What to say to a young child?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Now you're negating the terms to cause confusion. You made a stink about a surprisingly fine hair to split just a few posts ago, surely you must know that science never proves hypotheses.

I already addressed this quibble. Proof in this context means to establish as true beyond a reasonable doubt.

And considering the null hypothesis as being automatically true is not a surprisingly fine hair, it's totally contrary to scientific principles. The null hypothesis is not something that arises in and of itself. It's chosen by the scientists. The null hypothesis needs to be demonstrated as true in exactly the same way as any other hypothesis - by scientific evidence.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by westprog

I already addressed this quibble. Proof in this context means to establish as true beyond a reasonable doubt.

And considering the null hypothesis as being automatically true is not a surprisingly fine hair, it's totally contrary to scientific principles. The null hypothesis is not something that arises in and of itself. It's chosen by the scientists. The null hypothesis needs to be demonstrated as true in exactly the same way as any other hypothesis - by scientific evidence.

That's not how the null hypothesis works, I'm afraid.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by westprog

However, Bigfoot is not claimed to be an undetectable spiritual presence.

Perhaps you should tell this guy-:

Quote:

I have a theory which i have been working on.. I do not like to disregard people’s sightings of Bigfoot just on physical or scientific evidence. What if Bigfoot does exist but is more or less like a energy spirit or nature spirit. Basically the Bigfoot is there but is not physical like us, more like a spiritual ghost of the forest and mountains. Every now and then human contact is seen and occasionally the spirit leaves an impression where it has been (footprint).. Maybe it is just like how ghosts are seen in haunted houses, so to is the Bigfoot..

http://www.occultblogger.com/is-bigfoot-real/

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

That's not how the null hypothesis works, I'm afraid.

Whatever way it works, it is never just assumed to be true just because it's the null hypothesis.

It might be that scientists don't concern themselves with the possibility that the Platypus exists until its discovered - but that's not remotely equivalent to a claim that the Platypus doesn't exist.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

Perhaps you should tell this guy-:



http://www.occultblogger.com/is-bigfoot-real/

And, as we said, definitions of Bigfoot that take it out of the remit of science...take it out of the remit of science. Definitions that can be dealt with by science...should be dealt with by science.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by westprog

Whatever way it works, it is never just assumed to be true just because it's the null hypothesis.

No, that's pretty much how it works. The null hypothesis is whatever's left when the hypothesis you're trying to examine is wrong. It isn't proven, but it's still the closest thing we've found to the truth.

Take your platypus example. One possible hypothesis is "platypi exist," and the corresponding null would be "platypi don't exist." That, however, is not falsifiable, as there are an infinite number of places and conditions platypi might exist in (such as modern-day Australia), and no test can cover them all to convincingly fail to disprove the null.

A better hypothesis would be "platypi exist in modern-day Africa," which would have "platypi do not exist in modern-day Africa" as its null. We can search Africa and not find a single platypus, and say pretty definitively that platypi do not exist in modern-day Africa. That doesn't mean they don't exist elsewhere, or never existed in Africa previously. We haven't disproven platypi altogether, but just under these conditions.

That is how something can be disproven and not disproven at the same time, and why the null is both not proven and nevertheless accepted as the most likely truth.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

No, that's pretty much how it works. The null hypothesis is whatever's left when the hypothesis you're trying to examine is wrong. It isn't proven, but it's still the closest thing we've found to the truth.

Take your platypus example. One possible hypothesis is "platypi exist," and the corresponding null would be "platypi don't exist." That, however, is not falsifiable, as there are an infinite number of places and conditions platypi might exist in (such as modern-day Australia), and no test can cover them all to convincingly fail to disprove the null.

A better hypothesis would be "platypi exist in modern-day Africa," which would have "platypi do not exist in modern-day Africa" as its null. We can search Africa and not find a single platypus, and say pretty definitively that platypi do not exist in modern-day Africa. That doesn't mean they don't exist elsewhere, or never existed in Africa previously. We haven't disproven platypi altogether, but just under these conditions.

That is how something can be disproven and not disproven at the same time, and why the null is both not proven and nevertheless accepted as the most likely truth.

Sometimes when we have an idea, there's a test which will establish either the idea or its opposite. Say, for example, someone suggests that there are no gay men in Scotland, and tests this by surveying half a dozen people in his local pub in Aberdeen. One gay man is enough to disprove the idea, but an absence of any isn't proof of anything. On the other hand, if the hypothesis is that the coin under my hand is displaying heads, looking at the coin will establish the hypothesis or it's contrary.

This is typical of ideas in general. Sometimes we can garner evidence which acts both ways. Sometimes we gather evidence that can only disprove a supposition, but never prove it. Usually it's a matter of probabilities. It certainly is not the case that we can always deduce that if we haven't gathered enough evidence in favour of a proposition that the contrary must be true.

What we do, in fact, is if we want to find out if something is probably, or possibly, or certainly true, is to frame the supposition and look for evidence. That's how to deal with the scientific proposition "God exists". It's the way to look at the proposition "God does not exist". And if anyone suggests that perhaps neither proposition is really scientific, I would agree with that, up to a point.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by westprog

And, as we said, definitions of Bigfoot that take it out of the remit of science...take it out of the remit of science. Definitions that can be dealt with by science...should be dealt with by science.

So there is no difference in believing in a god, versus believing in homeopathy, psychics, or bigfoot. If you can come up a a vague and silly enough (sorry, 'thoughtfully theological' enough) definition of homeopathy, psychics, or bigfoot. Great, glad that's established.

Shame AmandaM, the person who initially made the claim, didn't come back though since she was the one asked.

Right I'm off to the garage to feed Sagan's Dragon, the uneaten foods piling up but that's no proof it isn't there..

[westprog]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

So there is no difference in believing in a god, versus believing in homeopathy, psychics, or bigfoot. If you can come up a a vague and silly enough (sorry, 'thoughtfully theological' enough) definition of homeopathy, psychics, or bigfoot. Great, glad that's established.

If you ignore the actual real-life definitions of homeopathy, bigfoot, or psychics, then sure, they can't be scientifically refuted.

It's the very fact that homeopathy, bigfoot and psychic believers make scientific claims that makes them scientifically refutable.

Quote:

Shame AmandaM, the person who initially made the claim, didn't come back though since she was the one asked.

Right I'm off to the garage to feed Sagan's Dragon, the uneaten foods piling up but that's no proof it isn't there..

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by westprog

Sometimes when we have an idea, there's a test which will establish either the idea or its opposite. Say, for example, someone suggests that there are no gay men in Scotland, and tests this by surveying half a dozen people in his local pub in Aberdeen. One gay man is enough to disprove the idea, but an absence of any isn't proof of anything. On the other hand, if the hypothesis is that the coin under my hand is displaying heads, looking at the coin will establish the hypothesis or it's contrary.

This is typical of ideas in general. Sometimes we can garner evidence which acts both ways. Sometimes we gather evidence that can only disprove a supposition, but never prove it. Usually it's a matter of probabilities. It certainly is not the case that we can always deduce that if we haven't gathered enough evidence in favour of a proposition that the contrary must be true.

What we do, in fact, is if we want to find out if something is probably, or possibly, or certainly true, is to frame the supposition and look for evidence. That's how to deal with the scientific proposition "God exists". It's the way to look at the proposition "God does not exist". And if anyone suggests that perhaps neither proposition is really scientific, I would agree with that, up to a point.

Any particular reason why you'd just rephrase everything with the science taken out?

Sometimes people just latch onto ideas they like the sound of, or were raised with, and there's precious little that evidence or lack thereof either way can do to change their mind, no matter how ridiculous and unlikely homeopathic Sasquatch Jesus might be, yet they won't even know it. Instead they'll find themselves trying to renegotiate the conditions of their claim to give themselves just a little wiggle room, the smallest of crevices one might wedge some reaffirming doubt into, so they need never actually confront the posibility of being wrong.

That's the sort of thing scientific reasoning is intended to eliminate - everything else boils down to a pissing contest between unconscious or semi-conscious biases.

Originally Posted by westprog

If you ignore the actual real-life definitions of homeopathy, bigfoot, or psychics, then sure, they can't be scientifically refuted.

It's the very fact that homeopathy, bigfoot and psychic believers make scientific claims that makes them scientifically refutable.

As do the religious. Inchoate divine mysteries and inscrutable Creators get drug out of the closet only for debates with us heathens, sinners and evolutionists, then shoved right back in when it's time for Sunday morning pulpit.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by westprog

If you ignore the actual real-life definitions of homeopathy, bigfoot, or psychics, then sure, they can't be scientifically refuted.

What like the 'actual real-life definition' of bigfoot I provided you from one believer? Nope, you just wave that away because it doesn't fit your idea of what bigfoot believers 'should' believe. Similar unfalsifiable definitions exist for all these categories whether you like it or not. If you insist on a definition of these that suits you then it's hypocritical to insist on a non-detectable god is pure hypocrisy considering the huge prevalence of belief in a god or gods that answer prayers, send or divert natural disasters, perform miracles, drink milk, place messages in fruit etc, etc, etc.....

[P.J. Denyer]

It's a pretty sad god that has to be defined out of any practical existence to avoid disproof.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Any particular reason why you'd just rephrase everything with the science taken out?

Why, because science is some esoteric different way of thinking that doesn't apply to real life? Scientific reasoning is applicable to find scientific conclusions.

Quote:

Sometimes people just latch onto ideas they like the sound of, or were raised with, and there's precious little that evidence or lack thereof either way can do to change their mind, no matter how ridiculous and unlikely homeopathic Sasquatch Jesus might be, yet they won't even know it. Instead they'll find themselves trying to renegotiate the conditions of their claim to give themselves just a little wiggle room, the smallest of crevices one might wedge some reaffirming doubt into, so they need never actually confront the posibility of being wrong.

That's the sort of thing scientific reasoning is intended to eliminate - everything else boils down to a pissing contest between unconscious or semi-conscious biases.


As do the religious. Inchoate divine mysteries and inscrutable Creators get drug out of the closet only for debates with us heathens, sinners and evolutionists, then shoved right back in when it's time for Sunday morning pulpit.

Call me back when you have an argument that addresses the precise issues.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by westprog

Why, because science is some esoteric different way of thinking that doesn't apply to real life? Scientific reasoning is applicable to find scientific conclusions.

Call me back when you have an argument that addresses the precise issues.

Woah, where'd the 0/10 come from? You usually score much higher, westprog.

Maybe you ought to step back a bit, get back into your game? How about following up your earlier argument, which I think was heading toward "because we can play 'Where's Waldo' with platypi, God might be running a sheep farm in New Zealand and all this time we just never looked."

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Woah, where'd the 0/10 come from? You usually score much higher, westprog.

Maybe you ought to step back a bit, get back into your game? How about following up your earlier argument, which I think was heading toward "because we can play 'Where's Waldo' with platypi, God might be running a sheep farm in New Zealand and all this time we just never looked."

I've been doing this long enough to tell the difference between an argument to support a proposition and a bit of high-fiving from the like-minded.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by westprog

I've been doing this long enough to tell the difference between an argument to support a proposition and a bit of high-fiving from the like-minded.

Doesn't there have to be someone else I'm agreeing with to be like-minded?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Doesn't there have to be someone else I'm agreeing with to be like-minded?

It wasn't your post to which I was referring. I've been addressing your points. I don't think they are correct, but they do consist of an argument.

[deaman]

What does all this have to do with what you say to a young child?

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by deaman

What does all this have to do with what you say to a young child?

If you compare belief in gods to belief in Bigfoot or Santa Claus as an analogy they might understand, is that comparison a truly apt one, or a childrens' lie - a smoothing over of nuanced hairsplitting that they won't understand or care about until they're older?

In other words, like every discussion about the education of children ever, it evenrtually segued into adults bickering about pointless crap while the kids went to ride bikes.

[westprog]

I wonder - would people consider that there's a difference between telling children that there is a god, and telling children that there are such things as right and wrong?

Would it be right to tell a child that telling lies was absolutely wrong, or that they shouldn't do it because there might be certain consequences?

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by westprog

I wonder - would people consider that there's a difference between telling children that there is a god, and telling children that there are such things as right and wrong?

Would it be right to tell a child that telling lies was absolutely wrong, or that they shouldn't do it because there might be certain consequences?

Within that conversation should it be mentioned that some people believe in magical invisible beings, but that they are lying if they suggest there's any more evidence for such a being than there is for Bigfoot, UFOliens, or the Loch Ness Monster?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Within that conversation should it be mentioned that some people believe in magical invisible beings, but that they are lying if they suggest there's any more evidence for such a being than there is for Bigfoot, UFOliens, or the Loch Ness Monster?

Of course. Teaching a child to feel superior to other people is very necessary.

[deaman]

...the opening post asked, "What would "you" say to a child?", not how would you argue with others about how to explain something that is difficult to explain.

For instance, how would you explain gravity, electricity, calculus, or nuclear fission, to a child?

People have been trying to "explain", that which is not easily grasped, forever. Some are better at communication with children, than others.

So, how would you explain it, to a child?

It doesn't matter if you personally believe it or not, or whether you explanation is true to fact.

What would be your level/platform for communicating an idea, to a mind that is immature/inexperienced/not well read/open, about the world?

At least that's the way the OP struck me.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by deaman

...the opening post asked, "What would "you" say to a child?", not how would you argue with others about how to explain something that is difficult to explain.

For instance, how would you explain gravity, electricity, calculus, or nuclear fission, to a child?

Gravity, electricity, calculus, and nuclear fission are demonstrably real. Gods aren't.

Quote:

People have been trying to "explain", that which is not easily grasped, forever. Some are better at communication with children, than others.

So, how would you explain it, to a child?

How would you explain Pinocchio's nose growing or how he started out as a wooden puppet but eventually turned into a real boy? You tell them it's a story, made up just for fun. Maybe read them a paragraph from Rapunzel telling how long her hair is, and a paragraph from a book about birds telling how wide a Blue Jay's wings are. Fiction, non-fiction. If a kid isn't old enough or smart enough to understand that such a distinction exists, maybe it's too early to broach the subject at all.

Quote:

It doesn't matter if you personally believe it or not, or whether you explanation is true to fact.

What would be your level/platform for communicating an idea, to a mind that is immature/inexperienced/not well read/open, about the world?

If the issue is gods, you can explain it by telling the kid it's fiction, made up just like any other fairy tale. You can even explain that some people believe gods are real because they aren't very good at separating fairy tales from reality. You can explain that it's polite to let those people believe the stories if they want to, but that's no reason for us to believe them, too.

[deaman]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Gravity, electricity, calculus, and nuclear fission are demonstrably real. Gods aren't.

I agree, 100%.

Originally Posted by GeeMack

If the issue is gods, you can explain it by telling the kid it's fiction, made up just like any other fairy tale. You can even explain that some people believe gods are real because they aren't very good at separating fairy tales from reality. You can explain that it's polite to let those people believe the stories if they want to, but that's no reason for us to believe them, too.

At last, you did what was asked. This is what "you" would say to a (your) child.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by deaman

I agree, 100%.

At last, you did what was asked.

I did what was asked on August 1, in Post #37 of this thread.

Quote:

This is what "you" would say to a (your) child.

Maybe. I might dispense with the, "[...] explain that it's polite to let those people believe the stories if they want to [...]," part. Belief in invisible magical beings is ridiculous, as in, it merits ridicule. It is demonstrably destructive. It is used by believers to justify bigotry and hatred, and it impedes scientific progress. I might explain that truth to my kid as early as they appeared capable of understanding those concepts.

[deaman]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Maybe. I might dispense with the, "[...] explain that it's polite to let those people believe the stories if they want to [...]," part. Belief in invisible magical beings is ridiculous, as in, it merits ridicule. It is demonstrably destructive. It is used by believers to justify bigotry and hatred, and it impedes scientific progress. I might explain that truth to my kid as early as they appeared capable of understanding those concepts.

Ok, I understand, and that seems reasonable.

As I answered back in a previous post:

To my own children, I would rather just tell them the truth, as far as I understood it, whatever that might be.

For me at this time, that would be:

There are no gods, child.

The closest thing to a god is you.

In you, is contained all the magic that ever will be.

On reflection, maybe I'd change the word "magic" to "god" .