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.
Tags atheism , theism

Reply
Old 5th January 2018, 10:12 AM   #201
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,959
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
You get two internets for scoring a "point".

My list wasn't an exhaustive list, obviously. It was representative. But actually taking it as that wouldn't let you score a "point".

Your response is about as sensible as responding to "You can measure speed with a radar gun" by saying "Oh, so if I point a radar gun at something, it's moving?"

You have anything meaningful to say?
Did I have anything meaningful to say? You mean other than utterly destroying your claims that you can "scientifically" "test' love?

By the way, creating a more exhaustive list is not going to solve your problem when the list includes items that are not exclusive to testing for "love" and includes nothing that is mandatory for defining love.

Another fine example, my kids love me, do they feed and clothe me? hell no, the little dogs did not even buy me the socks I asked for Christmas!

Testing for something using vague, subjective and non-mandatory standards is neither scientific, nor indeed much of a test at all.

I get, tho, that you will not find this valid, clear, devastating critique "meaningful."
__________________
Justice for Flynn!
The Big Dog 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 5th January 2018, 10:17 AM   #202
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,959
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Define love.
I want no other, no other lover
This is our life, our time
We are together I need you forever
Is it love?
What is love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more
__________________
Justice for Flynn!
The Big Dog 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 5th January 2018, 10:19 AM   #203
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,897
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Did I have anything meaningful to say? You mean other than utterly destroying your claims that you can "scientifically" "test' love?

By the way, creating a more exhaustive list is not going to solve your problem when the list includes items that are not exclusive to testing for "love" and includes nothing that is mandatory for defining love.

Another fine example, my kids love me, do they feed and clothe me? hell no, the little dogs did not even buy me the socks I asked for Christmas!

Testing for something using vague, subjective and non-mandatory standards is neither scientific, nor indeed much of a test at all.

I get, tho, that you will not find this valid, clear, devastating critique "meaningful."
Yes, obviously

Because we can measure the speed of a car with a radar gun, but we can't measure the speed of light with a radar gun, it obviously means there's no way to scientifically measure speed.
Hellbound 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 5th January 2018, 10:20 AM   #204
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,959
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post

I do find it funny that's he's arguing that no one can recognize love.
Yeah, your claim was that you can "scientifically" "test" love, a claim that you have failed to support and the argument that you have proposed to support it is has been utterly destroyed.

"recognizing" something is absolutely not the same as "scientifically" testing it.
__________________
Justice for Flynn!
The Big Dog 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 5th January 2018, 10:21 AM   #205
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,897
Let's try a different track for a moment.

Tell me how you recognize love?

And it better be a way that isn't scientifically testable, because that's the argument that's being made.
Hellbound 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 5th January 2018, 10:22 AM   #206
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,897
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
"recognizing" something is absolutely not the same as "scientifically" testing it.
Prove it.

Give me one thing that can be recognized in a way that isn't scientifically testable.

And remember, you're demanding 100% conclusive proof from science (a claim never made), so your recognition needs that same standard of accuracy.
Hellbound 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 5th January 2018, 10:30 AM   #207
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,959
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Yes, obviously

Because we can measure the speed of a car with a radar gun, but we can't measure the speed of light with a radar gun, it obviously means there's no way to scientifically measure speed.
argument by irrelevant inconsistent strawman analogy fallacy.
__________________
Justice for Flynn!
The Big Dog 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 5th January 2018, 10:33 AM   #208
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,897
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
argument by irrelevant inconsistent strawman analogy fallacy.
No argument at all. Noted.

ETA: Simply stringing a lot of words together and claiming fallacy isn't an argument or a counter-argument. Not to mention you obviously don't understand logic.

A strawman is, by definition, irrelevant, so you're doubling up on words there.

As to inconsistent, what is inconsistent with what?

As to strawman, you argued that not all the things I mentioned are present for every type of love (a claim I never made, so a strawman in and of itself). In other words, because the same criteria can't be used for every case, we can't measure it at all. The analogy is perfectly apt to show the speciousness of your argument.

ETA2: Either that, or you're saying all love has to have identical characteristics...which makes me worry for your children/family (or feel sorry for your spouse/SO, either way).

Last edited by Hellbound; 5th January 2018 at 10:43 AM.
Hellbound 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 5th January 2018, 10:48 AM   #209
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,959
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
No argument at all. Noted.

ETA: Simply stringing a lot of words together and claiming fallacy isn't an argument or a counter-argument. Not to mention you obviously don't understand logic.

A strawman is, by definition, irrelevant, so you're doubling up on words there.

As to inconsistent, what is inconsistent with what?

As to strawman, you argued that not all the things I mentioned are present for every type of love (a claim I never made, so a strawman in and of itself). In other words, because the same criteria can't be used for every case, we can't measure it at all. The analogy is perfectly apt to show the speciousness of your argument.
Simply typing out a completely inapplicable analogy is not an argument.

"In other words, because the same criteria can't be used for every case, we can't measure it at all." Yes, now you are getting it! We cannot "scientifically" measure something that is not subject to objective criteria!

Lets take "speed.' We can measure "speed" because we have objectively established the criteria necessary to do so! We take our definition of a second (based on radiation emitted from caesium-133) and our definition of a meter (which ironically is defined as the distance traveled by light in a vacuum) and bob's your uncle, there you go.

Love doesn't work that way, as you yourself have just noted "because the same criteria can't be used for every case," indeed there is NO criteria that can be used in every case.

QED
__________________
Justice for Flynn!
The Big Dog 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 5th January 2018, 10:55 AM   #210
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,897
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Simply typing out a completely inapplicable analogy is not an argument.

"In other words, because the same criteria can't be used for every case, we can't measure it at all." Yes, now you are getting it! We cannot "scientifically" measure something that is not subject to objective criteria!

Lets take "speed.' We can measure "speed" because we have objectively established the criteria necessary to do so! We take our definition of a second (based on radiation emitted from caesium-133) and our definition of a meter (which ironically is defined as the distance traveled by light in a vacuum) and bob's your uncle, there you go.

Love doesn't work that way, as you yourself have just noted "because the same criteria can't be used for every case," indeed there is NO criteria that can be used in every case.

QED
Yet there are criteria that can be applied to each case, or category of cases, because "love" is not a thing. It's a word used to describe a multitude of types of affection, from familial, neighborly, parental, or preferential perspectives (to name a few).

If there are NO objective criteria to determine love at all, then it's a meaningless concept. If there's no objective criteria, then that necessarily means there's no effect on reality. That means that there's nothing there. It can't be recognized by anyone, because there's nothing to indicate it exists.

Several posts back I gave you the exact method to completely demolish my argument...I notice you've skipped over that:
Quote:
Prove it.

Give me one thing that can be recognized in a way that isn't scientifically testable.

And remember, you're demanding 100% conclusive proof from science (a claim never made), so your recognition needs that same standard of accuracy.
Anyone? Beuller? Beuller?
Hellbound 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 5th January 2018, 11:06 AM   #211
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,213
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Anyone?
A non-repeatable event.

A non-predictable event (e.g. a quantum event).

The non-existence of anything.

The velocity and location of a sub-atomic particle.

Any purely mathematical formulation (and even within maths we have proofs that certain truths cannot be proven, e.g. Gödel’s theorems).
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron 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 5th January 2018, 11:14 AM   #212
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,897
Originally Posted by baron View Post
A non-repeatable event.
History is not science, okay.

Quote:
A non-predictable event (e.g. a quantum event).
Wonderful! I'll go tell all those quantum physicists that they aren't scientists either. And they aren't really testing any quantum events, because they can't.

Quote:
The non-existence of anything.
Right, so there's no way to determine there is no square circle.

Quote:
The velocity and location of a sub-atomic particle.
Both are perfectly testable, just not to arbitrary levels of precision.

Quote:
Any purely mathematical formulation (and even within maths we have proofs that certain truths cannot be proven, e.g. Gödel’s theorems).
You seem to have missed the point. All of these are testable (that's how we can know those mathematical proofs can't be proven...we tested them).

Testable doesn't mean 100% accurate in all and every circumstance, to any arbitrarily determined level of precision.

And no OTHER method provides anything approaching the precision and accuracy given by science. Nothing you've given has any alternative means of recognition that is anywhere close to the 100% accuracy being demanded of scientific investigation. And in pretty much ALL of your examples, the levels of accuracy we DO have are due to science.
Hellbound 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 5th January 2018, 11:15 AM   #213
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,959
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Yet there are criteria that can be applied to each case, or category of cases, because "love" is not a thing. It's a word used to describe a multitude of types of affection, from familial, neighborly, parental, or preferential perspectives (to name a few).

If there are NO objective criteria to determine love at all, then it's a meaningless concept. If there's no objective criteria, then that necessarily means there's no effect on reality. That means that there's nothing there. It can't be recognized by anyone, because there's nothing to indicate it exists.

Several posts back I gave you the exact method to completely demolish my argument...I notice you've skipped over that:


Anyone? Beuller? Beuller?
Well, now we have gone from "it's scientifically testable" to "it doesn't exist" in absolutely no time flat!

And I have already demolished your argument and salted the earth where it used to be, but you have set them goalposts a moving and want me to "Give me one thing that can be recognized in a way that isn't scientifically testable."

Now who else sees the problem? The word "recognized" is totally undefined, of course, which kind of blows a huge smoking hole in your request that an undefined and inherently vague concept be "scientifically testable"!

But we persevere! TBD types the word "recognized" into Google news search... picks the first article:

"Postulator: Religious killed in Algeria will be recognized as martyrs."

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2018/01/...nized-martyrs/

"exact method to demolish" your argument you say?

Argument utterly demolished.
__________________
Justice for Flynn!
The Big Dog 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 5th January 2018, 11:19 AM   #214
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,943
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I want no other, no other lover
This is our life, our time
We are together I need you forever
Is it love?
What is love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

This isn't a definition. If you can't define "love" then it's no wonder you can't test for it.

Define the concept that you believe: a) means "love"; and b) is not testable.

Saying that you know it when you see it is a cop-out. Saying your kids love you would be nice if the word had a consistent definition. Otherwise, you're pointing at clouds and demanding that we prove they're made of cotton.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader 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 5th January 2018, 11:20 AM   #215
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,897
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Well, now we have gone from "it's scientifically testable" to "it doesn't exist" in absolutely no time flat!

And I have already demolished your argument and salted the earth where it used to be, but you have set them goalposts a moving and want me to "Give me one thing that can be recognized in a way that isn't scientifically testable."

Now who else sees the problem? The word "recognized" is totally undefined, of course, which kind of blows a huge smoking hole in your request that an undefined and inherently vague concept be "scientifically testable"!

But we persevere! TBD types the word "recognized" into Google news search... picks the first article:

"Postulator: Religious killed in Algeria will be recognized as martyrs."

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2018/01/...nized-martyrs/

"exact method to demolish" your argument you say?

Argument utterly demolished.
You really have no clue, do you?

The entire argument was that love and belief can't be scientifically tested. You argued that recognized doesn't mean tested. Things that can't be scientifically tested can't be argued to have "existence" in any meaningful sense. If you'd read the thread, you'd understand the context.

If there's no criteria to recognize love, then it can't be argued to have any meaningful existence. That's where this started from. You can't recognize anything without criteria, and given those criteria, the same recognition can be done scientifically.

If you want to talk definitions, you left love entirely undefined, then broke off from the example I gave to wander all over varying types of love. And yes, everyone saw that.

You've demolished nothing except your own credibility.

Wait, no sorry, your credibility is another one of those concepts that can't be said to have any meaningful existence.
Hellbound 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 5th January 2018, 11:22 AM   #216
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,897
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
This isn't a definition. If you can't define "love" then it's no wonder you can't test for it.

Define the concept that you believe: a) means "love"; and b) is not testable.

Saying that you know it when you see it is a cop-out. Saying your kids love you would be nice if the word had a consistent definition. Otherwise, you're pointing at clouds and demanding that we prove they're made of cotton.
This. So this.

For anyone one who says "I love so-and-so" or "So-and-so loves me", they made that conclusion using criteria that can be objectively tested for, either directly or by the effects.

Do argue otherwise is to argue that "love" is an arbitrary label slapped on anything one wishes, with no criteria at all, making it utterly meaningless.

ETA: Just as an add-on, even subjective criteria are scientifically testable...or does no one believe that scientific tests can identify mood-altering drugs?

Last edited by Hellbound; 5th January 2018 at 11:24 AM.
Hellbound 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 5th January 2018, 11:24 AM   #217
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,213
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
History is not science, okay.
So there's another one to add to my list.

Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Wonderful! I'll go tell all those quantum physicists that they aren't scientists either. And they aren't really testing any quantum events, because they can't.
You could try telling them that. Let us know how you get on.

Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Right, so there's no way to determine there is no square circle.
Actually there is.

Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post

Both are perfectly testable, just not to arbitrary levels of precision.
Excuse me?

Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
You seem to have missed the point. All of these are testable (that's how we can know those mathematical proofs can't be proven...we tested them).
Something that is observed to be true and can't be proven, that's what you asked for, that's what I gave you.


Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Testable doesn't mean 100% accurate in all and every circumstance, to any arbitrarily determined level of precision.
I assumed you meant meaningfully testable.

Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
And no OTHER method provides anything approaching the precision and accuracy given by science. Nothing you've given has any alternative means of recognition that is anywhere close to the 100% accuracy being demanded of scientific investigation.
You asked a question, I answered it. You can't expect me to answer a question you didn't ask, any more than you can expect me to believe everything is scientifically testable.

Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
And in pretty much ALL of your examples, the levels of accuracy we DO have are due to science.
Science is great, it gives us a lot, but let's not wank off over it.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron 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 5th January 2018, 11:25 AM   #218
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,959
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
This isn't a definition. If you can't define "love" then it's no wonder you can't test for it.

Define the concept that you believe: a) means "love"; and b) is not testable.

Saying that you know it when you see it is a cop-out. Saying your kids love you would be nice if the word had a consistent definition. Otherwise, you're pointing at clouds and demanding that we prove they're made of cotton.
Did you mean to reply to me? Because I am not the one claiming that love is scientifically testable.

Define the concept that you believe: a) means "love"; and b) is not testable.
__________________
Justice for Flynn!
The Big Dog 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 5th January 2018, 11:28 AM   #219
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,959
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
You know, I get tired of the whole "you can't examine love with science!" argument. And I think many miss the obvious response to it.

It can absolutely be tested with science.
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
You really have no clue, do you?

The entire argument was that love and belief can't be scientifically tested.
Flawless victory.

takes a bow.
__________________
Justice for Flynn!
The Big Dog 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 5th January 2018, 11:29 AM   #220
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,897
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Did you mean to reply to me? Because I am not the one claiming that love is scientifically testable.

Define the concept that you believe: a) means "love"; and b) is not testable.
a) Love is the willingness to put the welfare of another above that of oneself.

b) Observe the behavior of those who claim to "love" someone else. Count the number of times they give up things they want or desire to help the other person.

You're actually getting to precisely the point I've been saying.

For any given definition of love, there are two options: it is testable, or it is meaningless.
Hellbound 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 5th January 2018, 11:34 AM   #221
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,897
Originally Posted by baron View Post
So there's another one to add to my list.
We'll disagree on that, then.

Quote:
You could try telling them that. Let us know how you get on.
You're the one that gave it as an example of something not scientifically testable. We can determine the probabilities of quantum interactions, by scientific testing.

Quote:
Actually there is.
Right, so that argument is out, as well.

Quote:
Excuse me?
We can determine the position of a particle, but such degrades the accuracy of any measure of momentum (rather than velocity, but close enough), and vice-versa. Both of these measurements are made with scientific tests...thus, scientifically testable.

Quote:
Something that is observed to be true and can't be proven, that's what you asked for, that's what I gave you.
No, that isn't. I asked for something recognizable that can't be scientifically tested, and asked for the same level of accuracy on that recognition (100% accurate, absolutely no chance of error) that is being demanded of scientific testing.

Quote:
I assumed you meant meaningfully testable.
To a degree, yes.

Quote:
You asked a question, I answered it. You can't expect me to answer a question you didn't ask, any more than you can expect me to believe everything is scientifically testable.
It's either testable, or makes no difference to reality.

Quote:
Science is great, it gives us a lot, but let's not wank off over it.
I'm not. There's simply no better method yet known for understanding reality.

Last edited by Hellbound; 5th January 2018 at 11:38 AM.
Hellbound 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 5th January 2018, 11:36 AM   #222
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,897
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Flawless victory.

takes a bow.
Thank you for conceding.

IF you were an honest debater, you would realize that, in the last quote, I was speaking of the argument I was arguing against: Your and others claim that love can't be tested.

But of course, actually attempting to understand would undermine your internet point scoring.
Hellbound 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 5th January 2018, 11:43 AM   #223
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,535
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
love

/ləv/

noun

noun: love; plural noun: loves

1.an intense feeling of deep affection.
"babies fill parents with intense feelings of love"

synonyms: deep affection, fondness, tenderness, warmth, intimacy, attachment, endearment;

ETA: Of course that's easy, but you do hit on the problem: Just like "god" and "soul" people add a LOT of baggage to their definition of "love".

Frankly, we can recognize love...that's why we have a word for it. How do we recognize it? Either by how we feel (internal behaviors) and act (external behavior) towards one we "love", or by how they act towards us.

Both of which are amenable to scientific investigation.
Love is a description of multiple behaviors. One person's love is another person's hate. IE. Tough love.
__________________
All You Need Is Love.

Last edited by applecorped; 5th January 2018 at 11:46 AM.
applecorped 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 5th January 2018, 11:47 AM   #224
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,959
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Thank you for conceding.

IF you were an honest debater, you would realize that, in the last quote, I was speaking of the argument I was arguing against: Your and others claim that love can't be tested.

But of course, actually attempting to understand would undermine your internet point scoring.
Oh dear, you are supposed to be arguing FOR this:

Quote:
You know, I get tired of the whole "you can't examine love with science!" argument. And I think many miss the obvious response to it.

It can absolutely be tested with science.
You would not have us believe that the burden has shifted and that we have to show the negative of your claim, now do you?

Of course not. Seeing how you claimed it " absolutely be tested with science" and that you have absolutely failed to show this in any way, shape or form it would appear that my preceding point was indeed the winning one.
__________________
Justice for Flynn!
The Big Dog 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 5th January 2018, 11:47 AM   #225
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,897
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Love is a description of multiple behaviors. One person's love is another person's hate. IE. Tough love.
Exactly. But for any given definition, that definition can be tested against the behavior observed.
Hellbound 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 5th January 2018, 11:49 AM   #226
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,897
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh dear, you are supposed to be arguing FOR this:



You would not have us believe that the burden has shifted and that we have to show the negative of your claim, now do you?

Of course not. Seeing how you claimed it " absolutely be tested with science" and that you have absolutely failed to show this in any way, shape or form it would appear that my preceding point was indeed the winning one.
Funny, and here I thought I've given multiple examples of how different definitions of love can be tested. You then proceeded to use different definitions and claim victory.

Not to mention my initial post was the response to the previous assertions that love and belief can't be tested or are outside of science. No one's supported that with anything but assertion.
Hellbound 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 5th January 2018, 11:59 AM   #227
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,959
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Funny, and here I thought I've given multiple examples of how different definitions of love can be tested. You then proceeded to use different definitions and claim victory.

Not to mention my initial post was the response to the previous assertions that love and belief can't be tested or are outside of science. No one's supported that with anything but assertion.
"how different definitions of love can be tested"? First of all, that is absolutely hilarious for reasons that should be obvious.

Second, claiming something can be 'tested" does not at all mean the test is scientific.

Third, you have proposed this:

"a) Love is the willingness to put the welfare of another above that of oneself.

b) Observe the behavior of those who claim to "love" someone else. Count the number of times they give up things they want or desire to help the other person."

which demonstrates that you have unilaterally defined a term describing a behavior that is not exclusive to a relationship of "love" and then set up a "test" (which is "counting" ) which gives us data which .... what exactly are we to do with that data? Is there a chart you would have us draw up or something?
__________________
Justice for Flynn!

Last edited by The Big Dog; 5th January 2018 at 12:07 PM.
The Big Dog 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 5th January 2018, 12:07 PM   #228
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,897
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
"how different definitions of love can be tested"? First of all, that is absolutely hilarious for reasons that should be obvious.

Second, claiming something can be 'tested" does not at all mean the test is scientific.

Third, you have proposed this:

"a) Love is the willingness to put the welfare of another above that of oneself.

b) Observe the behavior of those who claim to "love" someone else. Count the number of times they give up things they want or desire to help the other person."

which demonstrates that you have unilaterally defined a term describing a behavior that is not exclusive to a relationship of "love" and then set up a "test" (which is "counting" ) which gives us data which .... what exactly are we to do with that data? Is there a chart you would have draw up or something?

1, 2, 3... look ma I'm doing SCIENCE!
Yes, I'm giving you precisely the kind of scientific testing that can be done. Simplified, of course.

1. Observation: Observe a phenomena, event, whatever you'd like to test
2. Define terms: what are you testing for? My definition is that that is love, and exclusive to it. If you have a different definition, then trot it out and I'll give you an example of a test for it.
3. Set up your test. I gave a very overly simplified example, but you could easily set up controlled conditions to test a specific situation. For example, a situation where test subjects are given enough food for a single meal, then have to decide whether it goes to them or their loved one. That's still simplistic, but gets across the concept.
4. Examine the results.

Again, your main argument seems to be twofold: first, I'm not using your definition of love (which you seem strangely reluctant to give , almost as if you know that if you do it will be amenable to testing), and second, you're demanding 100% proof and accuracy of any test (rather than the reality, that science simply gives us the best answer within the limits of the question).
Hellbound 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 5th January 2018, 12:18 PM   #229
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,959
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Yes, I'm giving you precisely the kind of scientific testing that can be done. Simplified, of course.

1. Observation: Observe a phenomena, event, whatever you'd like to test
2. Define terms: what are you testing for? My definition is that that is love, and exclusive to it. If you have a different definition, then trot it out and I'll give you an example of a test for it.
3. Set up your test. I gave a very overly simplified example, but you could easily set up controlled conditions to test a specific situation. For example, a situation where test subjects are given enough food for a single meal, then have to decide whether it goes to them or their loved one. That's still simplistic, but gets across the concept.
4. Examine the results.

Again, your main argument seems to be twofold: first, I'm not using your definition of love (which you seem strangely reluctant to give , almost as if you know that if you do it will be amenable to testing), and second, you're demanding 100% proof and accuracy of any test (rather than the reality, that science simply gives us the best answer within the limits of the question).
4. Examine the results. Ok, now what? I literally just pointed out that you have failed to explain what we are supposed to do with the data, and "examine it" ain't gonna cut it.

My "main" argument is quite simple:

you have wholly failed to prove this: "You know, I get tired of the whole "you can't examine love with science!" argument. And I think many miss the obvious response to it. It can absolutely be tested with science."
__________________
Justice for Flynn!
The Big Dog 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 5th January 2018, 01:43 PM   #230
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,897
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
4. Examine the results. Ok, now what? I literally just pointed out that you have failed to explain what we are supposed to do with the data, and "examine it" ain't gonna cut it.

My "main" argument is quite simple:

you have wholly failed to prove this: "You know, I get tired of the whole "you can't examine love with science!" argument. And I think many miss the obvious response to it. It can absolutely be tested with science."
If a person consistently places the others welfare above their own, then it's love. More trial runs under more situations over more time will increase the accuracy of the results.

Just because the criteria is subjective, doesn't mean it can't be objectively tested.

You have wholly failed to prove it can't be tested.
Hellbound 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 5th January 2018, 01:56 PM   #231
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,959
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
If a person consistently places the others welfare above their own, then it's love. More trial runs under more situations over more time will increase the accuracy of the results.

Just because the criteria is subjective, doesn't mean it can't be objectively tested.

You have wholly failed to prove it can't be tested.
You don't often see that blatant of an attempt to switch the burden of proof and to top it off, I am to prove a negative. HooBoy!

Again, I will point out that your "welfare" testing regime is the antithesis of "scientific" testing.
__________________
Justice for Flynn!
The Big Dog 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 5th January 2018, 02:12 PM   #232
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,897
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You don't often see that blatant of an attempt to switch the burden of proof and to top it off, I am to prove a negative. HooBoy!

Again, I will point out that your "welfare" testing regime is the antithesis of "scientific" testing.
That was the assertion that prompted my initial response, the claim that love and belief were somehow beyond science.

And that seems to be your MO. To simply point out, without any evidence whatsoever. To assert failure and claim victory on the basis of smoke and shadows.

So, let's try another tactic, if you actually believe your argument has merit.

Answer either of the following questions:

1. How do you determine when you love someone?

or

2. How do you determine someone loves you?

ETA: I'll even give you a third option: How do you define love?

Answer any of those, if you actually want to do anything to support your position, instead of just naysay and assert the usual bluster.

Last edited by Hellbound; 5th January 2018 at 02:17 PM.
Hellbound 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 5th January 2018, 02:13 PM   #233
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,198
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Did I have anything meaningful to say? You mean other than utterly destroying your claims that you can "scientifically" "test' love?

By the way, creating a more exhaustive list is not going to solve your problem when the list includes items that are not exclusive to testing for "love" and includes nothing that is mandatory for defining love.

Another fine example, my kids love me, do they feed and clothe me? hell no, the little dogs did not even buy me the socks I asked for Christmas!

Testing for something using vague, subjective and non-mandatory standards is neither scientific, nor indeed much of a test at all.

I get, tho, that you will not find this valid, clear, devastating critique "meaningful."

I wouldn't take your children's love for you as a given. I have seen many examples where this is not the case at all.

My brother embraced Christianity in his late teens and thought my father possessed by a demon, because of his lack of religious observance. There was little love there.

You may find yourself thinking about this when your children get older. Your kids may reject Christianity or .... even worse .... become protestant, and resent the years of religious indoctrination you subjected them to. The quality of their love for you might then become apparent.
__________________
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 5th January 2018, 02:36 PM   #234
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,959
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You don't often see that blatant of an attempt to switch the burden of proof and to top it off, I am to prove a negative. HooBoy!

Again, I will point out that your "welfare" testing regime is the antithesis of "scientific" testing.
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
So, let's try another tactic, if you actually believe your argument has merit.

Answer either of the following questions:

1. How do you determine when you love someone?

or

2. How do you determine someone loves you?

ETA: I'll even give you a third option: How do you define love?

Answer any of those, if you actually want to do anything to support your position, instead of just naysay and assert the usual bluster.
Now I am being gaslighted...

Let me repeat this again:

My "main" argument is quite simple:

you have wholly failed to prove this: "You know, I get tired of the whole "you can't examine love with science!" argument. And I think many miss the obvious response to it. It can absolutely be tested with science."


I actually bolded it this time. As such, there is no need to change the subject or try a different tactic.

Just support your claim. easy peasey!
__________________
Justice for Flynn!
The Big Dog 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 5th January 2018, 02:44 PM   #235
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,897
I have supported my claim.

You keep saying I haven't, and throwing around bald assertions, but you seem unable to give any specific reasons as to why my claim fails.

You assert the definition is wrong, yet provide no correct definition to use.

You assert fallacy, but can't show it.

You assert the test is unscientific, but give no details as to why. Simply your bare assertion. I don't accept your authority as a scientific expert, considering that in your time on this forum you've given no evidence of understanding anything about it (beyond parroting some buzzwords).

Simply naysaying doesn't defeat an argument. A counter-argument has to be supported just as an argument does. If my arguments are insufficient, then be specific in the objections.

I also notice you continue to avoid actually defining any terms or answering any questions that might provide a way to move forward in this. Because, of course, you know that if you do, if you can no longer rely on the nebulous and varying definitions of love to change the criteria from moment to moment, you'll no longer be able to deny that I'm right.

You're quick to throw insults, but seem to be sorely lacking in anything of substance.

So prove me wrong. We're all still waiting.

Last edited by Hellbound; 5th January 2018 at 02:46 PM.
Hellbound 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 5th January 2018, 02:57 PM   #236
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,959
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
I have supported mmy claim.

You keep saying I haven't, and throwing around bald assertions, but you seem unable to give any specific reasons as to why my claim fails.

You assert the definition is wrong, yet provide no correct definition to use.

You assert fallacy, but can't show it.

You assert the test is unscientific, but give no details as to why. Simply your bare
assertion.

Simply naysaying doesn't defeat an argument. A counter-argument has to be supported just as an argument does. If my arguments are insufficient, then be specific in the objections. I don't accept your authority on, well, anything.

I also notice you continue to avoid actually defining any terms or answering any questions that might provide a way to move forward in this. Because, of course, you know that if you do, if you can no longer rely on the nebulous and varying definitions of love to change the criteria from moment to moment, you'll no longer be able to deny that I'm right.

So prove me wrong. We're all still waiting.
You mean where I pointed out several times the obvious glaring flaws in your completely made up welfare explanation where you "count" sacrifices and conclude "If a person consistently places the others welfare above their own, then it's love," which is not only is laughably unscientific ("consistently" now there is a solid term, consistently as compared to what?) but fails to take into account the love that exists in the absence of "sacrifices" (such as a child's love for a parent).

Most importantly, the rebuttal to your claim (ie love "can absolutely be tested with science.") is again right there in your post: the definition of love is "nebulous" because it is subjective and the way a person experiences love differs for each and every person. That is why you cannot and have failed to show that love "can absolutely be tested with science."

Again, QED

eta: avid readers will again note the attempt to shift the burden, and that I have to prove him wrong. I don't have to prove anything, it is his burden, and indeed he has not only failed to carry the burden he has indeed repeatedly proved himself wrong.
__________________
Justice for Flynn!

Last edited by The Big Dog; 5th January 2018 at 03:00 PM.
The Big Dog 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 5th January 2018, 03:00 PM   #237
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,213
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
I have supported my claim.
You haven't. Subjective information cannot be measured objectively. The clue is in the word 'subjective'. What a ridiculous assertion.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron 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 5th January 2018, 03:01 PM   #238
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
If a person consistently places the others welfare above their own, then it's love. More trial runs under more situations over more time will increase the accuracy of the results.

Just because the criteria is subjective, doesn't mean it can't be objectively tested.

You have wholly failed to prove it can't be tested.
It is? I'm a teacher who routinely places my kids' welfare above my own. I don't love my students.
Fudbucker 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 5th January 2018, 03:04 PM   #239
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,897
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You mean where I pointed out several times the obvious glaring flaws in your completely made up welfare explanation where you "count" sacrifices and conclude "If a person consistently places the others welfare above their own, then it's love," which is not only is laughably unscientific ("consistently" now there is a solid term, consistently as compared to what?) but fails to take into account the love that exists in the absence of "sacrifices" (such as a child's love for a parent).
Gotcha. So you continue to rely on not defining the term in order to muddle the waters. Also continue to rely on the fact that love is a group of behaviors, rather than a single one. By the same argument, energy can't be measured scientifically.

Quote:
Most importantly, the rebuttal to your claim (ie love "can absolutely be tested with science.") is again right there in your post: the definition of love is "nebulous" because it is subjective and the way a person experiences love differs for each and every person. That is why you cannot and have failed to show that love "can absolutely be tested with science."

Again, QED
And for any of those subjective definitions, they can be tested. All that's required is to define the definition you're testing beforehand, and design your test and predictions based on that.

More bluster, more assertion, and you still can't explain why those multiple definitions of love can't be tested (you simply assert that they all, necessarily, have to be included in every test or it doesn't count. Because you don't understand, well, anything really).

I'm off to enjoy my weekend. Have fun with your "victory".

If you ever get around to making an actual, valid objection, I'll get back to you next week.
Hellbound 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 5th January 2018, 03:16 PM   #240
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,959
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Gotcha. So you continue to rely on not defining the term in order to muddle the waters. Also continue to rely on the fact that love is a group of behaviors, rather than a single one. By the same argument, energy can't be measured scientifically.
Oh well, now I have to define the term HE used in HIS claim ("You know, I get tired of the whole "you can't examine love with science!" argument. And I think many miss the obvious response to it. It can absolutely be tested with science.")

And I guess energy is a "group" of "behaviors" or something which is simply another terrible analogy like the speed of light analogy that I demolished by showing that speed is measured using OBJECTIVELY verifiable standards.

have a super weekend, tho.
__________________
Justice for Flynn!
The Big Dog 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
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 09:01 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.