Run The Gauntlet
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2013, 03:20 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:Your post has compelled me to respond with one of the worst movies I have survived to date: Twilight. There's this one character named Edward Cullen who is a vampire who sparkles. To get shit out of the way, he's a douche in my opinion. Not having evidence that Edward Cullen existed or was ever really in fact making bed-breaking passionate love to them does not mean that Edward Cullen did not interact with so many lonely married women and teenagers minds through the shitty Twilight novel series.

And to get right down to it, Edward Cullen is the same as god: a character in a book of fiction.
Okay, but my question remains, how do you know God is a fiction? That seems to be an impossible claim to knowledge. There’s no way you could know that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 03:26 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 02:57 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Peer review and reproducibility are the keys to removing biases.

And your second point goes to the heart of the difference between experience and evidence.
Okay, I think we've met the first instance, reproducibility. Peer review would depend on who qualifies as a peer, right? As for the second point, when is experience evidence? In a court of law, eyewitness testimony may qualify as evidence, right? Don't you really mean, the reliability of the one with the experience? You sound as though evidence is a physical thing and experience is all metaphysics. But peers tend to accept scientific position papers that describe testing without always demanding to see the physical items which were tested. Please help me understand. Thanks!
The peer review process, when done properly, will include those who are likely to have opposing or different biases then the researcher(s). It is supposed to be a critical process.

The point about experience vs. evidence that I am making is not one of eye-witness testimony, but of internal vs. external experience. Someone's internal state is not objective, reproducible, or even communicable. All the experiencer can do is talk about it, he can't actually share it.

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
26-02-2013, 03:26 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 03:07 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(26-02-2013 02:15 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Okay. Defining terms is very, very cool. I'm sorry I've allowed for so many tangents and it was not my intention to waste people's time including mine. I would be willing to say that others have met the criteria above and proven (beyond a reasonable doubt and so forth) that they do exist IF I can get some clarification on something first, please.

I'm NOT saying this is my proof of God, but I've heard testimonies like this:

"Prove it for yourself and pray." "I prayed, I received."

  1. Empirical - the individual has made observation; even to testing via the scriptural "rules" for testing
  2. Testable - a procedure was followed; the individual was skeptical and unwilling/unwanting to be converted but felt that way too many things had happened to be mere statistical coincidence
  3. Verifiable - further experiments (prayers, in this example) continued on daily for years, further observations were made and further conclusions were drawn


The flaw I see in the logic, I think, with the above "evidence" is that it is touching metaphysics. A naturalist would say an invisible deity was invoked and then a self-fulfilling prophecy was achieved. But it still seems to me to meet empirical/testable/verifiable measures. Please explain to me so I understand better. I may not deconvert but I'd at least know whether I have evidentiary or blind faith, right? Thanks!
Yes, you can find that out indeed.

Your example does not, unfortunately, meet these criteria, because it is a single piece of unverifiable testimony. Here is how it would have to look like:
  1. Empirical - The causal relationship between the act of prayer and the fulfillment of said prayer can be observed.
  2. Testable - The causal relationship between the act of prayer and the fulfillment of said prayer can be tested repeatedly.
  3. Verifiable - The causal relationship between the act of prayer and the fulfillment of said prayer can be established as fact in an experiment.
By the way, several studies on the effectiveness of prayer have been conducted and have found it to be ineffective at best and entirely useless at worst.
Understood. Still waiting for someone to address this issue of third-party verification (and frankly the supposed nullification of the thousands of Christians who would verify the other claims). What I mean by that is my questions to Phaedros (please see above).

Regarding the studies on the effectiveness of prayer, I can offer anecdotal claims and also some intriguing research (if I can find it). We can find anecdotal evidence that prayer works and anecdotal evidence that is doesn't. But in science, it is legitimate to hypothesize a placeholder for an observation until it is, later, verified, or not. Why then do Atheists object to the whole "someday on judgment day we'll all know for certain"? Why the lack of possibilism and the claim to special knowledge? (God has never acted in history, and will never act in future history...)?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 03:29 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 02:32 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Your definitions are incomplete. Vosur said yes; I do not. The most important part is the removal of personal bias at all stages. When it comes to psychology the experiments must be done by a third party. In other words, you cannot experiment on yourself. The observer cannot also be the subject of the experiment, because it introduces personal biases.
I would gladly assent to your addition to the definition except for two questions:

1. What is the practical limit for removing personal bias? We want (and make it a conditional point of law in some cases) our scientists to remove bias, we desperately want the same for judges, attorneys, jurors, police and etc. What are the practical limits of doing anything worth doing while still having a personal bias(es)?

2. In psychology, if we say "third party", we're on slippery ground, since religions and not just Christianity say it's an individual's opportunity not applicable to third parties. How would you handle that? What practical steps might you add to our testing? For Christian counselors who affirm free will, this takes a tremendous burden off the counselors' shoulders. They can safely say, "God desires healing and restitution for all but I'm a third party here and the individual has to want to get help as well." Since metaphysics touches on what we understand about psychology, yet religions of mystery apply to individuals, how would you resolve this issue. Any suggestions?

Thanks!

I'm actually glad you brought up the court comparison. There are multiple standards of evidence that a court may require; preponderance of evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc. Scientific theories are usually subjected to a "beyond a reasonable doubt" level of testing: the theory must explain all the facts that current theories do, but also explain facts that are currently unexplained by existing theories. In addition the theory must predict new things, which can be tested to see if they are factual. In other words:

A theory becomes accepted when it:
A. Explains all facts that previous theories explained
B. Explains other facts that previous theories could not explain
C. Has its own predictions proven factual


But what about facts? How do we determine if something is factual?

A fact, that is an observation or experimental result, is considered a fact when all parties agree that it is a fact. This sounds arbitrary; it is not.

All facts have some degree of uncertainty attached (I do not *know*, beyond any doubt, that when I drop this quarter that it will not in fact remain stationary in the air, no matter how many times I have dropped it in the past; induction is not logically possible).
The fact is also known to possibly be influenced by other factors (I *know* that a quarter dropped in earth's gravity field will accelerate at 9.81m/s/s... except for air resistance, variations in local gravity due to unequal mass distribution, tidal effects from the sun and moon, and minute relativistic affects). These variables must be eliminated, or figured into the margin of error.
They also have a degree of imprecision (is it 5cm? 5.2cm? 5.15cm? 5.14832034cm? 5.14832304388883293220482389cm?).


When a researcher makes a claim (says something is a fact), other researchers reading their paper evaluate the claim:

Is the test repeatable? Can I reproduce the same experiment and observe the same result?
Have all possible variables either been removed or taken into account? What is the margin of error?
How precisely was this measured? Is it precise enough to be useful or is further refinement needed?



In a psychological experiment, there are MASSIVE possible biases that can act as variables to radically alter the results. Because of this, psychological experiments require a great deal of rigor, and even then have a great degree of uncertainty.

Psychological tests require a large sample size, to try to average out individual variances. A sample size of *one* literally cannot prove anything. In addition, there are many variables which must be taken into account: age, sex, education, socioeconomic class, job, religious upbringing and beliefs, relationship with family, what was eaten for breakfast, etc. The researcher must look at all possible variables and biases and try to account for the ones most likely to interfere with the experiment. The researcher can do this a number of ways, depending on the experiment: limiting the study to a group of individuals who have a given factor all in common; dividing major influencing variables into different experimental groups; getting an even mix and applying statistical weighting; or a combination of all three. The experiment must also compare against a control group. Finally, the researcher must remove themselves from the experiment, because it has been established (through careful experimentation...) that a researcher's actions and demeanor can influence the results of an experiment.

Once all variables are removed or controlled to the satisfaction of all researchers in the field, the results of the experiment are accepted as tentatively true: a fact, until proven otherwise.



Your second point appears to be gibberish. Can you try to explain it more clearly?

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
26-02-2013, 03:34 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:Possibilism. <-- Not a word.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/actual...ilism.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 03:37 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:A theory becomes accepted when it:
A. Explains all facts that previous theories explained
B. Explains other facts that previous theories could not explain
C. Has its own predictions proven factual
**
Is the test repeatable? Can I reproduce the same experiment and observe the same result?
Have all possible variables either been removed or taken into account? What is the margin of error?
How precisely was this measured? Is it precise enough to be useful or is further refinement needed?
A-B-C-first question - this meets the criteria. "Pray and receive Jesus's truth" is hardly a sampling of one. The latter questions are more troubling but not insurmountable IMHO.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 03:39 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Go back and read the controls needed for a valid psychological experiment.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 03:40 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Allow me to reframe my second paragraph:
"Regarding the studies on the effectiveness of prayer, I can offer anecdotal claims and also some intriguing research (if I can find it). We can find anecdotal evidence that prayer works and anecdotal evidence that is doesn't. But in science, it is legitimate to hypothesize a placeholder for an observation until it is, later, verified, or not. Why then do Atheists object to the whole "someday on judgment day we'll all know for certain"? Why the lack of possibilism and the claim to special knowledge? (God has never acted in history, and will never act in future history...)?"
I'll redact it to we're dealing with a curve, a probability, for the pre-supplicant. There are people who say "Jesus answered" and some who say "Jesus didn't answer". The Bible lays some criteria for answered prayer... the statistical observations do not fall outside this norm. But if we can imagine an Oort Cloud for comets we conjecture to come, why is it unscientific to conjecture Agnosticism and not Atheism?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 03:43 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:Go back and read the controls needed for a valid psychological experiment.
Are you unwilling to answer my question, then? "How would you handle metaphysical questions raised by literal documents that talk about mysteries and the initiated, and then submit that to third-party testing among the non-initiated?" The sour grapes parable comes to mind, the fairy tale of the fox who cannot taste the grapes and presumes their sourness. I realize you presume their sourness, how would you enact legitimate third-party testing?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 03:44 PM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2013 03:48 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 03:26 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Understood. Still waiting for someone to address this issue of third-party verification (and frankly the supposed nullification of the thousands of Christians who would verify the other claims). What I mean by that is my questions to Phaedros (please see above).
I don't know which questions you are referring to, as none of Phaedrus' posts are above yours. Could you please restate them?

(26-02-2013 03:26 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Regarding the studies on the effectiveness of prayer, I can offer anecdotal claims and also some intriguing research (if I can find it). We can find anecdotal evidence that prayer works and anecdotal evidence that is doesn't.
Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant, what matters is whether or not there is empirical date to support either side. As far as I know, no study concerning the effectiveness of prayer has ever concluded that there is a direct correlation between praying for X and X happening. You should feel free to show me that I'm wrong about this.

(26-02-2013 03:26 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  ´But in science, it is legitimate to hypothesize a placeholder for an observation until it is, later, verified, or not. Why then do Atheists object to the whole "someday on judgment day we'll all know for certain"? Why the lack of possibilism and the claim to special knowledge? (God has never acted in history, and will never act in future history...)
I don't know about other atheists on this forum, but I for one neither deny the possibility of a "judgment day", nor do I claim to have special knowledge.

I'm still waiting for your visual and auditory evidence, by the way. Why the delay?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: