Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9045 total)
71 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 69 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,312 Year: 4,958/14,102 Month: 556/707 Week: 111/176 Day: 5/15 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)
RAZD
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 129 of 222 (607256)
03-02-2011 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by bluegenes
03-02-2011 6:24 PM


still no substantiating evidence
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi once again bluegenes, please see Message 127

RAZD writes:

You don't have a theory.

This is your claim, based on two beliefs that you keep expressing.

You really need to stop misrepresenting my positions.

I have shown you that there is no significant difference in the construction of your hypothetical conjecture and the Hindu hypothesis, nor is there any difference in the amount and quality of evidence available (all subjective, except some objective documentation for the Hindu premise). Whatever methodology used in the construction of your hypothetical conjecture also applies to the Hindu hypothesis.

This is documented in Message 121 with this conclusion:

quote:
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.

If you claim one is a theory and the other is an hypothesis, then you are guilty of special pleading and assuming a reality that does not exist. That, of course would be a creationist like pseudoskeptic approach.


RAZD writes:

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, and thus you CANNOT have a scientific theory. You can't even turn up one real piece of evidence.

RAZD writes:

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

I have. It's hardly my fault that you don't understand what objective empirical evidence is. .... (blather, blather, obfuscation, avoid real answer, etc).

Really? Which supernatural being have you shown (by your non-existent methodology) to be "products of human imagination" by objective empirical evidence?

Please provide name, objective evidence describing the supernatural being, and the objective evidence showing it is a product of human imagination, I must have missed it.

RAZD writes:

Were your assertions lies?

No.

Yet we KNOW that you have lied: see Message 127

Enjoy

bluegenes and RAZD only

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

Edited by RAZD, : added below line


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2011 6:24 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2011 8:00 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 131 of 222 (607270)
03-02-2011 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by bluegenes
03-02-2011 8:00 PM


the amusing and amazing failure of bluegenes
bluegenes and RAZD only

Amusingly, you're lying again bluegenes, but why should that surprise me.

You've been caught (Lies or misinformation or delusion? Another note for the peanut gallery (Message 127)), with your pants down on the ground and your hands full of poop, and can't admit that your portrayal of my position (in Message 59 here and Message 1047 in the peanut gallery thread) is a false misrepresentation (due to your inability to understand me) or an outright lie (due to maliciousness, or self-delusion).

Either way, this demonstrates that you are intellectually incapable of accurately portraying my position/s in these arguments. A point that is reinforced with your latest post, as these ...

1) Some Hindus (and RAZD) believe that all SBs are aspects of an undescribed unknown universal truth.

2) Religious beliefs are believed by RAZD to be evidence of truths.

3) Conclusion: RAZD believes he has a supported hypothesis that all SBs are aspects of an undescribed unknown universal truth.

... are also false portrayals of my position and my beliefs. One need only read my posts to see that you have misrepresented the arguments.

The fact that you cannot deal with my position is your problem, not mine, as is the fact that I have demonstrated that your whole fantasy hypothesis is based on personal opinion, bias and willful thinking, including your amazing "process" of assuming you are correct and never never never testing it (or even being able to).

That is not how science is done --- so you don't try to say what is science and what is not, because you lie about your claims and you lie about my rebuttals.

I have refuted your claim that you have a theory, and all you can do is insult and lie\misrepresent.

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 seven (7) months of debate, yet (amazingly) as late as Message 128(1), you still seem self-deluded that your claims are somehow substantiated and validated by your imagination. You're a fraud.

Enjoy

(1)

quote:
RAZD writes:

Were your assertions lies?


No.

Yet there still is no substantiating evidence showing even one single supernatural being named and described by objective empirical evidence that is demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in seven (7) months of debate.

This from the person who claimed to have "plenty of evidence" and this is one of the claims that he says is not a lie.

Amazing.

bluegenes and RAZD only

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

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2011 8:00 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by bluegenes, posted 03-03-2011 7:37 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 133 of 222 (607400)
03-03-2011 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by bluegenes
03-03-2011 7:37 AM


Falsehoods, false logic and assumptions don't make scientific theories.
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi bluegenes, a little slow?

What's your problem?

One wonders how blind you seem to be?

See Lies or misinformation or delusion? Another note for the peanut gallery (Message 127) -- a message I have directed you to several times already.

It shows you have posted a lie\falsehood\delusion about my position by assuming something YOU think is, but in fact is NOT, part of my arguments.

Now, if you want to accuse me of lying, quote the exact phrase which you think is a lie.

Curiously I have already pointed this out. Your inability to see it would seem to be additional evidence to me that you are mostly ignoring what I actually say in favor of you assuming your mythology about what I say can be passed off in its place: perhaps that's why you keep talking about straw man arguments rather than my actual position/s.

It's called cognitive dissonance, when you read something, cannot understand it properly due to conflicts with your dearly held beliefs, and so you "interpret" it to fit your paradigms. When you repeat it back, you get your muddled opinions, not my arguments.

Here's the one I've noted before (not the only one though):

Of course bluegenes realizes....
bluegenes writes:

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


Here in Message 59 and elsewhere.

RAZD msg 127 (again): writes:

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).

Emphasis added.

You need to stop trying to inject your revisionist faulty logic into my arguments.

Now you can apologize for the lies/misrepresentations/falsehoods or you can go fart in 10 leagues of shark infested water, it doesn't matter to me because I know you have misrepresented arguments about my positions, that you have been unable to substantiate six (6) claims, and that you like to make lofty sounding arguments about how science is done, but fail to see that you do not do it. You have not followed the scientific method.

Of course this same cognitive dissonance would also be why you are incapable, apparently, of seeing that you do not have a scientific theory in spite of spending over 7 months in a pattern of conflict avoidance to keep from admitting that you do not have objective empirical evidence that shows that a single supernatural entity is a product of human imagination and you have no methodology and you have no theory.

Here's another reminder that you still don't seem to understand, that even if you did establish that creation myths were contradictory (which you haven't), it doesn't show that a single supernatural entity is made up:

Message 109
... From this, we do not conclude that there's no furniture makers. ...

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

In other words you admit it (your purported contradiction) is not evidence that supernatural beings are made up.

You have no evidence.

You claimed to have "plenty of evidence" and all you seem to do is to keep repeating this singularly lame argument that has been shown by your own words above, that it is not evidence that supernatural beings are made up.

These were your words:

quote:
If anyone does not agree that this is a strong theory, I'd be happy to participate in a one on one debate on the subject, and support the theory with plenty of evidence.

We now know that this is a lie\falsehood\delusion.

It is not a theory
It is not strong (except in odor)
It is not supported by "plenty of evidence"

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

You were also caught out on your total absence of a scientific methodology\system\process for determining whether supernatural beings are products of human imagination or real experiences, as noted in Message 129:

RAZD writes:

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, and thus you CANNOT have a scientific theory. You can't even turn up one real piece of evidence.

I addressed this issue previously too:

Message 109 What is your system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept that can determine when concepts are figments of imagination rather than just assume it?

By just assuming that it is so?

Really?

Is that how science is done?

By making stuff up?

Really?

Is that how science is done?

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

scientific process

pseudoscientific process

observe objective empirical evidence
missing

form a priori hypothetical conjecture
 present 

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

claim you have a theory
 present 

develop anti-hypothesis (antithesis)
missing

look for evidence to support the hypothesis
 present 

(B) develop test to differentiate hypothesis from antithesis
missing

use invalid logic to make conclusions
 present 

run tests to see if hypothesis or antithesis falsified
missing

claim it is a strong theory
 present 

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

say you have plenty of evidence
 present 

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

claim some highly unlikely event will falsify the theory
 present 

publish methodology, results and propose the theory
missing

say it is up to others to invalidate the theory
 present 

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

ignore contradictory information and repeat assertions
 present 

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

Your pitiful refutation was:

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

Curiously you failed to demonstrate a single part that was a lie, while here we see substantiation that the information in the chart is true.

You have also, it seems, put a lot of (faith? in your) argument about how your "theory" is based on inductive logic -- and fail to realize that this ALSO is part of your problem. Induction is what gets you to a scientific hypothesis, based on evaluation of objective empirical evidence.

You don't have the evidence to get to a scientific hypothesis, to say nothing about developing it into a theory by testing ... and generating more objective empirical evidence. Your failure to have ANY objective empirical evidence 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, is proof enough that you do not have a scientific hypothesis, to say nothing about not having a scientific theory, and it definitely invalidates any claim on your part to having a "strong theory".

Is it a scientific theory or is it wishful thinking? (Message 1): In Message 167 on the An Exploration Into"Agnosticism" thread bluegenes asserted:

quote:
If anyone does not agree that this is a strong theory, I'd be happy to participate in a one on one debate on the subject, and support the theory with plenty of evidence.

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.

Message 128
RAZD writes:

Were your assertions lies?


No.

What the above evidence shows is that either they were lies or they were due to stupidity or delusion.

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

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

Edited by RAZD, : spling

Edited by RAZD, : engls

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : banner

Edited by RAZD, : codes


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by bluegenes, posted 03-03-2011 7:37 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by bluegenes, posted 03-03-2011 5:31 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 135 of 222 (607445)
03-03-2011 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by bluegenes
03-03-2011 5:31 PM


being dense does not make you right
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi bluegenes, still failing to see that you are so absolutely wrong in such a simple matter?

I repeat, you spend a lot of time on this board presenting evidence against the YEC SB-concept.

So you continue to use your blind revisionist opinion instead of reading what I wrote:

... in fact I have argued the obverse:
that it does not falsify those god/s
or even the bible, ...

Age Correlations and an Old Earth Message 11: 03-23-2004 why not OEC

Your confidence is humorous. Obviously not being done with my 9th grade Earth Science Class, I am in no way capable in holding an intelligent, and valid discussion with you, but somehow I doubt what you say is true.
I do enjoy sarcasm. Seriously though heliocentrism dislodged the earth from being the center of the universe and the christian faith has survived. Is age that different a "challenge" to the faith? I think it is less so, as the age is ultimately indeterminate from the bible ... have you tried?

Understood, sounds pretty interesting, but the "Supernatural" elements which are discussed here, I believe as truth, so why read a "Jefferson" Bible, when I have it in my grasp in the KJV, NIV?
If you consider that the Jefferson is the ultimate distillation of the bible, then you know it cannot be totally discredited. Where there are supernatural elements that cannot be refuted by factual evidence, then those too cannot be discredited. Faith in jesus as the son of god is one of those elements.

The fact that there are many sects of christianity that do not require a literal interpretation of the bible, to say nothing of requiring a young earth, shows that christianity will survive the loss of the YE model ... it is already doing so. Not that everyone will be convinced, there are still some flatearthers after all.

I believe that there are elements of truth in all religions, and if you look for concordance you can find it -- religious experience of ascetics for example cover the earth and appear in most (I do not know "all") religions.

What is wrong with Old Earth Creationism?

Does that sound like I am arguing that the god of the bible is imaginary or discredited? Jesus?

I can find other examples, but this one should be sufficient to prove my point that I have not argued that god/s are invalidated, only that the earth is known to be old and not covered by a ww flood because of the objective empirical evidence that shows this to be the case.

For you to claim that I am arguing that these god/s are falsified -- when these words are right in front of you and they say otherwise -- is just plain delusional.

Of course that would be why you are unable to admit when you are wrong on any issue, not just here where you have so blatantly misrepresented my actual position.

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.

Message 133: 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.

Message 128
RAZD writes:

Were your assertions lies?


No.

What the above evidence shows is that either they were lies or they were due to stupidity or delusion.

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

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

Edited by RAZD, : because you like large blinking letters so much

Edited by RAZD, : banners

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by bluegenes, posted 03-03-2011 5:31 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by bluegenes, posted 03-03-2011 6:44 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 137 by bluegenes, posted 03-03-2011 6:51 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 140 by bluegenes, posted 03-04-2011 4:23 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 138 of 222 (607451)
03-03-2011 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by bluegenes
03-03-2011 6:44 PM


Re: Being dense doesn't help you to read.
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.

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.

Message 133: 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.

Message 128
RAZD writes:

Were your assertions lies?


No.

What the above evidence shows is that either they were lies or they were due to stupidity or delusion.

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

    b. The state of being deluded.

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

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

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.


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by bluegenes, posted 03-03-2011 6:44 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by bluegenes, posted 03-03-2011 7:19 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 141 of 222 (607585)
03-04-2011 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by RAZD
10-03-2010 9:15 PM


In OCT 2010 bluegenes was beginning to get it ... the hypothesis part anyway
bluegenes and RAZD only

Back in October 2010 it seemed that bluegenes was, in response to my arguments, beginning to apply the scientific method:

RAZD, in "back for a bit ... at a time (Message 39)" writes:

Let's see if we can start with some basic points:

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:

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/...appendixe/appendixe.html

quote:
... The scientific method has four steps

  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.

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.

Again from the above link:
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/...appendixe/appendixe.html

quote:
... Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws

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.

Remember bluegenes agreed with this.

RAZD, in "and a bit more. (Message 41)" writes:

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.

Agreed, however he also says:

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/...appendixe/appendixe.html

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:

RAZD, in "beginning to get there (Message 43)" writes:

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 --

  1. 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).

  2. 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:

RAZD, in "You do not have a scientific theory. (Message 109)" writes:
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.

Finally, we have ...

RAZD, in "still no substantiating evidence (Message 129)" writes:
RAZD writes:

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:

  1. that he has not developed a reasonable falsification test, and
  2. 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:

bluegenes, Message 30 writes:

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:

Analysis Comparing Scientific Method to Pseudoscientific Method

scientific method

pseudoscientific method

observe objective empirical evidence
missing(1)

form a priori hypothetical conjecture
 present 

(A) form hypothesis to explain the known evidence
known evidence missing(2)

claim you have a theory
 present 

develop anti-hypothesis (antithesis)
missing

look for evidence to support the hypothesis
 present 

(B) develop test to differentiate hypothesis from antithesis
missing

use invalid logic to make conclusions
 present 

run tests to see if hypothesis or antithesis falsified
missing

claim it is a strong theory
 present 

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

say you have plenty of evidence
 present 

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

claim some highly unlikely event will falsify the theory
 present 

publish methodology, results and propose the theory
missing

say it is up to others to invalidate the theory
 present 

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

ignore contradictory information and repeat assertions
 present 

(1) -- if, perchance, bluegenes does happen to demonstrate that one or more supernatural being/s, named and described by objective empirical evidence, are the product of human imagination by objective empirical evidence, then that evidence goes here: before the hypothesis, and
(2) -- if (1) is demonstrated then the hypothesis is: "Supernatural beings and their descriptions are human inventions (figments of our imagination) and do not have any real external existence."

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.

Edited by RAZD, : splngish

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 10-03-2010 9:15 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by bluegenes, posted 03-05-2011 6:16 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 143 of 222 (607611)
03-05-2011 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by bluegenes
03-03-2011 6:51 PM


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.


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by bluegenes, posted 03-03-2011 6:51 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by bluegenes, posted 03-05-2011 9:53 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 145 of 222 (607625)
03-05-2011 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by bluegenes
03-05-2011 6:16 AM


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.

RAZD, in "back for a bit ... at a time (Message 39)" writes:

Let's see if we can start with some basic points:

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:

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/...appendixe/appendixe.html

quote:
... The scientific method has four steps

  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.

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.

Again from the above link:
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/...appendixe/appendixe.html

quote:
... Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws

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:

Analysis Comparing Scientific Method to Pseudoscientific Method

scientific method

pseudoscientific method

observe objective empirical evidence
(1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.)
missing(1)
(evidence of initial observations etc would go here)

form a priori hypothetical conjecture
 present 

(A) form hypothesis to explain the known evidence
(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.)
known evidence missing(2)
(hypothesis derived from evidence above would go here)

claim you have a theory
 present 

develop anti-hypothesis (antithesis)
(3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
(a) Develop reasonable falsification test)(3)

missing

look for evidence to support the hypothesis
 present 

(B) develop test to differentiate hypothesis from antithesis
(3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
(b) Develop methodology\system\process for determining whether supernatural beings are products of human imagination or real experiences to be able to test the hypothesis)(4)

missing

use invalid logic to make conclusions
 present 

run tests to see if hypothesis or antithesis falsified
(4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.)
missing

claim it is a strong theory
 present 

if hypothesis is invalidated go back to (A)
(Paragraph after (4) in the list, chart).)
not tested

say you have plenty of evidence
 present 

if antithesis not invalidated go back to (B)
(Paragraph after (4) in the list, chart).)
not tested

claim some highly unlikely event will falsify the theory
 present 

publish methodology, results and propose the theory
(Discussion after (4) in the list on what theory means, chart).)
missing

say it is up to others to invalidate the theory
 present 

after testing & replication of results by others theory is accepted
(Discussion after (4) in the list on what "scientific theory" means, chart).)
missing

ignore contradictory information and repeat assertions
 present 

(1) -- if, perchance, bluegenes does happen to demonstrate that one or more supernatural being/s, named and described by objective empirical evidence, are the product of human imagination by objective empirical evidence, then that evidence goes here: before the hypothesis, and
(2) -- if (1) is demonstrated then the hypothesis is: "Supernatural beings and their descriptions are human inventions (figments of our imagination) and do not have any real external existence."
{adding the tan descriptions above for additional clarity, and specific notes:
(3) -- a reasonable falsification test is one with the most likelihood of falsifying the hypothesis, not just any old test one can make up, and it must be based on the initial assumption that the hypothesis is false (ie that the antithesis is true). The tougher it is to pass the falsification test the better the test is, and it needs to rule out any likelihood of false positives (failure of the test) that can reasonably be expected. Several different tests should be made before concluding that the hypothesis is not falsified.
(4) -- in order to test the hypothesis you need to be able to discern positive results from negative results in a way that can be empirically tested, documented and replicated by others, not just assumed. Making up data is not a scientific method, but it seems to be popular with pseudoscience.

Conclusions:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

Enjoy



(a) -- possibilities for testing:

RAZD in "Re: Problems of "mutually exclusive" anecdotal\allegorical evidence and poor logic (Message 20) writes:

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.

Edited by RAZD, : 2)


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by bluegenes, posted 03-05-2011 6:16 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by bluegenes, posted 03-05-2011 11:38 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 148 of 222 (607636)
03-05-2011 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by bluegenes
03-05-2011 11:38 AM


pathetic
bluegenes and RAZD only

poor bluegenes, grasping at straws again.

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.


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by bluegenes, posted 03-05-2011 11:38 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by bluegenes, posted 03-05-2011 4:26 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 150 of 222 (624214)
07-16-2011 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by bluegenes
03-03-2011 7:19 PM


Re: Where are the objectively described SBs?
bluegenes,

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.

Not one.

In MONTHS of debate and opportunity.

Epic fail.

Enjoy.


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by bluegenes, posted 03-03-2011 7:19 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 151 of 222 (624221)
07-16-2011 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by bluegenes
03-05-2011 4:26 PM


The lack of evidence continues ...
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi bluegenes (and peanut gallery), we still have a rather critical point,

I see you still have not provided any evidence to support your conjectural hypothesis.

I have spent some time thinking about how to make it clear that there is a significant failure on the part of bluegenes to (a) support his position as he promised (with "plenty of evidence"), and (b) to comprehend his false starts.

The hypothesis that bluegenes has failed to support so far is (from Message 1:

In Message 167 on the An Exploration Into"Agnosticism" thread bluegenes asserted:
quote:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".

What we have are two sets:

What this hypothesis is claiming is that {Set 2} is a subset of {Set 1}:

To do this he has presented a series of made up caricatures and cited certain groups of fictional work. Others in the Peanut Gallery have also presented a similar group of caricatures, invented as purported evidence of (fictional) supernatural beings.

The problem is that, while all these caricatures and all the fictional works cited form a group, {Set 3}, that is undeniably a subset of {Set 1}, they completely fail to establish that they are included in {Set 2}, or that there is any reason at all to believe they are members of {set 2}.

Unless bluegenes (or anyone in the Peanut Gallery) is capable of creating supernatural beings (which would be a supernatural act, making them a supernatural being that is not a figment of imagination, thus falsifying the hypothesis), he needs to demonstrate that any of those caricatures and fictional works represent supernatural beings in {Set 2}. This he has absolutely failed to do in any way, since the beginning of this debate.

To demonstrate his hypothesis bluegenes needs to provide objective evidence that documents and shows that a member of {Set 2} is a product of the human mind. This he has thus far absolutely failed to attempt to do in any way, since the beginning of this debate.

quote:
Message 4: If you cannot defend your hypothesis then you do not have a strong high confidence theory based on multitudes of evidence, but an amusing assertion of your belief, based on wishful thinking, confirmation bias and several logical fallacies.

Not one single {Set 2} 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 eight (8) months of evasion.

Not one (1) positive test result for the conjectural hypothesis has been provided. This should have been readily available ... if there really WAS a scientific theory here, as claimed: in science, a theory is a tested hypothesis. Sufficient time (over 8 months) has passed for this test evidence to have been posted from the on hand data that should have been available for an already tested hypothesis to become a theory. The conclusion, therefore, is that bluegenes does not have a strong high confidence theory based on multitudes of evidence, but an amusing assertion of personal belief, based on wishful thinking, confirmation bias and several logical fallacies.

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFICALLY DEVELOPED THEORY HERE.

QED

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants had been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s, however this has been ignored by bluegenes.


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by bluegenes, posted 03-05-2011 4:26 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by bluegenes, posted 07-17-2011 5:42 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 152 of 222 (624222)
07-16-2011 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by bluegenes
03-05-2011 4:26 PM


Testing an hypothesis:
bluegenes and RAZD only

Another rather critical point bluegenes,

It is your job to test your hypothesis before you can claim that it is a theory. To do that you need to have a methodology\system\procedure that can distinguish between actual supernatural communication\experience\etc and human imagination, not just assume that it is imagination, or wait for someone else to do your work for you.

When bluegenes asked ...

Message 1 Do you know of any source of supernatural beings other than the human imagination?

... bluegenes was asking me to do his work for him. It should be relatively obvious that religious texts are replete with many forms of communications with supernatural beings, and that these forms of communication should be tested by anyone claiming that human imagination is the only source.

From Message 24

RAZD writes:

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 and spiritual reality.

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.

I'm well aware of them. I'm also aware that there's no scientific evidence to support the reality of these claims.

And you do not have any scientific evidence to invalidate the reality of those claims, nor do you have a methodology\system\procedure to test them.

I initially proposed that you show\demonstrate your methodology\system\procedure with the IPU, which you have not done. Significantly, however, you have not shown\demonstrated your methodology\system\procedure for a single supernatural being. The conclusion I reach is that you do not have a methodology\system\procedure beyond just assuming that you are correct.

Failure to have a scientific methodology\system\procedure to test your hypothesis (pro or con) means de facto that you do not - cannot - have a scientific theory, but an amusing assertion of your belief, based on wishful thinking, confirmation bias and several logical fallacies, as stated in Message 1.

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFICALLY DEVELOPED THEORY HERE.

QED

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants had been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s, however bluegenes has ignored this.


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by bluegenes, posted 03-05-2011 4:26 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 153 of 222 (624223)
07-16-2011 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by bluegenes
03-05-2011 4:26 PM


Circular Argument & Begging the Question Logical Fallacies
bluegenes and RAZD only

Just to clear up one of many small points here, bluegenes.

"The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings."

You have suggested that this is evidence\observation that supports your conjectural hypothesis:

Message 7 (3)The theory that all supernatural beings come from the human imagination is built on the observation that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings.

But it isn't evidence nor observation: instead it is just a restatement of the hypothesis in a different form, asserted as true. Falsification of one falsifies the other, validation of one validates the other, neither adds more information than the other: they are identical in meaning.

Assuming one is true to use as a premise for the other is a circular argument and begging the question.

Thus when you ask:

Message 3: Do you agree that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings? Yes or No?

You are asking if I think your conjectural hypothesis is true. That is what begging the question means.

Scientific theories are not based on false logic.

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFICALLY DEVELOPED THEORY HERE.

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants had been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s, however bluegenes has chosen to ignore this.


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by bluegenes, posted 03-05-2011 4:26 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 154 of 222 (624226)
07-16-2011 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by bluegenes
03-05-2011 4:26 PM


Concepts of reality and falsification tests ...
bluegenes and RAZD only

And to clear up another small point, bluegenes:

There has been some equivocation back and forth between "supernatural beings" and "concepts of supernatural beings" and the distinction needs to be clarified.

Because of the way the human mind works all concepts are the product of the human mind, they are imagined representations, an imaginary model of the reality that surrounds us. Thus if you are discussing "concepts of supernatural beings" rather than "supernatural beings" we can revise your assertions\conjectures to read:

  • "All concepts of supernatural being are figments of the human imagination" or
  • "The human imagination is the only known source of concepts of supernatural beings."

... which is just a subset of ...

  1. "All (human) concepts are figments of the human imagination" or
  2. "The human imagination is the only known source of (human) concepts."

... where again, (1) and (2) are the same statement in different wording ...

... and which are tautologically true, ... but don't really provide any new (or useful) information. This also means that the bluegenes hypothetical conjecture (as restated in (1) above) is not falsifiable.

For example, I can have a rock in my hand, and it fits within the (human) "concept of rock" ... and I can have another rock in my other hand that also fits the (human) "concept of rock" ... and, whether they are "mutually exclusive" types of rock or not, they do not falsify the fact that the (human) "concept of rock" is a product of the human mind.

We (normally) do not have rocks in our heads, the only thing we can have in our heads are "concepts of rocks" ... concepts that are the product of the human mind. Thus, even with a rock in each hand -- objective empirical evidence of the existence of rocks -- the "concept of rock" is still a product of the human mind.

A scientific theory is falsifiable, so if bluegenes (et al) are talking about concepts of supernatural beings then it is not falsifiable, and thus it is not a scientific theory:

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFICALLY DEVELOPED THEORY HERE.

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants had been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s, however bluegenes has chosen to ignore this.


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by bluegenes, posted 03-05-2011 4:26 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 156 of 222 (624367)
07-17-2011 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by bluegenes
07-17-2011 5:42 AM


The lack of evidence for the hypothesis continues ...
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi bluegenes,

Still completely incapable of presenting any evidence that directly supports your claim, I see -- in spite of your claim to have "plenty of evidence" -- so you must have made at lease one false statement originally.

Still completely incapable of presenting a methodology to test your conjecture, so you can't have a tested hypothesis, which means it is NOT a theory.

The fictional supernatural beings are in Set 2 by definition.

Demonstrate it. Show what actual supernatural phenomena is exhibited by them.

If you can't do this then you cant claim they are part of set 2.

This is you assuming your concept is true rather that actually demonstrating it. But then we know you falsify data.

How many times do I have to explain to you why the above is wrong? Scientific theories do not have to have to address unsupported claims that contradict them in the way you describe. No evolutionary biologist has to have a methodology/system/procedure for distinguishing an omphalist world from a non-omphalist world merely because the unsupported omphalist claim is made.

This is you being a pseudoskeptic again. You need to have a methodology to test whether there is actual supernatural phenomena or not, and just assuming you are correct is NOT how science is done.

The reason that this test applies to you rather than the biologist is that YOU have claimed to explain supernatural phenomena - they haven't.

RAZD on PeanutG writes:

science cannot measure\define\calibrate\explain\etc NON-natural phenomena\objects\causes\events\results according to natural hypothesis\theory\law


How do you know this? If there are "non-natural phenomena" that effect the natural world, then the effects are theoretically detectable and measurable by science.

If you do a test, and every time the result is different, how can you explain that by natural hypothesis\theory\law?

Do you agree that the god that the YECs believe in, the supernatural being described by them, is a figment of their imaginations?

Why should I just roll over and agree to something that you have not in any way actually demonstrated with objective empirical evidence to be true?

Is your conjecture so weak that the only way you can try to support it is to try to coerce or trick people to believe it without evidence?

Set 4 would be the category of supernatural beings that aren't invented by humans, and that set remains empty so far as this thread is concerned, as my very strong theory predicted it would last year.

Still having severe comprehension problems I see.

quote:
What we have are two sets:

What this hypothesis is claiming is that {Set 2} is a subset of {Set 1}:

To do this he has presented a series of made up caricatures and cited certain groups of fictional work. Others in the Peanut Gallery have also presented a similar group of caricatures, invented as purported evidence of (fictional) supernatural beings.

The problem is that, while all these caricatures and all the fictional works cited form a group, {Set 3}, that is undeniably a subset of {Set 1}, they completely fail to establish that they are included in {Set 2}, or that there is any reason at all to believe they are members of {set 2}.

Unless bluegenes (or anyone in the Peanut Gallery) is capable of creating supernatural beings (which would be a supernatural act, making them a supernatural being that is not a figment of imagination, thus falsifying the hypothesis), he needs to demonstrate that any of those caricatures and fictional works represent supernatural beings in {Set 2}. This he has absolutely failed to do in any way, since the beginning of this debate.

To demonstrate his hypothesis bluegenes needs to provide objective evidence that documents and shows that a member of {Set 2} is a product of the human mind. This he has thus far absolutely failed to attempt to do in any way, since the beginning of this debate.


There is no need to add your "set 4" ... you just need to deal with {set 2}.

Set 4 would be the category of supernatural beings that aren't invented by humans, and that set remains empty so far as this thread is concerned, as my very strong theory predicted it would last year.

Yes, you have absolutely failed to address any, or develop a methodology to test this, as a real scientist developing actual scientific objective and empirical data for an actual scientific hypothesis would. Note from Is it a scientific theory or is it wishful thinking? (Message 1):

quote:
The challenge is accepted, let the equivocation and evasion begin.

Curiously I predicted on 08-02-2010 at 7:59 PM (est) that all you would do is equivocate and evade, rather than simply present the objective empirical evidence you claimed to have.

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants had been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s, however bluegenes has chosen to ignore this.


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by bluegenes, posted 07-17-2011 5:42 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by bluegenes, posted 07-18-2011 11:40 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021