Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-28-2017 8:00 AM
450 online now:
caffeine, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Rrhain, Tangle (6 members, 444 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,074 Year: 6,680/21,208 Month: 2,441/2,634 Week: 104/525 Day: 19/60 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Author Topic:   the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 2967
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 211 of 222 (672814)
09-11-2012 2:09 PM


Dear peanut crunchers.......
Catholic Scientist writes:

bluegenes writes:

My theory predicts that there cannot be a way of detecting non-imaginary supernatural beings.

Then it isn't capable of being proven wrong.

Predicts, not proves. Logically, it does predict that.

If RAZD is asking for hypothetical ways in which we could establish things like genuine communication from non-imaginary SBs, then it's easy to give examples. Finding Newton's laws and Einstein's theories written into the Koran would be pretty convincing, for example. But, contrary to the claims of some Buzsaw type Muslims, the Koran only contains stuff that could easily have come from human heads.

Just as my theory would predict.


Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2012 7:30 AM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18242
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 212 of 222 (672878)
09-12-2012 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by bluegenes
09-11-2012 2:09 PM


Re: peanut crunchers ... a big cog is loose in the bluegenes dissonance bubble
Correction, bluegenes,

Catholic Scientist writes:

bluegenes writes:

My theory predicts that there cannot be a way of detecting non-imaginary supernatural beings.

Then it isn't capable of being proven wrong.

Predicts, not proves. Logically, it does predict that.

Your theory hypothetical conjecture then predicts that it is not a falsifiable scientific hypothesis.

If it predicts that you cannot show whether they are there or not, then you cannot show whether they are imaginary or not. It's that simple.

All you can do is assume, and, curiously, your assumptions are not objective empirical evidence (no matter how many you have) -- it is you just begging the question (as has been said before, many times).

Again, I say, it is because you have chosen supernatural beings as the subject of your concept that you need to be able to detect them, or your hypothetical conjecture is not testable.

We can detect pictures and count (measure, observe) and hypothesize about them; we can detect fiction novels and count (measure, observe) and hypothesize about them; you can detect electricity and measure it in clouds and lightening, even though we cannot directly see electricity, and we can hypothesize about it; but if you cannot detect the subject of your concept in any way, you cannot count or measure whether it is present or not, then your concept is necessarily not a testable scientific hypothesis ... to say nothing of a theory ... and the only strength from it is the odor coming from confirmation bias and wishful thinking.

Just because your hypothetical conjecture is compatible with an apparent absence of supernatural beings, does not mean it is sufficient to form a scientific hypothesis that is testable.

What's amusing is that you know this (so one of you is wrong):

Does ID predict genetic similarity?, Message 107: Let's look at the hypothesis: "The world was intelligently designed."

If we found ourselves in a world in which magic seemed to operate freely and there were no rules, that's perfectly compatible with the hypothesis. If we found ourselves in a world which seemed to operate very consistently on predictable laws, but we identified the occasional miracle that broke those laws, that's perfectly compatible with the hypothesis. And if we found ourselves in a world that appeared to have set physical principles that were never to our knowledge broken, that's perfectly consistent with the hypothesis.

So, that general I.D. hypothesis makes no predictions concerning principles (or miracles), which was what I was trying to explain to GDR. A prediction would be necessary to the hypothesis, not just compatible.

A compatible prediction is not sufficient to form a scientific hypothesis, it must be necessary to it -- your own words -- it must be able to distinguish one state from the other ... ie - you must be able to distinguish whether or not supernatural beings actually exist in order to theorize whether they are imaginary or not.

All you have is a concept with a compatible prediction, not something necessary to it.

And once again, I say, it is because you have chosen supernatural beings as the subject of your concept that you have this problem.

Now, your hypothetical conjecture is perfectly good as a philosophical hypothesis, but it is not correct to consider it a scientific one.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by bluegenes, posted 09-11-2012 2:09 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by bluegenes, posted 09-12-2012 10:20 AM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 2967
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(3)
Message 213 of 222 (672905)
09-12-2012 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by RAZD
09-12-2012 7:30 AM


Learning about predictions.
RAZD writes:

Your theory hypothetical conjecture then predicts that it is not a falsifiable scientific hypothesis.
If it predicts that you cannot show whether they are there or not, then you cannot show whether they are imaginary or not. It's that simple.

No. A prediction is not an establish fact, it's what we're attempting to falsify.

Learn to understand what "prediction" means in relation to hypotheses. Think. What would logically follow from the hypothesis? This is where deductive reasoning comes in. You ask "If the hypothesis is correct, then what must necessarily follow. One way to make it clear is to put the hypothesis into deductive syllogisms, and see what would be valid, and would be sound if the hypothesis is correct.

(1)All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination.
(2)Therefore, no non-imaginary supernatural beings exist.
(3)Therefore, there cannot actually be a means of detecting non-imaginary SBs, because (2) they are not there.

(2) and (3) can be deduced logically from (1), but we do not know if (1) is correct, because it's our inductive hypothesis. Therefore it's considered falsifiable and would be falsified if we can establish something that contradicts any prediction it makes (there are lots) including (3).

RAZD writes:

All you can do is assume, and, curiously, your assumptions are not objective empirical evidence (no matter how many you have) -- it is you just begging the question (as has been said before, many times).

If you're going to assume things about scientific theories, why not learn to understand the hypothetico-deductive method first, then I wouldn't have to explain things like the above?

RAZD writes:

Again, I say, it is because you have chosen supernatural beings as the subject of your concept that you need to be able to detect them, or your hypothetical conjecture is not testable.

The subject I'm examining is the concepts of SBs that we have in our minds. Because I can find no external source for them, I hypothesise that SBs are figments of our imagination. Of course it's testable. We test hypotheses against observations. You do not have to observe a falsification of a theory prior to stating the theory. To state what should be obvious.

RAZD writes:

We can detect pictures and count (measure, observe) and hypothesize about them; we can detect fiction novels and count (measure, observe) and hypothesize about them; you can detect electricity and measure it in clouds and lightening, even though we cannot directly see electricity…..

That's how we know those aren't figments of our imagination. We observe their external existence. That's what we need to do with non-imaginary SBs.

RAZD writes:

, and we can hypothesize about it; but if you cannot detect the subject of your concept in any way, you cannot count or measure whether it is present or not, then your concept is necessarily not a testable scientific hypothesis ... to say nothing of a theory ... and the only strength from it is the odor coming from confirmation bias and wishful thinking.

I know that there are concepts of SBs, and I know there are imaginary SBs. There are SBs. I do not have to detect the falsification of my theory, which is non-imaginary SBs, in order to have a theory. You've got it back to front. Someone hypothesising that non-imaginary SBs exist would need to detect them in order to support the hypothesis. As any real criticism of my theory would have to be based on that general hypothesis, dear critic, when are you going to support your criticism?

RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

RAZD writes:

Just because your hypothetical conjecture is compatible with an apparent absence of supernatural beings, does not mean it is sufficient to form a scientific hypothesis that is testable.
What's amusing is that you know this (so one of you is wrong):

Let's look at the hypothesis: "The world was intelligently designed."

If we found ourselves in a world in which magic seemed to operate freely and there were no rules, that's perfectly compatible with the hypothesis. If we found ourselves in a world which seemed to operate very consistently on predictable laws, but we identified the occasional miracle that broke those laws, that's perfectly compatible with the hypothesis. And if we found ourselves in a world that appeared to have set physical principles that were never to our knowledge broken, that's perfectly consistent with the hypothesis.

So, that general I.D. hypothesis makes no predictions concerning principles (or miracles), which was what I was trying to explain to GDR. A prediction would be necessary to the hypothesis, not just compatible.

A compatible prediction is not sufficient to form a scientific hypothesis, it must be necessary to it -- your own words -- it must be able to distinguish one state from the other ... ie - you must be able to distinguish whether or not supernatural beings actually exist in order to theorize whether they are imaginary or not.

Again, you don't understand predictions. See above.

RAZD writes:

All you have is a concept with a compatible prediction, not something necessary to it.

Please, try harder. Think about it. It is necessary to the hypothesis that "all paintings are made by humans" that there be no non-human painters. So it predicts this. We then observe the world. Observation is the method. If we can find just one non-human painter, we have falsified the hypothesis. If we find that chimps can paint pictures: falsification.

So, here's one for you to work on. "All kangaroos are figments of the human imagination."

Figure out what it might predict, and then try to falsify it. If it's very weak, or an extraordinary claim, and non-imaginary kangaroos are real, then it should be easy. If it's strong, you almost certainly won't be able to falsify it.

Now, try to fit "the world was intelligently designed" into valid deductive syllogisms which would be sound if it was correct, and you can find out what, if anything, it predicts about the world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2012 7:30 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2013 8:53 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18242
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 214 of 222 (696333)
04-14-2013 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by bluegenes
09-12-2012 10:20 AM


Learning about symbolic language
The turtle is very simple to explain in terms of symbolic language.

Failure to understand it explains your failure to understand why your expectations are false.

Guernica is also symbolic language.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : ..

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 213 by bluegenes, posted 09-12-2012 10:20 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by bluegenes, posted 04-15-2013 7:08 AM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 2967
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 215 of 222 (696347)
04-15-2013 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by RAZD
04-14-2013 8:53 PM


Re: Learning about symbolic language
RAZD writes:

The turtle is very simple to explain in terms of symbolic language.

What does it symbolize? It can actually be hard to tell if concepts invented long ago by past cultures were intended to be symbolic or not. Are you suggesting that anyone who believes that an actual world supporting supernatural turtle exists is believing in a figment of the human imagination? If so, I agree.

RAZD writes:

Failure to understand it explains your failure to understand why your expectations are false.

I don't expect supernatural turtles to exist.

You may have forgotten, but I brought up "symbolic" supernatural beings earlier in the thread. From memory, I think Old Father Time and Death as a robed skeleton with a scythe were among the examples that I gave. I pointed out that time and death aren't imaginary, but the SBs are. Imaginary personifications of things or abstracts are common.

Symbols are human representations of things. We invent them.

RAZD writes:

Guernica is also symbolic language.

Indeed. So, what's your point?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2013 8:53 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2013 6:46 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18242
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 216 of 222 (696401)
04-15-2013 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by bluegenes
04-15-2013 7:08 AM


Re: Learning about symbolic language
still shooting blanks bluegenes

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 215 by bluegenes, posted 04-15-2013 7:08 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by bluegenes, posted 04-16-2013 3:07 AM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 2967
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 217 of 222 (696439)
04-16-2013 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by RAZD
04-15-2013 6:46 PM


What "prediction" means in science.
RAZD writes:

still shooting blanks bluegenes

I guess the irony of that post will be lost on you.

You've now clicked on to the reply button on two consecutive posts of mine without addressing anything in them.

In Message 214 you reply to Message 213, which explains how you are wrong in your understanding of the meaning of "prediction" in relation to hypotheses in your Message 212.

In post number 214 above (Message 214), you should have been apologizing for the obvious mistakes you made in post 212 (Message 212), and agreeing that I was right, rather than talking about symbolic imaginary turtles.

If you still don't understand that hypotheses predict the opposite of their hypothetical falsifications, then your comments on my theory are meaningless.

bluegenes writes:

RAZD writes:

Your theory hypothetical conjecture then predicts that it is not a falsifiable scientific hypothesis.

If it predicts that you cannot show whether they are there or not, then you cannot show whether they are imaginary or not. It's that simple.

No. A prediction is not an establish fact, it's what we're attempting to falsify.

Learn to understand what "prediction" means in relation to hypotheses. Think. What would logically follow from the hypothesis? This is where deductive reasoning comes in. You ask "If the hypothesis is correct, then what must necessarily follow." One way to make it clear is to put the hypothesis into deductive syllogisms, and see what would be valid, and would be sound if the hypothesis is correct.

(1)All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination.
(2)Therefore, no non-imaginary supernatural beings exist.
(3)Therefore, there cannot actually be a means of detecting non-imaginary SBs, because (2) they are not there.

(2) and (3) can be deduced logically from (1), but we do not know if (1) is correct, because it's our inductive hypothesis. Therefore it's considered falsifiable and would be falsified if we can establish something that contradicts any prediction it makes (there are lots) including (3).

Do you understand and agree with what I'm explaining here?

Edited by bluegenes, : put in new subtitle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2013 6:46 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2013 7:03 AM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18242
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 218 of 222 (696447)
04-16-2013 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by bluegenes
04-16-2013 3:07 AM


Re: What "prediction" means in science.
There's nothing worth replying to when you don't address the issue.

You just don't get it.

You have zero evidence no matter how much you bluster about it.

RAZD writes:

Guernica is also symbolic language.

Indeed. So, what's your point?

That it is true without being factual.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by bluegenes, posted 04-16-2013 3:07 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by bluegenes, posted 04-16-2013 8:17 AM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 2967
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 219 of 222 (696448)
04-16-2013 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by RAZD
04-16-2013 7:03 AM


Re: What "prediction" means in science.
RAZD writes:

There's nothing worth replying to when you don't address the issue.

Here's the post in which you show that you still have no understanding of what scientific hypotheses are, and that you don't understand what prediction means in science. Message 212

I certainly addressed the "issue" that you brought up.

Are you incapable of admitting that you were completely wrong in that post?

RAZD writes:

You have zero evidence no matter how much you bluster about it.

We have zero evidence on this thread for the existence of non-imaginary supernatural beings, and plenty of evidence that people can and do invent them. Your claim that my theory is weak remains completely unsupported, and can be dismissed.

RAZD writes:

That it is true without being factual.

What is "true"? Is this supposed to be your evidence for non-imaginary supernatural beings?

Are you going to admit that you were wrong in post 212? Because if not, I'll keep bringing the subject up, post after post, until you do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2013 7:03 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2013 9:13 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18242
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 220 of 222 (696565)
04-16-2013 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by bluegenes
04-16-2013 8:17 AM


once again ... (sigh)
We have zero evidence on this thread for the existence of non-imaginary supernatural beings, ...

And zero methodology for testing for them,AND zero effort on your part to track down and test reports of same. The lack of evidence is assumed on your part, not tested.

... and plenty of evidence that people can and do invent them. ...

Based on fictional novels and the ASSUMPTION that non-fictional accounts are all invented -- again you have provided ZERO evidence of some concept being invented\imaginary that you did not start out KNOWING that it was invented\imaginary.

If you only look at apples you will not see oranges.

... Your claim that my theory is weak remains completely ...

... based on your complete lack of objective evidence in support of your claims.

The fact that you do not understand this is because you are unwilling to actually do the work necessary to support it, but bluster and pontificate as if your opinion alone should suffice. Sorry.

RAZD writes:

That it is true without being factual.

What is "true"? ...

Reality is "true" -- and we approach knowing reality by ruling out what is known to be false.

The attack on Guernica actually occurred, people and livestock were bombed and it was a horrific act of war, but the depiction in the painting is not factual, it is symbolic of the fear and suffering and senseless slaughter. The symbolic representation gives it an emotional and evocative element that lasts in memory long than a dry factual report does. This makes it memorable to those who see it, and makes it a symbol of anti-war sentiment.

Now can you figure out how this compares to the turtle?

... Is this supposed to be your evidence ...

No, it is more refutation of your attempt to use mythology\creation stories\records of anecdotal descriptions\narratives\etc as evidence of imagination on the basis that they are not strictly factual -- in spite of the fact that they all derive from a time before written language, before scientific development, and all rely on symbolic language to convey their messages in a memorable fashion.

It demonstrates why your assumption of factual representation being necessary to the dissemination of valid information in these narratives is false.

... for non-imaginary supernatural beings?

Again, it is not up to me, nor is it my responsibility, to provide evidence for non-imaginary supernatural beings -- it is my job to point out your failure to identify, test and show that non-imaginary supernatural beings are imagined\invented: that is your hypothetical conjecture, the one you claimed to have lots of objective evidence for, yes?

You do not do this by providing endless lists of KNOWN to be invented supernatural being concepts, you do this by investigating concepts NOT KNOWN to be invented and then showing that they are.

In science, if you make a claim that Ivory Billed Woodpeckers are extinct, and people tell you that there are unconfirmed sightings of Ivory Billed Woodpeckers in Louisiana swamps, you do not claim that they are the product of imagination -- you investigate or you change your opinion to allow the possibility that some sightings may be real.

Don't forget your pirogue.

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 219 by bluegenes, posted 04-16-2013 8:17 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by bluegenes, posted 04-18-2013 7:22 AM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 2967
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(3)
Message 221 of 222 (696684)
04-18-2013 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by RAZD
04-16-2013 9:13 PM


Re: once again ... (sigh)
RAZD writes:

And zero methodology for testing for them,AND zero effort on your part to track down and test reports of same. The lack of evidence is assumed on your part, not tested.

The method is observation. That's how we establish whether or not concepts of beings are imaginary. Try it:

Hypothesis (a): All kangaroos are figments of the human imagination. Obviously weak.

Hypothesis (b): All French speaking kangaroos are figments of the human imagination.

That's a very strong theory that fits all repeatable observations made so far. No non-imaginary kangaroos that fit the description have been identified by repeatable observations, and there's no known way in which such things could come into existence.

Someone arguing that hypothesis (b) is weak would need to present good repeatable observations that contradict it. Without any, the claim is empty, just like your claim about my theory. No non-imaginary supernatural beings have been established to exist by repeatable observations, and there's no known way in which such things could come into existence.

RAZD writes:

... based on your complete lack of objective evidence in support of your claims.

All the available objective evidence supports my theory. That's why you can't find any objective evidence that contradicts it.

RAZD writes:

The fact that you do not understand this is because you are unwilling to actually do the work necessary to support it, but bluster and pontificate as if your opinion alone should suffice. Sorry.

The fact is that you don't understand inductive theories, do you? Blustering is what you're doing when you claim that my theory is weak without presenting any repeatable observations that contradict it. And pontificating is what you're doing in your ridiculous Message 212. Right through the thread you've been basing your criticism on your own misunderstanding of inductive theories, your misunderstanding of predictions, and the bizzare belief that unsupported alternative hypotheses have to be falsified in order for a theory to be strong.

RAZD writes:

Reality is "true" -- and we approach knowing reality by ruling out what is known to be false.

The attack on Guernica actually occurred, people and livestock were bombed and it was a horrific act of war, but the depiction in the painting is not factual, it is symbolic of the fear and suffering and senseless slaughter. The symbolic representation gives it an emotional and evocative element that lasts in memory long than a dry factual report does. This makes it memorable to those who see it, and makes it a symbol of anti-war sentiment.

DEATH, the supernatural being with the scythe, symbolises the reality of death. He is a figment of our imagination invented to represent something real. So, what's your point?

RAZD writes:

Now can you figure out how this compares to the turtle?

What known actuality do you think the turtle symbolises? And how does your view that the turtle was intended as a symbolic fiction do anything other than support my theory?

RAZD writes:

No, it is more refutation of your attempt to use mythology\creation stories\records of anecdotal descriptions\narratives\etc as evidence of imagination on the basis that they are not strictly factual....

Of course the stories are imaginative if they are not factual. And of course, as I keep saying, humans certainly invent symbolic beings that represent real things, like Death, Father Time and Uncle Sam.

So, what's your point?

RAZD writes:

Again, it is not up to me, nor is it my responsibility, to provide evidence for non-imaginary supernatural beings --

Then retract your baseless claim that my theory is weak.

RAZD writes:

it is my job to point out your failure to identify, test and show that non-imaginary supernatural beings are imagined\invented:....

It would be logically impossible to show that actual non-imaginary supernatural beings are imagined/invented, wouldn't it? It would be like showing that French speaking kangaroos can't speak French.

Where did you get the silly idea that scientific theories have to be pre-falsified?

RAZD writes:

....that is your hypothetical conjecture, the one you claimed to have lots of objective evidence for, yes?

No. My theory predicts that there aren't any non-imaginary supernatural beings, not that actual non-imaginary supernatural beings would be imaginary.

RAZD writes:

You do not do this by providing endless lists of KNOWN to be invented supernatural being concepts, you do this by investigating concepts NOT KNOWN to be invented and then showing that they are.

You're not making sense there!

You still don't understand inductive theories and laws, do you? You don't have to show that every single rabbit in the wild was born from another rabbit in order to infer that they all come from the same source, and you don't have to falsify unsupported hypotheses that contradict that, like "some magicians produce rabbits out of thin air when they pull them out of empty hats."

RAZD writes:

In science, if you make a claim that Ivory Billed Woodpeckers are extinct, and people tell you that there are unconfirmed sightings of Ivory Billed Woodpeckers in Louisiana swamps, you do not claim that they are the product of imagination -- you investigate or you change your opinion to allow the possibility that some sightings may be real.

Is that supposed to be an analogy? I'm not theorizing that something known to have existed is extinct. And inductive theories do allow for the possibility of falsification. You were the one who declared my theory untestable and unfalsifiable, hilariously, on the basis that it predicts that there are no non-imaginary SBs. Here in Message 212, which you haven't apologised for yet.

Many claimed sightings of SBs have been investigated, and none have ever been confirmed as non-imaginary SBs. And many, many people have tried to demonstrate that one or more non-imaginary SBs exist without succeeding.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2013 9:13 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2014 12:44 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18242
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 222 of 222 (715312)
01-03-2014 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by bluegenes
04-18-2013 7:22 AM


Happy New Year.
Another year without evidence that your conjecture has passed from hypothesis to theory by proper testing, replication and peer review.

The method is observation. That's how we establish whether or not concepts of beings are imaginary. Try it: ...

Okay: observation 1 -- zero effort has been put into testing people's claims of supernatural experiences, observation 2 -- you don't have a means to identify whether a supernatural essence is present.

An hypothesis that is not tested is not a theory.

Hypothesis (b): All French speaking kangaroos are figments of the human imagination. That's a very strong theory that fits all repeatable observations made so far.

All imaginary things are products of the human imagination, that is an exceedingly strong theory by your books. It is also mundanely true by definition. What you don't seem to understand is that every time you make up something to substantiate your point all you prove is that all imaginary things are products of the human imagination. Every time you use an example that you know a priori is a product of human imagination to substantiate your point all you prove is that all imaginary things are products of human imagination.

Your claim was that you had a theory, a strong theory, and lots of evidence, and all I see you doing is making up stuff and pretending that known imaginary things are evidence rather than presenting documentation and evidence of any actual discovery process.

All you have demonstrated is that all imaginary things are products of human imagination.

Including your "theory" ... so far

Can you provide a list of the supernatural entities that you have determined are products of human imagination, but that no one knew a priori were imaginary, by some as yet unreported methodology?
Yes No

Do you have any objective empirical evidence that demonstrates these recognized and previously documented as supernatural entities are products of human imagination?
Yes No

Do you have a methodology, other than opinion, for determining whether a supernatural essence is present?
Yes No

Have you reported this in any peer reviewed journal?
Yes No

Has your work been reproduced\replicated by someone else?
Yes No

Stop dancing around these issues. Anything not an unequivocal yes will be taken as a no.

If you can't answer all of them with a yes then you de facto do not have a strong theory supported by lots of evidence. Q.E.D.

Its that simple.

And of course you can always just admit that what you have is a 'working hypothesis' ...

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, :

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


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 221 by bluegenes, posted 04-18-2013 7:22 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017