User Tag List

First 51314151617 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 163

  1. #141
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    1. Statements or theories are meaningful because they make predictions.

    "Tinkerbell is the name of a character in XYZ movie". This statement is meaningful because it makes a prediction of evidence. We can now go check to see if there is such a character in XYZ movie and decide if the statement is true or false.

    Statements that do not intend to make such a prediction to evidence are meaningless: "tinkerbell is a character in a movie, regardless of what IMDB says". When you insulate yourself from a prediction of evidence, the statement or theory starts to become more of "because I said so". I find it ironic that you of all people are accusing others of the "because I said so".

    2. The 'outcome' of our lives is the same whether or not astrology is true or not. That is, our lives happen as they do. So in reality, the difference between a world where astrology is true or not true, is only in mechanism.

    Until astrology proposes a mechanism for how the arrangements of planets influences my job promotion, the theory is meaningless. The mechanism for the moon having an effect on the ocean is "gravity" and is readily reducible and explainable. Uranus having an effect on Japanese technology RnD department is not readily explainable via gravity.

    No mechanism? At this point theres no relevant difference between midevil magic and "mechanism of action regarding astrology".

    3. psudosciences lack two things:
    -specific, testable and repeatable predictions
    -explainable mechanisms of actions

    Specific: when a particular theory doesn't make specific enough predictions it leaves itself open to confirmation bias. Example: "uranus is responsible for surges of technology!". The prediction sets no standard of what will either prove the prediction true or false. This is bad. It then leaves these standards to be determined AFTER the data is gathered. This then influences how the data is interpreted. To maintain any objectivity, the standards of what will determine true or false need to be determined when the prediction is made or BEFORE the data is gathered. Otherwise, just about anything can after the fact, be squeezed in as 'true'.

    Testable: theories need to be falsifiable. When proposing the theory of astrology, you need to also say what would then lead to its falsification. Theories that arent falsifiable are meaningless because they arent testable. I will give an example: "the theory of evolution would be falsifiable if we suddenly started finding and dating Precambrian rabbit and human fossils".


    Ultimately the burden of proof lies on you. If I wanted to go prove to the world that "invisible Martian ice cream trucks are real and they control the worlds money supply via psychic powers", the burden of proof would lie on me, because the rest of the world shouldnt have to drop what its doing everytime some nut comes up with unfalsifiable opinions.

  2. #142
    Senior Member Willfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    IsTP
    Posts
    615

    Default

    Oh silly Babylon, I think you are forgetting two key points:

    1. Tinkerbell doesn't need to substantiate her claims at all
    2. Tinkerbell is older than you
    ...Then I ducked my head and the lights went out, and two guns blazed in the dark;
    And a woman screamed, and the lights went up, and two men lay stiff and stark...

  3. #143
    Senior Member Fuent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Willfrey View Post
    Oh silly Babylon, I think you are forgetting two key points:

    1. Tinkerbell doesn't need to substantiate her claims at all
    2. Tinkerbell is older than you
    Lolzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzz.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    INTP... I think not.

  4. #144
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Willfrey View Post
    Oh silly Babylon, I think you are forgetting two key points:

    1. Tinkerbell doesn't need to substantiate her claims at all
    2. Tinkerbell is older than you
    ohhhhhhhh look the wee, wee boy who can't articulate anything that doesn't centre around "BEACUSE I SAY SO" is throwing another hissy fit

  5. #145
    I'm a star. Kangirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    You realize you're being 'humoured' in this thread, don't you? And not in the good way? It's a bit of an ugly spectacle but ... you aren't really doing a good job (or any job) of defending your positions at all.
    "Only an irrational dumbass, would burn Jews." - Jaguar

    "please give concise answers in plain English" - request from Provoker

  6. #146
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    Well, to be fair to tinkerbell, there are many documented studies revealing that certain Rx medications and even surgeries have no greater effect than that of placebo.

    An intro to that topic is found by clicking on this link.
    Thanks Peace Baby...

    I used to nurse, and I was a market research (aka consumer attdues not medical testing) for a pharma company. Most medicines supress symptoms so the body can recover. Antibiotics are ones that actually treat the illness - which is why they were such a big dscovery.

    Funny how many people beleive medicine is scientific... very shakey ground

    Lis

  7. #147
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    1. Statements or theories are meaningful because they make predictions.

    "Tinkerbell is the name of a character in XYZ movie". This statement is meaningful because it makes a prediction of evidence. We can now go check to see if there is such a character in XYZ movie and decide if the statement is true or false.

    Statements that do not intend to make such a prediction to evidence are meaningless: "tinkerbell is a character in a movie, regardless of what IMDB says". When you insulate yourself from a prediction of evidence, the statement or theory starts to become more of "because I said so". I find it ironic that you of all people are accusing others of the "because I said so".

    2. The 'outcome' of our lives is the same whether or not astrology is true or not. That is, our lives happen as they do. So in reality, the difference between a world where astrology is true or not true, is only in mechanism.

    Until astrology proposes a mechanism for how the arrangements of planets influences my job promotion, the theory is meaningless. The mechanism for the moon having an effect on the ocean is "gravity" and is readily reducible and explainable. Uranus having an effect on Japanese technology RnD department is not readily explainable via gravity.

    No mechanism? At this point theres no relevant difference between midevil magic and "mechanism of action regarding astrology".

    3. psudosciences lack two things:
    -specific, testable and repeatable predictions
    -explainable mechanisms of actions

    Specific: when a particular theory doesn't make specific enough predictions it leaves itself open to confirmation bias. Example: "uranus is responsible for surges of technology!". The prediction sets no standard of what will either prove the prediction true or false. This is bad. It then leaves these standards to be determined AFTER the data is gathered. This then influences how the data is interpreted. To maintain any objectivity, the standards of what will determine true or false need to be determined when the prediction is made or BEFORE the data is gathered. Otherwise, just about anything can after the fact, be squeezed in as 'true'.

    Testable: theories need to be falsifiable. When proposing the theory of astrology, you need to also say what would then lead to its falsification. Theories that arent falsifiable are meaningless because they arent testable. I will give an example: "the theory of evolution would be falsifiable if we suddenly started finding and dating Precambrian rabbit and human fossils".


    Ultimately the burden of proof lies on you. If I wanted to go prove to the world that "invisible Martian ice cream trucks are real and they control the worlds money supply via psychic powers", the burden of proof would lie on me, because the rest of the world shouldnt have to drop what its doing everytime some nut comes up with unfalsifiable opinions.

    YAWN

    Point 2 - I once had a statistical lecturer who pointed out that is doesn't matter if you are an optimist or a pesimist, the outcome remains the same. The optimist has a pleasanter journey.

    If you read a few posts back you're realise that one of them had the gall to say "you're not unintellegent" - meaning if I don't agree to their point of view (irrespectively of how ill educated they are) that I was somehow a lesser brain... I'm just not intimidate by people who don't know what they are talking about... which is what makes this all so terribly funny. Because try and they might the many NT's have so closed of their thinking that they haven't even bothered to consider something with knowledge before they chuck bricks at it.

    Sad really,

    Lis

  8. #148
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Finally before I feel off to work.

    Thank you for the PM/s other notes to say 1. I'm on a hiding to nothing, and 2. good luck with this.

    Just want to point out, I can neither loose this debate nor win it. I've got enough rationalists around my life to know this one will always end in a stalemate...

    Cheeriness and thanks for the support



    Lis

  9. #149
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerbell View Post
    YAWN

    Point 2 - I once had a statistical lecturer who pointed out that is doesn't matter if you are an optimist or a pesimist, the outcome remains the same. The optimist has a pleasanter journey.

    If you read a few posts back you're realise that one of them had the gall to say "you're not unintellegent" - meaning if I don't agree to their point of view (irrespectively of how ill educated they are) that I was somehow a lesser brain... I'm just not intimidate by people who don't know what they are talking about... which is what makes this all so terribly funny. Because try and they might the many NT's have so closed of their thinking that they haven't even bothered to consider something with knowledge before they chuck bricks at it.

    Sad really,

    Lis
    what? i seriously mapped out a path to respectability FOR this debate. I didnt even really disrespect you at all!? where did i call you stupid? where did i say that i had disproven astrology? all i said was that there are certain requirements that ANY theory: from science to social sciences, needs to meet in order to be meaningful.

    1. tell me how astrology would be falsifiable (i gave an example for evolution, you literally just think of what evidence would disprove your theory. if you cant think of anything, then its unfalsifiable and the theory is meaningless).
    2. propose a mechanism of action
    3. give an example of a specific prediction based on the this theory. tell us the standards for which data collected would either prove the prediction true or false. (im not even asking for said data!)

    nothing in my post is derogatory to your intelligence. im simply trying to direct you to present your case in a format that people can objectively BEGIN to evaluate (this would be true FOR any theory, true or false).

  10. #150
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Willfrey View Post
    Oh silly Babylon, I think you are forgetting two key points:

    1. Tinkerbell doesn't need to substantiate her claims at all
    2. Tinkerbell is older than you
    I couldn't agree more. Babylon is powerless against such far reaching powers of rhetoric.

    Don't forget:

    3) Tinkerbell is not male. It's a well-known fact to any REAL scientists that logical substantiation of previous claims isn't required for females.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

Similar Threads

  1. Seeing the world
    By targobelle in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-11-2015, 05:23 PM
  2. An INTP world
    By SolitaryWalker in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 07-23-2012, 03:51 PM
  3. ENTP world
    By SolitaryWalker in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 12-24-2009, 01:44 AM
  4. I can control the world with the power of my mind...
    By The Ü™ in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:07 PM
  5. World-renowned violinist versus DC rush hour
    By sundowning in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-28-2007, 03:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO