Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
1 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
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 631 of 1725 (594100)
12-01-2010 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 630 by Blue Jay
12-01-2010 5:28 PM


Re: I got it!
Hi bluejay,
Glad to see you eye to eye
I should give credit back - your clear and insightful examples and descriptions of your objections allowed me to quickly find a sufficient way to explain our point of view.
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.
I wrote that so as that you might try and read Straggler's points from this perspective and that might help clear up some mutual confusions that were springing up in your discussion with him.
Now that I've read this line from you, Straggler's babblings make a lot more sense to me.
And maybe it worked, I don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 630 by Blue Jay, posted 12-01-2010 5:28 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 632 of 1725 (594103)
12-01-2010 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 630 by Blue Jay
12-01-2010 5:28 PM


Re: I got it!
If you (finally) accept that bluegenes theory is a positively evidenced naturalistic explanation for an observable phenomenon (i.e. human belief in supernatural concepts) then you presumably also now understand that citing baseless unfalsifiable alternatives to this explanation is of no more consequence to this theory than omphalism is to the theory of evolution.
You finally realise the validity of all those comparisons I have been making which you have found so annoying and which you have so railed against.
Bluejay writes:
Now that I've read this line from you, Straggler's babblings make a lot more sense to me.
The destination is the same even though the paths may differ.
Bluejay on Straggler writes:
....he thinks too differently from me for his explanations to make any sense.
Which is effectively what I have been saying explicitly ever since Message 591
But more than that I would say that ANY atheist position advocated at EvC based on citing evidence of human belief (psychology, anthropology, neurology, history etc. etc. etc.) is immediately misinterpreted by theists (and their "agnostic" adherents) as being an explicit and absolute denunciation of the existence of supernatural beings. And is thus met with stupid and irrelevant demands for disproof and pointless talk of absolute falsifiability where no equivalent evidence based conclusion in any area not so obscured by belief would be spared such irrelevencies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 630 by Blue Jay, posted 12-01-2010 5:28 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 634 by Blue Jay, posted 12-01-2010 8:55 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 633 of 1725 (594104)
12-01-2010 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 630 by Blue Jay
12-01-2010 5:28 PM


Re: I got it!
Bluejay writes:
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 feel forced to point out the blatant maturity behind this post.
How dare you admit your mistake!
I have given your post a score of 5 as a protest against such behaviour.
I hope you feel deeply ashamed at your display of strength of character.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 630 by Blue Jay, posted 12-01-2010 5:28 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 634 of 1725 (594123)
12-01-2010 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 632 by Straggler
12-01-2010 6:23 PM


Re: I got it!
Hi, Straggler.
Straggler writes:
If you (finally) accept that bluegenes theory is a positively evidenced naturalistic explanation for an observable phenomenon (i.e. human belief in supernatural concepts) then you presumably also now understand that citing baseless unfalsifiable alternatives to this explanation is of no more consequence to this theory than omphalism is to the theory of evolution.
Yes.
-----
Straggler writes:
You finally realise the validity of all those comparisons I have been making which you have found so annoying and which you have so railed against.
Well, if you'd give better context, maybe it wouldn't be so easy to misunderstand.
During the debate, RAZD or I would make a comment. Then, you would respond, "No, that's not it. Look, here's an example that, if you knew what my perspective on the issue was, you would understand." I would then proceed to read the example, but without any idea as to what, exactly, it was an example of, it didn't ever read like anything relevant. And, all I got from you was repetition of it.
But, I fell behind in the Great Debate thread midway through the second page because of all the mind-numbingly long-winded posts, and can't, for the life of me, keep up with it anymore, so that much is my fault.
-----
Straggler writes:
But more than that I would say that ANY atheist position advocated at EvC based on citing evidence of human belief is immediately misinterpreted by theists as being an explicit and absolute denunciation of the existence of supernatural beings.
For future reference, if your goal is to avoid being misinterpreted as denouncing the existence of all supernatural beings, it would help your cause if you didn't start debates by saying, "All supernatural entities are figments of the human imagination.
Edited by Bluejay, : the pronoun "it" is not appropriate for self-reference.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 632 by Straggler, posted 12-01-2010 6:23 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 635 by Straggler, posted 12-02-2010 8:30 AM Blue Jay has replied

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


Message 635 of 1725 (594159)
12-02-2010 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 634 by Blue Jay
12-01-2010 8:55 PM


Re: I got it!
I have previously tried to spell out where the mis-communication lay in numerous posts. Not least of all here Message 591 and here Message 187.
That both I and bluegenes were continually citing the theory in question as a positively evidenced naturalistic explanation for an observed phenomenon was (I thought) the give-away as to what was actually being proposed.
But anyway. Whatever the source of the miscommunication, and I accept my portion of blame, I am delighted that we got there in the end with a bit of encouragement from Mod.
Bluejay writes:
For future reference, if your goal is to avoid being misinterpreted as denouncing the existence of all supernatural beings, it would help your cause if you didn't start debates by saying, "All supernatural entities are figments of the human imagination."
To be fair that was bluegenes expression not mine. Although I probably would have said something similar if characteristically less succinct.
Now that you do understand what is being proposed how do you think it would be better phrased?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 634 by Blue Jay, posted 12-01-2010 8:55 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 636 by Blue Jay, posted 12-02-2010 11:35 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 636 of 1725 (594168)
12-02-2010 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 635 by Straggler
12-02-2010 8:30 AM


Re: I got it!
Hi, Straggler.
Straggler writes:
...I accept my portion of blame...
Having now had the opportunity to peruse our discussion, I can see that there were a few places where I might have figured it out if I had taken more time to consider it: but I got lost in the disagreement, rather than in the search for a resolution.
For that, I accept the blame.
-----
Straggler writes:
Now that you do understand what is being proposed how do you think it would be better phrased?
I've been anticipating this question, but I haven't been able to come up with an acceptable answer yet: everything I come up with is either not concise enough or too easy to misinterpret. One would think it would be easier, eh?
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.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 635 by Straggler, posted 12-02-2010 8:30 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 637 by Straggler, posted 12-02-2010 12:12 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 638 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-02-2010 12:21 PM Blue Jay has not replied

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


Message 637 of 1725 (594173)
12-02-2010 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 636 by Blue Jay
12-02-2010 11:35 AM


Re: I got it!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 636 by Blue Jay, posted 12-02-2010 11:35 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 640 by xongsmith, posted 12-02-2010 1:46 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 646 by Blue Jay, posted 12-03-2010 10:21 AM Straggler has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 638 of 1725 (594174)
12-02-2010 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 636 by Blue Jay
12-02-2010 11:35 AM


Re: I got it!
"Human concepts about what supernature is are figments of human imagination."
"Human concepts about what supernature is are figments of human imagination."
Why is the point of the theory only being about our concepts of things as stemming from our imagination? Isn't that obvious and somewhat tautological?
Didn't it come about as a way to support the disbelief in god? If its not saying anything about the actual god, then how does it have anything to do with what it stemmed from?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 636 by Blue Jay, posted 12-02-2010 11:35 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 639 by Modulous, posted 12-02-2010 12:32 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 641 by Straggler, posted 12-02-2010 2:10 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 639 of 1725 (594177)
12-02-2010 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 638 by New Cat's Eye
12-02-2010 12:21 PM


correspondence
Why is the point of the theory only being about our concepts of things as stemming from our imagination? Isn't that obvious and somewhat tautological?
The theory isn't 'all concepts are conceptual' it is 'all supernatural concepts originate in the human mind' this is in contrast to say giraffe concepts which would originate from encountering extra-mental giraffes.
If you think there exists a supernatural concept which corresponds with a non-mental entity in the same way giraffe concepts do, you can falsify the theory by presenting evidence for said non-mental supernatural entity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 638 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-02-2010 12:21 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2600
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


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

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


Message 641 of 1725 (594194)
12-02-2010 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 638 by New Cat's Eye
12-02-2010 12:21 PM


Re: I got it!
CS writes:
Why is the point of the theory only being about our concepts of things as stemming from our imagination?
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?
Here we have an observed phenomenon (i.e. human belief in supernatural beings) and we are seeking a scientifically evidenced answer.
CS writes:
If its not saying anything about the actual god, then how does it have anything to do with what it stemmed from?
It is a falsifiable prediction of the theory that no-one will be able to present any objective empirical evidence that suggests beyond reasonable doubt an alternative source of such concepts. The demonstrable existence of such an entity would be such a source.
As Mod has already pointed out the concept of a giraffe is not sourced from human imagination but from the scientific fact that giraffes actually exist. Surely you can see the difference.
CS writes:
Didn't it come about as a way to support the disbelief in god?
Of course it is related. And I realise that to you thinking about the evidence and then coming to the conclusion instead of deciding what you believe and then insisting it is evidenced in some way must seem rather radical.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 638 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-02-2010 12:21 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 643 by xongsmith, posted 12-02-2010 2:56 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 642 of 1725 (594195)
12-02-2010 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 640 by xongsmith
12-02-2010 1:46 PM


Re: I got it!
See Message 641
And do stop with the extraneous "furniture" Xongsmith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 640 by xongsmith, posted 12-02-2010 1:46 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 644 by xongsmith, posted 12-02-2010 3:01 PM Straggler has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2600
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


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

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2600
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 644 of 1725 (594203)
12-02-2010 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 642 by Straggler
12-02-2010 2:12 PM


Re: I got it!
And do stop with the extraneous "furniture" Xongsmith.
Aw, come on. You liked that.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 642 by Straggler, posted 12-02-2010 2:12 PM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 645 of 1725 (594364)
12-03-2010 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 643 by xongsmith
12-02-2010 2:56 PM


Re: I got it!
X writes:
It is not in the province of Science to answer WHY shit happens.
Science merely DESCRIBES how it happens.
In many cases, including this one, the distinction is a stupid one.
The scientific evidenced conclusion is that any supernatural concept, indeed the very concept of supernature itself, is a product of human invention.
If you want to point out that this doesn’t conclusively prove that supernatural beings do not or cannot exist — Then fine. I will shrug and say So what?
Because what this does do is put the entire concept of supernature firmly in the ‘baseless conjecture’ camp along with creationist omphalism, Scientologist claims about Thetans and all other such claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 643 by xongsmith, posted 12-02-2010 2:56 PM xongsmith 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