Summations Only

But PaulK's examples aren't examples of things that are wrong from PaulK's ideological view, they're examples of things that are wrong from your own ideological view:

quote:

---

1) Citing a website devoted to penny stocks as an authority on hurricane frequency without doing adequate checks on the claims it made Message 256 In fact it turned out to rely on assuming that a list of selected major hurricanes was a complete list of major hurricanes making landfall in the U.S. Wrong! (It wasn't even restricted to hurricanes making landfall in the U.S.!)

​

2) Setting aside data from an authoritative source (NOAA) that contradicted the penny stock website by indicating that there were hurricanes not on the list used by webpennys Message 286 and again Message 17 and again Message 43
3) Falsely claiming that the NOAA list used as a basis for the webpennys article was "the only NOAA frequency trend chart available " when - as had already been shown - it was only an incomplete list of major hurricanes around the U.S. Message 44
Whether the stupidity is in ignoring the existence of the obviously better information that had already been offered, or in thinking that nobody would notice such an obvious falsehood is left to the readers...

---

Buz, this isn't stuff that's a matter of opinion whether you "believe" that the NOAA list is the only frequency trend chart available. It has nothing to do with whether you're a creationist or an evolutionist, a goldbug or a Keynsian economist, and so on. These are unambiguous errors of fact irrespective of the ideological commitments of your audience.The truth is, we'd rather see you advance your case for creationism without these errors, because we're most interested in you presenting the best possible case for your ideology. I don't know if that makes any sense to you, but most of us are here to be challenged. How does it challenge us when you're unable to do your own homework?

I'm not talking about your beliefs. I don't really care what you believe. I want to know if some impossible-to evidence notions are more worthy of consideration than others and if so on what basis. Well Duh! Those who hold even the most insane notions dearly do so because they consider their own notions worthy of consideration.That's practically tautological.

Well, since I have never said otherwise, why do you keep asking the same question and expect a different answer?

Werewolves. On the basis that the moon is full and the moors foggy. You may scoff and take your little walk through the moors, but dont come crying to me if you get your throat ripped out.It is impossible to evidence if some asshole thinks he is a werewolf is really a supernatural werewolf. He may simply be a lunatic with a penchant for murder. Does it your skepticism make a difference if you are his next victim? On that basis I contend lycanthropy to be more worthy of consideration than say the Easter bunny, who at best would pummel you with eggs.

There are lots of lunatics with a penchant for murder.But I am unaware of any that literally shape-shift into a wolf at full moon and who can only be killed by silver bullets etc. etc.More to the point - Werewolves aren't impossible-to-evidence. If such things existed what would stop them being evidenced?

After which I made it clear we aren't talking about your specific beliefs. And then asked: So once again you seem to agree that your own impossible-to-evidence beliefs are no more or less worthy of consideration (by others) than the impossible-to-evidence notion of which you were so disdainful that all evidence has been falsely but undetectably planted.As I said - I am happy to treat them with equal disdain.I'm glad we agree.

I note that you continue to take my quotes out of context and that you continue to use emotive terms and that's fine if it makes you happy.However I wish you would point out where I ever used the term disdain.

Oh come now jar - You are more than happy to dish it out when it suits you.If you feel misrepresented why not explicitly just tell us whether or not some impossible-to evidence notions are more worthy of consideration than others and if so on what basis?It's a simple question. Here at EvC you regularly treat with disdain the claims of those who put forward their own brand of impossible-to-evidence nonsense. You do it all the time.More relevantly here - Are you suggesting that the impossible-to-evidence scenario put forward in this thread (namely that all evidence has been falsely implanted) is worthy of anything less than disdain?Because you seemed to treat it pretty disdainfully at the time...

Had I thought something was worthy of disdain I would have used the word disdain.Again, we were discussing a particular scenario, that of being on a jury.My comments were made solely within the context of acting as a juror.Your question is simply impossible to answer except within a specific and specified context and I have answered that repeatedly.

To be fair it's not so much my question as your own....And you haven't answered it at all. In what context should that which is impossible-to -evidence EVER be considered?

Again, that has been covered.When it is a personal belief. It is called Faith as I have said before in this thread.

So in the absence of faith there is no reason to consider any impossible-to evidence notion over any other?Your notion of GOD is no more worthy or my faithless consideration than the equally impossible-to-evidence notion that everything I experience has been falsely and undetectably planted by unknowable beings?Right?

Well, I have never said that any of my personal beliefs are "worthy of your consideration" that I know of.In fact I have said throughout this thread that in the case of being on a jury even I should disregard my personal beliefs and address only the evidence presented, so again I am at a loss just what you need me to say?

I honestly don't care what you personally believe. Your focus on that is simply a method of evading my more generic question:In the absence of faith is there any reason to consider any impossible-to-evidence notion over any other?This leads to the specific question (where your personal beliefs are nothing more than an incidental example):Is your notion of GOD more worthy or my faithless consideration than the equally impossible-to-evidence notion that everything I experience has been falsely and undetectably planted by unknowable beings? I want you to answer simple questions honestly and explicitly without your usual recourse to "It's my belief, it's my belief, you can't tell me what to believe" (to paraphrase) whenever you are confronted with difficult questions about the relative validity of equally un-evidenced notions.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Your personal beliefs are solely your business and I have never tried to tell you what you should find worthy of your consideration.