Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 12:50 AM
26 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, PaulK, PsychMJC, Tanypteryx (6 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,982 Year: 9,018/19,786 Month: 1,440/2,119 Week: 200/576 Day: 3/98 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
15NextFF
Author Topic:   the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19869
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 16 of 222 (573545)
08-11-2010 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by bluegenes
08-11-2010 8:24 PM


Re: Problems of "mutually exclusive" anecdotal\allegorical evidence and poor logic
Now try answering the post.

Those 4 statements are mutually exclusive (technically, pairwise mutually exclusive).

Only if you take the religious stories\myths\legends as individually absolutely true.

If you take them as allegories then your argument falls to pieces.

As noted, many believers consider such stories\myths\legends as allegorical representations.

Thus you are just avoiding the issue.

So do you have any objective empirical evidence that doesn't rely on confirmation bias, wishful thinking, cognitive dissonance, logical fallacies and ignoring possible alternatives to show that your hypothesis is worth considering?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by bluegenes, posted 08-11-2010 8:24 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by bluegenes, posted 08-11-2010 8:51 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 19 by bluegenes, posted 08-11-2010 8:58 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 641 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 17 of 222 (573549)
08-11-2010 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
08-11-2010 8:44 PM


Re: Problems of "mutually exclusive" anecdotal\allegorical evidence and poor logic
RAZD writes:

Now try answering the post.

I did. I pointed out that theories aren't falsified by bright colours, etc.

Did I miss a bit in which you demonstrated that there is a known source of supernatural beings other than the human imagination?

Edited by bluegenes, : added missing word


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 08-11-2010 8:44 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 08-11-2010 8:52 PM bluegenes has not yet responded
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 08-12-2010 9:05 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19869
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 18 of 222 (573550)
08-11-2010 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by bluegenes
08-11-2010 8:51 PM


Re: Problems of "mutually exclusive" anecdotal\allegorical evidence and poor logic
then you might try reading the words.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by bluegenes, posted 08-11-2010 8:51 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 641 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 19 of 222 (573552)
08-11-2010 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
08-11-2010 8:44 PM


Re: Problems of "mutually exclusive" anecdotal\allegorical evidence and poor logic
RAZD writes:

Only if you take the religious stories\myths\legends as individually absolutely true.

If you take them as allegories then your argument falls to pieces.

Exactly the opposite. Think about it.

(You put in this edit as I was posting the reply.)

As noted, many believers consider such stories\myths\legends as allegorical representations.

Exactly. Not real.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 08-11-2010 8:44 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19869
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 20 of 222 (573850)
08-12-2010 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by bluegenes
08-11-2010 8:51 PM


Re: Problems of "mutually exclusive" anecdotal\allegorical evidence and poor logic
bluegenes and RAZD only

Gosh bluegenes, sometimes I wonder if you will ever get around to addressing the topic issues, and provide the information you need to provide, to substantiate your claim that you have a theory.

I did. I pointed out that theories aren't falsified by bright colours,

Amusingly, this is just another logical fallacy in a long string of logical fallacies.

quote:
Style Over Substance

Definition:
The manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is taken to affect the likelihood that the conclusion is true.


Here, you essentially are saying that you have refuted my arguments by pointing out that I used colors.

This demonstrates how empty your argument is: rather than address the points by answering them with the information needed to properly refute the items, you resort silly arguments like this. If you really had an argument it should be easy to refute my points with facts, using objective emprical valid evidence to substantiate your arguement. I've seen none so far. Frankly, I expected better than the type of argument I frequently get from fundamentalists of the creationist stripe.

This is your best argument?

Here is a repeat of the main points of Message 14 (or read the whole post with the supporting documentation) in black and white:

The Topic

Of course my participation will only involve showing the errors and poor logic in your argument/s, and I bear absolutely no burden to substantiate my personal position/s in this proposed debate: the sole focus would be on your attempt/s to show objective empirical evidence that shows - once and for all - that no god/s can possibly exist,

Curiously I do not need to claim, assert or believe that "supernatural being (X) can exist" -- all I need to do is present you with a concept of a supernatural being, like supernatural being (X), and then it is your task to demonstrate, with objective empirical valid evidence, that these concepts are unequivocally and absolutely a fictional invention and not a supernatural being.

The topic of this thread is

  • you defending your assertion that you have a theory by, providing objective emprical valid evidence that supports your claims that you (a) have a theory and (b) that it is considered strong by the scientific community, and by you demonstrating how your theory produces any results that are useful, and

  • my pointing out your logical fallacies, your failures to consider other possible explanations, and demonstrating that your conclusions are based on confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance and wishful thinking.

It is not about me. It specificaly excludes my personal position on any of these arguments. They are off limits in this discussion, and they are also necessarily irrelevant to whether or not you actually have a theory - as your theory should not rest on my opinion on any topic in any way.

Your first failure: the IPU

I believe we can agree that you have failed thusfar to demonstrate how your theory produces any useable results, by your failure to demonstrate that the IPU is a fabrication of imagination. This should be a "gimme" - an easy thing to do - if what you claim is true and if your theory provides any useful objective way for determing fact from fiction.

Thus it appears that your hypothesis has no ability to discern fact from fiction, and thus is useless in practice. As such it fails to be a scientific theory.

Your second failure: "strong"

I believe we can dispense with the assertion that your hypothesis is strong, as you have failed to provide evidence of scientific articles that discuss your theory, demonstrate the predictive power of it and that it has been demonstrated to be true on a number of occassions. So far you have presented no evidence in set (C) that would begin to demonstrate this.

Thus it appears that your hypothesis is not considered to be a "strong theory" by the scientific community.

That leaves one issue for you to resolve: theory? or hypothesis? or ... ?

quote:
You should have a set of evidence (set A) where you know and can show that your theory is true.

The foundation for your initial hypothesis should have been established by objective empirical valid evidence (set A) of supernatural entities\beings\etc. that have already been demonstrated to be wholly made up fictions.

Then you make a prediction of a set of evidence (set B) that cannot possibly happen if the theory is true (the falsification tests),

AND you make a prediction of a set of evidence (set C) that can only occur if the theory is true and the competing negative hypothesis is false (to rule out false positives).


In a proper approach to developing a working hypothesis from evidence (ie the scientific way to develop a theory) you list the evidence and what it shows. Thus you should have a list of entities that you show are unequivocally and absolutely a fictional invention and not a supernatural being. There can be no doubt lingering, or this weakens the hypothesis.

This is a necessary step before you can claim you have a scientific theory, and even then it is not really considered a scientific theory but a working hypothesis until it is tested. Properly, it should have been part of your intial post where you proposed your hypothesis, so now it appears that you are just ad hoc grabbing evidence (clutching at straws) or making it up as you go along.

The fact that you have now added fantasy fiction to your claim of having evidence shows that you did not have a clearly defined set of evidence that formed the basis of your hypothesis (aside from other problems) and it demonstrates that you are making up stuff to try to add to your missing set (A) evidence.

Here are two mutually exclusive stories. One or both must have been invented.
Norse:
Australian:

(1) You should realize and acknowledge that this evidence is not empirical objective evidence, but records of anecdotal descriptions, and as such open to interpretation, and,

(2) They are not articles in scientific journals, nor are they copies of articles in scientific journals, rather they are just articles posted on the internet, with no guarantee of being accurate or factual.

(3) This is negative evidence: it relies totally on the different stories\legends\myths being demonstrably mutually exclusive so that you end up with your asserted conclusion as a default, rather than evidence that positively shows your position is valid. If there is no mutual exclusivity then your prove nothing and even with mutual exclusivity you do not prove that any one specific supernatural entity\being is totally imaginary fiction. This is like claiming that evolution is false and therefore creation is true: fundamentally flawed and conceptually bad logic.

Let me introduce you to what I call "the Hindu Hypothesis" ... as an alternative to your hypothesis:

quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_deities
...

There are many sites on hinduism that repeat this concept of all different god/s being different aspects of one (or a few) god/s. A quick google finds many. Here's one:

quote:
http://www.hindunet.org/god/
...

This shows a universal acceptance of other god/s etc within Hinduism, and they see other religions as just portraying different aspects of god/s, just as they see this within their religion. They (the god/s) are mutually compatible with all other religions.

According to "the Hindu Hypothesis" then, all the different religions are just portraying different aspects of the same universal truth. This simple concept leads to some interesting conclusions:

(1) god/s are more complex than they are portrayed in any religion.

(2) god/s are not completely or fully understood in any religion, nor in piecing all religions together, they appear to be beyond understanding.

(3) god/s appear to be capricious (in human terms), and often act in incomphrensible ways.

(4) religions are essentially metaphors for describing past events and god/s, rather than accurate absolute descriptions.

This also results in different creation stories\legends\myths in different cultures, showing different aspects of the god/s involved describing creation in generally similar but also different ways, emphasizing different aspects of the process.

Note that any assumption of time relationships within the stories would also be assuming that god/s would operate with the human concept of time.

Couple this with the issue of whether or not humans are competent to understand god/s. ... Simply put, it is not possible to understand something that is way outside your level of knowledge and education. You may take in the general gist of the story, but what is understood is not the full story, but an abbreviated version, which then becomes peppered with stuff adapted to fit your personal world view, life experiences and biases. It becomes allegorical.

Logically it should not be possible for humans to truly and completely understand beings capable of creating an entire universe, and thus only partial truth can be understood at any one time. People in different cultures will have different world views, life experiences, and biases, and thus they will have different impressions. They will incorporate different aspects in different ways within their records.

The vast majority of theists in general, and Christians in particular, view their creation stories\legends\myths as allegorical: not accurate in detail, but telling the story of creation in a broad and general way.

When we look at these two stories\legends\myths that you have highlighted, we see that allegorically the Norse legend\myth talks about the begining, the first god/s, the creation of the universe, and life, ending with the creation of people, while the Australian legend\myth starts with an existing earth and talks about the creation of life, and ending with the creation of people. Likewise, the Christian creation legend\myth talks about the beginning, the first god/s, the creation of the universe, and life, ending with the creation of people.

There is no "mutually exclusive" conflict between these allegorical representations of the begining of the universe, life and humans. In fact there is a high degree of consilience,

All the different creation stories\legends\myths, then, are explained by "the Hindu Hypothesis" as allegorical representations of different aspects of the universally true creation story.

All your evidence cited to date is explained by "the Hindu Hypothesis" as being mutually consistent with the universally true creation story, and thus your conclusion is not a default result.

Not having presented any positive evidence of supernatural beings\entities being invented by imagination, what should be your set (A) evidence, you then took as evidence something that would be true only if no other explanation was possible. Now you either need to falsify "the Hindu Hypothesis" or provide additional evidence.

It doesn't appear that you have this additional evidence.

Grasping at straws

You asked for it. Fantasy fiction + mutually exclusive myths.

quote:
Affirming the Consequent

Definition:

Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
B
Therefore, A

In this case we have fantasy novels that are intentionally written as fiction for entertainment purposes, using supernatural stories\legends\myths as a basis for the fiction novel. Fiction can be intentionally written about any topic, but that does not mean that non-fictional books, concepts, etc. are necessarily fiction.

We can also compare this to science fiction novels that are intentionally written as fiction for entertainment purposes, using science concepts as a basis for the fiction novel. According to your logic this means that all science is fictional imagination.

We can also compare this to historical fiction novels that are intentionally written as fiction for entertainment purposes, using historical events as a basis for the fiction novel. According to your logic this means that all history is fictional imagination.

On imagination and the human mind

"the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings"

And yet this statement involves a couple of logical fallacies: it is only stating part of the truth, and it implies that this same process does not apply to any other human concepts.

The human imagination is the only objectively documented source of human concepts, whether they are fantasies or scientific concepts: they all start in the human conceptualization process, a mental process, and that necessarily involves imagination.

The difference between fictional and factual concepts is not determined in the mind, or by it's origin within the mind, but in the evidence we can process in the mind about the real world.

Some concepts can be validated (conforms with evidence), some can be invalidated (contradicted by evidence), some concepts are untested, and some are untestable.

The fact that concepts are imagined does not make them false. You need evidence to do that, objective, empirical, valid, evidence.

It doesn't appear that you have any.

On communication possibilites

Human invention is the only known source of supernatural beings. If you disagree, tell the world about the other known source or sources.

In several religiions there are beliefs involving god/s appearing as humans or animals to assist people reach enlightenment or assist them in finding truth.

Many eastern religions believe in enlightenment, which involves a level of understanding universal truths.

Other religions claim that religious experiences are means to communicate with god/s.

And of course there are religions (like the australian one you listed above) that believe in dreamtime experiences.

That's four different ways that various religions have claimed to have a source of knowledge about supernatural beings\entities\etc. -- and ones that you should have been already aware of.

Your task, if you claim that "human invention is the only known source of supernatural beings," is to falsify these as means of having an outside source for concepts of supernatural beings\entities\etc.

It doesn't appear that you have done this.


It appears that you have not done your homework, and instead have relied on confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, wishful thinking, poor logic, and failure to consider other possibilities.

It does not appear to me that you have an hypothesis that is worth typing.

Did I miss a bit in which you demonstrated that there is a known source of supernatural beings other than the human imagination?

You missed the part that says all I need to do is list other ways that have been proposed by others, that I do not need to substantiate them, and that it is your job to falsify them. See the summary of the topic above. See the OP. If you don't like this tough, this is the way this thread is defined. The onus is on you to substantiate your rather extraordinary claim that you have a scientific theory that can scientifically demonstrate that all supernatural entities\beings are imaginary. With evidence.

Here is the summary of the topic again:

quote:
The topic of this thread is
  • you defending your assertion that you have a theory by, providing objective emprical valid evidence that supports your claims that you (a) have a theory and (b) that it is considered strong by the scientific community, and by you demonstrating how your theory produces any results that are useful, and

  • my pointing out your logical fallacies, your failures to consider other possible explanations, and demonstrating that your conclusions are based on confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance and wishful thinking.

And yes, I listed four ways that have been raised by others as possible avenues of communication, ones that you should know about and should have already addressed as part of your background discussion for a scientific theory:

quote:

On communication possibilites


In several religiions there are beliefs involving god/s appearing as humans or animals to assist people reach enlightenment or assist them in finding truth.

Many eastern religions believe in enlightenment, which involves a level of understanding universal truths.

Other religions claim that religious experiences are means to communicate with god/s.

And of course there are religions (like the australian one you listed above) that believe in dreamtime experiences.

That's four different ways that various religions have claimed to have a source of knowledge about supernatural beings\entities\etc. -- and ones that you should have been already aware of.


Note that it is not up to me to demonstrate that they actually occur, rather it is up to you to show that they cannot occur or your hypothesis does not consider these possibilities, and thus is incomplete at best.

Thanks for demonstrating that you did not read the post you claim to have refuted.



Message 19: Exactly the opposite. Think about it.
Exactly. Not real.

Curiously, that is not the normally understood meaning of allegorical:

allegory -n , pl -ries
  1. a poem, play, picture, etc, in which the apparent meaning of the characters and events is used to symbolize a deeper moral or spiritual meaning
  2. the technique or genre that this represents
  3. use of such symbolism to illustrate truth or a moral
  4. anything used as a symbol or emblem

It presents a spiritual\universal truth in a symbolic manner, and in this case the spritual\universal truth presented by all these symbolic stories is that god/s created the universe, life, people.

There is no conflict between the stories on the universal truth/s they show.

Message 15:

  • 1) The first two humans were created by a single God who was also the creator of the universe; a man from clay, then a woman from one of the man's ribs.

  • 2) Two supernatural beings, self-created on earth, created the first group of humans from half-formed natural beings that they discovered.

  • 3)The first two humans were created from logs by three gods who were born from other beings who, in turn, owed their existence to an abiogenesis event within the universe.

  • 4) Humans evolved from other animals by purely natural processes.

Those 4 statements are mutually exclusive (technically, pairwise mutually exclusive).

Tips for posting lists: you can use [List=1] and then it makes a numbered list all by itself.

As noted before, they are only "mutually exclusive" if you take each one as absolute truth. The minute you remove the "absolute" assumption the conflict dissipates into thin air.

Curiously, all this shows is that it is irrational to believe that any one of these as absolute truth without substantiating objective empirical evidence, not that the various different (aspects of) god/s cannot exist. Something we already know (or should know).

And there is plenty of evidence that many people believe that the stories are symbolical\allegorical, but that the universal truth/s they portray are real. Thus it is logical and rational to take these stories as allegories of universal truth/s. See discussion of the

So your "mountain of evidence" is more like a sand castle ... after it rains ...

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Edited by RAZD, : black


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by bluegenes, posted 08-11-2010 8:51 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by AdminPD, posted 08-14-2010 8:08 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 24 by bluegenes, posted 08-19-2010 6:31 AM RAZD has responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 21 of 222 (574128)
08-14-2010 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
08-12-2010 9:05 PM


Topic Please - Guildelines Please
RAZD,

Even in the Great Debate forum the guidelines are to be followed. While you accuse bluegenes of infractions (which I don't see) you yourself are not toeing the line. Please pull the log out of your own eye.

I've read the OP and the topic is not about bluegenes proving he has a scientific theory or that his theory is strong.

He has a theory and as I understand it, the challenge was to falsify it. You took that challenge.

Please refrain from repeating large portions of previous posts. Just link to the message.

Your verbosity is not moving the discussion forward.

Thanks
AdminPD


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 08-12-2010 9:05 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 08-16-2010 6:52 PM AdminPD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19869
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


(2)
Message 22 of 222 (574581)
08-16-2010 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by AdminPD
08-14-2010 8:08 AM


Changing the topic?
Dear AdminPD

That's not the debate I signed on for, and if you want to force that to be the issue, then I will withdraw under protest.

bluegenes made an assertion.

EVERYBODY that makes an assertion should be able to substantiate it.

The assertion he made is, imho, extraordinary: that he has a theory that is strong, and one that can finally determine fiction from fact, once and for all.

So far all I see is the theory that "if we assume that all supernatural entities\beiings are made up then we can show that all supernatural entities\beings are made up, because the theory tells us that all supernatural beings\entities are made up" ...

If you feel that this is a compelling argument then you are welcome to that opinion.

If this is not true then all he has is his opinion, and his wishful thinking, and his confirmation biases.

We both know (or should) that he has done not one thing to prove that supernatural beings or entities do not or cannot exist.

His claim is false.

There is no theory.

There is no methodology based on the theory.

There is nothing to falsify.

He has a theory and as I understand it, the challenge was to falsify it. You took that challenge.

Nope.

The challenge was that if you disagreed that it is a strong theory then he would debate that, with evidence.

I disagree that it is strong, and I disagree that it is a theory, so then it is up to him to substantiate that he has a theory, with evidence, and demonstrate that it is something more than wishful thinking - ie capable of producing actual results.

It is that simple.

If he has a theory than is scientific enough that one can falsify it with objective empirical evidence, then it should be stunningly simple to show how it works and the objective empirical evidence that it is based on.

It's that simple.

You can either close this thread or withdraw your interjection.

Enjoy.

ps - my wifi is twitchy and I may not get another reply out tonight.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by AdminPD, posted 08-14-2010 8:08 AM AdminPD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by AdminPD, posted 08-17-2010 6:54 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 23 of 222 (574651)
08-17-2010 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD
08-16-2010 6:52 PM


Re: Changing the topic?
quote:
I disagree that it is strong, and I disagree that it is a theory, so then it is up to him to substantiate that he has a theory, with evidence, and demonstrate that it is something more than wishful thinking - ie capable of producing actual results.
Then you wrote a bad OP if the only thing you're trying to do in this discussion is prove that his statement isn't a theory.

So now bluegenes knows that the only point of this great debate is whether his statement can be considered a theory or not. Not whether his statement or theory is true or false.

So keep to that topic and carry on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 08-16-2010 6:52 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 641 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 24 of 222 (575226)
08-19-2010 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
08-12-2010 9:05 PM


Strong theory still not shown to be weak.
RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

"the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings"

And yet this statement involves a couple of logical fallacies: it is only stating part of the truth, and it implies that this same process does not apply to any other human concepts.

The human imagination is the only objectively documented source of human concepts, whether they are fantasies or scientific concepts: they all start in the human conceptualization process, a mental process, and that necessarily involves imagination.

Here, you would seem to be agreeing with me by stating a view that everything is a product of the human imagination. But that's apparently not what you mean, because:

RAZD writes:

The difference between fictional and factual concepts is not determined in the mind, or by it's origin within the mind, but in the evidence we can process in the mind about the real world.

Here, you seem to saying that there are fictional and factual concepts, and that there is a "real world" which we can determine in the mind by evidence.

RAZD writes:

Some concepts can be validated (conforms with evidence), some can be invalidated (contradicted by evidence), some concepts are untested, and some are untestable.
The fact that concepts are imagined does not make them false.

Certainly (to the last sentence). The claim of the actual existence of fairies as part of reality is only testable by attempting to establish that they exist. If they don't exist in reality, then it's impossible conclusively to prove non-existence. Hence the statement of my theory as a scientific theory, not a scientific fact.

RAZD writes:

You need evidence to do that, objective, empirical, valid, evidence.

The existence of things as part of reality is established by positive evidence for their existence. Scientifically speaking, the existence of fairies (and all other supernatural beings) has not been established.

You quoted me above claiming that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings. If it's a view that you disagree with, then you should be able to demonstrate that there's another known source. The reason theories are stated as theories rather than facts in science is because they are not regarded as being conclusively proven.

Now, here's your attempt to demonstrate your view that there might be another source.

RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

RAZD writes:

On communication possibilites

"Human invention is the only known source of supernatural beings. If you disagree, tell the world about the other known source or sources."

In several religions there are beliefs involving god/s appearing as humans or animals to assist people reach enlightenment or assist them in finding truth.

Many eastern religions believe in enlightenment, which involves a level of understanding universal truths.
Other religions claim that religious experiences are means to communicate with god/s.

And of course there are religions (like the australian one you listed above) that believe in dreamtime experiences.

That's four different ways that various religions have claimed to have a source of knowledge about supernatural beings\entities\etc. -- and ones that you should have been already aware of.

I'm well aware of them. I'm also aware that there's no scientific evidence to support the reality of these claims. As I've already explained, far from demonstrating that humans aren't the inventors of the supernatural beings in their religions, these dreams and "enlightenments" lead them to mutually exclusive accounts of how humans came into being, and also into accounts that directly contradict the scientific evidence in respect to human origins.

All the evidence suggests that, far from achieving miraculous enlightenment, they're making things up.

So, as usual, I can offer support for my position, and you can't. All the scientific literature in cosmology, biology and geology is on my side when I put forward the view that these creation stories are human inventions.

Edited by bluegenes, : changed some words for clarity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 08-12-2010 9:05 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 08-19-2010 10:45 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19869
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


(2)
Message 25 of 222 (575412)
08-19-2010 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by bluegenes
08-19-2010 6:31 AM


Weak hypothesis, still not shown to be a Theory .... to say nothing of "Strong"
Hi bluegenes, I've corrected your subtitle.

YOU need to demonstrate that it is strong by providing evidence of references in scientific journals.

All you have given so far on that score, is your wishful thinking.

Claiming it is strong does not make it so.

In addition, YOU have yet to demonstrate that you even have a theory that qualifies as a scientific theory. Note that I am not the only one to point this out.

Again, you have not provided evidence necessary to document that you have a scientific theory (see (1) below), instead we have some ad hoc references to such things as fantasy novels and a subjective interpretation of various creation stories (that does not match the way some people in various religions have interpreted the stories).

Claiming that it is a scientific theory does not make it so.

Here, you would seem to be agreeing with me by stating a view that everything is a product of the human imagination. But that's apparently not what you mean, because:

What I'm actually pointing out is that the human mind is inextricably intertwined in all human concepts, thus it is a logical fallacy (and confirmation bias) to imply that only some subset of human concepts is so entangled.

What you have is a simplistic half-truth, at best. ALL human concepts are filtered by the human mind: that simple fact does not mean that all human concepts are imaginary, nor does it mean that all human concepts are false. You are trying to conflate these two together in one argument without showing that they are connected in any way.

Here, you seem to saying that there are fictional and factual concepts, and that there is a "real world" which we can determine in the mind by evidence.

No, not in the mind, but by physical testing and by confirmation of testing by other people -- ie the scientific method -- to sort out which bits are due to imagination alone and which are perceptions of reality through the filter of the human mind.

This is capable of determining some truths and some fictions, but it is not capable of showing that all concepts not definitively shown to be true are thereby false.

If you cannot show that a concept is false, then it is a logical fallacy to claim that it is false.

Likewise, if you cannot show that a concept is totally and completely the product of human imagination, then it is a logical fallacy to claim that it is totally and completely the product of human imagination.

Otherwise all you are doing is assuming that you are correct. This is confirmation bias.

That is not the basis for a scientific theory.

The existence of things as part of reality is established by positive evidence for their existence. Scientifically speaking, the existence of fairies (and all other supernatural beings) has not been established.

And typically, you forget the other half of that equation.

Curiously, in science the non-existence of concepts is established by evidence that shows that they cannot be true. Scientifically speaking, the existence of fairies (and all other supernatural beings) has not been falsified.

You know this is true because any such proof positive would make headlines around the world.

Therefore, logically, you do not have any real evidence (the objective empirical valid kind used in science), rather what you have is wishful thinking based on your biases and opinions.

That is not the basis for a scientific theory.

Now, here's your attempt to demonstrate your view that there might be another source.
...
I'm well aware of them. I'm also aware that there's no scientific evidence to support the reality of these claims. ...

What you are missing, amusingly, is that for you to claim that human imagination is the only source for supernatural concepts (as you have asserted), YOU need to demonstrate that no other possible source could exist.

Thus they don't need to be supported to cause your concept to be questioned, they just need to be pointed out (and the only support necessary is to show that they are previously claimed by other people, religions etc, that they are not new arguments, which you agree is true) and YOU need to falsify them in order to support your claim.

This all adds up to your hypothesis being weak, poorly conceived, intellectually incomplete, and vastly undersupported.

All the evidence suggests that, far from achieving miraculous enlightenment, they're making things up.

What evidence? Your confirmation bias and wishful thinking based on your subjective interpretation evidence?

So far all you have is confirmation bias based on your personal interpretation of subjective information, not objective empirical valid evidence.

You have not falsified the Hindu Hypothesis, which among other things includes the view that all creation stories are allegorical, metaphor or analogy for how god/s created, and that the many stories all offer different aspects of the creation/s via allegory and symbolic metaphors.

There are many good reasons why the creation stories can be taken as allegorical:

  1. Many people in many religions
    1. state that they believe them to be allegorical and
    2. believe that god/s created the earth, universe, life, etc.

  2. The language used in the stories is language common to metaphor and analogy (see (2) below), rather than to scientific explanations,
  3. Dreams and visions are
    1. commonly taken to be symbolic rather than factual experiences, AND
    2. commonly considered to carry some valid meaning (when interpreted), AND
    3. there are recorded instances of dreamed concepts being found to be true.

  4. Metaphor and analogy are a common way to teach children, especially when concepts are beyond their (current) ability to understand (or you do not want to go into greater detail at the time). The "birds and the bees" for example.
  5. Any god/s involved in the vision\dream\explanation\etc may not have been directly involved in the creation, and thus not fully able themselves to explain it.
  6. It is unlikely that humans, especially humans several thousand years ago
    1. would be able to understand a scientific explanation of the actual creation process/es used by god/s, so
    2. god/s likely treated them the way we treat children, and
    3. tailored the specific story for the specific person, or
    4. did not give a complete explanation, and
    5. even then were likely to be misunderstood, because

  7. human understanding of the actual creation process/es would require competence in that field, a competence that is currently lacking in the world today (or we could create universes).

That you have failed to invalidate\falsify the "Hindu Hypothesis", also means that you have not shown your hypothesis to be the only valid explanation, NOR have you presented any way to discern that your hypothesis is true and the "Hindu Hypothesis" is false.

What the "Hindu Hypothesis" says is that when we take all these symbolic stories and put them together, that the total picture that emerges is one of the universal truth/s - and among others, that god/s exist(ed) and that they created.

So, as usual, I can offer support for my position, and you can't. All the scientific literature in cosmology, biology and geology is on my side when I put forward the view that these creation stories are human inventions.

Amusingly, you have yet to offer any objective empirical valid evidence, while I have provided sufficient evidence to show to your concept (and several other assertions) is questionable at best, so your smug assertion is as baseless as the rest.

When you only look at the evidence and explanations that support your personal beliefs, and ignore the known and documented alternatives, then you are dealing with cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.

And still no evidence that even the IPU is a made up fantasy ..... why is that?

Enjoy.

(1) The evidence presented so far - at best - falls into category 2:

RAZD's Concept Scale
  1. Zero to Low Confidence Concepts
    1. No evidence, subjective or objective,
    2. No logical conclusions possible, but opinion possible

  2. Low to Medium Confidence Concepts
    1. Unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion also involved, but no known contradictory evidence, nothing shows the concept per se to be invalid
    2. Conclusions regarding possibilities for further investigation, and opinions can be based on this level of evidence,

  3. Medium to High Confidence Concepts
    1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence
    2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.

NOT sufficient for forming a scientific theory.

(2) When we look at the norse myth you cited previously, for example, we also see that this uses symbolic language to tell the story:

quote:
The sons of Bor then carried Ymir to the middle of Ginnungagap and made the world from him. From his blood they made the sea and the lakes; from his flesh the earth; from his hair the trees; and from his bones the mountains. They made rocks and pebbles from his teeth and jaws and those bones that were broken.

From Ymir's skull the sons of Bor made the sky and set it over the earth with its four sides. Under each corner they put a dwarf, whose names are East, West, North, and South.

The sons of Bor flung Ymir's brains into the air, and they became the clouds.


While it is a common phrase to say that mountains "look like jagged teeth against the sky," this is taken as figurative language, rather than an actual statement that the mountains are teeth.

Edited by RAZD, : ...


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by bluegenes, posted 08-19-2010 6:31 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by bluegenes, posted 08-20-2010 7:04 AM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 641 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 26 of 222 (575498)
08-20-2010 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by RAZD
08-19-2010 10:45 PM


Scientific theories, and why we use them to explore the unknown.
RAZD writes:

YOU need to demonstrate that it is strong by providing evidence of references in scientific journals.

Are you questioning that there's very strong evidence for evolutionary theory in the literature, which more than adequately demonstrates that the creation stories are fictional? Seriously?

RAZD writes:

In addition, YOU have yet to demonstrate that you even have a theory that qualifies as a scientific theory. Note that I am not the only one to point this out.

Then you're not the only one who hasn't explained why a theory that deals with an observable phenomenon (supernatural beliefs) and ascribes them to a natural source is not scientific.

RAZD writes:

Again, you have not provided evidence necessary to document that you have a scientific theory (see (1) below), instead we have some ad hoc references to such things as fantasy novels and a subjective interpretation of various creation stories (that does not match the way some people in various religions have interpreted the stories).

Application of the law of non-contradiction is hardly subjective.

"Some people" interpreting the stories in a certain way may well be subjective, but if they're interpreting them as being intentional fiction, that's hardy relevant to our discussion.

Either way, all the evidence suggests that the supernatural beings involved are human inventions.

RAZD writes:

Claiming that it is a scientific theory does not make it so.

And claiming that it isn't a scientific theory doesn't make it not so.

RAZD writes:

What I'm actually pointing out is that the human mind is inextricably intertwined in all human concepts, thus it is a logical fallacy (and confirmation bias) to imply that only some subset of human concepts is so entangled.

Not if the human mind is the only known source of those concepts, and there's no evidence to support their external existence.

RAZD writes:

What you have is a simplistic half-truth, at best. ALL human concepts are filtered by the human mind: that simple fact does not mean that all human concepts are imaginary, nor does it mean that all human concepts are false. You are trying to conflate these two together in one argument without showing that they are connected in any way.

Not at all. When we have good positive evidence for the real existence of things that are in our minds (example: horses), we can confidently describe them as extant. When we do not have any such evidence (example: centaurs) we cannot do so.

RAZD writes:

If you cannot show that a concept is false, then it is a logical fallacy to claim that it is false.

That's why one states such things as theory or law in science, not a fact. Basic knowledge of biology will tell you that humans can't change into bats. That, combined with the fact that there's zero positive evidence for their existence, makes it very reasonable to theorize that vampires don't exist.

RAZD writes:

Likewise, if you cannot show that a concept is totally and completely the product of human imagination, then it is a logical fallacy to claim that it is totally and completely the product of human imagination.

We're still running around your problem in sorting out the difference between someone saying "it's a fact that all swans are white", and someone saying "I have a theory that all swans are white."

Science is about the exploration of reality, so it is constantly dealing with the unknown. That's why scientific theories exist, and that is why they are regarded as being unprovable and falsifiable.

If, as can happen with certain types of theory, a theory becomes so well supported that it's described as a fact, it no longer qualifies as a theory (the earth is an oblate spheroid, for example, since the time we could observe it directly from space).

RAZD writes:

Curiously, in science the non-existence of concepts is established by evidence that shows that they cannot be true. Scientifically speaking, the existence of fairies (and all other supernatural beings) has not been falsified.

You know this is true because any such proof positive would make headlines around the world.

And also, because it's impossible to prove, which is why "fairies exist" cannot be a scientific theory. It is theoretically provable, but unfalsifiable. Because the non-existence of fairies can't be proved, their non-existence would never be described as a scientific fact.

Once again, that's why we have theories. Like "fairies are figments of the human imagination".

RAZD writes:

Therefore, logically, you do not have any real evidence (the objective empirical valid kind used in science), rather what you have is wishful thinking based on your biases and opinions.

Human invention is the only source of supernatural beings known to science. Adult rabbits are the only source of baby rabbits known to science.

Your understanding of how theories are falsified seems to be that you would expect biologists to prove that no single rabbit was ever produced by a conjurer.

If you know of another scientifically verifiable source of supernatural beings, tell the world.

RAZD writes:

What you are missing, amusingly, is that for you to claim that human imagination is the only source for supernatural concepts (as you have asserted), YOU need to demonstrate that no other possible source could exist.

The only known source. See my points above.

RAZD writes:

You have not falsified the Hindu Hypothesis, which among other things includes the view that all creation stories are allegorical, metaphor or analogy for how god/s created, and that the many stories all offer different aspects of the creation/s via allegory and symbolic metaphors.

If you mean the Hindu faith that their stories are based on a true god, I wasn't aware of any scientific support for it.

Baseless supernatural "hypotheses" are usually unfalsifiable.

RAZD writes:

There are many good reasons why the creation stories can be taken as allegorical.

RAZD, some people may believe the grim reaper actually exists, and others (like me) may believe he's an allegory for death, and therefore fictional. Either way, all the evidence suggests that the personification of death is a product of the human imagination.

Edited by bluegenes, : changed wrong word


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 08-19-2010 10:45 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2010 3:27 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19869
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


(2)
Message 27 of 222 (575890)
08-21-2010 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by bluegenes
08-20-2010 7:04 AM


Scientific theories, and why the bluegenes hypothesis doesn't qualify
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi bluegenes, still trying to pretend that you have a theory, I see.

Note - for those slow on the uptake, this thread is not about the existence, or not, of supernatural entities\beings, but about whether bluegenes has posted anything that would properly qualify as a scientific theory.

For those who are "attention challenged" - if you do not ready my posts then you cannot comment about them, other than to complain that the length exceeds your ability to understand in one sitting.

Let's see if we can put this self-deception to rest.

Rabbit Redux

First we have the "rabbit theory"

bluegenes, from Message 167 on the An Exploration Into"Agnosticism" thread (and quoted in Message 1):

just as adult rabbits are the only known source of baby rabbits.

Note that this is a statement of observation, not a theory.

To build a theory you start with an initial set of objective empirical valid evidence, set (A), that all have a certain characteristic that is valid for each bit of evidence.

Step 1

With the rabbit example, we have thousands of years of raising captive rabbits, and in the process the observations have been made, and confirmed by many observers, that baby rabbits are born from adult rabbits that are allowed to mate.

No rabbits are born from adult rabbits that are not allowed to mate.

This is objective empirical valid evidence. You can repeat it yourself, if you are so inclined.

From this we conclude that all rabbits raised in captivity are born from adult rabbits that are allowed to mate.

Step 2

Next we generalize the observation to see if it applies outside of captive rabbits.

Again, we have thousands of years of observing rabbits in the wild, and we see:

  1. wild adult rabbits mating,
  2. wild adult rabbits making nests,
  3. female adult rabbits showing the same appearance of pregnancy that is observed in captive rabbits after mating,
  4. occassionally wild rabbits are observed giving birth to baby rabbits,
  5. after observing the pregnancy of the females in a nest, we see new baby rabbits coming from the rabbit nests,
  6. the new babies are similar in development to the new babies obserrved born in captivity.

This too is objective empirical valid evidence. You can repeat it yourself as well, if you are so inclined.

From this we conclude that it is likely that rabbits in the wild are born from adult rabbits that succeed in mating.

Step 3

We now have a set of evidence - objective empirical valid evidence - that shows a pattern of rabbits being produced by breeding adult rabbits.

This evidence, set (a), forms the basis for making a scientific hypothesis.

We also have two conclusions based on this evidence, and then hypothesize that:

All rabbits in the world are born from breeding adult rabbits.

Message 9: Speaking of rabbits, do you agree that "all baby rabbits come from adult rabbits" is a strong theory?

Amusingly, we have yet to establish that it is a theory.

Step 4

Next we predict things that would be found if the hypothesis is true, things that would be found if the hypothesis is false (or things that would not be found if the hypothesis were true), and things that would be new (previously unknown) it the hypothesis is true.

  1. IF TRUE: we should find that DNA testing of rabbits from around the world shows a nested pattern of common ancestry.

  2. IF FALSE: we should find that DNA testing of rabbits from around the world does not show a nested pattern of common ancestry.

  3. IF TRUE: we should not find a giant blue rabbit in our from yard wearing a spacesuit.

  4. IF TRUE: we should find out something about rabbits in general, and the production of baby rabbits in particular, that is not previously known.

This hypothesis makes predictions, and it is falsifiable by either of two tests listed, but it does not add anything or potentially add anything to the bank of scientific information that we already posses.

The only real prediction this hypothesis produces is that there should be a hereditary pattern of descent from common ancestors. This prediction is alread covered by the theory of evolution, which make many other predictions that are of use in expanding our knowledge of life on earth.

The "rabbit theory" fails to measure up to the requirements to be a valid scientific theory. It is an hypothesis that is just stating a rather mundane observation.

Just because it is based on objective empirical valid evidence that doesn't make it a scientific theory.

Just because it is falsifiable, that doesn't make it a scientific theory (any logical conclusion can be falsified by contrary evidence, and conclusions are not necessarily theories, they can just be opinions).

Step 5

If we had a theory, the next step would be to test it, especially to see if it is falsified, and especially to see if it produces new information.

There is no need to try to falsify the "rabbit hypothesis" because it doesn't produce new information, and whether it is true or false is immaterial, especially compared to what we know about life in general, and rabbits in particular, from the science of evolution and the theory of evolution.

If it is true, it is true because the theory of evolution is true.

Additionally, either of the falsification tests above for "rabbit hypothesis" would also affect the theory of evolution, so we can safely set this mundane hypothesis aside, awaiting further information that could justify a re-evaluation of what it can predict or not predict.

(note that this is the agnostic default position).

Step 6

If we had a scientific theory that survived multiple falsification tests and that provided useful new information, then the confidence in the theory increases. After many many years of increasing confidence, the theory can be classified as "strong" - but not before.

The "rabbit hypothesis" is a weak mundane observational conclusion, and not a "strong" scientific theory.

The Rabbit Allegory

bluegenes attempts to imply that the truth of one observation lends credence to another:

bluegenes, from Message 167 on the An Exploration Into"Agnosticism" thread (and quoted in Message 1):

"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".

This is a high level of confidence theory. The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, just as adult rabbits are the only known source of baby rabbits.

Amusingly, scientific theories are not made by analogy to other concepts, they stand or fall on their own. Thus we need to run through the same analysis to see if it measures up any better than the rabbit hypothesis:

Step 1

There is no objective empirical valid evidence presented so far that a single supernatural is positively known to be a product of human imagination.

Fail.

ibid: If anyone does not agree that this is a strong theory, I'd be happy to participate in a one on one debate on the subject, and support the theory with plenty of evidence.

After several requests for this claim to be substantiated by the presentation of the objective empirical valid evidence of the kind used in science, all that is provided is:

RAZD writes:

You asserted that you would support your theory "with plenty of evidence" ... and you have once again failed to actually do so.


Figments of the human imagination in their hundreds
The creation stories listed here are just some of the many mutually exclusive accounts of the world's origins that have been believed in. Even if one were true, there are hundreds of supernatural beings here (some mythologies have many involved) that must be figments of the human imagination.

This is not objective empirical valid evidence that definitively shows that a single supernatural entity is a figment of imagination: it is a personal opinion based on a world view.

In addition, if one story is true, than the hypothesis (that ALL supernatural entities are made up imaginary fictions) is false. You cannot tell that this is not the case, and you cannot tell which one of the list must be imaginary fictions. Subjective (opinion+bias) evidence is inadequate for making scientific hypothesis.

Your conclusion is based on confirmation bias, not on objective empirical valid evidence. This is pointed out in detail in Message 25 where the "Hindu Hypothesis" offers a contrary interpretation of the same evidence to conclude that god/s exist and that god/s created.

RAZD writes:

There are many good reasons why the creation stories can be taken as allegorical.


RAZD, some people may believe the grim reaper actually exists, and others (like me) may believe he's an allegory for death, and therefore fictional. Either way, all the evidence suggests that the personification of death is a product of the human imagination.

Amusingly, allegorical still does not mean fiction. Curiously, this does not refute the interpretation that the different stories may each have been caused by the same, or the same group, of god/s, and that the "mutual exclusive" appearance of these stories is due to incomplete human understanding of the full complexity of god/s and creation.

Intriguingly, you fail to show that any one of the reasons listed in Message 25 does not explain the apparent conflicts.

There is no objective empirical valid evidence presented so far that a single identified supernatural entity\being is positively known to be a product of human imagination.

Science requires objective empirical valid evidence as the foundation for making the initial hypothesis.

You do not have the required evidence to form a valid scientific theory.

Fail.

Step 2

When I tried to get you to provide substantion that you had more than the subjective (opinion+bias) evidence of apparent conflicts, you offered fantasy novels as a more general application of your "observation" of supernatural entities being the products of imagination.

Message 9:
RAZD writes:

The foundation for your initial hypothesis should have been established by objective empirical valid evidence of supernatural entities\biengs\etc. that have already been demonstrated to be wholly made up fictions.


See myths above, plus fantasy novels.

This shows you desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with some kind of objective empirical valid evidence.

Unfortunately, for you, fictional novels that are writen as fictional novels about fictional characters and beings, do not in any way relate to the supernatural entities\beliefs that exist, or not, other than to use them as reference.

Science fiction novels do not show that all science is made up fiction.

Historical fiction novels do not show that all history is made up fiction.

Fail.

Fascinatingly I also tried to get you to demonstrate how your concept can be applied to a modern entity\being that is touted as being supernatural by some people.

You have failed to show that you can demonstrate that the IPU is an imaginary concept made up by humans and not an actual supernatural entity\being.

Thus you have no evidence of a broader application of your concept outside your initial evidence.

Fail.

Step 3

This is where you would develop your hypothesis if you had the foundation of objective empirical valid evidence to build from.

bluegenes, from Message 167 (and quoted in Message 1):

"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".

It appears that you have formed your hypothesis before gathering and evaluating objective empirical valid evidence. That is not the way science is done, and it certainly is not the way scientific theories are developed.

You still do not have one piece of objective empirical evidence that shows that one supernatural entity\being is in fact a product of human imagination.

What you have is wishful thinking, confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and bias based on your world view.

You are just stating what you think is true.

Opinion is not a scientific theory.

Fail.

Step 4
This is where predictions would be discussed, IF you had a scientific hypothesis worth discussing.

It is falsified by the demonstration of the existence of just one supernatural being beyond all reasonable doubt.

Notice that I provided two different ways to falsify the "rabbit hypotheses", one that is likely to be tested\testable and one that is not likely to be tested\testable.

Curiously, I included the giant blue rabbit in a spacesuit as it is the same kind of test as your purported "falsification test" and it suffers from the same problems: it may never come to be even though the theory is false. That means that it is not a properly formulated falsification test: it is not something that must happen if the theory is false.

As noted above, just because you have a concept that is falsifiable, that doesn't make it a scientific theory (any logical conclusion can be falsified by contrary evidence, and conclusions are not necessarily theories, they can just be opinions).

You do not have a scientific theory.

You do not have a proper falsification test.

Fail.

Step 5

You never get there. You do not have a scientific theory.

Fail.

Step 6

You never get there. You do not have a strong theory\hypothesis\concept.

Fail.

Conclusions

You do not have objective empirical evidence.

You do not have a scientific theory.

You do not have a scientific hypothesis.

You certainly do not have a "strong theory" (unless you count the odor of confirmation bias).

Message 1 says it all, so does Message 25 and the posts in between. Again and again the points raised are not refuted. Everything you have said has been avoiding the issue:

You have yet to establish that you have a concept that properly qualifies as a scientific theory, rather than wishfull thinking based on confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance and personal opinion based on your world view.

Epic fail.

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Edited by RAZD, : fix

Edited by RAZD, : or not

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by bluegenes, posted 08-20-2010 7:04 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by bluegenes, posted 08-21-2010 4:09 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 30 by bluegenes, posted 08-22-2010 2:25 PM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 641 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 28 of 222 (575895)
08-21-2010 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by RAZD
08-21-2010 3:27 PM


Re:Scientific theories, and why the bluegenes hypothesis doesn't qualify
I've just looked at the first part of your post, and it looks as though you're going to attempt to define what scientific theories are for the world.

Here are two opinions on what's required for a good scientific theory. Reflect on them. My theory fits both.

I'll read the rest of your post and reply soon.

quote:

"A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations."

"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."


Stephen Hawking

quote:

1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory—if we look for confirmations.

2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory—an event which would have refuted the theory.

3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence".)

7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers—for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later describe such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem".)


Karl Popper


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2010 3:27 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 08-22-2010 1:54 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19869
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


(2)
Message 29 of 222 (576018)
08-22-2010 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by bluegenes
08-21-2010 4:09 PM


Re: Scientific theories, and why the bluegenes hypothesis doesn't qualify
Hi bluegenes,

I'll read the rest of your post and reply soon.

That's fine, I am very busy right now with home & work issues.

Here are two opinions on what's required for a good scientific theory. Reflect on them. My theory fits both.

In your opinion.

You still need objective empirical valid evidence, not your subjective opinion about what is at best second hand anecdotal evidence.

https://www.msu.edu/~marianaj/Evidence.htm

It amuses me that after many long discussions with Straggler about the nature of evidence required, where he vigorously argued against this type of evidence being worth anything (while I argued that it was not entirely useless, but that it could only be used to suggest the possibility of something that would need further research evidence to confirm or invalidate), that this is what you are claiming as solid evidence for your various claims.

My theory fits both.

So you claim.

I've also thought more on the issue of your "rabbit hypothesis" and have come to the conclusion that it is not really a hypothesis in the theory sense, but actually a prediction of the theory of evolution - the same prediction that is made for every species of life we know about - and thus is not an independent theory in any scientific sense of the word.

Predictions can be invalidated (proven wrong by contrary objective empirical valid evidence), and in fact this is one of the purposes in science for such predictions, to attempt to invalidate them, which then affects the theory on which the perditions are made (ie the theory of evolution, not the "rabbit hypothesis").

Your imaginary hypothesis suffers from both (a) being weaker than the "rabbit hypothesis" and (b) the fact that the "rabbit hypothesis" is not a scientific theory.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by bluegenes, posted 08-21-2010 4:09 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by bluegenes, posted 08-22-2010 2:31 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 641 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 30 of 222 (576029)
08-22-2010 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by RAZD
08-21-2010 3:27 PM


Summing up and moving on.
A couple of brief points on the rabbits, RAZD. Firstly, doing DNA tests on a rabbit doesn't help us in showing that it wasn't magicked into existence. If it's a rabbit, it would have rabbit DNA, just as it would have rabbit ears and rabbit paws.

Secondly, we can certainly describe "All rabbits come from other rabbits" as a theory if we want to. We don't bother to do so because there's no need to, as it's already covered by Pasteur's Law, and we treat it, correctly, as an assumption in evolutionary theory.

The reason that we can is that theories are often described as hypotheses that have strong support, and have been well tested.

Now, on the important theory.

Where are we so far?

I've established by pointing to the many mutually exclusive creation mythologies that humans certainly invent supernatural beings, and that the invention is widespread. This is a simple application of the Law of Non-Contradiction, the kind of law on which theories are built.

RAZD seems to have some kind of religious/philosophical objection to applying the Law of Non-Contradiction to creation mythologies, but he'll find out that such beliefs are irrelevant to science.

In addition, when the mythologies describe humans as having been directly created by supernatural beings, they are more than adequately shown to be false by the body of scientific knowledge which demonstrates that our species descended from other different animals by evolutionary processes. Also, none of the myths describe the cosmology that we know from science, and they are equally faulty on the historical geology of this planet.

Next, we can conduct an experiment, in which RAZD will be my assistant.

RAZD, there's a visible yellow elf sitting on your shoulders, speaking to you in Swahili. He has powerful magic, and will force you to write your next post in Swahili, planting the words in your mind.

Here, RAZD will be able to confirm that he can see and hear no such thing, and readers of the thread will see that his next post will not be in Swahili.

So, we can all see that bluegenes has invented a supernatural being, thus confirming by experiment that human beings can and do invent them.

At this stage I'll mention another point that I made earlier in the thread. If there were any source of supernatural beings other than the human imagination known to science, we would all know about it, because it would be headline news. So, we can say, with complete confidence, that the human imagination is the only source of supernatural beings known to science at this time.

At this stage, "All supernatural beings are products of the human imagination" is a very reasonable hypothesis.

From this point, I can look for more evidence to support it (in a rather un-Popperian manner, but I'm certainly not a strict "Popperian", like most on EvC. We look for supportive evidence for our theories).

I've already started on this by mentioning things like the mythical giant who was credited with creating the Giant's Causeway in Ireland, and pointing out that we now have good natural explanations for the volcanic formation known as the causeway. There are many such examples around the world that I can point to at leisure, and I'll be doing that sometimes throughout the thread.

In the next post, I'll get on to attempting to falsify the theory, and describing how many attempts to do so have been made throughout history, and demonstrating that many people are (inadvertently) attempting to falsify my theory now. Also in the next few posts, I'll go into comparing the theory to the criteria expressed by Steven Hawking for a good theory, and to Karl Popper's criteria for the same (both quoted in my last post). We'll also start to discuss predictions, and the further questions and hypotheses generated by the theory.

Later on, we'll get to what's in the scientific literature from various fields in relation to the theory.

BTW, RAZD, your comment on fantasy fiction doesn't really make sense.
You asked:

RAZD writes:

The foundation for your initial hypothesis should have been established by objective empirical valid evidence of supernatural entities\biengs\etc. that have already been demonstrated to be wholly made up fictions.

"Fictions" was your word, so I pointed out that there's stuff on the fiction shelf that's considered to be wholly made up. If you're arguing that many of the supernatural beings in the books are based on earlier mythological beings, that's fine, but even if Merlin existed, Gandalf and Harry Potter are still wholly made up as individuals. Plus there are plenty of complete inventions as types, like the tin man and the scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz.

In general, I don't think any attempts on your part to claim that it cannot be established that humans make up supernatural beings are wise. Try another line of argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2010 3:27 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2010 9:43 PM bluegenes has responded

  
Prev1
2
3456
...
15NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019