Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,050 Year: 5,307/9,624 Month: 332/323 Week: 176/160 Day: 12/38 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 1725 (538832)
12-10-2009 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Percy
12-08-2009 5:14 AM


Re: Viv Pope and the Speed of Light Thread
His shameless self promoting makes me think he is doing some kind of spamming.
Rather than explain anything he just says go to this website and search for my paper. He doesn't even link to the paper, itself, so it seems like he might be getting something out of it.
But I dunno.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Percy, posted 12-08-2009 5:14 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by penstemo, posted 12-12-2009 1:23 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 502 of 1725 (590573)
11-08-2010 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 498 by Modulous
11-08-2010 7:33 PM


Re: Science is pseudoskeptical
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by Modulous, posted 11-08-2010 7:33 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 539 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 6:53 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 548 by Modulous, posted 11-10-2010 3:04 AM New Cat's Eye 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 781 of 1725 (603193)
02-03-2011 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 769 by onifre
02-02-2011 8:55 PM


Re: one question
Would you accept the two as the only possible sources: Imagination and actual experience.
Would you?
Nope. Your mom told me that she had a supernatural experience. It was a source that I neither experienced nor imagined.

I don't see what all the confusion is over...
No, we don't have evidence of supernaturals. Fine, don't believe in them.
Or you could remain agnostic.
Or you could claim that there is evidence that there are no supernatural beings. Okay, lets see it.
That is the point. Show the evidence that they don't exist.

I do disagree with RAZD on there being supernatural beings that have been shown to not exist. It seems to be a more "technical" disagreement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 769 by onifre, posted 02-02-2011 8:55 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 786 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 1:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 787 of 1725 (603240)
02-03-2011 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 786 by onifre
02-03-2011 1:44 PM


Re: one question
Nope. Your mom told me that she had a supernatural experience. It was a source that I neither experienced nor imagined.
Yeah, my mom experienced it. So it remains that there are only two possible sources, either humans imagine it, or they experience it.
If they convey the information to others, that doesn't change that.
Sure it does. I didn't experience it and I didn't imagine it, yet I have a source for it.
Or you could claim that there is evidence that there are no supernatural beings. Okay, lets see it.
The good thing is, no one has claimed that.
Sure the have. Bluegenes claims that he has plenty of evidence that, they don't exist because, the only known source of supernatural beings is imagination.
Show the evidence that they don't exist.
Show the evidence that they don't exist? Think about that.
Yeah, I don't why someone would think they could take it that far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 786 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 1:44 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 789 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 2:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 788 of 1725 (603242)
02-03-2011 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 780 by Modulous
02-03-2011 9:53 AM


If any actual source other than imagination became known, then it wouldn't be supernatural so the hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 780 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2011 9:53 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 790 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 2:08 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 794 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2011 2:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 791 of 1725 (603252)
02-03-2011 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 789 by onifre
02-03-2011 2:05 PM


The point is that the person conveying that info to you either imagined it or actually experienced it.
Or they heard it from somewhere else...
Or maybe they experienced a little and imagined a lot, or visa versa.
I'm still seeing a false dichotomy.
Bluegenes claims that he has plenty of evidence that, they don't exist because, the only known source of supernatural beings is imagination.
Show me that quote.
Have you been reading the Great Debate thread? RAZD outlined his claims very thoroughly. I can't sum it all up in one quote, but this is as close as it gets:
From Message 167:
quote:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
This is a high level of confidence theory.
I meant, how can I show you evidence for something that doesn't exist?
How can you have a theory without evidence?
So then the only known source is the human imagination?
Sure, but the theory that that is all there is, is unfalsifiable. Too, if a supernatural source could be shown, then it wouldn't supernatural.
At the end of the day, its a non-theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 789 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 2:05 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 793 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 2:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 795 by Straggler, posted 02-03-2011 2:49 PM New Cat's Eye 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