Peanut Gallery

Probably not, though I have been following the debate.Thus far, I would say that it is lopsided, with bluegenes clearly ahead.I'm still wondering why RAZD even started this debate.

Now if RAZD could just spare us from his long and tedious multi-color sermons (such as Message 14), I might resume reading the "debate".

"Invisible pink" is self-contradictory, so is linguistic evidence of a fictional concept.

I think that sums it up reasonably well.I can't really comment on whether RAZD is right or wrong. His "raz-otechnic sermons" (as you call them) make it difficult to follow what he is arguing.I do agree, however, that what bluegenes presents as his theory is not anything that I would consider to qualify as a scientific theory. Perhaps it can be called a philosophic theory (if there is such a thing), but not a scientific theory.I don't argue whether it is falsifiable, because I think falsificationism is nonsense. However, a scientific theory has associated empirical principles that connect the symbols (or terminology) used in the theory to actual real world data. And I don't see that.To be specific, the bluegenes "theory" needs empirical principles that I could follow in order to collect data that would identify a supernatural being. Without such principles, it is only a word game and has no scientific content.There's probably a lot of similarity in where you see problems and where I see problems. The big difference, is that I don't try to put it in terms of the usual definition of "scientific theory" (such as is often expounded at evcforum). And that's because I strongly disagree with that usual definition.

In Message 45, the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)Great Debate[/bgcolor] the bluegenes Challenge That does not seem right to me.If you could deduce it from the evidence, then it would be a fact rather than a hypothesis.

But there is no point in looking forming a hypothesis, if you are not going to look for evidence.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.

I'm not xongsmith, but I'll try my hand at your questions. No. I agree with that. But what does that have to do with inductive reasoning? No.However, I agree that a theory must be said to "make predictions". But we say that by talking in metaphors. No, though it does seem that it must be said to be falsifiable, even though it isn't actually falsifiable. No. No, it isn't.

No, I do not agree with that. Specifically, I do not agree that Newton was making a generalization based on limited specific observations. I'm saying that the induction story is a ridiculous "Just So" story. It is the philosopher's equivalent of the "Adam and Eve" story, a foundational myth for philosophy of science. But it paints a highly misleading picture of how science is done. If you think I am arguing for the position taken by bluegenes, then you are mistaken. I believe I have already been clear (see Message 288) that I would not consider the "bluegenes theory" to be a scientific theory.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

There is more than one way that you can have a bunch of observations that appear to be specific instances of a general statement.One method is induction. I'm not sure why philosophers see only that one method.Another method is to define a standard, such that observations are to be made in accordance with that standard. Then all observations that are made by following that standard will have the appearance of being specific instances of the general statement which is the standard.I say that Newton was setting standards. And we are still using some of Newton's standards even today. The Wikipedia definition of "dyne" is pretty much the restatement of one of Newton's laws in the form of a standard of measurement.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Newton's laws are a standard upon which observation is based. As far as I know, he proposed those standards on theoretical grounds, and then his "limited set of observations" were used to demonstrate the efficacy of his standards.When bluegenes proposes a set of standards that we should follow when making observations of supernatural beings, I will agree that he is doing science about supernatural beings as they are defined by his proposed standard. However, I'm inclined to doubt that RAZD would accept that proposed standard as defining what he (RAZD) means by "supernatural beings."

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

A standard is a construct, an invention. Newton was a brilliant inventor. Sigh! How can you be so confused.My wristwatch meets the time standard. It does not meet the time standard because somehow the time standard is derived from observations. Rather, it meet the time standard because I damn well set my watch using that standard.A standard is not a description of our observations, it is a method that we follow in order to make those observations. If we followed the method given in the standard, then our observation is made in accordance with the standard.Is standard time a result of induction, based on observations? Hell, no. People are still arguing against the use of standard time, at least in rural parts of USA. They wouldn't be arguing against it if it were inductively derived from observations. It is F = ma that is the fundamental standard here.If you were to go back to some time before Newton (and before Galileo), you would find that "mass" did not exist as a fundamental concept. Rather, mass and weight were treated as the same. And I think you would find that "force" was an intentional concept, based on human intentions (humans forcing things), and quite different from our modern scientific conception of force.Newton gave us new concepts of mass and force, and his laws set standards for the use of those concepts within science.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

I suppose that depends on whether you are a Platonist or a nominalist.Your questions already miss the point.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

I explained my point in earlier posts. You have completely avoided responding to the important parts.

Yes, of course that is how a great deal of science is done. He could not "just tinker, measure and record results" until there were suitable measurement standards to follow.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Oh, bullshit.That's not what I said and it's not implied by what I said.