Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D)
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 273 (81140)
01-27-2004 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Silent H
01-25-2004 11:51 AM


Do the google
Holmes,
Do the google on Hypothetico-deductive science. Learn something. And quit giving MN credit for what H-D has accomplished.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Silent H, posted 01-25-2004 11:51 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Percy, posted 01-27-2004 2:20 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 167 of 273 (81146)
01-27-2004 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-27-2004 1:38 PM


Re: Kuhn's dilemma
Popper, in this statement, was talking about the end of the process, not the beginning, as I was.
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:
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.
As I've already stated, the subjectivity of Bayesianism applies to the assessments of the probabilities, not to the quality of the evidence.
The goal is to go from subjective to objective, as Bayes allows us to do.
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.
The effort to remain completely objective results in some very ugly behavior, apparently entirely subjective in nature, from so-called scientists.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-27-2004 1:38 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-27-2004 2:39 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 168 of 273 (81149)
01-27-2004 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-27-2004 1:41 PM


Re: Do the google
Stephen ben Yehsua writes:
Do the google on Hypothetico-deductive science
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.
And quit giving MN credit for what H-D has accomplished.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-27-2004 1:41 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 273 (81158)
01-27-2004 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Percy
01-27-2004 2:03 PM


Re: Kuhn's dilemma
Percy,
you've arrived at scientific conclusions in the absence of any scientific data whatsoever.
Now, I realize that this is anecdotal evidence, but your statement is evidence that you don't understand science. That is, it confirms my earlier postulation of the hypothesis that you just don't get it.
But, maybe not. What do you mean by "scientific conclusions?" Does "absence of any scientific data whatsoever" apply to the fertility study? How is that "absent?" How about the Bible Codes data. Everyone agrees that the patterns in the 94 paper are real and improbable. Are "evidence" that supports to some degree the idea that there are demons. That study hasn't gone anywhere, why do you call it absent?
Now, let's do this right. What is your prior plausibility to the hypothesis that demons exist? That is, how likely is it that the, oh, 90% of the human race that is convinced that demons exist and must be dealt with, sometimes expensively, are right? One chance in a million? What number, upper limit if you like, would you intuitively or subjectively give it? In formulating the idea as an hypothesis, should we take your or the lowest value proposed, or the average of everyone's estimate, or what? Remember, that in H-D science, nothing is impossible, so the value, zero (which won't fit into the Bayesian equation) cannot be used. It would be dogmatic opinionation, anyway.
Also, what do you think is the best explanation for the various actions that others call evil, genocides, tortures, serial killings, child abuse, wife-beating, self-destructive behaviors, suicides, religious nuttiness, human sacrifice, etc. Demons are proposed as a critical part of the usual explanation for these things. What is your best idea. How plausible to you assess that hypothesis to be? A priori.
You don't need any evidence to have an opinion on this, according to the Bayes theorem. Be as subjective as you like. The process will peel away that subjectivity, leaving you with an objective estimate.
Based on the mad dog model, I see the madness of human as very plausibly parasitically based, and since I cannot find an organic parasite, I accept the possibility of a spiritual one. So, I put the prior plausibility at about .6. This was my starting point, when I began looking at prayer experiments, etc.
But what's your number?
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Percy, posted 01-27-2004 2:03 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Percy, posted 01-27-2004 4:05 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied
 Message 171 by Loudmouth, posted 01-27-2004 4:54 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 170 of 273 (81185)
01-27-2004 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-27-2004 2:39 PM


Re: Kuhn's dilemma
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
Now, I realize that this is anecdotal evidence, but your statement is evidence that you don't understand science. That is, it confirms my earlier postulation of the hypothesis that you just don't get it.
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:
Remember, that in H-D science...
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.
But, maybe not. What do you mean by "scientific conclusions?" Does "absence of any scientific data whatsoever" apply to the fertility study?
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).
How about the Bible Codes data. Everyone agrees that the patterns in the 94 paper are real and improbable.
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.
What is your prior plausibility to the hypothesis that demons exist?
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.
You don't need any evidence to have an opinion on this, according to the Bayes theorem. Be as subjective as you like. The process will peel away that subjectivity, leaving you with an objective estimate.
The scientific community does not advocate subjective Bayesianism as part of scientific investigation. You're mostly alone in this.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-27-2004 2:39 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-27-2004 10:10 PM Percy has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 273 (81199)
01-27-2004 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-27-2004 2:39 PM


Re: Kuhn's dilemma
quote:
Also, what do you think is the best explanation for the various actions that others call evil, genocides, tortures, serial killings, child abuse, wife-beating, self-destructive behaviors, suicides, religious nuttiness, human sacrifice, etc. Demons are proposed as a critical part of the usual explanation for these things. What is your best idea. How plausible to you assess that hypothesis to be? A priori.
I can offer evidence that War and Peace also harbors codes that predict the future. Should we follow the teachings of War and Peace as you do the Bible?
quote:
Also, what do you think is the best explanation for the various actions that others call evil, genocides, tortures, serial killings, child abuse, wife-beating, self-destructive behaviors, suicides, religious nuttiness, human sacrifice, etc. Demons are proposed as a critical part of the usual explanation for these things. What is your best idea. How plausible to you assess that hypothesis to be? A priori.
The best explanation is that it is human nature. Period. And secondly, why do you pick demons as the most likely cause? What SCIENTIFIC evidence singles out demons versus psychosis by means of a natural mechanism (eg, brain chemistry)? Why not microscopic gnomes reconfiguring ganglial interactions? Icelanders believe in gnomes, so it must be true.
quote:
You don't need any evidence to have an opinion on this, according to the Bayes theorem. Be as subjective as you like. The process will peel away that subjectivity, leaving you with an objective estimate.
Then why do you keep citing the Bible Codes as evidence? The Bible Codes are no more impressive than alphabet soup spelling "Ouch". I can cite mathmeticians who hold this position, but you have ignored the previous citations so I will withold for now.
quote:
Based on the mad dog model, I see the madness of human as very plausibly parasitically based, and since I cannot find an organic parasite, I accept the possibility of a spiritual one. So, I put the prior plausibility at about .6. This was my starting point, when I began looking at prayer experiments, etc.
I am not sure what the "mad dog model' is. Could you be talking about rabies? Secondly, what in the madness of humans do you see as parasitic? Reminds me of Stargate SG-1.
It seems that you are mixing up objectivity and personal preference/theory. You believe it should be this way, so that is evidence enough for you. However, this is not scientific.
[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 01-27-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-27-2004 2:39 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 273 (81266)
01-27-2004 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Percy
01-27-2004 4:05 PM


Re: Kuhn's dilemma
Percy,
Useful sites. Thanks. I had seen some, but some I had not. The last, that finally decides that Bayesian approaches are not really desirable, I don't actually agree with. He talks about the posterior plausibility wavering indefinately, and therefore never converging on "truth." But, this cannot happen, with strong inference. There, theory A's predictions are contrasted with theory B's. When one is not confirmed, reducing that theory's plausibility, the other is confirmed, with an increase. The ad hoc adjustment is perhaps to change the theory one holds as most plausible, or better, to merge the two somehow, especially if the more popular one was ahead, but was not confirmed in this trial. The new theory, with the advantages of both, will then be more consistently confirmed.
Now, your complaints about subjectivity are always addressed concerning data being used to confirm or not a hypothesis, while my delight in subjectivity is prior to gathering or considering any data at all. On just gets an idea, and likes it, thinks it very well might be true. Is a hunch, as they say. But, when the data are gathered to test the predictions from the hunch, they are what they are, and subjectivity is not welcome. For example, in the fertility study, they made a prediction, gathered the data, and got a confirmation. But, many evolutionists here have a subjective revulsion at the idea that such a thing could be true, and immediately dive in to find something wrong with this published study. The objective, scientific thing, is to sit down at their desk and come up with a replication that would confirm it or not. Call in some peers to see if there are any flaws in their idea before doing the test, etc. Like Witztum did with the original Bible Codes study.
I actually agree with most of your remarks about subjectivity, and wonder why you are making them. My current working hypothesis is that you know how subjectively you feel about all this, feel guilty about that, project it onto me, and start judging away. What Yeshua called worrying about the splinter in your brother's eye, when you have a log in your own. I struggle to understand why you feel that it is relevant that since the discovery of the benzene ring idea, which came in a dream about snakes, we have learned of sophisticated ways to detect that cloud of electrons. Sure we have. But, we got started with a dream, a subjective impression, for which there was no precedent.
Now, take Asgara's quote to heart, and examine your life. This remark, for example:
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.
Now, I impugn scientists along with Kuhn, who in his study of history of science, simply observed that most are maintaining an accepted paradigm, instead of looking for the anomalous data, the reason to improve the theory. This is how I was trained to think. Sneer review, so much gas, cowardly comfortable gas-bags, all around the real scientists. MacArthur kept advising me, to hope that my ideas are proved wrong, and forced to be modified before ten years pass. Because that's good science! The ideas will still be useful, honored, but improved and improving. Of course, we all had "physics envy" looking at Newton, proved wrong but still regarded as great. (He was big into Bible Codes, by the way.)
As to subjective impressions as scientific data, good Lord, no way! Who would even think of such a thing. Ok, the guys here who see some wierdness in the fertility data, have a subjective impression that somebody cheated, and conclude that it must be thrown out. Or, "no one else here agrees with" me. Well, actually, I hear that there are over 2000 persons here, and using Solomon's one in a thousand estimate, I think that we might find one or two others. So what? That's the point. They disagree, but if you read their posts, they are very busy with ad hominems, meaning that they are having problems finding what is logically wrong with what I am saying. So they have to attack the one saying it. Or stop using their subjective impressions as data.
or this
By what scientific standard do you conclude the fertility study is evidence of demons
"for" demons, not "of" demons. Because the people praying were Christians, going in some measure we suppose by the rules for praying against demons (deliver us from the evil one) is in the Lord's prayer. But, more importantly, it confirms Jehovah's reality, is evidence for, not of, Jehovah, who in turns warns us about demons. But try to understand my H-D point. Let's say that my estimate of the plausibility for demons was .6 before the study and was .61 after. Then the study is evidence for demons, but weak evidence. I've said over and over that it is only in combination with so much other evidence for, not of, demons, that the plausibility is now so high in my mind. Bayesians can even use anecdotal evidence, which is just common sense.
Enough. Thanks again for the research and the sites. That last guy is really cool, the way he handles the truth that Bayesian methods are practically impossible to apply specifically, just exist as a ideal that shapes our thinking. But I smelled a dogmatic opinionated mind-set. An inability to cope with ideas that have plausibilities in the middle ranges.
So, say a trial prayer. Since you couldn't make yourself think of an number you'd accept for the plausibility for the idea of demons, and even cannot grasp what on earth everybody who talks about the beasts means, you could pray for understanding. I believe that you'd get it, in a way that would scare you. Don't worry about unbelief. Just pretend you want to ask, "Daddy, why?" E.O. Wilson does it, just for fun. Try it.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Percy, posted 01-27-2004 4:05 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Mammuthus, posted 01-28-2004 4:39 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied
 Message 174 by crashfrog, posted 01-28-2004 5:05 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied
 Message 175 by Percy, posted 01-28-2004 8:33 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 173 of 273 (81299)
01-28-2004 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-27-2004 10:10 PM


Re: Stephan..crank or lunatic?
quote:
As to subjective impressions as scientific data, good Lord, no way! Who would even think of such a thing. Ok, the guys here who see some wierdness in the fertility data, have a subjective impression that somebody cheated, and conclude that it must be thrown out. Or, "no one else here agrees with" me. Well, actually, I hear that there are over 2000 persons here, and using Solomon's one in a thousand estimate, I think that we might find one or two others. So what? That's the point. They disagree, but if you read their posts, they are very busy with ad hominems, meaning that they are having problems finding what is logically wrong with what I am saying. So they have to attack the one saying it. Or stop using their subjective impressions as data.
You have dramatically increased your tendency to attack people on this board personally or in groups (i.e. your frequent ugly people references) at the same time accusing everyone else of being engaged in ad hominems. That you do not see how hypocritical this is is rather stunning. If you were a somewhat more introspective person you would either desist in this hypocrisy or acknowledge it. It is getting harder and harder to take you seriously. But you amuse me greatly so I will continue to challenge you whether you change your posting style or not.
By the way, just because you may have been a "scientist" at one point or had a career in science does not make you a genius. Like every other discipline, there are lots of lousy, average, and good scientists...and every crank that ever lived has always said that they are "real scientists" and all others are idiots...how about being a little more original?
I also noticed you criticize the peer review system. I am not surprised that fear the scritiny of other scientists. All the grapes must be sour for you old boy.
quote:
"for" demons, not "of" demons. Because the people praying were Christians, going in some measure we suppose by the rules for praying against demons (deliver us from the evil one) is in the Lord's prayer. But, more importantly, it confirms Jehovah's reality, is evidence for, not of, Jehovah, who in turns warns us about demons. But try to understand my H-D point. Let's say that my estimate of the plausibility for demons was .6 before the study and was .61 after. Then the study is evidence for demons, but weak evidence. I've said over and over that it is only in combination with so much other evidence for, not of, demons, that the plausibility is now so high in my mind. Bayesians can even use anecdotal evidence, which is just common sense.
This entire post is an example of what is wrong with your way of thinking Stephen. 1. You cannot estimate the plausibility of demons because they cannot be observed (directly or indirectly), tested, or falsified. You have yet to address this point and it is one of the critical stumbling blocks for you in all the various forums and debates your have participated in. 2. The so called scientific method you claim to employ indicates that merely having an idea makes the idea more plausible. You even claim that the prayer studies "confirm" the existence of Jehovah (no somehow away from demons?) when at first you were talking about mere plausibility. 3. You completely ignore counter evidence i.e. that the prayer studies have been shown to have no effect. You also ignore the fact that if they had shown an effect this would not support your claim that demons exist as this was not the hypothesis that was being tested by these studies. 4. You desparately wish to include anectodal evidence in your musings. However, science precisely excludes anecdotal and other measureable or non-reproducible "evidence" because it is completely useless. That is the only way to remove experimental artifact and personal bias from science and it is exactly what you and other creationists wish to include.
You wish for us to accept that merely because YOU believe that demons are involved in prayer studies and that prayer studies have been conducted (ignoring the fact that these studies did not test for the existence of demons) this somehow makes the existence of demons more plausible. Yet you fail to show how this type of reasoning would allow us to distinguish demons from gremlins, pink unicorns, invisible apes, dead jedi's or anything else I could come up with in my imagination. How is this in any possible way useful?
If your evidence of 1. Jehovah's existence 2. existence of demons is so obvious why are you unable to demonstrate that methodological naturalism can test or falsify them? Why do you feel the need to support your beliefs with science in the first place? If MN fails to support your beliefs does that weaken them? Finally, a question that Mr. Hambre has brought up frequently, give a single example of a scientific discovery or supported scientific theory that has had to rely on anything but methodological naturalism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-27-2004 10:10 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 174 of 273 (81301)
01-28-2004 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-27-2004 10:10 PM


"for" demons, not "of" demons.
Could you explain how this distinction is any more meaningful than the distinction "EVIdence for demons, not eviDENCE for demons"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-27-2004 10:10 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-29-2004 9:38 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 175 of 273 (81404)
01-28-2004 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-27-2004 10:10 PM


Re: Kuhn's dilemma
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:
I actually agree with most of your remarks about subjectivity, and wonder why you are making them...As to subjective impressions as scientific data, good Lord, no way! Who would even think of such a thing.
Then you contradict yourself, saying it is fine to use subjective evidence:
Bayesians can even use anecdotal evidence, which is just common sense...Because the people praying were Christians, going in some measure we suppose by the rules for praying against demons (deliver us from the evil one) is in the Lord's prayer. But, more importantly, it confirms Jehovah's reality, is evidence for, not of, Jehovah, who in turns warns us about demons.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-27-2004 10:10 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-29-2004 9:47 PM Percy has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 273 (81565)
01-29-2004 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by crashfrog
01-28-2004 5:05 AM


Crash,
Could you explain ... this distinction?
refering to evidence for vs evidence of. Evidence of is evidence that assigns a plausibility near one to an event. Evidence for is evidence that raises the plausibility a measurable degree, but could leave it moderately low.
For example, the remarkable "statistically significant" correlation between exceptionally good weather and the Princeton Spring Alumni gathering, which is earnestly wished for and prayed for by potential attendees, is evidence for an effect of the prayers/wishes on weather. But, is hardly evidence of such a causative relationship.
S.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by crashfrog, posted 01-28-2004 5:05 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by crashfrog, posted 01-31-2004 3:07 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 01-31-2004 8:05 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 273 (81568)
01-29-2004 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Percy
01-28-2004 8:33 PM


Re: Kuhn's dilemma
P.
See, I cannot fathom why you would say this:
Then you contradict yourself, saying it is fine to use subjective evidence:
I have clearly and repeatedly asserted that evidence is to be evaluated objectively, and that subjectivity has its only place in the construction and evaluation of the prior plausibility of your hypothesis.
But you keep hearing me say that subjective evidence is useful in evaluting the posterior plausibility of the hypothesis, as compared to the prior plausibility. What's the matter with your comprehension? Have you done your prayer experiment yet? You seem afflicted with a demon called wishful thinking.
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.
I have done all of these things, to my, and (Hello, God? What do You think?) Jehovah's satisfaction. Now the comprehending of what I have said is up to you. Take lots of vitamin C (mineral ascorbates), say "I choose life." and pray agnostically that Jehovah would keep demons of confusion out of your mind while you try to understand these things.
S.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Percy, posted 01-28-2004 8:33 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Mammuthus, posted 01-30-2004 6:41 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 01-30-2004 9:26 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 178 of 273 (81622)
01-30-2004 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-29-2004 9:47 PM


Re: Kuhn's dilemma
I noticed you avoided my post entirely as you have attempted to evade every criticism.
quote:
I have clearly and repeatedly asserted that evidence is to be evaluated objectively, and that subjectivity has its only place in the construction and evaluation of the prior plausibility of your hypothesis.
But you keep hearing me say that subjective evidence is useful in evaluting the posterior plausibility of the hypothesis, as compared to the prior plausibility. What's the matter with your comprehension? Have you done your prayer experiment yet? You seem afflicted with a demon called wishful thinking.
You are not particularly consistent. Now you claim that the evidence has to be objective yet whine like a baby that science excludes the most subjective "evidence" of all i.e. anecdote. You also seem to be unable to grasp what testing a hypothesis means. Even if the prayer study works (which it has not), this in no way addresses the existence or non-existence of demons. The testable hypothesis is merely that prayer has X effect on Y. You then state in several posts that such studies "confirm" no less the existence of Jehovah and demons. I tested the hypothesis that nuclear insertions of mitochondrial genes can be retrieved and clearly identified from woolly mammoth fossils and found evidence strongly suggesting that this is true..according to you I now have evidence that demons like toast and Jenifer Lopez movies. There are no logical connections between the studies you cite and the conclusions you draw. You add your personal unsupported beliefs to the conclusions of studies that do not even address your points and claim then that somehow that makes you ramblings scientific. It would appear that Percy is not the one with a reading comprehension problem but rather you have a general comprehension problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-29-2004 9:47 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 179 of 273 (81638)
01-30-2004 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-29-2004 9:47 PM


Re: Kuhn's dilemma
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
But you keep hearing me say that subjective evidence is useful in evaluting the posterior plausibility of the hypothesis, as compared to the prior plausibility. What's the matter with your comprehension? Have you done your prayer experiment yet? You seem afflicted with a demon called wishful thinking.
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.
I have done all of these things, to my, and (Hello, God? What do You think?) Jehovah's satisfaction.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-29-2004 9:47 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Mammuthus, posted 01-30-2004 9:43 AM Percy has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 180 of 273 (81639)
01-30-2004 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Percy
01-30-2004 9:26 AM


Re: Kuhn's dilemma
quote:
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.
I will try to confine my discussion of the topic to whichever thread you wish. Right now it is split between at least two threads here and the Free for All.
Since Stephen seems to have ignored "H-D isn't what it used to be according to Stephen ben Yeshua" we can address the issues in this thread where he has been active.
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 01-30-2004 9:26 AM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024