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

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 17th July 2017, 12:32 AM   #601
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Where have you shown I'm incompetent?


No, that was another guy. Keep your critics straight.


Your other critic simply noted that the article to which you have hitched your wagon does nothing more than discuss the confirmation bias, which is old at around here. The confirmation bias specifically discusses evidence that favors one's belief. What makes it a bias is that it's selectively chosen from among all available evidence. That rather throws a wrench in your theory that belief is devoid of evidence. Belief may evaluate evidence, but irrationally.
According to research, beings tend to adopt prior data regardless of new information.

Such new information may not surprisingly, be called evidence.

So, it is unavoidable that new information or evidence is ignored via belief.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 12:35 AM   #602
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,459
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Wrong once more, wise one.
Nope. This is a well-known principle in engineering, in the man-machine interface.

Quote:
"Indeed, the heuristic of anchoring and adjustment, which reflects the general tendency to rely on initial judgements..."
The initial judgment in this case is based on evidence. The author is discussing the principle that people tend to weigh initial evidence more heavily than later evidence. We observed this in the handling of the Apollo 13 incident and the Three Mile Island incident. It in no way establishes that belief proceeds contrary to evidence. It argues instead that a weighing of contradictory evidence tends to favor initial evidence. The key to the concept is that the evidence is contradictory. See Perrow, Normal Accidents for a thorough discussion.

Quote:
Thusly, the critics had been wrong all along; wrong based on the dictionary, and wrong based in cognitive papers that are reflected in dictionaries' descriptions.
You're still obsessing over the dictionary? And no, you have no idea what you're reading in these papers. You're in over your head, and your critics have decades of experience beyond yours that lets them know you are.
JayUtah 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 July 2017, 12:36 AM   #603
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Not explicitly, but you treat it as a sort of platonic opposite to your caricature of belief.



No.



I have. It doesn't say what you say it says.



Again, that's a conditioned statement. Learn to read conditionals.
Wrong JayUtah.

Article:

"Belief evaluation, even in the absence of frank pathology, has several limitations. People tend to adopt non-optimal hypothesis-testing strategies (Evans, 1989; Gilovich, 1991; Johnson-Laird, 2006; Nickerson, 2008). People, for example, tend to seek confirmatory information that supports their belief and be overly influenced by this information, but neglect information that is critical of their belief (Nickerson, 1998, 2008). People may also use inefficient strategies that waste effort on non-diagnostic data (Fischoff and Beyth-Marom, 1983; Evans, 1989; Johnson-Laird, 2006) or focus on heuristics (Kahneman et al., 1982; Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier, 2011; Kahneman, 2011; see also Gilovich et al., 2002). Indeed, the heuristic of anchoring and adjustment, which reflects the general tendency to rely on initial judgements and discount newly obtained information, means that knowledge received after the initial judgment may be distorted to fit the original hypothesis."
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 12:40 AM   #604
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,459
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
According to research, beings tend to adopt prior data regardless of new information.
Yes, people tend to weigh initial evidence heavier than later evidence. This is not proof that they are proceeding in "non-evidence" as you claim.

Quote:
Such new information may not surprisingly, be called evidence.
Not "may be called" evidence. It is evidence. And we discuss this thoroughly in the literature, none of which you've read.

Quote:
So, it is unavoidable that new information or evidence is ignored via belief.
But you forget that the initial belief was also predicated on evidence. Your theory is the belief and evidence (i.e., science) are mutually exclusive. The principle of first evidence simply says that people tend to weigh initial evidence more heavily than later-emerging evidence when the evidence is contradictory. it does not at all say that people attain a belief in the absence of evidence.
JayUtah 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 July 2017, 12:41 AM   #605
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Nope. This is a well-known principle in engineering, in the man-machine interface.



The initial judgment in this case is based on evidence. The author is discussing the principle that people tend to weigh initial evidence more heavily than later evidence. We observed this in the handling of the Apollo 13 incident and the Three Mile Island incident. It in no way establishes that belief proceeds contrary to evidence. It argues instead that a weighing of contradictory evidence tends to favor initial evidence. The key to the concept is that the evidence is contradictory. See Perrow, Normal Accidents for a thorough discussion.
Contrarily, beings are subject to ignoring new information/evidence due to confirmation bias, and thusly prior beliefs persist.

Originally Posted by JayUtah
You're still obsessing over the dictionary? And no, you have no idea what you're reading in these papers. You're in over your head, and your critics have decades of experience beyond yours that lets them know you are.
Decades of experience, and decades of confirmation bias.

That one is is older, does not necessitate that one is smarter.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 12:44 AM   #606
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,459
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Wrong JayUtah.
No, right. The quoted paragraph has nothing to do with whether the initial conclusions are based on evidence. It says that initial evidence holds sway. You're trying to parlay that into a claim that belief contradicts evidence. "Belief evaluation" is the operative concept here. You've swept it under the carpet.
JayUtah 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 July 2017, 12:45 AM   #607
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Yes, people tend to weigh initial evidence heavier than later evidence. This is not proof that they are proceeding in "non-evidence" as you claim.



Not "may be called" evidence. It is evidence. And we discuss this thoroughly in the literature, none of which you've read.



But you forget that the initial belief was also predicated on evidence. Your theory is the belief and evidence (i.e., science) are mutually exclusive. The principle of first evidence simply says that people tend to weigh initial evidence more heavily than later-emerging evidence when the evidence is contradictory. it does not at all say that people attain a belief in the absence of evidence.

A prior quote of mine applies:

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
Wrong JayUtah.

Article:

"Belief evaluation, even in the absence of frank pathology, has several limitations. People tend to adopt non-optimal hypothesis-testing strategies (Evans, 1989; Gilovich, 1991; Johnson-Laird, 2006; Nickerson, 2008). People, for example, tend to seek confirmatory information that supports their belief and be overly influenced by this information, but neglect information that is critical of their belief (Nickerson, 1998, 2008). People may also use inefficient strategies that waste effort on non-diagnostic data (Fischoff and Beyth-Marom, 1983; Evans, 1989; Johnson-Laird, 2006) or focus on heuristics (Kahneman et al., 1982; Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier, 2011; Kahneman, 2011; see also Gilovich et al., 2002). Indeed, the heuristic of anchoring and adjustment, which reflects the general tendency to rely on initial judgements and discount newly obtained information, means that knowledge received after the initial judgment may be distorted to fit the original hypothesis."
In fact, in the typical event that beings proceed while ignoring new information, that new information may be called evidence.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 12:47 AM   #608
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No, right. The quoted paragraph has nothing to do with whether the initial conclusions are based on evidence. It says that initial evidence holds sway. You're trying to parlay that into a claim that belief contradicts evidence. "Belief evaluation" is the operative concept here. You've swept it under the carpet.
That initial beliefs may concern evidence, does not suddenly purge the fact that beings may proceed absent evidence, regardless of when prior beliefs become invalidated.

This behaviour contrasts scientific methodology.

So, yes, you remain wrong JayUtah.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

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

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 17th July 2017 at 12:48 AM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 12:49 AM   #609
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,459
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Contrarily, beings are subject to ignoring new information/evidence due to confirmation bias, and thusly prior beliefs persist.
Prior beliefs based on evidence. The question at hand is the comparative evaluation of contradictory evidence.

Quote:
That one is is older, does not necessitate that one is smarter.
Oh, please. You're a newbie in this field, and abjectly ignorant of the other relevant fields. I was writing about the man-machine interface long before you were born. You're not the god you claim to be. Sure, I'll grant that certain people younger than I are more adapt and erudite than I. Heck, I can even name names. But they can demonstrate their erudition. All you can demonstrate is delusions of grandeur for which others -- rightly -- have taken you task. This isn't the first forum you've tried to pretend to be some grand master.
JayUtah 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 July 2017, 12:51 AM   #610
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,459
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
That initial beliefs may concern evidence, does not suddenly purge the fact that beings may proceed absent evidence...
Yes it does. The question is the weighing of contradictory evidence. Evidence is at play in all steps of the process. That people tend to weigh initial evidence more heavily that subsequent evidence does not in any way support a claim that they are proceeding "absent evidence."

Quote:
This behaviour contrasts scientific methodology.
You are not an authority in scientific methodology.
JayUtah 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 July 2017, 12:52 AM   #611
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,351
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
As I lack belief in all things, I lack belief in evolution, not surprisingly.
Do you accept evolution or not?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 July 2017, 12:53 AM   #612
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Prior beliefs based on evidence. The question at hand is the comparative evaluation of contradictory evidence.
Yes, including priorly invalid beliefs that may remain unchanging regardless of new evidence.

Science is not in the domain of holding old invalid/incomplete data, regardless of new paradigm shifting evidence.

QED.

Originally Posted by JayUtah
Oh, please. You're a newbie in this field, and abjectly ignorant of the other relevant fields. I was writing about the man-machine interface long before you were born. You're not the god you claim to be. Sure, I'll grant that certain people younger than I are more adapt and erudite than I. Heck, I can even name names. But they can demonstrate their erudition. All you can demonstrate is delusions of grandeur for which others -- rightly -- have taken you task. This isn't the first forum you've tried to pretend to be some grand master.
Inconsequential.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

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

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 17th July 2017 at 12:54 AM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 01:00 AM   #613
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,459
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Science is not in the domain of holding old invalid/incomplete data, regardless of new paradigm shifting evidence.
Nonsense. One of the most common criticisms of scientific practice today is that it favors existing, established theories over proposals of new ones. That's not inappropriate, since we want a high barrier to overturning established theory.

You're not a scientist, so you wouldn't know this. You rely upon a caricature dictionary definition of science which you treat essentially as the perfect skeptic's religion. You have no idea what you're taking about.

Quote:
Inconsequential.
Nope. You are the one claiming to be the "god" of computer science. In fact you're a recent graduate of a substandard program that has nothing to do with the claims you're making here. The fact that your critics are better educated, better experienced, and better informed than you are is not inconsequential to your claims. You're frankly arrogant. This arrogance leads you to make significant mistakes in the presentation and defense of your claims.
JayUtah 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 July 2017, 01:01 AM   #614
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
That initial beliefs may concern evidence, does not suddenly purge the fact that beings may proceed absent evidence...
Yes it does. The question is the weighing of contradictory evidence. Evidence is at play in all steps of the process. That people tend to weigh initial evidence more heavily that subsequent evidence does not in any way support a claim that they are proceeding "absent evidence."

"Yes it does" was the wrong answer.

Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove breach of rule 0


Let's break things down:

(1) Believer A has belief A.
(2) New evidence comes, believer A alters his/her belief, to give belief A+1.

(1b) Believer B has belief B.
(1c) New evidence comes, but believer B willingly ignores new evidence.

Believer Bs may be observed to not update their priorly erroneous beliefs.

We see then that belief is such that allows beings to typically ignore evidence, and maintain prior beliefs, contrary to scientific methodology.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

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

Last edited by Agatha; 17th July 2017 at 01:25 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 01:06 AM   #615
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Nonsense. One of the most common criticisms of scientific practice today is that it favors existing, established theories over proposals of new ones. That's not inappropriate, since we want a high barrier to overturning established theory.

You're not a scientist, so you wouldn't know this. You rely upon a caricature dictionary definition of science which you treat essentially as the perfect skeptic's religion. You have no idea what you're taking about.
Regardless of scientific practice (or rather activities practiced by beings that happen to be scientists) science highly concerns evidence.

Contrary to your value-less comment, belief is not in the domain of paradigms that highly concern evidence.

You need not conflate scientists that may neglect science, with science's description.


Originally Posted by JayUtag
Nope. You are the one claiming to be the "god" of computer science. In fact you're a recent graduate of a substandard program that has nothing to do with the claims you're making here. The fact that your critics are better educated, better experienced, and better informed than you are is not inconsequential to your claims. You're frankly arrogant. This arrogance leads you to make significant mistakes in the presentation and defense of your claims.
Inconsequential.

That belief opposes science, is but not manufactured on my account.

I shall now slumber, while you reconsider your fancy for beliefs.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

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

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 17th July 2017 at 01:14 AM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 01:20 AM   #616
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,351
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Do you accept evolution or not?
It's a simple yes or no question. Why are you unable to answer?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 July 2017, 01:24 AM   #617
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,459
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
"Yes it does" was the wrong answer.
No, it isn't. The weighing of contradictory evidence doesn't fit into your simplistic notion of belief-vs-science.

Quote:
Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove moderated content
Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove response to moderated content


Quote:
We see then that belief is such that allows beings to typically ignore evidence, and maintain prior beliefs, contrary to scientific methodology.
No. Your examples fail to note that the initial beliefs were formed on the basis of evidence. The difference between your two hypothetical samples is not whether the beliefs were formed on the basis of evidence, but by what policy the beliefs were modified to accommodate new evidence. Judicious interpretation of contradictory data is part of scientific methodology. You've received no training in that methodology and you've had little if any opportunity to practice it. You are not an authority on scientific methodology.

This is a well plowed field. I've given you references to the two most cited works on the subject. You apparently don't care.

Last edited by Agatha; 17th July 2017 at 01:26 PM.
JayUtah 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 July 2017, 01:31 AM   #618
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,459
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Regardless of scientific practice (or rather activities practiced by beings that happen to be scientists) science highly concerns evidence.
You are not an expert in scientific practice.

Quote:
You need not conflate scientists that may neglect science, with science's description.
Straw man. I made no reference or insinuation to derelict scientists. You have a romantic notion of science, gleaned apparently from simplistic dictionary definitions. Scientific practice is science -- the only kind of science that matters. Conscientious, honest scientists in the practice of their profession do not subscribe to the ignorance you're spouting. Scientific practice not inappropriately favors established theories over attempts to overturn those theories. New evidence is not inappropriately considered anomalous until it achieves sufficient import.

Quote:
That belief opposes science, is but not manufactured on my account.
Yes it is. The notion that belief and science are mutually exclusive is entirely your proposal. That's why you wrote a paper on it; you were hoping to force a "rethink" of the situation starring you as the principal investigator. You're groping for admiration based on erudition you don't possess.

Quote:
I shall now slumber, while you reconsider your fancy for beliefs.
I have no "fancy" for belief. But it's telling that you think I must have. I simply dispute your naive and simplistic formulation of the relationship between belief and science.
JayUtah 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 July 2017, 05:04 AM   #619
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,855
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You are not an authority in scientific methodology.
And the understatement of the month goes to.....
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon 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 July 2017, 05:06 AM   #620
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,855
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Inconsequential.
Your ignorance in these fields is irrelevant? Are you claiming divine revelation?

Show me your stigmata and I'll show you mine!
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon 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 July 2017, 05:26 AM   #621
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,777
A very entertaining thread. And an excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
Porpoise of Life 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 July 2017, 08:33 AM   #622
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,803
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove moderated content

Of what scientific value are you to humans?
Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove response to moderated content


I see you're basically spamming the same material with the same posting style all over the 'net, with the same responses from readers.

What is that old saying...? Now I remember!
Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove meme for consistency

I usually don't feel the need to resort to 'net memes to make a point, but I think that you may be better able to understand the message if I communicated it to you at your level. There is some doubt that the quote is correctly attributed, but the message itself is 100% correct.
__________________
"On the issue of immigration, our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." - California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

Last edited by Agatha; 17th July 2017 at 01:29 PM.
BStrong 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 July 2017, 08:41 AM   #623
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,803
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Loaded question.
It's every bit of that, but the MA prevents me from describing what it's loaded with.
__________________
"On the issue of immigration, our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." - California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.
BStrong 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 July 2017, 11:00 AM   #624
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,459
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
And an excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
Indeed, and definitely not worth staying up late again for. But yes, the argument does seem to fit a familiar pattern.

Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
I see you're basically spamming the same material with the same posting style all over the 'net, with the same responses from readers.
And normally we would be ill-advised to hold him accountable here for what he has said elsewhere. We debate here what he has said here, saith our moderators. But those foreign references elucidate part of the argument in that lately our self-proclaimed "god" of programming has tried -- as so many proponents do -- to gaslight his critics into believing that they're the ones who are out on the fringe. Arguments (paraphrased) such as, "What kind of brain would reject my obviously-cogent reasoning?" aim to undermine confidence among his critics by raising the possibility that their rebuttals are somehow biased or irrational.

When the data show a clear and consistent pattern of refutation elsewhere, among a variety of self-organized communities, that is congruent with what has happened here, we need not pay any further attention to the gaslighting. The references elsewhere act as a control.
JayUtah 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 July 2017, 11:18 AM   #625
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,803
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Indeed, and definitely not worth staying up late again for. But yes, the argument does seem to fit a familiar pattern.

And normally we would be ill-advised to hold him accountable here for what he has said elsewhere. We debate here what he has said here, saith our moderators. But those foreign references elucidate part of the argument in that lately our self-proclaimed "god" of programming has tried -- as so many proponents do -- to gaslight his critics into believing that they're the ones who are out on the fringe. Arguments (paraphrased) such as, "What kind of brain would reject my obviously-cogent reasoning?" aim to undermine confidence among his critics by raising the possibility that their rebuttals are somehow biased or irrational.

When the data show a clear and consistent pattern of refutation elsewhere, among a variety of self-organized communities, that is congruent with what has happened here, we need not pay any further attention to the gaslighting. The references elsewhere act as a control.
I hesitated before posting it and did not reference specific details - this isn't my house - and I do intend to post within the MA.

It is an interesting thing and we've certainly seen it in the JFK assassination threads, where folks breeze on in, post their boilerplate argument in favor of their CT - which failed in other venues previously - and they seem genuinely surprised when the CT that failed elsewhere fails here, hence the meme I posted.

I just hope you guys go easy on the drinking game. This thread is a liver killer if I've ever seen one.
__________________
"On the issue of immigration, our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." - California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.
BStrong 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 July 2017, 12:37 PM   #626
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 11,361
Mod Warning I am temporarily closing this thread while I clean out the many rule breaches. I will reopen it as soon as I can. Do not attempt to restart or move the discussion into another thread during the time this thread is closed.
Posted By:Agatha
__________________
London, Hamburg, Paris, Rome, Rio, Hong Kong, Tokyo; L.A., New York, Amsterdam, Monte Carlo, Shard End and...

Vodka kills salmonella and all other enemies of freedom for sure - Nationalcosmopolitan
Agatha 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 July 2017, 01:36 PM   #627
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 11,361
Mod Warning I am reopening this thread, but given the amount of edits I have had to make in the last 160 posts alone - I only went back four pages - I am reopening it on moderated status.

As I am sure most of you are aware, this means that in order for your post to be approved, you must ensure it complies in every respect with the MA.

For the avoidance of doubt, the Mod Team will not approve any more graphics in this thread while it is on moderated status unless they are essential to a proper understanding of the post, and where such an understanding cannot be gained by a link.
Posted By:Agatha
__________________
London, Hamburg, Paris, Rome, Rio, Hong Kong, Tokyo; L.A., New York, Amsterdam, Monte Carlo, Shard End and...

Vodka kills salmonella and all other enemies of freedom for sure - Nationalcosmopolitan
Agatha 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 July 2017, 03:00 PM   #628
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
 
Nay_Sayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,168
If I understand what PGJ is saying then I pose the following;

What about if Believer A has belief A. Evidence comes along and Believer A alters their views but it turns out that the evidence was deliberately skewed and the methodology for it flawed.

It would seem the belief plays no part in this hypothetical and the fault lies in faulty evidence and methodology.
__________________
I AM THE DREADED PAPIER-MÂCHÉ CENSOR!
------------------------------------------------
I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds.
----------------------------------------------
Proud woo denier
Nay_Sayer 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 July 2017, 05:29 PM   #629
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
I hesitated before posting it and did not reference specific details - this isn't my house - and I do intend to post within the MA.

It is an interesting thing and we've certainly seen it in the JFK assassination threads, where folks breeze on in, post their boilerplate argument in favor of their CT - which failed in other venues previously - and they seem genuinely surprised when the CT that failed elsewhere fails here, hence the meme I posted.

I just hope you guys go easy on the drinking game. This thread is a liver killer if I've ever seen one.
The sequence, whether received or not, is empirically observed.

FOOTNOTE:
While some users reject facts, others from elsewhere, including ScienceForums, had promptly come to observe belief's science opposing nature as valid.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 05:42 PM   #630
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Indeed, and definitely not worth staying up late again for. But yes, the argument does seem to fit a familiar pattern.



And normally we would be ill-advised to hold him accountable here for what he has said elsewhere. We debate here what he has said here, saith our moderators. But those foreign references elucidate part of the argument in that lately our self-proclaimed "god" of programming has tried -- as so many proponents do -- to gaslight his critics into believing that they're the ones who are out on the fringe. Arguments (paraphrased) such as, "What kind of brain would reject my obviously-cogent reasoning?" aim to undermine confidence among his critics by raising the possibility that their rebuttals are somehow biased or irrational.

When the data show a clear and consistent pattern of refutation elsewhere, among a variety of self-organized communities, that is congruent with what has happened here, we need not pay any further attention to the gaslighting. The references elsewhere act as a control.

Recall our cycle:

(1) JayUtah: The dictionary alone can't be used to verify belief's science opposing nature. Neuroscience is also required.

(2) ProgrammingGodJordan: "Presents neuroscience papers, that show that believers tend to ignore evidence. (be it initial or subsequent)"

(3) JayUtah: (Changes goal posts) "Scientists are also observed to ignore evidence, and its a critical problem in society."

(4) ProgrammingGodJordan: "That scientists practice such that science is neglected, does not suddenly warp science's definition to be that which ignores evidence."

Thusly, it is reasonable to ask: What type of brain rejects that belief, opposes science?




FOOTNOTE:

As I mentioned prior, users via science aligned forums tend to promptly observe non-beliefism (especially its underlining of belief's neglectful science opposing nature) as valid.

That some beings embrace scientific beliefs, does not suddenly remove the fact that belief does not predominantly occur on evidence, as reflected in neuroscience research shown, and common dictionary definitions.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 06:00 PM   #631
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
It's a simple yes or no question. Why are you unable to answer?
Based on the evidence, evolution is valid.

Anyway, no, I have zero beliefs, and so, not surprisingly:

(1) I don't believe in myself.
(2) I don't believe in science. (evolution is a part of science...)


FOOTNOTE:

One need not believe in science, such that science holds true.

Recall that belief (having low concern for evidence) opposes science. (that has high evidence concern)
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 06:51 PM   #632
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No, it isn't. The weighing of contradictory evidence doesn't fit into your simplistic notion of belief-vs-science.


Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove response to moderated content




No. Your examples fail to note that the initial beliefs were formed on the basis of evidence. The difference between your two hypothetical samples is not whether the beliefs were formed on the basis of evidence, but by what policy the beliefs were modified to accommodate new evidence. Judicious interpretation of contradictory data is part of scientific methodology. You've received no training in that methodology and you've had little if any opportunity to practice it. You are not an authority on scientific methodology.

This is a well plowed field. I've given you references to the two most cited works on the subject. You apparently don't care.
Let us not ignore the information.

As the article expresses, beyond the scope of initial belief establishment, in the belief evaluation phase, beings tend to ignore new information.

This contrasts science, as new theories are expressed as empirically demonstrable/reproducible, this evidence is not typically ignored.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 06:53 PM   #633
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
It's every bit of that, but the MA prevents me from describing what it's loaded with.
Invalid.
Neuroscience papers show that believers tend to ignore new evidence. (i.e. belief ultimately has a low concern for evidence)
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 09:25 PM   #634
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,398
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Don't you tire of being wrong?

Here is the remainder of the article:

The significant limitations of ordinary belief evaluation could also lead to the acceptance of unusual beliefs in the absence of pathology (Pechey and Halligan, 2011). The tendency to seek confirmatory evidence and be overly influenced by it, in particular, could lead to the acceptance or entertainment of unusual beliefs.

Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove picture for rule 6


FOOTNOTE:
O 'wise' one, what is it that the beings are confirming, if not belief? (Although the article had long specified belief)
*sigh* Don't you ever tire of being wrong? Confirmation bias is exactly what it's dealing with, and confirmation bias deals with how people evaluate what to accept. Yes, beliefs are involved when what's in question is how potential beliefs are being evaluated. No, the article doesn't even remotely support your contention that belief opposes science when it talks about confirmation bias.

Going further, non-beliefism couldn't even potentially solve the issue of confirmation bias. Rather, given how superficial and fallacious as it is, at best, it leaves one quite vulnerable to confirmation bias.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas 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 July 2017, 09:33 PM   #635
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,398
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Rather than ignore, I underlined the negative impact that belief designates with respect to science, as is evidenced by cognitive papers on belief..
Hardly. You underlined that some systems of belief have a negative effect on the acceptance of science. This is entirely true... some beliefs are anti-science. You then tried to declare victory repeatedly and without actually addressing any of the counterarguments. For example, one of them was that there are also very pro-science belief systems that have had positive impacts on the acceptance of science and that fact alone would be entirely sufficient to demonstrate that your argument does not hold up to even superficial scrutiny.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas 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 18th July 2017, 12:03 AM   #636
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,398
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Rather than ignore, I underlined the negative impact that belief designates with respect to science, as is evidenced by cognitive papers on belief..
To add to what I said before, this kind of response continues to highlight exactly what I said before, though. Namely, that you're ignoring the nature of belief and the actual relationship between science and belief. But then, you seem to fail to appreciate that your logic applied to chemistry would lead to just as blatantly foolish claims like "molecular theory opposes the noble gases, because molecular theory deals especially with atoms other than the noble gases."
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas 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 18th July 2017, 03:03 AM   #637
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,472
I accept science, not because it comfort my belief, because after long study, and thanks to science, I finally was able to fabricate diamond, diffract small particle through germanium, study the spectra of SF6 and more importantly, refute the paper of a team on a molecule spectra and showing they must have had a purification problem.

So. Yeah.

Last edited by Aepervius; 18th July 2017 at 03:45 AM. Reason: corrected a few spelling must/msut
Aepervius 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 18th July 2017, 04:17 AM   #638
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,706
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
As I mentioned prior, users via science aligned forums tend to promptly observe non-beliefism (especially its underlining of belief's neglectful science opposing nature) as valid.

Can you provide any evidence to support this assertion? The evidence available on this forum suggests that it is more likely that either you misunderstood them or they were unable to understand you, or some combination of the two.
__________________
"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
Mojo 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 18th July 2017, 06:33 AM   #639
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,459
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(3) JayUtah: (Changes goal posts) "Scientists are also observed to ignore evidence, and its a critical problem in society."
No, that was not my claim. Since you've put my alleged words in quotes, please link to the post where I said exactly the words you're quoting me as having said. If you cannot, I'll h ave to assume you were deliberately misquoting me.

Quote:
Thusly, it is reasonable to ask: What type of brain rejects that belief, opposes science?
Asked and answered. Your theory fails not because a "type of brain" rejects it, but because your theory is inconsistent with the facts. The failure of your theory is not due to some property of your critics. Odd that in the rush to preserve your cherished belief in the rightness of your theory, you have rejected the evidence that disputes it. Is your theory therefore science, or just a belief you wish to maintain -- according to your theory?

Quote:
That some beings embrace scientific beliefs, does not suddenly remove the fact that belief does not predominantly occur on evidence,
Nonsense. If your claim is that belief is not based on evidence, then examples of beliefs based on evidence, not accounted for in your theory, exactly refutes your claim. That's what a refutation means. That's how evidence is used to prove points.

Quote:
...as reflected in neuroscience research shown, and common dictionary definitions.
No, your claims were not supported by the journal articles you posted -- you simply cherry-picked what you wanted from them and then misinterpreted that. As we've previously established, appealing to the dictionary does not provide you with an accurate picture of the relevant concepts.
JayUtah 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 18th July 2017, 11:17 AM   #640
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,803
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
The sequence, whether received or not, is empirically observed.

FOOTNOTE:
While some users reject facts, others from elsewhere, including ScienceForums, had promptly come to observe belief's science opposing nature as valid.
You're proving my point.

Rather than using science to prove your assertions are correct, you cite various sources that when reviewed don't support the assertions in question.

In reading your responses, it's clear to me that there is some process that you employ to interpret the data or material you cite to your own benefit and hand wave away what absolutely contradicts your theory.

Somehow in your pov you've convinced yourself through your belief in your theory while simultaneously asserting that your theory is based on non-belief-ism.

It in no way improves your theory that you engage in what you claim to reject.
__________________
"On the issue of immigration, our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." - California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.
BStrong 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 01:53 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.