Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Proof of Immortality, the IV league

 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.
 6th December 2016, 02:09 PM #2321 Filippo Lippi Master Poster     Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,531 Mojo's out __________________ "You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something. So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..." David Mitchell
 6th December 2016, 02:17 PM #2322 jsfisher ETcorngods survivorModerator     Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 19,641 Originally Posted by Jabba js, - I didn't say that right. - I should have said, "In regard to the immediately above, I would think that I could use an implication of an accepted fact (the current existence of my self (E)) as new info if the implication had not been considered in the prior probabilities. - Hopefully, that's what you're referring to... Where does "implication" enter into Bayes' formula? It doesn't. Only P(E) does (or its equivalent P(E|H)P(H) + P(E|~H)P(~H)), and, as Hokulele says, Originally Posted by Hokulele Data is data in a Bayesian formula. You can't change that. Implications of that data are pretty much your priors, so not considering those implications when calculating them is just ... weird. P(E) is still your observed data, and it is still 1, no matter how you slice it. P(E) = 1. And if P(E) = 1, then for any possible H, P(E|H) must be 1 as well. Implications do not alter this mathematical truth. __________________ A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
 6th December 2016, 02:30 PM #2323 Fudbucker Philosopher   Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 5,806 Originally Posted by Hokulele Data is data in a Bayesian formula. You can't change that. Implications of that data are pretty much your priors, so not considering those implications when calculating them is just ... weird. P(E) is still your observed data, and it is still 1, no matter how you slice it. ANY old evidence has a probability of 1 by virtue of the fact it's already known. This is the problem of "old evidence". One of the solutions is to look at the evidence counterfactually. One of the best examples is to imagine you're going to be executed by being shot by a hundred sharpshooters. The order to fire is given, and you're miraculously not dead. The probability that you're alive is 1, of course, yet the probability that it was just an accident you survived is now practically zero. Because counterfactually, you know that your continued existence would be incredibly improbable on the chance hypothesis (that all 100 shooters missed or misfired or had sudden heart attacks, etc.). So your continued existence constitutes incredibly powerful evidence that the execution was rigged in some way. Last edited by Fudbucker; 6th December 2016 at 02:35 PM.
 6th December 2016, 02:45 PM #2324 Hokulele Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: The Biggest Little City in the World Posts: 28,791 Originally Posted by Fudbucker ANY old evidence has a probability of 1 by virtue of the fact it's already known. This is the problem of "old evidence". One of the solutions is to look at the evidence counterfactually. One of the best examples is to imagine you're going to be executed by being shot by a hundred sharpshooters. The order to fire is given, and you're miraculously not dead. The probability that you're alive is 1, of course, yet the probability that it was just an accident you survived is now practically zero. Because counterfactually, you know that your continued existence would be incredibly improbable on the chance hypothesis (that all 100 shooters missed or misfired or had sudden heart attacks, etc.). So your continued existence constitutes incredibly powerful evidence that the execution was rigged. The point is, you are calculating something completely different there. In that case, as the number of misses increases (1-100), your certainty that something fishy changes. With Jabba's existence, there are no misses, because there was no target to begin with. You are trying to reverse the Texas Sharpshooter position, rather than quantify it. __________________ "Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon Last edited by Hokulele; 6th December 2016 at 02:47 PM. Reason: Sperling
 6th December 2016, 02:48 PM #2325 Fudbucker Philosopher   Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 5,806 Originally Posted by Hokulele The point is, you are calculating something completely different there. In that case, as the number of misses increases (1-100), your certainly that something fishy changes. With Jabba's existence, there are no misses, because there was no target to begin. You are trying to reverse the Texas Sharpshooter position, rather than quantify it. I haven't been following Jabba much. Has he made the fine-tuning argument yet (the physical constants have been "tuned" to allow life in this universe to exist)?
 6th December 2016, 02:55 PM #2326 Hokulele Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: The Biggest Little City in the World Posts: 28,791 Originally Posted by Fudbucker I haven't been following Jabba much. Has he made the fine-tuning argument yet (the physical constants have been "tuned" to allow life in this universe to exist)? Well, I can guarantee that now he will! But to be serious, his sole argument is that he is immortal because .. what are the odds he wouldn't be! __________________ "Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
 6th December 2016, 03:06 PM #2327 Fudbucker Philosopher   Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 5,806 Originally Posted by Hokulele Well, I can guarantee that now he will! He should. It's probably the best argument in the theist's bag (or simulation theory proponent). Quote: But to be serious, his sole argument is that he is immortal because .. what are the odds he wouldn't be! Sounds lame. I like the quantum immortality argument.
 6th December 2016, 03:10 PM #2328 Hokulele Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: The Biggest Little City in the World Posts: 28,791 Originally Posted by Fudbucker He should. It's probably the best argument in the theist's bag (or simulation theory proponent). Their best is the Texas Sharpshooter/Sentient Puddle fallacy writ large. But we already knew that. Quote: Sounds lame. I like the quantum immortality argument. Meh, I am a fan of carpe diem! Pretty much any immortality argument butts heads with solipsism, and so to me is inherently meaningless. And yes, I do like to spend time discussing inherently meaningless topics. It amuses me. __________________ "Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
 6th December 2016, 03:31 PM #2329 Fudbucker Philosopher   Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 5,806 Originally Posted by Hokulele Their best is the Texas Sharpshooter/Sentient Puddle fallacy writ large. But we already knew that. The fine-tuning argument doesn't rest on a fallacy. The problem with fine-tuning is a sufficiently large multiverse totally defeats it. "That the universe appears to be fantastically finely tuned for intelligent life is not particularly controversial, and is the second piece of evidence related to the end of Copernican Mediocrity. But, you might ask, why is the universe so perfect? Good question. There are so far only three kinds of answers from science. One is just dumb luck. The second answer, proffered and defended by most of my theoretically minded colleagues, is the multiverse: There are an infinite number of universes spanning all logical possibilities. We just live in the one we can. The third answer touches on philosophy, and comes from quantum mechanics. (If you have taken any modern physics course, it is likely you will have heard this notion before.) Matter is composed of wave functions of probability that only become “real entities” when they are measured by a conscious observer. The quantum mechanical pioneer, John Wheeler, is one of several thinkers who have proposed that the unusual nature of the universe suggests it had to evolve conscious beings in order to become real." I will admit that I am not a fan of any of these. It seems a cop-out to say we are just lucky, and as a physicist trained to give preference to simple solutions, a multiverse strikes me as the opposite: exorbitant. http://cosmos.nautil.us/short/69/doe...-a-cosmic-role Quote: Meh, I am a fan of carpe diem! Pretty much any immortality argument butts heads with solipsism, and so to me is inherently meaningless. And yes, I do like to spend time discussing inherently meaningless topics. It amuses me. I don't see why immorality has to lead to solipsism (or even imply it). Last edited by Fudbucker; 6th December 2016 at 03:35 PM.
 6th December 2016, 04:48 PM #2330 Hokulele Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: The Biggest Little City in the World Posts: 28,791 Originally Posted by Fudbucker I don't see why immorality has to lead to solipsism (or even imply it). I will leave the typo in, as it is funny. But to the intended comment, when closely examined, if I am truly immortal, the very idea of a "prior life" is self-contradictory. The universe must have started when I did, and will last as long as I do, because I am immortal, you see, so all the rest of you lot must be figments of my imagination! __________________ "Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
 6th December 2016, 05:02 PM #2331 The Sparrow Muse     Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Central Canada Posts: 745 Originally Posted by Hokulele Well, I can guarantee that now he will! ... It's a joke, but sadly it is also true. What the hell it has to do with a mathematical proof of immortality is beyond me though. Oh BTW, have we abandoned (for now) NDEs? OBEs? Whatever they are?
 6th December 2016, 06:16 PM #2332 Loss Leader Guilty With An ExplanationModerator     Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 21,874 Originally Posted by The Sparrow Oh BTW, have we abandoned (for now) NDEs? OBEs? Whatever they are? Jabba gave up on this when he couldn't beg a single person to believe that any of his third-hand anecdotes were competent evidence of even the possibility of any sort of immateriality. But it's literally the first question he has to deal with. In order for immortal souls to be even the most unlikely explanation of anything, they at least have to be possible. So he can pretend he's gone on to some other section of his argument, but when put to his paces, he failed miserably right out of the gate. __________________ - I haven't refused to answer it; I just haven't been able to answer it... Jabba Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me. - Nick Terry
 7th December 2016, 05:27 AM #2333 Jabba Illuminator     Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 4,099 Originally Posted by Fudbucker The fine-tuning argument doesn't rest on a fallacy. The problem with fine-tuning is a sufficiently large multiverse totally defeats it. "That the universe appears to be fantastically finely tuned for intelligent life is not particularly controversial, and is the second piece of evidence related to the end of Copernican Mediocrity. But, you might ask, why is the universe so perfect? Good question. There are so far only three kinds of answers from science. One is just dumb luck. The second answer, proffered and defended by most of my theoretically minded colleagues, is the multiverse: There are an infinite number of universes spanning all logical possibilities. We just live in the one we can. The third answer touches on philosophy, and comes from quantum mechanics. (If you have taken any modern physics course, it is likely you will have heard this notion before.) Matter is composed of wave functions of probability that only become “real entities” when they are measured by a conscious observer. The quantum mechanical pioneer, John Wheeler, is one of several thinkers who have proposed that the unusual nature of the universe suggests it had to evolve conscious beings in order to become real." I will admit that I am not a fan of any of these. It seems a cop-out to say we are just lucky, and as a physicist trained to give preference to simple solutions, a multiverse strikes me as the opposite: exorbitant. http://cosmos.nautil.us/short/69/doe...-a-cosmic-role I don't see why immorality has to lead to solipsism (or even imply it). Fudbucker, - Isn't the Wheeler explanation just a different expression/version of multiverse? __________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
 7th December 2016, 06:06 AM #2334 Jabba Illuminator     Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 4,099 Originally Posted by Fudbucker The fine-tuning argument doesn't rest on a fallacy. The problem with fine-tuning is a sufficiently large multiverse totally defeats it. "That the universe appears to be fantastically finely tuned for intelligent life is not particularly controversial, and is the second piece of evidence related to the end of Copernican Mediocrity. But, you might ask, why is the universe so perfect? Good question. There are so far only three kinds of answers from science. One is just dumb luck. The second answer, proffered and defended by most of my theoretically minded colleagues, is the multiverse: There are an infinite number of universes spanning all logical possibilities. We just live in the one we can. The third answer touches on philosophy, and comes from quantum mechanics. (If you have taken any modern physics course, it is likely you will have heard this notion before.) Matter is composed of wave functions of probability that only become “real entities” when they are measured by a conscious observer. The quantum mechanical pioneer, John Wheeler, is one of several thinkers who have proposed that the unusual nature of the universe suggests it had to evolve conscious beings in order to become real." I will admit that I am not a fan of any of these. It seems a cop-out to say we are just lucky, and as a physicist trained to give preference to simple solutions, a multiverse strikes me as the opposite: exorbitant. http://cosmos.nautil.us/short/69/doe...-a-cosmic-role I don't see why immorality has to lead to solipsism (or even imply it). Fudbucker, - Then, multiply the likelihood of such a universe by the likelihood of your current existence. __________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
 7th December 2016, 06:08 AM #2335 Argumemnon World Maker     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the thick of things Posts: 57,871 Originally Posted by Jabba Fudbucker, - Then, multiply the likelihood of such a universe by the likelihood of your current existence. Then divide by the relevance of this entire exercise and... DAMN IT! I've created a cluster of fractal black holes again. __________________ "What is best in life?"
 7th December 2016, 07:46 AM #2336 Jabba Illuminator     Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 4,099 - Here's a map of our discussion, as I see it -- from the edge of space. - I claimed that through the use of Bayesian statistics, I could virtually prove immortality. - Later, I reduced that to something more direct, logically speaking -- i.e., through the use of Bayesian statistics, I could virtually disprove OOFLam (that we each have only one finite life to live (at most)). - I think there were (was?) six basic objections to my claim: 1)Bayes isn't applicable, 2)there is no real "self," 3)the likelihood of my current existence -- given OOFLam -- is not infinitesimal 4)the likelihood I prescribe for my existence -- given ~OOFLam -- doesn't make sense, 5)it is not reasonably possible that OOFLam is wrong and 6) the likelihood of MY current existence is not an appropriate entry for P(E|OOFLam). - Lately, we've been working on #2 and #5. - Under #5, we got into NDE's and the validity of anecdotes as evidence re scientific hypotheses. - Re anecdotes, most participants disagreed that anecdotes could constitute evidence re scientific hypotheses, but several posters actually agreed with me -- that anecdotes can constitute such evidence. - Currently, I'm trying to engage some of those latter participants in exploring the credibility of NDE anecdotes. __________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
 7th December 2016, 07:52 AM #2337 Argumemnon World Maker     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the thick of things Posts: 57,871 "Currently I'm doing X" is getting tiresome and sounds more and more disingenuous. __________________ "What is best in life?"
 7th December 2016, 08:00 AM #2338 zooterkin Nitpicking dilettanteDeputy Admin     Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 36,828 Originally Posted by Jabba -2)there is no real "self," Yes, there is. It is, however, an emergent property of the brain, not an independent entity (aka "soul"). __________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
 7th December 2016, 08:03 AM #2339 Jabba Illuminator     Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 4,099 Originally Posted by zooterkin Yes, there is. It is, however, an emergent property of the brain, not an independent entity (aka "soul"). Zoo, - I should have added that... __________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
 7th December 2016, 08:06 AM #2340 Slowvehicle Membership Drive Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy     Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls... Posts: 15,973 Originally Posted by Jabba Zoo, - I should have added that... You also appear to have omitted that you, by your own rules, have agreed that you do not have any evidence at all for the existence of a "soul", much less for its "immortality"... __________________ "They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze Last edited by Slowvehicle; 7th December 2016 at 08:33 AM.
 7th December 2016, 08:21 AM #2341 jond Master Poster     Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 2,507 Originally Posted by Jabba Zoo, - I should have added that... You should have also added that the scientific model of OOFLam does not contain a soul, and is therefore rather considerably more likely than your version of OOFLam which does contain one.
 7th December 2016, 08:41 AM #2342 John Jones Philosopher     Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 9,709 Originally Posted by Jabba - Here's a map of our discussion, as I see it -- from the edge of space. - I claimed that through the use of Bayesian statistics, I could virtually prove immortality. - Later, I reduced that to something more direct, logically speaking -- i.e., through the use of Bayesian statistics, I could virtually disprove OOFLam (that we each have only one finite life to live (at most)). - I think there were (was?) six basic objections to my claim: 1)Bayes isn't applicable, 2)there is no real "self," 3)the likelihood of my current existence -- given OOFLam -- is not infinitesimal 4)the likelihood I prescribe for my existence -- given ~OOFLam -- doesn't make sense, 5)it is not reasonably possible that OOFLam is wrong and 6) the likelihood of MY current existence is not an appropriate entry for P(E|OOFLam). - Lately, we've been working on #2 and #5. - Under #5, we got into NDE's and the validity of anecdotes as evidence re scientific hypotheses. - Re anecdotes, most participants disagreed that anecdotes could constitute evidence re scientific hypotheses, but several posters actually agreed with me -- that anecdotes can constitute such evidence. - Currently, I'm trying to engage some of those latter participants in exploring the credibility of NDE anecdotes. You forgot to mention all the fringe resets, the quoting people out of context, and ignoring the vast number of posts that debunk your claims
 7th December 2016, 08:49 AM #2343 abaddon Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 12,909 Originally Posted by Jabba - Here's a map of our discussion, as I see it -- from the edge of space. What, now you are claiming to be on the ISS? That you are somehow impartial? That you have no skin in this game you are playing? Nonsense. __________________ Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
 7th December 2016, 08:57 AM #2344 godless dave Great Dalmuti     Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,570 Originally Posted by Jabba - Currently, I'm trying to engage some of those latter participants in exploring the credibility of NDE anecdotes. You already engaged people and you failed to convince them. The best you could offer were unverified anecdotes that wouldn't be evidence for immaterial souls even if they were true. __________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
 7th December 2016, 09:18 AM #2345 Loss Leader Guilty With An ExplanationModerator     Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 21,874 Originally Posted by Jabba - Here's a map of our discussion, as I see it -- from the edge of space. - I claimed that through the use of Bayesian statistics, I could virtually prove immortality. - Later, I reduced that to something more direct, logically speaking -- i.e., through the use of Bayesian statistics, I could virtually disprove OOFLam (that we each have only one finite life to live (at most)). - I think there were (was?) six basic objections to my claim: 1)Bayes isn't applicable, 2)there is no real "self," 3)the likelihood of my current existence -- given OOFLam -- is not infinitesimal 4)the likelihood I prescribe for my existence -- given ~OOFLam -- doesn't make sense, 5)it is not reasonably possible that OOFLam is wrong and 6) the likelihood of MY current existence is not an appropriate entry for P(E|OOFLam). - Lately, we've been working on #2 and #5. - Under #5, we got into NDE's and the validity of anecdotes as evidence re scientific hypotheses. - Re anecdotes, most participants disagreed that anecdotes could constitute evidence re scientific hypotheses, but several posters actually agreed with me -- that anecdotes can constitute such evidence. - Currently, I'm trying to engage some of those latter participants in exploring the credibility of NDE anecdotes. "Lately, I've been trying to surround the word 'anecdote' with so much fury and nonsense that people forget the essential failure that dependence on anectotes entail." __________________ - I haven't refused to answer it; I just haven't been able to answer it... Jabba Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me. - Nick Terry
 7th December 2016, 09:54 AM #2346 Dancing David Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 38,062 Originally Posted by Jabba Fudbucker, - Then, multiply the likelihood of such a universe by the likelihood of your current existence. That is the point where your argument fails, you do exist. Period, therefore the odds of your existence are 1. The fact that organic being seem to exist in a chaotic universe does mean that there is an infinite or whatever the random scramble of 10^70 particles produces. There is defendant history. Period. You, if you exist come about from the dependent history or your parents procreating and the combination of genetics. Secondly, none of that has anything to do with immaterialism or souls or whatever. If you exist there is an organic body, until you demonstrate something beyond an organic body there is nothing but angels dancing on the head of the pin and what the prior probability of them wearing sneakers versus high heels is. __________________ I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
 7th December 2016, 09:56 AM #2347 JayUtah Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 11,953 Originally Posted by Jabba Later, I reduced that to something more direct, logically speaking -- No, you transformed it into something indirect. Instead of proving X, you conjured up a false dilemma between X and Y and tried to disprove Y. Your disproof involves simply throwing a lot of unevidenced doubt at it. This is what every fringe theorist does. When faced with their inability to prove their point, they try to cast aspersions on what the rest of the world believes in order to make their claim stand by default. Quote: ...but several posters actually agreed with me -- that anecdotes can constitute such evidence. No. You're equivocating between "anecdotes are evidence" and "these anecdotes are evidence of life after death." You tried to get the people who agreed with the former to carry their agreement to the latter and those who answered repudiated you. Don't pretend people agree with you when they say they don't. Quote: Currently, I'm trying to engage some of those latter participants in exploring the credibility of NDE anecdotes. It doesn't matter. They aren't evidence of life after death. I've even quoted your own sources saying as much.
 7th December 2016, 07:13 PM #2348 jt512 Graduate Poster   Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,451 Originally Posted by Fudbucker ANY old evidence has a probability of 1 by virtue of the fact it's already known. This is the problem of "old evidence". One of the solutions is to look at the evidence counterfactually. One of the best examples is to imagine you're going to be executed by being shot by a hundred sharpshooters. The order to fire is given, and you're miraculously not dead. The probability that you're alive is 1, of course, yet the probability that it was just an accident you survived is now practically zero. Because counterfactually, you know that your continued existence would be incredibly improbable on the chance hypothesis (that all 100 shooters missed or misfired or had sudden heart attacks, etc.). So your continued existence constitutes incredibly powerful evidence that the execution was rigged in some way. The data always exist. Otherwise, there wouldn't be anything to analyze. So, it's not the probability of the data per se that we we care about, but the probability of the data under one or more models about how the data arose. The P(E) term in Bayes' Theorem is the average probability of the data under all the hypotheses in the hypothesis space—actually, a weighted average, whose weights are the prior probabilities of each hypothesis.
 7th December 2016, 07:49 PM #2349 Fudbucker Philosopher   Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 5,806 Originally Posted by jt512 The data always exist. Otherwise, there wouldn't be anything to analyze. So, it's not the probability of the data per se that we we care about, but the probability of the data under one or more models about how the data arose. The P(E) term in Bayes' Theorem is the average probability of the data under all the hypotheses in the hypothesis space—actually, a weighted average, whose weights are the prior probabilities of each hypothesis. Data that is collected after a hypothesis is formulated (i.e., data that is predicted by the hypothesis) is much easier to work with than data that exists before the hypothesis. See Mercury's eccentric orbit and relativity theory. " In other words: ee must have been predicted on the basis of h∧kh∧k. Moreover, again by (i), the confirmatory impact will be stronger the more surprising (unlikely) the evidence was unless hh was conjoined to kk. So, under TE, relevance confirmation turns out to embed a squarely predictivist version of hypothetico-deductivism! As we know, this neutralizes the charge of underdetermination, yet it comes at the usual cost: the old evidence problem. In fact, if TE is in force, then clause (ii) of (SP) implies that no statement that is known to be true (thus assigned probability 1) can ever have confirmatory import. Interestingly, the Bayesian predictivist has an escape (neatly anticipated, and criticized, by Glymour 1980a, 91–92). Consider Einstein and Mercury once again. As effectively pointed out by Norton (2011a, 7), Einstein was extremely careful to emphasize that the precession phenomenon had been derived “without having to posit any special [auxiliary] hypotheses at all”. Why? Well, presumably because if one had allowed herself to arbitrarily devise ad hoc auxiliaries (within kk, in our notation) then one could have been pretty much certain in advance to find a way to get Mercury’s data right (recall: that’s the lesson of the underdetermination theorem)." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/c...ion/#BayConThe But this is getting extremely wonky and probably nobody besides you or me cares about this that much.
 7th December 2016, 07:57 PM #2350 jt512 Graduate Poster   Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,451 Originally Posted by Fudbucker Data that is collected after a hypothesis is formulated (i.e., data that is predicted by the hypothesis) is much easier to work with than data that exists before the hypothesis. See Mercury's eccentric orbit and relativity theory. " In other words: ee must have been predicted on the basis of h∧kh∧k. Moreover, again by (i), the confirmatory impact will be stronger the more surprising (unlikely) the evidence was unless hh was conjoined to kk. So, under TE, relevance confirmation turns out to embed a squarely predictivist version of hypothetico-deductivism! As we know, this neutralizes the charge of underdetermination, yet it comes at the usual cost: the old evidence problem. In fact, if TE is in force, then clause (ii) of (SP) implies that no statement that is known to be true (thus assigned probability 1) can ever have confirmatory import. Interestingly, the Bayesian predictivist has an escape (neatly anticipated, and criticized, by Glymour 1980a, 91–92). Consider Einstein and Mercury once again. As effectively pointed out by Norton (2011a, 7), Einstein was extremely careful to emphasize that the precession phenomenon had been derived “without having to posit any special [auxiliary] hypotheses at all”. Why? Well, presumably because if one had allowed herself to arbitrarily devise ad hoc auxiliaries (within kk, in our notation) then one could have been pretty much certain in advance to find a way to get Mercury’s data right (recall: that’s the lesson of the underdetermination theorem)." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/c...ion/#BayConThe But this is getting extremely wonky and probably nobody besides you or me cares about this that much. I don't even understand it.
 7th December 2016, 08:21 PM #2351 Fudbucker Philosopher   Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 5,806 Originally Posted by jt512 I don't even understand it. The problem of old evidence? Suppose a theory (Y) predicts X and X occurs. If X is highly improbable, then X is going to confirm Y to a fairly high degree. But suppose that evidence X (Mercury's eccentric orbit) is already known, before Y (relativity theory) is even formulated. Long before Einstein came along, people were trying to explain Mercury's weird orbit. Einstein then had to be extra careful to make sure his theory wasn't ad hoc in any way (that he didn't already incorporate Mercury's orbit into the framework of this theory). Because it was obvious that relativity theory wasn't ad hoc, its prediction of Mercury's eccentric orbit was very successful, even though it "predicted" something that people had known about for a long time. To put it another way: it's a lot more impressive if I predict an earthquake before it happens, than after it happens.
 7th December 2016, 09:12 PM #2352 jt512 Graduate Poster   Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,451 Originally Posted by Fudbucker The problem of old evidence? Suppose a theory (Y) predicts X and X occurs. If X is highly improbable, then X is going to confirm Y to a fairly high degree. I think you need to say that if X is highly improbable under some other theory, Z, then X confirms Y relative to Z. Quote: But suppose that evidence X (Mercury's eccentric orbit) is already known, before Y (relativity theory) is even formulated. Long before Einstein came along, people were trying to explain Mercury's weird orbit. Einstein then had to be extra careful to make sure his theory wasn't ad hoc in any way (that he didn't already incorporate Mercury's orbit into the framework of this theory). Because it was obvious that relativity theory wasn't ad hoc, its prediction of Mercury's eccentric orbit was very successful, even though it "predicted" something that people had known about for a long time. The problem occurs when you use the data to formulate the theory, and then claim that the theory predicted the data. This has been called HARKing, hypothesizing after the results are known. A researcher observes an unanticipated correlation between two variables in a data set, finds that it is statistically significant, formulates a theory for it, and then claims that the theory "predicts" the data. It's similar to what Skeptics call the "Texas sharpshooter fallacy." Another example comes from political scientist Allan Lichtman and his Keys to the White House Model. Writers often claim that Lichtman's model has correctly predicted the popular vote in every US presidential race from 1860 to 2012. But that is ridiculous, since he developed the model in 1981 by using the data from the elections from 1860 to 1980. His model should only get credit for correct predictions on new data, elections after 1981.
 7th December 2016, 09:40 PM #2353 Fudbucker Philosopher   Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 5,806 Originally Posted by jt512 I think you need to say that if X is highly improbable under some other theory, Z, then X confirms Y relative to Z. The problem occurs when you use the data to formulate the theory, and then claim that the theory predicted the data. This has been called HARKing, hypothesizing after the results are known. A researcher observes an unanticipated correlation between two variables in a data set, finds that it is statistically significant, formulates a theory for it, and then claims that the theory "predicts" the data. It's similar to what Skeptics call the "Texas sharpshooter fallacy." Another example comes from political scientist Allan Lichtman and his Keys to the White House Model. Writers often claim that Lichtman's model has correctly predicted the popular vote in every US presidential race from 1860 to 2012. But that is ridiculous, since he developed the model in 1981 by using the data from the elections from 1860 to 1980. His model should only get credit for correct predictions on new data, elections after 1981. That's the problem of old evidence. The solution I've always thought was best is to counterfactually look at the theory as if it were proposed without the evidence already having been known. I.e., we pretend Einstein knew nothing about Merucry's orbit. Does relativity successfully predict Mercury's orbit, or was there some ad hoc reasoning going on? Even if Einstein knew nothing about Mercury, he would have formulated his theory the same way, so it gets credit for "predicting" something everyone (including Einstein) already knew about.
 7th December 2016, 11:31 PM #2354 jt512 Graduate Poster   Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,451 Originally Posted by Fudbucker That's the problem of old evidence. The solution I've always thought was best is to counterfactually look at the theory as if it were proposed without the evidence already having been known. I.e., we pretend Einstein knew nothing about Merucry's orbit. Does relativity successfully predict Mercury's orbit, or was there some ad hoc reasoning going on? Even if Einstein knew nothing about Mercury, he would have formulated his theory the same way, so it gets credit for "predicting" something everyone (including Einstein) already knew about. The solution in more prosaic sciences is to test the hypothesis on an independent data set.
 8th December 2016, 12:25 AM #2355 Fudbucker Philosopher   Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 5,806 Originally Posted by jt512 The solution in more prosaic sciences is to test the hypothesis on an independent data set. Sure, but you can't just ignore evidence that predates the hypothesis. Relativity (and I'm going from memory here), received significant confirmation both by explaining Mercury's orbit in a non-ad hoc way and predicting the observation of light bending during a solar eclipse.
 8th December 2016, 03:47 AM #2356 jt512 Graduate Poster   Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,451 Originally Posted by Fudbucker Sure, but you can't just ignore evidence that predates the hypothesis. Relativity (and I'm going from memory here), received significant confirmation both by explaining Mercury's orbit in a non-ad hoc way and predicting the observation of light bending during a solar eclipse. It's not whether the data predated the hypothesis (ie, a model) that matters; it is whether the data was used in the formulation of the model. Data that was used to formulate a model biases the model in favor of that data, so it is not valid to use that same data to test the hypothesis. To test the hypothesis, new data are needed. The reason we prefer data that were observed after the model was formulated is that we know that the scientist could not have used the data in the formulation of the model. Last edited by jt512; 8th December 2016 at 04:07 AM.
 8th December 2016, 04:02 AM #2357 abaddon Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 12,909 Originally Posted by jt512 It's not whether the data predated the hypothesis (ie, a model) that matters; it is whether the data was used in the formulation of the model. Data that was used to formulate a model biases the model in favor of that data, so it is not valid to use that same data to test the hypothesis. To test the hypothesis, new data are needed. The reason we prefer data that were observed only after the model was formulated is that it we know that the scientist could not have used the data in the formulation of the model. Which leaves you claiming that immortal souls exist. Sorry. You bought it, you own it. __________________ Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
 8th December 2016, 04:10 AM #2358 marplots Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 26,338 Originally Posted by jt512 It's not whether the data predated the hypothesis (ie, a model) that matters; it is whether the data was used in the formulation of the model. Data that was used to formulate a model biases the model in favor of that data, so it is not valid to use that same data to test the hypothesis. To test the hypothesis, new data are needed. The reason we prefer data that were observed only after the model was formulated is that it we know that the scientist could not have used the data in the formulation of the model. What should count as "new data" then? It seems to me that mere repetition of the same type of data (from the same source) shouldn't count, but I'm not sure. Best would be something new and unexpected. But let's say my model is based on one type of starfish being bigger than another (maybe I'm interested in starfish growth related to global warming). It doesn't seem like I can then bolster my model by finding more examples of one starfish being bigger, point to this "new" data, and claim I've found confirmation.
 8th December 2016, 06:30 AM #2359 Mojo Mostly harmless     Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 28,000 Originally Posted by jt512 It's not whether the data predated the hypothesis (ie, a model) that matters; it is whether the data was used in the formulation of the model. The relationship of the data to he model is also important. In the current case the "new data" Jabba is suggesting using is not something that is predicted by the model. It is not something that the model says is impossible. It is just one of many possible outcomes that is consistent with the model. Because there are many of them the likelihood of this particular outcome is low, but the likelihood of one of them having occurred is 1. Selecting the one that happens to have occurred says nothing about the likelihood of the model being correct. __________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
 8th December 2016, 06:59 AM #2360 Jabba Illuminator     Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 4,099 Originally Posted by Mojo The relationship of the data to he model is also important. In the current case the "new data" Jabba is suggesting using is not something that is predicted by the model. It is not something that the model says is impossible. It is just one of many possible outcomes that is consistent with the model. Because there are many of them the likelihood of this particular outcome is low, but the likelihood of one of them having occurred is 1. Selecting the one that happens to have occurred says nothing about the likelihood of the model being correct. Mojo, - The "new data" I'm using is the scientific supposition(s) of how a "self" (or the process/illusion of a self) comes about. This aspect of the surrounding data has not been taken into account (as far as I can tell) by Scientific consideration re the prior probability of OOFLam. __________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit