Peanut Gallery

You're absolutely correct.
Bluegenes has a perfectly fine scientific theory.
As well, you have a perfectly fine one going with talking rodents.I even took it a step further and offered an absurd example of a scientific theory on something that is known to be incorrect by the external observer (repeated below). And no one cared to even attempt to point out why this shouldn't be considered a strong scientific theory (mostly because it should be, if you follow how science works).Science doesn't make statements about what absolute truth is.
Science is about trying to describe "truth" by means of describing the data we have, but it says nothing about what truth is. Science only makes statements about the evidence we have in front of us.
Science is about "what we see in front of us." Not "what absolute truth actually is."If we can gather enough data, we may be able to become "the external observer" for certain situations and use that birds-eye-view to speak plainly about "the truth" for a given situation. But this is not what science describes. Science describes the data we have available to us, always. Expanding that data into larger and larger areas is driven by curiosity, not science. Data is only used by science once it is available to us.Once that data is exanded into vast areas of human knowledge, it can be easy to get confused about the scope of science and what it's doing. But, with the use of some of these strange examples, hopefully we can re-identify what science actually speaks about and how it doesn't ever claim to say anything about reality. Science only speaks on the data we find within reality. Whether or not that actually represents reality, or if it matters... is for philosophy and those other threads.

---

Message 913Let me make a very strange example for you. It's a bit absurd, but I think it will get my point across:I live on an island with a tribe of people.
The island has no birds on it, ever.
As far as the evidence that I have goes, no birds exist.
People come to visit our island sometimes, and they tell us of birds from their island (and, yes, birds actually do exist on their island).
They tell me of birds and I don't believe them.Claim: All bird concepts come from the human imagination.
Example 1 of many: Henry is a bird concept that came from my human imagination.
(Therefore human imagination is a known possible origin)
Theory: All bird concepts are figments of the human imaginationOver the course of human history (my island, for as much as I know), no other source for birds has ever become known. Therefore:Strong Theory: All birds are figments of the human imaginationSure, it's incorrect, but that's not the point.
Is it a good, strong scientific theory? Of course it is, it follows all the evidence I have completely.Now, if someone brings an actual bird to my island. Or, perhaps even the bones of a bird or something like that. Then, this theory would be destoyed on the spot.But, what if people kept coming to the island and and only saying and believing that birds exist?What if I asked for them to bring one?
...and they bring nothing but more words and beliefs of the birds?What if I asked for them to bring the bones of one?
...and they bring nothing but more words and beliefs of the birds?What if I asked for lots and lots of undoctored photographs of them?
...and they bring nothing but more words and beliefs of the birds?What if I asked to go to their island to see for myself?
...and they refuse to let anyone from my island leave our island on penalty of death?Yes, the theory (in the reality of this example) is 100% wrong.
But... as far as the evidence that I have goes... wouldn't you say that it's still a completely Strong Theory? If not, why not? Because, scientifically speaking, it really is still a Strong Theory in this example.

quote:

---

Presumably, the story/movie Ratatouille was claimed to be written by somebody and that would tell us that it is the product of human imagination.

---

Stories containing supernatural beings have authors.

quote:

---

Still though, I wouldn't call the no-talking-rats "theory" a scientific theory any more than I would Bluegenes.

---

It isn't a no talking rats theory.

quote:

---

Are you sayin' otherwise?

---

From what has been explained concerning science and theories, yes.Edited by purpledawn, : Wrong avatarEdited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You're absolutely correct.
Bluegenes has a perfectly fine scientific theory.
As well, you have a perfectly fine one going with talking rodents.

---

So our scenarios will survive the four steps of the scientific method RAZD provided? 1. We have observation and description.
2. We formulated a hypothesis.
3. We can use the hypothesis to predict.How do we test the predictions of our scenarios?Are we supposed to go looking for falsification before it can become a theory?From what you're saying, the one with the theory isn't required to prove that the birds in the verbal claims are not real. The one claiming that birds are real, needs to bring out the bird for testing and verification; correct?So it doesn't make your theory any less a theory just because you can't prove that the birds they speak of are completely imaginary.It doesn't change your theory until they produce the birds, right?

In the RAZD/Subbie debate, RAZD seems to have convinced himself that his hypothesis that the universe was created by an unknown god or gods makes predictions. Message 38Really? Suddenly we know something about how the unknowable gods would work. A lawyer won't miss that. Message 39RAZD tries again: Message 40Not if they'd wanted a universe full of random magic. If they created it by accident, it would be all of them. If they were constrained by laws external to the universe, it could be all or some of them. If they created it like "Hey, let's see what'll happen if we do this", it could also be all of them. "Unknown gods" won't make the predictions RAZD wants. How and what they would create would be unknown.And how have the creators also become controllers when we know nothing of them?

RAZ seems to have fallen for same the old "If it appears to be designed then there is a designer" line of thinking we see so often here.

To be more exact, "If it appears to be designed, then the odds on there being a designer are better than not, to an agnostic Level 3 Dawkins.""Appears to be designed" may also need some kind of elucidation. If we consider the ratios of the physical constants - things like the Fine Structure Constant and so forth - all to be amazingly interrelated to produce a universe that exhibits all these wonderful things that lead up to DNA molecules folding around and self-awareness and stuff, then we may be looking at an Argument from Incredulity. (I don't think that this is the case for RAZD here, but rather it's something more personal for him.) However, before we get into our particular set of constants and their ratios, perhaps zillions upon zillions of ratios have all been and are still being instantiated in a frothy, bubbling soup of universe creating - some dying off quickly, some not - and we just happen to be in one where the dying off has not occurred before life on Earth got a chance to start. This has been termed "evolutionary cosmology".

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

To those who have decided to cherry pick and interpret the evidence to fit their predefined position - Yes indeed. But what about the vast array of evidence showing that:1) The appearance of what we humanly perceive as consciously intended design is rife in nature but has in every single instance thus far investigated turned out to be entirely the result of mindless physical processes.2) The undeniable psychological proclivity, need even, for humans to invoke conscious "unknowable" beings to play the part of designers in order to wrongly explain this appearance of design in nature.On what basis does RAZ ignore this evidence?

Oh, he has not and does not ignore it. He is moving on past that issue. That stuff is old.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Then why does he keep talking about an 'absence of evidence' as if this were a meaningful point?No human claim takes place in a vacuum of all evidence does it? All human claims are made in the deeply evidenced context of human history, culture and psychology.So the idea that the existence of natural laws in the universe is indicative of an intelligent designer (which is effectively what RAZ is claiming isn't it?) is no less silly when RAZ says it with his little 'logic' exercises and plethora of colourful charts and graphs than anybody else.

This I thought was to funny not to stop and laugh at. Big Al responds To funny.

It's a Poe.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

My apologies, purpledawn. I have been a rather busy bee and seemed to have forgotten about this.
(I've bought a new house, yay! ...but am now crazed with moving, installing, and organizing... boo!)
If you're still interested, here's my response to your last message: Theory: All birds are figments of the imagination.
Prediction of the Absurd Bird Example Theory (Message 1126):Whenever someone visits the island, they will never have any evidence of a real living bird with them.
...which can be tested whenever anyone visits the island.
Or, even:
No one will ever discover any evidence of a real living bird.
...which can be tested constantly. Yes. Not quite.
The one with the theory isn't required to prove that the birds are not real... such is impossible in any event anyway. They are required to perform a reasonable search/query into the existence of such things before creating a scientific theory, though.
It's when any further search/query becomes unreasonable that the hypothesis shifts into being a theory.And no, the ones claiming the birds are real do not necessarily have to bring the birds out for testing/verification (although this would easily destroy the theory). The birds can appear on their own, if possible. Yes.
Mostly because such a thing is an impossibility.
No impossible task would reduce the validity of a scientific theory. Science is about exploring what we can while working with what we have. It is not limited or affected by things that are impossible (like leaving the island in my example). I would say "until some actual evidence of the birds is available"... but in a word: yes.Scientific Theories are not hard and fast rules to live by forever. Such a notion is against what science stands for in the first place.
Scientific Theories are only rules to live by until more information is obtained.
Once new information is obtained, either the rules will continue to stand or they will be updated to account for the new data.
That's science.
Change is expected whenever new data is obtained.
There is no global, absolute right or wrong where science is concerned.
The right vs. wrong of science is entirely dependent on the information available. As that information increases, the rights and wrongs will change as required.

Im on page three of this debate so far, and I have to say It's absolutly fascinating. The most fascinating thing is the patience that RAZD is having with bluegenes. bluegenes is obviously in over his head and is doing everything he can to divert, dismiss and dodge.AdminPD tried to come in and rescue bluegene from humiliating himself in message 23 (but seemed unaware of the point of the debate), by siding with him, curiously(one of RAZD's favorite words) and also, joining in on the diversion tactic. Why bluegene will not(so far) produce the strong "hypothesis" he claims to have is a mystery. If it's so strong why not point it out in the very first post? He may in the future finally do that, but like I said, im only on page three. Im curious to see how this ends. If I were bluegenes I would have bailed a long time ago. I give him a lot of credit for sticking it out.This is my first comment on any of the "great debates". If it's outta line I apologize. Im just calling it as it is. No disrespect towards bluegene or AdminPD, my opinion is only based on the comments and nothing personal. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Because RAZD already included it in the first post:

quote:

---

"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
This is a high level of confidence theory.

---

Anyway, he mentions it in Message 5:

quote:

---

When I present a statement like "all supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination" as a scientific theory, which is what I've been very clearly doing, using phrases like "scientific theory", and words like "falsifiable," it should be clear to scientifically informed readers what I mean.

---

And in his next post:

quote:

---

The theory that all supernatural beings come from the human imagination is built on the observation that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings. Do you know of any source of supernatural beings other than the human imagination?

---

That's the theory, bluegenes is quite explicit about it. It's a little odd that you made it through 3 pages without noticing it. What did you think bluegenes was saying?

IF you can make the distinction between the statements:1) I can prove that no supernatural entities exist.and2) The positive evidence favouring human imagination as the only known source of supernatural concepts leads me to tentatively conclude that all such concepts are products of human imagination.THEN you will have gone a long way to understanding the nature of this debate.Please note that Bluegenes never made the claim in statement 1) but RAZD never really seemed to grasp the difference between the two.