"Fairies exist" is an extraordinary claim when none have been found.
RAZD writes:
It is not about me - nor about supernatural beings per se - it is about you substantiating your extraordinary claim,.....
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?
RAZD writes:
Someone with a strong argument, backed up by "plenty of" actual objective empirical evidence, does not need to evade, dodge and play the shuck and jive game.
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.
196 posts and bluegenes still doesn't know what this thread is about???
Hi bluegenes
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?
Not for me to provide evidence. Your extraordinary claim is that all supernatural beings are imaginary and that you have "plenty of" evidence that this is so ... objective evidence ... scientific evidence ... : where is it?
Give me a list of the extant non-imaginary supernatural beings whose presence I'm dodging. Where have you found them?
Again, it is not for me to provide you with such list, that is your job, to list supernatural beings and then show objective evidence that they are purely fictional.
That you should already have such list in order to have gone from conjecture to scientific hypothesis (to say nothing about having a scientific theory) is also your problem.
Try google on gods. Pick one and demonstrate that it is purely imaginary. Remember you claimed to have plenty of evidence ...
It is your claim, not any I've made, that is the subject of the debate. Somehow you seem to have failed to grasp this simple fact.
Now I can help you understand part of your problem in greater depth -- understanding the argument against you -- if you answer the question:
Re: 196 posts and bluegenes still doesn't know what this thread is about???
RAZD writes:
Not for me to provide evidence. Your extraordinary claim is that all supernatural beings are imaginary and that you have "plenty of" evidence that this is so ... objective evidence ... scientific evidence ... : where is it?
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.
RAZD writes:
Try google on gods. Pick one and demonstrate that it is purely imaginary. Remember you claimed to have plenty of evidence ...
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.
RAZD writes:
what does Guernica mean to you?
See the post where I told you what it currently means to me.
Re: 196 posts and bluegenes still doesn't know what this thread is about???
Hi bluegenes
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.
Which all necessarily start out as fantasy, just like your made up silly caricatures, and thus could never be construed to be an actual supernatural being by a rational person.
This is typical of your poor and invalid logic on this thread, where you seem blind to the faults (due to confirmation bias?).
Claiming that intentional fantasy is actually (gasp!) fantasy proves nothing.
Your job is to show that A is B, not that B is B.
Bad logic is not objective evidence of any supernatural beings being imaginary.
We've been over this before, so now you're repeating failed arguments and apparently don't understand that they are invalid. Sad.
Do all the detective fiction stories then mean that all detectives are imaginary? Of course not. Do they mean that the detectives in the stories are real? Of course not. And yet real detectives do exist ... thus we KNOW that your logic is fatally FLAWED with this argument.
See the post where I told you what it currently means to me.
Which post was that? Perhaps you could just repeat it ... again ... for the peanut gallery ...
Re: 200 posts, and where are all the non-imaginary SBs hiding?
RAZD writes:
We've been over this before, so now you're repeating failed arguments and apparently don't understand that they are invalid. Sad.
RAZD, it's hardly my fault that you don't understand how science uses inductive and abductive theories and laws.
RAZD writes:
Do all the detective fiction stories then mean that all detectives are imaginary? Of course not. Do they mean that the detectives in the stories are real? Of course not. And yet real detectives do exist ... thus we KNOW that your logic is fatally FLAWED with this argument.
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.
Re: 200 posts, and where is the objective empirical evidence???
Hi bluegenes,
Again this has already been covered, and you could just review it.
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.
Again, confirmation bias is alive and well, and living in your posts. The detectives in the novels are still fiction.
This shows that people can write fiction about any topic, some that exist and some that don't, and they can equally write about things that actually occur and things that don't occur (or haven't yet occurred). This is not a surprise, and it has already been stipulated that people do have imagination.
The problem is that you are still starting with fiction and you can't have anything but fiction as a result.
You are still starting from the wrong end of the stick -- you need to start with supernatural beings and then show they are fictions.
... You are applying what would be fallacies in deductive reasoning to inductive scientific theorizing, where they don't apply. ...
Correction: hypothesis. To get to theory you have to provide some valid instances where you hypothesis is valid, and preferably have those instances verified by independent sources.
You have yet to provide empicial objective evidence of a single supernatural being being originally due to imagination.
btw -- for the onlookers, it is not my job to provide any proof or demonstration of supernatural beings in any way, but bluegenes' - he is the one claiming to be able to show they are based on imagination.
One also wonders why they don't encourage you to answer the Guernica question and resolve this issue ...
What, in your opinion, is the meaning of Guernica?
There have been some interesting speculations, but you won't really know until there is an answer.
Again, confirmation bias is alive and well, and living in your posts.
Is that presented as an hypothesis, a theory, or a fact?
RAZD writes:
You are still starting from the wrong end of the stick -- you need to start with supernatural beings and then show they are fictions.
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.
Re: 200+ posts, and the supernaturalist won't reason. Guess that means no theory.
Hi bluegenes.
That the supernatural won't reason with you is your problem -- you made the hypothetical conjecture and called it a theory. You don't have the evidence to call it a theory, so you need to go find some representation of a supernatural being (or two) and show that those supernatural beings are purely fictional. That you find this difficult to understand, let alone do, seems to be your biggest problem in getting beyond the hypothetical stage, and perhaps indicates that your hypothesis is untestable, and therefore not a scientific theory by any stretch of imagination.
It is not my job to supply them (or a list of names) for you, just to note that you have not accomplished it. It appears that you have not even attempted to start doing it.
This thread is about you substantiating your claims (a) that all supernatural beings are fictional - by demonstrating one or more cases (not yet done), and (b) that you have "plenty of evidence" to support your claim - a claim we can now assume is totally false, as 200 posts have passed with NO evidence being presented that qualifies as objective empirical evidence of a single supernatural being (not something you have made up nor something fictional from the start, like fantasy novels) being entirely fictional.
We start with supernatural beings, and observe that human invention is their only known source ...
There you go assuming your conclusion in your premise. Bad logic once again.
Curiously, you do not know that humans are the only known source. That is what you are supposed to demonstrate rather than assume, in order to get from your conjectural hypothesis to a theory.
Ah, paintings. We have an old painting hanging on the living room wall. ...
Is that all Guernica means to you -- a painting hanging on a wall?
... But I assume the composition is the product of human invention, ...
Which makes your painting -- and your rambling about it -- irrelevant to the point I want to make -- we know that Guernica was painted by Pablo Picasso.
Re: 200+ posts, and the supernaturalist won't reason. Guess that means no theory.
RAZD writes:
That the supernatural won't reason with you is your problem....
Supernaturalist. The believer and defender of magic.
RAZD writes:
You don't have the evidence to call it a theory, so you need to go find some representation of a supernatural being (or two) and show that those supernatural beings are purely fictional.
You mean like Gandalf? Surely it's beyond all reasonable doubt.
RAZD writes:
That you find this difficult to understand, let alone do, seems to be your biggest problem in getting beyond the hypothetical stage, and perhaps indicates that your hypothesis is untestable, and therefore not a scientific theory by any stretch of imagination.
As I've done it repeatedly throughout the thread, who do you think you're going to fool with this line other than yourself?
RAZD writes:
It is not my job to supply them (or a list of names) for you, just to note that you have not accomplished it. It appears that you have not even attempted to start doing it.
You certainly have a high capacity for self-deception.
RAZD writes:
This thread is about you substantiating your claims (a) that all supernatural beings are fictional - by demonstrating one or more cases (not yet done), and (b) that you have "plenty of evidence" to support your claim - a claim we can now assume is totally false, as 200 posts have passed with NO evidence being presented that qualifies as objective empirical evidence of a single supernatural being (not something you have made up nor something fictional from the start, like fantasy novels) being entirely fictional.
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.
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
We start with supernatural beings, and observe that human invention is their only known source ...
Curiously, you do not know that humans are the only known source. That is what you are supposed to demonstrate rather than assume, in order to get from your conjectural hypothesis to a theory.
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.
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
We start with supernatural beings, and observe that human invention is their only known source ...
There you go assuming your conclusion in your premise. Bad logic once again.
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?
RAZD writes:
Which makes your painting -- and your rambling about it -- irrelevant to the point I want to make -- we know that Guernica was painted by Pablo Picasso.
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.
You tell me what you think of Guernica and I'll tell you why the turtle is the worst example you could pick to support your hypothetical conjecture.
It's that simple.
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
bluegenes on what he thinks of Guernica writes:
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.
But you wouldn't be able to establish that the turtle is the "worst example", would you?
Well, I suppose you could argue that most of your subjective "evidence" from fantasies are your worst so far ...
Certainly it would be in that category, but try me and see.
As for Guernica, I already told you what I'm currently thinking about it in Message 194
bluegenes on what he thinks of Guernica writes:
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.
That's not your opinion of Guernica, it is your opinion of the value of your opinion to the argument in debate here.
Nothing but another dodge and equivocation. Again. Like someone with a very weak argument does to avoid getting into the issue.
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.
We could use cave paintings, but even though I agree that the origin is most likely human, we don't know the precise author\painter/s or the precise inspiration ... things we do know with Guernica: we know Pablo Picasso painted it and what it represents. The question is what you think about it, how you feel about it, how it impressed you.
I've seen it live, up front and personal, and found it very moving, and that was many years ago.
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? ...
You claim to be able to demonstrate that they are imagination, not just to be able to form an opinion that they are, based on a lack of acceptable (to you) evidence and your personal biases that you want others to accept without question.
Yet you haven't even proposed a methodology, nor a proper test of supernatural presence, to demonstrate this, nor provided evidence of any such demonstration. This means you cannot have a proper theoretical basis, and have just a hypothetical conjecture at this point, not a theory.
We've been over this several times already, and these facts should be seeping in by this time. If you feel frustrated that you can't get me to agree that just your opinions don't impress me as objective evidence, then maybe you should start thinking of changing your opinions ... to something more with a objective basis ... that's the next stage in resolving cognitive dissonance.
Your problem is that you are not talking to a "naive supernaturalist" -- no matter how much you pretend to yourself that you have the mental high ground. This constant attempt to minimize my position by attacking me personally is just another symptom of cognitive dissonance ... an attempt to minimize my argument by the ad hominem logical fallacy.
That's not your opinion of Guernica, it is your opinion of the value of your opinion to the argument in debate here.
That's always what I think about the painting when it's presented here, and you asked me for my thoughts.
RAZD writes:
Nothing but another dodge and equivocation. Again. Like someone with a very weak argument does to avoid getting into the issue.
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.
RAZD writes:
Yet you haven't even proposed a methodology, nor a proper test of supernatural presence, to demonstrate this, nor provided evidence of any such demonstration.
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.
RAZD writes:
This constant attempt to minimize my position by attacking me personally is just another symptom of cognitive dissonance ....
Where's the inconsistency in my views that would lead to cognitive dissonance? My views on cave paintings and SBs are consistent. Are yours?
RAZD writes:
We've been over this several times already, and these facts should be seeping in by this time. If you feel frustrated that you can't get me to agree that just your opinions don't impress me as objective evidence, then maybe you should start thinking of changing your opinions ... to something more with a objective basis ... that's the next stage in resolving cognitive dissonance.
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.
RAZD writes:
Your problem is that you are not talking to a "naive supernaturalist"….
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.
RAZD writes:
no matter how much you pretend to yourself that you have the mental high ground. This constant attempt to minimize my position by attacking me personally is just another symptom of cognitive dissonance ... an attempt to minimize my argument by the ad hominem logical fallacy.
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.
That's always what I think about the painting when it's presented here, and you asked me for my thoughts.
So you're like a cold fish with no emotional response to the painting at all? That's what I'm getting here from what you say.
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.
We've been over this before as well. This is just more evasion and equivocation on your part,
This is the pseudoskeptic approach again, the you prove me wrong and you prove you're right attitude that you think means you need to do nothing to support your silly conjectural concept other than make up stuff that is ridiculous parodies.
If YOU made the assertion and you cannot support it, then YOU should retract it. If YOU cannot find ways to test supernatural presence, to ensure an absence, rather than just assume one, then it is technically a NON-TESTABLE hypothesis at best, and you should retract your statement that it is a "strong theory" (a ridiculous claim from the start, because that is not something that YOU decide, that's hubris man, pure hubris).
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.
No, it means it is technically non-testable then, and cannot be a scientific theory. Try to understand the reason that you need to be able to test for this in order to be properly scientific is because of the subject you chose, not the method of hypothesis formation. Do we need to go over Ben Franklin and the kites again?
And once again, we have been over this detection issue before as well, there are many many many instances of people who claim to have supernatural experiences, and if you cannot falsify those experiences by being able to test for actual supernatural presences and not finding it, then you cannot just blithely claim that there is NO evidence, only that evidence cannot be confirmed with the equipment available or techniques available at this time -- ie that your hypothesis is NON-TESTABLE at this time. Again, this is because of the subject you chose, not the method of hypothesis formation. It is the subject that defeats you.
And it is certainly NOT enough to get from hypothesis to theory.
But there's a thread on which you're learning (hopefully) what CD is. I'll give it a bump.
Perhaps you will, but from what I've seen here, with continued repetitious reposting of old twice or thrice refuted arguments, I doubt it.
Now, Do you have any emotional feelings when you look at Guernica? Yes No?
If yes, what are they?
This should be a simple thing to answer, I don't really care what your response is, just that there is one that you will share, and I ask this question to help you understand my argument/s regarding symbolic and spiritual language, it is not some kind of trick.
You seem to have some kind of massive block here, and I just don't understand why you mount so much resistance to a simple question, without it having to do with your whole approach to this debate.
From Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs, Message 66: 1. How does one lower the importance of one of the discordant factors? c. avoiding situations where dissonant information is likely to be encountered ...
Should we add "g. ignoring or not answering questions that lead to potential dissonance"?
Or is it something simple but embarrassing, such as never having seen the picture and you don't want to admit it?
Enjoy
ps -- nobody in gallery is close to why the Guernica question, sorry.
Are all inductive hypotheses "extraordinary claims?"
RAZD writes:
This is the pseudoskeptic approach again, the you prove me wrong and you prove you're right attitude that you think means you need to do nothing to support your silly conjectural concept other than make up stuff that is ridiculous parodies.
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"?
RAZD writes:
No, it means it is technically non-testable then, and cannot be a scientific theory.
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?
™ Version 4.1
