Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
626 online now:
Aussie, dwise1, PaulK, Phat, Tanypteryx (5 members, 621 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,044 Year: 5,156/6,534 Month: 576/794 Week: 67/135 Day: 7/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)
RAZD
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 98 of 222 (605454)
02-19-2011 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by bluegenes
02-18-2011 3:54 PM


Re: still running from the questions
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi bluegenes,

Once again I remind you that the purpose of this thread is for you to substantiate your claim/s, including foremost that you have a theory that qualifies as a scientific theory and not a hypothetical conjecture.

A scientific theory is based on objective empirical evidence, not made up caricatures and biased interpretations of hearsay circumstantial narrations.

You don't have a scientific theory. If you did you would have objective empirical evidence. You don't have objective empirical evidence, therefore you CANNOT have a scientific theory.

You don't actually understand what objective empirical evidence is, so you'll have to leave judgement on who has won this debate to those of us who do.

Typical pseudoskeptic response: don't deal with the issue, attack the messenger.

Again: Do you believe that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported claims?

Do you believe scientific theories are based on made up evidence and unsupported claims?

Message 1 the OP quotes you as saying:

quote:
... , I'd be happy to participate in a one on one debate on the subject, and support the theoryhypothetical conjecture with plenty of evidence.

The information at the top lists "bluegenes 47" posts to date.

If you have "plenty of evidence" how come all you have are {a} your silly fabricated caricatures and {b} your opinion biased interpretations of hearsay circumstantial narrations that --- even IF your interpretation were true --- do not show that a single supernatural being is a fabrication of human imagination? - answer: because you have deluded yourself into thinking that you have something more than your opinion based on your biases and wishful thinking.

If you think it is a strong theoryhypothetical conjecture, how come you cannot produce any evidence that has been derived by it? - answer: because you have deluded yourself into thinking that you have something more than your opinion based on your biases and wishful thinking.

How come the only thing you can show is made up are your caricatures? - answer: because you have deluded yourself into thinking that you have something more than your opinion based on your biases and wishful thinking.

This is WHY you are losing (have lost) the debate: you cannot substantiate your claim/s.

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, : added

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

Edited by RAZD, : added first paragraph for people like Coyote that seem to be confused about the topic of this thread, and cannot get it through their heads that it is not about whether (or not) god/s exist, but whether (or not) bluegenes has a concept that can be called a scientific theory.


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 97 by bluegenes, posted 02-18-2011 3:54 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by bluegenes, posted 02-20-2011 6:24 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 100 of 222 (605487)
02-20-2011 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by bluegenes
02-20-2011 6:24 AM


Re: still running from the questions
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi again bluegenes

Support this claim without resorting to other unsupported claims.

There you go again. YOU need to support your claim that you HAVE a theory. I have SHOWN you why not previously. Obviously you haven't been reading my posts, or are just ignoring the "inconvenient truth" shown in them.

Once again, you are just evading and trying to avoid you're responsibility.

Anyone can read your posts on this thread, RAZD, and repeat my observations.

And they can also repeat mine, which are substantiated by references, unlike yours. The FACT that there is disagreement between interpretations of narratives is demonstration that your "evidence" is subjective and not objective.

Repeat: Do you believe scientific theories are based on made up evidence and unsupported claims?

You need to have objective empirical evidence, not just your opinion, biases and wishful thinking.

Message 82 ... still valid:

quote:
If all you have is your opinion, your interpretation, and your biased conclusions, then all one needs is other opinions, interpretations and biased conclusions that are contrary to yours. They are of equal merit. These are, in this instance, plentiful, as I have amply demonstrated. Your only recourse, then, is to provide actual objective empirical evidence that supports your claims, not more subjective evidence.

This is the problem with subjective evidence, it cannot provide a factual basis for theory or scientific knowledge: at best it can suggest hypothetical possibilities.

Hypothetical possibilities are certainly not strong theories. Contrary possibilities are also hypothetical possibilities, and thus there is no reason to assert one is more valid than the other, without objective empirical evidence.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

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 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:

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 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 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 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 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 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 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?


You have SHOWN 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? You concept is a one or a two on the (now revised) concept scale:

RAZD's Concept Scale (revised)
  1. Zero Confidence Concepts

    1. No evidence, subjective or objective, hypothetical arguments,

    2. No logical conclusions possible, but opinion possible

  2. Low Confidence Concepts

    1. Unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion also involved, but no known objective empirical evidence pro or con, nothing shows the concept per se to be invalid

    2. Conclusions regarding possibilities for further investigation, and opinions can be based on this level of evidence,

  3. Medium Confidence Concepts

    1. Based on some objective empirical evidence, but may also have contradictory or anomalous (unreconciled) evidence, a scientific hypothesis that has not (yet) been tested and that has not (yet) provided any new predicted evidence or information, or still in development

    2. Conclusions regarding possible reality can be made, methods to test and falsify such concepts can be developed to measure the possibility of their being true\false.

  4. 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.

You need to have objective empirical evidence to get to a higher level.

WHERE'S THE 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 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?

Personal opinion, bias and willful thinking are not the foundations of scientific theories.

Enjoy.

Footnote:

Your hypothetical conjecture is a level II, low confidence, concept without documented supporting objective empirical evidence. If you hypothetical conjecture is not testable - ie does not have a process for determining if a concept is made up or real - then it stays here.

RAZD's Concept Scale (revised)
  1. Zero Confidence Concepts

    1. No evidence, subjective or objective, hypothetical arguments,

    2. No logical conclusions possible, but opinion possible

  2. Low Confidence Concepts

    1. Unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion also involved, but no known objective empirical evidence pro or con, nothing shows the concept per se to be valid or invalid; untested hypothesis.

    2. Conclusions regarding possibilities for further investigation, and opinions can be based on this level of evidence,

  3. Medium Confidence Concepts

    1. Based on some objective empirical evidence, but may also have contradictory or anomalous (unreconciled) evidence, a scientific hypothesis that has not (yet) been tested and that has not (yet) provided any new predicted evidence or information, or still in development

    2. Conclusions regarding possible reality can be made, methods to test and falsify such concepts can be developed to measure the possibility of their being true\false.

  4. 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.

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, : footnote added


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 99 by bluegenes, posted 02-20-2011 6:24 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by bluegenes, posted 02-20-2011 12:09 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 102 of 222 (605508)
02-20-2011 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by bluegenes
02-20-2011 12:09 PM


it's your thesis to defend ... so far you've failed to do so.
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi bluegenes,

Re: People who can't support their arguments avoid direct questions

And your question is immaterial to this debate, an attempt to avoid the topic, which is about YOU defending your claim to have a strong scientific theory. It is not about the existence of supernatural beings, or about falsifying (yet) a theory, but about whether you have a hypothetical conjecture that QUALIFIES as a scientific theory. So far you have failed to so demonstrate.

You are the defender, it's your thesis to support, YOU are the one to answer questions, not ask them.

Like: where's the objective empirical evidence?

Like: do you think scientific theories are based on opinions and biases?

Like: IF you have a strong theory, then why can't you produce reams of published documented objective empirical evidence to support it?

Like: IF you have a scientific theory, why can't you produce ANY documented objective empirical evidence to support it?

Like: do you even have a system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept and that can determine when concepts are figments of imagination rather than just assume it?

Curiously, we still have no objective empirical evidence that you have produced to support your claims.

Hypothetical possibilities are certainly not strong theories. Contrary possibilities are also hypothetical possibilities, and thus there is no reason to assert one is more valid than the other, without objective empirical evidence.

WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?

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 not able to alter reality in any way, nor are they the foundations of scientific theories.

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 101 by bluegenes, posted 02-20-2011 12:09 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by bluegenes, posted 02-20-2011 6:36 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 104 of 222 (605554)
02-20-2011 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by bluegenes
02-20-2011 6:36 PM


well ad hoc answers may be easy, but they don't answer the issues
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi Bluegenes, thanks. for the attempt anyway.

Questions are easy for some of us to answer.

But do you actually answer them or just post more ad hoc opinion and bias based wishful thinking?

The question is directly relevant to your attempts to pretend that my theory is weak. You base these attempts on presenting unsupported and unfalsifiable claims as evidence. Having been caught out, you're frightened to answer my question.

Curiously, all I have done is match the same level of "evidence" that you spout to pretend that your hypothetical conjecture is something more than opinion and bias based wishful thinking.

You don't HAVE a theory, so the question of this kind of evidence weakening an actual scientific theory is irrelevant at this time.

Show you have a scientific theory, developed in the proper scientific manner and we can revisit this question, but until then all you are doing is avoiding the issue of whether or not you have a scientific theory.

Which SBs are known to exist outside of our minds?

Well, you could ask all kinds of religious people, and they could tell you what they think. The fact that they have not been validated by science does not mean that they are not true. The fact that you haven't investigated this just demonstrates your failure to follow through and actually do some research rather than sit on you duff and spout opinion and bias based wishful thinking. Real science done by real scientists involves testing of hypothesis derived from empirical objective evidence before they claim they have a theory. Specifically tests involve anti-hypothesis predictions and methods of differentiating results to form a clear pattern, not just tailored to your beliefs, opinions and biases.

Of human invention of SBs? In the scientific literature, in the creation mythologies ...
... I linked to the invented creation mythologies which are published and documented, and pointed out that there are thousands of scientific papers in cosmology, geology and biology that show them to be inventions.

Which we have discussed previously, and your claim was found to be just more opinion and bias based wishful thinking and not objective empirical evidence that demonstrates that any specific supernatural beings, especially one from any of the known world religions, are inventions of the human mind.

Curiously, we still have as yet unrefuted the example of children and the furniture factory as a rational explanation for the differences in the creation narratives. By your logic all furniture makers are figments of the children's imagination. Because we know this is a false conclusion we know that your logic has a fatally false construction. The fact that you continue to spout this false logic is evidence of a lack of understanding of basic logic on your part.

Do you think scientific theories are based on false logic?

... and other fantasy fiction, ...
Then there are all those tens of thousands of documents called fantasy novels, aren't there?

Which we have already discussed as well. Amazingly, we still have as yet unrefuted the example of private detective fiction novels as a rational check on your logic in using known fictions of this type. By your logic all private detectives are figments of human imagination. Because we know this conclusion to be false we know that your logic has a fatally false construction. The fact that you continue to spout this false logic is evidence of a lack of understanding of basic logic on your part.

And you continue to confuse intentional fiction with the investigation of whether or not supernatural beings are inventions or observations or derivations from observations.

This just shows a lack of intellectual integrity, acuity and understanding of the issue before you. You don't understand your own claims, it appears, as you continually mistake known fiction for the issue/s at hand. You need to start with something not known to be fiction and then demonstrate that it is fictional. You have not even begun to do this for any supernatural beings from any of the known world religions.

Do you think scientific theories are based on false logic?

... in psychiatric wards, and many other places. Didn't you know that psychiatrists are well aquainted with human invention of SBs? Didn't you know that people can experience and believe in demonstrably fictional beings, both supernatural and natural in their descriptions?
There's also plenty of interesting stuff about human invention and delusional belief in SBs in the psychiatric literature, and in neurology. Most is behind pay walls, but I'm always happy to discuss things like command hallucinations in relation to some of the more violent "prophets and seers" with someone who has a religious faith in communicating SBs, as you do. Commands to be violent

And now we have you digging deep to dredge up some poor people that have a large variety of beliefs from being Napoleon to being messengers of god/s. Curiously this also does not show that any supernatural beings of any of the known religions in the world are made up concepts.

We know that disturbed people believe many things that are not true - that is why we call them disturbed people. That they latch onto certain aspects from the world, from Napoleon to god/s, is not surprising, but if you assume one type of delusion proves the aspect to be imaginary, outside these cases, then there is a lot of this world that is imaginary. You're logic construction once again fails to be valid.

You're clutching at straws. Because you don't have any real objective empirical evidence to show that a specific supernatural being from any of the known religious is a fictional invention rather than one observed or derived from observations.

No. Do you think scientific theories are weakened by opinionated and biased supernaturalists presenting unsupported claims as evidence? Claims like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some people"?

You still don't have a scientific theory so the question is still irrelevant at this time.

Do you think scientific theories are based on opinions, biases, wishful thinking and unsupported claims as evidence?

Certainly there is evidence of something that you should be investigating and developing methods to determine and differentiate whether they are due to invention or to observation or to derivations from observations. This is what a real scientist would do. This would be how you would show support your hypothetical conjecture, with actual objective empirical evidence that differentiates one possible cause from the other possibilities in actual tests.

If you only look at evidence that you feels supports your hypothetical conjecture (as you have done) then all you have are false positives due to confirmation bias and the cherry picking the evidence.

Do you think science is done by only using evidence that supports hypothetical conjectures?

People can and do make things up. This does not mean that all concepts are made up.

People can and do make observations and derivations from observations. Many of these are not validated, but this does not mean that they are not true.

People (objective ones anyway) know that when you don't have sufficient information to tell one from the other, that they cannot make a logical conclusion based on the evidence, and that any conclusions anyone makes are based on opinion, bias and wishful thinking.

At first glance I thought you might finally have provided a tidbit of objective empirical evidence, but once again I am disappointed: you've just rehashed all the previous opinion and bias based wishful thinking that you have previously disgorged in quantity (if not in quality) on this thread, complete with the repetition of already falsified logic, showing that you do not use the scientific process, but engage in pseudoscience, ignoring falsifications.

Enjoy.

scientific process

pseudoscientific process

observe objective empirical evidence

form a priori hypothetical conjecture

(A) form hypothesis to explain the evidence

claim you have a theory

develop anti-hypothesis (antithesis)

look for evidence to support the hypothesis

(B) develop test to differentiate hypothesis from antithesis

use invalid logic to make conclusions

run tests to see if hypothesis or antithesis falsified

claim it is a strong theory

if hypothesis is invalidated go back to (A)

say you have plenty of evidence

if antithesis not invalidated go back to (B)

claim some highly unlikely event will falsify the theory

publish methodology, results and propose the theory

say it is up to others to invalidate the theory

after testing & replication of results by others theory is accepted

ignore contradictory information and repeat assertions

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, : ..

Edited by RAZD, : added comments


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 103 by bluegenes, posted 02-20-2011 6:36 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by bluegenes, posted 02-21-2011 7:46 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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 replied

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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 replied

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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 replied

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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 replied

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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 replied

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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 replied

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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 replied

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 121 of 222 (607098)
03-02-2011 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by bluegenes
03-01-2011 2:59 PM


Re: Seven months, and still no theory, still no evidence.
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi again bluegenes, still trying to take the thread off topic I see.

Why are you frightened of my questions?

Why are you unable to present evidence to substantiate your claims? Why do you need to ask questions if you cannot provide the evidence necessary to support your claims and be DONE with it? Why did you not present overwhelming evidence on your first or second post, as you claimed to posses? What prevents you from providing objective empirical evidence? Were your assertions lies?

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

And yet you do not show that there are lies, certainly you have not addressed this the way I have documented your falsehoods repeatedly. Typical pseudoskeptic response. Typical denial type reply common to creationists type pseudoscience.

Let me see if I can lay it out for you - one more time - what your problem is:



the bluegenes argument
the counter argument
the hypothesis
all supernatural beings are the product of human imagination
all descriptions of supernatural beings are discussing different aspects of a universal truth with symbolic language
first argument presented
subjective evidence consisting of made up junk
objective evidence documenting the Hindu premise
pros and cons for first argument
CON: made up caricatures do not represent any supernatural beings
PRO: objective documentation demonstrates the known previous evidence for hypothesis
second argument
subjective personal interpretation that creation myths are "mutually exclusive"
counter interpretation that creation myths are describing different aspects of a universal truth in symbolic language
first pros or cons for interpretations
CON: requires unnatural level of understanding of modern science by ancient people
PRO: requires natural level of understanding of symbolic language common to ancient people
second pros or cons for interpretations
CON: requires unnatural level of accuracy in being able to describe events, at odds with known human behavior
PRO: requires natural level of accuracy in being able to describe events, congruent with known human behavior
third pros or cons for interpretations
CON: does not show a single supernatural entity is a product of human imagination
CON: does not show that some aspects of the creation stories are not products of human imagination, just that this does not affect the existence of supernatural beings
falsification test
present a supernatural being
demonstrate that all supernatural beings are the product of human imagination
falsified
not one single instance yet
not one single instance yet
problems with falsification test
does not eliminate false result: supernatural beings can exist and not be presented
impractical in practice, but at least one makes it questionable for starters ...

I can continue this, for instance demonstrating that you have yet to provide a system or methodology that does not rest you your assuming the consequent to determine whether a supernatural being is a product of human imagination or a real being, but the point should be obvious even to the most confirmation bias blinded cognitive dissonant observer as well as those reviewing the arguments with open-minded skepticism.

As you can see from this summary, we have two opposing hypothesis, neither of which has been falsified, and where your hypothesis has not been substantiated in any way that can differentiate it from the other and vice versa.

Now, either BOTH are scientific theories, as you claim, or BOTH are hypothetical conjectures, as I have stated: they have virtually the same degree of lack of objective empirical evidence, neither has been tested and neither has been falsified. If anything the "Hindu hypothesis" is better supported by (a) being based on some objective evidence that documents this premise (and some other aspects) and (b) by relying on natural behavior of human beings rather than unnatural (supernatural?) behavior of human beings.

The objective thinking open-minded skeptic, however, will see that neither position has been established by any objective empirical evidence, that there is no scientific theory here, and that the question of the existence of god/s is neither proven nor disproven.

QED

Unless you have any other evidence to present - objective empirical evidence - you have lost this debate by absolutely failing to substantiate your six (6) assertions, as has already been documented many times in this debate.

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, : clrty


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 120 by bluegenes, posted 03-01-2011 2:59 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-02-2011 1:03 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 123 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2011 6:45 AM RAZD has seen this message
 Message 124 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2011 7:39 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 125 of 222 (607146)
03-02-2011 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Adminnemooseus
03-02-2011 1:03 AM


Re: Seven months, and still no theory, still no evidence.
Hi Adminnemooseus,

The topic of this thread is whether or not bluegenes has a theory. This includes him providing evidence that supports the transition from hypothesis to theory in the scientific method.

Just for the amusement of the peanut gallery, how about answering the message 120 questions anyway?

(A) it is not the topic of this thread: the topic of this thread is for bluegenes to support his assertions with objective empirical evidence.

(B) why don't you ask bluegenes to provide the evidence -- he claimed he had "plenty" of it so why is it not already presented?

It's been 7 months without objective empirical evidence, a rather extreme breech of forum guidelines if you ask me.

(C) why don't you ask bluegenes to answer the questions in:

  1. Message 121:
    quote:
    Why are you unable to present evidence to substantiate your claims? Why do you need to ask questions if you cannot provide the evidence necessary to support your claims and be DONE with it? Why did you not present overwhelming evidence on your first or second post, as you claimed to posses? What prevents you from providing objective empirical evidence? Were your assertions lies?

  2. Message 119
    quote:
    Why are you afraid to admit that you haven't done the science that would be necessary to develop a scientific theory?

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

    • 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. ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
    • claim (2) ... "This is a high level of confidence" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
    • claim (3) ... "This is a ... theory" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
    • claim (4) ... "and support the theory with plenty of evidence" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
    • 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 ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
    • 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?


  3. Message 117: same questions re claims
  4. Message 115: same questions re claims
  5. Message 113: same questions re claims
  6. Message 111: same questions re claims
  7. Message 106: same questions re claims
  8. Message 102: same questions re claims
  9. Message 100: same questions re claims
  10. Message 96: same questions re claims
  11. Message 82: same questions re claims
  12. Message 100: also "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?"
  13. Message 78: "If it is a strong theory then why can't bluegenes provide any objective empirical evidence to support it?"
  14. Message 77: "Are you ever going to ... (a) present objective empirical evidence that spells out why a supernatural being concept, one found in religious literature, is a human invention, OR (b) admit that you have no objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?
  15. Similar questions repeated in many many other posts, all asking for the evidence to support the assertions, all unanswered

(D) note that I've said I'll answer the questions once bluegenes provides the objective empirical evidence that supports his six (6) claims.

Note that I have asked for the evidence since Now try the topic: can you defend your theory? (Message 4), that it was recapped\repeated in Message 78 and I haven't seen any moderator step in to ask bluegenes "for the amusement of the peanut gallery" to answer these questions.

I think bringing this thread to a close, by demanding that bluegenes actually provide the "plentiful" objective empirical evidence he should have, and claimed he had, -- or to withdraw the claims -- would be a much more productive use of moderation.

This should have been done 7 months ago, imho.

Enjoy.

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 122 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-02-2011 1:03 AM Adminnemooseus has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 126 of 222 (607158)
03-02-2011 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by bluegenes
03-02-2011 7:39 AM


Seven months & the weak unsubstantiated hypothesis still has no objective evidence
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi bluegenes,

The most important questions are in the yellow section, and relate to the basis of your arguments against my theory on this thread.

You don't have a theory.

That has been vividly demonstrated by your complete inability to provide substantiating evidence in 7 months of posting on this thread.

It is also vividly demonstrated by your absolute complete and utter failure to even begin to demonstrate your methodology\system\process for determining whether supernatural beings are products of human imagination or real experiences ... other than assumption of the conclusion.

Seven months, and the strong theory remains unfalsified.

Because I haven't seen the need yet, because you don't have a theory.

Demonstrate that you have a theory and then we can proceed to the question of how bad your "falsification test" is and why it is likely to produce false results.

If it is a strong theory then why can't you provide any objective empirical evidence to support it?

Answer: it is not strong, it is not a theory, it is a hypothetical conjecture based on bias, opinion and wishful thinking, as I originally stated in Is it a scientific theory or is it wishful thinking? (Message 1).

Curiously, the Hindu hypothesis also remains unfalsified, and it is just as supported by evidence as your pretend hypothesis, so by your "logic" it must also be a strong theory -- or your logic is erroneous. Again.

You have failed to support your claims in any way by objective empirical evidence that demonstrates that a single supernatural entity is a product of human imagination. This failure show that it is a weak hypothesis.

why don't you answer the questions in:

  1. Message 121:
    quote:
    Why are you unable to present evidence to substantiate your claims?

    Why do you need to ask questions if you cannot provide the evidence necessary to support your claims and be DONE with it?

    Why did you not present overwhelming evidence on your first or second post, as you claimed to posses?

    What prevents you from providing objective empirical evidence?

    Were your assertions lies?



  2. Message 119
    quote:
    Why are you afraid to admit that you haven't done the science that would be necessary to develop a scientific theory?

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

    • 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. ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
    • claim (2) ... "This is a high level of confidence" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
    • claim (3) ... "This is a ... theory" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
    • claim (4) ... "and support the theory with plenty of evidence" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
    • 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 ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
    • 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?


  3. Message 117: same questions re claims
  4. Message 115: same questions re claims
  5. Message 113: same questions re claims
  6. Message 111: same questions re claims
  7. Message 106: same questions re claims
  8. Message 102: same questions re claims
  9. Message 100: same questions re claims
  10. Message 96: same questions re claims
  11. Message 82: same questions re claims
  12. Message 100: also "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?"
  13. Message 78: "If it is a strong theory then why can't bluegenes provide any objective empirical evidence to support it?"
  14. Message 77: "Are you ever going to ... (a) present objective empirical evidence that spells out why a supernatural being concept, one found in religious literature, is a human invention, OR (b) admit that you have no objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?
  15. Similar questions repeated in many many other posts, all asking for the evidence to support the assertions, all unanswered

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

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, : splng


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 124 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2011 7:39 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2011 6:24 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 127 of 222 (607244)
03-02-2011 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by bluegenes
01-19-2011 7:38 PM


Lies or misinformation or delusion? Another note for the peanut gallery
bluegenes and RAZD only

Another note for the peanut gallery:

In the Peanut Gallery, Message 1047 bluegenes states:

quote:
xongsmith writes:

bluegenes may not have realized it....

Of course bluegenes realizes.....

bluegenes writes:

That certainly is curious. Here's a specific concept. The god who created the world in six days less than 10,000 years ago, and fabricated the first two human beings during that period of creation. As I've pointed out, at least 100,000,000 of your compatriots believe in a god concept fitting this description.

There's overwhelming "objective empirical evidence" that such a creation never took place, and therefore that the "specific concept of a supernatural being" described cannot exist.

As I said, it certainly is curious. There's another guy on this forum who also calls himself "RAZD" and who spends a lot of time on science threads presenting evidence against this particular specific SB -concept.

Here in Message 59 and elsewhere.


This is, of course either a lie by bluegenes or a functional inability to understand by bluegenes (and others that seem convinced by this falsehood) or just plain delusion.

Once again we see that if you ask certain people about my position you will be given false information, either by deliberate misinformation (lying), stupidity (can't understand it), delusion (making up stuff that isn't real) or ignorance (which is curable by asking me).

What I refute are arguments falsified by objective empirical evidence, such as that the earth is young or that there was a world wide flood. I do not state that the evidence for an old earth devoid of ww floods falsifies any god/s, in fact I have argued the obverse: that it does not falsify those god/s or even the bible, per se, just the interpretation that leads to false conclusions about the age of the earth and the actuality of a ww flood.

That is a mistake that some atheists make (like bluegenes has in this thread, with the use of creation myths to attempt to show supernatural beings do not exist -- an attempt that failed).

Now bluegenes can apologize for spreading false information, or he can try to bluff his way out of this one, as he is trying to bluff his way out of failing absolutely to provide the objective empirical evidence that supports his six (6) claims.

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, : clrty


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 59 by bluegenes, posted 01-19-2011 7:38 PM bluegenes has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022