Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 451 of 1725 (586743)
10-14-2010 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by Modulous
10-10-2010 7:50 AM


Modulous says:
So let me get this straight, I provide you with a prospective 'Bobby' candidate. He verbally confirms he did it, he shows video footage of the creation, and gives you brains scans proving that he was not recalling a prior version of the IPU but instead generating it whole cloth...and you have concluded from that he is not the originator? How on earth did you do that? I picked a confession and tapes because you said that would satisfy you (Message 373), if you've changed your mind - let me know.
No - I accept him as evidence that it was made up! How did you ever conclude the opposite? After we have determined that indeed he is the Bobby Henderson of the IPU, the case is closed.
Modulous continues:
Using evidence that something doesn't exist to demonstrate it was made up is not the same as using evidence that it was made up to demonstrate it doesn't exist.
The important characteristic of the IPU is that you can't demonstrate it doesn't exist, no matter which direction you try. So I haven't been trying. Just because I criticised RAZD's ludicrously high standards of proof that doesn't mean the evidence I was discussing was an attempt to meet it.
I was referring to Straggler there, sorry. RAZD was not seeking, in this particular instance, a high standard of proof at all. He was merely calling out bluegenes for evidence that it was "made up". It was, in fact, a call for a much lower standard of "proof".
More:
I don't need to find 'Bobby' to know the IPU was made up.
just like
I don't need to know who the murderer is to know a man was shot.
I don't need to know the author to know the book was written by a human.
I don't need to know the parents to know the baby rabbit came from adult rabbits.
Piltdown Man.
How much of the evidence that that was made up was in fact the kind of forensic evidence I have been hammering you guys about?
Was that case sealed by someone sitting up in a tower, with tomes of books around him saying "this has to be a fake because...well it says here & it is obvcious to me and any logical thinking human, that the progression of the Homo Sapiens lineage cannot allow for that to happen by X and Y and Z."????
More:
quote:All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination
which RAZD erroneously interpreted as bluegenes making the factual claim + rationalisation...
No, no, no, no, no, and, further more, no. In fact let me say it again: no.
I dont think that is the case at all. RAZD was just jumping on a technicality. It was the "plenty of evidence" that got him to take the challenge.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by Modulous, posted 10-10-2010 7:50 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by Modulous, posted 10-14-2010 5:51 PM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 452 of 1725 (586758)
10-14-2010 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 444 by Panda
10-11-2010 6:38 PM


Panda writes:
Personally, I think RADZ was picking on a 'slip of the tongue'.
BINGO. Thanks, Panda.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by Panda, posted 10-11-2010 6:38 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by Straggler, posted 10-17-2010 6:07 PM xongsmith has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 453 of 1725 (586764)
10-14-2010 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by Panda
10-11-2010 7:52 PM


Panda notes:
If Newton had dropped his Scrabble game and the letters randomly spelt out:
"every action has an equal and opposite reaction"
which he then went and confirmed by experimentation - I see no reason to criticise the hypothesis or his results.
Sure, you could say he wasn't a genius - he was just lucky...
How odd then, that for so many years after, even to this day, some of us have attributed his thinking powers to the mere falling of a random apple on his head!

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Panda, posted 10-11-2010 7:52 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 454 of 1725 (586776)
10-14-2010 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 451 by xongsmith
10-14-2010 3:40 PM


No - I accept him as evidence that it was made up!
Great - it was the stuff about alternate IPUs different than the one RAZD was talking about that threw me.
Now that we agree that would be sufficient evidence for you, which I had already assumed, my actual point was that it would not meet RAZD's standards.
RAZD was not seeking, in this particular instance, a high standard of proof at all. He was merely calling out bluegenes for evidence that it was "made up". It was, in fact, a call for a much lower standard of "proof".
Nope. Here is the standard, strongly paraphrased:
quote:
demonstrate the IPU is unequivocally and absolutely a fictional invention
I once suggested a brain scan scenario to RAZD, in a slightly different (very slightly) situation. It wasn't sufficient because I needed to show that a supernatural agent hadn't designed the brain by presumably tweaking early values pre-big bang to hallucinate things which were reflections of truth. Or something. So as I said - it wouldn't be sufficient since actually Bluegenes does need to absolutely rule out the supernatural in order to demonstrate it is made up.
Maybe RAZD isn't going down that rabbit hole - I was just pointing it out.
How much of the evidence that that was made up was in fact the kind of forensic evidence I have been hammering you guys about?
Yes, and my point is that the kind of evidence bluegenes presented is the same kind of evidence you have been hammering on about. You haven't really addressed that line of reasoning and explained why it isn't. You just dismissed it. So I don't know what else I can say. What fault is there in my reasoning, if any?
Was that case sealed by someone sitting up in a tower, with tomes of books around him saying "this has to be a fake because...well it says here & it is obvcious to me and any logical thinking human, that the progression of the Homo Sapiens lineage cannot allow for that to happen by X and Y and Z."????
The fact that it was not consistent with anything else we knew about the natural history of humans was a rather important point, yes. As wiki explains:
quote:
In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere. Skeptical scientists only increased in number as more fossils were found.
The theory "Piltdown man is a made up entity" was built on the back of the evidence that the only known way the such remains could have been found was if it was a fake. (the other explanation was that it was a genuine enigmatic aberration that was deserving of further study)
which RAZD erroneously interpreted as bluegenes making the factual claim + rationalisation...
No, no, no, no, no, and, further more, no. In fact let me say it again: no.
I dont think that is the case at all. RAZD was just jumping on a technicality. It was the "plenty of evidence" that got him to take the challenge.
I'm afraid your denial is misplaced. RAZD explicitly said:
quote:
you have made several rather major assertions..."All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
...
As already pointed out, this is an extraordinary claim, and thus you bear a burden of proof to demonstrate the validity of your claim. You must demonstrate that this can be true.
This is an extraordinary claim because it is stating in no uncertain terms that no supernatural entities exist.
You have not established any reason to accept this claim that all supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination.
Bluegenes presented a theory, and RAZD responded as if it was a purported fact and has pursued bluegenes as if it were a factual claim, with the same burden of evidence and more.
The point is - bluegenes has presented evidence that supports his theory. Whether you regard it as satisfying 'plenty' is rather subjective, but given the way the thread has progressed I think sufficient amount has been given.
If I said "I have a theory that a koala's DNA is not as similar to human DNA as a chimps is".
If I got ten esteemed bioinformaticians to perform their preferred comparison technique on the DNA of the three mammals in 10 of the most respected bioinformatics labs in the world and they all confirmed my theory is true - most reasonable people (and even RAZD! ) would agree that it was so well confirmed that it would be perverse to deny it - and that the correct English wording would be
"It is a fact that a koala's DNA is not as similar to human DNA as a chimps is."
But - if instead I showed you the evidence of natural history, the evidence supporting the theory of evolution, the biogeographical evidence about the history specifically of koalas, that DNA is the unit of inheritance and some facts about the characteristics of koalas, humans and chimps and comparing them and so on....and then conclude:
The only known way for these DNA sequences to exist at all is if the human DNA is more similar to chimps than koalas.
Would you say that I had failed to support my theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by xongsmith, posted 10-14-2010 3:40 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 457 by xongsmith, posted 10-17-2010 11:53 PM Modulous has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 455 of 1725 (587215)
10-17-2010 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 452 by xongsmith
10-14-2010 4:43 PM


X writes:
Panda writes:
Personally, I think RADZ was picking on a 'slip of the tongue'.
BINGO. Thanks, Panda
What "slip of the tongue"?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by xongsmith, posted 10-14-2010 4:43 PM xongsmith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by Panda, posted 10-17-2010 6:43 PM Straggler has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 456 of 1725 (587218)
10-17-2010 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 455 by Straggler
10-17-2010 6:07 PM


Straggler writes:
What "slip of the tongue"?
Re-reading the posts (and in particular, the quote) I am thinking that I misunderstood it.
I can still see what I thought was a 'typo', but I am now not so sure that it was.
Anyway...it still seems to me that they are dancing around some very minor differences, but have somehow managed to look like they are at polar opposites.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by Straggler, posted 10-17-2010 6:07 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 467 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2010 8:40 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 457 of 1725 (587249)
10-17-2010 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 454 by Modulous
10-14-2010 5:51 PM


Let's start over. From the top, bluegenes is 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.
It is falsified by the demonstration of the existence of just one supernatural being beyond all reasonable doubt.
It is not falsified by unsupported assertions like "a supernatural being can exist".
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.
RAZD's 1st demand:
Your first task is to demonstrate that the Invisible\Imperceptible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is unequivocally and absolutely a fictional invention and not a supernatural being.
Modulous relates:
I once suggested a brain scan scenario to RAZD, in a slightly different (very slightly) situation. It wasn't sufficient because I needed to show that a supernatural agent hadn't designed the brain by presumably tweaking early values pre-big bang to hallucinate things which were reflections of truth. Or something. So as I said - it wouldn't be sufficient since actually Bluegenes does need to absolutely rule out the supernatural in order to demonstrate it is made up.
Maybe RAZD isn't going down that rabbit hole - I was just pointing it out.
Okay, I see where you are coming from. I hope that wasn't the case in this particular instance. I would suspect that it will eventually get there. But before the debate proceeds to that point, I think RAZD was just saying a sort of "gimme an example" of bluegenes claim that he had "plenty of evidence" - as a way of getting started. See below, re Msg 7, 8.
Modulous later writes:
Yes, and my point is that the kind of evidence bluegenes presented is the same kind of evidence you have been hammering on about. You haven't really addressed that line of reasoning and explained why it isn't. You just dismissed it. So I don't know what else I can say. What fault is there in my reasoning, if any?
I'm sorry. Perhaps I should re-read the debate thread (and I just did), but I didn't see any specific evidence for the IPU. I saw discussions of Hindu Hypothesis unification-like things. It's like if I put all of bluegenes' stuff in a text file and grep for "IPU", how many lines do I get? I was thinking at the time of this little side foray that I would get zero lines. Perhaps that's changed? Doesn't look like it 46 posts in. Analogies never work, but again, asked for what a cow looks like, bluegenes answers with descriptions of goats, ducks, geese, sheep, pigs and chickens. No cows. Now, RAZD may talk of how they are all barnyard animals so far - but, still no descriptions of a single cow.
Same kind of evidence? No it is very different. Emphatically. Please see in the following....
Parenthetically of little or no value here, but nonetheless something I missed before, from post 3, bluegenes actually clarifies:
My claim is that it is very unlikely that gods exist.
...meaning that the claim
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
is to be probably tempered with the perfectly ok caveat "as far as we know now".
Here's bluegenes early on, in Message 7:
(1)The theory that all rabbits come from other rabbits is built on the observation that baby rabbits are born from adults. Do you know of any other source of baby rabbits than adult rabbits?
(2)The theory that all books are authored by human beings is based on the observation that human writers are the only known source of books. Do you know of any other source of books than human authors?
(3)The theory that all supernatural beings come from the human imagination is built on the observation that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings. Do you know of any source of supernatural beings other than the human imagination?
Let me define an abbreviation, M-picture, for a collection of repeatable objectively gathered evidence comprising together a meta-picture. Then I think RAZD is sort of saying,
"Okay:
1) show me an M-picture of a baby rabbit being born from a mother rabbit - should be easy.
2) show me an M-picture of a certain author writing a certain book. Should be easy.
3) show me an M-picture of a supernatural being, specifically the IPU, being made up. Should be easy."
RAZD is not getting into some other source of these things yet.
He says after the above, in Message 8:
Note that this is not about falsifying a theory, but about establishing that you HAVE a theory.
Please note this, as bluegenes never could get himself unhinged from this misconception.
Ahah - here we have bluegenes actually mention the IPU in Message 9:
The rest of your post concerns predictions, which I'll certainly cover, and an invisible pink unicorn that you seem to be excited about. Is this the being that you're presenting as falsification? If so, congratulations on being so prompt, and could you take it to the nearest college labs for verification?
......but AGAIN no evidence, rather an incorrect assumption of RAZD's purpose in asking about the IPU. bluegenes thinks RAZD is trying to falsify the theory and thus instead turns it back on RAZD with a sort of "Oh yeah? That's your job. Prove it aint!"
Later on at the end of another overly massive post from RAZD (Message 32), he writes:
So either stop pretending that you have something you do not have, or produce the objective empirical valid evidence that shows that a supernatural religious entity -- and not one you make up, or one from fictional entertainment novels - is made up.
Demonstrate that the IPU is made up.
You should have done this on your first post.
Now it's down to just that:
Demonstrate that the IPU is made up.
bluegenes replies, in part, in Message 33:
RAZD, this is an adult board. It shouldn't be necessary for me to spend post after post explaining basics. You do not falsify evolutionary theory by asking its supporters to demonstrate that a specific genre of dinosaur, for example, was not specially created by gods, or to demonstrate that rabbits have never ever been produced ex nihilo by conjurers.
RAZD is NOT trying to FALSIFY bluegenes' theory yet!!!!!
bluegenes said he had evidence. Let's see it!
46 posts and no objective evidence, peer-reviewed in scientific journals, that the IPU was made up.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by Modulous, posted 10-14-2010 5:51 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by Modulous, posted 10-18-2010 12:24 AM xongsmith has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 458 of 1725 (587251)
10-18-2010 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 457 by xongsmith
10-17-2010 11:53 PM


bluegenes theory is not
"The IPU is a made up entity"
He doesn't need to show a specific entity is made up, unless he himself enters it as evidence to support his theory. He is saying that all known sources of supernatural entities is the human imagination. If RAZD knows better regarding the IPU, he need only say, and it would falsify bluegenes theory. That's the only reasonable reason to bring it up - no wonder bluegenes responded as if that's why it was brought up.
If bluegenes were to concede, for example, that we do not know whether the IPU was made up - it wouldn't be relevant. For obvious reasons we can only discuss the ones where we know their origins.
So, even were to discount the IPU, we would still have the FSM (in your view) as having a known source. That source is the human imagination.
bluegenes has given several categories of beings where we can say that we know their source is the imagination. Plenty of examples where the known source is the human imagination. No examples where this is not the case have been identified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by xongsmith, posted 10-17-2010 11:53 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 459 by xongsmith, posted 10-18-2010 2:30 PM Modulous has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 459 of 1725 (587358)
10-18-2010 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 458 by Modulous
10-18-2010 12:24 AM


Modulous replies:
bluegenes theory is not
"The IPU is a made up entity"
He doesn't need to show a specific entity is made up, unless he himself enters it as evidence to support his theory. He is saying that all known sources of supernatural entities is the human imagination. If RAZD knows better regarding the IPU, he need only say, and it would falsify bluegenes theory. That's the only reasonable reason to bring it up - no wonder bluegenes responded as if that's why it was brought up.
Why all this preoccupation with thinking RAZD's opening post was trying to FALSIFY the theory?
RAZD is calling bluegenes out on this "plenty of evidence". He was trying to give him a softball. Admittedly, it was a very devious and cunning softball.
He doesn't need to show a specific entity is made up, unless he himself enters it as evidence to support his theory.
NO! This is exactly what he is being asked to do in the OP.
Sorry, Mod, but this is more and more what I am certain is being asked here. Sure, RAZD will bring in a lot of his familiar old baggage later on, but right from the start, he's asking bluegenes "...for example?"
That's the only reasonable reason to bring it up - no wonder bluegenes responded as if that's why it was brought up.
That's because bluegenes has tunnel vision. The only reasonable reason? How about "Let's see what you got on the table?". This isn't a game of poker where you don't reveal your hole card until the bet is called - you lay your cards right out on the table at the start.
So, even {if we} were to discount the IPU, we would still have the FSM (in your view) as having a known source. That source is the human imagination.
bluegenes theorizes that ALL supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination. He is not claiming that all he needs is 1 or even at least 67,283 demonstrated to be made up - he's claiming that ALL of them are made up.
Perhaps the IPU should not be defined as a supernatural being?
ObFalsification: bluegenes theory can also be falsified, as written, by scientific evidence that there is a supernatural being that is a figment of another species of life's imagination somewhere here on earth or elsewhere.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by Modulous, posted 10-18-2010 12:24 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 460 by Modulous, posted 10-18-2010 3:40 PM xongsmith has not replied
 Message 461 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2010 6:09 PM xongsmith has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 460 of 1725 (587369)
10-18-2010 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 459 by xongsmith
10-18-2010 2:30 PM


Why all this preoccupation with thinking RAZD's opening post was trying to FALSIFY the theory?
You brought it up, I just explained why it was reasonable for bluegenes to deal with it on that basis. Tche only alternative is that RAZD was making unreasonable demands. So bluegenes, being charitable, assumed RAZD was being reasonable.
RAZD is calling bluegenes out on this "plenty of evidence". He was trying to give him a softball. Admittedly, it was a very devious and cunning softball.
And bluegenes has presented plenty of evidence. That the IPU is made up is a prediction but it is unreasonable for RAZD to insist he gets to pick what bluegenes must present as evidence. You don't get to say that because you can't demonstrate 1 prediction of a theory that means all the other tested predictions can be ignored and the theory discarded. That would mean all theories would almost necessarily have to be abandoned!
NO! This is exactly what he is being asked to do in the OP.
Yes, bluegenes is asked to give evidence for a claim he has not made ie., that the IPU is made up. This is because RAZD thinks that since the theory is about "All supernatural beings" and the IPU is a supernatural being that he can demand that specific example be demonstrated.
But this is exactly how theories are NOT discussed by reasonable people in reasonable circumstances. But when the supernatural is mentioned suddenly even reasonable people can start going bonkers.
bluegenes has to show evidence that supports his theory "All supernatural beings are products of the human imagination." He doesn't need to prove that ALL supernatural beings are products of the human imagination, and he doesn't need to meet any arbitrary challenge for any given specific supernatural being. He just needs to show that we can identify the sources of many supernatural beings and that in every single case where we can do this, the result is that the source is the human imagination.
Tell me - if I said "All living beings share a common ancestor" would you think it reasonable for a creationist to demand that I prove unequivocally and absolutely that a beetle owned by Gallus Maximus in 74AD shared a common ancestor with any of the vegetation that went into the creation of some specific piece of coal?
Sorry, Mod, but this is more and more what I am certain is being asked here. Sure, RAZD will bring in a lot of his familiar old baggage later on, but right from the start, he's asking bluegenes "...for example?"
And he gave examples! You even criticised him for bringing up examples because they happened not to be the IPU!
bluegenes theorizes that ALL supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination. He is not claiming that all he needs is 1 or even at least 67,283 demonstrated to be made up - he's claiming that ALL of them are made up.
He is not claiming that all of them are made up. He has a theory that all of them are made up. These are different positions.
If you claim that they are all made up, you need to show that all of them are made up.
If your theory is that they are all made up, you need to provide supporting evidence, and never encounter falsifying evidence.
You've just done what you said RAZD wasn't doing - viz you are claiming bluegenes is making a factual claim despite the fact he has stressed that it is a theory. This is precisely what happens to creationists when their supernatural claim is challenged - they make demands as if the person positing a general theory was making an absolute factual claim about all the things the theory covers.
That's because bluegenes has tunnel vision. The only reasonable reason? How about "Let's see what you got on the table?". This isn't a game of poker where you don't reveal your hole card until the bet is called - you lay your cards right out on the table at the start.
which bluegenes did. But a theory's opponents don't get to make demands as to which evidence counts. All of it counts.
ObFalsification: bluegenes theory can also be falsified, as written, by scientific evidence that there is a supernatural being that is a figment of another species of life's imagination somewhere here on earth or elsewhere.
Correct, he would need to lose the old theory and adopt a modified version - as is often the case as we learn more in science.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 459 by xongsmith, posted 10-18-2010 2:30 PM xongsmith has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 461 of 1725 (587411)
10-18-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 459 by xongsmith
10-18-2010 2:30 PM


Mutual Exclusivity
X writes:
RAZD is calling bluegenes out on this "plenty of evidence".
What do you think bluegenes is claiming to have plenty of evidence in favour of exactly?
Plenty of positive evidence that humanity is willing, able and strongly inclined to inventing supernatural concepts?
Or "plenty of evidence" that the IPU or indeed any other specific designed-to-be unfalsifiable entity indisputably does not exist?
Have you heard of mutual exclusivity at all? It works like this. There are a thousand conclusions all of which contradict each other. All of them are designed to be unfalsifiable. No one of them can be outright disproven. But we still know for an absolute fact that 999 of these conclusions are definitely wrong.
Do you understand that argument?
And if you say "But where is the Bobby henderson for the IPU" in your response to this I will have to plunge my head into an icy bucket before replying.
Please don't make me do that.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 459 by xongsmith, posted 10-18-2010 2:30 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 462 by xongsmith, posted 10-18-2010 7:21 PM Straggler has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 462 of 1725 (587422)
10-18-2010 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 461 by Straggler
10-18-2010 6:09 PM


Re: Mutual Exclusivity
Straggler asks:
What do you think bluegenes is claiming to have plenty of evidence in favour of exactly?
Plenty of positive evidence that humanity is willing, able and strongly inclined to inventing supernatural concepts?
Or "plenty of evidence" that the IPU or indeed any other specific designed-to-be unfalsifiable entity indisputably does not exist?
Evidence that supernatural beings are made up.
This would seem to correspond to the 1st of your warblings.
Have you heard of mutual exclusivity at all? It works like this. There are a thousand conclusions all of which contradict each other. All of them are designed to be unfalsifiable. No one of them can be outright disproven. But we still know for an absolute fact that 999 of these conclusions are definitely wrong.
Do you understand that argument?
Of course.
But what about the 1 left over? Which one is it?
However, if I may just get off on a tangential line, just because 10000 things could all be wrong doesn't rule out that there may be an underlying true thing that has led all these 10000 things to try to explain it in their own stupid ways. I think that is the RAZD position, regarding the Hindu Hypothesis. Me - hey, I'm 5.7 on the Dawkins scale.
Bluegenes is theorizing ALL. Not 999 out of 1000.
So, , where is the Bobby Henderson for the IPU?
Ice bucket:
..\ ^ ~ ^/.
.. \ ~^^/ ...
... \___/ ........
..........................
Edited by xongsmith, : because is spelled because
Edited by xongsmith, : plural/singular fuckup

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 461 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2010 6:09 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 463 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2010 7:30 PM xongsmith has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 463 of 1725 (587425)
10-18-2010 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 462 by xongsmith
10-18-2010 7:21 PM


Re: Mutual Exclusivity
X writes:
But what about the 1 left over? Which one is it?
With not a shred of positive evidence in favour of any of them and overwhelming evidence that the person making these 1000 conclusions has a deep propensity to 'make-shit-up' would you really declare yourself agnostic to all of these conclusions?
Or would you tentatively and rationally conclude that this guy's conclusions are rather unreliable and should all be dismissed as more likely fiction than fact?
X writes:
Bluegenes is theorizing ALL. Not 999 out of 1000.
Yeah sure. So which one of the 1000 are you telling him he should be genuinely agnostic (i.e. not in the trivial sense of uncertain which we all agree upon anyway - but genuinely agnostic) towards?
X writes:
where is the Bobby Henderson for the IPU?
(**SPLASH***)
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by xongsmith, posted 10-18-2010 7:21 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 464 by xongsmith, posted 10-18-2010 7:58 PM Straggler has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 464 of 1725 (587433)
10-18-2010 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 463 by Straggler
10-18-2010 7:30 PM


Re: Mutual Exclusivity
Straggler asks:
With not a shred of positive evidence in favour of for any of them and overwhelming evidence that the person making these 1000 conclusions has a deep propensity to 'make-shit-up' would you really declare yourself agnostic to all of these conclusions?
Not me! 5.7d.
Or would you tentatively and rationally conclude that this guys conclusions are rather unreliable and should all be dismissed as more likely fiction than fact?
Which guy?!?!?!?
The Bobby Henderson of the IPU???
So which one of the 1000 are you telling him he should be genuinely agnostic (i.e. not in the trivial sense of uncertain which we all agree upon anyway - but genuinely agnostic) towards?
Beats me. Who am I to tell him what to do.
(**SPLASH***)
Hey, look - let's go have a few pints. My favorite these days is still IPA - one of the 2 best things that came out of the British occupation of India.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2010 7:30 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2010 8:16 PM xongsmith has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 465 of 1725 (587438)
10-18-2010 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 464 by xongsmith
10-18-2010 7:58 PM


Re: Mutual Exclusivity
X writes:
Which guy?!?!?!?
"Humanity"
X writes:
Not me! 5.7d.
Then according to RAZD you are a "pseudoskeptic" because anything unfalsified is worthy of complete and utter "It's just my worldview opinion" agnosticism.
X writes:
Beats me. Who am I to tell him what to do.
You are either disagreeing with bluegenes actual position or you are not. Which is it?
Are you at least clear on what his position is now and able to comprehend why this "Bobby Henderson of the IPU" is about as relevant as a baboons left testicle?
X writes:
Hey, look - let's go have a few pints.
I am too busy with my head in a bucket at the mo. But maybe one day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by xongsmith, posted 10-18-2010 7:58 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by xongsmith, posted 10-18-2010 8:37 PM Straggler has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024