Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,565 Year: 4,822/9,624 Month: 170/427 Week: 83/85 Day: 0/20 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
Straggler
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 616 of 1725 (593927)
11-30-2010 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 614 by Blue Jay
11-30-2010 11:54 AM


Re: Stuck on falsifiability
Bluejay writes:
This is the statement of the theory:
All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
This is a high level of confidence theory.
You don't believe that this statement is explicitly about supernature?
No I do not consider this to be explicitly about supernature rather than supernatural concepts. Because I have actually read the thread in question. Because I have read the posts where bluegenes makes it abundantly clear what he is using the term supernatural beings as a shorthand for the rather clumsy (to quote bluegenes himself) supernatural being concepts.
Bluegenes: "If you're arguing that I should have used the awkward phrase "supernatural being concepts", which I think I have used in earlier posts, then I think you're being pedantic." Message 48
Bluegenes: "In the real world, I presented not only evidence, but essential proof that human beings can and do make up supernatural beings. Strictly speaking, and more correctly but clumsily phrased, "supernatural beings- concepts". Message 57
If you don’t understand the difference between a theory seeking to explain the indisputable fact that supernatural concepts and human belief in such things exist, with a theory that explicitly denies the existence of supernatural entities then it is no wonder you are so confused and getting so pissed off with me.
But this is your failing of comprehension. Not mine.
Bluejay writes:
This is a positive claim about what supernatural entities are.
No. It is a positive claim about the existence of supernatural concepts and a positively evidenced theory about the origin of such concepts.
Bluejay writes:
How is this not explicitly about supernature?
Read the thread. Read it and see for yourself and then tell me that he is not talking about the origins and source of "supernatural being concepts" rather than he stupid strawman you have concocted and are objecting to.
Bluejay writes:
All you really have to do is switch to Modulous's view of Bluegenes' theory: i.e., that some individual god-concepts are falsifiable.
Some "supernatural being concepts" are effectively falsifiable and some have been designed to be very unfalsifiable. Unless one is obsessed with proof and disproof the fact that we can conjure up unfalsifiable alternatives to any positively evidenced naturalistic explanation is of very little consequence.
Hence the justifiable comparisons with omphalism which you find so irriatating.
Bluejay writes:
But, my experience with you on this topic suggests to me that you will instead doggedly persist in your same vane of argumentation and make stupid statements about me demanding proof and disproof.
And my expereience of you on this topic is that this is exactly what you are doing. Despite your current protestations.
Bluejay writes:
Now, you could still conclude that supernaturalism is the only explanation, but only if you are able to reject all alternatives, and able to ascertain that no natural alternatives beyond those tested remain. This, essentially, amounts to absolute proof. Message 351
ALL superpowered superheros are figments of human imagination. This is a strong theory. The only know source of superpowered superhero concepts is the human imagination.
Would you apply the same standards of falsification to this as you are demanding of bluegenes theory? Would you demand that we indisputably prove that no man, woman or child on this planet is in possession of the ability to fly or turn invisible or whatever as the only method of falsifying this theory?
Or can we justifiably (but tentatively) conclude based on the positive evidence that ALL superpowered superhero concepts are figments of the human imagination?
Edited by Straggler, : Fix links

This message is a reply to:
 Message 614 by Blue Jay, posted 11-30-2010 11:54 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 617 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2010 1:10 PM Straggler has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 617 of 1725 (593930)
11-30-2010 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 616 by Straggler
11-30-2010 12:45 PM


ALL superpowered superheros are figments of human imagination. This is a strong theory. The only know source of superpowered superhero concepts is the human imagination.
Would you apply the same standards of falsification to this as you are demanding of bluegenes theory? Would you demand that we indisputably prove that no man, woman or child on this planet is in possession of the ability to fly or turn invisible or whatever as the only method of falsifying this theory?
Or can we justifiably (but tentatively) conclude based on the positive evidence that ALL superpowered superhero concepts are figments of the human imagination?
Nope, not with this one. You can be confident that they are (and be wrong), but you can't really determine the likelihood and/or make that conclusion. There's insufficient evidence here.
Sure, for mundane things like gravity operating, our confidence can be so high that it is simply unreasonable to consider it unlikely to stop.
But it doesn't matter how many people you show that can't fly or can't turn invisible, you're still not showing that there aren't any superpowered superheroes. Just like all the observed swans being white isn't saying that there isn't a black one out there.
Without evidence to the contrary, you can be confident in your theory that they are all figments of the human imagination, and as long as its working then bravo, but you're not actually having an impact on the liklihood of a superpowered superhero existing. Your inductive probability may make it seem like you are, but that is not rational.
With all the unseen evidence that will presumably come to light, I don't think its reasonable to be so confident as to consider most likely these theories that don't follow from actual evidence but instead rely on inductive probability.
You never know when you're going to be shown to be wrong, here's a list of people with superpowers:
Page Not Found

This message is a reply to:
 Message 616 by Straggler, posted 11-30-2010 12:45 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 618 by Straggler, posted 11-30-2010 1:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 620 by Panda, posted 11-30-2010 2:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 618 of 1725 (593931)
11-30-2010 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 617 by New Cat's Eye
11-30-2010 1:10 PM


So if I told you I had super healing powers and could regenerate limbs (or whatever other superpower you want to name) you would be agnostic about that?
You wouldn't think that the phrase "Very unlikely" would be an evidentially and rationally justifiable response to such a claim?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 617 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2010 1:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 619 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2010 1:28 PM Straggler has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 619 of 1725 (593933)
11-30-2010 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 618 by Straggler
11-30-2010 1:15 PM


So if I told you I had super healing powers and could regenerate limbs (or whatever other superpower you want to name) you would be agnostic about that?
No -ish(gnostic is about knowledge and has no place here but I think I get what you're asking, but then, gawsh what a stupid question!)
You wouldn't think that the phrase "Very unlikely" would be an evidentially and rationally justifiable response to such a claim?
No, it would be. You're talking about something else...
I'm talking about claims about ALL-things with generalities. Like "All superpowers are figments of imagination". Something specific like "I can fart rainbows" is different. It has better evidence against it and doesn't require inductive probability.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 618 by Straggler, posted 11-30-2010 1:15 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 625 by Straggler, posted 12-01-2010 6:01 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3789 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 620 of 1725 (593935)
11-30-2010 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 617 by New Cat's Eye
11-30-2010 1:10 PM


CS writes:
Sure, for mundane things like gravity operating, our confidence can be so high that it is simply unreasonable to consider it unlikely to stop.
So, we observe gravity operating (in a consistant manner) in the past and inductively reason that it will continue to operate (in a consistant manner) in the future.
Sounds reasonable.
CS writes:
But it doesn't matter how many people you show that can't fly or can't turn invisible, you're still not showing that there aren't any superpowered superheroes.
No, but we can observe that we have only ever seen a superhero in comics and reason that they only exist in comics.
And since comics are the product of human imagination: superheroes are the product of human imagination.
CS writes:
Just like all the observed swans being white isn't saying that there isn't a black one out there.
Correct. The observation isn't saying anything.
It is the observer that is saying that all swans are white.
That is how how hypotheses are made.
CS writes:
With all the unseen evidence that will presumably come to light, I don't think its reasonable to be so confident as to consider most likely these theories that don't follow from actual evidence but instead rely on inductive probability.
Inductive reasoning does follow actual evidence.
We makes observations and inductive reasoning allows us to predict (tentatively) future behaviour/events.
That prediction is called a hypothesis because it is not a fact.
If it was a fact: we would call it a fact.
CS writes:
You never know when you're going to be shown to be wrong, here's a list of people with superpowers:
That is called 'falsification'.
'Falsifiability' is considered essential to any worthwhile hypothesis.
Why do you think that hypotheses cannot be shown to be wrong?
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 617 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2010 1:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 621 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2010 2:30 PM Panda has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 621 of 1725 (593937)
11-30-2010 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 620 by Panda
11-30-2010 2:07 PM


So, we observe gravity operating (in a consistant manner) in the past and inductively reason that it will continue to operate (in a consistant manner) in the future.
Sounds reasonable.
Actually, that there doesn't sound all that reasonable to me. There's a lot more to it to conclude that gravity will continue to operate in a consistant manner than simply the observation that it has in the past.
No, but we can observe that we have only ever seen a superhero in comics and reason that they only exist in comics.
And since comics are the product of human imagination: superheroes are the product of human imagination.
Pssh Your observation is, like, totally wrong:
Correct. The observation isn't saying anything.
It is the observer that is saying that all swans are white.
That is how how hypotheses are made.
How shallow and pedantic...
Besides, I didn't actually say the observation said anything:
quote:
Just like all the observed swans being white isn't saying that there isn't a black one out there.
With all the unseen evidence that will presumably come to light, I don't think its reasonable to be so confident as to consider most likely these theories that don't follow from actual evidence but instead rely on inductive probability.
Inductive reasoning does follow actual evidence.
We makes observations and inductive reasoning allows us to predict (tentatively) future behaviour/events.
That prediction is called a hypothesis because it is not a fact.
If it was a fact: we would call it a fact.
What does that have to do with what I actually said?
I was typing about theories that don't follow from actual evidence but instead rely on inductive probability. And not all inductive reasoning has to follow from actual evidence.
That is called 'falsification'.
'Falsifiability' is considered essential to any worthwhile hypothesis.
Oh what possibly could you be talking about!?
Why do you think that hypotheses cannot be shown to be wrong?
What the hell are you going on about? How could you even think that I think that from the words that I actually typed?
I'd appreciate it if you put effort into understanding what I'm actually trying to say rather than simply trying to shoehorn faults into my position to disagree with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 620 by Panda, posted 11-30-2010 2:07 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 622 by Panda, posted 11-30-2010 5:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3789 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 622 of 1725 (593967)
11-30-2010 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 621 by New Cat's Eye
11-30-2010 2:30 PM


CS writes:
Actually, that there doesn't sound all that reasonable to me. There's a lot more to it to conclude that gravity will continue to operate in a consistant manner than simply the observation that it has in the past.
What would that "a lot more to it" be?
How are else are you predicting the future behaviour of gravity if not using its past behaviour?
CS writes:
Panda writes:
No, but we can observe that we have only ever seen a superhero in comics and reason that they only exist in comics.
And since comics are the product of human imagination: superheroes are the product of human imagination.
Pssh Your observation is, like, totally wrong:
No. My observation was like totally correct.
My observation was correct - my reasoning was sound.
Your link to more information does not retroactively invalidate my observation.
Again you seem to think that hypotheses are statements of 'truth' or 'fact'.
I suggest you look up 'falsification' - it will help you understand.
CS writes:
How shallow and pedantic...
I was not being shallow or pedantic.
I'd appreciate it if you put effort into understanding what I'm actually trying to say rather than simply trying to shoehorn faults into my position to disagree with.
Your sentence was a mess:
quote:
Just like all the observed swans being white isn't saying that there isn't a black one out there.
"All the observed swans being white" is the observation.
"there isn't a black one out there." is the hypothesis.
Observations say nothing about hypotheses - hypotheses talk about observations.
When you learn the correct order of the scientific method it will all become clear.
CS writes:
I was typing about theories that don't follow from actual evidence but instead rely on inductive probability. And not all inductive reasoning has to follow from actual evidence.
I infer from your repeated use of the word 'actual' (which would normally be superfluous) that you wish to equivocate over the meaning of 'evidence'.
To mitigate this: please describe what you consider to be 'actual evidence' and what you consider to not be 'actual evidence'?
CS writes:
Panda writes:
Why do you think that hypotheses cannot be shown to be wrong?
What the hell are you going on about? How could you even think that I think that from the words that I actually typed?
Well, your comment regarding your ignorance of falsification is one reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 621 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2010 2:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 623 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2010 10:58 PM Panda has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 623 of 1725 (593984)
11-30-2010 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 622 by Panda
11-30-2010 5:46 PM


What would that "a lot more to it" be?
How are else are you predicting the future behaviour of gravity if not using its past behaviour?
Math. Lots of math. More theory. More observations. Then more math.
It didn't go: Hey look, the apple fell from the tree, ergo universal gravitational constant.
No. My observation was like totally correct.
My observation was correct - my reasoning was sound.
Your link to more information does not retroactively invalidate my observation.
Oh. Yeah, we can totally close our eyes to everything else and then inductively conclude all kinds of terribly wrong shit. Obviously, there's a lot more to science than just that.
Again you seem to think that hypotheses are statements of 'truth' or 'fact'.
I suggest you look up 'falsification' - it will help you understand.
I was not being shallow or pedantic.
I'd appreciate it if you put effort into understanding what I'm actually trying to say rather than simply trying to shoehorn faults into my position to disagree with.
Your sentence was a mess:
quote:
Just like all the observed swans being white isn't saying that there isn't a black one out there.
"All the observed swans being white" is the observation.
"there isn't a black one out there." is the hypothesis.
Observations say nothing about hypotheses - hypotheses talk about observations.
Ugh. Semantic irrelevancies
When you learn the correct order of the scientific method it will all become clear.
Oh thank you, oh wise Dr. Pedantry.
Let me know when you're interested in what my point on this topic really is and then we'll go from there.
I infer from your repeated use of the word 'actual' (which would normally be superfluous) that you wish to equivocate over the meaning of 'evidence'.
I was paraphrasing you. My god! Have you never debated on a forum before?.. wait. No, I get it. I'm totally being trolled, aren't I? Bravo sir, you really got me. I thought you were serious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 622 by Panda, posted 11-30-2010 5:46 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 624 by Panda, posted 12-01-2010 5:51 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3789 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 624 of 1725 (594005)
12-01-2010 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 623 by New Cat's Eye
11-30-2010 10:58 PM


You seem more interested in trolling than debating.
I'll leave you to it.
{abe}
And congratualtions on squeezing so much equivocation into so few words.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 623 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2010 10:58 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 625 of 1725 (594006)
12-01-2010 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 619 by New Cat's Eye
11-30-2010 1:28 PM


CS writes:
No -ish(gnostic is about knowledge and has no place here but I think I get what you're asking, but then, gawsh what a stupid question!)
Why is it any more stupid a question than asking whether or not there is an ethereal being who imbues you with original sin and then sends down his son who is himself to pay for those sins by dying on a cross so that you won''t have to pay for the sins you never committed if you choose to accept the sinful nature with which you were originally imbued? Frankly super healing powers sound almost mundanely plausible as compared to that drivel.
CS writes:
I'm talking about claims about ALL-things with generalities. Like "All superpowers are figments of imagination".
By the terms of your examples Usain Bolt has superpowers. But this isn't exactly Superman, Spider-man or The Flash is it?
I showed my son (AKA the Spectacular Spider-Kid) a couple of your examples of "superpowers". If I could post the disdainful look of a four year old in response to your "point" I would. As it is I will settle for quoting him word for word. "That isn't superhero. That is just a little bit rubbish".
Nuff said!! (as they say in comic book parlance)
CS writes:
Something specific like "I can fart rainbows" is different. It has better evidence against it and doesn't require inductive probability.
Unless you are inductively concluding that the laws of nature at the point I start farting will be consistent with those that have persisted up until now how can you know this?
And are you absolutely 100% philsophically certain that I cannot fart rainbows? And in the absence of certainty what is left but statements of relative likelihood? Based on all of the evidence available isn't it relatively likely that such abilities are plucked from human imagination rather than things that actually exist?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 619 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2010 1:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 626 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-01-2010 10:14 AM Straggler has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 626 of 1725 (594027)
12-01-2010 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 625 by Straggler
12-01-2010 6:01 AM


CS writes:
Something specific like "I can fart rainbows" is different. It has better evidence against it and doesn't require inductive probability.
Unless you are inductively concluding that the laws of nature at the point I start farting will be consistent with those that have persisted up until now how can you know this?
And are you absolutely 100% philsophically certain that I cannot fart rainbows? And in the absence of certainty what is left but statements of relative likelihood? Based on all of the evidence available isn't it relatively likely that such abilities are plucked from human imagination rather than things that actually exist?
Well first let me ask: How many light bulbs did you cram up your ass?
Lemme break it down...
1) You can fart rainbows.
2) All superpowers are figments of imagination.
For 1), I know you can't fart rainbows because farts are made of gas and not light. We could find the physical evidence that you are unable to do it.
For 2), you'd take that we know people can imagine these things and that we don't have evidence of (genuine) superpowers, and then use inductive probability to say that the liklihood of a superpower not being from imagination is very low and then conclude the claim.
I'd say that you can use what you know to raise your confidence in 2), but that the inductive probability doesn't actually give you a real liklihood and that you shouldn't make a conclusion based on it.
Or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 625 by Straggler, posted 12-01-2010 6:01 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 627 by Straggler, posted 12-01-2010 2:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 627 of 1725 (594068)
12-01-2010 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 626 by New Cat's Eye
12-01-2010 10:14 AM


Uniformity of Nature
CS writes:
We could find the physical evidence that you are unable to do it.
Right.
In which case you are basing your answer on the inductively derived conclusion that the laws of nature will continue to operate as thus far experienced. Hume called this the Principle of Uniformity of Nature.
This is necessarily inductive.
CS writes:
I'd say that you can use what you know to raise your confidence in 2), but that the inductive probability doesn't actually give you a real liklihood and that you shouldn't make a conclusion based on it.
Everytime you make a conclusion based on the uniformity of nature you are applying inductive reasoning.
In the absence of certainty how would you suggest we express our rational confidence in such conclusions without invoking likelihood?
This is not a rhetorical question. In fact I have asked you in numerous threads previously what you think lies between absolute certainty and absolute agnosticism and have never yet received an answer from you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 626 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-01-2010 10:14 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 628 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-01-2010 2:52 PM Straggler has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 628 of 1725 (594072)
12-01-2010 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 627 by Straggler
12-01-2010 2:32 PM


Re: Uniformity of Nature
CS writes:
We could find the physical evidence that you are unable to do it.
Right.
In which case you are basing your answer on the inductively derived conclusion that the laws of nature will continue to operate as thus far experienced.
Not necessarily. It could just be an axiom.
In the absence of certainty how would you suggest we express our rational confidence in such conclusions without invoking likelihood?
I don't mind invoking liklihoods or calling it that.
What I think is irrational, is making a conclusion based on a liklihood that came from an inductive probability.
Like the argument that people can make up gods and none have been observed so its more likly that they are made up ergo gods don't exist.
This is not a rhetorical question. In fact I have asked you in numerous threads previously what you think lies between absolute certainty and absolute agnosticism and have never yet received an answer from you.
Beliefs with varying degrees of confidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 627 by Straggler, posted 12-01-2010 2:32 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 629 by Straggler, posted 12-01-2010 3:08 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 629 of 1725 (594076)
12-01-2010 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 628 by New Cat's Eye
12-01-2010 2:52 PM


Re: Uniformity of Nature
CS writes:
Straggler writes:
In which case you are basing your answer on the inductively derived conclusion that the laws of nature will continue to operate as thus far experienced.
Not necessarily. It could just be an axiom.
An axiom derived from what?
And if your answer to this is "nothing" (or functionally equivalent to "nothing") how is that different to a blind random guess?
CS writes:
Like the argument that people can make up gods and none have been observed so its more likely that they are made up ergo gods don't exist.
That isn't exactly bluegenes argument. Nor mine. If you want to talk about the positively evidenced naturalistic explanation for human belief in gods based on the only known source of such concepts then let's do that. But please don't make up shit on my behalf.
Question: Scientifically speaking - What is the cause of human belief in supernatural beings?
Straggler writes:
In the absence of certainty how would you suggest we express our rational confidence in such conclusions without invoking likelihood?
CS writes:
Beliefs with varying degrees of confidence.
But I am not asking you about personal beliefs or subjective degrees of confidence.
I am asking you what the evidenced and rational conclusion is (let us call this the "scientific conclusion" for shorthand) regarding me having the superhuman healing power of being able to spontaneously regenerate limbs and such like.
In the absence of certainty how would you suggest we express our rational confidence in such conclusions without invoking likelihood?
Don't evade this much avoided question.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 628 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-01-2010 2:52 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2774 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 630 of 1725 (594096)
12-01-2010 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 615 by Modulous
11-30-2010 12:43 PM


I got it!
Hi, Modulous.
Modulous writes:
As Straggler notes, the theory that bluegenes has postulated is that Thor is a conceptual entity that does not correspond well with any real entity external to ourselves that can be confirmed etc.
There we go.
This explanation works for me. The theory basically concludes, not that there are no genuine supernatural entities, but that, if there are genuine supernatural entities out there, they don't match any concepts humans have about them, and thus, human belief in supernature is not derived from actual supernature.
Now that I've read this line from you, Straggler's babblings make a lot more sense to me. I still can't figure out what you're referring to when you say, "As Straggler notes," because, while I can see now that his posts were written from this perspective, I don't know how I was supposed to have extracted that from what he wrote: he thinks too differently from me for his explanations to make any sense.
But, my apologies to Straggler and Bluegenes for dragging the discussion on with my misunderstanding like this. I accept that Bluegenes' theory is falsifiable and counts as a scientific theory. I'm not sure where I stand as far as accepting it, but I'm burnt out on religious/philosophical topics for the time being, so I don't really care.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 615 by Modulous, posted 11-30-2010 12:43 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 631 by Modulous, posted 12-01-2010 5:54 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied
 Message 632 by Straggler, posted 12-01-2010 6:23 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 633 by Panda, posted 12-01-2010 6:35 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but 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