Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9046 total)
587 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, Parasomnium, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), PurpleYouko, Tangle (8 members, 579 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,286 Year: 4,932/14,102 Month: 530/707 Week: 85/176 Day: 14/34 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1468 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 190 of 222 (672081)
09-02-2012 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by RAZD
09-02-2012 9:16 PM


Re: why speculate when you can know?
RAZD writes:

Alternatively you could post wht Guernica means to you, task me with tying it in to the topic (easily done) and move forward based on real answers rather than speculation.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by RAZD, posted 09-02-2012 9:16 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by RAZD, posted 09-03-2012 7:02 AM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1468 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 192 of 222 (672116)
09-03-2012 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by RAZD
09-03-2012 7:02 AM


Re: why speculate when you can know?
RAZD writes:

Curiously, that would be me speculating about what you would say, and I would prefer the answer come from you.

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.

RAZD writes:

But neither is the case, and that is because this is you speculating about what my argument involves rather than actually paying attention.

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

RAZD writes:

What are you scared of?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by RAZD, posted 09-03-2012 7:02 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 09-03-2012 12:25 PM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1468 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 194 of 222 (672122)
09-03-2012 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by RAZD
09-03-2012 12:25 PM


Re: why speculate when you can know?
RAZD writes:

Curiously I don't expect what you have to say about Guernica to have anything to do with SBs.

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

RAZD writes:

Your failure in understanding my arguments from the first post on is why we are talking about Guernica

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.

RAZD writes:

So can you respond to the question: what are your thought about Guernica, what does it mean to you?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 09-03-2012 12:25 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by RAZD, posted 09-03-2012 4:58 PM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1468 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 196 of 222 (672130)
09-03-2012 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by RAZD
09-03-2012 4:58 PM


"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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by RAZD, posted 09-03-2012 4:58 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by RAZD, posted 09-03-2012 8:02 PM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1468 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 198 of 222 (672143)
09-04-2012 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by RAZD
09-03-2012 8:02 PM


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.

Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by RAZD, posted 09-03-2012 8:02 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2012 8:06 AM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1468 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 200 of 222 (672159)
09-04-2012 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by RAZD
09-04-2012 8:06 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2012 8:06 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2012 5:37 PM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1468 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 202 of 222 (672214)
09-04-2012 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by RAZD
09-04-2012 5:37 PM


200+ posts, and the supernaturalist won't reason.
RAZD writes:

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2012 5:37 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2012 9:12 PM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1468 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 204 of 222 (672242)
09-05-2012 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by RAZD
09-04-2012 9:12 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2012 9:12 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2012 7:47 PM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1468 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 206 of 222 (672604)
09-09-2012 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by RAZD
09-09-2012 7:47 PM


Extraordinary claims.
RAZD writes:

Tell you what, bluegenes,

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2012 7:47 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2012 6:34 AM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1468 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 208 of 222 (672666)
09-10-2012 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by RAZD
09-10-2012 6:34 AM


Re: Extraordinary claims.
RAZD writes:

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2012 6:34 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2012 8:15 AM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1468 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 210 of 222 (672763)
09-11-2012 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by RAZD
09-11-2012 8:15 AM


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?

Edited by bluegenes, : spellin


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2012 8:15 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1468 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 211 of 222 (672814)
09-11-2012 2:09 PM


Dear peanut crunchers.......
Catholic Scientist writes:

bluegenes writes:

My theory predicts that there cannot be a way of detecting non-imaginary supernatural beings.

Then it isn't capable of being proven wrong.

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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2012 7:30 AM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1468 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(3)
Message 213 of 222 (672905)
09-12-2012 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by RAZD
09-12-2012 7:30 AM


Learning about predictions.
RAZD writes:

Your theory hypothetical conjecture then predicts that it is not a falsifiable scientific hypothesis.
If it predicts that you cannot show whether they are there or not, then you cannot show whether they are imaginary or not. It's that simple.

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).

RAZD writes:

All you can do is assume, and, curiously, your assumptions are not objective empirical evidence (no matter how many you have) -- it is you just begging the question (as has been said before, many times).

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?

RAZD writes:

Again, I say, it is because you have chosen supernatural beings as the subject of your concept that you need to be able to detect them, or your hypothetical conjecture is not testable.

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.

RAZD writes:

We can detect pictures and count (measure, observe) and hypothesize about them; we can detect fiction novels and count (measure, observe) and hypothesize about them; you can detect electricity and measure it in clouds and lightening, even though we cannot directly see electricity…..

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.

RAZD writes:

, and we can hypothesize about it; but if you cannot detect the subject of your concept in any way, you cannot count or measure whether it is present or not, then your concept is necessarily not a testable scientific hypothesis ... to say nothing of a theory ... and the only strength from it is the odor coming from confirmation bias and wishful thinking.

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?

RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

RAZD writes:

Just because your hypothetical conjecture is compatible with an apparent absence of supernatural beings, does not mean it is sufficient to form a scientific hypothesis that is testable.
What's amusing is that you know this (so one of you is wrong):

Let's look at the hypothesis: "The world was intelligently designed."

If we found ourselves in a world in which magic seemed to operate freely and there were no rules, that's perfectly compatible with the hypothesis. If we found ourselves in a world which seemed to operate very consistently on predictable laws, but we identified the occasional miracle that broke those laws, that's perfectly compatible with the hypothesis. And if we found ourselves in a world that appeared to have set physical principles that were never to our knowledge broken, that's perfectly consistent with the hypothesis.

So, that general I.D. hypothesis makes no predictions concerning principles (or miracles), which was what I was trying to explain to GDR. A prediction would be necessary to the hypothesis, not just compatible.

A compatible prediction is not sufficient to form a scientific hypothesis, it must be necessary to it -- your own words -- it must be able to distinguish one state from the other ... ie - you must be able to distinguish whether or not supernatural beings actually exist in order to theorize whether they are imaginary or not.

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

RAZD writes:

All you have is a concept with a compatible prediction, not something necessary to it.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2012 7:30 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2013 8:53 PM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1468 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 215 of 222 (696347)
04-15-2013 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by RAZD
04-14-2013 8:53 PM


Re: Learning about symbolic language
RAZD writes:

The turtle is very simple to explain in terms of symbolic language.

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.

RAZD writes:

Failure to understand it explains your failure to understand why your expectations are false.

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.

RAZD writes:

Guernica is also symbolic language.

Indeed. So, what's your point?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2013 8:53 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2013 6:46 PM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1468 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 217 of 222 (696439)
04-16-2013 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by RAZD
04-15-2013 6:46 PM


What "prediction" means in science.
RAZD writes:

still shooting blanks bluegenes

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.

bluegenes writes:

RAZD writes:

Your theory hypothetical conjecture then predicts that it is not a falsifiable scientific hypothesis.

If it predicts that you cannot show whether they are there or not, then you cannot show whether they are imaginary or not. It's that simple.

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).

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

Edited by bluegenes, : put in new subtitle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2013 6:46 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2013 7:03 AM 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