Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


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 196 of 273 (82845)
02-03-2004 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Percy
02-01-2004 4:22 PM


Re: That Fretwell is Not Here
P.
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.
No, still the same free-spirited guy. Why not consider the possibility that you have something to learn from me? As you must have seen from earlier posts, since my "terrible brain injury or disease," I've had a great life, made other even greater discoveries (food chain dynamics, for example). And, when I learned that Newton, my idol, was an early scientific bible codes scholar, it encouraged me to dive right in.
S.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Percy, posted 02-01-2004 4:22 PM Percy has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 273 (82849)
02-03-2004 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Percy
02-02-2004 1:50 PM


Re: It Doesn't Get Any Clearer Than This
P.
Ok, here's the application of my analogy. You say,
Your putting the cart before the horse by insisting that the existence of demons be considered confirmed before there is any evidence of the phenomena.
Now, I distinquish the words "of" and "for" and "confirmed" and "prove." But, you seem unable to do this. I agree that there is no evidence that "proves" the existence of demons (although the Bible Codes data gets awfully close. Be interesting to ask Witztum or Gans what they would say to that.) Or that is evidence "of" demons. But, all the evidence I cite, and the controversial nature of it means nothing to me, since the very best studies in the history of science were controversial in the same way, all the evidence I cite is evidence for, confirming demons. Now, Mammothus is getting this, I'm sure you can too, so I'll try again.
I go into my back yard after a light snowfall, and see my trash can tipped over. "Drat," I say, "probably those damn raccoons again." Tipped over trash can evidence of raccoons in neighborhood. So, I look around, and Viola'! I find tracks in the snow, racoon tracks. Now I have evidence of racoons. If I hadn't looked for tracks, or there was no snow, and my neighbor came by and said, "You know, I thought I saw a racoon in our neighborhood!" I would have answered, "Yes, I have some evidence for racoons being around. My trash can was tipped over, but it could have been dogs, although in this town, there are rarely stray dogs around." In any case, in his mind and in mine, the plausibility of racoons was increased. I might have gone out some night later with a flashlight to the outdoor catfood dish, to see if I could get more evidence of racoons.
In Lawrence, we have blurry photographic evidence for the presence of cougars in town. Then someone found a scat, which DNA tells us was a cougar scat. Now, we are close to evidence of cougars, although there may be suspicion that the scat was planted. The blurry photograph confirmed many people's suspicions that a cougar was around, but was not proof.
I'm just reporting that, to my trained scientific eye, the data from the prayer studies (and Loehr was a scientist, and presented his studies scientifically) were evidence for spiritual beings in general, including Jehovah and Satan, in particular. I then read CS Lewis' The Screwtape Letters to get a better idea of how demons were supposed to work, several books by people who reported anecdotes about deliverance, came up with some simple prayer experiments that I could run, and convinced myself that we probably are not alone. Discussing these experiments with colleagues discouraged me from any attempt to get them published, but I had Kuhn's book encouraging me to not take that limitation as any evidence that my evaluation of the plausibility of demons was way too high.
You note elsewhere that it is my job to convince you. This I do not agree with. I was taught that we each and every one had to judge for ourselves, that persuading any one else was basically impossible. All that is possible is to give counsel, not persuasion. whether the quote at the bottom of Holmes posts applies to you or to me, will be decided, if at all, when and if our souls leave our bodies and we come to judgement day. Between now and then, we each have to decide for ourselves what to do the reported experience of others.
Stephen
[This message has been edited by Stephen ben Yeshua, 02-03-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Percy, posted 02-02-2004 1:50 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Percy, posted 02-05-2004 11:26 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 273 (82854)
02-03-2004 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Mammuthus
02-03-2004 7:03 AM


Re: It Doesn't Get Any Clearer Than This
M.
I am wondering about this evasion as well. He continues to bring up H-D in other posts yet fails to address a thread that is an open invitation to explain why he claims to adhere to Popper but says things that are in absolute contradiction to H-D.
When I read your opening to this thread, you asserted that I claimed that something, demons I think, could be proven or were proven by H-D science. This despite my repeated and emphasized statement that science, especially H-D science, cannot prove anything. In the Bayesian analysis, you cannot have a plausibility equal to one, but you can get asymptotically close to one. But, even if you do, the theory can be and often has been, shown to be basically untrue. Newton's theory of gravity a case in point. Untrue, but basically still useful, a good approximation. It's so beautiful, really. H-D science is never ending without being dangerous. I don't know about you, but frankly, I love doing science more than I love all the discoveries. It's the discovering process. And it never ends, no matter how plausible some theory gets, it can still be proved wrong, we still can get a whole different view. What fun. Meanwhile, if the engineers have picked up our almost certainly true theory, it will work for them, even if its not true. And after it is disproven! What a great method!
The only problem is, you have to have the imagination to play with semi-plausible ideas. Like Demons. Or Bible Codes. I'm sure you are making a mistake taking the codes critics seriously. It's not that difficult!
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Mammuthus, posted 02-03-2004 7:03 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Mammuthus, posted 02-04-2004 3:53 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 199 of 273 (82860)
02-03-2004 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Brad McFall
02-03-2004 3:31 PM


Re: Quite a big thread!
Brad,
Interesting post. One of your comments was,
but this does not mean that I can cause others to think this way.
The Kaufmann's can be convinced, but the way to do it is to put all the math in a mental briefcase, and look into the "everybody knows" literature. As in, "everybody knows" that there are fewer species on islands. Or that Sycamore leaves are bigger than maple leaves. Or that sycamores have peeling bark, but cottonwoods do not. Ask the naturalists, how do account for that? When they answer, take their fuzzy verbal reasoning, and start digging in your briefcase for the mathematics that translates those words into symbols. Then play with the math, and see what sorts of logical deductions, especially counter-intuitive deductions, you can come up with. Go back to your naturalist friends, and ask them to help you translate these deductions into predictions about measurables. That will impress a few, and make permanent enemies out of most.
Getting more Kaufmanns into the scientific community depends on processing some psychology hypotheses pertaining to denial, until you know what can be done and how to do it. Meanwhile, as MacArthur showed me by his life, it's best to anchor your social and personal reward system on something besides their reactions. Look up my article on MarArthur's life in the Annual Review of Systematics and Ecology, 1973, I think.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Brad McFall, posted 02-03-2004 3:31 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Brad McFall, posted 02-05-2004 12:44 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

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


Message 200 of 273 (82953)
02-04-2004 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-03-2004 8:59 PM


Re: It Doesn't Get Any Clearer Than This
quote:
When I read your opening to this thread, you asserted that I claimed that something, demons I think, could be proven or were proven by H-D science. This despite my repeated and emphasized statement that science, especially H-D science, cannot prove anything.
I asserted it because you consistently use the term "confirmed". Also,I am not asking you to prove anything. My criticism is ultimatley that you link a testable hypothesis to a non-testable hypothesis. In your response to Percy above you claim that prayer studies make supernatural entities more likely. This is false. The prayer studies go with the null hypothesis that prayer has no effect and looks for a rejection of that null hypothesis. Even if a positive effect was seen, this says nothing about the supernatural anymore than a study that says thinking hard about a complex math problem increases your chance of solving it. All the study would indicate is that prayer has an effect on a particular outcome. One would then need to test what the source of that effect is, a typical MN application of a now non-supernatural effect. Not simply claim that it "confirms", makes more plausible or any other constellation of words you chose to use claiming it makes Jehovah or demons likely.
quote:
I don't know about you, but frankly, I love doing science more than I love all the discoveries. It's the discovering process. And it never ends, no matter how plausible some theory gets, it can still be proved wrong, we still can get a whole different view.
Depends. I am actually more pleased when an idea I have is supported by the experiments that I perform. I guess this is part of the discovery process. I also enjoy watching accepted hypotheses tumble down (which seems to be slowly occuring in prion biology).
quote:
The only problem is, you have to have the imagination to play with semi-plausible ideas.
I do it all the time. I have had plenty of hypotheses get tanked by the evidence. I am also in the middle of one study that could overturn some accepted dogma about the end Pleistocene extinctions. You win some you lose some. However, unlike your "semi-plausible" ideas, I can test and falsify mine, don't require anecdote for support, and anyone can reproduce my experiments.
quote:
I'm sure you are making a mistake taking the codes critics seriously
Funny actually. I would say you are making a big mistake by ignorning the critics so stubbornly. Maybe if you heard what they actually have to say you would see why nobody is buying the studies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-03-2004 8:59 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-05-2004 2:07 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 273 (83265)
02-05-2004 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Mammuthus
02-04-2004 3:53 AM


Re: It Doesn't Get Any Clearer Than This
M.
I distinquish confirm from prove, the first being the verb for evidence increasing the plausibility of a hypothesis, the last being the verb for increasing that plausibility beyond reasonable doubt.
As to Bible Codes,
I have studied the critics way more than you have examined the original paper and the replies to the critics.
I grant that there could be clearer studies with results more heavily dependent on the hypothesis that there are demons. But any such research has to operate from the postulated ontological nature of the demons. Since they are supposed to be anti-truth, especially anti-science, this poses problems, which can best be overcome by involving God.
But, I daresay that if you asked people who "believe" in demons what happened to the plausibility in their minds for demon's existence when they heard of the studies, many would say that it increased. Be an interesting study.
S.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Mammuthus, posted 02-04-2004 3:53 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Mammuthus, posted 02-05-2004 3:57 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

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


Message 202 of 273 (83280)
02-05-2004 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-05-2004 2:07 AM


Re: It Doesn't Get Any Clearer Than This
quote:
I have studied the critics way more than you have examined the original paper and the replies to the critics.
That seems unlikely as you have merely dismissed the critics as idiots rather address the criticisms.
quote:
But, I daresay that if you asked people who "believe" in demons what happened to the plausibility in their minds for demon's existence when they heard of the studies, many would say that it increased. Be an interesting study.
This is circular reasoning. If you ask people who believe in anything if they like any statements made supporting their beliefs do you really think they will say no? Do you think they care if it is wrong? Will they beleive more or less if some aspect of their belief is called into question? That is why it is a belief and not science. It is immune to counter evidence and accepting of evidence that is either unrelated or fraudulant.
You go out and find me a mammal with a genome that is closer genetically to a plant than other mammals and I will drop evolution like a hot potato. Evolution is falsifiable..your assertions are not..they are not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-05-2004 2:07 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-06-2004 6:15 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 203 of 273 (83367)
02-05-2004 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-03-2004 8:44 PM


Re: It Doesn't Get Any Clearer Than This
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
Now, I distinquish the words "of" and "for" and "confirmed" and "prove." But, you seem unable to do this.
Uh, Stephen, that's because you seem unable to support your assertion that there's a distinction. You keep saying it, you just never explain it. You have yet to reply to Message 184 of this thread challenging your position on this point. Until you explain and defend your position, you can keep repeating your premise until you're blue in the face, but repetition doesn't improve validity. In fact, it gets rather boring after a while.
You also seem to be having trouble remembering the discussion. The other distinction you attempted to draw was not between "confirmed" and "prove", but between "confirmed" and "concluded".
But, all the evidence I cite, and the controversial nature of it means nothing to me, since the very best studies in the history of science were controversial in the same way, all the evidence I cite is evidence for, confirming demons.
You concede your evidence is controversial. Everyone here not only challenges your evidence, but challenges whether it even *is* evidence in any scientific sense. And yet your only response is to reassert your position? You're not going to offer any defense of your evidence? You're not going to try to make a case for conferring scientific status on your evidence? How are you ever going to convince anybody if you never move from "assert" mode to "persuade" mode?
Now, Mammothus is getting this, I'm sure you can too, so I'll try again.
Boy, are you delusional! What is it about the Creationist mind that causes them to claim support from someone who in reality strongly dissents? Discussion with you is only scientific in a psychological sense. We should invite psychologists to join the biologists and geologists here - their contributions would be much more relevant in your case.
(and Loehr was a scientist, and presented his studies scientifically)
Another bald assertion. First, I don't think Franklin Loehr, founder of the Religious Research Foundation, ever worked as a real scientist. He was always looking into things like past lives, out-of-body experiences, near death experiences, and so forth. None of this stuff has ever made it into peer-reviewed journals, so I don't think you can call him a scientist. You're already on record as saying he did "kitchen table experiments", and as you well know, "presenting his studies" scientifically" means submitting them for peer review, which he did not do, instead publishing a book in the lay press.
If you do not accept the above paragraph then I suggest you rebut it. Please don't keep repeating this assertion without doing that. Please stop asserting because hearing the same assertions over and over again is getting soporific. Please start explaining yourself.
I'm just reporting that, to my trained scientific eye, the data from the prayer studies...were evidence for spiritual beings in general, including Jehovah and Satan, in particular.
Leap of logic. Quite obviously no one here is following your leap from step A (successful prayer studies) to what looks to everyone else like step Z (Jehoval and Satan exist). Stop merely repeating this, because we already know you believe this, and fill in the missing blanks between A and Z.
I then read CS Lewis' The Screwtape Letters to get a better idea of how demons were supposed to work...
Stephen, wake up! You're supposed to be doing science, remember? The Screwtape Letters is a religious book, not a science book. Lewis cites no scientific evidence for demons in that book.
You note elsewhere that it is my job to convince you. This I do not agree with.
Well, then you have a problem. If you see your job here as one of just stating your beliefs without defending them or trying to persuade others, then I think your job here, at least as you see it, is done.
Please realize that I play a dual and sometimes difficult role here. I discuss in the forums, but I also moderate and administrate. I think it is important that in general more often than not discussions make progress. I interpret your statement as meaning that you don't believe you have to move beyond stating your position. The Forum Guidelines discourage this attitude:
  1. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.
You agreed to follow these guidelines when you joined, and I'd like to think you're a man of your word.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-03-2004 8:44 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-06-2004 7:53 AM Percy has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 204 of 273 (83392)
02-05-2004 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-03-2004 9:18 PM


Re: Quite a thread!
The problem academically or intellectually is as far as I can drive the discussion is that people like Will Provine are willing to "retreat" to conceptual neutralism at some point. The concurrent post I had with Loudmouth at this time is indicating that one might indeed be able to make logical divisions of neutral affects effectively if the particulars I am proposing hold (up). I suspect aka the math that indeed they are simply the lack of worship among the difference of minds like Kaufmann and Levin as types relative the arab "0" and it would be possible to find that an extension of Faraday's circuit configurations give what I either had as topobiology or baramin seperations if this is also linguistically suspect which further creationist work could clear uncover, let us say after 2005 when rate reports nationally... I thought using MacArthur's notion of bird seperations in trees to his infinite pheneotype would have been enough to interest cross level biologists with the application of cantor's intent to find practical use of his transfinites as to counting populations differently for different taxa with different divisions proposed subjectively for different taxa but I could not interest even Levin so the bet was off and even though Simon told me to go and see G Evelyn Hutchinson before passing on I did not find the need or interest in this siutation as I found that my Jacob inaccessible cardinal was only the morphological differences of a few beetles which sans internet were Darwin's color beetle plates or Gould's title "Ontogeny and Phylogeny" without Conants newt plate/plaque. After reading about the notion of "open habitat" from Verne Grant and following up some panbiogeographic criticsm of Nelson to Adams notion of VIEWING a peneplain habitat by habaitat. I decided the ecological concept of the niche was either reducible to an actual infinity of beetles or else did not exist. It did not seem to exist to me in the claim for species selection. I will need to do a little more thinking on this with respect to Gould's notion of an "eclesiastical clade" but my guess is that both this notion AND Ameisen's for cell death original sin can not lexically let alone grammetically survive. But I will have to do some more thinking assuming I am correct. I could be wrong however.
But if an assertion proposition axiom is possible for concetric circles of neturality this will only explain why people like Provine or Gould felt the need for damage control from Kimura. This is not a problem for me and I suspect contra Loudmouth on memes that these do not exist even though in the gendanken on cell death I give Dawkins a little more air time and that what historically needs NOT to be revisioned nor seen again is the notion of potential physics in a wolfram node being the univocal zinc of Faraday is not the analogy or any sense of homology (to say an opposite out of completness)of a notion of physics with a notion of biology as in the galvani-volta dispute that cututrally triggered faradays experimental philosophy via Newton or not. This may be facutally off in the netural effect but I never see birds and reptiles categorized together as Dobshanksy (a believer) and Willard Stanely (my non believer grandfather) may have. Gould thinks that viviparity is puncutated. I have alawys thought this out gradually even if continuous motion in a discontinuous space is possible and now with zinc on my calcium side only technology can operate contra this as far as I know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-03-2004 9:18 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-07-2004 8:25 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 205 of 273 (83531)
02-05-2004 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-01-2004 2:12 PM


Re: Curing Delusion
Can you please tell me how my definition of what science is and isn't is incorrect?
Can you please back up your assertion that scientists don't care for ill people and that they are afraid to do studies on god or retract them immediately?
quote:
You are an accident of matter, that purposesly obeys certain physical and chemical laws, such that accidental reproductive entities occurred and whenever the accidents produced more reproductive units, they increased, until here you are. (Theory of Evolution)?
Yep.
Random mutations ("accidental", to use your word), plus natural selection (non-accidental) over a very long time has resulted in me.
I find this a much more likely scenario than the idea that an unseen, completely-undetected-by-everyone-except-those-who-already-believe-
in-him, all-powerful middle eastern nomadic shepherd tribe god directed my existence.

"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-01-2004 2:12 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 206 of 273 (83540)
02-05-2004 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-01-2004 2:12 PM


Re: Curing Delusion
OK, I thought I'd give you another chance to actually respond to what I wrote.
If you would like to take back your insults and untruths about scientists, please do, or defend your own statements.
I'm afraid that pretending you didn't say them isn't an option.
quote:
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.
How arrogant of you.
...and wrong.
Science doesn't deal with God because it isn't set up to deal with anything supernatural.
Science does not deny or confim the supernatural; science ignores the supernatural.
Science deals with naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomena.
Your implication that most scientists are "hiding" from anything is arrogant, insulting, and actually serves to illuminate your own insecurity and discomfort with people not believing exactly as you do.
quote:
They are the ones who don't care how much the afflicted suffer.
More completely unfounded, bigoted ignorance.
It really scares you that people don't believe as you do, doesn't it? Otherwise, why would you express such vitriol?

"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-01-2004 2:12 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-06-2004 8:28 AM nator has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 273 (83821)
02-06-2004 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Percy
01-31-2004 8:05 AM


P.
You ask,
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?
Evidence for something deals only with something quite uncertain, that is at least a little less uncertain because of the evidence at hand. It is suggestive, but not persuasive. It confirms, is consistent with the idea, and is itself implausible enough to not occur unless the idea under consideration, or something like it, is true. This is all in the bayes theorem. P, plausibility, given E, is higher than P given not E. If P given E is still fairly low, this state is addressed with "evidence for." If P given E is close to one, we say "evidence of."
Hopes this helps.
S.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 01-31-2004 8:05 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Percy, posted 02-07-2004 9:13 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 273 (83823)
02-06-2004 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Mammuthus
02-05-2004 3:57 AM


Re: It Doesn't Get Any Clearer Than This
M.
That seems unlikely as you have merely dismissed the critics as idiots rather address the criticisms.
Liars, not idiots. Which criticism would you like addressed? I think I addressed most on the ELS thread, but I would be happy to elaborate further here.
This is circular reasoning.
It's not reasoning at all. It's making an effort to measure P, the plausibility of demons in someone's mind, given E, a certain form of evidence that we have obtained while supposing that demons are real. Your ad hoc explanations for why they would say such a thing can be formed into hypotheses if you like, and experiments done to measure the effect of such bias. That would be interesting too. I would predict, with you, that people with a very low or very high prior plausibility, close to zero or one, will admit very little or no change when presented with data that moves them away from the zero or one that their thinking is close to. They are, in fact, dogmatically opinionated, and reluctant to change their minds in the face of data. But those with middling prior plausibilities will have a more open mind, and data that makes the idea in their mind more or less plausible will have some effect.
S.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Mammuthus, posted 02-05-2004 3:57 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Mammuthus, posted 02-09-2004 3:33 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 209 of 273 (83838)
02-06-2004 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Percy
02-05-2004 11:26 AM


Re: It Doesn't Get Any Clearer Than This
P.
You note,
None of this stuff has ever made it into peer-reviewed journals,
You are perhaps unaware of the Journal for Scientific Exploration.
Much that I have cited as evidence has appeared in peer-reviewed journals. The classic prayer experiments, the bible codes are the best examples. Theomatics has not, but I and others have reviewed the results, and found them sound. You assert, and keep asserting that these reports with the evidence they contain, don't exist, perhaps justifying this curious statement on the fact that someone has come up with a rant that they are not valid.
I keep asserting that I am totally uninterested in persuasion. My goal is understanding. I am totally convinced that, as Holmes states at the bottom of his posts, that persuasion is impossible, if someone chooses to be a fool. My definition of a fool is someone who will not submit their thinking to outside review and judging.
If you really want a persuasive debate, we will see if we can find some objective outside referee, and a set of logical and scientific rules that we will abide by. We will find a way of keeping score, and will agree that, if the referee or scorekeeper declares a winner, whoever lost the debate will admit that they lost. As I understand our issue, we would debate the statement:
Statistically significant results published in peer reviewed journals, or otherwise professionally reviewed, stemming from an appeal to hypothetical spiritual entities constitute evidence that increases the plausibility that such hypothetical entities are real.
That Mammathus is starting to understand what I am saying achieves the only goal I have here. What he chooses to do with that understanding is up to him. Probably, he will choose to keep on believing what he wants to believe, as will you. But, at least, he had an inkling of something else to think.
as you well know, "presenting his studies" scientifically" means submitting them for peer review, which he did not do, instead publishing a book in the lay press.
I don't know this, and since Kuhn, don't believe it. I don't even bother with peer review myself, since every paper I ever published that passed peer review was lost to science, while the invited publications have uniformly been influential. Review is desirable, and improves a report. But, in Loehr's case, it is so easy to replicate, and would have been so difficult to get past "sneer" review, that he did the right thing in ignoring his "peers." Your view of science is what Kuhn describes as paradigm maintaining. I, on the other hand, am doing science for truth.
I interpret your statement as meaning that you don't believe you have to move beyond stating your position.
I don't agree that that's my position. I am here to state, as the guidelines suggest, additional information and additional arguments where it appears that someone does not have the information, or understand the argument. However, if someone is not persuaded by these things, while I am, we have reached an impasse, and my job is done. I go my way, reaping the benefits of any wisdom I accept and paying the cost for any stubborness I manifest. Likewise with those who looked at what I shared. Now, when you say something like,
Quite obviously no one here is following your leap from step A (successful prayer studies) to what looks to everyone else like step Z (Jehoval and Satan exist).
I am frustrated, since my point is not that these beings exist, but that they might exist, and that the idea that they do exist, under H-D methodology, has some plausibility, which has been increased by the data I present. So, I'm not sure what to do with non sequitors, with arguments against something I wouldn't want to defend. But, I get a lot of this here. Because blue jays are blue birds, someone wants to claim that they are bluebirds. I assert over and over again that H-D methodology never reaches any conclusion except that a certain idea has become plausible beyond reasonable doubt. Then, I note that certain experiments in the peer-reviewed journal confirm some ideas, and get back the most extreme responses claiming that I must not be a scientist because I believe we have to conclude from this evidence the ideas I note are confirmed. When someone is accused of believing what they state flatly that they do not believe, I would think as an administrator, you would intervene. But, to be fair, you do state that your bias is for evolutionary thinking. And, as I have noted in another thread, that in my experience handicaps your ability to think non-hypocritically.
Now, for all I know, you agree that validated Christian prayer studies confirm, that is, make more plausible, the idea that demons are really out there. They don't allow us to conclude that demons are really out there, but the idea is somewhat more plausible because of the finding. The studies are weakened because what specifically was prayed is unknown, but it likely that some included prayers for deliverance from evil.
But never mind. It's not that important to H-D science, since the process is supposed to go on. Next study, let's set up two groups, one getting prayer for miraculous restoration of tissues, and another for deliverance from demons causing sickness.
One of the purposes, actually, of H-D science, is to minimize debate, which too often seems to go nowhere. Just do the next experiment. Let the data do the persuading, as it accumulates.
If you want me to go away, Percy, just say so. I worked five years with people in denial, alcoholics mostly. You can't do anything for them until they are ready. When they tell, told, me to buzz off, I just looked at God, heard Him tell me that I no longer needed to try to help them, and went my merry way.
It's your forum.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Percy, posted 02-05-2004 11:26 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Admin, posted 02-06-2004 11:41 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied
 Message 214 by Percy, posted 02-06-2004 11:54 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 02-06-2004 2:12 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 210 of 273 (83842)
02-06-2004 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Mammuthus
01-22-2004 3:52 AM


Re: H-D This
I was about to publish a paper on my observations of changes in gene expression in cell types infected with various agents as indicators of the physiological impact of said agents on the cell. I stupidly bothered to do experimental work to both observe and verify the phenomenon. Even worse, I did multiple replicates of all experiments involved in order to better support my initial hypothesis that co-factors in pathogenesis can be demonstrated and identified in response to infection.
There must be something wrong with me, because this sounds really interesting.
Sometimes I wish I was a scientist, but I suppose there's a lot of boring stuff in between all the results.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Mammuthus, posted 01-22-2004 3:52 AM Mammuthus 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