|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
Member (Idle past 678 days)  Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
| 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: |
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.
Typical pseudoskeptic response: don't deal with the issue, attack the messenger.
Do you believe scientific theories are based on made up evidence and unsupported claims? Message 1 the OP quotes you as saying: quote: 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 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.
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. 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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 678 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again bluegenes
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.
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: 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: You need to have objective empirical evidence to get to a higher level. Message 92 ... still valid: quote: 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.
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 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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 678 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi bluegenes,
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. For review, once again, from Message 4 your assertions are (emphasis added):
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 you were referring to my levels of confidence scale, level III concepts (now level IV): quote: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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. 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? Message 92 ... still valid: quote: 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.
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. 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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 678 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Bluegenes, thanks. for the attempt anyway.
But do you actually answer them or just post more ad hoc opinion and bias based wishful thinking?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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 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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 678 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi bluegenes, still trying to use bombast and bluster instead of evidence.
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.
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.
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.
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):
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 you were referring to my levels of confidence scale, level III concepts (now level IV): quote: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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. 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? Message 92 ... still valid: quote: 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.
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: the pseudoscientist atheist says You assume your conclusion in your premises, and ignore other possibilities: that is not how valid logic is done. Enjoy.
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. 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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 678 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi bluegenes, still speaking into space? That's another pseudoskeptic technique ... Curiously, you still do not have evidence.
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.
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: the pseudoscientist atheist says You assume your conclusion in your premises, and ignore other possibilities: that is not how valid logic is done.
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 ...
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.
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 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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 678 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi bluegenes, still trying to use bombast and bluster instead of evidence.
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.
Except that it doesn't. As you essentially admitted in Message 107:
Another example of your extremely poor logic:
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 ...
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):
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 you were referring to my levels of confidence scale, level III concepts (now level IV): quote: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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. 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? Message 92 ... still valid: quote: 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.
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: the pseudoscientist atheist says You assume your conclusion in your premises, and ignore other possibilities: that is not how valid logic is done. Enjoy.
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. 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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 678 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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:
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: the pseudoscientist atheist says 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.
Except that it doesn't. As you essentially admitted in Message 107:
Another example of your extremely poor logic:
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 ...
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):
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 you were referring to my levels of confidence scale, level III concepts (now level IV): quote: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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. 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? Message 92 ... still valid: quote: 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.
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 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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 678 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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:
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: the pseudoscientist atheist says 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.
Except that it doesn't. As you essentially admitted in Message 107:
Another example of your extremely poor logic:
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 ...
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):
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 you were referring to my levels of confidence scale, level III concepts (now level IV): quote: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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. 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? Message 92 ... still valid: quote: 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.
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. 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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 678 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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:
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: the pseudoscientist atheist says 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.
Except that it doesn't. As you essentially admitted in Message 107:
Another example of your extremely poor logic:
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 ...
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):
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 you were referring to my levels of confidence scale, level III concepts (now level IV): quote: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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. 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? Message 92 ... still valid: quote: 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.
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 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. quote: You do not have any evidence that supports your hypothetical conjecture. Enjoy.
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 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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 678 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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:
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: the pseudoscientist atheist says 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.
Except that it doesn't. As you essentially admitted in Message 107:
Another example of your extremely poor logic:
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 ...
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):
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 you were referring to my levels of confidence scale, level III concepts (now level IV): quote: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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. 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? Message 92 ... still valid: quote: 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.
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 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. quote: 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.
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. 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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 678 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again bluegenes, still trying to take the thread off topic I see.
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?
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:
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.
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 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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 678 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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.
(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:
(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. 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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 678 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi bluegenes,
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.
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:
Enjoy.
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 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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 678 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Another note for the peanut gallery: In the Peanut Gallery, Message 1047 bluegenes states: quote: 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.
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 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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022
