The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D)

Nosyned,You ask, Hey, it's Jehovah's idea! Read Malachi 3:10. If we are going to do the doubting Thomas thing, let's do it! God would prefer, perhaps, that we just take Him at His word, but if we need data, let's go get it. The Bible Codes are the best, although Del Washburn's statistics are almost as small. Panin's stuff is easiest to see, and the prayer experiments the most useful. On a personal level, the titheing experiment of Mal 3:10 is always impressive. It might be possible to set that up experimentally as well.But, anyone who is in science for the truth, (as opposed to Kuhn paradigm maintainers) who looks at the data and says, "Ok, I need to change my mind." will get the picture.

Ok, It's your idea. My Christian friends shudder at such clumsy theology but it's up to you.As for you Bible codes, my statistics isn't good enough to follow the details but the last I read on the subject it sure looked like you were hitched to the wrong horse. How expert are you in the math involved?

---

Common sense isn't

I kind of wish you had picked something else to address in my post than just that one paragraph. But given lemons...

quote:

---

If the Amish talk to God, He will keep them out of trouble, just as He would have kept Job out of trouble, if Job had bothered to deal with Him face to face.

---

The first part of that sentence contradicts your last post where you said their peaceful ways make them vulnerable to invasion. I am now totally unclear as to what your stance is. It has become almost purely ad hoc reasoning.The second sentence contradicts the Bible. God was not about to help Job out at all. That was the bet God had made with Satan; a very devout person would be left to the devices of Satan and suffer unjustly and without possible aid, to see if he would give up God. Unless you are saying God would make a bet and then cheat? I suppose that makes sense when God had to cheat while wrestling with an ordinary man, but it just makes him that much less compelling.

quote:

---

Ask God yourself. It's the whole point of the Bible, to hearken to His voice, to settle all matters.

---

This completely avoids the issue raised in my summary statement. Someone could just as easily say "Ask Vishnu" or "Ask Zeus" or "Ask Satan". I have no way of separating one from the other, exept for your assertion. By the way I have tried talking to God and received nothing. I guess that means I did it wrong then huh? Boy that was pretty convenient.Science is much much harder. You can't just say if it didn't work for you you did it wrong, your methods must be carefully explained so that others can follow it, thus reproducing the experiment.You seem like a nice guy, but I have to say you are not being scientific in your approach to science.

---

holmes

quote:

---

Actually, science began as a search for knowledge. It just turned out that naturalism gave the best results in virtually all areas of study.

---

Actually, you are both correct. Science did begin as "natural philosophy". That did not mean naturalist philosophy, it meant the philosophy (or seeking knowledge) of the natural world (what we see around us).Natural philosophy included many extraneous (non-naturalist) concepts until the methods of studying nature became refined into methodological naturalism.I still wish science was known as natural philosophy. The division between the two has left philosophers feeling like they shouldn't be active in researching the real world, and scientists feeling like they study the truth and don't have to understand the philosophy behind their pursuit of knowledge. That's bad business for both.

---

holmes

Nosyned,My doctoral training was at NC State, Department of Experimental Statistics. The emphasis for me, though, was the application of statistical thinking to the philosophy of science, modelling, etc. But the Bible Codes controversy is not that complex, since some of the tests were Monte Carlo, where the null hypothesis (codes appear at random in a sufficiently long text) produces a distribution through looking at repeated computer generated randomization of letters and words. One main statistic is the size of the text where two minimal coded messages occur. Thus, in 1000 or so randomizations, of the given text (where the letters or words of Genesis are scrambled), each one generates a block of text where both the minimal coded name of a Rabbi was found, and the city where he was born. The distribution of such blocks of texts is the control. Then the same is done with the real text of Genesis. Let's say that the latter block is the second smallest of all the 1001 texts looked at (1000 random, one as written.) Now repeat this for 80 Rabbis and their cities. The rank orders of the natural text blocks were consistently much smaller than the average for the random texts. In each case, there is a probability of getting a text so small (one in 500 in the first example), but when the 80 are combined, the probability of so many being so small is negligible.Now, they did a test comparing with some other text, War and Peace I think, just in case the scrambling did something to sentence structure or grammar, that was generating the codes. Again, a significantly smaller block size in Genesis.The Moby Dick comparison really doesn't do any of these statistical tests, or when they do with Genesis, they also get statistically significant differences. But, by fiddling with the data, they were able to get something that might have been improbable codes in Moby Dick. So, they accused the original authors of fiddling with their data, although those authers had been meticulous in protecting themselves from doing so. The critics lied, in some cases, about what the original authors had done, and could document they had done in generating this protection. Gans presents documents proving these lies. The critics also did not allow the original authors to peer review their (the critics) paper, nor did they allow rebuttal to be published. Finally, the critics replicated the original study, and confirmed it's findings, attributing this to fiddling, however. While all this was going on, dozens of other replications, on other codes besides rabbis' names and birth places, were appearing, using similar statistical testing and confirming the phenomenon.You have to view this in the context of the history of science. Every paradigm breaking study gets the sort of treatment we see coming from the critics and the wider scientific community. You cannot use such argument to decide one way or the other. If anything, the fact that they protest so much tends to support the finding.But look at Bible Code Digest.com - Home Page [Bible Code Digest] and search on Moby Dick. Or search at Doron Witztum's website, reading the review of Harold Gans of the criticism. It's worth the study. The popularizers are right about one thing. This study changes everything about our culture and science.By the way, about your Christian friends. If you agree that hypocrisy is a fatal intellectual flaw, you come to expect little wisdom from most Christians. Official Believers, according to Scripture, are usually liars. The test is, if you ask them what Jehovah or Yeshua commanded, and how those commands are to be obeyed, you get really fuzzy, or no, answers. This in spite of the fact that the "Great Commission" of the Christians contains the command, "teach them to observe all things whatsoever I (Yeshua) have commanded you." There's no other directive from Yeshua about teaching in the church, but you'll look long and hard for a church that teaches on the commandments. The commandments of Yeshua to His disciples, that is. I have never met a single church-going Christian who even had any idea how many commandments Yeshua gave. Few can define the term, or recognize a commandment from Yeshua when they see one in scripture. The bible code confirmed bible warns to beware the arguments ("leaven") of such people.PS. Thomas Bayes developed a mathematical statement of common sense, now called Bayes Theorem. It allows you to practise common sense when it's not so common, and a bit obscure.Stephen

Holmes,I'll go back later, to deal with more of your last post if you like. Especially since there is confusion. But for now, you said: The Amish, as we have noted, make a strong effort to live lives according to some biblical precepts. Now, it confirms the idea that the bible is a supernaturally written document guiding lesser, created beings, when any effort to see if those guidelines produce a good fruitful life succeeds. We can add these historical reports to the scientific studies, to increase our confidence in the idea of supernatural writing and protection of the book.But, to evaluate that history correctly, we need to examine the biblical standards closely and how they are being adhered to. In this case, we have a clear biblical stress on the importance of "hallowed by Thy name." The Amish are claiming to be under the blood of Yeshua, and ought to be under New Testament standards. Some they keep, and appear to be blessed for it. Others, and some are serious, they break. The most impressive is calling themselves Amish (or Mennonite). There are strict biblical injunctions against doing this, because it causes divisions, as has happened with these "plain" people. Thus, we can expect some sort of breakdown with the prosperity of these people. They will reap what they sow, both good and bad.Now, their dogmatic pacifist stand is also unbiblical. Yeshua told his maturer disciples to carry a sword. The Calvinistic Swiss, obeying other NT principles and also blessed, obey this notion, and have received a blessing for it.Well, there are a lot of principles. Not so many we really would have trouble with them, actually. Look at the tomes of laws we live under, generally ignoring biblical law! But, anyway, the problem for us is to note confirmation of whatever obedience we find, and to not be surprized when there is judgment for disobedience. We compare Albania with Switzerland, one atheistic the other Calvinistic, and behold, a confirmation that the Bible is from a creator telling us how to live so that we prosper. As one who ought to know.Now, the central theme of the Bible is hearing God's voice and walking not according to these principles alone, but with Jehovah's or Yeshua's counsel. And, a central theme of the NT is that mistakes, disobedience, need not have serious consequences, if admitted and repented of. As God directs. Here's a relevant story.The church in Armenia, the oldest church in Christianity, so I've heard, had grown stale and lukewarm. It was 1850. Prophets were sent by Jehovah from Russia to stir things up. Some in Armenia listened, most didn't. Then a lad, illiterate, disappeared for several days. When he returned, he had a map showing the way to Southern California, and a message saying that God had had it with the luke-warmness, and that the Armenian Christians were going to have to leave and go to California. If they didn't go, they would be killed. It all seemed miraculous to the believers, and cooked up to the skeptics. Anyway, the message said to get ready, and another message would come when it was time to go. That message came in early 1900, and many Armenian Christians came to California. They prospered in many ways, and started the fundamentalist revival of the last century here, having repented of luke-warmness. But most were skeptical, and stayed in Armenia, and were killed by the Turks in the genocide that inspired Hitler.All consistent with the Bible, as a supernatural document. You have to hear God, even if only in the form of a prophet, and repent with fruits appropriate to your repentance, and He will save you. Or so it is written.Now, ad hoc reasoning has a place in the Lakatosian Research Programmes, and is useful if protected by deductive predictions. Generally, in the histories of the Amish, the Swiss, the Albanians, and the Armenians, we see a confirmation of our main thesis, without too much ad hoc reasoning. But that only sends us deeper into the Scriptures, to see what they really say, and what we can predict about history. We find that, consistent with the priorities set out in scripture by God, peace-loving Amish could well be invaded and killed in some sort of genocide. Their current prosperity, while reflecting and confirming some scriptural validity, does not necessarily prove they are doing more important things, as Jehovah has written the book.You note: No, God was not about to help Job out at all. But, if Job had come running into His presence at the beginning, God might well have changed His mind and told Satan to get lost. After all, it appears that was what God wanted after all, and as soon as He got it, He stopped the test. Note that, in the beginning, Satan was coming around, but not Job. If Job had been there at the meeting, he might have stopped the whole thing short. My assertion is that if you do ask, part of the request is for Jehovah to make it clear that it is He, not Vishu or Zeus that is speaking. As to "praying amiss" (the quotes from scripture), it is possible, or so it is written. Try listening to God, instead of talking to Him. Ask to hear, ask for a hearing ear, and information that persuades you who is talking. Typically, the best way to begin hearing is to ask God to talk about something He likes, such as one of His commandments. Try "Choose life." Ask, "Now, how should I do that?" Or more simply, "Do you want me to choose life?" There's a commandment about "Let your yes be yes, and your no, no." Keeping His own commandment, He likes questions that have a yes/no answer. Many who hear God begin by hearing Him say, "Yes."Also, if the voice sounds familiar, that's typical. In Samuel's first experience, he actually thought Eli was calling him. Don't be in a hurry to believe. Consider, when a "yes" appears in your mind, that maybe that was God. You can ask, "Was that You?" Then, if doubts still haunt you, "How can I know for sure?" Faith comes from hearing, but sometimes it takes some time, the maybes slowly turning to probablies. The evolutionists taught us that's Jehovah's style, good on 'em.Look also for dreams, strangely coincidental readings popping out of books, people saying improbable things. Just keep asking, "Was that You? How can I know?"All your years of experience have taught you, I think, that this approach is the way the world is, the way evidently it was created to be. Slow and steady wins the race.Just remember: the bottom line of scripture is hearkening to His voice to keep and do His commandments. He says clearly that He won't answer if you turn away from keeping His law. You can find a law you agree is good. Do it, bring it up, ask about it.I eagerly await the results of your next trial run.Stephen

quote:

---

Now, it confirms the idea that the bible is a supernaturally written document guiding lesser, created beings, when any effort to see if those guidelines produce a good fruitful life succeeds.

---

This seems a little stretched. There are many cultures, including small, basically agrarian based communities which have no connection to Xianity. Does this confirm the idea that their holy texts or beliefs are correct?

quote:

---

Now, their dogmatic pacifist stand is also unbiblical. Yeshua told his maturer disciples to carry a sword.

---

Pacifism, unbiblical? I do not remember Jesus picking up arms and telling people "if a person smacks you on the cheek, smite him on the other."While there may have been instances where the sword was encouraged, but there was a lot more encouragement (at least in the NT) for beating them into plowshares or some such thing. I think this cuts them a little slack.But your discussion of the Amish only brings out the problems in your reasoning. First you say their success indicates something, then slip in that maybe something bad could happen to them and if it does you have an answer in the Bible for that too. Yet it is left open that if nothing bad happens to them, there is a Biblical answer for that. Thus anything that happens to the Amish is evidence of some kind.

quote:

---

All consistent with the Bible, as a supernatural document. You have to hear God, even if only in the form of a prophet, and repent with fruits appropriate to your repentance, and He will save you. Or so it is written.

---

??? You gave hearsay, speculation, and assertion and then sum it up by saying that this is consistent with the Bible as a supernatural document? This does not seem like a very well put together argument.

quote:

---

Now, ad hoc reasoning has a place in the Lakatosian Research Programmes, and is useful if protected by deductive predictions.

---

Homina homina homina. I am unsure how ad hoc reasoning is useful to these people you mention, but ad hoc reasoning is absolutely no good in presenting an argument. It shows a specific lack of understanding of your own position and how logic connects the propositions which make it up.

quote:

---

But, if Job had come running into His presence at the beginning, God might well have changed His mind and told Satan to get lost. After all, it appears that was what God wanted after all, and as soon as He got it, He stopped the test. Note that, in the beginning, Satan was coming around, but not Job. If Job had been there at the meeting, he might have stopped the whole thing short.

---

This has me thinking you are just jerking my chain. This is not the common interpretation of Job, and if it is it steals away the whole message of Job.Job was described as pious, not as someone shirking his duty. You are suggesting he was supposed to be following God around to everywhere God exists on the off chance God would make a bet with the devil?Even more intriguing is you forget about all the other pious innocents who were slaughtered unjustly, in order for the devil to get at Job. Or are you saying that if they had come to God then they would have been spared and thus deprive the devil the ability to test Job?This is truly an example of terrible ad hoc reasoning. You have changed the actual and obvious message of a passage in the Bible, in order to try and hang on to your earlier statement, and in order to get out of the new fix you put your interpretation into you'll have to alter it again.

quote:

---

My assertion is that if you do ask, part of the request is for Jehovah to make it clear that it is He, not Vishu or Zeus that is speaking.

---

This avoids the main issue, that anyone of another faith can say the same thing. Are you saying when it works... even if for another faith... that confirms that religion? Or does this only count for your God?

quote:

---

Just keep asking, "Was that You? How can I know?" All your years of experience have taught you, I think, that this approach is the way the world is, the way evidently it was created to be. Slow and steady wins the race.

---

This is not what years of experience have taught me at all. While slow and steady is good for progress, stacking the deck and biasing my research from the outset is not.You are asking me to take an a priori position with regards to what the results of my experience will be and judge evidence only with that outcome in mind.

quote:

---

Just remember: the bottom line of scripture is hearkening to His voice to keep and do His commandments.

---

So what is the bottom line of science? That is supposedly what this thread is about, yet it consistently veers into attempts at conversion.If I must convert in order to get to your method, that means I must agree with the results in order to see them. This is not good science.

---

holmes

Holmes,Recall the first posts in this thread, as the foundation of my argument. The hypothetico-deductive scientific method seems to work the best, and best fits with common sense. You take an idea, believe it temporarily for the sake of testing, see if implausible predictions from it are confirmed. If so, increase your estimate of the plausibility of the idea. Now, to your questions. You would have to do what I did. Take their holy texts, and read them to see what they advise. Then, compare cultures for the degree to which they adhere to that advice. Then, measure the prosperity of each culture, as predicted by the holy text. If any text is consistently confirmed, in the sense that it's predictions of the sort, "If you do X, you will get Y." then that confirms that someone very wise wrote the text, and its ontological statements ("This is the way the universe is put together.") more credible. Yes, anything that happens to the Amish is evidence of some kind, either for or against the credibility of the Bible. To evaluate that evidence, we have to know what the Bible says. Thus, the Yeshua in the Bible says to carry a sword, but use it sparingly if at all. It warns that living by the sword will result in dying by the sword. But, as the Prince of Peace is giving these directives, we can readily expect what the Swiss have found: to be armed and ready if reluctant to fight at all times, as commanded by Yeshua, produces the most peaceful culture on earth. The Amish rebellion ("We will never carry a sword, so we are not even going to ask you, Lord, whether it would be wise or no."), is predicted to generate problems.If someone tithes, and does not report or experience an "opening of the windows of heaven." or Seeks the Lord as He commands us in Scripture to seek Him, but without success, then we have evidence that the Bible is not what it says it is. Any culture that tries to live by the knowledge of good and evil in the bible is predicted to confirm that the knowledge of good and evil is accurate, but also to confirm that living by such knowledge, instead of "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" leads to death. The predictions of the Bible include for both the righteous and the wicked, a mixture of prosperity and problems. But that mixture is predicted to vary in discernable ways, so that with understanding of these things, one can see whether there is confirmation or not. Not exactly. I actually read the bible carefully, as a manual of materials and methods for knowing whether Jehovah is really out there. From this, and my own experience with science, I then looked at evidence from Ivan Panin, Del Washburn, Doron Witztum, and others doing prayer experiments, and found confirmation that the Bible is what it says it is. I then replicated as best I could these and other experiments, especially the ones that are given in the Bible for testing whether the book is credible: tithing experiments, for example, or seeking the voice of God as directed there. These experiments were also confirming. There are few reports of anyone doing what they are told must be done, and getting negative results, actually none that I know of. The negative reports normally demonstrate that they did not follow the specified protocols. But, examining such reports is an ongoing process. I still believe that following these scientific proceedures will bring us all closer to something that I call the truth, which is a statement about the Bible from which every logical deduction will be confirmed.It is a strain that the book, and its putative Author, are so complex. But, that's what being smart and inquisitive is all about. Confusion about what the book actually says, and disagreements, can all be worked out through well regulated debates, I believe. The biblical conflicts of history, I believe, can all be traced to hypocritical and dogmatic argumentation. Ad hoc reasoning is useful in the following scenario. You take a theory, make predictions from it, which are partially confirmed, but there are some unexpected twists. You modify the theory, coming up with a new version, that is similar to the original, retaining most or all of its postulates, but adding some others that would account for the unexpected twists. This is ad hoc, and does nothing to increase the credibility of the original postulates, or the new ones. So, you have to take this revised theory, make predictions from it, and see if they are confirmed. If so, the new theory is regarded as more plausible. This is called a research program by a philosopher/historian of science called Lakatose. In this way, according to Bayes Theory, if strong inference is used in deciding which predictions to test, one developes a theory the deductions of which are almost always confirmed. That is, a theory you can safely bet your life on. The common interpretation of the Bible steals away its message, and this is intentional and predicted by the bible. Recall that the bible postulates an evil genius, deceiving, if he could, even the elect (a few souls), and certainly deceiving the masses going down the broad way to destruction. It makes no sense at all to ever accept the common interpretation of the Bible. If the bible is to be useful at all, that interpretation has to be wrong. To maintain intellectual integrity in examining the Bible, you have to carefully get the message yourself, normally talking to God Himself about what He is trying to say there. If you end up with the common interpretation, I would take that as evidence that the whole book is incredible. At least internally inconsistent. "He has told you, Oh, man, what is good, and what does the Lord require of you! But to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God." Yes, Job learned that hearing about God was not good enough. He needed to be in His presence, if he wanted to forestall problems with the devil. "Give us this day, our daily bread,...and do not bring us to the test, but deliver us from evil." Clearly a prayer to be prayed every day. And, "Walk prudently when you go to the house of God, and draw near to hear rather than give the sacrifice of fools." But the devil's slaughter of these others was not unjust. Technically, these people were the devil's property, much as a steer might be your property. God by grace restrains the devil from doing what he justly might, usually as people ask in prayer. But Job said that he knew that "his redeemer lived." that the purchase of his soul and the souls of those he prayed for was to be accomplished in time, and could be appropriated even in his lifetime. But grace trumps justice, it doesn't make it injustice.Moreover, when the prophets asked Jehovah what happened to Job's children, they got this response. Everything else Job lost was restored to him two fold, but not his children. Because, although they died prematurely, they lived on in heaven, where it matters. Thus, Job would spend eternity with them, and with the new children he got, a two-fold increase. Everyone dies, one way or another. If God is good to someone, their death is useful, generating treasure in heaven. Not to be regretted. I think I dealt with this above. The obvious message throughout the bible is that we live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, and that private interpretation of scripture is forbidden. So, I learn to hear His voice, and then ask Him what happened in Job. I report this, noting passages usually ignored that confirm what I am hearing. This differs from the many speculators, and the "obvious" interpretation, as predicted by the bible. (It is the glory of God to conceal a matter. It is the glory of kings to search out a matter.) So, the bible remains confirmed. A person of another faith has to justify the idea that their god will talk to them, with holy writings or prophecy or something. Actually, I would say that this works everywhere, based on our historical experience with this applied epistemology. But every theological hypothesis will have its own ontology, from which predictions should be made. As these ontologies differ in mutually exclusive ways, we ought to be able to find contrasting predictions to confirm some and reject others. You have to temporarily convert, for the sake of testing, to see if conversion has its prediced outcomes. If you convert, but fail to see those outcomes, you can un-convert. That's how H-D science works. You cannot do a prayer experiment without praying, and prayer normally works through faith or belief. So, you do the best you can to add these ingredients into your experiment. But, if nothing happens, you report this. If others find success, you get your heads together to see why they are finding one thing and you another, when you are both following the same protocol.I don't really see any other honorable way to approach the creation/evolution question scientifically. The creationist hypothesis, as extracted from the Bible, demands that it be tested this way. Strong inference and H-D methodology demands that scientists work this way.Stephen

quote:

---

"If you do X, you will get Y." then that confirms that someone very wise wrote the text, and its ontological statements ("This is the way the universe is put together.") more credible.

---

Then there are many other confirmations, not the least of which is the Church of Scientology. Sure some people don't have success, but then it is explained that they weren't doing things exactly right. But those who do... well just look at the stars making lots of money and feeling very good about life.It is not like other religions have not been studied before, and that no other religion has led to prosperity for its people... or as I may view it prosperity came to a people that happened to have a certain religion.

quote:

---

Yes, anything that happens to the Amish is evidence of some kind, either for or against the credibility of the Bible.

---

I hope this is simply a misunderstanding of what I wrote. What I was saying is that you have created a situation so that whether good or bad befalls the Amish, it is evidence for the credibility of the Bible.While you say bad is predicted, good is predicted until the bad happens. And so any good is a sign the Bible is right, and cannot conflict because the bad can always happen later. This is a nonexperiment.

quote:

---

Ad hoc reasoning is useful in the following scenario.

---

Once again I hope this was a misunderstanding. I fully understood how ad hoc reasoning can help develop a theory, through theorizing and testing. My criticism... and it still stands... is that ad hoc reasoning is not useful when it comes time to explain the results of your experiments to others. When questioned about implications of your experiment (and the theory supported), you appear to be shifting to new stands on issues. That indicates your theory and experiments were not complete or well thought out.Unless you are saying here that you are trying to build a theory in this thread, and not explain one that has been supported by evidence?

quote:

---

The common interpretation of the Bible steals away its message, and this is intentional and predicted by the bible.

---

If I talked with some of these Code guys... which I can because apparently some of these scholars live (or gather) a few blocks from me... they are going to tell me that the message of Job is that he should have gotten to God first, and so everyone needs to make sure they stick with God or he might allow the Devil to play with them?If they say your interpretation is wrong, does that make them washed up in your eyes?I am a left rather stunned at your religion. You are saying that you talk to some entity that you found kind of repulsive (in another thread), and that through him you have learned that the Bible doesn't say anything people think it says? I would be more inclined to believe someone saying you were being possessed, or tricked by the Devil, then that you are actually speaking to a God.

quote:

---

But the devil's slaughter of these others was not unjust. Technically, these people were the devil's property, much as a steer might be your property.

---

This appears to be pure assertion. Why are they the devil's property? Because that would make the story more consistent to your interpretation?

quote:

---

Moreover, when the prophets asked Jehovah what happened to Job's children, they got this response. Everything else Job lost was restored to him two fold, but not his children. Because, although they died prematurely, they lived on in heaven, where it matters.

---

I honestly do not remember this, but I could be wrong. Where was this stated?

quote:

---

(It is the glory of God to conceal a matter. It is the glory of kings to search out a matter.) So, the bible remains confirmed.

---

Once again, the criteria of proof is that the Bible will produce good until it produces bad, but that is also evidence the Bible is right.If I asked the Amish and the Swiss what the message of Job was, would they give me your interpretation?

quote:

---

If you convert, but fail to see those outcomes, you can un-convert.

---

But the process of conversion you described precludes my not seeing any lack of outcomes. Either I have not done something right, or if anything happens I have to see (or ask) how it may be God's handiwork.This is a formula for credulity and not inspection. [quote]I don't really see any other honorable way to approach the creation/evolution question scientifically. The creationist hypothesis, as extracted from the Bible, demands that it be tested this way.{/quoteI do. It is both honorable and honest to examine the simple mechanics of how things work and slowly develop an understanding of these mechanics. Using this knowledge expand our research further until we can obtain a picture of how those mechanics might, or might not have come to result in life (or other natural phenomenon). If a deity becomes part of the picture then fine, but not before it is needed.You appear to want to skip the small, slow steps to understanding life and jump to "if prayer works, God is there and we have our answer." IMO this is less than honest or honorable.I can understand your method as trying to bring some scientific technique into how you practice your faith. That's fine. Well... it's not fine by everyone, but I don't necessarily see a problem with that.However, you cannot bring your faith into science and say everyone must accept this faith and test it according to my paradigm or you are not being honorable. That is exactly how science DOES NOT WORK. Scientists are focused on edges and pieces of individual natural phenomona, not testing the grandscale. Some may result in changing the ultimate paradigm, but that is when an individual piece results in inconsistencies which must be explained.Now you may want to say "Fine, I was testing prayer (as a natural phenomena) and I prayed and results happened. Explain that." To which I ask "what were your results?" And then everything stops dead the moment you say "God had these people help..."If you are going to investigate prayer, you are going to have to use proper scientific technique and take things slowly. Piece by piece. Build your evidence. First what is prayer, then what happens during prayer, then what is the apparent connection between prayer and the focus of prayer, then what is the mechanism between the prayer and the focus of prayer?Just as you state that the Bible is not open to individual interpretation, neither is the scientific process. The evidence contained in this thread seems to be supporting that latter conclusion nicely.

---

holmes

Holmes,Now I'm not getting your point. Let's say there are two commandments, one promising reward X if obeyed, the other Y. There is also X' punishment for disobeying commandment 1, and Y' punishment for disobeying commandment 2. Group A keeps commandment 1, but disobeys commandment 2. Group B reverses this pattern. So we predict A manifests reward X, and punishment Y'. Group B gets reward Y and punishment X'. We watch their histories, and see the predicted pattern of rewards and punishments. The wisdom of the source of the commandments is confirmed scientifically. Right?I believe, incidently, that most religions have got something right. The question is, what rewards are you going for? It was an accident, sort of, that I picked on the Bible--creationists in my evolution class were waving it in my face. But, as a naturalist, I liked the coherence between biblical and evolutionary fitness. Both rewarded with similar rewards, at least in the natural: love, children, peace of mind, happiness, freedom, lack of interest in fame, money, political power, egotistical stuff, keep up with Jones's type stuff.More later,Stephen

quote:

---

Let's say there are two commandments, one promising reward X if obeyed, the other Y. There is also X' punishment for disobeying commandment 1, and Y' punishment for disobeying commandment 2. Group A keeps commandment 1, but disobeys commandment 2. Group B reverses this pattern. So we predict A manifests reward X, and punishment Y'. Group B gets reward Y and punishment X'. We watch their histories, and see the predicted pattern of rewards and punishments. The wisdom of the source of the commandments is confirmed scientifically. Right?

---

No. Or at least not as vaguely as described above, or as you have stated in your specific examples.The same experiment can be run for tarot and palm readers, and almost consistently across the board come up with success. This may be shown when a con artist who understands the game reveals the secret.In order to be scientific your experiment must have:1) Well defined outcomes at the beginning... in all of your examples so far there is no definite anything except that something "good" happens. or something "bad" happens. Good and bad things happen to everything in time, and can change of course based on perspective and yet more time (for example a nation is driven out of their country by invasion, yet decades later ends up in a better area to live).2) Well defined mechanisms... There must be some explanatory mechanism for what is happening, beyond "whatever happens it is Gods influence". At the very least SOMETHING must be excluded from the set of mechanisms so we know if that is the observed cause, the experiment has failed. One HUMONGOUS reason to exclude an observed mechanism is direct human intervention.3) Well defined area of time for results... Watching history is terrible. Good and Bad things happen to everything, especially given "history" as the timescale. A better correlation between action and result is necessary, otherwise the result could be the outcome of all the other actions which happened in that interval.4) Isolation and Control... Your experimental groups need to be isolated as much as they can be from outside factors. For example who knows if the downfall of tribe A is the result of their not appeasing their God properly, or the fact that their God never existed, and it was tribe B's actions of worshipping a true God (and recently wishing A's downfall) which led to A's demise. You also need a Control group where nothing is done and see that neither harm nor good things happen (or have some prediction of what should happen given their neutrality).

quote:

---

But, as a naturalist, I liked the coherence between biblical and evolutionary fitness. Both rewarded with similar rewards, at least in the natural: love, children, peace of mind, happiness, freedom, lack of interest in fame, money, political power, egotistical stuff, keep up with Jones's type stuff.

---

This pretty well describes all religions doesn't it? Well, except for that freedom bit.In a relative sense, Buddhism and Taoism appear to concentrate more on all of the above than Xianity does. Maybe you ought to give them a shot.

---

holmes

Holmes,This quote from you, I believe demonstrates why what I am saying is confusing to you. Of course that is what I am trying to do. That's what science always does, and in this case, we are scientifically trying to know a Person who is defined as being infinitely complex. Thus, whatever ideas we get scientifically are always in progress, and we expect and hope to modify them as we get more evidence. Moreover, no matter how well we know God, He will always be full of surprizes.Now, you must not usually think of science this way, or you would not have asked that question. Your experimental constraints are good where possible, but certainly not essential. Or was the measurement of light bending around the eclipsed sun bad science?As to how God responds to prayer, what He does, well that's a good question, but in no way essential to finding it plausible that He did something that worked. I certainly do not need to know everything about God to know that He is out there, and responsive to my prayers. Does my failure to know and confirm these mechanisms weaken the effect of prayer experiments, or historical correlations, on the plausibility of the hypothesis that He is, indeed, out there. Yeah, sure, but who cares? That plausibility has so many different boosts from other studies, that it hardly needs the historical correlations. They mostly help in understanding how it all matters.But, anyway, my choice, which has certainly been confirmed to me to be a good one, is to do science this non-dogmatic way.Stephen

I am confused it seems. From the title of this thread I thought this was about examining a new (the best) scientific method. That is you had found a better way of examining evidence and had used it with success and were discussing it. This is why my criticisms have focused on weaknesses in the methodology being outlined.

quote:

---

and in this case, we are scientifically trying to know a Person who is defined as being infinitely complex.

---

The above statement appears to suggest, the real intent is not to discuss what the best scientific method is in general, but what the best scientific method is for trying to know certain Supernatural entities.

quote:

---

Your experimental constraints are good where possible, but certainly not essential. Or was the measurement of light bending around the eclipsed sun bad science?

---

I am unaware what experiment you are talking about, but I am intrigued. I would like to know more, specifically with respect to deviations from the methods I have described.

quote:

---

Does my failure to know and confirm these mechanisms weaken the effect of prayer experiments, or historical correlations, on the plausibility of the hypothesis that He is, indeed, out there. Yeah, sure, but who cares?

---

Scientists do. That is the difference between anecdotal personal experience (which might be true but is unable to be reproduced/understood by others), and science (which is the process of accumulating knowledge in a way which allows anyone to reproduce and understand).

quote:

---

That plausibility has so many different boosts from other studies, that it hardly needs the historical correlations. They mostly help in understanding how it all matters.

---

I keep hearing grand claims regarding amounts of evidence, but have seen none yet.

quote:

---

But, anyway, my choice, which has certainly been confirmed to me to be a good one, is to do science this non-dogmatic way.

---

How is assuming nothing at the outset, and developing careful methods so as to preclude an investigator's biases on a subject from influencing research, dogmatic?It would seem that requiring biases be held at the outset, used to guide collection of data, and not setting limits on good/bad data, is a bit more dogmatic... especially if the reason is to be able to understand a specific Supernatural entity.I have no problem with the idea that you want to introduce some scientific research concepts into your faith. It is between you and your Xian brethren, whether science should be mixed with your faith.However, your faith cannot be artificially introduced into everyone's science, or the result is bad science. This has been shown enough in history (quite conclusively) which is why we have the process we have now. It is not dogmatic, it is simply a process. If science was dogmatic we'd still have the same theories we started with, and the technique would not have developed.If your technique is adopted then it appears many conflicting faiths have been proven. This just does not make sense.I am also curious why you are so negative regarding my suggestions for improving your methods. If you are right then there should be no problem, right? You appear to be arguing from a position of knowledge that if held to tighter controls, everything will fall apart.[This message has been edited by holmes, 01-08-2004]

Holmes,First, can you state, out loud to yourself or to someone you care about, that you choose with whatever free will you have, to search for the truth by examining ideas with plausibilities ranging from above zero to below one?Second, you state Where have you looked? Read Satinover's book yet? Larry Dossey on prayer studies? Harold Koenig's work? Done a google on scientific studies on prayer, distrusting the critics as diligently as they distrust the findings? Done Jehovah's Malachi 3:10 tithing study yet? Read Del Washburn's works? Ivan Panin's? Googled on NDE studies yet? Looked at the PEAR labs stuff yet? Fasted and prayed for Him to talk to you about His commandments? What are you trying to do here?My purpose here is to alert some who have chosen to live to information that the dis-information experts in our midst are trying to hide or suppress, and to help those who want to live via getting a better understanding of the ontology of this universe, do so. It would be bad epistemology for anyone to get more from a forum or debate than understanding and potentially useful information, that might protect them from making a fatal mistake. That they can use to search out the truth for themselves. But I know that anyone who has chosen to be dogmatic, to hold ideas as "true" or "not true" cannot understand my "might be true" or "holds some truth," now let us estimate how plausible, how much truth. Free will trumps every other human concern. If that's your choice, and it will be unless you state otherwise, we're done here.I refer you to the forum on "debates that matter." We could carry on, if we can get someone to judge the debate.Stephen

quote:

---

But look at Bible Code Digest.com - Home Page [Bible Code Digest] and search on Moby Dick. Or search at Doron Witztum's website, reading the review of Harold Gans of the criticism. It's worth the study. The popularizers are right about one thing. This study changes everything about our culture and science.

---

Hey, instead of looking at biblecodedigest.com, a site obviously biased in favor of the Bible Code business being true (rather than biased in favor of the evidence), why not look at the following site:Bible Codes debunked in Statistical ScienceIt is a link to an actual peer-reviewed (biblecodediges' studies were not peer reiviewed as far as I can tell) article from Statistical Science which contradicts the findings of the Bible Code.Incidentally, Statistical Science is the same journal which published the original article which made the Bible Code claims.