Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,596 Year: 4,853/9,624 Month: 201/427 Week: 11/103 Day: 11/0 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 541 of 1725 (590755)
11-09-2010 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 540 by Straggler
11-09-2010 7:15 PM


How about an old thread

This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 7:15 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 543 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 7:39 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6419
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 542 of 1725 (590760)
11-09-2010 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 534 by Modulous
11-09-2010 5:39 PM


Re: schminductive reasoning
Modulous writes:
Basing observations upon standards? Proposing standards on theoretical grounds? Is this how you think scientists go about doing stuff?
Yes, of course that is how a great deal of science is done.
Modulous writes:
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?
He could not "just tinker, measure and record results" until there were suitable measurement standards to follow.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 534 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2010 5:39 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 543 of 1725 (590762)
11-09-2010 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 541 by Modulous
11-09-2010 7:19 PM


Re: How about an old thread
Mod writes:
How about an old thread
Fair enough.
I have kicked things off (in a continuation sort of way) with Message 159

This message is a reply to:
 Message 541 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2010 7:19 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6419
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 544 of 1725 (590778)
11-09-2010 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 537 by Straggler
11-09-2010 6:14 PM


Re: Invention and Discovery
Straggler writes:
So Newton didn't discover relationships between empirically observed phenomenon he invented them?
Oh, bullshit.
That's not what I said and it's not implied by what I said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 537 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 6:14 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 545 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 8:36 PM nwr has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 545 of 1725 (590787)
11-09-2010 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 544 by nwr
11-09-2010 8:16 PM


Re: Invention and Discovery

This message is a reply to:
 Message 544 by nwr, posted 11-09-2010 8:16 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 546 by nwr, posted 11-09-2010 9:02 PM Straggler has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6419
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 546 of 1725 (590802)
11-09-2010 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 545 by Straggler
11-09-2010 8:36 PM


Re: Invention and Discovery
See Message 166 for my response.
And do try to keep it to one thread.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 545 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 8:36 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 547 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 9:10 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 547 of 1725 (590805)
11-09-2010 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 546 by nwr
11-09-2010 9:02 PM


Re: Invention and Discovery
Surely one of us linking replies to the new (i.e. old but re-invigorated) thread is enough?
If anyone foolish enough to be reading this follows my link they will see your reply to that post.
You don't need to highlight every wisdomic pearl of yours twice Nwr.
Please no replies to this message....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 546 by nwr, posted 11-09-2010 9:02 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 548 of 1725 (590834)
11-10-2010 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 502 by New Cat's Eye
11-08-2010 10:22 PM


Re: Science is pseudoskeptical
I thought one of the big points was that science's conclusions aren't being proposed as the truth. Even with the always accepted amount of tentativety, they still don't go so far as to say that they are, in fact, the correct answers.
bluegenes' theory isn't being proclaimed as the truth - it is tentative. If you argue that it is invalid on these grounds, you are arguing all other scientific theories are invalid on those grounds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 502 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-08-2010 10:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 549 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2010 3:14 PM Modulous has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 549 of 1725 (591866)
11-16-2010 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 548 by Modulous
11-10-2010 3:04 AM


Re: Science is pseudoskeptical
I thought one of the big points was that science's conclusions aren't being proposed as the truth. Even with the always accepted amount of tentativety, they still don't go so far as to say that they are, in fact, the correct answers.
bluegenes' theory isn't being proclaimed as the truth - it is tentative. If you argue that it is invalid on these grounds, you are arguing all other scientific theories are invalid on those grounds.
That's not what I am arguing.
The theory: "All swans are white" is not making a claim that there are no black swans out there.
Right?
Now, let me just re-spell this all out as this was from, like, two weeks ago. My Message 502:
quote:
In your much vaunted logic exercise you say that the Strong Atheist position (as defined by you) i.e. the conclusion that the non-occurrance of this is more likely is a "logically invalid position".
As near as I can tell - RAZD is arguing that science is logically invalid. Since it builds theories and defines facts based on 'some' that state 'all' and suffers from all the problems of induction that RAZD demands science should actually be silent on.
I thought one of the big points was that science's conclusions aren't being proposed as the truth. Even with the always accepted amount of tentativety, they still don't go so far as to say that they are, in fact, the correct answers.
I've always argued that them working is enough. It doesn't matter if they really are real or not.
But I would say that them being proclaimed as the truth is, actually, logically invalid. I don't see how whittling this down to being "more likely to be valid" is an escape from this.
So, someone taking the position that there are no black swans as being more likely to be valid than not, based on the theory that all swans are white, would be taking a logically invalid position, no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 548 by Modulous, posted 11-10-2010 3:04 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 550 by Modulous, posted 11-16-2010 7:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 550 of 1725 (591885)
11-16-2010 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 549 by New Cat's Eye
11-16-2010 3:14 PM


Re: Science is pseudoskeptical
So, someone taking the position that there are no black swans as being more likely to be valid than not, based on the theory that all swans are white, would be taking a logically invalid position, no?
And a forensic expert that uses facts about what has happened in the past to deduce what happened at a crime scene is being logically invalid, by this standard of validity. But they're doing science. So if this action is logically invalid - then we have to be arguing that science is logically invalid. As I said: "RAZD is arguing that science is logically invalid"
So, let's say we agree with RAZD. Why would he be singling out bluegenes' theory for being likewise logically invalid? It's like Dover County putting stickers on books warning about the tentativity of evolution instead of just mentioning the tentativity of scientific conclusions.
It's fine that
That's not what I am arguing.
But it is what I was arguing. You interjected with
quote:
But I would say that them being proclaimed as the truth is, actually, logically invalid.
I simply pointed out that this is true of any scientific theory. Hence why I said "If you argue that it is invalid on these grounds, you are arguing all other scientific theories are invalid on those grounds."
Even with the always accepted amount of tentativety, they still don't go so far as to say that they are, in fact, the correct answers.
Are you suggesting bluegenes has done anything like this? What relevance do you think this has to the bluegenes-RAZD debate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 549 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2010 3:14 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 551 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2010 10:04 AM Modulous has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 551 of 1725 (591948)
11-17-2010 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 550 by Modulous
11-16-2010 7:47 PM


Re: Science is pseudoskeptical
So, someone taking the position that there are no black swans as being more likely to be valid than not, based on the theory that all swans are white, would be taking a logically invalid position, no?
And a forensic expert that uses facts about what has happened in the past to deduce what happened at a crime scene is being logically invalid, by this standard of validity.
Wait... how so?
But they're doing science. So if this action is logically invalid - then we have to be arguing that science is logically invalid. As I said: "RAZD is arguing that science is logically invalid"
I don't think its the same thing. How would, say, finding your fingerprint on a murder weapon be making a logically invalid induction like that of using the theory that all swans are white to conclude that there probably aren't any black swans out there?
So, let's say we agree with RAZD.
I'm still not seeing this as what he's saying. And I'm not agreeing with it if he is.
quote:
But I would say that them being proclaimed as the truth is, actually, logically invalid.
I simply pointed out that this is true of any scientific theory. Hence why I said "If you argue that it is invalid on these grounds, you are arguing all other scientific theories are invalid on those grounds."
I'm not seeing all other scientific theories as making the same logically invalid conclusion.
Even with the always accepted amount of tentativety, they still don't go so far as to say that they are, in fact, the correct answers.
Are you suggesting bluegenes has done anything like this? What relevance do you think this has to the bluegenes-RAZD debate?
Maybe I'm all mixed up here...
I thought the A-1 point was supporting a strong atheist position of there being no god(s). That the theory that all gods come from human imagination suggests that there probably aren't any gods out there. And thus, its a rational evidence supported conclusion as opposed to an opinion.
Do I need to re-read?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 550 by Modulous, posted 11-16-2010 7:47 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 552 by Blue Jay, posted 11-17-2010 10:23 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 553 by Straggler, posted 11-17-2010 10:35 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 554 by Modulous, posted 11-18-2010 5:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 556 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2010 11:38 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2779 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 552 of 1725 (591953)
11-17-2010 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 551 by New Cat's Eye
11-17-2010 10:04 AM


Re: Science is pseudoskeptical
Hi, CS.
Catholic Scientist writes:
How would, say, finding your fingerprint on a murder weapon be making a logically invalid induction like that of using the theory that all swans are white to conclude that there probably aren't any black swans out there?
The theory that fingerprints are unique to individuals leads to the inductive conclusion that all fingerprints of a given conformation come from the same individual (these fingerprints are "white swans"). We can conclude from this that there are no fingerprints of that type that could have come from a different individual (such fingerprints would be "black swans").
Edited by Bluejay, : "could have"

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 551 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2010 10:04 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 553 of 1725 (591958)
11-17-2010 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 551 by New Cat's Eye
11-17-2010 10:04 AM


Re: Science is pseudoskeptical
The only known source of a specific fingerprint is a unique individual.
ALL fingerprints are sourced from unique individuals.
This is a strong theory.
This would be falsified if we invented a configurable fingerprint generating machine or found more than one person with the exact same fingerprints as another.
AbE - And the strength of the fingerprint identity theory is not weakened because somebody happens to hold the baseless but unfalsifiable belief that fingerprints can sometimes magically appear.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 551 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2010 10:04 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 554 of 1725 (592104)
11-18-2010 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 551 by New Cat's Eye
11-17-2010 10:04 AM


From the tongues of parakeets
Wait... how so?
If the forensic scientist stands up in court and says "It is more likely that the wounds on the arm were caused post mortem.", based on the theory that all stragnated* wound patterns are caused post mortem then he would be doing the same thing you said was logically invalid.
I don't think its the same thing. How would, say, finding your fingerprint on a murder weapon be making a logically invalid induction like that of using the theory that all swans are white to conclude that there probably aren't any black swans out there?
When you say 'my fingerprint', you actually mean a pattern of grease marks that correspond to a pattern of skin ridges on the tips of one of my fingers. If the forensic scientist uses the empirically supported theory that
quote:
all greasy patterns that correspond to a given person's skin ridges on a fingertip are caused by said fingertip of said person touching the surface the greasy patters are found on
to conclude, when asked a stupid question by a moronic lawyer, 'it probably wasn't caused by the tongue of a parakeet'.
What should the forensic scientist do when the moronic lawyer demands the forensic scientists unequivocally rules out parakeet tongue manipulation as a source for the greasy patterns?
I thought the A-1 point was supporting a strong atheist position of there being no god(s). That the theory that all gods come from human imagination suggests that there probably aren't any gods out there. And thus, its a rational evidence supported conclusion as opposed to an opinion.
But what has bluegenes' theory done that other theories don't? Or what has his theory not done that other theories do?
I have a theory that every book is written by a human author. This suggests that there probably aren't any non-human authors out there.
I have a theory that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This suggests that there probably aren't any unequal or non-opposing reactions out there.
Is this logically invalid? Does it only apply to bluegenes theory which might be worded "every supernatural creature was created by human imagination. ". Where does bluegenes' theory "go so far as to say that they are, in fact, the correct answers"? There would only be a problem if someone said "Since it is a theory, it is a fact" - which would be clearly problematic. Nobody is saying that because it is predicted by the theory, it is therefore true that there are no gods.
* Made-up word. Wound analysis is complex, so I'm simplifying for sanity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 551 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2010 10:04 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1486 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 555 of 1725 (593232)
11-25-2010 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 491 by Rrhain
11-07-2010 6:50 PM


bluegene's problem
Hi Rrhain, thanks.
I am interested in your process. How did you examine the question and how much effort did you put into it?
Curiously, it is not my process that is in question here, it is the one supposedly used by bluegenes et al who are the ones making the claim that {X} is a product of human imagination. After all he claimed to have lots of evidence to support his concept, yet has provided none so far to show that a single entity is made up.
Of course but again, this is about process. You seem to agree that there is a method by which we can determine that something is fictional in origin. I am interested in knowing where the boundaries lie. By understanding how you come to a conclusion that something is fictional in one case, we can apply those methods to other concepts and see if we come to the same conclusion or whether special pleading is going on.
Exactly, and this is why bluegenes et al need to produce the process and show valid results of it, then use that basis to form an hypothesis and test the hypothesis.
The IPU was proposed for an example of an instance of using the process to reach a valid\logical conclusion. Others could be used instead.
Amusingly, all I see so far is the assumption that a concept is true\valid being used as a basis for making an hypothesis that the concept is true\valid, and this is not the way science is done.
Certainly using a plethora of intentionally made up fictional caricatures does not address the necessary methodology\process in any way shape or form.
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 491 by Rrhain, posted 11-07-2010 6:50 PM Rrhain has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024