Not one single supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in over seven (7) months of debate.
Once again, what does this mean?
Is the giant Earth supporting turtle an example?
Which supernatural beings have been described by "objective empirical evidence?
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.
Hi bluegenes; still trying to conflate an interpretation with the supernatural being?
bluegenes writes:
Not other interpretations of the Bible, or other Christian SB-concepts, but that specific one. An SB-concept can only be defined by its description.
RAZD writes:
Does that sound like I am arguing that the god of the bible is imaginary or discredited? Jesus?
Your inability to see what is wrong with your statement is part of your delusion.
What you are saying is that any stories of historical figures -- say Daniel Boone or Davy Crockett, just for kicks -- that includes erroneous interpretations of events in their lives, such as are promulgated by Walt Disney Studios, for example, means that Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett are imaginary beings.
Incredible.
Or stupid.
Or delusional.
Or both.
Now unless you have some new evidence that just happens to be lying in your back pocket covered in dust, I believe we are done with this debate.
What the above evidence shows is that either they were lies or they were due to stupidity or delusion.
emphasis added
You do not have a scientific theory. No further discussion necessary.
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.
What you are saying is that any stories of historical figures -- say Daniel Boone or Davy Crockett, just for kicks -- that includes erroneous interpretations of events in their lives, such as are promulgated by Walt Disney Studios, for example, means that Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett are imaginary beings.
By that analogy, what you are claiming is that a story about Daniel Boone building a house on his own can be a story about David Crocket building the same house. Boone and Crocket can be the same person, or aspects of another person. Three black women could be Daniel Boone.
So, a story about 3 non-universe creating SBs creating the first two human beings from logs can, in some mysterious way, be a story about something that actually did happened, like human evolution, and also perfectly compatible with a story about one universe creating god creating the first two humans from dust. They can all be distorted stories about the Earth supporting turtle, which, of course, cannot be a figment of the human imagination because RAZD doesn't want it to be.
Where are the examples of SBs described by objective empirical evidence? Are they difficult to find? What about the Earth supporting giant turtle? It's a Hindu hypothesis.
Seven months, and, no surprises, a strong theory remains unfalsified.
RAZD writes:
We've had the debate: you've lost.
Not one single supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in over seven (7) months of debate
I call that unequivocal failure on your part to even begin to substantiate your assertions.
The creationist declares victory. Yet he refuses to tell us which supernatural beings have been "described by objective empirical evidence".
I'll guess at what the argument might be.
Creationist: We can observe that such and such a book/s, documents exist. Therefore, we have empirical evidence of the books/documents. The books/documents name and describe supernatural beings, therefore these beings are "described by empirical evidence". If interpretations of all these books/documents are made that leave us with unfalsifiable SB-concepts, then I can claim that:
Not one single supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in over seven (7) months of debate.
Would RAZD make an argument that's that bad? We'll see.
RAZD, is the giant Earth supporting turtle a figment of the human imagination, or is there really such a thing?
A scientific theory is one developed using the scientific method. This is what differentiates it from the common layman use of the term "theory" as just a guess. The scientific method has several steps:
Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.
Key here, imho, is that it is not a scientific theory until these four steps have been done, and the hypothesis proves useful in predicting new knowledge.
A similar view is seen here:
Background research precedes the hypothesis, and it involves objective empirical data where you know that the hypothesis is true, because you have derived the hypothesis from the data. Even when you start with a question, that is not the hypothesis, it structures how you do your background research to then use to derive your hypothesis.
In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.
An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. ...
The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. ...
A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. ... The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."
Again, we see that the scientific theory is a tested hypothesis that produces consistent positive results, and again we see that the hypothesis rests on cases of objective empirical evidence where the derived hypothesis is known to be true.
Do you agree with this?
He did.
Please note that the 4-point list, the diagram and the related description ALL explicitly say that a scientific theory follows empirical testing of an initial hypothesis, that the hypothesis is based on objective empirical evidence (see highlights in yellow above), and that testing of the hypothesis generates MORE objective empirical evidence that either fits the hypothesis or invalidates it --- before the hypothesis can be regarded as a scientific theory.
In other words there should be readily available documented objective empirical evidence before we get to the stage of having a scientific theory.
On your definitions. Your 4 point description of the modern scientific method seems fine for our purposes here ...
Good. We have a common understanding then. (and I am not too worried about what "historians of science, and philosophers of science" would have to say, as those are not strictly science fields).
You quote the guy from Rochester making this point: A scientific theory can't be "proved", as your source points out, just falsified.
quote:Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method
As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. ...
Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. ...
This is what I see in your denial (rather than refutation) of the points I have raised that show your evaluation of evidence to be incomplete. You wave off the contrary evidence as if that can make it disappear.
He then starts seeing if he can fit evidence into his hypothesis:
Hi bluegenes, well it appears you have stopped trying to pretend that you had a theory. Progress is made.
My position from the beginning has been that you did not have a scientific theory and that your hypothesis was not supported by evidence.
So far this has proven to be the case: out of 20 posts you have made so far, you are 0 for 20 in demonstrating evidence that would form the foundation for a scientific theory that supernatural entities are products of human imagination.
Briefly, on points (1) and (2).
quote:1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
Phenomena: Human beliefs in and descriptions of supernatural beings of all kinds. These are beings whose existence and description cut clearly across the laws of nature as we currently know them. Magical beings. Observing these, we can see that there are many thousands of such beings that are or have been believed in in the world's many different cultures, and others that we seem to invent largely for amusement. We can also see that there has been no scientific verification of the actual existence of a single individual such being of any type or genre.
An added observation is that there are mutually exclusive beliefs from different cultures. Examples of this are seen when different groups of supernatural beings in different numbers and of different descriptions and different supposed origins are credited with the same action, like creating the first human beings. We can also note the many different mutually exclusive "true" religions believed in around the world today.
Based on such observations, I propose the following as a hypothesis on the origins of supernatural beings:
Hypothesis: Supernatural beings and their descriptions are human inventions (figments of our imagination) and do not have any real external existence.
This is where you should have started, and the fact that you are just getting around to this now, means that you never did the work before, and you did not have a theory or an hypothesis in the scientific sense before - that you are in fact now working on developing one.
Ergo, what you had before was just an opinion based on your worldview, biases and beliefs. As I said at the beginning.
Now at this point one could concede that bluegenes has an hypothesis, if his listed evidence holds up to scrutiny as supporting the hypothesis, rather than just being assumption and opinion based on a biased interpretation of the proposed evidence --
Human beliefs in and descriptions of supernatural beings of all kinds. These are beings whose existence and description cut clearly across the laws of nature as we currently know them. Magical beings. Observing these, we can see that there are many thousands of such beings that are or have been believed in in the world's many different cultures, ...
... however, not one single supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in over seven (7) months of debate, so there is no evidence in this category that supports the hypothesis.
(also note that at this point bluegenes did not seem to have any trouble knowing what was meant by supernatural beings or where and how they were described).
An added observation is that there are mutually exclusive beliefs from different cultures. Examples of this are seen when different groups of supernatural beings in different numbers and of different descriptions and different supposed origins are credited with the same action, like creating the first human beings. ...
... we'll review this issue in more detail below, and just note here that at this point not one single supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in over seven (7) months of debate, so there is no evidence in this category that supports the hypothesis.
Please note that any evidence that is produced (if any ever is), that fits into either category (1) or (2) here, will be accepted as being the objective empirical evidence used in the formation of the hypothesis, because anything produced after the hypothesis stage needs to be generated by proper testing with a specific defined methodology\system\process for determining whether supernatural beings are products of human imagination or real experiences ... other than assumption of the conclusion.
And together with this would be the generation of a falsification test that can properly distinguish one result from the other, and not leave a large grey area open for (mis)interpretation, something that can reasonably be expected to occur if the hypothesis is false.
However, at this time I note that in Message 107 bluegenes effectively concedes that "mutually exclusive" creation stories cannot be used to assume that the supernatural beings are made up:
bluegenes in Message 107: ... From this, we do not conclude that there's no furniture makers. ...
By extension now -- using the same logic for creation stories as for the furniture makers -- we see that bluegenes actually acknowledge that his "mutually exclusive" criteria in no way shows that supernatural beings are the product of human imagination.
In other words, he admits that the (purported) contradiction/s in the creation narratives is not evidence that any of the supernatural beings are made up.
He tries to justify the discrepancy by special pleading and by assuming that he can assume supernatural beings are made up because he assumes supernatural beings are made up, ... with the critical point being that he is no longer using the purported contradictions as evidence, at that point, but his a priori assumptions.
Needless to say, this is not how science is done.
And even then there is no objective empirical evidence from all of this that one single supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence.
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.
See point (1) above. Give just one example of one individual who is known to have experienced, even just once, a real SB that actually exists outside human brains. You can't, can you?
In other words your only methodology is to assume that you are right. Know of any science that operates this way?
You don't have a real scientific methodology\system\process for determining whether supernatural beings are products of human imagination or real experiences, so you can't test your hypothetical conjecture, ....
No methodology\system\process for distinguishing one result from the other means two critical things:
that he has not developed a reasonable falsification test, and
that he cannot have anything more than an hypothesis at this point.
The first follows from this absence of methodology\system\process because it means he has not properly considered the possibility of false results from anything that he proposed. He could as easily say that the hypothesis is falsified if a living T.Rex is found: it is a falsification test in that the existence of a living T.Rex would certainly be rather miraculous at this point in time, however it is also not likely to happen if supernatural beings/s are real.
The second follows from this absence of methodology\system\process for the simple reason that scientific theories are tested hypothesis, and he can't make those tests.
Note that bluegenes made some lame claims to run tests:
Next, we can conduct an experiment, in which RAZD will be my assistant.
RAZD, there's a visible yellow elf sitting on your shoulders, speaking to you in Swahili. He has powerful magic, and will force you to write your next post in Swahili, planting the words in your mind.
He made several other similar attempts, of similar silliness.
The problem here is that when you start with a concept that you know is made up, that there is no way that you can test for concepts that are NOT made up (thus begging the question, assuming the consequent logical fallacies, and just plain poor thinking), nor is it logically possible for these to be considered supernatural beings rather than fictional caricatures. They prove nothing except that bluegenes makes stuff up ... like that he has done science on this thread and that he has a "strong" scientific theory.
In summary:
Conclusion: what bluegenes has fits the classification of the pseudoscientific method strongly, and does not fit the classification of the scientific method. It is an hypothetical conjecture based on his personal opinion, biases and wishful thinking, it is not a scientific theory based on the scientific method and it is not properly tested, it is pseudoscience at best, delusion at worst.
bluegenes' rather pitiful refutation was:
Do you think scientific theories become non-existence if people tell lies in silly charts?
What we see from the above rather complete summarization of the evidence and arguments provided in many posts over seven (7) + months, is that the chart represents the truth/s evident in the posts on this thread.
There is no scientific theory here, there is no way that the imaginative effort of bluegenes, to invent a theory based on bias, opinion and wishful thinking, and to claim it is a "strong" scientific theory, would stand up to honest scientific scrutiny.
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.
This is what belongs on the left side of your liar's chart, RAZD.
1) Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2) Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3) Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4) Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
RAZD writes:
develop anti-hypothesis (antithesis) missing
RAZD, you remember what I said about silly charts. Why don't you stop to think before you make these great long posts? Think. Why is bluegenes laughing when you say the antithesis is missing? Why have I been laughing for days?
I'm not going to help you at this stage. I recommended taking up golf as a hobby, or something else easy to understand. If you want to make a fool of yourself on the internet, it isn't really my problem.
Think.
RAZD writes:
The first follows from this absence of methodology\system\process because it means he has not properly considered the possibility of false results from anything that he proposed. He could as easily say that the hypothesis is falsified if a living T.Rex is found: it is a falsification test in that the existence of a living T.Rex would certainly be rather miraculous at this point in time, however it is also not likely to happen if supernatural beings/s are real.
You've finally, if inadvertently, come up with a good analogy. But you've got it all wrong with your last phrase.
If someone theorized that T. Rex is extinct, then the falsification would be a living T. Rex. But the fact that the falsification would appear to be difficult is not because there's anything wrong with the theory or the absolutely correct theoretical falsification. It's because it's a bloody strong theory that T. Rex is extinct.
RAZD writes:
however it is also not likely to happen if supernatural beings/s are real
What? Tell us how you know this? Supernatural doesn't mean in-detectable or shy. Carry on your analogy. If T. Rex were not extinct, there would always be, at any time, a good chance of falsification, and eventually it would happen (pretty quickly, I should think).
I've got a very strong theory with explanatory power. One of the things it explains is why we're finding it so hard to find a single SB. Wake up.
RAZD writes:
... however, not one single supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in over seven (7) months of debate, so there is no evidence in this category that supports the hypothesis.
(also note that at this point bluegenes did not seem to have any trouble knowing what was meant by supernatural beings or where and how they were described).
Were you using the weird phrase "described by empirical evidence"? What the hell do you mean by that? If someone describes an SB, they describe an SB. Give me an example of an SB being "described by empirical evidence"? Just explain clearly what you mean. Does the world supporting turtle fit the description, and if so why, and if not, why not?
which way is it bluegenes? you can't have it both ways (no matter how often you try)
bluegenes and RAZD only
Hi bluegenes, still struggling with simple issues?
Once again, what does this mean?
Gosh, you just got through telling me in Message 136 that you knew more about what I meant than I did -- or were you just lying again? (answer: yes)
Which supernatural beings have been described by "objective empirical evidence?
If you really don't have a clue, then obviously you do not know what I mean better than I do, and therefore you were lying when you claimed I was invalidating supernatural beings on the science thread/s.
Worse, if you really don't have a clue then you are unable to show that a single supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in over seven (7) months of debate -- and you are lying when you say you have a hypothesis supported by evidence.
You can pick one to get out of your contradiction/s if you want to try, which I doubt, but I know you've lied about both.
You reap what you sow.
Message 140: The creationist declares victory. Yet he refuses to tell us which supernatural beings have been "described by objective empirical evidence".
Says the pseudoskeptic that has been declaring victory for seven (7) months now without providing any substantiation for his hypothetical conjecture.
I'll guess at what the argument might be.
Which just proves that you are lying again.
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.
Named and described by objective empirical evidence.
RAZD writes:
Gosh, you just got through telling me in Message 136 that you knew more about what I meant than I did -- or were you just lying again? (answer: yes)
Would you please find out what the word "inadvertently" means.
RAZD writes:
If you really don't have a clue, then obviously you do not know what I mean better than I do, and therefore you were lying when you claimed I was invalidating supernatural beings on the science thread/s.
Would you please find out what the word "inadvertently" means.
RAZD writes:
Worse, if you really don't have a clue then you are unable to show that a single supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in over seven (7) months of debate -- and you are lying when you say you have a hypothesis supported by evidence.
I see you've imagined a new set of SBs. The "SBs that are named and described by objective empirical evidence".
Are you embarrassed to tell me which SBs are "named and described by objective empirical evidence"?
Updated analysis to include bluegenes (lies) reply
bluegenes and RAZD only
bluegenes attempts to deal with the issues, a little bit anyway.
This is what belongs on the left side of your liar's chart, RAZD.
1) Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
Which is missing, as noted in the chart, including provision made in note (1) to the chart.
Where in those "observations" does it show that a supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, is demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence -- other than by assumption of the conclusion?
2) Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
Which is missing until the evidence in (1) is documented that shows a supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence that has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence ...
But once such evidence is (if it ever is) provided would be (Message 42):
Hypothesis: Supernatural beings and their descriptions are human inventions (figments of our imagination) and do not have any real external existence.
As noted in the chart, including the provision made in note (2) to the chart.
For this to be a valid scientific hypothesis (as opposed to an assumption based on opinion, bias and wishful thinking), bluegenes needs to show at least one instance where it is true, because the use of inductive logic in science means that you take a known instance and posit that it is a more universal condition, not just make stuff up based on opinion, bias and wishful thinking, as bluegenes agreed in Message 40 regarding the scientific method.
3) Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
Which has not been done, as noted in the chart, and cannot be done properly if bluegenes has no methodology\system\process for determining whether supernatural beings are products of human imagination or real experiences ... other than assumption of the conclusion -- bluegenes has not provided any methodology\system\process to use to MAKE the tests.
Bluegenes seems to think that he can just make up objective empirical evidence to support his hypothesis, and that as long as his weak unrealistic falsification test is not invalidated that the hypothesis is tested. This is not the way science is done.
4) Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
Which has not been done, as noted in the chart, he does not have any documentation of "several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments" from any scientific journals that show the bluegenes hypothesis (Supernatural beings and their descriptions are human inventions (figments of our imagination) and do not have any real external existence) is tested (according to bluegenes' ... missing methodology\system\process for determining whether supernatural beings are products of human imagination or real experiences ... there is no published article on the bluegenes hypothesis documented).
Mystery missing antithesis.
Also known as a falsification test that is developed to have the best possible chance of falsifying the hypothesis, by assuming the obverse of the hypothesis and making predictions that should most likely be observed if the antithesis is true.
If someone theorized that T. Rex is extinct, then the falsification would be a living T. Rex. But the fact that the falsification would appear to be difficult is not because there's anything wrong with the theory or the absolutely correct theoretical falsification. It's because it's a bloody strong theory that T. Rex is extinct.
Once again, bluegenes has assumed something that is not in my argument. What I said was:
He could as easily say that the hypothesis *(that Supernatural beings and their descriptions are human inventions (figments of our imagination) and do not have any real external existence)* is falsified if a living T.Rex is found: it is a falsification test in that the existence of a living T.Rex would certainly be rather miraculous at this point in time *(unnatural, supernatural, etc)*, however it is also not likely to happen if supernatural beings/s are real.
*(clarification added for any myopic readers that claim to know more about my position/s than I do, yet somehow continually fail to get it right)*
This is why bluegenes' purported "falsification test" is weak and can result in false conclusions: supernatural beings can exist that just do not see any reason to give him a lap dance and play with his joy stick. The absence of such appearance does not prove a thing.
Seeing as the appearance of supernatural beings don't seem to be documented -- except in reports on such things as religious experiences, etc., that bluegenes just ignores, denies, and pretends do not exist -- in the last several hundred years: whether supernatural being/s exist or not, the reasonable expectation is that we should expect this condition to continue.
Thus -- unless bluegenes has a way to test whether any phenomena (such as the (4) possibilities I've previously listed(a)) are products of human imagination or real experiences (ie - actually test his hypothesis rather than just assume it is true) -- he does not have a reasonable falsification test, but one like the T.Rex magically appearing.
A scientific theory is one developed using the scientific method. This is what differentiates it from the common layman use of the term "theory" as just a guess. The scientific method has several steps:
Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.
Key here, imho, is that it is not a scientific theory until these four steps have been done, and the hypothesis proves useful in predicting new knowledge.
A similar view is seen here:
Background research precedes the hypothesis, and it involves objective empirical data where you know that the hypothesis is true, because you have derived the hypothesis from the data. Even when you start with a question, that is not the hypothesis, it structures how you do the background research to then use to derive your hypothesis.
In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.
An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. ...
The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. ...
A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. ... The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."
Again, we see that the scientific theory is a tested hypothesis that produces consistent positive results, and again we see that the hypothesis rests on cases of objective empirical evidence where the derived hypothesis is known to be true.
Thus we have the chart, once more -- now with reference to the four steps that a scientific hypothesis needs to have completed before it can be called a theory:
Conclusions:
The information bluegenes has supplied in Message 142 has been dutifully added to the chart, along with the background information from Message 39 to show how it fits with the scientific method list there, and this does not change the results of the analysis.
If bluegenes does happen to show some objective empirical evidence, then it goes in the box with "(1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.)" and can then be said to support the formation of the scientific hypothesis, but does not support the formation of a scientific theory, because several steps are still missing between hypothesis and theory.
What bluegenes has fits the classification of the pseudoscientific method strongly, and does not really fit the classification of the scientific method. By parsimony it is logical to conclude that it is pseudoscience rather than real science.
What bluegenes has is an hypothetical conjecture based on his personal opinion, biases and wishful thinking, it is not a scientific theory based on the scientific method and it is not properly tested, it is pseudoscience at best, delusion at worst.
QED once more.
Not one single supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in over seven (7) months of debate.
In several religions there are beliefs involving god/s appearing as humans or animals to assist people reach enlightenment or assist them in finding truth.
Many eastern religions believe in enlightenment, which involves a level of understanding universal truths.
Other religions claim that religious experiences are means to communicate with god/s.
And of course there are religions ... that believe in dreamtime experiences.
That's four different ways that various religions have claimed to have a source of knowledge about supernatural beings\entities\etc. -- and ones that you should have been already aware of.
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.
bluegenes attempts to deal with the issues, a little bit anyway.
bluegenes writes:
This is what belongs on the left side of your liar's chart, RAZD.
1) Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
Which is missing, as noted in the chart, including provision made in note (1) to the chart.
Where in those "observations" does it show that a supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, is demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence -- other than by assumption of the conclusion?
You really have no idea, do you? Now, correct your beginning here on your own, and show us that you understand what number one means.
As a celebration of more than 7 months and nearly 150 posts without falsification, just a brief summary of a few of my opponent's attempts to attack the theory.
RAZD shows here that he thinks that scientific theories are things that can be and should be proven.
RAZD writes:
Curiously I do not need to claim, assert or believe that "supernatural being (X) can exist" -- all I need to do is present you with a concept of a supernatural being, like supernatural being (X), and then it is your task to demonstrate, with objective empirical valid evidence, that these concepts are unequivocally and absolutely a fictional invention and not a supernatural being.
RAZD writes:
What you are missing, amusingly, is that for you to claim that human imagination is the only source for supernatural concepts (as you have asserted), YOU need to demonstrate that no other possible source could exist.
No scientific theory, of course, has eliminated all other possibilities, otherwise they would be facts. But RAZD doesn't understand this basic point.
RAZD writes:
The existence of a single concept that is not a product of human imagination means that your claim is absolutely meaningless. You have not established that this is not the case.
You have not proven your theory, bluegenes.
Below, he thinks that unsupported religious beliefs and claims need to be falsified before a scientific theory can be established if those religious beliefs contradict the theory.
RAZD writes:
In several religiions there are beliefs involving god/s appearing as humans or animals to assist people reach enlightenment or assist them in finding truth.
Many eastern religions believe in enlightenment, which involves a level of understanding universal truths.
Other religions claim that religious experiences are means to communicate with god/s.
And of course there are religions (like the australian one you listed above) that believe in dreamtime experiences.
That's four different ways that various religions have claimed to have a source of knowledge about supernatural beings\entities\etc. -- and ones that you should have been already aware of.
Your task, if you claim that "human invention is the only known source of supernatural beings," is to falsify these as means of having an outside source for concepts of supernatural beings\entities\etc.
It doesn't appear that you have done this.
RAZD writes:
You have not falsified the Hindu Hypothesis, which among other things includes the view that all creation stories are allegorical, metaphor or analogy for how god/s created, and that the many stories all offer different aspects of the creation/s via allegory and symbolic metaphors.
What the "Hindu Hypothesis" says is that when we take all these symbolic stories and put them together, that the total picture that emerges is one of the universal truth/s - and among others, that god/s exist(ed) and that they created.
RAZD seems to think that unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict scientific theories need to be falsified in order for there to be any scientific theories. So, those theorizing that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old do not have a theory until they've falsified omphalism, and evolutionary biologists do not have a naturalistic theory until they've falsified omphalism and the nineteenth century claim that Satan laid down the fossils to confuse us, etc.
So, any scientific theories or laws can be attacked by people making unsupported claims that contradict them in RAZD's little world.
Weird. For people like RAZD, there is no science, and he's not even capable of understanding this.
You really have no idea, do you? Now, correct your beginning here on your own, and show us that you understand what number one means.
Because he can't? pathetic. He called undefined parts of the chart lies: this has not been shown for one single item. pathetic. I have explicitly filled in the elements he said were addressed in the chart, thereby demonstrating that they were there all along, that they were not lies as he claimed, and this is all he can say by reply? pathetic.
It appears that his calling the chart "silly lies" is just another in a long line of lies that bluegenes uses to hide the fact that he has not done science on this thread, but pseudoscience.
I've already provided that information in previous posts, but if he needs it again, then very simply it means being able to observe something, and describe how the hypothesis explains the evidence observed, and how some (one or more) pieces of the observed objective empirical evidence actively supports the hypothesis, something that can be documented and quantified so that it is empirically reproducible by others. See the reference used - and that he agreed to - if anyone needs more information.
Why? Because if he just says "this pile of evidence is what my hypothesis is based on" and expects everyone to just take it on faith, then he is not doing science but pseudoscience -- he expects everyone else to do the work for him or just to take him at his word (especially the "faithful").
Notice that the reference says "observation and description" -- not just observation (which is all he has provided so far) -- and the description part would necessarily include where he shows how the evidence actively supports the asserted hypothesis. Review Darwin etc if you need to check this elementary but essential issue: did Darwin use any evidence that he did not describe in detail how it fit into his hypothesis? Read Dawkins and see how he specifically addresses how the evidence he cites directly applies to the claims he makes.
In addition, if I can go through his pile of purported evidence (as he should already have done) and subtract everything that does not explicitly support the hypothesis, and anything that does not unequivocally differentiate between it being due to human invention or real experience, then I should be left with SOME objective empirical evidence that supports making the hypothesis.
So far I am left with a net zero pile of evidence for the hypothesis in question. I'm open to some data being placed in the top left box, but I haven't seen any yet.
It would, of course, need to be independently confirmed (in science this would be published information) to qualify as objective empirical evidence.
All of the purported evidence he has tried to pass off to date may fit in this category (top left box in the chart per note 1), if he can show by some means (citing references and evidence) that they are evidence that one (or more) supernatural being is the product of human invention and not due to a real experience.
That would put evidence in the top left box -- but he needs to do it. Again, note that I'm open to some data being placed in the top left box, but I just haven't seen any yet that is worthy of that slot.
This is NOT done by assumption.
This is NOT done by making things up.
This is NOT done by claiming that it has been done.
Now, for fun and giggles, let's see if bluegenes can tell me how he thinks good (strong?) falsification tests are developed in science?
And specifically how this works when dealing with something as poorly known, poorly documented and seemingly unpredictable, as the behavior of supernatural beings?
Should be fun to watch the denial and equivocation dance, especially as his only methodology\system\process that has been identified so far to differentiate imagination from experience is to use his personal opinion\bias\wishful thinking assumptions, something I cannot reproduce.
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.
I've already provided that information in previous posts, but if he needs it again, then very simply it means being able to observe something, and describe how the hypothesis explains the evidence observed, and how some (one or more) pieces of the observed objective empirical evidence actively supports the hypothesis, something that can be documented and quantified so that it is empirically reproducible by others. See the reference used - and that he agreed to - if anyone needs more information.
Wrong. Try again. Learn English if you're going to debate in it. Find an adult, and ask him or her what this means:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
By that analogy, what you are claiming is that a story about Daniel Boone building a house on his own can be a story about David Crocket building the same house. Boone and Crocket can be the same person, or aspects of another person. Three black women could be Daniel Boone.
As usual you get it wrong. They are elements of a universal truth, that the west was opened up by frontiersmen, people moving west and building houses, etc., and Davy Crocket and Daniel Boone are just different aspects of that truth.
There are many stories about such individuals, some true, some not, some embellished, many other stories are not told that could be, and the truth would still be there, even though there would be countless contradictions between them when you try to force them all into one storyline.
You're reliance on contradiction is useless, it doesn't stand up to a skeptical review.
... which, of course, cannot be a figment of the human imagination because RAZD doesn't want it to be.
What I want is irrelevant, what you need to show is evidence that they are products of human imagination, which you have failed to do.
Assuming it is so does not make it so.
You still do not have a single supernatural being identified as being a product of human imagination.
™ Version 4.2
