The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D)

Hi, Stephen!You're falsely arguing through analogy. Analogies are only valid to clarify one's points. The mere ability to draw analogies, which can be done with anything whether fact or fiction, lends no credence to one's viewpoint. You're arguing like a preacher, not a scientist.Your ideas fail because they have no objective evidence. All your evidence is anecdotal (personal stories, the Bible) and unreplicated, or sometimes suspect (Wirth's study) or unscientific (Loehr's study).Regarding replication, I've never seen a more clear statement of this requirement in regard to scientific results than this from today's CNN website titled Scientists create two new elements: Your putting the cart before the horse by insisting that the existence of demons be considered confirmed before there is any evidence of the phenomena. Even worse, you haven't even given the phenomena a scientific description. Do some science, Steven, by thinking scientifically and getting some evidence.By the way, you seem to be evading the H-D isn't what it used to be according to Stephen ben Yeshua thread. Message 12, please.--Percy

Uh, Stephen, that's because you seem unable to support your assertion that there's a distinction. You keep saying it, you just never explain it. You have yet to reply to Message 184 of this thread challenging your position on this point. Until you explain and defend your position, you can keep repeating your premise until you're blue in the face, but repetition doesn't improve validity. In fact, it gets rather boring after a while.You also seem to be having trouble remembering the discussion. The other distinction you attempted to draw was not between "confirmed" and "prove", but between "confirmed" and "concluded". You concede your evidence is controversial. Everyone here not only challenges your evidence, but challenges whether it even *is* evidence in any scientific sense. And yet your only response is to reassert your position? You're not going to offer any defense of your evidence? You're not going to try to make a case for conferring scientific status on your evidence? How are you ever going to convince anybody if you never move from "assert" mode to "persuade" mode? Boy, are you delusional! What is it about the Creationist mind that causes them to claim support from someone who in reality strongly dissents? Discussion with you is only scientific in a psychological sense. We should invite psychologists to join the biologists and geologists here - their contributions would be much more relevant in your case. Another bald assertion. First, I don't think Franklin Loehr, founder of the Religious Research Foundation, ever worked as a real scientist. He was always looking into things like past lives, out-of-body experiences, near death experiences, and so forth. None of this stuff has ever made it into peer-reviewed journals, so I don't think you can call him a scientist. You're already on record as saying he did "kitchen table experiments", and as you well know, "presenting his studies" scientifically" means submitting them for peer review, which he did not do, instead publishing a book in the lay press.If you do not accept the above paragraph then I suggest you rebut it. Please don't keep repeating this assertion without doing that. Please stop asserting because hearing the same assertions over and over again is getting soporific. Please start explaining yourself. Leap of logic. Quite obviously no one here is following your leap from step A (successful prayer studies) to what looks to everyone else like step Z (Jehoval and Satan exist). Stop merely repeating this, because we already know you believe this, and fill in the missing blanks between A and Z. Stephen, wake up! You're supposed to be doing science, remember? The Screwtape Letters is a religious book, not a science book. Lewis cites no scientific evidence for demons in that book. Well, then you have a problem. If you see your job here as one of just stating your beliefs without defending them or trying to persuade others, then I think your job here, at least as you see it, is done.Please realize that I play a dual and sometimes difficult role here. I discuss in the forums, but I also moderate and administrate. I think it is important that in general more often than not discussions make progress. I interpret your statement as meaning that you don't believe you have to move beyond stating your position. The Forum Guidelines discourage this attitude:

2. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.

You agreed to follow these guidelines when you joined, and I'd like to think you're a man of your word.--Percy

Before I reply to the substance of this message (which I'll do in a separate message), I posted a message very relevant to your application of your Bayesian version of H-D in another thread (Message 75 of the designing a convincing prayer experiment thread), but you never answered. Here is the main part of that message again:Your arguments tend to have at least one flaw. Here I enumerate your arguments and identify the flaws:

1. Confirmed prayer studies imply demons
   ​
   Flaw: Leap of logic. No connection has been established for demons as the instruments of the positive results, and you haven't proposed a scientifically valid deductive connection.
   ​
2. The prayer studies used anti-demonic prayers.
   ​
   Flaw: Error of fact. None of the prayer studies cited here have described what prayers were used.
   ​
3. The Lord's prayer is an anti-demonic prayer.
   ​
   Flaw: Leap of logic. No connection has been established for the effectiveness of different prayers for various purposes, including getting rid of demons, and you haven't proposed a scientifically valid connection.
   ​
4. Demons exist.
   ​
   Flaw: Circular reasoning. Many of your claims, like those above, assume the existence of demons before you've produced any evidence supporting their existence.
   ​
5. Bible code studies confirm the validity of the Bible.
   ​
   Flaw: Leap of logic. No connection between word patterns in texts and the text's validity has been scientifically established, and you haven't proposed a scientifically valid connection.
   ​
6. Bible code studies are valid.
   ​
   Flaw: Error of fact. Bible code studies have been demonstrated to be worthless. There are many debunking sites on the web (eg, Bible Codes Refutation).
   ​
7. NDEs (Near Death Experiences) confirm the validity of the Bible
   ​
   Flaw: Leap of logic. No connection has been scientifically established, and you haven't proposed a scientifically valid connection.
   ​
8. NDEs have been subjected to studies testing the "orthodox theology hypothesis" (a term apparently of your own invention - a Google search brings up only a single result, a post by you here at EvC Forum)
   ​
   Flaw: Error of fact. No scientifically valid studies of this nature have been conducted.
   ​
9. Theomatics confirms the validity of the Bible.
   ​
   Flaw: Leap of logic. No connection has been scientifically established, and you haven't proposed a scientifically valid connection.
   ​
10. The Bible confirms itself (specifically, you say, "As to the falsification of the Bible, it declares of itself that the 'tests' you refer to prove nothing.")
    ​
    Flaw: Circular reasoning. The Bible's declarations about its own qualities, such as that it contains the Word of God, are not valid evidence that it actually possesses those qualities. You need independent and scientifically valid confirmation.
    ​
11. The Bible is never wrong because it says it can be wrong (specifically, you say, "An alternative hypothesis about the Bible, that it is literally true in every statement has been disproven, but the Bible declares of itself that that is not true. 'It's the glory of God to conceal a matter.' Prophecy is 'dark sayings.' As written, every test of the scriptures that I know of have been confirmed when tested."
    ​
    Flaw: Non sequitur. You're in essence saying that the Bible is right even when it's wrong.
    ​
12. There is a scientific controversy concerning demons (switching now to Message 153 in the History's Greatest Holocaust Via Atheistic Ideology thread).
    ​
    Flaw: Error of fact. There is no evidence of this controversy in any scientific literature.
    ​
13. Scientists have been wrong in the past, and this is evidence that they are wrong about demons.
    ​
    Flaw: Error of fact *and* leap of logic. First, scientists have taken no position on the existence or non-existence of demons because there is no evidence for the phenomena. Second, even if scientists *had* taken a position that there is no such thing as demons, the likelihood that they are wrong is a function of the evidence and not of past episodes of scientific error.

--Percy

Uh, perhaps, like almost everyone, I'm unaware of most of the thousands of journals out there?Of course, you neglected to quote enough of what I said to provide context: Gee, what do you know, I was talking about the work of Franklin Loehr. Who would ever have guessed based on your quote?So, Stephen, are you claiming that Franklin Loehr's work was published in the Journal for Scientific Exploration? If so, please provide a citation of this paper which no one else seems to be aware of.Of course, you won't be able to provide a citation, because it doesn't exist. You're just making more misrepresentations.And, as expected, the Journal for Scientific Exploration is a journal of pseudoscience. Here are some examples of papers from this journal. Feel free to cite all those many, many papers that have actually contributed to legitimate science:

• Guest Editorial: Data Analysis in Mind-Matter Research
  
• The Art of Science: Science of the Future in Light of Alterations of Consciousness
  
• To Be or Not to Be! A 'Paraphysics' for the New Millennium
  
• Unconventional Water Detection: Field Test of the Dowsing Technique in Dry Zones
  
• Can Population Growth Rule Out Reincarnation? A Model of Circular Migration
  
• Science of the Subjective
  
• The Scole Investigation: A Study in Critical Analysis of Paranormal Physical Phenomena
  
• Atmosphere or UFO? A Response to the 1997 SSE Review Panel Report
  
• Plate Tectonics: A Paradigm Under Threat

Moving on: You're just making it up as you go along again. Nothing you have cited has ever appeared in a peer-reviewed journal (Witztum wrote such a paper, but Gil cited that, not you). That's because neither you nor the people whose work you accept are part of the scientific community. You're all out there on the pseudo-scientific fringe united by your inability to do, nay, even recognize, legitimate science. Your inability to discuss rationally would make any effort to do this a waste of time. Feel free to use your own time to make this happen, though. EvC Forum will be glad to sponsor the debate. But your premise won't do: You keep arguing for plausibility, but all we're asking for is evidence. In any debate here, you would be expected to provide evidence. There you go again. You say that Mammuthus is "getting this", I reply that you're delusional, and you just restate your original assertion in slightly different words. Reference the message and quote for us where Mammuthus is "starting to understand what [you] are saying", or provide some additional argument outlining what Mammuthus said that makes you think he is "getting this", but don't just keep repeating your original assertion. I can't debate with a parrot. Either move the discussion forward or drop this point. H-D methodology is a deductive method based upon the gathering of evidence. What you are engaged in is subjective Bayesianism. Please stop purposefully misrepresenting your position. You have presented no data.--Percy

Hi Stephen,This is a reply to your Message 79 in the Why are evolutionists such hypocrites thread: Then instead of repeating your original assertion, you must explain how my arguments are non sequiturs. Certainly I'm not aware of the fault myself or I wouldn't have offered those arguments in the first place, so how am I to identify the faults if all you do is repeat yourself?More likely, there were no actual non sequiturs in my arguments, since you most certainly would have taken the opportunity to point out actual flaws had they been present, and especially since you offer no examples. Once again, bald assertions from Stephen. You're just making it up again as you go along. No, Stephen, it is a matter of fact. You didn't respond to any of the challenges to your Bible code, theomatics, prayer study stuff. There's a Bible Code thread recently opened, I doubt you'll address the issues there, either.There is no point responding to facts with subjective opinions and misstatements of facts. Here's hoping you address the Bible Code issues constructively in the Bible Codes and Bible Numerics for Stephen ben Yeshua thread.--Percy

Thank you for explaining this more clearly. However, you seem to be making things up again. This Google search of the web:

Does not bring to light any site that specifies such a distinction. Please produce references indicating that these definitions are the conventions within Bayesianism. Until then, since you make so many untrue statements it would be foolish to accept your say-so on this, or anything else for that matter. Until you produce such evidence I will continue to use "evidence of" and "evidence for" as synonyms, just like everyone else appears to do when I did a Google search.Since we're talking about definitions, you also appear to have a weird definition of "confirmed". How do you define this word?--Percy

Actually, true arrogance is believing you speak for Yeshua and Jesus.--Percy

It's the H-D *method*, not the H-D science. The hypothetico-deductive method is what scientists use while working within the framework of methodological naturalism.The process you're actually describing and attempting to employ is not the hypothetico-deductive method, but subjective Bayesianism. Why don't you look up the hypothetico-deductive method on Google again and see just one more time how it doesn't describe what you're talking about at all. You prefer subjective Bayesianism to H-D because in your view it allows you to avoid having any evidence. Unfortunately, back in the real world, lack of evidence is a serious liability.--Percy

I never saw The Matrix Reloaded.I don't think apropos is a synonym of appropriate in the way I was trying to use it. The connotation I intended was more along the lines of fitting, pertinent, relevant, but not exactly meaning any of those.Or maybe I used apropos just because I'm an emacs user.Is that copasetic? --Percy

Gee, I missed that, can you give the link to that message?--Ted

To Mammuthus: Wow, I hadn't seen that before. Thanks for the pointers.To MrHambre: He's consistent, anyway. Though he keeps talking about evidence, everything specific he's mentioned has been anecdotal.--Percy

This is exactly what I expected was the case, that Wirth was a fraudster/huckster/conniver. The only surprises are that Dr. Cha has left his position at Columbia University and is currently incommunicado, and that Wirth is not only a huckster of the supernatural, but also a simple criminal who commits arson and fraud.I feel sorry for Wirth's co-authors, Cha and Lobo. As James Randi has often said, the most guillible people in the world are often scientists because they're not expecting people to lie and cheat.--Percy