Peanut Gallery

So I am damned if I do and damned if I don't huh? We can only hope. I don't think you are in a position to turn down learning opportunities Jon.

I wonder why you have such a low opinion of Straggler? It seems your implication is that Straggler is a bully and should not "pick upon" Chuck, as if a Great Debate between Straggler and Chuck could be nothing but one person "beating up" the other, instead of a learning experience. Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.

Chuck, bluegenes does not claim to "know" that "the only source of supernatural beings is the imagination". I claim that the only known source of SBs is the human imagination, meaning the only source that everyone on this board can know of, and the only one that can currently be established scientifically beyond all reasonable doubt.Other suggestions, like SBs communicating to some people, have never been confirmed. But there's no way we can conclusively know that this has never happened.If you're going to paraphrase me, please get it right. Try to understand why "All supernatural beings are figments of the imagination" is stated as a theory rather than as a fact.

I will say that the Great Debate format did save Chuck from being dogpiled, even though he did a far better job of making Straggler's case than supporting his own.(And if Chuck wants to debate the Bible in a Great Debate format then I am up for it - so long as we can agree an acceptable topic)

Straggler asks: The Falsification issue is only the 2nd problem *, and of a more minor nature. But I might take a quick draw and drunkenly shoot my pistol shot thusly:Because all of the equipment used to investigate these sorts of things has yet to be scientifically approved throughout the scientific community and neither has it been demonstrated to allow for laboratory-to-laboratory re-calibration. Reading allegorical stories of old from numerous sources is not scientific evidence. Synthesizing these sources and deducing some kind of Houdini Hypothesis is only wishful thinking. Searching backwards through purportedly accurate historical documents also has the defect of inaccuracy, built in from the biases of the writers of those historical documents and the huge problem with translating dead language nuances into the appropriately equivalent modern language nuances. This is different from counting varve layers or radiometric dating of fossils, because that evidence is not written by the known-to-be-fallacious hand of mankind. To falsify a scientific theory you have to use a scientific process, using scientific unbiased calibrated equipment, conclusively demonstrating the falsehood.SO...this gets me to the following train of thought....Here is my analemma** to bluegenes theory: ** analemma is a word i made up to capture the essence of a lemma with the nuance of an analogue with undertones of antagonism meant in a friendly way. True, it is also the figure-8 shape of something like the sun photographed around a whole year from the same spot in a backyard by many amateur astronomers. This is a good coincidence, because it resonates with the circularity of this whole subject of supernaturalness. We go around in repetition all the time with these things. Think of a mobius Yin/Yang snake-eating-its-tail Klein Bottle thingy.
===============================================
* But to get back to 1st problem....AZPaul3 says: Well...aside from the uselessness of literature and oral history as argued above, this is at least an attempt to describe the kind of scientific investigation process to perform the science to validate bluegenes theory. I'm not certain where AZPaul3 will wind up when he applies this method to investigating whether Jesus was a figment of human imagination or not - so you see repeatability isn't all that easy. Wow, what if the Einsteinian General Theory of Gravity upgrade to Newton's Gravity Theory turned out NOT TO BE TRUE on the other side of the moon - but i digress... What are the tools? How are the hands going get dirty?I have already hinted that it had to be in the field of forensic science.....
=============================================
WHOOOPS I forgot:How to go about testing this analemma.....Go to any accredited decent university and go to the library. find the scientific journals. Pull a random one off the shelf. Open randomly to some page. Find the beginning of the article. Read to end of article. Determine whether the conclusions were in favor of a supernatural explanation.This is fundamentally different from the arguments against using old stories to support the existence of a supernatural being, because this is an analemma of what you will find in these sorts of documents, a small but easily understood step up from finding things like the letter 'e' or the trigylph 'the' - in this case, unlike the other, the text is valid evidence.Edited by xongsmith, : Forgot to include the procedural experimental process.Edited by xongsmith, : emphasisEdited by xongsmith, : more tailoring, with a broad cloth under my armEdited by xongsmith, : No reason given.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

That's a theory, not a fact that one can conclusively know. It matches my theory and I would describe it as a strong theory. That is a fact which supports both your theory and mine. Just like the fact that the only known source of supernatural beings is the human imagination. These statements support both of our theories. Exactly. It's theoretically falsifiable, just like my theory. Very strong, high confidence theory. Just like mine.Re: My theory: I'll help you. The central field is psychology. My theory could possibly be described as a law in psychology. There are already a number of hypotheses in the field attempting to explain the phenomenon (our tendency to invent SBs and believe in them). Plenty of people are getting their hands dirty. These hypotheses could potentially explain my theory when it's stated as a law.More accurately, the modern "field" described as "cognitive science" is the area. Neurology and anthropology are involved along with psychology.My theory (or law) is often taken as written and treated as if it were a fact.This demonstrates what a very strong, high confidence theory it is.

Might have missed where you dealt with: This means your theory cannot be falsified.Sorry, dude, I am on your side - but....

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Apparently, you did. That is theory, not fact, therefore this (my bold): Does not follow. It would help if you understood what you were talking about.Your theory predicts that my theory will not be falsified (and so does mine), but we cannot conclusively know that the two theories will not be falsified, therefore they have to be regarded as falsifiable. That's all "falsifiable" means.

bluegenes nicely ends his reply with: ahhh......psychology.here's my own mother with a bonifide PhD and her successful private practice and also me seeing one of these dudes later on....sigh.....it's been called one of the soft sciences........the neuro folks are ominously closing in on what is exactly ticking inside of our brains with more and more advancing equipment....not sure i wanna go along...willingly....but never mind.....suffice it to say that you cannot help. This isn't a situation where Deus Ex Machina, Mirabile Dictu, Shazzam! solves the situation from across the ENOURGAMOUS OCEAN. Bull-fucking-shite. Cite. EvC lapdogs don't count.(he said in a humorous way, not trying to raise any straggling arms)And the birds are increasing their marvelous symphony this morning. I have to be somewhere...just don't know where.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

You seem to be saying that whenever we properly investigate an observable phenomenon (e.g. lightning) we will find it to have a naturalistic cause rather than a supernatural one (e.g. static electricity rather than Thor brandishing his magic hammer).I really don't see how this is anything other than a long winded restatement of bluegenes theory but with your own ongoing misapprehensions about the nature of falsifiability layered on top. Well if Thor had been confirmed as the cause of lightning rather than static electricity there would have been a confirmed supernatural explanation for lightning wouldn't there?The fact that this has never occurred for any observable phenomenon is why it is a strong theory.

You understand the concept of NEVER???? ERROR.Here is your own opening statement in Message 167: This will NEVER happen according to my analemma, which you, yourself, have concluded is a "strong" theory (unlike me in my modest persona).See it yet?

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

No - the stronger the results of bluegenes theory as they keep coming in, the stronger his theory cannot be falsified. Hence a mobius spiral into the Klien Bottle of our minds. It's dog eat dog, cat eat cat, rat eat rat. The very evidence that supports his theory is the very evidence that makes it unfalsifiable. See? Not a restatement - an analog with a different twist. Maybe like a wolf in sheep's clothing?

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Right. You theorize that it will never happen, and so do I. But we cannot state it as a fact that it will never happen. So, our theories are considered falsifiable. Do you see it yet?

Correction: The stronger the support for bluegenes' theory, the less likely it seems that it will be falsified. Or: the stronger bluegenes' theory is, the stronger xongsmith's theory is.Neither become facts.It works like that for all scientific theories. You are (inadvertently?) implying that I have a very strong, high confidence theory, yet still trying desperately to argue against that claim.Why?

This appears to be a sign of some really intense cognitive dissonance or a complete failure to communicate.
Since I have read many of your posts in this forum, I am left thinking it is the former.How can you propose a "This will never happen" theory and then say "It will never be falsified" unless you base that conclusion on the premise?
When you claim that "This will never happen" all you can do is expect (to a high degree of certainty) that it will never be falsified - but you cannot make a claim that it 100% won't be falsified.
This level of certainty is based on historical evidence and gauges how 'strong' a theory is - but it is never 100%.