By this reasoning, isn’t it okay to kill someone (or at least to kill them in their sleep)?
You tell me.
If you don’t like the moral implications of a certain hypothesis, this should have precisely zero effect on your estimation of the probability that this hypothesis is correct. The entire history of the growing acceptance of evolution as a “true” theory follows precisely this course. Many people HATED the implication that man is just another animal. That a sentiment for morality evolved because groups in which that sentiment existed were able to out-compete groups in which that sentiment was weaker. That the statue of David or the theory of General Relativity, or the love you feel for your mother or your dog arise as a consequence, ultimately, of mindless random variations producing populations from which some do better than others and pass down the variations they have to the next generation.
So if the implications of the continuity of consciousness are morally distasteful to you, do not make the mistake of thinking that makes them any less likely to be true. A study of science and scientific progress should cure you of this very human tendency.
If your reasoning implies ~X, then X implies that your reasoning is wrong. And if X implies that your reasoning is wrong, then evidence for X is evidence against your reasoning.
In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about. The fact that something has “distasteful implications” (that is, that it implies ~X, and there is evidence for X) does mean it is less likely to be true.
Historically, the hypothesis that the earth orbited the sun had the distasteful implications that we were not the center of the universe. Galileo was prosecuted for this belief and recanted it under threat. I am surprised that you think the distasteful implications for this belief were evidence that the earth did not in fact orbit the sun.
Historically the hypothesis that humans evolved from non-human animals had the distasteful implications that humans had not been created by god in his image and provided with immortal souls by god. I am surprised that you consider this distaste to be evidence that evolution is an incorrect theory of the origin of species, including our own.
This is a rationality message board, devoted to, among other things, listing the common mistakes that humans make in trying to determine the truth. I would have bet dollars against donuts that rejecting the truth of a hypothesis because its implications were distasteful would have been an obvious candidate for that list, and I would have apparently lost.
If you had reason to believe that the Earth is the center of the universe, the fact that orbiting the sun contradicts that is evidence against the Earth orbiting the sun. It is related to proof by contradiction; if your premises lead you to a contradictory conclusion, then one of your premises is bad. And if one of your premises is something in which you are justified in having extremely high confidence, such as “there is such a thing as murder”, it’s probably the other premise that needs to be discarded.
I am surprised that you consider this distaste to be evidence that evolution is an incorrect theory of the origin of species
If you have reason to believe that humans have souls, and evolution implies that they don’t, that is evidence against evolution. Of course, how good that is as evidence against evolution depends on how good your reason is to believe that humans have souls. In the case of souls, that isn’t really very good.
Evidence that killing is wrong is certainly possible, but your statement “I think that killing is wrong” is such weak evidence that it is fair for us to dismiss it. You may provide reasons why we should think killing is wrong, and maybe we will accept your reasons, but so far you have not given us anything worth considering.
I think that you are also equivocating on the word ‘imply’, suggesting that ‘distasteful implications’ means something like ‘logical implications’.
You tell me.
If you don’t like the moral implications of a certain hypothesis, this should have precisely zero effect on your estimation of the probability that this hypothesis is correct. The entire history of the growing acceptance of evolution as a “true” theory follows precisely this course. Many people HATED the implication that man is just another animal. That a sentiment for morality evolved because groups in which that sentiment existed were able to out-compete groups in which that sentiment was weaker. That the statue of David or the theory of General Relativity, or the love you feel for your mother or your dog arise as a consequence, ultimately, of mindless random variations producing populations from which some do better than others and pass down the variations they have to the next generation.
So if the implications of the continuity of consciousness are morally distasteful to you, do not make the mistake of thinking that makes them any less likely to be true. A study of science and scientific progress should cure you of this very human tendency.
If your reasoning implies ~X, then X implies that your reasoning is wrong. And if X implies that your reasoning is wrong, then evidence for X is evidence against your reasoning.
In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about. The fact that something has “distasteful implications” (that is, that it implies ~X, and there is evidence for X) does mean it is less likely to be true.
Help me out, readers.
The fact that something has distasteful implications means it is less likely to be true.
[pollid:802]
Historically, the hypothesis that the earth orbited the sun had the distasteful implications that we were not the center of the universe. Galileo was prosecuted for this belief and recanted it under threat. I am surprised that you think the distasteful implications for this belief were evidence that the earth did not in fact orbit the sun.
Historically the hypothesis that humans evolved from non-human animals had the distasteful implications that humans had not been created by god in his image and provided with immortal souls by god. I am surprised that you consider this distaste to be evidence that evolution is an incorrect theory of the origin of species, including our own.
This is a rationality message board, devoted to, among other things, listing the common mistakes that humans make in trying to determine the truth. I would have bet dollars against donuts that rejecting the truth of a hypothesis because its implications were distasteful would have been an obvious candidate for that list, and I would have apparently lost.
If you had reason to believe that the Earth is the center of the universe, the fact that orbiting the sun contradicts that is evidence against the Earth orbiting the sun. It is related to proof by contradiction; if your premises lead you to a contradictory conclusion, then one of your premises is bad. And if one of your premises is something in which you are justified in having extremely high confidence, such as “there is such a thing as murder”, it’s probably the other premise that needs to be discarded.
If you have reason to believe that humans have souls, and evolution implies that they don’t, that is evidence against evolution. Of course, how good that is as evidence against evolution depends on how good your reason is to believe that humans have souls. In the case of souls, that isn’t really very good.
Evidence that killing is wrong is certainly possible, but your statement “I think that killing is wrong” is such weak evidence that it is fair for us to dismiss it. You may provide reasons why we should think killing is wrong, and maybe we will accept your reasons, but so far you have not given us anything worth considering.
I think that you are also equivocating on the word ‘imply’, suggesting that ‘distasteful implications’ means something like ‘logical implications’.