Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D)
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 226 of 273 (84637)
02-09-2004 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-06-2004 6:15 AM


Re: It Doesn't Get Any Clearer Than This
quote:
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.
Funny, in another thread you claimed that at least I am not a liar...you lack consistency.
You have not addressed the criticism by anyone thus far that what you call science is more than wishful thinking without supporting evidence. If you believe in Santa and see a christmas commercial in your mind this raises the plausibility that elves make toys in the North Pole. This is simply stupid. The argument is identical with your demons/Jehovah musings. You take prayer studies which critics have analyzed statistically and shown have no significant effect (or even the authors themselves admit they saw NOTHING) and claim that this makes demons more plausible. You should get off your kick that this is scientific and admit that it is your unsubstantiated belief. If that is not enough to sustain your faith, than that is your own personal defect and weakness, not the scientific establishments.
quote:
It's not reasoning at all.
I am glad you recognize this somehow
quote:
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.
By your logic then you should be a hardcore drug addict. Many drugs have hallucinogenic properties. These hallucinations therefore make it probable that pink elephants make the sun come up in the morning.
You know, you are actually more of a typical creationist than I would have thought. You rail against scientific methodology because it does not fit you personal worldview. You make constant appeals to authority (your supposed own or that of your mythological diety). You attack the peer review system because after all, if they don't accept you babbling bullshit then the system must be wrong. In fact, like any run of the mill creationist, you project the absolute powerlessness of your argument, the absolute lack of evidence for any of your positions, the lack of adoration by those who actually do understand science and attempt to blame science and atheists (another typical idiotic creationist linkage).
You know why evolution is science and your babbling is not, I do not have to rely on "raising the plausibility". I can go and test any aspect I wish whether plausible or not and confirm it or falsify it. It does not have to be plausible, it only has to be testable and falsifiable. You are stuck with an a priori belief in a specific set of diety/demon mythological constructs that do not allow you to make any observations that would undermine their reality in your mind. You have shut your mind to science and the benefits it brings and have so confused yourself that you require science to prop up your faith. You diminish both faith and science in a way I would not wish on anybody..it must be truly sad to be so weak.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-06-2004 6:15 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-10-2004 10:35 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 227 of 273 (84711)
02-09-2004 11:54 AM


Replies to posts #219 and #220, please Stephen.

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 228 of 273 (84982)
02-10-2004 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Brad McFall
02-07-2004 12:57 PM


Re: Quite a thread!
Brad,
You note,
As for hypothetical-deduction and Simon...once I got out of Florida and survived not being involutarily electroshocked because no one had ever asked for HOW lithium BALANCE was measured during treatment
I just learned that beer makers use lithium chlorite to sterilize their equipment, because it seems quite toxic to competing yeasts. Don't know that traces of the Lithium don't make it into the beer, which, like hops, would make it more mentally effective as a drug. Or, perhaps, the lithium in humans works to destroy toxic yeasts like candida known to modify behavior in ways conducive to the yeast (addictions to sugar, etc.).
Meanwhile, this comment of yours demonstrates one of the main reasons H-D science is the best scientific method, which I have heretofore forgotten to mention. When students are trained in H-D science, they get more control of their own lives, in that they have a method that they can apply in day to day decisions, about health care, etc. Other methods of teaching science tend to make it so abstruse that the student becomes dependent on a priest-hood, basically, that knows the jargon, has the knowledge, and claims the authority to make decisions for others, to know the truth. Science as expertise, versus science as way of thinking. You were lucky to escape the electro shock, and to realize that nutritional hypotheses for mental aberrations can be tested with less risk.
Ha, another benefit of H-D science! The point of scientific research is to get new knowledge "the easy way." To discover the experiment or data that can be done/gotten with a minimum of risk. Before one does high-risk, expensive acts that, if wrong, cost a lot more than the benefit gained is worth.
I found that he was motivated to introduce a NEXT MUTATION when he co-authored with Kaufmann.
To explain what?
So though baraminically I might move over to that thread or here and discuss flys vs beetle numbers (especially interms of NOT A BIRD in the Carribean hortizian vs parian distributions of insects or reptiles for Penny's interest not Gould's in panbiogeography)
No, the question, Why are there more fish species than amphibian species? Is equally interesting. What simple answer would you consider interesting? Worth testing?
Goethe and Newton for which topic I was subjectively failed by LP Williams despite the now available fact that Penrose is thinking of microtublue quantum mechanics and I had placed my sights there way back before I met Levin's pleasent pollution in the Hudson river deameanor.
Is Penrose's hypothesis aimed at getting at free will, consciousness, and human decision making? Have you seen the studies where humans are put in behavior mod conditioning trials of the Skinnerian sort, and don't behave like white rats?
Ok- that problem then was that Volta reasoned from the electric fish torpedo TO Galvani's frogs and THEN to any organism. This IS a form of reasoning encounterable in evolutionary theory if generalized. A variant of creationism could be that the is not even reasonable.
In H-D science, how we come up with a hypothesis is very flexible, even subjective, or inspired. Quantum mechanics is not reasonable, but is was proposed and tested and found to work. One of the main distinctions between real scientists and the paradigm maintaining frauds that Kuhn discusses, is that real scientists never forget the "childhood" of a scientific research programme, never forget that when an unreasonable, weird idea appears on the scene, that is implausible and difficult or impossible to understand, it must be given its chance to grow up, into the highly plausible, well verified, eminently practical ideas that much of science spends its time refining. Nurtured in that process, not neglected.
Faraday's accepted extension and quantum mechanical synthetic chemsitry via psychiatry has confused the rather repetious psychology involved in any c/e difference.
I have an intuitive sense that I should say, "Hear, Hear!" to this comment, which I barely understand. Let's subject it to H-D analysis. Suppose it is true, what patterns in the c/e controversy can we predict we will find?
What do you think about the cave-man diet application of evolutionary theory to humans? The weakness of H-D scientific reasoning in evolutionists seems to obscure this most persuasive application of the theory. It might be of interest to you, since protein requirements from that theory are predicted to be substantially higher than conventionally thought, which of course influences tryptophan availability to human brains. Because of the critical role of tryptophan in serotonin production, this allows us to predict epidemics of certain behavior patterns, such as depression. Conspiracy theorists claim that this relationship is so well established, that anti-depressant drug companies bought out the FDA, and made tryptophan illegal, to create a market for their products. Killed hundreds of people, in setting up a "reason" for the FDA action. But, of course, those trained in H-D science know how to do personal tests to keep themselves mentally healthy.
Cheers,
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Brad McFall, posted 02-07-2004 12:57 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Brad McFall, posted 02-10-2004 3:09 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 273 (84991)
02-10-2004 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Mammuthus
02-09-2004 3:33 AM


Re: It Doesn't Get Any Clearer Than This
M.
First, the hypothesis that you were a liar was considered briefly, tested, and unsupported. So, it is less plausible than it was, and courtesy requires me to assume it is untrue until validated.
Then you say,
If you believe in Santa and see a christmas commercial in your mind this raises the plausibility that elves make toys in the North Pole. This is simply stupid. The argument is identical with your demons/Jehovah musings. You take prayer studies which critics have analyzed statistically and shown have no significant effect (or even the authors themselves admit they saw NOTHING) and claim that this makes demons more plausible.
Now, this is a very good point. But, I do insist, in fairness, that the analogy we applied correctly. Let's take the idea that Santa really is out there. From that hypothesis, what can we predict? Christmas commercials? Well, given the common understanding of Santa, I would actually predict that commercials, if any, would focus on wish-lists and good behavior, and maybe types of cookies and milk ("skim, please, I'm watching my weight.") Commercials which feature a Santa at a toy store would not be expected, and any H-D thinking child would view this association as evidence that Santa and elves at the North Pole may not be the source of the toys they get each Christmas.
Now, we ask this question: Suppose demons exist, in the context of orthodox theology (OT), Jehovah, Yeshua, the Holy Spirit, the blood of Yeshua, and the Bible as a "contact" with Jehovah giving methods for talking to Jehovah, driving away demons, getting to heaven, etc. If this is all accurate, what can we predict about the outcome of prayer studies? Well, Jehovah supposedly wrote in the bible that if you pray aright, you will receive. Then, "aright" is defined, as selflessly, with persistence, with joy and thanksgiving, testifying to the names of Jehovah and Yeshua, and to what happened at the cross, with faith that comes from hearing Jehovah's voice. There are some other fine points, but the above cover the main requirements. Now, if all the points of OT are true, then prayers that meet these requirements will result in less "evil." Sickness, depression, etc. Since this prediction has been validated, in many people's minds, mine included, the plausibility that the demons are really out there, along with the rest of OT, is increased. Granted, other people have the opinion that these studies have not been validated, but I see no reason to accept their opinion over those who differ with them. Of course, some nay-sayers will present their opinions as fact, which is how they see them. That actually makes those opinions less likely to be persuasive, as I understand subjectivity and epistemology.
By your logic then you should be a hardcore drug addict. Many drugs have hallucinogenic properties. These hallucinations therefore make it probable that pink elephants make the sun come up in the morning.
This is your best shot at reasoning?
... In fact, like any run of the mill creationist, you project the absolute powerlessness of your argument, the absolute lack of evidence for any of your positions, the lack of adoration by those who actually do understand science and attempt to blame science and atheists (another typical idiotic creationist linkage). ...
I can tell you feel very strongly about this. Forgive me, but I just see all this as an expression of your own guilt. It is very close to what I am tempted to say about you.
It's interesting, actually, that we keep debating. Love of energy, I guess. But here we are, me suspecting that you are demon possessed, and you that I am deluded. But I'm having a good time, so don't be sad for me.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Mammuthus, posted 02-09-2004 3:33 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Mammuthus, posted 02-11-2004 3:18 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 230 of 273 (85013)
02-10-2004 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-08-2004 10:46 AM


Re: It Doesn't Get Any Clearer Than This
Hi, Stephen!
I didn't post Message 213 to begin a dialogue with you, but to indicate to you my wish that you follow rule 2 of the Forum Guidelines (and all the other rules, of course):
  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.
And to indicate my wish that you limit discussion of your subjective Bayesian version of H-D science to the thread reserved for that purpose.
You can assent to both, or you can accept a restriction or suspension. I'll wait a couple days for a reply before taking any action. I'm leaning toward a restriction to posting only in the Free For All forum. Other members are free, even encouraged, to provide their opinions.

--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-08-2004 10:46 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-11-2004 7:19 PM Admin has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 273 (85016)
02-10-2004 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by nator
02-07-2004 9:25 AM


Re: Curing Delusion
S.
you ask,
What evidence could disprove the existence of God?
Well, remembering that science never disproves or proves anything, it is clear from Scripture that, if a study of tithing, done according to the rules given in the scripture for tithing, which did not produce some well-defined "openings of the windows of heaven" and "rebuking the devourer." this would "disprove" God. Opening the windows of heaven is elsewhere in scripture defined as increased rainfall, so, for example, if the governor of Kansas called for a test in some drought ridden counties, but not others, of tithing, called for, say, 1% of the population of the test counties to volunteer to tithe properly, and asked residents of control counties to abstain from tithing for one month. And then rainfall changes between the two counties could be compared. If the drought did not end in the test counties, and increase in the controls, this would be evidence invalidating the hypothetical God, Jehovah, as described in the scriptures.
So, case studies are a good starting point for real, detailed investigation, but they are hardly evidence for anything because they haven't defined or tested anything. They have just told a story.
In H-D science, evidence is used in two ways, to confirm predictions and to form prior estimates of plausibility. Evidence "for" an idea is evidence that does not contradict it, and makes it ever-so-slightly more plausible. Now, weird or anomolous evidence, that suggests the existence of "spiritual" beings, such as souls, demons, gods, and the God, Jehovah, is "for" the plausibility of these things, not "against."
Understand that my goal here is to make sure as many as possible understand a particular scientific proceedure, and to suggest that that proceedure be applied to the evolution/creation controversy. Since the creation hypothesis postulates the reality of a Creator, as well as demons, human souls, etc, as all being relevant to the understanding of "the Origin of Species." it's of value to evaluate the evidential plausibility of the idea that such creating spiritual beings exist. If all the "creatures" in our biological world were produced by artificial selection, for Jehovah, Satan, or us, we need to know this, and which "creatures" were created by which spiritual being, or by us. (Although, most think that we are spiritual beings as well.)
...except that quantum mechanics meets all the requirements to be a scientific theory; it is supported by positive evidence which can be observed by anyone, it's observations are replicable by anyone, and it is falsifiable.
This is true now, but it wasn't when they first began gathering evidence to test its predictions. Remember, Einstein never did buy it. Someday, perhaps, demons will be as well studied. But, the process has to begin, and be encouraged. Perhaps a difference between us, is that I consider the initial phases of the scientific validation of an idea, while you are focusing on its final stages, after years of testing.
Of course, that's not all you are saying, is it? You are somehow expecting acceptance of an enormous leap from "we don't understand this" to "Jehova and demons of the Christian Bible exist".
"might be out there" not "exist." Followed by a "so, let's study the idea further hypothetico-deductively, and see for sure."
First of all, those were doctors, not scientists, who weren't washing their hands.
Good point. And the scientists did win the day. But, the scientists did not back up Semmelweis, Dr. Semmelweis, in his first experiments. Even though people were dying from failures to replicate and establish Semmelweis' point. But, I see your point here. It might have required extraordinary involvement from persons, scientists, who often are so focused on their interests that they don't get involved.
It only means that prayer works.
The Bayesian model says that nothing only means anything. Many ideas have plausibilities conditional on a given bit of evidence.
If they would all just stop trying to understand stuff and just pray a whole bunch,
Actually, (I'll dig around and find the article, if you want) several scientists being interviewed about the studies confirming and validating prayer, though unbelievers, admitted that they prayed over their research, just in case it might help. Pray normally doesn't interfere with life activities. But, I really do hate those who hate God, so much that they won't talk to and with Him. We're here to do good, to make a difference, and when we neglect that duty, everyone else suffers.
Um, isn't it the job of all scientists everywhere to critically analyse ("pick holes in the efforts of others", as you call it) the relevant work in their respective fields?
No, it is not. The job of all scientists is to try to understand what some other scientist has done, and to replicate it to see if they can get a similar result. The courtesy of science is to try to find the good in the work of others, and to build on it.
I mean, that's how science remains a very accurate, powerful, and most importantly, self-correcting method of inquiry.
Not as I learned or practised it. The self-correcting is right, but it is accomplished when predictions that a proponent of a theory has agreed should follow from his or her idea are not confirmed, in repeated trials.
You think that prayer proves the existence of your God and demons?
I do not think this. If I thought this, I would be wrong. Successful prayer makes the reality of the God prayed to more plausible. If that God works by delivering from demons, then it makes demons more plausible.
Jehova is all-powerful, correct?
If Jehova is all-powerful, I would have predicted that the people not being prayed for would show no change in healing, while the people being prayed for should have shown a 100% cure rate.
If this wasn't the outcome, then Jehova could not have been the cause of the improvement in healing.
The proper proceedure is to present your prediction to proponents of the idea being tested, to see if they would agree that this prediction logically follows from the theory. If possible, express the theory in mathematical terms, a model, so that differences of opinion about predictions can be settled.
I do not expect 100% healing from prayer, because in the description of "right" prayer in the scriptures, there are lots of factors that can "fall short of the glory of God." And examples of people not praying "successfully." If Yeshua were the one praying, I would expect 100% success. My own rate has increased over the 25 years I have trained in the matter, to nearly 85%. But, partly that has come about because I am not willing to pay the cost of some prayers (e.g. 40 days fasting in the desert), to get the power. So, I pick my battles, so that I win most.
Thanks for trying to understand.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by nator, posted 02-07-2004 9:25 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by nator, posted 02-11-2004 2:13 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 273 (85023)
02-10-2004 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by nator
02-07-2004 9:59 AM


Re: Curing Delusion
S.
I say: It is looking over the human race, 80-90% of which believes in God,
and you,
Irrelevant.
Not in H-D science. The estimates of prior plausibility come from some sort of average of collective intuition. For you to ignore your fellow human's opinions, or to discount them severly, is to put yourself above them, arrogance.
Not long ago, close to 100% of people believed in a flat Earth, but belief doesn't make something true.
Good example. Map-makers today, for all practical purposes, often "believe" in a flat earth. Which is to say, that the flat earth people were not far wrong. Re demons, those who see a red-suited guy with a pointy tail and a pitchfork, would be flat-earthers. Not a bad approximation, but of course the real thing will be different. But not that different.
Please define "demon".
A spiritual pathogen, where spiritual is understood to be the historic term for a part of the universe similar to, or equivalent with, "dark matter/dark energy." Demons are understood to have all known spiritual human characteristics: personality, free will, intelligence, power to use dark or spiritual energy and dark or spiritual matter, to influence electro-magnetic material. They can make themselves visible or invisible to humans at their discretion. Demons normally work by deception or lying. "The most successful lie of Satan, is that he doesn't exist." ((The Usual Suspects). But, they are able to put thoughts, desires, fears, in a mind, and to force certain choices (compulsions, addictions).
Furthermore, please provide some documentation to support your claim that 80%-90% of the world's population believes in the existence of demons as you define them.
This will take some time. I am using the anthropological data on religiosity in cultures, and the Gallup polls of religious belief within cultures. I would bet that my figures are an underestimate.
Define "prayer".
Conversation, often one-way, with God.
Please provide some documentation to support your claim that 80%-90% of the world's population considers prayer essential to life, as you define it.
Again, this will take some time. Polls, and studies of comparative religions make the figure reasonable, if low.
You still haven't responded to my post, Steve. I'll keep reposting it untill you defend or retract your insulting, unfounded statements.
Thanks for trying to understand, in spite of my weaknesses.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by nator, posted 02-07-2004 9:59 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Percy, posted 02-10-2004 1:52 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied
 Message 237 by nator, posted 02-11-2004 2:25 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 233 of 273 (85049)
02-10-2004 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-10-2004 11:49 AM


Re: Curing Delusion
Stephen ben Yehsua writes:
Not in H-D science.
It's the H-D *method*, not the H-D science. The hypothetico-deductive method is what scientists use while working within the framework of methodological naturalism.
The process you're actually describing and attempting to employ is not the hypothetico-deductive method, but subjective Bayesianism. Why don't you look up the hypothetico-deductive method on Google again and see just one more time how it doesn't describe what you're talking about at all. You prefer subjective Bayesianism to H-D because in your view it allows you to avoid having any evidence. Unfortunately, back in the real world, lack of evidence is a serious liability.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-10-2004 11:49 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 234 of 273 (85075)
02-10-2004 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-10-2004 10:06 AM


Re: Quite a thread!
The other scientitst were being less pesimistic about Wright's "landscape" than Will Provine but I suprised my self to lear that this pesimism IS what Gould held on to to his passing. I had assumed a higher place in my mind for him. As to what H-D would givec/e wise may not have been what you were getting at. For if it IS bayesian H-D then I would actually be EXTENDING Gish's argumentation when so far I see this/the evidence tending to reduce the number of parts that may be subject to impossiblities/improbabilites but I would have to be acutally and absolutely correct contra Marcello Pera who wrote "The Ambiguous Frog: The Galvani- Volta Controversy on Animal Electricity" for which Will's job hangs in this balance.
The c/e hypothesis for me would be that biologists tend to unconsciously or subconsciously substitute an aposteriori rejection of Lamark with a transfered apriori rejection of creationism. It would be my DEDUCTION (if that is really what is at stake here and not some Bayesianism) THAT ICR STYLE CREationism has REVIVED the Galavanic Response that internationally was afforded to Volta's reasoning but debunked CHEMICALLY certainly after the physics were added to Faraday's testimony extension of work of other chemists of that period. It had been supposed Volta's resoning destryoed the galvanism naturally but that the chemistry was not controlled for but the deduction would not be from the materiality to organicism as some philosopher may grant me but instead from the social difference of styles of creationism to the exposure of the psychology which then must gain said indiviudally. The problem has been that there has not been an attempt to show that Creation Science actually can extend Faraday's experimental philosophy to gain say the Galvanists and not merely that Faraday destroyed the negativity of current opnion of VOlta at that time. At this point some phancy evos can still make sayings like red touch yellow is the fellow that black's jack knew too much for his own trap door or the bachelor problem somehow logically claimed to apply etc. More scoping would be required short an agreement on the history. My guess is that as I explain this currently some will say this is not historically accurate. I am only one guy not a whole univeristy. I did not think that Gould's use of "smoothing the Galton Polygon" was all that fancy but seeing how he rejects Kaufmann's "edge of chaos" "for free" it is not suprising to pigeon whole my own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-10-2004 10:06 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-14-2004 5:49 PM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 235 of 273 (85315)
02-11-2004 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-10-2004 10:35 AM


Re: It Doesn't Get Any Clearer Than This
quote:
Now, this is a very good point. But, I do insist, in fairness, that the analogy we applied correctly. Let's take the idea that Santa really is out there. From that hypothesis, what can we predict? Christmas commercials? Well, given the common understanding of Santa, I would actually predict that commercials, if any, would focus on wish-lists and good behavior, and maybe types of cookies and milk ("skim, please, I'm watching my weight.") Commercials which feature a Santa at a toy store would not be expected, and any H-D thinking child would view this association as evidence that Santa and elves at the North Pole may not be the source of the toys they get each Christmas.
No Stephen, you are wrong. It clearly supports the hypothesis that elves make toys in the north pole. Your method assumes a priori that the conclusion is correct. Thus, any evidence for or even against the hypothesis (and even evidence not even remotely connected to the hypothesis you wish to test) is asserted as positive proof of the hypothesis. In fact, the hypothesis does not even have to be testable because the truth of the assertion is assumed a priori. Thus, the fact that I don't like hot dogs can be seen as proof of elves making toys for Santa in the North pole.
quote:
Now, we ask this question: Suppose demons exist, in the context of orthodox theology (OT), Jehovah, Yeshua, the Holy Spirit, the blood of Yeshua, and the Bible as a "contact" with Jehovah giving methods for talking to Jehovah, driving away demons, getting to heaven, etc. If this is all accurate, what can we predict about the outcome of prayer studies?
You can expect anything. Yet again, you have assumed the existence of demons a priori and thus anything supportive or non-supportive is taken as positive. You have no power to distinguish among any of a million different possibilities. You merely exclude all natural causes of an association or dismiss negative evidence.
quote:
Granted, other people have the opinion that these studies have not been validated, but I see no reason to accept their opinion over those who differ with them. Of course, some nay-sayers will present their opinions as fact, which is how they see them. That actually makes those opinions less likely to be persuasive, as I understand subjectivity and epistemology.
Besides the funny way you wish to cherry pick your data i.e. edit out the data that runs counter to your claims i.e. the negative results of prayer studies, it is also funny that you argue that it is a battle of opinion. This emphasizes again why you do not understand science. If one has a testable hypothesis, one can attempt to replicate the results of others independently. One can show that the data collected was in error. One can come up with experiments that demonstrate that another factor was responsible for the observation. You a priori say your goddidit and that is it. Your opinion. It cannot be reproduced independently. It cannot be reproduced by those of other faiths or no faith. It is a personal belief of yours...not science. Scientific methodology does not require that one hold a specific faith to achieve the same results. What you adhere to is a sham.
quote:
This is your best shot at reasoning?
Does looking in the mirror and seeing an example of your own "logic" bother you? Good, it should.
quote:
I can tell you feel very strongly about this. Forgive me, but I just see all this as an expression of your own guilt. It is very close to what I am tempted to say about you.
It bothers me that someone of obviously very weak faith wishes to appear as if they have strong faith by randomly pulling out or making up scientific terms in an attempt to bolster the credibility of their religion. You must be very envious of truthlover. He is a strong believer in his god yet does not demand that others believe as he does, does not attack or denigrate those who do not, and does not demand that science justify his faith i.e. he is probably the only true believer at this site. I don't share his beliefs but I do admire his honesty and the strength of his belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-10-2004 10:35 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 236 of 273 (85398)
02-11-2004 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-10-2004 11:31 AM


Re: Curing Delusion
quote:
Well, remembering that science never disproves or proves anything,
Of course.
quote:
it is clear from Scripture that, if a study of tithing, done according to the rules given in the scripture for tithing,
Who's interpretation of scripture are you going to use?
[quote]which did not produce some well-defined "openings of the windows of heaven" and "rebuking the devourer."[quote] Please provide precise definitions of "openings of the windows of heaven" and "rebuking the devourer."
quote:
this would "disprove" God. Opening the windows of heaven is elsewhere in scripture defined as increased rainfall, so, for example, if the governor of Kansas called for a test in some drought ridden counties, but not others, of tithing, called for, say, 1% of the population of the test counties to volunteer to tithe properly, and asked residents of control counties to abstain from tithing for one month. And then rainfall changes between the two counties could be compared.
Of course, you would have to control for all other reasons that the weather would be a certain way. You would also have to control for all other types of rituals or sacrifices that anyone might do to other gods.
Even if you could do all of that, you still have no idea if the tithing is working for your particular God, because tithing is not exclusive to Christianity.
quote:
In H-D science, evidence is used in two ways, to confirm predictions and to form prior estimates of plausibility. Evidence "for" an idea is evidence that does not contradict it, and makes it ever-so-slightly more plausible.
So, The fact that Children believe in Santa Claus makes the existence of Santa Claus "ever-so-slightly more plausible"?
quote:
Now, weird or anomolous evidence, that suggests the existence of "spiritual" beings, such as souls, demons, gods, and the God, Jehovah, is "for" the plausibility of these things, not "against."
...except that this "evidence" only suggests the existence of the supernatural in those who are already biased to interpret it in this way through cultural and personal bias.
quote:
Understand that my goal here is to make sure as many as possible understand a particular scientific proceedure, and to suggest that that proceedure be applied to the evolution/creation controversy. Since the creation hypothesis postulates the reality of a Creator, as well as demons, human souls, etc, as all being relevant to the understanding of "the Origin of Species." it's of value to evaluate the evidential plausibility of the idea that such creating spiritual beings exist.
...except that you are not, as far as I can tell, using H-D science properly, in that it is supposed to be based upon real evidence, not heavily-interpreted and biased "plausibilities."
quote:
If all the "creatures" in our biological world were produced by artificial selection, for Jehovah, Satan, or us, we need to know this, and which "creatures" were created by which spiritual being, or by us. (Although, most think that we are spiritual beings as well.)
Please provide your evidence for such creatures that anyone can observe, regardless of religion.
quote:
This is true now, but it wasn't when they first began gathering evidence to test its predictions. Remember, Einstein never did buy it.
Doesn't matter if he believed, it only matters if it works.
Your problem is that you only want to stay in the rareified dreaming stage; you haven't even tried to define your terms yet.
quote:
Someday, perhaps, demons will be as well studied.
Define "demon".
quote:
But, the process has to begin, and be encouraged. Perhaps a difference between us, is that I consider the initial phases of the scientific validation of an idea, while you are focusing on its final stages, after years of testing.
No, I am focusing on what makes reliable, productive science.
quote:
"might be out there" not "exist." Followed by a "so, let's study the idea further hypothetico-deductively, and see for sure."
But invisible pink unicorns "might be out there", too. How do you propose we test this using H-D science?
Do you concede that the journal you cite as dealing with spiritual matters 1)deals with anomolous natural events, not supernatural, and 2)is a collection of case studies and does not test theories?
quote:
Actually, (I'll dig around and find the article, if you want) several scientists being interviewed about the studies confirming and validating prayer, though unbelievers, admitted that they prayed over their research, just in case it might help.
Irrelevant if there were no controls.
The issue at hand is your implication that, for example, cancer researchers are cold and unmoved by human suffering because they refuse to follow your religion's rituals. Furthermore, you have been shown several times that your prayer claims are not supported.
quote:
But, I really do hate those who hate God, so much that they won't talk to and with Him.
Um, I can't hate what I have no evidence for the existence of.
quote:
We're here to do good, to make a difference, and when we neglect that duty, everyone else suffers.
I'm all for doing good, but I'd much rather have the cancer researchers working to understand the origin and spread of cancer rather than simply pray for a cure.
We have lots of evidence that the difficult work of real scientific research can and does lead to the alleviation of suffering.
quote:
Successful prayer makes the reality of the God prayed to more plausible.
Why? You keep repeating this claim, but it is a HUGE, GARGANTUAN leap of conclusion to claim this.
Successful prayer means that the prayer was successful, nothing more.
You have absolutely no way of verifying what caused the prayer to be successful, and you are simply deciding, with nothing more than your personal bias, that it HAD to be your personally-preferred God.
What if all prayers are answered by the Great Spirit, or Vishnu, or the Great Galactic Goat regardless of which God or gods anybody prays to?
You have no reason at all to conclude that YOUR god is doing anything.
quote:
If that God works by delivering from demons, then it makes demons more plausible.
You have not esablished in the least that your God has anything to do with anything.
quote:
If possible, express the theory in mathematical terms, a model, so that differences of opinion about predictions can be settled.
Actually, math is nice but not neccessary.
quote:
I do not expect 100% healing from prayer, because in the description of "right" prayer in the scriptures, there are lots of factors that can "fall short of the glory of God."
Well, then it would seem that, in your definition, your god is not all-powerful.
quote:
And examples of people not praying "successfully."
So, any positive outcome is attributed to Yeshua, but any negative outcome is attributed to "falling short of the glory of god" or because people didn't "pray correctly"?
Sounds like an unbeatable system to me, kind of like astrology.
quote:
If Yeshua were the one praying, I would expect 100% success.
Go prays to himself?
quote:
My own rate has increased over the 25 years I have trained in the matter, to nearly 85%.
Really, you have been keeping detailed records, including accounting for confirmation bias by recording negative evidence, for 25 years?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-10-2004 11:31 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-14-2004 6:49 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 237 of 273 (85400)
02-11-2004 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-10-2004 11:49 AM


Re: Curing Delusion
quote:
The estimates of prior plausibility come from some sort of average of collective intuition. For you to ignore your fellow human's opinions, or to discount them severly, is to put yourself above them, arrogance.
So, by this logic, Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on the World Trade Center, because the majority of Americans believe this to be true.
Just because someone, or many someones, believe something is true does not make it true.
quote:
Map-makers today, for all practical purposes, often "believe" in a flat earth.
Yes, but does this mean that most people "believe" in God?
Or do they believe (no parenthesese) in God?
quote:
Which is to say, that the flat earth people were not far wrong.
Come on, Steve, stop being silly. the people who believe in a flat earth don't "believe" for practical purposes so they can make maps. They believe that they will fall of the edge of the earth!
quote:
Re demons, those who see a red-suited guy with a pointy tail and a pitchfork, would be flat-earthers. Not a bad approximation, but of course the real thing will be different. But not that different.
A spiritual pathogen, where spiritual is understood to be the historic term for a part of the universe similar to, or equivalent with, "dark matter/dark energy."
Is this aspect of demons a consensus view?
quote:
Demons are understood to have all known spiritual human characteristics: personality, free will, intelligence, power to use dark or spiritual energy and dark or spiritual matter, to influence electro-magnetic material.They can make themselves visible or invisible to humans at their discretion. Demons normally work by deception or lying. "The most successful lie of Satan, is that he doesn't exist." ((The Usual Suspects). But, they are able to put thoughts, desires, fears, in a mind, and to force certain choices (compulsions, addictions).
How do you know this? What is your evidence? Please provide a link.
quote:
Conversation, often one-way, with God.
Which God or gods?
What kind of conversation, exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-10-2004 11:49 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-14-2004 5:26 PM nator has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 273 (85502)
02-11-2004 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Admin
02-10-2004 11:17 AM


Re: It Doesn't Get Any Clearer Than This
P.
Oops, sorry. I thought that my reply was my assent to these terms, to which I of course agree. What about discussing regular H-D science? Actually, I don't intend to discuss subjective bayesianism anymore at all, since I don't believe in it, don't practise it, never have, and am sorry anything I said gave the impression I thought it valid. My reference to subjectivity being appropriate in hypothesis formation, and evaluation of prior plausibilities somehow gave the wrong impression that I approved of subjective evaluation of data. You can see how strongly I disapprove of this in the way I respond when others respond to a published result with an "explaining away" that appears subjectively motivated. For example, I see sarcasm and ridiculing in McKay's re-interpreting of WRR's data, and thus tend to discount what he says as invalid, just because of apparent subjective fiddling with the data. Data are data. They have to be taken at face value, objectively, and only dispensed with, if they are "bad" by showing that objective efforts to replicate don't work. McKay and others did this fairly well with the cities experiment of Gans, and got a failure. But, unlike WRR or Gans, the outside panel picking the terms would not stand by their choices, but admitted making some technical errors. I'm still waiting for Gans to respond to this.
So, anyway, what about normal bayesian methodology, as defined in Urbach's book, for example? That's what we need to talk about, if we are setting up a prayer experiment.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Admin, posted 02-10-2004 11:17 AM Admin has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 239 of 273 (85708)
02-12-2004 7:46 AM


Apropos Quote
When one turns to the magnificent edifice of the physical sciences, and sees how it was reared; what thousands of disinterested moral lives of men lie buried in its mere foundations; what patience and postponement, what choking down of preference, what submission to the icy laws of outer fact are wrought into its very stones and mortar; how absolutely impersonal it stands in its vast augustness then how besotted and contemptible seems every sentimentalist who comes blowing his smoke-wreaths, and pretending to decide things from out of his private dream!
--William James, "The Will to Believe" (quoted on front page of Defending Science, Within Reason - Between Scientism and Cynicism by Susan Haack)

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by crashfrog, posted 02-12-2004 8:31 AM Percy has replied
 Message 241 by MrHambre, posted 02-12-2004 8:39 AM Percy has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 240 of 273 (85712)
02-12-2004 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Percy
02-12-2004 7:46 AM


Re: Apropos Quote
Why do people use "apropos" instead of "appropriate" or "appropriately"? Is it just because it's shorter? Is it because that guy in The Matrix Reloaded used it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Percy, posted 02-12-2004 7:46 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Percy, posted 02-12-2004 8:46 AM crashfrog 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