Scientific Knowledge

Are you suggesting that your brother is playing debate games rather than debating honestly?Surely not?When someone cannot denounce the untestable Hogwarts Hypothesis as at least "very improbable" debate becomes meaningless. They are either mad or deceitful.PS - I used to be a maths teacher. I've seen similar from smart-arse 16 year olds plenty of times. Surely RAZ should have grown out of such things by now?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

But it is a rejection of the one second universe proposition.As are calculations of the age of the Earth rejections of Last Thursdayism.As are statements about evolution and the origin of species rejections of Biblical Omphalism.As are conclusion made about storms on the basis of static electricity rejections of Thor thrashing his hammer around.

No, not really. And certainly not explicitly. You could come up with all kinds of silly scenarios that don't fit with a scientific explanation and then say that that explanation rejects it, but you'd just be making it up. The explanation simply explains what it does, it doesn't really reject competing imaginary scenarios.

Science is based on objective evidence. Untested but evidentially baseless propositions are ALL treated by science in exactly the same way. Exactly CS!!!!! Well fucking done!!!!! In the absence of any evidence at all whatsoever in support of a proposition where but imagination could it be sourced from?If (for example) Last Thursdayism is utterly unknowable in the way that it is defined to be how can it be anything other than imagined?And whilst it is conceivably possible that we have correctly guessed this truth of reality I would suggest to you that this is very unlikely indeed. That objectively evidenced explanations are more likely to be accurate descriptions of reality than evidentially baseless propositions would seem to be simply inarguable. Are you denying that this is the case?If so - Why base our scientific explanations on objective evidence at all? Why not just simply guess about reality?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yeah: Ignored.But not really "rejected". What you'd have been making up, was that the scientific explanation rejects it. No, not in the colloquial sense, but from a scientific stance, these propositions are simply ignored, not really rejected.

So you think it is unscientific to say that objectively evidenced conclusions (e.g. evolution of species) are more likely to be accurate descriptions of reality than baseless propositions (e.g. Last Thursdayism)?

Its this part that I don't like:

quote:

---

more likely to be accurate descriptions of reality

---

To conclude that the Earth is billions of years old is to necessarily also conclude that it is not just a few days old. This really is inarguable. What don't you like about it?Would you equally object if I said that evolutionary theory is a superior theory to the Genesis account regarding the origins of species because it is a more accurate description of reality?

Hi PaulK, Curiously, if this is your response to a detailed reply to a specific point that Straggler asked, showing that his conclusion of back-flushing confidence in the results based on an assumption, to result in confidence in the assumption, is not correct and cannot be correct ...... then why should I reply to your other posts that display other comprehension problems: So you say (first) that the logical analysis doesn't show that the argument is invalid, and (second) that it shows that the argument is invalid (rather than wrong or falsified). You agree that you can't make valid conclusions with invalidly formed arguments - you can guess, and the guess may be correct, but it is not a conclusion.So why should I bother replying to you when you say things like this? I'll address this in replies to other posts\people.Enjoy.

A quick note to Zen (and Xong)If you are unwilling or unable to explicitly state where you place yourself on your own scale with respect to the following untestable proposition please cease any further participation in this thread.The Dumbledore magic mind manipulation proposition - Dumbledore magically implanted JK Rowling with knowledge of Harry Potter's real adventures in such a way that even the author herself thinks that her writings are works of fiction when in fact they are magically inspired historical accounts. The "Hogwarts Hypothesis" as the secret cult of Potter call it. There is no objective empirical evidence that falsifies this proposition. You have done no tests. Indeed it is untestable.If we can all agree that this proposition can be rationally and robustly rejected (i.e. at least a 6 on the scale above) regardless of being untestable maybe we can finally put to bed this insidious notion that testing untestable propositions has any bearing on the validity of scientific theories or rational conclusions.If however you are unwilling or unable to explicitly take such a position, if you are going to insist on absolute agnosticism with regard to Lord Voldermort or refuse to explicitly state a position because you cannot do so without contradicting yourselves, then I can only conclude that you are either mad or dishonest and I have nothing more to say to you on the nature of science.

Hi Catholic Scientist, well said. Correct. When you make the assumption that the evidence truthfully represents reality, then you safely, unconditionally, justifiably, ignore any and all concepts related to the evidence being a lie.Enjoy.

quote:

---

Curiously, if this is your response to a detailed reply to a specific point that Straggler asked, showing that his conclusion of back-flushing confidence in the results based on an assumption, to result in confidence in the assumption, is not correct and cannot be correct

---

Curiously you have failed to notice that my post was a response to Xongsmith, and that your post completely failed to address Straggler's actual point. Which is why I labelled it an evasion.

quote:

---

So you say (first) that the logical analysis doesn't show that the argument is invalid, and (second) that it shows that the argument is invalid (rather than wrong or falsified

---

I certainly did not say the first, and I do not even understand what you mean by the second. And since the statement that you object to is entirely correct, I must assume that the error of comprehension is yours.

quote:

---

You agree that you can't make valid conclusions with invalidly formed arguments - you can guess, and the guess may be correct, but it is not a conclusion.

---

The conclusion of an invalid argument is still a conclusion by definition. To argue otherwise is silly.

quote:

---

So why should I bother replying to you when you say things like this?

---

You mean pointing out obvious facts that you have neglected to take into account ?
Hardly open-minded of you!

Straggler asks: Here, from my Message 115: How much more of a 6+ do you want? Plus I know you made the "Hogwart Hypothesis" up.Why should I care to address your demand that I state my Skepticism of the real existence of Voldermort in terms of your "Hogwart Hypothesis"? There is no objective scientific evidence for your hypothesis, but there is objective scientific evidence of J.K.Rowling's creation of the fictional character Voldermort(sp?).Maybe you want me to argue from mutual exclusivity of these 2 notions? I think it's a waste of time to conjur up untestable explanations that have ZERO difference in reality as we know it and can measure and ZERO difference in the foreseeable future, when we already have testable explanations.Continuing: Yes - it's all a waste of time. Let's cease referring to Last Thursdayism, Last Secondism, and similar known-to-be-intentionally untestable constructs of the human mind. They should all be off topic.Way back a long time ago RAZD started with a simple notion (paraphrased here): We all must accept this premise, equivalent to a postulate, if you will.If we allow for the possibility the evidence of LYING, then the whole scientific process is a lost wandering around in darkness. Last Thursdayism would have to propose that the extensive evidence of the Age Of The Earth RAZD accumulated in EvC is LYING.Any "hypothesis" that must claim that any substantiated objective scientific evidence is LYING should be immediately declared off topic.

We've started to conflate theories with conclusions....The nature of being a conclusion (X years) precludes other answers as possibilities (Y days).But theories are designed to work as explanations of the data, they don't necessarily preclude other theories as possible explanations, and they don't judge themselves as being some liklihood of correctly matching reality.

John Smith has some Golden plates he would like to pawn.