Is belief in the unseen irrational?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-03-2016, 08:23 PM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2016 08:26 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(25-03-2016 08:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 08:16 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I am not saying that the wavelength isn't there my friend nor that it cannot be objectively defined.
I am saying that it cannot be objectively defined as a specific color because the type of color can change based on perception even if the wavelength does not change.
It can however be objectively defined as a wavelength because the type of wavelength does not change based on perception.

Example:
Take a normal man & yourself.
Now give him a different retina to see the wavelength of blue as green and purple as blue.
Now show him blue and ask him what color is it. He will say green.
What has changed about the wavelength before it reaches his eye? Nothing right?
Is the color green or blue? If you say it is blue even though he sees green then how can you prove this?
Are you going to show him a color chart that says this wavelength is the color blue and claim that as proof?
This would mean that a book telling you something is true is evidence that it is true. This is not evidence.
So again I ask how are you going to prove to him that the color isn't green even though he knows it doesn't look like blue?
Show him the color formerly known as purple and tell him that is really purple even though he sees it as blue, and continue telling him that what he sees as green is really blue.
How are ever going to prove to him what you say is true?
What if he tells you that if you cannot provide any evidence that green is really blue and blue is really purple that you believe in fairy tails?

Bullshit. I will assemble a statistically significant cohort of retinas, and ask them what they see, and sort out the outliers, and create a Bell curve of observations, just like any eye specialist would do. They will fall into a normal distribution. You're so wound up in your bullshit, you can't *see* straight. Oh look. I made a little funny there. Some day, maybe you'll actually learn how science works.
That's an argument from popularity. It is not evidence.

Repost:
Are you going to say because the majority of people believe it is blue then it is proof that it is blue? This is not evidence & if it were then Christians would claim they have the most rational belief seeing that they have the most popular belief.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 08:28 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(25-03-2016 08:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 08:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Bullshit. I will assemble a statistically significant cohort of retinas, and ask them what they see, and sort out the outliers, and create a Bell curve of observations, just like any eye specialist would do. They will fall into a normal distribution. You're so wound up in your bullshit, you can't *see* straight. Oh look. I made a little funny there. Some day, maybe you'll actually learn how science works.
That's an argument from popularity. It is not evidence.

Repost:Are you going to say because the majority of people believe it is blue? This is not evidence & if it were then Christians would claim they have the most rational belief.

You can't possibly be serious. A statistically valid sample IS how science works. You're saying ALL sampling methods are "arguments from popularity". LMAO. There are ways to do the test by PET scans or MRI. Sorry. You lose. It's objective data. Take a science class some day, boy.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
25-03-2016, 08:34 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(25-03-2016 08:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 08:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  That's an argument from popularity. It is not evidence.

Repost:Are you going to say because the majority of people believe it is blue? This is not evidence & if it were then Christians would claim they have the most rational belief.

You can't possibly be serious. A statistically valid sample IS how science works. You're saying ALL sampling methods are "arguments from popularity". LMAO. There are ways to do the test by PET scans or MRI. Sorry. You lose. It's objective data. Take a science class some day, boy.
Seriously? Your sample is going to include the color blind? If not how can it be objective data?
Do you really think the color blind is going to tell you they see the same color as you?
You cant make a universal claim if you aren't going to include a part of the universe in your claim.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 08:37 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(25-03-2016 08:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 08:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You can't possibly be serious. A statistically valid sample IS how science works. You're saying ALL sampling methods are "arguments from popularity". LMAO. There are ways to do the test by PET scans or MRI. Sorry. You lose. It's objective data. Take a science class some day, boy.
Seriously? Your sample is going to include the color blind? If not how can it be objective data?
Do you really think the color blind is going to tell you they see the same color as you?

You idiot.
You really don't know ANYTHING about sampling, controlls, probability or how science works.
Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
25-03-2016, 08:43 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(25-03-2016 08:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 08:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Seriously? Your sample is going to include the color blind? If not how can it be objective data?
Do you really think the color blind is going to tell you they see the same color as you?

You idiot.
You really don't know ANYTHING about sampling, controlls, probability or how science works.
Facepalm
Sampling is not a method of proving the existence of something.
Show me one example where sciences used sampling to prove the existence of something?
You are arguing that you can prove that the color blue exists by sampling. No where in science does it say sampling is used to prove the existence of something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 08:55 PM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2016 09:06 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(25-03-2016 08:16 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 04:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nope. The wavelengths in a range are, by definition, THAT color. It's STILL THERE, even when perceived by someone who is color blind. The perceiving does not "make" it blue.
I am not saying that the wavelength isn't there my friend nor that it cannot be objectively defined.
I am saying that it cannot be objectively defined as a specific color because the type of color can change based on perception even if the wavelength does not change.
It can however be objectively defined as a wavelength because the type of wavelength does not change based on perception.

Example:
Take a normal man & yourself. (No pun intended on both levels)
Now give him a different retina to see the wavelength of blue as green and purple as blue.
Now show him blue and ask him what color is it. He will say green.
What has changed about the wavelength before it reaches his eye? Nothing right?
Is the color green or blue? If you say it is blue even though he sees green then how can you prove this?
Are you going to show him a color chart that says this wavelength is the color blue and claim that as proof?
This would mean that a book telling you something is true is evidence that it is true. This is not evidence.
Are you going to say because the majority of people believe it is blue? This is not evidence & if it were then Christians would claim they have the most rational belief.
So again I ask how are you going to prove to him that the color isn't green even though he knows it doesn't look like blue?
Show him the color formerly known as purple and tell him that is really purple even though he sees it as blue, and continue telling him that what he sees as green is really blue.
How are ever going to prove to him what you say is true?
What if he tells you that if you cannot provide any evidence that green is really blue and blue is really purple that you believe in fairy tails?

1. You're not my friend. Don't patronize me, sweetie.
2. Your analogy is false, (I thought you knew about logic. This analogy is SO false, a Third Grader can see through it). The retinal cells which are "excited" by specific wave lengths are detectable by imaging. Comparing it to a book about something which is neither observable, or detectable, on any level, is showing how desperate you are here, as you know NOTHING about science, or how it works, and how idiotic your lame attempt here to invalidate a perfectly plausible experiment.
3. The range is DEFINED, and the sampling PROVES what a "normal" (which you CERTAINLY are not, in ANY sense) eye sees.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 09:08 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(25-03-2016 08:16 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I am not saying that the wavelength isn't there my friend nor that it cannot be objectively defined.
I am saying that it cannot be objectively defined as a specific color because the type of color can change based on perception even if the wavelength does not change.
It can however be objectively defined as a wavelength because the type of wavelength does not change based on perception.

You are still confusing perception with objective reality. Blue light is blue light regardless of how some one person perceives it. Blue light is defined as a range of wavelengths.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
25-03-2016, 09:19 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(25-03-2016 08:16 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I am saying that it cannot be objectively defined as a specific color because the type of color can change based on perception even if the wavelength does not change.

Not for a statistically valid cohort. It can for ONE (or a few statistically insignificant individuals in a sample, which can be studied, and explained). Not for the cohort. You're saying ONE exception (outlier) can invalidate the distribution. As I said, you know NOTHING about science. If you have a study that PROVES your claim, lets see it. Now.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 09:30 PM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2016 09:35 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(25-03-2016 09:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 08:16 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I am not saying that the wavelength isn't there my friend nor that it cannot be objectively defined.
I am saying that it cannot be objectively defined as a specific color because the type of color can change based on perception even if the wavelength does not change.
It can however be objectively defined as a wavelength because the type of wavelength does not change based on perception.

You are still confusing perception with objective reality. Blue light is blue light regardless of how some one person perceives it. Blue light is defined as a range of wavelengths.
Colors are not things. Colors are adjectives.
Only "things" can exist in objective reality.
Colors exist only in the mind for the purpose of description.
You can't prove that an adjective exists.

Light exists. No one is denying that. Blue does not exist as a thing because it is an adjective. Only nouns are things.
Light exists
Blue light exists
Blue does not exist.
Blue describes

http://www.google.com/search?q=Blue+mean...TF-8&hl=en

https://books.google.tt/books?id=9mKLAgA...edir_esc=y
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 09:35 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
Thanks for demonstrating you know nothing about Physics, girl friend.
http://www.popsci.com/article/technology...obel-prize
Blue is a "thing", (by definition).
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/li...r-Addition

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: