Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 56 (9170 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,376 Year: 4,633/9,624 Month: 408/1,096 Week: 3/110 Day: 1/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
Straggler
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 24 of 1725 (501590)
03-06-2009 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by onifre
03-06-2009 10:21 AM


Re: Evidence
Yeah, string theory is asked to be taken on faith, just like religious mythology.
But, the method used by science is one of objective evidence -vs- subjective experiences, and as such proves to be, at the very least, un-bias in that sense
Whilst it almost pains me to side with Buz I am going to play devils advocate here..........
What is the objective evidence in favour of string theory?
I am thinking of starting a thread that asks how maths and reality are (or are not) inter-entwined. Maybe we should take this there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by onifre, posted 03-06-2009 10:21 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 03-06-2009 9:30 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 29 by onifre, posted 03-07-2009 3:20 AM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 31 of 1725 (501621)
03-07-2009 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by onifre
03-07-2009 3:20 AM


Re: Evidence
Straggler writes:
What is the objective evidence in favour of string theory?
Well, string theory is a theory that tries to explain gravity. Gravity is a known force so no faith is required to begin studying the phenomenon.
Don't get me wrong I am not really questioning the validity of string theory research.
I am just asking what links the concept of vibrating strings to the fact of gravity? Is it just abstract mathematics or is there a more empirical evidential basis?
Our ability to use abstract maths to derive highly plausible and indeed verified (GR, QED) hypotheses is, I think, both interesting and different to the normally very empirically led scientific process of discovery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by onifre, posted 03-07-2009 3:20 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by onifre, posted 03-07-2009 11:47 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 33 by cavediver, posted 03-07-2009 12:25 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 34 of 1725 (501680)
03-07-2009 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by cavediver
03-07-2009 12:25 PM


Re: Evidence
Hmmm, plausible, verified, and ONLY THE TWO MOST SUCCESSFUL THEORIES MANKIND HAS EVER DISCOVERED !!!!!
Yeah, it's "just" that abstract mathematics... Amazing how succesful the "sod the evidence, look at its beauty"* method has worked
I could not agree more. That is what I am getting at. It is bloody remarkable that "just" abstract mathematics is capable of this.
Why is that? What about the universe is it that makes this abstract logical method such a successful method of revealing it's nature?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by cavediver, posted 03-07-2009 12:25 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Son Goku, posted 03-07-2009 4:11 PM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 98 of 1725 (515710)
07-20-2009 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by onifre
07-19-2009 8:24 PM


Re: Straggler vs RAZD
OK OK. I will stop.
Well.... If he will stop I will stop too. Promise.
Obviously I am biased but I think Percy's wisdom in spotting this outcome months in advance is the most obvious winner in all of this.
Message 114

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by onifre, posted 07-19-2009 8:24 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by onifre, posted 07-21-2009 1:17 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 103 of 1725 (515908)
07-22-2009 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by onifre
07-21-2009 1:17 PM


Re: Straggler vs RAZD
Look I know everyone is sick of this but I have actually been called a liar Message 34. I have been accused of repeated intentional misinterpretation and downright dishonesty with regard to RAZD's position on non-empirical evidence. But.......
RAZD responds writes:
Thanks again Percy,
Percy writes to Straggler writes:
To me the point you made with the aware but otherwise insensate intellect seems obvious. You established this as a baseline for the type of experiences that cannot constitute valid empirical evidence, and RAZD agreed with it.
Eventually, but by gosh what a wrangle to get there from where he started. I find it humorous that he had to go to the point where perception of any external experience was impossible before he could get to a point where subjective perception was not possible evidence. All intermediate positions had some level of credibility that evidence so provided could be true
Message 150 My emphasis.
RAZD specifically agrees that an "aware but otherwise insensate intellect" is in a situation where "perception of any external experience was impossible". How can this possibly be construed as anything other than an absolute statement that empirical evidence is the only means of experiencing reality external to ones own mind?
Nobody has to answer this. I am not asking for people to take sides. I just felt that being called a dishonest liar demanded at least an explanation as to why I repeatedly described RAZD's position as I did.
Anyway the important thing is that we have now unequivocally established RAZD's true position which is that non-empirical evidence is indeed valid and that it is by means of this non-empirical evidence that we can distinguish between those non-empirical concepts that are evidenced and those that are not. Unless of course I have got it wrong yet again..?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by onifre, posted 07-21-2009 1:17 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by onifre, posted 07-22-2009 2:04 PM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 118 of 1725 (516595)
07-26-2009 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by RAZD
07-22-2009 10:55 PM


Concede
I think that you should concede that it is impossible for any one immaterial god concept to be any more evidenced than any other by means of "experience". Subjective or otherwise. Message 392
You should also concede that the IPU is therefore a valid argument.
You can apologise for calling me a liar while you are at it.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/immaterial writes:
immaterial (im′ə tir′ē əl)
adjective
  • not consisting of matter; incorporeal; spiritual
  • http://www.yourdictionary.com/incorporeal writes:
    incorporeal (in′kr pr′ē əl)
    adjective
  • not consisting of matter; without material body or substance
  • of spirits or angels
  • I know how much you enjoy your dictionary definitions so here are some.
    Surely even you cannot claim that immaterial entities can be detected by the five material senses? Or are those "scientifically unknowable" gods you have been talking about actually materially detectable now?
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 111 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2009 10:55 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 119 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2009 12:00 PM Straggler has replied

    Straggler
    Member (Idle past 125 days)
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 120 of 1725 (516616)
    07-26-2009 12:59 PM
    Reply to: Message 119 by RAZD
    07-26-2009 12:00 PM


    Evasion and Ambiguity
    So there is evidence that is not able to be empirically sensed by means of our 5 material senses after all......
    The lengths I have had to go to just to get your real position out of you huh?
    So all that talk of aliens, Nessie, Bigfoot, men in woods, cats crossing roads etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ALL very material concepts. ALL very very irrelevant to the sort of evidence required to evidence immaterial gods. ALL a giant red herring in terms of the IPU or any other immaterial concept. Why RAZ? Why so evasive? Chess games with words RAZ. All, I would suggest, because you have no faith in your actual argument so you resort to attempting to win the debate by means of evasion and ambiguity instead. It's dishonest.
    See you back in the hypothesis thread where you can attempt to justify this "immaterial evidence". If you think you can?
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 119 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2009 12:00 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

    Straggler
    Member (Idle past 125 days)
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 139 of 1725 (517711)
    08-02-2009 9:33 AM
    Reply to: Message 138 by Percy
    08-02-2009 8:09 AM


    Re: I believe Smooth Operator is a Troll
    I don't think he is a "troll" as such. I think he genuinely believes his position in both threads to be both evidenced and correct. He may well be a nutter. But I don't, at this stage, doubt the genuineness of his nuttiness.
    The question remains as to whether he can be convinced that he might be wrong. Rather than just abuse his stupidity let's find out how glued to his position in the face of contradictory evidence he really is.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 138 by Percy, posted 08-02-2009 8:09 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 140 by xongsmith, posted 08-02-2009 10:43 AM Straggler has replied

    Straggler
    Member (Idle past 125 days)
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 141 of 1725 (517733)
    08-02-2009 11:24 AM
    Reply to: Message 140 by xongsmith
    08-02-2009 10:43 AM


    WTF?
    You seem to be alluding to something but I have no idea what it is.............?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 140 by xongsmith, posted 08-02-2009 10:43 AM xongsmith has not replied

    Straggler
    Member (Idle past 125 days)
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 144 of 1725 (518130)
    08-04-2009 7:08 AM
    Reply to: Message 143 by onifre
    08-03-2009 11:01 PM


    Re: ICANT in the KCA thread
    Hey Oni
    While I'm half enjoying my conversation with ICANT at the KCA thread, it's getting a bit frustrating repeating myself.
    I feel that I have already done my tour of duty with regard to ICANT and Big Bang cosmology. It can be a self educating experience if nothing else but frustration is inevitable. If you succeed where others have failed I will be very impressed.
    Your vid clip reminded me of a conversation I had with my little fella (he's 3) the other day. It started with "Why is it raining?" and proceeded down much the same line......... Maybe I should get him signed up here?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 143 by onifre, posted 08-03-2009 11:01 PM onifre has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 145 by Percy, posted 08-04-2009 9:27 AM Straggler has not replied
     Message 148 by onifre, posted 08-05-2009 11:39 AM Straggler has replied

    Straggler
    Member (Idle past 125 days)
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 149 of 1725 (518387)
    08-05-2009 3:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 148 by onifre
    08-05-2009 11:39 AM


    Completely Unrelated
    But get your 4yr old signed up, I'm sure he'll present much more logical arguments than many here...including me.
    On a completely unrelated note.... (and I realise the peanut gallery may not be the place for this....) do you speak Spanish? Do your kids?
    Given my missus Argentinian heritage we (i.e. she) is trying to bring up the lil fella bilingual. Fantastic idea. But not easy. Have you any advice or insights on doing this in an almost exclusively English speaking country?
    If this is not appropriate for the Peanut gallery we can take this elsewhere..............

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 148 by onifre, posted 08-05-2009 11:39 AM onifre has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 150 by Admin, posted 08-05-2009 4:38 PM Straggler has replied

    Straggler
    Member (Idle past 125 days)
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 151 of 1725 (518391)
    08-05-2009 4:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 150 by Admin
    08-05-2009 4:38 PM


    Re: Completely Unrelated
    Fair enough. See Bilingualism.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 150 by Admin, posted 08-05-2009 4:38 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

    Straggler
    Member (Idle past 125 days)
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 153 of 1725 (518846)
    08-08-2009 8:27 PM
    Reply to: Message 152 by Rahvin
    08-08-2009 5:30 PM


    Re: SO in the Relativity is Wrong thread
    Or, you know...just conceding that he has nothing at all to base his wacky beliefs on.
    But Rahvin he has provided "sources".... What more do you want?
    I'm not sure if I'm more happy to see the little racist disappear, or sad at the loss of the constant stream of humor as the forum's favorite target practice is taken away.
    Personally I find him hilarious and I will miss him dearly. Alas I suspect that his current suspension is just a sign of more permanent things to come.
    Oh well. Next.......
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 152 by Rahvin, posted 08-08-2009 5:30 PM Rahvin has not replied

    Straggler
    Member (Idle past 125 days)
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 160 of 1725 (519167)
    08-12-2009 6:44 AM
    Reply to: Message 158 by Minnemooseus
    08-12-2009 2:08 AM


    Re: My last comment on RAZD the deist
    Well I still don't understand RAZD's position.
    On one hand he seems to say that his faith is deeply personal and independent of logic or rationality. (Fine. No argument from anyone there.)
    Yet on the other hand any suggestion that believing in one immaterial unevidenced entity over any other is irrational and the result of special pleading and he will start banging on about the value of "subjective evidence". Whatever exactly "subjective evidence" is in relation to entities that are wholly materially undetectable?
    I find it all very contradictory. And all very ambiguous. I hope to rectify this here Immaterial "Evidence"

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 158 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-12-2009 2:08 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

    Straggler
    Member (Idle past 125 days)
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 162 of 1725 (519189)
    08-12-2009 9:05 AM
    Reply to: Message 161 by RAZD
    08-12-2009 8:25 AM


    Re: My (hopefully) last comment on Straggler the Liar
    I am not, and never have been, overly interested in your faith. I am however very interested in what can be evidenced and what cannot. I am also interested in whether atheism or agnosticism is the rational conclusion. It should be noted that it was you who raised the issue of "subjective evidence" in a thread about deism and atheism. Not me. It was you that created any conflation between faith and evidence. Not me.
    Personally I think your little hissy fits, wild accusations, mock indignation and personal attacks are just a means of evading the real issue at hand. Namely that you are simply unable to justify your assertion that agnosticism is the rational position with regard to some unevidenced gods whilst remaining totally atheistic to equally unevidenced immaterial concepts like our old friend the Immaterial Pink Unicorn.
    Special pleading. Indisputably. But you would rather put pins in your eyeballs than ever actually concede that fact, or tackle the issue of how immaterial entities can be evidenced.
    Immaterial "Evidence" has been specificaly setup to discuss evidence independently of any conflations with faith. Maybe you should take your comments there.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : Add link to Immaterial Evidence thread.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 161 by RAZD, posted 08-12-2009 8:25 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024