Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,079 Year: 5,336/9,624 Month: 361/323 Week: 1/204 Day: 1/21 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1512 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 826 of 1725 (603397)
02-04-2011 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 793 by onifre
02-03-2011 2:36 PM


confirmation bias?
Hi onifre, confirmation bias anyone?
They're debating on whether it is a theory or not. It's just the start of the theory.
Correct.
Without evidence it is an untested hypothesis.
When an hypothesis is tested it is either invalidated or it provides objective empirical evidence that it is in fact true in those specific instances.
ie you would have evidence similar to : the IPU has been shown to be a product of human imagination because of evidence XYZ, documenting it being produced by human imagination. This of course, in proper scientific process, would be published in a scientific peer reviewdjournal.
With no such evidence produced it is still an untested hypothesis.
Yet you can't show me a third source?
But I have shown you why this is irrelevant: an event that was not directly imagined nor directly experienced, where (a) you cannot distinguish one from the other and (b) can only make inferences from evidence. Was the Yucatan meteor a natural event or the fist of god/s? You infer a natural event.
For you to be able to narrow it down to only human imagination you need to eliminate the other possibilities, not just assume that they do not exist: that is assuming the consequent, a logical fallacy and a sign of confirmation bias.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : eglsh

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 793 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 2:36 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 831 by onifre, posted 02-04-2011 12:48 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 836 by Stile, posted 02-04-2011 1:37 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1512 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 827 of 1725 (603402)
02-04-2011 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 820 by xongsmith
02-03-2011 11:39 PM


hypothesis --- strong or weak?
Hi xongsmith,
No...............................but again, it is not the job of RAZD to support some kind of "counter-theory" here. It is bluegenes who must support his "theory".
Again, I will repeat: science is done by measuring things to collect data. It is not done in the comfort of an armchair, perhaps accompanied by a fine glass of cognac, maybe a good cigar if you go that way, or a lovely lady draped around you, if you go that way. No. You have to go out into the field and collect data. You have to calibrate your measuring equipment against all manner of known ways that any kind of bias can creep into your investigation and then measure that data. You have to get your fingers dirty (forget about that woman draped over your knee for a moment). Then you have to demonstrate that the data supports your theory.
Exactly.
Can you call it a theory when it has produced no objective empirical data?
Can you call it a theory when it has been shown to be less accurate than weather forecasts?
Would you call an hypothesis that is right only half the time strong or weak?
What about when it is less than half the time?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 820 by xongsmith, posted 02-03-2011 11:39 PM xongsmith has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 828 of 1725 (603405)
02-04-2011 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 818 by onifre
02-03-2011 11:14 PM


Re: The issue is settled?
Your bro has admitted to only two possible sources: the imagination of a human, or the experience of a human.
I'm still not getting this....
There's this supernatural guy named Jesus, I'm sure you're aware of him, so did you imagine him or did you experience him?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 818 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 11:14 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 829 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2011 12:20 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 830 by onifre, posted 02-04-2011 12:37 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 829 of 1725 (603420)
02-04-2011 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 828 by New Cat's Eye
02-04-2011 11:57 AM


Re: The issue is settled?
There's this supernatural guy named Jesus, I'm sure you're aware of him, so did you imagine him or did you experience him?
By source, bluegenes means 'point of origin of concept' not 'point where one can gain information about a concept'. The source or sources of the idea itself, not the source of our information surrounding the idea. That's probably where the confusion lies.
One might say it is the primary source, rather than secondary or tertiary sources is essentially what bluegenes' is talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 828 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2011 11:57 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 832 by onifre, posted 02-04-2011 12:49 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3058 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 830 of 1725 (603429)
02-04-2011 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 828 by New Cat's Eye
02-04-2011 11:57 AM


Re: The issue is settled?
There's this supernatural guy named Jesus, I'm sure you're aware of him, so did you imagine him or did you experience him?
It's not this fucking hard fellas.
Am I the orignial source of the Jesus story? No. Of course I heard about it. That is logical, but not my point at all.
Who ever the fuck originally created the Jesus story (for sake of argument, lets say the 4 dudes that wrote the gospels) they either made that shit up, or, actually experienced Jesus in the real. There are no other possiblities. It's so fucking simple that I'm suprised that we can't move past it. It's not even my main point.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 828 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2011 11:57 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 834 by xongsmith, posted 02-04-2011 1:13 PM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3058 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 831 of 1725 (603432)
02-04-2011 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 826 by RAZD
02-04-2011 11:39 AM


Re: confirmation bias?
Without evidence it is an untested hypothesis.
When an hypothesis is tested it is either invalidated or it provides objective empirical evidence that it is in fact true in those specific instances.
ie you would have evidence similar to : the IPU has been shown to be a product of human imagination because of evidence XYZ, documenting it being produced by human imagination. This of course, in proper scientific process, would be published in a scientific peer reviewdjournal.
What evidence RAZD? The human imagination can imagine supernatural beings.
There is also the claim that it can experience supernatural beings.
The first is a fact; we already know it can do that. The second is not a fact; we don't know if it actually can experience the supernatural PLUS we don't know if the supernatural actually exists to be experienced.
The imagination remains the only KNOWN source.
But I have shown you why this is irrelevant: an event that was not directly imagined nor directly experienced
You gave me the Yucatan example, which was a poor example because you can see the hole and know something happened. Why? Because if you couldn't SEE it in the real and now, then no one would have known there was anything to investigate.
So it is directly experienced, as in, we can see it.
For you to be able to narrow it down to only human imagination you need to eliminate the other possibilities
I didn't. You and I narrowed it down to either human imagination or human experience - remember, we are discussing supernatural beings.
I eliminate the experience because it is untestable, and unknowable. So we remain with only one KNOWN source: the imagination.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 826 by RAZD, posted 02-04-2011 11:39 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 839 by RAZD, posted 02-04-2011 2:40 PM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3058 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 832 of 1725 (603433)
02-04-2011 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 829 by Modulous
02-04-2011 12:20 PM


Re: The issue is settled?
By source, bluegenes means 'point of origin of concept' not 'point where one can gain information about a concept'. The source or sources of the idea itself, not the source of our information surrounding the idea. That's probably where the confusion lies.
One might say it is the primary source, rather than secondary or tertiary sources is essentially what bluegenes' is talking about.
Thanks, Mod, for saying it a lot better than I did. It IS the primary source that we're all talking about.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 829 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2011 12:20 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3058 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 833 of 1725 (603438)
02-04-2011 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 820 by xongsmith
02-03-2011 11:39 PM


Re: The issue is settled?
I'm sorry. I missed that. Where did he concede that?
That's ok, I can provide the post and quote.
Message 773
quote:
Now you may say that it comes down to some person somewhere imagining or experiencing the supernatural, then I would say that this would a reasonable conclusion
I was under the impression that he was arguing there could be 3, or 4,
There could be a billion sources if you're just talking about communicating an event from person to person. But the original source of the event, can only have imagined it or really experienced it. There is no other way around those two.
Look, I may be 5.7 on the Dawkins scale, but I know that there are some people who have "experienced shit that they would never deny". Is it scientific peer-reviewed object evidence? NO.
Well yeah, but so what? I'm not saying thy didn't experience it, in fact, I include the experience.
What I''m saying is, we can't know for sure what they actually experienced. Plus, we don't even have evidence FOR the supernatural, so we don't even know if there is something there to experience. We got shit for evidence.
So, the imagination remains the only KNOWN source, because it is the only one, for now, that we know for sure can do it.
Again, I will repeat: science is done by measuring things to collect data. It is not done in the comfort of an armchair, perhaps accompanied by a fine glass of cognac, maybe a good cigar if you go that way, or a lovely lady draped around you, if you go that way. No. You have to go out into the field and collect data.
Save the drama, xong, even though it was funny .
It is a fact the the human imagination can imagine, right?
Is it a fact that humans can experience the supernatural? No, not yet.
Is it a fact that there is something supernatural to even experience? No, not yet.
So where is the original source getting the info from?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 820 by xongsmith, posted 02-03-2011 11:39 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 835 by xongsmith, posted 02-04-2011 1:29 PM onifre has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2603
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009


(1)
Message 834 of 1725 (603442)
02-04-2011 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 830 by onifre
02-04-2011 12:37 PM


Re: The issue is settled?
onifre writes:
Who ever originally created the Jesus story (for sake of argument, lets say the 4 dudes that wrote the gospels) they either made that shit up, or, actually experienced Jesus in the real. There are no other possibilities. It's so fucking simple that I'm surprised that we can't move past it. It's not even my main point.
- Oni
And Modulous has also concurred.
But just a moment....
Suppose your 4 dudes had met this really nice ordinary real guy who was also wise in his ways, and they told another 16 dudes at length about him, perhaps just misstating the details so slightly they weren't aware they were doing that. Then those 16 dudes told another 64 dudes and dudettes the story but couldn't remember it exactly, so they may have glossed over some portions, embellished others and then those 64 dudes and dudettes told 256 other dudes and dudettes. And so on.
By the time it gets written down on Dead Sea scrolls and in bibles, the supernatural aspects of Jesus have crept in without a conscious effort of any one person. Were any of these aspects experienced by the original 4 dudes? Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know. Did Jesus himself make any of his story up? Was he mentally delusional about the facts of his own life but able to convince the original 4 dudes? Were any of the people who passed the story on through the ages delusional? Were any of these aspects figments of human imagination? Most likely, but which ones? We do not know. So the original source of the Jesus' supernaturalness is still not scientifically known and therefore isn't yet ready to be tested by bluegenes theory.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 830 by onifre, posted 02-04-2011 12:37 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 838 by onifre, posted 02-04-2011 2:19 PM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2603
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009


Message 835 of 1725 (603450)
02-04-2011 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 833 by onifre
02-04-2011 1:04 PM


Re: The issue is settled?
onifre writes:
I'm sorry. I missed that. Where did he concede that?
That's ok, I can provide the post and quote.
Message 773
quote:
Now you may say that it comes down to some person somewhere imagining or experiencing the supernatural, then I would say that this would a reasonable conclusion
- Oni
Thank you. He does seem to couch it in a conditional way and you snipped off an unimportant "but" clause.
However, let's move on.
Again, thanks.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 833 by onifre, posted 02-04-2011 1:04 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 837 by onifre, posted 02-04-2011 2:07 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Stile
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 836 of 1725 (603453)
02-04-2011 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 826 by RAZD
02-04-2011 11:39 AM


How I see the evidence
RAZD writes:
Without evidence it is an untested hypothesis.
When an hypothesis is tested it is either invalidated or it provides objective empirical evidence that it is in fact true in those specific instances.
This is how I see the situation:
Fact: There are many SB (supernatural being) concepts that people discuss. However their existance (imagined by some human being or actually real) is unknown and sometimes unknowable. For example -> The Christian God or The IPU.
Fact: There is no evidence for any of these SB concepts being real.
Fact: It is possible for humans to invent SB concepts through the use of their imagination.
Hypothesis: "All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination"
Experiment: I create an SB using my imagination. His name is Felix. Whenever I say his name, gravity always reverses and things fall up instead of down. I said his name. Reality was unaffected, no gravity reversal occured.
Conclusion: The SB I created is a figment of my human imagination.
This kind of experiment can be done over and over again by many different people all over the world to provide a lot of evidence that supernatural beings can be figments of the human imagination.
But, of course, what about any other sources?
Well, if we look at the history of mankind, people have been looking for the real, actual source of SBs for as long as we have existed. We have looked at fire, lightning, the sun, the solar system, the beginning of the universe. We have asked laymen, engineers, scientists, religious leaders, business men, hippies, philosophers and all other manner of people. No one has any evidence to show any other source for SB concepts than the human imagination. All these searchers all over the world have recently been connected to each other via technology like the internet. Still no progress towards any real sources other than the human imagination.
That makes a lot of evidence as well.
Therefore:
Strong Theory: "All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination"
ie you would have evidence similar to : the IPU has been shown to be a product of human imagination because of evidence XYZ, documenting it being produced by human imagination. This of course, in proper scientific process, would be published in a scientific peer reviewed journal.
With no such evidence produced it is still an untested hypothesis.
And this evidence is similar, is it not?
The god Felix has been shown to be a product of human imagination because gravity does not reverse when I say his name. Felix was also documented as being produced by Stile's imagination.
(I'm afraid the peer-reviewed journal article will have to wait for processing time)
I do not think you can state that such a thing must be known for any particular SBs (like the IPU in particular) because it is an acknowledged fact that many SB concepts have an unknown origin. The point is that of all the SBs where we do have a known origin; that origin is always, throughout recorded human history, 100% of the time, never anything else but the human imagination. And that is the basis for the Hypothesis becoming a Strong Theory.
To recap the Evidence:
1. All the infinite SBs that can be created by anyone's human imagination and tested against reality.
2. All of recorded human history where no other possible origin for SB concepts is known.
3. All of recorded human history where previously unknown-origin SB concepts have been tested and shown to not be real.
For falsification:
bluegenes writes:
It is falsified by the demonstration of the existence of just one supernatural being beyond all reasonable doubt.
That is:
-it could have been falsified when we looked at the sun for Apollo. But it wasn't, we just learned about the sun.
-it could have been falsified when we looked at storms for Thor. But it wasn't, we just learned about storms.
-it could have been falsified when I said "Felix". But it wasn't, I was just disappointed.
-it will be falsified if the rapture occurs
...
-it predicted that Apollo would not be at the sun.
-it predicted that Thor would not be behind the storms.
-it predicted that nothing would happen when I said "Felix".
-it predicts that the rapture will never occur.
-it predicts that no one will ever have evidence for a known SB concept.
I don't understand how anyone can't reasonably acknowledge the following in a scientific sense:
Strong Theory: "All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination"
If I lived my life on an island that only had blue birds, wouldn't you say that I could develop a very strong scientific theory that all birds are blue? I certainly would. If not, please explain why such a theory (given such a setting) would not be scientific, or strong?
No one is saying that this Strong Theory is proof positive of reality. No scientific theory takes that stance. It's just a way of phrasing the currently known evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 826 by RAZD, posted 02-04-2011 11:39 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 842 by RAZD, posted 02-04-2011 3:26 PM Stile has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3058 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 837 of 1725 (603458)
02-04-2011 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 835 by xongsmith
02-04-2011 1:29 PM


Re: The issue is settled?
He does seem to couch it in a conditional way and you snipped off an unimportant "but" clause.
Not to be dishonest though. I cut it off there because his "but" clause is something I also agree with. I can't decipher which is which either.
So I only go with the known source, for know, until a better method of deciphering is available. But I remain open to the possibility.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 835 by xongsmith, posted 02-04-2011 1:29 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3058 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 838 of 1725 (603459)
02-04-2011 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 834 by xongsmith
02-04-2011 1:13 PM


Re: The issue is settled?
Were any of these aspects experienced by the original 4 dudes? Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know.
Right, so there remains only to possibilities: these dudes made it up, or they actually did experience a person named Jesus that did all of those things.
So the original source of the Jesus' supernaturalness is still not scientifically known and therefore isn't yet ready to be tested by bluegenes theory.
That has nothing to do with bluegenes' theory. The source of the Jesus story was 4 dudes, who either imagined him or actually experienced him.
Now, if Jesus claims to be supernatural, then lets investigate that. Was he actually a supernatural being? I thought he was a human on earth and that God, his dad, was the supernatural being. However, that is the topic for another thread.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : edit post

This message is a reply to:
 Message 834 by xongsmith, posted 02-04-2011 1:13 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 857 by xongsmith, posted 02-04-2011 8:40 PM onifre has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1512 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 839 of 1725 (603462)
02-04-2011 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 831 by onifre
02-04-2011 12:48 PM


Re: confirmation bias? assuming truth is not the scientific method.
Hi onifre,
I eliminate the experience because it is untestable, and unknowable. So we remain with only one KNOWN source: the imagination.
In other words you just assume your conclusion is true.
Thanks for once again demonstrating that such arguments are based on logical fallacies, not on evidence.
This is not the way science works, and not the way theories are supported in science.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 831 by onifre, posted 02-04-2011 12:48 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 840 by onifre, posted 02-04-2011 2:50 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 841 by onifre, posted 02-04-2011 2:50 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3058 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 840 of 1725 (603465)
02-04-2011 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 839 by RAZD
02-04-2011 2:40 PM


Re: confirmation bias? assuming truth is not the scientific method.
In other words you just assume your conclusion is true.
No, I will happily accept the veracity of any experience claimed, if there was a way to do that. But there just isn't. That is not my fault, what do you want me to do about it?
If there are two possible sources, and one is untestable, then what are we left with?
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 839 by RAZD, posted 02-04-2011 2:40 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 843 by RAZD, posted 02-04-2011 3:32 PM onifre 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