Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 56 (9170 total)
4 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
Panda
Member (Idle past 3772 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 444 of 1725 (586175)
10-11-2010 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 443 by nwr
10-11-2010 5:58 PM


nwr writes:
If you could deduce it from the evidence, then it would be a fact rather than a hypothesis.
I would avoid using the word 'fact' - it all goes a bit Pete when people start using words like 'fact', 'truth' and 'proof'.
I think RAZD is objecting to forming a hypothesis and then looking for evidence since a hypothesis is "a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon" [Wiki].
This requires phenomenon to be first observed.
Personally, I think RADZ was picking on a 'slip of the tongue'.
But then I think the whole discussion is based on vague nuances that the written word is not good at communicating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by nwr, posted 10-11-2010 5:58 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 445 by nwr, posted 10-11-2010 7:12 PM Panda has replied
 Message 452 by xongsmith, posted 10-14-2010 4:43 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3772 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 446 of 1725 (586180)
10-11-2010 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 445 by nwr
10-11-2010 7:12 PM


nwr writes:
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 agree.
But RADZ is picking up on Bluegenes phrase: "starting with the stated hypothesis.".
RADZ is saying that you should start with evidence and then explain it.
However, I am not convinced that how it starts is important.
If Newton had dropped his Scrabble game and the letters randomly spelt out:
"every action has an equal and opposite reaction"
which he then went and confirmed by experimentation - I see no reason to criticise the hypothesis or his results.
Sure, you could say he wasn't a genius - he was just lucky, but that is not connected to the veracity of his hypothesis.

Always remember: Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by onifre, posted 10-11-2010 10:40 PM Panda has replied
 Message 453 by xongsmith, posted 10-14-2010 4:58 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3772 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 449 of 1725 (586249)
10-12-2010 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 447 by onifre
10-11-2010 10:40 PM


Re: Idea, or hypothesis?
Onifire writes:
What you're describing IMO is an idea born from a random event, which could happen to, by pure chance, bare some truth to the way reality functions. Who knows, stranger things have happened. But that is not what a "hypothesis" is.
I am failing to see how "an idea that explains observations" is different from "a hypothesis that explains observations".
But, IMHO, the whole RADZ/Bluegenes debate seems more like 'arguing the toss' than 'discussion'.
If you look at the difficulty that people are having defining 'supernatural', I doubt if an agreement on "All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination" is anywhere close.
I am more on the side of "The word 'supernatural' is a figment of the human imagination".
Edited by Panda, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by onifre, posted 10-11-2010 10:40 PM onifre has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3772 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 456 of 1725 (587218)
10-17-2010 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 455 by Straggler
10-17-2010 6:07 PM


Straggler writes:
What "slip of the tongue"?
Re-reading the posts (and in particular, the quote) I am thinking that I misunderstood it.
I can still see what I thought was a 'typo', but I am now not so sure that it was.
Anyway...it still seems to me that they are dancing around some very minor differences, but have somehow managed to look like they are at polar opposites.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by Straggler, posted 10-17-2010 6:07 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 467 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2010 8:40 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3772 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 471 of 1725 (587508)
10-19-2010 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 470 by Straggler
10-19-2010 7:43 AM


Re: Mutual Exclusivity
Straggler writes:
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I think it is Mornington Crescent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 470 by Straggler, posted 10-19-2010 7:43 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by xongsmith, posted 10-19-2010 4:54 PM Panda has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3772 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 475 of 1725 (587792)
10-20-2010 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 472 by xongsmith
10-19-2010 4:54 PM


Re: Mornington Crescent in the Peanut Gallery!
xongsmith writes:
Panda, you are welcome to join in!
Although I was a fan of ISIHAC I never really 'got' Mornington Crescent.
And listening to Jeremy Hardy sing was enough to drive a person to drink (and back again)!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by xongsmith, posted 10-19-2010 4:54 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3772 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 620 of 1725 (593935)
11-30-2010 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 617 by New Cat's Eye
11-30-2010 1:10 PM


CS writes:
Sure, for mundane things like gravity operating, our confidence can be so high that it is simply unreasonable to consider it unlikely to stop.
So, we observe gravity operating (in a consistant manner) in the past and inductively reason that it will continue to operate (in a consistant manner) in the future.
Sounds reasonable.
CS writes:
But it doesn't matter how many people you show that can't fly or can't turn invisible, you're still not showing that there aren't any superpowered superheroes.
No, but we can observe that we have only ever seen a superhero in comics and reason that they only exist in comics.
And since comics are the product of human imagination: superheroes are the product of human imagination.
CS writes:
Just like all the observed swans being white isn't saying that there isn't a black one out there.
Correct. The observation isn't saying anything.
It is the observer that is saying that all swans are white.
That is how how hypotheses are made.
CS writes:
With all the unseen evidence that will presumably come to light, I don't think its reasonable to be so confident as to consider most likely these theories that don't follow from actual evidence but instead rely on inductive probability.
Inductive reasoning does follow actual evidence.
We makes observations and inductive reasoning allows us to predict (tentatively) future behaviour/events.
That prediction is called a hypothesis because it is not a fact.
If it was a fact: we would call it a fact.
CS writes:
You never know when you're going to be shown to be wrong, here's a list of people with superpowers:
That is called 'falsification'.
'Falsifiability' is considered essential to any worthwhile hypothesis.
Why do you think that hypotheses cannot be shown to be wrong?
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 617 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2010 1:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 621 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2010 2:30 PM Panda has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3772 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 622 of 1725 (593967)
11-30-2010 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 621 by New Cat's Eye
11-30-2010 2:30 PM


CS writes:
Actually, that there doesn't sound all that reasonable to me. There's a lot more to it to conclude that gravity will continue to operate in a consistant manner than simply the observation that it has in the past.
What would that "a lot more to it" be?
How are else are you predicting the future behaviour of gravity if not using its past behaviour?
CS writes:
Panda writes:
No, but we can observe that we have only ever seen a superhero in comics and reason that they only exist in comics.
And since comics are the product of human imagination: superheroes are the product of human imagination.
Pssh Your observation is, like, totally wrong:
No. My observation was like totally correct.
My observation was correct - my reasoning was sound.
Your link to more information does not retroactively invalidate my observation.
Again you seem to think that hypotheses are statements of 'truth' or 'fact'.
I suggest you look up 'falsification' - it will help you understand.
CS writes:
How shallow and pedantic...
I was not being shallow or pedantic.
I'd appreciate it if you put effort into understanding what I'm actually trying to say rather than simply trying to shoehorn faults into my position to disagree with.
Your sentence was a mess:
quote:
Just like all the observed swans being white isn't saying that there isn't a black one out there.
"All the observed swans being white" is the observation.
"there isn't a black one out there." is the hypothesis.
Observations say nothing about hypotheses - hypotheses talk about observations.
When you learn the correct order of the scientific method it will all become clear.
CS writes:
I was typing about theories that don't follow from actual evidence but instead rely on inductive probability. And not all inductive reasoning has to follow from actual evidence.
I infer from your repeated use of the word 'actual' (which would normally be superfluous) that you wish to equivocate over the meaning of 'evidence'.
To mitigate this: please describe what you consider to be 'actual evidence' and what you consider to not be 'actual evidence'?
CS writes:
Panda writes:
Why do you think that hypotheses cannot be shown to be wrong?
What the hell are you going on about? How could you even think that I think that from the words that I actually typed?
Well, your comment regarding your ignorance of falsification is one reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 621 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2010 2:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 623 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2010 10:58 PM Panda has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3772 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 624 of 1725 (594005)
12-01-2010 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 623 by New Cat's Eye
11-30-2010 10:58 PM


You seem more interested in trolling than debating.
I'll leave you to it.
{abe}
And congratualtions on squeezing so much equivocation into so few words.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 623 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2010 10:58 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3772 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 633 of 1725 (594104)
12-01-2010 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 630 by Blue Jay
12-01-2010 5:28 PM


Re: I got it!
Bluejay writes:
But, my apologies to Straggler and Bluegenes for dragging the discussion on with my misunderstanding like this. I accept that Bluegenes' theory is falsifiable and counts as a scientific theory.
I feel forced to point out the blatant maturity behind this post.
How dare you admit your mistake!
I have given your post a score of 5 as a protest against such behaviour.
I hope you feel deeply ashamed at your display of strength of character.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 630 by Blue Jay, posted 12-01-2010 5:28 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3772 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 652 of 1725 (594517)
12-03-2010 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 650 by Straggler
12-03-2010 12:37 PM


Re: I got it!
Can I ask both yourself and Xongsmith to agree that 'why' and 'how' are interchangeable in common parlance.
I think that you both agree that science doesn't answer 'why?' in the 'meaning of life' sense.
But people do often say (e.g.) "I know why my father is ill. He has glandular fever."
(This is correct use in a normal conversation, but inaccurate in a scientific discussion.)
When posting in forums it is easy to forget to be completely precise over our words, because in spoken conversations we can take much more for granted and convey extra information using 'physical' means.
The fact that Jon is wanting to equivocate over the meaning of 'why' should be enough of a clue for you both to realise that you are having a fruitless arguement (especially when it was just an honest mistake to start with).
I hope this doesn't sound patronising, as it is not meant to be.
I would just like your discussion to continue as it was, without taking what is IMHO a 'wrong turn' in the debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 650 by Straggler, posted 12-03-2010 12:37 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 653 by Straggler, posted 12-03-2010 6:24 PM Panda has replied
 Message 656 by xongsmith, posted 12-03-2010 8:58 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied
 Message 658 by Jon, posted 12-03-2010 11:08 PM Panda has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3772 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 654 of 1725 (594522)
12-03-2010 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 653 by Straggler
12-03-2010 6:24 PM


Re: I got it!
Straggler writes:
Indeed. But what does? Philosophy maybe....? Theology? I don't think so.
I view the question "What is the meaning of life?" much the same as I view the question "Does god exist?" - as an ignostic.
You might define your life as "The time between birth and death" but that seems to be too impirical to allow the question "What does it mean?" to have any possible answer.
(Much like Dawkins example of "What colour is jealousy?".)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 653 by Straggler, posted 12-03-2010 6:24 PM Straggler has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3772 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 673 of 1725 (598145)
12-28-2010 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 668 by xongsmith
12-28-2010 4:56 AM


Re: Dawn Bertot/arachnophilia on deconversion
I have proved that Dawn guesses what people write.
This means that intelligent discourse is pointless and education is unlikely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 668 by xongsmith, posted 12-28-2010 4:56 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3772 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 687 of 1725 (599028)
01-04-2011 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 686 by xongsmith
01-04-2011 5:55 PM


Re: Dawn Bertot/arachnophilia on deconversion
xongsmith writes:
arachnophilia in Message 562, responding to Dawn, makes another funny satire of Dawn's writing abilities:
Shhh....Let's see how DB replies to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 686 by xongsmith, posted 01-04-2011 5:55 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3772 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 689 of 1725 (599090)
01-04-2011 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 688 by arachnophilia
01-04-2011 9:10 PM


Re: Dawn Bertot/arachnophilia on deconversion
arachnophilia writes:
and it's not like dawn reads my posts anyways.
If you place it so that it can't be avoided, then DB will reply to it - as if it is not nonsense.
DB: Why do you think that Jesus said that?
A: Because he is the son of God. All he says is when goodness backs with The Bible, there cannot be doubt. Soon all messages give salvation under the wings of God and to the left and right. Forgiveness is not when there is. Maybe because the chosen itself.
I think he finds evangelical words to be comforting - even if they are in a random order.
Use them and he'll reply in a friendly manner.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 688 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2011 9:10 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 690 by ringo, posted 01-04-2011 9:27 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied
 Message 691 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2011 10:45 PM Panda 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