Why are evolutionists such hypocrites?

quote:

---

Those guys want you to think that some sorts of things just aren't real, but only religious beliefs, so you won't inquire about them the way you inquire about prions. But, keep after sound scientific methodology. It will set you free from such traps.

---

It is funny that I go offline for 3 days and see that your illogical assertions are still being repeated ad naseum..or maybe ad saltyum
I have found a sound scientific methodology...in fact it is the only scientific methodology..and that is why I am a practicing scientist and you are reduced to ranting about demons on a message board.

There are some pretty amazing statements in this thread. I've been reading it from the top. After a couple pages it starts to seem kinda funny, and when I encountered this post I almost fell out of my chair laughing. It reminds me of something out of the old Monty Python skit How To Irritate People:

quote:

---

I'm just trying to stay on thread, which is pondering the question of why you evolutionists are such hypocrites.

---

Did John Cleese ever write a debating textbook for fundies?[This message has been edited by berberry, 02-09-2004]

quote:

---

Moreover, the scientific testing of the theory of evolution, in the sense of making falsifiable, improbable predictions, makes it poor science, as it is usually done. Little or no strong inference.

---

This might very well have proved to be an interesting topic. When do you plan on starting it? Or is your assertion that this is so good enough?

quote:

---

But MN, I can't quite figure out, unless it and H-D methodology are the same.

---

1) You started by arguing against MN for a while.
2) You read a thread on MN by MrH and then said HD was a part of MN (to which I agreed with the exception of your addition of Bayesian subjectivity, and your rejection of Occam's razor and/or narrowing research to specific cause/effect relationships).
3) Then you said MN is a subset of HD (which is inaccurate because MN requires a bit more focus and causal connection, although your brand of HD does contain methods which make BSHD not exactly a subset of MN).
4) Now you say you don't know what it is, unless it is HD, and act like people are making it up.Look at the first three points, and then answer your own question as to why I won't go into the details of MN for YOU. It looks to me like you are simply playing games. This is especially true if you were a successful scientist as well as a philosopher of science.I guess I can play incredulous too. What HD? Bayesian something? Kuhn? Huh? You are obviously lying because you've never given me the biography of this Kuhn person.Yeah, it looks just that stupid. Are YOU who you claim you are, and did you know what you were talking about earlier? If so, let's get to actual discussion. I REFUSE to move backwards for no reason.Unless you are now admitting you had absolutely no idea what you were talking about while posting numerous posts on points 1-3?

quote:

---

I have spent most of my adult life studying and teaching scientific methodology.

---

I find it very hard to believe you taught BSHD to students, even in biology. How did you explain to them to postulate the beginning % for each of the theories they were going to research? And did you encourage them to think outside the box and work on the presence of demons or parasites for observed animal activity?

quote:

---

Your evasion of that challenge is embarrassing. Sorry I brought it up.

---

At a race in the Olympics I could keep dropping coins in front of runners and challenging them to pick them up, before continuing the race (or even starting). That is an evasion. The other runners looking at me like I am an idiot and saying let's get on with the real race (obviously we can all stoop and pick up coins or we wouldn't be where we are) is not.You want to get on with the actual discussion? How about backing up your initial assertion about scientific testing of the theory of evolution?

quote:

---

905 of the world believes that the world is haunted, and you don't even know what they are talking about? True, different religions have somewhat different models for "demons." Rather than write off all the experience and insight that has produced that belief, I as a scientist will understake to evaluate the idea, using the modern methodology that allows me to do so.

---

I'd like to see some stats on that first figure. And then if we also want to continue stats, you will learn that a much greater % of the world does not believe in Xian mythology, much less anything you believe.Now you have used the FACT that you are in the minority, as EVIDENCE that you are right. Assuming your statement above is FACT (making me a minority), why is that not EVIDENCE that I am right? You can't have it both ways.Frankly I do not use stats on beliefs as evidence one way or the other. Sometimes the majority is wrong and sometimes the minority.The lack of coherent definitions surrounding demons suggests to me that they are manifestations of something other than actual creatures. The feelings which have been used as anecdotal evidence for some demons (as well as ETs) has been studied by mainstream science and pretty well explained. In fact, these feelings can now be induced by researchers, mimicking natural brain (even if MISTAKEN) phenomenon.

quote:

---

Ok, just give me a hint. What hypothesis? What were we going to measure? What predictions?

---

On the subject of prayer studies I suggested ways to focus the study as to their causes and to their effects. Was it the Xian God, or some benevolent Gods, or just mental energy, or nothing at all? Was there intervention by humans, including prayers of other you might not have been able to take into account?

quote:

---

Demons, if they exist and influence thoughts and emotions, will operate on the natural matrix of neurological and, possibly, soul-influenced, behavior. I never say anything is merely anything, or try not to.

---

You said psychological "states" were "freaky" and suggested they could not exist. For surely if they did exist occam's razor would cut your demons right out of the picture.I was not the one saying all human error in judgement is the result of demons, you were.[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-09-2004]

---

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

quote:

---

The invocation of some mysterious thing called human nature, when there is nothing like it in nature,

---

There is no such thing as human nature? Your whole argument rests on human nature. Remember Kuhn? Remember calling evolutionists hypocrites?Is there hypocrisy? If so, why is there not mistaken ascription of properties to things we do not fully understand?I have even given examples of children ascribing mystical properties to things which they eventually realize is not true. Or cargo cults (unless you claim their being told the truth acted as some sort of exorcism).

quote:

---

is less simple, to my simple mind, then supposing that dark matter/energy is inhabited by pathogenic beasts that treat us the way ants treat aphids, or we treat fishing worms.

---

With absolutely no evidence connecting one to the other, and consisting of a myriad entities called "demons", your theory is more simple than "I made a mistake"?

quote:

---

But Occham's razor has no mathematical definition that I know of, so there's no way to resolve our difference of opinion.

---

It does not need a mathematical definition.Myriads of nonphysical demons living in dark matter (which physicists explain is matter as yet unaccounted for by current mathematical models and may not actually exist) working on humans as physical parasites work on animals (despite having no evidence for nonphysical parasites working on physical animals)...versus...Humans make errors sometimes when they have insuffient information.If you cannot make this call, then I give up. You are jerking my chain or your own.

---

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

I suppose what I was remembering was the argument routine from Monty Python's Flying Circus (I've linked the script for the famous skit here). It's hilarious and really does remind you of some of the posts in this thread, and others like it.[This message has been edited by berberry, 02-10-2004]

quote:

---

I grant you, by the rules of H-D science, that God is not proved by the Bible Codes results, only confirmed.

---

Bible codes can/do say nothing about the veracity of the
main text. Only that the main text is the intended text.
It does not mean that the Bible stories are in any way true.Likewise, the only thing that the bible codes could confirm
is that there are verifiable versions or verses of the bible.
For example, a chapter/verse which does not have the correct
code should be discarded as inaccurate.Prayer Studies:Yes, it encourages an individual to explore the utility of
prayer -- but it doesn't say anything about the 'power'
that responds to prayers (if any is suggested by the results).Some people believe that the human mind is capable of influencing
the material world. This would be an alternate explanation for
any positive outcomes resulting from prayer -- groups of individuals
might even be expected to achieve better results. Prayer
could then be a means of harnessing those mental powers.Even if the results of a prayer study irrefutably showed that
prayer could influence the material world, it does NOT prove
or even suggest the existence of any god(s). It certainly
doesn't suggest the existence of the judeo-christian God.If there are alternate explanations for data, then the one that
best fits ALL the data is more likely to be correct. If there
us nothing to choose from between alternate explanations,
then we can make no conclusion.If multiple explanations seem to fit equally well -- we need
more data/experimentation aimed at verifying predictions made
by the opposing explanations.

Berberry,Thanks, great comic relief! Much needed.Stephen

Peter,Great post! I agree with almost all of it. Thanks,Stephen

H.You say, Sigh. I thought I made it clear that my whole argument rests on H-D methodology, by which the spiritual hypothesis that evil human behavior is caused by spiritual pathogens, not "human nature," is tested and found rather plausible. I'm sure some of that happens, perhaps with demonic help. Exorcism is a term I infrequently use, since it has a religious tone which I see as demonic. But telling the truth does counter lies, at least to those who have chosen to know the truth. The demon itself, that told the lie, may still be around, telling other lies. Requiring more truth. Actually, yes. Some mistakes are just too weird. The errors are too great, and the blindness to sufficient information, called "denial" too widespread. It's uncanny. Easier to suppose, especially now with the widely accepted presence of dark matter and energy, that the larger universe that we cannot sense is inhabited by beings that interact ecologically with us, symbiotically and pathogenically.Stephen

To repeat once more, discussion of your special version of H-D methodology is restricted to the The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D) thread. If your position in this thread is dependent upon it, then you must first make your case there before continuing your point here.Please ignore the above. There is no administration in this thread. My mistake. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 02-10-2004]

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

H. Very soon! Glad you're interested.(I'm going to skip over, for now, some of your comments. Come back to them later.) We are in complete agreement here, and if this is what you mean by MN, I'm back to option 1 or 3. Basically, that HD and MN are the same thing. Which is, whatever idea you want to test, you have to design studies that eliminate prevalent alternative hypotheses (strong inference). The studies need to test predictions from the ideas, predictions strongly enough associated with the idea that their rejection significantly "falsifies" the hypothesis. Prior probabilities were estimated by asking around, guessing, inspired guesses, subjective impressions. We usually ended up with the lowest prior value that was advanced by reasonable contributors (Mammathus' ten to the minus 73 would have usually been considered reactionary, unscientific). But, as with Velikovsky's theory, we started with 10 to the minus 3. I taught that it didn't matter that much. Just meant that more studies would have to be done confirming, before we could hand the idea over to the engineers. Velikovsky was as far outside the box as we got, through the seventies. I hadn't done the studies that sent my estimates over the top yet--I retired after 12 years of this course, The Role of Models in Biology. 1981. You may recall that that was one of my major experiments, on Dickcissel population regulation. Touche'. I would have said, that the fact that I am in the minority of scientists, given Kuhn's study, is evidence for, not of, my correctness. I am correct because I can explain HD methodology, strong inference, and bayesian logic, and can show how the three intertwine, have practised these ideas, and have a successful track record as a result. But, is it loudmouth, who says that "Common sense isn't"? I concede that it would be arrogant of me to ignore the work of the "paradigm maintaining majority of scientists" if it's arrogant for you to ignore the intuitive sense that demons exist in the masses of mankind.Check out Berberry recent post in the "hypocrites" forum. Got me laughing till tears flowed.Cheers,Stephen

quote:

---

We are in complete agreement here, and if this is what you mean by MN, I'm back to option 1 or 3.

---

Well I never left my earlier position. Now do you understand why I might be confused and irritated by having your 4th point suddenly thrust at me?In argument against your opinion that they are the same I want to start with a request. Will you please stop calling your theory HD? It has already been pointed out that it is not real HD as there have been further criteria added to it. While I was game to let you use your version with that title, now that the "pure" version has come up, it has become rather a mess. You can choose something other than my perhaps derogatory BSHD, but let's choose something else.As it stands your version of HD is not the same as MN, as it requires that one accept your conclusion in order to help shape the data. That is not conducive to good science.As I have said as well HD, especially your HD would not have gotten me through Chemistry at all. You yourself have admitted that your methodology hindered your progress in Chemistry. So I guess chemists should be MN except where demons might be something you want to include and so HD takes over?Why should science use separate methods, instead of the single methodology which will get good results whichever field of study it is applied to? If demons are there, they should end up getting into the paradigms. Maybe more slowly, but at least more accurately.

quote:

---

Prior probabilities were estimated by asking around, guessing, inspired guesses, subjective impressions.

---

This is not good science at all. If this method is good enough to you, why not just roll dice and throw out the most extreme outliers.The second problem is that you now have to collect data to then influence this (as you make extremely clear) arbitrary number. But your methodology allows you to make assumptions about data to be influenced by your initial assumption. This circularity hinders any real enumerating of results.Your prayer studies are a great example (for plants or for people). You have yet to isolate multiple potential causes from effects.In other cases you have counted/discounted effects according to the needs of your hypothesis (to survive).

quote:

---

I am correct because I can explain HD methodology, strong inference, and bayesian logic, and can show how the three intertwine, have practised these ideas, and have a successful track record as a result.

---

You certainly have shown how the three can be intertwined, but what you have not shown (and if anything shown to the contrary) is that together they get you any results, much less better results than MN. As you yourself have stated, your methodology hindered you in Chemistry.I would advance an argument that your successful track record is nothing more than you convincing yourself and maybe a handful of adherents, and then saying that proves you have been successful.I have seen nothing that impresses me as adequate, much less successful in being able to make determinations between alternative hypotheses for phenomena.But let's say you are right. I want you to help give me evidence. Send me a demon that will inhabit a candle I have in my living room. Don't worry about the effects, I'm willing to risk the negative effects for science.

quote:

---

it's arrogant for you to ignore the intuitive sense that demons exist in the masses of mankind.

---

But this is where you make your error... "intuitive"? To whom. Ascriptions of bad things to malevolent entities is seen across the globe, that is for sure. But that does not make it a universal of human belief. Many have no feelings regarding malevolent entities at all. This is also true across the globe.I might also add that multiple Gods are a more popular belief among those that believe, than monotheism. Catholicism has even had to incorporate this "intuitive" sense among theists, by adding saints.So maybe there is not just one God? That would also explain the diversity of religions, better even than people getting fooled. In fact, I guess it makes more sense that the cargo cults were not fooled, but that the pilot really was a god and that everyone else had been deceived about his divinity.

---

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

H. Not my version. That's what Percy has been trying to say is my version, which I keep denying, and there is no evidence, from my statements or pracise of H-D science, to suggest that I have ever believed this. In my version, as I repeatedly have said, there are not "conclusions" at all, and the data cannot be touched by ad hoc arguments. (including being explained away by "fatal flaws.") They can only be shelved into historic oblivion if they are not confirmed in replications.I do argue, however, that one has to accept, for the sake of prediction and deduction, the hypothesis being tested, in order to shape the predicted outcome of the data. Then the real data, unshaped, are compared to the shaped, predicted outcome. If they are the same, the hypothesis is supported, confirmed to some degree. But, that's standard H-D philosophy, which I adhere to. Your claim that I practise BSHD is a red herring. You invent something I never claimed to practise, accuse me, with no supporting evidence, of practising it. You appear to be doing so to avoid applying real H-D philosophy to spiritual hypotheses, which is my whole point. Actually, I have an insight. The H-d methodology (God, Percy, I hope I'm on the right thread here!) in dealing with a new, and right, or good, scientific idea takes that idea from implausible (because new), to very plausible, because familiar and repeatedly confirmed. But, different scientists work at the various stages. Some work on the new, strange, ideas, and are familiar with the way H-D works at those low-plausibility areas. Others work on ideas that have extremely high plausibiliiies, close to one. The three-fold role of H-D science (overcoming subjectivity, estimating plausibility, and increasing understanding) are differently emphasized at the different stages. Plausibility is not much of an issue at the latter stages, but understanding is. Vice versa at the early stages. Subjectivity problems shift from a tendency in the early stages to reject the very new and unfamiliar, to a tendency in the latter stages to be over-confident in a high-plausibility theory.There's a doctoral thesis in the history of science!Thanks, Holmes, for sticking with me through all this. This one insight makes it all worthwhile, besides the fun I've had.Stephen

This is the Free For All forum. There's no moderation on threads in this forum, though Moose tends to get a bit crotchety if you wander too far off the main topic. Knock yourself out.--Percy

quote:

---

Not my version. That's what Percy has been trying to say is my version

---

My point was missed. I was saying that because Percy has brought in another methodology, we need some way to differentiate between all the terms being thrown around.Frankly I believe Percy has made a very good case that "pure" HD is the version he talks about, and you have a version with some refinements. That's why I think it would be more appropriate to stick with Percy's as HD, and yours as something else.It doesn't make it more or less true (that is in the measure of its quality). And if it ends needless argument on nomenclature, isn't that better all around?

quote:

---

Thanks, Holmes, for sticking with me through all this. This one insight makes it all worthwhile, besides the fun I've had.

---

I would like to point out that I suggested this "insight" you just had, very early on in our discussions. It occured to me, and I pointed out, that I thought yours was a good way to try to bring in a measure of objecitivity to what has remained outside mainstream science. It could be used to scope things out until more rigorous studies would be useful.The point being that MN remains as that final stage between possibility, and knowledge, as far as science and education goes.I also pointed out that you will find opponents within those fields... especially in the case of religion... because many believe the things outside mainstream science are outside for a reason, they live on faith alone, and it is sacrilegous to try and dissect it in any way.But I'll be jumping for joy if you run with this insight. I still think your initial Bayesian assessment might as well begin with dice rolling, but at least your major friction with me will end.

---

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