the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)

It would be easy for you to do it by example. For example: "If bluegenes says "x", that's positive evidence for the fairies, but if bluegenes says why "y", that's positive evidence for the elves."

In reality, there's nothing I can say that will help you make a positive case for the existence of one of more non-imaginary SBs. And it's logically impossible that anything I can say will alter the existential state of SBs.

As you were making up beliefs for me in an earlier post, I don't see why you can't do it again.

So, fill in an "x" or "y" of your choice for bluegenes, and go onto step two.

Think about it. As there's nothing I could say that could possibly make any difference to either the existential state of SBs or the evidential state of SBs, you can easily fill in the gap and go on to step two. Then you can do the same there if necessary, and go on to any further steps required, so you can easily make your point in one post.

You haven't presented an argument to pay attention to. I know that, because I've been paying attention to your argument free posts.

As you can clearly make up emotions for me, and you made up both an opinion and a psychological state for me in an earlier post, why can't you just continue in the same vein?

Meanwhile, I'm quite enjoying speculation. I'd like anyone reading the thread to be in a state of suspense. What will the unsupported claim actually be?

I like a big build build up.

So, you're asking me to do something off topic? Why?

You mean from the beginning of the thread? No. The problem is rather that you don't appear to understand your arguments, or rather, how they relate to the topic. For example, I had to spend ages explaining to you why inductive scientific theories aren't deductive when you were criticizing the theory for not being deductive, a criticism that would have thrown out all scientific laws and theories. It's still not clear if you understand your mistake. Then, I had to point out that unsupported hypotheses can be made to contradict all theories, but without support they do not weaken them, but you kept on and on and on presenting such hypotheses, and it's still not clear whether or not you understand this point.

So, the problem is not that I don't understand your "arguments" and how they relate to the subject, it's that you don't appear to, otherwise you'd stop making them.

Currently, and in the context that it's been presented, my first thought is that I wish naive supernaturalists would not use human art works in attempts to reinforce their beliefs and flatter their desires.

Which extraordinary claim? As you can't find one single non-imaginary supernatural being, on what grounds do you claim that my theory is an extraordinary claim?

Give me a list of the extant non-imaginary supernatural beings whose presence I'm dodging. Where have you found them?

Or are we just stuck imagining them? As my theory would predict.

You do not get to declare by fiat that something is an extraordinary claim. If someone theorizes that all flat planets are figments of the human imagination, we could only reasonably describe it as an extraordinary claim if we can make a good case for at least one flat planet existing. If no flat planets can be found, and no-one can establish how they could form or any reason that they could form, then the theory is clearly a strong one, and it's certainly not an extraordinary claim.

Same with my theory that all books are written by human beings. Inductive, it can't be proven, but definitely very strong.

All the gods in fantasy fiction. There are thousands. Now, your turn to demonstrate that there's one non-imaginary one, otherwise you should take back your unsupported "extraordinary claim" claim immediately.

See the post where I told you what it currently means to me.

Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

RAZD, it's hardly my fault that you don't understand how science uses inductive and abductive theories and laws.

We could hypothesise that all detectives are figments of the human imagination on the basis of detective fiction, but as we can easily find exceptions, the hypothesis is easily falsified.

We can hypothesise that all supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination, and see, there's a difference. The same with "flat planets", which we find in both myth and modern fiction, but not in reality.

You're still making the same mistake. You are applying what would be fallacies in deductive reasoning to inductive scientific theorizing, where they don't apply. Try testing your arguments against established scientific theories and laws before you make them.

From memory, there was a series of posts on the old peanut gallery in which several people tried to explain this very same thing to Chuck77, who couldn't grasp it either. Perhaps reading others explaining this in different ways might help you.

Is that presented as an hypothesis, a theory, or a fact?

We start with supernatural beings, and observe that human invention is their only known source. We observe that when there is only one known source for a phenomenon, that it is generally accepted as a law, a very strong theory or a fact that all examples of the phenomenon come from that source.

We then wonder whether confirmation bias is operating in those who do not apply the generally accepted rule to supernatural beings, especially when those same people will certainly assume it for many other phenomena.

Then one wonders if such people, on reflection, will regret bringing phrases like confirmation bias into the discussion, because their little glass houses might be shattered.

Ah, paintings. We have an old painting hanging on the living room wall. We have never found out who (or what) painted it. But I assume the composition is the product of human invention, even though I can't actually prove it. I know of no other source of paintings, so I reason by abduction to the best explanation. It would seem strange not to.

Supernaturalist. The believer and defender of magic.

You mean like Gandalf? Surely it's beyond all reasonable doubt.

As I've done it repeatedly throughout the thread, who do you think you're going to fool with this line other than yourself?

You certainly have a high capacity for self-deception.

In 200 posts, no evidence has been presented that contradicts my theory, only unsupported hypotheses. I think you're building up to present another unsupported hypothesis while loudly accusing me of doing what your doing. I have a source of SBs to support my theory; you can't find one to support any of your hypotheses, you old psuedoskeptic.

What other thing do we all know to be a source? What other source do you know of? Are they born from other SBs, like rabbits? Are they made by SBs? Do they form out of rock?

I repeat, we observe that human invention is the only known source of both SBs and paintings.

Oh dear! 200+ posts, and my pet supernaturalist can't distinguish the conclusion from one of the premises. Is he really qualified to judge a theory?

And we know Gandalf was invented by Tolkein.

When we come accross paintings like mine and those on cave walls, paintings of unknown source, we assume they are human creations via inductive or abductive reasoning, because we've never established any other source of paintings.

And those of us who are consistent do exactly the same for SBs of unknown source.

It requires a strong bias not to do this. Did you want to discuss confirmation bias? You've been bringing it up all through the thread, although I warned you not to.

But you wouldn't be able to establish that the turtle is the "worst example", would you?

I'm happy to discuss paintings in relation to the topic. Let's start with cave paintings. We find them, and attribute them to our ancestors, although we cannot actually prove that that's their source.

Presumably, you would describe the hypothesis that all cave paintings found on this planet are human inventions as an extraordinary claim, as that's your view of the claim that all supernatural beings are human inventions. But maybe not.

If not, why not?

And why is the claim that all supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination an extraordinary claim when we can't find a single example of a non-imaginary supernatural being? Is "all flat planets are figments of the imagination" an extraordinary claim?

As for Guernica, I already told you what I'm currently thinking about it in Message 194

That's always what I think about the painting when it's presented here, and you asked me for my thoughts.

It is you who is avoiding the issue by avoiding the fact that you cannot establish a source of supernatural beings other than human invention. If you can't do this, you should retract the assertion that "all supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination" is an extraordinary claim.

Try to understand logical predictions. My theory predicts that there cannot be a way of detecting non-imaginary supernatural beings. If we can't establish that there is one, that is something that supports rather than weakens the theory.

Anthropologists and archaeologists assume that cave paintings are made by humans as if that theory is so strong that it's virtually a fact. Why aren't you asking them to develop an alien test? Or a test to confirm that there weren't intelligent beings of any kind capable of doing paintings on the planet in the past other than us?

We're the only known source of such things, so anthropologists and archaeologists are always assuming that artifacts were made by us. It's a very reasonable inference to the best explanation.

Try to be consistent.

Where's the inconsistency in my views that would lead to cognitive dissonance? My views on cave paintings and SBs are consistent. Are yours?

Cognitive dissonance isn't produced in people by disagreeing with you. Learn to understand the phrase and how it applies to the real world if you're going to continue to use it.

That description came when you asked me for my thoughts. It seems to fit with your inconsistency on human invention. You seem to want to make a special exception for supernatural beings.

If someone was in a debate and constantly attacked his opponent's psychological state, then complained that he himself was being personally attacked, that person would be showing inconsistency and contradictory behaviour. That could lead to cognitive dissonance if the person recognised or sensed the contradictions. Hypocrisy itself would not mean CD, but if it was recognised and caused unease or discomfort, that's cognitive dissonance.

But there's a thread on which you're learning (hopefully) what CD is. I'll give it a bump.

Oh dear. The whole point about inductive/abductive theories is that they cannot be proven to be correct.

Now, why can't you support the assertion you made in the O.P. that my theory is an extraordinary claim?

Explain why you think any hypotheses that attribute phenomena to their only established source could possibly be considered "extraordinary"?

Of course my theory is testable against observations, for the same reason that "all flat planets are figments of the human imagination" is testable against observations. If we can't find any, and don't know of any way that they could form, it fits that we're making them up, and the theory is strong.

I can't find any non-imaginary SBs, and consider my theory strong.

You claim that it is weak conjecture and an extraordinary claim, rather than falsified, so presumably you have some good evidence for non-imaginary SBs that I don't know about.

So, why are you keeping this evidence a secret?

And why aren't you demanding that anthropologists and archaeologists have a detection method for unknown non-human cave painters operating on earth in the past?

Edited by bluegenes, : spellin

Predicts, not proves. Logically, it does predict that.

If RAZD is asking for hypothetical ways in which we could establish things like genuine communication from non-imaginary SBs, then it's easy to give examples. Finding Newton's laws and Einstein's theories written into the Koran would be pretty convincing, for example. But, contrary to the claims of some Buzsaw type Muslims, the Koran only contains stuff that could easily have come from human heads.

Just as my theory would predict.

No. A prediction is not an establish fact, it's what we're attempting to falsify.

Learn to understand what "prediction" means in relation to hypotheses. Think. What would logically follow from the hypothesis? This is where deductive reasoning comes in. You ask "If the hypothesis is correct, then what must necessarily follow. One way to make it clear is to put the hypothesis into deductive syllogisms, and see what would be valid, and would be sound if the hypothesis is correct.

(1)All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination.
(2)Therefore, no non-imaginary supernatural beings exist.
(3)Therefore, there cannot actually be a means of detecting non-imaginary SBs, because (2) they are not there.

(2) and (3) can be deduced logically from (1), but we do not know if (1) is correct, because it's our inductive hypothesis. Therefore it's considered falsifiable and would be falsified if we can establish something that contradicts any prediction it makes (there are lots) including (3).

If you're going to assume things about scientific theories, why not learn to understand the hypothetico-deductive method first, then I wouldn't have to explain things like the above?

The subject I'm examining is the concepts of SBs that we have in our minds. Because I can find no external source for them, I hypothesise that SBs are figments of our imagination. Of course it's testable. We test hypotheses against observations. You do not have to observe a falsification of a theory prior to stating the theory. To state what should be obvious.

That's how we know those aren't figments of our imagination. We observe their external existence. That's what we need to do with non-imaginary SBs.

I know that there are concepts of SBs, and I know there are imaginary SBs. There are SBs. I do not have to detect the falsification of my theory, which is non-imaginary SBs, in order to have a theory. You've got it back to front. Someone hypothesising that non-imaginary SBs exist would need to detect them in order to support the hypothesis. As any real criticism of my theory would have to be based on that general hypothesis, dear critic, when are you going to support your criticism?

Again, you don't understand predictions. See above.

Please, try harder. Think about it. It is necessary to the hypothesis that "all paintings are made by humans" that there be no non-human painters. So it predicts this. We then observe the world. Observation is the method. If we can find just one non-human painter, we have falsified the hypothesis. If we find that chimps can paint pictures: falsification.

So, here's one for you to work on. "All kangaroos are figments of the human imagination."

Figure out what it might predict, and then try to falsify it. If it's very weak, or an extraordinary claim, and non-imaginary kangaroos are real, then it should be easy. If it's strong, you almost certainly won't be able to falsify it.

Now, try to fit "the world was intelligently designed" into valid deductive syllogisms which would be sound if it was correct, and you can find out what, if anything, it predicts about the world.

What does it symbolize? It can actually be hard to tell if concepts invented long ago by past cultures were intended to be symbolic or not. Are you suggesting that anyone who believes that an actual world supporting supernatural turtle exists is believing in a figment of the human imagination? If so, I agree.

I don't expect supernatural turtles to exist.

You may have forgotten, but I brought up "symbolic" supernatural beings earlier in the thread. From memory, I think Old Father Time and Death as a robed skeleton with a scythe were among the examples that I gave. I pointed out that time and death aren't imaginary, but the SBs are. Imaginary personifications of things or abstracts are common.

Symbols are human representations of things. We invent them.

Indeed. So, what's your point?

I guess the irony of that post will be lost on you.

You've now clicked on to the reply button on two consecutive posts of mine without addressing anything in them.

In Message 214 you reply to Message 213, which explains how you are wrong in your understanding of the meaning of "prediction" in relation to hypotheses in your Message 212.

In post number 214 above (Message 214), you should have been apologizing for the obvious mistakes you made in post 212 (Message 212), and agreeing that I was right, rather than talking about symbolic imaginary turtles.

If you still don't understand that hypotheses predict the opposite of their hypothetical falsifications, then your comments on my theory are meaningless.

Do you understand and agree with what I'm explaining here?

Edited by bluegenes, : put in new subtitle