|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Peanut Gallery | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Straggler continues with a dead fish:
You have already agreed that "ALL raindrops are sourced from clouds" is a strong theory if clouds are the only source of raindrops known to science. You didn't feel the need to test every single raindrop in order to ensure that it wasn't derived from some other conceivable source did you? Why do you apply a different standard of evidence to bluegenes theory? Because you don't agree with the conclusion? I can fly a plane through some temperature inversion layers without any cloud in the sky and get condensation on my wings which the fall off and to the ground, landing as RAIN. This whole line is a bark up another tree. Not to even mention what possibly happens when some passenger up there pees and flushes the toilet. Agreed this isn't "rain".... But - yeah - Chuck77 isn't in my camp yet. Rrhain is. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
bluegenes writes: Currently, there's a guy criticizing my theory on this thread (Chuck77). Like RAZD, he seems to have no understanding of how inductive scientific theories and laws work. But he does, at least, seem to understand the phrase "All supernatural beings are figments of the imagination", even though he regularly spells "whether" as "weather", and can't distinguish the word "its" from "it's". And he's a creationist. So, surely you should be ashamed of yourself if you can't even reach that level. I'm not with the Chuck77 camp, or even (GASP!) the RAZD camp! To put me in with those guys means you haven't been reading my stuff very closely. You don't seem to realize that I am on your side. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Chuck77 asks Team bluegenes:
How's it going with the Invisible\Imperceptible Pink Unicorn (IPU)? As RAZD pointed out Modulous has eloquently pointed out long ago that we don't get to decide what experiment the author of the theory must perform. See Message 458 and especially Message 460. The IPU is a dead issue here. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
fuplicated
Edited by xongsmith, : Straggler??? this is a reply to Chuck77..don't have have a clue how this got mangled.... Edited by xongsmith, : No reason given. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Straggler asks:
Now why are you objecting to similar falsification of "ALL supernatural concepts are sourced from human imagination".......?
The Falsification issue is only the 2nd problem *, and of a more minor nature. But I might take a quick draw and drunkenly shoot my pistol shot thusly: Because all of the equipment used to investigate these sorts of things has yet to be scientifically approved throughout the scientific community and neither has it been demonstrated to allow for laboratory-to-laboratory re-calibration. Reading allegorical stories of old from numerous sources is not scientific evidence. Synthesizing these sources and deducing some kind of Houdini Hypothesis is only wishful thinking. Searching backwards through purportedly accurate historical documents also has the defect of inaccuracy, built in from the biases of the writers of those historical documents and the huge problem with translating dead language nuances into the appropriately equivalent modern language nuances. This is different from counting varve layers or radiometric dating of fossils, because that evidence is not written by the known-to-be-fallacious hand of mankind. To falsify a scientific theory you have to use a scientific process, using scientific unbiased calibrated equipment, conclusively demonstrating the falsehood. SO...this gets me to the following train of thought.... Here is my analemma** to bluegenes theory:
xongsmith writes: Any objective scientific evidence of any phenomena will be always explained as a natural process and never be explained as a supernatural process. The only known scientific explanation of any phenomenon is a natural explanation. All scientifically known phenomena we have observed in the entire history of scientific investigation & study have been explained & described as natural. Just as rabbit DNA is only known to come from rabbit DNA, scientific explanations of every phenomenon known are only known to come from descriptions of natural processes. This analemma can be falsified by providing a single instance of objective scientific evidence accepted in the scientific community that describes a phenomenon or process as supernatural. Arguments that a supernatural scientific description can exist are not applicable here. And I should note that I was derelict in not mentioning this earlier in Straggler's Second Coming scenario - instead of getting caught up in alternate explanations - this is the equivalent of bluegenes argument that saying supernatural beings can exist are not arguments against his theory. By inductive reasoning, this analemma predicts that any future verified scientific explanation accepted by the scientific community will always be a natural explanation. There will never be a supernatural explanation. For evidence I will offer up the entirety of all peer-reviewed reputable scientific publications published to date, but these are not at all what I would describe as "plenty of evidence", so my analemma is not being put forth as a strong analemma. Note that even if it turns out that an article in one of these publications turns out to be in error, the article in question will never the less still describe a natural explanation of the phenomena observed. ** analemma is a word i made up to capture the essence of a lemma with the nuance of an analogue with undertones of antagonism meant in a friendly way. True, it is also the figure-8 shape of something like the sun photographed around a whole year from the same spot in a backyard by many amateur astronomers. This is a good coincidence, because it resonates with the circularity of this whole subject of supernaturalness. We go around in repetition all the time with these things. Think of a mobius Yin/Yang snake-eating-its-tail Klein Bottle thingy.=============================================== * But to get back to 1st problem.... AZPaul3 says:
Choose any supernatural concept you want and go through as much of the literature, oral history, all the evidence available from as far back in antiquity as is possible. That is your repeatable experiment. Well...aside from the uselessness of literature and oral history as argued above, this is at least an attempt to describe the kind of scientific investigation process to perform the science to validate bluegenes theory. I'm not certain where AZPaul3 will wind up when he applies this method to investigating whether Jesus was a figment of human imagination or not - so you see repeatability isn't all that easy. Wow, what if the Einsteinian General Theory of Gravity upgrade to Newton's Gravity Theory turned out NOT TO BE TRUE on the other side of the moon - but i digress...
all of the equipment used to investigate these sorts of things has yet to be scientifically approved throughout the scientific community and neither has it been demonstrated to allow for laboratory-to-laboratory re-calibration. What are the tools? How are the hands going get dirty? I have already hinted that it had to be in the field of forensic science.....============================================= WHOOOPS I forgot: How to go about testing this analemma..... Go to any accredited decent university and go to the library. find the scientific journals. Pull a random one off the shelf. Open randomly to some page. Find the beginning of the article. Read to end of article. Determine whether the conclusions were in favor of a supernatural explanation. This is fundamentally different from the arguments against using old stories to support the existence of a supernatural being, because this is an analemma of what you will find in these sorts of documents, a small but easily understood step up from finding things like the letter 'e' or the trigylph 'the' - in this case, unlike the other, the text is valid evidence. Edited by xongsmith, : Forgot to include the procedural experimental process. Edited by xongsmith, : emphasis Edited by xongsmith, : more tailoring, with a broad cloth under my arm Edited by xongsmith, : No reason given. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8
|
Might have missed where you dealt with:
By inductive reasoning, this analemma predicts that any future verified scientific explanation accepted by the scientific community will always be a natural explanation. There will never be a supernatural explanation. This means your theory cannot be falsified. Sorry, dude, I am on your side - but.... - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8
|
bluegenes nicely ends his reply with:
I'll help you. The central field is psychology. My theory could possibly be described as a law in psychology. There are already a number of hypotheses in the field attempting to explain the phenomenon (our tendency to invent SBs and believe in them). Plenty of people are getting their hands dirty. These hypotheses could potentially explain my theory when it's stated as a law. More accurately, the modern "field" described as "cognitive science" is the area. Neurology and anthropology are involved along with psychology. My theory (or law) is often taken as written and treated as if it were a fact. This demonstrates what a very strong, high confidence theory it is. ahhh...... psychology. here's my own mother with a bonifide PhD and her successful private practice and also me seeing one of these dudes later on.... sigh..... it's been called one of the soft sciences........ the neuro folks are ominously closing in on what is exactly ticking inside of our brains with more and more advancing equipment.... not sure i wanna go along...willingly.... but never mind. ....suffice it to say that you cannot help. This isn't a situation where Deus Ex Machina, Mirabile Dictu, Shazzam! solves the situation from across the ENOURGAMOUS OCEAN.
My theory (or law) is often taken as written and treated as if it were a fact. Bull-fucking-shite. Cite. EvC lapdogs don't count. (he said in a humorous way, not trying to raise any straggling arms) And the birds are increasing their marvelous symphony this morning. I have to be somewhere...just don't know where. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8
|
You understand the concept of NEVER????
xong writes:
This means your theory cannot be falsified. Does not follow. ERROR. Here is your own opening statement in Message 167:
It is falsified by the demonstration of the existence of just one supernatural being beyond all reasonable doubt. This will NEVER happen according to my analemma, which you, yourself, have concluded is a "strong" theory (unlike me in my modest persona). See it yet? - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
No - the stronger the results of bluegenes theory as they keep coming in, the stronger his theory cannot be falsified. Hence a mobius spiral into the Klien Bottle of our minds. It's dog eat dog, cat eat cat, rat eat rat. The very evidence that supports his theory is the very evidence that makes it unfalsifiable. See?
I really don't see how this is anything other than a long winded restatement of bluegenes theory but with your own ongoing misapprehensions about the nature of falsifiability layered on top. Not a restatement - an analog with a different twist. Maybe like a wolf in sheep's clothing? - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8
|
Straggler comments:
So the better evidenced a theory becomes the less scientific it becomes because the less likely it is to be falsified? Not any theory - perhaps it can reworded another way...each new piece of evidence in support of any scientific theory has also become evidence of the analemma. I would not say that any of these theories has become less scientific - that seems a bit overboard. Although I can see how it could be worded this way.
Dude - That's just mental. Yes! Right! I think you're beginning to get it. This is something that maybe could have been in Hofstadter's Godel, Escher & Bach book on things that are self-referential. My analemma is somewhat like a scientific theory about scientific theories. When you check it out against bluegenes theory, this is where the strangeness of scientific theories gets exposed. bluegenes has made a theory that studies natural versus supernatural stuff, but my analemma predicts that there never will be any supernatural stuff in any scientific conclusions, therefore his theory cannot be falsified in the usual sense. The system breaks down at this point. Either we abandon Falsifiability in this single instance OR we argue that any actual supernatural phenomenon outside of human imagination cannot be scientifically investigated. It's like a singularity in the geometric fabric of scientific investigation. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Straggler to RAZD:
Why don't you just participate in the actual Great debate in question? And if you don't want to but Xong thinks he has a case why doesn't he take over? Bluegenes never specified you as the only person he was willing to defend his theory against. Sorry - I was under the impression that a Great Debate is 1 against 1 and that the rest of us cannot participate. I suppose you mean to start a new Great Debate between bluegenes & me? Aside from the fact that I really don't want to do that, I also happen to like the dog-piling I get here. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Straggler writes: Is the second law of thermodynamics weakened as a falsifiable scientific theory every time someone fails to make a perpetual motion machine? I'm sorry - was there something supernatural in the 2nd Law? Is this an oblique reference to Maxwell's Little Demons? Tell me, get me up to speed. I confess to my ignorance in this matter. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Straggs writes: Given that RAZ has abandoned the thread we are supposedly peanutting why don't you just take over if you think you have a valid rebuttal of Bluegene's argument? It's just not my cup of tea.... - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Straggler writes: Can you prove that the second law isn't obeyed because some supernatural entity invisibly wills it so? No - why would you ask?
How is what you are demanding different? The 2nd Law can be falsified without the presence of any supernatural agent. bluegenes theory can only be falsified by the presence of a supernatural agent. Hey...this was an interesting read: Maxwell's demon - Wikipedia Edited by xongsmith, : No reason given. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Panda, I'll get back to you on this sometime soon!
- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024