Why are evolutionists such hypocrites?

H.You say, oddly, 1. This is not a question.2. Studies don't all benefit from anecdotal evidence, but some do. It depends on what people are normally recording as anecdotes, and whether the hypothesis under study makes predictions about those sorts of events.3. I never said that all, or even any "study" would benefit from anecdotes. The demand is a non-sequitor.4. The challenge is either a straw man, or M. missed my point. Which is that H-D science can use anecdotal evidence.S.

1) All questions don't have to have question marks, or the word please. Mammuthus' request was clearly a REQUEST, which is a form of question.2) You have stated that H-D is the best method for science and it includes anecdotal evidence. That tends to IMPLY that H-D and therefore anecdote is fine for any and all research.3) If this is not the case then how is the line determined for what research program should allow it and which should not? This does not cut it: "It depends on what people are normally recording as anecdotes, and whether the hypothesis under study makes predictions about those sorts of events."4) What reasons do you have that the specific research programs you tout, pass this test and so are allowed to use anecdote?5) If H-D (to be clear for Percy, YOUR version of HD: BSHD) can only be used in some situations, why should we bother with it at all?It appears only to be useful when your faith is at stake and at no other time. That's bad science.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Well, I'm glad I get you laughing.

---

Well, now that you bailed out of science, perhaps you could start a career as a comedian?

quote:

---

You respond so frequently with non-sequitors, or outright confusion, that I'm not sure that I ought to say any more.

---

This is a pretty pathetic attempt at evasion Stephen. You avoided all of my posts in the "Is it Science" forum. You have ignored Percy's direct challenges to you as well. If you cannot even clarify and defend your position on an internet chat forum, what kind of credibility do you think you could possibly have in an actual scientific setting?

quote:

---

Do this prayer experiment. Pray agnostically for understanding of what I am saying. Like, "Jehovah, if You are out there, give me a spirit of understanding, to know what Stephen is trying to say." Maybe that would help.

---

How about this instead, you do your prayer experiment and see if you can understand my posts or Percy's and give us some kind of coherent responses to our questions.

quote:

---

Not too optimistic, actually. But we can hope...

---

ditto

It is rather simple holmes. Stephen realizes he cannot answer any of the questions put to him by you, by Percy, or by me. Thus, he will engage in a game of evasion much like salty did.

Ahhhhh... I never met this salty fellow, though I have heard a lot about him.Nothing good of course.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

H.You note, "fine" is accurate, but there have to be anecdotes to be able to use them, and the hypothesis has to be able to make predictions about anecdotes. In H-D science, everything hinges on the probability that certain evidence (or anecdotes) will occur, given the hypothesis is true, compared to the liklihood of the evidence under other conditions. As well as, of course, the prior plausibility of the hypothesis. Fit these three into the bayesian formula, and you compute the plausibility of the hypothesis, given that the evidence has been observed or reported. When that figure is higher than the prior plausibility of the hypothesis, we say that the evidence is for, or confirms, the hypothesis. Even if it's an anecdote. H-D science covers all possible hypotheses, including "supernatural" ones. It's commonly claimed that MN cannot be used with spiritual hypothesis. If that's true, "why should we bother with it at all?" I mean, what good is science if it cannot deal with the big questions?Stephen

M. I actually realize that I cannot make you understand what I am saying, because your minds do not admit ideas with plausibilities different from zero or one. Therefore, all the vocabulary for such thinking is unknown to you. Without a choice, for life and the way of truth, and prayer, the hauntedness of your minds blinds and confuses you all, so you keep seeing my responses as evasion. But, in fact, it is you who are evading your scientific responsibility to pray agnostic prayers for understanding, and to do other prayer experiments, to replicate and test these ideas. Rationalization is evasion, yet reason is your only defense. But science depends on experiments, testing predictions. Replication. Ad hoc reasoning, by itself, is useless.Stephen

quote:

---

H-D science covers all possible hypotheses, including "supernatural" ones. It's commonly claimed that MN cannot be used with spiritual hypothesis. If that's true, "why should we bother with it at all?" I mean, what good is science if it cannot deal with the big questions?

---

This is a pretty poor attempt at throwing science out the window because it won't answer theologic or philisophic questions. Could I say that theology is useless because it can't produce antibiotics? I would say that theology is important but deals with different things than science. I don't look for my spirituality in a petri dish, and so no reason why I should begin to.

You can make all the excuses you like, Stephen, but science is a consensus activity. New ideas become accepted by gradually building a consensus within the scientific community. It is your job, not ours, to build a consensus for your ideas by gathering evidence and forming cogent arguments around that evidence to help you build that consensus. The first step is to perform experiments with intriguing enough results that other investigators are motivated to replicate them. You keep urging us to do the experiments when it is actually your responsibility to do the experiments that build the interest, and to this point you haven't described anything resembling scientific experiments that support your ideas. Yes, of course. You've done none of this. You *do* realize, I hope, that you're describing yourself.--Percy

L. Hey, it was Holmes' idea, not mine. You know me! Science as I practise it has no problems with theology, which in turn is a great place for some interesting scientific theories.But, you ought to try praying over your petri dishes. I hear that it's a quick and easy way to see the effect of prayer.Stephen

P. In your opinion, that is. In my opinion, I have.S.

Your ignored the primary point of my post. I described for you how science is a consensus activity, and that it is your job to produce experimental results that catch the interests of that community. It matters not that you believe you have presented sufficient experimental results, because it isn't your opinion that matters. New ideas become accepted when they're generally accepted by the community of scientists sufficiently trained in the relevant field to have a valid opinion. The deafening silence and lack of interest from the scientific community says that, regardless of your own personal opinion, you have not presented scientific experiments that support your ideas. In fact, you haven't presented any scientific experiments for demons at all.Why don't you remedy this deficiency and describe for us a scientific experiment where the outcome confirms that demons exist?--Percy

quote:

---

You note,

---

And then you fail to respond to the overall point. You just reasserted your original idea.You know I DO GET what you are saying? I (and others) are pointing out where it is WRONG or DEFICIENT. Simply REPEATING your initial point does not address the problems or deficiencies.

quote:

---

what good is science if it cannot deal with the big questions?

---

Who said science can't deal with the big questions? How things work are the biggest questions we have.Ohhhhhhhh, I get it. The BIG questions mean whether God and demons exist or not. Well one can assume that I guess, just as one can assume whether Sauron knows if his ring of power has been found or not is a big question. See they both are equally "supernatural", by which I mean I have no evidence except a book saying they exist.For certain, supernatural entities can become a part of science, the only catch being they have to make it off of the printed page and exert some sort of observable phenomemon (even if indirectly) on something besides our imaginations.Otherwise the best we have is the scientific explanation that such entities are written about in book X.To assume that they do exist, and then throw out good research procedures in order to gain evidence to support that position, is circular.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

P.Consider this scenario: I say A, not B. You say, A and B are identical, and since B is wrong, A is wrong.Or this, I say Bluebirds are lovely singers, but Blue Jays are raucus. You say, Bluebirds and Blue Jays are both blue, and the same, and since Blue Jays are raucus, bluebirds are not lovely singers.I say, the hypothesis that demons exist has a prior plausibility of .6. The Bible Codes and Theomatics studies set out predictions that were confirmed by data, based on the hypothesis that the Bible is what it says it is, a contact from a spiritual being who is interested in telling us how it is. Based on that result, now the plausibility of demons is .7. So, the data support or confirm the existence of demons. It is not close to one, scientifically, and more research is needed before we can safely do high risk practices concerning demons.You say, since the data do not put the plausibility of demons close to one, they are irrelevant and in no way support the idea. Besides, there are people who have criticized the data you describe, and if these data were valid, most scientists would accept them.Now, if you want to lump blue birds and blue jays, have at it. I have a better time bird watching when I notice differences. If you want to do science doing the Kuhnian paradigm maintaining dance, accepting any criticism and letting scientific consensus rule, be my guest. I see a difference between evidence for something, that nudges the plausibility of an idea up the scale, without making it so certain that it is beyond reasonable doubt. And evidence of something, virtual proof that it is out there. I've read Kuhn, and the history of science, and the Bible Code research is, looking just at the way it is accepted by scientists, almost certainly true. All the epistemologically self-conscious scientists, the ones that recognize the choice that Kuhn sets before us, buy into it. The critics all argue on illigitimate grounds, mostly failing to understand the basic idea at all. Or accusing the proponents of fudging their data.Believing as I do in plausibilities ranging from above zero to below one, I can sort of understand, asymptotically, what you are thinking. But, when I ask you to assign some plausibility above zero to demons, you say that you cannot. Cannot even understand what a demon might be. So, we will never get a resolution here, on your terms. You will have to become a scientist, and replicate a prayer experiment on your own mind. You will have to verbalize a choice for truth and understanding.Our failure as two humans who want to understand and be understood, to reach that goal, is what the demon hypothesis predicts would happen, without those prayers and testimonies.S.

That you can't even answer a simple question but instead have to go through a lengthy set of special pleadings unrelated to science should tell you something about your position.First, let's make clear we're talking about scientific evidence.I asked you for scientific evidence of demons. You produced none.Let me provide an example of how easy this should be: Now, let's you try it: Come on, give it a try. Or are you just like the salesman who, since he doesn't have what the customer actually needs, instead sells what he has all the while concocting a stream of malarkey designed to bewilder the customer into thinking a turnip twaddler is just what he needs to mow the front lawn.--Percy