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 14th January 2021, 05:09 PM   #361
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 6,504
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
To be fair, biblically the fear thing is mostly Old Testament and the love thing is mostly New. Some people have speculated that the god of the Old Testament and the god of the New Testament are actually different gods, but I don't think this theory has much traction among people who think they know what they're talking about.

Well there is this in The New Testament:

"Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king."
1 Peter 2:17, KJV

What do you think of the concept of "choosing to believe" however? Me. I believe something because I am "compelled too", having sifted through the evidence. The Idea of choosing to believe something because you get some goodies if you do, is just nonsense to me.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 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 January 2021, 05:14 PM   #362
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 69,515
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Well there is this in The New Testament:

"Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king."
1 Peter 2:17, KJV
Well, I did say mostly.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
What do you think of the concept of "choosing to believe" however? Me. I believe something because I am "compelled too", having sifted through the evidence. The Idea of choosing to believe something because you get some goodies if you do, is just nonsense to me.
Well, I kind of did. It was framed as "choosing to accept Jesus into my life", but it was basically what you're talking about. My explanation? I was young, and was still working out how stuff worked, I guess. Hard to say.
__________________
Please scream inside your heart.
arthwollipot is online now   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 January 2021, 07:44 PM   #363
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,436
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Logic is also a subset of maths, and in fact of bayesian reasoning. You're just dealing with probabilities of 1.0 and 0.0.
Ironically Doctor Who of all things showed that logic built from a flawed premice produces nonsense.

DOCTOR: All elephants are pink. Nellie is an elephant, therefore Nellie is pink. Logical?
DAVROS: Perfectly.
DOCTOR: You know what a human would say to that?
DAVROS: What?
TYSSAN: Elephants aren't pink.

Another example is the old cliche of giving the perfectly logical computer an illogical statement and watch it blow its circuits. Star Trek seemed to use this a lot.

KIRK: He lied. Everything Harry tells you is a lie. Remember that. Everything Harry tells you is a lie.
MUDD: Listen to this carefully, Norman. I am lying.
NORMAN: You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie then you are telling the truth, but you cannot tell the truth because everything you say is a lie. You lie. You tell the truth. But you cannot for. Illogical! Illogical! Please explain.

As I said before the tools to spot Piltdown for the fake it were available at that time and several scientists in the field said as much but because it fit the model that existed at the time (brain evolved first) these warnings were ignored. The model drove the theory and everybody ignored the evidence that a simple hand lens reveals (the file marks were formally mentioned by Franz Weidenreich in 1923 and people fore him as early as 1913 spotted the forgery).

And that was what Miner would pointing out about 1950s anthrology but he did it in a way that could not easily be ignored - as straight satire of the whole process.

Last edited by maximara; 14th January 2021 at 07:54 PM.
maximara 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 January 2021, 08:12 PM   #364
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,436
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I remember years ago on a now-defunct forum, a creationist being stunned because they didn't know of the existence of other kinds of radiometric dating. They had to concede that it was not a good argument. It didn't change their conviction, just their use of the argument.
There is a cross index of tree 14,000 rings in length before encountering a gap. That means we can go back to 10,000 BCE just on the tree rings alone.
maximara 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 January 2021, 08:13 PM   #365
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 69,515
ETA: Never mind. Misread.
__________________
Please scream inside your heart.
arthwollipot is online now   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 January 2021, 08:29 PM   #366
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,436
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
To be fair, biblically the fear thing is mostly Old Testament and the love thing is mostly New. Some people have speculated that the god of the Old Testament and the god of the New Testament are actually different gods, but I don't think this theory has much traction among people who think they know what they're talking about.
Actually the idea is very very old and seems to go back to Marcion of Sinope c. 140s CE with him saying the OT god was a demiurge created by the true God. This view partly survives in our bible as 2 Corinthians 4:4. He is also credited with creating the first Bible - "Paul"'s writings and a different version of Luke
maximara 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 January 2021, 08:38 PM   #367
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 69,515
Interesting!
__________________
Please scream inside your heart.
arthwollipot is online now   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 January 2021, 09:05 PM   #368
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,685
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
Ironically Doctor Who of all things showed that logic built from a flawed premice produces nonsense.
Considering that I've mentioned "unsound" several times in this thread alone -- which is the proper name for an argument when the premises are false -- I'm not sure why do you think you need to say that.

Other than, of course, AGAIN just posting random smart-sounding stuff as a dodge.

Honestly, at this point I'm wondering what your point even is in this thread. As in, at all. You just seem to pop up randomly to spew some irrelevant truisms that don't even seem to connect to the message you were answering to, or really to whatever was being discussed.

Originally Posted by maximara View Post
As I said before the tools to spot Piltdown for the fake it were available at that time and several scientists in the field said as much but because it fit the model that existed at the time (brain evolved first) these warnings were ignored. The model drove the theory and everybody ignored the evidence that a simple hand lens reveals (the file marks were formally mentioned by Franz Weidenreich in 1923 and people fore him as early as 1913 spotted the forgery).
Except, of course, that

1. That still doesn't answer the question in the message you're answering to.

2. you're just equivocating again. "Everybody" ignored the evidence? Really? I mean, you just mentioned yourself several people who weren't ignoring the problems. And there were many many more.

For a start, the whole thing was presented at a GEOLOGY conference, not a palaeontology one. Most of the actual palaeontologists were actually in the camp of calling it a fraud. The ones defending it tended to be more from vaguely related fields like, yes, anthropologists. Though even those were a minority, compared to where the thing was REALLY a hit: namely sensationalist journalists.

3. also you don't seem to understand how science works. Which you probably should, before criticizing how it's applied.

The fact is that at the time there actually weren't any actual hominid fossils from between H Heidelbergensis and H Sapiens or Neanderthals. Expecting someone to know a priori that the model of brain evolving first is wrong, expects pretty much omniscience.

That's not how science works. We build models based on available data. Usually they're wrong in some way. (As the saying goes, every scientist who ever lived was wrong.) We revise them if and when new data contradicts them. Or not, if new data supports them.

Yes, there were OTHER signs that shouldn't have been ignored, but the basic idea of going with the current model if the latest finds seem to support it is not wrong.

The idea that ha ha, silly scientists accepted stuff because it fit the model, is just... showing a profound lack of understanding how that process works. You adjust your model based on new data, NOT expect to know that a model is wrong before you have the data to prove it wrong.

4. ... which is what seems to get you down the wrong rabbithole. In fact, if you look at who ran with it all the way, most had some other agenda, than just wanting to validate the model or not. In fact, THE most common denominator by far were nationalism and racism. Comparing it to the current model was not the wrong part, nor the real driving force. Wanting to have some justification for completely non-scientific bigotry was.

Originally Posted by maximara View Post
And that was what Miner would pointing out about 1950s anthrology but he did it in a way that could not easily be ignored - as straight satire of the whole process.
It's easy to satirize, when you're not constrained by having to be honest. But it proves... what?

In fact, it just seems to me like it just goes full circle to what you were saying at the beginning of this message: if you lie about the premises, and equivocate heavily for good measure too, sure, you can take a valid method and arrive at some bogus conclusions. But unlike what you seem to believe, that doesn't mean you did a kind of ad absurdum disproof of the method.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 14th January 2021 at 09:31 PM.
HansMustermann 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 January 2021, 09:20 PM   #369
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,823
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
@dejudge
TBF that's taking it out of contex, although it's one of the rare cases where the out-of-context version is actually smarter than the original

GDon was really saying that he finds Pascal's faith-in-faith argument brilliant and convincing, rather than strictly speaking the Wager itself.

And frankly, that's even worse
. I mean, at least the wager is backed by some pseudo-maths based on game theory. I can at least see how that would look convincing to people who haven't put much thought into it. The faith-in-faith part, however, is one of the dumbest (and most extended) cases of bare postulates in history. Finding THAT brilliant is... less defensible by half, to say the least.

I am happy that you admit GDon found one of the dumbest cases of bare postulates in history to be brilliant and convincing.
dejudge 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 January 2021, 09:28 PM   #370
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,685
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
I am happy that you admit GDon found one of the dumbest cases of bare postulates in history to be brilliant and convincing.
Admit? Hell, I've been saying it since like page 2 or so.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann 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 January 2021, 01:23 PM   #371
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 6,504
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post

Well, I kind of did. It was framed as "choosing to accept Jesus into my life", but it was basically what you're talking about. My explanation? I was young, and was still working out how stuff worked, I guess. Hard to say.

Could we perhaps describe it as you being convinced of the truth of the Jesus stuff, because of the evidence of the happy smiling faces of those that had done just that? I can accept this as having more credibility than just choosing to believe.

I stand by my position:

I think the idea of choosing to believe in a god so as to be rewarded by that god if he happens to exist is nonsense.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 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 17th January 2021, 09:05 PM   #372
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 69,515
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Could we perhaps describe it as you being convinced of the truth of the Jesus stuff, because of the evidence of the happy smiling faces of those that had done just that? I can accept this as having more credibility than just choosing to believe.
*shrug* Frame it however you will. I definitely feel like I made a decision at that time. Of course, it was a long long time ago, and you know what they say about memory.
__________________
Please scream inside your heart.
arthwollipot is online now   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 17th January 2021, 10:45 PM   #373
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,685
Well, upon thinking about it some more, I think you SORTA can decide. Perhaps not as in directly "do I want to believe X is true", which probably almost everyone would spot the problem with, but as in "do I trust this guy?" Pretty much just moving the problem one step further.

And at least as a kid, trusting your parents comes very naturally. Well, at least as long as they haven't gone out of their way to sabotage that.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann 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, 05:32 AM   #374
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,436
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
4. ... which is what seems to get you down the wrong rabbithole. In fact, if you look at who ran with it all the way, most had some other agenda, than just wanting to validate the model or not. In fact, THE most common denominator by far were nationalism and racism. Comparing it to the current model was not the wrong part, nor the real driving force. Wanting to have some justification for completely non-scientific bigotry was.
Yet not even people who had no vested interest in Piltdown accepted even when the most casual study would have shown it was a fake.

Another example is before Plate Tectonics there was this insane idea of land bridges between the various continents (like South America and Africa) which was built on the theory that the continents didn't move. The idea that such a huge land mass could simple disappear is silly beyond belief.
maximara 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, 09:09 AM   #375
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,685
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
Yet not even people who had no vested interest in Piltdown accepted even when the most casual study would have shown it was a fake.
1. Actually fewer than you'd think, when you take out those with a racist or nationalist agenda. E.g., even just looking at the stark difference in acceptance between the UK (where some wanted it to show that the British evolved a big brain first; never mind that history said they're not the descendants of those hypothetical hominids anyway) and the rest of the world, kinda drives that point home. When you move out of the rah-rah-rah nationalistic chest-thumping circles, almost everyone (who was qualified to make that call, as opposed to geologists and whatnot chiming in with their uninformed opinion) had no problem saying that nope, those two aren't even fitting together.


2. Either way, that still doesn't say what you seem to want it to say.

Having the wrong model is NOT a problem for the scientific method. The existing model is what you're trying to falsify. All those existing theories and whatnot? Those are your model. And you're trying to prove that model wrong. That's how you get a better model. That's the whole POINT of science.

IF you're doing science, that is.

If you're stuck defending the model against new data, that's the polar opposite of doing science.

So basically all you're showing isn't some failure of the scientific method, but some failure to use the scientific method in the first place. As in, yeah, some people were not doing science. That's all there is to it. How the f-bomb does that illustrate any problem with the scientific method or its application, then?

Originally Posted by maximara View Post
Another example is before Plate Tectonics there was this insane idea of land bridges between the various continents (like South America and Africa) which was built on the theory that the continents didn't move. The idea that such a huge land mass could simple disappear is silly beyond belief.
So basically you're requiring omniscience? As in, to somehow have a fully correct model before the data or supporting theories for it?

Learn what science even means and how it works, silly, before presuming to criticize it. Your being too intellectually unequipped to understand it isn't a failure of science. It's just your failure.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; Yesterday at 09:13 AM.
HansMustermann 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, 09:12 AM   #376
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,824
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
So basically you're requiring omniscience? As in, to somehow have a fully correct model before the data or supporting theories for it?
Yes. It's the same "Science was wrong before (with wrong defined as not 100% perfectly correct and completed picture about everything immediately out of the gate) therefore Woo" argument.

Science has been wrong before it was corrected with more, better science.

Woo has always been wrong about everything.
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is online now   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, 09:15 AM   #377
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,685
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Yes. It's the same "Science was wrong before (with wrong defined as not 100% perfectly correct and completed picture about everything immediately out of the gate) therefore Woo" argument.

Science has been wrong before it was corrected with more, better science.

Woo has always been wrong about everything.
Pretty much.

I'm only surprised it comes from Maximara this time, really. Could have sworn they were way smarter than that. But I guess I can be wrong too
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann 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 Today, 04:53 AM   #378
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,436
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Pretty much.

I'm only surprised it comes from Maximara this time, really. Could have sworn they were way smarter than that. But I guess I can be wrong too
I am smarter then that. I think what you have missed is the point I am actually making: to even begin getting data you have to have a concept about how things work and that concept determines on what data is "valid".

For example, take the Christ Myth theory a debate that has woo on both sides because the there is the hypothesis that Jesus existence is a yes or no question rather then going deeper and asking the key question 'why is meant by historical?'

Is it Jesus had to live in the time the Gospels claim or can he have lived nearly a century earlier or 30 years later? It is that the gospels describe the highly mythologized life of an actual 1st century preacher or can he be a preexisting celestial being that the actions of one or more would be messiahs were added to? Was there a pagan group called Chrestians, is that as is claimed just another name of Christians, or is it a mixture of the two?

Or how about the Aristotelian Cosmology woo that dominated Western thought for about 2000 years that the most basic use to the scientific method would have disproved large sections of?

On a side note did you know many of the various silly experiments in Balnibarbi (Gulliver's Travels) were taken nearly verbatim from actual experiments by the Royal Society?

A point Burke makes in the final episode of Day the Universe Changed (Worlds without End) and one Extra Credits reiterates (God Does Not Play Dice - The Danger of Unquestioned Belief) is you have to have a model (Burke calls it a structure and Extra Credits calls it postulates) to begin to determine what the supposedly "raw data" you are looking for even is.

"Without hypothesises, preconceptions of the world, how could you even begin research?" Burke uses some classic optical illusions to show this a basic level and later says this model "provides a rulebook for the kind of questions you ask about the world because it gives you the theory on how things are supposed to work." It is when a repeatable observation is made that doesn't fit the structure such as dropping two objects of different weight hitting the ground at different times (Aristotelian Cosmology) vs what really happens) that the structure has to change.

Extra Credit goes into how that structure can blind you by using Einstein's unwavering postulate that you could be certain about key aspects of the universe. This is why he rejected Quantum mechanics even after it had been deemed useful by the scientific community: "God does not play dice."

And if that happens at the hard science level then what about the soft sciences like history, psycology, psychiatry, or anthropology? Or sciences that are a blend of soft and hard like medicine, biology, and archeology?

Last edited by maximara; Today at 05:12 AM.
maximara 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 Today, 07:43 AM   #379
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,685
Still not sure what the point even is.

Much less how it connects to the only point I was making when you started this detour: that yes, it's valid to apply a hypothesis on other values than what the original author did, and in fact we have the scientific method as an example of something that's BASED on that.

But ok, let's go through it point by point:

1. The data is what you need to explain. If it's reproducible or otherwise reliable, that's it. It's not "valid" or "invalid", it just is. That's what you need to explain.

The model is what explains it.

You don't decide what is "valid" or not, by how it fits a model. In fact, discarding data because it doesn't fit the existing model is exactly b-ass-ackwards if you're actually doing science. It's in fact the polar opposite of doing science.

The model may give you hints at where to look for more data that might or might not contradict the model, that you wouldn't have otherwise looked for. Like how having a GR frame dragging equation gave people the idea to do the Gravity Probe B experiment to see if it actually happens. But that's a completely different thing than deciding which data is "valid" and which isn't.


2. And it certainly doesn't prevent you from having data that you don't have a model for at all. In fact, for just about every single domain, historically we started at a point where we didn't have the foggiest idea of how or what happens, and we had to start making a model from scratch.

E.g., before Newton could figure out the law of gravity, we started at a point where we had NO idea why the planet orbits are what they are. We DIDN'T have "a concept about how things work." No, seriously, best we had was "because God moves them that way." (See, Aquinas.) It still was data that needed to be explained.

E.g., even the Aristotelian model that you mention, someone had to come up with that stuff in the first place. Why do some things fall faster than others? Why does the same horse pull an empty cart faster than a loaded cart? We had no idea. But it was data and someone had to come up with some explanation. Hell, they even had to come up with a system (not quite scientific yet, but still) that would provide an explanation.

Etc.

Sure, later some other people proved that model wrong by coming up with a better one, but that does NOT mean that "to even begin getting data you have to have a concept about how things work." If that were the case, no new domain would have ever gotten off the ground in the first place.


3. "Or how about the Aristotelian Cosmology woo that dominated Western thought for about 2000 years that the most basic use to the scientific method would have disproved large sections of?" is just about the most nonsense thing I've read recently, even topping most of the apologist stuff. It's really as stupid a question as asking why did Columbus sail to discover America, instead of looking on Google maps.

The scientific method didn't EXIST yet, silly. The whole struggle around the 17'th century or so was to replace the Aristotelian system with what would become the scientific method.


4. It also didn't help that the Aristotelian system had the church's backing. And not even the whole Aristotelian system. The Pope pretty much dictated what you can teach in a university, and what you can not. Even a whole chunk of the Aristotelian system was excluded.

And most of the personnel of those universities were clergy. And the Papal Inquisition cracked down the hardest on its own ranks. Things that you could maybe get away with as a layperson, were utterly not safe to say if you were a member of the church.

So, uh, yeah: gee, I wonder why didn't people use a yet non-existent method, during a time when you could be burned at the stake for deviating from the official method?


5. "It is when a repeatable observation is made that doesn't fit the structure such as dropping two objects of different weight hitting the ground at different times (Aristotelian Cosmology) vs what really happens) that the structure has to change." Uh, yes, so? Since the job of the model is to explain the data, OF COURSE it only changes when you actually have data that isn't explained by the existing one.

Basically you still seem to be demanding omniscience, as in, to have a complete and fully correct model before you even have any data to base it on. Which is stupid.

That's not how science works.


6. It's also historically incorrect, which is weird coming from someone with a history background. Galileo didn't actually need to drop two cannonballs like the myth goes. He actually could go jiujitsu style, as in, fully Aristotle thought experiment on it: what happens if you drop two cannonballs of different weights and tie them with a piece of chain. Cf Aristotle, on one hand the smaller one (which naturally falls slower) should pretty much be braking the larger one (which tends to fall faster), but on the other hand the whole body of the two tied together would fall faster than either of them.

He did an ad absurdum, really.

(And, honestly, going 2000 years without someone noticing THAT problem is the much more mind-boggling thing.)


7. You're including HJ discussions under science or the scientific method? REALLY? SERIOUSLY?


All in all, you seriously don't convince me that you even understand what science is at all.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; Today at 07:54 AM.
HansMustermann 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 02:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.