Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,565 Year: 4,822/9,624 Month: 170/427 Week: 83/85 Day: 0/20 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 796 of 1725 (603275)
02-03-2011 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 793 by onifre
02-03-2011 2:36 PM


Yeah, experience, imagined, both, whatever. But just those two.
I'm still seeing a false dichotomy.
Yet you can't show me a thrid source?
A bit of both would be a thrid one...
Also, somebody else telling me about it is not me either imagining it nor experiencing it.
So that's 4 now.
#5: I could read about it in a book.
bluegenes writes:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
This is a high level of confidence theory.
They're debating on whether it is a theory or not. It's just the start of the theory.
That is not the same as making the absolute statement that supernatural things don't exist.
Only to avoid the illogic.
How can you have a theory without evidence?
But we do, there is evidence that the human imagination can come up with that stuff. That is in fact the only known source. It's a pretty good theory. Certainly not the end of the question though.
Showing that some are imagined isn't showing that all are imagined.
But yes, imagination is the only thing we can show scientifically.
A probelm with this theory is that we have no way of showing the supernatural scientifically. This makes it unfalsifiable and unscientific.
Sure, but the theory that that is all there is, is unfalsifiable.
The thoeyr that the is all that is known is not, which is the actual theory.
That theory doesn't provide us with anything.
Anything that is not scientific is not going to have scientific support...
We can't scientifically know about anything that isn't scientific...
Agreed. So then the only source for the supernatural would remain the imagination, because if you can experience it (whihc is the only other source) it is not supernatural.
Now if only we had some evidence to work with...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 793 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 2:36 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 799 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 4:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 797 of 1725 (603279)
02-03-2011 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 794 by Modulous
02-03-2011 2:47 PM


I am not defining supernatural to mean 'unverifiable'.
How would you verify it? How would you verify it scientifically?
It's interesting that you are.
I thought I was going with the flow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 794 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2011 2:47 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 805 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2011 5:42 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 800 of 1725 (603291)
02-03-2011 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 799 by onifre
02-03-2011 4:08 PM


So as a scientific theory it holds up. End of argument.
Except that its unfalsifiable.
Plus, he claimed he had plenty of evidence to support it. I haven't seen it.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 799 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 4:08 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 801 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 4:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 803 of 1725 (603298)
02-03-2011 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 801 by onifre
02-03-2011 4:28 PM


Sure it is, you just need to show how the human imagination can't come up with supernatural beings. It is already accepted that it can, even by RAZD. So show that it can't and it is falsified.
How would I show that?
You haven't seen evidence that the human imagination can come up with supernatural beings? C'mon, dude.
Is that what he's referring to as "plenty of evidence"?
What a worthless theory...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 801 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 4:28 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 808 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 7:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 828 of 1725 (603405)
02-04-2011 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 818 by onifre
02-03-2011 11:14 PM


Re: The issue is settled?
Your bro has admitted to only two possible sources: the imagination of a human, or the experience of a human.
I'm still not getting this....
There's this supernatural guy named Jesus, I'm sure you're aware of him, so did you imagine him or did you experience him?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 818 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 11:14 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 829 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2011 12:20 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 830 by onifre, posted 02-04-2011 12:37 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 848 of 1725 (603509)
02-04-2011 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 844 by Stile
02-04-2011 4:43 PM


Re: The Meat
However, this is the real basis for the Strong Theory. In every possible case where the origin can be tested and known... it has always been shown to be a figment of human imagination. That is not 50% or less... that's 100% and not a penny short.
Isn't it a strong theory if it is right 100% of the times it is tested, over and over again, constantly by millions worldwide, throughout recorded human history?
or
Well, if we look at the history of mankind, people have been looking for the real, actual source of SBs for as long as we have existed. We have looked at fire, lightning, the sun, the solar system, the beginning of the universe. We have asked laymen, engineers, scientists, religious leaders, business men, hippies, philosophers and all other manner of people. No one has any evidence to show any other source for SB concepts than the human imagination. All these searchers all over the world have recently been connected to each other via technology like the internet. Still no progress towards any real sources other than the human imagination.
That makes a lot of evidence as well.
Here's my problem with this reasoning:
Many claims of the supernatural end up being unable to be determined either way, so since they cannot be proven scientifically, then they are assumed to not be supernatural. Or, if a natural explanation is capable of explaining it, then it is favored over the supernatural one by default.
But if what we are investigating is supernatural, then we shouldn't be expecting it to conform to our naturalistic explanations. And simply assuming them in the absense of evidence is not showing that the supernatural doesn't exist.
So I disagree with this 100% success rate of science vs. the supernatural. Too often its just assumed or left by default.
Say you had an experience that convinced you that you saw a ghost (insert whatever details necessary). Without reproduction, it would be assumed to be your imagination. Or if you caught it on video, then whatever could be come up with as a natural explanation would be assumed to be the answer. So yay! 100% success of science. But is it really?
You can't use those assumptions and defaults as successes, and if you do, then you can't use those successes to say it hasn't failed. Its circular.
I don't understand how anyone can't reasonably acknowledge the following in a scientific sense:
Strong Theory: "All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination"
THere's the above, but also it is unfalsifiable because its dealing with the supernatural in the first place. Plus, anything we were able to show was supernatural would be natural by way of that showing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 844 by Stile, posted 02-04-2011 4:43 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 852 by onifre, posted 02-04-2011 5:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 913 by Stile, posted 02-07-2011 11:19 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 858 of 1725 (603529)
02-04-2011 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 852 by onifre
02-04-2011 5:53 PM


Re: Ghost Hunters
Can you explain how a person could know for sure that they experienced a ghost for real, rather than experienced something their mind manifested?
You should watch this (I think you're gonna like it):

This message is a reply to:
 Message 852 by onifre, posted 02-04-2011 5:53 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 868 by onifre, posted 02-05-2011 1:56 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 923 of 1725 (603766)
02-07-2011 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 914 by Rahvin
02-07-2011 11:51 AM


Re: possibilities and probabilities
Here's a picture of a desk, RAZD.
This desk is primarily made of glass. You can very easily see the desk and its surface.
Is there a pen in the desk in this picture? How do you go about determining that?
Hell, open up the scenario - is there anything on this desk? I don't see a computer, or a keyboard, or a monitor, or a clock; are we uncertain whether any of these items are on the desk in this picture, with a true 50/50 chance that any of these objects may or may not be present?
Or does the clear lack of an observation of those objects tell us that it is overwhelmingly likely that there is not a pen on this desk in the picture, and neither a computer, nor a keyboard, nor a monitor, nor a clock, nor anything else at all?
I may be wrong, but I think there's more to it than that.
Its not that we simply have an absense of evidence for the pen, its that we have evidence of the empty desk.
This picture has the exact same amount of absence of evidence for the pen:
So is there a pen on the desk in that picture or not?
You can't tell from a simple absence of evidence of a pen. What you need, is the positive evidence of the desk with no pen on it. You get that by being able to see all the parts of the desk with none of it being blocked by a pen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 914 by Rahvin, posted 02-07-2011 11:51 AM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 925 by crashfrog, posted 02-07-2011 3:14 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 931 by Stile, posted 02-07-2011 3:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 935 by Jon, posted 02-07-2011 6:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 949 by Straggler, posted 02-08-2011 6:53 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 926 of 1725 (603770)
02-07-2011 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 925 by crashfrog
02-07-2011 3:14 PM


Re: possibilities and probabilities
Well, but that's the point of contention, here. What would be "positive evidence" of a pen not being on the desk, besides an absence of evidence that there's a pen on the desk?
Being able to see the entire surface of the desk being unblocked by any pen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 925 by crashfrog, posted 02-07-2011 3:14 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 927 by Rahvin, posted 02-07-2011 3:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 928 of 1725 (603776)
02-07-2011 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 927 by Rahvin
02-07-2011 3:24 PM


Re: possibilities and probabilities
Being able to see the entire surface of the desk being unblocked by any pen.
...in other words, the absence of an observation of a pen.
No, because my black picture also contains an absence of an observation of a pen but doesn't tell us whether there is a pen on the desk or not. You need more than that. You need to see the desk having no pen on it.
You're playing semantic games.
No, you are.
Seeing a desk devoid of a pen is the very definition of an absence of expected evidence pertaining to a pen's presence on a desk. Restating it in a different way does not change what is or is not being observed - this is still absolutely a case where an absence of evidence is and can only be evidence of absence.
I disagree. Its not the absence of evidence of a pen that leads us to the conclusion that there is not pen on the desk. Its the desk with no pen on it that tells us that.
Your blank picture from a post or two up, btw, is irrelevant- there's no desk in the picture.
The relevence is that it contains the same absence of evidence of a pen that you're claiming your picture provides us with and allows us to determine that there's no pen on the desk.
If you were right, then you'd be able to tell the same thing from my picture. But you can't. That's because you need more than the absence of evidence of the pen.
But the scenario in question has a specific desk to search. The presence of a pen would suggest that you would observe the pen visually if you searched the desk. If you search the desk and do not observe the pen, then the absence of expected evidence tells you that there's probably not a pen on the desk, and if you need a pen you should look elsewhere.
Its the desk, with no pen on it, that tells you there's no pen on the desk. Its not the absence of evidence of a pen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 927 by Rahvin, posted 02-07-2011 3:24 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 930 by crashfrog, posted 02-07-2011 3:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 937 by Rahvin, posted 02-07-2011 6:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 933 of 1725 (603793)
02-07-2011 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 930 by crashfrog
02-07-2011 3:41 PM


Re: possibilities and probabilities
And why do you think there's no pen?
Because I can see the entire surface of the desk being unblocked by any pen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 930 by crashfrog, posted 02-07-2011 3:41 PM crashfrog has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 934 of 1725 (603795)
02-07-2011 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 931 by Stile
02-07-2011 3:42 PM


Re: possibilities and probabilities
You get that by being able to see all the parts of the desk with none of it being blocked by a pen.
Exactly. That's all there is to it.
This all started from the blanket claim of "the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."
And, when used in the context of your black picture, this is absolutely correct.
However, when used in the context of pens on Rahvin's desk picture, this is absolutely incorrect.
My point is that it isn't really incorrect. You don't conclude that absence of a pen from the absence of evidence of a pen. You conclude it from the desk showing that there is no pen on it.
When is the absence of evidence valid as being evidence of absence?
When we look where we're supposed to look.
Be that pens on desks.
Or 4 lights instead of 5, 6, 10, or 150,000 lights.
Or Thor living in the clouds.
Or Apollo dragging the sun around.
Or Felix reversing gravity.
And when you don't know where to look?
And when the place you suspect to be looking is specifically outlawed by the method you're using (like the supernatural realm is by science)?
These are all examples of when "the absence of evidence" really is "evidence of absence".
I don't think so. Its not the absence of evidence, it's the evidence of absence... that is, a desk's surface being unblocked by a pen. Not just the absence of evidence of the pen.
Why is the context valid with these examples? Because we've looked for the claimed entities or effects exactly where we're supposed to look... and found nothing.
Not really...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 931 by Stile, posted 02-07-2011 3:42 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 936 of 1725 (603805)
02-07-2011 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 935 by Jon
02-07-2011 6:09 PM


Re: possibilities and probabilities
You have more than the absence of evidence of a pen.
My point was that you do need more than that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 935 by Jon, posted 02-07-2011 6:09 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 944 by Jon, posted 02-07-2011 8:26 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 938 of 1725 (603808)
02-07-2011 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 937 by Rahvin
02-07-2011 6:24 PM


Re: possibilities and probabilities
So, what you're saying is that you *do* need more than an absence of evidence of a pen...
That was my point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 937 by Rahvin, posted 02-07-2011 6:24 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 939 by Rahvin, posted 02-07-2011 7:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 940 by xongsmith, posted 02-07-2011 7:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 971 of 1725 (603987)
02-09-2011 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 939 by Rahvin
02-07-2011 7:23 PM


Re: possibilities and probabilities
The absence of evidence has to specifically be the absence of specific, expected evidence in a specific location where the evidence would be expected to be found if the hypothesis were true.
That's hardly worth calling an absence of evidence... The only reason seems to be to try to argue that the absence of evidence can be evidence of absence.
Its better to realize that its the positive evidence of the desk being unblocked by a pen that leads us to conclude that there is no pen on the desk. What we have is evidence of absence, and that is not from an absence of evidence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
If you thought you were saying something new and interesting, or contributing anything other than semantic bullshit by saying "lol, but you need more than the pen,"
You wrote:
quote:
Or does the clear lack of an observation of those objects tell us that it is overwhelmingly likely that there is not a pen on this desk in the picture, and neither a computer, nor a keyboard, nor a monitor, nor a clock, nor anything else at all?
I don't think its the lack of observation of the object that tells us that it is overwhelmingly likely that there is not an object there, I think it is the observation of the desk being unblocked by an object that is the positive evidence of absence that allows us to conclude that there's no object on the desk.
It doesn't make sense to use an absence of evidence as evidence, to use non-evidence as evidence. There is evidence there, and that's what is really being used, not the non-evidence.
You don't simply glance towards a desk and go, "Nope, didn't see a pen, ergo there's no pen on the desk." You look at desk itself and see the entire unblocked surface and use that positive evidence as actual evidence of absence. You don't actually rely on an absence of evidence for the pen.
then perhaps you should try to improve your reading comprehension skills.
Yeah, well maybe you should be more succinct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 939 by Rahvin, posted 02-07-2011 7:23 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 973 by Rahvin, posted 02-09-2011 2:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 977 by Jon, posted 02-09-2011 6:07 PM New Cat's Eye 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