If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

Dear Percy,Thank you for your comments; hope you’ll join the fray. Agreed, and to understand that, he must first understand how I define what ‘Real’/‘True’ are; would you not agree?I would not be pressing this issue with him, but, he has come up with some unorthodox definitions for words.Again, thank you for your comments,
JRTjrEdited by JRTjr01, : Correct accreditation :-0

Dear Ringo,Great hearing from you again, Great, we can at least agree that we have to be able to agree on definitions to communicate.However, since you are asking me how I tell the difference between a real Bigfoot and a guy in a Bigfoot suit explain to me why I have to throughout the definitions I use??Whether or not you think the definitions are adequate would have no bearing on how I decide what is, or is not, real.Second, the reason I am harping on these definitions is precisely because I don’t know what you mean. You make statements and then, when I point out the absurdity of what you said, you complain that you meant something else.God Bless,
JRTjr

Dear Percy,Thank you for your comments. Why?; are you suggesting that just because the Scientist I am getting my information from is ‘religious’ his information is automatically wrong??God Bless,
JRTjr

Dear Percy,Thanks for your continued interest. Yes, you claim that yours (note here you called this your ‘own version’) is ‘the correct one’; and yet I find no incompatibilities with the one I posted that you say is ‘wrong’. Click here for my comparison between your ‘own version’ and Dr. Ross’ version of the Scientific Method.Comparing the two the only real difference I could find was that the one I posted presumes a question; were as your puts having a question as the first step.I even googled ‘The Scientific Method’, randomly picked ten images depicting ‘the Scientific Method’, and compared them. 3 out of ten did not put ‘As a Question’ as one of the steps; and one of them put it second (behind ‘Observation’).So, please forgive me for asking, but, why is your version of the Scientific Method the correct description and Dr. Ross’ wrong?? O’ most defiantly, that’s why I posted (a version of) it.Hope you have a great day,
JRTjr

Dear Ringo,Great hearing from you again. Thank you for your continued interest in our little discussion. She sounds like a wise person; and if a bright eight year old asked me: I would reply: I believe this would satisfy most eight year olds; however, some may ask: ‘But if we do not know what a real Bigfoot looks like how can we tell that the man in the suit is not a real Bigfoot’Then I would sit him down, look him eye to eye and say:Good question. But, think about it; If we know what a ‘real man’ looks like, and we can determine that it is a ‘real man in a suit’ than we can deduce that he is not a bigfoot but a man in a Bigfoot suit; even if we don’t know what a ‘real Bigfoot’ is; or even if Bigfoot are not real.The reason I have been trying to get agreement on a standard set of definitions from you is because your response was: This shows me that you either ignored or did not understand my reply.I chose to believe you did not understand it; so I have been trying to help you by suggesting you look up the definitions of different words. That is the only way you will understand what I am saying if, in dead, you are not simply ignoring what I am saying. I do not label everything you say as Absurd; just those things that are logical incoherent. This is the problem with your idea that All we have is our understanding, so the idea that there "is" something that is "actually" true has no value.If that were ‘all we had’ then we would not be able to know that was all we had; because to know ‘that was all we had’ would be to know something that is "actually" true.Therefore, logically speaking, we can either:‘Know things; and know we know them.’Or‘We cannot know things; and cannot know that we cannot know them.’In other words: to claim we cannot know ‘anything’, is making a ‘knowledge claim’; that, if true, we could not know.Hope to hear from you again,
JRTjr{P.S. I want to make it clear that I am not attacking you personally. When I say that some of the things you say are Absurd I am simply stating that certain things you say are at variance with reason; (A)manifestly (B)false.} A. adjective 1. readily perceived by the eye or the understanding; evident; obvious; apparent; plain: a manifest error.
B. adjective 1.not true or correct; erroneous: a false statement. 5. not genuine; counterfeit.

 
Dear Percy, Thank you for the suggestion.You are right that ‘working through an example is often’ a ‘very effective’ way to gain understanding and work through a problem.It’s not that I don’t like the Bigfoot example; even though he worded it in an odd way, I tried to explain to him where I was coming from in post # 607.The problem, as far as I see it, is that he does not want to accept anything that conflicts with the idea that ‘We can’t know anything’.If you read through our dialog from post # 607 on I think you will see what I mean.I know he would accuse me of doing the same; but I am bound by the words (and the definitions of those words) that I use.Ringo will say something, and then claim he meant something else; and when I call him on the carpet he simply claims I’m not listening to what he said.This is why I’m trying to tie him down to specific definitions. I’ve even offered to let him define the words.Again, thanks for the thought,
JRTjr

Dear Percy,Great hearing from you again. Agreed, there is a Philosophy of Science that states that we can never know anything with 100% certainty; and Ringo seems to think that since we can’t know anything with 100% certainty we cannot know anything at all.However, I have a problem with the idea that we can never be 100% certain in what we think we know and basically it’s the same argument I gave Ringo when he said: There are no absolutes.That is this: If it were in fact true that we could never be 100% certain that we know anything then we could not know that we could not be 100 % certain about anything.This is a self-defeating statement; for to know we could never be 100% certain of anything is to be certain of something we could not possible know.With that said, I can agree that when doing Science we should restrict the certainties of our conclusions to something less than 100%. Why, because we never have all of the evidence. Just like in a court case, there will always be a missing piece of evidence, always a piece of evidence that seems to not fit with any reasonable hypothesis.However, Science is not all in compassing; that is, there are thinks we know that cannot be scientifically studied. Science itself cannot be ‘proven’ scientifically but we trust in it, in many respect, with our vary lives. We cannot scientifically test if ‘1+1=2’ is true or not.These I would call ‘Brut realities’; that is that there are ‘Basic Beliefs’ that are either self-evident axiom(s) or incorrigible. One such axiom is Ren Descartes's axiom, Cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am"). Incorrigible (lit. uncorrectable) beliefs are those one can believe without possibly being proven wrong.{Please note here that when I refer to ‘Belief’ I am using these definitions: noun 2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief. 1. a principle, proposition, idea, etc, accepted as true}So, I can say (pardon the pun) with absolute certainty that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions " A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. This is known as the ‘law of non-contradiction’.The ‘law of non-contradiction’ is an ‘Absolute Truth’ because it cannot be proven wrong according to the doctrine of ‘Basic Belief’. This is, I think, one of the most fundamental questions of all time; and it is a question that has been plaguing mankind since Eve eat the forbidden fruit.If there is ‘absolute truth’ how do we know it is ‘absolute’??If you are interested, as I am, in discussing this further; I would like to purpose this as a new topic.Maybe we could start off with how do I ‘know’ something/anything?Hope to hear from you again,
JRTjrP.s. Thanks for the message info.

Dear Ringo,Hope this message finds you in good health. Are you now claiming that there is no difference between a "real" Bigfoot and a guy in a Bigfoot suit??Because it is defiantly implied in the question itself that there is a difference between a "real" Bigfoot and a guy in a Bigfoot suitHope to hear from you again,
JRTjr

Dear Percy,Thank you, once again, for your comments. Sorry, I must have misunderstood you. In Message 631 you gave us ‘your version’ and then in Message 640 you said Any reaction to the correct description of the scientific method? so I thought it only logical that you were speaking of the one you mentioned in your previous message.So, If you were not speaking of yours as being ‘the correct’ one to which one were you referring??Hope to hear from you again soon,
JRTjr

Dear Ringo,I love your post; they always bring a smile to by face. You got it, You finally figured it out. Thank for having the guts to acknowledge it..O’ wait, why are you asking me how I ‘tell the difference?’ You just laid out the difference plainly and succinctly.Since you KNOW there are guys in Bigfoot suits. And you Know that they (the guys in the suits) are not non-humans who (are) NOT wearing costume(s). Then the only logical conclusion is that guys in Bigfoot suits are not Real Bigfoots.As I explained in Message 607, and again in Message 654.The fact that you have been unable to grasp this is the reason that I have been trying to get you to accept some common definitions of words. This way we can nail down what seems to be confusing you.So, how about it? Are you finally ready to start with the basics and dust off your dictionary??Hope to hear from you again,
JRTjr

Dear Ringo,Great hearing from you again. If I may, I would like to refine this question by using a ‘real world’ example:This clip is known as the ‘Patterson footage’. It appears to be a Sasquatch strolling down a path.So, the question is. Is this an actual animal undiscovered by the scientific community? or is this a Hoax (a man in a suit.); and how do we determine the truth?The short answer is: Insufficient information.Sorry to disappoint, however, in some cases there simply is not enough information to make a definitive decision.I have seen many documentaries that featured this footage over the years. (I love documentaries; especially of ‘X Creatures’ and UFO’s).Now, if we can determine that it is a man in a suit then we can rule out a real Bigfoot; would you not agree?However, there is a twist to this story. If we can rule out a ‘man in a suit’ is this therefore ‘proof’ of Bigfoot? Or could this be another creature that has (as of yet) not been cataloged by scientists.For the purposes of this discussion, however, and with your permission, I’d like to confine the possibilities to: (a) a man in a suit or (b) a Sasquatch {I.e. Bigfoot}.So, where to start?This is where Logic, reasoning and scientific methodology come into play.I start off with a version of the scientific method: {Any rendition of the scientific method could be used} First step says: Correctly identify the frame of Reference.So, that would include gathering as much information as possible about the original film; where it was taken, when it was taken, and who took it, etc. Second: Determine the initial conditions.In this case; the fact that it was filmed in 1967 (the year before I was born by the way) is one of the ‘initial conditions’ so we can rule out the idea that this was a CGI hoax. Third: Observe the phenomenon noting what takes placeIn this case; watch the film. You may need to watch it several times; even subject it to different filters. And, since this film was taken 48 years ago, there are plenty of documentaries where others have subjected this film to analyses so you should delve into those pieces of data as well evaluating their validity. Fourth: Note the final conditionsIn this case; take everything you have gathered and all of the notes you have taken and collate them. {You did take notes; didn’t you? ;-} Fifth: Form an hypothesis.In this case; decide if you believe it is more likely that this is a ‘Real’ Sasquatch or is it more likely that it is a man in a suit. And, finally: Test the hypothesis with further experiments and/or observations.In this case; let’s say I have formed the Hypothesis that this is an actual Sasquatch; I then would do experiments to see if I could disprove this hypothesis. Say, try to make a suit that matches the look and movement of [whatever it is] in the film (I.e. trying to replicate the motion and ‘feel’ of the original ‘thing’ in the film.) Note here though, all of these steps have been followed and repeated by skeptics and believers alike and no definitive answer has been given in this particular case.So, in some cases (actually in many cases) there is no definitive answer simply because we do not have sufficient information.However, just because we may not have sufficient information to rule definitively on some, if not most, things does not mean we cannot rule definitively on anything.Now, let’s contrast that video with this one.Using the same methodologies, I can definitively say that this is a ‘man in a suit’ not a ‘Real’ Bigfoot.So, even though we have not resolved whether or not Sasquatch are real we have methods that have helped us to not through our weight behind something just because it looks good.As always great fun,
JRTjr

Dear Percy,Hop this finds you well. Again you’ve stated it is wrong but have neglected to give any reasoning for why it is wrong. Did you even bother looking at my comparison? I can see that none of them spell out identifying a frame of reference or determining the initial conditions so, are you saying that we should not consider the frame of reference or initial conditions??As far as I can see each of them infer these; As a matter of fact you used them in your version. Here you are both identifying a frame of reference and determining the initial conditions. So, if you are right that these two are not correct then I would suggest you quit using them in your methodology. Not trying to be unkind here, but, maybe you should read Ringo’s and my conversation from the beginning before suggesting that I am being evasive.I have given him reasonable answers to the questions he has asked and instead of acknowledging them, whether or not he agrees with them, he just comes up with other questions (going in totally different directions) or tries to minimize the impact of the evidence presented.On top of that he will say something, and when I point out the absurdity of his statement he will claim he meant something else by what he said; thus, my trying to get him to use a dictionary.Thank you for your comments,
JRTjr

I never said anything about 'Setting' "initial conditions".

Dear Ringo,Great hearing from you again. You take your copy of the scientific method {Any rendition of the scientific method could be used}, use some logic, and work the problem; just as I demonstrated in my last post.Good hunting,
JRTjr

Dear Percy, Please, stop, you making me laugh way too hard.You’re chiding me for wandered off course and then concentrating on my use of a rendition of the scientific method!?!?!Fine, you don’t like that one, so, use another one. I never claimed that the one I posted was ‘the Best’, ‘the only Right One’, ‘the Real One’, or the ‘Only Orthodox One’.I like it, it works for me.You think it’s ‘Wrong’/‘Bogus’ don’t use it ; I never said you had to.As to wandering off course; we are so off course in this string already I have to keep reminding myself that the original question was: ‘They’, whoever ‘They’ you are talking about, have not asked me this question; however, since you brought it up I’ll answer the question for you.I use Logic, reasoning and scientific methodology to determine what is true, factual, correct, and real.What do you use?I pray you are having as much fun as I am,
JRTjr