Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
27 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, GDR, Hyroglyphx, jar, RAZD, Theodoric (7 members, 20 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,934 Year: 21,970/19,786 Month: 533/1,834 Week: 33/500 Day: 33/96 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 106 of 222 (605738)
02-21-2011 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by bluegenes
02-21-2011 7:46 PM


You fail again.
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi bluegenes, still trying to use bombast and bluster instead of evidence.

I answer them easily because I have a strong, unfalsified theory.

And yet all your answers are based on your personal opinion biases and wishful thinking. You answer them because you are fundamentally convinced you are right, not because it is based on evidence.

You don't actually understand what scientific theories are and how they work. You've demonstrated that all through the thread. For example, you picked out a specific SB, the IPU, and asked me to show that it was a human invention. That shows that you don't understand inductive scientific theories.

Can you explain to me now what was wrong in asking this? Or will this be another question you'll evade, while continuing to lie that I don't have any evidence?

I gave you a chance to demonstrate your methodology on what should have been easy pickings.

The fact that you cannot show this simple case to be human invention is due to the fact that you do not have a usable methodology to determine whether or not a supernatural being is an invention, an observation or derived from evidence.

This means you do not have a scientific theory, just an hypothetical conjecture, because you cannot properly test your concept without one. Without testing you have no theory.

No. Firstly, in your (terrible) analogy, we are told that the children have been to the factory to observe furniture makers, a category of beings who are known to be real. It may be news to you, but our ancestors did not witness the creation of the world. We came along after the event.

Amusingly this makes the analogy even better. Now we have the furniture makers visiting a school, with people from different specialties in the factory, each one in a different class, showing the kids what they do to make furniture.

Now you take the reports from all the kids in all the classes in the school and compare them: there will be variation between kids in each class, between kids in different classes. You will have your purported valuable "mutually exclusive" views for how furniture is made and when different parts were done in what order. The logic of your position is still that the furniture makers must be imaginary because of the contradictions. Happily for the furniture maker families this is not so, because your logic is flawed, tragically flawed, permanently flawed.

Curiously, you can take all the reports and assemble them to match the universal truth for the making of furniture.

Amazingly, even if your claim is true, this still does not establish that a single supernatural being was human invention.

Certainly not. You can't build scientific theories on things like your Hindu "hypothesis" and the communicating SBs that you've been imagining up as "evidence".

Fascinatingly, I do not presume to call my hypothesis a theory -- you are the one claiming something that is not true.

For review, once again, from Message 4 your assertions are (emphasis added):

We'll start with claim (1):
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".

This is your assertion, you need to support it with some objective empirical evidence. Without supporting objective empirical evidence it is an opinion founded on personal biases at worst, or a hypothetical possibility at best,

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

As to claim (2):
This is a high level of confidence ...

... where you were referring to my levels of confidence scale, level III concepts (now level IV):

quote:
III. High Confidence Concepts

  1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence

  2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1) as required by (a) plus evidence of confirmation and validation by others, and evidence of repeated attempts to falsify your hypothetical possibility -- normally this involves articles in scientific journals.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Claim (3):
This is a ... theory. ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1). Scientific theory starts with a foundation of objective empirical evidence, a set of objective empirical evidence where the hypothesis is true. Without such foundational objective empirical evidence all you have is a hypothetical possibility based on opinion and biases.

Unsupported hypothetical possibilities are certainly not scientific theories.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Now claim (4):
... and support the theory with plenty of evidence ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1). Made up caricatures are not objective empirical evidence and subjective interpretations of hearsay anecdotal circumstantial narratives are not objective empirical evidence.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Then claim (5):
... The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence that rules out other other sources, including the four possible sources I have already mentioned. You need to eliminate the alternatives before you can claim your concept is singularly valid.

This is because if your exclusive claim is not the only possibilities, then your claim of exclusivity is invalid, and your possibility of trying to use this argument to support your claim evaporates.

This is not evidence either, rather it is an attempt to avoid providing evidence. This is the pseudoskeptic approach, not the scientific approach.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

And finally claim (6):
... this is a strong theory, ....

Without objective empirical evidence for assertion (3), which requires objective empirical evidence for assertion (1), you don't have a theory. Without objective empirical evidence for this assertion it cannot be strong either. Without any system or method or technique for actually applying your concept so that you can actually show whether your assertion (1) is true in any specific cases it cannot be a valid theory in the scientific sense of this terminology. Finally, in science a theory does not become strong by proclaiming it to be strong, but by repeated tested and scientifically documented validation in scientific journals. You have not provided any evidence of this.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

You need to stop hiding in your hat, get off your duff, apply your system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept --- IF you have one that is of scientific value, rather than you just asserting your opinion --- and use it to provide some objective empirical evidence.

This is how scientists apply actual theories, and repeated application and demonstration of validity is how actual theories become strong theories.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

If you actually have a strong scientific theory, then why can you not provide any objective empirical evidence to support and substantiate it in any specific instances?

So far, you have SHOWN -- by your absence of ability to support your assertions above -- that your hypothetical conjecture is NOT based on the scientific process, and thus your pretentious nattering about the scientific method and scientific evidence is quite amusing.

Do you think scientific theories are based on opinions and biases?

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Message 92 ... still valid:

quote:
I've shown:

  • that your hypothesis is unfounded by empirical objective evidence,
  • that your conclusions are based on false logic,
  • that you are assuming your conclusion is true rather than testing it or demonstrating it,
  • that you do not have a method\process to distinguish human imagination from supernatural experiences,
  • that you do not have a scientific theory,
  • that you have an hypothesis based on your opinion/s, bias/es and wishful thinking,
  • (again) that you are a pseudoskeptic, using pseudoscience rather than applying science to the question
  • that you have not supported a single one of the six (6) assertions listed in Message 1 with any empirical objective evidence.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

If you have a strong theory, why can't you produce reams of documented objective empirical evidence to support it?

If you have a scientific theory, why can't you produce ANY evidence to support it?

If you have a scientific theory instead of an hypothetical concept, then how do you test whether a supernatural being is a fiction of human imagination rather than from some other source?

What is your system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept that can determine when concepts are figments of imagination rather than just assume it?

By just assuming that it is so?

Really?

Is that how science is done?

By making stuff up?

Really?

Is that how science is done?

Sadly, for you, personal opinion, bias and willful thinking are still not able to alter reality in any way, nor are they the foundations of scientific theories.

scientific process

pseudoscientific process

observe objective empirical evidence
missing

form a priori hypothetical conjecture
 present 

(A) form hypothesis to explain the known evidence
known evidence missing

claim you have a theory
 present 

develop anti-hypothesis (antithesis)
missing

look for evidence to support the hypothesis
 present 

(B) develop test to differentiate hypothesis from antithesis
missing

use invalid logic to make conclusions
 present 

run tests to see if hypothesis or antithesis falsified
missing

claim it is a strong theory
 present 

if hypothesis is invalidated go back to (A)
not tested

say you have plenty of evidence
 present 

if antithesis not invalidated go back to (B)
not tested

claim some highly unlikely event will falsify the theory
 present 

publish methodology, results and propose the theory
missing

say it is up to others to invalidate the theory
 present 

after testing & replication of results by others theory is accepted
missing

ignore contradictory information and repeat assertions
 present 

Conclusion: what you have is a hypothetical conjecture based on your opinion, biases and wishful thinking, it is not a scientific theory based on the scientific method and properly tested, it is pseudoscience at best, delusion at worst.

the pseudoscientist creationist says:
if the bible is true then god is true
if god is true then the bible is true
therefore the bible and god are true

the pseudoscientist atheist says
all supernatural beings are the product of human imagination
human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings
therefore supernatural beings are imaginary

You assume your conclusion in your premises, and ignore other possibilities: that is not how valid logic is done.

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants have been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s.

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.


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 105 by bluegenes, posted 02-21-2011 7:46 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by bluegenes, posted 02-21-2011 11:10 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 815 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 107 of 222 (605748)
02-21-2011 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by RAZD
02-21-2011 8:53 PM


RAZD writes:

I gave you a chance to demonstrate your methodology on what should have been easy pickings.

The fact that you cannot show this simple case to be human invention is due to the fact that you do not have a usable methodology to determine whether or not a supernatural being is an invention, an observation or derived from evidence.

Do you have a methodology for distinguishing which rabbits in a field were born from other rabbits, which were produced from a conjurers hat and put in the field, and which were created ex nihilo by a god and put in the field? Do you have a methodology for distinguishing natural fossils from those placed in the rocks by Satan? Do you have a methodology for distinguishing an omphalist world from a non-omphalist world?

RAZD writes:

This means you do not have a scientific theory, just an hypothetical conjecture, because you cannot properly test your concept without one. Without testing you have no theory.

Bluegenes and Louis Pasteur understand that if SBs and rabbits have only one known source, then we can use inductive reasoning to infer that all SBs and all rabbits come from their respective known sources. But some woo hippie tells us that scientific theories don't work like that. Wow.

All scientific theories rely on inductive reasoning, RAZD. You've just declared them all not to be scientific theories.

RAZD writes:

Amusingly this makes the analogy even better. Now we have the furniture makers visiting a school, with people from different specialties in the factory, each one in a different class, showing the kids what they do to make furniture.

Analagous to SBs showing our ancestors how they make planets? I think you mean telling. And furniture is known to be intelligently designed, while planets are known to form naturally.

RAZD writes:

Now you take the reports from all the kids in all the classes in the school and compare them: there will be variation between kids in each class, between kids in different classes. You will have your purported valuable "mutually exclusive" views for how furniture is made and when different parts were done in what order.

Analogous to the creation stories would be different pieces of furniture made in different ways by makers of different descriptions and origins in different numbers, with some of the furniture makers being formed from already existing furniture before reshaping it, and others making the furniture from scratch without materials. But I get your point.

RAZD writes:

The logic of your position is still that the furniture makers must be imaginary because of the contradictions.

No. If the stories are all mutually exclusive, the logic of my position is that only one story at most can be true. Therefore there is evidence for widespread invention. Then, of course, the kid's would have to be describing non-existent furniture, because the worlds in the creation mythologies don't exist. From this, we do not conclude that there's no furniture makers. We would only theorize that if the kid's stories were the only known source of furniture makers. So, like the example I quoted a couple of posts earlier, weak induction:

Kids can and do invent false furniture makers.

Theory: Therefore, all furniture makers are the invention of kids.

Easily falsified by observation.

Strong inductive theory:

Humans can and do invent SBs

Human invention is the only known source of SBs.

Theory: All supernatural beings are human inventions.

Unfalsified. Certainly unfalsified by your unsupported claim to know of another known source (which SBs are known to exist?)

Strong inductive theory (Pasteur).

Life forms can be observed to come from other life forms.

Life is the only known source of life.

Theory: All life comes from life.

Here's an invented story that came from the human imagination.

quote:

In the beginning there was only one water and the water animals that lived in it.

Then a woman fell from a torn place in the sky. She was a divine woman, full of power. Two loons flying over the water saw her falling. They flew under her, close together, making a pillow for her to sit on.

The loons held her up and cried for help. They could be heard for a long way as they called for other animals to come.

The snapping turtle called all the other animals to aid in saving the divine woman's life.

The animals decided the woman needed earth to live on.

Turtle said, "Dive down in the water and bring up some earth."

So they did that, those animals. A beaver went down. A muskrat went down. Others stayed down too long, and they died.

Each time, Turtle looked inside their mouths when they came up, but there was no earth to be found.

Toad went under the water. He stayed too long, and he nearly died. But when Turtle looked inside Toad's mouth, he found a little earth. The woman took it and put it all around on Turtle's shell. That was the start of the earth.

Dry land grew until it formed a country, then another country, and all the earth.. To this day, Turtle holds up the earth.

Time passed, and the divine woman had twin boys. They were opposites, her sons. One was good, and one was bad. One was born as children are usually born, in a normal way. But the other one broke out of his mother's side, and she died.

When the divine woman was buried, all of the plants needed for life on earth sprang from the ground above her. From her head came the pumpkin vine. Maize came from her chest. Pole beans grew from her legs.

The divine woman's sons grew up. The evil one was Tawis-karong. The good one was Tijus-kaha. They were to prepare the earth so that humans could live on it. But they found they could not live together. And so they separated, with each one taking his own portion of the earth to prepare.

The bad brother, Tawis-karong, made monstrous animals, fierce and terrifying. He made wolves and bears, and snakes of giant size. He made mosquitoes huge, the size of wild turkeys. And he made an enormous toad. It drank up the fresh water that was on the earth. All of it.

The good brother, Tijus-kaha, made proper animals that were of use to human beings. He made the dove, and the mockingbird, and the partridge. And one day, the partridge flew toward the land of Tawis-karong.

"Why do you go there?" Tijus-kaha asked the partridge.

"I go because there is no water. And I hear there is some in your brother's land," said the partridge.

Tijus-kaha didn't believe the bird. So he followed, and finally he came to his evil brother's land. He saw all of the outlandish, giant animals his brother had made. Tijus-kaha didn't beat them down.

And then he saw the giant toad. He cut it open. Out came the earth's fresh water. Tijus-kaha didn't kill any [more] of his brother's creations. But he made them smaller, of normal size so that human beings could be leaders over them.

His mother's spirit came to Tijus-kaha in a dream. She warned him about his evil brother. And sure enough, one day, the two brothers had to come face to face. They decided they could not share the earth. They would have a duel to see who would be master of the world.

Each had to overcome the other with a single weapon. Tijus-kaha, the good, could only be killing if beaten to death with a bag full of corn or beans. The evil brother could be killed only by using the horn of a deer or other wild animal. then the brothers fixed the fighting ground where the battle would begin.

The first turn went to the evil brother, Tawis-karong. He pounded his brother with a bag of beans. He beat him until Tijus-kaha was nearly dead. But not quite. He got his strength back, and he chased Tawis-karong. Now it was his turn.

He beat his evil brother with a deer horn. Finally, Tijus-kaha took his brother's life away. But still the evil brother wasn't completely destroyed. "I have gone to the far west," he said. "All the races of men will follow me to the west when they die."

It is the belief of the Hurons to this day. When they die, their spirits go to the far west, where they will dwell forever.


I thought you'd like that, because it shows the most striking example of consilience I could find in the creation myths. It's from North America, and it has a turtle holding up the earth. Far away on the Indian subcontinent, we can find a well known Hindu "hypothesis" that a turtle, of all things, holds up the earth.

So, RAZD, if you're right about consilience, maybe you should look under the earth to see if there's a turtle there to support your claim.

BTW. Once again.

Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some people"?

As your posts on this thread certainly indicate that you do, I'll take it that your answer is "yes" if you continue to show your fear of answering.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2011 8:53 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 815 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 108 of 222 (605797)
02-22-2011 7:57 AM


Weird!
As a celebration of more than 6 months and more than 100 posts without falsification, just a brief summary of a few of my opponent's attempts to attack the theory.

RAZD shows here that he thinks that scientific theories are things that can be and should be proven.

RAZD writes:

Curiously I do not need to claim, assert or believe that "supernatural being (X) can exist" -- all I need to do is present you with a concept of a supernatural being, like supernatural being (X), and then it is your task to demonstrate, with objective empirical valid evidence, that these concepts are unequivocally and absolutely a fictional invention and not a supernatural being.

RAZD writes:

What you are missing, amusingly, is that for you to claim that human imagination is the only source for supernatural concepts (as you have asserted), YOU need to demonstrate that no other possible source could exist.

No scientific theory, of course, has eliminated all other possibilities, otherwise they would be facts. But RAZD doesn't understand this basic point.

RAZD writes:

The existence of a single concept that is not a product of human imagination means that your claim is absolutely meaningless. You have not established that this is not the case.

You have not proven your theory, bluegenes.

Below, he thinks that unsupported religious beliefs and claims need to be falsified before a scientific theory can be established if those religious beliefs contradict the theory.

RAZD writes:

In several religiions there are beliefs involving god/s appearing as humans or animals to assist people reach enlightenment or assist them in finding truth.

Many eastern religions believe in enlightenment, which involves a level of understanding universal truths.

Other religions claim that religious experiences are means to communicate with god/s.

And of course there are religions (like the australian one you listed above) that believe in dreamtime experiences.

That's four different ways that various religions have claimed to have a source of knowledge about supernatural beings\entities\etc. -- and ones that you should have been already aware of.

Your task, if you claim that "human invention is the only known source of supernatural beings," is to falsify these as means of having an outside source for concepts of supernatural beings\entities\etc.

It doesn't appear that you have done this.

RAZD writes:

You have not falsified the Hindu Hypothesis, which among other things includes the view that all creation stories are allegorical, metaphor or analogy for how god/s created, and that the many stories all offer different aspects of the creation/s via allegory and symbolic metaphors.

What the "Hindu Hypothesis" says is that when we take all these symbolic stories and put them together, that the total picture that emerges is one of the universal truth/s - and among others, that god/s exist(ed) and that they created.

RAZD seems to think that unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict scientific theories need to be falsified in order for there to be any scientific theories. So, those theorizing that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old do not have a theory until they've falsified omphalism, and evolutionary biologists do not have a naturalistic theory until they've falsified omphalism and the nineteenth century claim that Satan laid down the fossils to confuse us, etc.

So, any scientific theories or laws can be attacked by people making unsupported claims that contradict them in RAZD's little world.

Weird. For people like RAZD, there is no science, and he's not even capable of understanding this.


Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2011 9:01 AM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 109 of 222 (605804)
02-22-2011 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by bluegenes
02-22-2011 7:57 AM


You do not have a scientific theory.
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi bluegenes, still speaking into space? That's another pseudoskeptic technique ...

Curiously, you still do not have evidence.

... just a brief summary of a few of my opponent's attempts to attack the theory.

No, bluegenes, to show that you DO NOT HAVE A THEORY Certainly not a scientific one.

If you have a scientific theory instead of an hypothetical concept, then how do you test whether a supernatural being is a fiction of human imagination rather than from some other source?

What is your system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept that can determine when concepts are figments of imagination rather than just assume it?

By just assuming that it is so?

Really?

Is that how science is done?

By making stuff up?

Really?

Is that how science is done?

Sadly, for you, personal opinion, bias and willful thinking are still not able to alter reality in any way, nor are they the foundations of scientific theories.

scientific process

pseudoscientific process

observe objective empirical evidence
missing

form a priori hypothetical conjecture
 present 

(A) form hypothesis to explain the known evidence
known evidence missing

claim you have a theory
 present 

develop anti-hypothesis (antithesis)
missing

look for evidence to support the hypothesis
 present 

(B) develop test to differentiate hypothesis from antithesis
missing

use invalid logic to make conclusions
 present 

run tests to see if hypothesis or antithesis falsified
missing

claim it is a strong theory
 present 

if hypothesis is invalidated go back to (A)
not tested

say you have plenty of evidence
 present 

if antithesis not invalidated go back to (B)
not tested

claim some highly unlikely event will falsify the theory
 present 

publish methodology, results and propose the theory
missing

say it is up to others to invalidate the theory
 present 

after testing & replication of results by others theory is accepted
missing

ignore contradictory information and repeat assertions
 present 

Conclusion: what you have is a hypothetical conjecture based on your opinion, biases and wishful thinking, it is not a scientific theory based on the scientific method and properly tested, it is pseudoscience at best, delusion at worst.

the pseudoscientist creationist says:
if the bible is true then god is true
if god is true then the bible is true
therefore the bible and god are true

the pseudoscientist atheist says
all supernatural beings are the product of human imagination
human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings
therefore supernatural beings are imaginary

You assume your conclusion in your premises, and ignore other possibilities: that is not how valid logic is done.

Message 107

No. If the stories are all mutually exclusive, the logic of my position is that only one story at most can be true. Therefore there is evidence for widespread invention. Then, of course, the kid's would have to be describing non-existent furniture, because the worlds in the creation mythologies don't exist. ...

Another example of extremely poor logic. There is absolutely no reason to assume in any way that the furniture would be non-existent. You blindly miss the point. But it gets better ...

... From this, we do not conclude that there's no furniture makers. ...

ROFLOL. You keep digging a deeper hole for yourself.

By extension now -- applying your most recent cognitive dissonance revisionist attempt to explain the children reports -- we see that you actually acknowledge that your "mutually exclusinve" criteria in no way shows that supernatural beings are the product of human imagination.

In other words you admit it is not evidence that supernatural beings are made up.

QED

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants have been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s.

Edited by RAZD, : qed


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 108 by bluegenes, posted 02-22-2011 7:57 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by bluegenes, posted 02-22-2011 3:00 PM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 815 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 110 of 222 (605871)
02-22-2011 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by RAZD
02-22-2011 9:01 AM


Please learn the basics, and learn to think.
RAZD writes:

You do not have a scientific theory.

As shown in my last post, you don't have the basic understanding to judge that. I do have a scientific theory.

RAZD writes:

If you have a scientific theory instead of an hypothetical concept, then how do you test whether a supernatural being is a fiction of human imagination rather than from some other source?

It isn't necessary for Pasteur's law to have a test for whether or not a given adult organism came from another organism or was individually created by magic. The law states that organisms come from their only known origin via inductive reasoning, and is not provable, but is falsifiable. My theory is the same.

RAZD writes:

What is your system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept that can determine when concepts are figments of imagination rather than just assume it?

RAZD writes:

...applying your concept...

Which concept? It is observation that can falsify some of the SBs, not a "concept". SBs fit into two categories. Those whose existence is unsupported and which have been falsified , and those whose existence is unsupported and haven't been falsified. There aren't any in the third category that's necessary to falsify my theory, which would be those whose existence outside the human mind has been established to all of us beyond all reasonable doubt.

RAZD writes:

Is that how science is done?

By making stuff up?

No. So kindly stop doing so.

RAZD writes:

Sadly, for you, personal opinion, bias and willful thinking are still not able to alter reality in any way, nor are they the foundations of scientific theories.

Sadly for you, personal religious desires are not able to weaken or falsify scientific theories.

RAZD writes:

By extension now -- applying your most recent cognitive dissonance revisionist attempt to explain the children reports -- we see that you actually acknowledge that your "mutually exclusinve" criteria in no way shows that supernatural beings are the product of human imagination.

Idiot. The mutually exclusive point was made to establish that people can and do invent SBs. As I explained, it is just one line of evidence that supports this:

Human beings can and do invent SBs. That alone does not make the theory that all SB's are invented. This is the strawman you've tried earlier in the thread, and I've explained patiently why it's wrong. Yet you've typed thousands of words arguing against this weak induction:

Human beings can and do invent SBs.

Therefore Theory: All SBs are human inventions.

It is the other fact, the fact that human invention is the only source currently known to exist that is required to make the theory.

Humans can and do invent SBs.

Human invention is the only known source of SBs.

Therefore theory: All SBs are human inventions.

You claim to know of another known source, and that would falsify my theory, yet you refuse to tell us what this mysterious source is that you can establish to exist beyond all reasonable doubt. Which SBs do you know of that actually exist outside our minds? You shouldn't make a claim and then avoid this question.

If you change your mind, and decide you don't know of any, then you will have to agree that I have a strong inductive theory (if and when you learn to understand inductive theories).

BTW, you can lie about me not having empirical evidence without making silly charts. And an alternative hypothesis (one or more of the creation myths is true) has been tested. You disagree, but when I ask you to tell me which one is true, you run away, and lie in silly charts. Scientific theories aren't falsified by lying in silly charts.

Questions that you will try to avoid because you have no argument.

Is the SB concept of a giant Earth supporting turtle a figment of the human imagination or is there a real one?

Are scientific theories weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them, like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some humans"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2011 9:01 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 02-23-2011 10:23 AM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 111 of 222 (606018)
02-23-2011 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by bluegenes
02-22-2011 3:00 PM


You still don't answer the question: where's the evidence?
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi bluegenes, still trying to use bombast and bluster instead of evidence.

Please learn the basics, and learn to think.
Idiot.

Resorting to insult again instead of providing supporting evidence.

I gave you a chance to demonstrate your methodology and the undeniable FACT that you have not done so shows that you do not have a usable methodology to determine whether or not a supernatural being is an invention, an observation or derived from evidence.

Assumption of your conclusion is not a scientific methodology, it is the basis for pseudoscience.

This means you do not - cannot - have a scientific theory, just an hypothetical conjecture, because you cannot properly test your concept one way or the other without one. Without testing you have no theory because you have no objective empirical data developed from the hypothesis that is only valid if the hypothesis is correct.

The mutually exclusive point was made to establish that people can and do invent SBs.

Except that it doesn't. As you essentially admitted in Message 107:

No. If the stories are all mutually exclusive, the logic of my position is that only one story at most can be true. Therefore there is evidence for widespread invention. Then, of course, the kid's would have to be describing non-existent furniture, because the worlds in the creation mythologies don't exist. ...

Another example of your extremely poor logic:

  1. The mutually exclusive nature of the children's reports is due to different aspects of the furniture making process being covered by different reports, and by your assumption that they are talking about identical events in identical ways: it is your assumption that is faulty. Without that assumption they are not mutually exclusive.

  2. There is absolutely no reason to assume in any way that the furniture would be non-existent.

You keep trying to ram my argument into your narrow preconceptions and blindly miss the actual point time and again. But it got even better ...

... From this, we do not conclude that there's no furniture makers. ...

By extension now -- applying your most recent cognitive dissonance revisionist attempt to explain the children reports -- we see that you actually acknowledge that your "mutually exclusive" criteria in no way shows that supernatural beings are the product of human imagination.

In other words you admit it is not evidence that supernatural beings are made up.

QED

For review, once more, from Message 4 your assertions AND your failure to support them are (emphasis added):

We'll start with claim (1):
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".

This is your assertion, you need to support it with some objective empirical evidence. Without supporting objective empirical evidence it is an opinion founded on personal biases at worst, or a hypothetical possibility at best,

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

As to claim (2):
This is a high level of confidence ...

... where you were referring to my levels of confidence scale, level III concepts (now level IV):

quote:
III. High Confidence Concepts

  1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence

  2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1) as required by (a) plus evidence of confirmation and validation by others, and evidence of repeated attempts to falsify your hypothetical possibility -- normally this involves articles in scientific journals.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Claim (3):
This is a ... theory. ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1). Scientific theory starts with a foundation of objective empirical evidence, a set of objective empirical evidence where the hypothesis is true. Without such foundational objective empirical evidence all you have is a hypothetical possibility based on opinion and biases.

Unsupported hypothetical possibilities are certainly not scientific theories.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Now claim (4):
... and support the theory with plenty of evidence ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1). Made up caricatures are not objective empirical evidence and subjective interpretations of hearsay anecdotal circumstantial narratives are not objective empirical evidence.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Then claim (5):
... The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence that rules out other other sources, including the four possible sources I have already mentioned. You need to eliminate the alternatives before you can claim your concept is singularly valid.

This is because if your exclusive claim is not the only possibilities, then your claim of exclusivity is invalid, and your possibility of trying to use this argument to support your claim evaporates.

This is not evidence either, rather it is an attempt to avoid providing evidence. This is the pseudoskeptic approach, not the scientific approach.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

And finally claim (6):
... this is a strong theory, ....

Without objective empirical evidence for assertion (3), which requires objective empirical evidence for assertion (1), you don't have a theory. Without objective empirical evidence for this assertion it cannot be strong either. Without any system or method or technique for actually applying your concept so that you can actually show whether your assertion (1) is true in any specific cases it cannot be a valid theory in the scientific sense of this terminology. Finally, in science a theory does not become strong by proclaiming it to be strong, but by repeated tested and scientifically documented validation in scientific journals. You have not provided any evidence of this.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

You need to stop hiding in your hat, get off your duff, apply your system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept --- IF you have one that is of scientific value, rather than you just asserting your opinion --- and use it to provide some objective empirical evidence.

This is how scientists apply actual theories, and repeated application and demonstration of validity is how actual theories become strong theories.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

If you actually have a strong scientific theory, then why can you not provide any objective empirical evidence to support and substantiate it in any specific instances?

So far, you have SHOWN -- by your absence of ability to support your assertions above -- that your hypothetical conjecture is NOT based on the scientific process, and thus your pretentious nattering about the scientific method and scientific evidence is quite amusing.

Do you think scientific theories are based on opinions and biases?

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Message 92 ... still valid:

quote:
I've shown:

  • that your hypothesis is unfounded by empirical objective evidence,
  • that your conclusions are based on false logic,
  • that you are assuming your conclusion is true rather than testing it or demonstrating it,
  • that you do not have a method\process to distinguish human imagination from supernatural experiences,
  • that you do not have a scientific theory,
  • that you have an hypothesis based on your opinion/s, bias/es and wishful thinking,
  • (again) that you are a pseudoskeptic, using pseudoscience rather than applying science to the question
  • that you have not supported a single one of the six (6) assertions listed in Message 1 with any empirical objective evidence.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

If you have a strong theory, why can't you produce reams of documented objective empirical evidence to support it?

If you have a scientific theory, why can't you produce ANY evidence to support it?

If you have a scientific theory instead of an hypothetical concept, then how do you test whether a supernatural being is a fiction of human imagination rather than from some other source?

What is your system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept that can determine when concepts are figments of imagination rather than just assume it?

By just assuming that it is so?

Really?

Is that how science is done?

By making stuff up?

Really?

Is that how science is done?

Sadly, for you, personal opinion, bias and willful thinking are still not able to alter reality in any way, nor are they the foundations of scientific theories.

scientific process

pseudoscientific process

observe objective empirical evidence
missing

form a priori hypothetical conjecture
 present 

(A) form hypothesis to explain the known evidence
known evidence missing

claim you have a theory
 present 

develop anti-hypothesis (antithesis)
missing

look for evidence to support the hypothesis
 present 

(B) develop test to differentiate hypothesis from antithesis
missing

use invalid logic to make conclusions
 present 

run tests to see if hypothesis or antithesis falsified
missing

claim it is a strong theory
 present 

if hypothesis is invalidated go back to (A)
not tested

say you have plenty of evidence
 present 

if antithesis not invalidated go back to (B)
not tested

claim some highly unlikely event will falsify the theory
 present 

publish methodology, results and propose the theory
missing

say it is up to others to invalidate the theory
 present 

after testing & replication of results by others theory is accepted
missing

ignore contradictory information and repeat assertions
 present 

Conclusion: what you have is a hypothetical conjecture based on your opinion, biases and wishful thinking, it is not a scientific theory based on the scientific method and properly tested, it is pseudoscience at best, delusion at worst.

the pseudoscientist creationist says:
if the bible is true then god is true
if god is true then the bible is true
therefore the bible and god are true

the pseudoscientist atheist says
all supernatural beings are the product of human imagination
human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings
therefore supernatural beings are imaginary

You assume your conclusion in your premises, and ignore other possibilities: that is not how valid logic is done.

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants have been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s.


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 110 by bluegenes, posted 02-22-2011 3:00 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by bluegenes, posted 03-01-2011 5:28 AM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 815 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 112 of 222 (606937)
03-01-2011 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by RAZD
02-23-2011 10:23 AM


Seven months without falsification!!!
bluegenes from the last post writes:

BTW, you can lie about me not having empirical evidence without making silly charts. And an alternative hypothesis (one or more of the creation myths is true) has been tested. You disagree, but when I ask you to tell me which one is true, you run away, and lie in silly charts. Scientific theories aren't falsified by lying in silly charts.

Questions that you will try to avoid because you have no argument.

Is the SB concept of a giant Earth supporting turtle a figment of the human imagination or is there a real one?

Are scientific theories weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them, like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some humans"?

Is the SB concept of a giant earth supporting turtle a figment of the human imagination or is there a real one?

Are scientific theories weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them, like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some humans"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 02-23-2011 10:23 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2011 7:52 AM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 113 of 222 (606939)
03-01-2011 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by bluegenes
03-01-2011 5:28 AM


Re: Seven months and STILL without evidence!!!
bluegenes and RAZD only

HI bluegenes, still trying to pretend you have a scientific theory?

Sadly, for you, personal opinion, bias and willful thinking are still not able to alter reality in any way, nor are they the foundations of scientific theories.

For those unclear on the differences between how science develops theories and how pseudoscientists claim to have developed theories, I repeat this table:

scientific process

pseudoscientific process

observe objective empirical evidence
missing

form a priori hypothetical conjecture
 present 

(A) form hypothesis to explain the known evidence
known evidence missing

claim you have a theory
 present 

develop anti-hypothesis (antithesis)
missing

look for evidence to support the hypothesis
 present 

(B) develop test to differentiate hypothesis from antithesis
missing

use invalid logic to make conclusions
 present 

run tests to see if hypothesis or antithesis falsified
missing

claim it is a strong theory
 present 

if hypothesis is invalidated go back to (A)
not tested

say you have plenty of evidence
 present 

if antithesis not invalidated go back to (B)
not tested

claim some highly unlikely event will falsify the theory
 present 

publish methodology, results and propose the theory
missing

say it is up to others to invalidate the theory
 present 

after testing & replication of results by others theory is accepted
missing

ignore contradictory information and repeat assertions
 present 

Conclusion: what you have is a hypothetical conjecture based on your opinion, biases and wishful thinking, it is not a scientific theory based on the scientific method and properly tested, it is pseudoscience at best, delusion at worst.

the pseudoscientist creationist says:
if the bible is true then god is true
if god is true then the bible is true
therefore the bible and god are true

the pseudoscientist atheist says
all supernatural beings are the product of human imagination
human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings
therefore supernatural beings are imaginary

You assume your conclusion in your premises, and ignore other possibilities: that is not how valid logic is done.

Assumption of your conclusion is not a scientific methodology, it is the basis for pseudoscience.

You do not have a system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept that can determine when concepts are figments of imagination rather than just assume it. This means you do not - cannot - have a scientific theory, just an hypothetical conjecture, because you cannot properly test your concept one way or the other without one. Without testing you have no theory because you have no objective empirical data developed from the hypothesis that is only valid if the hypothesis is correct.

The mutually exclusive point was made to establish that people can and do invent SBs.

Except that it doesn't. As you essentially admitted in Message 107:

No. If the stories are all mutually exclusive, the logic of my position is that only one story at most can be true. Therefore there is evidence for widespread invention. Then, of course, the kid's would have to be describing non-existent furniture, because the worlds in the creation mythologies don't exist. ...

Another example of your extremely poor logic:

  1. The mutually exclusive nature of the children's reports is due to different aspects of the furniture making process being covered by different reports, and by your assumption that they are talking about identical events in identical ways: it is your assumption that is faulty. Without that assumption they are not mutually exclusive.

  2. There is absolutely no reason to assume in any way that the furniture would be non-existent.

You keep trying to ram my argument into your narrow preconceptions and blindly miss the actual point time and again. But it got even better ...

... From this, we do not conclude that there's no furniture makers. ...

By extension now -- applying your most recent cognitive dissonance revisionist attempt to explain the children reports -- we see that you actually acknowledge that your "mutually exclusive" criteria in no way shows that supernatural beings are the product of human imagination.

In other words you admit it is not evidence that supernatural beings are made up.

QED

For review, once more, from Message 4 your assertions AND your failure to support them are (emphasis added):

We'll start with claim (1):
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".

This is your assertion, you need to support it with some objective empirical evidence. Without supporting objective empirical evidence it is an opinion founded on personal biases at worst, or a hypothetical possibility at best,

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

As to claim (2):
This is a high level of confidence ...

... where you were referring to my levels of confidence scale, level III concepts (now level IV):

quote:
III. High Confidence Concepts

  1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence

  2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1) as required by (a) plus evidence of confirmation and validation by others, and evidence of repeated attempts to falsify your hypothetical possibility -- normally this involves articles in scientific journals.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Claim (3):
This is a ... theory. ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1). Scientific theory starts with a foundation of objective empirical evidence, a set of objective empirical evidence where the hypothesis is true. Without such foundational objective empirical evidence all you have is a hypothetical possibility based on opinion and biases.

Unsupported hypothetical possibilities are certainly not scientific theories.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Now claim (4):
... and support the theory with plenty of evidence ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1). Made up caricatures are not objective empirical evidence and subjective interpretations of hearsay anecdotal circumstantial narratives are not objective empirical evidence.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Then claim (5):
... The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence that rules out other other sources, including the four possible sources I have already mentioned. You need to eliminate the alternatives before you can claim your concept is singularly valid.

This is because if your exclusive claim is not the only possibilities, then your claim of exclusivity is invalid, and your possibility of trying to use this argument to support your claim evaporates.

This is not evidence either, rather it is an attempt to avoid providing evidence. This is the pseudoskeptic approach, not the scientific approach.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

And finally claim (6):
... this is a strong theory, ....

Without objective empirical evidence for assertion (3), which requires objective empirical evidence for assertion (1), you don't have a theory. Without objective empirical evidence for this assertion it cannot be strong either. Without any system or method or technique for actually applying your concept so that you can actually show whether your assertion (1) is true in any specific cases it cannot be a valid theory in the scientific sense of this terminology. Finally, in science a theory does not become strong by proclaiming it to be strong, but by repeated tested and scientifically documented validation in scientific journals. You have not provided any evidence of this.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

You need to stop hiding in your hat, get off your duff, apply your system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept --- IF you have one that is of scientific value, rather than you just asserting your opinion --- and use it to provide some objective empirical evidence.

This is how scientists apply actual theories, and repeated application and demonstration of validity is how actual theories become strong theories.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

If you actually have a strong scientific theory, then why can you not provide any objective empirical evidence to support and substantiate it in any specific instances?

So far, you have SHOWN -- by your absence of ability to support your assertions above -- that your hypothetical conjecture is NOT based on the scientific process, and thus your pretentious nattering about the scientific method and scientific evidence is quite amusing.

Do you think scientific theories are based on opinions and biases?

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Message 92 ... still valid:

quote:
I've shown:

  • that your hypothesis is unfounded by empirical objective evidence,
  • that your conclusions are based on false logic,
  • that you are assuming your conclusion is true rather than testing it or demonstrating it,
  • that you do not have a method\process to distinguish human imagination from supernatural experiences,
  • that you do not have a scientific theory,
  • that you have an hypothesis based on your opinion/s, bias/es and wishful thinking,
  • (again) that you are a pseudoskeptic, using pseudoscience rather than applying science to the question
  • that you have not supported a single one of the six (6) assertions listed in Is it a scientific theory or is it wishful thinking? (Message 1) with any empirical objective evidence.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

If you have a strong theory, why can't you produce reams of documented objective empirical evidence to support it?

If you have a scientific theory, why can't you produce ANY evidence to support it?

If you have a scientific theory instead of an hypothetical concept, then how do you test whether a supernatural being is a fiction of human imagination rather than from some other source?

What is your system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept that can determine when concepts are figments of imagination rather than just assume it?

By just assuming that it is so?

Really?

Is that how science is done?

By making stuff up?

Really?

Is that how science is done?

I see no need to attempt to falsify something that is not a scientific theory, but is rather a concoction of biased thinking, poor logic and wishful thinking, all of which have been amply demonstrated. These falsify your claim of having a scientific theory - in spades - so no further work necessary.

Seven months and no support for any of your six assertions.

If I were a scientist with this record, I would hang my head in shame.

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants have been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s.

Edited by RAZD, : end

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : banners


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 112 by bluegenes, posted 03-01-2011 5:28 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by bluegenes, posted 03-01-2011 8:06 AM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 815 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 114 of 222 (606940)
03-01-2011 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by RAZD
03-01-2011 7:52 AM


Seven months and the theory is stll unfalsified.
Is the SB concept of a giant earth supporting turtle a figment of the human imagination or is there a real one?

Are scientific theories weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them, like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some humans"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2011 7:52 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2011 8:13 AM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 115 of 222 (606941)
03-01-2011 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by bluegenes
03-01-2011 8:06 AM


Re: Seven months and STILL no evidence you have a scientyific theory.
bluegenes and RAZD only

HI bluegenes, still trying to pretend you have a scientific theory?

Obviously you did not read my last reply. Curiously, it seems you rarely read my replies or you would logically be trying something else rather than repeating false assertions.

Sadly, for you, personal opinion, bias and willful thinking are still not able to alter reality in any way, nor are they the foundations of scientific theories.

For those unclear on the differences between how science develops theories and how pseudoscientists claim to have developed theories, I repeat this table:

scientific process

pseudoscientific process

observe objective empirical evidence
missing

form a priori hypothetical conjecture
 present 

(A) form hypothesis to explain the known evidence
known evidence missing

claim you have a theory
 present 

develop anti-hypothesis (antithesis)
missing

look for evidence to support the hypothesis
 present 

(B) develop test to differentiate hypothesis from antithesis
missing

use invalid logic to make conclusions
 present 

run tests to see if hypothesis or antithesis falsified
missing

claim it is a strong theory
 present 

if hypothesis is invalidated go back to (A)
not tested

say you have plenty of evidence
 present 

if antithesis not invalidated go back to (B)
not tested

claim some highly unlikely event will falsify the theory
 present 

publish methodology, results and propose the theory
missing

say it is up to others to invalidate the theory
 present 

after testing & replication of results by others theory is accepted
missing

ignore contradictory information and repeat assertions
 present 

Conclusion: what you have is a hypothetical conjecture based on your opinion, biases and wishful thinking, it is not a scientific theory based on the scientific method and properly tested, it is pseudoscience at best, delusion at worst.

the pseudoscientist creationist says:
if the bible is true then god is true
if god is true then the bible is true
therefore the bible and god are true

the pseudoscientist atheist says
all supernatural beings are the product of human imagination
human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings
therefore supernatural beings are imaginary

You assume your conclusion in your premises, and ignore other possibilities: that is not how valid logic is done.

Assumption of your conclusion is not a scientific methodology, it is the basis for pseudoscience.

You do not have a system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept that can determine when concepts are figments of imagination rather than just assume it. This means you do not - cannot - have a scientific theory, just an hypothetical conjecture, because you cannot properly test your concept one way or the other without one. Without testing you have no theory because you have no objective empirical data developed from the hypothesis that is only valid if the hypothesis is correct.

The mutually exclusive point was made to establish that people can and do invent SBs.

Except that it doesn't. As you essentially admitted in Message 107:

No. If the stories are all mutually exclusive, the logic of my position is that only one story at most can be true. Therefore there is evidence for widespread invention. Then, of course, the kid's would have to be describing non-existent furniture, because the worlds in the creation mythologies don't exist. ...

Another example of your extremely poor logic:

  1. The mutually exclusive nature of the children's reports is due to different aspects of the furniture making process being covered by different reports, and by your assumption that they are talking about identical events in identical ways: it is your assumption that is faulty. Without that assumption they are not mutually exclusive.

  2. There is absolutely no reason to assume in any way that the furniture would be non-existent.

You keep trying to ram my argument into your narrow preconceptions and blindly miss the actual point time and again. But it got even better ...

... From this, we do not conclude that there's no furniture makers. ...

By extension now -- applying your most recent cognitive dissonance revisionist attempt to explain the children reports -- we see that you actually acknowledge that your "mutually exclusive" criteria in no way shows that supernatural beings are the product of human imagination.

In other words you admit it is not evidence that supernatural beings are made up.

QED

For review, once more, from Message 4 your assertions AND your failure to support them are (emphasis added):

We'll start with claim (1):
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".

This is your assertion, you need to support it with some objective empirical evidence. Without supporting objective empirical evidence it is an opinion founded on personal biases at worst, or a hypothetical possibility at best,

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

As to claim (2):
This is a high level of confidence ...

... where you were referring to my levels of confidence scale, level III concepts (now level IV):

quote:
III. High Confidence Concepts

  1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence

  2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1) as required by (a) plus evidence of confirmation and validation by others, and evidence of repeated attempts to falsify your hypothetical possibility -- normally this involves articles in scientific journals.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Claim (3):
This is a ... theory. ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1). Scientific theory starts with a foundation of objective empirical evidence, a set of objective empirical evidence where the hypothesis is true. Without such foundational objective empirical evidence all you have is a hypothetical possibility based on opinion and biases.

Unsupported hypothetical possibilities are certainly not scientific theories.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Now claim (4):
... and support the theory with plenty of evidence ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1). Made up caricatures are not objective empirical evidence and subjective interpretations of hearsay anecdotal circumstantial narratives are not objective empirical evidence.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Then claim (5):
... The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence that rules out other other sources, including the four possible sources I have already mentioned. You need to eliminate the alternatives before you can claim your concept is singularly valid.

This is because if your exclusive claim is not the only possibilities, then your claim of exclusivity is invalid, and your possibility of trying to use this argument to support your claim evaporates.

This is not evidence either, rather it is an attempt to avoid providing evidence. This is the pseudoskeptic approach, not the scientific approach.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

And finally claim (6):
... this is a strong theory, ....

Without objective empirical evidence for assertion (3), which requires objective empirical evidence for assertion (1), you don't have a theory. Without objective empirical evidence for this assertion it cannot be strong either. Without any system or method or technique for actually applying your concept so that you can actually show whether your assertion (1) is true in any specific cases it cannot be a valid theory in the scientific sense of this terminology. Finally, in science a theory does not become strong by proclaiming it to be strong, but by repeated tested and scientifically documented validation in scientific journals. You have not provided any evidence of this.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

You need to stop hiding in your hat, get off your duff, apply your system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept --- IF you have one that is of scientific value, rather than you just asserting your opinion --- and use it to provide some objective empirical evidence.

This is how scientists apply actual theories, and repeated application and demonstration of validity is how actual theories become strong theories.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

If you actually have a strong scientific theory, then why can you not provide any objective empirical evidence to support and substantiate it in any specific instances?

So far, you have SHOWN -- by your absence of ability to support your assertions above -- that your hypothetical conjecture is NOT based on the scientific process, and thus your pretentious nattering about the scientific method and scientific evidence is quite amusing.

Do you think scientific theories are based on opinions and biases?

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Message 92 ... still valid:

quote:
I've shown:

  • that your hypothesis is unfounded by empirical objective evidence,
  • that your conclusions are based on false logic,
  • that you are assuming your conclusion is true rather than testing it or demonstrating it,
  • that you do not have a method\process to distinguish human imagination from supernatural experiences,
  • that you do not have a scientific theory,
  • that you have an hypothesis based on your opinion/s, bias/es and wishful thinking,
  • (again) that you are a pseudoskeptic, using pseudoscience rather than applying science to the question
  • that you have not supported a single one of the six (6) assertions listed in Is it a scientific theory or is it wishful thinking? (Message 1) with any empirical objective evidence.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

If you have a strong theory, why can't you produce reams of documented objective empirical evidence to support it?

If you have a scientific theory, why can't you produce ANY evidence to support it?

If you have a scientific theory instead of an hypothetical concept, then how do you test whether a supernatural being is a fiction of human imagination rather than from some other source?

What is your system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept that can determine when concepts are figments of imagination rather than just assume it?

By just assuming that it is so?

Really?

Is that how science is done?

By making stuff up?

Really?

Is that how science is done?

I see no need to attempt to falsify something that is not a scientific theory, but is rather a concoction of biased thinking, poor logic and wishful thinking, all of which have been amply demonstrated. These falsify your claim of having a scientific theory - in spades - so no further work necessary.

Seven months and no support for any of your six assertions.

If I were a scientist with this record, I would hang my head in shame.

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants have been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s.

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.


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 114 by bluegenes, posted 03-01-2011 8:06 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by bluegenes, posted 03-01-2011 8:37 AM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 815 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 116 of 222 (606942)
03-01-2011 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by RAZD
03-01-2011 8:13 AM


Seven months, and the theory is still unfalsified.
Why are you frightened of my questions?

Do you think that the SB concept of an Earth supporting giant turtle is a figment of the human imagination, or do you think there's a real one?

Do you think that the evidence for human evolution effectively falsifies the SB concept of the three brothers who created the first two humans from logs, and shows them to be a figment of the human imagination?

Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them, like omphalism and supernatural beings communicate with some human beings?

Do you think scientific theories become non-existence if people tell lies in silly charts?

Do you know of a confirmed source of the supernatural concepts we have in our minds other than human invention?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2011 8:13 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2011 9:00 AM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 117 of 222 (606945)
03-01-2011 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by bluegenes
03-01-2011 8:37 AM


Re: Seven months, and STILL no evidence that you have a theory
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi again bluegenes, still avoiding the issue that you do not have a scientific theory.

Sadly, for you, personal opinion, bias and willful thinking are still not able to alter reality in any way, nor are they the foundations of scientific theories.

For those unclear on the differences between how science develops theories and how pseudoscientists claim to have developed theories, I repeat this table:

scientific process

pseudoscientific process

observe objective empirical evidence
missing

form a priori hypothetical conjecture
 present 

(A) form hypothesis to explain the known evidence
known evidence missing

claim you have a theory
 present 

develop anti-hypothesis (antithesis)
missing

look for evidence to support the hypothesis
 present 

(B) develop test to differentiate hypothesis from antithesis
missing

use invalid logic to make conclusions
 present 

run tests to see if hypothesis or antithesis falsified
missing

claim it is a strong theory
 present 

if hypothesis is invalidated go back to (A)
not tested

say you have plenty of evidence
 present 

if antithesis not invalidated go back to (B)
not tested

claim some highly unlikely event will falsify the theory
 present 

publish methodology, results and propose the theory
missing

say it is up to others to invalidate the theory
 present 

after testing & replication of results by others theory is accepted
missing

ignore contradictory information and repeat assertions
 present 

Conclusion: what you have is a hypothetical conjecture based on your opinion, biases and wishful thinking, it is not a scientific theory based on the scientific method and properly tested, it is pseudoscience at best, delusion at worst.

the pseudoscientist creationist says:
if the bible is true then god is true
if god is true then the bible is true
therefore the bible and god are true

the pseudoscientist atheist says
all supernatural beings are the product of human imagination
human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings
therefore supernatural beings are imaginary

You assume your conclusion in your premises, and ignore other possibilities: that is not how valid logic is done.

Assumption of your conclusion is not a scientific methodology, it is the basis for pseudoscience.

You do not have a system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept that can determine when concepts are figments of imagination rather than just assume it. This means you do not - cannot - have a scientific theory, just an hypothetical conjecture, because you cannot properly test your concept one way or the other without one. Without testing you have no theory because you have no objective empirical data developed from the hypothesis that is only valid if the hypothesis is correct.

The mutually exclusive point was made to establish that people can and do invent SBs.

Except that it doesn't. As you essentially admitted in Message 107:

No. If the stories are all mutually exclusive, the logic of my position is that only one story at most can be true. Therefore there is evidence for widespread invention. Then, of course, the kid's would have to be describing non-existent furniture, because the worlds in the creation mythologies don't exist. ...

Another example of your extremely poor logic:

  1. The mutually exclusive nature of the children's reports is due to different aspects of the furniture making process being covered by different reports, and by your assumption that they are talking about identical events in identical ways: it is your assumption that is faulty. Without that assumption they are not mutually exclusive.

  2. There is absolutely no reason to assume in any way that the furniture would be non-existent.

You keep trying to ram my argument into your narrow preconceptions and blindly miss the actual point time and again. But it got even better ...

... From this, we do not conclude that there's no furniture makers. ...

By extension now -- applying your most recent cognitive dissonance revisionist attempt to explain the children reports -- we see that you actually acknowledge that your "mutually exclusive" criteria in no way shows that supernatural beings are the product of human imagination.

In other words you admit it is not evidence that supernatural beings are made up.

QED

For review, once more, from Message 4 your assertions AND your failure to support them are (emphasis added):

We'll start with claim (1):
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".

This is your assertion, you need to support it with some objective empirical evidence. Without supporting objective empirical evidence it is an opinion founded on personal biases at worst, or a hypothetical possibility at best,

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

As to claim (2):
This is a high level of confidence ...

... where you were referring to my levels of confidence scale, level III concepts (now level IV):

quote:
III. High Confidence Concepts

  1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence

  2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1) as required by (a) plus evidence of confirmation and validation by others, and evidence of repeated attempts to falsify your hypothetical possibility -- normally this involves articles in scientific journals.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Claim (3):
This is a ... theory. ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1). Scientific theory starts with a foundation of objective empirical evidence, a set of objective empirical evidence where the hypothesis is true. Without such foundational objective empirical evidence all you have is a hypothetical possibility based on opinion and biases.

Unsupported hypothetical possibilities are certainly not scientific theories.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Now claim (4):
... and support the theory with plenty of evidence ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1). Made up caricatures are not objective empirical evidence and subjective interpretations of hearsay anecdotal circumstantial narratives are not objective empirical evidence.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Then claim (5):
... The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence that rules out other other sources, including the four possible sources I have already mentioned. You need to eliminate the alternatives before you can claim your concept is singularly valid.

This is because if your exclusive claim is not the only possibilities, then your claim of exclusivity is invalid, and your possibility of trying to use this argument to support your claim evaporates.

This is not evidence either, rather it is an attempt to avoid providing evidence. This is the pseudoskeptic approach, not the scientific approach.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

And finally claim (6):
... this is a strong theory, ....

Without objective empirical evidence for assertion (3), which requires objective empirical evidence for assertion (1), you don't have a theory. Without objective empirical evidence for this assertion it cannot be strong either. Without any system or method or technique for actually applying your concept so that you can actually show whether your assertion (1) is true in any specific cases it cannot be a valid theory in the scientific sense of this terminology. Finally, in science a theory does not become strong by proclaiming it to be strong, but by repeated tested and scientifically documented validation in scientific journals. You have not provided any evidence of this.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

You need to stop hiding in your hat, get off your duff, apply your system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept --- IF you have one that is of scientific value, rather than you just asserting your opinion --- and use it to provide some objective empirical evidence.

This is how scientists apply actual theories, and repeated application and demonstration of validity is how actual theories become strong theories.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

If you actually have a strong scientific theory, then why can you not provide any objective empirical evidence to support and substantiate it in any specific instances?

So far, you have SHOWN -- by your absence of ability to support your assertions above -- that your hypothetical conjecture is NOT based on the scientific process, and thus your pretentious nattering about the scientific method and scientific evidence is quite amusing.

Do you think scientific theories are based on opinions and biases?

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Message 92 ... still valid:

quote:
I've shown:

  • that your hypothesis is unfounded by empirical objective evidence,
  • that your conclusions are based on false logic,
  • that you are assuming your conclusion is true rather than testing it or demonstrating it,
  • that you do not have a method\process to distinguish human imagination from supernatural experiences,
  • that you do not have a scientific theory,
  • that you have an hypothesis based on your opinion/s, bias/es and wishful thinking,
  • (again) that you are a pseudoskeptic, using pseudoscience rather than applying science to the question
  • that you have not supported a single one of the six (6) assertions listed in Is it a scientific theory or is it wishful thinking? (Message 1) with any empirical objective evidence.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

If you have a strong theory, why can't you produce reams of documented objective empirical evidence to support it?

If you have a scientific theory, why can't you produce ANY evidence to support it?

If you have a scientific theory instead of an hypothetical concept, then how do you test whether a supernatural being is a fiction of human imagination rather than from some other source?

What is your system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept that can determine when concepts are figments of imagination rather than just assume it?

By just assuming that it is so?

Really?

Is that how science is done?

By making stuff up?

Really?

Is that how science is done?

I see no need to attempt to falsify something that is not a scientific theory, but is rather a concoction of biased thinking, poor logic and wishful thinking, all of which have been amply demonstrated. These falsify your claim of having a scientific theory - in spades - so no further work necessary.

Seven months and no support for any of your six assertions.

If I were a scientist with this record, I would hang my head in shame.

Why are you frightened of my questions?

Because it is just another set of attempts in a long line of attempts to avoid the issue that you do not have a scientific theory.

Show that you have a scientific theory, and then we can then proceed to the next issue.

Why are you afraid (or unable) to either:

{A} acknowledge that you do not have a scientific theory, OR
{B} provide the evidence and methodology that would demonstrate that you have a theory developed by the scientific method with a proper founding on evidence?

Those are your choices. Stop hiding in your hat and chose {A} or {B}.

People that are unable to acknowledge that they were wrong in their claim are bound by their biases and beliefs, and not on rational thought based on evidence. People that repeat falsified claims anew as if they were not falsified are delusional.

de·lu·sion -noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)
  1. a. The act or process of deluding.

    b. The state of being deluded.

  2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.

  3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

quote:
... From this, we do not conclude that there's no furniture makers. ...

By extension now -- applying your most recent cognitive dissonance revisionist attempt to explain the children reports -- we see that you actually acknowledge that your "mutually exclusive" criteria in no way shows that supernatural beings are the product of human imagination.


You do not have any evidence that supports your hypothetical conjecture.

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants have been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s.

Edited by RAZD, : banners


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 116 by bluegenes, posted 03-01-2011 8:37 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by bluegenes, posted 03-01-2011 9:07 AM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 815 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 118 of 222 (606946)
03-01-2011 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by RAZD
03-01-2011 9:00 AM


Seven months, and the theory is still unfalsified.
Why are you frightened of my questions?

Do you think that the SB concept of an Earth supporting giant turtle is a figment of the human imagination, or do you think there's a real one?

Do you think that the evidence for human evolution effectively falsifies the SB concept of the three brothers who created the first two humans from logs, and shows them to be a figment of the human imagination?

Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them, like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some human beings"?

Do you think scientific theories become non-existence if people tell lies in silly charts?

Do you know of a confirmed source of the supernatural concepts we have in our minds other than human invention?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2011 9:00 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2011 10:46 AM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 119 of 222 (606977)
03-01-2011 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by bluegenes
03-01-2011 9:07 AM


Re: Seven months, and STILL NO EVIDENCE that you have scientific theory
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi again bluegenes, still avoiding the issue that you do not have a scientific theory.

Why are you afraid to admit that you haven't done the science that would be necessary to develop a scientific theory?

For those unclear on the differences between how science develops theories and how pseudoscientists claim to have developed theories, I repeat this table:

scientific process

pseudoscientific process

observe objective empirical evidence
missing

form a priori hypothetical conjecture
 present 

(A) form hypothesis to explain the known evidence
known evidence missing

claim you have a theory
 present 

develop anti-hypothesis (antithesis)
missing

look for evidence to support the hypothesis
 present 

(B) develop test to differentiate hypothesis from antithesis
missing

use invalid logic to make conclusions
 present 

run tests to see if hypothesis or antithesis falsified
missing

claim it is a strong theory
 present 

if hypothesis is invalidated go back to (A)
not tested

say you have plenty of evidence
 present 

if antithesis not invalidated go back to (B)
not tested

claim some highly unlikely event will falsify the theory
 present 

publish methodology, results and propose the theory
missing

say it is up to others to invalidate the theory
 present 

after testing & replication of results by others theory is accepted
missing

ignore contradictory information and repeat assertions
 present 

Conclusion: what you have is a hypothetical conjecture based on your opinion, biases and wishful thinking, it is not a scientific theory based on the scientific method and properly tested, it is pseudoscience at best, delusion at worst.

the pseudoscientist creationist says:
if the bible is true then god is true
if god is true then the bible is true
therefore the bible and god are true

the pseudoscientist atheist says
all supernatural beings are the product of human imagination
human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings
therefore supernatural beings are imaginary

You assume your conclusion in your premises, and ignore other possibilities: that is not how valid logic is done.

Assumption of your conclusion is not a scientific methodology, it is the basis for pseudoscience.

You do not have a system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept that can determine when concepts are figments of imagination rather than just assume it. This means you do not - cannot - have a scientific theory, just an hypothetical conjecture, because you cannot properly test your concept one way or the other without one. Without testing you have no theory because you have no objective empirical data developed from the hypothesis that is only valid if the hypothesis is correct.

The mutually exclusive point was made to establish that people can and do invent SBs.

Except that it doesn't. As you essentially admitted in Message 107:

No. If the stories are all mutually exclusive, the logic of my position is that only one story at most can be true. Therefore there is evidence for widespread invention. Then, of course, the kid's would have to be describing non-existent furniture, because the worlds in the creation mythologies don't exist. ...

Another example of your extremely poor logic:

  1. The mutually exclusive nature of the children's reports is due to different aspects of the furniture making process being covered by different reports, and by your assumption that they are talking about identical events in identical ways: it is your assumption that is faulty. Without that assumption they are not mutually exclusive.

  2. There is absolutely no reason to assume in any way that the furniture would be non-existent.

You keep trying to ram my argument into your narrow preconceptions and blindly miss the actual point time and again. But it got even better ...

... From this, we do not conclude that there's no furniture makers. ...

By extension now -- applying your most recent cognitive dissonance revisionist attempt to explain the children reports -- we see that you actually acknowledge that your "mutually exclusive" criteria in no way shows that supernatural beings are the product of human imagination.

In other words you admit it is not evidence that supernatural beings are made up.

QED

For review, once more, from Message 4 your assertions AND your failure to support them are (emphasis added):

We'll start with claim (1):
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".

This is your assertion, you need to support it with some objective empirical evidence. Without supporting objective empirical evidence it is an opinion founded on personal biases at worst, or a hypothetical possibility at best,

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

As to claim (2):
This is a high level of confidence ...

... where you were referring to my levels of confidence scale, level III concepts (now level IV):

quote:
III. High Confidence Concepts

  1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence

  2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1) as required by (a) plus evidence of confirmation and validation by others, and evidence of repeated attempts to falsify your hypothetical possibility -- normally this involves articles in scientific journals.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Claim (3):
This is a ... theory. ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1). Scientific theory starts with a foundation of objective empirical evidence, a set of objective empirical evidence where the hypothesis is true. Without such foundational objective empirical evidence all you have is a hypothetical possibility based on opinion and biases.

Unsupported hypothetical possibilities are certainly not scientific theories.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Now claim (4):
... and support the theory with plenty of evidence ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1). Made up caricatures are not objective empirical evidence and subjective interpretations of hearsay anecdotal circumstantial narratives are not objective empirical evidence.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Then claim (5):
... The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence that rules out other other sources, including the four possible sources I have already mentioned. You need to eliminate the alternatives before you can claim your concept is singularly valid.

This is because if your exclusive claim is not the only possibilities, then your claim of exclusivity is invalid, and your possibility of trying to use this argument to support your claim evaporates.

This is not evidence either, rather it is an attempt to avoid providing evidence. This is the pseudoskeptic approach, not the scientific approach.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

And finally claim (6):
... this is a strong theory, ....

Without objective empirical evidence for assertion (3), which requires objective empirical evidence for assertion (1), you don't have a theory. Without objective empirical evidence for this assertion it cannot be strong either. Without any system or method or technique for actually applying your concept so that you can actually show whether your assertion (1) is true in any specific cases it cannot be a valid theory in the scientific sense of this terminology. Finally, in science a theory does not become strong by proclaiming it to be strong, but by repeated tested and scientifically documented validation in scientific journals. You have not provided any evidence of this.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

You need to stop hiding in your hat, get off your duff, apply your system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept --- IF you have one that is of scientific value, rather than you just asserting your opinion --- and use it to provide some objective empirical evidence.

This is how scientists apply actual theories, and repeated application and demonstration of validity is how actual theories become strong theories.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

If you actually have a strong scientific theory, then why can you not provide any objective empirical evidence to support and substantiate it in any specific instances?

So far, you have SHOWN -- by your absence of ability to support your assertions above -- that your hypothetical conjecture is NOT based on the scientific process, and thus your pretentious nattering about the scientific method and scientific evidence is quite amusing.

Do you think scientific theories are based on opinions and biases?

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

Message 92 ... still valid:

quote:
I've shown:

  • that your hypothesis is unfounded by empirical objective evidence,
  • that your conclusions are based on false logic,
  • that you are assuming your conclusion is true rather than testing it or demonstrating it,
  • that you do not have a method\process to distinguish human imagination from supernatural experiences,
  • that you do not have a scientific theory,
  • that you have an hypothesis based on your opinion/s, bias/es and wishful thinking,
  • (again) that you are a pseudoskeptic, using pseudoscience rather than applying science to the question
  • that you have not supported a single one of the six (6) assertions listed in Is it a scientific theory or is it wishful thinking? (Message 1) with any empirical objective evidence.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

If you have a strong theory, why can't you produce reams of documented objective empirical evidence to support it?

If you have a scientific theory, why can't you produce ANY evidence to support it?

If you have a scientific theory instead of an hypothetical concept, then how do you test whether a supernatural being is a fiction of human imagination rather than from some other source?

What is your system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept that can determine when concepts are figments of imagination rather than just assume it?

By just assuming that it is so?

Really?

Is that how science is done?

By making stuff up?

Really?

Is that how science is done?

I see no need to attempt to falsify something that is not a scientific theory, but is rather a concoction of biased thinking, poor logic and wishful thinking, all of which have been amply demonstrated. These falsify your claim of having a scientific theory - in spades - so no further work necessary.

Seven months and no support for any of your six assertions.

If I were a scientist with this record, I would hang my head in shame.

Why are you frightened of my questions?

Because it is just another set of attempts in a long line of attempts to avoid the issue that you do not have a scientific theory.

Show that you have a scientific theory, and then we can then proceed to the next issue.

Why are you afraid (or unable) to either:

{A} acknowledge that you do not have a scientific theory, OR
{B} provide the evidence and methodology that would demonstrate that you have a theory developed by the scientific method with a proper founding on evidence?

Those are your choices. Stop hiding in your hat and chose {A} or {B}.

People that are unable to acknowledge that they were wrong in their claim are bound by their biases and beliefs, and not on rational thought based on evidence. People that repeat falsified claims anew as if they were not falsified are delusional.

de·lu·sion -noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)
  1. a. The act or process of deluding.

    b. The state of being deluded.

  2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.

  3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

quote:
... From this, we do not conclude that there's no furniture makers. ...

By extension now -- applying your most recent cognitive dissonance revisionist attempt to explain the children reports -- we see that you actually acknowledge that your "mutually exclusive" criteria in no way shows that supernatural beings are the product of human imagination.


You do not have any evidence that supports your hypothetical conjecture.

You do not have a scientific theory.

Why are you afraid to admit that you haven't done the science that would be necessary to develop a scientific theory?

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants have been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s.


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 118 by bluegenes, posted 03-01-2011 9:07 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by bluegenes, posted 03-01-2011 2:59 PM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 815 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 120 of 222 (607042)
03-01-2011 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by RAZD
03-01-2011 10:46 AM


Seven months, and still no falsification of the theory.
Why are you frightened of my questions?

Do you think that the SB concept of an Earth supporting giant turtle is a figment of the human imagination, or do you think there's a real one?

Do you think that the well documented evidence for human evolution effectively falsifies the SB concept of the three brothers who created the first two humans from logs, and shows them to be a figment of the human imagination?

Do you think that the theory that the earth is between 4 and 5 billion years old is not a scientific theory because the unsupported "anti-thesis" of omphalism has not been falsified?

Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them, like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some human beings"?

Do you think that scientific theories are "illogical" and not scientific theories if they are based on inductive reasoning?

Your arguments in this thread are all based on your apparent belief in those last two. If you can't answer "yes", your arguments are all destroyed. If you answer "yes", you will be wrong in both cases, and you will have demonstrated that you don't understand the basics of science. You're stuck.

Do you think scientific theories become non-existence if people tell lies in silly charts?

Do you know of a confirmed source of the supernatural concepts we humans have in our minds other than human invention?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2011 10:46 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2011 12:25 AM bluegenes has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019