Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-22-2017 4:11 AM
331 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 328 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,266 Year: 23,872/21,208 Month: 1,837/2,468 Week: 346/822 Day: 6/66 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
12131415Next
Author Topic:   the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18966
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 151 of 222 (624221)
07-16-2011 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by bluegenes
03-05-2011 4:26 PM


The lack of evidence continues ...
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi bluegenes (and peanut gallery), we still have a rather critical point,

I see you still have not provided any evidence to support your conjectural hypothesis.

I have spent some time thinking about how to make it clear that there is a significant failure on the part of bluegenes to (a) support his position as he promised (with "plenty of evidence"), and (b) to comprehend his false starts.

The hypothesis that bluegenes has failed to support so far is (from Message 1:

In Message 167 on the An Exploration Into"Agnosticism" thread bluegenes asserted:
quote:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".

What we have are two sets:

What this hypothesis is claiming is that {Set 2} is a subset of {Set 1}:

To do this he has presented a series of made up caricatures and cited certain groups of fictional work. Others in the Peanut Gallery have also presented a similar group of caricatures, invented as purported evidence of (fictional) supernatural beings.

The problem is that, while all these caricatures and all the fictional works cited form a group, {Set 3}, that is undeniably a subset of {Set 1}, they completely fail to establish that they are included in {Set 2}, or that there is any reason at all to believe they are members of {set 2}.

Unless bluegenes (or anyone in the Peanut Gallery) is capable of creating supernatural beings (which would be a supernatural act, making them a supernatural being that is not a figment of imagination, thus falsifying the hypothesis), he needs to demonstrate that any of those caricatures and fictional works represent supernatural beings in {Set 2}. This he has absolutely failed to do in any way, since the beginning of this debate.

To demonstrate his hypothesis bluegenes needs to provide objective evidence that documents and shows that a member of {Set 2} is a product of the human mind. This he has thus far absolutely failed to attempt to do in any way, since the beginning of this debate.

quote:
Message 4: If you cannot defend your hypothesis then you do not have a strong high confidence theory based on multitudes of evidence, but an amusing assertion of your belief, based on wishful thinking, confirmation bias and several logical fallacies.

Not one single {Set 2} supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in over eight (8) months of evasion.

Not one (1) positive test result for the conjectural hypothesis has been provided. This should have been readily available ... if there really WAS a scientific theory here, as claimed: in science, a theory is a tested hypothesis. Sufficient time (over 8 months) has passed for this test evidence to have been posted from the on hand data that should have been available for an already tested hypothesis to become a theory. The conclusion, therefore, is that bluegenes does not have a strong high confidence theory based on multitudes of evidence, but an amusing assertion of personal belief, based on wishful thinking, confirmation bias and several logical fallacies.

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFICALLY DEVELOPED THEORY HERE.

QED

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants had been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s, however this has been ignored by bluegenes.


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by bluegenes, posted 03-05-2011 4:26 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by bluegenes, posted 07-17-2011 5:42 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18966
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 152 of 222 (624222)
07-16-2011 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by bluegenes
03-05-2011 4:26 PM


Testing an hypothesis:
bluegenes and RAZD only

Another rather critical point bluegenes,

It is your job to test your hypothesis before you can claim that it is a theory. To do that you need to have a methodology\system\procedure that can distinguish between actual supernatural communication\experience\etc and human imagination, not just assume that it is imagination, or wait for someone else to do your work for you.

When bluegenes asked ...

Message 1 Do you know of any source of supernatural beings other than the human imagination?

... bluegenes was asking me to do his work for him. It should be relatively obvious that religious texts are replete with many forms of communications with supernatural beings, and that these forms of communication should be tested by anyone claiming that human imagination is the only source.

From Message 24

RAZD writes:

In several religions there are beliefs involving god/s appearing as humans or animals to assist people reach enlightenment or assist them in finding truth.

Many eastern religions believe in enlightenment, which involves a level of understanding universal truths and spiritual reality.

Other religions claim that religious experiences are means to communicate with god/s.

And of course there are religions (like the australian one you listed above) that believe in dreamtime experiences.

That's four different ways that various religions have claimed to have a source of knowledge about supernatural beings\entities\etc. -- and ones that you should have been already aware of.

I'm well aware of them. I'm also aware that there's no scientific evidence to support the reality of these claims.

And you do not have any scientific evidence to invalidate the reality of those claims, nor do you have a methodology\system\procedure to test them.

I initially proposed that you show\demonstrate your methodology\system\procedure with the IPU, which you have not done. Significantly, however, you have not shown\demonstrated your methodology\system\procedure for a single supernatural being. The conclusion I reach is that you do not have a methodology\system\procedure beyond just assuming that you are correct.

Failure to have a scientific methodology\system\procedure to test your hypothesis (pro or con) means de facto that you do not - cannot - have a scientific theory, but an amusing assertion of your belief, based on wishful thinking, confirmation bias and several logical fallacies, as stated in Message 1.

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFICALLY DEVELOPED THEORY HERE.

QED

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants had been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s, however bluegenes has ignored this.


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by bluegenes, posted 03-05-2011 4:26 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18966
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 153 of 222 (624223)
07-16-2011 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by bluegenes
03-05-2011 4:26 PM


Circular Argument & Begging the Question Logical Fallacies
bluegenes and RAZD only

Just to clear up one of many small points here, bluegenes.

"The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings."

You have suggested that this is evidence\observation that supports your conjectural hypothesis:

Message 7 (3)The theory that all supernatural beings come from the human imagination is built on the observation that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings.

But it isn't evidence nor observation: instead it is just a restatement of the hypothesis in a different form, asserted as true. Falsification of one falsifies the other, validation of one validates the other, neither adds more information than the other: they are identical in meaning.

Assuming one is true to use as a premise for the other is a circular argument and begging the question.

Thus when you ask:

Message 3: Do you agree that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings? Yes or No?

You are asking if I think your conjectural hypothesis is true. That is what begging the question means.

Scientific theories are not based on false logic.

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFICALLY DEVELOPED THEORY HERE.

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants had been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s, however bluegenes has chosen to ignore this.


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by bluegenes, posted 03-05-2011 4:26 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18966
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 154 of 222 (624226)
07-16-2011 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by bluegenes
03-05-2011 4:26 PM


Concepts of reality and falsification tests ...
bluegenes and RAZD only

And to clear up another small point, bluegenes:

There has been some equivocation back and forth between "supernatural beings" and "concepts of supernatural beings" and the distinction needs to be clarified.

Because of the way the human mind works all concepts are the product of the human mind, they are imagined representations, an imaginary model of the reality that surrounds us. Thus if you are discussing "concepts of supernatural beings" rather than "supernatural beings" we can revise your assertions\conjectures to read:

  • "All concepts of supernatural being are figments of the human imagination" or
  • "The human imagination is the only known source of concepts of supernatural beings."

... which is just a subset of ...

  1. "All (human) concepts are figments of the human imagination" or
  2. "The human imagination is the only known source of (human) concepts."

... where again, (1) and (2) are the same statement in different wording ...

... and which are tautologically true, ... but don't really provide any new (or useful) information. This also means that the bluegenes hypothetical conjecture (as restated in (1) above) is not falsifiable.

For example, I can have a rock in my hand, and it fits within the (human) "concept of rock" ... and I can have another rock in my other hand that also fits the (human) "concept of rock" ... and, whether they are "mutually exclusive" types of rock or not, they do not falsify the fact that the (human) "concept of rock" is a product of the human mind.

We (normally) do not have rocks in our heads, the only thing we can have in our heads are "concepts of rocks" ... concepts that are the product of the human mind. Thus, even with a rock in each hand -- objective empirical evidence of the existence of rocks -- the "concept of rock" is still a product of the human mind.

A scientific theory is falsifiable, so if bluegenes (et al) are talking about concepts of supernatural beings then it is not falsifiable, and thus it is not a scientific theory:

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFICALLY DEVELOPED THEORY HERE.

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants had been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s, however bluegenes has chosen to ignore this.


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by bluegenes, posted 03-05-2011 4:26 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 7 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 155 of 222 (624296)
07-17-2011 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by RAZD
07-16-2011 3:38 PM


Re: The lack of evidence (for real SBs) continues ...
RAZD writes:

To do this he has presented a series of made up caricatures and cited certain groups of fictional work. Others in the Peanut Gallery have also presented a similar group of caricatures, invented as purported evidence of (fictional) supernatural beings.
The problem is that, while all these caricatures and all the fictional works cited form a group, {Set 3}, that is undeniably a subset of {Set 1}, they completely fail to establish that they are included in {Set 2}, or that there is any reason at all to believe they are members of {set 2}.

Caricatures of what?

The fictional supernatural beings are in Set 2 by definition. They are supernatural beings described by the adjectives "fictional", or "imaginary". In English, we use phrases like the following:

"Gandalf was a wizard."

"J. M. Barrie wrote about a fairy called Tinkerbell."

"Bluegenes has been inventing supernatural beings".

Gandalf and Tinkerbell are in the category of supernatural beings we can describe by the adjectives "imaginary" and "fictional".

They are in your set two and set one.

Set 4 would be the category of supernatural beings that aren't invented by humans, and that set remains empty so far as this thread is concerned, as my very strong theory predicted it would last year.

RAZD writes:

Another rather critical point bluegenes,
It is your job to test your hypothesis before you can claim that it is a theory. To do that you need to have a methodology\system\procedure that can distinguish between actual supernatural communication\experience\etc and human imagination, not just assume that it is imagination, or wait for someone else to do your work for you.

How many times do I have to explain to you why the above is wrong? Scientific theories do not have to have to address unsupported claims that contradict them in the way you describe. No evolutionary biologist has to have a methodology/system/procedure for distinguishing an omphalist world from a non-omphalist world merely because the unsupported omphalist claim is made.

What you're doing is showing that you don't understand scientific theories at all, and you're inadvertently illustrating the strength of my theory by resorting to arguments like the one in the paragraph above.

Elsewhere in your posts above, you've repeated the IPU mistake that you've been making throughout the thread, and you've repeated your fascinating phrase "supernatural beings named and described by objective empirical evidence". I don't remember you giving any coherent answer when asked what you mean by this. Can you give me a list of supernatural beings that are named and described by "objective empirical evidence"?

I asked before if the giant magic turtle that supports this planet is one such being, but I think you avoided the question. Once again, is it?

It's definitely a figment of the imagination.

On the peanut gallery you declare that:

RAZD writes:

supernatural beings and phenomena are by definition NON- natural.

If they're figments of the human imagination, they're natural.

And you declare:

RAZD on PeanutG writes:

science cannot measure\define\calibrate\explain\etc NON-natural phenomena\objects\causes\events\results according to natural hypothesis\theory\law

How do you know this? If there are "non-natural phenomena" that effect the natural world, then the effects are theoretically detectable and measurable by science. Prayer studies, for example, can be conducted scientifically, and could potentially falsify theories like mine. Supernatural beings that have absolutely no effect on the natural world (and therefore our brains) would have to be imagined.

In other words, if it is theoretically impossible for science to identify a source of supernatural beings other than human invention, then it also theoretically impossible for them to be anything but our inventions.

Direct questions: Do you agree that a giant turtle that supports this planet is a figment of the human imagination?

Do you agree that the god that the YECs believe in, the supernatural being described by them, is a figment of their imaginations?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by RAZD, posted 07-16-2011 3:38 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2011 3:37 PM bluegenes has responded
 Message 157 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2011 3:42 PM bluegenes has not yet responded
 Message 158 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2011 3:44 PM bluegenes has not yet responded
 Message 159 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2011 3:49 PM bluegenes has not yet responded
 Message 160 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2011 3:54 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18966
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 156 of 222 (624367)
07-17-2011 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by bluegenes
07-17-2011 5:42 AM


The lack of evidence for the hypothesis continues ...
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi bluegenes,

Still completely incapable of presenting any evidence that directly supports your claim, I see -- in spite of your claim to have "plenty of evidence" -- so you must have made at lease one false statement originally.

Still completely incapable of presenting a methodology to test your conjecture, so you can't have a tested hypothesis, which means it is NOT a theory.

The fictional supernatural beings are in Set 2 by definition.

Demonstrate it. Show what actual supernatural phenomena is exhibited by them.

If you can't do this then you cant claim they are part of set 2.

This is you assuming your concept is true rather that actually demonstrating it. But then we know you falsify data.

How many times do I have to explain to you why the above is wrong? Scientific theories do not have to have to address unsupported claims that contradict them in the way you describe. No evolutionary biologist has to have a methodology/system/procedure for distinguishing an omphalist world from a non-omphalist world merely because the unsupported omphalist claim is made.

This is you being a pseudoskeptic again. You need to have a methodology to test whether there is actual supernatural phenomena or not, and just assuming you are correct is NOT how science is done.

The reason that this test applies to you rather than the biologist is that YOU have claimed to explain supernatural phenomena - they haven't.

RAZD on PeanutG writes:

science cannot measure\define\calibrate\explain\etc NON-natural phenomena\objects\causes\events\results according to natural hypothesis\theory\law


How do you know this? If there are "non-natural phenomena" that effect the natural world, then the effects are theoretically detectable and measurable by science.

If you do a test, and every time the result is different, how can you explain that by natural hypothesis\theory\law?

Do you agree that the god that the YECs believe in, the supernatural being described by them, is a figment of their imaginations?

Why should I just roll over and agree to something that you have not in any way actually demonstrated with objective empirical evidence to be true?

Is your conjecture so weak that the only way you can try to support it is to try to coerce or trick people to believe it without evidence?

Set 4 would be the category of supernatural beings that aren't invented by humans, and that set remains empty so far as this thread is concerned, as my very strong theory predicted it would last year.

Still having severe comprehension problems I see.

quote:
What we have are two sets:

What this hypothesis is claiming is that {Set 2} is a subset of {Set 1}:

To do this he has presented a series of made up caricatures and cited certain groups of fictional work. Others in the Peanut Gallery have also presented a similar group of caricatures, invented as purported evidence of (fictional) supernatural beings.

The problem is that, while all these caricatures and all the fictional works cited form a group, {Set 3}, that is undeniably a subset of {Set 1}, they completely fail to establish that they are included in {Set 2}, or that there is any reason at all to believe they are members of {set 2}.

Unless bluegenes (or anyone in the Peanut Gallery) is capable of creating supernatural beings (which would be a supernatural act, making them a supernatural being that is not a figment of imagination, thus falsifying the hypothesis), he needs to demonstrate that any of those caricatures and fictional works represent supernatural beings in {Set 2}. This he has absolutely failed to do in any way, since the beginning of this debate.

To demonstrate his hypothesis bluegenes needs to provide objective evidence that documents and shows that a member of {Set 2} is a product of the human mind. This he has thus far absolutely failed to attempt to do in any way, since the beginning of this debate.


There is no need to add your "set 4" ... you just need to deal with {set 2}.

Set 4 would be the category of supernatural beings that aren't invented by humans, and that set remains empty so far as this thread is concerned, as my very strong theory predicted it would last year.

Yes, you have absolutely failed to address any, or develop a methodology to test this, as a real scientist developing actual scientific objective and empirical data for an actual scientific hypothesis would. Note from Is it a scientific theory or is it wishful thinking? (Message 1):

quote:
The challenge is accepted, let the equivocation and evasion begin.

Curiously I predicted on 08-02-2010 at 7:59 PM (est) that all you would do is equivocate and evade, rather than simply present the objective empirical evidence you claimed to have.

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants had been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s, however bluegenes has chosen to ignore this.


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by bluegenes, posted 07-17-2011 5:42 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by bluegenes, posted 07-18-2011 11:40 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18966
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 157 of 222 (624369)
07-17-2011 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by bluegenes
07-17-2011 5:42 AM


evasion and equivocation
now reply to The lack of evidence continues ... (Message 151) with evidence.

Enjoy


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by bluegenes, posted 07-17-2011 5:42 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18966
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 158 of 222 (624370)
07-17-2011 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by bluegenes
07-17-2011 5:42 AM


equivocation and evasion
now reply to Testing an hypothesis: (Message 152) with your methodology for testing your conjecture

Enjoy


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by bluegenes, posted 07-17-2011 5:42 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18966
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 159 of 222 (624371)
07-17-2011 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by bluegenes
07-17-2011 5:42 AM


equivocation and evasion
now reply to Circular Argument & Begging the Question Logical Fallacies (Message 153) with proper logic to show that your conjecture is something more than wishful thinking and confirmation bias and based on circular reasoning.

Enjoy


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by bluegenes, posted 07-17-2011 5:42 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18966
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 160 of 222 (624372)
07-17-2011 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by bluegenes
07-17-2011 5:42 AM


evasion and equivocation
now reply to Concepts of reality and falsification tests ... (Message 154), either affirming that you mean concepts (and thus that your supposed conjecture is then a meaningless tautology), or that you really did mean to talk about supernatural beings (as you originally stated).

Enjoy.


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by bluegenes, posted 07-17-2011 5:42 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 7 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 161 of 222 (624510)
07-18-2011 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by RAZD
07-17-2011 3:37 PM


The lack of evidence for the [weak theory] hypothesis continues ...
RAZD writes:

Demonstrate it. Show what actual supernatural phenomena is exhibited by them.

They aren't constrained by the physical world in the way that biological beings are, and they are described as having magical powers. That's in their description.

RAZD writes:

This is you assuming your concept is true rather that actually demonstrating it. But then we know you falsify data.

Inventing supernatural beings in order to demonstrate that people can and do invent supernatural beings is not falsifying data. It's hardly my fault that you're incapable of grasping that simple point.

The theory is: All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination. If you declare that Gandalf and Tinkerbell aren't supernatural beings because they're demonstrably a product of human invention, you would be claiming to have falsified my theory. You would be defining supernatural beings as non-imaginary things.

RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

How many times do I have to explain to you why the above is wrong? Scientific theories do not have to have to address unsupported claims that contradict them in the way you describe. No evolutionary biologist has to have a methodology/system/procedure for distinguishing an omphalist world from a non-omphalist world merely because the unsupported omphalist claim is made.

This is you being a pseudoskeptic again.

Dismissing or ignoring unsupported claims is routine in science. You won't find any intelligent scientists who share your view that the omphalist claim is a reason to be uncommitted on the age of the earth. It is not a scientific view, and requires a very heavy bias on your part in favour of unsupported supernatural claims.

(For readers not familiar with the RAZD world, RAZD thinks that everyone who is highly confident that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old is a "pseudoskeptic" because they have automatically dismissed omphalism as very improbable or impossible. In shorthand: Scientists are pseudoskeptics to him. In this way of thinking, scientific theories have to falsify all unsupported claims which contradict them in order to be considered strong or well supported. It is on this kind of thinking that he bases his criticism of my theory).

RAZD writes:

You need to have a methodology to test whether there is actual supernatural phenomena or not, and just assuming you are correct is NOT how science is done.

I've never claimed that there are any actual supernatural phenomena. I think you'll find that plenty of scientific theories have been stated in the past without the scientists having described any specific methodology that would lead to their falsification.

The specific methodology would depend on the specific SB claimed. We can make observations about an apparent werewolf if we find one. Repeatable monthly observations of a man/wolf wolf/man transition. But what werewolves have in common with all other SBs is that we never seem to be able to actually find them. So we're stuck with their description, which, like the descriptions of Tinkerbell and Gandalf, is supernatural. All we have on this thread is descriptions or concepts.

RAZD writes:

The reason that this test applies to you rather than the biologist is that YOU have claimed to explain supernatural phenomena - they haven't.

I've theorized that there's nothing external to explain; that the idea of supernatural phenomena originates in our heads, not from any external source. The "test" would certainly apply if I had "theorized" that "Supernatural beings have a real existence outside our minds and interact with the material world." That would be a general claim that's unfalsifiable, and I'd have to find positive support for it, perhaps in the way that the I.D. folk are trying (and failing) to do. But my explanation is natural; that supernatural beings are phenomena of the mind.

However, if you're talking about falsification tests, I've been interested in the subject for decades, and I've been looking for things of substance which might at least weaken my theory, if not falsify it. A recent example, described on this thread, was examining the creation myths for any content that our ancestors in a pre-scientific age couldn't have known. A few years ago, I examined the Koran for the same thing, as it's a claim made by some Muslims that it contains things Mohammed couldn't have known. In both cases, my theory passed the test with flying colours.

I've found nothing of real substance at all to support the existence of non-imaginary SB's. And it's obvious from this thread that you haven't either. You make lots of long posts, but nowhere is there any content that even starts to make the case for any particular supernatural being of any description existing outside our minds. When you're reduced to presenting people's beliefs as evidence, it just illustrates how poor the case for non-imagined SBs is, and how strong my theory is.

Thanks for your inadvertent support.

As for the rest of the Gish gallop that you are commanding me to reply to, there's nothing in the posts to support your contradictory claims that (a) my theory is weak and (b) I don't have a theory at all. Please prioritize points one by one, and bring them up one by one, preferably without charts and diagrams, the content of which you could easily put in words, enabling me to quote and reply, and saving readers from having to constantly refer back to your posts, or memorize the diagrams.

RAZD writes:

If you do a test, and every time the result is different, how can you explain that by natural hypothesis\theory\law?

If you can't explain the results by natural law, then you might have identified the supernatural and be on the way to be falsifying my theory. I wouldn't suggest that the transitions of a werewolf could ever be explained by natural theory or law. So, if we can merely make repeated observations of these transitions, I'd regard my theory as reasonably falsified. It could only be revived if someone actually did explain the werewolf in natural terms, and you can ask physicists whether they think that atoms could possibly rearrange themselves constantly in that kind of way.

The possible mass disappearance of fundy Christians last month in a rapture was a test of my theory, but, as ever, the theory's prediction that this wouldn't happen held up. Sadly, in some ways.

My theory is constantly being tested. Prayer studies could damage or falsify it, for example, and these are being done.

RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

Do you agree that the god that the YECs believe in, the supernatural being described by them, is a figment of their imaginations?

Why should I just roll over and agree to something that you have not in any way actually demonstrated with objective empirical evidence to be true?

I was unwisely assuming at least a Junior High School level knowledge of modern science on your part. I won't make the same mistake again.

BTW, is there a giant turtle holding up the earth, in your opinion? Or is she verified as an imaginary SB?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2011 3:37 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 7 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 162 of 222 (632819)
09-10-2011 1:57 PM


Bump for the Peanut Gallery
The post above covers some of the ground being discussed on the Peanut Gallery, so this'll bump it up.

I think it's worth pointing out here (particularly to creationist critics of my theory on the peanut gallery) that I'm theorizing that supernatural beings do not have an external existence outside human minds. If my theory is 100% correct, then we should not have found a method of positively detecting their presence, because detecting the presence of non-existent entities would be impossible. And so far, this is the case.

I'll also point out (for the umpteenth time) that scientific theories are not weakened by unsupported propositions that contradict them. If some people on the peanut thread believe that some neurological phenomena or spectacular meteorological phenomena (like hurricanes and tornadoes) are caused by supernatural beings, their Faith alone does not support a claim that my theory is weak. Those extraordinary claims require considerable support in order to weaken the theory, and extraordinary support in order to falsify it.


  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18966
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 163 of 222 (670931)
08-21-2012 8:05 AM


false expectations and blind spots ... and Guernica
bluegenes is once again asserting that he has a theory, yet at the same time he is now arguing that an hypothesis on another thread is no good because it does not predict singular outcomes from the evidence available, one of my arguments against his still unsupported assertions here to the contrary.

Not a single supernatural being has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination, not a single methodology of being able to test for supernatural presence has been developed.

He has unrealistic expectations here about the information conveyed in myths and legends, expecting them to have scientific precise information about reality, and then claims they are falsified by actual objective empirical evidence of reality.

From preliterate societies that do not have a scientific approach to information.

This is irrational, and is a result of cognitive dissonance in looking at the nonconforming information in an unbiased and dispassionate manner. see Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs for more, and Message 20 in particular.

Examples of his cognitive dissonant behavior is in Message 161:

I was unwisely assuming at least a Junior High School level knowledge of modern science on your part. I won't make the same mistake again.

BTW, is there a giant turtle holding up the earth, in your opinion? Or is she verified as an imaginary SB?

Such societies typically use spiritual and symbolic language to convey concepts and ideas, methods that are not scientifically precise, but still capable of carrying important information about reality. It is important to understand how this works before dismissing it out of hand as bluegenes does (confirmation bias, blind-spot, dtc etc etc).

As an example of what I mean I give you one word:

Guernica

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : links added

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : added example


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)

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by bluegenes, posted 08-21-2012 9:34 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 171 by bluegenes, posted 08-31-2012 5:00 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 7 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 164 of 222 (670947)
08-21-2012 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by RAZD
08-21-2012 8:05 AM


Re: false expectations and blind spots ... and Guernica
RAZD writes:

bluegenes is once again asserting that he has a theory, yet at the same time he is now arguing that an hypothesis on another thread is no good because it does not predict singular outcomes from the evidence available, one of my arguments against his still unsupported assertions here to the contrary.

This just seems to be a result of your not being able to understand the point I was making on that thread. It is not that the hypothesis that the world is intelligently designed is "no good" but that it does not innately predict a world with physical principles. That's a statement of fact. It would not be falsified if the apparent physical laws of this world were broken by miracles. How would that show that the world was not intelligently designed?

But RAZD has put forward another more specific I.D. hypothesis, which he has yet to support. Perhaps it is this one that he's comparing to the theory I describe on this thread. This is the hypothesis that an intelligently designed world would be designed on "principles".

It'll be interesting, if he thinks it's comparable, to see how he will phrase it and attempt to support it. Probably by accusing anyone who disagrees with him of suffering from cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.

The rest of the post above is either irrelevant or unsupported. As always, it does not actually attempt to establish the existence of any non-imaginary supernatural beings and this:

RAZD writes:

Not a single supernatural being has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination, not a single methodology of being able to test for supernatural presence has been developed.

just seems to indicate that RAZD has never heard of Gandalf, the YEC god, and prayer studies.

He also ignores the fact that my theory predicts that we won't be able to find a method of actually detecting supernatural beings that exist outside our heads, and so far, like all the other predictions of the theory, that's spot on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2012 8:05 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2012 8:04 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18966
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 165 of 222 (671045)
08-21-2012 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by bluegenes
08-21-2012 9:34 AM


Re: false expectations and blind spots ... and Guernica
Predictably you missed the point because it is in your blind-spot. Let's try again:

As an example of what I mean I give you one word:

Guernica

And you continue to display the behavior associated with cognitive dissonance.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : cd

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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by bluegenes, posted 08-21-2012 9:34 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by bluegenes, posted 08-24-2012 7:11 AM RAZD has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
12131415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017