Peanut Gallery

Hi Straggles, That I pick one example to pursue does not mean that the others are not also of concern.So do you have a means to test for supernatural presence, or do you just assume absence?Enjoy.

Hi PaulK I must have missed it. Agreed, as I have said elsewhere, that is another problem for you if you cannot test for the presence of supernatural essence. But you aren't "NOT detecting a supernatural being," you are just assuming that what you detect doesn't include supernatural presence -- you can't say you are not detecting supernatural presence UNLESS you have a means to actually detect supernatural presence. Obviously if you have no means to detect their presence, then you cannot detect them due to your failure to test for their presence and NOT because they are not there, no matter how you spin the argument. Without such a means of detection it remains a FACT that they MAY involve the presence of supernatural beings.If you are unable to measure the presence of electricity it remains a FACT that lightening MAY involve the presence of electricity. Except where it relates directly to falsification of the hypothesis in general and to a proposed falsification test in specific. Ignoring evidence that the hypothesis may already be falsified is not a proper scientific approach. Confirmation bias is not a basis for rational thought.Enjoy.

Hi Straggles In other words, you can't answer the question directly because you do not have a means to test for supernatural presence.Enjoy.

Hi PaulK Certainly if you base your conclusions on your assumptions and opinions, and find that your conclusions conform to your assumptions and opinions, you would not see that there is a problem -- this is a process called confirmation bias. This does not mean that there is no problem. I had to parse this run-on word salad this way to make sense of it:{that the alleged method of detecting supernatural beings is not detecting supernatural beings}{is not a good reason to conclude}{it is not detecting supernatural beings because we don't have a way of detecting supernatural beings.}If your {alleged method} - which relies on the assumption that you will somehow recognize a supernatural presence - fails to detect supernatural presence then either

• there was no presence
  - OR -
• the method of detection is faulty

Either result is possible, and one cannot be assumed to be true vs the other.Again, it is like Ben Franklin flying a kite in a storm, with the kite being hit by lightening, and now he just assumes that he will recognize if electricity is present? If he measures everything else and the measurements are all "naturally occurring" phenomena (light, heat, sound, etc) and nothing is not explained about the "naturally occurring" phenomena -- is he justified in assuming that electricity is not present?Now we look at what Ben Franklin had: to detect electricity he used a leyden jar and a spark:

quote:

---

Page not found - Code Check

​

... Ben hypothesized that lightning is an electrical phenomenon, and that the electrical effect of lightning might be transferable to another object and cause an effect that could be recognized as electricity. He set out to prove it in an experiment.

​

In 1752, on a dark June afternoon in Philadelphia, the 46 year-old Ben Franklin decided to fly a kite. With the help of his son, William, they attached his kite to a silk string, tying an iron key at the other end. Next, they tied a thin metal wire from the key and inserted the wire into a Leyden jar, a container for storing an electrical charge. Finally, as the sky darkened and a thunderstorm approached, they attached a silk ribbon to the key. Holding onto the kite by the silk ribbon, Ben flew the kite and once it was aloft, he retreated into a barn so that he would not get wet. The thunder storm cloud passed over Franklin's kite, whereupon the negative charges in the cloud passed onto his kite, down the wet silk string, to the key, and into the jar. Ben however, was unaffected by the negative charges because he was holding the dry silk ribbon, insulating him from the charges on the key. When he moved his free hand near the iron key, he received a shock. Why? Because the negative charges in the key were so strongly attracted to the positive charges in his body, a spark jumped from the key to his hand. Franklin's experiment successfully showed that lightning was static electricity. ....

​

Lightning! | Museum of Science, Boston
He had several variations on how to show electricity was present--you could draw sparks from a key tied to the string, or you could attach the string to a Leyden Jar, which is a device for collecting electricity (a capacitor). If the jar was empty before flying the kite and full afterwards then that is good evidence that thunderclouds contain electricity.

---

He had two independent tests for electricity:

1. Leyden Jar - He had already established that the presence of static electricity could be detected by the Leyden Jar from actually testing the Leyden Jar with static electricity.
   - AND -
2. Sparks - He had already established that the presence of (DC) electricity could be detected by the sparks from actually testing them with electricity.

He got positive test results from both tests.Your {alleged method of detecting supernatural beings} has not been tested or otherwise validated, so there is no reason to consider that it is actually able to detect supernatural presence. True that the failure of your {alleged method of detecting supernatural beings} to detect supernatural presence does not invalidate the concept that supernatural beings exist, just that you have failed (for either reason cited above) to detect supernatural presence.You can only detect what you are trying to detect with methods known to work, and your explanations will only incorporate what you can detect and the results of those detections. Without a means to detect electricity Ben Franklin could not incorporate electricity into his results in a scientific explanation.This is the essence of xongsmiths "analema" issue. If you only test things with methods that only detect natural effects you will not detect anything but natural effects, and your scientific explanation will be necessarily bound by the natural results, it will NOT be able to include anything that is not detected and not tested for, not because it isn't there, but because it is not (properly) tested. It is like begging the question to think such testing will actually test for the absence of supernatural presence. In other words you need to have evidence that your {alleged method of detecting supernatural beings} can actually detect supernatural presence, not mere assumption. Which, curiously, does not show that confirmation bias is not evident. I'll go futher: Confirmation Bias, Cognitive Dissonance and ide fixes, are not the tools of an open-mind or an honest skeptic, and continued belief in the face of contradictory evidence is delusion.Would you agree that one should avoid these to reach a valid rational conclusion?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : second linkEdited by RAZD, : sparkEdited by RAZD, : english

I'm going to bookmark this response, Straggler.

quote:

---

Peanut Gallery, Message 1569: I dispute the need to test things in the way you insist upon.

​

RAZD writes:

​

In other words, you can't answer the question directly because you do not have a means to test for supernatural presence.

​

In the same way that I don't have any means to test that the universe was created 1 second ago with completely different natural laws (specifically with regard to falling pens) than the ones that my memory has been falsely imbued with.

​

Yet I still know, even before testing, that when I drop my pen it will drop as gravity predicts. Tentatively - If you insist on philosophical pendaticism. But I KNOW to all practical intents and purposes.

---

And yet, curiously, you fail to demonstrate any real tentativity - the words you bolded suggest otherwise.This post I think, defines the essential difference between our viewpoints: that you claim actual knowledge of something - before testing - that you cannot have knowledge of without testing (ie - that the laws of physics are actually true). This is why you are a "6" verging on "7" atheist (a logically invalid position, as previously noted) and a pseudoskeptic (claims not sufficiently supported by evidence, among other traits). Amusingly, claiming knowledge of results before testing is a trait of pseudoscience.While I, on the other hand, would talk about confidence in the continuation of previously tested and observed phenomena in the absence of reasons to think otherwise.

quote:

---

I am holding a pen above my desk. I am going to let go of it.

​

• What do you think my pen will do?

---

All things being equal (a common phrase expressing tentativity, and the conditions where continuation could be expected) I would have confidence in the behavior of things in accordance with and in reaction to the forces acting on them in this instance (whatever those forces are) in a manner similar to previous tests involving those forces.

quote:

---

• How confident can we be of this conclusion? Is this conclusion ultimately based on just an opinion or something more?

---

As confident as we can be of any scientific conclusion: that as long as all the conditions under which any previous testing was done continue to apply, that the results will be similar to those previous tests.It is based on experience and the (untested) hypothetical conjecture of continuation, and that necessarily makes it hypothetical/conjecture/guess/opinion/belief until tested. Note that what we are discussing is a hypothetical event ...

quote:

---

Do we need to test all evidentially baseless propositions before we claim knowledge RAZ?

---

Yes, because you don't know until you test it.

quote:

---

Or just the things you don't want us to dismiss because you happen to believe in them?

---

Another false dichotomy (the use of logical fallacies is also a trait of pseudoskepticism).You can have (tentative) confidence, in the absence of reasons to think otherwise, that as long as the conditions under which any previous testing was done continue to apply, that the results will continue to be similar to those previous tests. You can have degrees of confidence: the degree of confidence you can have depends on the degree to which phenomena have been previously tested - gravity being a highly tested phenomena.You can't have degrees of knowledge: there is know and don't know.

​

Enjoy.

​

Edited by RAZD, : fixed html for Yoda voice

---

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)

Hi bro, Take out Voldermort (fictional character from intentionally fictional story, characteristics borrowed from other stories, etc)None of the rest are, or have been, demonstrated to be products of imagination. Not by Straggler, not by bluegenes, not by anyone else that I am aware of. The question though, is whether there is a supernatural element to thunder and lightening. The "natural explanation" only covers the natural elements tested by science, and without a means to test for supernatural presence, this cannot be assumed to be absent.This is your analema: that scientists will only be able to see\observe the "natural" elements and that their explanations will necessarily be limited to the "natural" elements by what they see\observe. If it cannot be demonstrated in any specific cases that do not start with known fictional characters, then the hypothesis is useless and it is not a scientific theory.If there is no methodology that can differentiate between imagination and supernatural experience, then there is no way to apply the hypothesis, and no way to test it.This is not my "stupid degree of certainty" it is the degree of certainty that science demands comes from testing an hypothesis before it can be considered a scientific theory: you must demonstrate some specific instances where it is true (validation test) or you must demonstrate some specific instances where it could have been falsified but wasn't (falsification test). Neither of these have been done.If you can't test for supernatural presence, then the hypothesis cannot be falsified, and it is not a scientific theory.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : methodology

Hi again PaulK And yet, curiously, I do not write that way, nor have you quoted me writing in that manner.Your confusion is not my problem. In your opinion. When you haven't tested for evidence for the other, then you are biased in your approach, and will end up with biased results. But I'm not asking for absolute proof -- that is apparently more of your confusion -- I am asking how you are able to ascertain whether or not supernatural essences are present, rather than just assume it to be the case (based on your personal opinions). Here you have confused Jefferson with Franklin ... Which is precisely my point -- you cannot claim that something is present or absent if you don't test for it with a methodology that is known to test positive when present and negative when absent. Amusingly, once again, this is precisely my point -- you cannot claim that something is present or absent if you don't test for it with a methodology that is known to test positive when present and negative when absent. Here you seem to be confused between what you are testing for and what you expect to be able to determine. You will only be able to determine what you are testing for, so if you are only testing for natural elements that is all you will determine. Interestingly, confusion is one of the symptoms of cognitive dissonance, caused by the conflict between strongly held beliefs\opinions and contrary information. If you are confused by someone else's post it could be due to cognitive dissonance.Enjoy.

Straggles tries to make a point My apologies, I should have checked the message better, what I actually wrote was: You can't have degrees of knowledge: there is know and don't know.But the posted reply didn't show the mock codes, which were intended to indicate that it was a joke. I've edited the post to correct this. As my brother pointed out I mentioned more than just opinion. What you seem to ignore is the issue of confidence. Specifically high confidence in highly tested behaviors. What a pile of self-serving simplistic drivel. Or, in other words, that we can have confidence in conclusions based on objective evidence, and the more they are evidenced the higher the confidence we can have.Enjoy.

Hi crashfrog. thanks. You are correct that they will also be able to have religious experiences etc.The issue is what you can measure and test and determine from such evidence. In this regard scientists will only look at (see/observe) the information that bears on "natural" elements and their explanations will be based on those natural elements. See what PaulK proposes measuring and whether or not it includes supernatural elements.Enjoy

Hi Panda (1) it's RAZD, "Rebel American Zen Deist" not RADZ ... (you aren't actually reading the signature, are you? )(2) If one of these is demonstrated to be a product of the imagination in this conversation, then please post a link to it. If none have, then what is your basis for your comment?Enjoy.

Hi Panda, Except that it's the second time I've seen it, I just though you might like to know. It was intended as a non-sequitur to the conversation, because the conversation was a non-sequitur to the purpose of the peanut gallery (to talk about the Great Debate posts rather than be a debate thread). Just thought I could nudge things back to the topic . . . and bluegenes' failures to provide evidence that substantiates his claims that he claimed he had.It's rather amusing to see both my brother and straggles struggling to define supernatural, and discuss how it could be detected, which I find confirmation that the whole issue is not really testable.Enjoy.

Hi crashfrog, And if you don't have a means to gather empirical objective evidence, a means to actually test for supernatural presence, then can you justify elimination of concepts supported by subjective evidence?It is important to distinguish between those things that can be measured and cataloged and tested and replicated, from those that can't.It is also important to note that those things that can be measured and cataloged and tested and replicated, do not necessarily form a complete picture. Aren't you just lumping religious experience with "profound mental illness" to imply one is the other?Aren't you just lumping religious experience with "nocturnal experiences of impossible things, unmoored in any reality" to imply one is the other and that religious experiences are "unmoored in any reality" by association?But, your question of evidence raises, are you not including the lack of any measurement of supernatural presence in your opinion here, when no means of measuring or detecting supernatural presence has been employed?Consider Ben Franklin with his kite flying in a storm and no means to measure electricity. Can he claim that electricity is present in the lightening?Can he claim that electricity is not present in the lightening? OR is there insufficient evidence to determine whether or not electricity is present? You speak your opinion and attribute it to everyone. This is a logical fallacy. Not everyone believes as you do, there are people that "privilege second-hand accounts of "supernatural" experiences" (or in more simple terms, believe them). So if you were in the swamps of Louisiana and saw an Ivory Billed Woodpecker, you would automatically discount the experience as an hallucination because it happened to you and there is nothing special about you?Enjoy.

Hi again Chuck77, thanks.It gets tiresome to reply to the same old drivel while waiting for something of substance to actually be presented that is worthy of response, something like actual evidence substantiating the hypothetical conjecture. That is the way of the pseudoskeptic.Enjoy.

Hi Straggles No, because to have knowledge (or to believe one has knowledge) one needs to be 100% certain.Know Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

know
verb
1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.

---

Nothing tentative there, no modification of certainty, the situation is fully understood, and is seen as fact or truth.Knowledge Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

knowl•edge
noun
1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles , as from study or investigation;general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.

---

Nothing tentative there, no modification of the "acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles" or the "state of knowing." Your latest word combination is as meaningless as many that have preceded it -- there is no "tentative knowledge" there is only tentative possibility that a conclusion is true, and tentative certainty in the results.It is possible to acquire tentative certainty as a results and conclusions of scientific investigation. The more it is tested, the greater the certainty, but the conclusions will always be tentative. Amusingly, he doesn't talk about "tentative knowledge" -- he talks about acceptance of scientific conclusions, and when he says "one should not regard anything one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree" then he is saying what I have been saying -- that you can have different degrees of confidence in the results. Amusingly this really says there is uncertainty and that it is your opinion regarding the probability, your belief, your assumption, and not a tested empirical basis. This is really no different than 5, you just pretend that it is, and pretend to have a level of confidence that is not supported by empirical evidence. This is an essential problem with the scale Dawkins presented, it is based on a false belief in being able to actually have some idea of the various probabilities. I discarded this scale long ago due to these inherent problems in actually being able to measure degrees of belief and apply them to the scale. It's a pseudoscientific scale, because you can't actually measure your level of belief. In other words you live your life based on your personal beliefs, opinions and world view, on the assumption that they are correct. Curiously, everyone does this.And you still have not presented any objective empirical evidence to support your assertions and opinion for probability. How do you determine "very improbable" without some basis where you have actually tested the possibilities rather than just assume your opinion/s are correct?The difference between a 5 and a 6 is that 5's don't delude themselves that they know something they do not know. Correction: ALL evidence based conclusions are tentative Straggles. As long as you deny this you will continue to foolishly describe belief that god/s don't exist as equivalent to things like the certainty of what a pen will do if dropped.You can test for what happens when you drop a pen, but how do you test for the presence or absence of supernatural essences? Do you have a test methodology that you have tested and confirmed as much as the test methodologies for gravity, such that you have empirical confidence in being able to record a positive detection, as the test methodologies for gravity provide?Empirical Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

em•pir•i•cal
—adjective
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

---

Confidence Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

con•fi•dence
noun
1. full trust; belief in the powers, trustworthiness, or reliability of a person or thing: We have every confidence in their ability to succeed.
2. belief in oneself and one's powers or abilities; self-confidence; self-reliance; assurance: His lack of confidence defeated him.
3. certitude; assurance: He described the situation with such confidence that the audience believed him completely.

---

... I have empirical confidence in the data, the objective evidence, the test results and the conclusions of science.In addition, I also have confidence that an open-minded yet skeptical approach to new ideas/concepts/hypothesis can lead to new possibilities of scientific resultsI do NOT, however, have confidence that a close-minded or false skeptical⁽¹⁾ approach to new ideas/concepts/hypothesis can lead to new possibilities of scientific resultsAnd, I do NOT have empirical confidence in the lack of data, the subjective evidence, the untested results claimed, and the unfounded conclusions of non-science, personal beliefs, pseudoscience, opinions, and pseudoskepticism.If you do not have comparable test equipment, methodology and proven results, then you cannot compare [results] from testing gravity to the [absence of results] from not testing for supernatural presence.Enjoy.⁽¹⁾ - From Pseudoskepticism - Wikipedia

quote:

---

According to Richard Cameron Wilson, some advocates of discredited intellectual positions (such as AIDS denial and Holocaust denial) engage in pseudoskeptical behavior when they characterize themselves as "skeptics" despite cherry picking evidence that conforms to a preexisting belief.[5] Wilson argues that the characteristic feature of false skepticism is that it "centres not on an impartial search for the truth, but on the defence of a preconceived ideological position".[6]

---

Hi Modulus, Indeed, we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old.We do NOT know with certainty how much older it actually is. We are likely to be wrong about how much older than 4 billion years it is, based on the evidence, test methods and information we currently have, and the fact that new information can change this.We almost know how old the earth is (according to the evidence, test methods and information that we currently have). OR this is resolved by not creating a false impression of certain knowledge in the first place, by saying that we have a high degree of confidence that the current data, testing methodology and information available indicate that the earth is 4.54 billion years old 1%.⁽¹⁾ If you feel you must redefine knowledge to mean "almost knowledge" to fit your lax usage, then you are the one twisting the words, not me. Especially when what you really mean is having high confidence.Enjoy.⁽¹⁾ - Age of Earth - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years (4.54 10^{^9} years 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

---

The +/-1% indicates the variation possible from the dating methods, so even if this is the final answer we still almost know the age of the earth, but we certainly can unquestioningly have high confidence in this value.