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

Dan,To be regarded as bad science is a necessary (really, likely) but not a sufficient indicator of a paradigm shift towards truth. Not all "kooky" hypotheses are advancements, but virtually all major advancements are initially regarded as kooky.The site you gave us is, indeed, fun.Stephen

Nosyned,Do a Google search on SD Fretwell and Ideal Free Distribution. I do so myself, when I need cheering up.Stephen

Nosyned,My latest is 1987 or 1988, in Oikos, titled "Food Chain Dynamics, The Central Theory of Ecology." Unless I decide to go ahead and write my book, "Evolition, the origin of species by means of artificial selection and genetic engineering," this paper is my bid to make the big time in the history of science. It's coming along. But the Bible codes are predicting a nuclear holocaust in 2006, to which the Israeli intelligence is saying, "We already knew that from other sources." So, there may not be much a history of science to impress.If you search on Food Chain Dynamics, use Oksanen's name as well as mine. He was my doctoral student, and we decided he ought to do the shepherding of the theory.Stephen

Percy,You ask, But the references do the job so well! What do you want me to do, post the entire paper by Witztum et al.? The entire reports of the prayer studies? Reprint entirely the book, Pigs in the Parlor?Your problem is you don't know what science is, and are hoping or wishing that it is something that it is not. Ignoring how it got to things like looking at microbes under microscopes, you are able to maintain your wishful thinking by dis-allowing the process that discovered such technology. So along comes a real scientist, with demonstrable success, telling you what is really going on, and you react like the disgusting "scientists" who drove Semmelweis crazy with their skepticism. While killing thousands of women and their babies. OK, the women were poor, probably sluts, and good riddance. I suppose you think something similar about the people you are responsible for, that you refuse to pray the demons away from. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. You demonstrate dramatically the adage that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.Stephen

Percy,You ask, 1. Most species co-exist in their ecosystems with predatory or parasitic, or symbiotic living beings that they cannot sense, that have senses and powers and intelligence they do not have. This is evidence that such biologic relationships are plausible, by the law of succession.2. A possible symbiotic being in the human ecosystem is a Person named Jehovah, who has hypothehically written a message to us, describing the ontology of the world that we cannot see, and telling us how to deal with that world. This document contains patterns and information that we can detect statistically, that are beyond human capabilities, confirming the validity of its being what it says it is. Ivan Panin's Gematria, Del Washburn's Theomatics, and Doron Witztum's Bible Codes are three independent discoveries of such patterns. Panin found that the numbers representing the letters in the original languages added up to unlikely multiples of numbers that are treated in the text as important. Washburn found similar patterns, in ways that could be examined statistically using tests discovered since Panin's day. Witztum found ELS's with associated meaning, with minimum skips improbably close to one another.3. The Bible says that demons are a part of the human ecosystem. This can be demonstrated, according to the Bible, by a simple test, called titheing, that causes Jehovah to "rebuke the devourer" from the life of the tither.4. The Bible also says that certain prayers will cause good angels to drive away bad angels, or demons. Then, the problems caused by these demons will cease.5. People who have done scientific experiments with prayer have confirmed the promised results. These prayer studies are weakened by the fact that they did not explicitly state that they included prayers for deliverance, only that they prayed to God, for the desired result. But the God they prayed to has clearly stated that often the desired result is hindered by the presence of demons. Thus, they confirm. There are also innumerable anecdotes confirming the titheing experiment. Both can be replicated by anyone at any time. But, the Bible notes that it is possible to "pray amiss." As in any science experiment, you have to follow protocols. I have found this to be somewhat true with the titheing experiment.6. People doing near-death studies, where the human soul is enlightened, have often reported seeing demons (and Hell). Anyone wishing to replicate this study can do so by a hypothermic technique, where their bodies life-processes are stopped. Of course, there must be demons present to be seen, and since the demons often are going to great lengths to not be seen, an effort must be made to keep them handy. For this, a symbiotic spiritual guide should be used.Now, all of this is evidence for demons, in that it is evidence, and was predicted by a hypothesis that includes the existence of demons. That is, in the H-D methodology, all of this evidence raises somewhat the plausibility that demons exist. Have demons been proved to exist? Of course not. If that's what one means by evidence, one is not a scientist. One is a dogmatist. But the plausibility is high enough, and increasing, that the ontological description of demons that we have in the bible is accurate.Of course, non-scientists are free to wait until their soul leaves their body, and the demons come to claim their own, to get convincing "evidence" for their existence. The demons will wisely stay out of sight until then, and only a diligent, scientific effort to reveal them will convince.Stephen

Abshalom,You note, Good correction. Insert "usually" before sensed. Earthworms do just fine sensing robins, when the robin is eating the earthworm. And those who find demons incredible will all probably get their chance to "taste and see that devil is bad."Farting during deliverance is, actually, quite commen, according to Derek Prince, and my own experience. Don't know why that is.Stephen

Abshalom,I was only giving one of the reasons Semmelweis' study was discounted by the critics.We will, of course, someday figure out how to get the truth out of these religious practises. Note the over-riding commandment, "hearken to my voice, to keep and do all these things that are written." Scientific studies on blessing and cursing bacteria show effectiveness, and a good Jew, hearkening to God's voice as he sets out to wash his hands, might well be told to curse the bad bacteria. The water might improve the effectiveness of the curse. Sort of a reverse baptism.Speculation is like sex. Fun, and in its place, quite productive.Stephen

Holmes,The God, Jehovah, is extraordinarily malign, so He has written, to those who reject His love. Like my wife. Now, there's a story!But I like Abshalom's point, which I take to be, God gives us farts to show us demons leaving, because we cannot sense the demons, and don't know how offensive they are. Otherwise, we let them back in.Stephen

Hey, Abshalom,Did you read Carpenter's book on weighing souls? He comments that dis-incorporated spirits have the power to take heat out of air, using the energy to move things. Poltergeists. He notes that, in studies of poltergeists, they either move a lot of little things, or a few big things, per unit time. In short, seem to be moving energy at a constand rate. He suggests that this cooling of air to get energy to do stuff is why "ghosts" in damp places appear white and vaporous. As the cool the air, moisture condenses in clouds around them. Just the opposite, I suppose, of a hot fart in cold air....?Note, too, re Occham's razor, that humans put some sort of stink into natural gas, so we can know it is there. So, to suppose that God puts farts into demon presences, so we can detect them, invents no new idea.Cheers,Stephen

Holmes,you ask, Satan is malign whether you love him or not. God blesses those who love Him, ignores those who ignore Him, and hates those who say they love Him, but betray that love with hypocrisy, breaking His heart. Christians and Moslems think Buddha is a demon. I understand that he was a very good man who ernestly tried to lead people into a lifestyle that prepared them for whatever any good God that might be out there had for them. Think of it this way. A meterorite is coming to strike the earth and kill all life on it. A very wealthy, wise man builds a space ship that will carry anyone and everyone away, to wait out the disaster. But, he makes the rule that only people committed to love, proving this committment by loving him, can get on board.Ok, he has had something to do with the meterorite coming. He is like a cattle farmer, with mad cow disease in his herds. He wants to remove the healthy cows, kill off the diseased parts of the herd, and start it all over.But hate will not come aboard. If you don't like his plan to deal with mad human disease, come up with a better one. He has clearly stated that, if you abide it Him, and let his words abide in you, you can ask Him whatever you will, and He will do it. In short, if you love him, he will let you set the agenda.

Holmes,You ask, If you sell your soul to the devil for a price, you usually get the price. That is, you usually get from Satan what you were willing to sell your soul for. This is because, in the end, what you wanted was the power to commint some act that God says will kill you. You disbelieve God, believe Satan when he says, as he usually does, "You will surely not die! God is just keeping the good stuff away from you." Something seductive like that. Anyway, you have to get power, do the act, and get the death, before Satan really gets to keep you for sure. As long as you are breathing, you can change your mind, cry out for mercy, claim what was bought for you at the cross, and Yeshua's suffering will "redeem" or buy back your soul. But my agreement was "most plausible interpretation." Not, this is a replicated scientific experiment. As for accepting people's claims at face value, that means not throwing them out completely even though they might be lying. There's always a chance they might be lying. If that's the case, H-D will reveal the truth of the matter, and might even expose their dishonesty, if the lying was intentional, not just deception. Always a good question. There's a biblical test, where you have to ask the voice speaking to and directing you to talk about Yeshua walking in the flesh. There's the fruit of what you experience, mostly love, peace, and joy. And, in the end, there is the "My sheep know My voice." I pray a lot that Jehovah let me know when Satan is talking to me. I've raised a bunch of children. Any that ever asked me to keep them away from and alerted to evil seducers, I gave them what they asked for. If that's not the kind of Father Jehovah is, I'm not sure it makes any difference. But, so far, so good. Haven't really studied them that much, yet. But, every claim I ever heard from someone who claimed to be a Buddhist, I thought was right on. "It's a way of life." "Agnostic about God or gods." What claims are you thinking of? I'm not sure that He does. On several occasions, when a holocaust was threatened, intercessors got Him to change things more peacefully. In the Codes, a nuclear holocaust is forecasted, with three relevant dates: 1996, 2000, and 2006. All with the query, "Will you stop it?" When the scud attack on Jerusalem was forecast with three dates, the attack actually came on the first date. But the Israeli's were prepared and only 12,000 homes were destroyed (approx!!) with no loss of lives. Maybe they could have stopped it; in that forecast, nobody found a way out clause.But it's my main point in all these threads. Yeshua gave us incredible power, if we attend to the spiritual laws involved. Just as we have incredible natural power, if we play by the laws of physics. Those who refuse to attend to those laws may be the only ones who can stop some sort of spiritual disaster. Because they neglect that duty, Jehovah is left with no other option, but to let the disaster happen.I experimented with the ways of thinking you suggest. I've had a better life since I began operating under the hypothesis that orthodox theological ontology is accurate. It has generated more interesting and confirmed predictions.Cheers

Sidelined,It was watching thoughts like that, complete with shudders, disappear when I did experimental deliverance prayers, that made me suspicious that I was not alone, and some of my company was not my friends.Stephen

Percy,Clearly, when I say that such or so is scientific evidence for a given hypothesis, I am speaking in the context of the hypothetico-deductive method. As Moose so aptly is discerning, our disagreement about the meaning of the evidence available hinges entirely on what philosophy of science we subscribe to. Here, to reply to you and Moose at once, is a summary of the rules for H-D science.1. The science begins with some problem, often an observed difference between two otherwise similar objects. Whatever the problem, it motivates a search for an explanation.2. Speculation proceeds, in an effort to come up with an at least remotely plausible hypothesis to explain the problem.3. The hypothesis is formulated in such a way that it may be used to generate predictions about some things we can measure. Usually the best way to do this is build a mathematical model for it.4. (Strong inference step) A search for alternative explanations is sought, and they also are formulated so that predictions about things that can be measured can be made.5. (First Bayesian step) Some effort is made to estimate the prior plausibility of the hypotheses. Since this is the process by which subjectivity is turned into objectivity, subjective impressions are given full rein here.6. Predictions from the hypotheses are made over some of the field of possible measurables. An effort is made to make predictions from several of the hypotheses on the same measurables. (More strong inference). Particular interest is paid to predictions that contradict one another. If there are limited resources for doing tests, it is such predictions that are given first consideration.7. (Next Bayesian step) The prior and posterior plausibilities of the predictions are evaluated. These involve the liklihood of the prediction, given the various hypotheses, times the prior liklihood of the hypotheses. To achieve objectivity eventually, proponents of different hypotheses ought to come to agreement about these plausibilities.8. If satisfactory estimates are made, these are plugged into the Bayesian formula, and the conditional posterior plausibilities of the hypotheses are evaluated, given the possible outcomes of testing the predictions.9. Effort is made to confirm or not the predictions. The accepted posterior plausibilities of the various hypotheses are acknowledged as objective, and the process continues with the making of new predictions.Now, this discussion about demons serves as an example of how this works. The observation in nature of parasites modifying behavior, and of "higher" living beings being ecologically relevant increases, through the law of succession, or simple inference, the prior plausibility of the "haunted" hypothesis. That hypothesis basically is a part of the explanation for "evil" or mal-adapted behavior in humans. It includes, hypothetically, the existence of "dark matter" and "dark energy", what originally have been called spiritual matter and energy. While the physics evidence for the existence of dark matter may be for matter that is different from that supposed previously to be spiritual, the fact that there is evidence for some such thing also raises the prior plausibility of the "haunted" hypothesis. Is thus evidence "for" the hypothesis.Making predictions from hypotheses always involves bringing in other, hopefully more plausible, hypotheses, that connect logically the hypothesis under consideration to the measurables. That is, hypotheses do not exist in a vacuum. It is exploring this connectedness that produces what we see as "understanding" the hypothesis. Thus, repeated prediction making forces us into "understanding" how the hypothesis might work in relation to the rest of what we believe is plausible about the way the world works.In the case of demons, we have the basic problem that demons may well not want to be studied, or known, for what they are. The original hypothesis treats them as liars and seducers. Apologists (people who argue for the prior plausibility of hypotheses) and artists alike regard hypothetical demons as wanting to convince us that they don't exist. Hence, our scientific study of them must take this into account. We do so by incorporating other hypotheses about Jehovah, and the Bible, both of which, if true, will reveal to us the ontology of demons. This produces prayer studies, of the "deliver us from the evil one" type, with the prediction that, if demons really exist, some positive result will happen through the prayer. Some such data exist and are evidence for demons. But, the prayers are not well specified, so the evidence remains weak. We hope for studies comparing, say, prayer studies with the "deliver us from the evil one" removed from the prayer, with the request modified to "deliver us from our own evil," and also specifically, "deliver us from all demonic influences." Meanwhile, studies validating the Bible, such as Theomatics or the Bible Codes, also are evidence "for" demons, since demons are described in the Bible. There are persons who have had, under controlled conditions, out-of-body experiences and encountered malignant spiritual persons. These also provide evidence "for" demons, some of which (Beyond Death's Door, forget the author), was specifically gathered to test the idea that demons are messing with us.Now, Percy, I am not sure what epistemological strategy you work under, but, under H-D philosophy, there exists encouraging evidence for demons, which by the law of succession, is a fairly plausible hypothesis to begin with. This scientific support, coupled with the widespread common sense belief in such spirits, makes out-and-out rejection of the idea socially arrogant. "Who do you think you are, to decide that most of the rest of the world is mistaken about their belief that they have to wrestle with demonic harassment?"But, perhaps you have evidence that some other epistemological strategy can justify such a stance. Bring it on, if so. So far in my reading and experience, H-D philosophy is the most efficient form of methodological naturalism. This latter, I understand to be the idea that you must have an objective method, and it must hinge on data that support predictions from hypotheses under consideration.This for Moose. Does this meet your query?Stephen8. The

Hey, Moose,Messages 93 and 159 in this string are my efforts to explain H-D methodology. Let me know if you have any further questions.Stephen{Changed "157" to "159", and added links to get to messages - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-25-2004]

Holmes, First, demons are deities. Jehovah claims to be the "God of gods." A demon deity simply is one that has the agenda of deception and degradation. "to rob, kill, and destroy" as written. He did gain the benefit, and if that is the only god he knows, and he walks humbly with that god, I understand Jehovah will accept him. This in spite of the demon's plan for the fellow. Yes, I would accept that this spirit was real, and his god. If he was willing to explore the heart of that spirit being, however, with the help of Jehovah, I would bet that we would find the spirit to be "evil" in intent. That the fellow would gain treasure in heaven faster by switching to Jehovah for a god. Only "some" good. I could be duped, but the plausibility diminishes with each confirmed prediction. It would be interesting to hear the Goddess comment on the story of Yeshua, walking in the flesh as the only "begotten" Son of Jehovah. And, I would be interested as a naturalist in the fitness (W) of the fellow. Also, in his love life, and I don't mean only sexually. Finally, I would look at other fruit. Wisdom. What does he regard as good, and how able is he to achieve it? I respect the clarity of your choice, even though it is different than mine. Only as these enhance life elsewhere, and only as these fulfill the choices of beloved free-will agents who He promised such outcomes to, if they made certain choices. I suppose He could break His promise, to preserve life A for a bit longer, letting life B and C be diminished more than A is increased. Why would He do that? Subjects in which I was a miserable failure. So, there you are.Stephen