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

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


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 20th July 2017, 04:35 PM   #681
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
@JayUtah, a curious question:

All standard dictionaries (including google) express a flavour of belief, that ensues such that beings especially ignore evidence.

Are they all invalid?
Asked and answered. There are no "standard" dictionaries in the sense that any one of them is canonically approved in some way to dictate meaning. Further, I already discussed at length how dictionary definitions relate to your theory and to the line of reasoning in it. Consult that discussion to find your answer.
Part A
Wrong.
There are standard dictionaries of the English language.

These standard dictionaries contain belief's meaning as described in the quote above.

Part B
You had mentioned something regarding incompleteness of the definition amidst dictionaries, with respect to belief and science.

However, that they are incomplete, does that warrant that the definitions are disparate from more detailed regimes of research?

For example, dictionary definitions express science to highly concern evidence, while belief concerns especially non-evidence.

Is that incomplete sequence, invalid?
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
ProgrammingGodJordan 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 20th July 2017, 04:45 PM   #682
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
Generally, people tend to express confirmation bias, such that prior beliefs are maintained regardless of evidence.

Such is unavoidable.
It's either unavoidable or it's a tendency. It cannot be both.
Wrong.

It is unavoidable, that research has revealed scenarios, such that people generally tend to express confirmation bias, such that prior beliefs are maintained regardless of evidence, as is evidenced.








Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
But in fact you did, whether you believe you needed to or not. You speculated in one case that the reason your critics didn't accept your theory was that they were taking cocaine. In another case you asked your critics a series of questions which you later disclosed were an attempt to discover what "kind of brain" would reject your theory. These were speculative exercises to rationalize away the fact that seemingly intelligent people nevertheless disagreed with your argument. That fact is evidence which challenges your belief that your theory is rational and correct. You didn't ignore the evidence that your belief was unfounded; you just rationalized around it by speculating reasons why your critics' evaluation might not be as probative as it seemed. That is, you let your belief drive you to adjust late-stage evidence to conform to it. You didn't let the evidence sway your belief.
I am capable of jokes.

Also, I am yet to encounter any evidence, that challenges the data that has priorly been observed. (I leave feelings, and abandon belief with respect to the aforesaid observation)

I had never predicted any actual instance, where beings would ingest cocaine.








Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No. Despite your pidgin readings, the material you've presented here describes a spectrum of behavior regarding belief and evidence. It does not fall into your simplistic bifurcation. In fact, your theory cannot even explain your own behavior. At this point it is clear you are unwilling to adopt any reading of the data that does not conform to the conclusions you drew before encountering it. You are simply repeating the same declarative statements over and over. I have no desire to follow you in a tight circle of ipse dixit.
The data is pretty clear, I need not distort such data in any way:

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
It is unavoidable, that research has revealed scenarios, such that people generally tend to express confirmation bias, such that prior beliefs are maintained regardless of evidence, as is evidenced.







Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
That people tend toward or away from some behaviors exactly supports the notion that a simplistic theory cannot thoroughly explain it. As I stated, your argument has devolved into simply regurgitating non sequiturs and is no longer effectively addressing the points raised.
Simply, belief though complicated, does not suddenly warrant that belief is not observed to generally occur absent evidence, as is evidenced.








Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
It is possible for you to both present evidence and also demand specific affirmative counterclaims, inappropriately so, from your critics. The two are not mutually exclusive.
It certainly is possible to both present evidence (as I had prior done), and politely request contravening evidence.

I am yet to encounter any contravening evidence though.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
ProgrammingGodJordan 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 Yesterday, 12:24 AM   #683
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,398
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Wrong.

Here is the simple difference:

(1) Events in science empirically ensue, such that some X constructs consist especially of some x.
(2) Scientific methodology does not empirically ensue, such that science especially ignores evidence.
You said "Wrong," so what's the actual reason that I'm wrong? I'm merely demonstrating the application of the logic that you are pushing, not endorsing it.
__________________
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 Yesterday, 12:30 AM   #684
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,398
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
There are words that construe high concern for evidence. (such as "science")
Belief is not one of such words.

As is evidenced, belief typically concerns non-evidence.
Scientific methodology in stark contrast, typically concerns evidence.
Like that last post, your response isn't saying anything that actually addresses the point made. Nor can "typically" be validly used to justify your arguments regarding belief and science, regardless.
__________________
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 Yesterday, 12:48 AM   #685
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,398
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Wrong, as far as science prescribes.
It is belief that confirmation bias acts on; it is belief that is especially unchanging in the face of new evidence, due to bias.
Summation of this in an easy to understand analogy -

Person 1: Bread makes you sick!
Person 2: *blinks a few times in disbelief* What? This is probably going to be a waste of time, but... got evidence?
Person 1: Moldy Bread makes you sick!
Person 2: Err, yes, excessive amounts of mold can make you sick, but that's not showing that bread makes you sick. In fact, there's a lot of bread that isn't moldy and has been demonstrated beyond all possible reasonable doubt to not make one sick.
Person 1: The mold grows on the bread! Bread makes you sick!

I remain thoroughly unconvinced by your flailing about. Confirmation bias is not at all the same thing as belief. Nor does science in any way support your contention that it is. A tornado is made of air and acts on air and can even kill you easily... yet we don't treat air, in general, like we treat a tornado.
Edited by Darat:  Removed rule 0/12 in moderated thread.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Darat; Yesterday at 04:44 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 Yesterday, 01:18 AM   #686
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,398
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Not my theory, where such is empirically observed.
You have yet to demonstrate such. You have claimed such, but without valid evidence to back such up. You have given evidence that would support dramatically weaker claims, yes, but not this.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Also, that there are multiple ways in responding to contradicting evidence, does not suddenly remove that belief facilitates that one ignores evidence.
Certain kinds of belief can do so. Other kinds of belief do the exact opposite. Your characterization of belief in general is still false.


Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Your words above does not change that is not typical for science to ignore evidence.

Science remains a construct that highly concerns evidence.
Not quite as much as you're trying to claim. Science regularly employs constructs that are known to have issues and largely ignores the evidence against the construct until such time as a more useful construct is found. Gravity is an easy example, at present. Atomic theory has undergone a numbers of revisions as better constructs have been formulated and demonstrated to be better, yet the constructs at each iteration were provisionally accepted, despite there being reason to believe that they didn't reflect all the evidence fully.

While science does "highly concern evidence," it is quite typical for evidence to be effectively ignored for indeterminate lengths of time for reasons of practicality, among a number of other things.



Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Albeit, can you provide scientific evidence to show that belief does not mostly facilitate that its users ignore evidence ?

Scientific data already displays that belief occurs typically such that one ignores evidence. Common dictionary definitions also express such. Lest new scientific data arises to the contrary, I'm afraid the sum of your expressions are empirically, unavoidably invalid.
To be clear, you've yet to demonstrate that such a refutation of your claims is needed, given how much you've been blatantly trying to twist actual science into saying things that it doesn't even come close to saying. Similarly, your misuse and abuse of dictionary and thesaurus doesn't even come close to making a valid argument.
__________________
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 Yesterday, 01:30 AM   #687
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,398
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(5)

A curious question. Do you garner that science is true whether or not one believes in it?
(NOTE: I didn't ask whether science was perfect)
Reality is true, whether one believes in it or not. Science is our best tool to determine what reality actually is. How much science informs one's actual beliefs is another matter entirely, and a much, much more complex one in reality, not least because much of science should not be trusted either blindly or out of context, regardless. Simplifying it to "science is true whether or not one believes in it" is a fine move while evangelizing for science, not for accuracy.
__________________
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 Yesterday, 06:45 AM   #688
Chanakya
Punditry Unlimited
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 156
PGJ, please define "science". Seriously.

When you say, "Science is true irrespective of belief", etc, you're simply conflating 'reality' and 'science'. The latter is not the former, it is simply one way (and, yes, by far the best we've devised thus far) of understanding the former. As plenty of people have pointed out to you plenty of times.

Anyway, so just define this "science", will you, that you say is "true irrespective of belief". Perhaps just doing this might clear this up?
Chanakya 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 Yesterday, 08:11 AM   #689
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,454
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
It is unavoidable, that research has revealed scenarios, such that people generally tend to express confirmation bias...
Yes, it is unavoidable that research exists. However, that research does not support your findings. It does not support your claim of "ignoring" evidence because it instead describes nuanced approaches to evidence.

Quote:
I am capable of jokes.
More rationalization. However, if you would like to apologize for falsely accusing your critics of drug abuse and/or some sort of mental instability, we will entertain your apology. I doubt your critics found your deliberately false accusations as humorous as you did.

Quote:
Also, I am yet to encounter any evidence, that challenges the data that has priorly been observed.
You seem to think your critics need to provide evidence that contradicts the papers you've presented. The problem is with your interpretation of the papers. Your critics present evidence that you are not able to read and interpret these papers properly. Your ongoing failure to communicate effectively in English is just more such evidence.

Quote:
The data is pretty clear, I need not distort such data in any way:
But you have distorted it. Whether you needed to or not is beside the point.

Quote:
Simply, belief though complicated, does not suddenly warrant that belief is not observed to generally occur absent evidence,
I've addressed this non sequitur several times. Do not simply keep repeating it.

Quote:
It certainly is possible to both present evidence (as I had prior done), and politely request contravening evidence.
No. You are specifying the kind of rebuttal your critics should provide, specifically that they have an obligation to refute your claim affirmatively. They have made rebuttals appropriate to your argument. Deal with the rebuttals they present, not with what you wish they had presented, or what you think they will be unable to present.
JayUtah 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 Yesterday, 08:17 AM   #690
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,454
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
You can either deny my polite request, or proceed to speak absent evidence.
I reject your ongoing attempts to shift the burden of proof, regardless of how you try to disguise it.

Quote:
Why bother to lie (especially when all our posts are here to witness)?
I had not demised any such practice.

What I mentioned, was that scientists (not all now) may neglect science.
And you did so as a premise to the claim that we should not look to scientific practice to understand how science operates and whether its approach to evidence conforms to your theory. How science approaches evidence is exactly how scientists -- individually and collectively -- approach evidence. Scientific practice is not irrelevant to your theory, as you tried to claim. Your theory requires science to be a simplistic caricature of what goes on. This is part and parcel of my rebuttal to the effect that your theory is too simplistic to predict any actual behavior or outcomes.
JayUtah 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 Yesterday, 08:22 AM   #691
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,454
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
There are standard dictionaries of the English language.

These standard dictionaries contain belief's meaning as described in the quote above.
No. Dictionaries are brief summaries of the way people use language at any given time in general conversation. They are not canonical prescriptions of word meanings, either in general or for specific fields. We have discussed this at length. Your attempt to elevate the dictionary to a superlative position simply because that's all the research you're willing to do, or because its simplicity matches the simplicity of your argument, has been roundly rejected. Do not attempt to resuscitate it endlessly.

Quote:
However, that they are incomplete, does that warrant that the definitions are disparate from more detailed regimes of research?
Yes.

Quote:
For example, dictionary definitions express science to highly concern evidence, while belief concerns especially non-evidence.

Is that incomplete sequence, invalid?
Yes.

You are attempting to limit the field of knowledge to what is or isn't found in the dictionary. If you concede that dictionaries contain only incomplete summaries, then you concede arguments predicted on the fact of inclusion or exclusion.
JayUtah 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 Yesterday, 10:11 AM   #692
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Summation of this in an easy to understand analogy -

Person 1: Bread makes you sick!
Person 2: *blinks a few times in disbelief* What? This is probably going to be a waste of time, but... got evidence?
Person 1: Moldy Bread makes you sick!
Person 2: Err, yes, excessive amounts of mold can make you sick, but that's not showing that bread makes you sick. In fact, there's a lot of bread that isn't moldy and has been demonstrated beyond all possible reasonable doubt to not make one sick.
Person 1: The mold grows on the bread! Bread makes you sick!

I remain thoroughly unconvinced by your flailing about. Confirmation bias is not at all the same thing as belief. Nor does science in any way support your contention that it is. A tornado is made of air and acts on air and can even kill you easily... yet we don't treat air, in general, like we treat a tornado.
Edited by Darat:  Removed rule 0/12 in moderated thread.
No where, had I mentioned that confirmation bias is belief.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
ProgrammingGodJordan 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 Yesterday, 10:19 AM   #693
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
While science does "highly concern evidence," it is quite typical for evidence to be effectively ignored for indeterminate lengths of time for reasons of practicality, among a number of other things.
.
Wrong.
(1) It is not typical for empirically observed sequences to be "ignored", in the regine of science.

(2) Separately regardless of the instance the instance that scientists may neglect science, this does not suddenly warrant that science becomes a model that strives to ignore evidence.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
ProgrammingGodJordan 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 Yesterday, 10:22 AM   #694
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Certain kinds of belief can do so. Other kinds of belief do the exact opposite. Your characterization of belief in general is still false.
.
That a minority of beliefs concern evidence, dies not suddenly remove that a majority concerns evidence.

There are already phrases such as science, that already highly concern evidence.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
ProgrammingGodJordan 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 Yesterday, 10:27 AM   #695
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post

To be clear, you've yet to demonstrate that such a refutation of your claims is needed, given how much you've been blatantly trying to twist actual science into saying things that it doesn't even come close to saying. Similarly, your misuse and abuse of dictionary and thesaurus doesn't even come close to making a valid argument.
I need not misuse/twist dictionaries, for while incomplete, the dictionaries are not disparate from more detailed regimes of work.

As such dictionaries express that belief highly concern non evidence, as do a sequence of more detailed content, such as cognitive papers.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
ProgrammingGodJordan 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 Yesterday, 10:32 AM   #696
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
You have yet to demonstrate such. You have claimed such, but without valid evidence to back such up. You have given evidence that would support dramatically weaker claims, yes, but not this.
Does belief especially concern evidence?

(Hint: Several research shows the opposite, that belief does not especially concern evidence)

When answering the above, recall that I am not querying whether some beliefs may concern evidence. That's an old hat, that had long been approached in the original post.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
ProgrammingGodJordan 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 Yesterday, 10:36 AM   #697
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post




Not quite as much as you're trying to claim. Science regularly employs constructs that are known to have issues and largely ignores the evidence against the construct until such time as a more useful construct is found. Gravity is an easy example, at present. Atomic theory has undergone a numbers of revisions as better constructs have been formulated and demonstrated to be better, yet the constructs at each iteration were provisionally accepted, despite there being reason to believe that they didn't reflect all the evidence fully.
There are inaccurate portions amidst your post above.

Anyway, that scientists may neglect science, does not suddenly warrant that science becomes a model that strives to especially concern non evidence.

Contrary to belief's design, science strives to highly concern evidence. Belief has no such striving.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
ProgrammingGodJordan 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 » Religion and Philosophy

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 05:51 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.