Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 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 567 of 1725 (593415)
11-26-2010 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 561 by RAZD
11-26-2010 12:27 AM


Re: amusing
In Message 167 on the An Exploration Into"Agnosticism" thread bluegenes asserted:
"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.
Let me crassly recast this structure thusly, as if in a quasi-caricature:
"All English words are composed from an alphabet of 26 letters abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz (upper or lowercase, subscript or superscript) and, of 1473 ("LATE"), the ten numerals 0123456789 (increasingly so in internet jargon)".
This is a high level of confidence theory. The alphabet of the 36 thingies, abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789, is the only known source of English words, just as adult rabbit DNA is the only known source of baby rabbit DNA.
It is falsified by the demonstration of the existence of just one English word not composed from the 26 letters and ten numerals.
It is not falsified by unsupported assertions like "another letter or numeral 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.
For instance, we can demonstrate this for the English word "quark":
We methodically check each letter and easily verify that, yes, sacre' bleu!, the q, the u, the a, the r and the k are all letters taken from the 26 letters and ten numerals allowed in the theory. We do not have to show that there is no way "quark" is not an English word, but rather some strange immaterial word containing some strange invisible letter not allowed by definition right at the get go. We could do that with only 1 cigar and 1 bottle of sherry in the smoking salon after dinner I suppose, unlike the IPU (where I would recommend 6 of each, just for starters). In the end, though, it may be at best a philosophical point and not a conclusive slam dunk. Instead we just point to the q, the u, the a, the r and the k.
We can do this for "onomatopoeia".
We can do this for "pi", because that is the English way to spell it. Not "".
There is plenty of evidence indeed.
We have the easy way right in front of us. I can be with this! (But it can make me at times.)
HOWEVER:
I am now thinking, that for any theory to be a truly strong theory, it must provide something new in its field of endeavor. I am thinking neither of the above boxes adds anything new to the existing body of knowledge.
Indeed, bluegenes may be on to something when he compares his theory with rabbits. No zoologist today would seriously publish a paper claiming that baby rabbit DNA only comes from parent rabbit DNA and claim it is a strong theory.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2010 12:27 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 570 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2010 12:51 PM xongsmith has replied

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


Message 571 of 1725 (593501)
11-27-2010 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 570 by RAZD
11-27-2010 12:51 PM


Re: amusing
RAZD asks:
Ah, but what about the name of the artist formerly known as prince?
Did you miss the 2nd sentence after the yummy pi sentence?
I already shot myself down before anyone else could.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 570 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2010 12:51 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 572 of 1725 (593507)
11-27-2010 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 570 by RAZD
11-27-2010 12:51 PM


Re: amusing
BTW RAZD, you are not groking the ominous import of the HOWEVER part.
Ominous, because I really do agree with bluegenes. Just like I'd go "yep" when shown a picture of a mother rabbit giving birth to a baby rabbit. You were correct to stick the knife in when he faltered in how he phrased his "theory", but, essentially, he has observed that the unclouded daytime sky is blue on planet earth.
I'd have to go with Modulous' dissection of the logic arguments. He has a way of drilling down to the bedrock quickly. Straggler even says the same thing, sort of, if you can shoulder off all the chiffarobes and dining tables and other furniture he throws in with his words like babies in bathwater.
So...we disagree on this. What else is new?

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 570 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2010 12:51 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 574 of 1725 (593509)
11-27-2010 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 573 by Modulous
11-27-2010 2:28 PM


Re: making up stuff?
Modulous states:
I'm in no doubt of that. But bluegenes isn't arguing that supernatural entities do not exist, he's describing a theory that postulates all supernatural concepts are merely concepts. There are many things to discuss there. I submit 'but you can't absolutely rule supernatural entities out' is as absurd as the UFO argument Feynman had.
IF i may be so bold, Feynman did NOT rule out extra terrestrial origins of UFOs - he just said they were way less probable than human delusion....
I think the best way to describe the relative unlikelihood of things is to ask: Does it affect how you behave in this world?
The key Dawkins question could be phrased that way: No. I do not believe in God at the moment, but I allow allow the possibility.
HOWEVER - I am not going to go around living my life as if there was a God.
So no, a plane wont crash into the towers, or, no, a bomb wont go off over Lockerbee, or, no, a meteorite wont crash through my roof and kill me, or, no, all the O2 molecules in this room I'm in wont suddenly all move to the back ceiling corner.
If I live my life under the cloud of all kinds of unlikely things, my life would be so much more of a mess that it is already in!!!
Edited by xongsmith, : goof

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 573 by Modulous, posted 11-27-2010 2:28 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 575 by Modulous, posted 11-27-2010 3:23 PM xongsmith has replied

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


Message 576 of 1725 (593524)
11-27-2010 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 575 by Modulous
11-27-2010 3:23 PM


Re: the vagaries of the human mind
Modulous finds the achilles heel in me:
"I'll be killed by a plane engine in 10 minutes"
Yeah - I cant fly. I have studied Transportation Statistics up the wazoo and kneaux that airplane flight is statistically still the best. BUT...I cannot emotionally get on a plane anymore. Last time was 1967, I think. I have seen nothing since to dissuade me from this affliction. I even was so crass as to comment during the morning of 9/11/01 that I still wasn't seeing any reason to get on a plane. These new TSA pat-downs? Nope. Still not gonna get on a plane.
Wait. A helicopter ride? Hmmm.... seems Timothy McVeigh is up for execution. I am scheduled to go up in a small helicopter. He gets his day postponed. I get my day postponed. He gets another day postponed. I get another day. The suspense is killing me. Who will die first? I have a harrowing trip with a video recorder in my hands and live to tell the tale. Timothy gets executed. All is well.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 575 by Modulous, posted 11-27-2010 3:23 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 578 of 1725 (593545)
11-27-2010 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 577 by Straggler
11-27-2010 5:19 PM


Re: Belief As Evidence
Straggler asks:
Does RAZD consider belief itself to be a form of evidence?
Not sure that he does, but lemme just take a tack on this....
A Million Flies cannot be wrong: EAT SHIT.
A funny taunt of many years.
BUT - when we look underneath all the societal abhorrence, we find that fly larvae eat bacteria to survive and particularly the bacteria found in shit. K-ching, no surprise.
In other words, there may be something underlying all these misinformed, ill-shaped religions sprung up around the world throughout history - there might be some common underlying thread of something that they all were trying to write down, in their own very imperfect ways. Unlikely, true, but not proven wrong. What it is, we cannot say yet. They have all been demonstrated to have polluted versions of what happened.
The tendency of humans to mistake what they see, as in identifying the race of the potential car thief from the same video with different music background or just the myriad of contradictory stories by eye witnesses to the same live event, is a well known phenomenon. In the overwhelming* preponderance of actual examined cases, these all seem to be nothing more than human imagination and world view foisted down upon some event. But there remains, however unlikely, the possibility that something *supernatural* is woven into the explanation of all of these seemingly contradictory stories. It is as if, to use the Ace of Spades analogy, "OK - we still have yet to draw the Ace of Spades, whatever it looks like, and I am certain I will know it if we see it - but there are still cards we haven't seen yet." (Or as I would like to word it, "a card that does not belong in the deck." Because, through the history of scientific work, there have been cards that at first did not look like they belonged in the deck - only to later be recognized as part of the deck as we now understand it.)
That mysterious card could be there, however unlikely by now. But as long as there are still some cards in the deck we haven't seen, it could still be there. Well, maybe a few cigars & bottles of Sherry later, we could argue that, in order for this supernatural card to be possible somewhere in the deck, it would have to have Properties X, Y ... Z. And furthermore, on analysis from the other side, that it could NOT have properties A, B ... C. Then, moving on to the Deck of Reality, our deck in question, develop some kind of logical procedure to show that any card in our deck would have to have at least one of the properties A, B ... C and maybe also could not have any of the properties X, Y ... Z. Thus we are able to conclude: Therefore this card aint in the deck. That's a lot of Sherry later, methinks.
A could be Repeatability - anybody anywhere should be able to see this card. So a card that can only be seen once by one person cannot be in this deck.
B could be something else, and C and so on.
X could be a blatant violation of the Laws of Physics......
etc.
* was going to say 100%, but this would allow for those instances where the investigators in question just gave up and went on to other things or died before they finished the study, leaving the issue FORGOTTEN & unresolved - a truly minuscule portion...

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by Straggler, posted 11-27-2010 5:19 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 579 by Straggler, posted 11-27-2010 6:26 PM xongsmith has not replied
 Message 580 by Coyote, posted 11-27-2010 6:56 PM xongsmith has replied
 Message 581 by Straggler, posted 11-27-2010 8:44 PM xongsmith has replied

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


(1)
Message 582 of 1725 (593596)
11-27-2010 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 580 by Coyote
11-27-2010 6:56 PM


Re: Belief As Evidence
Coyote chips in with:
OK, here is the scenario:
It is discovered that there is a universal energy field with which some folks can communicate. Enough evidence accumulates so that science accepts the existence of this field and learns to communicate with it, although haltingly at first. It develops that all the world's religions are descended from poor efforts on the part of various people over the years to communicate with this field, and that those religions have no particular relationship with this energy field.
Nice scenario. And only some humans, not all, can use this energy field. A good chance for some serious carnage!
Now, how many folks change their beliefs on the basis of this new evidence?
A number > 0. Perhaps >> 0.
Do all the world's religions fold overnight while folks change to attempting to communicate with this new energy field?
Or do those religions label this as heresy, blasphemy, etc. and things go on as usual?
Yes. And even more. Is a "world religion" definable as a religion that has at least one person who believes it in the sunlight at all times of the earth's rotation?
No "world religion" folds, nothing there goes on as usual. Many people die from vigilante stupidity. The Founders of the New Telepathic Religion eventually pass into history and their ashes are strewn in orbit around the moon. An underground movement springs up advancing the blasphemous agenda of buying nothing on Telepath Day. Secret underground bootlegs of missing Star Trek episodes describing the New Telepathic Oracles are exchanged in parking lots at night. "Who is Gary Lockwood?" is scrawled on nearly every graffiti wall. Meanwhile, in New York, the Fortune 500 CEOs, who have long since undergone a gradual, peaceful transformation to be completely comprised of Telepathic Ones by now, continue to run the established machinery as usual at the expense of the rest of the world.
Or not.
Food for thought when one tries to make belief into evidence.
I don't think the gist of that "Hindu Hypothesis" angle has been properly cast in scientific light. Perhaps it cannot be.
Think of the 4 blind guys reporting on what an elephant is. One has only touched the trunk, one the ear, one the leg and the last the tail. They have 4 different beliefs of what the evidence for an elephant is. And these 4 beliefs are contradictory with each other, like a bluegenes-type referee would be arguing. A bluegenes-type referee might make the claim that the elephant probably doesn't exist at all because of these contradictions. This is a 2-dimensional analog of a 3-dimensional world. Flatlanders cannot understand how a 3-d alien picks up an object in a room and puts it back down outside the room. Note that NONE of the 4 beliefs of the evidence for an elephant is correct. None of the beliefs themselves can be used by themselves as evidence of the elephant. They have to be understood taken all together. The truth turns out to be nothing at all similar to what they thought.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 580 by Coyote, posted 11-27-2010 6:56 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 583 by Coyote, posted 11-27-2010 11:50 PM xongsmith has not replied
 Message 610 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2010 9:55 PM xongsmith has not replied

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


Message 584 of 1725 (593598)
11-27-2010 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 581 by Straggler
11-27-2010 8:44 PM


Re: Belief As Evidence
Straggler asks:
Do I really need to point out the problem with this?
No. Existing documents indeed are hardly distinguishable from figments of human imagination. They are written down.
But I think there is a misunderstanding of how these existing documents are to be used for gathering evidence. They are as the 4 reports from the blind men on what an elephant is. What if the 4 blind guys return to their same exact stations beside the elephant and each takes a biopsy of the organic material and does a DNA test. Imagine their surprise to find that it is the exact same DNA!
In the elephant story, DNA analysis is not available as a technology yet. This might be the case for the "whatever it is that most religions around the world have each made a description of". In fact it is the case. By definition almost directly. The equivalent of DNA analysis on these various supernatural entities will NEVER be available. As an old college buddy, John McMeans, said, "Analogies never work."
It all gets back to what you do in your life with all these different unlikelihoods. The bluegenes-type referee (see reply to Coyote) might proceed to walk through the African svelte as if their were no elephants. A RAZD-type referee might be still trying to figure out what an elephant is from the 4 stories, but hold out for something weird and marvelous that no one in the North American continent has seen yet, since this would obviously be before elephants became known to the western world.
(Parenthetically, a bluegenes-type referee would most likely proceed through life as if there was no such thing as an IPU. The RAZD-type referee will also most probably do the same thing.)

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 581 by Straggler, posted 11-27-2010 8:44 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 585 by xongsmith, posted 11-28-2010 1:13 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied
 Message 587 by Straggler, posted 11-28-2010 6:30 AM xongsmith has replied

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


Message 585 of 1725 (593599)
11-28-2010 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 584 by xongsmith
11-27-2010 11:58 PM


update
bluegenes has now posted at the end of Message 53:
If you want logical constructs, examine this:
1) Human beings can and do invent supernatural beings.
2) The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural-being-concepts known to science.
Tentative conclusion or Theory: All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination.
I think the problem in this Debate is that RAZD will not accept (2) without additional evidence. First, his current line of "existing documents" of supernatural-being-concepts being useful in some as yet unknown future explanation, like the elephant's blind men, is potentially evidence of something that would fall outside of the realm of things purely concocted by human imagination. The problem with that is that it is not a known source yet. Second, even certain humanly imagined entities that we all agree are fictional are still not known to science in a rigorous way that would be upheld by the scientific community in peer-reviewed journals.
Now, for me, it is True that every thorough scientific investigation brought to bear upon a possible supernatural-being-concept that has been performed to date has resulted in the inescapable conclusion that the issue was a figment of human imagination.
And it would be silly to waste government money investigation every single such entity.
HOWEVER:
I am STILL thinking, that for any theory to be a truly strong theory, it must provide something new in its field of endeavor. I am thinking the above box of bluegenes statements still adds nothing new to the existing body of knowledge.
Again, bluegenes may be on to something when he compares his theory with rabbits. No zoologist today would seriously publish a paper claiming that baby rabbit DNA only comes from parent rabbit DNA and claim it is a strong theory.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 584 by xongsmith, posted 11-27-2010 11:58 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 586 by Coyote, posted 11-28-2010 1:32 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 588 of 1725 (593660)
11-28-2010 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 587 by Straggler
11-28-2010 6:30 AM


Re: Belief As Evidence
Straggler asks:
A "Bluegenes-type referee" would seek confirmation that each of the blind men had actually experienced something real rather than imagined. Even if putting the tangible pieces together and coming up with "elephant" has not yet been achieved it should be possible to confirm that the actual pieces exist shouldn't it?
Ah, as my friend said, analogies never work, and this is the part of the analogy that doesn't work. I'm not sure how to change the analogy. Later in this thread I did bring up taking a DNA sample, which cannot be done for any of these "world religions".
Once again belief is being cited as a form of evidence albeit in a convoluted manner.
But it is not the specific description of the belief that is being cited as a form of evidence for each of these. I agree that this is a very weak argument and has all of the earmarks of grasping at straws, but I was just trying to explain a RAZD-type of point of view that there may existing documentation of *something* that later on, under the lens of rigorous scientific investigation, will turn out not be wholly a figment of human imagination.
Currently I am not going to go through life behaving as if this will indeed turn out to be the case, but I can understand that there are many people who behave as if it was possible.
A "Bluegenes-type referee" would seek confirmation that each of the blind men had actually experienced something real rather than imagined.
I am thinking now that all the bluegenes-type referee has to go on, as the story is presented to us, is the subjective testimony of each blind man. He could seek confirmation how? By investigating the matter further. So, until the matter has been investigated further, any conclusion of what an elephant is, or if it even exists, will have to WAIT. It is not time yet to announce a "theory" about the elephant. Wouldn't this be the line of argument a RAZD-type referee would take? The bluegenes-type referee will jump up and down and complain that it has been investigated plenty enough already and have a good point.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 587 by Straggler, posted 11-28-2010 6:30 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 589 by Straggler, posted 11-28-2010 1:16 PM xongsmith has replied

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


Message 593 of 1725 (593683)
11-28-2010 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 589 by Straggler
11-28-2010 1:16 PM


Re: Belief As Evidence
Straggler again, with the chiffarobes & bedsprings:
your analogy amounts to nothing more than saying that if people believe something, it is more likely to be true than if nobody believes in it.
Just what do you mean by "it"?
Do you not understand that each belief of all of these worldly religions is already false on arrival, but they are all possibly on to something we cant say yet?
Just what do you mean by "it"?
Edited by xongsmith, : Upsidedown 'n'

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 589 by Straggler, posted 11-28-2010 1:16 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 602 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2010 12:53 PM xongsmith has not replied

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


Message 596 of 1725 (593745)
11-29-2010 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 589 by Straggler
11-28-2010 1:16 PM


Re: Evidence as Belief
Straggler writes:
Question: Why should experiences attributed by humans to supernatural causes be considered as evidence of the actual existence of supernatural entities rather than evidence of fluctuations in the matrix (for example)?
This is not a rhetorical question.
Indeed, why should they? Why not the matrix?
If it comes to light that we are all in this matrix, fluctuations in the matrix would falsify bluegenes' theory, wouldn't they? IF there is a real matrix, then the source is not human imagination. Machine imagination?
Modulous also brought up another concept which moves the source from imagination to defective sensor equipment developed over the years of evolution that tend to give a built-in tendency to see what aint there. He added that this is just a semantical issue that can be tidied up in a reconstruction of bluegenes' statements. Which would mean tidying up is in order.
Straggler writes:
X writes:
I am thinking now that all the bluegenes-type referee has to go on, as the story is presented to us, is the subjective testimony of each blind man.
Subjective evidence? In a thread about the existence of deities? No Xongsmith. This has been ruled out by RAZD in no uncertain terms. Message 450
Hey, we aren't still under RAZDbot's Rules of Order here, are we?
In the story, which I've already admitted is a bad analogy, the referee gets to hear only what each blind says they detected. The referee does not have any other evidence. Yes, I guess the story does presuppose the existence of something that the local village people around have termed an "elephant", so again, the analogy doesn't work.
Getting back to the issue, you write:
But ALL of the evidence indicates that commonality of human psychology is the reason for any commonality of experience and none of the evidence suggests anything else.
You and I and bluegenes and Modulous and many others here are in this camp. I might want to rephrase it:
ALL of the hard scientific evidence known to date indicates that commonality of human psychology is the only reason for any commonality of experiences labeled by humans as "supernatural" and none of the evidence suggests anything else.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 589 by Straggler, posted 11-28-2010 1:16 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 603 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2010 1:02 PM xongsmith has not replied

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


Message 607 of 1725 (593793)
11-29-2010 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 600 by Straggler
11-29-2010 12:48 PM


Re: Stuck on falsifiability
Straggler writes:
A single supernatural concept the source of which can be traced back to somewhere other than human imagination will suffice.
...well this should be qualified so that the recent studies showing how the Red Sea could have naturally parted and that this made have been inflated up to the Moses story level of supernaturalness are not what bluegenes is talking about. In all likelihood *most* of the myths and entities probably originated from a natural event of some kind that was then exaggerated beyond belief, so to speak .

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 600 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2010 12:48 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 608 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2010 2:25 PM xongsmith has not replied

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


Message 640 of 1725 (594186)
12-02-2010 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 637 by Straggler
12-02-2010 12:12 PM


Re: I got it!
Straggler writes:
Bluejay writes:
You could start with something along the lines of: "Human concepts about what supernature is are figments of human imagination." It still needs some work, though.
Yes that is exactly the sort of clumsy and unedifying sentence that I was coming up with.
Yes - agree. However, again (and as CS has quickly nuanced), what is new here? It's like, I mean - "So what?"
Well, the predictive power of this theory is that when we bring the hard, cold fist of scientific investigation to bear upon the concept, we will always find that the evidence shows it was made up by human imagination (or HILF, that's Highly Intelligent Life Form and not some variant of MILF, if you will).
I am again reminded of a short short story I read in Analog or Azimov magazine zillions of eons ago about the Shroud of Turin. This was before the actual scientific investigation occurred. After much hemming and hawing, the church officials decide to let a scientific investigation of the Shroud commence to determine if the blood stains are human and are about 2000 years old. The scientist returns later with basically a "Good News/Bads News" ending. The good news for the Church is that the blood is human and the dating of the blood is very close 2000 years old, within the error brackets! All the careful study they have taken to verify the legendary Shroud's care and it's resting place through thousands of years has proven to be a mission well done. So they ask what the bad news is and the scientist reveals that the blood contained very strong concentrations of chemical indicators that the particular human being that belonged to that blood sample was very deranged and afflicted with a mental disease of the sort that manifests itself often as someone proclaiming to be a god.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 637 by Straggler, posted 12-02-2010 12:12 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 642 by Straggler, posted 12-02-2010 2:12 PM xongsmith has replied

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


Message 643 of 1725 (594202)
12-02-2010 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 641 by Straggler
12-02-2010 2:10 PM


Re: I got it!
Straggler writes:
Think of bluegenes theory (and the evidence on which it is founded) in terms of answering the following question: Why do humans believe in supernatural beings?
It is not in the province of Science to answer WHY shit happens.
Science merely DESCRIBES how it happens.
Even the so-called "soft" science, Psychology, might use the word "why" as a shorthand for an indeed Stragglersque lengthly paragraph or 6 for the descriptive nature of what humans may be doing in their heads for the issue of the moment. Explanatory? Yes. Why? No.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 641 by Straggler, posted 12-02-2010 2:10 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 645 by Straggler, posted 12-03-2010 8:25 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied
 Message 648 by Jon, posted 12-03-2010 11:09 AM xongsmith 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