Skepticism here used as a cover for a debunking exercise [Archive]

Nitpick

8th June 2004, 12:28 PM

I don't think "a debunking skeptic" is an oxymoron.

What a true skeptic really means when questioning another person's belief is not: "The stuff you believe is nonsense" but rather: "You have no means of knowing what you pretend to be the truth". We should blame the weak impatient human nature of the skeptic for him not going through the whole procedure every time:

A:"The truth is such and such."
B:"Ok, so this is what you consider to be true. Could you please show me a rational path that leads to this knowledge?"
A:"[Insert argument(s)]"
B:"I'm afraid I can't view this argument(s) as compelling.[Insert counter-argument(s)]".

Again, B's impatience (or his suspicion that A. knows better but uses his "beliefs" as a tool to fool others, and maybe B's wish to demonstrate in front of those others just how flawed he considers A's reasoning) might led B. into trying to ridicule A's arguments.

Remember, skeptics are not better people, they just have a habit to question things.

Sloe_Bohemian

8th June 2004, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by LettristLoon
It seems like people, no matter what their faith might be, tend to debunk ideas opposed to it. Catholics debunk, Moslems debunk, skeptics debunk.

(snip)
Skeptics do not have an enormous, unifying philosophy that they intend to support with their debunking. The skeptical philosophy, boiled down to its essence, is something along the lines of: "It's better to accept the things for which there is evidence, and doubt everything else, than it is to believe things for which there is no good evidence."

Putting this philosophy to use, in a society full of philosophical, scientific, emotional and political dishonesty, is going to involve a great deal of debunking. I don't see how it could be done any other way.

Peace,
- B

According to the definitions Joe Black provides, skepticism is a noun (subject in the sentence) and debunk is the verb (act/tool of the skeptic) while he's left out the object.

The skepticism of his selected definition does not need to act, it can be passively applied. And I suspect that has a lot to do with the burr under his saddle... as he only likes docile skeptics who won't actively take up the gauntlet and chase down woo-woo's in their dark holes. And it's been noted above that people who debunk ideas don't have to be pure skeptics... they just have to lack faith in the area they are attacking.

But I like how LettristLoon and Ian seem to agree. Skeptics believe in what they can prove, or have seen proof of, (i.e. materialst-physcial universe). And even though skeptics attempt to debunk all things... they are only successful with the inmaterial universe which does not appear to exist... existance being a material (i.e. provable) state.

So what's the point of the post?

Skeptics are universally skeptical?

Or that as a result of being skeptical, skeptics debunk woo-woo?

Or that if you try, you can either prove or debunk something?

Or that's it's best to be skeptical if you want to be skilled at debunking?

Or if you debunk bad ideas, you will not necessarily be a skeptic?

Or if you are a skeptic, you aren't required to take action and debunk anything? ...and it bothers you that people take action on their skeptical ideas?

Or that you have seen evidence (or even weak indications) that people here want to debunk other people's ideas, but may in fact actually have hidden beliefs that they are harboring? ...and what beliefs would those be?

Or are you actually saying that you have some proof (or even a weak indication) that although the people here have no belief system to which they are committed; and that they will only accept the facts that can be proven (and they'll often challenge those also)... that their TRUE agenda is to perform the act of debunking others' beliefs just for the fun of it... but they aren't skeptical because somehow they would believe in any idea that came along if they'd just stop being so busy debunking ideas?

Or that you can compare nouns to verbs and find differences?

Help me out here.

8th June 2004, 01:24 PM

Mever Nind.

8th June 2004, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by crimresearch
"joe, joe, joe, read a book, preferably by Karl Popper..."

Popper? Man, I love the way he plays harmonica, and sings and stuff.
And he writes books too? Wow!

Do you have anything to add to this discussion, or do you regard your position of deliberately flaunted ignorance as a good thing?

Is this within the guidelines for this forum? Really?

T'ai Chi

8th June 2004, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by jj

Is this within the guidelines for this forum? Really?

I like people who act one way on 99% of the forum, then a completely different (behaved) way on 1% of the forum.

Know what I mean?

8th June 2004, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I like people who act one way on 99% of the forum, then a completely different (behaved) way on 1% of the forum.

Know what I mean?

Does, or does not, this forum have different rules? Just answer "yes" or "no".

I herebly demand that you cease stalking me.

Batman Jr.

8th June 2004, 06:26 PM

I think what Joe_Black is trying to say is that there are skeptics of a certain degree of militancy who will engage in debunking almost recklessly without giving the situation a second thought. Sometimes, this ill-planned debunking ends up becoming more fodder for the believers to feed off of.

Take, for example, the government's explanation for the "alien bodies" at Roswell. They claimed them to be anthropomorphic crash test dummies before they themselves could do the amount of research adequate enough to see that the dummies weren't used until about five years after the incident. Of course, we know that flawed arguments don't automatically make their conclusions (in this case, the less sensational, terrestrial conclusions) untenable and wrong, but those on the other side will latch onto anything just to cry conspiracy.

You dig?

T'ai Chi

8th June 2004, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by jj

Does, or does not, this forum have different rules? Just answer "yes" or "no".

You could try answering my YES or NO questions sometime.

I herebly demand that you cease stalking me.

A post is stalking? That's new!

First you demand me to answer your question, then you express (by fantasy exxageration) your dislike when I post to you. Make up your mind.

This is Critical Thinking, jj. You are free to complain to any mods if you feel you are truly being "stalked".

8th June 2004, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

You could try answering my YES or NO questions sometime.

Enough of your false rhetoric. You demand that people answer your ill-constructed "yes/no" questions that stipulate your point no matter what they answer, and then whey they don't, you attack them for not falling prey to your rhetorical cheats.

You've chosen to misrepresent my refusal to answer your contrived whipsaw again and again. You're stalking me, just like in your original post in this thread, accusing me implicitly of hypocrisy.

This is Critical Thinking, jj. You are free to complain to any mods if you feel you are truly being "stalked".

I wonder, T'ai Chi, what it means when you show up to misrepresent your contrived whipsaw questions in thread after thread? This isn't the first thread that you've made that illicit, misleading claim in.

Yes, this is critical thinking. You emerge to take an unsupported anti-skeptical attack of:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I like people who act one way on 99% of the forum, then a completely different (behaved) way on 1% of the forum.

Know what I mean?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in reply to my comment to an entirely different person. You have no cause or justification for either your interference or your false implication.

In fact, this IS "critical thinking", which does have different rules, in which you are engaging in defamation and personal attack, falsely constructed and obviously intended to decieve the casual reader, and therefore violating the intent of this forum.

When taken to account for your initial breach of both manners and veritas, you retaliate with another false personal attack, trying to represent your contived questions as deserving any answer whatsoever.

You are a stalker,and you are attempting, poorly and lamely, to stalk me. Your stalking is quite evidently in retaliation for my showing the quackery and bias involved in your anti-Claus metric.

crimresearch

8th June 2004, 09:40 PM

The work of either Popper is equally relevant to this discussion.

I am not the one responsible for the reactions of those who are acting on insufficient knowledge of the subject to grasp arcane references.

And I would like for jj to show me the part of the critical thinking forum 'guidelines' where it says I have to dumb down my part of the discussion to accomodate his lack of knowledge..

In other words, if you can't keep up, take notes.

8th June 2004, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by crimresearch
And I would like for jj to show me the part of the critical thinking forum 'guidelines' where it says I have to dumb down my part of the discussion to accomodate his lack of knowledge..

I would suggest that you read the part about personal attacks, and then apologize profusely for that.

T'ai Chi

8th June 2004, 10:31 PM

Enough of your false rhetoric. You demand that people answer your ill-constructed "yes/no" questions that stipulate your point no matter what they answer, and then whey they don't, you attack them for not falling prey to your rhetorical cheats.

Unfortunately, they are not false rhetoric as you feel, but just regular questions you have not answered.

You're stalking me, just like in your original post in this thread, accusing me implicitly of hypocrisy.

Your opinion is noted. You're welcome to report me to the moderators if you really think I am, jj. I am merely engaging in discussion with you (and with many, many other people on this board; you're not special in that sense).

I wonder, T'ai Chi, what it means when you show up to misrepresent your contrived whipsaw questions in thread after thread?

And you have the nerve to accuse me of asking loaded questions..

, and therefore violating the intent of this forum.

You are welcome to report the thread to the moderators.

, you retaliate with another false personal attack, trying to

Nowhere did I attack you personally as you claim. Sensitive?

You are a stalker,and you are attempting, poorly and lamely, to stalk me. Your stalking is quite evidently in retaliation for my showing the quackery and bias involved in your anti-Claus metric.

Emotional claptrap. Replies are now "stalking" apparently.

Being that you have most definitely not shown N(x,y) to be a poor estimate of N, you are caught exxageratinhg, yet again.

When will you answer my questions instead of evading them, jj?

8th June 2004, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
When will you answer my questions instead of evading them, jj?

Your questions are contrived, malicious, and poorly formed. Your stalking, likewise. Any further discussion here is both off topic and off-forum.

T'ai Chi

8th June 2004, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by jj

Your questions are contrived, malicious, and poorly formed. Your stalking, likewise. Any further discussion here is both off topic and off-forum.

So you refuse to answer my questions then.

This is the critical thinking forum jj, and this is a thread where we discuss if skepticism here is used as a cover for debunking... think about it.

I'm "stalking" you? I was in this thread before you were, jj. Moreover, you are free to report me to the moderators if you really believe that.

Sloe_Bohemian

8th June 2004, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
I think what Joe_Black is trying to say is that there are skeptics of a certain degree of militancy who will engage in debunking almost recklessly without giving the situation a second thought. Sometimes, this ill-planned debunking ends up becoming more fodder for the believers to feed off of.

Take, for example, the government's explanation for the "alien bodies" at Roswell. They claimed them to be anthropomorphic crash test dummies before they themselves could do the amount of research adequate enough to see that the dummies weren't used until about five years after the incident. Of course, we know that flawed arguments don't automatically make their conclusions (in this case, the less sensational, terrestrial conclusions) untenable and wrong, but those on the other side will latch onto anything just to cry conspiracy.

You dig?

I can dig your rap. It's coherant, demonstrative and concise... (I can never get that concise thing to work for me).

If Joe_Black's message is that acting on skepticism with reckless abandon is likely to fuel the grist mills of believers; then comparing a noun to the verb most likely used with that noun and pointing out that they aren't the same word... is... well, I'd say it's a false analogy. Useless argument... perhaps even reckless without having given the situation a second thought, becoming more fodder for the skeptics who may be of a certain degree of militancy. (i.e. it's silly)

I love your example. Making errors while debunking some particular belief is bad news for the skeptic (or iconoclast, or empassioned advocate) who's doing it. But that's part of the skeptical process isn't it? If the skeptic attempts to debunk an idea but fails, that may not prove the thing is true but it is part of the experimentation towards discovering the truth.

For example, Joe_Black appears to have failed completely (far worse than the gov't crash test dummy people) to prove that dissimiliarities between nouns and related verbs will give us any evidence that skepticism is being rampantly misused in these forums by those who act on it with reckless abandon. But maybe he fails so badly because his point of view is not valid. His failure in this one attempt does not prove that, but if his premise is unsound, then his failure might be just what we expect with each attempt to prove his point.

Unless his ill-planned attempt at exposure of the evils of empassioned skeptics is really meant as an example of that very process... and he's trying to demonstrate the problems with jumping to conclusions (about what's right or not) by doing it so badly himself? Wow! That could almost be brilliant!

See? I told you I don't know nothing about being concise.

* P.S. I'm sorry to interrupt the blood feud between jj and T'ai Chi. You folks just ignore me and keep doing what you love so much.

9th June 2004, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by Sloe_Bohemian

...
I love your example. Making errors while debunking some particular belief is bad news for the skeptic (or iconoclast, or empassioned advocate) who's doing it. But that's part of the skeptical process isn't it? If the skeptic attempts to debunk an idea but fails, that may not prove the thing is true but it is part of the experimentation towards discovering the truth.

You're absolutely right. Of course, in this day of poor education and creduility (is it worse now? I think so, but I've no good measure), a skeptic who is dead-on right will even be accused of making mistakes, conducting themselves unethically, and so on, and a great deal of the public just doesn't care enough to learn the truth.

It's a very basic problem, one we see evidence of here on the board, not only with my stalker, but also with the fellow who's trying to take Randi to task about underground streams, etc. It seems that some anti-skeptics feel that abandoing all ethics, and using any form of misrepresentation open to them is just another tool in the arsenal.

I do not, generally, think a skeptic can or should do the same thing.

BillHoyt

9th June 2004, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by Joe_Black
"Now, do you honestly want a definition of evidence?"

I want the definition you would select bill hoyt. The are different levels of evidence, everyone has a different level of evidence needed (in some cases no evidence is strong enough) too change any believe that something is true/false/maybe that they have.

I want your personal definitions of evidence, which i suspect is just a bar that will get higher and higher as you raise as it as is jumped, because you cannot accept that you are, or even might be wrong.

I don't "select" a definition. Neither is that definition "personal." I will, however, provide a personal description of the nature of evidence.

When skeptics speak of evidence, we are normally addressing the domain of science, and normally address epistemology. The standards of evidence in science are rigorous. Scientific "proof" normally means that the peer-reviewed literature on the subject has now converged. Repeated tests of different hypotheses have ruled out every conceived alternative hypothesis but one: that one we call a scientific fact.

Since we are not all scientists, though, and do not all have ready access to all this information, skeptics usually accept as evidence: information from textbooks in the subject field or papers from peer-reviewed journal articles.

One note on the peer-reviewed journal articles, however: remember how important intersubjective validation is in science. The experiments reported in these papers must have appropriately strong protocols, high statistical power, and must be both repeatable and have been repeated and reported by other researchers with comparable results.

Leroy

9th June 2004, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by Joe_Black
Definition of skeptic:

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/skeptic

Definition of debunk:

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=debunk

Quite different are they not?

My question is, if you want to educate young minds, teach critical thinking skills, in the hopes that students will go away having learned something of value, which method is more effective?

1. To laugh at them, make fun of them, ridicule them?

2. To cause them to question, to doubt, to research?

9th June 2004, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Leroy
2. To cause them to question, to doubt, to research?

This is indeed the way to go, as far as I'm concerned.

The question, however, is:

What do we do with people who are not trying to question, doubt, or research, but are rather trying to confuse, obscure, and defend the paranormal?

Batman Jr.

9th June 2004, 11:52 AM

Another problem involves overambitious skeptics who will end up obfuscating things in the other direction. I think this is what this thread is trying to address.

9th June 2004, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
Another problem involves overambitious skeptics who will end up obfuscating things in the other direction.

Agreed, that is indeed another problem. Skeptics are often very analytical, and many people simply aren't willing to plow through the same reams of data, reasoning, etc, and dismiss the whole thing as "obfuscation".

Given the obfuscation from the woo side (and, yes, I do see some from every side, but there's a lot more woo), it's hard to tell, without training and understanding, what is the woo and what is the real thing.

So, the obfuscation, catcalling, echoing back of accusations, demands to answer question, provide evidence, etc, are very successful tactics, indeed, despite their generally unethical nature.

(Everyone makes mistakes, so all calls for clarification in any direction can be neither good nor bad...)

I think this is what this thread is trying to address.

It seems to me more of a general attack on skeptics via the use of questionable definitions and semantics.

T'ai Chi

9th June 2004, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by Sloe_Bohemian

* P.S. I'm sorry to interrupt the blood feud between jj and T'ai Chi.

Ok, you got it Sloe.

I don't want guests reading this thread to be turned off from this board or skepticism by feuding.

CFLarsen

10th June 2004, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Ok, you got it Sloe.

I don't want guests reading this thread to be turned off from this board or skepticism by feuding.

Then perhaps you should stop trying to derail threads with your own feuds?

Leroy

11th June 2004, 09:52 AM

Is there a time when attacking, laughing at, making fun of, bullying or ridiculing a believer is appropriate?

I am not speaking of a person who claims to be a prophet, medium, or psychic. I can see where those tactics might be appropriate for say, a preacher like Jim Baker who has been caught abusing church donations. If he is trying to squirm out of it, maybe it is appropriate and effective in that situation, toward the person who is doing the scamming.

That leaves thousands and thousands of his followers. Believers. If you use the same tactic on them, you won't be changing their minds, you will be isolating them, and they may turn around and join another religious group and spend their hard earned money on another false leader, thinking that you are the one to be leery of.

If you want to educate all of his followers, and show them that they were scammed, you won't reach that goal by attacking them.

Educating someone is far different than attacking them and their beliefs. You may win an argument by running off the believer, but what have you gained other than another checkmark by your name? Nothing. You didn't change their beliefs, you didn't even get them to consider other possibilities, you simply ran them off and said "I Won!"

Is that what you want in this organization, or do you want to educate people, teach them critical thinking skills, open their eyes?

BillHoyt

12th June 2004, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by Leroy
Is that what you want in this organization, or do you want to educate people, teach them critical thinking skills, open their eyes?
Leroy,

Take out the superglue remover and apply it to your eyelids. Wait 10 seconds. Then maybe somebody will have a chance of opening your eyes. When you open them up, then please search out skeptics' posts to newbies who ask honest, sincere questions. Even to those who come with some challenges to skepticism. Contrast those posts with posts somewhat later, after it has become clear that they have no interest in learning.

Very much like you. Now, would you like to use the superglue remover and actually engage in a discussion here about skeptical issues and not skeptics-as-issues?

T'ai Chi

12th June 2004, 09:54 AM

csense

12th June 2004, 11:15 AM

BillHoyt

12th June 2004, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by csense

The woo woo, or the skeptic.
Csense,

You're here on a skeptic board, on a particular subforum that attempts to devote itself to critical thinking. Which do you think I mean? And why do you think I mean it?

csense

12th June 2004, 02:18 PM

Csense, You're here on a skeptic board, on a particular subforum that attempts to devote itself to critical thinking.

And in keeping with the theme of critical thinking and or skepticism, tell me what truth either of them infers about reality?

Which do you think I mean?

Isn't it obvious from it's rhetorical nature?

And why do you think I mean it?

Why do you want to know

T'ai Chi

12th June 2004, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

You're here on a skeptic board,

"...for skeptics and non-skeptics..."

CFLarsen

12th June 2004, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
"...for skeptics and non-skeptics..."

Absolutely. But here, claims are examined. Claims do not go unchallenged. And no non-skeptic - not even you - have ever been banned or censored for his/her beliefs.

That's what you leave out. Or "forget" to include.

tamiO

12th June 2004, 11:23 PM

hmmmm....

Skeptic (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=skeptic&f=1)

no one in particular

12th June 2004, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by tamiO
hmmmm....!

Your new toy (the UD) sure is giving us interesting reading material. I had almost forgotten about the good Lord (DC, that is, not JC).

BillHoyt

13th June 2004, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by csense
Csense, You're here on a skeptic board, on a particular subforum that attempts to devote itself to critical thinking.

And in keeping with the theme of critical thinking and or skepticism, tell me what truth either of them infers about reality?

At the absolute heart of the JREF board is the understanding that science is epistemologically privileged. That claims seemingly contrary to the findings of science must be supported with evidence garnered through the scientific method. That, absent such support, your local neighborhood breatharian is more likely to be ordering pizzas when you're not looking than sustaining his life simply by breathing.

hammegk

13th June 2004, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

At the absolute heart of the JREF board is the understanding that science is epistemologically privileged. That claims seemingly contrary to the findings of science must be supported with evidence garnered through the scientific method.

For those of you who prefer plainer language: If you are not, basically, a classical materialist you are a f*cking retard.

T'ai Chi

13th June 2004, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

At the absolute heart of the JREF board is the understanding that science is epistemologically privileged. That claims seemingly contrary to the findings of science must be supported with evidence garnered through the scientific method. That, absent such support, your local neighborhood breatharian is more likely to be ordering pizzas when you're not looking than sustaining his life simply by breathing.

"...for skeptics and non-skeptics..."

CFLarsen

13th June 2004, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
"...for skeptics and non-skeptics..."

What are you trying to say here? If you have a point, would you care to let us in on it?

T'ai Chi

13th June 2004, 11:03 AM

Bill said it is a skeptic board. It is:

"...for skeptics and non-skeptics..."

Got that IP address evidence yet... ? When? Tomorrow? Next month? Next year? ;)

CFLarsen

13th June 2004, 11:09 AM

OK, you don't have a point, then.

Might I suggest that you stop derailing threads and leave serious discussion for the grown-ups?

T'ai Chi

13th June 2004, 11:11 AM

"...for skeptics and non-skeptics..."

I don't care if you don't like that fact. Start up your own "skeptics" only board.

CFLarsen

13th June 2004, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
"...for skeptics and non-skeptics..."

I don't care if you don't like that fact. Start up your own "skeptics" only board.

Who are saying that this is a "skeptics only" board?

T'ai Chi

13th June 2004, 11:32 AM

Cantata, I didn't say anyone said this is a skeptics only board.

Learn how to read please.

CFLarsen

13th June 2004, 11:37 AM

So what did you mean by this:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I don't care if you don't like that fact. Start up your own "skeptics" only board.

I didn't say - or mean - that I don't like the fact that it is for both. I have no intentions of wanting this board to be for skeptics only. I think it is great that skeptics and non-skeptics (like yourself) can meet and debate paranormal issues.

What is your point here? Are you going to claim that skeptics have opinions they don't have?

Why are you all of a sudden referring to my TVTalkshow nickname?

13th June 2004, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Cantata, I didn't say anyone said this is a skeptics only board.

Learn how to read please.

No, in context you merely implied it, stalker.

T'ai Chi

13th June 2004, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by jj

No, in context you merely implied it, stalker.

Exxagerator Extraordinarre,

I didn't imply it. I only said, in response to Bill, that this is not a skeptics board, but it is for "skeptics and non-skeptics".

T'ai Chi

13th June 2004, 01:44 PM

" Are you going to claim that skeptics have opinions they don't have?"

Where did you get that?? No, I'm not going to claim that nor did I ever.

"Why are you all of a sudden referring to my TVTalkshow nickname?"

Stick to the facts, please.

Got any IP evidence yet, debunker?

CFLarsen

14th June 2004, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I didn't imply it. I only said, in response to Bill, that this is not a skeptics board, but it is for "skeptics and non-skeptics".

And nobody is saying otherwise. So, what is your point? What are you getting at?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Stick to the facts, please.

Yes, I would very much like for everyone to stick to the facts, and not bring up irrelevant things. So....don't.

Leroy

14th June 2004, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Leroy,

Take out the superglue remover and apply it to your eyelids. Wait 10 seconds. Then maybe somebody will have a chance of opening your eyes. When you open them up, then please search out skeptics' posts to newbies who ask honest, sincere questions. Even to those who come with some challenges to skepticism. Contrast those posts with posts somewhat later, after it has become clear that they have no interest in learning.

Very much like you. Now, would you like to use the superglue remover and actually engage in a discussion here about skeptical issues and not skeptics-as-issues?

Like this post, from Billy.

I asked "Is there a time when attacking, laughing at, making fun of, bullying or ridiculing a believer is appropriate - Educating someone is far different than attacking them and their beliefs. You may win an argument by running off the believer, but what have you gained other than another checkmark by your name? Nothing. You didn't change their beliefs, you didn't even get them to consider other possibilities, you simply ran them off and said "I Won!" Is that what you want in this organization, or do you want to educate people, teach them critical thinking skills, open their eyes?"

What did he gain by his hubris post?

BillHoyt

14th June 2004, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by Leroy

What did he gain by his hubris post?

May I suggest you look up "hubris," which is not an adjective? May I also suggest you engage in a discussion about skeptical issues rather than skeptics-as-issues?

Leroy

14th June 2004, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

May I suggest you look up "hubris," which is not an adjective? May I also suggest you engage in a discussion about skeptical issues rather than skeptics-as-issues?

hu·bris - Overbearing pride; arrogance

May I suggest that you answer this question, which was part of the discussion on this thread, instead of trying to nitpick? If you don't wish to answer it, than understand that I have nothing further to discuss with you. I am interested in the opinions of those on this board who wish to discuss this topic.

"Is there a time when attacking, laughing at, making fun of, bullying or ridiculing a believer is appropriate - Educating someone is far different than attacking them and their beliefs. You may win an argument by running off the believer, but what have you gained other than another checkmark by your name? Nothing. You didn't change their beliefs, you didn't even get them to consider other possibilities, you simply ran them off and said "I Won!" Is that what you want in this organization, or do you want to educate people, teach them critical thinking skills, open their eyes?"

Yes there is a time... if so "When"
No there is not a time... "Why Not"
Is this what you want the organization to stand for "Yes "No"
Do you want to teach them critical thinking skills "Yes" "NO"
Can you teach them by belittling them? "Yes" "No"

T'ai Chi

14th June 2004, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

And nobody is saying otherwise. So, what is your point? What are you getting at?

Yes, I would very much like for everyone to stick to the facts, and not bring up irrelevant things. So....don't.

Your IP address evidence, sir?

No one is buying your stalling tactics.

CFLarsen

14th June 2004, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Your IP address evidence, sir?

No one is buying your stalling tactics.

What "stalling tactics"? That discussion is for another thread. In this thread, we are discussing other things, e.g. your point in saying "that this is not a skeptics board, but it is for "skeptics and non-skeptics"?

Since nobody is saying that this is a board exclusively for skeptics, what do you mean?

BillHoyt

14th June 2004, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Leroy
hu·bris - Overbearing pride; arrogance

May I suggest that you answer this question, which was part of the discussion on this thread, instead of trying to nitpick? If you don't wish to answer it, than understand that I have nothing further to discuss with you. I am interested in the opinions of those on this board who wish to discuss this topic.
"Hubris" is a noun, leroy. I answered your question, leroy, but I will break it down for you:

"Take out the superglue remover and apply it to your eyelids. Wait 10 seconds. Then maybe somebody will have a chance of opening your eyes.
In any communication, there are at least two people involved. In any failure to have "one's eyes opened," there may be two people who may be faulted. You put the onus on skeptics to ensure the other's eyes are opened. That is not always correct; there are some who can't see, or who have their minds made up or who don't care to pay attention.

"When you open them up, then please search out skeptics' posts to newbies who ask honest, sincere questions. Even to those who come with some challenges to skepticism. Contrast those posts with posts somewhat later, after it has become clear that they have no interest in learning."
Here I said two things to you: 1. You need to open your eyes. 2. With those eyes opened, look back over skeptics' first posts to newbies. You will see that genuine questions were answered sincerely and politely. You will also see that many of those newbie posters quickly identified themselves as disingenuous. They had no interest in getting to the truth. They just wanted to try to bust chops.

"Very much like you. Now, would you like to use the superglue remover and actually engage in a discussion here about skeptical issues and not skeptics-as-issues?"
Here again, I returned to the theme of disingenous posting, and asked you to actually engage in this discussion. Granted this thread was already off to a bull start. It was another example of an assault on skeptics and showed little interest in more than leveling accusations.

You attempted to change from the original accusation to some piled-on accusations making skeptics the issue. Your reasoning in posing the questions is already both slanted and faulty. You have not taken the time to actually pay attention to the dialogues happening here. Neither have you considered the other, larger part of the communication: the audience.

What appears to be a conversation between me and you is watched by, on average 20 people. (The view-to-post ratio here is about 10:1.) So, guess what, leroy? No, I don't care about people who play games here. I care far more about those 20 viewers. I care that they get to understand not only debunking but skeptical thinking. I care that they get to observe non-skeptics in action and can understand what fallacies they committed, and what rhetorical tricks they attempted to play to paper over a lack of logic or lack of evidence or both.

At the end of the day, I hope they get to add a bit more to their critical thinking toolkits.

T'ai Chi

14th June 2004, 09:09 AM

I am just replying to what he said. He said it was a skeptics board, pure and simple.

Jr: "You're here on a skeptic board, "

T'ai Chi

14th June 2004, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

You put the onus on skeptics to ensure the other's eyes are opened. That is not always correct; there are some who can't see, or who have there minds made up or who don't care to pay attention.

And there are some who call others woo woo troll kaffee klatch balloon flies... right Bill?

They had no interest in getting to the truth.

I know you do, so just admit that skewness/skew isn't only called skew as you erroneously claimed.

At the end of the day, I hope they get to add a bit more to their critical thinking toolkits.

Like namecalling and originally saying you want to beat the pap out of a poster? Right? Those types of critical thinking skills?

CFLarsen

14th June 2004, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I am just replying to what he said. He said it was a skeptics board, pure and simple.

Jr: "You're here on a skeptic board, "

Yes, by which he means that claims are questioned. He did not say that it was for skeptics only.

So, what was your point?

T'ai Chi

14th June 2004, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Yes, by which he means that claims are questioned. He did not say that it was for skeptics only.

How do you know that?? Mind reading again?

I can only go by what he said here, and in the past, and he said:

"You're here on a skeptic board, "

Leroy

15th June 2004, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

In any communication, there are at least two people involved. In any failure to have "one's eyes opened," there may be two people who may be faulted. You put the onus on skeptics to ensure the other's eyes are opened. That is not always correct; there are some who can't see, or who have their minds made up or who don't care to pay attention

On both sides of the fence Bill.

Here I said two things to you: 1. You need to open your eyes. 2. With those eyes opened, look back over skeptics' first posts to newbies. You will see that genuine questions were answered sincerely and politely. You will also see that many of those newbie posters quickly identified themselves as disingenuous. They had no interest in getting to the truth. They just wanted to try to bust chops.

Who’s truth Bill?

Here again, I returned to the theme of disingenous posting, and asked you to actually engage in this discussion. Granted this thread was already off to a bull start. It was another example of an assault on skeptics and showed little interest in more than leveling accusations.

Did you mean disingenuous Bill? I was engaged in a discussion. My questions were fair.

You attempted to change from the original accusation to some piled-on accusations making skeptics the issue. Your reasoning in posing the questions is already both slanted and faulty. You have not taken the time to actually pay attention to the dialogues happening here. Neither have you considered the other, larger part of the communication: the audience.

No Bill, I didn’t attempt to change anything. Go back and read this thread from the beginning, then read my questions again. This thread got me to thinking about those few skeptics who do nothing more than harass, belittle, and attack believers. They give the rest of us a bad name, in my opinion. My questions were appropriate for this discussion. Sorry if they upset you ;)

What appears to be a conversation between me and you is watched by, on average 20 people. (The view-to-post ratio here is about 10:1.) So, guess what, leroy? No, I don't care about people who play games here. I care far more about those 20 viewers. I care that they get to understand not only debunking but skeptical thinking. I care that they get to observe non-skeptics in action and can understand what fallacies they committed, and what rhetorical tricks they attempted to play to paper over a lack of logic or lack of evidence or both.

Have all believers on this board committed these fallacies, and tricks? Do you stereotype believers into one category, or do you think some are rational educated individuals?

You still have not answered my questions; you have only made excuses as to why some skeptics resort to those bullying tactics. Understand? Or do I need to break it down for you?

First I am not speaking of those fair-minded skeptics who are not here to force a believer to change his mind, but are here to try and educate young minds. I am speaking of those few individuals who seem to consider themselves far above the believer. Who, if they cannot get the believer to change his-her beliefs, they resort to dishonest methods to undermine the person. And, if the believer has shown herself not to be a ‘woo woo’ but a highly educated individual, these few skeptics resort again to dishonest bullying tactics to try and discredit the believer. After all, their wish is to portray any believer as a woo woo and they can’t have an educated, level-headed, intelligent believer running lose on the board! Those who have paid attention to these threads know exactly who these skeptics are that I refer to.

CFLarsen

15th June 2004, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
How do you know that?? Mind reading again?

I can only go by what he said here, and in the past, and he said:

"You're here on a skeptic board, "

Very well, then. Let's ask him:

Bill,

When you say "You're here on a skeptic board", do you mean that:

This board is for skeptics only.

or

This board is for skeptics and non-skeptics. Claims are challenged. Non-skeptics should expect this.

1 or 2?

BillHoyt

15th June 2004, 05:27 AM

Originally posted by Leroy

There wasn't any need to break it down Billy, I already caught your meaning. Some of us are not retards as you wish to portray us.

You still have not answered my questions, you have only made excuses for skeptics. Understand? or do I need to break it down for you?

And your post is bullsh!t. My question was legitimate, one that everyone who wishes to represent this site, should be asking themselves.

What is your problem Bill?
Every one of your questions was answered, Leroy.

BillHoyt

15th June 2004, 05:35 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Very well, then. Let's ask him:

Bill,

When you say "You're here on a skeptic board", do you mean that:

This board is for skeptics only.

or

This board is for skeptics and non-skeptics. Claims are challenged. Non-skeptics should expect this.

1 or 2?

2.

Here, again, was csense's post:
The woo-woo, or the skeptic.
And my response:
Csense,

You're here on a skeptic board, on a particular subforum that attempts to devote itself to critical thinking. Which do you think I mean? And why do you think I mean it?

It is a simple matter of fact. JREF is a skeptical organization. It runs a skeptical board. Csense asked a question, and I answered it by putting it in the context of both the board and the subforum.

Some people apparently don't do well in reading comprehension.

Leroy

15th June 2004, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Every one of your questions was answered, Leroy.

Okey dokie Bill :)

CFLarsen

15th June 2004, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
2.

There you have your answer, T'ai Chi.

Please explain what your point was.

BillHoyt

15th June 2004, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by Leroy
Who’s truth Bill?

We can stop right here, Leroy, because this is the root cause of your problem with skepticism. You fail to recognize that "truth" in this subject domain is neither relative nor negotiable nor driven by rhetoric. Truth is driven by the scientific process here. Period. End of story.

One doesn't have opinions about the fact of gravity. It is there. It is real. One may hold the opinion that gravity isn't nice, but one cannot maintain gravity doesn't exist.

The earth orbits the sun. The moon orbits the earth. Humans evolved from simian ancestors. Homeopathy is high-priced water or milk sugar. These are facts. These are truths.

It is unsettling for some to see "truth" without the nineteenth century capital "T". Skeptical truth is solidly based in scientific truth, and scientific truth is always provisional. It is always subject to further findings vetted through the same scientific process. Some immediately try to parlay the provisional nature of scientific truth to mean truth is relative or there is no truth or other bizarre postmodernist corruptions of rationality. This corruption is the same postmodernist feint you try here with your question, "who's[sic] truth?"

Leroy

15th June 2004, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

We can stop right here, Leroy, because this is the root cause of your problem with skepticism. You fail to recognize that "truth" in this subject domain is neither relative nor negotiable nor driven by rhetoric. Truth is driven by the scientific process here. Period. End of story.

One doesn't have opinions about the fact of gravity. It is there. It is real. One may hold the opinion that gravity isn't nice, but one cannot maintain gravity doesn't exist.

The earth orbits the sun. The moon orbits the earth. Humans evolved from simian ancestors. Homeopathy is high-priced water or milk sugar. These are facts. These are truths.

It is unsettling for some to see "truth" without the nineteenth century capital "T". Skeptical truth is solidly based in scientific truth, and scientific truth is always provisional. It is always subject to further findings vetted through the same scientific process. Some immediately try to parlay the provisional nature of scientific truth to mean truth is relative or there is no truth or other bizarre postmodernist corruptions of rationality. This corruption is the same postmodernist feint you try here with your question, "who's[sic] truth?"

First off bill, do you really believe that I am trying to be deceptive, or are you just paranoid and judgemental?

Believers are not arguing about gravity, the moon or sun, or trying to disprove what science has proven.

Is it a proven fact that people cannot communicate with the dead? Is it a proven fact that ghosts do not exist?

Yes or No?

oops, sorry, I need to translate this to your level.

Bill, do you think I am a netherling, covinous? Or, perhaps you are just being contumelious for your own amusement?

Forget it, I never did like putting on airs. I shall accept this drissom humbly.

Perhaps I should tanter the believers too. Perhaps I need to be reeth, martle them, floke them, leave them fertummelt!

That should teach them critical thinking skills and soon they will be teached, taught, cleaned up of their heathen ways, learned, smart like me. *Evil Grin*

BillHoyt

15th June 2004, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Leroy
Believers are not arguing about gravity, the moon or sun, or trying to disprove what science has proven.
Malarky. You omitted the rest of my sentence here. Evolution? Homeopathy? Those are just two examples of believers trying to disprove science.
Is it a proven fact that people cannot communicate with the dead? Is it a proven fact that ghosts do not exist?
You've inverted the questions. There is no evidence of life after death. No evidence that the dead can communicate. No evidence that the living can receive such communications. There is no evdience for ghosts. In both cases, claimed evidence, when examined turns out to be hoaxes, pranks, misunderstandings or fraud.

The burden of proof is on those who wish to claim evidence for these things exists. And that burden is high because of Occam's razor and the number of new features of the universe that must be shown to exist.

Bill, do you think I am a netherling, covinous? Or, perhaps you are just being contumelious for your own amusement?

Forget it, I never did like putting on airs. I shall accept this drissom humbly.

Perhaps I should tanter the believers too. Perhaps I need to be reeth, martle them, floke them, leave them fertummelt!

That should teach them critical thinking skills and soon they will be teached, taught, cleaned up of their heathen ways, learned, smart like me. *Evil Grin*
If you read carefully, Leroy, you will see that I am attempting to teach you about critical thinking.

T'ai Chi

15th June 2004, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

There you have your answer, T'ai Chi.

Good I'm glad he finally decided to express himself clearer.

CFLarsen

15th June 2004, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Good I'm glad he finally decided to express himself clearer.

So, what was your point?

T'ai Chi

15th June 2004, 09:52 AM

I said it already. It seemed Bill said this is a skeptics board, which is not factually correct.

CFLarsen

15th June 2004, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I said it already. It seemed Bill said this is a skeptics board, which is not factually correct.

So you agree that believers are able to state their case here, free from censorship?

T'ai Chi

15th June 2004, 10:04 AM

HUh? Where did that come from?

I simply responded to Bill calling this a skeptics board.

There's other things going on by various forum participants, but not censorship, from what I can tell.

Leroy

15th June 2004, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt There is no evidence of life after death.

No evidence, none, ziltch? Have you heard of NDE's? That is considered evidence.

Not scientific evidence - not evidence that would convince you or I

Does that mean there is no evidence? There are individuals who believe they have communicated with the dead, that is evidence to {them}. Because there isn't scientific evidence to prove they did, and we've never had that experience, do we disregard all that they say, call them woo-woo, ridicule them, and feed them to the dogs?

No evidence that the dead can communicate. No evidence that the living can receive such communications. There is no evdience for ghosts. In both cases, claimed evidence, when examined turns out to be hoaxes, pranks, misunderstandings or fraud.

Again, no scientific evidence, again, there are individuals who seem pretty normal, who believe they have communicated with the dead and the dead have communicated with them. They consider that evidence, not evidence to convince another, but evidence enough to convince themselves.

I don't accept their evidence, but I don't consider all who claim these things as woo woos either. At least not all of them.

The burden of proof is on those who wish to claim evidence for these things exists. And that burden is high because of Occam's razor and the number of new features of the universe that must be shown to exist.

I agree, but,

What about those who are not here to prove anything. They believe, but don't care if you do or not. Do you think they might learn something from this place? Do you think that they learn when they are being belittled or ridiculed? Do you think they might listen a bit closer if the atmosphere was a bit friendlier?

If you read carefully, Leroy, you will see that I am attempting to teach you about critical thinking.

*LMAO* Ah Shucks! That be mighty nice of ye sir. We poor ignorunt folk culd not posobly posses critical thinking skills! Why we doesn't even knows how to pro nounse the words ya'll use let alone unnerstand em. I be mity thankfel fer ye help n these matters. Wish I culd be a smart as ye thinks ye are.

I jest bet folks round here are speachless whens you write yer stuff down. Why they'd be migtty timidated by your big words an all, and jest know right up front that they dummies. You gots to be right in everthing you says. I can jest tell by them words you use.

Gosh, when do ye think all this learnin you doin me is gonna help with me critical thinkin?

I hopes you don't have an anerism from all that dramb! *LOL*

hammegk

15th June 2004, 12:06 PM

If Hoyt has raised teenagers, I wonder if he used the approach to teaching them he prefers to demonstrate here?

If not, please Ed let him try it out on them.

Joe_Black

15th June 2004, 12:16 PM

Humans evolved from simian ancestors

Not proven yet. Its a theory, not fact.

Leroy

15th June 2004, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
If Hoyt has raised teenagers, I wonder if {he} used the approach to teaching them he prefers to demonstrate here?

If not, please Ed let him try it out on them.

huh? Wadayamean? Bill is smart! He's bin learnin me critical thinkin skills and I thinks they be workin now. I mean, fer a long time I tried to think, but nuttin happined, and jest after I read his posts I tried to think and it happined!

He's so smart I thinks me gonna give up all me own views and acept his from here on. I jest knows that he will never concid, consed, conseider me smart til I cept all his views. An I fear mighty bad that he mite think me a woo woo even tho I ain'ts a believer, if'n I don't cept all his views.

Ye cain't be smart, ye cain't possess critical thinkin skills less you think and believe like Bill! Now git with it!

rppa

15th June 2004, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Joe_Black
BillHoyt: Humans evolved from simian ancestors

Not proven yet. Its a theory, not fact.

Sigh. Did you stop reading at that point in that excellent post? Here's the part you missed:

BillHoyt: Skeptical truth is solidly based in scientific truth, and scientific truth is always provisional. It is always subject to further findings vetted through the same scientific process.

That "evolution is just a theory" line is really tired by now. ALL of science is "just a theory". None of it is "proven", just "consistent with all known data". That's the essential nature of the scientific method.

And you also missed this:
BillHoyt: Some immediately try to parlay the provisional nature of scientific truth to mean truth is relative or there is no truth or other bizarre postmodernist corruptions of rationality.

Which you immediately proved correct by trying to parlay the provisional nature of evolutionary theory into a conclusion that truth is relative or there is no truth or some other bizarre postmodernist corruption of rationality.

rppa

15th June 2004, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
If Hoyt has raised teenagers, I wonder if he used the approach to teaching them he prefers to demonstrate here?

If not, please Ed let him try it out on them.

I've raised teenagers. What's your question exactly? What "approach"?

csense

15th June 2004, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by rppa

That "evolution is just a theory" line is really tired by now. ALL of science is "just a theory". None of it is "proven", just "consistent with all known data".

All you're saying in your last remark is that science agrees with itself, or is consistent with itself, and to which I would say: I sincerely hope so. Other than that, it's a meaningless statement that supports nothing, other than a circular argument, and sheds absolutely no light on whether science, or rather scientists, are objectively correct in any of their extrapolations or inferences of such self supporting data.

As far as the rest of what you've said, there is a difference between correlation and causation, and to blur that line, however helpful to one's ideology, is simply not logical.

csense

15th June 2004, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by rppa

Which you immediately proved correct by trying to parlay the provisional nature of evolutionary theory into a conclusion that truth is relative or there is no truth or some other bizarre postmodernist corruption of rationality.

Then by all means, state for me a single truth about the nature of reality in the form of a formal philosophical proof, and a formal scientific proof.

T'ai Chi

15th June 2004, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by Leroy

No evidence, none, ziltch? Have you heard of NDE's? That is considered evidence.

By evidence, he of course means proof. ;)

BillHoyt

16th June 2004, 04:06 AM

Originally posted by Leroy

No evidence, none, ziltch? Have you heard of NDE's? That is considered evidence.

Not scientific evidence - not evidence that would convince you or I

Does that mean there is no evidence? There are individuals who believe they have communicated with the dead, that is evidence to {them}. Because there isn't scientific evidence to prove they did, and we've never had that experience, do we disregard all that they say, call them woo-woo, ridicule them, and feed them to the dogs?
The scene is winter. I look across the snow, over to the other side of the street where I see envelopes in my neighbor's mailbox. Evidence the mailman has already been here, even though it is only 5 am. I notice his footprints on the freshly fallen snow, leading from the house to my neighbor's left. More evidence the mailman arrived very early this day.

I have my breakfast, read the paper, shower, shave, dress and head out to my car. It is 7am now. As I'm driving out, I see the mailman pull up to my neighbor's house.

What happened? My scant "evidence" wasn't what I thought. What I actually saw was evidence that the mailman had misdelivered the previous day and my neighbor's neighbor corrected the error by walking the mail over to the correct house.

An NDE is evidence that somebody experienced something. The nature of that something is the critical question, and the answer to which you leap with scant evidence.

BillHoyt

16th June 2004, 04:07 AM

Originally posted by csense

Then by all means, state for me a single truth about the nature of reality in the form of a formal philosophical proof, and a formal scientific proof.
Science doesn't prove things with such formalisms. The question is straw.

Leroy

16th June 2004, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

By evidence, he of course means proof. ;)

Now dont ya be pickin on me Bill friend. Itz okay that he dont acept no evidence less it be whatz up wit hes standurds.

BillHoyt

16th June 2004, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by Leroy

Now dont ya be pickin on me Bill friend. Itz okay that he dont acept no evidence less it be whatz up wit hes standurds.

Not my standards. The standards of evidence of science.

Are you going to address the topic of this thread and the points I made or not?

Leroy

16th June 2004, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

The scene is winter. I look across the snow, over to the other side of the street where I see envelopes in my neighbor's mailbox. Evidence the mailman has already been here, even though it is only 5 am. I notice his footprints on the freshly fallen snow, leading from the house to my neighbor's left. More evidence the mailman arrived very early this day.

I have my breakfast, read the paper, shower, shave, dress and head out to my car. It is 7am now. As I'm driving out, I see the mailman pull up to my neighbor's house.

What happened? My scant "evidence" wasn't what I thought. What I actually saw was evidence that the mailman had misdelivered the previous day and my neighbor's neighbor corrected the error by walking the mail over to the correct house.

An NDE is evidence that somebody experienced something. The nature of that something is the critical question, and the answer to which you leap with scant evidence.

Now bill, don be tellin me what me leaps to. Don be sumin that I cepts the nde bcause sumbody says they had it. Don be summin thit cause me looks at the evidence, me sooms it is proofe! Thatz jest wrong bill.

I knowz you be tryin ta teach me those cri ti cal think skills n all, but watz ye point here? Evidence is evidence, not prroofe. Evidence may tern outz to be wrong, but itztill evidence til profin wrong. How do ye proofe that da man didnt have sumpin spactaculur happin to em? Howdaya proofe he din't haf a veesion, or nde? Itz hes evidence, don proofe nufink ta yous an I, but itz evidence.

NDE's be evidenze, don proofe no life afty death n all, but itz evidence. So watz ye point bill?

Ye needs ta help me wiff these critical thinkin skills agin and give me yer defanition of

Evidence:

thanks bill, I preciates all ye help.

Leroy

16th June 2004, 05:15 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Not my standards. The standards of evidence of science.

Are you going to address the topic of this thread and the points I made or not?

Bill hurri up and tells me yer deafnition of

Evidence

an see me posts above fer me points

thanks bill

BillHoyt

16th June 2004, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by Leroy

Now bill, don be tellin me what me leaps to. Don be sumin that I cepts the nde bcause sumbody says they had it. Don be summin thit cause me looks at the evidence, me sooms it is proofe! Thatz jest wrong bill.

I knowz you be tryin ta teach me those cri ti cal think skills n all, but watz ye point here? Evidence is evidence, not prroofe. Evidence may tern outz to be wrong, but itztill evidence til profin wrong. How do ye proofe that da man didnt have sumpin spactaculur happin to em? Howdaya proofe he din't haf a veesion, or nde? Itz hes evidence, don proofe nufink ta yous an I, but itz evidence.

NDE's be evidenze, don proofe no life afty death n all, but itz evidence. So watz ye point bill?

Ye needs ta help me wiff these critical thinkin skills agin and give me yer defanition of

Evidence:

thanks bill, I preciates all ye help.

I'll address your questions when you restate them in unmangled english. Please do so, leroy, as this is assinine.

Leroy

16th June 2004, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I'll address your questions when you restate them in unmangled english. Please do so, leroy, as this is assinine.

Now bill don be doin that. Ye use yer languidge and spect peeple ta unnerstaind it, caint ye unnerstaind mine?

otay

here's the question in your language bill

Bill can you give me your definition of

Evidence.

Not proof Bill, just evidence

Leroy

16th June 2004, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I'll address your questions when you restate them in unmangled english. Please do so, leroy, as this is assinine.

Again:

Can you clarify what you mean by evidence? What is your definition of evidence? I am not asking what proof means, I am only asking for your definition of evidence.

csense

16th June 2004, 10:16 AM

"...state for me a single truth about the nature of reality in the form of a formal philosophical proof, and a formal scientific proof."

Science doesn't prove things with such formalisms. The question is straw.

Mathematics certainly does prove things, or attempts to, with such formalisms...and Science in general, or Physics in particular, offers us a mathematical model of it's observations of reality, so it is certainly within the realm of possibilities for Science to provide such proofs if truth does exist.

Additionally, a truth about the nature of reality, if one does exist, would need to be accepted and confirmed by both Philosophy and Science, since this is really all we have to determine anything.

rppa

16th June 2004, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by csense
All you're saying in your last remark is that science agrees with itself, or is consistent with itself, and to which I would say: I sincerely hope so.

Huh?

Let's talk about a hypothetical experimental study. I start with theories about the chemical nature of how nerve signalling works. I develop a substance which I believe will inhibit that mechanism. A neurotoxin, in other words. On the basis of this, I formulate the hypothesis that if I put my substance into your morning coffee, you will die.

I do so. You die. I call that experimental confirmation of my theories. Now, what I have is not proof, just agreement with my theory and the available evidence.

You are dead. Is that really something you want to characterize as "science agreeing with itself" or "lack of objective evidence"?

Yet still, in the nature of scientific confirmation, I do not have proof. I poison 100 more people. They all die. That again is evidence, now stronger, which is consistent with my theory. Yet "my substance kills people by stopping nerve function" remains "only a theory".

A competing theorist does some further experiments, and observes that my substance, put into milk, does not have the same effect. Nor does it when swallowed directly. (Being a little testy over my previous experimental protocol, he does this last test on me). My theory has been falsified. It is no longer consistent with the evidence. This is a possibility not allowed by your statement "all you are saying is that science is consistent with itself". Theories are NOT guaranteed to be consistent with all the evidence. SURVIVING theories are. Most theories eventually are not and are rejected, or require modification.

Other than that, it's a meaningless statement that supports nothing, other than a circular argument, and sheds absolutely no light on whether science, or rather scientists, are objectively correct in any of their extrapolations or inferences of such self supporting data.

To reiterate, data is not "self-supporting". An experimental test of a hypothesis has different possible outcomes, and one of those is that the data does NOT support the hypothesis. Happens all the time. Some of those negative results may even be interesting enough to warrant publication.

As far as the rest of what you've said, there is a difference between correlation and causation, and to blur that line, however helpful to one's ideology, is simply not logical.

Eh? You're going to have to tell me where I did that.

In my hypothetical, I guess you could say that in my poison-in-coffee tests, all I know is that there is a strong correlation between the poison and the dropping dead immediately afterward. Just as there is a strong correlation between being shot in the head and death. That doesn't "prove" that A causes B. Again, the correct scientific statement is that it is evidence of causality. Controlled experiments, repeatability, and evidence of underlying causal mechanisms all provide further evidence, making the case stronger and stronger.

But we still never say "proof". And in fact my jealous colleague managed a disproof, despite my collecting all of the aforesaid evidence.

rppa

16th June 2004, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by csense

Mathematics certainly does prove things, or attempts to, with such formalisms...and Science in general, or Physics in particular, offers us a mathematical model of it's observations of reality,

But science is not mathematics. Mathematics builds on a known axiom system, and everything follows from those axioms. There's no external universe that can disprove your axioms.

Science is making guesses about the axiomatic system, which forever remain unknown. Your guesses can be invalidated by the universe, which is always out there ready to give you an unexpected result.

so it is certainly within the realm of possibilities for Science to provide such proofs if [b]truth does exist.

No, it's not within the realm of possibilities for Science to *prove* anything. Merely to provide confirming evidence. The *truth* may exist, but Science does not claim to have a way to get at it.

csense

16th June 2004, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by rppa

Huh?

Let's talk about a hypothetical experimental study. I start with theories about the chemical nature of how nerve signalling works. I develop a substance which I believe will inhibit that mechanism. A neurotoxin, in other words. On the basis of this, I formulate the hypothesis that if I put my substance into your morning coffee, you will die.

I do so. You die. I call that experimental confirmation of my theories. Now, what I have is not proof, just agreement with my theory and the available evidence.

You are dead. Is that really something you want to characterize as "science agreeing with itself" or "lack of objective evidence"?

Yet still, in the nature of scientific confirmation, I do not have proof. I poison 100 more people. They all die. That again is evidence, now stronger, which is consistent with my theory. Yet "my substance kills people by stopping nerve function" remains "only a theory".

A competing theorist does some further experiments, and observes that my substance, put into milk, does not have the same effect. Nor does it when swallowed directly. (Being a little testy over my previous experimental protocol, he does this last test on me). My theory has been falsified. It is no longer consistent with the evidence. This is a possibility not allowed by your statement "all you are saying is that science is consistent with itself". Theories are NOT guaranteed to be consistent with all the evidence. SURVIVING theories are. Most theories eventually are not and are rejected, or require modification.

To reiterate, data is not "self-supporting". An experimental test of a hypothesis has different possible outcomes, and one of those is that the data does NOT support the hypothesis. Happens all the time. Some of those negative results may even be interesting enough to warrant publication.

There's a difference between conclusions and data.
A conclusion is not data.
Simple enough?

csense

16th June 2004, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by rppa

To reiterate, data is not "self-supporting". An experimental test of a hypothesis has different possible outcomes, and one of those is that the data does NOT support the hypothesis. Happens all the time.

I agree, at least to the part in bold, but it is you who said this:" ALL of science is "just a theory". None of it is "proven", just "consistent with all known data".

So if a scientific theory is consistent with scientific data, how is it not consistent with itself.

csense

16th June 2004, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by rppa

But science is not mathematics. Mathematics builds on a known axiom system, and everything follows from those axioms. There's no external universe that can disprove your axioms.

External universe can mean anything external to mathematics and certainly Logic, which is external to mathematics, can disprove a ground that yields false consequences, and for those not familiar with logic, it is called the Principle of contradiction.

csense

16th June 2004, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by rppa

"...science is not mathematics."

Then I take it, according to you, the following definitions of Mathematics would be incorrect:

a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

The science of patterns and order and the study of measurement, properties, and the relationships of quantities; using numbers and symbols.
www.iteawww.org/TAA/Glossary.htm

The science of structure, order, and relation that has evolved from elemental practices of counting, measuring, and describing the shapes of objects. It deals with logical reasoning and quantitative calculation ...[Britannica Online v 1.31, 1995] www.mathematicallycorrect.com/glossary.htm

rppa

16th June 2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by csense
Then I take it, according to you, the following definitions of Mathematics would be incorrect:

Last refuge of the ignorant in technical discussion: Use dictionary definitions of technical terms.

Here's a clue: Dictionaries are notoriously incompetent in defining professional terms in the way in which the professionals use them.

Now, let's look at the specifics:

a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

The science of patterns and order and the study of measurement, properties, and the relationships of quantities; using numbers and symbols.
www.iteawww.org/TAA/Glossary.htm

The science of structure, order, and relation that has evolved from elemental practices of counting, measuring, and describing the shapes of objects. It deals with logical reasoning and quantitative calculation ...[Britannica Online v 1.31, 1995] www.mathematicallycorrect.com/glossary.htm

OK, we have the Princeton Cognitive Science lab and the lexical definition of mathematics that they use in doing semantic reasoning. This has nothing to do with the practice of mathematics. You will also find that definitions of terms in the sciences differ from how scientists use those terms.

Then we have two educational sites, devoted to elementary education. Neither the teaching of mathematics nor the practice of K-12 mathematics has much resemblance to how mathematical theory is developed.

So no, I do not agree that these definitions tell you anything about what it is that mathematicians do when developing a new theorem. They do nothing to prove or disprove your hypothesis that mathematics is practiced as a science. It is not. There is no experimental method. There is no universe to prove you wrong. There is no such thing as falsifiability of a proven theory.

rppa

16th June 2004, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by csense

I agree, at least to the part in bold, but it is you who said this:" ALL of science is "just a theory". None of it is "proven", just "consistent with all known data".

So if a scientific theory is consistent with scientific data, how is it not consistent with itself.

Changing the target, are we?

Of course a scientific theory must be self-consistent. In addition, it must be consistent with the body of theory which you are building on. But what you said was that the statement "science is not proven, just consistent with all known data" is equivalent to self-consistency.

Two statements, let's label them A and B.

A: Scientific theories are self-consistent.
B: Scientific theories are consistent with the experimental data.

A is necessary for a scientific theory. But so is B. You made the claim that B is equivalent to A. I said that you can have A but not B. From that you are trying to claim I said "you mean you don't have A?"

You have A. You must have A or your theory is dead from the starting gate. Then you verify B. And you keep verifying. You may have complete verification for all the data to date, and so have what *you* would call a "proven" theory. But no scientist would call it that, because he knows there may be one more datapoint that throws the whole thing out.

That's what BillHoyt meant by saying scientific truth is a small-t "truth" and is always provisional. It may not be true tomorrow. Every scientist accepts that.

csense

16th June 2004, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by rppa

Last refuge of the ignorant...

You and I are finished discussing.

BillHoyt

17th June 2004, 04:05 AM

Originally posted by Leroy

Again:

Can you clarify what you mean by evidence? What is your definition of evidence? I am not asking what proof means, I am only asking for your definition of evidence.

I've previously commented (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870494896&highlight=evidence#post1870494896) on both the error in this question and the underlying question.

T'ai Chi

17th June 2004, 09:28 AM

"The experiments reported in these papers must have appropriately strong protocols, high statistical power, and must be both repeatable and have been repeated and reported by other researchers with comparable results."

So ganzfeld/auto-ganzfeld seem to fit these requirements.

17th June 2004, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
"The experiments reported in these papers must have appropriately strong protocols, high statistical power, and must be both repeatable and have been repeated and reported by other researchers with comparable results."

So ganzfeld/auto-ganzfeld seem to fit these requirements.

??evidence?? including around the protocols, etc?

I see another weasel running when presented with the scientific method back there, too.

T'ai Chi

17th June 2004, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by jj

??evidence?? including around the protocols, etc?

There have been papers published. But you'd have to contact the researchers for the specifics you want I'd imagine.

I see another weasel running when presented with the scientific method back there, too.

Can you possibly not get emotional and resort to personal attacks for once? Just try.

Joe_Black

17th June 2004, 11:05 AM

Alas i can no longer frequent these forums, because it is a total waste of my time.

Goodbye and good luck.

17th June 2004, 11:42 AM

edited to say:

Oh, why bother?

rppa

17th June 2004, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by csense

You and I are finished discussing.

Wow, attention span lapsed after only the first four words of my several hundred? That must be some kind of record.

rppa

17th June 2004, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by csense

There's a difference between conclusions and data.
A conclusion is not data.
Simple enough?

Actually no. Let's review.

I made the statement that a scientific "truth" is always "just a theory" in the sense that all we know is that it agrees with the known data so far collected. It is never capital-P proven.

You said "you are saying that all a scientific theory needs to be is self-consistent".

I gave a fairly long-winded example of what I meant by "consistent with the data" and how a theory can be so "proven" but then eventually disproven.

I have no idea what your last comment has to do with the discussion. It's just a little too terse. Is this supposed to bolster your assertion that "consistent with the data" is the same as "self-consistent"?

I'm an idiot. I need it explained in full sentences. Tell me why your comment is a response to my scenario or our discussion about the nature of scientific truth. I agree that there's a difference between conclusions and data. What point do you wish to make from that difference?

(Devil's advocate: most data actually comes from instruments, and already represents acceptance of a bunch of scientific theory. That is, most "data" actually is itself an intermediate "conclusion". But we'll ignore that for now.)

rppa

17th June 2004, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by rppa
Last refuge of the ignorant in technical discussion: Use dictionary definitions of technical terms.

OK, on reviewing the forum rules, I think this could be interpreted as a violation of Rule #2 and deserving of a slap by the moderators. I apologize to the forum and the poster for the wording.

Let me explain my comment in more detail: I have from time to time participated in sci.math and sci.physics on Usenet. Both are frequented by a mix of university faculty, people working in math or the sciences but not in academia, knowledgable amateurs, unknowledgable-but-interested amateurs, and "all of math/science is wrong and I have a superior system"-types.

The latter type often get into arguments with most of the others about terminology, for instance on whether "velocity" can be used interchangably with "speed" in a physics discussion (it can't). When called on this, some online dictionary is usually brought in the discussion. You can certainly find in many dictionaries that "speed" and "velocity" are synonyms. Nevertheless, that does not bolster the arguer's viewpoint about how the terms are to be used in a technical discussion.

Here's a clue: Dictionaries are notoriously incompetent in defining professional terms in the way in which the professionals use them.

The first three words here also probably constitute a violation of Rule #2. It's a little Usenet culture seeping through, I'm afraid. I stand by the rest of the comment. Dictionaries (or in this case, online glossaries on K-12 education sites) are not the right place to find out how professionals would define either "mathematics" or "science", and the fact that the definitions of "mathematics" all begin with "the science of..." still does not mean that any scientist or any mathematician would characterize mathematical research as science.

They have different standards of evidence, different forms of investigation, different modes of thought.

T'ai Chi

17th June 2004, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by jj
edited to say:

Oh, why bother?

There have been papers published. But you'd have to contact the researchers for the specifics you want I'd imagine.

Leroy

18th June 2004, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I've previously commented (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870494896&highlight=evidence#post1870494896) on both the error in this question and the underlying question.

Gosh sir, would you give it agin, I think the first time it was way o'er my head. Jest the basic definition of evidence nothing real fancy.

Thanks sir :)

Leroy

18th June 2004, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I don't "select" a definition. Neither is that definition "personal." I will, however, provide a personal description of the nature of evidence.

When skeptics speak of evidence, we are normally addressing the domain of science, and normally address epistemology. The standards of evidence in science are rigorous. Scientific "proof" normally means that the peer-reviewed literature on the subject has now converged. Repeated tests of different hypotheses have ruled out every conceived alternative hypothesis but one: that one we call a scientific fact.

Since we are not all scientists, though, and do not all have ready access to all this information, skeptics usually accept as evidence: information from textbooks in the subject field or papers from peer-reviewed journal articles.

One note on the peer-reviewed journal articles, however: remember how important intersubjective validation is in science. The experiments reported in these papers must have appropriately strong protocols, high statistical power, and must be both repeatable and have been repeated and reported by other researchers with comparable results.

Can you shorten this definition you gave of evidence Bill, to just a brief one or two sentences, thanks.

18th June 2004, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

There have been papers published. But you'd have to contact the researchers for the specifics you want I'd imagine.

Again you want to shift the burden. You have a claim, yet you want me to do the work.

Stop cheating. Do the work or stop making claims.

18th June 2004, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by Leroy

Can you shorten this definition you gave of evidence Bill, to just a brief one or two sentences, thanks.

Why don't you learn a bit more about what evidence means in scientific terms, yourself, Leroy, and then try to write one.

Demanding a sound bite answer to a complex subject is, in my experience, most often done with the hope of getting a messed-up definition.

T'ai Chi

18th June 2004, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by jj

Again you want to shift the burden. You have a claim, yet you want me to do the work.

Stop cheating. Do the work or stop making claims.

Wrong.

You said, "??evidence?? including around the protocols, etc?"

And I replied: "There have been papers published. But you'd have to contact the researchers for the specifics you want I'd imagine."

That isn't shifting the burden, bj, that is saying where you need to look for the information you are asking about.

BillHoyt

18th June 2004, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Leroy

Can you shorten this definition you gave of evidence Bill, to just a brief one or two sentences, thanks.
"The experiments reported in these papers [from peer-reviewed journals] must have appropriately strong protocols, high statistical power, and must be both repeatable and have been repeated and reported by other researchers with comparable results."

Are you now ready to engage in the discussion?

18th June 2004, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Wrong.

You said, "??evidence?? including around the protocols, etc?"

And I replied: "There have been papers published. But you'd have to contact the researchers for the specifics you want I'd imagine."

Precisely. You didn't do your homework and answer the questions

That isn't shifting the burden, bj, that is saying where you need to look for the information you are asking about.

Once again, you are asserting that the papers, etc, are meaningful. The burden is ON YOU.

Do your homework or stop claiming that a word you say means anything.

By the way, have you gotten to your validation study yet? How about a study of bias? Can you show your work there yet?

Leroy

18th June 2004, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by jj

Again you want to shift the burden. You have a claim, yet you want me to do the work.

Stop cheating. Do the work or stop making claims.

Kind of reminds me of that guy who claimed that Clancie made some fact statements and claims about science and math, then when I asked him for the evidence he told me to go find it myself.

What was his name......................... Oh, yeah, it was JJ!

Demanding a sound bite answer to a complex subject is, in my experience, most often done with the hope of getting a messed-up definition.

It was a simple question jj, and one I didn't ask you to answer. ;)

Leroy

18th June 2004, 10:26 AM

So, Bill, your definition of evidence is:

Originally posted by BillHoyt

"The experiments reported in these papers [from peer-reviewed journals] must have appropriately strong protocols, high statistical power, and must be both repeatable and have been repeated and reported by other researchers with comparable results."

Are you now ready to engage in the discussion?

Websters definition of Evidence is:

A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment. Something indicative; an outward sign.

Now I understand why it is hard for us to communicate.

But, getting back to the discussion.

Skepticism here used as a cover for a debunking exercise

Definition of skeptic:

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/skeptic

Definition of debunk:

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/sear...x?define=debunk

Quite different are they not?

My questions before you got into the discussion were:

"if you want to educate young minds, teach critical thinking skills, in the hopes that students will go away having learned something of value, which method is more effective? "

1. To laugh at them, make fun of them, ridicule them?

2. To cause them to question, to doubt, to research?

Answer 1. or 2.

"Is there a time when attacking, laughing at, making fun of, bullying or ridiculing a believer is appropriate?"

Answer YES or NO

"Educating someone is far different than attacking them and their beliefs. You may win an argument by running off the believer, but what have you gained other than another checkmark by your name? Nothing. You didn't change their beliefs, you didn't even get them to consider other possibilities, you simply ran them off and said "I Won!"

"Is that what you want in this organization, or do you want to educate people, teach them critical thinking skills, open their eyes?"

Yes - No

This is what we were discussing, Bill.

18th June 2004, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Leroy

Kind of reminds me of that guy who claimed that Clancie made some fact statements and claims about science and math, then when I asked him for the evidence he told me to go find it myself.

What was his name......................... Oh, yeah, it was JJ!

Oh! Wait. You forgot something, Leroy, Clancie's behavior here is quite obvious and well-known. You could, in fact, argue that Clancie's implications, if not outright statements, about various scientific issues, are visible enough that mentioning them is mentioning a generally accepted point.

It was a simple question jj, and one I didn't ask you to answer. ;)

Which is a bit different than T'ai Chi claiming conclusions from an UNaccepted claim about psi, now, isn't it?

Ooops, nice try dodging the context.

Now, instead of googling around for friendly definitions, go read something about the scientific method and what evidence MEANS TO SCIENCE.

And, yes, dictionaries are notably poor sources of that, generally.

Leroy

18th June 2004, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by jj

Which is a bit different than T'ai Chi claiming conclusions from an UNaccepted claim about psi, now, isn't it?

Ooops, nice try dodging the context.

Now, instead of googling around for friendly definitions, go read something about the scientific method and what evidence MEANS TO SCIENCE.

And, yes, dictionaries are notably poor sources of that, generally.

Now JJ, incase anyone didn't explain it to you. If you make a claim, you need to back it up with evidence. You failed to do that.

Clancie's evidence here is quite obvious and well-known. You could, in fact, argue that Clancie's implications, if not outright statements, about various scientific issues, are visible enough that mentioning them is mentioning an generally accepted theory.

You originally said Clancie made claims, now you are changing it to say she "implied?"

I disagree that it is quite obvious. I think you made your claim up, that is why I asked for evidence, which you were not able to provide, which you sent me to look for.

You disappoint me as a skeptic. Making what looks like false claims to make another person look bad, then failing to provide any kind of evidence to back up the statement you made against the person.

Nobody is dodging anything here except you. Of couse I suspected that when you made those claims against Clancie that they were false. I also knew that you would not give any evidence to back up your claim against her because of this.

Ah, and by the way, I did not ask what Evidence meant to science, I asked what the definition was for evidence.

18th June 2004, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Leroy

Now JJ, incase anyone didn't explain it to you. If you make a claim, you need to back it up with evidence. You failed to do that.

Then you deny that human knowledge can grow beyond that known by a single person?

Your statement constitues exactly such a claim. You are, when you say that, demanding evidence not only that Clancie routinely insists that others accept hidden hypotheses (for instance), but also that I prove that "Rocks fall when you drop them", should I make such a statement.

Your statement is disingenious, and is attempting to falsely equate the known behavior of Clancie, in this case, with an unknown, unproven, psi claim for which evidence appears to be lacking.

There must be, and is, a difference between accepted theories, knowledge, and understanding, and newly proposed theories, knowledge and understanding.

I think you know that. I also think that you're extracting my original statements from context.

No, Leroy, all "facts", evidence and opinions are not equal. You'll just have to live with that.

Interesting Ian

18th June 2004, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Leroy
Originally posted by BillHoyt

"The experiments reported in these papers [from peer-reviewed journals] must have appropriately strong protocols, high statistical power, and must be both repeatable and have been repeated and reported by other researchers with comparable results."

Are you now ready to engage in the discussion?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Websters definition of Evidence is:

A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment. Something indicative; an outward sign.

Now I understand why it is hard for us to communicate.

Indeed. Most people on here do not understand what the word "evidence" means. They mean by "evidence" something like scientifically established. But this is emphatically not what the word means. There could be evidence for the existence of an alleged phenomenon even though it is still extremely unlikely to actually exist. Unfortunately, no matter how much I explain to them, most people on here are seemingly incapable of understanding they are using the word "evidence" in an incorrect sense.

18th June 2004, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Indeed. Most people on here do not understand what the word "evidence" means. They mean by "evidence" something like scientifically established. But this is emphatically not what the word means. There could be evidence for the existence of an alleged phenomenon even though it is still extremely unlikely to actually exist. Unfortunately, no matter how much I explain to them, most people on here are seemingly incapable of understanding they are using the word "evidence" in an incorrect sense.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

If you want to make a scientific argument, you need evidence acceptable to science.

If you want to argue over the whist table, then you can use something else, but don't try to fly it on a skeptics board where the scientific method is generally accepted.

You're confusing contexts, Ian, and then attacking people when they won't accept your internally contradictory definitions (yes, plural) of evidence as the "one true way".

BillHoyt

18th June 2004, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Leroy
So, Bill, your definition of evidence is:

Websters definition of Evidence is:

A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment. Something indicative; an outward sign.

Now I understand why it is hard for us to communicate.

So, then, are we to conclude that prosecutors in U.S. criminal courts merely need to provide "things helpful in forming a conclusion?"

Leroy

18th June 2004, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Indeed. Most people on here do not understand what the word "evidence" means. They mean by "evidence" something like scientifically established. But this is emphatically not what the word means. There could be evidence for the existence of an alleged phenomenon even though it is still extremely unlikely to actually exist. Unfortunately, no matter how much I explain to them, most people on here are seemingly incapable of understanding they are using the word "evidence" in an incorrect sense.

I've discovered that Ian. I asked for the definition of evidence and I get a paragraph on how evidence is scientifically tested. Maybe my question was too simple for Bill to understand.

Leroy

18th June 2004, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

So, then, are we to conclude that prosecutors in U.S. criminal courts merely need to provide "things helpful in forming a conclusion?"

I don't know how you could come to that conclusion, Bill.

Is my question to simple for you to understand? I didn't ask you how evidence is tested.

BillHoyt

18th June 2004, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Leroy
Is my question to simple for you to understand? I didn't ask you how evidence is tested.
Neither did my answer concern how the evidence is tested. Here is my question again:"So, then, are we to conclude that prosecutors in U.S. criminal courts merely need to provide "things helpful in forming a conclusion?"

T'ai Chi

18th June 2004, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by jj

Once again, you are asserting that the papers, etc, are meaningful. The burden is ON YOU.

That's ridiculous. I'm saying if you want extra detail re: the experiments, you'll have to contact the researchers.

By the way, have you gotten to your validation study yet? How about a study of bias? Can you show your work there yet?

While we're on that, do you still believe counting is an experiment?

T'ai Chi

18th June 2004, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Leroy

It was a simple question jj, and one I didn't ask you to answer. ;)

When you ask a question, Leroy, it is a "whipsaw" apparently.

T'ai Chi

18th June 2004, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by jj

, but don't try to fly it on a skeptics board where the scientific

"both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe."

18th June 2004, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

"both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe."

Stop with the extractions from context. You know that was deceptively extracted from context, I know it was, and so does everyone else, quacked stalker.

T'ai Chi

18th June 2004, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by jj

Stop with the extractions from context. You know that was deceptively extracted from context, I know it was, and so does everyone else

"both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe."

that is the context. It is not a "skeptics board".

, quacked stalker.

Pardon, I was in this thread before you were.

19th June 2004, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Pardon, I was in this thread before you were.
I see. That gives you, then, you argue, the right to quote out of context, repeat your quote out of context, and stalk someone?

Let me get this straight. You're saying that if I post "me too" at the top of a thread, that gives me the authority to stalk anyone who shows up in it?

No, sorry, I don't think so.

19th June 2004, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

When you ask a question, Leroy, it is a "whipsaw" apparently.

Perhaps you should learn (as should Leroy) what a whipsaw is, and what a failed question is.

I do suspect that you understand the idea, but perhaps you don' understand why the questions are inappropriate.

T'ai Chi

19th June 2004, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by jj

I see. That gives you, then, you argue, the right to quote out of context, repeat your quote out of context, and stalk someone?

Let me get this straight. You're saying that if I post "me too" at the top of a thread, that gives me the authority to stalk anyone who shows up in it?

No, sorry, I don't think so.

Whatever.

BillHoyt

20th June 2004, 05:22 AM

T'ai Chi

20th June 2004, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Leroy?

Bill? Can I ask you a question?
...

Leroy

21st June 2004, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Neither did my answer concern how the evidence is tested. Here is my question again:"So, then, are we to conclude that prosecutors in U.S. criminal courts merely need to provide "things helpful in forming a conclusion?"

Me eyes must be playing tricks on me bill. I wiz sure it did, but that darn post of yers iz done gone. Must be a fairy playin tricks on me fer sur.

Originally posted by BillHoyt - When skeptics speak of evidence, we are normally addressing the domain of science, and normally address epistemology. The standards of evidence in science are rigorous. Scientific "proof" normally means that the peer-reviewed literature on the subject has now converged. Repeated tests of different hypotheses have ruled out every conceived alternative hypothesis but one: that one we call a scientific fact.

I am not asking what skeptics mean when they speak of evidence or about scientific proof, Bill. What's websters definition of evidence?

Originally posted by BillHoyt - Since we are not all scientists, though, and do not all have ready access to all this information, skeptics usually accept as evidence: information from textbooks in the subject field or papers from peer-reviewed journal articles.

I asked for the definition of evidence and you gave me what skeptics accept as evidence, which is information from textbooks in the subject field or papers from peer-reviewed journals.

Why do you limit yerself to jest that, Bill? Should I be doing that Bill? I mean, I wanna learn all these critical thinking skills you be teaching me, so should I ignore all evidence that exist and only look at evidence from the text books and journals like you do, Bill?

Leroy

21st June 2004, 08:20 AM

iOriginally posted by BillHoyt So, then, are we to conclude that prosecutors in U.S. criminal courts merely need to provide "things helpful in forming a conclusion

No, and that isn't at all what was suggested, but ye know that don't ye Bill ;) But they certainly need to "look" at these things, and check them out, right Bill? Each little piece of evidence can be useful, Bill.

Evidence: A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment. Something indicative; an outward sign: The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law

circumstantial evidence: evidence that tends to prove a factual matter by proving other events or circumstances from which the occurrence of the matter at issue can be reasonably inferred

clear and convincing evidence: evidence showing a high probability of truth of the factual matter at issue

competent evidence: evidence that is admissible, relevant, and material to the factual matter at issue

corroborating evidence: evidence that is independent of and different from but that supplements and strengthens evidence already presented as proof of a factual matter called also corroborative evidence

cumulative evidence: evidence that is of the same kind as evidence already offered as proof of the same factual matter

de·mon·stra·tive evidence: evidence in the form of objects (as maps, diagrams, or models) that has in itself no probative value but is used to illustrate and clarify the factual matter at issue; broadly: PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in this entry called also illustrative evidence

derivative evidence: evidence obtained as a result of the unlawful gathering of primary evidence called also indirect evidence secondary evidence

direct evidence: evidence that if believed immediately establishes the factual matter to be proved by it without the need for inferences; especially: evidence of a factual matter offered by a witness whose knowledge of the matter was obtained through the use of his or her senses (as sight or hearing)

evidence in chief: evidence that is to be used by a party in making its case in chief

hearsay evidence: a statement made out of court and not under oath and offered in evidence as proof that what is stated is true : HEARSAY

intrinsic evidence: evidence that exists within a writing <the will contains ample intrinsic evidence of the testator's intent —Stoner v. Custer, 251 North Eastern Reporter, Second Series 668 (1968

material evidence: evidence that is likely to affect the determination of a matter or issue; specifically: evidence that warrants reopening of a claim or reversal of a conviction because but for the circumstance that the evidence was unavailable the outcome of the first proceeding would have been different

no evidence: evidence presented that is insufficient to prove a matter of esp. vital fact : a point of error that insufficient evidence has been presented to support a finding

physical evidence: tangible evidence (as a weapon, document, or visible injury) that is in some way related to the incident that gave rise to the case called also real evidence —compare DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE and, TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE in this entry

prima facie evidence: evidence that is sufficient to prove a factual matter at issue and justify a favorable judgment on that issue unless rebutted

rebuttal evidence: evidence that tends to refute or discredit an opponent's evidence

relevant evidence: evidence that tends to prove or disprove any issue of fact that is of consequence to the case

sub·stan·tial evidence: evidence greater than a scintilla of evidence that a reasonable person would find sufficient to support a conclusion

substantive evidence: evidence offered to prove a factual issue rather than merely for impeachment

testimonial evidence: evidence given in writing or speech or in another way that expresses the person's thoughts —compare

NOTE: Only testimonial evidence is protected by the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.—in evidence: as evidence

All I wanted, Bill, was the definition of evidence, not what you accept as evidence. But I can clearly see by the answers you gave, why believers upset you so much.

I am a skeptic, I don't believe in fairy's, John Edward, Sylvia, astrology, heck, there isn't much I do believe in. But when talking to believers, those who show some sanity or common sense, as Clancie did, I do hear them, and I review the evidence they give. That doesn't mean I come to the same conclussions as they do.

T'ai Chi

21st June 2004, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Leroy

I asked for the definition of evidence and you gave me what skeptics accept as evidence, which is information from textbooks in the subject field or papers from peer-reviewed journals.

You should ask him (since he is ignoring me supposedly...) for a list of approved journal that are OK to look in.

BillHoyt

21st June 2004, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by Leroy
Me eyes must be playing tricks on me bill. I wiz sure it did, but that darn post of yers iz done gone. Must be a fairy playin tricks on me fer sur.
Leroy,

There are two posts from me with, basically, the same content. Please address them.
I am not asking what skeptics mean when they speak of evidence or about scientific proof, Bill. What's websters definition of evidence?
I am addressing your use of Websters. Those two posts, leroy.
I asked for the definition of evidence and you gave me what skeptics accept as evidence, which is information from textbooks in the subject field or papers from peer-reviewed journals.

Why do you limit yerself to jest that, Bill? Should I be doing that Bill? I mean, I wanna learn all these critical thinking skills you be teaching me, so should I ignore all evidence that exist and only look at evidence from the text books and journals like you do, Bill?
First rule of critical thinking is to read. My two posts, leroy.

Leroy

21st June 2004, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

You should ask him (since he is ignoring me supposedly...) for a list of approved journal that are OK to look in. [/B]

I noticed that he avoids many things.

I wonder if readers have caught on to how he does this? I have, and although I will never find him facinating like CFLarsen is, he is a bit entertaining.

Leroy

21st June 2004, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Leroy,

There are two posts from me with, basically, the same content. Please address them.

I am addressing your use of Websters. Those two posts, leroy.

First rule of critical thinking is to read. My two posts, leroy.

Bravo! You have managed to avoid responding to my entire post by writing these two irrelevant sentences, which have nothing to do with anything, but I bet you are hoping the readers won’t catch on!

You have managed not only to avoid responding to everything I’ve written, but you worded your sentences in such a delicate manner as to deceive the reader into believing that it was I who did not address your post! Brilliant! applauding

BillHoyt

21st June 2004, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Leroy

I noticed that he avoids many things.

I wonder if readers have caught on to how he does this? I have, and although I will never find him facinating like CFLarsen is, he is a bit entertaining.
Leroy,

I notice you edited your post around the time I responded. I notice also that, on edit, your post length increased substantially. Now that you have, on edit, answered the question, let us go on.

You began by offering Webster's definition: "Evidence: A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment. Something indicative; an outward sign." Now that we've moved from this general definition into the courtroom we see greatly refined definitions, don't we? The take-home message should be "not all evidence is of equal weight."

I'm sure you'll bridle at that, so on to the next phase. Let us look at testimonial evidence in the courtroom.

Example: I heard someone say they saw X at the scene of the crime. Can I give this statement in court? Yes or no?

Example: I picked up a handkerchief at the scene of a murder and, months later, offer it to the police as evidence? Can the police bring this into the courtroom? Yes or no?

Leroy

21st June 2004, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Leroy,

I notice you edited your post around the time I responded. I notice also that, on edit, your post length increased substantially. Now that you have, on edit, answered the question, let us go on.

Nothing was changed in my post Bill. I went to edit it, but decided it was fine as it was.

You began by offering Webster's definition: "Evidence: A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment. Something indicative; an outward sign." Now that we've moved from this general definition into the courtroom we see greatly refined definitions, don't we? The take-home message should be "not all evidence is of equal weight."

Not all evidence is of equal weight, we all should realize that, Bill. What is your point? Evidence is evidence. Much of it can be proven to be false, but it is still evidence until that time, right?

I'm sure you'll bridle at that, so on to the next phase. Let us look at testimonial evidence in the courtroom.

Example: I heard someone say they saw X at the scene of the crime. Can I give this statement in court? Yes or no?

Example: I picked up a handkerchief at the scene of a murder and, months later, offer it to the police as evidence? Can the police bring this into the courtroom? Yes or no?

Whats your point Bill? We were not discussing how evidence can be eliminated, how it can be proven false, or useless, were we?

let me go back and check...Ah yeah, it started here:
posted by Leroy - Is there a time when attacking, laughing at, making fun of, bullying or ridiculing a believer is appropriate - Educating someone is far different than attacking them and their beliefs. You may win an argument by running off the believer, but what have you gained other than another checkmark by your name? Nothing. You didn't change their beliefs, you didn't even get them to consider other possibilities, you simply ran them off and said "I Won!" Is that what you want in this organization, or do you want to educate people, teach them critical thinking skills, open their eyes?"

Yes there is a time... if so "When"
No there is not a time... "Why Not"
Is this what you want the organization to stand for "Yes "No"
Do you want to teach them critical thinking skills "Yes" "NO"
Can you teach them by belittling them? "Yes" "No"

and you replied with an attack toward me for this, implying in an arrogant manner that believers were not treated badly until people like you tried to conform them to your beliefs, but found that they had no interest in the truth, they reacted like idiots and rejected your common sense. Am I right so far?

But then we got side tracked when I asked you who's truth, and the conversation switched.

You wanted to stop the discussion right then, because, as you stated, Truth is driven by the scientific process here, and mumbled something about proven facts, and I asked you if it was proven that people do not communicate back and forth with the dead.

Then you stated that there was no evidence that the dead can communicate, ...then I asked you what the definition of evidence was. I asked because I know that there is evidence of communication with the dead, but no proof.

My point to you was that even though there isn't any proof that this can happen, there is still evidence, many different types of evidence.

Now you wish to teach me something I already know, which is, Evidence does not mean proof. All evidence is not acceptable, some evidence is useless.

And your point?

BillHoyt

21st June 2004, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Leroy
Nothing was changed in my post Bill. I went to edit it, but decided it was fine as it was.
My error; those were two different posts.
Not all evidence is of equal weight, we all should realize that, Bill. What is your point? Evidence is evidence. Much of it can be proven to be false, but it is still evidence until that time, right?
My point is that not all of what is called evidence is evidence. Some of those weights, leroy, chalk up great big goose eggs on the scale. Read on...
Whats your point Bill? We were not discussing how evidence can be eliminated, how it can be proven false, or useless, were we?
It is inadmissable, leroy. It is a priori defined as useless. Without probitive value.

Now you wish to teach me something I already know, which is, Evidence does not mean proof. All evidence is not acceptable, some evidence is useless.

And your point?
How about we agree on something? I'll ignore that tirade, and you don't repeat such tirades? How about we stay on topic here?

My part of the discussion has nothing to do with "proof," and everything to do with the nature of evidence. Your dance with the word "evidence" is fascinating. Let us put it into easier terms. If I offer you a rock, and call it food, did I offer you food? No. Can it sustain you? No. It is a rock. It is not food. When you claim useless information to be "evidence" you are calling rocks food.

Don't invite me for dinner.

Leroy

21st June 2004, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

My point is that not all of what is called evidence is evidence. Some of those weights, leroy, chalk up great big goose eggs on the scale. Read on...

Some do Bill, I agree.

It is inadmissable, leroy. It is a priori defined as useless. Without probitive value.

What are we speaking of specifically that is inadmissable, Bill?

How about we stay on topic here?

I will ignore that comment and just assume that you haven't been reading my posts well enough to realize that I've been on topic.

My part of the discussion has nothing to do with "proof," and everything to do with the nature of evidence. Your dance with the word "evidence" is fascinating. Let us put it into easier terms. If I offer you a rock, and call it food, did I offer you food? No. Can it sustain you? No. It is a rock. It is not food. When you claim useless information to be "evidence" you are calling rocks food.

Don't invite me for dinner.

So this means that if someone says that they have communicated with their deceased father for seven years, and we cannot observe it, reproduce it, touch it, measure it, etc, than it is false. Does this prove than that the person is not communicating with his deceased father?

BillHoyt

21st June 2004, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by Leroy
What are we speaking of specifically that is inadmissable, Bill?
My two examples. And countless others. They are not even evidence. It is not that they aren't good enough to "prove" a case, if you will; they don't qualify. They are not admitted into the courtroom. They are zeroes.

So this mean that if someone says that they have communicated with their deceased father for seven years, and we cannot observe it, reproduce it, touch it, measure it, etc, than it is false. Does this prove than that the person is not communicating with his deceased father?
This anecdotal evidence is basically a zero as well. It cannot be distinguished from fantasy, delusion or many other types of experiences. It is not, therefore, evidence of afterlife or communication with the afterlife.

As with the example of the person with the handkerchief, the person reporting the experience may be sincere. They may be telling the truth about how they obtained the handkerchief. They may also be lying. Or mistaken. Confused. These are indistinguishable. The handkerchief was out of any chain of custody that can be recognized and controlled.

Now I am not saying that the rules of evidence for court are the same as those for science. They are not. But both are dramatically different from the dictionary definition you proffered.

Leroy

21st June 2004, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

This anecdotal evidence is basically a zero as well. It cannot be distinguished from fantasy, delusion or many other types of experiences. It is not, therefore, evidence of afterlife or communication with the afterlife.

You are right, it cannot be, but that does not mean it is not evidence. It only means that people like you and I don't put any stock in it. We ignore it. But it does not mean it is not evidence, just because we cannot test it, or distinquish it from fantasy or delusion.

As with the example of the person with the handkerchief, the person reporting the experience may be sincere. They may be telling the truth about how they obtained the handkerchief. They may also be lying. Or mistaken. Confused. These are indistinguishable. The handkerchief was out of any chain of custody that can be recognized and controlled.

Now I am not saying that the rules of evidence for court are the same as those for science. They are not. But both are dramatically different from the dictionary definition you proffered.

You are correct.

It still does not change the fact that just because science cannot observe ADC's, reproduce them, touch them, measure them, etc, that they are not real. It does not prove that people are not communicating with the dead.

It cannot be proven one way or another. For believers who claim that they have had ADC's, and who sincerely believe they have, their personal evidence means much more to them, than our evidence that it is hogwash.

Instead of arguing with them, I find it much more interesting to try and understand them. It boggles my mind sometimes, wondering how anyone could believe in some of this stuff, and I've found that many believers only believe in it because they want to. Many don't need any evidence, they just follow what they think is cool. Some believers I honestly think are just plain nuts!

It's the ones who are educated, rational, and seem to have great critical thinking skills, who I am most facinated with.

I am not obsessed with changing their beliefs, I doubt that I could. All I want to do is try to understand how, why, when, where, they became believers.

They are not the enemy. There is a difference between this kind of believer and the ones who really are "way out there."

It used to be simple for me. If you believed in this stuff you were delusional, crazy, or just a no good lying SOB.

It isn't that simple anymore. So, instead of arguing something that cannot be proven either way, I figure while both sides are waiting for the final verdict to arrive, why not learn how the believer (the rational one) arrived at his/her beliefs.

It's just a thought, Bill

BillHoyt

21st June 2004, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Leroy
You are right, it cannot be, but that does not mean it is not evidence. It only means that people like you and I don't put any stock in it. We ignore it. But it does not mean it is not evidence, just because we cannot test it, or distinquish it from fantasy or delusion.
Evidence of what, leroy? Of what is the handkerchief evidence? "Something?" Big whoop. This is exactly the point. You need to spin alternate hypotheses. Think about ALL the possible interpretations of a person's claimed experience.

If you go to court with blood evidence that fits 75% of the population, it ain't evidence. It is a joke.
It still does not change the fact that just because science cannot observe ADC's, reproduce them, touch them, measure them, etc, that they are not real. It does not prove that people are not communicating with the dead.
I didn't say that.

It cannot be proven one way or another. For believers who claim that they have had ADC's, and who sincerely believe they have, their personal evidence means much more to them, than our evidence that it is hogwash.
Mental institutions are filled with people whose personal experiences of things unreal are quite real to them. So what?

Instead of arguing with them, I find it much more interesting to try and understand them. It boggles my mind sometimes, wondering how anyone could believe in some of this stuff, and I've found that many believers only believe in it because they want to. Many don't need any evidence, they just follow what they think is cool. Some believers I honestly think are just plain nuts!

It's the ones who are educated, rational, and seem to have great critical thinking skills, who I am most facinated with.

I am not obsessed with changing their beliefs, I doubt that I could. All I want to do is try to understand how, why, when, where, they became believers.

They are not the enemy. There is a difference between this kind of believer and the ones who really are "way out there."

It used to be simple for me. If you believed in this stuff you were delusional, crazy, or just a no good lying SOB.

It isn't that simple anymore. So, instead of arguing something that cannot be proven either way, I figure while both sides are waiting for the final verdict to arrive, why not learn how the believer (the rational one) arrived at his/her beliefs.

It's just a thought, Bill
Deluded, leroy, not necessarily delusional. But you see, you have had to stray far afield from the discussion of evidence. Why is that? Why can't you defend your position without this appeal to pity and this deflection?

T'ai Chi

21st June 2004, 09:59 PM

What respected peer-reviewed journals are Hoyt Approved?

michaellee

22nd June 2004, 12:07 AM

Wow! 4 plus pages of posts in this thread and nothing more than nitpick this and nitpick that. So, in keeping with the trend, and off topic, too:Originally posted by Leroy
NOTE: Only testimonial evidence is protected by the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.—in evidence: as evidence This statement could not possibly be any further from the truth, at least from my understanding. Please provide the part(s) of the Constitution granting me the privilege of anything; most notably this "privilege against self-incrimination", commonly misused by the media, on tv shows, and by some skeptics. And "Only testimonial evidence is protected by the Fifth ..."???? Where and how and who taught this interpretation?

Forget providing the text...it is not there and never has been. But why is it so difficult to remember No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Nothing about evidence. Nothing about self-incrimination. Nothing about privilege. This part of the Fifth Amendment guarantees you the RIGHT to not have to TESTIFY (evidence is completely irrelevant) against yourself in a criminal case. So when you are watching television, and someone on the witness stand refuses to answer "on the grounds that it may incriminate me", you should feel right at home.

BillHoyt

22nd June 2004, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by michaellee
Wow! 4 plus pages of posts in this thread and nothing more than nitpick this and nitpick that. So, in keeping with the trend, and off topic, too: This statement could not possibly be any further from the truth, at least from my understanding. Please provide the part(s) of the Constitution granting me the privilege of anything; most notably this "privilege against self-incrimination", commonly misused by the media, on tv shows, and by some skeptics. And "Only testimonial evidence is protected by the Fifth ..."???? Where and how and who taught this interpretation?

Forget providing the text...it is not there and never has been. But why is it so difficult to remember No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Nothing about evidence. Nothing about self-incrimination. Nothing about privilege. This part of the Fifth Amendment guarantees you the RIGHT to not have to TESTIFY (evidence is completely irrelevant) against yourself in a criminal case. So when you are watching television, and someone on the witness stand refuses to answer "on the grounds that it may incriminate me", you should feel right at home.
Were this the only equivocation, I might think Leroy simply misunderstands the fifth amendment. But, it is one of oodles, all aimed at dancing around the truth about the nature of evidence.

Leroy

22nd June 2004, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Evidence of what, leroy? Of what is the handkerchief evidence? "Something?" Big whoop. This is exactly the point. You need to spin alternate hypotheses. Think about ALL the possible interpretations of a person's claimed experience.

I wasn't speaking of the hankerchief, I was speaking of people's claims of ADC's.

Mental institutions are filled with people whose personal experiences of things unreal are quite real to them. So what?[/B]

Are you suggesting that most of these people who make these claims are mental?

Deluded, leroy, not necessarily delusional. But you see, you have had to stray far afield from the discussion of evidence. Why is that? Why can't you defend your position without this appeal to pity and this deflection? [/B]

Bill, The actual discussion was about the definition of skeptics. The points I brought up were about the treatment some skeptics dish out to believers. You were the one who said that there was no evidence for ADC's and that started the "off the topic" discussion about evidence. I made my point about evidence, you made yours, we both disagree with one another. Do you wish to continue the discussion until one of us changes our mind?

I have no need to defend my position. I am right, there is evidence for ADC's. Not enough to mean didily crap to you and I, but it is still evidence, that is why the believers are still arguing their position.

Now, if you are one of those people who can't sleep at night unless you are able to change my mind, as you seem to have a need to change the beliefs of believers to fit your own, all I can say is that you will be losing a lot of sleep bud.

Leroy

22nd June 2004, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by michaellee
Wow! 4 plus pages of posts in this thread and nothing more than nitpick this and nitpick that. So, in keeping with the trend, and off topic, too: This statement could not possibly be any further from the truth, at least from my understanding. Please provide the part(s) of the Constitution granting me the privilege of anything; most notably this "privilege against self-incrimination", commonly misused by the media, on tv shows, and by some skeptics. And "Only testimonial evidence is protected by the Fifth ..."???? Where and how and who taught this interpretation?

Forget providing the text...it is not there and never has been. But why is it so difficult to remember No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Nothing about evidence. Nothing about self-incrimination. Nothing about privilege. This part of the Fifth Amendment guarantees you the RIGHT to not have to TESTIFY (evidence is completely irrelevant) against yourself in a criminal case. So when you are watching television, and someone on the witness stand refuses to answer "on the grounds that it may incriminate me", you should feel right at home.

I'm not the one who wrote it, take it up with dictionary.com, you might send them an email with your complaints.

BillHoyt

22nd June 2004, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by Leroy
You were the one who said that there was no evidence for ADC's and that started the "off the topic" discussion about evidence.

I refer you to your post of 06-15-2004 11:51 AM, where you first brought up ADC. I will hold out hope that this was confusion rather than an attempt to obfuscate.

Leroy

22nd June 2004, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

But, it is one of oodles, all aimed at dancing around the truth about the nature of evidence.

Don't you wish that was true Bill!

The problem isn't me dancing about the truth, the problem is that I won't accept your truth Bill.

In your eyes your beliefs are correct and anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong.

You have a need to change my views, but you can niggle all you want, it isn't going to happen. This might cause you to whinge for awhile, but sooner or later you are going to have to accept that you're just wrong about some things Bill. We don't all live according to the beliefs of BillHoyt ;)

Don't you think it is frivolous to spend hours trying to convert someone to your beliefs? Then get pawky when they won't convert!

Yes there is evidence of ADC's. We don't need to go into detail about what kind of evidence and how it is meaningless to science, that isn't the point. However, if you can't control your obsessive need to convert me to your way of thinking, than by all means, hack away! It still won't change the fact that there is evidence of ADC's. Evidence that don't prove jack Sh*t, but it is still evidence.

BillHoyt

22nd June 2004, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by Leroy
It still won't change the fact that there is evidence of ADC's. Evidence that don't prove jack Sh*t, but it is still evidence.

Unbelievable.

Leroy

22nd June 2004, 06:38 AM

Leroy

22nd June 2004, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Unbelievable.

I am sure it is unbelievable to you, Bill. But then I think when it comes to evidence and proof, you get the two confused.

BillHoyt

22nd June 2004, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by Leroy

Bill, since you know where this post is, why not add a link so I can get right to it.

! (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870501995&highlight=covinous#post1870501995)

Leroy

22nd June 2004, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I refer you to your post of 06-15-2004 11:51 AM, where you first brought up ADC. I will hold out hope that this was confusion rather than an attempt to obfuscate.

The page you linked me to does not have a post by me at 11:51 A.M. So I assume you meant this one:

06-15-2004 04:51 PM

First off bill, do you really believe that I am trying to be deceptive, or are you just paranoid and judgemental?

Believers are not arguing about gravity, the moon or sun, or trying to disprove what science has proven.

Is it a proven fact that people cannot communicate with the dead? Is it a proven fact that ghosts do not exist?

Yes or No?

oops, sorry, I need to translate this to your level.

Bill, do you think I am a netherling, covinous? Or, perhaps you are just being contumelious for your own amusement?

Forget it, I never did like putting on airs. I shall accept this drissom humbly.

Perhaps I should tanter the believers too. Perhaps I need to be reeth, martle them, floke them, leave them fertummelt!

That should teach them critical thinking skills and soon they will be teached, taught, cleaned up of their heathen ways, learned, smart like me. *Evil Grin*

This is where your link took me, the problem is, I don't get your point. Remember Bill, you have to teach me critical thinking skills, in other words point it out to me, spell it out for me.

What's the problem. I asked questions here, you replied by saying there isn't any evidence for ghosts, etc. Cept claimed evidence, which is what Bill? EVIDENCE, right?

BillHoyt

22nd June 2004, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by Leroy

The page you linked me to does not have a post by me at 11:51 A.M. So I assume you meant this one:

06-15-2004 04:51 PM

This is where your link took me, the problem is, I don't get your point. Remember Bill, you have to teach me critical thinking skills, in other words point it out to me, spell it out for me.

What's the problem. I asked questions here, you replied by saying there isn't any evidence for ghosts, etc. Cept claimed evidence, which is what Bill? EVIDENCE, right?

1. I linked you to a post, not a page.
2. That link was to your post, not mine.
3. You live in a different timezone.
4. You raised the issues of ADCs and ghosts, not I.

Leroy

22nd June 2004, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

1. I linked you to a post, not a page.

Yes, minor detail Bill, why bring it up?

You were the one who said to look for a post of 06-15-2004 11:51 AM. So, when your link took me to a post made at 04:51 PM, instead of 11:51 AM, I searched the entire page looking for the 11:51 AM post you originally referred me to, just to be sure. Got it? I only bring up this trivial detail because you seem to be such a stickler for correcting people.

2. That link was to your post, not mine.

Yes

3. You live in a different timezone.

Obviously

4. You raised the issues of ADCs and ghosts, not I. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, We agree on that Bill ;)

This issue went along with the topic of the board, the definition of skeptic as opposed to debunking. And my post about harassing believers for what they believe in, (whether or not it was appropriate?)

Which continued with your issue about there not being evidence for such things.

And continued with what the definition of evidence is.

I think we pretty much came to the conclusion that we disagree on what evidence is. I can live with that.

You and I may agree on the issues of soothsayers and the supramundane. We may even agree that certain evidence presented in favor of these things is meaningless, (to us and to science) but we disagree on how to communicate with believers and we disagree on what is evidence and what isn't.

I can live with that. If you have a need to continue this fifflery about evidence, or getting off topic, or who said what, who started what, when and where, you will have to be patient as I have a conference to go to.

BillHoyt

22nd June 2004, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Leroy

Yes, minor detail Bill, why bring it up? ...

Come back when you can defend your assertions.

Leroy

22nd June 2004, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Come back when you can defend your assertions.

Which assertions would those be Bill? Can you be specific, or are you just being a casuist?

BillHoyt

22nd June 2004, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Leroy

Which assertions would those be Bill? Can you be specific, or are you just being a casuist?

Would you like to try this one: "It still won't change the fact that there is evidence of ADC's. Evidence that don't prove jack Sh*t, but it is still evidence. "

Or how about the more general assertion about evidence and proof?

Or how about the dictionary definitons?

Or the 5th amendment mangling?

T'ake your p'ick.

Leroy

22nd June 2004, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Would you like to try this one: "It still won't change the fact that there is evidence of ADC's. Evidence that don't prove jack Sh*t, but it is still evidence. "

Or how about the more general assertion about evidence and proof?

Bill, I asked what statements you wanted me to defend. And you give me this?

I wasn't talking about proof, Bill, only evidence. I think you get the two confused.

I don't need to defend my statements about there being evidence for ADC's, it wouldn't do me any good. Whatever I would post you would want it to be proof.

You do not seem to understand what evidence is, you only understand what scientific evidence is, you don't accept anything other than that. So what would be the point? Just because you do not accept something as evidence, that does not mean it is not used as evidence, Bill.

The world does not say "Throw this out because BillHoyt say's it is useless." They accept things as evidence, that you would disregard. Again, not as proof, just evidence.

Or how about the dictionary definitons?

You want me to defend the dictionary definition of evidence Bill? Isn't that brimborion?

Or the 5th amendment mangling?

Again, you want me to defend something that I got off of dictionary.com? Bill, are you a casuist? It just makes no sense to me. It was a cut and paste from the dictionary and you want me to defend it? If you disagree with it, take it up with the author. I posted the dictionary defintion of evidence and the different types of evidence it listed, the 5th amendment was part of the cut and paste.

I do believe you are a casuist. I am pretty certain of it. Although I cannot prove it, I go by the evidence I see on this board. And until you understand the difference between evidence and proof we could waste a half dozen more pages on this subject.

1. I make the statement that there is evidence (not scientific) for ADC's -
I make the statement that there is no proof of ADC's

hammegk

22nd June 2004, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Leroy
....until you understand the difference between evidence and proof we could waste a half dozen more pages on this subject.

Leroy, I think you ground on the point of his head about as far as he's willing to accept in Round 1.

His next ploy could be taking a quote of your words out of context and using some insinuation about them as his signature.

IMO, his (and a few others here) problem is this; he wishes to disprove the existence of anything ~material, knows he cannot, and instead attempts to redefine epistemology to be e'pis'on'theology. That is, there is no question worth asking that cannot be completely addressed by use of the Scientific Method.

22nd June 2004, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
That is, there is no question worth asking that cannot be completely addressed by use of the Scientific Method.

Really?

Can you reject insane solipcism that way? :p

BillHoyt

22nd June 2004, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Leroy
Bill, I asked what statements you wanted me to defend. And you give me this?

I wasn't talking about proof, Bill, only evidence. I think you get the two confused.
I know full well the difference between evidence and proof. I also know the difference between evidence and useless bits of information. You keep wanting to dodge around the salient issues I've raised and keep wanting to strawman my arguments. It won't work, leroy.

The handkerchief is not evidence, leroy. EVIDENCE. It is not admissable. It is a useless bit of information because no officer of the court can vouch for any of the important corrlative bits of information. Neither can any officer of the court vouch for its chain of custody. It might be real. It might be a mistake. It might be contaminated by countless things that would make it probitively useless. It might have been planted or completely faked.

The handkerchief is not evidence. It is not admissable. That means, very simply, it cannot be considered by the court and cannot be presented to a jury. It is not evidence.

Now I have deliberately repeated the word "evidence" as many times as I think the reader can possibly stand. I have said nothing about "proof."

You do not seem to understand what evidence is, you only understand what scientific evidence is, you don't accept anything other than that. So what would be the point? Just because you do not accept something as evidence, that does not mean it is not used as evidence, Bill.

The world does not say "Throw this out because BillHoyt say's it is useless." They accept things as evidence, that you would disregard. Again, not as proof, just evidence.
I do not accept your rock as food. You may keep referring to it as food, but that does not make it food. It is a rock. This has nothing to do with what I regard or any opinion on my part. This has everything to do with epistemology.

We know truths about the universe based on the epistemology of science. Just as the court rules would-be evidence in or out, so does science. The best that personal anecdote can do is get the attention of a few scientists who may immediately attempt to falsify an hypothesis about the nature of the anecdote. If they can achieve a repeatable experiment and others can repeat their results, they may have, at long last, turned up evidence.

Until then, though, there is no food here. Only rocks.

hammegk

22nd June 2004, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by jj

Can you reject insane solipcism that way? :p

No, and neither can anyone who uses the scientific method to examine the denial, or acceptance, of solipsism.

22nd June 2004, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

No, and neither can anyone who uses the scientific method to examine the denial, or acceptance, of solipsism.

Well, this might be my cue to go on about a "holographic universe" but I think I'll just quietly shuffle off now.

csense

22nd June 2004, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

"I know full well the difference between evidence and proof. I also know the difference between evidence and useless bits of information..."

"...The handkerchief is not evidence, leroy. EVIDENCE."

Bill, if I may, and please don't take this as a challenge or critique of your position...it's only something to think about...

I understand your affinity for the Scientific Method and strict rules of evidence relating to such, and there's nothing wrong with that, but evidence can take many forms, for different reasons. Take your handkerchief analogy. Yes it is evidence of nothing, and the analogy clearly shows this, which supports your general position.
But if you think about it, the handkerchief doesn't really exist outside of your analogy. It is not emperical, I think you will agree on that, but yet it exists as evidence of your position, which you freely admit.

Now how can this be so, since, if you did follow your own rules of evidence, you would not have even proposed it. Quite paradoxical, don't you think?

BillHoyt

23rd June 2004, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by csense

Bill, if I may, and please don't take this as a challenge or critique of your position...it's only something to think about...

I understand your affinity for the Scientific Method and strict rules of evidence relating to such, and there's nothing wrong with that, but evidence can take many forms, for different reasons. Take your handkerchief analogy. Yes it is evidence of nothing, and the analogy clearly shows this, which supports your general position.
But if you think about it, the handkerchief doesn't really exist outside of your analogy. It is not emperical, I think you will agree on that, but yet it exists as evidence of your position, which you freely admit.

Now how can this be so, since, if you did follow your own rules of evidence, you would not have even proposed it. Quite paradoxical, don't you think?

Evidence of things that affect the universe can take many forms. And many things can be presented as evidence that are not. Many things can also be proffered as evidence of some claim which do not really support the claim because they also support a surfeit of other possible claims

I put a compass to a test. I point myself due North and see it reads SE. Then I point myself due South and see it reads SW. Pointing E now reads NW. I point myself back North and see it now reads W. The compass is clearly not trustworthy. I cannot map the results to any conclusion about my heading. The compass is not evidence.

Somebody gets on TV and claims to talk with the dead. We see on the edited program his audience receive hit after hit after hit. Evidence of talking with the dead? Evidence of skillfull program editing? Evidence of mentalist audience manipulation tricks? Evidence of cold reading? Or warm reading? Or even hot reading?

The compass of such anecdotes is not trustworthy. It is not evidence.

csense

23rd June 2004, 10:18 AM

I put a compass to a test. I point myself due North and see it reads SE. Then I point myself due South and see it reads SW. Pointing E now reads NW. I point myself back North and see it now reads W. The compass is clearly not trustworthy. I cannot map the results to any conclusion about my heading. The compass is not evidence.

But the compass is evidence Bill, evidence that it is not trustworthy, and you know this through contradiction since we already know what north is.

The problem with this analogy, is that in order to contradict whatever paranormal event is being discussed, we must know what it's true nature is...just like north.

We can not contradict that which is not defined.

You can sit back and say, this evidence is not good enough, or it is not emprical, or any number of things...but you can not say it is contradictory unless we know exactly what it is contradicting in definite terms...and that must come first, not second

Look, I don't want to get in the middle of this, but I just thought I'd give you some food for thought :-)

BillHoyt

23rd June 2004, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by csense
But the compass is evidence Bill, evidence that it is not trustworthy, and you know this through contradiction since we already know what north is.
"'What' North is' isn't the question. Where are we with respect to North is the question.
The problem with this analogy, is that in order to contradict whatever paranormal event is being discussed, we must know what it's true nature is...just like north.
Not at all. Science's epistemology is concerned with layers of explanation. "True nature" is a religio-philosophic issue.

We can not contradict that which is not defined.

You can sit back and say, this evidence is not good enough, or it is not emprical, or any number of things...but you can not say it is contradictory unless we know exactly what it is contradicting in definite terms...and that must come first, not second

Look, I don't want to get in the middle of this, but I just thought I'd give you some food for thought :-)
Not at all. Science defines what things are, how they work, etc. by ruling out what they aren't, and how they don't work.

csense

23rd June 2004, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

"'What' North is' isn't the question. Where are we with respect to North is the question.

...with respect to north

What north is may not be the question, but we can not answer the next question: where we are unless we answer the first question...otherwise, we are simply lost, which many people are.

Again, I just wanted to give you something to think about, so, you guys can carry on without any further interuptions from me :-)

drkitten

23rd June 2004, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by csense

But the compass is evidence Bill, evidence that it is not trustworthy, and you know this through contradiction since we already know what north is.

The problem with this analogy, is that in order to contradict whatever paranormal event is being discussed, we must know what it's true nature is...just like north.

We can not contradict that which is not defined.

Is this true? In the case of the compass analogy, I don't need to know where north "really" is in order to know that the compass is broken; it's enough that the compass points in several different directions from the same spot. The inconsistency of the compass is enough by itself to render it untrustworthy to the point of uselessness, and I don't need "truth" to compare it against.

Does this apply to paranormal practices? Is the "evidence" presented for any given phenomenon so internally inconsistent that it can't be trusted or taken seriously by a rational observer? As a simple test, we could check a dozen newpaper horoscopes and see if they at least agree with each other, or if they're all pointing in different directions. And I'd be much happier with alternative medicines if I could walk into three different shops and receive recommendations for the same treatment in each.

csense

23rd June 2004, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by drkitten

Is this true? In the case of the compass analogy, I don't need to know where north "really" is in order to know that the compass is broken; it's enough that the compass points in several different directions from the same spot. The inconsistency of the compass is enough by itself to render it untrustworthy to the point of uselessness, and I don't need "truth" to compare it against.

...and in the analogy, you are also pointing in several different directions, yes?

And since North defines the other compass points, then which is wrong...you or the compass.

Think Relativity and you'll find yourself on firm ground understanding the exchange between myself and Bill.

As I said, I don't want to derail the ongoing discussion.

hammegk

23rd June 2004, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by drkitten

Is this true? In the case of the compass analogy, I don't need to know where north "really" is in order to know that the compass is broken;

OK, now you don't know which way is north, AND you have a broken compass. If your actual interest is checking compasses, you'd still better know what magnetic north should be at your location. If you're trying to navigate, you are in trouble.

Note that North is a definition, nothing else.

drkitten

23rd June 2004, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by csense

...and in the analogy, you are also pointing in several different directions, yes?

And since North defines the other compass points, then which is wrong...you or the compass.

The compass, because I can demonstrate that it's inconsistent even after I've controlled for my own changes of orientation.

Think Relativity and you'll find yourself on firm ground understanding the exchange between myself and Bill.

I believe I understand it well. Relativity does not mean inconsistency in the underlying reality. My watch may read differently from Ms. Bright's, but I can determine what her watch should read. If her watch and mine disagree in a different way, then (at least) one of our watches is broken.

Similarly, when people examining the paranormal come up with radically different descriptions of the same phenomenon,.... there's something wrong with the descriptions, and the descriptions cannot be trusted as evidence.

csense

23rd June 2004, 02:19 PM

Well then, there you have it, your world makes sense to you, which is probably why I don't. What more is there to say...

drkitten

23rd June 2004, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

OK, now you don't know which way is north, AND you have a broken compass. If your actual interest is checking compasses, you'd still better know what magnetic north should be at your location. If you're trying to navigate, you are in trouble.

But probably in less trouble than I would be in if I didn't know the compass was broken and tried to navigate by it.

hammegk

23rd June 2004, 03:24 PM

So if you don't know where you are or where you're going, you are not lost. Mmmmkay. :p

Perhaps you can use a broken shard from the faceplate to slit your wrists? I suspect you won't find a bow tiny enough to use the arrow for hunting. At worst, you do have a replacement for a rock to throw.

Or, as I could have just asked, "What makes you think so?".

BillHoyt

24th June 2004, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by csense

...and in the analogy, you are also pointing in several different directions, yes?

And since North defines the other compass points, then which is wrong...you or the compass.

Think Relativity and you'll find yourself on firm ground understanding the exchange between myself and Bill.

As I said, I don't want to derail the ongoing discussion.

This is the PoMo feint. It starts with the incorrect assumption that relativity means there is no correct frame of reference. This is an absolute corruption of physics.

After corrupting the scientific concept of relativity to mean "its all relative," and that, therefore, "there is no truth." the PoMo feint goes onto say "therefore...," which, of course, completely lops the legs off the original claim that there is no truth.

The compass, csense, is wrong. Demonstrably so, as I wrote the example. I fail to see how I could have been clearer about that. The compass gave different and inconsistent readings for a magnetic point (North) that had not moved. The compass is the same as what is being proffered as "evidence" for ADC. Like the compass, this "evidence" points in many directions, and is, therefore, not evidence for ADCs.

drkitten

24th June 2004, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

Or, as I could have just asked, "What makes you think so?".

Because I now know the first necessary step is to find a working compass, rather than trying to navigate by the demonstrably-broken one. I therefore avoid making the problem worse by using an unreliable instrument, and once I get a (working) compass, I can use it to get myself out of whatever fix I'm in. Diagnosis of a problem is a usual first step in its solution.

hammegk

24th June 2004, 11:03 AM

Well, you know the compass you have doesn't operate the way you expect it to at the location where you are. Maybe you are standing on a massive deposit of magnetite?

But yes, I know we could get the correct instruments etc and determine which if either is the case, since we have seen scientific demonstrations that the earth has a magnetic field, north is defined, and a myriad set of other "empirical knowns".

The analogy with your compass problem being analogous to the Hoyt ADC analogy is less than compelling. What makes you certain you are not in the same position regarding say, ADCs, as was homo sap in the 1500's confronted with a mis-behaving compass?

Of interest to me is the lapse in critical thinking that allows the oxymoronic words "paranormal" or "supernatural" to enter the discussion. Interactive dualism seems patently illogical.

Interesting Ian

24th June 2004, 06:53 PM

I disagree that interactive dualism is illogical. It's just a hypothesis that makes the world unnecessarily complex. But it makes infinitely more sense than materialism.

25th June 2004, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I disagree that interactive dualism is illogical. It's just a hypothesis that makes the world unnecessarily complex. But it makes infinitely more sense than materialism.

My son, you are denial.

If you reject interactive dualism, and reject materialism, well, then why does the rock always fall down?

CFLarsen

25th June 2004, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by jj
If you reject interactive dualism, and reject materialism, well, then why does the rock always fall down?

Ian, that is a pretty good question. I would like to see if you can answer it.

Interesting Ian

25th June 2004, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Ian, that is a pretty good question. I would like to see if you can answer it.

Because of the physical law labelled gravitation.

CFLarsen

25th June 2004, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Because of the physical law labelled gravitation.

So, something outside the human brain does exist?

Interesting Ian

25th June 2004, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

So, something outside the human brain does exist?

Of course. The whole of the physical world exists, it just doesn't have any ontological self-subsistent being. Gravitation doesn't exist though.

And BTW, the human brain is a physical object like all other physical objects. Subjective idealists think that the whole of the physical world, including brains, only has existence in respect of the mind or minds.

CFLarsen

25th June 2004, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Of course. The whole of the physical world exists, it just doesn't have any ontological self-subsistent being.

So, why does the physical world exist? How can it?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Gravitation doesn't exist though.

Huh? If gravitation doesn't exist, how can the solar system exist? Please explain what makes the planets go round the Sun, if not for gravitation.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And BTW, the human brain is a physical object like all other physical objects. Subjective idealists think that the whole of the physical world, including brains, only has existence in respect of the mind or minds.

That may be so. That has no relevance to what I am asking.

hammegk

25th June 2004, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

That has no relevance to what I am asking.

Nor does what you are asking have any particular relevance. Why do you want to give "the human mind" some special significance? As perceived "physically", it is the most complex electro-chemical complex we are aware of; so what?

As to "what is gravity", that is a poser to all -- even materialists if any such actually exist. Just another Law that allows physical perception to occur as it does, and as yet the Science concerning it is perhaps past the Wild Ass Guess stage and approaching Scientific WAG status. QED & QCD are still lonely.

CFLarsen

25th June 2004, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
Nor does what you are asking have any particular relevance. Why do you want to give "the human mind" some special significance? As perceived "physically", it is the most complex electro-chemical complex we are aware of; so what?

I'm not giving any special significance to "the human mind", quite contrary. You are misreading what I say.

Originally posted by hammegk
As to "what is gravity", that is a poser to all -- even materialists if any such actually exist. Just another Law that allows physical perception to occur as it does, and as yet the Science concerning it is perhaps past the Wild Ass Guess stage and approaching Scientific WAG status. QED & QCD are still lonely.

BEEP! No, "gravity" does not merely "allow physical perception to occur as it does". Gravity explains why things fall down. Before you attack gravity, you have to show that gravity does not make things fall down.

Please do so first.

csense

25th June 2004, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

csense:"Think Relativity and you'll find yourself on firm ground..."

This is the PoMo feint. It starts with the incorrect assumption that relativity means there is no correct frame of reference. This is an absolute corruption of physics.

After corrupting the scientific concept of relativity to mean "its all relative," and that, therefore, "there is no truth." the PoMo feint goes onto say "therefore...," which, of course, completely lops the legs off the original claim that there is no truth.

The compass, csense, is wrong. Demonstrably so, as I wrote the example. I fail to see how I could have been clearer about that. The compass gave different and inconsistent readings for a magnetic point (North) that had not moved. The compass is the same as what is being proffered as "evidence" for ADC. Like the compass, this "evidence" points in many directions, and is, therefore, not evidence for ADCs.

Bill, Bill, Bill,....when will you guys ever learn. I can't believe it went right over your head, or rather, under your feet, and in more ways than one.

Billy Hoyt: "What' North is' isn't the question. Where are we with respect to North is the question."
drkitten: "Is this true? In the case of the compass analogy, I don't need to know where north "really" is in order to know that the compass is broken"

You can not possibly know that the compass is inconsistent unless you have defined North.

True, if you turn 180 degrees, or whichever, then the compass should also reflect this, and if it doesn't, then it is inconsistent. The problem however is, you need a point of reference other than yourself to show that you did indeed turn 180 degrees, and in order to do that, you need to make assumptions that aren't evident.

I figured this being a critical thinking forum, within a critical thinking forum, you might understand what I was saying, or at least think about it, but, so much for that.

As I said in my post previous to this, albeit in another thread...

I've better things to do.

hammegk

25th June 2004, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Gravity explains why things fall down. Before you attack gravity, you have to show that gravity does not make things fall down.

Those two sentences are meaningless to me. Could you re-phrase?

Gravity is a force that effects the perceived attribute named mass.

BillHoyt

25th June 2004, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by csense
Bill, Bill, Bill,....when will you guys ever learn. I can't believe it went right over your head, or rather, under your feet, and in more ways than one.
I encourage you to think again...
Billy Hoyt: "What' North is' isn't the question. Where are we with respect to North is the question.
drkitten: "Is this true? In the case of the compass analogy, I don't need to know where north "really" is in order to know that the compass is broken"

You can not possibly know that the compass is inconsistent unless you have defined North.[/b]
Think this through, step by step. Let us define N the way we currently define N. Read my example. The conclusion is an unreliable compass. Let us now define N the way we currently define W. Read my example. The conclusion, again, is an unreliable compass. You missed the key to my example: we pointed N twice. The first time, the compass read "SE". The second time "W." Regardless of how we define N, this is a broken compass.
True, if you turn 180 degrees, or whichever, then the compass should also reflect this, and if it doesn't, then it is inconsistent. The problem however is, you need a point of reference other than yourself to show that you did indeed turn 180 degrees, and in order to do that, you need to make assumptions that aren't evident.
Not at all. Place your feet anywhere on the planet you like. Scratch a line in the soil, from your toes to your heels. Now scratch a line orthogonal to the first. Pick any point as N, and define the others E, W, and S. Any which way you want.

It doesn't matter how you define them. You don't need any other point of reference. The fact that you returned to the same orientation, and got two different results declares the compass broken.

I figured this being a critical thinking forum, within a critical thinking forum, you might understand what I was saying, or at least think about it, but, so much for that.

As I said in my post previous to this, albeit in another thread...

I've better things to do.
I beg to differ.

csense

25th June 2004, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I encourage you to think again...

Thank you for the encouragement Bill, and I thank you you for being courteous.

Having said that, I see you still don't get it.

Well, if that's the case, then what I'm about to tell you is really going to mess you up. Hopefully though, You will take my offer of your own words of wisdom:

Think this through, step by step.

Let us define N the way we currently define N. Read my example. The conclusion is an unreliable compass. Let us now define N the way we currently define W.

If you redefine north, you also have to redefine the compass.

Have fun :-)

BillHoyt

25th June 2004, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by csense

Thank you for the encouragement Bill, and I thank you you for being courteous.

Having said that, I see you still don't get it.

Well, if that's the case, then what I'm about to tell you is really going to mess you up. Hopefully though, You will take my offer of your own words of wisdom:

Think this through, step by step.

If you redefine north, you also have to redefine the compass.

Have fun :-)
csense,

I get both the physics of the compass and the measure-theoretic aspects of my explanations quite well, thank you. I've not a clue why you're missing the very simple points I made, but I'll give it another go.

Did you re-read my example, csense? Did you not read drkitten's post? he made exactly the same point. Here again is my example, with the salient parts emphasized:

"I put a compass to a test. I point myself due North and see it reads SE.Then I point myself due South and see it reads SW. Pointing E now reads NW. I point myself back North and see it now reads W. The compass is clearly not trustworthy. I cannot map the results to any conclusion about my heading. The compass is not evidence."

The first time I point N, the compass reads SE. The second time, it reads W. The compass is inconsistent. It is untrustworthy. It is useless. This should be abundantly clear, but you persist with the following specious objections:

But you must define N No, I don't. I merely need to return to the same orientation. This is simple enough, csense, as any cub scout could tell you. I place a pebble on the ground and dig in my heels so that my toes touch the pebble. Later, I can return my heels to the little hole they dug before, and return my toes to the pebble. I am now in the same orientation. I don't care what actual compass point it is. Yes, I called it N. Who cares if it actually is or isn't. It could be anything. The point is, I twice go through a position that clearly should produce the same results, and clearly get two quite different results. I know, ipso facto, the compass is useless.

But if you redefine N you must redefine the compass. Utterly irrelevant. The compass needle is a magnet and is attracted to what we call magnetic north. The other cardinal points are defined at specific degree separations from that original point. Were we to turn them about the dial, redefining everything in a different way, we still have the original problem: inconsistency. It won't read the same way for the same conditions. Period.

The measure-theoretic principles apply here, as they do for any instrument. The primary requirement is repeatability. This is always subject to two types of error: systematic and random. In the example I gave, I described an instrument with no discernable (from the scant data) systematic error, but on whopping random error. One reading was 90 degrees off, the other 135 degrees off. The last error was over 1/3 of full scale.

You can redefine the cardinal points to your heart's content, it won't make the compass more consistent. Neither will it make it more useful.

"

csense

25th June 2004, 10:49 PM

Last clue: The second argument, adjusting the cardinal points, always breaks down to the first argument, and you are left defining a primary point, which is the same as defining a necessary north.

For what it's worth, I think the reason you are disputing a necessary definition of North (or at least started to) is because of the point I was making in my post on the previous page:

originally posted by csense

But the compass is evidence Bill, evidence that it is not trustworthy, and you know this through contradiction since we already know what north is.

The problem with this analogy, is that in order to contradict whatever paranormal event is being discussed, we must know what it's true nature is...just like north.

We can not contradict that which is not defined.

You can sit back and say, this evidence is not good enough, or it is not emprical, or any number of things...but you can not say it is contradictory unless we know exactly what it is contradicting in definite terms...and that must come first, not second

It's been an interesting conversation....

CFLarsen

25th June 2004, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
Those two sentences are meaningless to me. Could you re-phrase?

Gravity is a force that effects the perceived attribute named mass.

I will not play a game of words with you. You can call it what you like, just don't expect people to understand you, and don't complain about it later.

I hope we agree that things fall down. If you don't think that it is gravity that does it, then please explain what you think it is.

If you don't agree that things fall down, then please explain why they do it anyway.

Interesting Ian

26th June 2004, 03:41 AM

BillHoyt

26th June 2004, 04:17 AM

Originally posted by csense
Last clue: The second argument, adjusting the cardinal points, always breaks down to the first argument, and you are left defining a primary point, which is the same as defining a necessary north.

For what it's worth, I think the reason you are disputing a necessary definition of North (or at least started to) is because of the point I was making in my post on the previous page:

It's been an interesting conversation....
What's most interesting is your dance around truth and your constant threats that you are done with the discussion. Either engage or leave. If you choose to engage, then please cease twisting my words.

You can define N any way you choose. You can put a stone down anywhere you want. Call it N. Call it ralph. Call it an ********. I don't care.

Point the compass to the ******** and it reads one thing. Move about and return to pointing to the ******** and it reads a dramatically different thing. The compass is useless.

"But the compass is evidence Bill, evidence that it is not trustworthy, and you know this through contradiction since we already know what north is."

This is the fallacy of equivocation. We are quite clearly asking for the compass to be evidence of our orientation, not evidence of something. The compass is also evidence of the existence of metal, and the existence of magnetic metal, and evidence of our opposable thumbs and prehensile grasp. When you play word games, the world is your oyster, but all pretense to logic is lost.

Finally, and for the last time, the contradiction has nothing to do with N or our definition of it. It has to do with the inability of the compass to consistently read the same under the same conditions.

I have been through this several times now. This logic is clear. It is straightforward and transparent. There is only one, uncharitable conclusion. Now go away.

hammegk

26th June 2004, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I will not play a game of words with you. You can call it what you like, just don't expect people to understand you, and don't complain about it later.

I hope we agree that things fall down. If you don't think that it is gravity that does it, then please explain what you think it is.

If you don't agree that things fall down, then please explain why they do it anyway.

This is your second post to me, here, that is meaningless to me. I have no idea what you are requesting that I do.

grav·i·ty n.
Physics.
a. The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.
b. The natural force of attraction between any two massive bodies, which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
c. Gravitation.

CFLarsen

26th June 2004, 06:06 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

grav·i·ty n.
Physics.
a. The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.
b. The natural force of attraction between any two massive bodies, which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
c. Gravitation.

I assume that this is what you think gravity is. So, what is your point?

Interesting Ian

26th June 2004, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I assume that this is what you think gravity is. So, what is your point? [/B]

Just to clear up this gravity business. Gravity is a short hand way to refer to apparently disparate phenomena. This apparently disparate phenomena actually follows the same underlying rule (physical law of nature).

What I would deny is that there is an efficient causal force called gravity in the world (i.e generative causality). There is not an existent called gravity superimposed upon reality as it were. Objects fall because that's just the way reality is. Just like objects continue in a straight line unless any forces are applied.

In other words Newton didn't discover this existent called gravitation. He discovered that apparently disparate phenomena can be described by the same mathematical rule. People were aware that objects fall before Newton came along and "discovered" gravity.

hammegk

26th June 2004, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I assume that this is what you think gravity is. So, what is your point?

I was attempting to find some substance in your words. I do not. Enough for me, here, with you.....

CFLarsen

26th June 2004, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
I was attempting to find some substance in your words. I do not. Enough for me, here, with you.....

No point, then. Again.

BillHoyt

26th June 2004, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What I would deny is that there is an efficient causal force called gravity in the world (i.e generative causality). There is not an existent called gravity superimposed upon reality as it were. Objects fall because that's just the way reality is. Just like objects continue in a straight line unless any forces are applied.
A just-so story encased in a self-contradiction.

Interesting Ian

26th June 2004, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What I would deny is that there is an efficient causal force called gravity in the world (i.e generative causality). There is not an existent called gravity superimposed upon reality as it were. Objects fall because that's just the way reality is. Just like objects continue in a straight line unless any forces are applied.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A just-so story encased in a self-contradiction.

What?? You disagree with me Bill?? Will you never cease to amaze me?? :D

OK, what self-contradiction might this be?? ;)

CFLarsen

26th June 2004, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Just to clear up this gravity business. Gravity is a short hand way to refer to apparently disparate phenomena. This apparently disparate phenomena actually follows the same underlying rule (physical law of nature).

What I would deny is that there is an efficient causal force called gravity in the world (i.e generative causality). There is not an existent called gravity superimposed upon reality as it were. Objects fall because that's just the way reality is. Just like objects continue in a straight line unless any forces are applied.

In other words Newton didn't discover this existent called gravitation. He discovered that apparently disparate phenomena can be described by the same mathematical rule. People were aware that objects fall before Newton came along and "discovered" gravity.

Yes, yes. Old hat. Are you saying that if there is no such thing as gravity, does that mean that planets go round the Sun, "because that's just the way reality is"?

Things are, because they are? That doesn't explain anything, that is circular reasoning.

Why does the physical world exist? How can it, if it doesn't have any ontological self-subsistent being?

Interesting Ian

26th June 2004, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
[B]

Yes, yes. Old hat. Are you saying that if there is no such thing as gravity, does that mean that planets go round the Sun, "because that's just the way reality is"?

Things are, because they are? That doesn't explain anything, that is circular reasoning.

{Shrugs}

It's the only explanation science gives. Science merely describes the world. It does not say what it is or why it is.

CFLarsen

26th June 2004, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
{Shrugs}

It's the only explanation science gives. Science merely describes the world. It does not say what it is or why it is.

So, how do you reconcile that with your rejection of materialism and interactive dualism?

Interesting Ian

26th June 2004, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

So, how do you reconcile that with your rejection of materialism and interactive dualism?

What is there to reconcile? Such an interpretation of science might arguably be at tension with materialism. Others might disagree.

CFLarsen

26th June 2004, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What is there to reconcile? Such an interpretation of science might arguably be at tension with materialism. Others might disagree.

So, where do you stand?

Interesting Ian

26th June 2004, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

So, where do you stand?

I think that science, in particular physics, tends to be suggestive of an idealist metaphysic.

CFLarsen

26th June 2004, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I think that science, in particular physics, tends to be suggestive of an idealist metaphysic.

And what do you mean by this?

Do you think that such an interpretation of science might arguably be at tension with materialism, or do you disagree?

Interesting Ian

26th June 2004, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

And what do you mean by this?

Do you think that such an interpretation of science might arguably be at tension with materialism, or do you disagree?

You would need to define precisely what materialism means. It wouldn't seem to be at tension with naturalism. There again people mean differing things by naturalism too.

CFLarsen

26th June 2004, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You would need to define precisely what materialism means. It wouldn't seem to be at tension with naturalism. There again people mean differing things by naturalism too.

Very well. It makes most sense to discuss your definition of materialism. No sense in discussing a definition you don't agree with.

What is your definition of materialism?

Interesting Ian

26th June 2004, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Very well. It makes most sense to discuss your definition of materialism. No sense in discussing a definition you don't agree with.

What is your definition of materialism?

I don't subscribe to materialism. This would be like asking an atheist to give an exhaustive definition of God. Obviously an atheist rejects all Gods', no matter how defined (so long as the label "God" is appropriate), just as I reject all forms of materialism no matter how defined (so long as the label "materialism" is appropriate).

CFLarsen

26th June 2004, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't subscribe to materialism. This would be like asking an atheist to give an exhaustive definition of God. Obviously an atheist rejects all Gods', no matter how defined (so long as the label "God" is appropriate), just as I reject all forms of materialism no matter how defined (so long as the label "materialism" is appropriate).

I didn't ask if you subscribe to materialism. I asked you what your definition of materialism is.

Interesting Ian

26th June 2004, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I didn't ask if you subscribe to materialism. I asked you what your definition of materialism is.

That's like asking an atheist what his precise definition of God is.

CFLarsen

26th June 2004, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
That's like asking an atheist what his precise definition of God is.

But Ian...if you are such a huge critic of materialism, surely you must know what, exactly, you are criticizing??

Interesting Ian

26th June 2004, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

But Ian...if you are such a huge critic of materialism, surely you must know what, exactly, you are criticizing??

Sure. I'm criticising the notion that that, which is appropriately labelled "materialism", correctly depicts reality. So I'm criticising all versions of "materialism" providing the label is an appropriate one, not just one version of it.

A generic definition would be that the physical exhausts reality, the physical being the primary reality of the world from which consciousness is logically derived i.e conscious awareness is really physical.

Think of a dot matrix picture. The picture really is nothing over and above, or different from, the dots composing it, just as consciousness really is nothing over and above, or different from the activity of neurons in ones brain.

CFLarsen

26th June 2004, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Sure. I'm criticising the notion that that, which is appropriately labelled "materialism", correctly depicts reality. So I'm criticising all versions of "materialism" providing the label is an appropriate one, not just one version of it.

A generic definition would be that the physical exhausts reality, the physical being the primary reality of the world from which consciousness is logically derived i.e conscious awareness is really physical.

Think of a dot matrix picture. The picture really is nothing over and above, or different from, the dots composing it, just as consciousness really is nothing over and above, or different from the activity of neurons in ones brain.

So, you are criticizing the notion that consciousness only exists because of our brains. You are saying that consciousness exists outside our brains.

If this is correct, can you prove that consciousness exists outside our brains?