Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D)
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 241 of 273 (85713)
02-12-2004 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Percy
02-12-2004 7:46 AM


Re: Apropos Quote
That's a great quote. Why is it every time I see a picture of William James I feel like calling him Zhimbo?
regards,
Esteban "Varieties of Ridiculous Experience" Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Percy, posted 02-12-2004 7:46 AM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 242 of 273 (85714)
02-12-2004 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by crashfrog
02-12-2004 8:31 AM


Re: Apropos Quote
I never saw The Matrix Reloaded.
I don't think apropos is a synonym of appropriate in the way I was trying to use it. The connotation I intended was more along the lines of fitting, pertinent, relevant, but not exactly meaning any of those.
Or maybe I used apropos just because I'm an emacs user.
Is that copasetic?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by crashfrog, posted 02-12-2004 8:31 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-14-2004 7:21 PM Percy has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 243 of 273 (86315)
02-14-2004 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by nator
02-11-2004 2:25 PM


Re: Curing Delusion
Schafinator,
You ask, facetiosly (?),
So, by this logic, Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on the World Trade Center, because the majority of Americans believe this to be true.
Just because someone, or many someones, believe something is true does not make it true.
We're talking prior plausibilities, not posterior ones. When lot's of folks believe something is true, it's arrogant to not take their hypothesis under advisement, as having a prior plausibility worth evaluating. It's "true" only when the accumulating confirmed tests of predictions raise the posterior plausibility to near one.
Yes, but does this mean that most people "believe" in God?
Or do they believe (no parenthesese) in God?
It means that they wish they had more faith, or belief in God, and do not see their unbelief as evidence that God is not real. It means that they know that there is something good and useful and real about "believing" in God, as if such a Being was itself real. Some view atheism as courageous honesty, but most, in my opinion and experience, view it as cowardly retreat from the struggle to believe. So many believe, that it is foolish to not try to find the true part of that belief. Hear everything, hold on to what is good.
Come on, Steve, stop being silly. the people who believe in a flat earth don't "believe" for practical purposes so they can make maps. They believe that they will fall of the edge of the earth!
They believed both, and were only wrong on the one. I am convinced that we will only understand demons as we set out to test hypotheses about them.
Is this aspect of demons a consensus view?
If demons have done their job, there will be no consensus view.
How do you know this? What is your evidence? Please provide a link.
The link below is rather scholarly.
Page not found - Apologetics Press
Which God or gods?
What kind of conversation, exactly?
Any that will talk. Didn't Goethe suggest that Satan carries on conversations with men, dealing with them for their souls. Jehovah, though, makes the clearest statements in writing about His availability for interviews. He makes it clear, in fact, that failure to "know" Him, and be known by Him, conversationally, knowing His voice, hearkening to His voice, living by every word that proceeds from His mouth, etc. leaves one out of the good things and places that are out there to enjoy.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by nator, posted 02-11-2004 2:25 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by nator, posted 02-24-2004 9:31 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 273 (86317)
02-14-2004 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Brad McFall
02-10-2004 3:09 PM


Re: Quite a thread!
Brad,
You can stay out of the pigeon hole, by predicting patterns in the c/e controversy that correspond to those experienced by Galvani/Volta. Haven't read Pera's book, but it looks like it might give some clues as to how to do this. Get a sociologist, a pyschologist, or best of all, an historian of science, to see if being a creationist, or evolutionist, is simply to have a particular neurosis, bringing that neurosis to the table of the science.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Brad McFall, posted 02-10-2004 3:09 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Brad McFall, posted 02-17-2004 12:41 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 245 of 273 (86318)
02-14-2004 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by nator
02-11-2004 2:13 PM


Re: Curing Delusion
S.
You ask,
Who's interpretation of scripture are you going to use?
God's. He says that's the only one that works. You ask Him what it means, and He tells you.
Of course, you would have to control for all other reasons that the weather would be a certain way. You would also have to control for all other types of rituals or sacrifices that anyone might do to other gods.
Easily done by randomization, which takes all this and puts it into a random error term, taking it out of the picture except as an obscuring factor. But, with a large enough sample size, that is reduced so we can see clearly.
Even if you could do all of that, you still have no idea if the tithing is working for your particular God, because tithing is not exclusive to Christianity.
"no idea" is of course too strong, just as prove is too strong. If we could do all of this, the plausibility of Jehovah's reality would be confirmed, and made more plausible. Then, on we go to more tests, as He directs.
So, The fact that Children believe in Santa Claus makes the existence of Santa Claus "ever-so-slightly more plausible"?
Well, yes, in the prior plausibility estimate, although done properly, the accumulation of prior plausibility estimates from more authoritative sources would lower the value considerably. As things now stand in my experience, the prior plausibility of Santa Clause is so low as to make the study of the hypothesis a waste of time.
...except that this "evidence" only suggests the existence of the supernatural in those who are already biased to interpret it in this way through cultural and personal bias.
And they would say that the evidence suggests the existence of the supernatural in anyone not biased to interpret it in some, any, other way. But, diligent application of H-D science will tell who is biased.
...except that you are not, as far as I can tell, using H-D science properly, in that it is supposed to be based upon real evidence, not heavily-interpreted and biased "plausibilities."
Be specific. I've worked harder than anyone I know to understand, practise, teach this method. But, I'm still learning.
Please provide your evidence for such creatures that anyone can observe, regardless of religion.
Dickcissels for Jehovah, mosquitos for Satan, Irish Wolfhounds for men. Whether anyone will think it plausible that these "creatures" were created by the one I've identified, is another matter. Depends on their personal biases, and their applied epistemology.
Doesn't matter if he believed, it only matters if it works.
Hear! hear! And, in years to come, perhaps we will see that prayer experiments, done with the underlying hypothesis that the power is coming from a spiritual being named Jehovah, will consistently work. But that will never happen if experiments on that hypothesis are discouraged.
Define "demon".
Demons are living beings composed of something like or actually dark matter, normally invisible to us but able to make themselves visible at will. They are malignant, intelligent, lying, with an agenda of making humans behave in ways that are painful to Jehovah, the God who created both demons and humans. They have great powers, perhaps derived from zero-point energy. They may have weight.
But invisible pink unicorns "might be out there", too. How do you propose we test this using H-D science?
Make a testable prediction from the hypothesis, as I have predicted that prayer experiments including "deliver us from evil" will be more effective than prayer experiments excluding that request.
Do you concede that the journal you cite as dealing with spiritual matters 1)deals with anomolous natural events, not supernatural, and 2)is a collection of case studies and does not test theories?
It's the most self-consiously H-D journal I know of, so of course it presents anecdotes as well as experiments. The PEAR scientists publish there.
Furthermore, you have been shown several times that your prayer claims are not supported.
Not in a convincing manner. Looked like ad hoc nit-picking to me.
Um, I can't hate what I have no evidence for the existence of.
Nothing more hateful than to have it told you that the most loving father you ever could have is out there wanting you to come looking for Him, so that He could come get you. And then you ignore the opportunity.
I'm all for doing good, but I'd much rather have the cancer researchers working to understand the origin and spread of cancer rather than simply pray for a cure.
But now that prayer is in the refereed scientific literature, and given that it costs so very little, why not include it? "simply" pray for a cure? Give me a break.
Why? You keep repeating this claim, but it is a HUGE, GARGANTUAN leap of conclusion to claim this.
Only to the dogmatically opinionated. If the data makes the hypothesis only a little more plausible, that is neither huge nor gargantuan.
[qs] All of this is in the dogmatic opinionation mode. Lots of nothings, absolutely no ways, no reasons, conclude, doing anything. You just don't get it, do you? H-D science operates between these two extremes.
You have not esablished in the least that your God has anything to do with anything.
Ditto
Well, then it would seem that, in your definition, your god is not all-powerful.
He has will, makes choices, but is just and abides by rules that are laid down. Until He decides to change those rules. God is a shepherd, a father, a counselor, a judge, a warrior, not all-powerful, all-knowing, omni-present.
So, any positive outcome is attributed to Yeshua, but any negative outcome is attributed to "falling short of the glory of god" or because people didn't "pray correctly"?
Sounds like an unbeatable system to me, kind of like astrology.
Astrology is easy to beat, when you can pin it down. Jehovah has pinned Himself down though, in giving very specific directions for how to do he experiments He proposes, like tithing and prayer.
Of course, if making corrections according to the directions does not reverse the failure of experiments, then the evidence falsifies the hypothesis. But repeating the experiment using clearly forbidden methods, getting negative results does not falsify.
Go prays to himself?
Yes, Yeshua and His father are on speaking terms.
Really, you have been keeping detailed records, including accounting for confirmation bias by recording negative evidence, for 25 years?
I did this rather formally for about five years, through the late 1970's. After that, I keep a seat-of-the-pants tally going on in my mind, and ask God about it. At first, I only got about 30% of my prayers answered. But, I learned. Well, I should modify that: there was a year, a honeymoon year I called it, when I ran 100%, at least in my experiments. God was proving Himself. Later on, after I agreed that He had done that job well, it dropped dramatically, got realistic. Still enough to not "despair," because I did not "see the hand of the Lord in the land of the living." But the 85% is just an guestimate. Take the statement to be, "After 35 years of studying how to pray effectively, I still make requests and nothing I can see happens. But what does happen is normally regarded as amazing by those looking in.
Hope you'll choose the life of the hypothetico-deductive, but at least now you have a choice.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by nator, posted 02-11-2004 2:13 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by nator, posted 02-24-2004 10:01 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 273 (86321)
02-14-2004 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Percy
02-12-2004 8:46 AM


Re: Apropos Quote
Percy,
In that closed thread, you asked,
In contrast to your work with birds, this appears to have no scientific foundation. It seems to be completely subjective because the only way we know you communicated with Jehovah, and know the contents of that communication, is your say so, and it's probably a pretty safe bet that you published no peer reviewed papers on this.
Your bird work had a scientific foundation in the form of objective data that you gathered from nature. Your prayer work is just the opposite, having only subjective personal data. Can you see why your early work was widely cited while your later work is ignored?
Here is my history with peer review. With my bird work, I kept running into the most unreasonable, subjective rejection, in seminars, discussions, letters, etc. But, as a graduate student,I got some stuff published in modest little journals like Bird Banding. At my thesis defense, a committee member did not want to pass me, and his main argument was that no respectable journal would publish my work. Rob van der Vaart, editor of Acta Biotheoretica, was on my committee, and said that his journal had already accepted it. He didn't wink at me, but could have, because this was the first I had ever heard of the journal. MacArthur, at Princeton, later took me aside and said that the work was too obscurely published, and that I should put it all down in a book, one of his monographs. I did, and the rest is history. Meanwhile, I did get some papers past peer review, in evolution, American Naturalist, and they just disappeared. MacArthur warned me that the peer review system was just so much gas. One exception, the article with Chris Smith. That became a classic. But, my Dickcissel work, and food chain dynamics work, both of which are fairly well known today, were all invited papers. No peer review. And the work that was so boringly framed that it would get past the peer review system, for the most part, just never got read and understood.
Now, I got some interesting prayer results in the early seventies, and tried to share them in discussion with my colleagues at K-State. Nothing. Meanwhile, great grant proposals were getting turned down, on bird ecology, for non-sense, sneer review reasons. So, I knew that it was a waste of time. I didn't want, especially, the sort of reputation and stuff that peer review (boring) success brought, anyway. I wanted, and want to be remembered the way Newton is today. And I could see that sucking up to peer review would never get me there. So, I retreated to my kitchen table research.
My only job here, of course, is not to persuade those who need peer reviewed studies to believe anything. I agree with MacArthur. Those people are on their way out of history. But, I want to encourage anyone who really wants to know the truth, and will do what research they can themeselves, following proven methods (take the H-D on the internet, if you like). So, I tell my story. Now you know, as do others. You can repeat the experiments in a few minutes, and find out for yourselves.
I really do hope this helps. As I say, you guys or your parents paid $200,000 to educate me. What I learned about applied epistemology, there and in testing has really, really improved my life, which is extraordinarily rich. Works for others, as well.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Percy, posted 02-12-2004 8:46 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-15-2004 9:48 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied
 Message 249 by Mammuthus, posted 02-16-2004 3:15 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 247 of 273 (86529)
02-15-2004 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-14-2004 7:21 PM


Re: Apropos Quote
This message is a reply to a post by Abshalom, in post 17, in the closed thread, Hypothetico etc., where he asks,
Stephen, please feel free to enumerate and share those "true points" with the rest of us. I'm particularly interested in the points of agreement between "evolutionary way" and the "actual way" Jehovah created creatures. And please fill us in on the obviously "complicated way" that "evolution" maintains biological diversity with comparisons to "Jehovah's way" of accomplishing biological diversity.
These, and those that follow, are good questions. I, of course, am still learning and wondering myself about these things. But what I have so far is this:
What is true in evolution, according to Jehovah, is this: first, whenever reasonable, Jehovah creates in small, baby steps, over as much time as possible. "He who makes haste with his feet, sins." The theory of evolution asserts that the formation of biologic diversity took a long time. This is correct.
Second, man made in God's image reflects that image in artificial selection. Jehovah does His "creating" through a similar process, preserving the key role of heritablility and moving through an "all things work together for the good" series of steps. The theory of evolution asserts that, in general, adaptive advantage drives the accumulation of new, useful genes in the species population.
Third, in some cases, Jehovah actually leaves the process alone, much as He gives free will to men, letting natural selection sort out genetic variability. He allows this to happen, as I have understood it so far, to make some point, to teach inquiring men and women something about the consequences of their choices. See below.
Fourth, the "evolutionary stable strategy" (ESS) of modern ecologists is true. Once a given phenotype has reached some sort of adaptive mountain peak, it can be and often is maintained without further intervention by Jehovah. The only intervention is prevention of Satan from driving that phenotype to extinction, as he is wont to do.
Now, evolution, He said, is limited to avenues of development that proceed, adaptively, uphill. Natural selection means that a genetic change that is not, without willful, artificial intervention, adaptive, gets scarcer, not more frequent. Even genetic changes that, when added to by other genetic changes will give a positive fitness, get extinquished or stay too rare, unless they themselves are adaptive. Then, of course, they never realize their potential. Looking at an adaptive "landscape" and viewing evolution as climbing adaptive mountains, you see that you can only reach peaks that are accessible by common routes that are uphill every step of the way. This is complex and limiting. But, with artificial selection, you can pick a peak, and head straight for it, going uphill and down, and cutting across the sides of intermediary peaks, not being pulled by a steep slope headed up in a peripheral direction.
I'm going to post this, because I haven't figured out how to get your next question before us, while keeping it. So, more later.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-14-2004 7:21 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-15-2004 11:00 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 273 (86534)
02-15-2004 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-15-2004 9:48 PM


Re: Apropos Quote
Abshalom, this continues your post 17 on the "Hypothetico ..." closed thread.
Stephen, after saying that "evolution" and "Jehovah" agree to some extent, you finish your sentence with " ... evolution had many true points ... but was basically wrong." How so? Please tell us what Jehovah told you with regard to how evolution got it wrong.
Stephen, you say that Jehovah told you that "most selection was artificial, not natural ..."
So, since most is not all, I'm assuming that some selection was natural. Could you please give us a list, or at least some examples, of natural selection? If you have not asked Jehovah the same question yet, could you do so before answering? I've gotta know.
Actually, a few days before I discovered this post, I was talking with a friend, and Jehovah told me that the story I was telling him was an example of classical evolution, without the random mutation of genes producing a useful protein. Here's the story:
It comes from a Bird Watch Newsletter which I published in the mid-seventies, called "The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth." The basic idea is that, when we view a species group, such as "sandpiper-like birds" or "sparrows" or "raptors," we see a range of sizes, with the larger species having exotic plumages apparently adapted to territorial or aggressive behavior. The hypothesis is that the competitive struggles within that species group have an aggressive component, that selects for larger body sizes than are adaptive for the food requirements of the niche. The "rat-race" continues because the optimal body size is always "bigger" not some "large" size. There is no ESS. The pressure is always to get bigger than others in your species, so you can win the fights. But, this leaves smaller species at an ecological advantage in the scrample competition for the resources, because their body size is still well adapted to feeding. Such species, when the rat-race has carried one species to a body size that is large enough, invade the niche, meekly flee from aggressive assaults from the big bullies that once had most of that niche to themselves, and survive because they are too numerous to be effectively driven away by aggression. This pushes the bullies to even larger body sizes, but smaller population sizes, as they limit themselves to aspects of the niche appropriate to individuals their size. This process goes on and on, through natural selection, each species succumbing to the bullying, aggressive strategy entering into a process that makes them bigger and bigger, and rarer and rarer, until they are so rare that a perturbation in the environment takes them to extinction. Like Calif. Condors (big raptors, that win fighting over downed prey), and Whooping Cranes (big "sandpipers", that win fighting over optimal territories), Ivory Billed Woodpeckers, Harris' and Golden Crowned Sparrows, perhaps others. So, genetic units entering into this aggressive rat-race evolve themselves into ultimate extinction, while the species that find it adaptive to stay meek persist indefinately. They are an evolutionary "source" species, that produces evolutionary "sink" populations. They inherit the earth. They are boring on the life lists of bird-watchers, but persist. I do not know the status of Cope's Law, where species in the fossil record are supposed to generally increase in size over time, but perhaps that is a reflection of this process. And Jehovah told me that this reflects natural selection. He said it is similar to people who eschew His guidance, and then "fall" into Hell. He did create Hell, to balance Heaven, and provided a clear set of directions how to get the one, and avoid the other. Those who think they can do it on their own then "go to Hell" without any help from Him. Entropy gets the job done just fine, just as natural selection drives aggressive species to being too large and rare to survive. There are, He said, natural consequences, and when He steps aside, natural selection.
But, He was quick to point out that random genetic changes do not ever produce useful proteins. ("Ever?" I asked. "Never." is the response I heard.) He said that, if there were real scientists out there, they could do this experiment. Set up chemostats with bacterial populations. Feed with an exotic organic compound unlike anything digestible or metabolizable by the bacteria. Irradiate one, pray for another, leave a third alone. Look for adaptation to use the new energy source. The prayed for population will show evolition, and there will be a new gene or genes producing the proteins needed to process the strange food source. The irradiated one, with lots of random mutation, will never "find" such genes, nor will the control.
He said that in the case of species evolving themselves to extinction, He lets it go because it demonstrates His message that meekness is good epistemological strategy, if you want to survive. Without God having to do anything about it. Those species that go into "sink" evolution experience no new genetics, only the modification of frequencies of control genes.
Insofar as evolution supposes that there is random production of new genes that produce useful proteins, it is wrong.
But you go on:
Then you finish the sentence with: "... and most genetic changes were engineered, not random mutations." So, again, some genetic changes where random mutations then. Which ones?
We have both authority and free will. When we bombard species with mutagens to produce random mutations, we are allowed to do so. Satan also is allowed to do this, and has.
Also, who exactly is responsible for the genetic changes that were engineered? Was this a team effort or does one entity get the credit? Were any of the dark forces responsible for any of the engineered genetic changes in specific species? If so, which genetic genetic changes were engineered in which species, and by which evil angels or demons? Again, if the list is too long, just give us a sampling.
I hear this: Jehovah, through His spoken word, and by the power of the Spirit, creates genetic changes that produce new, useful proteins. I sense that, for the sake of love, the Father includes the Son in the task as well. But, the genes that were produced that accomplished all macro-evolution were engineered. Flies, at least, were produced by artificial selection by Satan, just as the breeds of dogs were our business. Satan could have been, before His fall, responsible for many other species, operating as Jehovah's messenger. I hear that this was the case. Dinosaurs also were produced by Satan, after the fall. Can Satan produce new, useful genes? Yes, sort of. The kinds of proteins that his genes produce, however, are in many ways similar to those produced by God. We'll understand this better as we explore genetic engineering.
Stephen, you conclude your paragraph with, "He said that there was a lot that I couldn't understand yet, but that if I stuck around, He'd enjoy helping me."
First of all, Stephen, if you could not understand everything Jehovah had to explain, then I know I will not be able to grasp it all. But don't let that keep you from providing the facts, please. Remember there are others reading who surely will be able to grasp way more than I, and maybe even some who will comprehend more of it than Jehovah thought you capable of comprehending back when y'all first discussed the topic.
Please don't say you have not yet received the answers. I know how inquisitive you are. He promised if you stuck around, "he'd enjoy helping" you understand exactly what I'm asking you to reveal now.
Don't hold back, just give us the information; and let those who can see see, and those who can hear hear, right?
That's the best I can do right now. As you might have guessed, many others were supposed to be getting into this, and providing bits and pieces to add to mine. We all prophesy in part. It is not something that anyone should do alone, successfully. I come to this forum calling others to wake up and do what they were created to do. Including you. Because you were supposed to be getting the parts of answers that I am missing. But, if I call you up, and you don't do it, then Jehovah will tell me what you might have had for me. Later. Maybe when that happens, I can post that as well.
Life is good.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-15-2004 9:48 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 249 of 273 (86581)
02-16-2004 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-14-2004 7:21 PM


Re: Apropos Quote
quote:
Now, I got some interesting prayer results in the early seventies, and tried to share them in discussion with my colleagues at K-State. Nothing. Meanwhile, great grant proposals were getting turned down, on bird ecology, for non-sense, sneer review reasons. So, I knew that it was a waste of time. I didn't want, especially, the sort of reputation and stuff that peer review (boring) success brought, anyway. I wanted, and want to be remembered the way Newton is today. And I could see that sucking up to peer review would never get me there. So, I retreated to my kitchen table research.
What unbelievable cowardice on your part Stephen. In your dillusional state that you actually have anything to contribute to science you claim that because people did not just accept your babbling, the peer review system must be useless. Lets try a better example of peer review from someone who actually has contributed to science and our understanding of a paradigm shifting observation. Stanley Prusiner who won the Nobel prize for his work on prions was completely skewered in exactly the same way you describe when he first detailed the "protein only" hypothesis of prion pathogenesis. To this day there is a continuing battle over the causitive agent in prion pathogenesis. However, as a consequence of the intense scrutiny and skepticism, Prusiner had to take the utmost care, do the extra experiments, refine his hypothesis, recruit others to reproduce his results independently and make his case water tight before it could even be considered legitimate. As a consequence, some of the best cell biology came out of the 3 decades of work on the subject. The intense gauntlet of peer review that NEVER ends in science is what distinguish the ideas which are mere crap from those which are accurate. You of course would rather do "kitchen table" armchair pseudoscience to avoid any scrutiny of your ideas..you wish for them to be accepted a priori and then ignore evidence that does not support your a priori accepted hypothesis. Anyone who disagrees you label a non-scientist or not interested in the truth. However, Newton and all your other idols made their way using MN and their ideas were subject to peer review.
It is certainly clear why you would not want your musings peer reviewed or even scritinized.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-14-2004 7:21 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 250 of 273 (86996)
02-17-2004 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-14-2004 5:49 PM


Re: Quite a thread!
YEs, and thanks;
You/one, does it by using deductive biogeography within a claim that BOTH galvani AND volta were speaking 'biologically' and noticing that population genetics may have contact that chemistry does not. There was an error in the scientific community's historical acceptance of Faraday's "logic". F was saying that there is not current where there is no chemistry and wanted to say that there is only current where there is chemistry but there can still be current with sexual reproduction without any change in chemistry. Seeing a historian on Faraday such as LP WILLIAMS only confuses this with electric charge. NO-the is the playtpus bill and different ecologies of electric fish which were NOT in AUSTRALIA over time. Thanks again. and Good Day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-14-2004 5:49 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 251 of 273 (88349)
02-24-2004 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-14-2004 5:26 PM


Re: Curing Delusion
quote:
We're talking prior plausibilities, not posterior ones. When lot's of folks believe something is true, it's arrogant to not take their hypothesis under advisement, as having a prior plausibility worth evaluating. It's "true" only when the accumulating confirmed tests of predictions raise the posterior plausibility to near one.
Lots of folks believe that Astrology is true; does that mean that the plausibility of Astrology being true is greater? Most Americans believe that violent crime and child abductions are on the increase; does that make more plausible that they are right? A majority of Americans believe that antibiotics kill both viruses and bacteria, so does this increase the plausibility of viruses being killed by antibiotics? Almost half of Americans believe that early man and dinosaurs coexisted on earth; does their belief make it more plausible that it is true?
I would answer that the facts and evidence tell us most accurately the nature of the universe, because people "believe" many, many things for lots and lots of different reasons.
quote:
Some view atheism as courageous honesty, but most, in my opinion and experience, view it as cowardly retreat from the struggle to believe.
Well, in your case, I would say your stripe of religious belief is a pathetic and arrogant attempt to bolster your feeling of self-importance which has destroyed any rational bone in your body, but it's a good thing that opinions about religious belief are irrelevant.
quote:
So many believe, that it is foolish to not try to find the true part of that belief.
I think the "true part of that belief" is that people are terrified of not knowing what happens after death, and a belief in God helps people deal with events and circumstances they feel powerless to influence.
You know, like how humans used to believe we should sacrifice virgins to the volcano god so that he wouldn't send the lava and ash to burn us.
quote:
If demons have done their job, there will be no consensus view.
Is it a consensus view that there will be no consensus view if demons have done their job?
quote:
The link below is rather scholarly.
Page not found - Apologetics Press
Steve, your link provides no evidence of demons at all, just a bunch of bible quotes, anecdotes where people simply claim that "demonsdunit" which are taken completely at face falue with no attempt at investigation, and misrepresentations of skeptics.
In particular, the following lines misrepresent skeptics completely:
quote:
The skeptic, and even those religionists who have been influenced by the rationalistic mode of thought, repudiate anything that is not consistent with current human experience.
quote:
The nature of demons is spelled out explicitly in the New Testament. They were spirit beings. This, of course, creates a problem for the skeptic, who denies that there is anything beyond the material.
The skeptic neither "repudiates anything that is not consistent with current human experience", nor "denies that there is anything beyond the material."
The skeptic simply wants you to show them the evidence.
I grow very weary of you, Steve. You don't ever answer any straight questions. You are a bullshit artist of the highest degree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-14-2004 5:26 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 252 of 273 (88360)
02-24-2004 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-14-2004 6:49 PM


Re: Curing Delusion
quote:
S: Who's interpretation of scripture are you going to use?
quote:
God's. He says that's the only one that works. You ask Him what it means, and He tells you.
Stop avoiding my direct questions, Steve, it's starting to piss me off and it is counter to forum guidelines.
So, am I to understand that each person is supposed to have a conversation with god and each person's version of what God's interpretation of the scripture is what will be used for each indivildual's method of tithing?
Your study is dead in the water right from the start, then.
quote:
Well, yes, in the prior plausibility estimate, although done properly, the accumulation of prior plausibility estimates from more authoritative sources would lower the value considerably. As things now stand in my experience, the prior plausibility of Santa Clause is so low as to make the study of the hypothesis a waste of time.
Show me the calculations, please.
quote:
S: ...except that this "evidence" only suggests the existence of the supernatural in those who are already biased to interpret it in this way through cultural and personal bias.
quote:
And they would say that the evidence suggests the existence of the supernatural in anyone not biased to interpret it in some, any, other way. But, diligent application of H-D science will tell who is biased.
Unresponsive. I explained why and how the religious bias occurs. You basically said "Nuh-uh! YER biased AGAINST Jehovuh cuz you don't believe just cuz I SAY SO!"
Because you cannot explain to me how the evidence found in nature that anyone, regardless of religious belief can examine, shows reason for me to interpret it to mean that the Christian god or demons exists, this is great evidence that you are suffering from extreme religious bias.
I'm done with you, Steve. You do not argue in good faith, and I think you might actually be mentally ill. Enjoy your self-image as the "brilliant, misunderstood champion of science and Truth".
You are a self-deluded crank.
{edited by AdminTL to fix coding}
[This message has been edited by AdminTL, 02-24-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-14-2004 6:49 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Mammuthus, posted 02-25-2004 6:27 AM nator has not replied
 Message 259 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-25-2004 3:35 PM nator has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 253 of 273 (88512)
02-25-2004 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by nator
02-24-2004 10:01 AM


Re: Curing Delusion
Ah schraf, you are a little to late. Stephen had a little meltdown in the Free for All where he personally took it upon himself to be god's pointer dog and to order a contract killing on all of us non-believers (of course in the name of perfect love). On the other hand, it did raise the plausibility that he was a complete nutcase from 0.999999 to 1.0

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by nator, posted 02-24-2004 10:01 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Percy, posted 02-25-2004 10:53 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 254 of 273 (88583)
02-25-2004 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Mammuthus
02-25-2004 6:27 AM


Re: Curing Delusion
Gee, I missed that, can you give the link to that message?
--Ted

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Mammuthus, posted 02-25-2004 6:27 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by MrHambre, posted 02-25-2004 11:31 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 256 by Mammuthus, posted 02-25-2004 11:38 AM Percy has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 255 of 273 (88593)
02-25-2004 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Percy
02-25-2004 10:53 AM


The Wit and Wisdom of Stephen ben Yeshua
Percy,
I'm pretty sure I know the post to which Mammuthus is making reference. In post #55 in "Religion is Evil", our homie Stephen responded to DC85's claim to agnosticism thus:
"If that is your choice is life, I despise you, hate you."
Eccentric grammar, but a clear message. Stephen obviously believes that God is Love, just the tough kind. He later called atheism a hate-crime against God. To give him credit, though, he did later explain that God told him to leave the abortion clinics alone. However, sinners, the line is still drawn: "Most people, remember, are enemies of God."
In conclusion, I give you these wise words of tolerance and all-encompassing love from Stephen b. Y.:
"Millions do have a different view of God, and their life has little to commend it."
regards,
Esteban "His Master's Voice" Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Percy, posted 02-25-2004 10:53 AM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024