|
Author
|
Topic: Pseudoskepticism and logic
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:
I remember that you like to make up your own definitions for words, like bigotry.
Now that you've waved your dick at me, and I truly am sorry about your penis, shall we get back to the discussion?
quote:
I'm not really in the mood for that bullshit.
Then don't respond. Nobody is forcing you to, are they? Are you trying to tell us something? Is your life in danger?
quote:
If you're not going to use the definitions set out in the OP then GTFO.
Oh, so if I start a thread that defines "Catholic Scientist" as "putz," then nobody is allowed to question it? Yes, RAZD would like that to be the definition. However, there are people who think that definition to be...what was your word?...ah, yes..."bullshit." Or at the very least, inapplicable to RAZD's pet topic. By your logic, all somebody has to do is define "evolution" to be "spontaneous generation" in an original post and that would be the end of the discussion. Never mind any evidence that shows such a definition to be wrong. It was in the original post! All hail the original post! Thou shalt not question the original post or risk fire and brimstone in everlasting hell! I guess it's a mortal sin to question the original post. As I said in my original response to the original post:
If it's just that you want people to claim that the statement, "X does not exist," requires actual justification and evidence, then I doubt you'll have many takers because that is pretty much universally accepted and thus there is nothing to debate. Everybody agrees. As we have seen from more than 300 posts, clearly RAZD was not asking for just that. As expected, he was simply bringing up a claim that had been shot down in at least two other threads before this one. And we get to spend hundreds of posts watching him flail in the wind. When this thread gets shut down, what's your under/over time for how long it will take him to start up yet another thread on this same topic? In conclusion, I again apologize to you regarding your penis, but I shall forever reserve the right to call you or anyone else out on your...what was that word of yours again...ah, that's right... Bullshit.
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.
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
Catholic Scientist responds to Straggler:
quote:
quote:
I assume that your backyard is objectively evidenced rather than "something" only ever expereinced subjectively by you?
How do I know?
Cartesian Doubt? That's your response? Hell, even Descartes dismissed such Doubt. But hey, if you need to go over concepts covered in introductory philosophy, let's start in: Suppose you were plagued by demons such that all your experiences were actually the result of their controlling of your senses....
quote:
But we just don't know, do we?
As Descartes concluded, a difference that makes no difference is no difference. If it is impossible tell the difference between reality and a perfect imitation of that reality under any circumstances, then there is no reason to treat it as anything other than reality.
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.
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 344 of 562 (527040)
09-30-2009 5:14 AM
|
Reply to: Message 272 by Kitsune
09-29-2009 10:56 AM
|
|
LindaLou responds to me:
quote:
And yet something can be true or real but unprovable
I never said otherwise (and I assume you mean "not yet provable" rather than "unprovable in any circumstance.") But we're talking about rational responses, not ultimate truth. As the Red Queen said, "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Just because one of them might actually be possible or even true isn't justification to conclude that there is any hope of reality. The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that something is missing?
quote:
To answer the question "Is there a god?" you seem to be saying, "People make stuff up, therefore I'm going to believe that God is made up until it's proved otherwise."
Incorrect. What I am actually saying is, "People make stuff up and so far, all descriptions of god that have been given appear to all intents and purposes to have been made up. Therefore, what on earth could possibly be the justification to think that this next one is any different? Especially when there is no evidence for it?" The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that something is missing?
quote:
quote:
The null hypothesis is always true until shown otherwise.
Who says, apart from you?
Mathematics. Have you studied mathematics? An Introduction to Mathematical Statistics and Its Applications, Second Edition. Richard J. Larsen, Morris L. Marx. 1986. Chapter 6, "Hypothesis Testing," page 287:
The process of dichotomizing the possible conclusions of an experiment and then using the theory of probability to choose between the two alternatives is known as hypothesis testing. The two competing propositions are called the null hypothesis (written H0) and the alternative hypothesis (written H1). How we go about choosing between H0 and H1 is conceptually similar to the way a jury deliberates in a court trial. The null hypothesis is analogous to the defendant: just as the latter is presumed innocent until proven guilty, so is the null hypothesis presumed true until the data argue overwhelmingly to the contrary. Do you want me to pull out more of my textbooks? Have you considered that you should do some research on a subject before you start pontificating about it? I don't expect you to take my word for it, no, but surely you are capable of studying something before speaking on it, yes? Now, I know this isn't exactly basic math that you would have encountered in classes before college. But it isn't really that esoteric and there is quite a lot of information to be found. Why must I do your homework for you?
quote:
This goes against everything I've learned about science since elementary school.
Have you considered the possibility that you didn't learn what science was? Look at what you're advocating, after all: Ghosts, spirits, and poltergeists.
quote:
If you are invested in a certain outcome of an experiment, e.g. by believing that it will not produce a positive outcome, then you have confirmation bias.
Huh? Who said anything about "investing" anything? You seem to think that there is some emotional and personal need to have the null hypothesis be true. On the contrary, this is precise objectivity and neutrality: Burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not anybody else.
quote:
Here is what one scientist says about skepticism in science
Rupert Sheldrake? That quack? That's your source? His claims regarding the "staring effect" have been unable to be replicated. He thinks that worms and salamanders regenerate severed parts because of this "morphogenic field" (those pesky genes couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.) For all you talk about "confirmation bias," you seem to have overlooked the outrageous personal agenda in Sheldrakes work. Since you want to have a battle of dueling quotes:
Robert Todd Carroll writes: In short, although Sheldrake commands some respect as a scientist because of his education and degree, he has clearly abandoned conventional science in favor of magical thinking. This is his right, of course. However, his continued pose as a scientist on the frontier of discovery is unwarranted. He is one of a growing horde of "alternative" scientists whose resentment at the aspiritual nature of modern scientific paradigms, as well as the obviously harmful and seemingly indifferent applications of modern science, have led them to seek their own paradigms in ancient and long-abandoned concepts. These paradigms are not new, though the terminology is. These alternative paradigms allow for angels, telepathy, psychic dogs, alternative realities, and hope for a future world where we all live in harmony and love, surrounded by blissful neighbors who never heard of biological warfare, nuclear bombs, or genetically engineered corn on the cob. quote:
Whether you personally like what this scientist researches is immaterial.
Of course not. Don't confuse my rejection of his work as any sort of personal vendetta. I don't know him from Adam. This isn't about what I "like." It's about what he has managed to show through replicatable experiment. So far, all of his results have returned the big goose egg. And yet, he continues to claim the existnece of things that can't be shown.
quote:
If you believe that the negative hypothesis should be the default position in science, then "this belief leads to dogmatism, and to the dismissal of ideas and evidence that do not fit in."
It isn't a question of belief. It is the nature of the beast, just as much as the logic table of X->Y is that if X is false, then X->Y is true no matter the truth value of Y.
quote:
In other words, it becomes acceptable to dismiss a new idea with nothing more than, "Everyone knows that's ridiculous,"
Huh? Where on earth did you get that from? What part of "until shown otherwise" are you having a hard time with? If you can show that the alternative hypothesis is true, then the null hypothesis is rejected. You seem to think that because you haven't been able to show the slightest evidence of your claim, we should still behave and act as it is possibly true rather than continue using the model that works without your claim. The model works. Why do you insist on chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that something is missing?
quote:
with no obligation to prove that this is actually the case.
Huh? Did you bother reading my post? What part of "until shown otherwise" is escaping you?
quote:
Do you think that's what science should be about?
Do I think that science should be like this fantasy world you've concocted? No. I think science should progress upon evidence. If you don't have any, why should science pay you any nevermind?
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 272 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2009 10:56 AM | | Kitsune has not replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
|
|
Message 345 of 562 (527042)
09-30-2009 5:47 AM
|
Reply to: Message 280 by Kitsune
09-29-2009 11:35 AM
|
|
LindaLou writes:
quote:
Being invested in the outcome of an experiment is positive confirmation bias.
Indeed, but that isn't why we accept the null hypothesis. Instead, we accept it because we don't have any evidence against it and it works. If you can come up with evidence that it is wrong, then it is rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis. That's the entire point of carrying out the test: To see if the null hypothesis is wrong. You seem to think that there is Vast Conspiracy to Suppress the Truth going on. Your claims aren't rejected due to any animus or bias but simply because you haven't shown any reason for why they might be valid.
quote:
Actively doubting the future results of an experiment or study is negative confirmation bias.
Incorrect. It's how you establish controls so that you can eliminate other possible sources for the phenomenon you are trying to study. I wonder if it might be X, but there are A, B, and C that might be doing it as well. So I have to figure out how it could not be X but rather A, B, and C in order to be able to control for their action upon the phenomenon. If I can eliminate A, B, and C while getting an outcome that is consistent with what X would predict, then I have confirmation of my hypothesis that is X. That's how science works. As a much brighter person than I wrote, "Until you understand what is impossible, you cannot comprehend the limits of the possible." You have to be able to figure out how you can be wrong if you want to establish that you're right because your explanation needs to be able to eliminate all the other possibilities.
quote:
I'm finding it hard to believe that people are arguing with me here against neutrality/agnosticism as being the best state of mind for achieving accurate experimental results.
That's because you are confusing "agnosticism" with "neutrality." They are not the same thing. "Neutrality" is the assumption that we don't accept things without evidence. I have no idea what you and/or RAZD want "agnosticism" to mean other than, "Blind acceptance of something that has no evidence to support it and lots of evidence indicating that it's a crock." The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that something is missing?
quote:
Sure, but inherent in this are two possible attitudes:
a) "I will believe this is incorrect/nonexistent until I see some evidence."
b) "I will remain undecided until I see some evidence."
Incorrect. There is another option of: "I will conclude this is incorrect/nonexistent because all the evidence we currently have seems to indicate there is no justification for it. If/when new evidence is put forward, I will re-examine that conclusion." You seem to think that your position exists in a complete vacuum. That can only exist at the very first consideration of a topic. Once it has been considered, you start piling up evidence.
quote:
we're talking about instances where there is little or no evidence to go on.
But that's just it: This "little or no evidence to go on" claim is a fiction you have created to try and cling to your biases. You are pretending that these subjects haven't been investigated and found to be lacking. That doesn't mean that new information can never be forthcoming, but you're going to have to provide it and not just demand that people clap their hands and shout that they do believe in fairies lest that evidence die.
quote:
If a stranger walked up to me and claimed that they'd just seen a diplodocus walking through the park, I would not say "I will remain undecided until I see some evidence" because
...shorten it down. You would not say that because you have lots of evidence that such a claim is most likely a crock. This is not your "little or no evidence to go on" scenario. Instead, you have a ton of evidence that you're drawing upon. This is why your claim of "agnosticism" fails: You are pretending that you don't have evidence when you do.
quote:
When we look at something like theism then there is much less evidence either way
And thus, you prove my point. "Much less evidence either way"? Are you kidding? Of all the gods that have ever been put forward on this planet, are you saying there is "little or no evidence to go on"? Why is this latest one any different from the last 10,000? Do you have new evidence?
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 280 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2009 11:35 AM | | Kitsune has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 383 by Kitsune, posted 10-01-2009 4:13 AM | | Rrhain has replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
|
|
Message 346 of 562 (527046)
09-30-2009 6:21 AM
|
|
|
Here's an example: I was returning from a business trip this past weekend and as I looked out the window of the plane, I saw a bizarre light on the ground. It was nighttime and this was a bright, white light. It was rushing amazingly fast along the ground, seeming to bend and curve without any connection to any road or track. Now, is it really justified to be "agnostic" about it being an alien spaceship? Or do I start running through a whole bunch of other things before I even begin to consider that possibility? Maybe it's a helicopter shining a spotlight down on the ground. No, the light keeps going away and it keeps following the general direction of the plane travel. Helicopter searchlights don't travel that far in a generally straight line unless they're following a road. And they don't turn off the light and then turn it back on. And it doesn't just turn off...it just sort of hits an edge of some sort of terrain and gets absorbed by it, as if it were going under something. Helicopters don't go under things. A train? Perhaps it's the headlight and the tracks are going under cover of trees and tunnels and the like. No, this is Texas heading west from Dallas. Not really the "forest" part of the country. And the light is way too bright to be a simple train's headlight. And where are the rest of the lights you'd expect from a train? Besides, that light keeps up with the plane, so it's gotta be travelling at hundreds of miles per hour. We haven't developed bullet trains here in this country. A light from the plane? What kind of commercial jet would have such a powerful light to shine upon the ground and what could possibly be the reason for it? I've certainly never seen a commercial jet shine a huge spotlight on the ground. And the light is so focused as to only light up a very small spot on the ground (relatively) so brightly. Wait a minute...(*looks up*) Ah...the moon is out. It's only a bit past half-moon, but it's still quite bright and visible from this side of the plane. It's gotta be a reflection of the moon off some body of water like a river that I can't see very well because it's so dark. Now, I never really got a good look at the light on the ground that I might expect from a large, mirror-like surface of water reflecting the image, thus allowing me to see details that would indicate it was a reflection of the moon. But does anybody seriously think I should have been or still be "agnostic" about it being aliens? At any point along that event? Even though when I first didn't know what it was at all and hadn't really studied the phenomenon in any detail, is "aliens" really a "50/50" proposition? Was it truly irrational for me to start running through mundane, terrestrial options for why this light was following the plane or at the very least no better than a random place to start that is just "confirmation bias" of me due to my habit of starting with mundane, terrestrial causes?
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.
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Catholic Scientist responds to Straggler:
quote:
quote:
Oh are we talking about material and empirically detectable gods now?
Actually, my scenario had nothing to do with gods in the first place.
Huh? Did you or did you not say in Message 276:
Oh okay. So if it was a voice and it said: "I am god and I exist". Are you pulling a Justice Stevens and claiming that when you use the word "god," you're not actually talking about "god"? And please, let us not be disingenuous and pretend that this is some reference to Message 265:
I heard a strange noise in the back yard last night. I was gonna go look to see what it was but because I didn't have any objective evidence I concluded that I made it up As the conversation thread shows, Straggler pointed out you do have evidence: Your backyard exists, you're not deaf, and we have ample evidence of things making noises in backyards. You then invoked god. And now you're trying to say you didn't.
quote:
quote:
Well do you think a claim that someone heard a dog in their backyard and a claim that someone experienced god are evidentially equivalent?
For a single isolated experience (the scenario I brought up), yes.
So I can go down to the store and pick up a god? Get him some Divinity Chow and a goddie bed? Will I have to paper train him or does he clean up his own mess? I wonder what the neutering rules are for gods in California. And what sort of shots does a god need? How long to get a license? Do I become tax exempt once the license goes through? Will we soon see an "I Can Has Ambrosia" website? Hearing gods in the backyard is just as evidentially established as hearing dogs?
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.
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
You were the first person to mention god in this thread.
Huh?
Message 265 Catholic Scientist in a response on onifre writes: I heard a strange noise in the back yard last night. I was gonna go look to see what it was but because I didn't have any objective evidence I concluded that I made it up No mention of "god" there.
Message 268 Straggler writes: Then that was a silly conclusion. I assume that your backyard is objectively evidenced rather than "something" only ever expereinced subjectively by you? I also assume that you have objective evidence that your sense of hearing works. I am also pretty sure that real things making noises in real backyards is a fairly well defined phenomenon. Perhaps a better anology would be if you had a back yard that nobody else could empirically detect and that you were also stone deaf. Then if you heard something in your backyard I would be wholly justified in my atheism towards whatever you attribute that "noise" to surely? No mention of "god" there. But, this has established the thread. You have brought up a point and Straggler has responded to it.
Message 269 Catholic Scientist responds to Straggler writes: That was my point. ... How do I know? ... But we just don't know, do we? Still no mention of "god."
Message 273 Phage0070 responds to that post by Catholic Scientist writes: Only if we consider you utterly incompetent when compared to the rest of the human race. We have evidence that other people can hear and usually are accurate in what they hear, but you appear to be a liar whenever it benefits you. If we consider you wholly unreliable and dishonest, then it would be reasonable to ignore anything you claim no matter its possibility of being true. Shall we begin? Still no "god."
Message 276 Catholic Scientist responds to Phage0070 writes: Oh okay. So if it was a voice and it said: "I am god and I exist". Bingo! There's the first mention of "god" with respect to this "I heard a noise in the backyard" thread. Now, why do I suspect you are going to be disingenuous and claim that you are referring to the response that Straggler made to you regarding Message 269 which you then responded to ( Message 296) and then Straggler responded back in Message 299 with the comment, "Oh are we talking about material and empirically detectable gods now?" This entire conversation has been about god, your example was to try and come up with a situation that could be used in a discussion about god, and for someone else to actually use the word doesn't mean you weren't referring to it.
quote:
Heh, if you were in a full church then god's existing would be mundane as well
You mean all one needs to do is go to a church and he will have physical evidence of god instead of just a bunch of people in a building? Why is it god has never managed to show up on all of those Sunday morning preaching shows? Those stadia are filled to the brim.
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.
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 371 of 562 (527300)
09-30-2009 6:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 312 by Stile
09-29-2009 3:14 PM
|
|
Stile writes:
quote:
This is by far the most popular thread. And one of the fastest growing I've ever seen at EvC. Why is that? There has to be "something" for it to be such a hotly-debated topic. What is this pointless thing that's at the heart of all these descrepencies?
Because RAZD can't let it go and Straggler won't let him get away with it. It really is that simple. This is at least the third thread RAZD has created on specifically this topic. He continues to get the same beat-down, and after the thread runs the maximum post limit, he sits quiet for a brief moment and starts up a new thread with the same claim while expecting a new response.
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 312 by Stile, posted 09-29-2009 3:14 PM | | Stile has seen this message but not replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 372 of 562 (527312)
09-30-2009 6:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 327 by RAZD
09-29-2009 9:51 PM
|
|
RAZD writes:
quote:
The claim that there are no gods has no evidence to support it.
Huh? You mean Zeus, Odin, and Amaterasu all exist? You're ignoring all the evidence of all the other gods that don't exist. What makes yours different? Where is your evidence that something is missing?
quote:
The claim that the negative position is more rational than the neutral position is a claim that needs to be substantiated.
It is the default position. Burden of proof is always on the one making the claim and nobody else. Therefore, it is the responsibility of those who claim that god exists to show their work, not those who doubt it. The null hypothesis is always considered true until evidence shows otherwise. Where is your evidence that something is missing?
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 327 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2009 9:51 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 373 of 562 (527313)
09-30-2009 6:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 329 by RAZD
09-29-2009 10:00 PM
|
|
RAZD responds to me:
quote:
Sorry, but I am not impressed.
Nor I you. Now what? Oh, I know! You could answer the direct questions put before you! Are you saying you disagree that it is not rational to think that there is an invisible, undetectable salamander heating my oven? Where is your evidence of a god-like object that is akin to our evidence of life existing in the universe? Where is your evidence of a god-like object that is akin to our evidence of space being traversible? Are there common examples of objects akin to god that we can then use to examine the possibility of a variation of the concept? The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that there is need for something extra?
quote:
Truzzi says anyone with a negative hypothesis that doesn't substantiate it with evidence is a pseudoskeptic.
And you'd have a point if atheism were a "negative hypothesis." It isn't. It's the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is always considered true until evidence shows it to be otherwise. Or are you, too, going to throw out all of mathematics and logic to satisfy your theology?
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 329 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2009 10:00 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 374 of 562 (527314)
09-30-2009 6:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 334 by RAZD
09-29-2009 10:49 PM
|
|
RAZD writes:
quote:
Confirmation Bias and Cognitive Dissonance are not the tools of an open-mind or honest skeptic, and continued belief in the face of contradictory evidence is delusion.
And the sad thing is, you don't realize that they apply to you. For all your bluster about "cognitive dissonance," it is you who has been doing everything possible to avoid reconciling it. How very Republican of you: Accuse the other person of what you're doing as early and often as possible and hope to high heaven nobody notices that it's you who are engaging in that which you're railing against. At the very least, it allows you to derail the conversation into a discussion of the accusation rather than the substance that had you toss out the ad hominem to begin with. You can solve this by answering the direct questions that have been put to you: Are you saying you disagree that it is not rational to think that there is an invisible, undetectable salamander heating my oven? Where is your evidence of a god-like object that is akin to our evidence of life existing in the universe? Where is your evidence of a god-like object that is akin to our evidence of space being traversible? Are there common examples of objects akin to god that we can then use to examine the possibility of a variation of the concept? The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that there is need for something extra? Until you answer the questions, they will simply keep getting asked.
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 334 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2009 10:49 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 375 of 562 (527316)
09-30-2009 6:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 336 by RAZD
09-29-2009 11:35 PM
|
|
RAZD responds to Onifre:
quote:
If you don't know what you don't believe in, then how can there be atheists?
Because atheism is the default position, being the null hypothesis which is always true until evidence shows otherwise. Onifre's point, however, is that your entire point is meaningless as you can't even have a "50/50" attitude regarding something you don't know anything about. How can you say something "might or might not exist" if you don't even know what that something is?
quote:
Atheist Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
Argumentum ad dictionary? Surely you know better than that RAZD. According the dictionary, a theory is just a guess.
quote:
For those still unclear on the concept, this is an hypothesis that X does not exist, and it is a negative hypothesis.
Incorrect. It is the null hypothesis. It is the burden of those claiming that X exists to show evidence for its existence. The default position is that it doesn't. Of course, that is irrelevant to Onifre's point: You can't even define what X is, so how can you possibly ask the question of the existence of X? That isn't "agnosticism." That's ignorance.
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 336 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2009 11:35 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 382 of 562 (527347)
10-01-2009 4:06 AM
|
Reply to: Message 376 by RAZD
09-30-2009 10:47 PM
|
|
RAZD responds to me:
quote:
Now if someone is actually doing a statistical testing, then there must be some empirical data that has been collected eh?
What makes you think there hasn't? Once again, you ignore the mountains of evidence around you simply because you don't like the implications of that evidence compared to your theology. And I'll take the previous definition over Wikipedia: An Introduction to Mathematical Statistics and Its Applications, Second Edition. Richard J. Larsen, Morris L. Marx. 1986. Chapter 6, "Hypothesis Testing," page 287:
The process of dichotomizing the possible conclusions of an experiment and then using the theory of probability to choose between the two alternatives is known as hypothesis testing. The two competing propositions are called the null hypothesis (written H0) and the alternative hypothesis (written H1). How we go about choosing between H0 and H1 is conceptually similar to the way a jury deliberates in a court trial. The null hypothesis is analogous to the defendant: just as the latter is presumed innocent until proven guilty, so is the null hypothesis presumed true until the data argue overwhelmingly to the contrary. It would seem my textbook on actual statistics contradicts your Wikipedia entry. Shall I start pulling out my other textbooks and see what they have to say on the subject? I notice that you hacked your quotation from Wikipedia. The very next words that follow from where you cut off:
This point needs further clarification It would appear that your interpretation is perhaps not accurate. Oh, what the hell. Let's pull out another textbook and see what it says: Probability and Statistics, Second Edition. Morris H. DeGroot. 1987. Chapter 8, "Testing Hypotheses," page 437:
We shall let H0 denote the hypothesis that q W0, and shall let H1 denote the hypothesis that q W1. Since the subsets W0 and W1 are disjoint and W0 W1 = W, exactly one of the hypotheses H0 and H1 must be true. The statistician must decide whether to accept the hypothesis H0 or to accept the hypothesis H1. A problem of this type, in which there are only two possible decisions, is called a problem of testing hypotheses. ... One way of describing the decisions available to the statistician is that he may accept either H0 or H1. However, since there are only two possible decisions, accepting H0 is equivalent to rejecting H1 and accepting H1 is equivalent to rejecting H0. Again, it would seem your Wikipedia entry is incorrect. The entire point behind the creation of H0 and H1 is that they cover the entire space and are disjoint. Thus, it necessarily follows that the result is either H0 or H1. If you reject H1, then you must accept H0. But to start, we "presume" (notice that this is an important word) that H0 is true so that we can develop a test to see if it really is. How on earth do you test for something if you don't know what the something is in the first place?
quote:
Curiously, that would mean that the default position would be agnostic.
Incorrect, for your "agnostic" concept would mean that you think both H0 and H1 have the same truth value, and they don't.
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 376 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2009 10:47 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
The penis-lover
Dude, I'm not going to sleep with you, so stop asking.
quote:
Neither "the null hypothesis" nor "atheism not being a negetive claim" have anything to do with this thread.
Huh? Since you put such huge significance upon the original post, let's see what RAZD said in it, shall we?
The true skeptic takes an agnostic position Thus, the concept of "agnosticism," and thus its connection to "atheism" since RAZD really was referring to that, is present from the very beginning. Let us not be disingenuous and try to claim RAZD wasn't talking about atheism as he has previously been quoted:
The atheist believes it is purely rational to believe there is/are no god/s, they believe that absence of evidence is indeed not just evidence of absence, but sufficient proof of absence. They believe that they know all {A} such that there is no possible {A} that is not {B}. RAZD did not have any problems with this statement when it was brought up in this thread. In fact, he brings it up all on his own in Message 20:
For the atheist, for example, one needs to demonstrate that there is more than an absence of evidence for evidence of absence. So clearly RAZD is talking about atheism.
But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof. Thus, negative claims are part and parcel of this thread. But just in case anybody missed it, RAZD states it directly in his own words:
if you claim a negative position, the burden of proof is on you to show evidence for it. So clearly, RAZD is claiming that atheism is a negative claim and thus requires a burden of proof. What his interlocutors are pointing out is that his claim that atheism is a negative claim is false. Instead, it is the neutral claim for the burden of proof rests upon the one claiming god. Atheism is the null hypothesis: The model works. It is up to the ones proclaiming the alternative to show that something is missing.
quote:
So what gives?
Um...you've painted yourself into a corner and hope that nobody can remember the history of the thread? That's the thing about the internets, CS: Things that get put on it tend to stick around and it is not that difficult to reconstruct a history.
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.
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 388 of 562 (527357)
10-01-2009 5:16 AM
|
Reply to: Message 383 by Kitsune
10-01-2009 4:13 AM
|
|
LindaLou responds to me:
quote:
Let's look at why it's specious to apply the scientific method to ontology.
(*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? Are you seriously saying that it is apparently valid but actually invalid to use science to study reality? Did you misspeak yourself? Are you truly saying that science doesn't study reality?
quote:
The null hypothesis in ontology would seem to be solipsism.
Incorrect. The null hypothesis is simply the demand that claims require proof. There is a process by which you choose your null hypothesis. From An Introduction to Mathematical Statistics and Its Applications mentioned previously:
We will introduce the basic concepts of hypothesis testing with an example. Suppose that the army is considering installing a new heat-sensing guidance system (HSGS) in one of its surface-to-air missiles. Extensive combat records show that the old, radar-based system was on target 50% of the time. Changing over, though, would be extremely expensive, so before the army gives their go-ahead they will need to be convinced that the HSGS represents a genuine improvement. What they want to see is a field demonstration, so a mock attack is staged that calls for 18 of the missiles (equipped with the new guidance system) to be launched against a remote-controlled squadron of attacking fighters. When the smoke clears, only 6 of the fighters are still airborne 12 (or, 67%) have been shot down. What should the army conclude? At first glance, the new system has, indeed, performed better than what would have been expected of its predecessor: on the average, the 50% effective radar-based system would have shot down only 9 planes. But the fact that in this particular set of 18 trials, the HSGS has accounted for an additional 3 "successes" does not automatically imply that the army should acknowledged its superiority. Those 3 extra hits could be taken as evidence that the new system is better or they could be written off as normal variation for a system that isn't (the fact that a system is known to be on target 50% of the time does not mean that in every set of n trials exactly n/2 will end favorably). Our problem is deciding how to interpret what we observed. Keep in mind the analogy between hypothesis testing and the courtroom. Here, the null hypothesiswhich is typically a statement reflecting the status quois that the new guidance system is no better than the old one; the alternative says the new system is better. By agreement, we give H0 (like the defendant) any benefit of the doubt. Thus, if the number of planes shot down is 9, or "close" to 9, we must conclude that the new system has not demonstrated its superiority. What we decide, then, hinges on what "close" means. It will help at this point to formalize the problem a bit by introducing a probability model for Y, the number of missiles on target. From what has already been described, the obvious choice for fY(y) is the binomial, with each missile being thought of as a Bernoulli trial. Let p = P (missile hits its target). The two hypotheses in question, then, can be written: | H0: | p = 1/2 | (the new guidance system is not better than the old guidance system) | | H1: | p > 1/2 | (the new guidance system is better than the old guidance system |
Notice that the possible values of Ythe integers from 0 through 18can be viewed as a credibility scale for H0. Values of Y less than or equal to 9 are certainly grounds for accepting the null hypothesis; so are values a little larger than 9 (since we are committed to giving H0 the benefit of the doubt). On the other hand, values of Y close to 18 should be considered strong evidence against the null hypothesis, leading to a decision of "reject H0." It follows that somehwere between 9 and 18 there is a pointcall it y*where, for all practical purposes, the credibility of H0 ends. Phrasing our answer in courtroom terminology, we will say that a Y value greater than or equal to y* implies H0 is false beyond all reasonable doubt. Now, I realize that that's a lot to go through, but I hope you can see the point. The idea behind selection of the null hypothesis is not simply random but is based upon the idea that there is nothing new. The alternative is that something unexpected is going on.
quote:
This is of course the premise that the only thing I can know for certain is that I exist.
Complete non sequitur. The null hypothesis has nothing to do with solipsism. It has nothing to do with you. It has to do with processes and expected outcomes. The null hypothesis is that the expected outcome will actually be the outcome. The alternative is that something new has happened.
quote:
In order to get on with the business of living, I have to assume that you, this computer, the garden outside, etc all exist, though I have no way of proving it because it could all be something I'm dreaming.
Same response to you as to Catholic Scientist: Cartesian Doubt? That's what you're arguing? Hell, not even Descartes accepted such Doubt. The null hypothesis has no bearing on Cartesian Doubt.
quote:
Science and reason are engaged only after we have already made assumptions about which bits of experience are real and which aren't.
And there's an entire branch of human thought called "philosophy of science" that covers this concept. Do you seriously think that you're the first one to come up with these questions? Have you not read the work of Descartes and Popper and Kuhn or any of the other scientific philosophers?
quote:
Now according to you, we would rationally have to say that the null hypothesis (solipsism) is what we have to accept as truth
Hold it right there. Where did you get this "have to accept as truth"? For the third time, what part of "until shown otherwise" are you having a hard time with? The null hypothesis is not forced upon anybody in opposition to all claims to the contrary. Instead, it is merely presumed (and you do understand what the word "presume" means, yes?) to be true until we have other evidence that comes along that makes us reject it. Where is your evidence? Otherwise, you are claiming that any stray thought you might ever have must be considered perfectly rational and likely and we know that isn't true. I am not the eggman. I am not the walrus.
quote:
The OP covers this
Same comment to you as to Catholic Scientist: The entire point behind this discussion is that we are pointing out that the claims made in the original post are bogus. Just because it's the original post doesn't give it any special privilege of being accepted and agreed upon. We deny the very premises brought up in the original post. RAZD has built his philosophy on sand.
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 383 by Kitsune, posted 10-01-2009 4:13 AM | | Kitsune has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 398 by Kitsune, posted 10-01-2009 7:27 AM | | Rrhain has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2