Peanut Gallery

I agree.I've always been a bit fuzzy on the falsification issue. I understood what bluegenes was saying and hopefully I can retain it. I tend to get confused when people pull out the set A and set B instead of showing a real issue. Practical application works better. I like what bluegenes is doing so far.I was a bit disappointed in the last response I read from RAZD. He didn't really address what was said. A bit of let down.

You took the challenge he presented. He said how the theory could be falsified. So far I don't see that you've done that yet. Asking him to demonstrate that the IPU is absolutely fictional and not a supernatural being is not demonstrating that the IPU is a supernatural being.You must first demonstrate that the IPU (or any other entity you choose) is a supernatural being and doesn't just exist in the human mind or writings.Concepts exist in the human mind. You need to show that the entity exists outside of the human imagination to falsify his theory.It is your job to show that the entity in question is not fiction, not his. Invisible Pink Unicorn

quote:

---

I am the author of the OP, I wrote it, I defined what it covers and what it does not cover in the OP. This defines the roles in this thread. If you don't like that, then write your own thread.

---

As the originator you define the topic and the parameters (if any) for the discussion; but you don't get to say that your opponent has to provide objective evidence for his position, but you don't.

quote:

---

It is not a theory.

---

It is a theory based on observation. So the actual challenge is not about whether it is a theory or not, but whether the theory is strong. Show evidence that the theory is weak without all the excess gobbledygook.Even by your OP the thread is not about bluegenes establishing that he actually has a theory. Just because you don't feel it is a strong theory doesn't mean it isn't a theory. You're changing the main point of the thread.

quote:

---

No, all claims need to be substantiated, by objective empirical valid evidence: there is no special pleading, no assumption of "default" status, no passing the buck.

---

Which means you also need to provide valid evidence. He provided evidence. The myths from the mind of man. Your own comments show that the stories are considered made up and not fact. The stories are made up to present a lesson or point. They come from the human imagination. Of course, that doesn't mean the lesson or point is made up. Just the characters.

quote:

---

No, it is his job to demonstrate that his hypothesis works and is able to discern fiction from fact. The actual entity/s\being/s involved in such demonstration is irrelevant.

​

The IPU is just one example of the kinds of entities that his hypothesis should be able to readily demonstrate how his hypothesis separates fiction from fact.

---

The hypothesis isn't to discern fact from fiction. Showing that a supernatural being is fact and not made up is what will falsify his theory. Since he doesn't see any facts concerning supernatural beings, it is up to you to falsify his theory by presenting a supernatural being supported by fact and independent of human imagination if you feel there are facts available.

quote:

---

His apparent inability to demonstrate that his hypothesis is able to show that the IPU is actually absolute fiction, proves that his concept is absolutely useless in determining fiction from fact.

​

This means that it is not a scientific theory, in any way shape or form, no falsification necessary.

---

Evidence is what will show that the IPU is fiction, not the hypothesis. If the IPU is fact and not fiction, then it would falsify his theory. Proving the IPU to be fiction doesn't falsify his theory. I've already shown you that the IPU is a creation of man's imagination.You are the one who wants to falsify his theory.Show that one of the supernatural beings in the myths isn't made up.

quote:

---

Well, yeah. So what is the Evidence? wikipedia seems to conclude that the concept was created and caught fire online. What is objection scientific evidence that something is "made up"? A copyright symbol? Testimony on a witness stand is ultimately subjective evidence, as was determined in another thread. Maybe a complete lack of any mention until the moment the author of the fiction creates it?

---

Invisible pink or immaterial pink. That is what tells us it is fiction and a unicorn is a mythical creature, not a supernatural being.Since the creature is invisible or immaterial there is nothing to reflect the light. No color. The creature is fiction.If one wants to discuss supernatural beings, it is better to actual discuss the ones that people considered to be supernatural beings, not newly created analogies. New creations just muddy the water and get us no where. Man can put words together and say anything, but that doesn't make it functional.Supernatural beings are considered to be incorporeal beings believed to have powers to affect the course of human events. (gods, demons, spirits)Of course the question would be how do they affect the course of human events?In the Bible we can see that supposedly God affects nature or peoples minds. He doesn't seem to interact with that which is manmade. Why?IMO, the fact that people can and do put limitations on supernatural beings is a big clue that they are figments of our imagination. We can't let them actually have power over us.

quote:

---

Or, are you saying that just the writing of the word pair "invisible pink", or the pair "immaterial pink", is, by fiat, objective scientific evidence of its fictional origin?

---

Well NWR answered that question.RAZD has made it clear that the only point of the debate is to demonstrate that bluegenes cannot call his statement a theory. So it is irrelevant whether it is true or false.What constitutes a theory?Bluegenes states in Message 7: He gave his statement and his observation that the statement is based on.Is his statement a theory? It doesn't matter whether it is true or false if all RAZD is addressing is whether it is a theory or not. If it can't be considered a theory, then whether it is strong or not is irrelevant.

quote:

---

You cannot have confidence that any supernatural idea came from human imagination when it is inherently impossible to demonstrate that it is otherwise.

---

So where else can a supernatural idea come from?Isn't that the whole point of what bluegenes is saying?What is another source of supernatural ideas other than human imagination?Until it can be shown that there is another source, then the human mind is the only known source. To say there could be an unknown source is a function of human imagination.They don't exist outside the human mind or expressions of human thought.

quote:

---

Someplace supernatural, of course.

---

Except that the supernatural is also a product of human imagination. So the source is still the human mind.

quote:

---

Ultimately, the testing can only come to one of two conclusions: either it will find a naturalistic explanation, or it will not. It cannot actually find a supernatural explanation, because the supernatural will only register as a failure to find a naturalistic explanation.

---

Why?If evidence of the creature cannot be found in the world around us and the only evidence of the creature is in the mind of man, then the mind of man is the only source. Our minds are part of nature and that would be a naturalistic explanation.

quote:

---

Let’s assume that RAZD presents some allegedly supernatural being to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural, and Bluegenes begins the testing to see whether this being is actually supernatural.

---

Realistically the person who presents a supernatural being as not being from the mind of man would need to show where the supernatural being can be found outside the mind of man or where knowledge of the supernatural being originated.

quote:

---

So, everything that is actually supernatural will be relegated by the tester to the we don’t know how to explain it bin. And, things in the we don’t know how to explain it bin don’t get considered when creating theories. But, things that we can explain do get incorporated.

---

If something is actually supernatural, then we explain it by saying it is supernatural. Not being able to explain something doesn't mean it is supernatural. When scientists can't explain something do they really put it in a supernatural category?

quote:

---

Thus, the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings is a conclusion drawn from doctored data: all data that might actually demonstrate the alternative is excluded because we don’t have a way to ascertain that it actually does demonstrate the alternative.

---

I find it difficult to work in the abstract in a subject like this since the subject is abstract. I'd rather work with a real example. We don't know what the data is.

From my simplistic view of the Bluegenes and RAZD debate, I feel RAZD is clouding the issue.In Message 3 of the thread, Bluegenes claimed: So as RAZD stated in the whine list, bluegenes is supposed to show that he has a theory. Bluegenes says there's a difference between scientific theory and scientific proofs.IMO, this is the crux of the issue: Bluegenes seems to be saying that his theory stands unless someone can produce a supernatural being.RAZD says absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. So RAZD wants to throw out concepts and expects bluegenes to prove they are fiction and not supernatural beings. As science guys you tell me if that is the way it works?Oddly enough, RAZD stated in message 4 of that topic that: Bluegenes said in his first message: I think RAZD forgets that concepts come from the human mind. So the source of his concepts are still the human imagination. So they have gone in circles since then as far as I'm concerned.From message 5: From message 7: Can bluegenes call his statement a theory? Supposedly that is all this thread is about. It isn't about proving the statement is true, although that seems to be what RAZD wants.I feel that bluegenes has made his case that his statement is a theory.What's the verdict, science guys?Edited by purpledawn, : Revised Post

quote:

---

What did Bluegenes measure and where is his data? What, exactly, would he publish?

---

According to message 11 the foundation for his initial hypothesis was based on fantasy fiction and mutually exclusive myths.What is required for a good scientific theory? Bluegenes gave two opinions: Message 28
Are those valid opinions?He also provided more on the development of his hypothesis: Message 30Has he not followed the steps necessary to formulate a theory? Message 40

To bad you didn't elaborate on what was missing.In message 39 of that thread RAZD presented: Now I'm a beginner, so I look at Dr. Adequate's thread on The Scientific Method For Beginners.Over the past 40 years I have seen hundreds of rodents and I've seen them in every state east of the Mississippi. In all that time, I have not encountered a rodent who speaks a human language outside of human constructs: stories, books, movies, theme parks, advertisements, etc. I've even created a couple myself.I have talked to many living rodents through the years and have received no verbal response. Scientists have used countless rodents for experiments and so far nothing has been mentioned about any of those rodents speaking a human language. Maybe they're shy.So how many living rodents must be questioned to be able to say that talking rodents are a product of the human imagination?
What takes it from a hypothesis to a theory?

We're talking about taking a hypothesis to theory.I gave you the back info.

quote:

---

Hypothesis -> Theory: peer-reviewed confirmation by scientific experiment around the world. See cold fusion's failure.

---

Living rodents aren't machines created by man. Rodents were around before humans.Scientists have been working with rodents for centuries. About 20 million rats and mice are used in the US every year by scientists. This doesn't include all the other rodents used for research.To my knowledge, no scientist has claimed to have found a talking rodent. Is this really something we need to waste money on to test? Criteria for Scientific TheoriesSo how many more rodents must be questioned to be able to say that talking rodents are a product of the human imagination?
What takes it from a hypothesis to a theory?I found this interesting: Why is this a theory if it is untestable?I can predict that when you talk to a living rodent, it won't communicate with you using human language. Anyone can test that prediction.In message 9, bluegenes made a prediction. RAZD was unwilling to do this. So was RAZD able to produce the SB and just didn't or was the prediction correct?

quote:

---

LOL fun read. but if you insist on finding a rodent who can speak the King's English, you may be missing the rodent who can speak those african clicking languages like Xhosa.

---

I didn't say King's English, you did. I said a human language.

quote:

---

You miss the point - repeatable experiments.

---

What's not repeatable about interviewing rodents? It's not like there's a shortage of rodents.

quote:

---

Oh, believe me, and check with Cavediver, experiments are waiting to test this. They are working hard to get this kind of stuff.

---

You didn't answer the question. Why was it considered a theory when it was untestable?

quote:

---

This is a stupid line of argument. Forget your talking rats.

---

No it isn't. You're simply explaining how a hypothesis becomes a theory using the info I provided.

quote:

---

The challenge was not for RAZD to prove that the IPU could falsify his theory, but for bluegenes to provide objective peer-reviewed repeatable evidence that it was a figment of human imagination. The onus was being put on bluegenes, never on RAZD. However, Modulous elegantly showed how the challenger does not get to pick the experiment. bluegenes should have shrugged the challenge off with that argument instead of stupidly asking RAZD to prove it could exist and thus falsify the theory. This was never about falsification. It was about the initial supporting evidence for the theory.

---

If someone says they have a living talking rodent, how do I prove the rodent is a living talking rodent if it isn't brought to me or made available for testing?To test if the IPU is real or only a product of the human imagination, wouldn't it have to be brought to the tester. It can't be tested over the internet. A concept is from the human mind, so until the IPU is presented to a facility for testing it is a product of the human imagination.Give me an example of what you expect bluegenes to do without using any of the following words: objective peer-reviewed repeatable evidence. That doesn't really mean anything to me. Use my rodent hypothesis as an example.

quote:

---

Would you know if the rat was speaking Xhosa? What if, because of the limitations of a rat's mouth, the Xhosa he is speaking is barely audible? What if this rat could not understand english and didn't even recognize it as a human language and thus is choosing to ignore it?

---

And human imagination begins. You're making excuses when no one has come forward with a talking rodent. You do realize that mice and rats aren't the only rodents, right?Are you implying that a hypothesis cannot become a theory because of what we can imagine would falsify it or be missed?Are you also implying that scientists never "miss" anything in experiments or they never misinterpret the data? So the theory is valid until it is falsified, whether the "missed" information is found sooner or later. When that obscure little rat or his descendants are found, it will negate my theory.

quote:

---

In this case the problem isn't the repeatability - it's design of the experiment. A human who can only speak & understand English interviewing a whispering rat who can only speak & understand Xhosa is not a valid experiment.

---

So it isn't the repeatability. As I said above, the person presenting the rodent would be claiming it speaks blah blah blah. An appropriate language expert would be called in. Not a problem.You're already assuming an obscure rodent will be missed. There are scientists who speak Xhosa. Scientists do animal experiments in South Africa. If someone claims they have a rodent speaking Xhosa, the person testing the rodent would need to speak Xhosa.

quote:

---

I think the rat analogy has a limited usefulness here.

---

It is a rodent analogy and no it isn't. It is the same issue that bluegenes is dealing with. How do we prove that Remy (Ratatouille) or Darwin (G-Force) are only figments of the human imagination? By RAZD reasoning, the fact that we don't see them running around in the real world doesn't mean they don't exist in the real world. (Absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence)You find it limited because you don't believe talking rodents exist outside of the human imagination or products of human imagination.

quote:

---

You have stated this wrong. The flaw is the 8th word "or". There was to be no test that the IPU is real. The test was only to show, to demonstrate that it was a product of human invention. It was not an either-or test. The IPU could still be completely a product of human imagination, but we may never be able to demonstrate it other than from the deep armchair sessions with the snifters of cognac, leaving a glimmer of a shadow of philosophical doubt hanging in the air like a waft of cigar smoke of days gone by.

---

Yes, we can demonstrate that the IPU is purely a product of human imagination.The IPU is logically impossible: A thing can't be pink (emitting a particular spectrum of EM radiation) and invisible (emitting an empty spectrum)?Now you can add to the IPU to try and get around that logic, but the source of those excuses are the human imagination. You'd be making up details just like you did with the whispering rat. You pulled those details out of your imagination. You didn't find a whispering Xhosa speaking rat.Bluegenes said: The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings.I said: The human imagination is also the only known source for talking rodents.

quote:

---

However, this task was out-of-bounds and bluegenes would have just written that he will take his legally correct right to ignore it.

---

OK, so I don't have to prove to you that Remy is purely a product of human imagination.You haven't convinced me that my hypothesis or bluegenes' can't be considered theories.

quote:

---

The primary difference between the two examples is that nobody actually has any personal attachment or belief in talking rodents whereas quite the converse is true of people and their apparent need to believe in the existence of gods.

---

Exactly!I figured if they can show me why my hypothesis can't be a theory, I'd understand why they don't feel bluegenes has a theory.So far, I think I still got a theory.

quote:

---

We can actually investigate wether or not rats can talk, say by finding that they lack the necessary vocal chords, but we don't have anything to investigate for supernatural beings.

---

We don't have anything to investigate for talking rodents either because the only source for talking rodents is the human imagination.Yes we can check the vocal chords of various rodents and determine that living breathing rodents don't talk. But can it tell us that talking rodents don't live? Since they talk, they obviously evolved differently.Only the IPU was mentioned as far as I know, so just as we can check rodents which are the inspiration for the talking rodents we can check the living animals that inspired the unicorn. The goat and the antelope are two. They don't come in pink and they are very visible. The same goes for stags, bulls, rhinos, mules, and horses.The mythical unicorn has changed from a delicate, goat-like creature to one of simple equine beauty. Even the products of human imagination evolve.How do we investigate the talking rodents?