RAZD responds to me:
quote:
Obviously, you have not been paying attention.
Said the man who refuses to answer questions. I've been paying very close attention, RAZD. That's why the same questions keep coming up. Until you answer them, they'll keep getting asked.
quote:
Those who have been paying attention will know that my argument regarding subjective evidence only applies to concepts where there is either insufficient evidence for the scientific process to work or to concepts where the scientific process may not be able to produce answers.
But here's the thing: You're ignoring the evidence that we do have in order to cling to this faux-impartiality you find so dear. This fantasy you have that there is "no evidence" is precisely that: A fantasy. The very act of defining something creates evidence. You can't even have an opinion of "I don't know" if you can't describe what you're talking about.
And that brings us to the second point: Your refusal to define what you're talking about. You continually demand that people adopt a position with regard to something you can't even describe. How can anybody say, "I don't know," to something you refuse to clue them in on?
quote:
The astute ones who have been paying attention will also know that the argument has been that subjective evidence suggests possibilities, but is not much more useful than that.
And I've already responded to that. You have been paying attention, yes? Speculation and imaginations are wonderful at asking questions, but they are lousy at answering them. Why? Because they don't provide any evidence.
And yet, here you are insisting that there is a problem with the model without providing any evidence to justify your position, in direct contradiction of your claim that those who make negative assertions have to provide the evidence to justify them.
So you'll understand why you keep getting tagged as a hypocrite. You want to have it both ways. You want to throw the kibosh on other people's arguments without providing any evidence for why.
I will give you at least one point of consistency: Not only do you refuse to provide evidence for why you think other people are wrong, you also refuse to provide evidence for why you think you're right.
The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.
quote:
Which is extremely amusing after your recent snit about being called an atheist do to the fact that all your posts are pro-atheism
You really haven't been paying attention, have you. I've also defended Judaism, Christianity, Islam, various pagan beliefs, etc. Comparative religion is a bit of a hobby. I've been studying it for most of my life (and I do mean that fairly literally...started when I was 7.) My main concern has to do with people being honest about their claims, admitting when they're going on faith and their own personal experiences rather than assuming everybody else agrees. The reason I come to the defense of atheism so often here is because it tends to be the default response of creationists: If you agree with evolution, you necessarily must be an immoral atheist who would just as soon kill you as look at you. You rarely find someone saying that the alternative to their religious position is a different religious position. No, it's either their way or atheism as if god can't create life that evolves.
Wait! That's a common phrase of mine! I'm always asking people why they seem to think that god is powerless to create life that evolves. I'm always asking people to consider the possibility that god does exist, just not in the way they think.
I must believe in god, right?
quote:
you haven't personally come out of the closet on what you actually believe.
Precisely because of your reaction: You're responding to what you think I believe, not to what I've actually said. So I will continue to keep my personal theological foundation to myself, thank you very much. It helps me to see who actually has a justification for their claims and who is simply lashing out.
quote:
What we see here is evasive behavior, typical of pseudoskeptics, when the shoe is on the other foot.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
There we go again! Oh, you've just proved my point, RAZD: Accuse the other person of what you're doing first so that they have to go on the defensive. Prove me wrong, RAZD: Answer the question:
The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
And while you're at it, define what it is you're talking about. It is logically impossible to have even an "I don't know" opinion about something that has not been and cannot be described.
And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.
quote:
Curiously one of the effects of cognitive dissonance is having difficulty paying attention to arguments that contradict dearly held beliefs.
Wow! You're just on a roll today, aren't you! Now, you're accusing everybody else of "cognitive dissonance" despite having multiple people repeatedly ask you the most basic of questions over and over again through literally thousands of posts and somehow the problem is they are all suffering from "difficulty paying attention to argumenst that contradict dearly held beliefs."
Absolutely stunning, RAZD. You should take this act on tour. Prove me wrong, RAZD: Answer the question:
The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
And while you're at it, define what it is you're talking about. It is logically impossible to have even an "I don't know" opinion about something that has not been and cannot be described.
And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.
quote:
The argument is that your model is incomplete.
And you've already had your response showing that your argument is insufficient. I do not need to have a complete model to know that it is functional. I don't have to know all the details about how a car runs to be able to determine that it is running and that it is not running because of a giant hamster running in a wheel placed under the hood. If you're going to insist that I must remain "agnostic" on this matter because my comprehension of the internal combustion engine is incomplete, you're going to have to explain why it is that there is an engine block under the hood, not a hamster wheel.
So let's put your money where your mouth is, RAZD. Since our theory of gravity is incomplete, that must mean we don't know a damned thing about it and it is quite possible that if you were to jump off a tall building, you would honestly expect that there is just as much of a chance of you flying off to the clouds rather than plummet to the ground.
I have the perfect place for you to test this, RAZD. C'mon down. Let's see just how agnostic you are about this "incomplete" model of gravity we have.
quote:
Saying it is incomplete does not mean that it doesn't work for the limited knowledge encompassed by the model, just that all possibilities are not necessarily included.
So what isn't included? You need to define what you're talking about, RAZD. The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.
quote:
Restricting the model to only include known scientific knowledge, known at this date in time, necessarily limits the ability of the model to include new knowledge.
Why? A good model will be able to adapt to new information that comes along and change to accept it. After all, that's the way kinematics developed over the years. But as we've already discussed, the integration of new material into the model must necessarily take into account all the evidence we've already collected. Apples did not stop falling from trees waiting for Newton to figure out where Aristotle went wrong.
If you think you've found something new, why are you hesitating to share it with us? Why do you avoid describing what it is you want us to consider? Why do you refuse to provide your evidence? Especially since you've made such a bluster and show about how those who make a negative claim are just as much responsible for providing evidence as those who make positive claims.
The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that they are required?
And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.
quote:
It is incapable of predicting new knowledge
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
The entire point behind scientific theory is its ability to predict new knowledge. That's how we know we're dealing with science and not pseudo-science: It needs to be able to tell us the answers to questions we haven't asked yet.
Sometimes, those answers will be wrong and we will adjust the model to accomodate the new evidence. But notice, the evidence needs to come and you are steadfastly refusing to show the evidence to justify your claim while simultaneously demanding it of everyone else.
The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.
quote:
like the model of hurricane behavior that failed to predict the path of a southern hemisphere hurricane because the model had not considered their possibility.
Huh? What model of hurricane behaviour doesn't consider southern-hemisphere hurricanes? I'm sure Australians would be shocked to find out that those storms weren't actually hurricanes. And those storms off the coast of southern East Africa? What were they?
Or did they not exist? It was all an hallucination? So why are they under the impression that they entered hurricane season a couple weeks ago?
quote:
Again you dodge the question, assume you know the answer, and presume that your opinion is a valid indicator of reality.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Right. Pointing out that we've examined the coin and found it to be double-tailed is "dodging the question." It merely "assumes" that we've examined it because heaven knows that act of picking it up and looking at both sides was just a dream, and showing it to other people who confirmed it was naught but a drug-induced fantasy.
No wonder you're so sure there's no evidence, RAZD: You refuse to acknowledge any.
So let's put your money where your mouth is. Come with me and we'll find a very high place and I'll toss you off. Surely your agnostic approach to this "incomplete" gravitational theory we have won't make you hesitate. We'll see if you plummet to your doom, hover in mid-air, fly away into the sunset, or have some other result happen like you teleport to the middle of the Pentagon's inner courtyard. Each result is just as likely as any other since we don't have any evidence about this "gravity," right? Even worse, our theory is "incomplete" and thus there is no way we could ever possibly predict what would happen. And even worse than that, this model of gravity is absolutely incapable of speaking about "new knowledge" like what will happen when I toss you off the edge. Therefore, it's quite possible that you will dissolve into a gaseous cloud and drift away.
C'mon, RAZD. Put up or shut up.
quote:
Pseudoskepticism is like that.
There's that conservative response: Accuse the other person of what you're doing in the hopes that they become defensive. Nice try, RAZD, but you're the one doing everything he can to avoid, evade, and accuse. You have yet to provide the definition of what you're talking about let alone provide the evidence you have to justify your negative claim despite wasting literally thousands of posts screaming that people who make negative claims must provide evidence.
The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.
quote:
More reading comprehension, or difficulty paying attention, problems I see.
Yes, and we're all very sorry about your condition, RAZD. Someday, you will realize that the "?" symbol in a sentence means a question has been asked and it is expected of you to answer it. Until then, we'll just keep asking the question:
The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.
quote:
Your "the model works why add sprinkles" argument reduces to the absence of evidence for god/s is evidence of absence for god/s.
Incorrect. It reduces to the "evidence of absence" because the model is based upon all the available evidence. And yet, here you are claiming that it doesn't work all the while refusing to provide the evidence to justify your claim after whining incessantly that those who make negative claims must provide evidence.
And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a hypocrite.
The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.
quote:
All you've done is dress it up with arguments from incredulity
What incredulity? I'm happy to examine any evidence you would deign to present. But alas, you haven't actually presented any. Despite insisting on your negative claim that the model doesn't work, you have been seemingly constitutionally incapable of providing the evidence to justify that claim in complete contradiction to your previous demand that those who make negative claims justify them with evidence.
And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a hypocrite.
The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.
quote:
and continued repetition, as if repetition makes your opinion more valid.
No, not more valid. Just more and more avoided, evaded, unanswered, and indicative that you cannot justify your position. You might be right, you just need to provide your evidence. We've been literally begging you for months and thousands of posts to provide just one shred of evidence to back up your insistence that there is a problem, but you refuse to even define what you're talking about let alone evidence to justify it.
Prove me wrong, RAZD. Answer the question:
The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
™ Version 4.2
(1)