Peanut Gallery

As we are talking about the IPU we are necessarily talking about an entity that is defined to be imperceptible.Can you explain how an imperceptible being could possibly be anything other than imagined?(even if by some miracle of coincidence it does also actually exist) Unless you can answer the above why would such evidence possibly matter? Once again you seem to be heading down your silly "Aha IF SOME THEN ALL" line of argument.But it is the evidenced ability and proclivity of humans to invent supernatural concepts Vs the evidence for their actual existence that is under discussion.To conclude that raindrops are sourced from clouds we don't need to go round proving that they aren't sourced from pissing angels. Even if that is what some people baselessly believe.Do we?

3. Brian Connors of Knocknasheega was created in the early 1900s by Herminie Templeton Kavanagh, and appears in short stories and a movie. The fact that he is made up does not mean that all leprechauns are necessarily figments of imagination.
   Darby O'Gill and the Little People - Wikipedia
   Herminie Templeton Kavanagh - Wikipedia
   ​
   Brian Connors of Knocknasheega is a fictional caricature of a leprechaun, drawing on information found in other accounts of leprechauns and adding fictional elements to create an intentional fictional character. We do not know whether or not actual leprechauns exist, but this is not evidence that they are imaginary.

Be aware that RAZD will not even denounce the existence of the Easter Bunny on the basis that it is an unevidenced human fictional construction. So hoping to embaress him into submission with talk of mere leprachauns is not going to get you anywhere. As far as RAZD's arguments go you have to actually falsify things before you can legitimately conclude any degree of non-agnosticism that isn't mere opinion.Although he does apparently include "objective empirical evidence" that a particular concept was made-up as a form of falsification. Although what exactly this entails beyond finding people who are willing to put their hands up and say "I did it" is desperately unclear.The saga continues......

Straggler struggles again: First off, it is not RAZD's job to do bluegenes' homework for him.bluegenes, in a nutshell, is essentially claiming You cannot begin with the result "It doesn't exist", therefore it is made up, because then you have the silly sentence: It doesn't exist, therefore it was made up, so therefore it doesn't exist.That is why RAZD's 1st job for bluegenes, "Show us the evidence that the IPU was made up.", cannot begin with steps showing the IPU doesn't exist first.You talking about what you think RAZD believes about these sorts of things is off-topic at the moment. It is bluegenes who has to do the homework.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

As we are talking about the IPU we are necessarily talking about an entity that is defined to be imperceptible.Can you explain how an imperceptible being could possibly be anything other than made-up?(even if by some miracle of coincidence it does also actually exist) Read the above. Read it again. Read it slower.Now tell me how this is not an argument demonstrating that the IPU is made-up regardless of whether it exists or notRead Message 366. Read it again. Read it slower.Now tell me how this is not an argument demonstrating that the IPU is made-up regardless of whether it exists or notNope.Bluegenes is claiming that there is a highly evidenced and known source of supernatural concepts and that conversely there is no positive evidence in favour of their actual existence.Thus he concludes that they probably don't exist. It is you that needs to understand that "finding the Bobby Henderson of the IPU" is as immaterial to bluegenes full argument as a herd of pink fluffy ethereal centaurs. To conclude that raindrops are sourced from clouds we don't need to go round proving that they aren't sourced from pissing angels. Even if that is what some people baselessly believe.

​

Do we?The irony.....

That's unreal. Damn hard to argue with someone so divorced from reality that they can't conclude the Easter Bunny doesn't really exist, or (maybe more likely) so slippery that they won't admit that there isn't one.I shouldn't have stepped in here. I'm gone.Cheers.

Indeed. But that is why RAZ is such fun.

Hi Michael, Hit and Run ad hominem? Please read my reply again:

quote:

---

I could give you my opinion, but it is only opinion, and not a conclusion based on facts.

---

Do you have any facts to base a conclusion on? Without facts to base your conclusion on it is a belief and not a logical conclusion. Or perhaps even more likely, just being honest about what the evidence shows, and that opinion is just that.But this thread is not to debate these issues, or to make up things about me (as Straggler loves to do), but to discuss the great debate. Yep. To demonstrate that leprechauns are imaginary you need to start with the original concepts, not with later fictional caricatures derived from the original/s.This should be blindingly obvious.Same with the Easter Bunny.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

hi again Staggler. The problem is not how you or I state the "theory". It's how bluegenes stated it. He screwed up on a technicality in his english transcription of what we all think he really meant to say. We know what he wanted to say. We agree with it. On the whole we don't think he's wrong. But he screwed up. This has nothing to do with it. It could be Sasquatch. It could be the Coelacanth. It could be Champy, the Lochness-like entity in Lake Champlaine bordering New York and Vermont, created to attract tourists. It could be anything. The problem is not in an individual subject of the "theory", it's in the way bluegenes stated his theory "with plenty of evidence".The Straggler Steps: You an I wouldn't need any more. But this is not what is at stake. The particular characteristics of the supernatural entity in question are not on the table to be discussed. Rather, it is the human trail of evidence that it was made up. Think of it in algebraic terms, we don't care what X is, but we know how it got in the box of things that human imagination made up. It was made up. So it goes into the box. How do we know it was made up? Well, the Bobby Henderson(s) of this particular X put it there. It is the putting, not the X, that bluegenes claimed is the case for ALL supernatural things, regardless of what they individually are.RAZD jumped on that and demanded to see the "putting" for the instance of what everybody here (and I mean everybody) has already accepted as a complete figment of human imagination. First off, and let's be clear as we can, this is NOT how I see what bluegenes said. This is instead what he WANTED to say. You are jumping immediately to the 2nd conclusion as he stated it. RAZD is holding up a STOP sign at the first conclusion, namely the conclusion that all supernatural things we have heard about are things that are made up out of the human imagination.The crux of ALL this peanut gallery posting is not what you or I believe, or what RAZD or bluegenes believe. It's all about HOW bluegenes stated his "theory". I use quotes, because in order to be scientifically approved theory, it has to be peer reviewed in scientific literature.bluegenes has yet to provide links to peer-reviewed support in an established scientific journal, no?You keep on coming at me with stuff that is water under the bridge. We are not allowed to use calculus to find the minimum center of gravity of a beer can as we drink it down. We are not allowed to sit in some parlor, in comfy chairs, smoking post-dinner rare Cuban cigars and do gedanken experiments of thought, as lovely as it would be - in this case - because of the way bluegenes stated his theory.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

I missed this, where did bluegenes say this?

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

I am not aware of any documentation for an author and an acknowledgement that it was made up

---

Why not? What method did you use to find out? It is all too easy for people who claim that "nobody knows" to simply make that assertion as if there were any real investigation behind it. Behe is the perfect example, claiming that nobody had ever published anything about molecular evolution when a simple search of PubMed at the time he made his claim turned up literally hundreds of articles of that which he claimed did not exist.I am interested in your process. How did you examine the question and how much effort did you put into it?

quote:

---

As we are talking here about the IPU, it would be the author (or authors, if a group project) acknowledging that they made it up.

---

But is that the only method? Again, I am interested in process. Is the only way to determine if something is a fabrication the equivalent of an affadavit from the author? Surely there are other methods of analysis that can lead one to conclude that a concept is fictional in origin. What else would you accept or is that the only method that is sufficient for you?

quote:

---

Of course you realize, I hope, that actively making up something does not mean that anything else is made up.

---

Of course but again, this is about process. You seem to agree that there is a method by which we can determine that something is fictional in origin. I am interested in knowing where the boundaries lie. By understanding how you come to a conclusion that something is fictional in one case, we can apply those methods to other concepts and see if we come to the same conclusion or whether special pleading is going on.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Modulous asks: Sorry. From the OP, RAZD quotes bluegenes challenge of Message 167: ...where I have highlighted the specific text. Okay, I changed the word "beings" into "things", a minor detail. And "all we have heard about" is to be understood to be the same as "only known". But the point remains. It is the act of putting X into the box of things made up by human imagination, not the X, what is being put into the box, per se, that bluegenes is claiming to have "plenty of evidence" for.(Pardon a distantly reminiscent Churchillian "up with which I shall not put" grammatical vibe.)I'm wondering now if it turns out that this is all another English in the UK versus English in the USA nuance that is creating a misunderstanding of our positions?I see that you, Straggler and bluegenes all come from the UK and RAZD & I are from the States. Hmm. Perhaps it's only a language problem.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Rrhain asks RAZD: Rrhain - you seem to be on the same page. Evidence of fabrication - I like that term.Object evidence, or, as the courtroom might phrase it, the facts of the matter. What are the facts that something is fabricated? Certainly your affadavit is one. And you are correct to ask what other kinds of facts can provide objective evidence. A painting in an exhibit of Van Gogh paintings which still has wet paint could not be painted by by Van Gogh, regardless of what the painting is a painting of - such as the LEM landing on the moon. Forensic evidence is the kind of evidence of fabrication that we need.What is your position in this hunt? Do you have a dog in it? Is bluegenes alright with ignoring the challenge of providing this objective evidence that the IPU was made up?

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

xongsmith responds to me:

quote:

---

What is your position in this hunt? Do you have a dog in it?

---

Perhaps. Does it matter? I try to keep my personal opinions out of these discussions because I don't want people responding to me based upon their perceptions of what a person who believes X would say but rather focus upon what I have actually said.

quote:

---

Is bluegenes alright with ignoring the challenge of providing this objective evidence that the IPU was made up?

---

That would depend upon whether or not that is the only way to come to such a conclusion. Indeed, finding the person who came up with the idea of the IPU would be sufficient to conclude that it was made up, but surely that isn't the only process by which we can conclude something is fictional, is it?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

You said Suggesting that bluegenes had concluded that the set of all supernatural things we have heard about are made up.But bluegenes actually said

quote:

---

"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".

​

This is a high level of confidence theory

---

Firstly, that he has a theory. Then he says

quote:

---

The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings,

---

First he gives a theory, then he gives a fact. He does not conclude that " all supernatural things we have heard about are things that are made up out of the human imagination" anywhere. Just that in the cases where we know the source, that source is the human imagination and that he has a falsifiable theory, with supporting evidence, that has yet to be falsified.This seems consistent with the salient part of Straggler's point:

quote:

---

Bluegenes is claiming that there is a highly evidenced and known source of supernatural concepts

---

aka the imagination. And that

quote:

---

conversely there is no positive evidence in favour of their actual existence.

---

the theory has not been falsified. We could have the same conversation about the theory that all chimpanzees are closely related to all humans along with the fact that all known DNA comparisons are consistent with that theory - and I'm sure the confusion wouldn't be so stark, so while I agree there is a problem - I don't think it is cultural. I think it's metaphysical. That is: I think the reservation is that the theory in dispute is centred around the supernatural.