History's Greatest Holocaust Via Atheistic Ideology

quote:

---

Chiroptera, you are one of the nicest atheists I have ever met! This statement that you made... was a great lil breath of fresh air as I was making my way through this post.

---

If that's a new one on you, you should read up a little on various atheist philosophies. Jean Paul-Sartre's writings on existentialism are a good place to start. One thing he said stuck with me ever since I read it. (And keep in mind, I'm paraphrasing a translation, here.) It amounts to "God doesn't exist. Therefore, there is no omnipotent being that's going to sort out the punishments and rewards after we die. Therefore, we have an enormous responsibility to do right by one another while we're alive, because no one is going to take that responsibility on for us."

---

"It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity."
-Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still

Holmes, If you think this is true, you don't understand Bayes, or what I have been saying. The hypothesis that I am working under, as I explained to Asgara, predicted that my wife would not be a reliable witness to the event under question. If your epistemology allows you to form judgments on the basis of he said-she said discussions, that's a choice you make. But Bayes doesn't recommend it.

Then I'm afraid you're contradicting yourself when you said this in Message 159 of The best scientific method thread: Consistency *is* tough for you, isn't it? Or is it just that it's okay for *you* to confer scientific status upon your subjective impressions, but not for anyone else.--Percy

Percy,The remarks were addressed to the forming of posterior plausibilities, or so I thought. This is objective, and requires the prediction to be in contradiction to the hypothesis being discounted. But, I predicted, before the data were gathered, from the hypothesis, what I understand the experiment produced, even though the data appeared to be a "denial" of the reported history.Bayes says not to do that. It's called setting up a straw man.But, people grabbing at straws to hold on to cherished beliefs will do what they will. Free will trumps intelligence.Stephen

Hi, Stephen!You can flit back and forth all you like between your prior and posterior plausibilities, but does not remove objectivity as a primary requirement for the conducting of good science. Subjective impressions and experiences are not permitted. That you have defined a process that permits subjectivity is why you are arriving at conclusions sans scientific data.You have no evidence for demons, no replicable experiment, no confirmation by other scientists, yet by your process you conclude they exist, thereby proving how fatally flawed your process is. Using your process anyone can conclude anything they like, from demons to flying pigs.--Percy

P, See, there you go again. And I could tell you 1000 times that H-D science never draws such conclusions, and you'd still mistake the claims of the method. Evidence for an idea makes the idea more plausible. Prayer studies, etc, make it more plausible. Period. The process never concludes. Nor do the ideas ever stop changing form.S.

You're being evasive again. Nothing in particular was intended by my choice of words, you're just using that as an excuse to not address the central issue. Objectivity is a required part of accepted scientific practice. That you permit subjectivity to enter into your process is why you think you have experimental results that support the existence of demons even though you have no scientific data whatsoever.--Percy

P. But, just a part. Subjectivity is also a required part. Do the google on hypothetico-deductive to see how accepted this is.S.

Gee, Stephen, I did just that in Message 170 of The best scientific method thread, and guess what! No mention of subjectivity or Bayesianism! As we've been telling you, you're not doing HD, but rather subjective Bayesianism.Perhaps you can cease the evasions and explain how subjective impressions can yield objective results.Have you ever looked at an optical illusion? There's all kinds, of course, but the subjective impression of most of the human race is incorrect concerning these illusions. Most of them would attach a very high probability to their impression, but it would be worthless, much like subjective Bayesianism. Which line is longer, Stephen?That most people unfamiliar with this common illusion would answer this question incorrectly says much more about subjective Bayesianism than about the length of the lines, and your question in another thread concerning the prior probability assigned by people to the existence of demons is equally unlikely to yield reliable results.--Percy

For what it's worth here's a statement I gleaned from a debate regarding the supernatural evil. I cannot verify as to the accuracy of the information, though according to the statement it is verifiable for anyone who would care to take the trouble to investigate. http//WordPress › Error

It might interest Doc Steve to know that hypothetico-deductive method isn't as dependent on subjectivity as he claims. Popper's belief was that trying to prove a scientific hypothesis correct through induction was an unwieldy and self-defeating process, since unforeseen information could always serve to counteract the evidence in favor of the hypothesis.This problem became the basis of Popper's H-D method, which proposed to test a hypothesis through deduction. His specific method was predicated on testing predictions derived from the hypothesis in order to falsify them. How Doc Steve interprets this as giving free reign to subjectivity is beyond me.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Thanks again for proving my point...You say that your hypothesis was X and that the results proved your hypothesis.Yet others (such as Asgara and myself) formulated a different hypothesis (Y), and those results support it as well.How do you decide with hypothesis is correct, given that the same results can support either one?And what I love is that you used the same he said she said style of evidence, not just to support your hypothesis above, but some of your other "studies" as well. Or does the voice in your head not count as he said she said?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Hi, Buzz!In your link, you forgot the ":" after "http". Your link should have been: It gets interpreted as a link anyway since the "http//" part is ignored and links are allowed to start with just "www", but the webpage doesn't appear to exist. You can test links before posting by clicking on the "Preview" button, then clicking on the links in your post to see if they work.The correct link that you wanted is: But the information provided by Wissam is anecdotal, not scientific. The existence of demons is not dependent upon the opinions of hospitals or doctors. You might also exercise a little skepticism. Given that no one speaks ancient Babylonian anymore, how would even linguistic experts know the boy was speaking ancient Babylonian, let alone medical doctors in Queens. You might also get an interesting response if you follow Wissam's advice to call hospitals and ask if they really pay for exorcisms, or even believe in demons.Buzz, you've got to exercise some judgment on things like this by referring to your own experience. You've no doubt been to hospitals - has any hospital you've been to given any indication using exorcisms as a medical procedure? Have you ever had a doctor who thought a medical condition was due to demons? Have you ever had a medical condition where doctors prescribed exorcism, or known anyone who has? Of course not. So what makes you believe that hospitals and doctors you haven't come in contact with believe in exorcisms and demons? I'm sure there must be at least a few doctors out there that fit the bill, but by and large doctors and hospitals are part of the scientific community.--Percy

P. The subjective impressions are used to build the hypothesis that you are going to test, and to give it its prior plausibility. Neither of these are results, only beginning steps. The rest of the process is objective. There was no limitation in any of the H-D sites setting an limit on hypothesis formation, only on the rigor of testing.S.

quote:

---

Evidence for an idea makes the idea more plausible. Prayer studies, etc, make it more plausible

---

Evidence for an idea would make it more plausible if it were actually evidence. You claiming that demons eat your breakfast leaving you hungry is not "evidence" and thus does not make your idea more plausible. Evidence demonstrating that prayer has no effect beyond a placebo effect in medical studies is evidence that prayer does nothing. Your claim is that one should ignore the controlled studies that show this is so and accept the idea that because somebody did a study in the first place makes the idea more plausible. Just because someone had the idea that one could turn any metal into gold does not make alchemy any more plausible either.