|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Peanut Gallery | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Given that RAZ has abandoned the thread ... Look again o great leaper to concussions ... ... and I was under the impression that bluegenes had abandoned the debate, not having a scintilla of evidence that actually supports his conjecture. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD writes: ... and I was under the impression that bluegenes had abandoned the debate, not having a scintilla of evidence that actually supports his conjecture. Bizzarre - Given that he replied to you in March and that you left it until now to reply back to him.
RAZD writes: Look again o great leaper to concussions ... I am delighted that you are back on this topic. I would absolutely love to see it brought to a definitive conclusion.
RAZD writes: Look again o great leaper to concussions ... So you didn't fancy me or Mod then?
RAZD writes: Look again o great leaper to concussions ... If I were taking over that debate my first question would be: Can you give an example of inductive reasoning in science that you consider to be valid? Enjoy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Straggler writes: Can you prove that the second law isn't obeyed because some supernatural entity invisibly wills it so? No - why would you ask?
How is what you are demanding different? The 2nd Law can be falsified without the presence of any supernatural agent. bluegenes theory can only be falsified by the presence of a supernatural agent. Hey...this was an interesting read: Maxwell's demon - Wikipedia Edited by xongsmith, : No reason given. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Panda, I'll get back to you on this sometime soon!
- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi xongsmith,
This will NEVER happen according to my analemma, which you, yourself, have concluded is a "strong" theory (unlike me in my modest persona).
Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Taking the same dimwiited approach to falsifiability that you have....:
X writes: The 2nd Law can be falsified without the presence of any supernatural agent. This will NEVER happen according to my analemma which states that an un-investgatable supernatural agent steps in everytime the second law of thermodynamics is in danger of being violated.
X writes: No - the stronger the results of bluegenes theory as they keep coming in, the stronger his theory cannot be falsified. And everytime someone fails to make a perpetual motion machine it strengthens my analemma and makes the second law of thermodynamics less falsifiable and thus less scientific. [/END DIMWITTED APPROACH TO FALSIFIABILITY] X writes: This means your theory cannot be falsified. The demosntrable existence of any god or other supernatural entity would falsify the theory. Thus you are simply wrong.
X writes: bluegenes theory can only be falsified by the presence of a supernatural agent. Wrong. As you have been told previously many times - Any source of supernatural concepts other than human imagination will falsify the theory. You have been through this in ungodly detail previously. Here Message 400 and upthread being the most recent. Do you just not remember any of the convesrations you have had in the past?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD writes: science and non-natural phenomena Human conception of, and belief in the existence of, supernatural beings is an entirely natural observable phenomenon with wholly natural causes. That is the entire frikkin point of bluegenes theory. Unbelievable that you still just don't get it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member
|
RAZD has taken back the controls he left temporarily due to bordem of having to explain to bluegenes that all he has is wishful thinking. ( asking that His theory be falsified by a real supernatural being ) as if that is even a theory.
bluegenes writes: And consider that I'm trying to make falsification as easy as possible. Just one little fairy, or any supernatural being of any type will do. That's from message 1182 from bluegenes Basically bluegenes is taking a philosophical approach to the whole supernatural thing BUT he is asking that it be falsified by a real SB. Rather convienient isn't it? The existance of god(s) is one of philosophy and not science. To ask that your philosophical "theory" be falsified by a real entity is unrealistic. You're arguing from both Science AND philosophy IMO. No one has developed an hypothesis of the existence of God or gods that is verifiable, so to ask that someone to falsifiy a theory with a real god(s) is laughable and ridiculous. Here's the Scientific method: Identify a question,(about gods) then propose an explanation (hypothesis), conceive a test of the hypothesis (experiments which cannot be done with the supernatural), evaluate the efficacy of the proposed experiment, perform the experiment and gather data from it(impossible), analyze the data(not happening) and see if it conforms to the hypothesis. The hypothesis advances to the state of "theory". Scientists(Straggler and bluegenes-confirmation bias) review the data and the proposed conclusions, and evaluate the validity of the conclusion (Bosom Buddies peer review). If all is good, a new theory has arisen. Of course bluegenes has not even come close to this process but expects for doubters of his "theory" to produce a real god(s) to falsify this thingy he calls a theory. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Chuck writes: Identify a question Observation: Humans conceive of, and believe in the existence of, supernatural beings. Question: What is the source of origin of these concepts?
Chuck writes: then propose an explanation These concepts are sourced from human imagination for psychological reasons rather than sourced from the real existence of supernatural beings.
Chuck writes: conceive a test of the hypothesis 1) Investigate the origins of various supernatural concepts. The theory predicts that in every case where the source of origin of a particular supernatural concept can be determined it will be human imagination. 2) Investigate the psychological reasons that humans invent supernatural beings. Research into things like the human proclivity to assign conscious intent to mindless physical processes is ongoing but agency, need for compaionship etc. are all subjects of current psychological research.
Chuck writes: evaluate the efficacy of the proposed experiment Feel free to.
Chuck writes: perform the experiment 1) Done2) Ongoing but extensive results so far support bluegenes theory. Chuck writes: analyze the data Data analysed and found to support the theory.
Chuck writes: and see if it conforms to the hypothesis It does.
Chuck writes: To ask that your philosophical "theory" be falsified by a real entity is unrealistic. If the entities are real why is it unrealistic? Be specific. BTW - Did you see that PaulK says he is happy to Great Debate you on a biblical based topic? Message 1219
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
The existance of god(s) is one of philosophy and not science. Sorry, Chuck77, but Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria is wrong. The popularly assumed restriction on science to investigate "supernatural" phenomena is bogus. The existence of "gods" is as open to scientific scrutiny as any other proposed phenomenon. As you, yourself, have listed there is a scientific method apropos to the study and Straggler has answered well within the guidelines. The old view that such supernatural phenomena are "unevidenced" and "untestable", thus not subject to scientific scrutiny, is a self-serving shield against this type of intellectual treatment out of an emotional fear of the result. It is rejected. The theory that supernatural phenomena are the result of human imagination and invention has been evidenced to a great extent by both indirect (the lack of obvious supernatural causation) and direct (in psychology, neuroscience, etc.) evidence. As with all other theories in science bluegenes theory is open to falsification by future evidence. Show us a god and bluegenes is out the door. The argument that this can never happen due to the "supernatural" nature of gods is circular, vainglorious and fallacious and is discarded. Edited by AZPaul3, : direct/indirect got turned around.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Chuck77,
Basically bluegenes is taking a philosophical approach to the whole supernatural thing BUT he is asking that it be falsified by a real SB. Rather convienient isn't it? That's how pseudoskeptics work -- you must prove your points and disprove theirs, and they don't present evidence to substantiate their claims. Amusingly bluegenes was shown to be a pseudoskeptic (as was straggles) on a previous thread, so this is no small surprise to any open minded skeptic.
Of course bluegenes has not even come close to this process but expects for doubters of his "theory" to produce a real god(s) to falsify this thingy he calls a theory. In a nutshell, Chuck77. Enjoy by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michael Member (Idle past 4638 days) Posts: 199 From: USA Joined: |
RAZD writes: Amusingly bluegenes was shown to be a pseudoskeptic (as was straggles) on a previous thread, so this is no small surprise to any open minded skeptic. It would be nice if you could provide a link to the previous thread so that we can check the veracity of your statement. Cheers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi AZPaul3
The theory that supernatural phenomena are the result of human imagination and invention has been evidenced to a great extent by both indirect (the lack of obvious supernatural causation) and direct (in psychology, neuroscience, etc.) evidence. I'm curious to know the methodology by which they eliminate the possibility of supernatural effect on the mind. Certainly if you cannot determine whether or not such effect exists, then you are just assuming that it isn't in effect rather than demonstrating it. I asked subbie if he could think of a test to see if a religious experience was real or a product of imagination, and he could not think of one.
[qs]The persistent question of evidence (RAZD and subbie only)(RAZD and subbie only)[/color] Message 22:
* If the only means of communication between humans (or any intelligent organism, we don't have to be the "chosen" species) is via religious experiences, where the experience occurs within the mind, then can you suggest some means to test whether this is actually happening or being imagined? Can we test for imagination versus actual religious experiences? Nothing comes immediately to mind.[/qs] Can you tell me:
Enjoy by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I'm curious to know the methodology by which they eliminate the possibility of supernatural effect on the mind. It isn't eliminated. Can you explain why such a vague claim needs to be eliminated by the skeptics rather than supported by its proposers?
Certainly if you cannot determine whether or not such effect exists, then you are just assuming that it isn't in effect rather than demonstrating it. Is that like evolutionary biologists who disregard 'intelligent designers' as having a supernatural effect on populations? Curse you parsimony, making us not assume the existence of superfluous and unevidenced entities.
how this is tested for, such that the supernatural effect can be positively eliminated? Make it a falsifiable claim and we'll talk.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZ writes: I'm curious to know the methodology by which they eliminate the possibility of supernatural effect on the mind. Nobody is eliminating that possibility. But aside from human belief there is nothing to link the experiences that are being cited as evidence in favour of the supernatural to the actual existence of anything supernatural.
RAZ writes: Certainly if you cannot determine whether or not such effect exists, then you are just assuming that it isn't in effect rather than demonstrating it. Can you determine whether or not these expereinces are caused by fluctuations in the matrix? Or by undetectable thetans? If someone believed that such an experience was caused by either one of these things they could cite that experience as evidence of their belief in exactly the same way you are doing with the supernatural. So you are basically citing belief itself as a form of evidence.
RAZ writes: Can you tell me: Have a look at Message 1254
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024