Peanut Gallery

Panda - in an uncharacteristic flurry of ruffled fur, says: You havent been paying attention!What do you think this whole analemma thing of mine has been about?? It basically says that you cannot ever falsify bluegenes theory - and now, like many before you, you are asking me to falsify his theory? Get a grip - read my stuff. Remember - i am actually on the Team bluegenes.Edited by xongsmith, : unEdited by xongsmith, : No reason given.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

No. A theory which predicts there are no supernaturals. No disproof claimed. The claim is that the only known source is the imagination. If that claim is true, it does not therefore mean there are no supernaturals. So no, there is no claim that would disprove supernaturals being made. If you think that claim is being made, it explains your position, maybe you've merely misunderstood us. That's possible, right? We might have failed to communicate the notion correctly to you or something. Does it matter how many tests I can think up? Yes, there are reports of mass experiences, but that isn't a replication of my experimental setup. You find a supernatural entity and you ask it to participate in a scientific test. You could do it by voice, or have a computer randomly generate some information - or select from a long list. I don't wish that supernatural beings don't exist. I wish they did, it would make an fascinating cosmos even more fascinating.You were asking how we might tell supernatural from imagination and I gave you a method. The specificity of having some secret information helps us to rule out mass hallucinations which can have commonalities based on common psychological causes. The proclivity for humans to embellish, confabulate, imagine, speculate. The proclivity for confirmation bias in superstitious behaviour and beliefs. The hyper active agency detection of human minds, the need for 'false positives' in survival. The tendency to pay more mental attention to entities that are minimally counter-intuitive. The sheer number of conceptions of supernatural beings which have been shown false by science. The fact that no evidence supporting the existence of any supernatural entity has been forthcoming in an age where we figured out time dilation and quantum physics.The very existence of 'wishful thinking' that you point out and the very 'wishful' nature of many supernatural concepts. The hierarchical mind set of primates. Our strong desire for narrative, even or especially ones that circumvent our common notions in interesting ways.The connection between epilepsy and religious ideas, the common content of delusions and so on and so forth.There are plenty of psychological effects that we know of that could explain how humans can inadvertently create and believe in the existence of unseen beings. The alternative explanation: That there are real supernatural beings that some humans have experienced, has no supporting evidence and in some flavours is as unfalsifiable as Russel's Teapot, the IPU, and carries exactly as much merit.

Whoa. Again with the TOE. Do you guys have a bet going on that we are unaware of? Everytime someone argues against a non-theory that is proposed as a real theory money is added to the pot?Can you lay out the theory according to the Scientific method that Science used to establish the TOE?From what I understand, if a Rabbit fossil (even an adult rabbit fossil that makes baby rabbit fossils) were found in the precambrian strata it would falsify the TOE.So, the TOE is a strong high confidence theory. It says basically " the first true mammals appeared in the Triassic period, modern mammalian orders appeared in the Palaeocene and Eocene epochs of the Palaeogene period. Many, many millions of years separate this period from the Precambrian."Well, it seems some WORK , a lot of work has gone into this theory. They have the strata dated according to time periods. I wonder if they never bothered to date the strata what would actually falsify this theory? I know, it wouldn't even be a theory.YET, we are supposed to falsify bluegenes "theory" with a real "rabbit" in the precambrian when the precambrain doesn't even exist in bluegenes world.Talk about an empty argument. It really amazes me this has so many people fooled here i.e. Straggs, Paul, Mod etc etc.So Mod, why do you think this "theory" of bluegenes has any merit as a theory? What is the "precambrian" in bluegenes argument that is testable for everyone to use as evidence that imagination is only known sourse for SB's?

Panda, have you even read any of the debate? Do you realize to falsify bluegenes false "theory" he simply asks (among others) that RAZD or anyone produce a real SB?Are you missing that this isn't Scientific in the least but is asking for empirical evidence to disprove a philosophical statement?At best bluegenes has a decent phiosophical approach/debate that should be explored in the philosophical. It can be falsified simply by responding in a philosophical way.Like this " The human imagination is not the only known sourse of SB's ".There, I just falsified bluegenes hypothetical philosophical tirade he has been proposing as a make believe "theory". I used the same approach he did (no evidence) and am countering it with the same phiosophical approach he is taking.Please don't ask me to prove my hypothetical response when you give bluegenes so much credit that you don't expect him to prove his statement but expect us to produce what can't be done. Take it up with bluegenes as to why you're mislead in to believing he has anything other than nice philosophical one liners he expects to be falsified with real Science.Tautology (logic)
from wiki:Tautology - Wikipedia(logic)" A formula is satisfiable if it is true under at least one interpretation, and thus a tautology is a formula whose negation is unsatisfiable".Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Chuck...bluegenes didn't make a philosophical argument. While philosophy may indeed come into the picture at some dramatic moment in the future, he still has his theory worded differently.While the details of his presentation leave much to be desired, he has at least up to now attempted to stay within the bounds of a scientific discourse.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Wouldn't a Scientific discourse have a Scientific outcome? You yourself said this was impossible didn't you?That it was impossible to falsifiy his "theory"?

Can you answer Message 1262Some of us have understood bluegenes theory and how to falsify it since it was first stated. 1) Link please.Added by edit - bluegenes didn't state his theory until August 2010. Apparently Xongsmith possesses precognitive abilities.2) Then why the fuck are you still asserting that the theory is unfalsifiable? Can you understand that the presentation of any of the entities listed in my last post will falsify the theory?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Did you actually read Message 1254? No. he is seeking a naturalistic explanation to an observable phenomenon.

Yes. Evolutionary biology dismisses Last Thursdayism in exactly the same way we are dismissing your Hindu hypothesis. Can you name a branch of science that doesn't dismiss evidentially baseless but conceivable alternatives? Are you seriously disputing that the internal workings of the human mind are capable of causing misleading but deeply convincing experiences? I think you will find that hallucinations are a well established psychological phenomenon RAZ.But if you are prone to these maybe you should seek medical advice? LinkWhat supernatural phenomena has bluegenes claimed to be able to explain? Be very specific.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Chuck it would really aid communication if you would just tell us all exactly why you think it is "impossible" to present a real supernatural being as falsification?

Straggs, it would really aid in communication if you would please do the following in response to bluegenes statement about the "imagination being the only known source of supernatural beings".A)Identify a question about SB's, then propose an explanation (hypothesis),B) conceive a test of the hypothesis (experiments which cannot be done with the supernatural),C) evaluate the efficacy of the proposed experiment,D) perform the experiment and gather data from it, if you can,E) analyze the data (good luck) and see if it conforms to the hypothesis.F) THEN, The hypothesis advances to the state of "theory".G) Scientists review the data and the proposed conclusions, and evaluate the validity of the conclusion. If all is good, a new theory has arisen.It would help Him in this debate if he did so. After all, he said He has evidnece to back up his claim. If He can't why doesn't he just call it what it is? And end the debate?To answer your question, i'll say it's not about RAZD producing a supernatural being, it's about bluegenes supporting His claim that there aren't any. Why do you disagree with this?

I wonder why RAZD feels the need to prefix every post with a pointless "don't post here" graphic and follow every post with a snarkily worded disclaimer? Or, for that matter, post six replies to a message rather than rolling his responses into one.

I wonder if you feel the same about Minnemooseus and His banner that says " For the "Great Debate" forum, Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only" in his debate with Buz on every one of His posts? I wonder if you thought that on messages 11, 12 and 13? when bluegenes did it to RAZD in the very beggining of the debate?I wonder why you feel the need to rag on someones debating technique instead of the actual content.Mr Jack, do you think bluegenes has a theory?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

And in bluegenes theory the only known source of supernatural phenomena are the result of human imagination. Right. It is not incumbent upon us to go find a pre-cambrian rabbit. But if one were found it would invalidate the Theory of Evolution.By the same token, it is not incumbent upon us to go find a god. But if one were found it would invalidate bluegenes theory. The "pre-cambrian" analog to bluegenes theory is all other vectors of supernatural entities that may or may not exist.The "rabbit" analog is any kind of "god".A falsification of TOE would be the empirical evidence of a pre-cambrian rabbit. For all our looking, no one has yet found one.The falsification of bluegenes theory would be the empirical evidence of some god. For all our looking, no one has yet found one.Edited by AZPaul3, : clarify ... I think.Edited by AZPaul3, : more muddied clarity

I believe Straggler did this in his Message 1254