[split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2014, 02:08 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
For those who might be interested, data / information can have Intrinsic Quality

Intrinsic quality — The extent to which data values are in conformance with the actual or true values. It includes:
– Accuracy — The extent to which information is correct and reliable
– Objectivity — The extent to which information is unbiased, unprejudiced and impartial
– Believability — The extent to which information is regarded as true and credible
– Reputation — The extent to which information is highly regarded in terms of its source or content

Meaning is contextual...

Contextual and representational quality — The extent to which information is applicable to the task of the information user and is presented in an intelligible and clear manner, recognising that information quality depends on the context of use. It includes:
– Relevancy — The extent to which information is applicable and helpful for the task at hand
– Completeness — The extent to which information is not missing and is of sufficient depth and breadth for the task at hand
– Currency — The extent to which information is sufficiently up to date for the task at hand
– Appropriate amount of information — The extent to which the volume of information is appropriate for the task at hand
– Concise representation — The extent to which information is compactly represented
– Consistent representation — The extent to which information is presented in the same format
– Interpretability — The extent to which information is in appropriate languages, symbols and units, with clear definitions
– Understandability — The extent to which information is easily comprehended
– Ease of manipulation — The extent to which information is easy to manipulate and apply to different tasks

There is a third 'quality' category but I'm boring myself now.

Smile

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like DLJ's post
03-01-2014, 02:14 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 01:44 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 01:19 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You misunderstand the GOTGs argument.

No, I do not, and you've confused a very technical and specific term with the broad psychological process of assuming agency and intention in non-natural and unknown phenomena. The two are not the same thing at all, and I suggest you do some research outside of your own imagination. While it's true that sometimes arguments for God rely on the scientifically unknown, this requires an understanding of the state of scientific knowledge and is a conscious restriction of God's activity in the interest of debate, not an appeal to God to explain the unknown, a completely separate phenomenon...
I understand and have read the history on the coining of the term.
To me it is unimportant what was originally intended by the meaning of the term.
It seems to me that this phrase has somewhat backfired to its original intent.

To me, it is unimportant whether the gap is as per current scientific knowledge or whether it is merely ignorance of the person with the gap of knowledge. What is important is that it is a gap.
The second qualifier is filling that gap with an assumption of "god did it", without providing any positive evidence for this act of god.

Whether scientists have already filled the gap with scientific knowledge, are likely to fill the gap or are unlikely to fill the gap is unimportant.

We could make a distinction in these terms. My version would be "God of the Gaps" yours would be "God of the Scientific Gaps".
But the difference is trivial. It is still a knowledge gap filled by an assumption of "god did it".


It seems to me (given both our understanding of the phrase) that the Abrahamic beliefs (which are the majority) fall into this category because they assume their god created the universe (god did it). Scientists don't know how the universe began or was "created".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
03-01-2014, 02:16 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 02:14 PM)Stevil Wrote:  ...
It seems to me that this phrase has somewhat backfired to its original intent.
...

Yup. It reminds me of the origin of "Big Bang". Same kinda history.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 02:17 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
You catz can step off his dick anytime now. Angel

/whiteknight

I can understand Mac's bias after having studied the Gwynnies for thirteen years, mofo can forgive me for being Gwynnite, knowwhatimsayin?

But if you mofos chase off an interesting theist, Gwynnies may need a human sacrifice. Evil_monster

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
03-01-2014, 02:17 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 02:08 PM)DLJ Wrote:  There is a third 'quality' category but I'm boring myself now.

Aw come on!! I was enjoying the qualities of the post

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 02:22 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 02:17 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  You catz can step off his dick anytime now. Angel

/whiteknight

I can understand Mac's bias after having studied the Gwynnies for thirteen years, mofo can forgive me for being Gwynnite, knowwhatimsayin?

But if you mofos chase off an interesting theist, Gwynnies may need a human sacrifice. Evil_monster

I'm not trying to chase him off, just disagreeing with him. Drinking Beverage

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
03-01-2014, 02:25 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 02:17 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 02:08 PM)DLJ Wrote:  There is a third 'quality' category but I'm boring myself now.

Aw come on!! I was enjoying the qualities of the post

Oh, OK, if you insist (but it's less relevant to whatever this thread is supposed to be about... erm... I think Blush ) ...

Security/accessibility quality — The extent to which information is available or obtainable. It includes:
– Availability/timeliness — The extent to which information is available when required, or easily and quickly retrievable
– Restricted access — The extent to which access to information is restricted appropriately to authorised parties

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
03-01-2014, 03:39 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 01:48 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 11:10 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  Can you elaborate as I honestly find this point rather confusing. Without any intrinsic meaning, what do the Bible, Book of Mormon, or any other religious texts bring to the table of any value.

You would have to also ask this of any other text in existence. This is not a property of only religious texts. All texts everywhere require a reader to have meaning. The meaning produced has value insofar as the reader finds value in what they produce.
(03-01-2014 11:10 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  Texts of fiction require interpretation.

So do texts of non-fiction, and the difference between the two is a continuum, not a dichotomy.

(03-01-2014 11:10 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  So if it has no intrinsic meaning and needs a filter of individual reader interpretation, why pay attention and follow the writings? Furthermore, unless you belive the literal record of events concerning the gold plates and talking to angels, then again why follow to any degree?

Why read poetry or philosophical literature?

#1 - Load of crap but nice deflection though. Intrinsic meaning would actually be a requirement for me to accept any religious text as worthy.
#2 - not much interpretation for me with my Chemistry and Biology books, the manual for my AV reciever, scientific papers, all autobiographies - just sayin'
#3 - Kind of wishy washy there. In poetry or philosophy there are no claims of the supernatural interacting with the real world that are taken on faith to be true.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Timber1025's post
03-01-2014, 04:13 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 01:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  Actually, the silly rhetoric is emanating from you.
As you point out, the word 'dog' has an agreed upon meaning.

Yes, and that meaning resides in our conceptualization, not in the text. The text just refers to the meaning when we impose the proper interpretive frameworks.

Look, it's obvious you're just coming up with ad-hoc arguments and assertions, and that you have no real background or exposure to cognitive linguistic and cognitive semantic scholarship, and have no real way to engage directly what I'm saying. It's like someone with no training in physics trying to argue against the holographic principles just because it sounds stupid to them. You don't appear to be understanding what I'm saying, and your flippant and naive dismissal of post-modernism betrays no real familiarity with it or the principles that undergird it. You're being dogmatic about something you can't and won't understand, and as you've no doubt learned with young earth creationists, it's impossible to reason with someone who is being dogmatic about something they don't understand. I'm going to save my breath here and just suggest that if you want to learn how language and texts work, these are a few good places to start:

Charles J. Fillmore, “Frames and the Semantics of Understanding,” Quaderni di semantica 6 (1985): 222–54.

John R. Taylor, Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Second Edition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995).

Ronald W. Langacker, Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Second Edition (Berlin: de
Gruyter, 2002).

William Croft, and D. Alan Cruse. Cognitive Linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

B. Hampe, ed., From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005).

Or you could just assume the fields of cognitive grammar, semantics, and linguistics are all populated by idiots, and that you've got their number.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 04:19 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 03:39 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  #1 - Load of crap but nice deflection though. Intrinsic meaning would actually be a requirement for me to accept any religious text as worthy.

No text in existence has intrinsic meaning. I am going to be deeply disappointed if everyone here suddenly jumps on the "we don't know anything about linguistics or the human mind" bandwagon.

(03-01-2014 03:39 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  #2 - not much interpretation for me with my Chemistry and Biology books, the manual for my AV reciever, scientific papers, all autobiographies - just sayin'

It's all interpretation. The fact that it refers to concepts that are empirically verifiable is a completely different discussion.

(03-01-2014 03:39 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  #3 - Kind of wishy washy there. In poetry or philosophy there are no claims of the supernatural interacting with the real world that are taken on faith to be true.

Nor is it necessary to do that to find value in religious texts, but you were asking about "intrinsic meaning," not "claims of the supernatural . . . that are taken on faith to be true." If you had asked about the latter first, maybe my responses would have been more appropriate. When you're going to spring a rhetorical trap, you've gotta make sure the bait is set on the right spot.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: