|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 12/15/2005 : 00:39:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
How many of you have read the article that I posted in my OP? I think that I asked this earlier but didn't get a response.
What, about the hailstones? Yeah, I read it.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
 |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 01:29:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Hello Board:
I think we need to clear up a bit of confusion:
quote:
Beskeptigal said:
One needs to first get the facts straight.
Then consider all the possible interpretations.
Then draw a conclusion as to which interpretation best fits the data.
Then determine what measure could confirm or refute the conclusion.
Then using that measure test the conclusion (hypothesis).
Humbert quoting Lenny Flank:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe
2. Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed
3. Make testible predictions from that hypothesis
4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions
5. Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions
Here are two different accounts of the scientific method. When writing my essay I began with the method described by Lenny Flank, completing steps 1 and 2. The one which beskeptigal posted seems to be more likely to avoid confirmation bias. Since you all seem to disagree with my usage of the scientific method, please tell me which account (Lenny's or beskeptigal's) is a better rendition of the scientific method, or if there is a third one which is better yet.
The two seem fairly equivalent too me. I think Lenny Flank puts it a bit better so I suggest sticking with his "version".quote:
I would like to note that either case leads you to a situation where you may accept a theory as true not because you have direct evidence that it is true, but simply because the theory works. For instance, the Law of Gravitation discusses the observed fact that mass is drawn towards other mass, but the Theory of Gravity discusses why the Law of Gravity works; and while the Theory may provide workable technology, it is not neccessarily true. This is not to say that I disrespect science, I simply think that we need positive evidence before we can start to consider a theory to be a fact.
Actually I pretty much agree with you here. In fact a recent article in Scientific American discusses the possibility that gravity is an illusion. Nontheless scientific theories come much closer to the truth than guessing or supernatural explanations do. Scientific theories do make consistently accurate predictions after all, so they must describe reality on some level. This is something that no religious or supernatural explanation has achieved.quote:
Question to all:
How many of you have read the article that I posted in my OP? I think that I asked this earlier but didn't get a response.
Yeah, I read it. It's pretty strange but well, weird things happen. The fact that I don't know the precise details of how such freak weather events occur doesn't mean that a supernatural explanation is likely though. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 02:30:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Hello Board:
I think we need to clear up a bit of confusion:
quote:
Beskeptigal said:
One needs to first get the facts straight.
Then consider all the possible interpretations.
Then draw a conclusion as to which interpretation best fits the data.
Then determine what measure could confirm or refute the conclusion.
Then using that measure test the conclusion (hypothesis).
Humbert quoting Lenny Flank:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe
2. Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed
3. Make testible predictions from that hypothesis
4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions
5. Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions
Here are two different accounts of the scientific method.
No, we have two different descriptions, one using more formal verbiage and one using more lay terminology. They otherwise pretty much say the same thing. quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
When writing my essay I began with the method described by Lenny Flank, completing steps 1 and 2. The one which beskeptigal posted seems to be more likely to avoid confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias? What does that even mean? I would add the 5th step noted by Humbert and maybe even used the same language but I was trying to communicate a point about interpreting data. In this particular discourse, hippy, you presented several hypotheses none of which were based on a solid collection of data to begin with. You not only drew inferences on such minimal data as to be worthless conclusions, you have managed to switch topics for a second time instead of addressing the deficiencies in your first 2 hypotheses.
quote:
Since you all seem to disagree with my usage of the scientific method, please tell me which account (Lenny's or beskeptigal's) is a better rendition of the scientific method, or if there is a third one which is better yet.
I would like to note that either case leads you to a situation where you may accept a theory as true not because you have direct evidence that it is true, but simply because the theory works. For instance, the Law of Gravitation discusses the observed fact that mass is drawn towards other mass, but the Theory of Gravity discusses why the Law of Gravity works; and while the Theory may provide workable technology, it is not neccessarily true. This is not to say that I disrespect science, I simply think that we need positive evidence before we can start to consider a theory to be a fact.
And just what positive evidence would that be in this particular case? So far you have taken single declarations, out of context, about the known anthropological data and drawn broad conclusions from that paucity of information.
quote:
Question to all:
How many of you have read the article that I posted in my OP? I think that I asked this earlier but didn't get a response.
Hippy
I read it and was not impressed that anything supernatural had occurred. Either the reports were fake or there was a legitimate physical weather phenomena that had yet to be explained. So what's the big deal? Are you claiming God is throwing snowballs to mess with people? There is no mystery here. Merely a weather phenomena that has yet to be examined. As if science is not suppose to have any more things to be researched, that's so obvious it hardly needs saying. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 02:46:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Confirmation bias? What does that even mean?
Actually confirmation bias is a legitimate concern. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 10:13:59 [Permalink]
|
What dv82matt said. He beat me to it 
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 10:40:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...
How many of you have read the article that I posted in my OP? I think that I asked this earlier but didn't get a response.
Yes, I read it, and if you want to take it from the top, let's take it from the top.quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...
For instance, in the past few years there have been recorded instances of huge hailstones falling from cloudless skies. Most weigh between 25 to 35 pounds, but one was measured at 440 pounds. I am inclined to believe that this may be supernatural for two reasons: 1) not only does it not have a natural explanation, it goes against all known knowledge about hailstone formation; and 2) the Bible predicts that such a thing will happen. Furthermore, if it is discovered how these hailstones are formed I will have no problem accepting them as natural.
Oh, hippy4christ, you're so full of shit. And I mean that in the most non-offensive way, the same as if a pal said, "Wow, I caught a bluegill that must have weighed five pounds!" I'd tell him he's full of shit. If he persisted in spouting his nonsense I'd tell him to get a grip, or knock it off, or grow up, or shut up. 
You've quoted one scientist who was quoted in the article. And all he really says is he finds the phenomenon incredible and doesn't know how it occurs.quote:
Scientists Try to Crack The Mystery of Falling Ice Balls...
[...]
That leaves monster hailstones forming in a cloudless sky, a notion that defies more than a century of research on hail formation.
"Scientists are naturally reluctant to say something never can happen," noted Charles Knight, a hail expert at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, a university consortium in Boulder, Colo. "But oh, dear. I would be tempted to say 'never' on this."
Knight said he has reviewed scientific papers published on megacryometeors, and thinks the explanation, which involves unusual atmospheric conditions possibly linked to global warming, is wrong.
But you totally neglect to mention that, not only does your favorite source within the article acknowledge there are scientific papers published on megacryometeors, papers which apparently provide explanations based on "unusual atmospheric conditions possibly linked to global warming", but another source quoted within the article also attributes the phenomenon to a possible result of global warming...quote:
Scientists Try to Crack The Mystery of Falling Ice Balls...
[...]
Incidents like those may be just the beginning, according to David Travis, who researches atmospheric conditions that foster megacryometeor formation. He chairs the department of geography and geology at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater.
"If megacryometeor formation is linked to global warming, as we suspect, then it is fair to assume that these events may increase in the future," Travis said.
So it looks like some members of the scientific community are comfortable with at least a tentative explanation for the phenomenon. It also looks like there are published papers somewhere out in the world that explain in some manner how these megacryometeors are formed. Those papers are probably available to the public.quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...
Here are two different accounts of the scientific method. When writing my essay I began with the method described by Lenny Flank, completing steps 1 and 2.
Now, how about completing the next three steps...
3. Make testable predictions from that hypothesis.
4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions.
5. Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions.
Or go ahead and use beskeptigal's description of the scientific method if that makes you happy. Put the rest of your "theory" together as a good scientist should. Look up those published scientific papers that were mentioned in the hailstone article. Do your own analysis. Take those papers to your favorite scientists and have them provide you with a review. Why don't you do the whole process before you jump to your forgone conclusion that your god must have done it? Or is it just too exciting clinging to the possibility of proving to yourself that your imaginary friend is real?
Unless you're willing to go through the whole process before you declare god-did-it, I stand by my earlier comment. You're so full of shit.
|
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 11:13:06 [Permalink]
|
To all (but to Mack in particular):
Did I ever draw a conclusion (in the sense of 'this event was definitely supernatural') about either the hailstones or the development of mankind?
Here is an article from Phillips Stevens about magical thinking. Right now I'm mainly concerned with the part entitled "Neurobiological Bases for Magical Thinking".
Mack:
quote:
But you totally neglect to mention that, not only does your favorite source within the article acknowledge there are scientific papers published on megacryometeors, papers which apparently provide explanations based on "unusual atmospheric conditions possibly linked to global warming", but another source quoted within the article also attributes the phenomenon to a possible result of global warming...
No I didn't. In the first place, I expected you all to read the article, which was mostly about the theory under consideration. Second, in the part that I did quote the guy did talk about the other papers that he had reviewed, and he thinks that the theory is wrong. It was not my intention to say "Look, here's a scientifically proven supernatural event" (I think I've had this conversation before). My point was that here is an event which totally goes against what we've known about hailstones, but nobody is even considering that some non-human intelligence is at work.
Dude:
quote:
Which is why I asked YOU to provide the calculations you used, and the premises, to reach your conclusion.
My first premise is that people (and animals) do not think of an idea which they havn't been exposed to. For instance, in the book "The Art of Clear Thinking" by Rudolph Flesch, he relates an experiment in which some monkeys are raised from birth and it is recorded whether or not they play with sticks. Then they are individually placed in a cage where there is a stick inside the cage and food outside the cage, just beyond arms reach. Most monkeys had played with sticks before, and used the stick to get the food. But one monkey hadn't played with sticks and didn't use the one in the cage to get the food. Eventually, it got mad and in the process bumped the stick which bumped the food. The monkey then grabbed the stick and got the food.
I did not think about the origins of the universe at all until I was eight or nine, when I read about a certain species having been around for millions of years. So in my own experience, I did not ponder the big questions of life until they were presented to me. Now I would certainly agree that once you have a system where parents pass on supernatural beliefs to their children then those beliefs would very easily continue to be perpetuated. What we're discussing is how those beliefs arised in the first place.
So then, with this premise I looked at possible scenarios in which religion might have arisen, but Humbert in particular thought that I needed to examine the intermediate step of magical thinking. So for now, let's look at that.
Humbert:
quote:
Hippy, why on earth do you think primitive people would think this way? Do you really think they ever rationally expressed themselves in this way? Look no further to the modern equivalent of prayer.
Apples and oranges. You're comparing how people record their experiences with how they hang on to beliefs that they were taught. The vast majority of topics that people discuss and remember have to do with the natural world. What I was trying to say was that if a belief in magical thinking was the root cause of religion, then the sample interview that I gave would have been positive evidence that magical thinking was the cause.
I see that you havn't responded to my statement that I don't consider the prophecies of Cassandra to be worth consideration because they were originally considered fiction. Does this mean that you agree that biblical prophecies are worth more consideration than the prophecies of Cassandra?
Dave:
quote:
For example, you seem to think that every trait which has evolved in humans has had a measurable survival benefit from its first appearance, but that simply isn't a conclusion of modern evolutionary theory. We know, for example, that some traits increase in frequency in a population only because of happenstance, or because they're genetically tied to some other trait which does increase survival (without being a "related" trait in any other way).
No, I know that evolution claims that some traits are by-products,
quote:
And even if, on the way off chance, it was a by-product of evolution, why would humans turn to the divine to express art?
but I think that if a trait does not have a measurable survival benefit then the burden of proof is on the proponents of the theory to show that the trait would be passed on anyway.
Uncle:
quote:
No, you began this thread with a complete misunderstanding of science and supernatural.
Argumentum ad hominem.
beskeptigal:
quote:
That little Maori kid is going to hell because Satan confused his ancestor?
I never said anything like that. I believe that those who try to do well but are ignorant of the gospel will get another chance at salvation when Jesus returns. But this is irrelevant to the topic at hand. |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 11:58:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...
Did I ever draw a conclusion (in the sense of 'this event was definitely supernatural') about either the hailstones or the development of mankind?
You claim to allow for the possibility of such a conclusion because 1) you don't know enough about hailstones to hold an opinion based on science. It seems impossible to you (argument from incredulity). And 2) you believe a compilation of short stories of largely unknown origin, one which we all seem to agree is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. You take it as a reliable source for factual scientific data when it is not accepted as a valid source almost anywhere in the entire scientific world (aside from ID, which we pretty much all agree isn't legitimate science anyway). Remember you said, "I am inclined to believe that this may be supernatural..."quote:
For instance, in the past few years there have been recorded instances of huge hailstones falling from cloudless skies. Most weigh between 25 to 35 pounds, but one was measured at 440 pounds. I am inclined to believe that this may be supernatural for two reasons: 1) not only does it not have a natural explanation, it goes against all known knowledge about hailstone formation; and 2) the Bible predicts that such a thing will happen.
Has anyone here suggested that those things which you believe have a supernatural origin are definitely not supernatural? We're suggesting, because you've stated in no uncertain terms, that you'd like to include the possibility of supernatural causes in scientific inquiry because of your incredulity. You also continue to indicate that your confirmation bias is much of what guides you to your tentative conclusions.
We're suggesting that if you want to include your imaginary friend as a legitimate prospect when determining the cause of events, you first use the scientific process to show that the imaginary friend is real, and show, in a scientific manner, how one might verify the powers of that imaginary friend so that we can accept him/her/it as a legitimate potential cause. You continue to fail miserably at demonstrating that.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 16:03:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My first premise is that people (and animals) do not think of an idea which they havn't been exposed to. For instance, in the book "The Art of Clear Thinking" by Rudolph Flesch, he relates an experiment in which some monkeys are raised from birth and it is recorded whether or not they play with sticks. Then they are individually placed in a cage where there is a stick inside the cage and food outside the cage, just beyond arms reach. Most monkeys had played with sticks before, and used the stick to get the food. But one monkey hadn't played with sticks and didn't use the one in the cage to get the food. Eventually, it got mad and in the process bumped the stick which bumped the food. The monkey then grabbed the stick and got the food.
I want your statistical premises, the mathematics, the basic observations codified into numbers, that you used to reach your statistical conclusion. You are the one who brought statistics into it, so surely you must have some basic observations and numbers to base your calculations on.
To go back to your analogy of the busy road and speeding, the premises to reach a statistical conclusion would have went something like this: There are 100 cars on this road breaking the speed limit, there is only one cop, therefore 1/100 chance of getting pulled over for speeding.
When you have something like that for your statistical conclusion about the supernatural origin of religion, feel free to get back to me. Until then, I'm going with the hypothesis that you are just making meaningless noise becuase it comforts you, i.e. talking out of your ass.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 22:27:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
No, I know that evolution claims that some traits are by-products...
but I think that if a trait does not have a measurable survival benefit then the burden of proof is on the proponents of the theory to show that the trait would be passed on anyway.
The proponents have already shown that a trait without survival detriment is free to be passed on, whether it has a benefit or not. I know we've discussed this in another thread, Hippy. Neutral traits (those which don't create a selection pressure) can, through time, become widespread within a population. There are mounds of data on this, since it is a non-trivial evolutionary mechanism (it is responsible for some measurable percentage of the biodiversity we see). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2005 : 05:53:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
My first premise is that people (and animals) do not think of an idea which they havn't been exposed to.
So the first human tool user/tool maker should have never done so since your first premise precludes original ideas/thinking. Are you sure about this? The monkey seem to have solved its food problem having never seen a stick used as a tool before. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 12/16/2005 05:56:09 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2005 : 11:58:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
My first premise is that people (and animals) do not think of an idea which they havn't been exposed to.
So the first human tool user/tool maker should have never done so since your first premise precludes original ideas/thinking. Are you sure about this? The monkey seem to have solved its food problem having never seen a stick used as a tool before.
Beyond tools, Hippy's premise rules out the possibility of advancing civilization. If we can't think of an idea unless we've already been exposed to it, then the pinnacle of human civilization should have been ages ago (perhaps with all knowledge given to us directly from god), but then generally declining as various ideas are inevitably failed to be passed on from generation to generation.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2005 : 12:18:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
HFC:
It was not my intention to say "Look, here's a scientifically proven supernatural event"
My point then continues to be, there are no supernatural events. Provide some valid examples if you disagree.
And your second issue, that of religion having evidence of having been based on some real events, still is concluded from minimal anthropological and historical review. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 12/16/2005 12:18:47 |
|
|
|
UncleJ
New Member
41 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2005 : 12:51:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Argumentum ad hominem.
Um, nope.
An “argumentum ad hominem” would be something more like -
“HFC seems like a creationist therefore he does not understand science and supernatural”
Or
“HFC is a hippy and you know you can't trust those dope smokers.”
(By the way I believe neither of these two statements)
I made the statement that you began this thread with a complete misunderstanding of science and supernatural. Then I quoted your original incorrect statement about science and supernatural.
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christThe supernatural, which I define as 'that which is impossible according to the laws of physics', is excluded a priori from 'scientific' examinations.
Many things defined in the past as supernatural have been studied by scientific examination. (i.e. gravity, electricity, infectious diseases)
Many things currently defined as supernatural are studied by scientific examination. (i.e. psychics, dowsing, levitation)
Please note that this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the misconceptions you have shown, particularly those concerning science. Many of these have been pointed out to you already.
For an explanation of “argumentum ad hominem” you can go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem
Cheers
|
"The Church says the Earth is flat. But I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow on the Moon. And I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church." - F. Magellan
"I can't be a missionary! I don't even believe in Jebus!" - H. Simpson |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 11:55:11 [Permalink]
|
Mack:
quote:
You claim to allow for the possibility of such a conclusion because 1) you don't know enough about hailstones to hold an opinion based on science. It seems impossible to you (argument from incredulity).
It also seems impossible to Charles Knight. Now let's examine this 'argument from incredulity'. I think that we would all agree that there are some things which are impossible according to the laws of physics, such as a snap-pop firecracker providing enough liftoff to get the space shuttle into orbit. But if you saw just that happen, wouldn't you agree that it seems impossible? Of course, we cannot use argument from incredulity to prove a thing, but if a thing really does seem impossible, wouldn't it be logical to include the possibility that we are dealing with forces that we do not understand?
quote:
And 2) you believe a compilation of short stories of largely unknown origin, one which we all seem to agree is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. You take it as a reliable source for factual scientific data...
1) A while ago we concluded a thread on Biblical contradictions and the few that I found were really insignificant.
2) I take it as a reliable source for anthropological and theological data; the Bible isn't really concerned directly with most other sciences. So while I would use the Bible to say that some superior intelligence may be messing with us, I wouldn't use it to determine the mechanical process which is forming these hailstones.
quote:
Has anyone here suggested that those things which you believe have a supernatural origin are definitely not supernatural?
Yes. Beskeptigal has repeatedly said:
quote:
there are no supernatural events
To all:
quote:
We're suggesting that if you want to include your imaginary friend as a legitimate prospect when determining the cause of events, you first use the scientific process to show that the imaginary friend is real, and show, in a scientific manner, how one might verify the powers of that imaginary friend so that we can accept him/her/it as a legitimate potential cause.
Would you all like to discuss:
1) Methods for determining that there is a supernatural being,
2) The possibility that the hailstones are natural, or
3) The origins of religous belief.
Please vote on one, and we'll stick with that.
UncleJ:
quote:
An ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.
You said:
quote:
I made the statement that you began this thread with a complete misunderstanding of science and supernatural.
Even if this was true, it still has nothing to do with the argument.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
