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

quote:

---

I didn't pick up what H-D is.

---

To be honest, I haven't either. I think it might be more accurately acronymed as:
Ad-H (ad-hoc theory). He has yet to set up (or stick with) any set of methods, besides "try it and see if you like it, if you don't like like I did, you must have done something wrong... but don't give up or you may be eaten by demons."I'm actually not kidding, so Steve if you have a problem with this description, please set out what the actual methodology is besides referring to author's names.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Abshalom,You comment, passionately, I turned the corner on all this praying experimentally over my daughter who was slipping deeper and deeper into some sort of dysfunctional behavior patterns, deeply grievous to me. Up to that point, my prayer researches were fairly academic. But, in response to my prayers following as closely as possible the Biblical materials and methods (I was a newly trained, self-conscious scientist, remember), she was instantly and permanently healed, before my eyes. My bawling eyes, I might add. I got the first hug from her in a year, and the first enthusiastic hug in several years.I would be very, very surprized if a study comparing deliverance from demons by Biblically astute (which excludes most Christians, by the way) and authorized practitioners would not generate a much higher "cure" rate of willing afflicted subjects than your medical solutions. Some day such a study may be done. According to "Pigs in the Parlor" children would be the best subjects.Here's my rant. Most "scientists" are just using science as a hidey-hole from having to deal with God, and will block any effort to do or report such a study. They are the ones who don't care how much the afflicted suffer. Just don't take away their scientific blanket, under which they are hiding from the truth about the spiritual world!Appreciate your passion. I hate evil, too.Stephen

Moose and others,Here's a brief summary of H-D scientific methodology.The name is hypothetico-deductive.1. Something is observed that raises a question.2. The question is answered with a speculation, that is formed into an hypothesis, stated in terms (a mathematical model is best) that it may be used as the basis for logical deduction. ("If H is true, then we might predict P.")3. The hypothesis, combined normally with other reasonable assumptions, is used to generate a prediction, P, about something we can measure.4. The prediction is tested. If confirmed, there is some increase in the plausibility of the hypothesis. If rejected, there is a decrease in the plausibility of the hypothesis, and a new hypothesis is called for, that explains not only the original observation but the new data.5. This new hypothesis is used to deduce new predictions, which can be tested.Now, imbedded in all this is the Bayesian equation, applied to the plausibilities of a prediction, given the hypothesis is true, and to the plausibility of a hypothesis, given the prediction is true. This is thought to be a mathematical statement of common sense. Thus, if a hypothesis makes a prediction about an implausible event, it is strongly valided by confirmation of the prediction.The best method for getting implausible predictions is to use strong inference, where plausible alternative hypotheses are used to generate predictions about the same measurables. When these predictions contradict each other (Hyp A predicts x less than y, and Hyp B predicts y less than x), the predictions are both relatively implausible.An underlying assumption is that all hypotheses and predictions have plausibility greater than zero, and less than one. It can be proved that the plausibility of the hypothesis, continually modified as we deal with failure to confirm, will converge on one. Then it becomes useful, according to the law of succession. It may look quite different from the original hypothesis, of course. Normally, something of all hypotheses thought reasonable by someone ends up in the final product. The process is thus one of filtering out the truth from all thinking, all ideas.My favorite model use of H-D methodology was shown during the Velikovsky controversy. He wondered why Jupiter, a smallish celestial light, was assigned to the greatest of the Greek Gods, while Diana, a minor Goddess was assigned to the much brighter moon. He hypothesized that Jupiter was not a planet, but a captured minor sun existing now as a binary to our sun. He hypothesized that the capturing process took place several thousand years ago, while the Greeks were naming their gods, and Jupiter in those days was for a while a very big deal because it got very close to the earth. (Causing, amoung other things, the plagues that Moses brought on the Egyptians). Since, in greek mythology, Venus was born of Jupiter, Velikovsky predicted that venus was a new planet, unlike the older planets of our sun, and would be hot as new planets are supposed to be. He sent out questionaires to astronomers, asking them for the plausibility of this prediction (it was the fifties, before space probes), and they uniformly gave values below one chance in a thousand that Venus would be hot. The "Venus is a planet of our solar system" hypothesis predicted a slightly warmer than earth value.Velikovsky's original hypothesis is far-fetched, implausible a priori. But, after the Venus probes confirmed that it successfully predicted the hot temperatures found there, that plausibility was substantially increased. AAAS even held a symposium to discuss it in the late sixties. By Kuhn's rule, of course, it will be another 20 to 50 years before the old paragidm will fall, but Velikovsky hypothesis enjoyed many other spectacular predictive successes before being suppressed.Stephen[This message has been edited by Stephen ben Yeshua, 01-19-2004]

Holmes,Just to re-affirm my agenda here, I personally am convinced that the world is haunted, and that you are in danger. I am also convinced that I can not help you, unless you choose to be helped. I am supposing that you are in this forum because you want information that you may not already have (the various books I mentioned may have been unfamiliar to you), or my personal experience may provide a useful example, or my efforts to explain something complicated you are not understanding.Now, I find it interesting that we seem in general agreement that we have two methods, both of which might be profitably used. We agree that we must tie our science to measurable, "natural" phenomena. We agree that, in dealing with unmeasurable entities, we can form models in our minds about how we think these entities might be working, and deduce from those models measurable predictions. You insist on something called rigor, and understanding mechanisms, which I see as end products of the search, and not limitations to the process.You view the commonplace religious thinking as delusion of some sort, making delusion a very common part of the human experience. This delusion involves mis-interpreting sensory data. I agree with both tenets, but we seem to disagree about where such delusion comes from. I say pathogens, including in this term a pathogen that modifies behavior, keeping the host otherwise healthy. And, I am willing to entertain the hypothesis that these pathogens are made of "spiritual" stuff, or some sort of "dark matter." You see this as a retreat from simplicity, "un-necessary." You say, Now, H-D science has no such restrictions, and strong inference absolutely forbids this sort of limitation. Occham's razor is, as I was taught it, an "other things being equal." sort of rule. Given the great heap of data that imply a connection between dark matter and energy and human behavior, that are unexplained by any materialistic (electro-magnetic) hypotheses, not to mention the widespread interest in spiritual matters, it would be socially irresponsible to not consider these hypotheses. Arrogant, really, to call the vast majority of the human species deluded, while the few "materialists" have got it right. Case closed.But, I agree on another point. There's no point in continuing this if you aren't interested enough to explore, say, the journal of Scientific Exploration, or the PEAR work at Princeton. Since you seem to remain ignorant of these data, what are you here for? We have to explain the anomalous results presented there, and MN can't do it. Not according to the guys publishing the research, anyhow.But, it's been stimulating!Stephen

Can you propose an experiment whereby you would get different outcomes depending upon whether the world is actually haunted or not? Give us some reason for believing the research from these institutions is worthy of investigation. New technologies usually move rapidly from the expensive and esoteric to the common and mundane, yet over a hundred years of PSI research hasn't resulted in any Mindreading for Dummies books. There are no laws against stealing secrets by mindreading because most believe the threat has no reality. When people begin getting victimized by mindreading or prayers as often as by telemarketers then the claims might seem to have some validity. But at present such possibilities are only persuasive to those with an inclination toward the paranormal.This feels very similar to the perpetual motion machine advocate who visited this site a while back. He wasn't interested in demonstration devices, only in dialogue, and those who challenged his science were guilty of possessing various faults or flaws in their understanding, or of possessing closed minds. In the end, facts that really *are* facts and that really *are* part of reality cannot be ignored. The problem with your ideas is that though they supposedly are phenomena affecting people, they can all be safely ignored with no positive or negative effects, making it a pretty fair example of a delusion.--Percy

Percy,You ask, Replicate any of the published prayer experiments, with groups using "the Lord's prayer" with and without the last phrase "lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one." Also, with "lead us into temptation, and deliver us into the hands of the evil one." Best start with the plant growth experiments, but it may not work unless the demons are already involved, as in sickness. I can't imagine them cooperating by destroying unprayed for plants, even though invited to do so. They still have free will, and are shrewd enough not to expose themselves more than they have to. The first two protocols could be used over nursery schools, measuring contentions, crying, etc. My first experiments were with children fighting or not, as I prayed.But, remember, I was a scientist. I carefully studied what was needed to "pray aright." Tried to follow biblical protocols carefully. Brought in baptism authority, keeping of commandments, getting faith (asking and working for it), other authority issues, fasting. Anything I could find in the Bible that indicated an increase in power or right-ness in getting good angels to drive out bad angels. The persons involved in the studies do not appear to be lying, have a measure of authority and oversight in their programs, and have produced statistically significant results that are so far impractical. Their results must be accounted for by any good ontological model of the world. They confirm, actually, the biblical notion of timelessness, eternity, in the spiritual realm. And, that the soul seems to work in dark matter and energy, since all efforts to block electromagnetic involvement in the transmissions fail.But they neglect the idea that this part of the universe might be inhabited by "haunts" and Gods. They ought to be doing studies comparing results that are pure humanism, with those that deal with spiritual beings.Epistemologically, the failure to find a practical application is not a strong reason to question validity, nor are "feelings." But, I agree that by themselves, we are left scratching our heads and shrugging our shoulders. You have to put these into the broad array of other studies, Panin, Washburn's Theomatics, Bible Codes, prayer studies, studies on historical patterns, collections of anecdotes, impact of art, anthropology, quantum physics, Bell inequality, dark matter and energy. Plus, of course, humility. We all should be saying, "Somebody's wrong here. Let me not exclude the possibility that it might be me. What will it take to get me to change my mind?"Stephen

quote:

---

Just to re-affirm my agenda here, I personally am convinced that the world is haunted, and that you are in danger. I am also convinced that I can not help you, unless you choose to be helped.

---

Too bad that other religions can use the exact same arguments and come to quite opposite conclusions. In fact Xianity is NOT a majority religion on the planet.Is this not arrogance to say the world is haunted and I am in danger (from demons) and must be saved through prayer to the one God and his son Christ when the vast majority of the world does not believe this?I am at this forum to discuss knowledge. Your assumptions have not been very convincing, and you have yet to address the fact that eventually one would have to use MN to get to concrete answers. Why not just stick with MN through the course?

quote:

---

or my efforts to explain something complicated you are not understanding.

---

Or to proselytize about something that you have no right to claim exists. It's when it gets to this part, especially when I have contrary evidence, that your arguments hit rock bottom.

quote:

---

You view the commonplace religious thinking as delusion of some sort,

---

No, I consider it a human habit to try and make sense of data the best way we can. With a lack of proper data, it is easy to mistake, and so ascribe, more properties to something than one actually has the right to make (given the data). This isn't just religious theory. Humans ascribe all sorts of things to entities they are not really knowledgeable about.I should mention that this idea of mine does not even preclude the actual existence of supernatural entities. It is simply a reminder that we must be cautious in science and not make grander assumptions than the data allows us to make, and especially not use those assumptions ahead of time in order to "skew" the data.

quote:

---

I say pathogens, including in this term a pathogen that modifies behavior, keeping the host otherwise healthy. And, I am willing to entertain the hypothesis that these pathogens are made of "spiritual" stuff, or some sort of "dark matter."

---

You do not have one bit of evidence to back this up. Not even H-D can allow you to make such a grand claim. Oh you can have the hypthetical, but where is the deductive? Show me one bit of evidence that a psychological pathology has been ascribed to the tested actions of darkmatter or energy.You know very well that there have never been nonmaterial pathogens documented by the very person you gave as an example. Or does this person treat animals with seances and exorcisms, or telescopes and physics equations (if it is dark matter)?Is it because demons don't eat animals, and so there is no need to understand animal pathology as anything more than material pathology?

quote:

---

Occham's razor is, as I was taught it, an "other things being equal." sort of rule.

---

About mechanisms. We have evidence of people making mistakes. You do grant this right? People make mistakes all on their own? People exaggerate claims of knowledge? There are magicians and cheap huckster religious evangelists?This is the most credible and simple set of mechanisms, using all evidence at hand. It is clearly demonstrated by cargo cults (do you know what those are?) and the aztecs in their encounters with Europeans.This is even demonstrated every day by children believing there is a monster in the closet/under the bed, or that their favorite blanket has feelings. Or are these all real too?

quote:

---

Given the great heap of data that imply a connection between dark matter and energy and human behavior, that are unexplained by any materialistic (electro-magnetic) hypotheses, not to mention the widespread interest in spiritual matters, it would be socially irresponsible to not consider these hypotheses.

---

Yes, that great steaming heap of "data" you keep going on about. While I agree that it is irresponsible to deny all claims a priori, I am unsure what is irresponsible to use MN (and occam's razor) to analyze data, instead of saying "my stuff works for me".Remember I tried to enter some data points into that "heap" and your answer was to discredit my data. Is this how data gets handled? How about the reason all the prayers of Jews in the Holocaust were unanswered... oh yeah, that data can be excluded (or explained away) too.

quote:

---

Arrogant, really, to call the vast majority of the human species deluded, while the few "materialists" have got it right. Case closed.

---

It is not arrogant to say all humans make mistakes and can have researcher bias which must be taken into consideration. That includes me as much as everyone else.And as I did not call people deluded, but mistaken, I am not arrogant at all (at least not on that matter).How are you not arrogant for coming up with your world view which is counter to the vast majority of the humans species now and across time. Xian theology takes up a very small amount of human consciousness. Heck, you even say that most other Xians are headed for the pit. How big exactly is your group of true believers?You can keep calling my scientific methodology black, but yours is blacker still. You have condemned all but a very few to the pit, or the teeth of demons. Mine simply says people make mistakes and to be careful not to confuse faith with science. What definition of arrogance do you use where you come off better?Occam's razor is about choosing from the simplest mechanisms, which cover the greatest breadth of known data. It is not about choosing the most simplistic explanation covering the breadth of all claims to knowledge.Case closed.

quote:

---

Since you seem to remain ignorant of these data, what are you here for? We have to explain the anomalous results presented there, and MN can't do it. Not according to the guys publishing the research, anyhow.

---

See what good your theory is. Actually all you can say is that I seem resistant to discussing it. You have no way of knowing how much I do or do not know about this "research".And yes, MN can discuss the anomolous results. The research is not very good, hardly isolating mechanisms, and so not in a position to challenge standard models. I mean they aren't even coordinated in creating a coherent explanatory model. It's patchwork Steve, ad hoc.I tell you what though, if I or one of my friends ever get eaten by a demon, I'll admit I am totally wrong.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

We all should be saying, "Somebody's wrong here. Let me not exclude the possibility that it might be me. What will it take to get me to change my mind?"

---

Exactly. And the best answer? A carefully described set of experiments which isolate proposed mechanisms, and logically connect data between experiment and mechanisms.In other words, careful experiments conducted under the protocols of Methodological Naturalism.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You must be aware that these results have found no standing within the scientific community. Even without addressing the validity of the results, how does a positive outcome for these experiments say anything at all about demons and hauntings? These experiments produce no positive results, and even if they did they would say nothing about demons and hauntings.One very visible indication of the failure of these experiments to persuade anyone but believers is indicated by the fact that hospitals have yet to employ staffs of prayer-givers for their patients. If the experiments had any validity, insurance companies would be beating down the doors to pay for it.The question was whether you could propose an experiment that would determine whether or not there are demons in the world, one that would have one outcome if demons exist, and another if they do not. The question is still open. Have you asked yourself why you feel the need to keep reminding us that you consider yourself a scientist? I'm not questioning the sincerity of the experimenters, only the validity of their results. Again, these experiments have convinced no one but believers. Their results have found no standing within the scientific community. Even more, you have not shown how any possible valid results that might emerge could confirm your particular religious beliefs. Your comments about dark matter and dark energy are without support.--Percy

Percy,You note, which validates them as paradigm shifting research, according to Kuhn, and the rest of the history of science. Less than one scientist in 1000 is honestly looking for the truth, and since they control the power, they suppress anything that they don't like. You have to go with the data, not popular opinion. Not so. If I hypothesized that quetzal's exist in a land called Quatemala, and then showed that that land actually existed, we would have some more hope of confirming the idea that quetzal's actually exist as well. Demons are supposed to live in the same sort of place that our souls go to, or operate in. When we see evidence (and we do, plenty!)that our souls actually operate in this kind of place, it raises the likelihood that demons will be found as well. Over 50% of medical schools now have classes teaching doctors how to ask their patients if they want prayer included in their treatment. The stupidity of insurance companies baffles me. The data on nutrition and vitamins are so compelling, and that on cholesterol so ambiguous, yet insurance companies continue to base policies on the one and ignore the other. Proof that the world is haunted? Huh? If you pray, rightly, with "deliver us from the evil one." and also without that statement, and get an 8% reduction in illness from the first prayer, but only a 3% reduction with the second, this confirms that demons exist. If demons ("the evil one") are/is not out there, the prayer would be meaningless and would make no difference. If they are, and God responds (as He promises to do if we pray aright) by driving them away, the group who got that petition will recover much faster. Different outcomes, depending on whether or not demons exist. Yeah, I keep imagining I am addressing an audience that cares about trustworthy authority. I should know better, given the casual, non-professional way evidence is thrown around here. You must be talking about the PEAR studies. And, your expression "religious beliefs" puzzles me. My religious beliefs are that I must care for widows and orphans when I find them troubled, and must keep myself unstained by the stuff in the world that makes people do the bad things they do. But we are talking about the most scientifically plausible ontological view of the world, whether it contains demons, Gods, heaven, hell, etc. PEAR studies indicate that there is dark matter and energy out there, full of information, that organic living beings can relate to this somehow. This place is timeless, spaceless, according to their results. Great habitat for demons and angels, don't you think? But, to go looking for them, well, there's a different expedition. Of course, I have gone looking, as a scientist, fully trained, authorized and committed to resisting the natural human condition of self-delusion, denial, rationalization, and wishful thinking. You don't have to take advantage of my report that they are out there. But, you and yours did pay for my education, to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars. So, just want to give you as much of a break as you want to have.Stephen

Yeah, yeah. They laughed at Einstein. But you know what? They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.(Thank you, Carl Sagan.)

Crash, I think he means you. And I'll pray for you, man.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

quote:

---

Yeah, I keep imagining I am addressing an audience that cares about trustworthy authority. I should know better, given the casual, non-professional way evidence is thrown around here.

---

Do you have this problem often?

Holmes,In response to, I checked into MrHambres' discussion of MN, and see that H-D science is a subset of HN, with a particular set of methods. Whoever taught you to talk or think this way was not your friend. Remember Yeshua's experience with the pigs and the demons, where they drove the pigs into the sea and drowned them. No, actually. Fill me in. "narrow is the gate, and few there are that find it." Jehovah has a habit of narrowing things down considerably, before expanding again. Very "evolutionary." Adam, Noah, Abraham, Yeshua. Yes. Every entry of data into the system must be accompanied by a materials and methods section. Mine's the Bible. What's yours? Not me. You must be hearing voices. Could it be Satan? Actually, these guys are mainstream scientists extremely nervous about what they are discovering, and bending over backwards to be sure that their science is as good as it gets.You know what to do to validate my experience. If you choose not to do it, you'll find all sorts of reasons, rationalizations, for your choice. That's original sin. It doesn't matter. It's the choice that matters. What am I supposed to do? I have gotten 7 natural and 6 adopted grandchildren from this philosophy. I get 3-400 citations a year from research I did 20 years ago. I've watched miracle after miracle take place, wonderful things. My students are international successes. I have friends who are laying their lives down for me. One of my biggest sources of discomfort is from eating too much, because the food set before me is soooo good. I pay no taxes. Lots of people thank me for helping them find richer lives. All from receiving, learning, the love of the truth. From paying the price to get the truth, by choice. I'm a living, intelligent being whose senses are well adapted to see things as they are, so I can be more biologically fit. I have way more of such fitness than I have any right to expect, given the outcome of the "controls" in my life experiment. That you or others throw out that you "tried that and it didn't work." What? Tried what? How? What was your method? Hey, things are good, but I can learn more, and make things better!Stephen

Precisely. Why do you praise yourself as "trustworthy authority" when this is the duty of others and only after you have earned it. If you can be trusted and you know what you're talking about then this will emerge over time.More importantly, this is the fallacy of argument from authority, made doubly worse in that the referenced supposed authority is yourself. Your arguments stand or fall on their own merits, not on whether or not you're a scientist. Besides, where I come from, a scientist is someone who thinks and argues from a scientific perspective. Your perspective appears to be religious with no readily apparent scientific component. Can I assume that you include the scientists whose work you accept, including yourself, in this equation? The mere existence of pseudoscience and quackery is not evidence of an ongoing paradigm shift. The fact of the matter is that your findings have found no standing in the scientific community, and there's a good reason for that - they're not supported by any evidence. Hospitals and doctors do not provide prayer as part of medical treatment. There are many churches that minister to hospital patients, and patients can indicate if they're interested in being visited by clergy, but prayer is not part of medical treatment.What *has* been scientifically established is that maintaining social contacts and a positive attitude have beneficial effects on medical outcomes. Whether the social contacts are religious or secular makes no difference. That's as dumb as saying the reduction in infections brought about by hand-washing confirms that germs exist. It does no such thing. Such sloppy thinking is why you're not convincing anyone here that you're a scientist. Beyond that, you have no such scientifically established results anyway.Anyone who doubts germs exist can be provided a microscope and some slides. Anyone who doubts demons exist can be provided...what, Stephen? What is your evidence for demons? You have all these fanciful ideas about where demons reside and what they can do, but you have no evidence of their reality. I'm just referring to your own words which seem to be saying that you thought your scientific studies confirmed your religious beliefs. These quotes come from Message 96: --Percy