Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 156 (8123 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-20-2014 11:57 AM
123 online now:
Capt Stormfield, Jon, Modulous (AdminModulous), ringo, Tanypteryx (5 members, 118 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: taiji2
Post Volume:
Total: 736,258 Year: 22,099/28,606 Month: 1,186/1,410 Week: 388/524 Day: 7/48 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
15Next
Author Topic:   the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 19 days)
Posts: 2812
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 91 of 222 (603617)
02-06-2011 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by RAZD
02-05-2011 2:48 PM


Getting somewhere!
RAZD writes:

No bluegenes, I demonstrated how, if human authors were reporting on information that they had been given, that such reports could vary dramatically, while still reporting on an actual experience (communication from god/s about how it all began).

This is because (a) people are limited in their ability to understand by their ability to understand - early people were not astro-physicists but hunter-gatherers - and (b) because different people remember different aspects of their experiences - why "eye-witness" accounts in trials are not taken as absolute truth - and (c) god/s telling different people could easily discuss different aspects of the overall process to taylor it to the individuals - tell different parts of the process to different people - and (d) you can't expect to understand how god/s function without having the knowledge and understanding of god/s - so incompetence in understanding is entirely to be expected no matter what is said or conveyed - and finally (e) these narratives were not recorded, but have been passed down by verbal telling, along with all other cultural knowledge, and thus are subject to variation and substitution - which explains three different sects of Christianity having different "worlds" being created even though they are based on the same original narrative and god/s.

I understand all that, RAZD. But we still have to invent the concept of the SB communicators in order to make that explanation. I already did that earlier in the thread, when I suggested that the stories could have evolved from originals when our ancestors were all one group in Africa, and in contact with some real SBs. Whatever the history of the stories, the actual SBs in the final results have to be inventions. The entire worlds, as I've said before, are just as fictional as those in modern high fantasy. Any stories that can't be true have to be showing elements of human invention, even if they're distortions of something that was actually told to our ancestors. We're left with lots of evidence for the human capacity to invent, and none for the actual communicator SBs that you're speculating about.

As for the Christians and their different reinventions, it was you who seemed to place great value on me falsifying something that people actually believe in. I did that with the YECs. But if you're going to argue that all actual beliefs are distortions of some speculative original belief, then why were you placing such emphasis on what people actually believe in anyway? Especially as I've explained before that you can find people who'll believe in Harry Potter, and pretty much anything.

RAZD writes:

Actually it is very strongly based on observation and knowledge of how people behave and observe things that are real events, rather than your tacit assumption that all these stories would be 100% absolutely true renderings of perfect understanding, no matter what. Your position is untenable.

You're assuming my assumptions. Certainly, I agree that eyewitnesses give different accounts, and that stories would evolve and distort over time. What I was looking for in the creation mythologies was "noise" that might weaken my theory. I certainly wasn't expecting detailed literal scientific truth. An example of this noise would be if there were inexplicable consistencies from different continents. It's no surprise getting SB creators in ones, twos, threes, because we begin counting at the bottom, but what if I had found five stories from five different continents, each with 7 creators? And what if those stories had other things in common that seemed alike enough to be more than coincidence? And what if there were elements that could be quite easily stretched to fit the scientific view, or at least, not to radically contradict it? But there was nothing like that. My point stands that, as they are, they are human inventions, and they provide no positive evidence for your communicators.

The stories were used for hypothesis testing. Theoretically, they have the potential to weaken my theory. Had one or more appeared to contain information that our ancestors before the epoch of modern science shouldn't have had, then that could be a problem for the theory.

Ironically, I've actually looked at the stories for signs of the kind of ideas that your expressing.

RAZD writes:

What you have claimed as evidence is hearsay anecdotal circumstantial evidence, not objective empirical evidence, that is not changing the evidence, it is stating a fact. This kind of evidence is unsuitable for scientific examination of the validity of an hypothesis.

Observation of the creation mythologies is repeatable, and anyone can compare them with one another and with the scientific view. Also, anyone can conduct an experiment to confirm that humans can and do invent supernatural beings. Both have been done on the thread, and as you must agree that humans can and do invent supernatural beings, I don't understand your complaint here.

RAZD writes:

In addition, having evaluated the claim you have made
concerning these narratives, and finding no valid reason to accept your claim that they should all be taken as 100% absolutely true renderings no matter what, I find that your position is untenable and your conclusion biased by your own beliefs.

Would you like to quote me claiming that they should be taken as 100% true? See my points above. Merely containing information that ancient cultures couldn't know without outside help would have been enough.

RAZD writes:

Meanwhile you ignore the parts of the narratives that are all consilient: god/s created life.

Really? In all of them? Wrong. If you're criticizing observations I've made about human stories of SBs, shouldn't you find out what you're talking about first?

RAZD writes:

If 5 "eye-witness" accounts all agreed that person A hit person B but not on any other matter, that would still be taken as indication that person A hit person B, especially if there is evidence that person B was hit. Life exists.

Not if they all described person A and person B very differently, and there were other eyewitnesses who disagreed on the hitting.

RAZD writes:

This in spite of the fact that none of this would show that any one of the god/s in these narratives would have to be human imagination inventions: they are not objective empirical evidence, and they are not evidence that supports your assertion/s.

The theory is about the human invention of SBs, and all stories involving SBs are therefore relevant. If stories, whether ancient or modern, describe complete fantasy worlds, they are evidence for human invention. So far, we know of no SB stories that have been confirmed to be true.

Direct questions.

(1) Do you agree that human invention is the only known source of supernatural beings, (remembering that "known" doesn't mean "possible")?

(2) If not, what is the other known source?

RAZD writes:

You mean the (1)'s and (2)'s versus the (6)'s and (7)'s who bear an equal burden for claims outside the (3) to (5) range. And yes, without evidence of support for their claims they are all illogical.

RAZD writes:

(1) Absolute Theist: knows god/s exist. (logically invalid position).

You claim that the (1)'s are illogical, which indicates that you don't believe that any of them can be getting messages from SBs. Oops! How can you know this? If you can't, then you should, by your way of thinking, be an uncommitted (4) on whether or not there are people who know there is a god.

But as you're not a (1) yourself, then it follows that you do agree that human invention is the only known source of SBs. The rest of us ( and "science") cannot know if the claims of any of the (1)s are true.

(3) Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable propositions that contradict them, like omphalism and "SBs communicate with some humans" or "conjurers can magic up real rabbits from nothing"?

RAZD writes:

All for now, as I do have other things to do than repeat the comments already made and ignored.

It's direct questions that are being ignored a lot on this thread. Again:

(1) Do you agree that human invention is the only known source of supernatural beings, (remembering that "known" doesn't mean "possible")?

(2) If not, what is the other known source? (You have to be an "illogical" (1) to actually know a source).

(3) Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable propositions that contradict them, like omphalism and "SBs communicate with some humans"?

If you don't answer the questions, I'll assume "yes" for the first, and "no" for the third, which means, whether you understand why or not, you'll be close to agreeing that I have a strong theory.

We're finally getting somewhere.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 02-05-2011 2:48 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2011 1:46 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15881
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 92 of 222 (604199)
02-10-2011 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by bluegenes
02-06-2011 12:58 AM


Re: Getting somewhere! well one of us anyway
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi bluegenes,

I already did that earlier in the thread, when I suggested that the stories could have evolved from originals when our ancestors were all one group in Africa, and in contact with some real SBs.

In which case they had real experiences with supernatural beings.

But we still have to invent the concept of the SB communicators in order to make that explanation. ... Whatever the history of the stories, the actual SBs in the final results have to be inventions.

Once again you assume the conclusion. The evidence is that the consilience means they come from a common source.

You're assuming my assumptions. Certainly, I agree that eyewitnesses give different accounts, and that stories would evolve and distort over time.

Therefore the narratives are not viable objective empirical evidence, either for nor against your assertion/s. They can indicate possibilities, but not probabilities: they can indicate areas for further research before drawing any conclusions.

Observation of the creation mythologies is repeatable, and anyone can compare them with one another ...

... and reach conclusions based on opinion/s and bias/es, ... conclusions that are level I hypothetical concepts at best ...

RAZD's Concept Scale
  1. Zero Confidence Concepts

    1. No evidence, subjective or objective,
      hypothetical arguments,
    2. No logical conclusions possible, but opinion possible

  2. Low Confidence Concepts

    1. Unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion also involved, but no known contradictory evidence, nothing shows the concept per se to be invalid

    2. Conclusions regarding possibilities for further investigation, and opinions can be based on this level of evidence,

  3. High Confidence Concepts

    1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence

    2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.

... or you can look at them realistically as hearsay anecdotal circumstantial narratives that are not viable evidence either for nor against the possible existence of god/s.

Certainly there are many common elements as well as some non-common elements. The consilience of common elements could give you the greatest possibility of determine the validity, parsing away the non-common elements, but even then you would be hard pressed to determine whether the ultimate source was human imagination or actual experience on some level of communication/s with god/s.

If you cannot distinguish possible imagination from possible experience then you need to try a different tack.

If you do not have a method\process to distinguish human imagination from supernatural experiences then you do not have a scientific method\process to validate your claim that human imagination is the only possible source, or your claim that you have a scientific theory.

That the mythologies exist is the objective fact, not what you conclude from them.

Just as the existence of claims of religious experiences is a fact, not what you conclude from them.

(1) Do you agree that human invention is the only known source of supernatural beings, (remembering that "known" doesn't mean "possible")?

No.

This should be obvious by now, as you have failed again and again to address several times the known claims for supernatural communication with humans.

Nor have you established that human invention is A (scientifically) "known source" of supernatural beings, in any scientific study, so you have not established your possibility.

(2) If not, what is the other known source?

Religious documents and reports of supernatural experiences. These religious documents and reports are abundant, they are objective empirical evidence that should be considered in any discussion of supernatural beings.

If you were researching an historical event you would not ignore historical documents that talk about the event. You may not be able to show that the historical documents were accurate, but you would not ignore them.

You claim that the (1)'s are illogical, which indicates that you don't believe that any of them can be getting messages from SBs. Oops! How can you know this? If you can't, then you should, by your way of thinking, be an uncommitted (4) on whether or not there are people who know there is a god.

The evidence I have, interestingly, is that there are some people that actually claim to be (1)'s. That's pretty good evidence that they exist, yes?

(3) Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable propositions that contradict them, like omphalism and "SBs communicate with some humans" or "conjurers can magic up real rabbits from nothing"

And yet you still have not established that you have a theory. So far all you have is an unsupported assertion of a hypothesis based on poor logic, confirmation bias and wishful thinking.

An example of poor logic, that you have used frequently yet (apparently) do not understand why it is false:

The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, just as adult rabbits are the only known source of baby rabbits.

The proper parallel construction is that human imagination is the only known source of imaginary human concepts, or that supernatural beings are the only known source of supernatural beings.

When you mix them, as you (and a bunch of other people) have done, then you are making a hidden assumption -- that supernatural beings are imaginary human concepts -- the conclusion you are trying to make is the hidden assumption. This begs the question (a logical fallacy), but using the hidden assumption fallacy to afirm the consequent (logical fallacy) in the construction of a false analogy (logical fallacy) is piling one logical fallacy on top of another.

For instance we can use your construction in the second part make these mixed parallel statements:

Rabbits are the only known source of imaginary human concepts
human imagination is the only known source of baby rabbits
Supernatural beings are the only known source of imaginary human concepts

These are all just as (in)valid as your statement and thus just as likely to (not) be true.

You have not established that supernatural causes of supernatural concept are not possible by a number of methods, you've just assumed this to be the case.

I have done this demonstration of poor logic to other arguments that you have made, that are also based on false construction of the logic, yet you have continued to pretend that those arguments are logical. This is cognitive dissonance.

If you don't answer the questions, I'll assume "yes" for the first, and "no" for the third, which means, whether you understand why or not, you'll be close to agreeing that I have a strong theory.

Curiously, you still have failed to provide any objective empirical evidence to support your various assertions.

Amusingly, you still only have an hypothesis based on opinion, bias and wishful thinking, not on evidence.

Intriguingly, human imagination is the only known source of imaginary human concepts (as you have adequately demonstrated), but you have absolutely failed to demonstrate that this necessarily includes any supernatural beings.

We're finally getting somewhere.

I am. I've shown:

  • that your hypothesis is unfounded by empirical objective evidence,
  • that your conclusions are based on false logic,
  • that you are assuming your conclusion is true rather than testing it or demonstrating it,
  • that you do not have a method\process to distinguish human imagination from supernatural experiences,
  • that you do not have a scientific theory,
  • that you have an hypothesis based on your opinion/s, bias/es and wishful thinking,
  • (again) that you are a pseudoskeptic, using pseudoscience rather than applying science to the question
  • that you have not supported a single one of the six (6) assertions listed in Message 1 with any empirical objective evidence.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only


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 91 by bluegenes, posted 02-06-2011 12:58 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by bluegenes, posted 02-12-2011 1:06 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 94 by bluegenes, posted 02-18-2011 1:16 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 19 days)
Posts: 2812
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 93 of 222 (604465)
02-12-2011 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by RAZD
02-10-2011 1:46 PM


Learn the basics.
RAZD writes:

In which case they had real experiences with supernatural beings.

But I had to invent the concept of the "real SBs in ancient Africa".

RAZD writes:

Once again you assume the conclusion. The evidence is that the consilience means they come from a common source.

Does this apply with agriculture, boats, shoes, pyramids, bows and arrows? Separate cultures could easily invent the idea of the sun as a god, don't you think? It's actually a ball of gases.

Read the stories. As many as you can. Then list all of what you see as points of consilience that do not contradict the scientific evidence. And tell me which of the stories do not take place in invented worlds. I repeat, false stories are automatically evidence of invention.

RAZD writes:

If you do not have a method\process to distinguish human imagination from supernatural experiences then you do not have a scientific method\process to validate your claim that human imagination is the only possible source, or your claim that you have a scientific theory.

My claim is not that the human imagination is the only possible source. My claim is that it's the only known source; the only one that can be established beyond all reasonable doubt. This leads to the theory that all SBs are human inventions.

RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

Do you agree that human invention is the only known source of supernatural beings, (remembering that "known" doesn't mean "possible")?

No.

This should be obvious by now, as you have failed again and again to address several times the known claims for supernatural communication with humans.

I asked you about known sources, not known claims.

RAZD writes:

Nor have you established that human invention is A (scientifically) "known source" of supernatural beings, in any scientific study, so you have not established your possibility.

I've proved that humans can and do invent supernatural beings experimentally on this thread.

RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

(2) If not, what is the other known source?

Religious documents and reports of supernatural experiences. These religious documents and reports are abundant, they are objective empirical evidence that should be considered in any discussion of supernatural beings.

As I've pointed out before, because an SB-concept is documented by humans, this does not demonstrate a source for the SB-concept other than the human imagination. You are repeating one of the worst creationist arguments, the "because it's written in an ancient book" one.

By answering "no" to my question, you have now claimed that there's another known source of SB-concepts. What is the known source behind the concepts described in religious documents, and what is the known source behind claimed religious experiences?

RAZD writes:

If you were researching an historical event you would not ignore historical documents that talk about the event. You may not be able to show that the historical documents were accurate, but you would not ignore them.

Ignore? Who brought up the creation myths? Me. If I were examining the historical event of the coming into existence of our species, I would note that all the creation myths I've read that give an account of this give a completely false account when compared to the scientific literature. That's been done earlier in the thread.

RAZD writes:

The evidence I have, interestingly, is that there are some people that actually claim to be (1)'s. That's pretty good evidence that they exist, yes?

I know the (1)'s exist. I think you're missing my point about your "logic". You cannot conclusively know whether or not there is someone on this earth who does actually know that a god exists (we all know there are people who claim this). By your own reasoning, you must therefore be an uncommitted agnostic on the point. Yet you describe this position as illogical. To put it more simply for you, the position would be illogical if the person doesn't actually know that there's a god, but logical if he or she did.

To put it even more simply, your claim that the (1) position is illogical is not derived from logic, but is a belief position.

You can only theorize that there is no-one who knows that there's a god. A strong theory, like "All supernatural beings are products of the human imagination" might lead you to the tentative conclusion that no-one actually knows there's a god, but there's no strict logical proof for the point.

That's why we sort out questions about reality by making observations. With science, rather than abstract logic in a void.

RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

(3) Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable propositions that contradict them, like omphalism and "SBs communicate with some humans" or "conjurers can magic up real rabbits from nothing"

And yet you still have not established that you have a theory. So far all you have is an unsupported assertion of a hypothesis based on poor logic, confirmation bias and wishful thinking.

You haven't actually answered my question, which was a general one about all scientific theories. As for my particular theory, you keep bringing up unsupported claims in order to support your view that the theory is weak, or that it isn't a theory. Why?

So, I'll ask the question again, and I'll keep on asking it until you stop presenting unsupported claims in relation to my theory. You could stop doing this by actually presenting a demonstrably true example of a real SB communicating with a particular person, for example.

Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable propositions that contradict them, like omphalism and "SBs communicate with some humans" or "conjurers can magic up real rabbits from nothing"? Yes or no?

RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, just as adult rabbits are the only known source of baby rabbits.

The proper parallel construction is that human imagination is the only known source of imaginary human concepts, or that supernatural beings are the only known source of supernatural beings.

Not at all. Human invention is the only known source of SB-concepts, and there's no known difference between the SB-concepts, and "supernatural beings". I use them interchangeably because of this. You seem to be making a semantic argument, not a logical one, and your English isn't up to it. "Fairies are figments of the human imagination" makes perfect sense in the English language; there's no need to say "fairy concepts". There's no "hidden assumption" required. Which supernatural beings are known to actually exist?

My sentence that you've quoted above is presented as a fact, and the analogy is there for illustration. If you disagree with either of the two phrases in the sentence, then why can't you present another known source of either supernatural beings or rabbits or both?

English lesson of the day: "Known source" does not mean "unsupported claim", or "hypothetically possible sources".

RAZD writes:

You have not established that supernatural causes of supernatural concept are not possible by a number of methods, you've just assumed this to be the case.

I don't claim that other sources are known to be impossible. You still don't understand the difference between things stated as facts and falsifiable theories. Hypothetical alternative possibilities are automatically considered possible with scientific theories, because the theories are considered falsifiable.. A theory is strong and "high confidence" when there are no known exceptions to it.

RAZD writes:

I have done this demonstration of poor logic to other arguments that you have made, that are also based on false construction of the logic, yet you have continued to pretend that those arguments are logical. This is cognitive dissonance.

Your arguments about logic are because you don't understand how inductive reasoning is used in science, and you keep treating theories as facts that can be arrived at by deductive reasoning. Sort this out. It's basic


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2011 1:46 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 19 days)
Posts: 2812
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 94 of 222 (605257)
02-18-2011 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by RAZD
02-10-2011 1:46 PM


Bump for a question that needs to be answered.
Once again, a direct question that's central to any discussion on scientific theories. This point is a stumbling block for many creationists.

quote:

Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them, like omphalism and "SBs communicate with some humans" or "conjurers can magic up real rabbits from nothing"? Yes or no?

That's a general question on scientific theories.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2011 1:46 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 19 days)
Posts: 2812
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 95 of 222 (605280)
02-18-2011 10:16 AM


Hiding and lying elsewhere.
From Message 14

RAZD hiding on another Great debate thread on which bluegenes can't participate writes:

Message 14 For instance, bluegenes, in the Great Debate the bluegenes Challenge , argues that he can make up evidence for his hypothesis, or that he can interpret hearsay circumstantial evidence so that it supports his assertions, but that it can only be falsified by objective empirical evidence of the actual existence of an actual supernatural being.

Wrong. Inventing falsifiable supernatural beings to support a theory which is about human invention of SBs is not inventing evidence, it is experimental proof that humans can and do make up SBs, something no sane person would doubt anyway. And false accounts of the formation of this planet and modern life forms are clearly invented (the creation mythologies), and products of the human imagination. The scientific literature in cosmology, geology and biology provides loads of objective empirical evidence for this.

RAZD writes:

When I point this out to bluegenes and say that he needs to be able to invalidate these as evidence of god/s and communications with god/s in order to claim a sole source explanation, he ignores it because it is not scientifically validated.

Wrong. I don't ignore your unsupported claims, I just can't find any known examples of real SBs communicating with anyone. I claim that there is only one known source of SBs, and theorize that all SBs come from their only known source.

Now you're expressing your belief that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported claims that contradict them on another thread. Support your claim that gods communicate with humans here on this thread. Do you have a single example of an instance when this is known to have happened?

Answer the question in the post above, and if you want to discuss my theory, have the courage to do it here or on other threads on which I can participate.

Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them?


Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2011 2:30 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15881
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 96 of 222 (605315)
02-18-2011 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by bluegenes
02-18-2011 10:16 AM


still running from the issues
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi bluegenes,

3 posts in a row ... and yet not one of them provides empirical objective evidence to support your hypothetical conjecture.

You have lost this debate unless you have objective empirical evidence to support your conjecture.

Answer the question in the post above,

Curiously, your inability to produce evidence has nothing to do with you asking me questions, it has to do with you producing evidence.

Inventing falsifiable supernatural beings ...

Except that you have not shown that you have invented any supernatural beings.

All you have invented are caricatures.

AND you are still going about this backwards.

People can invent many fictional concepts, all of them are fictional concepts, but not all of them are pretending to be supernatural beings.

Demonstrating that you have a concept that is a member of the [many fictional concepts] just demonstrates that you have a fictional concept, not a supernatural being.

Therefore your "evidence" is worthless self-confirming delusion.

I don't ignore your unsupported claims, I just can't find any known examples of real SBs communicating with anyone

That is just your cognitive dissonance based excuse for ignoring them.

These religious texts and reports on religious experiences are real, they are known, they are objective empirical facts. You're problem is to show that they are not about actual religious experiences of supernatural beings or documents of supernatural beings.

I claim that there is only one known source of SBs, and theorize that all SBs come from their only known source.

And to support this amusing claim, you need to be able to show that you can eliminate the known reports about religious communications from being supernatural communications.

You need to have objective empirical evidence, not just your opinion, biases and wishful thinking.

Message 82 ... still valid:

quote:
If all you have is your opinion, your interpretation, and your biased conclusions, then all one needs is other opinions, interpretations and biased conclusions that are contrary to yours. They are of equal merit. These are, in this instance, plentiful, as I have amply demonstrated. Your only recourse, then, is to provide actual objective empirical evidence that supports your claims, not more subjective evidence.

This is the problem with subjective evidence, it cannot provide a factual basis for theory or scientific knowledge: at best it can suggest hypothetical possibilities.

Hypothetical possibilities are certainly not strong theories. Contrary possibilities are also hypothetical possibilities, and thus there is no reason to assert one is more valid than the other, without objective empirical evidence.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

From Message 4 your assertions are (emphasis added):

We'll start with claim (1):
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".

This is your assertion, you need to support it with some objective empirical evidence. Without supporting objective empirical evidence it is an opinion founded on personal biases at worst, or a hypothetical possibility at best,

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

As to claim (2):
This is a high level of confidence ...

... where you were referring to my levels of confidence scale, level III concepts:

quote:
III. High Confidence Concepts

  1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence

  2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1) as required by (a) plus evidence of confirmation and validation by others, and evidence of repeated attempts to falsify your hypothetical possibility -- normally this involves articles in scientific journals.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

Claim (3):
This is a ... theory. ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1). Scientific theory starts with a foundation of objective empirical evidence, a set of objective empirical evidence where the hypothesis is true. Without such foundational objective empirical evidence all you have is a hypothetical possibility based on opinion and biases.

Unsupported hypothetical possibilities are certainly not scientific theories.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

Now claim (4):
... and support the theory with plenty of evidence ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1). Made up caricatures are not objective empirical evidence and subjective interpretations of hearsay anecdotal circumstantial narratives are not objective empirical evidence.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

Then claim (5):
... The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence that rules out other other sources, including the four possible sources I have already mentioned. You need to eliminate the alternatives before you can claim your concept is singularly valid.

This is because if your exclusive claim is not the only possibilities, then your claim of exclusivity is invalid, and your possibility of trying to use this argument to support your claim evaporates.

This is not evidence either, rather it is an attempt to avoid providing evidence. This is the pseudoskeptic approach, not the scientific approach.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

And finally claim (6):
... this is a strong theory, ....

Without objective empirical evidence for assertion (3), which requires objective empirical evidence for assertion (1), you don't have a theory. Without objective empirical evidence for this assertion it cannot be strong either. Without any system or method or technique for actually applying your concept so that you can actually show whether your assertion (1) is true in any specific cases it cannot be a valid theory in the scientific sense of this terminology. Finally, in science a theory does not become strong by proclaiming it to be strong, but by repeated tested and scientifically documented validation in scientific journals. You have not provided any evidence of this.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

You need to stop hiding in your hat, get off your duff, apply your system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept --- IF you have one that is of scientific value, rather than you just asserting your opinion --- and use it to provide some objective empirical evidence.

This is how scientists apply actual theories, and repeated application and demonstration of validity is how actual theories become strong theories.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

If you actually have a strong scientific theory, then why can you not provide any objective empirical evidence to support and substantiate it in any specific instances?


You have SHOWN that your hypothetical conjecture is NOT based on the scientific process, and thus your pretentious nattering about the scientific method and scientific evidence is quite amusing.

Do you think scientific theories are based on opinions and biases? You concept is a one or a two on the (now revised) concept scale:

RAZD's Concept Scale (revised)
  1. Zero Confidence Concepts

    1. No evidence, subjective or objective, hypothetical arguments,

    2. No logical conclusions possible, but opinion possible

  2. Low Confidence Concepts

    1. Unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion also involved, but no known objective empirical evidence pro or con, nothing shows the concept per se to be invalid

    2. Conclusions regarding possibilities for further investigation, and opinions can be based on this level of evidence,

  3. Medium Confidence Concepts

    1. Based on some objective empirical evidence, but may also have contradictory or anomalous (unreconciled) evidence, a scientific hypothesis that has not (yet) been tested and that has not (yet) provided any new predicted evidence or information, or still in development

    2. Conclusions regarding possible reality can be made, methods to test and falsify such concepts can be developed to measure the possibility of their being true\false.

  4. High Confidence Concepts

    1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence

    2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.

You need to have objective empirical evidence to get to a higher level.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

Message 92 ... still valid:

quote:
I've shown:

  • that your hypothesis is unfounded by empirical objective evidence,
  • that your conclusions are based on false logic,
  • that you are assuming your conclusion is true rather than testing it or demonstrating it,
  • that you do not have a method\process to distinguish human imagination from supernatural experiences,
  • that you do not have a scientific theory,
  • that you have an hypothesis based on your opinion/s, bias/es and wishful thinking,
  • (again) that you are a pseudoskeptic, using pseudoscience rather than applying science to the question
  • that you have not supported a single one of the six (6) assertions listed in Message 1 with any empirical objective evidence.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants have been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s.

Edited by RAZD, : added banner


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 95 by bluegenes, posted 02-18-2011 10:16 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by bluegenes, posted 02-18-2011 3:54 PM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 19 days)
Posts: 2812
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 97 of 222 (605327)
02-18-2011 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by RAZD
02-18-2011 2:30 PM


still running from the questions
RAZD writes:

You have lost this debate unless you have objective empirical evidence to support your conjecture.

You don't actually understand what objective empirical evidence is, so you'll have to leave judgement on who has won this debate to those of us who do.

RAZD writes:

Curiously, your inability to produce evidence has nothing to do with you asking me questions, it has to do with you producing evidence.

Meaning that you cannot answer my question, because all of your arguments against my theory depend on unsupported claims.

Once again: Do you believe that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them, like omphalism and "SBs communicate with people"?

RAZD writes:

All you have invented are caricatures.

I can't invent caricatures of real SBs, because I don't know of any real SBs. Caricatures have to be of something demonstrably real. So far, all of the SBs we've discussed on this thread are concepts in our minds, like my inventions. We haven't established that there's such a thing as SBs that have an existence external to our minds. "Real SBs" remains an abstract concept that we have to imagine.

RAZD writes:

Demonstrating that you have a concept that is a member of the [many fictional concepts] just demonstrates that you have a fictional concept, not a supernatural being.

Whenever we know the source of an SB concept, it is fictional. Whenever we don't know the source of an SB concept, we can never demonstrate that they are non-fictional. There are no known exceptions that contradict my theory, which is why it is high confidence level.

RAZD writes:

These religious texts and reports on religious experiences are real, they are known, they are objective empirical facts. You're problem is to show that they are not about actual religious experiences of supernatural beings or documents of supernatural beings.

All claims to anything are real claims. The fact that there are many unsupported claims of the existence of SBs does nothing to weaken my theory.

Give me a list of texts that you know to be about real extant SBs. Give me a list of people who are known to have experienced real extant SBs.

Again: Do you believe that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported claims?

RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

I claim that there is only one known source of SBs, and theorize that all SBs come from their only known source.

And to support this amusing claim, you need to be able to show that you can eliminate the known reports about religious communications from being supernatural communications.

You want me to falsify Joe schizophrenic's angels whose voices he hears in his head?

Do you believe that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims? Because if so, you're wrong.

RAZD writes:

You need to have objective empirical evidence, not just your opinion, biases and wishful thinking.

Are you talking to yourself here?

Your arguments against my theory being high confidence are all based on unsupported claims (including your own implicit claims of objectivity).

Do you believe that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them?

You need to answer yes to this question, or admit that I have a strong theory. And if you answer yes, you'll be wrong about science, and you will have declared all scientific theories to be weak.

You can't actually win this debate without falsifying my theory.

So, do you believe that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them, like omphalism and "SBs communicate with people"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2011 2:30 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 02-19-2011 9:20 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15881
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 98 of 222 (605454)
02-19-2011 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by bluegenes
02-18-2011 3:54 PM


Re: still running from the questions
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi bluegenes,

Once again I remind you that the purpose of this thread is for you to substantiate your claim/s, including foremost that you have a theory that qualifies as a scientific theory and not a hypothetical conjecture.

A scientific theory is based on objective empirical evidence, not made up caricatures and biased interpretations of hearsay circumstantial narrations.

You don't have a scientific theory. If you did you would have objective empirical evidence. You don't have objective empirical evidence, therefore you CANNOT have a scientific theory.

You don't actually understand what objective empirical evidence is, so you'll have to leave judgement on who has won this debate to those of us who do.

Typical pseudoskeptic response: don't deal with the issue, attack the messenger.

Again: Do you believe that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported claims?

Do you believe scientific theories are based on made up evidence and unsupported claims?

Message 1 the OP quotes you as saying:

quote:
... , I'd be happy to participate in a one on one debate on the subject, and support the theoryhypothetical conjecture with plenty of evidence.

The information at the top lists "bluegenes 47" posts to date.

If you have "plenty of evidence" how come all you have are {a} your silly fabricated caricatures and {b} your opinion biased interpretations of hearsay circumstantial narrations that --- even IF your interpretation were true --- do not show that a single supernatural being is a fabrication of human imagination? - answer: because you have deluded yourself into thinking that you have something more than your opinion based on your biases and wishful thinking.

If you think it is a strong theoryhypothetical conjecture, how come you cannot produce any evidence that has been derived by it? - answer: because you have deluded yourself into thinking that you have something more than your opinion based on your biases and wishful thinking.

How come the only thing you can show is made up are your caricatures? - answer: because you have deluded yourself into thinking that you have something more than your opinion based on your biases and wishful thinking.

This is WHY you are losing (have lost) the debate: you cannot substantiate your claim/s.

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants have been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s.

Edited by RAZD, : added

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

Edited by RAZD, : added first paragraph for people like Coyote that seem to be confused about the topic of this thread, and cannot get it through their heads that it is not about whether (or not) god/s exist, but whether (or not) bluegenes has a concept that can be called a scientific theory.


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 97 by bluegenes, posted 02-18-2011 3:54 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by bluegenes, posted 02-20-2011 6:24 AM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 19 days)
Posts: 2812
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 99 of 222 (605476)
02-20-2011 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by RAZD
02-19-2011 9:20 PM


Re: still running from the questions
RAZD writes:

You don't have a scientific theory.

Support this claim without resorting to other unsupported claims.

RAZD writes:

You don't have objective empirical evidence..

Support this claim. Support your claim that there's no objective empirical evidence in the scientific literature which supports the view that Adam and Eve are human inventions (they are SB concepts). Support your claim that there's no OE evidence that the creator SB concept described on answersingenesis is an invented human concept. Support your claim that there's no OE evidence in the literature (cosmology/geology/biology) that supports my claim that the creation mythologies are invented accounts of the beginnings of this solar system and modern life forms.

Support your claim that there's no OE evidence in the medical and biological literature that diseases have natural causes rather than being caused by evil spirits (a well documented supernatural belief, incidentally).

Support your claim that there's no OE evidence from geology that the Giant's Causeway is a volcanic formation, and wasn't built by a magical giant.

RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

You don't actually understand what objective empirical evidence is, so you'll have to leave judgement on who has won this debate to those of us who do.

Typical pseudoskeptic response: don't deal with the issue, attack the messenger.

Anyone can read your posts on this thread, RAZD, and repeat my observations. The evidence on this thread strongly supports the view that you don't understand what objective empirical evidence means. Name-calling doesn't change that.

RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

Again: Do you believe that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported claims?

Do you believe scientific theories are based on made up evidence and unsupported claims?

No, certainly not. That's why your Hindu "hypothesis", for example, can't be turned into a theory. Now, you answer my question. You seem to attach more importance to things if they're brightly coloured, so:

Do you believe that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some humans"?

I have no problems answering direct questions. Why do you?

The rest of your post is waffle. What real extant beings are my "silly fabricated caricatures" caricatures of and why isn't genuine fabrication genuine evidence of fabrication? The theory's about fabrication.

I've shown on this thread, very clearly to any intelligent reader, that:

(a) Humans can and do invent supernatural beings, and that invention and demonstrably false belief is widespread.

(b) No source of SBs other than human invention has ever been demonstrated to exist. No single SB concept is known to have a real existence outside our minds.

For those who understand inductive scientific reasoning, a theory can be derived from those facts, and the theory I've derived from those facts is unfalsified. A claim that an unfalsified theory is weak requires support. If you can't support that claim, stop making it.

RAZD writes:

This is WHY you are losing (have lost) the debate: you cannot substantiate your claim/s.

As I suggested before, you'll have to leave it to those who are intelligent enough to understand the subject matter to decide that. Your posts demonstrate that you're clearly out of your depth. Answer my question, yes or no, and we'll see if you're qualified to comment on scientific theories.

Once again:

Do you believe that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some humans"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 02-19-2011 9:20 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2011 9:23 AM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15881
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 100 of 222 (605487)
02-20-2011 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by bluegenes
02-20-2011 6:24 AM


Re: still running from the questions
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi again bluegenes

Support this claim without resorting to other unsupported claims.

There you go again. YOU need to support your claim that you HAVE a theory. I have SHOWN you why not previously. Obviously you haven't been reading my posts, or are just ignoring the "inconvenient truth" shown in them.

Once again, you are just evading and trying to avoid you're responsibility.

Anyone can read your posts on this thread, RAZD, and repeat my observations.

And they can also repeat mine, which are substantiated by references, unlike yours. The FACT that there is disagreement between interpretations of narratives is demonstration that your "evidence" is subjective and not objective.

Repeat: Do you believe scientific theories are based on made up evidence and unsupported claims?

You need to have objective empirical evidence, not just your opinion, biases and wishful thinking.

Message 82 ... still valid:

quote:
If all you have is your opinion, your interpretation, and your biased conclusions, then all one needs is other opinions, interpretations and biased conclusions that are contrary to yours. They are of equal merit. These are, in this instance, plentiful, as I have amply demonstrated. Your only recourse, then, is to provide actual objective empirical evidence that supports your claims, not more subjective evidence.

This is the problem with subjective evidence, it cannot provide a factual basis for theory or scientific knowledge: at best it can suggest hypothetical possibilities.

Hypothetical possibilities are certainly not strong theories. Contrary possibilities are also hypothetical possibilities, and thus there is no reason to assert one is more valid than the other, without objective empirical evidence.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

From Message 4 your assertions are (emphasis added):

We'll start with claim (1):
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".

This is your assertion, you need to support it with some objective empirical evidence. Without supporting objective empirical evidence it is an opinion founded on personal biases at worst, or a hypothetical possibility at best,

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

As to claim (2):
This is a high level of confidence ...

... where you were referring to my levels of confidence scale, level III concepts:

quote:
III. High Confidence Concepts

  1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence

  2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1) as required by (a) plus evidence of confirmation and validation by others, and evidence of repeated attempts to falsify your hypothetical possibility -- normally this involves articles in scientific journals.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

Claim (3):
This is a ... theory. ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1). Scientific theory starts with a foundation of objective empirical evidence, a set of objective empirical evidence where the hypothesis is true. Without such foundational objective empirical evidence all you have is a hypothetical possibility based on opinion and biases.

Unsupported hypothetical possibilities are certainly not scientific theories.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

Now claim (4):
... and support the theory with plenty of evidence ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1). Made up caricatures are not objective empirical evidence and subjective interpretations of hearsay anecdotal circumstantial narratives are not objective empirical evidence.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

Then claim (5):
... The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence that rules out other other sources, including the four possible sources I have already mentioned. You need to eliminate the alternatives before you can claim your concept is singularly valid.

This is because if your exclusive claim is not the only possibilities, then your claim of exclusivity is invalid, and your possibility of trying to use this argument to support your claim evaporates.

This is not evidence either, rather it is an attempt to avoid providing evidence. This is the pseudoskeptic approach, not the scientific approach.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

And finally claim (6):
... this is a strong theory, ....

Without objective empirical evidence for assertion (3), which requires objective empirical evidence for assertion (1), you don't have a theory. Without objective empirical evidence for this assertion it cannot be strong either. Without any system or method or technique for actually applying your concept so that you can actually show whether your assertion (1) is true in any specific cases it cannot be a valid theory in the scientific sense of this terminology. Finally, in science a theory does not become strong by proclaiming it to be strong, but by repeated tested and scientifically documented validation in scientific journals. You have not provided any evidence of this.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

You need to stop hiding in your hat, get off your duff, apply your system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept --- IF you have one that is of scientific value, rather than you just asserting your opinion --- and use it to provide some objective empirical evidence.

This is how scientists apply actual theories, and repeated application and demonstration of validity is how actual theories become strong theories.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

If you actually have a strong scientific theory, then why can you not provide any objective empirical evidence to support and substantiate it in any specific instances?


You have SHOWN that your hypothetical conjecture is NOT based on the scientific process, and thus your pretentious nattering about the scientific method and scientific evidence is quite amusing.

Do you think scientific theories are based on opinions and biases? You concept is a one or a two on the (now revised) concept scale:

RAZD's Concept Scale (revised)
  1. Zero Confidence Concepts

    1. No evidence, subjective or objective, hypothetical arguments,

    2. No logical conclusions possible, but opinion possible

  2. Low Confidence Concepts

    1. Unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion also involved, but no known objective empirical evidence pro or con, nothing shows the concept per se to be invalid

    2. Conclusions regarding possibilities for further investigation, and opinions can be based on this level of evidence,

  3. Medium Confidence Concepts

    1. Based on some objective empirical evidence, but may also have contradictory or anomalous (unreconciled) evidence, a scientific hypothesis that has not (yet) been tested and that has not (yet) provided any new predicted evidence or information, or still in development

    2. Conclusions regarding possible reality can be made, methods to test and falsify such concepts can be developed to measure the possibility of their being true\false.

  4. High Confidence Concepts

    1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence

    2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.

You need to have objective empirical evidence to get to a higher level.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

Message 92 ... still valid:

quote:
I've shown:

  • that your hypothesis is unfounded by empirical objective evidence,
  • that your conclusions are based on false logic,
  • that you are assuming your conclusion is true rather than testing it or demonstrating it,
  • that you do not have a method\process to distinguish human imagination from supernatural experiences,
  • that you do not have a scientific theory,
  • that you have an hypothesis based on your opinion/s, bias/es and wishful thinking,
  • (again) that you are a pseudoskeptic, using pseudoscience rather than applying science to the question
  • that you have not supported a single one of the six (6) assertions listed in Message 1 with any empirical objective evidence.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

If you have a strong theory, why can't you produce reams of documented objective empirical evidence to support it?

If you have a scientific theory, why can't you produce ANY evidence to support it?

Personal opinion, bias and willful thinking are not the foundations of scientific theories.

Enjoy.

Footnote:

Your hypothetical conjecture is a level II, low confidence, concept without documented supporting objective empirical evidence. If you hypothetical conjecture is not testable - ie does not have a process for determining if a concept is made up or real - then it stays here.

RAZD's Concept Scale (revised)
  1. Zero Confidence Concepts

    1. No evidence, subjective or objective, hypothetical arguments,

    2. No logical conclusions possible, but opinion possible

  2. Low Confidence Concepts

    1. Unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion also involved, but no known objective empirical evidence pro or con, nothing shows the concept per se to be valid or invalid; untested hypothesis.

    2. Conclusions regarding possibilities for further investigation, and opinions can be based on this level of evidence,

  3. Medium Confidence Concepts

    1. Based on some objective empirical evidence, but may also have contradictory or anomalous (unreconciled) evidence, a scientific hypothesis that has not (yet) been tested and that has not (yet) provided any new predicted evidence or information, or still in development

    2. Conclusions regarding possible reality can be made, methods to test and falsify such concepts can be developed to measure the possibility of their being true\false.

  4. High Confidence Concepts

    1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence

    2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants have been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s.

Edited by RAZD, : footnote added


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 99 by bluegenes, posted 02-20-2011 6:24 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by bluegenes, posted 02-20-2011 12:09 PM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 19 days)
Posts: 2812
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 101 of 222 (605500)
02-20-2011 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by RAZD
02-20-2011 9:23 AM


People who can't support their arguments avoid direct questions
RAZD writes:

There you go again. YOU need to support your claim that you HAVE a theory. I have SHOWN you why not previously. Obviously you haven't been reading my posts, or are just ignoring the "inconvenient truth" shown in them.

I assure you that I read your posts, and that you have not supported your claim that I do not have a theory. You have merely demonstrated repeatedly that you don't understand the difference between scientific facts and scientific theories.

In the post I'm replying to, you fail to support any of the unsupported claims I asked you to support, and you continue to try to make the case that I do not have a theory, or that it is weak, based on those unsupported claims.

Do you believe that scientific theories are weakened (or made non-existent) by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some humans"?

If you can't answer this question correctly, you are certainly not competent to judge a scientific theory. Answer it.

RAZD writes:

Repeat: Do you believe scientific theories are based on made up evidence and unsupported claims?

I answered that in the last post. Learn to read.

RAZD writes:

You need to have objective empirical evidence, not just your opinion, biases and wishful thinking.

Is that some kind of mantra based on your religious views? Try to learn what OE evidence means, and stop making a fool of yourself.

If you aren't aware of the scientific literature in cosmology, geology and biology that demonstrates that the creation myths are human inventions, then you are claiming that I don't have a theory based on your own astonishing ignorance.

Once again:

bluegenes writes:

RAZD writes:

You don't have objective empirical evidence..

Support this claim. Support your claim that there's no objective empirical evidence in the scientific literature which supports the view that Adam and Eve are human inventions (they are SB concepts). Support your claim that there's no OE evidence that the creator SB concept described on answersingenesis is an invented human concept. Support your claim that there's no OE evidence in the literature (cosmology/geology/biology) that supports my claim that the creation mythologies are invented accounts of the beginnings of this solar system and modern life forms.

Support your claim that there's no OE evidence in the medical and biological literature that diseases have natural causes rather than being caused by evil spirits (a well documented supernatural belief, incidentally).

Support your claim that there's no OE evidence from geology that the Giant's Causeway is a volcanic formation, and wasn't built by a magical giant.

The rest of your post is just further illustration that you don't understand what empirical evidence is, or how inductive reasoning is used in science.

quote:

The words 'strong' and 'weak' are sometimes used to praise or demean the goodness of an inductive argument. The idea is that you say "this is an example of strong induction" when you would decide to believe the conclusion if presented with the premises. Alternatively, you say "that is weak induction" when your particular world view does not allow you to see that the conclusions are likely given the premises.

Strong induction.

The equation, "the gravitational force between two objects equals the gravitational constant times the product of the masses divided by the distance between them squared," has allowed us to describe the rate of fall of all objects we have observed.
Therefore:
The gravitational force between two objects equals the gravitational constant times the product of the masses divided by the distance between them squared.
The conclusion of this argument is not absolutely certain, even given the premise. At speeds we normally experience, Newtonian mechanics holds quite well. But at speeds approaching that of light, the Newtonian system is not accurate and the conclusion in that case would be false. However, since, in most cases that we experience, the premise as stated would usually lead to the conclusion given, we are logical in calling this argument an instance of strong induction.

Weak induction.

Consider this example:

I always hang pictures on nails.
Therefore:
All pictures hang from nails.

Here, the link between the premise and the conclusion is very weak. Not only is it possible for the conclusion to be false given the premise, it is even fairly likely that the conclusion is false. Not all pictures are hung from nails; moreover, not all pictures are hung. Thus we say that this argument is an instance of weak induction.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Note that, even though Newton's law described has exceptions, it is still considered strong where it applies.

Note that the example of weak induction is easily falsified by observations, like pictures can hang on screws or hooks, be painted onto walls etc.

Note that, unlike Newton's, my theory has no known exceptions.

Note that my theory has not been falsified.

You answered "no" further up the thread when I asked you whether you agreed that human invention is the only known source of SB concepts. So, why are you waiting to reveal to the world what the other known source is? Which SBs are known to exist? By answering "no", you've claimed to know of a falsification of my theory. Falsify it. Don't just make unsupported claims.

Here's another question that needs to be answered in relation to your unsupported claim that I have no empirical evidence.

Do you agree that there is plenty of empirical evidence in the scientific literature to support the view that Adam and Eve are human inventions? Yes or no?

Why are you frightened of this question:

Do you believe that scientific theories are weakened (or made non-existent) by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some humans"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2011 9:23 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2011 2:10 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15881
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 102 of 222 (605508)
02-20-2011 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by bluegenes
02-20-2011 12:09 PM


it's your thesis to defend ... so far you've failed to do so.
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi bluegenes,

Re: People who can't support their arguments avoid direct questions

And your question is immaterial to this debate, an attempt to avoid the topic, which is about YOU defending your claim to have a strong scientific theory. It is not about the existence of supernatural beings, or about falsifying (yet) a theory, but about whether you have a hypothetical conjecture that QUALIFIES as a scientific theory. So far you have failed to so demonstrate.

You are the defender, it's your thesis to support, YOU are the one to answer questions, not ask them.

Like: where's the objective empirical evidence?

Like: do you think scientific theories are based on opinions and biases?

Like: IF you have a strong theory, then why can't you produce reams of published documented objective empirical evidence to support it?

Like: IF you have a scientific theory, why can't you produce ANY documented objective empirical evidence to support it?

Like: do you even have a system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept and that can determine when concepts are figments of imagination rather than just assume it?

Curiously, we still have no objective empirical evidence that you have produced to support your claims.

Hypothetical possibilities are certainly not strong theories. Contrary possibilities are also hypothetical possibilities, and thus there is no reason to assert one is more valid than the other, without objective empirical evidence.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

For review, once again, from Message 4 your assertions are (emphasis added):

We'll start with claim (1):
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".

This is your assertion, you need to support it with some objective empirical evidence. Without supporting objective empirical evidence it is an opinion founded on personal biases at worst, or a hypothetical possibility at best,

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

As to claim (2):
This is a high level of confidence ...

... where you were referring to my levels of confidence scale, level III concepts (now level IV):

quote:
III. High Confidence Concepts

  1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence

  2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1) as required by (a) plus evidence of confirmation and validation by others, and evidence of repeated attempts to falsify your hypothetical possibility -- normally this involves articles in scientific journals.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Claim (3):
This is a ... theory. ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1). Scientific theory starts with a foundation of objective empirical evidence, a set of objective empirical evidence where the hypothesis is true. Without such foundational objective empirical evidence all you have is a hypothetical possibility based on opinion and biases.

Unsupported hypothetical possibilities are certainly not scientific theories.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Now claim (4):
... and support the theory with plenty of evidence ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1). Made up caricatures are not objective empirical evidence and subjective interpretations of hearsay anecdotal circumstantial narratives are not objective empirical evidence.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Then claim (5):
... The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence that rules out other other sources, including the four possible sources I have already mentioned. You need to eliminate the alternatives before you can claim your concept is singularly valid.

This is because if your exclusive claim is not the only possibilities, then your claim of exclusivity is invalid, and your possibility of trying to use this argument to support your claim evaporates.

This is not evidence either, rather it is an attempt to avoid providing evidence. This is the pseudoskeptic approach, not the scientific approach.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

And finally claim (6):
... this is a strong theory, ....

Without objective empirical evidence for assertion (3), which requires objective empirical evidence for assertion (1), you don't have a theory. Without objective empirical evidence for this assertion it cannot be strong either. Without any system or method or technique for actually applying your concept so that you can actually show whether your assertion (1) is true in any specific cases it cannot be a valid theory in the scientific sense of this terminology. Finally, in science a theory does not become strong by proclaiming it to be strong, but by repeated tested and scientifically documented validation in scientific journals. You have not provided any evidence of this.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

You need to stop hiding in your hat, get off your duff, apply your system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept --- IF you have one that is of scientific value, rather than you just asserting your opinion --- and use it to provide some objective empirical evidence.

This is how scientists apply actual theories, and repeated application and demonstration of validity is how actual theories become strong theories.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

If you actually have a strong scientific theory, then why can you not provide any objective empirical evidence to support and substantiate it in any specific instances?

So far, you have SHOWN -- by your absence of ability to support your assertions above -- that your hypothetical conjecture is NOT based on the scientific process, and thus your pretentious nattering about the scientific method and scientific evidence is quite amusing.

Do you think scientific theories are based on opinions and biases?

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Message 92 ... still valid:

quote:
I've shown:

  • that your hypothesis is unfounded by empirical objective evidence,
  • that your conclusions are based on false logic,
  • that you are assuming your conclusion is true rather than testing it or demonstrating it,
  • that you do not have a method\process to distinguish human imagination from supernatural experiences,
  • that you do not have a scientific theory,
  • that you have an hypothesis based on your opinion/s, bias/es and wishful thinking,
  • (again) that you are a pseudoskeptic, using pseudoscience rather than applying science to the question
  • that you have not supported a single one of the six (6) assertions listed in Message 1 with any empirical objective evidence.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

If you have a strong theory, why can't you produce reams of documented objective empirical evidence to support it?

If you have a scientific theory, why can't you produce ANY evidence to support it?

If you have a scientific theory instead of an hypothetical concept, then how do you test whether a supernatural being is a fiction of human imagination rather than from some other source?

What is your system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept that can determine when concepts are figments of imagination rather than just assume it?

By just assuming that it is so?

Really?

Is that how science is done?

By making stuff up?

Really?

Is that how science is done?

Sadly, for you, personal opinion, bias and willful thinking are not able to alter reality in any way, nor are they the foundations of scientific theories.

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants have been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s.


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 101 by bluegenes, posted 02-20-2011 12:09 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by bluegenes, posted 02-20-2011 6:36 PM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 19 days)
Posts: 2812
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 103 of 222 (605537)
02-20-2011 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by RAZD
02-20-2011 2:10 PM


Running scared. Questions are easy for some of us to answer.
RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

People who can't support their arguments avoid direct questions

And your question is immaterial to this debate, an attempt to avoid the topic, which is about YOU defending your claim to have a strong scientific theory.

Wrong, and you're proving my point above. The question is directly relevant to your attempts to pretend that my theory is weak. You base these attempts on presenting unsupported and unfalsifiable claims as evidence. Having been caught out, you're frightened to answer my question.

So, once again:

Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some people".

RAZD writes:

It is not about the existence of supernatural beings, or about falsifying (yet) a theory, but about whether you have a hypothetical conjecture that QUALIFIES as a scientific theory. So far you have failed to so demonstrate.

The theory is about where the concepts of SBs we have in our minds come from. It attributes them to their only known source, and is therefore a strong theory, as Pasteur's "All life comes from life" was in the nineteenth century, and like the theories "all books are authored by human beings" and "all raindrops come from clouds". It's straightforward.

It is certainly about falsifying, as falsification should be attempted immediately with all theories. That's why we need to establish the existence of the other known source that you claimed when you disagreed that human invention was the only known source.

What is the other known source that you know of? I don't know of any. Why not support your claim and falsify my theory? Or were you just bullshitting when you said that you disagreed that human invention was the only known source of our SB concepts?

RAZD writes:

You are the defender, it's your thesis to support, YOU are the one to answer questions, not ask them.

I've supported it. I haven't claimed knowledge that would falsify my theory, because I don't have any. You have claimed this. What's the other known source? Which SBs are known to exist outside of our minds?

RAZD writes:

Like: where's the objective empirical evidence?

Of human invention of SBs? In the scientific literature, in the creation mythologies and other fantasy fiction, in psychiatric wards, and many other places. Aren't you aware of the scientific literature that shows the creation mythologies to be invented stories in fantasy worlds? Didn't you know that psychiatrists are well aquainted with human invention of SBs? Didn't you know that people can experience and believe in demonstrably fictional beings, both supernatural and natural in their descriptions?

RAZD writes:

Like: do you think scientific theories are based on opinions and biases?

No. Do you think scientific theories are weakened by opinionated and biased supernaturalists presenting unsupported claims as evidence? Claims like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some people"?

RAZD writes:

Like: IF you have a strong theory, then why can't you produce reams of published documented objective empirical evidence to support it?

If you knew anything about the history of science, you'd know that that isn't actually required, but I have done it. I linked to the invented creation mythologies which are published and documented, and pointed out that there are thousands of scientific papers in cosmology, geology and biology that show them to be inventions. There's also plenty of interesting stuff about human invention and delusional belief in SBs in the psychiatric literature, and in neurology. Most is behind pay walls, but I'm always happy to discuss things like command hallucinations in relation to some of the more violent "prophets and seers" with someone who has a religious faith in communicating SBs, as you do. Commands to be violent

Then there are all those tens of thousands of documents called fantasy novels, aren't there?

RAZD writes:

Like: IF you have a scientific theory, why can't you produce ANY documented objective empirical evidence to support it?

See above. I can and have.

RAZD writes:

Like: do you even have a system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept and that can determine when concepts are figments of imagination rather than just assume it?

I don't have a way of demonstrating that a given rabbit in a field wasn't produced out of a conjurers hat, and neither did Pasteur, but it didn't weaken his theory. When SB concepts are invented in falsifiable areas, we can falsify them, and demonstrate invention. The concept that the YECs believe in has been effectively falsified, for example, and the Obama-anti-christ is one my theory predicts will be falsified. The evil spirits that cause disease could be said to be reasonably falsified (plenty of documentation of that belief, and plenty of scientific documentation of the real sources of disease).

RAZD writes:

Curiously, we still have no objective empirical evidence that you have produced to support your claims.

That's actually a lie, or you don't know what empirical evidence is. One or the other.

Let me make this clear. I've established that humans can and do invent SBs, and that human invention is their only known source. You disagree with that, presumably based on your religious desires, because you cannot present another known source; one that exists beyond all reasonable doubt. Scientific theories aren't weakened by the unsupported disagreement of fantasists.

RAZD writes:

Hypothetical possibilities are certainly not strong theories. Contrary possibilities are also hypothetical possibilities, and thus there is no reason to assert one is more valid than the other, without objective empirical evidence.

A known source of a phenomenon is an almost infinitely better explanation of its origins than an unknown source. Stop deluding yourself.

RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

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

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence that rules out other other sources, including the four possible sources I have already mentioned. You need to eliminate the alternatives before you can claim your concept is singularly valid.

You really don't have a very good grasp on the English language, do you?

Now, answer my question, as all of your arguments against my theory depend on unsupported claims. Don't be frightened.

Do you believe that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims, like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some people"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2011 2:10 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2011 8:13 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15881
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 104 of 222 (605554)
02-20-2011 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by bluegenes
02-20-2011 6:36 PM


well ad hoc answers may be easy, but they don't answer the issues
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi Bluegenes, thanks. for the attempt anyway.

Questions are easy for some of us to answer.

But do you actually answer them or just post more ad hoc opinion and bias based wishful thinking?

The question is directly relevant to your attempts to pretend that my theory is weak. You base these attempts on presenting unsupported and unfalsifiable claims as evidence. Having been caught out, you're frightened to answer my question.

Curiously, all I have done is match the same level of "evidence" that you spout to pretend that your hypothetical conjecture is something more than opinion and bias based wishful thinking.

You don't HAVE a theory, so the question of this kind of evidence weakening an actual scientific theory is irrelevant at this time.

Show you have a scientific theory, developed in the proper scientific manner and we can revisit this question, but until then all you are doing is avoiding the issue of whether or not you have a scientific theory.

Which SBs are known to exist outside of our minds?

Well, you could ask all kinds of religious people, and they could tell you what they think. The fact that they have not been validated by science does not mean that they are not true. The fact that you haven't investigated this just demonstrates your failure to follow through and actually do some research rather than sit on you duff and spout opinion and bias based wishful thinking. Real science done by real scientists involves testing of hypothesis derived from empirical objective evidence before they claim they have a theory. Specifically tests involve anti-hypothesis predictions and methods of differentiating results to form a clear pattern, not just tailored to your beliefs, opinions and biases.

Of human invention of SBs? In the scientific literature, in the creation mythologies ...
... I linked to the invented creation mythologies which are published and documented, and pointed out that there are thousands of scientific papers in cosmology, geology and biology that show them to be inventions.

Which we have discussed previously, and your claim was found to be just more opinion and bias based wishful thinking and not objective empirical evidence that demonstrates that any specific supernatural beings, especially one from any of the known world religions, are inventions of the human mind.

Curiously, we still have as yet unrefuted the example of children and the furniture factory as a rational explanation for the differences in the creation narratives. By your logic all furniture makers are figments of the children's imagination. Because we know this is a false conclusion we know that your logic has a fatally false construction. The fact that you continue to spout this false logic is evidence of a lack of understanding of basic logic on your part.

Do you think scientific theories are based on false logic?

... and other fantasy fiction, ...
Then there are all those tens of thousands of documents called fantasy novels, aren't there?

Which we have already discussed as well. Amazingly, we still have as yet unrefuted the example of private detective fiction novels as a rational check on your logic in using known fictions of this type. By your logic all private detectives are figments of human imagination. Because we know this conclusion to be false we know that your logic has a fatally false construction. The fact that you continue to spout this false logic is evidence of a lack of understanding of basic logic on your part.

And you continue to confuse intentional fiction with the investigation of whether or not supernatural beings are inventions or observations or derivations from observations.

This just shows a lack of intellectual integrity, acuity and understanding of the issue before you. You don't understand your own claims, it appears, as you continually mistake known fiction for the issue/s at hand. You need to start with something not known to be fiction and then demonstrate that it is fictional. You have not even begun to do this for any supernatural beings from any of the known world religions.

Do you think scientific theories are based on false logic?

... in psychiatric wards, and many other places. Didn't you know that psychiatrists are well aquainted with human invention of SBs? Didn't you know that people can experience and believe in demonstrably fictional beings, both supernatural and natural in their descriptions?
There's also plenty of interesting stuff about human invention and delusional belief in SBs in the psychiatric literature, and in neurology. Most is behind pay walls, but I'm always happy to discuss things like command hallucinations in relation to some of the more violent "prophets and seers" with someone who has a religious faith in communicating SBs, as you do. Commands to be violent

And now we have you digging deep to dredge up some poor people that have a large variety of beliefs from being Napoleon to being messengers of god/s. Curiously this also does not show that any supernatural beings of any of the known religions in the world are made up concepts.

We know that disturbed people believe many things that are not true - that is why we call them disturbed people. That they latch onto certain aspects from the world, from Napoleon to god/s, is not surprising, but if you assume one type of delusion proves the aspect to be imaginary, outside these cases, then there is a lot of this world that is imaginary. You're logic construction once again fails to be valid.

You're clutching at straws. Because you don't have any real objective empirical evidence to show that a specific supernatural being from any of the known religious is a fictional invention rather than one observed or derived from observations.

No. Do you think scientific theories are weakened by opinionated and biased supernaturalists presenting unsupported claims as evidence? Claims like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some people"?

You still don't have a scientific theory so the question is still irrelevant at this time.

Do you think scientific theories are based on opinions, biases, wishful thinking and unsupported claims as evidence?

Certainly there is evidence of something that you should be investigating and developing methods to determine and differentiate whether they are due to invention or to observation or to derivations from observations. This is what a real scientist would do. This would be how you would show support your hypothetical conjecture, with actual objective empirical evidence that differentiates one possible cause from the other possibilities in actual tests.

If you only look at evidence that you feels supports your hypothetical conjecture (as you have done) then all you have are false positives due to confirmation bias and the cherry picking the evidence.

Do you think science is done by only using evidence that supports hypothetical conjectures?

People can and do make things up. This does not mean that all concepts are made up.

People can and do make observations and derivations from observations. Many of these are not validated, but this does not mean that they are not true.

People (objective ones anyway) know that when you don't have sufficient information to tell one from the other, that they cannot make a logical conclusion based on the evidence, and that any conclusions anyone makes are based on opinion, bias and wishful thinking.

At first glance I thought you might finally have provided a tidbit of objective empirical evidence, but once again I am disappointed: you've just rehashed all the previous opinion and bias based wishful thinking that you have previously disgorged in quantity (if not in quality) on this thread, complete with the repetition of already falsified logic, showing that you do not use the scientific process, but engage in pseudoscience, ignoring falsifications.

Enjoy.

scientific process

pseudoscientific process

observe objective empirical evidence

form a priori hypothetical conjecture

(A) form hypothesis to explain the evidence

claim you have a theory

develop anti-hypothesis (antithesis)

look for evidence to support the hypothesis

(B) develop test to differentiate hypothesis from antithesis

use invalid logic to make conclusions

run tests to see if hypothesis or antithesis falsified

claim it is a strong theory

if hypothesis is invalidated go back to (A)

say you have plenty of evidence

if antithesis not invalidated go back to (B)

claim some highly unlikely event will falsify the theory

publish methodology, results and propose the theory

say it is up to others to invalidate the theory

after testing & replication of results by others theory is accepted

ignore contradictory information and repeat assertions

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants have been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s.

Edited by RAZD, : ..

Edited by RAZD, : added comments


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 103 by bluegenes, posted 02-20-2011 6:36 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by bluegenes, posted 02-21-2011 7:46 PM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 19 days)
Posts: 2812
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 105 of 222 (605731)
02-21-2011 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by RAZD
02-20-2011 8:13 PM


Learn some basics.
RAZD writes:

But do you actually answer them or just post more ad hoc opinion and bias based wishful thinking?

I answer them easily because I have a strong, unfalsified theory.

RAZD writes:

You don't HAVE a theory, so the question of this kind of evidence weakening an actual scientific theory is irrelevant at this time.

You don't actually understand what scientific theories are and how they work. You've demonstrated that all through the thread. For example, you picked out a specific SB, the IPU, and asked me to show that it was a human invention. That shows that you don't understand inductive scientific theories.

Can you explain to me now what was wrong in asking this? Or will this be another question you'll evade, while continuing to lie that I don't have any evidence?

RAZD writes:

Curiously, we still have as yet unrefuted the example of children and the furniture factory as a rational explanation for the differences in the creation narratives. By your logic all furniture makers are figments of the children's imagination.

No. Firstly, in your (terrible) analogy, we are told that the children have been to the factory to observe furniture makers, a category of beings who are known to be real. It may be news to you, but our ancestors did not witness the creation of the world. We came along after the event. And the existence of creator SBs has never been established. Human invention is not the only known source of furniture makers, so no-one would construct an inductive theory from your analogy, let alone a deductive logical proof.

The false creation stories show human invention (if they're not true, they have to be invented), but they are not presented as logical proof that all SBs are invented. They relate to this claim:

Humans can and do invent supernatural beings.

This claim is also required.

Human invention is the only known source of supernatural beings.

Then an inductive theory can be made.

Secondly, look at this:

RAZD writes:

By your logic all furniture makers are figments of the children's imagination........

Because we know this is a false conclusion we know that your logic has a fatally false construction. The fact that you continue to spout this false logic is evidence of a lack of understanding of basic logic on your part.

Again, you've demonstrated that you do not understand the inductive reasoning that's behind all scientific theories. And you're using arguments like this to claim that I haven't got a scientific theory.

You're way out of your depth, and you're waffling on in lengthy posts about things which you don't even seem to have a basic understanding of. Sort it out, and also, answer this question:

Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some people"?

RAZD writes:

Do you think scientific theories are based on false logic?

No. They are based on inductive reasoning. Learn to understand it, and answer my question.

RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

Which SBs are known to exist outside of our minds?

Well, you could ask all kinds of religious people, and they could tell you what they think. The fact that they have not been validated by science does not mean that they are not true.

That's an answer? You claimed to know of a source of SB's other than human invention. Which SBs are known to exist outside of our minds?

RAZD writes:

Do you think scientific theories are based on opinions, biases, wishful thinking and unsupported claims as evidence?

Certainly not. You can't build scientific theories on things like your Hindu "hypothesis" and the communicating SBs that you've been imagining up as "evidence".

Edited by bluegenes, : typos


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2011 8:13 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2011 8:53 PM bluegenes has responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014