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

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

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

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

I can only imagine what inner insecurities move you to incessantly tout your supposed scientific credentials, but your posts here indicate an inability to think or argue scientifically, or even to detect the relevant points. Perhaps at one time you wrote some scientific papers, but a la Hoyle you have "lost it", and in the here and now you have become Salty-esque and seem unable to argue lucidly or logically, or even to answer simple questions, like what is the evidence for demons. I’m not asking for references, I’m asking you to describe the scientific, replicable, falsifiable evidence for demons.--Percy

No, Stephen, I want you to quit the evasions and simply describe the evidence. You claimed there is more evidence for demons today than there was for germs a hundred years ago, and all I'm asking you to do is tell us what that evidence is. Most papers can be summed up in a few sentences. For example, the results of the IVF paper you cited were summed up quite succintly in only a paragraph or two by many newspaper and magazine articles. Th abstracts that precede many scientific papoers tells us that it is actually possible to provide summaries, and it is something you no doubt did yourself when you supposedly wrote your papers.What I want you to do is very, very simple: put fingers to keyboard and briefly summarize the actual, scientific, falsifiable, replicable evidence for demons.--Percy

Hi, Stephen!You still haven’t offered any scientific evidence for demons. Any approach, including H/D, will lead you astray if you rely upon false or unreliable evidence, which you do, or reason falsely, which you also do. You use this as a springboard to reason thusly: because hosts can be unaware of their parasites, it is reasonable to consider the possibility that Jehovah has a symbiotic relationship with people.This is as clear an example of false reasoning as I’ve ever seen. There is independent scientific evidence of the existence of parasites, while there is no scientific evidence for Jehovah. We definitely do not conclude the existence of parasites based upon not sensing them. The core of scientific experiment is observation. None of these findings have found any standing within the scientific community, and all three are copiously debunked around the web. One would have thought that a person of your scientific perceptiveness would be aware of the failures of these works as science. The Bible is not a scientific source, and there is no scientific evidence whatsoever for this titheing process. Again, the Bible is not a scientific source. This is as unscientific as everything else, but it also contains a serious flaw in reasoning. Even if God and demons existed, and even if your study were valid, your conclusions do not follow from your evidence. You ignore a wealth of possibilities to focus on your favorite answer: demons.I am not asking for proof of demons, which was clear anyway as I asked for the scientific, replicable, falsifiable evidence for demons. Which you have yet to do. Or demonstrate any sort of scientific judgment or reasoning powers whatsoever, for that matter.Come on, Stephen, why don't you just stop wasting everyone's time and admit that you have no scientific evidence for demons?--Percy

Message 137--Percy

As are we all. The hypothetico-deductive method was advocated by Karl Popper. Probably most people here are Popperians, believing that science should be replicable and falsifiable. It's not that you're an advocate of HD and we're not, but that you don't know what evidence is and we do. Most instructive would be this passage from Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery from section 8: I'm not going to attempt a complete analysis of your particular characterization of HD, but clearly you're way outside the HD realm when you say this: As the above quote from Popper makes quite clear, there is no room within HD for subjective impressions. And you have misapplied and/or misunderstood Bayesian probabilities. It is the estimation of probabilities that is subjective - contrary to what you have argued, Bayesianism does not permit subjective evidence into consideration.So not only do you have no evidence for demons, your approach is antagonistic to the very process of HD you claim to advocate.--Percy

Popper is not talking about any particular part of the scientific process, but simply the error of accepting subjective experiences as reliably scientific. That's why this from you in Message 159 is so wrong: As I've already stated, the subjectivity of Bayesianism applies to the assessments of the probabilities, not to the quality of the evidence. Well, yes, that's the goal of science, since each individual researcher is subjective, but science strives toward objectivity through consensus achieved through replication. And at each step of the process the individual researcher is expected to be as objective as he can possibly be, and is definitely expected to filter any subjective impressions or experiences of which he is aware.Your violation of standard scientific practices is why you are unable to describe for us any scientific evidence of demons, instead relying solely upon the Bible and bizarre anecdotal stories. And the falseness of your method is revealed when it allows you to convince yourself you've arrived at scientific conclusions in the absence of any scientific data whatsoever. What contradictory behavior you exhibit, grasping so desperately at scientist status while casting severe criticism at the community of scientists! You're clearly aware how out of step with science you are.--Percy

I've been ignoring this, but since you're keep saying it I'll point out that this is just a common tactic of evasion. You're expected to make the arguments yourself, not make bald references to links or search engines. You continue to confuse the definitions of these two terms. Methodological naturalism is merely the belief that natural causes are behind all we can observe with our senses, and that its inner workings are amenable to decipherment through methodological investigation. The hypothetico-deductive method is simply the familiar approach of Popperian science for conducting these methodological investigations. You've rejected MN and set aside all standards of objectivity in HD to arrive at a perspective and method guaranteed to yield nonsense.--Percy

This is like arguing with a character from Alice in Wonderland. Stephen, you're already on record as impugning most scientists, and you're promoting your own process that no one else here agrees with. You can't even provide a reference urging the use of subjective impressions as scientific data. I, on the other hand, am merely stating what science is, and am not offering anything of my own construction. You kept urging me and Holmes to Google the HD method, Stephen, but you would be better served by following your own advice. For example, follow this link, provided first by Google: Gee, no mention of Bayesianism or subjectivity or prior and posterior plausibilities. How about the 3rd Google link (2nd was a brief dictionary definition): Gee, how about that, once again, no mention of Bayesianism or subjectivity or prior and posterior plausibilities. How about if we change the search to include Bayes and subjectivity. Well, what do you know, we find a site promoting the same mumbo-jumbo you do, it's down a ways on a long page, but just search for the string "A.J.": And here's a good, solid debunking of the Bayesian approach, concluding on page 24 that a good Bayesian approach is just one tool in the scientists box, and that when applied appropriately it can be effective. But as the author notes on page 2, the introduction of subjectivity permits ludicrous conclusions, and only personalists advocate subjective forms of Bayesianism. The rest advocate an objective approach: Moving on: You're not doing HD science. What you're doing is actually a form of subjective Bayesianism that is attractive to philosophers and theologians for obvious reasons, but not to scientists. The word "demon" doesn't even appear in the fertility study, so I would turn the question back to you. By what scientific standard do you conclude the fertility study is evidence of demons (ignoring for the time being that the results clearly indicate data tampering). Every reply to you about the Bible Code has told you how bogus it is, and some replies have been quite specific about why, so rather than ignoring all the responses and just citing the Bible Code over and over again you must to instead offer a defense of the Bible Code showing how it is reliable, and further and probably more difficult, how it can be construed as evidence of Biblical reliability, particularly on the subject of demons. Until you successfully rebut the indictments of the Bible Code you cannot continue to offer it in support of your arguments. I have no evidence of demons, I don't even have a definition of what a demon is, and such an estimate has no scientific standing whatsoever. The scientific community does not advocate subjective Bayesianism as part of scientific investigation. You're mostly alone in this.--Percy

Hi, Stephen!I see you're still having a problem with consistency. First you say you don't know why we're even raising the issue of subjectivity: Then you contradict yourself, saying it is fine to use subjective evidence: We keep raising the issue of the impropriety of using subjective evidence because you keep telling us what a great idea it is.Examine your life and behavior in light of God's commandments, Stephen, and begin dealing honestly and forthrightly in this discussion. It gives God no pleasure to see you treat others with evasion and stonewalling instead of straight answers. This means explaining why you consider the Bible a scientific resource. It means explaining your inexplicable leaps of logic, for instance that a positive prayer experiment outcome is evidence of demons. It means explaining your misrepresentation of subjective Bayesianism as being the hypothetico-deductive method. Getting straight with God means being straight with others and dropping the pose about ever being a scientist.--Percy

Though you continue to protest you're not using subjective evidence, that's all you do: protest. You continue your evasions by not addressing how a personal experience and stories from the Bible constitute objective evidence of demons or possess any scientific rigour. This one example of what you think is a legitimate application of your method.The other example, of course, is your prayer experiments. This isn't a case of you having an insight that no one else accepts, perfectly legitimate in science, though of course not scientific before being investigated, but just one of many sources of scientific inspiration. The HD method is a deductive method where each step follows from the ones before. Your evasions continue as you fail to explain your leaps of logic from prayer experiments to Jehovah and demons. You think you have, but it is clear that you are possessed by Satan. You must free yourself from his grasp so that you are able to regain your honesty and integrity.By the way, I'd like to see these discussions gradually become centralized in a single thread. It could be here, or it could be in the H-D isn't what it used to be according to Stephen ben Yeshua thread.--Percy

If "evidence of" has a plausibility near 1, then how is it that "evidence for" raises the plausibility a measurable degree. If you're already near 1, how much nearer can you get?More to the point, "evidence of" and "evidence for" do not have distinctly unique definitions. It's governed almost entirely by context. Here's some correct usage that turns your "definitions" on their heads: You're becoming Clinton-esque in seeking distinctions to bail you out of your quandry, but the definitions are irrelevant - you have no objective evidence for demons. Even if we use your definitions, you have neither "evidence of" nor "evidence for".--Percy

If our Fretwell once wrote Population in a Seasonal Environment, then he has suffered some terrible brain injury or disease. And if our Fretwell isn't that Fretwell, then he's doing a miserable job imitating a former scientist.--Percy