Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-02-2016, 09:54 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 09:41 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It is not as uncommon as you may think.
Why do you double/triple check your work before giving up an examination paper?

Yeesss... I do not, however, double and triple check the works of Stephen Hawkins and like minded people. I accept what it is that they say.

Your posts would seem to indicate that you do not accept the works of Hawkins.. or Dawkins.. or Strauss?

Do you think reality as we currently understand it is 13 odd billion years old? Consider

This is something that Astrophysics/Astronomers/etc would say reality is.

How is your stance about such information?

As a side note, how do you think Caesar fared against the Gauls at Aleasia (Sorry, always get the spelling of that mixed up)

I am finding it hard to express my remaining confusion of your take on... I understand it's not the 'reality' you're questioning.. but, perhaps, what it is that people say/have written about such?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 10:00 AM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2016 10:11 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 09:54 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(28-02-2016 09:41 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It is not as uncommon as you may think.
Why do you double/triple check your work before giving up an examination paper?

Yeesss... I do not, however, double and triple check the works of Stephen Hawkins and like minded people. I accept what it is that they say.

Your posts would seem to indicate that you do not accept the works of Hawkins.. or Dawkins.. or Strauss?

Do you think reality as we currently understand it is 13 odd billion years old? Consider

This is something that Astrophysics/Astronomers/etc would say reality is.

How is your stance about such information?

As a side note, how do you think Caesar fared against the Gauls at Aleasia (Sorry, always get the spelling of that mixed up)

I am finding it hard to express my remaining confusion of your take on... I understand it's not the 'reality' you're questioning.. but, perhaps, what it is that people say/have written about such?
I seem to be editing the replies to your next question the same time you are writing them lol:
Re-quoted from above:
"It is not as uncommon as you may think.
Why do you double/triple check your work before giving up an examination paper?
In fact it is common practice amongst students to use all of the remaining time to review their answers before submitting their Exam papers.
It is the more logical approach to getting the most accurate answers.

If my current life goals requires me to walk on the moon then I would be fully justified in collecting as much data as I personally can before making a decision to walk on the moon.
You seem to think that physical examination of evidence is The only form of evidence I am referring to. It is not. I am making a distinction between never actually studying the evidence provided vs giving it some thought before making a decision. The former being blind faith in the words of another.
If my own personal data is contrary to the belief of others that I will survive the journey I simply will not choose to go to the moon.
If I failed to gather the physical data myself & I still have a strong desire to go to the moon then my next step would be to use the statistical probability of evidence provided to me by others coupled with the validity of the claims and then make my decision.
It's called the decision making process. We do it everyday, I only break it down into steps."
Not accepting the work of Hawkins or any other reknown scientists is not the same as rejecting it.
It is an agnostic approach to a belief system.
Withholding judgement until you examine the evidence yourself is one of the most cautious approaches to the decision making process.
In fact anyone that would argue the validity of a claim based on the reputation of person making it automatically comits a logical fallacy.
Why this is bad? History of the churches, the inquisitions, etc, should all show the negative effects of the decision making process when biased by authority of the one making the claims.
Very soon you will see me raise some of the most controversial topics ever to hit these forums and it will all be based on skepticism of societal consensus.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 10:10 AM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2016 10:15 AM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 10:00 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I seem to be editing the replies to your next question the same time you are writing them lol:
Re-quoted from above:
"It is not as uncommon as you may think.
Why do you double/triple check your work before giving up an examination paper?
In fact it is common practice amongst students to use all of the remaining time to review their answers before submitting their Exam papers.
It is the more logical approach to getting the most accurate answers.

If my current life goals requires me to walk on the moon then I would be fully justified in collecting as much data as I personally can before making a decision to walk on the moon.
You seem to think that physical examination of evidence is The only form of evidence I am referring to. It is not. I am making a distinction between never actually studying the evidence provided vs giving it some thought before making a decision. The former being blind faith in the words of another.
If my own personal data is contrary to the belief of others that I will survive the journey I simply will not choose to go to the moon.
If I failed to gather the physical data myself & I still have a strong desire to go to the moon then my next step would be to use the statistical probability of evidence provided to me by others coupled with the validity of the claims and then make my decision.
It's called the decision making process. We do it everyday, I only break it down into steps."
Not accepting the work of Hawkins or any other reknown scientists is not the same as rejecting it.
It is an agnostic approach to a belief system.
Withholding judgement until you examine the evidence yourself is one of the most cautious approaches to the decision making process.

Consider

Okay.. so.. how do you go about determining the.. 'probabilities' of what others have written/said then?

is it that 'All' physicist agree on the age of 'X' that you have enough information to make a decision on the veracity of the subject?

How about ancient history? Or even modern history? How much data might you need for the Kennedy shooting? Or the latest tornado storm results?

As for this comment; "Not accepting the work of Hawkins or any other renown scientists is not the same as rejecting it."

Again, how do you even start to evaluate the information to make a decision? To come close to accepting, rejecting or ignoring the information?

Consider

As for; "In fact anyone that would argue the validity of a claim based on the reputation of person making it automatically commits a logical fallacy." ?

Um.. you should acknowledge other's efforts in their chosen field, surely? I am finding your statements almost along the lines of,

"I went to the doctor, didn't trust their opinion so got a second result from a second Doctor... and thence continued until I'd exhausted all the medical practitioners I could see to gather a complete aggregate of their findings..."

It.. still seems ludicrous... That you with hold your accepting of recognized experts because... you don't... um.. Again, sorry but am a loss again for words...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 10:24 AM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2016 10:28 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 10:10 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(28-02-2016 10:00 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I seem to be editing the replies to your next question the same time you are writing them lol:
Re-quoted from above:
"It is not as uncommon as you may think.
Why do you double/triple check your work before giving up an examination paper?
In fact it is common practice amongst students to use all of the remaining time to review their answers before submitting their Exam papers.
It is the more logical approach to getting the most accurate answers.

If my current life goals requires me to walk on the moon then I would be fully justified in collecting as much data as I personally can before making a decision to walk on the moon.
You seem to think that physical examination of evidence is The only form of evidence I am referring to. It is not. I am making a distinction between never actually studying the evidence provided vs giving it some thought before making a decision. The former being blind faith in the words of another.
If my own personal data is contrary to the belief of others that I will survive the journey I simply will not choose to go to the moon.
If I failed to gather the physical data myself & I still have a strong desire to go to the moon then my next step would be to use the statistical probability of evidence provided to me by others coupled with the validity of the claims and then make my decision.
It's called the decision making process. We do it everyday, I only break it down into steps."
Not accepting the work of Hawkins or any other reknown scientists is not the same as rejecting it.
It is an agnostic approach to a belief system.
Withholding judgement until you examine the evidence yourself is one of the most cautious approaches to the decision making process.

Consider

Okay.. so.. how do you go about determining the.. 'probabilities' of what others have written/said then?

is it that 'All' physicist agree on the age of 'X' that you have enough information to make a decision on the veracity of the subject?

How about ancient history? Or even modern history? How much data might you need for the Kennedy shooting? Or the latest tornado storm results?

As for this comment; "Not accepting the work of Hawkins or any other renown scientists is not the same as rejecting it."

Again, how do you even start to evaluate the information to make a decision? To come close to accepting, rejecting or ignoring the information?

Consider
I don't evaluate unless my current life goals are affected by those topics with which these people are associated.
The scientific method does not require acceptance or rejection of theories at the onset but rather at the end.
It may seem a bit daunting for you to learn calculus and cosmology in order for you to begin to understand how they dated the age of the universe, but why should your belief system be thwarted by academic laziness. It is dishonest of me to make an "absolutely is" claim when I am only basing my claim on the works of others.
I believe it is better to withhold judgement about a claim until you have examined the information yourself rather than based solely on the words of others.
It is probably the very foundation of Atheism when you consider it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 10:28 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 10:24 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I don't evaluate unless my current life goals are affected by those topics with which these people are associated.
The scientific method does not require acceptance or rejection of theories at the onset but rather at the end.
It may seem a bit daunting for you to learn calculus and cosmology in order for you to begin to understand how they dated the age of the universe, but why should your belief system be thwarted by academic laziness.
I believe it is better to withhold judgement about a claim until you have examined the information yourself rather than based solely on the words of others.
It is probably the very foundation of Atheism when yu consider it.

Right.. So how many Doctors do you see about a diagnosis?

How goes your many and varied studies in pretty much every science known to humanity? Which seems what you have to do to form any opinion about anything.....

I am sorry but I find your position... daunting... Again I am at a loss as to explain my thoughts/feelings.

To say that you are un-accepting of.. pretty much everything until 'You' have 'Experienced'/'Ratified' it (Again, forgive me if my thoughts are wrong about this) I find simply mind boggling.

No
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 10:37 AM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2016 10:57 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 10:28 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(28-02-2016 10:24 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I don't evaluate unless my current life goals are affected by those topics with which these people are associated.
The scientific method does not require acceptance or rejection of theories at the onset but rather at the end.
It may seem a bit daunting for you to learn calculus and cosmology in order for you to begin to understand how they dated the age of the universe, but why should your belief system be thwarted by academic laziness.
I believe it is better to withhold judgement about a claim until you have examined the information yourself rather than based solely on the words of others.
It is probably the very foundation of Atheism when yu consider it.

Right.. So how many Doctors do you see about a diagnosis?

How goes your many and varied studies in pretty much every sceince known to humanity?

I am sorry but I find your position... daunting... Again I am at a loss as to explain my thoughts/feelings.

To say that you are un accepting of.. pretty much everything until 'You' have 'Experienced'/'Ratified' it (Again, forgive me if my thoughts are wrong about this) I find simply mind boggling.

No
As I already pointed out:
The belief system and the decision making system are not the same.
Your doctor scenario:
It has to do with a timeline my friend.
If I am currently ill and current data provided to me suggests that I need to go under the knife tomorrow then that is the deadline I have to gather more evidence (given the evidence collected thus far). I accept the claim as the best probability (as far as my own personal evidence is concerned) but I don't believe it to be the ONLY solution. The former is what drives the decision making process.
If before the day is over I gather evidence that suggests there is a better solution than undergoing the knife then it changes the probability for cure.
What you seek to tell me is that I should not question the doctors judgement by seeking a second opinion on the matter even though he is the best doctor in the land.
Have you ever heard about how Washington died?
Chances are he would have survived had he gotten some better second opinions.

As far as debates are concerned presuppositions should not be assumed although it is quite commonly used when both parties share the same presupposition. It is the moment the other party objects to a presupposition that things get heated.
I have objected to the presupposition that the Objective Age of the Universe "is" 13.8 billion years old, not on the grounds that I am a theist but on the grounds that it is still an assumption and not an "is".
When I hear people preach to me of an "is" I am within my rights to question that "is". I do not fear ridicule for questioning, in the same way many of the world's most reknown scientist did not fear ridicule for questioning.
I do not make "is" claims because they are subject to ridicule when proven wrong & rightly so, since we do not posses omniscience & science facts are always changing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 11:00 AM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2016 11:05 AM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 10:37 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  As I already pointed out:
The belief system and the decision making system are not the same.
Your doctor scenario:
It has to do with a timeline my friend.
If I am currently ill and current data provided to me suggests that I need to go under the knife tomorrow then that is the deadline I have to gather more evidence (given the evidence collected thus far). I accept the claim as the best probability (as far as my own personal evidence is concerned) but I don't believe it to be the ONLY solution. The former is what drives the decision making process.
If before the day is over I gather evidence that suggests there is a better solution than undergoing the knife then it changes the probability for cure.
What you seek to tell me is that I should not question the doctors judgement by seeking a second opinion on the matter even though he is the best doctor in the land.
Have you ever heard about how Washington died?
Chances are he would have survived had he gotten some better second opinions.

No

Again... your answer doesn't seem to resolve anything.

Your analogies? They kind of suck. Sad

I understand (In a way) you living your life in constant... uncertainty.

But your analogy? Of first the Doctor/surgery, seeking other information with the dead line? Dafaq dude?

It's an extreme case/example you're presenting. (Which, while I still am wishing banjo all the very best) it does nothing to answer the more mundane question of,

"So.. when you might think you are suffering a viral infection... What do you do?"

Really? Is your reply "Well.. I first search on line, then seek a library and medical text books. THEN seek multiple doctors..."

Really? Is your world view so steeped in skepticism that, seemingly, literally everything is quadruple-lly checked?

To then follow along with your comment about Washington?

Well.. how can you possibly trust the Historians who've related the tale? Consider

Your second analogy falls afoul, seemingly, of your own 'Super skepticism'.

Seriously? How might you even attempt to learn a new job skill? Consider

Since your postings would seem to indicate that any instructions given to yourself would be triply researched and second guessed?

*Shakes head*

Again, I am seriously bemused and now verging on incredulous as to your world view.

Much cheers to you seeking the best probability of literally every thing.

Edit: I see you've linked back to your 'Claim of reality' thing. I admit to alluding to it first, but a a completely different attempt at seeking understanding.

I understand the 'Not accepting things' but, really... to then post another possibility? Your counter comment in said case is effectively another 'Is'.

If your position is that no one can possibly know anything (Effectively) because you do now accept what it is that they say/claim they know until you have verified it for yourself? (Again, please correct me if I'm jumping off the wrong branch with this) then... yah, there's not even a beginning of a common ground to start a conversation with yourself. Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
28-02-2016, 11:24 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 11:00 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(28-02-2016 10:37 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  As I already pointed out:
The belief system and the decision making system are not the same.
Your doctor scenario:
It has to do with a timeline my friend.
If I am currently ill and current data provided to me suggests that I need to go under the knife tomorrow then that is the deadline I have to gather more evidence (given the evidence collected thus far). I accept the claim as the best probability (as far as my own personal evidence is concerned) but I don't believe it to be the ONLY solution. The former is what drives the decision making process.
If before the day is over I gather evidence that suggests there is a better solution than undergoing the knife then it changes the probability for cure.
What you seek to tell me is that I should not question the doctors judgement by seeking a second opinion on the matter even though he is the best doctor in the land.
Have you ever heard about how Washington died?
Chances are he would have survived had he gotten some better second opinions.

No

Again... your answer doesn't seem to resolve anything.

Your analogies? They kind of suck. Sad

I understand (In a way) you living your life in constant... uncertainty.

But your analogy? Of first the Doctor/surgery, seeking other information with the dead line? Dafaq dude?

It's an extreme case/example you're presenting. (Which, while I still am wishing banjo all the very best) it does nothing to answer the more mundane question of,

"So.. when you might think you are suffering a viral infection... What do you do?"

Really? Is your reply "Well.. I first search on line, then seek a library and medical text books. THEN seek multiple doctors..."

Really? Is your world view so steeped in skepticism that, seemingly, literally everything is quadruple-lly checked?

To then follow along with your comment about Washington?

Well.. how can you possibly trust the Historians who've related the tale? Consider

Your second analogy falls afoul, seemingly, of your own 'Super skepticism'.

Seriously? How might you even attempt to learn a new job skill? Consider

Since your postings would seem to indicate that any instructions given to yourself would be triply researched and second guessed?

*Shakes head*

Again, I am seriously bemused and now verging on incredulous as to your world view.

Much cheers to you seeking the best probability of literally every thing.

Edit: I see you've linked back to your 'Claim of reality' thing. I admit to alluding to it first, but a a completely different attempt at seeking understanding.

I understand the 'Not accepting things' but, really... to then post another possibility? Your counter comment in said case is effectively another 'Is'.

If your position is that no one can possibly know anything (Effectively) because you do now accept what it is that they say/claim they know until you have verified it for yourself? (Again, please correct me if I'm jumping off the wrong branch with this) then... yah, there's not even a beginning of a common ground to start a conversation with yourself. Consider

There's a real simple answer here. He's not gauging his skepticism to the claim. Claims require evidence, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; but likewise mundane claims require very mundane evidence. If Shane here really is applying the same level of skepticism to claims at the forefront of experimental science and theory as to someone claiming that their mom's birthday is next Tuesday? Well, either Shane is one of the most insufferable people on the planet to be around (Oh really? Let me see documentation of your mother's birthday, preferably in signed triplicate!), or he's a fucking forum troll. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 11:26 AM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2016 11:36 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 11:00 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(28-02-2016 10:37 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  As I already pointed out:
The belief system and the decision making system are not the same.
Your doctor scenario:
It has to do with a timeline my friend.
If I am currently ill and current data provided to me suggests that I need to go under the knife tomorrow then that is the deadline I have to gather more evidence (given the evidence collected thus far). I accept the claim as the best probability (as far as my own personal evidence is concerned) but I don't believe it to be the ONLY solution. The former is what drives the decision making process.
If before the day is over I gather evidence that suggests there is a better solution than undergoing the knife then it changes the probability for cure.
What you seek to tell me is that I should not question the doctors judgement by seeking a second opinion on the matter even though he is the best doctor in the land.
Have you ever heard about how Washington died?
Chances are he would have survived had he gotten some better second opinions.

No

Again... your answer doesn't seem to resolve anything.

Your analogies? They kind of suck. Sad

I understand (In a way) you living your life in constant... uncertainty.

But your analogy? Of first the Doctor/surgery, seeking other information with the dead line? Dafaq dude?

It's an extreme case/example you're presenting. (Which, while I still am wishing banjo all the very best) it does nothing to answer the more mundane question of,

"So.. when you might think you are suffering a viral infection... What do you do?"

Really? Is your reply "Well.. I first search on line, then seek a library and medical text books. THEN seek multiple doctors..."

Really? Is your world view so steeped in skepticism that, seemingly, literally everything is quadruple-lly checked?

To then follow along with your comment about Washington?

Well.. how can you possibly trust the Historians who've related the tale? Consider

Your second analogy falls afoul, seemingly, of your own 'Super skepticism'.

Seriously? How might you even attempt to learn a new job skill? Consider

Since your postings would seem to indicate that any instructions given to yourself would be triply researched and second guessed?

*Shakes head*

Again, I am seriously bemused and now verging on incredulous as to your world view.

Much cheers to you seeking the best probability of literally every thing.

Edit: I see you've linked back to your 'Claim of reality' thing. I admit to alluding to it first, but a a completely different attempt at seeking understanding.

I understand the 'Not accepting things' but, really... to then post another possibility? Your counter comment in said case is effectively another 'Is'.

If your position is that no one can possibly know anything (Effectively) because you do now accept what it is that they say/claim they know until you have verified it for yourself? (Again, please correct me if I'm jumping off the wrong branch with this) then... yah, there's not even a beginning of a common ground to start a conversation with yourself. Consider
There you go again jumping to conclusion without applying the process.
1. You have an ailment
2. You seek a cure
3. You may ask mom/google/friends/yourself/doctor/etc what are the best options (this is where personal experience starts). This is the reality, it's not a chronological fact, nor is it planned, it could just as likely have happened randomly.
4. You choose the best option based on your own decision making process

This is a true story:
Last week my son was playing with his mom's makeup and went to school with some on his face. The school sent him to the doctor, who gave him an injection for allergies thinking it was a rash. It could have been worst.

The point is you don't stop asking questions just because you got an answer from the most qualified source, but this does not mean that you wont act based upon the probability that said source has the best answer.

There is a distinct difference between asking questions and acting regardless of whether they have been answered based on the probability of risk (given the knowledge acquired thus far)

You seem to think that asking mom what she thinks you should do even when in front of the doctor is cause for ridicule. You even seem to think that we shouldn't second guess the doctor's diagnosis.
I call it the scientific method & it stems from skepticism. It's proven to be quite useful from an evolutionary stand point.

Heading to the beach with the wife and kids... will continue when I get back.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 11:36 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 11:26 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  There you go again jumping to conclusion without applying the process.
1. You have an ailment
2. You seek a cure
3. You may ask mom/google/friends/yourself/doctor/etc what are the best options (this is where personal experience starts)
4. You choose the best option based on your own decision making process

This is a true story:
Last week my son was playing with his mom's makeup and went to school with some on his face. The school sent him to the doctor, who gave him an injection for allergies thinking it was a rash. It could have been worst.

The point is you don't stop asking questions just because you got an answer from the most qualified source, but this does not mean that you wont act based upon the probability that said source has the best answer.

There is a distinct difference between asking questions and acting regardless of whether they have been answered.

You seem to think that asking mom what she thinks you should do even when in front of the doctor is cause for ridicule. You even seem to think that we shouldn't second guess the doctor's diagnosis.
I call it the scientific method & it stems from skepticism. It's proven to be quite useful from an evolutionary stand point.

No

No, I am not jumping to anything. I repeatedly state as to my uncertainty as to your position.

This bit;

"The point is you don't stop asking questions just because you got an answer from the most qualified source, but this does not mean that you wont act based upon the probability that said source has the best answer."

It answers NOTHING.

How do you come to the point of accepting the verified source?

You're always seeming to find more worms in the can that you keep digging into after you've opened it.

Okay.. lets make an actual statement/claim.

Would you agree that there are people who are the current pinnacle in the understanding of/in their field of expertise?

Yes or No? (If my wording/example is possibly obscure, please let me know.)

I have a niggling suspicion that EvolutionKills has a slight handle on your world view. Perchance that your seeking level of assureds is... skewed... Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: