|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Peanut Gallery | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
As I said; your description of Bluejay's argument is inadequate. Your quote of Bluejay's position in that thread demonstrates this inadequacy. Note the difference, Straggler:
quote: quote: Can you spot the difference? Do you see the importance of the parts you left out? The parts you changed? Do you see, Straggler, how this is demonstrative of your tendency to create caricatures of your opponents' positions that have little if any relation to their actual positions? Also, are you planning on responding to the other points in my previous post, or just the ones you can twist and contort to fit your perception of what you wish my arguments to be? Jon Edited by Jon, : indicative ↔ demonstrative Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
X writes: Now, doesn't this indicate that RAZD is in fact looking for EXACTLY the same kind of evidence I latched onto from day one (Message 260) in this discussion? Who cares what RAZD is demanding? Why does RAZD get to exclusively decide what form of evidence is allowed?
X writes: Now you may argue all you want on the merits of this line of attack in the Debate, but surely you must admit that refusing to address the 1st question asked is a bad mark on bluegenes? Why would he possibly play RAZ's silly game when it has nothing to do with his position? Which is what the thread is meant to be examining - Right?
X writes: And by address, I don't mean that bluegenes should comply, but explain why he cannot go down that rabbit hole. Why would he possibly play RAZ's silly game when it has nothing to do with his position? Which is what the thread is meant to be examining - Right?
X writes: Why did I understand what RAZD was asking for and you did not? I did. But I this "Bobby Henderson" evidence is utterly irrelevant to demonstrating that the IPU is made-up See Message 366. Again. And this time don't tell me it is a demonstration that anything cannot exist.
X writes: Oh, and BTW, how do you know the IPU is imperceptable? Because you agreed with me previously that this was the case.
Straggler writes: Do you agree that we are limited to our physical senses as a means of perceiving reality external to our own minds? X writes: Yes. If you are now reneging on that we can take it to Immaterial "Evidence". A thread that RAZD has never taken part in because he claims not to be advocating any forms of immaterial evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5
|
Straggler writes:
I suppose that depends on whether you are a Platonist or a nominalist.You think Newton invented rather than discovered the relationship between mass, force and acceleration? That it didn't exist before he came along? Your questions already miss the point. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: Note the difference, Straggler: I suggest that you notice the difference once my full sentence is quoted Jon.
quote: quote: Can you tell me where the difference is once I am quoted in full rather than half sentences?
Jon writes: Can you spot the difference? Do you see the importance of the parts you left out? The parts you changed? What parts did I leave out? What parts did I change. Be specific.
Jon writes: Do you see, Straggler, how this is demonstrative of your tendency to create caricatures of your opponents' positions that have little if any relation to their actual positions? Says the man who quoted me in a half sentence to mislead. Astonishing.
Jon writes: Also, are you planning on responding to the other points in my previous post, or just the ones you can twist and contort to fit your perception of what you wish my arguments to be? See Message 206 Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Nwr writes: Your questions already miss the point. And your answers (as usual) demonstrate that you have no point. You just make philosophic sounding noises and then retreat at the first sign of scrutiny. Every time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Here is a newborn rabbit:
Redirect Notice Here is the baby rabbit you have in your hand: Redirect Notice Slam dunk huh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5
|
Straggler writes:
I explained my point in earlier posts. You have completely avoided responding to the important parts.
And your answers (as usual) demonstrate that you have no point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Can you tell me where the difference is once I am quoted in full rather than half sentences? LOL. The extra parts of what you say (the parts I didn't quote) do not make up the missing information, Straggler, and so their inclusion is irrelevant. But, since you insist:
quote: quote: Red = Parts Changed
Green = Parts Removed Yellow = Parts Added White = Parts w/ no Crucial Changes (#) = Cross Reference Jon writes: Also, are you planning on responding to the other points in my previous post, or just the ones you can twist and contort to fit your perception of what you wish my arguments to be? See Message 206 Yup, looked at it; my question still stands. Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Newton's laws are a standard upon which observation is based. As far as I know, he proposed those standards on theoretical grounds, and then his "limited set of observations" were used to demonstrate the efficacy of his standards. Talk about philosophical just so stories! The efficacy of standards? Basing observations upon standards? Proposing standards on theoretical grounds? Is this how you think scientists go about doing stuff? He didn't just tinker, measure and record results of various experiments and say "I did this 500 times and I got the following results, indicating this is a rule that describes the relationship between Force and Acceleration in general," That would be completely against the practice of science as it occurs every day - right?
When bluegenes proposes a set of standards that we should follow when making observations of supernatural beings, I will agree that he is doing science about supernatural beings as they are defined by his proposed standard Seems straightforward: 1. Is the postulated entity what any normal person would call 'supernatural'/'of the spirit'/'from the dualistic realm'?2. Is there any evidence to suggest this is a real entity? 3. Is there any evidence this entity was made up in someones imagination?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
No problem Jon. I accept your apology for quoting me in half sentences to misrepresent what I said.
Just don't do it again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
No problem Jon. I accept your apology for quoting me in half sentences to misrepresent what I said. Just don't do it again. Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Given that your views on science are both unusual and require further explanation I think they are deserving of a thread of their own. Would you like to start one or shall I?
My guess is that you will shy away from further scrutiny. But y'know you can always prove me wrong and then I will be delighted to take part in that in depth conversation.
Nwr writes: I explained my point in earlier posts. You have completely avoided responding to the important parts. Pfffft. Well then let's have another go.
Nwr writes: A standard is a construct, an invention. Newton was a brilliant inventor. So Newton didn't discover relationships between empirically observed phenomenon he invented them?
Nwr writes: It is F = ma that is the fundamental standard here.If you were to go back to some time before Newton (and before Galileo), you would find that "mass" did not exist as a fundamental concept. Rather, mass and weight were treated as the same. And I think you would find that "force" was an intentional concept, based on human intentions (humans forcing things), and quite different from our modern scientific conception of force. Newton gave us new concepts of mass and force, and his laws set standards for the use of those concepts within science. Newton just dreamt up these concepts without basing any of these "inventions" on the need to describe or explain his observations? Are you serious?
Nwr writes: My wristwatch meets the time standard. It does not meet the time standard because somehow the time standard is derived from observations. Rather, it meet the time standard because I damn well set my watch using that standard. Your wristwatch measures an observed phenomenon (i.e. time) in units that we have all agreed upon.
Nwr writes: A standard is not a description of our observations, it is a method that we follow in order to make those observations. If we followed the method given in the standard, then our observation is made in accordance with the standard. Time would still be an observable phenomenon whether we chose to ascribe it standard units or not. And to say that days, years, months and even hours etc. are not based on splitting natural observed phenomenon (i.e. the passing of day into night etc.) into chunks that the human brain finds manageable and meaningful is just silly.
Is standard time a result of induction, based on observations? The concept of time and it's measurement is based on observation.
Nwr writes: Hell, no. People are still arguing against the use of standard time, at least in rural parts of USA. They wouldn't be arguing against it if it were inductively derived from observations. What the fuck does whether hicksville USA agrees to daylight saving have to do with the fact that time is an observable phenomenon that we can objectively measure and ascribe units to? If you are going to reply to this I suggest you do so in a new thread setup to explore your pet theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
If the IPU is entirely a figment of human imagination, as the theory claims, and if bluegenes has plenty of evidence to support that, then he should be able to provide the specific evidence of the making up of the IPU - the creation of the story on alt.atheist in the usenet archives and so forth. But once again - the theory is not "The IPU is made up". The theory predicts that should the source of the IPU ever become 'known' it will turn out to be 'human imagination'. Bluegenes' theory does not predict that the sources of all supernatural beings is known. Let me turn to rain drops yet again. According to the theory that "All raindrops come from clouds" This rain drop
came from a cloud (picture just for pretty illustration, I realize this drop is likely a splash rather than an actual rain drop). If there is plenty of evidence to support the raindrops come from clouds theory (as meteorologists may reasonably claim), would it be reasonable to demand that a meteorologist provide the evidence that the above pictured raindrop is absolutely and unequivocally from a cloud? I could do the same for Germ Theory and just about any other theory you probably have no problems with. bluegenes did not claim to have 'plenty of evidence' for the thoery "The IPU is made up from the imagination", he claimed to have 'plenty of evidence' for the THEORY we have so often repeated in this thread. This does not mean that the person saying 'I have plenty of evidence to support my theory' must therefore be claiming that he can provide evidence to support every single prediction of the theory. It is not a 'screw up' to say you have 'plenty of evidence' just because you don't have some specific piece of evidence. If bluegenes had claimed "I have complete evidence which proves that..." you'd have a point.
. He had to word the theory in such a way as to not have to produce the making-up forensic evidence for every case, or even only for cases that such evidence should be relatively easy to find, just enough cases to get an induction up and going. No he didn't. Nothing in his theory suggests he has to produce evidence for 'every case'. His theory covers every case (as do all theories), but like all theories - it is developed from a position of incomplete knowledge. bluegenes is definitely not saying "It is an empirically known fact that all supernatural entities are figments of the imagination", as he explicitly says:
quote: You seemed fine (provisionally) to accept the theory that All Chimpanzees and Humans share recent common ancestry. despite the fact that we cannot test Henry VIII in comparison with some specified Chimpanzee that died in 1864 which we will call Ugaka. With bluegenes though, you seem to demand more. If I say I have plenty of evidence to support the common ancestry theory would you jump all over me and say
quote: ? Because it's the kind of nonsense challenge creationists make - and I'd hope you'd avoid doing it. But your line in this thread demands to avoid special pleading you must do this very thing!
He could have admitted, in the 3rd post (after RAZD's OP and the Admin promotion post), "That evidence you seek is unfortunately not available in a rigorous manner, like it is for the FSM. But that does not change the magnitude of the power of the theory." Then things would have proceeded to the next issues. I said it before, I'll say it again. RAZD doesn't get to determine what specific pieces of evidence bluegenes has in order to qualify as having 'plenty of evidence'. This is a core misunderstanding by RAZD and you as to what a theory is, so bluegenes seems to have decided to show that RAZD's IPU challenge is irrelevant.
I don't think that is the case here (RAZD arguing that science is logically invalid) - but, yes, if it were, that would be special pleading. Then save the common ancestry theory, because right now the biologists that seem to be making it are screwing up in the same way bluegenes did! If they aren't screwing up, why is bluegenes screwing up? A failure to resolve the tension between these two positions means that special pleading is going on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: I've always argued that them working is enough. How do you judge what "works" and why do you think some explanations "work" better than others?
CS writes: But I would say that them being proclaimed as the truth is, actually, logically invalid. I don't think anyone here is advocating scientific theories as being the "truth".
CS writes: I don't see how whittling this down to being "more likely to be valid" is an escape from this. I am not sure what you mean "more likely to be valid". I would say that we can describe one explanatory model as likely to be more accurate than another based on things like explanatory and predictive power. Maybe we should take this to here Message 176 as it is all related.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I think we need a new thread. Something like "Inductive Reasoning And Is Science Logical?"
It would cover all the stuff we have ended up discussing here from CS's points about "truth" to Nwr's pet theory. And most importantly the role of inductive reasoning in science as compared to the IF SOME THEN ALL sort of accusations that are being made by RAZ in his little logic exercises. I would write it - But I think Mod would do it better. Mod - How about it?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024