Peanut Gallery

OK...I've got a question for RAZD which, of course, I can't ask in thread:Would the inventor of the IPU (BBHH) being a human count as incontrovertible evidence that the IPU (BBHH) "is unequivocally and absolutely a fictional invention and not a supernatural being"? That is, would the person who actually invented it coming forward be sufficient?How about those who were there when it was put forward by the person who invented the IPU (BBHH)?I realize that this may be considered out of bounds due to the nature of the IPU (BBHH): She is a recent invention and it is conceivable to actually find the person who did it as opposed to other beings that are so old that any of the people who may have been there when invented are long since gone.That is, I think RAZD is going for logical arguments to show that a proposed being isn't real. But, a point of order could be made: Wouldn't evidence of the person who invented the idea be sufficient to claim that it was a figment of the imagination?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

I agree, and that is why I think it should have been a slam dunk to find.

---

The phrasing of this makes it seem like an attempt was made and failed. Am I mistaken in that interpretation?To take it another step: What textual analysis can be considered sufficient to come to the conclusion that an event described in a piece of text is "unequivocally and absolutely a fictional invention"?That is, the most common supernatural beings put forward find their "origins" in texts that are sufficiently old enough that the people who wrote them are no longer available for questioning. This runs into Ham's infamous, "Were you there?" question that he whines when confronted with evolution. Well, no, we weren't there, but we don't have to have been. There is enough evidence (including some bits that actually were there) for us to be able to come to a conclusion, even though we did not directly see the transition take place in front of our eyes.I should think that a similar process could be brought about for textual analysis, especially one that claims to describe historical objects. We've even done this sort of thing with other texts that invoke supernatural beings such as the Illiad and the Odyssey.So again, what analysis would be considered sufficient to claim that the being, object, or event described is "unequivocably and absolutely a fictional invention"?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

I am not aware of any documentation for an author and an acknowledgement that it was made up

---

Why not? What method did you use to find out? It is all too easy for people who claim that "nobody knows" to simply make that assertion as if there were any real investigation behind it. Behe is the perfect example, claiming that nobody had ever published anything about molecular evolution when a simple search of PubMed at the time he made his claim turned up literally hundreds of articles of that which he claimed did not exist.I am interested in your process. How did you examine the question and how much effort did you put into it?

quote:

---

As we are talking here about the IPU, it would be the author (or authors, if a group project) acknowledging that they made it up.

---

But is that the only method? Again, I am interested in process. Is the only way to determine if something is a fabrication the equivalent of an affadavit from the author? Surely there are other methods of analysis that can lead one to conclude that a concept is fictional in origin. What else would you accept or is that the only method that is sufficient for you?

quote:

---

Of course you realize, I hope, that actively making up something does not mean that anything else is made up.

---

Of course but again, this is about process. You seem to agree that there is a method by which we can determine that something is fictional in origin. I am interested in knowing where the boundaries lie. By understanding how you come to a conclusion that something is fictional in one case, we can apply those methods to other concepts and see if we come to the same conclusion or whether special pleading is going on.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

xongsmith responds to me:

quote:

---

What is your position in this hunt? Do you have a dog in it?

---

Perhaps. Does it matter? I try to keep my personal opinions out of these discussions because I don't want people responding to me based upon their perceptions of what a person who believes X would say but rather focus upon what I have actually said.

quote:

---

Is bluegenes alright with ignoring the challenge of providing this objective evidence that the IPU was made up?

---

That would depend upon whether or not that is the only way to come to such a conclusion. Indeed, finding the person who came up with the idea of the IPU would be sufficient to conclude that it was made up, but surely that isn't the only process by which we can conclude something is fictional, is it?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.