Peanut Gallery

Can you explain what you do think he was doing then?Maybe we need a thread dedicated to this stuff....

I see. What's the difference between Newton's limited set of observations of "all known bodies" leading to a theory of "all bodies" (which I'm going to start calling schminduction if this argument continues to future posts) different than bluegenes observations of "all known supernatural beings" leading to the theory "all supernatural beings"?Where Newton was doing science and was schminducting, bluegenes is apparently not doing science because he is not schminducting? I wasn't implying anything about your position regarding bluegenes' theory. I was just trying to get you to avoid your pet topic of your disdain for philosophy and the role of induction and to try and address what I was actually saying (by using different words with meanings you can define yourself) - if you wanted to address what I was saying at all, that is.

There is more than one way that you can have a bunch of observations that appear to be specific instances of a general statement.One method is induction. I'm not sure why philosophers see only that one method.Another method is to define a standard, such that observations are to be made in accordance with that standard. Then all observations that are made by following that standard will have the appearance of being specific instances of the general statement which is the standard.I say that Newton was setting standards. And we are still using some of Newton's standards even today. The Wikipedia definition of "dyne" is pretty much the restatement of one of Newton's laws in the form of a standard of measurement.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Newton's laws are a standard upon which observation is based. As far as I know, he proposed those standards on theoretical grounds, and then his "limited set of observations" were used to demonstrate the efficacy of his standards.When bluegenes proposes a set of standards that we should follow when making observations of supernatural beings, I will agree that he is doing science about supernatural beings as they are defined by his proposed standard. However, I'm inclined to doubt that RAZD would accept that proposed standard as defining what he (RAZD) means by "supernatural beings."

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Straggler seems to see it: However, bluegenes had a slip of the tongue, as Panda worded it, and left a crack open in that door. RAZD immediately jumped through that crack. The crack was that he stated his theory in a manner that allowed RAZD to demand to produce some of the "plenty of evidence" bluegenes claimed to have that the IPU was made up and therefore did not exist, not evidence that the IPU could not exist and therefore had to be made up. That was the flaw in bluegenes presentation.As for the Easter Bunny stuff - I agree with you that the big green block of formal statements on the logic of deciding where you are on the Dawkins scale regarding the Easter Bunny seems a bit silly. I suspect RAZD inside is really a 6.8 or so on the Bunny, unless he has drastically altered his worldview in the intervening years. For the purpose of this forum, however, he could probably stake out a claim he is more like a 5.999999 so as not to have to produce evidence that the Easter Bunny does not exist.
Yeah - I goofed there. Many beers into the night. Sarcastic? Silly? Over-the-top? Obfuscational?

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

How do you derive your standard? And why would you expect any observations to meet that standard unless the standard itself is itself inductively derived from observations? I don't see what is different about this unit to any other?1 Newton of force is that required to accelerate 1KG by 1 m/s^2But so what?It is F=ma that is fundamental here. Not the units we measure any of the quantities in surely?

There is a crack here. And words keep pouring out of it in your posts. But it isn't the kind of crack you are talking about. Can you show me anywhere where I, bluegenes or anyone else has ever claimed that "the IPU could not exist"?You keep making this dumbass mistake. But nobody here has made that claim. But you have again demonstrated you lack of comprehension and nothing else. Are you suggesting that RAZ doesn't even believe in the validity of his own logical arguments?Oh you (pseudo)skeptic you!!!Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I am not sure your description of Bluejay's position on this matter is wholly adequate. This, of course, is exactly the case... I believe. I do not think any of them have argued this. It is not at all that there are different starting points, but more-so that one 'camp', as you put it, is aware of more of the starting points, while the other 'camp' is either oblivious to them or (as pointed out above) refuses to accept them.Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

Modulous writes: Yes to all of that, provisionally. However, what I accept and agree with is not relevant to the point.Modulous continues: Oh you missed it! I'm talking about the molecular build up of the clouds water vapor droplets around some dust mote until it is too heavy to remain in the cloud. That is the crack in the door bluegenes left open.If the IPU is entirely a figment of human imagination, as the theory claims, and if bluegenes has plenty of evidence to support that, then he should be able to provide the specific evidence of the making up of the IPU - the creation of the story on alt.atheist in the usenet archives and so forth.Since that evidence is apparently rapidly fading into oblivion here, the statement he has plenty of evidence is false. He only has the other kind, the kind Straggler has put forth. He had to word the theory in such a way as to not have to produce the making-up forensic evidence for every case, or even only for cases that such evidence should be relatively easy to find, just enough cases to get an induction up and going.He could have admitted, in the 3rd post (after RAZD's OP and the Admin promotion post), "That evidence you seek is unfortunately not available in a rigorous manner, like it is for the FSM. But that does not change the magnitude of the power of the theory." Then things would have proceeded to the next issues. Let RAZD score that point. Afterall, it's not going to get him any closer to Mornington Crescent. I don't think that is the case here (RAZD arguing that science is logically invalid) - but, yes, if it were, that would be special pleading.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

See Message 206

If ALL baby rabbits are sourced from other rabbits, as the theory claims, and if there is plenty of evidence in support of this theory as any biologist would claim then you should be able to show that this rabbit (**hands Xongsmith a baby rabbit**) was not plucked from a conjurers hat.Right?

A standard is a construct, an invention. Newton was a brilliant inventor. Sigh! How can you be so confused.My wristwatch meets the time standard. It does not meet the time standard because somehow the time standard is derived from observations. Rather, it meet the time standard because I damn well set my watch using that standard.A standard is not a description of our observations, it is a method that we follow in order to make those observations. If we followed the method given in the standard, then our observation is made in accordance with the standard.Is standard time a result of induction, based on observations? Hell, no. People are still arguing against the use of standard time, at least in rural parts of USA. They wouldn't be arguing against it if it were inductively derived from observations. It is F = ma that is the fundamental standard here.If you were to go back to some time before Newton (and before Galileo), you would find that "mass" did not exist as a fundamental concept. Rather, mass and weight were treated as the same. And I think you would find that "force" was an intentional concept, based on human intentions (humans forcing things), and quite different from our modern scientific conception of force.Newton gave us new concepts of mass and force, and his laws set standards for the use of those concepts within science.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

So - I ask again - How was this standard derived if not by observation? You think Newton invented rather than discovered the relationship between mass, force and acceleration? That it didn't exist before he came along?Do you think any suitably technologically advanced civilisation (e.g. an alien civilisation) would "invent" this same relationship? Not so much confused as that I think what you are saying is simply silly.

Straggler asks: Sorry, I meant the armchair philosophical arguments, hopefully accompanied by a fine cigar or at least a fine pint of something or a fine sherry. Because those kind of arguments are fun. Armchair Philosophical Arguments ==> made upas opposed to Forensic Objectively Gathered Evidence ==> made upConsider this from RAZD, in correspondance with Rrhain in Message 477: Now, doesn't this indicate that RAZD is in fact looking for EXACTLY the same kind of evidence I latched onto from day one (Message 260) in this discussion? Why did I understand what RAZD was asking for and you did not? Now you may argue all you want on the merits of this line of attack in the Debate, but surely you must admit that refusing to address the 1st question asked is a bad mark on bluegenes? And by address, I don't mean that bluegenes should comply, but explain why he cannot go down that rabbit hole.Oh, and BTW, how do you know the IPU is imperceptable? Maybe some IPU Priests will come forward soon and announce that the Imperceptability of the PU is only in effect for the period 1054-2054 A. D. - or that the Imperceptability is only in effect for non-believers.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Straggler continues: YES. That is the kind of evidence, assuming they also presented me with things like film of the baby rabbit being born out of the mother rabbit's womb. A slam dunk, piece of cake. Not an armchair gedanken think tank result.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d