Peanut Gallery

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:

---

Bluejay in Message 103 in Verifying Epistemologies:

​

Simultaneous validity of two mutually exclusive conclusions is thus not a problem, so long as the two conclusions are based on different premises.

---

quote:

---

Straggler in Message 506:

​

... that all mutually exclusive conclusions are equally valid was recently put forwards by Bluejay.

---

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?JonEdited by Jon, : indicative ↔ demonstrative

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

Who cares what RAZD is demanding? Why does RAZD get to exclusively decide what form of evidence is allowed? 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? 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? I did. But I this "Bobby Henderson" evidence is utterly irrelevant to demonstrating that the IPU is made-upSee Message 366. Again. And this time don't tell me it is a demonstration that anything cannot exist. Because you agreed with me previously that this was the case. 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.

I suppose that depends on whether you are a Platonist or a nominalist.Your questions already miss the point.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

I suggest that you notice the difference once my full sentence is quoted Jon.

quote:

---

Bluejay in Message 103 in Verifying Epistemologies:

​

"Simultaneous validity of two mutually exclusive conclusions is thus not a problem, so long as the two conclusions are based on different premises".

​

"Second, I think that all lines of reasoning will ultimately trace back to an axiomatic foundation, and that different epistemologies result from different axiomatic foundations."

---

quote:

---

Straggler in Message 506:

​

The belief that all knowledge is deductively derived from internally consistent axioms and that all mutually exclusive conclusions are equally valid was recently put forwards by Bluejay.

---

Can you tell me where the difference is once I am quoted in full rather than half sentences? What parts did I leave out? What parts did I change. Be specific. Says the man who quoted me in a half sentence to mislead. Astonishing. See Message 206Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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.

Here is a newborn rabbit:Redirect NoticeHere is the baby rabbit you have in your hand:Redirect NoticeSlam dunk huh?

I explained my point in earlier posts. You have completely avoided responding to the important parts.

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:

---

Bluejay in Message 103 in Verifying Epistemologies:

​

"(1) Simultaneous validity of two mutually exclusive conclusions is thus not a problem, so long as the two conclusions are based on different premises."

​

"(2) I think that all lines of reasoning will ultimately trace back to an axiomatic foundation"

---

quote:

---

Straggler in Message 7:

​

"The belief that (2) all knowledge is deductively derived from internally consistent axioms and (1) that all mutually exclusive conclusions are equally valid"

---

Red = Parts Changed
Green = Parts Removed
Yellow = Parts Added
White = Parts w/ no Crucial Changes
(#) = Cross Reference Yup, looked at it; my question still stands.Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

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? 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?

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!

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. Pfffft. Well then let's have another go. So Newton didn't discover relationships between empirically observed phenomenon he invented them? Newton just dreamt up these concepts without basing any of these "inventions" on the need to describe or explain his observations?Are you serious? Your wristwatch measures an observed phenomenon (i.e. time) in units that we have all agreed upon. 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. The concept of time and it's measurement is based on observation. 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.

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. 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:

---

Even outside science, in common speech, someone saying "I have a theory that all swans are white" would not expect to be understood as saying "it's a known fact that all swans are white".

---

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:

---

If Henry VIII shares common ancestry with Ugaka, as the theory claims, and if Modulous has plenty of evidence to support that, then he should be able to provide the specific evidence of the common ancestry

---

?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! 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. 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.

How do you judge what "works" and why do you think some explanations "work" better than others? I don't think anyone here is advocating scientific theories as being the "truth". 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.

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?