specifications of his dinner companion, would only prove his belief about God wrong, not his belief IN God wrong.
The AI data point would contradict Mr Dinner’s model of God’s nature only at a single point, His allegedly unique intelligence-producing quality.
Sure. But religion is supposed divinely inspired and thus completely correct on every point. If one piece of the bundle is disproven, the whole bundle takes a hit.
Even if religion is divinely inspired, a person’s understanding of one aspect of religion can be wrong without invalidating all of that person’s other religious beliefs.
Meanwhile, over at the next table, there was the following conversation:
“I believe science teaches us that human-caused global warming is an urgent crisis.”
“You mean if it’s either not a problem or can be fixed easily, it proves science is false?”
Technically, it proves his belief about science is false.
If he’d said “Science teaches us that human-caused global warming is an urgent crisis.” then “You mean if it’s either not a problem or can be fixed easily, it proves science is false?” applies. And yes, it in fact would.
And then Science would (metaphorically) say, “My bad, thanks for that new evidence, I reject my prior theory and form a new one that accounts for your data and explains this new phenomenon that causes symptoms as if global warming were an urgent problem.”
“Technically, it proves his belief about science is false.”
True, though in the same way, Eliezer’s success in producing an AI, even according to the dodgy specifications of his dinner companion, would only prove his belief about God wrong, not his belief IN God wrong.
The AI data point would contradict Mr Dinner’s model of God’s nature only at a single point, His allegedly unique intelligence-producing quality.
Sure. But religion is supposed divinely inspired and thus completely correct on every point. If one piece of the bundle is disproven, the whole bundle takes a hit.
Even if religion is divinely inspired, a person’s understanding of one aspect of religion can be wrong without invalidating all of that person’s other religious beliefs.
Yep.
The is no evidence for gods, and so any belief he has in them is already wrong. Don’t believe without evidence.
Did you mean: Hold sensible priors