ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 13th November 2012, 10:17 AM   #281
Daylightstar
Illuminator
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,264
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
... much as I can claim that the post more than speaks for itself, ...
As much as you can claim this, in spite of me asking you, you still haven't shown where according to you I assumed things not in evidence about you and attacked you as if this claimed assumption were true.

Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
...
are for the former, simply offensive given that that was never viable, based on what I actually said, and yet was dealt with anyways, repeatedly. For the latter, it's blatant quote mining, with a counter to your implication in the very same sentence, reinforced in the rest of the sentences around it, and addressed elsewhere, as well. Given that neither of those were in any way indicated for by what I actually said, and they were obviously being used as an offensive maneuver, they count.

Between those two, that was a blatant example of something slightly different, but still very much dishonest. You asked whether there was a mode of operation for how Reiki works and specifically included mention of the placebo effect, which, indeed, can explain all the effects of Reiki. For the record, invoking the placebo effect does require a mode of operation to do so, unless you were using the term far differently than I interpreted it. That was followed by
...
The 'examples' you gave were questions based on your own statements (logic and reasoning preceding a claim and knowing what you experienced) with regards to the nebulousness which surrounds the way you determine something to be the case or how likely something is.
You could also have provided an unambiguous answer.

I did not ask you whether there was a mode of action for how reiki works, I asked you whether you were convinced that reiki actually has a mode of action followed by effects and named them.
The placebo effect however has no direct relationship with reiki, not that you stated it explicitly.

Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
...
which is, frankly, rather stupid, taken in context. The actual question you were asking here was "Why do you find the reliability of the placebo effect questionable?" Frankly, if you don't understand why I find the reliability of the placebo effect to be questionable, I'd suggest that you should really just stop posting for a little and learn more about the placebo effect, followed by considering the ethics surrounding it.. ..
No, I was not asking that at all. I was informing you that I was puzzled by you finding reiki's reliability questionable since you stated that there were a mode of action and effects for reiki.
If you specifically want to me to understand why you find the reliability of the placebo effect questionable, you have an option of providing that clarity yourself.
But again, the placebo effect has no direct relationship with reiki.
You have still not shown why you find reliability of reiki's combined claimed mode of action and effects questionable.

Now you're presenting a lack of data as starting point to a validation for fallacious reasoning or logic preceding a claim. Whereas originally, you wanted to use reasoning and logic (while excluding data or lack of data as a startingoint) to determine the likelyhood of something being the case.
You're reversing your story.

Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
...
I do have a rather simple question, though, which may well invalidate the need to respond to much else that you've posted. Is a claim that does not have sufficient relevant data to support the claim ever not based on fallacious reasoning or logic?
It's very simple, for something (reiki in this context) to be the case, you need data. You can insert logic and reasoning all you want, it's the data (when present) that does the talking.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium

Last edited by Daylightstar; 13th November 2012 at 11:05 AM. Reason: Lst queto added.
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2012, 10:48 AM   #282
Daylightstar
Illuminator
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,264
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
...
If Daylightstar wants to try to beat up on Reiki, I'm not interested in defending it, as I've rather made quite clear, I think. It would be him who would need to make the thread, though.
The drift concerns your particular approach to claims, with emphasis on logic and reasoning, apparently effectively excluding consideration to data.
The logic you say you employ is unstated, the data which you say is included in your chain of logic, is also unstated.

Anyways, if you want to educate people about your logic and reasoning approach to claims, it'd really be up to you to start a new thread.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2012, 03:02 PM   #283
Daylightstar
Illuminator
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,264
Alright, back to the core of the reiki related topic then.

Assuming that Deranged had the sensation she/he described, and keeping in mind that for what ever reason the circumstances of that anecdote as stated by her/him might be somewhat (even if unintentionally) inaccurate, I'd be more interested in what caused such a sensation.
Did Deranged's nervous system show a (harmless) response to some trigger in her/his body?
Did she/he experience at or around that time auditory or optical artifacts? Dizziness, ringing in the ears? Headaches? Anything else?

Perhaps Deranged can respond. ( I haven't run through the whole tread to see if such was discussed already).
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:03 AM   #284
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,275
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
It's very simple, for something (reiki in this context) to be the case, you need data. You can insert logic and reasoning all you want, it's the data (when present) that does the talking.
It was a general question, which you did not actually answer. While I could point out serious flaws in your logic here, it would be a distraction. Please answer the question.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:38 AM   #285
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,333
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
...(Solaya, if that's really who the OP met, doesn't seem the physicist type and wouldn't know science if it bit her in the face). If the physics definition of energy had been the appropriate one in this context, the OP would not have been putting his hands by Solaya's hands. Rather, she have been sitting by a giant contraption and getting irradiated. This is not what happened. She had an encounter with a woo purveyor who operated according to woo concepts in her interaction with her.
Dunno.
Solaya seems quite the serious type, actually:
Quote:
Education

I am a trained channel for "Spirit Energy Guidance". It is a pure and powerful connection to your Higher Self. Through this training with a Native American Spirit Guide, I learned to put aside the "ego" and to allow the flow of pure unconditional love to come forth. This consultation dissolves blocks and burdens, restores peace within you, and empowers you to show up at your best. Spirit Energy Guidance is a simple, yet powerful consultation that I have included in my practice since 1992.

I teach how to read the Tarot Cards to benefit your life with consciousness, and I facilitate training of Spirit Energy Guidance to help you connect with your higher self, soul and spirit guide.

In the 80's I was an ordained minister with the Alliance of Divine Love and a Certified Psychic with the American Association of Professional Psychics. In the 90's I practiced real estate, matching the perfect space with the perfect people.

I am a Certified Life Coach trained with Coach Training Alliance.


Quote:
By inviting Coaching in your life, you invite fullness to emerge. You find yourself enthusiastic to grow in the pursuit of your dreams. You cultivate talents, qualities, and uniqueness. You create a space, where everything is possible, and gain insights on how to manifest each one of your goals, dreams and aspirations. You become accountable for your thoughts, words, and actions. It is wonderfully empowering. Coaching sessions are especially beneficial when you wish for extra help to support you in reaching your highest capability with a supervised powerful plan of action to assist you towards the completion of your goals and ambition.
Spiritual Coaching

Sessions are best delivered by one hour or half hour sessions. You can purchase 4 x one hour session in advance for $85 each, or pay $100. for each one hour session
I especially liked the real estate selling.
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 09:46 AM   #286
Daylightstar
Illuminator
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,264
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
It was a general question, which you did not actually answer. ... Please answer the question.
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
It was a general question, which you did not actually answer. While I could point out serious flaws in your logic here, it would be a distraction. Please answer the question.
That depends, if the claim concerns ongoing scientific research for which some data is already present, but the data is not yet sufficient (quantitavely) then no fallacious reasoning or logic needs to be involved.
A claim can be based on poor data, malicious intent or simple stupidity including bad reasoning.

However, you have not shown how your question relates to determining whether something (in this case reiki) is (likely) the case.
Like you have been less then clear on several other issues as well.

Perhaps it's time you should start giving examples of you determining whether something is (likely) the case with your logic and reasoning ... in a new thread started by you.
I will no longer discuss your unstated logic and reasoning etc in this thread.

Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
... While I could point out serious flaws in your logic here, it would be a distraction. ...
Yes Aridas, avoid being specific.
Pointing out a logic flaw in that post is easy:
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
... for something (reiki in this context) to be the case, ...
Should read: for determining whether something (reiki in this context) is the case, ...
__________________
homeopathy homicidium

Last edited by Daylightstar; 14th November 2012 at 09:48 AM. Reason: "I ...thread" added.
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 10:43 PM   #287
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,275
So, to be perfectly clear, you're trying to obfuscate the matter by quoting the same post three times. Twice in a row, no less, in both full and partial form for no apparent reason.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
That depends, if the claim concerns ongoing scientific research for which some data is already present, but the data is not yet sufficient (quantitavely) then no fallacious reasoning or logic needs to be involved.
Amusing. I would say that this is completely incorrect. The level of certainty in a claim does matter quite a bit. Misstating the certainty is fallacious. I would furthermore say that there is never a case where making a claim without sufficient relevant data is not fallacious. That does not mean that the claim is either right or wrong, as that would be invoking the fallacy fallacy, but it does mean that the reasoning isn't solid. This has, for the record, been my position from the start, which is, in fair part, why I consider your harping on data, data, data to be rather ridiculous. No less so because the position that you've been attacking CANNOT be reached if one proceeds from what I actually said.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
A claim can be based on poor data, malicious intent or simple stupidity including bad reasoning.
Indeed, it could. I quite specifically excluded such bad claims with what I said at the beginning of this discussion and this isn't relevant to the direct question that I just asked, though, which, frankly, means that this statement, if it was meant to be relevant, is a straw man. If not, I do have to wonder at the point of the statement. To note, malicious intent is not fallacious, given that it addresses why a claim is made rather than the validity of the claim.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
However, you have not shown how your question relates to determining whether something (in this case reiki) is (likely) the case.
That's because my question had far less relevance to Reiki than it does to your attempts to attack my position with irrelevancies.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
I will no longer discuss your unstated logic and reasoning etc in this thread.
Fine by me. I've been asking this to end.


Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
Yes Aridas, avoid being specific.
Not avoid, delay. I had no intent of avoiding it, but I very much wanted you to stop avoiding one of the very few questions that I've actually asked of you. Not least because actually understanding the point in question is sufficient to show that your primary objections have been based on blatantly incorrect premises that could not have reasonably been derived from what I actually said.

As promised,

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
It's very simple, for something (reiki in this context) to be the case, you need data.
Something either is or is not the case. Data is irrelevant to that. Data is certainly relevant to how much reason we have to accept that it is the case. These are two rather different things.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
You can insert logic and reasoning all you want,
Amusing. "Insert" is very much an incorrect term for what you're attempting to deal with. A more proper way of putting it is "accepting the logic and reasoning that is actually being used and evaluating it."

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
it's the data (when present) that does the talking.
This, after you've already agreed with the statement that data without logic and reasoning is useless?


As a note, to go back a little to unfalsifiable statements... you were, very simply, misusing the tools you were attempting to use. Regarding prior probability, that tool cannot be used to dismiss an unfalsifiable claim as false, as you claimed you could. Using that tool, it would be ignored as "not a viable option," which, while the effective result is as good as the same as ruling it false, is quite different conceptually. Under the tools that I was employing, the unfalsifiable option was ignored as "not useful," which again, may be effectively the same as ruling it false, but is quite different conceptually.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 14th November 2012 at 10:46 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 02:35 AM   #288
Daylightstar
Illuminator
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,264
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
So, to be perfectly clear, you're trying to obfuscate the matter by *quoting the same post three times. Twice in a row, no less, in both full and partial form for no apparent reason. ...
Hilite and * by Daylightstar

Hehehe you're absolutely right*, I'm lmfao That multiple quote of mine looks ridiculous if you look carelessly.

However, I don't see how it could obfuscate anything. And, obfuscate what exactly? Further, if you look slightly less carelessly at the quotes, you'll see that the first and the third quote are both split from the second quote, which was the original full quote which I should have removed during editing of the post, but I didn't.
Maybe the elves emanating from your posts obscured the redundant full quote., thanks for pointing it out though, good catch

Haven't read the rest of your post yet ...
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 03:22 AM   #289
Daylightstar
Illuminator
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,264
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
...
Something either is or is not the case. Data is irrelevant to that. Data is certainly relevant to how much reason we have to accept that it is the case. These are two rather different things. ...
Are you sure you didn't take a sneak peek at my post preceding your post?
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
...
Should read: for determining whether something (reiki in this context) is the case, ...


Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
...
This, after you've already agreed with the statement that data without logic and reasoning is useless? ...
Please show where I, according to you, agreed with your statement that data without logic and reasoning is useless!
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 04:49 AM   #290
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 34,459
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
So, to be perfectly clear, you're trying to obfuscate the matter by quoting the same post three times. Twice in a row, no less, in both full and partial form for no apparent reason.



Amusing. I would say that this is completely incorrect. The level of certainty in a claim does matter quite a bit. Misstating the certainty is fallacious. I would furthermore say that there is never a case where making a claim without sufficient relevant data is not fallacious. That does not mean that the claim is either right or wrong, as that would be invoking the fallacy fallacy, but it does mean that the reasoning isn't solid. This has, for the record, been my position from the start, which is, in fair part, why I consider your harping on data, data, data to be rather ridiculous. No less so because the position that you've been attacking CANNOT be reached if one proceeds from what I actually said.



Indeed, it could. I quite specifically excluded such bad claims with what I said at the beginning of this discussion and this isn't relevant to the direct question that I just asked, though, which, frankly, means that this statement, if it was meant to be relevant, is a straw man. If not, I do have to wonder at the point of the statement. To note, malicious intent is not fallacious, given that it addresses why a claim is made rather than the validity of the claim.



That's because my question had far less relevance to Reiki than it does to your attempts to attack my position with irrelevancies.



Fine by me. I've been asking this to end.




Not avoid, delay. I had no intent of avoiding it, but I very much wanted you to stop avoiding one of the very few questions that I've actually asked of you. Not least because actually understanding the point in question is sufficient to show that your primary objections have been based on blatantly incorrect premises that could not have reasonably been derived from what I actually said.

As promised,



Something either is or is not the case. Data is irrelevant to that. Data is certainly relevant to how much reason we have to accept that it is the case. These are two rather different things.



Amusing. "Insert" is very much an incorrect term for what you're attempting to deal with. A more proper way of putting it is "accepting the logic and reasoning that is actually being used and evaluating it."



This, after you've already agreed with the statement that data without logic and reasoning is useless?


As a note, to go back a little to unfalsifiable statements... you were, very simply, misusing the tools you were attempting to use. Regarding prior probability, that tool cannot be used to dismiss an unfalsifiable claim as false, as you claimed you could. Using that tool, it would be ignored as "not a viable option," which, while the effective result is as good as the same as ruling it false, is quite different conceptually. Under the tools that I was employing, the unfalsifiable option was ignored as "not useful," which again, may be effectively the same as ruling it false, but is quite different conceptually.
Your posts seem designed to bury any meaning under an avalanche of words.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 09:36 AM   #291
Daylightstar
Illuminator
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,264
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
... No less so because the position that you've been attacking CANNOT be reached if one proceeds from what I actually said.
...
Well, with respect to your example with the four claims, you supported one claim with no less than two logical fallacies and logic which you didn't show, and another one with claimed valid logic which of course you did not show.
In this post you claimed:
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
... (yes, relevant data and the interpretations thereof are very much included when I say chains of logic). ...
Data was claimed to be present, but of course not shown ...

Although you might state the need for data, with a caveat no less, for you, your caveat, your own brand of mysteriously unstated logic (including the claimed but unstated data) seems to be the most important for you, since you're of the opinion that data without logic and reasoning is useless.
As a side note, your logic and reasoning takes place without any data for the claim, to attempt to determine whether the claim actually is (likely) the case.

Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
...
As a note, to go back a little to unfalsifiable statements... you were, very simply, misusing the tools you were attempting to use. Regarding prior probability, that tool cannot be used to dismiss an unfalsifiable claim as false, as you claimed you could. Using that tool, it would be ignored as "not a viable option," which, while the effective result is as good as the same as ruling it false, is quite different conceptually. Under the tools that I was employing, the unfalsifiable option was ignored as "not useful," which again, may be effectively the same as ruling it false, but is quite different conceptually.
Perhaps for you it is necessary to explicitly state that no prior probability might include stuff which has not and can not be shown to exist, they are at extreme odds with how reality has shown to work.
These so called ridiculous claims: can not be shown as real, no plausibility, no prior probability, no data .... can be shot to pieces on the spot.
No amount of talking can change this. If someone were to want to make a case for such a claim, they'd need to show unambiguous data.

So, have you started a new thread yet to educate people in your particular brand of reasoning and logic?
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 09:06 PM   #292
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,275
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
Are you sure you didn't take a sneak peek at my post preceding your post?
Heh. It was pathetically obvious at first glance so there was no need. It was good that you were able to realize your mistake on your own for once, though.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
Please show where I, according to you, agreed with your statement that data without logic and reasoning is useless!
This is close enough in actual meaning to count.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
Collectig data is followed by processing of that data, resulting in a conclusion/hypothesis/claim/opinion, what have you.
Data left on a shelve is indeed not very helpful. Incorrect processing of that data is obviously not helpful either.
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Your posts seem designed to bury any meaning under an avalanche of words.
Pfft. If I was actually trying to do that, they'd be much, much longer. In fact, this entire tangent appears to be based on me summing up things to almost the fewest words that could be used to clearly communicate the meaning, provided, of course, that the reader actually was paying attention to the whole thing and not jumping to conclusions that were not supported by what was actually said.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
So, I apparently "supported" a claim that I've made quite clear was based on flawed logic with two logical fallacies, bearing in mind that, in reality, those fallacies ARE used to try to support the claim in question and that that was a fair part of the point of the example. Where is the problem here?

As for didn't show, there was absolutely no need or much good reason to do so, for the purposes of the example. If you are actually interested, feel free to look at the cases for each claim and point out how my assessment is wrong if you think it is. There are certainly proponents for the first three that you could find.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
As a side note, your logic and reasoning takes place without any data for the claim, to attempt to determine whether the claim actually is (likely) the case.
Amusing, but no. No data may be necessary for claims of possibility, as I've stated. For determining whether something is likely to be the case, something to base that upon, in other words, data, is necessary. I'm fairly certain that I've made that quite clear, as well.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
Perhaps for you it is necessary to explicitly state that no prior probability might include stuff which has not and can not be shown to exist, they are at extreme odds with how reality has shown to work.
Actually... no. They're not at extreme odds with how we've observed reality working. Unfalsifiable and untestable claims tend to sidestep that particular objection entirely.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
These so called ridiculous claims: can not be shown as real, no plausibility, no prior probability, no data .... can be shot to pieces on the spot.
They can be shown to be bad to use rather easily, yes. That wasn't remotely in question. No plausibility is questionable, depending on how you're using the term, though. That said, you were specifically stating that they could be deemed to be false, though, as opposed to any of the valid ways of discounting them.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
No amount of talking can change this. If someone were to want to make a case for such a claim, they'd need to show unambiguous data.
No amount of talking can change that declaring unfalsifiable things to be false will be based on fallacious reasoning.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
So, have you started a new thread yet to educate people in your particular brand of reasoning and logic?
And why would I, given that it is simply a case of understanding the concepts being dealt with and proceeding from there? Seriously, now. It's really not hard to comprehend, nor have you actually presented any viable counterarguments to it. You have, however, shown that your understanding of the matters at hand is, at best, questionable, though whether it's from ignorance or dishonesty, I cannot say.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 18th November 2012 at 09:16 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 11:20 AM   #293
Daylightstar
Illuminator
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,264
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
...
This is close enough in actual meaning to count.. ..
So, you're incapable of showing where I, according to you, agreed with your statement that data without logic and reasoning is useless.
No real surprise there.


Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
...
Pfft. ... I cannot say.

So, in conclusion with respect to my question:
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
...
What would you consider a good reason to accept something to be the case?
you have provided much convoluted double talk, you do not wish to enter into supporting your method for determining whether something is the case with proper examples, although you were asked to do so.
You however provided 'support' for ridiculous claims by means of logical fallacies, which' use you 'support' by stating that they ARE used to try to support the claim in question (one of your examples), implicating that it is not actually your claim although you initially happily use it as if it were.
You, for example, failed to provide data for your claim that I, according to you, agreed with your statement that data without logic and reasoning is useless.
In general I'd say you make convoluted, ambiguous claims but do not provide data that support those claims.

The main problem is, that you create ambiguity through a form of convoluted doube talk which assigns ridiculous claims a sense of validity which you do not and likely can not show.
When you afterwards make claims for one side of the double talk while referring to relevant parts of that double talk, you are simply not credible.

It would have been an example of you making a distinction between correct logic and fallacious logic, in the context of determining whether something is the case, which is what you claimed allowed you to determine whether something is the case or not.
You failed to do this and it made your example practically meaningless. In essence, you expect others to blindly accept the validity of your (unshown) approach.

It appears you have nothing to offer, or at least you have not made it one iota clearer, how your method of determining whether something is the case or not, is supposed to work.
I think I'll stick with data, for determining whether something is the case.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 06:53 AM   #294
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,275
I grow rather bored of you, thus this may well be my last post in this thread addressing anything of value related to you. For the record, if your posts actually demonstrated, in my eyes, either value or integrity, this would likely not be the case. As it stands, I have difficulty taking them seriously enough to give a serious response.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
So, you're incapable of showing where I, according to you, agreed with your statement that data without logic and reasoning is useless.
No real surprise there.
Ahh, yes. Another example of your obstinate behavior and seeming inability to understand fairly simple things. No real surprise there. Feel free to explain, for example, how logic and reasoning is irrelevant in figuring out what counts as relevant data and interpreting that data. Of course, you could actually be taking the remarkable position that data leads to a specific interpretation independent of people's interpretations of it based on their logic and reason, which would mean that the burden of evidence would quite firmly be on you. If this is the case, then I do retract my statement pointing out your prior agreement.

Incidentally, quote mining and false attributions are no less dishonest now than they were earlier in the thread. The question you asked was answered. Your quote, the part of it that I actually did write, was in response to Tsig, and not your question. Come now, such dishonesty is exactly what I refer to when I say that your posts lack integrity.


Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
So, in conclusion with respect to my question:
I provided a simple answer that you have repeatedly attempted to find flaws in and have repeatedly failed, because your criticisms were based on attacking straw men that, generally, could not have been valid interpretations of my answer in the first place.


Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
you have provided much convoluted double talk,
Hardly convoluted or double talk, though, for someone with as much difficulty actually understanding relatively simple concepts like "sufficient" or "unfalsifiable" as you've repeatedly demonstrated, I can understand how it might seem that way. Rest assured that the fault seems to lie far, far more with you than with me.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
you do not wish to enter into supporting your method for determining whether something is the case with proper examples, although you were asked to do so.
I was quite under the impression that I was being asked to go through a rather large chuck of the logic and evidence that paleontology is based on and uses, as only one part of your actual requests, even though such would have been completely irrelevant to the usefulness of the example in question unless there was notable disagreement with my summation, and even then would have been of remarkably limited value. I'm afraid that I find that type of request to be rather excessive. For that matter, given that you have yet to present any objections that weren't somewhat ridiculous, I'm afraid that I'm unconvinced of the need, in general.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
You however provided 'support' for ridiculous claims by means of logical fallacies, which' use you 'support' by stating that they ARE used to try to support the claim in question (one of your examples), implicating that it is not actually your claim although you initially happily use it as if it were.
Heh. Actually taken in context/as intended, it works. On the other hand, had I actually said that the case in question had value in light of a comprehensive evaluation of current evidence, you would have firm ground to stand on. As it is, you're stretching, no doubt trying to find something, anything to actually hold onto.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
You, for example, failed to provide data for your claim that I, according to you, agreed with your statement that data without logic and reasoning is useless.
Oh, I quoted you saying as much, even though it wasn't in those exact words. That is, unless you were actually attempting to push what many in these forums would call "woo."

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
In general I'd say you make convoluted, ambiguous claims but do not provide data that support those claims.
Feel free to believe what you'd like. That doesn't mean that it's reflected well in reality.


Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
The main problem is, that you create ambiguity through a form of convoluted doube talk which assigns ridiculous claims a sense of validity which you do not and likely can not show.
Feel free to try to back up your accusation. The ambiguity is more likely to arise from your own unwarranted assumptions, though.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
When you afterwards make claims for one side of the double talk while referring to relevant parts of that double talk, you are simply not credible.
It would have been an example of you making a distinction between correct logic and fallacious logic, in the context of determining whether something is the case, which is what you claimed allowed you to determine whether something is the case or not.
Was there ever any real question about the validity of the case that I assume you're talking about in my post? Or any real reason to believe that it was actually being used as anything other than a claim based on flawed logic? Either way, you're stretching a fair bit here.


Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
You failed to do this and it made your example practically meaningless. In essence, you expect others to blindly accept the validity of your (unshown) approach.
Actually, no. I fully expected others to dispute the examples, if there was any actual disagreement with my assessment. I also expected that there wouldn't be disagreement with my assessment, thus, I wasn't particularly focused on that. Either way, the example itself was made to address your apparent view that data somehow speaks for itself without need for valid logic and reason, and these objections are, frankly, peripheral. For the claim made with the specific intention of being an obvious example of an interpretation of data based on flawed logic, yes, you can try to harp on me for making it rather obvious that it wasn't resting on steady ground. Frankly, given the lack of effect that your objections actually have on the assessment in question, it still feels like you're trying to grasp at straws.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
It appears you have nothing to offer, or at least you have not made it one iota clearer, how your method of determining whether something is the case or not, is supposed to work.
Most likely, that's because you've been lost in your own world. Either way, this, again, asking for a repeat of a matter repeatedly dealt with before in this thread. Determining whether something is or is not the case, is, frankly, not something we can do, unless that thing is fundamentally logically impossible. This is actually a fairly similar point to the one that you corrected yourself on earlier, when you were attempting to get in a cheap jab based on your own failing. I do have to wonder why you made such an obvious mistake in the first place, though, if you were attempting to have an honest discussion, much less attempt to use your failing as something worthwhile.

Either way, determining whether something is or is not the case was never actually in question. Determining whether there is good reason to accept that something is the case is, however. My statement on this matter is as it was. I will accept a claim that is not based on fallacious reasoning or fallacious logic at any level as good reason to accept that something is the case. That does, as it did, mean that sufficient relevant data is required for any claim that deals with the likelihood that something is the case in reality.

Your question of how this works has actually been answered. Very simply, any particular claim will have reasons for why it is being made and a chain of logic that it rests upon. The logic that it rests upon can be evaluated, all the way down to the assumptions that the logic builds upon.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
I think I'll stick with data, for determining whether something is the case.
Much as I could go over the determining whether something is the case point again, I think it's been made far more than enough in this thread. I never, at any point, suggested that data wasn't important (ETA) for claims regarding whether there's reason to believe that something actually is the case in reality. I have certainly suggested that it doesn't need to be explicitly stated, when it is being implicitly included. I have furthermore pointed out that data requires interpretation to be in any way meaningful to a person. You have yet to make any reasonable counterargument to either, but still try to make that particular claim over and over, as if arguing from repetition wasn't fallacious and as if that statement actually added anything at all of relevance.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 21st November 2012 at 07:42 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 07:39 AM   #295
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,275
Deleted. Double post.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 21st November 2012 at 07:42 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 09:35 AM   #296
Daylightstar
Illuminator
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,264
Your previous post contains no incentive for me to reconsider my end conclusion as stated in my previous post, nor appears such an incentive to be forthcoming.
If you'd ever consider to change this, you're more than welcome to actually do so.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.