Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Proof of Immortality, VI

 Notices The Rat is returning to the sinking ship He may have managed to escape some time back but it was only a matter of time before we recaptured him. I'm glad to announce that Rat is rejoining the mod team.

 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 !MOD BOX WARNING!

 27th June 2017, 04:36 PM #121 godless dave Great Dalmuti     Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 8,266 Originally Posted by Jabba - From 3634 in previous 'chapter.' - I'm still not sure, but more specifically, this is why I think we don't have to worry about any Texas Sharp Shooter. - There are 4 variables involved in the Bayesian approach: 2 prior probabilities, and 2 likelihoods. - In the lottery situation, if the winner can't be set apart from the crowd, we accept that the prior probability of a rigged game is essentially zero, and the fact that the specific winner had just 1 chance in, say, 10 million, doesn't carry any weight. - In my situation, I'm not limiting my claim to myself; I'm suggesting that we are all in the same boat. Consequently, I don't want to set myself apart from the rest of you guys, and the conclusion rests entirely upon the prior probabilities. Just like last time, this does nothing to address the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Each of our existences is one of many possibilities, all of which were unlikely before they happened. If you hold several lotteries, and some of them have winners, there is no reason to think any of them are rigged. __________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
 27th June 2017, 04:42 PM #122 godless dave Great Dalmuti     Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 8,266 Originally Posted by Jabba - Please say again why you would think that. P(E|~H) depends on the details of each hypothesis that isn't H. We don't know those details so we can't estimate a probability. We don't know how ~H claims the nonphysical aspect of human consciousness starts to exist, so we don't know the likelihood of one existing, let alone the likelihood of one existing and being connected to a particular human body. __________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
 27th June 2017, 05:40 PM #123 JayUtah Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 15,617 Originally Posted by Jabba - No. But, it does have a bearing on P(H|E). But that's not the problem godless dave is identifying in your argument. P(H|E) is the outcome of the inference. it relies upon terms that you have yet to compute correctly. The term we're looking at right now is P(E|H), which you must estimate as if H were true. It doesn't matter whether you believe H to be true or not. Until you properly understand P(E|H) you cannot assert that it affects P(H) -- your prior, and the proper place to express your belief in H -- in the way you say. The purpose of the statistical inference is to see how well that belief holds up in the face of new data. You're fudging that by assuming P(E|H) must be very small and cobbling up a pseudo-intellectual rationale for that assumption. Originally Posted by Jabba - Please say again why you would think that. Because that's how statistical inference works. As I have explained at length, you rely upon a false dilemma. You manipulate H and ~H as if they were, at various times, singular hypotheses and you hide the excluded middle in whatever you assume that day is not the singular proposition. You purport to have computed P(H|E) where H is obviously just materialism, but you wrongly believe it's all hypotheses that leave us mortal. You do not get to say that all other hypotheses lead to immortality when H is only materialism. You do not get to say that the probability of immortality is 1 - P(H|E) when H is only materialism. The hypotheses within ~H that lead to immortality are a subset of ~H; the rest are those hypotheses that aren't materialism but which don't lead to immortality. They are specific hypotheses which you have decided not to describe or test, so you can say nothing about them -- either directly or via your brand of indirection. For the sake of argument we'll call the best one of them K. You must compute P(K|E) and show that it is greater than P(H|E). You have not done this. You have relied upon an inference across a false dilemma, which is easily seen to be invalid. However we know that P(K) <= P(H) because incarnation as part of K would require the corporeal body, which is all that's required for H. You have yet to deal with this except to defer it to the indefinite future.
 27th June 2017, 05:51 PM #124 JayUtah Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 15,617 Originally Posted by Jabba There are 4 variables involved in the Bayesian approach: 2 prior probabilities, and 2 likelihoods. You already tried the "Bayes magically takes care of this" argument. It does not. You quoted from the last time you raised this argument, but you don't seem to have paid attention to the rebuttals that followed. Since you were willing to reach back and find your post, please reach back and find (and answer) the posts that followed. Do not simply keep trying the same failed argument over and over. Quote: In the lottery situation... The lottery analogy does not save you. In a lottery the tickets exist before the drawing. They are identified as targets by the people who chose the tickets and entered them into the lottery. All this happened prior to the drawing. You have not shown that people exist in any meaningful way before they exist. In fact, you frankly admitted they did not. You're trying to invent a new brand of semi-existence solely for the purpose of making your argument work. That's special pleading. Further, all this philosophical wrangling comes under the auspices of trying to falsify H by showing that H is prohibitively impossible given that we observe some bit of data, E. You cannot do that by adding speculative things to E or H in order to fudge that estimation. You must assume H is true as others have formulated it, and H denies any form of pre-existence -- abstract, imaginary, or otherwise. Quote: In my situation, I'm not limiting my claim to myself; I'm suggesting that we are all in the same boat. Asked and answered. The essence of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is not the number of bullets you fire, but the fact that you identify each bullet hole as the target after the bullet is fired.
 27th June 2017, 10:54 PM #125 Hokulele Deleterious Slab of Damnation     Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: The Biggest Little City in the World Posts: 29,571 Originally Posted by JayUtah Because that's how statistical inference works. As I have explained at length, you rely upon a false dilemma. You manipulate H and ~H as if they were, at various times, singular hypotheses and you hide the excluded middle in whatever you assume that day is not the singular proposition. You purport to have computed P(H|E) where H is obviously just materialism, but you wrongly believe it's all hypotheses that leave us mortal. You do not get to say that all other hypotheses lead to immortality when H is only materialism. You do not get to say that the probability of immortality is 1 - P(H|E) when H is only materialism. The hypotheses within ~H that lead to immortality are a subset of ~H; the rest are those hypotheses that aren't materialism but which don't lead to immortality. They are specific hypotheses which you have decided not to describe or test, so you can say nothing about them -- either directly or via your brand of indirection. For the sake of argument we'll call the best one of them K. You must compute P(K|E) and show that it is greater than P(H|E). You have not done this. You have relied upon an inference across a false dilemma, which is easily seen to be invalid. Another point that should be stressed, is that Jabba seems to believe that if one hypothesis is unlikely, the opposite has to be likely. What he seems to miss (as did caveman), is that both hypotheses can be equally unlikely. Existence is not guaranteed by the sum of the probabilities. It isn't simply a case of "well, if I didn't exist under this hypothesis, I must exist under the other", when it could easily be "I had almost no chance of existing either way. Lucky me!" __________________ "Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
 27th June 2017, 11:23 PM #126 Mojo Mostly harmless     Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 30,231 Originally Posted by Jabba - From 3634 in previous 'chapter.' - I'm still not sure, but more specifically, this is why I think we don't have to worry about any Texas Sharp Shooter. - There are 4 variables involved in the Bayesian approach: 2 prior probabilities, and 2 likelihoods. - In the lottery situation, if the winner can't be set apart from the crowd, we accept that the prior probability of a rigged game is essentially zero, and the fact that the specific winner had just 1 chance in, say, 10 million, doesn't carry any weight. - In my situation, I'm not limiting my claim to myself; I'm suggesting that we are all in the same boat. Consequently, I don't want to set myself apart from the rest of you guys, and the conclusion rests entirely upon the prior probabilities. Jabba, to avoid the Texas sharpshooter fallacy here you don't need to set yourself apart from "the rest of us guys", you need to set apart the observed result from all the other possible results that could have occurred. If someone else existed in your place, and presented the same argument in favour of immortality as you are presenting, would their argument be valid? __________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
 28th June 2017, 02:00 AM #127 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 72,392 Originally Posted by Jabba - From 3634 in previous 'chapter.' - I'm still not sure, but more specifically, this is why I think we don't have to worry about any Texas Sharp Shooter. - There are 4 variables involved in the Bayesian approach: 2 prior probabilities, and 2 likelihoods. - In the lottery situation, if the winner can't be set apart from the crowd, we accept that the prior probability of a rigged game is essentially zero, and the fact that the specific winner had just 1 chance in, say, 10 million, doesn't carry any weight. - In my situation, I'm not limiting my claim to myself; I'm suggesting that we are all in the same boat. Consequently, I don't want to set myself apart from the rest of you guys, and the conclusion rests entirely upon the prior probabilities. You're been explained in detail why the fallacy applies, Jabba. There is no lottery situation. Especially under H. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness
28th June 2017, 06:27 AM   #128
Jabba
Philosopher

Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
TreeBranch

I think that by using Bayesian statistics, I can virtually disprove the consensus scientific hypothesis that we each have only one, finite, life to live…

1. If something occurs that is unlikely to occur -- given a particular hypothesis -- the event is evidence against the hypothesis.
1. Untrue.
2. - True (You're right). I probably should have said something like, "The event is potential, significant, evidence against the hypothesis."
3. Still untrue.If a hypothesis predicts a wide variety of possible events, each of them individually unlikely, then one of those events happening is not evidence against the hypothesis and there is no reason to think it could potentially be evidence against the hypothesis.
The individual location of each grain of sand on a beach is very unlikely. That tells you nothing about any hypotheses about how beaches are formed.

4. - I think that's wrong.
- When an event is unlikely to happen given a particular hypothesis, it is potential evidence against the hypothesis, in that, it being evidence depends upon other conditions. Here, one of the conditions is that the "hypothesis predicts a wide variety of possible events, each of them individually unlikely."
5. I don't know of any approach to science or logic that views unlikelihood that way. You would only call a hypothesis into question if events happened more (or less) often than the hypothesis predicts.
In any case, the particular hypothesis under discussion does predict a wide variety of possible events, each of them individually unlikely, so we can both agree that in this case, an unlikely event happening is not evidence against the hypothesis.
6. - What if an hypothesis claimed that X should never occur, and X occurs?
7. Then the hypothesis is wrong.
8. - I think this is just an issue of finding the right words. Hopefully, the following will help.
- In re-evaluating an old hypothesis based on new info, the likelihood of the new info -- given the old hypothesis -- is a key variable. There are three (or,two) other variables -- so, whether it affects the probability of the hypothesis, and how it affects the probability, are indefinite. For instance, while an event could be very unlikely to occur -- given the hypothesis -- it could be even more unlikely -- given the complementary hypothesis.
9. - I should probably start all over.
- Being no expert in Bayesian Statistics, I’m having some difficulty appropriately introducing my claim…
- Obviously, new information can affect the probability of an old hypothesis. Bayesian Statistics is used to determine that effect.
- One of the variables used in the Bayesian formulas is the likelihood of an event – given the hypothesis that is being re-evaluated.
- Since there are other variables in the formulas however, the effect of that variable is indefinite – and, may be little or none. In fact, the effect can be “backwards” in the sense that an event that is unlikely to occur, given the particular hypothesis, can be much more unlikely to occur under any other hypothesis.

- So far, this is the first branch of my "tree." I like "tree" better than "map."
<snip>

Dave,
- I didn't start off very well, but think that #'s 8 and 9 express my first premise pretty well...

 Edited by Loss Leader: Edited out reference to any other forum, board or blog
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

Last edited by Loss Leader; 28th June 2017 at 02:14 PM.

 28th June 2017, 02:17 PM #129 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 72,392 Originally Posted by Jabba [b]I think that by using Bayesian statistics, I can virtually disprove the consensus scientific hypothesis that we each have only one, finite, life to live… 1. If something occurs that is unlikely to occur -- given a particular hypothesis -- the event is evidence against the hypothesis. 1. Untrue. That should be the end of it, Jabba. Honestly, all you have is speculation and claims based on an ignorance of statistics, logic and science. No matter how hard you try, it will always be thus because it's been like that for five years and you have not changed your approach even when it has been demonstrated (clearly) to be wrong. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness
28th June 2017, 03:08 PM   #131
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,617
Originally Posted by Hokulele
Another point that should be stressed, is that Jabba seems to believe that if one hypothesis is unlikely, the opposite has to be likely. What he seems to miss (as did caveman), is that both hypotheses can be equally unlikely. Existence is not guaranteed by the sum of the probabilities. It isn't simply a case of "well, if I didn't exist under this hypothesis, I must exist under the other", when it could easily be "I had almost no chance of existing either way. Lucky me!"
P(H|E) + P(~H|E) = 1 for some event E, but that holds only as long as H and ~H are properly formulated as true complements -- which they most certainly are not in Jabba's model. Jabba's is a false dilemma, but it is by that false-dilemma logic he proposes to compute something else and infer from it that his own belief must therefore be true. <snip>

Take two singular hypotheses, K and L, from the universal hypothesis set, and you most certainly cannot say P(K|E) + P(L|E) = 1. This is what you seem to be trying to say, and what Jabba's model actually turns out to be.

 Edited by Loss Leader: Edited for Rule 11

Last edited by Loss Leader; 28th June 2017 at 04:51 PM.

 28th June 2017, 03:53 PM #132 RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon     Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Perfection, NV Posts: 29,212 Originally Posted by Jabba - What if an hypothesis claimed that X should never occur, and X occurs? Which hypothesis claims that?
 28th June 2017, 10:21 PM #134 caveman1917 Philosopher   Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,756 Originally Posted by JayUtah Oh, but we already showed that there can be no K that involves incarnation, for which P(K|E) > P(H|E). In fact, we proved that for any K that involves incarnation of a separately-existing soul, P(K) < P(H) necessarily. Just like the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, you seem to just want to set aside the problem and pretend it doesn't exist. I assure you it does. You proved no such thing. Your pseudo-mathematical musings do not constitute proof of anything. They didn't the first time you made this, nor the second, nor the third, nor the however-many times you've simply repeated this incorrect assertion by now. __________________ "Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos "We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons "Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
 29th June 2017, 05:34 AM #135 godless dave Great Dalmuti     Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 8,266 Originally Posted by Mojo Jabba, to avoid the Texas sharpshooter fallacy here you don't need to set yourself apart from "the rest of us guys", you need to set apart the observed result from all the other possible results that could have occurred. This is what I was clumsily trying to say. Shooting 7 billion bullets at a barn and then circling the bullet holes and saying "what are the odds I would hit these 7 billion targets?" is still the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. __________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
 29th June 2017, 06:53 AM #136 JayUtah Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 15,617 Originally Posted by Jabba [b]I think that by using Bayesian statistics, I can virtually disprove the consensus scientific hypothesis that we each have only one, finite, life to live… I note that you still continue to misstate your original proposition. You said you thought you could essentially prove immortality, not disprove some other thing. This is the second time you've tried to soften your proposition in the face of challenge. The first was when you admitted you couldn't prove immortality and suggested you should just prove "immateriality" instead, and the rest would somehow follow. Shall we consider that previous admission still operative? In any case, you don't have your critics' leave to soften your proposition. You don't have their leave to change your affirmative case into a vague indirect negative one. Please stick to the original point, which is your proffered proof of immortality.
 29th June 2017, 01:48 PM #138 Toontown Philosopher     Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 6,381 Originally Posted by Mojo Jabba, to avoid the Texas sharpshooter fallacy here you don't need to set yourself apart from "the rest of us guys", you need to set apart the observed result from all the other possible results that could have occurred. That seems simple enough. The atoms that compose my brain form a significantly different result from those atoms being scattered about the universe in a giganogargantuan number of alternate random configurations. Which is what should have happened, given standard big bang theory. Any possible universe could have come out of the hot quantum stew of the Planck era. This singular result is the only result I would be able to observe, (given Jabba's interpretation of H). That fact sets it apart, from the subjective perspective the formula takes, relative to Jabba's interpretation of H. It's not a TS fallacy to be aware of that difference. One need only be aware of all the other possibilities that existed at the beginning of the Planck era. As long as all possibilies are considered, there is no fallacy. OTC, it is fallacious to ignore the Planck era and it's gigagargantuan number of other possible universes, simply because you are aware of them only because a specific one of those possibilities emerged. Awareness of all those other possibilities means, essentially, that standard big bang theory predicts that this particular brain should not exist, with a ridiculously high degree of certainty. Jabba's interpretation of H is that this particular brain is the only thing that could ever be "me". Originally Posted by Mojo If someone else existed in your place, and presented the same argument in favour of immortality as you are presenting, would their argument be valid? The fact that you ask this question suggests you may not grasp the subjective perspective of Jabba's formula. Anyone can subjectively apply the formula to herself. __________________ "I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
 29th June 2017, 03:01 PM #139 Mojo Mostly harmless     Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 30,231 Originally Posted by JayUtah I note that you still continue to misstate your original proposition. You said you thought you could essentially prove immortality, not disprove some other thing. His argument is designed to 'disprove' pretty much anything it is applied to. If we define H as the hypothesis that Jabba has an immortal soul, it 'disproves' that. __________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
 29th June 2017, 06:26 PM #141 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 72,392 Originally Posted by Jabba (To be continued) No, stop it. Stop re-hashing the same claims and definitions and speculations over and over. You've been asked questions and you've all dodged them in order to get into this new pet project of yours. Quit it and answer this: Originally Posted by Argumemnon Originally Posted by Jabba One of those reasons is that there are many more selves now than there used to be. There are also more cars than 100 years ago. How is this an argument for a pool of potential selves? __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness
 29th June 2017, 08:40 PM #142 JimOfAllTrades Critical Thinker   Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 423 Originally Posted by Toontown Anyone can subjectively apply the formula to herself. Which would seem to mean that there is no difference between you, me, Jabba, or anyone else, and therefore nothing special about our existence as opposed to anyone else's existence. If a gajillion different outcomes are all equally probable or improbable, but one will definitely happen, then the fact that one does happen doesn't seem to me to be anything out of the ordinary.
 30th June 2017, 05:52 AM #143 Jabba Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 5,613 Dave, - I now suspect that I was wrong about the Bayesian formulas accounting for the sharpshooter fallacy... Not to say that I won't change my mind (again), but for now I'm thinking that if there's nothing to set me apart from the crowd, the unlikelihood of my current existence, under the hypothesis being evaluated, has no relevance to the posterior probability of that hypothesis -- whoever exists will have that same unlikelihood. - I know that's what you've been saying all along, but I was beginning to think that I might have a clear savior for my 'targetness' -- the formula itself! - Anyway, I don't think so anymore... - Not to worry -- I have a better savior: targetness. A target doesn't need to be pre-selected. More to come. - But again, a theorist often has a 'feel' for a hypothesis before he/she can express it effectively. __________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
 30th June 2017, 09:58 AM #145 Waterman Critical Thinker     Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 251 5.10. - My claim is that to be legitimate, a target does not need to be pre-specified. I absolutely disagree with this statement as it is fundamentally flawed and typifies your failure to understand the TSS. If it is not specified in advance it is not a target that is sort of the general definition of the word. You can't claim to be 'due perfect' when you chip lands on the green and bounces into the sand trap saying 'I meant to do that' or what are the odds that it would land exactly 1.83 feet from the edge of the trap and not roll down the hill after bouncing TWICE on the green. Am I a good shot or what! I bet you couldn't do that in a million years. __________________ So that is how you do this...
 30th June 2017, 04:45 PM #146 JayUtah Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 15,617 Originally Posted by Jabba I have a better savior: targetness. A target doesn't need to be pre-selected. Yes it does, if the probability of it arising is to have any meaning. Either you really don't understand why the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a fallacy, or you're hoping your reader doesn't. In either case, do not simply try to find a different way of hiding it in your argument. You must know your critics aren't fooled by that. Another poster suggested you describe the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in your own words, and explain why it's a fallacy. I tend to think that exercise would do your argument good. Also, I'm still waiting for an answer to the dozen or so other fatal flaws in your argument. You have suggested that once you eliminate the Texas sharpshooter issue in your argument, it will be essentially proven. That would not be true. You still have the rest of the fatal flaws to contend with, and it doesn't appear that you're interested in them.
 30th June 2017, 05:12 PM #147 Jabba Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 5,613 - #144 was an accident... __________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
 30th June 2017, 05:31 PM #148 Toontown Philosopher     Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 6,381 Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades Which would seem to mean that there is no difference between you, me, Jabba, or anyone else, and therefore nothing special about our existence as opposed to anyone else's existence. If a gajillion different outcomes are all equally probable or improbable, but one will definitely happen, then the fact that one does happen doesn't seem to me to be anything out of the ordinary. Whether or not you find yourself "ordinary" with respect to others of your kind, I say you should be extremely surprised that you, specifically, find yourself, in particular, among the chosen, against the giganogargantuan odds that were stacked against you, in particular, by standard big bang theory in conjunction with Jabba's interpretation of H. Almost every universe that could have come out of the initial quantum shuffle, didn't. The one that did come out is the only one that would have included your specific brain. Sorry, but I can't state my POV any more simply or concisely. But no other outcome should be surprising, from your subjective perspective. Things had to happen once the bomb detonated. I say Jabba's formula is valid, but only from a subjective perspective. But if I am correct, that wouldn't mean Jabba's solution is correct. If you choose to ignore the subjective perspective the formula is specifically set up for, in favor of an objective perspective which requires you to believe you've beaten giganogargantuan odds (assuming you generally accept Jabba's interpretation of H), that's your choice. But when you do so, you are not actually debunking the formula. You're just defaulting to an alternative paradigm which you happen to favor. I say the formula is valid. I disagree with Jabba's suggested solution of it. __________________ "I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
 30th June 2017, 05:42 PM #149 RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon     Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Perfection, NV Posts: 29,212 Originally Posted by Jabba A target doesn't need to be pre-selected. A target can be post-selected but then it's just an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
 30th June 2017, 05:46 PM #150 godless dave Great Dalmuti     Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 8,266 Originally Posted by Jabba - But again, a theorist often has a 'feel' for a hypothesis before he/she can express it effectively. So does someone who is wrong. __________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
 30th June 2017, 11:08 PM #152 JimOfAllTrades Critical Thinker   Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 423 Originally Posted by Toontown Whether or not you find yourself "ordinary" with respect to others of your kind, I say you should be extremely surprised that you, specifically, find yourself, in particular, among the chosen, against the giganogargantuan odds that were stacked against you, in particular, by standard big bang theory in conjunction with Jabba's interpretation of H. Almost every universe that could have come out of the initial quantum shuffle, didn't. The one that did come out is the only one that would have included your specific brain. Sorry, but I can't state my POV any more simply or concisely. (snip) I say Jabba's formula is valid, but only from a subjective perspective. I see what you're saying, I think. But what is the utility of a formulation that gives different results based on my subjective point of view? (Upon reflection, this may be going into a derail of the thread. If so, Mods please feel free to not authorize this post.)
 30th June 2017, 11:38 PM #153 Mojo Mostly harmless     Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 30,231 Originally Posted by JayUtah A claimant's "feel" for a hypothesis is exactly why we follow the scientific method. It properly divorces all feeling and devotion to one's beliefs and lets them be tested against reality. When you tell us how emotionally invested you are in having this proof work, we don't have faith in your ability to police your own methods. "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman. Jabba is using cargo cult statistics. __________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
 1st July 2017, 05:44 AM #154 Jabba Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 5,613 Originally Posted by Jabba ... - But again, a theorist often has a 'feel' for a hypothesis before he/she can express it effectively. Originally Posted by godless dave So does someone who is wrong. - Sure. But, not being able to express an hypothesis effectively doesn't mean that there is no true principle underlying, and provoking, the attempt. __________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
 2nd July 2017, 03:31 AM #155 JesseCuster Muse   Join Date: May 2016 Posts: 825 Originally Posted by Jabba A target doesn't need to be pre-selected. If you really think that, then I don't think you know what the word target actually means. Target: A person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack. Select as an object of attention or attack. An objective or result towards which efforts are directed. Etc. The word target loses any meaning if you don't need to declare what you intend to hit or achieve before you try and achieve your objective. You're doing your utmost best to try and try and make everyone else think you're not guilty of the sharpshooter fallacy, but you're truly doing a lousy job of it. Either you don't actually understand what the sharpshooter fallacy is or you're being disingenuous in trying to sweep it under the carpet.
 2nd July 2017, 08:05 AM #156 Hokulele Deleterious Slab of Damnation     Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: The Biggest Little City in the World Posts: 29,571 Originally Posted by Jabba - Sure. But, not being able to express an hypothesis effectively doesn't mean that there is no true principle underlying, and provoking, the attempt. The term for someone who has to resort to convincing arguments rather than factual/logical ones is "con man". __________________ "Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
 2nd July 2017, 08:48 AM #157 Jabba Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 5,613 Originally Posted by JesseCuster If you really think that, then I don't think you know what the word target actually means. Target: A person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack. Select as an object of attention or attack. An objective or result towards which efforts are directed. Etc. The word target loses any meaning if you don't need to declare what you intend to hit or achieve before you try and achieve your objective. You're doing your utmost best to try and try and make everyone else think you're not guilty of the sharpshooter fallacy, but you're truly doing a lousy job of it. Either you don't actually understand what the sharpshooter fallacy is or you're being disingenuous in trying to sweep it under the carpet. Jesse, - You're right. I used the wrong word. I should have said "pre-specified." __________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
 2nd July 2017, 09:50 AM #158 Toontown Philosopher     Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 6,381 Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades I see what you're saying, I think. But what is the utility of a formulation that gives different results based on my subjective point of view? It might be interesting to see what effect the POV has on the results. Maybe one POV might turn out to be more informative than another. Jabba thought his POV could be formalized in a way that would be convincing to some people. Maybe it is convincing to some people. I don't know. Those people haven't had anything to say in this forum. __________________ "I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
 2nd July 2017, 12:56 PM #159 RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon     Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Perfection, NV Posts: 29,212 Originally Posted by Jabba Jesse, - You're right. I used the wrong word. I should have said "pre-specified." A target can be post-selected specified but then it's just an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy
 2nd July 2017, 01:27 PM #160 The Norseman Meandering fecklessly     Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 7,690 Originally Posted by Toontown I say the formula is valid. I disagree with Jabba's suggested solution of it. In what way is it valid and how would you suggest it be solved? Originally Posted by Jabba Jesse, - You're right. I used the wrong word. I should have said "pre-specified." Oh for the love of FSM. Since "pre-specified" is synonymous with "target", how, pray tell, would using "pre-specified" have changed anything? Is this just another attempt in a long, long, long line of attempts at thinking that if you change just one word, it would mean you aren't committing certain fallacies? Again, how would using "pre-specified" change anything?

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit