Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 56 (9170 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,377 Year: 4,634/9,624 Month: 409/1,096 Week: 4/110 Day: 2/2 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 19 of 1725 (501216)
03-05-2009 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by riVeRraT
03-05-2009 7:30 AM


Plus if God wanted to, since He created the heavens and the earth, and everything in between, He could make Himself unprovable. Jesus telling us we need faith is an evidence of that.
Yes - I think that's what we call an unfalsifiable and unverifiable position. We don't try and falsify unfalsifiable positions, we just try and point out the philosophical problems inherent in believing in them. What's more, when creationists try and verify unverifiable propositions, we explain the inherent flaw in doing so.
You know - there are lots of people out there that don't share your concept of God being unfalsifiable and unverifiable - ID proponents believe that there is verification of God's work here and there, creationists believe that there is verification of Yahweh's work in particular all around us. If you want you can debate with them on those points you can do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by riVeRraT, posted 03-05-2009 7:30 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 420 of 1725 (585142)
10-06-2010 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 419 by xongsmith
10-05-2010 11:19 PM


If it did exist - we'd still have to make it up
Who started the idea of the IPU?
We don't know for sure. I could suggest that the first known instance was in the summer of 1990 on alt.atheism, as per the wiki entry on her. But that wouldn't be evidence the IPU was made up - only that she first came to our attention no later than 1990.
Unless you want to suggest that since you won't find Yahweh mentioned before a certain date that is evidence Yahweh is made up, but I think you'll find resistance to that notion
But if the IPU doesn't exist - it is most certainly made up!
But even more importantly - if there is no way to actually gain information about the IPU (for instance, if she is intangible) then there is no way to actually get any information about her so she must necessarily be made up even if she also happens to actually exist.
I blindfold you and tell you there is a painting in front of you that you've never seen or heard of before. I ask you to describe the painting and its artist to a third person who is also ignorant. You have no means of gaining this information so any answer you give must necessarily be made up.
If you happen to say "It's a painting of a Lunar Landing.", and it was - this isn't because you knew it was a Lunar Landing. You made it up and by coincidence got it right.
Thus: Your made up answer is probably going to be wrong, but it could be right. Regardless of whether you got it right - your answer remains made up, a fabrication, an answer derived only from your imagination.
Finding out who started the IPU idea is meaningless to demonstrating that it was 'made up' since this assumes that the person that started the idea made it up. If you are assuming the person that started the idea made it up and that there was such a person - then you have assumed the conclusion An apologist would call them a 'prophet', RAZD might argue that initial conditions were set so that their brain evolved specifically for the purposes of generating the notion of the IPU, by the IPU.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by xongsmith, posted 10-05-2010 11:19 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2010 4:51 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 424 of 1725 (585230)
10-06-2010 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 423 by xongsmith
10-06-2010 4:51 PM


Re: If it did exist - we'd still have to make it up
RAZD's posts seem more radical than that.
Evidence of human's capacity (tendency even) for confabulation and the neural basis for religious experiences for example wouldn't suffice, so even if we brain scan someone and know with absolute conviction that their episode where they felt the IPU's presence was based within the brain and with no other detectable external events that could be creating the imagery it wouldn't be enough - it must also be shown that the being in question did not create the neuronal structure (indirectly) that allows the experience or confabulation to take place!
But really - the point of order is that one doesn't necessarily need to find an individual or collection of individuals to demonstrate that a concept must be made up. Sometimes the concept itself is such that it must have been made up - even if it is also real. The evidence that the IPU is made up is not a breadcrumb trail of evidence leading to one or some people. Though there are sufficient breadcrumbs left for any reasonable person to conclude that it was indeed made up.
One doesn't need much evidence at all. Evidence isn't the sole path to truth - it is evidence plus reasoning. In the case of the IPU the only pertinent evidence required is the definition of the IPU and the capacity for creating. First is the inherent contradiction of invisible and pink. Second depends on our understanding that unicorns are made up creatures. Third - and entirely damningly she is imperceptible to humans, making there is no way to detect her meaning she was not brought into our awareness by an act of detection, but of imagination.
It is only if the IPU selectively 'reveals' herself to followers that this doesn't work so well.
Note: I am not assuming the person who started the idea made it up - in my example that person claims to have made it up. He admits it. He tells us how he did it and where to find evidence that he did. Furthermore, when we scientifically investigate whether or not that person is telling the truth, we find that he has told the truth to all extent & purposes.
And what if the idea was implanted into their head by a secret cabal of IPU cult hypnotists? An IPU believing RAZD would require you to rule all of these things out before you could say with any confidence that the IPU is made up. An IPU disbelieving RAZD would accept the evidence as it stands since the IPU is clearly 'silly' and is designed to mock religious views rather than being a genuine one itself.
But then a RAZD trying to argue against the idea that supernatural creatures can be made up may say something like "I cannot find a single name that you have shown by objective empirical valid evidence to be documented as having been made up.", despite the evidence that RAZD had at his fingertips: The lack of a visible yellow elf on his shoulders speaking in Swahili. We were given the evidence that this thing was made up when RAZD failed to post in Swahili - but apparently this was not sufficient.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2010 4:51 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by xongsmith, posted 10-07-2010 3:33 AM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 430 of 1725 (585369)
10-07-2010 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by xongsmith
10-07-2010 3:33 AM


Re: If it did exist - we'd still have to make it up
quote:
Your first task is to demonstrate that the Invisible\Imperceptible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is unequivocally and absolutely a fictional invention and not a supernatural being.
Was it fair to ask that of bluegenes? To deviously smuggle that in under the guise "should be easy"? Yes - it most certainly was, because bluegenes did not precisely state his theory properly - he left that crack open and RAZD jumped all over it.
But a theory is necessarily tentative. The theory "All rabbits come from parent rabbits." is perfectly fine yes? Would it make sense to argue that since we haven't studied the detailed history of every single rabbit that has ever existed and proven this theory unequivocally and absolutely true that this presents any kind of problem?
So no - RAZD did not fairly jump all over this.
After all - even if we had a person that says "I invented it." a video recording of the invention moment, and a brain scan of the creator's mind demonstrating the creative part was in use rather than the recall part or something...that still would not demonstrate "unequivocally and absolutely" that the IPU is not an existant supernatural being, as I've previously described.
RAZD takes the challenge and immediately asks for evidence that the IPU is made up.
And, as has been shown
a) The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural entities
b) Imperceptible non/interacting supernatural entities are necessarily made up.
abe: Imagine a coroner in a courtroom:
Court: How did this man die.
Cor: He was shot.
Crt: How do you know
Cor: He had a bullet hole in his head.
Crt: So how does that show he was shot?
Cor: Being shot is the only known way to have a bullet hole in the head.
Are you suggesting that having a bullet in the head isn't sufficient evidence for the theory 'he was shot'? Of course you aren't. The evidence that the IPU is made up is that it is an intangible, unusually coloured, immortal animal (especially given we're also highly confident the mundanely coloured mortal animal is made up) which humans are more than capable of inventing for entertainment or rhetoric (and not just capable but apparently strongly inclined towards doing). Like the bullet: the only known way for these things to thought about is if someone makes them up and communicates the invention.
Sure - the bullet theory could be falsified by a suitably observed instance of someone getting a bullet hole without getting shot.
Sure - the imagination theory could be falsified by an actual supernatural being presenting themselves in such a way that we can say we know it exists.
Their falsifiability isn't a weakness that RAZD should be jumping on. Nor should RAZD see the word 'theory' and say that it's 'a positive claim that absolutely no god/s can exist.' It is a theory. It explains the multitude of gods that are postulated. It's mechanisms are based in neural science and psychology. It's evidence is the history of gods that are known to be made up. It can explain something like this:
Parenthetically I might add that bluegenes has yet to address the specific IPU question, instead bringing in all manner of other religious entities and bringing up some mutually exclusive algebraic nature of their multitudinous literal explanations.
Showing mutual exclusivity provides further evidence of the claims being made up. For instance, if the being, Yahweh exists then the IPU doesn't. Therefore at least one of them is made up. And if we do that for every single supernatural entity that is ruled out if Yahweh exists then we can find millions of made up entities. That's a big pile of evidence for the 'made up' hypothesis.
I have already seen that, yes, that will be a subsequent issue, but first, let's see the Positive evidence of the kind "this is", as in "Hey - this is wet paint!", compared to Negative evidence of the kind "this isn't", as in "Van Gogh couldn't possibly have been clairvoyant enough to paint the Lunar Landing".
Sure - name a supernatural being the source of our information about which is known where the source turns out to be 'the supernatural being exists and interacts with us.'
Until then - the evidence is that every single supernatural entity where the source is known has turned out to be imagination.
Therefore - the evidence IS that human imagination IS the ONLY known source of supernatural beings.
This is coherent with the theory 'All supernatural entities are the products of human imagination', it predicts that all future entities whose origins can be traced will be. The theory is falsifiable, has evidence that is consistent with it and there is no evidence which contradicts it.
What else could you possibly ask for?
It is as if bluegenes, when claiming that everything is one of the many flowers we already know about and then asked to produce a rose, instead produces a daffodil, a chrysanthemum, a cornflower, and so on - but no rose. WTF?
Not really. It's as if bluegenes claimed that he believed the the theory that all baby rabbits come from adult rabbits and RAZD saying - prove unequivically and absolutely that in 1267BC a pig did not give birth to a rabbit.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by xongsmith, posted 10-07-2010 3:33 AM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 434 by xongsmith, posted 10-08-2010 9:17 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 435 of 1725 (585690)
10-09-2010 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 434 by xongsmith
10-08-2010 9:17 PM


Re: If it did exist - we'd still have to make it up
The theory "All rabbits come from parent rabbits." is perfectly fine yes?
Perhaps today, provisionally. But if they can grow human ears on mice, the day they can insert a rabbit zygote into a pig may not be that far off. So it's not "perfectly fine".
I fail to understand why a theory that is falsifiable seems in anyway problematic to you. Inserting rabbit zygote into a pig wouldn't necessarily falsify the theory incidentally, if the rabbit zygote came from an adult rabbit.
Don't be silly. Naw - that would just be some other IPU that RAZD wasn't even bringing up for bluegenes. That would not be The Made-Up IPU. In your scenario, bluegenes would have indeed given the first evidence RAZD asked for. We all kneaux which IPU RAZD was talking about.
You've lost me. I was talking about whichever IPU RAZD was talking about. Even if we had all the evidence I cited it wouldn't be enough to persuade RAZD that it was both made up AND not real - which is the standards he is insisting upon.
The bullet hole, IMNSHO, is one of the many different kinds of "wet paint" positive evidence of the crime.
I knew you'd feel that way, which is why I used it to argue that bluegenes has provided the wet paint positive evidence you say he hasn't. You didn't describe your objections to that argument so I can't say much further on that until you do. You simply dismiss it:
The analogy doesn't work here.
Without explanation.
I'm not even going to discuss the possibility that the "bullet hole" may have been created by the tip of a cane and just happens to look exactly like a bullet hole to the expert witness coroner.
Why not? If we're going to discuss the possibility that the IPU actually exists, why not deviously clever murderers who can fake a bullethole sufficiently to fool at least one coroner some fraction of the time?
Why can one be dismissed but the other must be absolutely ruled out?
So when RAZD says "Show me the evidence that the IPU is made up", he is sort of saying to bluegenes that he can't use the evidential equivalent of calculus. He is not asking bluegenes to first demonstrate that the IPU doesn't exist (the calculus-like approach that Straggler has glommed onto).
He is asking that bluegens demonstrate that it doesn't exist.
quote:
Your first task is to demonstrate that the Invisible\Imperceptible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is unequivocally and absolutely a fictional invention and not a supernatural being.
"...and not..." bluegenes is being asked to show not just that the IPU specifically was invented, but that it is also not a supernatural being!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by xongsmith, posted 10-08-2010 9:17 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 436 by xongsmith, posted 10-09-2010 3:36 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 437 of 1725 (585771)
10-09-2010 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by xongsmith
10-09-2010 3:36 PM


I'm just saying that it safer for bluegenes to state it in DNA terms. Remember, there are people like Buzzsaw around who may regard "coming from" as the birthing process. Nevermind, it's a tiny point. In fact, it's microscopic, as it were, if I may....
As bluegenes noted in the thread (via quotes) safe theories suck compared to theories that actually take a risk. This isn't about constructing hard to falsify theories - they're easy enough to construct. It's just showing equivalently worded theories.
All bullet wounds are from getting shot.
All books come from human authors.
All baby rabbits come from adult rabbits.
All supernatural beings come from human imagination.
They can all be falsified - some easier than others. For instance, a Bonobo might one day 'write' a book (maybe they already have), geneticists might create a rabbit de novo. A clever murderer with lots of money and researchers may fake a bullet wound well enough, a supernatural creature may become as readily as apparant as horses are.
Yes - 2 parts. RAZD did not say "any IPU", he said the IPU. True, he did not capitalize "the", but I'm am 100% certain that he was talking about the IPU that has been talked in this forum. Now, you're the one bringing up other possible IPUs.
What other IPUs are you talking about? I'm talking about the IPU we're talking about on this forum.
She's a unicorn, she's intangible and she's pink. That one. There are no other properties she universally has. Some people have expanded the concept to include 'special revelation', but that isn't necessarily part of the concept. Sometimes the purple oyster (essentially a Satanic being) is brought up. It really depends on the satirical point being made at the time.
There's no 'correct' IPU since (in case it wasn't clear) it's a made up entity and nobody has a monopoly on her characteristics. There's just a unicorn that's pink and intangible. And she's a goddess. If you want to specify exactly the properties the IPU that I've not been talking about, lemme know what they are. The evidence, seems to be the same.
YES! that is the 2nd part of the challenge. I'm talking about the 1st part. You do understand the difference! Thank you.
I know - that's why I've been talking principally about the evidence that the IPU is made up that bluegenes has provided. If you thought I was doing different I guess you can go back to that and get back to me as to why you think a bullet wound is sufficient evidence of someone having been shot, but 'it is an intangible coloured mythological animal' isn't sufficient to show that it was imagined.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by xongsmith, posted 10-09-2010 3:36 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by Omnivorous, posted 10-09-2010 6:34 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 439 by xongsmith, posted 10-10-2010 12:45 AM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 440 of 1725 (585867)
10-10-2010 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 439 by xongsmith
10-10-2010 12:45 AM


Any version of the IPU that was not made up by our IPU's version of Bobby Henderson.
How would we know which one he made up, without first identifying him? How would we identify him unless we know which version we're trying to find the originator of?
That would be a different IPU. One that was not made up by our IPU's version of Bobby Henderson.
So let me get this straight, I provide you with a prospective 'Bobby' candidate. He verbally confirms he did it, he shows video footage of the creation, and gives you brains scans proving that he was not recalling a prior version of the IPU but instead generating it whole cloth...and you have concluded from that he is not the originator? How on earth did you do that? I picked a confession and tapes because you said that would satisfy you (Message 373), if you've changed your mind - let me know.
Let me make it simple, even if we had the same evidence for the IPU as we do for the FSM - that wouldn't be sufficient. Even if we had absurd amounts of evidence above and beyond that (brain scans, video recordings) it wouldn't be enough to meet RAZD's standards. That's all I'm trying to say on that point.
Using evidence that something doesn't exist to demonstrate it was made up is not the same as using evidence that it was made up to demonstrate it doesn't exist.
The important characteristic of the IPU is that you can't demonstrate it doesn't exist, no matter which direction you try. So I haven't been trying. Just because I criticised RAZD's ludicrously high standards of proof that doesn't mean the evidence I was discussing was an attempt to meet it.
I don't need to find 'Bobby' to know the IPU was made up.
just like
I don't need to know who the murderer is to know a man was shot.
I don't need to know the author to know the book was written by a human.
I don't need to know the parents to know the baby rabbit came from adult rabbits.
AND
If we did find Bobby it still wouldn't be sufficient. We'd still have to prove that he made it up and wasn't influenced by the IPU (which would be revelation not imagination) but confused by the purple oyster into thinking he made it up. Or hypnotised by IPU cultists into spreading the word of the IPU, while thinking he was satirizing religion. Or one of the stupid get out 'possibilities' that RAZD has actually used before in this situation (which I have detailed previously).
In short: bluegenes has provided wet paint evidence. Even if we were pile up the evidence and bring forward the culprit, it wouldn't be sufficient for RAZD's impossible standards of evidence.
Certainly, in the case of you & me & Straggler - and even RAZD himself! - the evidence that something does not exist will demonstrate it was made up. But that was not what RAZD asked bluegenes to do in the 1st part of his 1st task for bluegenes. He was asked to provide evidence that The IPU was made up in order to demonstrate that it doesn't exist (could not be a supernatural being).
No he didn't. There was no 'in order to' in RAZD's challenge. It was a straightforward "Prove it was made up." and "Prove it's not real.". Both must be done before the theory is verified says RAZD.
What actually happened was that bluegenes presented the theory
quote:
All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination
which RAZD erroneously interpreted as bluegenes making the factual claim + rationalisation:
quote:
there are absolutely no actual supernatural beings, because all the concepts are made up, imaginary fictions.
which bluegenes didn't do. Which is why he had to fruitlessly explain the difference between a factual claim and a provisional theory. RAZD's challenge was not only unreasonable, it was irrelevant to bluegenes' actual position and your characterisation of it seems to be in some other tangent entirely.
If bluegenes had worded his theory the way I suggested, then we have the opposite direction: doesn't exist => made up. And I bet RAZD would have never taken on the debate.
But bluegenes never made any absolute claims regarding the ontology of the IPU, only hypothesised it was made up based on the evidence he provided. So why should bluegenes have to meet RAZD's over the top evidential demands to prove a claim he never actually made?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by xongsmith, posted 10-10-2010 12:45 AM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by xongsmith, posted 10-14-2010 3:40 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 448 of 1725 (586209)
10-11-2010 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 445 by nwr
10-11-2010 7:12 PM


Typically, a hypothesis is formed on the basis of partial evidence. And then you look for additional evidence to either support or refute the hypothesis.
The classic formulation begins with an observation that you seek an explanation for. In the case in question the observation is "People talk about supernatural creatures such as gods, but despite a lot of searching they have to be as apparent as horses."
bluegenes' hypothesis is, in short "They are all imaginary."
Further evidence of this might be a 'god module' in the brain. A specialised brain area that generates agency based models when presented with novel situations. Perhaps a predilection towards personification, of creative story telling, of embellishment, enjoyment of paradox and absurdity. And so on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by nwr, posted 10-11-2010 7:12 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 454 of 1725 (586776)
10-14-2010 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 451 by xongsmith
10-14-2010 3:40 PM


No - I accept him as evidence that it was made up!
Great - it was the stuff about alternate IPUs different than the one RAZD was talking about that threw me.
Now that we agree that would be sufficient evidence for you, which I had already assumed, my actual point was that it would not meet RAZD's standards.
RAZD was not seeking, in this particular instance, a high standard of proof at all. He was merely calling out bluegenes for evidence that it was "made up". It was, in fact, a call for a much lower standard of "proof".
Nope. Here is the standard, strongly paraphrased:
quote:
demonstrate the IPU is unequivocally and absolutely a fictional invention
I once suggested a brain scan scenario to RAZD, in a slightly different (very slightly) situation. It wasn't sufficient because I needed to show that a supernatural agent hadn't designed the brain by presumably tweaking early values pre-big bang to hallucinate things which were reflections of truth. Or something. So as I said - it wouldn't be sufficient since actually Bluegenes does need to absolutely rule out the supernatural in order to demonstrate it is made up.
Maybe RAZD isn't going down that rabbit hole - I was just pointing it out.
How much of the evidence that that was made up was in fact the kind of forensic evidence I have been hammering you guys about?
Yes, and my point is that the kind of evidence bluegenes presented is the same kind of evidence you have been hammering on about. You haven't really addressed that line of reasoning and explained why it isn't. You just dismissed it. So I don't know what else I can say. What fault is there in my reasoning, if any?
Was that case sealed by someone sitting up in a tower, with tomes of books around him saying "this has to be a fake because...well it says here & it is obvcious to me and any logical thinking human, that the progression of the Homo Sapiens lineage cannot allow for that to happen by X and Y and Z."????
The fact that it was not consistent with anything else we knew about the natural history of humans was a rather important point, yes. As wiki explains:
quote:
In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere. Skeptical scientists only increased in number as more fossils were found.
The theory "Piltdown man is a made up entity" was built on the back of the evidence that the only known way the such remains could have been found was if it was a fake. (the other explanation was that it was a genuine enigmatic aberration that was deserving of further study)
which RAZD erroneously interpreted as bluegenes making the factual claim + rationalisation...
No, no, no, no, no, and, further more, no. In fact let me say it again: no.
I dont think that is the case at all. RAZD was just jumping on a technicality. It was the "plenty of evidence" that got him to take the challenge.
I'm afraid your denial is misplaced. RAZD explicitly said:
quote:
you have made several rather major assertions..."All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
...
As already pointed out, this is an extraordinary claim, and thus you bear a burden of proof to demonstrate the validity of your claim. You must demonstrate that this can be true.
This is an extraordinary claim because it is stating in no uncertain terms that no supernatural entities exist.
You have not established any reason to accept this claim that all supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination.
Bluegenes presented a theory, and RAZD responded as if it was a purported fact and has pursued bluegenes as if it were a factual claim, with the same burden of evidence and more.
The point is - bluegenes has presented evidence that supports his theory. Whether you regard it as satisfying 'plenty' is rather subjective, but given the way the thread has progressed I think sufficient amount has been given.
If I said "I have a theory that a koala's DNA is not as similar to human DNA as a chimps is".
If I got ten esteemed bioinformaticians to perform their preferred comparison technique on the DNA of the three mammals in 10 of the most respected bioinformatics labs in the world and they all confirmed my theory is true - most reasonable people (and even RAZD! ) would agree that it was so well confirmed that it would be perverse to deny it - and that the correct English wording would be
"It is a fact that a koala's DNA is not as similar to human DNA as a chimps is."
But - if instead I showed you the evidence of natural history, the evidence supporting the theory of evolution, the biogeographical evidence about the history specifically of koalas, that DNA is the unit of inheritance and some facts about the characteristics of koalas, humans and chimps and comparing them and so on....and then conclude:
The only known way for these DNA sequences to exist at all is if the human DNA is more similar to chimps than koalas.
Would you say that I had failed to support my theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by xongsmith, posted 10-14-2010 3:40 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 457 by xongsmith, posted 10-17-2010 11:53 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 458 of 1725 (587251)
10-18-2010 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 457 by xongsmith
10-17-2010 11:53 PM


bluegenes theory is not
"The IPU is a made up entity"
He doesn't need to show a specific entity is made up, unless he himself enters it as evidence to support his theory. He is saying that all known sources of supernatural entities is the human imagination. If RAZD knows better regarding the IPU, he need only say, and it would falsify bluegenes theory. That's the only reasonable reason to bring it up - no wonder bluegenes responded as if that's why it was brought up.
If bluegenes were to concede, for example, that we do not know whether the IPU was made up - it wouldn't be relevant. For obvious reasons we can only discuss the ones where we know their origins.
So, even were to discount the IPU, we would still have the FSM (in your view) as having a known source. That source is the human imagination.
bluegenes has given several categories of beings where we can say that we know their source is the imagination. Plenty of examples where the known source is the human imagination. No examples where this is not the case have been identified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by xongsmith, posted 10-17-2010 11:53 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 459 by xongsmith, posted 10-18-2010 2:30 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 460 of 1725 (587369)
10-18-2010 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 459 by xongsmith
10-18-2010 2:30 PM


Why all this preoccupation with thinking RAZD's opening post was trying to FALSIFY the theory?
You brought it up, I just explained why it was reasonable for bluegenes to deal with it on that basis. Tche only alternative is that RAZD was making unreasonable demands. So bluegenes, being charitable, assumed RAZD was being reasonable.
RAZD is calling bluegenes out on this "plenty of evidence". He was trying to give him a softball. Admittedly, it was a very devious and cunning softball.
And bluegenes has presented plenty of evidence. That the IPU is made up is a prediction but it is unreasonable for RAZD to insist he gets to pick what bluegenes must present as evidence. You don't get to say that because you can't demonstrate 1 prediction of a theory that means all the other tested predictions can be ignored and the theory discarded. That would mean all theories would almost necessarily have to be abandoned!
NO! This is exactly what he is being asked to do in the OP.
Yes, bluegenes is asked to give evidence for a claim he has not made ie., that the IPU is made up. This is because RAZD thinks that since the theory is about "All supernatural beings" and the IPU is a supernatural being that he can demand that specific example be demonstrated.
But this is exactly how theories are NOT discussed by reasonable people in reasonable circumstances. But when the supernatural is mentioned suddenly even reasonable people can start going bonkers.
bluegenes has to show evidence that supports his theory "All supernatural beings are products of the human imagination." He doesn't need to prove that ALL supernatural beings are products of the human imagination, and he doesn't need to meet any arbitrary challenge for any given specific supernatural being. He just needs to show that we can identify the sources of many supernatural beings and that in every single case where we can do this, the result is that the source is the human imagination.
Tell me - if I said "All living beings share a common ancestor" would you think it reasonable for a creationist to demand that I prove unequivocally and absolutely that a beetle owned by Gallus Maximus in 74AD shared a common ancestor with any of the vegetation that went into the creation of some specific piece of coal?
Sorry, Mod, but this is more and more what I am certain is being asked here. Sure, RAZD will bring in a lot of his familiar old baggage later on, but right from the start, he's asking bluegenes "...for example?"
And he gave examples! You even criticised him for bringing up examples because they happened not to be the IPU!
bluegenes theorizes that ALL supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination. He is not claiming that all he needs is 1 or even at least 67,283 demonstrated to be made up - he's claiming that ALL of them are made up.
He is not claiming that all of them are made up. He has a theory that all of them are made up. These are different positions.
If you claim that they are all made up, you need to show that all of them are made up.
If your theory is that they are all made up, you need to provide supporting evidence, and never encounter falsifying evidence.
You've just done what you said RAZD wasn't doing - viz you are claiming bluegenes is making a factual claim despite the fact he has stressed that it is a theory. This is precisely what happens to creationists when their supernatural claim is challenged - they make demands as if the person positing a general theory was making an absolute factual claim about all the things the theory covers.
That's because bluegenes has tunnel vision. The only reasonable reason? How about "Let's see what you got on the table?". This isn't a game of poker where you don't reveal your hole card until the bet is called - you lay your cards right out on the table at the start.
which bluegenes did. But a theory's opponents don't get to make demands as to which evidence counts. All of it counts.
ObFalsification: bluegenes theory can also be falsified, as written, by scientific evidence that there is a supernatural being that is a figment of another species of life's imagination somewhere here on earth or elsewhere.
Correct, he would need to lose the old theory and adopt a modified version - as is often the case as we learn more in science.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 459 by xongsmith, posted 10-18-2010 2:30 PM xongsmith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 490 of 1725 (590307)
11-07-2010 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 489 by xongsmith
11-07-2010 11:20 AM


Re: blue in the face
RAZD is holding up a STOP sign at the first conclusion, namely the conclusion that all supernatural things we have heard about are things that are made up out of the human imagination.
I missed this, where did bluegenes say this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by xongsmith, posted 11-07-2010 11:20 AM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 492 by xongsmith, posted 11-07-2010 7:09 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 495 of 1725 (590380)
11-07-2010 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 492 by xongsmith
11-07-2010 7:09 PM


Re: blue in the face
You said
RAZD is holding up a STOP sign at the first conclusion, namely the conclusion that all supernatural things we have heard about are things that are made up out of the human imagination.
Suggesting that bluegenes had concluded that the set of all supernatural things we have heard about are made up.
But bluegenes actually said
quote:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
This is a high level of confidence theory
Firstly, that he has a theory. Then he says
quote:
The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings,
First he gives a theory, then he gives a fact. He does not conclude that " all supernatural things we have heard about are things that are made up out of the human imagination" anywhere. Just that in the cases where we know the source, that source is the human imagination and that he has a falsifiable theory, with supporting evidence, that has yet to be falsified.
This seems consistent with the salient part of Straggler's point:
quote:
Bluegenes is claiming that there is a highly evidenced and known source of supernatural concepts
aka the imagination. And that
quote:
conversely there is no positive evidence in favour of their actual existence.
the theory has not been falsified.
I see that you, Straggler and bluegenes all come from the UK and RAZD & I are from the States. Hmm. Perhaps it's only a language problem.
We could have the same conversation about the theory that all chimpanzees are closely related to all humans along with the fact that all known DNA comparisons are consistent with that theory - and I'm sure the confusion wouldn't be so stark, so while I agree there is a problem - I don't think it is cultural. I think it's metaphysical. That is: I think the reservation is that the theory in dispute is centred around the supernatural.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by xongsmith, posted 11-07-2010 7:09 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by xongsmith, posted 11-08-2010 9:11 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 498 of 1725 (590551)
11-08-2010 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 497 by Straggler
11-08-2010 2:25 PM


Science is pseudoskeptical
In your much vaunted logic exercise you say that the Strong Atheist position (as defined by you) i.e. the conclusion that the non-occurrance of this is more likely is a "logically invalid position".
As near as I can tell - RAZD is arguing that science is logically invalid. Since it builds theories and defines facts based on 'some' that state 'all' and suffers from all the problems of induction that RAZD demands science should actually be silent on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 497 by Straggler, posted 11-08-2010 2:25 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 502 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-08-2010 10:22 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 503 by xongsmith, posted 11-08-2010 10:35 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 506 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 7:02 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 507 of 1725 (590631)
11-09-2010 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 499 by xongsmith
11-08-2010 9:11 PM


inductive reasoning
Would you agree that inductive reasoning is an essential part of the scientific method? That Newton didn't examine every single mass interaction that has ever or will ever take place before deriving the laws of motion, gravity etc? That we haven't tested the DNA of all Chimpanzees and all Humans? That it is perfectly fine from a scientific point of view to say "All known Chimp and Human DNA is consistent with the theory that they ALL share recent common ancestry"?
This is the "Ace of Spades" logic you speak of. It's right there in science.
Would you agree that a theory must make predictions?
Would you agree that if those predictions are risky, that makes the theory better (eg, if the prediction fails - the theory is falsified is risky)?
Would you agree that a theory should be falsifiable?
Would you agree that a theory must be consistent with all the known evidence?
If you you agree with all of these - could you please explain what the problem with bluegenes theory as he stated it was?
You claim "He screwed up on a technicality" but all you offer as evidence of this is that he stated the wording of his theory, and his claim that all known evidence is consistent with it. This is a technical point, but I fail to see the screw up.
But, to use that example, the analogy of RAZD's 1st Task is to show rain forming in a cloud. It is not to show that rain cannot form elsewhere and falsify the theory.
Yes, bluegenes has given evidence that humans regularly imagine supernatural beings. So we know that analogous rain does form in analogous clouds. The theory "all rain forms in clouds" is consistent with all the evidence and is not falsified by any.
He is not looking for arguments like "there are no other clouds in the area, so it has to come from this cloud" coupled with arguments like "this rain has particularly unique characteristics in it that can only come from inside clouds of this cloud's type". That would be relying on a deck of cards.
Relying on a deck of cards is intrinsic to science. The very next card we examine may falsify our theory, but that's what it means to be falsifiable. We know the next card may falsify our theory. We're comfortable with that and it doesn't make bluegenes' argument any weaker than any other scientific theory to point this out. Bluegenes has challenged RAZD to pick any card he wants in order to falsify his theory. RAZD has not so far done so.
Again you seem to be telling me that RAZD is arguing that science is logically invalid - despite also telling me that this is 'silly'. It is possibly true that science is logically invalid - and has been argued by many before. The difference is, that if RAZD reserves this argument only for hypothesis related to supernatural beliefs and does not bring it up for other theories then this is special pleading, no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 499 by xongsmith, posted 11-08-2010 9:11 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 508 by nwr, posted 11-09-2010 9:17 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 519 by xongsmith, posted 11-09-2010 1:16 PM Modulous has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024