Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8928 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-24-2019 5:36 PM
28 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, JonF, Percy (Admin), Tangle (6 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,372 Year: 15,408/19,786 Month: 2,131/3,058 Week: 505/404 Day: 20/89 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
19Next
Author Topic:   The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D)
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 273 (80464)
01-24-2004 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Silent H
01-21-2004 4:31 PM


Satan versus God
Holmes,

you ask,

And this is different from Satan, how?

Satan is malign whether you love him or not. God blesses those who love Him, ignores those who ignore Him, and hates those who say they love Him, but betray that love with hypocrisy, breaking His heart.

Honestly, I am asking you to square this odd vision that Buddha is a demon and God the great guy, when these are the standards they have set forth.

Christians and Moslems think Buddha is a demon. I understand that he was a very good man who ernestly tried to lead people into a lifestyle that prepared them for whatever any good God that might be out there had for them.

I might add to this that for God, the end of the world is a nightmarish holocaust of everyone that does not bow down to him and his might on earth, while for Buddha there is no true end of the earth, but rather a gradual and hopeful end to suffering for all.

Yeah... having a hard time with your worldview

Think of it this way. A meterorite is coming to strike the earth and kill all life on it. A very wealthy, wise man builds a space ship that will carry anyone and everyone away, to wait out the disaster. But, he makes the rule that only people committed to love, proving this committment by loving him, can get on board.

Ok, he has had something to do with the meterorite coming. He is like a cattle farmer, with mad cow disease in his herds. He wants to remove the healthy cows, kill off the diseased parts of the herd, and start it all over.

But hate will not come aboard. If you don't like his plan to deal with mad human disease, come up with a better one. He has clearly stated that, if you abide it Him, and let his words abide in you, you can ask Him whatever you will, and He will do it. In short, if you love him, he will let you set the agenda.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Silent H, posted 01-21-2004 4:31 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by sidelined, posted 01-24-2004 11:59 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded
 Message 153 by Silent H, posted 01-24-2004 4:04 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 273 (80470)
01-24-2004 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-24-2004 11:32 AM


Re: Satan versus God
Stephan

Think of it this way. A meterorite is coming to strike the earth and kill all life on it. A very wealthy, wise man builds a space ship that will carry anyone and everyone away, to wait out the disaster. But, he makes the rule that only people committed to love, proving this committment by loving him, can get on board.

I just had a shudder run down my back. When I read this my mind instantly recalled the "Heaven's Gate" cult.


'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-24-2004 11:32 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-24-2004 7:07 PM sidelined has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4051 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 153 of 273 (80494)
01-24-2004 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-24-2004 11:32 AM


quote:
Satan is malign whether you love him or not.

I want this explained. You have said that demons and Satan can seduce by giving things to people that accept them instead of God.

For example you agreed with Buz that that fakir was helped by a demon, instead of being helped by the deity he claimed was helping him... Ironic since your criticism of MN is its not accepting people's claims at face value.

So how do you determine whether your prayer experiments are not the result of seduction by a demon, rather than actual aid from a God?

And that is of course assuming for sake of argument that there are legitimate prayer experiments.

[quote]Christians and Moslems think Buddha is a demon. I understand that he was a very good man who ernestly tried to lead people into a lifestyle that prepared them for whatever any good God that might be out there had for them.{/quote

Why isn't the simplest explanation that Buddhists are correct? Why do you not accept the claims of Buddhists at face value?

quote:
Think of it this way.

Okay. I did and I find it pretty repellent. Why would a God need to kill everything in order to start over? If he is in control and could create things, or alter them at any time (creationist theory), why not simply change things for the better? And free will is no excuse. Slaughtering those you don't like is just the same (actually worse) than changing them.

Now why don't you think of it this way? We are alive and not sure exactly what's going on but we're trying to find out as best we can. In some cases where there is a lack of knowledge, humans attempt to create explanations of nonmaterial entities to fill the gaps. They also use these entities to help describe/justify moral assessments.

Or why not think of it this way? We live in a finite environment with limited means. This coupled with desire leads to pain and suffering, made greater by unjust acts to reduce personal suffering by increasing the suffering of others. There is no cosmic entity with designs to wipe everything out, just living beings of all kinds that can move toward harmony and a reduction of pain/suffering by tempering desire.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-24-2004 11:32 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-24-2004 7:04 PM Silent H has responded

    
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 273 (80528)
01-24-2004 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Silent H
01-24-2004 4:04 PM


Satan's deals
Holmes,

You ask,

I want this explained. You have said that demons and Satan can seduce by giving things to people that accept them instead of God.

If you sell your soul to the devil for a price, you usually get the price. That is, you usually get from Satan what you were willing to sell your soul for. This is because, in the end, what you wanted was the power to commint some act that God says will kill you. You disbelieve God, believe Satan when he says, as he usually does, "You will surely not die! God is just keeping the good stuff away from you." Something seductive like that. Anyway, you have to get power, do the act, and get the death, before Satan really gets to keep you for sure. As long as you are breathing, you can change your mind, cry out for mercy, claim what was bought for you at the cross, and Yeshua's suffering will "redeem" or buy back your soul.

For example you agreed with Buz that that fakir was helped by a demon, instead of being helped by the deity he claimed was helping him... Ironic since your criticism of MN is its not accepting people's claims at face value.

But my agreement was "most plausible interpretation." Not, this is a replicated scientific experiment. As for accepting people's claims at face value, that means not throwing them out completely even though they might be lying. There's always a chance they might be lying. If that's the case, H-D will reveal the truth of the matter, and might even expose their dishonesty, if the lying was intentional, not just deception.

So how do you determine whether your prayer experiments are not the result of seduction by a demon, rather than actual aid from a God?

Always a good question. There's a biblical test, where you have to ask the voice speaking to and directing you to talk about Yeshua walking in the flesh. There's the fruit of what you experience, mostly love, peace, and joy. And, in the end, there is the "My sheep know My voice." I pray a lot that Jehovah let me know when Satan is talking to me. I've raised a bunch of children. Any that ever asked me to keep them away from and alerted to evil seducers, I gave them what they asked for. If that's not the kind of Father Jehovah is, I'm not sure it makes any difference. But, so far, so good.

Why isn't the simplest explanation that Buddhists are correct? Why do you not accept the claims of Buddhists at face value?

Haven't really studied them that much, yet. But, every claim I ever heard from someone who claimed to be a Buddhist, I thought was right on. "It's a way of life." "Agnostic about God or gods." What claims are you thinking of?

Why would a God need to kill everything in order to start over?

I'm not sure that He does. On several occasions, when a holocaust was threatened, intercessors got Him to change things more peacefully. In the Codes, a nuclear holocaust is forecasted, with three relevant dates: 1996, 2000, and 2006. All with the query, "Will you stop it?" When the scud attack on Jerusalem was forecast with three dates, the attack actually came on the first date. But the Israeli's were prepared and only 12,000 homes were destroyed (approx!!) with no loss of lives. Maybe they could have stopped it; in that forecast, nobody found a way out clause.

But it's my main point in all these threads. Yeshua gave us incredible power, if we attend to the spiritual laws involved. Just as we have incredible natural power, if we play by the laws of physics. Those who refuse to attend to those laws may be the only ones who can stop some sort of spiritual disaster. Because they neglect that duty, Jehovah is left with no other option, but to let the disaster happen.

I experimented with the ways of thinking you suggest. I've had a better life since I began operating under the hypothesis that orthodox theological ontology is accurate. It has generated more interesting and confirmed predictions.

Cheers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Silent H, posted 01-24-2004 4:04 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Silent H, posted 01-25-2004 12:03 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 273 (80529)
01-24-2004 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by sidelined
01-24-2004 11:59 AM


Re: Satan versus God
Sidelined,

It was watching thoughts like that, complete with shudders, disappear when I did experimental deliverance prayers, that made me suspicious that I was not alone, and some of my company was not my friends.

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by sidelined, posted 01-24-2004 11:59 AM sidelined has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 01-24-2004 10:19 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18808
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 156 of 273 (80563)
01-24-2004 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-24-2004 7:07 PM


Re: Satan versus God
Message 137

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-24-2004 7:07 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4051 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 157 of 273 (80582)
01-25-2004 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-24-2004 7:04 PM


quote:
But my agreement was "most plausible interpretation."

Yeah, but I don't get why the most plausible interpretation is that he was possessed by a demon, rather than gaining the benefit of the deity he claims.

Let's assume for sake of argument that he wasn't cheating. A man's proven ability to go 10 days without eating or drinking would help me buy his story, or his religion's story, rather than the side asserting he is a demon.

It seems to me that according to H-D you'd have to as well.

quote:
There's a biblical test, where you have to ask the voice speaking to and directing you to talk about Yeshua walking in the flesh. There's the fruit of what you experience, mostly love, peace, and joy.

Unfortunately this test is no good. You could be duped. And I think you would agree.

For example the fakir would say the same thing about the Goddess which grants him his powers. To believe he is really possessed by a demon is to charge that, despite using the same criteria as you, you won't trust the test when it relates to his god.

And as far as your test goes... from my perspective... I would have to balance those feelings of joy with the rather opposite notion all life that does not love him must be killed in the end, not to mention the horrific amount of violence he wrote throughout the OT.

quote:
What claims are you thinking of?

I meant the tenets of Buddhist faith, which can encompass all the effects you claim to have but without the angry jealous deity, and an apocalypse.

quote:
Because they neglect that duty, Jehovah is left with no other option, but to let the disaster happen.

No. he's God. He can choose to make anything happens the way he wants. That means he is choosing death and apocalypse... or at least the threat of it. Sounds like a demon to me.

quote:
I experimented with the ways of thinking you suggest. I've had a better life since I began operating under the hypothesis that orthodox theological ontology is accurate. It has generated more interesting and confirmed predictions.

My experience has been the exact opposite.

And I know for certain that I would never have gotten anywhere in chemistry class, and doing analytical chem research using H-D.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-24-2004 7:04 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-25-2004 7:09 AM Silent H has responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3892
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 158 of 273 (80584)
01-25-2004 12:14 AM


Topic drift?
There are two other "demon" topics currently active.

And I would still like to see a review of what exactly H-D is.

Adminnemooseus


    
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 273 (80597)
01-25-2004 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Percy
01-21-2004 8:34 PM


Re: Kuhn's dilemma
Percy,

Clearly, when I say that such or so is scientific evidence for a given hypothesis, I am speaking in the context of the hypothetico-deductive method. As Moose so aptly is discerning, our disagreement about the meaning of the evidence available hinges entirely on what philosophy of science we subscribe to. Here, to reply to you and Moose at once, is a summary of the rules for H-D science.

1. The science begins with some problem, often an observed difference between two otherwise similar objects. Whatever the problem, it motivates a search for an explanation.

2. Speculation proceeds, in an effort to come up with an at least remotely plausible hypothesis to explain the problem.

3. The hypothesis is formulated in such a way that it may be used to generate predictions about some things we can measure. Usually the best way to do this is build a mathematical model for it.

4. (Strong inference step) A search for alternative explanations is sought, and they also are formulated so that predictions about things that can be measured can be made.

5. (First Bayesian step) Some effort is made to estimate the prior plausibility of the hypotheses. Since this is the process by which subjectivity is turned into objectivity, subjective impressions are given full rein here.

6. Predictions from the hypotheses are made over some of the field of possible measurables. An effort is made to make predictions from several of the hypotheses on the same measurables. (More strong inference). Particular interest is paid to predictions that contradict one another. If there are limited resources for doing tests, it is such predictions that are given first consideration.

7. (Next Bayesian step) The prior and posterior plausibilities of the predictions are evaluated. These involve the liklihood of the prediction, given the various hypotheses, times the prior liklihood of the hypotheses. To achieve objectivity eventually, proponents of different hypotheses ought to come to agreement about these plausibilities.

8. If satisfactory estimates are made, these are plugged into the Bayesian formula, and the conditional posterior plausibilities of the hypotheses are evaluated, given the possible outcomes of testing the predictions.

9. Effort is made to confirm or not the predictions. The accepted posterior plausibilities of the various hypotheses are acknowledged as objective, and the process continues with the making of new predictions.

Now, this discussion about demons serves as an example of how this works. The observation in nature of parasites modifying behavior, and of "higher" living beings being ecologically relevant increases, through the law of succession, or simple inference, the prior plausibility of the "haunted" hypothesis. That hypothesis basically is a part of the explanation for "evil" or mal-adapted behavior in humans. It includes, hypothetically, the existence of "dark matter" and "dark energy", what originally have been called spiritual matter and energy. While the physics evidence for the existence of dark matter may be for matter that is different from that supposed previously to be spiritual, the fact that there is evidence for some such thing also raises the prior plausibility of the "haunted" hypothesis. Is thus evidence "for" the hypothesis.

Making predictions from hypotheses always involves bringing in other, hopefully more plausible, hypotheses, that connect logically the hypothesis under consideration to the measurables. That is, hypotheses do not exist in a vacuum. It is exploring this connectedness that produces what we see as "understanding" the hypothesis. Thus, repeated prediction making forces us into "understanding" how the hypothesis might work in relation to the rest of what we believe is plausible about the way the world works.

In the case of demons, we have the basic problem that demons may well not want to be studied, or known, for what they are. The original hypothesis treats them as liars and seducers. Apologists (people who argue for the prior plausibility of hypotheses) and artists alike regard hypothetical demons as wanting to convince us that they don't exist. Hence, our scientific study of them must take this into account. We do so by incorporating other hypotheses about Jehovah, and the Bible, both of which, if true, will reveal to us the ontology of demons. This produces prayer studies, of the "deliver us from the evil one" type, with the prediction that, if demons really exist, some positive result will happen through the prayer. Some such data exist and are evidence for demons. But, the prayers are not well specified, so the evidence remains weak. We hope for studies comparing, say, prayer studies with the "deliver us from the evil one" removed from the prayer, with the request modified to "deliver us from our own evil," and also specifically, "deliver us from all demonic influences." Meanwhile, studies validating the Bible, such as Theomatics or the Bible Codes, also are evidence "for" demons, since demons are described in the Bible. There are persons who have had, under controlled conditions, out-of-body experiences and encountered malignant spiritual persons. These also provide evidence "for" demons, some of which (Beyond Death's Door, forget the author), was specifically gathered to test the idea that demons are messing with us.

Now, Percy, I am not sure what epistemological strategy you work under, but, under H-D philosophy, there exists encouraging evidence for demons, which by the law of succession, is a fairly plausible hypothesis to begin with. This scientific support, coupled with the widespread common sense belief in such spirits, makes out-and-out rejection of the idea socially arrogant. "Who do you think you are, to decide that most of the rest of the world is mistaken about their belief that they have to wrestle with demonic harassment?"

But, perhaps you have evidence that some other epistemological strategy can justify such a stance. Bring it on, if so. So far in my reading and experience, H-D philosophy is the most efficient form of methodological naturalism. This latter, I understand to be the idea that you must have an objective method, and it must hinge on data that support predictions from hypotheses under consideration.

This for Moose. Does this meet your query?

Stephen

8. The


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Percy, posted 01-21-2004 8:34 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 01-25-2004 11:47 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded
 Message 164 by Silent H, posted 01-25-2004 12:01 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not yet responded

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 273 (80598)
01-25-2004 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Adminnemooseus
01-21-2004 11:29 PM


Re: And 'H-D' is...
Hey, Moose,

Messages 93 and 159 in this string are my efforts to explain H-D methodology. Let me know if you have any further questions.

Stephen

{Changed "157" to "159", and added links to get to messages - Adminnemooseus}

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-25-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-21-2004 11:29 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 273 (80599)
01-25-2004 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Silent H
01-25-2004 12:03 AM


Quickies
Holmes,

Yeah, but I don't get why the most plausible interpretation is that he was possessed by a demon, rather than gaining the benefit of the deity he claims.

First, demons are deities. Jehovah claims to be the "God of gods." A demon deity simply is one that has the agenda of deception and degradation. "to rob, kill, and destroy" as written. He did gain the benefit, and if that is the only god he knows, and he walks humbly with that god, I understand Jehovah will accept him. This in spite of the demon's plan for the fellow.

It seems to me that according to H-D you'd have to as well.

Yes, I would accept that this spirit was real, and his god. If he was willing to explore the heart of that spirit being, however, with the help of Jehovah, I would bet that we would find the spirit to be "evil" in intent. That the fellow would gain treasure in heaven faster by switching to Jehovah for a god.

Unfortunately this test is no good. You could be duped. And I think you would agree

Only "some" good. I could be duped, but the plausibility diminishes with each confirmed prediction.

For example the fakir would say the same thing about the Goddess which grants him his powers. To believe he is really possessed by a demon is to charge that, despite using the same criteria as you, you won't trust the test when it relates to his god.

It would be interesting to hear the Goddess comment on the story of Yeshua, walking in the flesh as the only "begotten" Son of Jehovah. And, I would be interested as a naturalist in the fitness (W) of the fellow. Also, in his love life, and I don't mean only sexually. Finally, I would look at other fruit. Wisdom. What does he regard as good, and how able is he to achieve it?

And as far as your test goes... from my perspective... I would have to balance those feelings of joy with the rather opposite notion all life that does not love him must be killed in the end, not to mention the horrific amount of violence he wrote throughout the OT.

I respect the clarity of your choice, even though it is different than mine.

No. he's God. He can choose to make anything happens the way he wants. That means he is choosing death and apocalypse... or at least the threat of it.

Only as these enhance life elsewhere, and only as these fulfill the choices of beloved free-will agents who He promised such outcomes to, if they made certain choices. I suppose He could break His promise, to preserve life A for a bit longer, letting life B and C be diminished more than A is increased. Why would He do that?

My experience has been the exact opposite.

And I know for certain that I would never have gotten anywhere in chemistry class, and doing analytical chem research using H-D.

Subjects in which I was a miserable failure. So, there you are.

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Silent H, posted 01-25-2004 12:03 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Silent H, posted 01-25-2004 11:51 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18808
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 162 of 273 (80632)
01-25-2004 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-25-2004 6:36 AM


Re: Kuhn's dilemma
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:

Clearly, when I say that such or so is scientific evidence for a given hypothesis, I am speaking in the context of the hypothetico-deductive method.

As are we all. The hypothetico-deductive method was advocated by Karl Popper. Probably most people here are Popperians, believing that science should be replicable and falsifiable. It's not that you're an advocate of HD and we're not, but that you don't know what evidence is and we do. Most instructive would be this passage from Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery from section 8:

Popper writes:

We may now return to a point made in the previous section: to my thesis that a subjective experience, or a feeling of conviction, can never justify a scientific statement, and that within science it can play no part except that of an object of an empirical (a psychological) inquiry. No matter how intense a feeling of conviction it may be, it can never justify a statement. Thus I may be utterly convinced of the truth of a statement; certain of the evidence of my perceptions; overwhelmed by the intensity of my experience; every doubt may seem to me absurd. But does this afford the slightest reason for science to accept my statement? Can any statement be justified by the fact that K. R. P. is utterly convinced of its truth. The answer is, 'No'; and any other answer would be incompatible with the idea of scientific objectivity.

I'm not going to attempt a complete analysis of your particular characterization of HD, but clearly you're way outside the HD realm when you say this:

5. (First Bayesian step) Some effort is made to estimate the prior plausibility of the hypotheses. Since this is the process by which subjectivity is turned into objectivity, subjective impressions are given full rein here.

As the above quote from Popper makes quite clear, there is no room within HD for subjective impressions. And you have misapplied and/or misunderstood Bayesian probabilities. It is the estimation of probabilities that is subjective - contrary to what you have argued, Bayesianism does not permit subjective evidence into consideration.

So not only do you have no evidence for demons, your approach is antagonistic to the very process of HD you claim to advocate.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-25-2004 6:36 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-27-2004 1:38 PM Percy has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4051 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 163 of 273 (80633)
01-25-2004 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-25-2004 7:09 AM


I had replies to your answers about demons and God, but in respect to the admin I'll skip them here. As it is I think it is more important to address your underlying H-D style of science.

quote:
Subjects in which I was a miserable failure. So, there you are.

Maybe this is exactly the time to reiterate a point I made earlier.

Science is the study of our natural world. How and why do things work as they do? In doing this over many centuries, MN has arisen as the best method. Your proposed H-D "best method" would screw up tons of ongoing research. This is where the title "best" becomes rather silly when applied to science.

What it seems like you really want to study is your faith. Now many faithful people say you should not attempt to disect faith with the tools of science, but you can choose to if you want. That does not make what you are doing science, unless you follow all the appropriate methods. If you pick and choose which ones to use, then what you are still only practicing faith, just with a scientific flair. This is what makes it a pseudoscience. It is similar to, but not, science.

This is why I found your criticisms odd, as MN research has proven so successful in studying science's area of focus. Why should it suddenly consider itself weak because those of faith find it too hard to jump immediately to claims of knowledge using it?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-25-2004 7:09 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-27-2004 1:41 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4051 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 164 of 273 (80634)
01-25-2004 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-25-2004 6:36 AM


Percy beat me to the punch on a response to this post. It was to him so I suppose that's fair, but the glaring problem of using Bayes theorem (which I generally critiqued in another thread) is glaring in your drawn out example.

While I won't say you can't call your form of science H-D, I will say that everything in your method devolves rapidly from point 5 on.

If you cannot recognize the biased and circular reasoning introduced here (and the following steps), then I am at a loss for what to say.

You have reached for a lead life preserver, claiming that since it is made of lead (and so stronger than styrofoam), it must work better a life preserver. There's only so long I am going to try and convince you otherwise. Good luck.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-25-2004 6:36 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not yet responded

    
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 273 (81139)
01-27-2004 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Percy
01-25-2004 11:47 AM


Re: Kuhn's dilemma
Percy,

Popper, in this statement, was talking about the end of the process, not the beginning, as I was. The goal is to go from subjective to objective, as Bayes allows us to do. The effort to remain completely objective results in some very ugly behavior, apparently entirely subjective in nature, from so-called scientists.

Do the Google on Hypothetico-deductive.

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 01-25-2004 11:47 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Percy, posted 01-27-2004 2:03 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
19Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019