Re: some supporting evidence, no falsifying evidence
Only in your own head does the demonstrable existence of an entity which exactly matches an established supernatural concept fail to falsify bluegenes theory.
It up to the experts in the field.
Experts in which field?
Who decides whether a particular concept is supernatural or not? Did scientists decree that the God Thor is a supernatural being? No. Did scientists define Voldermort as a supernatural being? Apollo? Satan? No. No. And no again.
The supernaturality of these concepts has nothing to do with scientists. If there was any actual evidence of any of these sorts of beings actually existing the role of science would be to assess whether or not they actually exist and whether or not they had the miraculous abilities ascribed to them. It has nothing to do with a team of white coated experts rubber stamping the word "supernatural" on the forehead of Zeus.
And in the absence of any evidence of any such entity all of this definitional horse shit is entirely moot anyway.
This is simply a failing of your own comprehension and an indication of your own "confirmation bias" approach.
Do you understand that supernatural entities could actually exist and bluegene's theory could still be true? Do you understand that even if no supernatiral entities actually exist bluegenes theory could still be false?
Because until you understand that this is about the evidenced source of such concepts rather than explictly about the existence of supernatural entities you are doomed to prattle on about anal Emma for ever.
Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence: Empirical Confidence
Hi Omnivorous, I hope you are well.
Surprisingly well, thank you: A thorough convalescence after long illness may be the closest we get to a fountain of youth. Getting older and feeling younger is a tasty paradox.
I'm glad to see you looking fit, trim and pugnacious.
So to use the term "knowledge" is to abuse it.
To misuse the term is to abuse it.
It seems to me that your criteria for proper use rule out any unqualified use; by your lights, I see no justification for ever saying "certain knowledge."
What certain "knowledge" do we have, and how did we acquire it?
As I said in Message 1666 "... we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old."
Do we? How many unevidenced certainties must we put in the phenomenologists' brackets to say so?
[Matrix/Descartes' Evil Daemon] [the integrity of each scientist and instrument maker involved] [the X factor which makes nonsense of all our measures] [a current sane state] [etcetera]
The appropriate brackets for the word 'knowledge' come prepackaged with the context of its use. I see no reason for a long string of qualifiers, even for scientists: in that context, the qualifiers are understood; outside that context, they aren't necessary and, far from misleading anyone, may even undermine the popular understanding and acceptance of scientific findings.
Before this forum goes bye bye I'd like to get this in.
Percy must be absolutely thrilled with making you an Admin after seeing this statement. I don't know how old you are but this site and its predecessor have probably been around longer than you have been an adult and is going to be around a lot longer after you whimper away with your tail between your legs.
Wow. I wasn't actually talking about EvCforum. I was talking about the Peanut Gallery forum Message 255
Do you have some sort of a crush on me? You've been following me around a lot latley for some reason. Is there something I can help you with?
If you actually are going to keep biting at my ankles try not to misrepresent me, ok pal?
Straggler lurches on, careening into the coffee tables, with:
Faced with the second coming of Christ as a demonstrable fact I would readily concede that bluegenes theory had been falsified. Xongsmith however has stated that he would not.
Whether you or I concede or not concede, we are not experts in the field and both of our testimonies, up or down, to any such concessions are worth - diddly - diddly squat -zero.
According to Xongsmith something such as the second coming of Christ combined with biblical Armageddon would NOT constitute evidence of the supernatural. He would pass off the whole thing as a thermodynamic anomaly rather than admit he was actually wrong.
BULLSHIT - you mischaracterize this. LIAR. All I said was that it would be more likely. I said nothing about admitting one way or the other.
The entirety of science as a route to knowledge is based on tentatively concluding that the most objectively evidenced conclusion is more likely to be correct than the various evidentially baseless but untestable alternatives.
It doesn't matter what you or I or Modulous or bluegenes or RAZD or chuck77 or whoever here in EvC says. No one here is an expert in the field. Do you deny that the best people to make a scientific conclusion are those who are trained and educated in the field of their specialty?
Xongsmith's position is as ridiculous an exercise in definitional dynamics as one could conceive of and his Anal Emma is as stupid as she sounds.
The correct spelling is Analemma, a combination of analog and lemma. Cease and desist your childish joking on this - you aren't worthy of it...to do so is vulgar and belittling of you.
My Analemma position is based on observations I have accumulated over my lifetime about scientific papers published in respected scientific journals (Omni is NOT such a publication).
If you want to suggest that these sources are all products of the human imagination then you are just restating the theory.
You missed my point.
The INADMISSIBILITY of these stories is not because they are 100% human imagination - it is because they are known to be INACCURATE and therefore worthless. Hearsay could describe something real, but - nonetheless - it is inadmissible. My 2nd cousin's aunt could describe a robber entering her ground floor window with words such as "I heard him open it and climb in" but because she was in another room upstairs, it should not be used to convict him if there was no other (to use a Straggler term of recent usage) more "CONCRETE" evidence. She might have been completely accurate in describing what was going on. But the jury cannot use her testimony there on its own. It is only less than circumstantial evidence - supporting as it may be.
They most likely contain a major element of human embellishment via their imaginations.
That's what bluegenes theory predicts, yes. See - you are actually on board after all.
Since when has "a major element" equaled "an entirety"???
While I may agree with bluegenes' conclusions in my own personal way, I do not agree that it forms a (Stronger Than Dirt) Theory!
I don't know how old you are but this site and its predecessor have probably been around longer than you have been an adult and is going to be around a lot longer after you whimper away with your tail between your legs.
Perhaps members who are commenting on each other rather than on the threads they're watching could use PM's instead of posting messages here? There is that handy little "Send Private Message" link beneath each member's info summary.
I hope it's okay with Chuck if I reveal this, but my understanding from a PM he sent me is that he feels he may have embarrassed himself here with these recent posts and regrets them. This is actually one of the qualities I thought I saw in Chuck that I thought so valuable, the ability to at some point take a step back and take a more objective look at what's going on and your role in it. I hope, and I'm sure Chuck hopes, too, that there are no hard feelings.
There's a moderator discussion about Peanut Gallery threads going on right now, nothing to report yet.
I didn't. I said that your point is to render any specified supernatural entity unfalsifiable by means of the Hindu Hypothesis route. Are you suggesting that this wasn't your point? Because it looks exactly like that, and I could draw upon RAZD's Hindu Hypothesis as evidence of this if you want me to baby-step you through it.
The INADMISSIBILITY of these stories is not because they are 100% human imagination - it is because they are known to be INACCURATE and therefore worthless
They are not known to be inaccurate. They are presumed to be inaccurate, and the Hindu Hypothesis predicts they will be inaccurate. But if they were known to be inaccurate, then Islam and Christianity would not exist. Therefore, I demand the evidence that demonstrates sufficiently to be called 'knowledge' that the Koran inaccurately describes God.
They are inadmissible as evidence of the existence of supernatural beings for all the reasons you hint at. But that is not what they are being used as. They are being admitted as examples of supernatural entities that have been proposed to exist. And that is all. To this end, they are perfectly admissible. As admissible as any claimed supernatural being.
On the one hand, you want bluegenes theory to fish in deeper pools, you want bluegenes' theory to discuss the 'big guns' and as soon as it does, you want to retreat to the Hindu Hypothesis to try and defend the big guns from bluegenes' theory. A somewhat inconsistent approach, it must be said.
Since when has "a major element" equaled "an entirety"???
As far as I am concerned when the defining characteristics can be determined to be human imagination - that is as good as the whole. I agree with RAZD that all the different religions are based on actually existing entities, that these things do not come from 'pure imagination' anymore than Columbo was derived purely from imagination (Richard Levinson and William Link drew upon real experiences with real detectives, crimes, scenes, buildings, governments, police procedures etc etc). Even though the stories of Columbo are not in entirety sourced from the human imagination, and only the major elements are - I am comfortable saying that Columbo is a product of human imagination.
It is in that sense that I am saying that either Jesus the God or Allah from the Koran are products of the human imagination.
They might be based on real gods, prophets etc, but I am not saying that 'the inspiration for Allah from the Koran is imaginary'. I am saying that the specific entity, Allah from the Koran, is predicted to be a product of human imagination. Likewise Mr Levinson might point to a detective he once met that inspired Columbo but that doesn't mean that Columbo is any less a product of human imagination.
So again, the only thing that is INADMISSIBLE are unfalsifiable Hindu Hypothesis type escape clauses. Which is all you are really doing.