|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,787 Year: 4,044/9,624 Month: 915/974 Week: 242/286 Day: 3/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Pseudoskepticism and logic | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined:
|
LindaLou responds to me:
quote: Ahem. You do realize that metaphysics is a branch of philosophy and that logic is, too, yes? That mathematics is based in logic, yes? That science exists only because of its philosophical underpinnings, yes? So no, I don't find any problem with applying logic to ontology. It's all part of the same thing. Have you even bothered to look up anything regarding the philosophy of science and/or the philosophy of knowledge? I am not here to do your homework for you.
quote: Argumentum ad dictionary? You know better than that, LindaLous. It's what creationists revert to when they try to claim that evolution is just as "guess" since "theory" means "guess." Ontology is the study of reality. But since you seem to like Wikipedia, let's look at what it has to say about ontology:
Between these poles of realism and nominalism, there are also a variety of other positions; but any ontology must give an account of which words refer to entities, which do not, why, and what categories result. When one applies this process to nouns such as electrons, energy, contract, happiness, space, time, truth, causality, and God, ontology becomes fundamental to many branches of philosophy. Hmm..."electrons" and "god," both in the same category. Yes, I would say that the scientific method is an essential part of ontology for philosophy requires testing against reality or it simply becomes mental masturbation and we wind up in a crazy version of Candide listening to Pangloss. It's the flip of the creationist claim that "Science says bumblebees can't fly!" Your philosophy may say one thing, but reality doesn't really care about your philosophy. And the best way we have to study reality is scientifically. Thus, your philosophy had better be paying attention to how the world actually works.
quote: Are you seriously claiming that the physical characteristics of a rock have no bearing on what it's like to "be" a rock? This is a common argument among many theists: That the physical is something to be denied and discarded. Plato had the same problem, abandoning the world around him for his "ideal" world...and in the process wandering off into la-la land.
quote: That's because the scientific method requires the application of logic and the process of developing the null hypothesis and its presumption of truth is a part of logic. Are you saying we shouldn't study reality by applying logic? Just what should we apply? Gut feelings? Wishing makes it so? Clap your hands and shout out that you do believe in fairies and that somehow makes it true?
quote: Where did I say otherwise? That's the entire point: The model works. The model is the status quo. So where is your justification that something more is needed? Why are you demanding chocolate sprinkles?
quote: Why not? Be specific.
quote: Cartesian Doubt? That's your response? Even Descartes didn't hold truck with it. Hint: What is the difference between reality and a perfect imitation of that reality that can never be pierced no matter what circumstances could ever be made?
quote: What is your justification for thinking that you're in a sophisticated simulation of reality? It seems you fail to see how the null hypothesis applies to your own fanciful claim. The null hypothesis is that things are real. Where is your evidence that they aren't? Hint: What is the difference between reality and a perfect imitation of that reality that can never be pierced no matter what circumstances could ever be made?
quote:quote: I am not here to do your homework for you and it would be extremely inappropriate to try and type in the entirety of Meditations on First Philosophy. This is something you're going to have to do for yourself, LindaLou. You need to step away from the computer, go to the library, pick up a book, and read it. It will take more than two minutes. It is not something that can be discussed in soundbites. You need to read the entire thing before you can even begin to discuss it with any hint of ability. Note: Descartes believed in god and thought that his philosophy proved the existence of god.
quote: For the fifth time: What part of "until shown otherwise" are you having a hard time with? You accept the null hypothesis precisely because you don't have any evidence to show that it is false. If you did, then you'd reject it. You don't accept it blindly. It is presumed true until you can find a reason to declare it false. You do understand what the word "presumed" means, yes?
quote: So if there is no evidence, what justification do you have to say that something else is required? Why are you demanding chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that there is something missing? No? Then what makes you think the model that is working really isn't?
quote: Incorrect. What it excludes is the claim that clapping your hands and shouting that you do believe in fairies has any bearing on their existence. Your personal belief that something is missing is not sufficient. You must show evidence that the model isn't working. Until you can do that, then the model continues to work. For the sixth time: What part of "until shown otherwise" are you having a hard time with?
quote: Name one. Be specific.
quote: That assumes the complete absence of evidence but that is never the case. There is never a complete absence of evidence.
quote: Perhaps you can explain to me where anybody has ever said any such thing? Instead, what has happened is that people reject an idea with the statement, "That's ridiculous for these specific reasons: A, B, C, D...." You keep pretending like there is a complete absence of all evidence of any kind absolutely everywhere. Of course, if that were true, then we are left with the question of how on earth you can even know what the hell you're talking about since such an absence means you don't even have a word to describe it since words require descriptions and descriptions lead to evidence. Hmmm...perhaps that why RAZD is being so vague. By actually defining what it is he's talking about, that would lead to actual investigation into the reality of the object he has defined which may lead to a conclusion that it isn't there. By keeping it undefined, he can hope to wrangle an admission of ignorance which he can then twist into a claim of possibility. Instead, all that's coming is a demand to define that which he wants to discuss and until then, the entire question is nonsensical. How can one be "agnostic" about something that can't be described? How does one "not know" about nothing? 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:
|
mike the wiz responds to me:
quote: But you don't know what that means. Where is the error? A logical "error of composition" is the claim that a collection of items has the same properties as individual items in the collection. For example, because an atom is extremely light, therefore a sky-scaper, being made of atoms, must also be extremely light. The IPU (BBHH) is functionally identical to any other god proffered. This isn't a question of "composition" but one of comparison. Since A is identical to B, then something that is true about B is necessarily true about A. That's the point behind identity.
quote: Again, you don't know what that means. Where is the error? A logical "error of undistributed middle" is a syllogistic error: A -> B, C -> B, therefore A -> C. But that isn't the argument here. Instead, the argument is that A is identical to B. B -> C, therefore A -> C.
quote: Incorrect. The "I" in "IPU (BBHH)" doesn't stand for "immaterial." It stands for "invisible." Instead, the IPU (BBHH) shares every characteristic you care to name with god. Thus, there is no composition. Instead, there is identity. A B, B -> C, therefore A -> C.
quote: Once again, you toss about words you don't understand. The IPU (BBHH) is not "a posteriori" but rather by definition. It is designed specifically to be identical to your god. Therefore, any trait shared by the IPU (BBHH) must also be shared by god due to the nature of identity.
quote: As soon as you demonstrate it. Instead, you toss out words you think I'm not going to understand in the hope of cowing me into submission: Dazzle 'em with bullshit, as the cliche goes. The problem is that I know all of these terms. I am a mathematician. Logic is a required course. You will note that in this conversation, it was I and not you who defined these terms you are throwing around. I have asked you to provide the way to describe the argument in terms of the logical errors you are trying to ascribe. So far, you haven't been able to do so. What is the "middle term" that is being distributed that you are claiming is the basis for an error of undistributed middle? What is the category that you are claiming is the basis for a category error?
quote: First, I didn't come up with the IPU (BBHH). Someone much cleverer than I did (though I was there when she was). Her origins have no bearing to the logic behind her use in theological discussion. Surely you're not saying that things are true simply because someone believes them to be true, are you? That if we just clap our hands and shout that we do believe in fairies, then Tinkerbell really does exist? No, the arguments surrounding the IPU (BBHH) have to do with her traits, inherently inconsistent and incompatible as they are.
quote: That's not the argument, though. Instead, it is that: Inherently inconsistent and incompatible traits are not amenable to existence. A and B have identical inherently inconsistent and incompatible traits. To reject A but not B is a logical error of special pleading.
quote: Incorrect. The IPU (BBHH) is invisible.
quote: Incorrect. Instead, "inherently inconsistent and incompatible in an identical way to any god proffered." Immateriality doesn't enter into it.
quote: You don't even know what that means. You do realize that reductio ad absurdum is a valid method of argumentation, yes? It lies behind the method of indirect proof: Assume that which is to be disproven and lead yourself to a contradiction. Because of the contradiction (reductio ad absurdum), the original assumption must necessarily be false.
quote: Incorrect. The IPU (BBHH) is more than just invisible. She is identical to your god in every trait you care to name.
quote: Of course not. But nobody's saying that. Instead, what we're saying is that since the model works and you have no evidence to claim that it doesn't, it is silly to claim that the model doesn't work. Your claim of chocolate sprinkles requires evidence that demands their existence. Wishing doesn't make it so no matter how hard you clap your hands.
quote: So? What does that have to do with anything? You're engaging in special pleading: A is identical to B and yet you reject A but not B. Since there is no difference between them, what is the basis for the exemption? Because you clapped your hands for one and not the other? The reason for introducing the IPU (BBHH) was to take out people's personal agendas with regard to the question. By pointing out the logical processes that people would take in order to reject the IPU (BBHH), we show that they cannot then claim special exemption for their own pet beliefs. Identical objects behave identically. A B. B -> C. Therefore, A -> C.
quote: But that's exactly what you've done. You've assumed that which you are trying to prove ("Therefore, this confirms my belief in god.") The only way this could confirm your belief in god is either by showing that the only way an amazing thing could happen is it being caused by god or by showing that the amazing thing in question specifically was caused by god. The mere existence of an amazing thing cannot confirm your belief on its own. And thus, you show that you don't even know what "ponens" and "tollens" mean. An argument of "modus ponens" is: If P, then Q. P, therefore Q. An argument of "modus tollens" is: If P, then Q. ~Q, therefore ~P. Your argument is neither but is, instead: If P, then Q. Q, therefore P. Modus ponens is affirming the antecedent and modus tollens is denying the consequent. Your argument is affirming the consequent which is a logical error.
quote: And you would be wrong.
quote: They are identical by definition. That's the point behind the IPU (BBHH). 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:
|
LindaLou responds to me:
quote: What's wrong with that? What is the problem with applying the hypothesize-test-rework process to questions of philosophy? Yes, the scientific method is a philosophy itself, but logic is also philosophical and we use logic in philosophy all the time. You seem to be implying that the method can only be utilized on things that can be put in a test tube.
quote: Why? Why is insisting on solid definitions that must interact in logical ways that are then tested, observed, and refined "problematic"? Shouldn't we apply that concept to most everything we do? I'm hardly saying that everything is scientific. I'm simply saying that the concept of testing our assumptions to see how they fail and making adjustments based upon those observations is about as far as "problematic" as can get. Science can't say that something is "music" for that is purely subjective. But just because it can't tell you if you'd think a certain acoustic waveform is music, it can be used to describe it once you've made your subjective determination. It's the basis for Pandora: Musical styles have traits and if you find certain pieces of music good, then other pieces of music that share those traits are more likely to be considered good. So no, not everything is science, but there is no reason not to approach any question through a "science-like" method.
quote: Well, no. No, it can't. That's the point behind consistency: You cannot make both true and false propositions. And please, let us not hear anybody pipe up with Godel. Unless you can quote to me the specific theorem in its symbolic format, I can pretty much guarantee that you don't understand what he was saying.
quote: No, it isn't. It's a symptom of the entire point: You want your personal feelings and capriciousness to be functionally equivalent to observation and rigor. And one way to do that is to cast observation and rigor as something worthless. That paying attention to what you're doing and examining it, testing it, trying to duplicate it, is somehow anathema to "real" understanding. There's a cartoon I saw from XKCD about the difference between normal people and scientists. A normal person will see a lever, get zapped by lightning, and respond with, "I'm never doing that again!" A scientist will see a lever, get zapped by lightning, and respond with, "I wonder if that happens every time?"
quote: Oh, for crying out loud. This isn't about me. You don't know me from Adam and I couldn't care less what you think about me. My "alleged superior knowledge" can be simply acquired by you: Read the books. Step away from the computer, go to the library, pick up a book, and read it. None of this is sacred knowledge that only the priests are allowed to see. We'll still be here when you come back, but we won't have to start from scratch and turn this place into remedial philosophy. I not only cannot type in the entire Discourses, it would be highly inappropriate for me to do so.
quote: Huh? I give you reference after reference and somehow it is my fault that you haven't bothered to do your homework and read them? I can't make you read, LindaLou. I cannot do your homework for you. Now let me see if I understand your entire argument: If I say something, you're response is to chastise me for expecting you to believe me just because I say it. But if I direct you to the original sources that aren't me, you're going to complain that I'm not telling it to you directly. You don't get to have it both ways. Now, since I don't want you to accept things just because I say so, this means that you need to get off your ass and put forth some effort to educate yourself on the subject you would like to have a discussion about.
quote: Last I checked, dictionaries were descriptive, not proscriptive. It is the same "But the dictionary says!" stupidity that has creationists try to claim that evolution is just a guess because the word "theory" can be defined that way.
quote: They have been. But now you're trying to play a game of equivocation.
quote: Huh? We're talking about the difference between reality and fantasy and how one might distinguish the two.
quote: Not at all. What you're detecting is a hint of rigor. The things that you are testing don't have to be sitting in front of you. Again, you seem to be implying that science can only apply to things in test tubes.
quote: That's the entire point! If you don't have any evidence, by what chutzpah do you dare proclaim that they exist? You seem to be claiming that this complete lack of evidence is a common state when the exact opposite is true. There is a plethora of evidence around: The model works. So why are you insisting chocolate sprinkles? What is your justification for saying that something is missing?
quote: Cartesian Doubt? Are you seriously running back to that? How many times must it be rejected before you drop it? But yes, the scientific method can get us out of solipsism because things happen outside of our awareness and are then brought into it. And can be done so reliably and against our will.
quote: Or unless I demand that you show justification for why there is something missing. The model works. Why are demanding chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that something is missing?
quote: Whatever one you want. If you're not going to be specific about what you're talking about, why should you expect anybody else to be? Burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You're the one claiming that there is something missing. It would be nice if you woudl provide the justification for why this is so.
quote: Where is your evidence? The model seems to be working without it. All the stuff we have examined seems to be accountable for everything, so where is the justification that something more is needed? Obviously, we haven't observed everything. That is impossible. We're quite likely wrong about a lot of things. That's how we progress in our understanding of the world around us. But until you have evidence that we have made a mistake, that there is something missing, that the actual outcome is different from the expected outcome, why would we demand that the working model actually doesn't?
quote: I have. What part of "the model works" are you having trouble with? Is there an actual result that isn't jibing with the expected result? That's evidence that there's something up. Where is your evidence? The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that something is missing?
quote: (*blink!*) If it is impossible to show the existence of something, then the rational position is agnosticism? That makes no sense. If it is impossible to show its existence, then the only rational conclusion is that it isn't there. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. If the model works just fine without it, what possible reason is there to consider it being there since it contributes absolutely nothing?
quote: Huh? You mean all the other gods that have come before have no bearing on the case for how we should consider this new one? Do you not understand that the non-existence of an expected result is actual evidence?
quote: Why does the "ease" of investigation have any bearing? Why are we incapable of examining this "god" object of yours? If it is incapable of being examined, then how on earth can you claim that it exists? Even in a "maybe" stance? The model seems to work just fine without it. And if you cannot tell the difference between the model without it and this new model that requires it, what possible justification is there to claim that it is there?
quote: Because it has been disproven. The idea that we are simply "plagued by demons" is not borne out by reality. Have you read Descartes' description and subsequent rejection? Have you done your homework? Have you stepped away from here and put some effort into learning something that you haven't bothered to investigate before? Have you ever bothered to invistigate Descartes' conclusion? "I think, therefore I am." What might that mean? After all, if the demons are controlling everything, how is it that you are aware of any of it? Why are you so resistant to picking up the original material and reading it? Don't take my word for it. You're only going to whine that it came from me.
quote: Then you clearly haven't read his discussion of it. Yes, the Discourses eventually goes to try and prove the existence of god, but the question of Descartes' existence in the first place had nothing to do with divinity and everything to do with natural philosophy. Seriously: Go and read the book. I can't reduce it into a sound bite for you. This isn't something that comes easy. You have to put in the effort to read the whole thing.
quote: Since you haven't read him, how can you tell? The evidence is there, but you are actively ignoring it for some reason. You seem to want me to tell you but then you'll simply whine that it's just me saying it. So stop depending on me to do your homework and do it for yourself. Suppose you are being plagued by demons who control your entire sensory input so that you are not experiencing reality but rather a perfect simulation of reality. Fine...so what are the demons working upon? What is it they are not controlling? What part of this "perfect illusion" has been left out that cannot possibly be an illusion but is actually evidence of a reality that truly exists? What on earth do you think, "I think, therefore I am" means? So now that we know that you do exist, how does that fact apply to everything else? So you do exist, but the demons are still plaguing you. Is it ever possible for you to find that out? Is it at all possible to escape from the illusion? If not, then how does that illusion differ from actual reality? A difference that makes no difference is no difference. Why add the complications of a set of demons making you think everything exists absolutely perfectly without any errors when actual reality accomplishes the same thing?
quote: You're the one introducing solipsism. You did bother to look up what that meant before you said it, yes? Solipsism is the idea that your mind is the only thing that exists, and thus all the reality that you experience is nothing more than an illusion...a sophisticated simulation of reality.
quote: Huh? Solipsism is rejected. Your mind is not the only thing that exists. There is a reality out there. That is the status quo. Thus, the null hypothesis starts from here because that is the model that we have. It works. Where is your justification that it doesn't? Have you done any research into the question? Have you bothered to read any of the myriad treatises on what Descartes called "first philosophy"? Anything on epistemology?
quote: Nice try, but that's my question to you. The way I know what is real and what isn't is by examination. How do you do it? Wishing makes it so? Clap your hands hard enough and Tinkerbell really lives?
quote: (*chuckle*) Compared to you?
quote: You mean the one with which I disagree? The one whose fundamental premise is flawed and fails upon the most casual examination? The one that RAZD has spent at least three threads avoiding every single direct question put to him?
quote: Huh? How does ignoring evidence ever make you "closer to 'right'" than someone who actually looks at the evidence, sees that the model works without this unevidenced, undetectable, incapable of even being defined for crying out loud object and responds that it doesn't exist until you show evidence that it does? The model works. Why do you deman chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that something is missing?
quote: Huh? Why do you deny all the evidence around you? Are you saying that it is impossible to ever show evidence for god? Then how on earth can it possibly change anything? How does an object that doesn't actually do anything get to be declared as something that exists? Even hypothetically? A difference that makes no difference is no difference.
quote: What makes you think we don't have any emprical evidence? Where is this fantasy land you live in that is completely blank?
quote: In the examination of their traits and finding that the expected result isn't there. That's evidence.
quote: Of course not, but absence of results is evidence.
quote: Because there is no absence of evidence. There is a mountain of it. You're just ignoring it because you don't like what it means for your philosophy. The model works. That's the evidence. So why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that something is missing? What actual result deviates from the expected result?
quote: Except it wouldn't have made any sense. Just as your insistence upon "agnosticism" makes no sense. How can you have any position, even one of "not knowing" about nothing? 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: |
petrophysics1 writes:
quote: Actually, you do...you just haven't carried out the process yet. DNA testing isn't that bizarre.
quote: Incorrect. That is actual objective, verifiable evidence. It isn't the strongest evidence in the world for there is a large margin of error, but it is evidence out there. Now I suddenly have C.S. Lewis going through my head (ugh!) What are they teaching in the schools these days? Do you find your wife to be one who lies to you? Even if the truth would be painful? This doesn't mean she never would, but if she is a generally reliable person, then her claim that these children are yours isn't made in a vacuum but rather in the context of all the evidence that she tends to be honest with you. The fact that your children look like you is actual evidence in favor of them being yours. If they weren't, then there is a very real possiblity that they would look nothing like you due to morphological expression of genetic traits that would rule you out. Their similarity to you is not made in a vacuum but rather in the context of all the other evidence about how genetic traits of a child are acquired from the parents. Again, this isn't the strongest evidence possible. Something as important as bearing another man's child might cross a line with regard to your wife's willingness to be honest with you. If the father looked a lot like you, then we shouldn't be surprised that they look similar to you. But it is evidence. Do not ignore it.
quote: Huh? I think it's the other way around. It is you who has to show me that you believe in anything that doesn't have some sort of evidence behind it. Where is this place you live in that has absolutely no evidence of any kind? 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: |
xongsmith writes:
quote: Incorrect. It is evidence of absence. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. If the model works without the action of this other object and if there is no evidence anywhere to be found that this object is there to act, under what justification do we deny the conclusion that it isn't there? How does an undetectable object differ from a non-existent one? 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: |
xongsmith responds to me:
quote: Huh? How is "it isn't there" not "evidence of absence"? If you look and it isn't there, isn't that evidence of absence?
quote:quote: Huh? You mean if I conduct an experiment where an expected result is not forthcoming, I don't actually have any justification to claim that the cause of that expected result failed to materialize? Note, this doesn't mean my claim is perfect and without error. After all, examination of my experimental methodology may show that I have inadequately controlled various characteristics that might mask the results. But if there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the process and the expected results don't turn up, how is that not evidence that the cause of the results wasn't there to cause it?
quote: Huh? So is the Michelson-Morley experiment evidence of absence or not? Einstein dismissed the results as experimental error, but he was wrong. When you set up an experiment that should have a certain result of a certain cause is in place, how is failing to achieve that result not "evidence of absence"? 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: |
xongsmith writes:
quote: Huh? How is failure to appear under multiple, independent investigations involving independent methods not "evidence of absence"? Question for you: Is it possible to have evidence of absence? Is there such a beast in your mind?
quote: No, it isn't, for the Deist model assumes chocolate sprinkles. But things are working without them, so why are you demanding them? Where is the evidence that something is missing? If this undetectable, undefinable concept doesn't actually do anything, what is the difference between that and non-existence?
quote: But they don't have any evidence at all. So why is there undetectable, undefined concept given any credibility?
quote: No. And we have evidence to show that it doesn't. Or do you deny that there can even be evidence of absence? 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:
|
xongsmith responds to me:
quote:quote: That doesn't answer the question. Since they can't detect this "god" of theirs and can't even define it in the first place so that we might bother to go looking for it, why is that given any credibility at all? If you have no justification to claim that something is missing and you can't even define what it is you think might be missing, how can there be any rational insistence of this missing, unevidenced, undetectable, undefined object?
quote: No, as there is no connection between abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution is not dependent upon evolution and is compatible with every method of origins you care to name.
quote: But this isn't RAZD's claim. The scientist says, "I don't know." RAZD seems to want every stray thought that crosses a person's mind to be given equal respect. Note, the scientist does not give every possible outcome equal play. 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: |
xongsmith responds to me:
quote: Incorrect. The credibility issue is precisely the topic: RAZD wants his unevidenced, undetectable, undefined vagueness to be given more stature and respect than the mountain of evidence that indicates that it isn't there. As I said way back in my very first post in this thread:
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. I still stand by that. Of course claims of non-existence require justification. But the running lunacy of those falling into RAZD's camp is that there exists a scenario in which there is no evidence. This might be the case when a concept is first presented, but nature abhors a vacuum and evidence quickly fills in. This is why the null hypothesis is assumed to be true: There is nothing but evidence that the status quo works. That's why it's the status quo. The reason we have the model is because we have observed the world around us and developed a system that describes it as accurately as we can. Thus, it is up to the person claiming that something is missing to show evidence, not the other way around. We already have the evidence to explain why it isn't there.
quote: But they need to show the evidence for it, otherwise it's just another unevidenced, undetectable, undefined vagueness. The other side is simply, "We don't know." We've certainly got a lot of interesting ideas, but they need to be tested before any real claim can be made.
quote: Incorrect. They are claiming chocolate sprinkles without providing justification for why.
quote: You have read this thread, haven't you? At the very least his opening post?
The true skeptic takes an agnostic position This is a bogus argument. It is predicated upon a scenario that doesn't exist: The complete absence of all evidence. But there is always 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined:
|
RAZD responds to me:
quote: From what I read, his original claim was that it was experimental error.
quote: But that just pushes everything back one level. Do you have any evidence that the expected result is mistakenly described? You've just fallen into your own argument: You need to provide justification for your negative claim.
quote: Which only proves the point: It is incumbent upon the person claiming that there is something missing to provide evidence that it is there. I'm hardly saying that the model is perfect. But if you're going to deny it, you need to show your evidence for why.
quote: Where's your evidence for that? You're making a claim, so where is your justification?
quote: Indeed: Rejection of the alternative hypothesis and acceptance of the null. But you're working under the premise that there is a problem with the model. Do you have evidence to justify that claim? The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that something is missing?
quote: The model works and it doesn't include your chocolate sprinkles. So why do you demand them? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined:
|
RAZD responds to me:
quote: Of course. That's why I keep coming back to the same question you refuse to answer: The model works. So why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that something is missing? You keep trying to claim that there is no evidence while we keep trying to point out to you that the evidence is all around: The model works. And it works without the action of your chocolate sprinkles. So why do you demand that there is something missing and we need to be "agnostic" about their existence when all the evidence indicates that they aren't there?
quote: But that's just it. As I've explained to you already in this thread: Atheism is not a negative claim. It is acceptance of the null hypothesis. The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that something is missing?
quote: What's the under/over for how long it will be before you bring up this topic again?
quote: That's because you keep refusing to answer direct questions put to you. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024