Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9046 total)
139 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons (2 members, 137 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,271 Year: 4,917/14,102 Month: 515/707 Week: 70/176 Day: 33/37 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 161 of 222 (624510)
07-18-2011 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by RAZD
07-17-2011 3:37 PM


The lack of evidence for the [weak theory] hypothesis continues ...
RAZD writes:

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

They aren't constrained by the physical world in the way that biological beings are, and they are described as having magical powers. That's in their description.

RAZD writes:

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

Inventing supernatural beings in order to demonstrate that people can and do invent supernatural beings is not falsifying data. It's hardly my fault that you're incapable of grasping that simple point.

The theory is: All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination. If you declare that Gandalf and Tinkerbell aren't supernatural beings because they're demonstrably a product of human invention, you would be claiming to have falsified my theory. You would be defining supernatural beings as non-imaginary things.

RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

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.

Dismissing or ignoring unsupported claims is routine in science. You won't find any intelligent scientists who share your view that the omphalist claim is a reason to be uncommitted on the age of the earth. It is not a scientific view, and requires a very heavy bias on your part in favour of unsupported supernatural claims.

(For readers not familiar with the RAZD world, RAZD thinks that everyone who is highly confident that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old is a "pseudoskeptic" because they have automatically dismissed omphalism as very improbable or impossible. In shorthand: Scientists are pseudoskeptics to him. In this way of thinking, scientific theories have to falsify all unsupported claims which contradict them in order to be considered strong or well supported. It is on this kind of thinking that he bases his criticism of my theory).

RAZD writes:

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.

I've never claimed that there are any actual supernatural phenomena. I think you'll find that plenty of scientific theories have been stated in the past without the scientists having described any specific methodology that would lead to their falsification.

The specific methodology would depend on the specific SB claimed. We can make observations about an apparent werewolf if we find one. Repeatable monthly observations of a man/wolf wolf/man transition. But what werewolves have in common with all other SBs is that we never seem to be able to actually find them. So we're stuck with their description, which, like the descriptions of Tinkerbell and Gandalf, is supernatural. All we have on this thread is descriptions or concepts.

RAZD writes:

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

I've theorized that there's nothing external to explain; that the idea of supernatural phenomena originates in our heads, not from any external source. The "test" would certainly apply if I had "theorized" that "Supernatural beings have a real existence outside our minds and interact with the material world." That would be a general claim that's unfalsifiable, and I'd have to find positive support for it, perhaps in the way that the I.D. folk are trying (and failing) to do. But my explanation is natural; that supernatural beings are phenomena of the mind.

However, if you're talking about falsification tests, I've been interested in the subject for decades, and I've been looking for things of substance which might at least weaken my theory, if not falsify it. A recent example, described on this thread, was examining the creation myths for any content that our ancestors in a pre-scientific age couldn't have known. A few years ago, I examined the Koran for the same thing, as it's a claim made by some Muslims that it contains things Mohammed couldn't have known. In both cases, my theory passed the test with flying colours.

I've found nothing of real substance at all to support the existence of non-imaginary SB's. And it's obvious from this thread that you haven't either. You make lots of long posts, but nowhere is there any content that even starts to make the case for any particular supernatural being of any description existing outside our minds. When you're reduced to presenting people's beliefs as evidence, it just illustrates how poor the case for non-imagined SBs is, and how strong my theory is.

Thanks for your inadvertent support.

As for the rest of the Gish gallop that you are commanding me to reply to, there's nothing in the posts to support your contradictory claims that (a) my theory is weak and (b) I don't have a theory at all. Please prioritize points one by one, and bring them up one by one, preferably without charts and diagrams, the content of which you could easily put in words, enabling me to quote and reply, and saving readers from having to constantly refer back to your posts, or memorize the diagrams.

RAZD writes:

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

If you can't explain the results by natural law, then you might have identified the supernatural and be on the way to be falsifying my theory. I wouldn't suggest that the transitions of a werewolf could ever be explained by natural theory or law. So, if we can merely make repeated observations of these transitions, I'd regard my theory as reasonably falsified. It could only be revived if someone actually did explain the werewolf in natural terms, and you can ask physicists whether they think that atoms could possibly rearrange themselves constantly in that kind of way.

The possible mass disappearance of fundy Christians last month in a rapture was a test of my theory, but, as ever, the theory's prediction that this wouldn't happen held up. Sadly, in some ways.

My theory is constantly being tested. Prayer studies could damage or falsify it, for example, and these are being done.

RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

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?

I was unwisely assuming at least a Junior High School level knowledge of modern science on your part. I won't make the same mistake again.

BTW, is there a giant turtle holding up the earth, in your opinion? Or is she verified as an imaginary SB?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2011 3:37 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 162 of 222 (632819)
09-10-2011 1:57 PM


Bump for the Peanut Gallery
The post above covers some of the ground being discussed on the Peanut Gallery, so this'll bump it up.

I think it's worth pointing out here (particularly to creationist critics of my theory on the peanut gallery) that I'm theorizing that supernatural beings do not have an external existence outside human minds. If my theory is 100% correct, then we should not have found a method of positively detecting their presence, because detecting the presence of non-existent entities would be impossible. And so far, this is the case.

I'll also point out (for the umpteenth time) that scientific theories are not weakened by unsupported propositions that contradict them. If some people on the peanut thread believe that some neurological phenomena or spectacular meteorological phenomena (like hurricanes and tornadoes) are caused by supernatural beings, their Faith alone does not support a claim that my theory is weak. Those extraordinary claims require considerable support in order to weaken the theory, and extraordinary support in order to falsify it.


  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 164 of 222 (670947)
08-21-2012 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by RAZD
08-21-2012 8:05 AM


Re: false expectations and blind spots ... and Guernica
RAZD writes:

bluegenes is once again asserting that he has a theory, yet at the same time he is now arguing that an hypothesis on another thread is no good because it does not predict singular outcomes from the evidence available, one of my arguments against his still unsupported assertions here to the contrary.

This just seems to be a result of your not being able to understand the point I was making on that thread. It is not that the hypothesis that the world is intelligently designed is "no good" but that it does not innately predict a world with physical principles. That's a statement of fact. It would not be falsified if the apparent physical laws of this world were broken by miracles. How would that show that the world was not intelligently designed?

But RAZD has put forward another more specific I.D. hypothesis, which he has yet to support. Perhaps it is this one that he's comparing to the theory I describe on this thread. This is the hypothesis that an intelligently designed world would be designed on "principles".

It'll be interesting, if he thinks it's comparable, to see how he will phrase it and attempt to support it. Probably by accusing anyone who disagrees with him of suffering from cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.

The rest of the post above is either irrelevant or unsupported. As always, it does not actually attempt to establish the existence of any non-imaginary supernatural beings and this:

RAZD writes:

Not a single supernatural being has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination, not a single methodology of being able to test for supernatural presence has been developed.

just seems to indicate that RAZD has never heard of Gandalf, the YEC god, and prayer studies.

He also ignores the fact that my theory predicts that we won't be able to find a method of actually detecting supernatural beings that exist outside our heads, and so far, like all the other predictions of the theory, that's spot on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2012 8:05 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2012 8:04 PM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 166 of 222 (671287)
08-24-2012 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by RAZD
08-21-2012 8:04 PM


Re: false expectations and blind spots ... and Guernica
RAZD writes:

And you continue to display the behavior associated with cognitive dissonance.

I'll expect you to support that claim on your cognitive dissonance thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2012 8:04 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2012 6:51 AM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 169 of 222 (671933)
08-31-2012 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by RAZD
08-31-2012 6:51 AM


Re: Try again: Guernica
RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

I'll expect you to support that claim on your cognitive dissonance thread.

Try again: Guernica.

I'll rephrase that. I know you can't support that claim on your cognitive dissonance thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2012 6:51 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2012 4:20 PM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 171 of 222 (671936)
08-31-2012 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by RAZD
08-21-2012 8:05 AM


Re: false expectations and blind spots ... and Guernica
RAZD writes:

He [bluegenes] has unrealistic expectations here about the information conveyed in myths and legends, expecting them to have scientific precise information about reality, and then claims they are falsified by actual objective empirical evidence of reality.

I certainly do not expect myths and legends to have scientific precise information about reality.

RAZD writes:

This is irrational,

Well, you made it up.

RAZD writes:

and is a result of cognitive dissonance in looking at the nonconforming information in an unbiased and dispassionate manner. see Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs for more, and Message 20 in particular.

And you made that up as well.

RAZD writes:

Such societies typically use spiritual and symbolic language to convey concepts and ideas, methods that are not scientifically precise, but still capable of carrying important information about reality.

Most certainly. The tales concern us, our minds, and our relationship to the world. What they don't do, and what's relevant to this thread, is show any signs of conveying any positive information that would support the literal existence of any supernatural beings outside the (very important) world of our minds. Their actual usefulness in other respects isn't being discussed.

RAZD writes:

It is important to understand how this works before dismissing it out of hand as bluegenes does (confirmation bias, blind-spot, dtc etc etc).

I've always been interested in myths, myth making, and the roles they play in human societies. For example, your current need to make up a mythological bluegenes is interesting, and certainly says a lot more about you than it does about me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2012 8:05 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 172 of 222 (671937)
08-31-2012 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by RAZD
08-31-2012 4:20 PM


Re: Try again: Guernica
RAZD writes:

and try again
Guernica

I like your new posting style. Given the choice between massive great posts with bright coloured boxes, buttons and bells which contain absolutely no content to support your claim that my theory is weak, and four word plain coloured posts which achieve exactly the same result, I think the latter show far more common sense and economy.

You could improve, of course, by leaving out everything except the "Enjoy" bit, or just swallowing your pride, and admitting that I'm right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2012 4:20 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2012 7:33 PM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 174 of 222 (671974)
09-01-2012 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by RAZD
08-31-2012 7:33 PM


Re: And Try again: Guernica
RAZD writes:

Still failing to get the point here.

An alternative view might be that you've failed to actually make any precise point.

I suspect that you might believe that you're making some profound or interesting point about human spirituality, but I could be wrong, and you certainly haven't done so.

As for your question, it would be difficult to answer even in a 10,000 word essay. We artists tend to have thought quite a lot about such things in our lives. But as you've been making up beliefs for a character called bluegenes, and making up things about his psychological state, why don't you just continue to do so?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2012 7:33 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2012 2:02 PM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 176 of 222 (671991)
09-01-2012 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by RAZD
09-01-2012 2:02 PM


Re: And Try again: Guernica
RAZD writes:

Still dodging or not getting the point.

Point of what?

RAZD writes:

If you don't understand my argument then you are not debating against my argument but against your misconception\false conception of the argument.

You haven't made a coherent argument.

If anyone on the board thinks that RAZD has made a coherent argument about anything in his last few posts, do go ahead and explain it to the rest of the world on the peanut gallery.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2012 2:02 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2012 3:37 PM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 178 of 222 (672004)
09-01-2012 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by RAZD
09-01-2012 3:37 PM


Re: Still no relevance. Still no coherent point.
RAZD writes:

Thanks for making one of my points: inability to grasp what I am talking about.

Thanks for making one of my points: inability to express what your talking about.

Find someone else who understands what you're talking about, then that person can explain it to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2012 3:37 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2012 4:09 PM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 180 of 222 (672007)
09-01-2012 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by RAZD
09-01-2012 4:09 PM


Re: Still avoiding Guernica,
RAZD writes:

Amusingly, I need you to talk about Guernica before we can move on to the point.

Why?

Connect Guernica to the topic of the thread, and try to do so lucidly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2012 4:09 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2012 4:41 PM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 182 of 222 (672010)
09-01-2012 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by RAZD
09-01-2012 4:41 PM


Re: Still avoiding Guernica, indeed, but not the topic of the thread!
RAZD writes:

What is Guernica?

Google is your friend.

If you want to bring something into the topic, then it's up to you to explain its relevance. Be lucid.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2012 4:41 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2012 5:50 PM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 184 of 222 (672017)
09-01-2012 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by RAZD
09-01-2012 5:50 PM


Find me a fairy, then I'll discuss art on an art thread.
RAZD writes:

Curiously, Google doesn't tell me what you think about it.

And curiously, you haven't connected what I think about Guernica to the topic.

RAZD writes:

You realize that issue avoidance is a symptom.

Really? If you think it's a symptom of something bad, Doc, then stop avoiding the issue and present some positive evidence that supernatural beings exist outside our heads.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2012 5:50 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2012 6:27 PM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 186 of 222 (672023)
09-01-2012 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by RAZD
09-01-2012 6:27 PM


Re: avoidance again -- what is Guernica
RAZD writes:

One has to wonder why such sever and persistent avoidance reaction to a simple question, why the avoidance for so many posts: you reply by you don't answer the question ... and your replies are just (another) continuous attempts to shift the conversation to something (anything) else ...

One may have to wonder. But not this one. One of us is in a position to know.

Curiously (and amusingly) it isn't actually very strange to try to shift the conversation from paintings to supernatural beings ("anything"?) on a thread which is about supernatural beings, not paintings.

What you seem to be suggesting is that my views on a painting will have some impact on the question of whether or not SBs exist outside human minds. I know very well that, whatever I answer, the existential status of SBs will remain the same .

While that demonstrates the irrelevance of the question, it's not the only reason I'm not answering.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2012 6:27 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2012 10:19 PM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 188 of 222 (672039)
09-02-2012 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by RAZD
09-01-2012 10:19 PM


Re: avoidance again -- what is Guernica
RAZD writes:

Another interesting way to rationalize to yourself ....

... while still avoiding the question.

Hi RAZD

Another interesting way to rationalize to yourself.....

...while still avoiding the question of why we can't establish the existence of a single non-imaginary supernatural being.

RAZD writes:

Let me know when you want to participate -- and answer the question -- rather that obfuscate.

Let me know when you wish to participate in an on topic discussion -- rather than obfuscate.

You could start by explaining how my giving my views on a painting could change the existential state of supernatural beings.

How would that happen?

RAZD writes:

the question was first asked in Message 163 ... nothing but obfuscation since = not debate.

We agree that there's obfuscation going on, we just disagree as to its source.

BTW, thanks to the two people who have attempted to shed light on whatever there might be of substance to shed light on. I understand your confusion.

Would anyone else like to speculate on the peanut gallery on how my views on a painting could possibly provide evidence for the existence of non-imaginary SBs?

Edited by bluegenes, : peanut reference


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2012 10:19 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by RAZD, posted 09-02-2012 9:16 PM bluegenes has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021