The Bible . . . And SCIENCE!

[LetThereBe]

Your arguments suffer validity and have yet to even come into consideration as sound because they are poorly formed. It is not an either/or situation when one possibility is already given.

What are you talking about? There are two possibilities given the situation. If there is some other alternative, please present it.

NOT fail. You said that he DID fail is the defining characteristic of the actions of somebody who is not trying to further knowledge.

No, I clarified long ago that someone could be trying to further knowledge and still fail. You are just being obtuse.

*SIGH* Denying the Antecedent.
If P, then Q.
-Q therefore -P.

• If P (= If the researcher was interested in furthering knowledge,) then Q (= then he would not be "annoyed" at the idea of a reviewer finding a flaw in his pet theory.)
• -Q (= He was annoyed at the idea of a reviewer finding a flaw in his pet theory,) therefore -P (= The researcher was NOT interested in furthering knowledge.)

He allowed a conflicting interest to prevent him from properly using the process for furthering knowledge. I am not speculating in what else he may have been "interested" in doing.
This whole train of thought remains irrelevant to the issue.

Why should we both insist that each of us use well formed formula in shaping our arguments?
Once again the form of your argument is of a fallacious, invalid form, Denying the Antecedent different link.

• If P (= If someone does it right,) then Q (= they would have known to take into account that kind of correlation.)
• -Q (= He didn't know to take into account that kind of correlation) therefore -P (= He doesn't do it right.)

You are not phrasing my statements correctly. This is a strawman.
Rather:
1. Doing it right requires taking into account such a statistical correlation
2. He didn't take the statistical correlation into account
Therefore:
3. He didn't do it right.

It is irrational to infer so using forms of argument that do NOT guarantee true conclusions. A response has not the capability to imply or infer. You or I infer from the response that...

The links provide ample examples of correct forms of modus ponens and modus tollens to correct your arguments forms. I warn you though. Correcting the form WILL alter your vision about the truth of your previously ill formed inferences.

Not at all. You just failed to form my position into logical statements, hence your own inability to reach the same conclusion.

Then I don't understand the inclusion of "generally."

It was allowing for the possibility, though I am not aware of any counterexamples (and am skeptical any exist).

What relationship is "consistent" defining?

What relationship? It depends on the data in question. Is this honestly something you don't know?
It simply means it does not contradict past observation.

What is consistent in this proposition relating intelligence to reason and past observation?

It is unintelligent to propose a guess you know has already been invalidated.

How is it that a theory accepted by 99% of scientists can be wrong if that theory was based on your concepts of intelligent guesses?

The introduction of new data. That theory was supported by intelligent guesses, because up to that point there was no conflicting observation. As we gather more data it may conflict. An intelligent guess can only take into account past observation. Obviously taking into account future, unknown observation is beyond our means.

How can you say a wrong guess is the result of knowledge of adequate reasoning and adequate observations and therefore intelligent or best?

Easily. I type it out and there it is.
I don't get what you are even asking. I have defined these terms for you. By definition that is how it is. It is like asking how you can say a mammal produces milk for its young.
If you disagree with the definition then just say so and explain what you mean instead.

How does intelligence, reason, and past observation fail if they are the product of intelligence, reason, and past observation?

New data. Future observation.

I'll suggest that the three criteria are sufficiently vague that they can't be defined much less measured to satisfy a standard amount or quality of each.

I'll admit "reason" isn't easily measurable, but the others are very easily verifiable. "Reason" tends to just be common sense.

You want to say the standard is determined by the researchers record of producing grants by his success at generating new knowledge, then I'd accept that relative to other researchers in a field that is very close to how a standard is determined.

No, I have not said anything to that effect.

I've told you that intelligence has no firm empirical meaning that I can find beyond IQ scores and those are suspect.

I suspect you are again intentionally being obtuse. The word "intelligent" is clearly an adjective describing the guess, not the guesser.

It can be whatever you want it to be. That's good for you since then you can use it to confirm your positions without being able to show intelligence's meaning while pretending to not beg the question when asked for its meaning.

I have given you the meaning. What part is difficult for you? What are you slow to understand?
We can take it one piece at a time. Do you know the meaning of "consistent with past observation"?

Past observation of your insinuating the level of my intelligence indicates to me that in order to be judged intelligent I have but to start agreeing with you.

No, but you have to be able to grasp basic concepts... understand obvious definitions... and have at least an elementary level of cumulative memory.

Is it really such a stretch of your imagination that I balk at thinking you've some clear idea of what it is you speak of when you talk about intelligence? It's a mine field, a can of worms and not just with us but anywhere it is debated.

Not when you clearly define the terms as I have.

I don't know how to judge whether any guess meets the standard that is contained in the meaning of the global absolute "best." I think this "best" concept as you've explained it, is approaching being as mythical as an intelligent one.

Ha! You think "consistent with past observation" and "consistent with logic or reason" is mythical? Well, this might explain a great deal about your posts if you think logic and reason are mythical!

Rarely. Like I've said, coin flip, short straw, defer to authority, and such are used too. Somebody will have the big nuts and make the decision. New federal examiner came in just after we sat down for milk and cookies before heading to the face. He'd seen a violation on our mantrip before as quick as he got out of his vehicle, he came up to the picnic table. He asked, "Who's got the big nuts." We all pointed to Dolly Monty, our female boss. The look on his face. He didn't make too big a deal of the violation, she had the drop on him for possible harassment as leverage, the dumb shit.

...okay? More irrelevant anecdotes. Why bother?

Too bad. Looking in the bin of guesses and knowing what an intelligent, reasonable, based on past observations, able to replace or having to do with existing theory looked like I sure thought would of been handy.

Something doesn't have to have a "unit of measurement" in order to be known.
The sum of the interior angles of a triangle is 180 degrees. This bit of knowledge doesn't have a unit of measurement. Would you similarly deny it?

So now you distinguish correctly.

Ha. So now I clarify your position for you, is what you mean.

Why is that? What is the correct attitude to maximize the ability to further knowledge? There is not enough consistency in how the Work progresses to be so precise, especially about something subjective like emotional investment.

You avoid the subjective as much as possible. The attitude is irrelevant. You follow the process, and resist anything that would conflict with the process. That is how you maximize the ability to further knowledge.

Have you dropped the position that pure science is human driven?

Not at all. Of course it is human driven. That doesn't mean that every human factor is part of the process. Those human factors that work against the furthering of knowledge are simply not a part. It is not a necessary aspect of its operation.

Don't you mean you HAVE already made claims of probability or belief because it is they which are being tested?

No, I definitely mean "haven't". If I am testing whether ants count their steps, I don't need to say "I believe ants count their steps". I just say "ants may count their steps, and here is a way I can build confidence in that assertion". I don't need to say "ants probably count their steps". I just say "after running this test, I will have some data to judge the probability of ants counting their steps as an explanation".

Not per se, no. But the whole point of TOE is the interrelationships defined by abstract algorithms of whatever can be measured. Sufficiently detailed analysis of each ants steps might reveal a record of past sunspots thru proxies as ice cores reveal past temperature and CO2 levels from proxy relationships varying in the ice as the temp and CO2 varied in the environment over time.

Sorry. If you suggest a causal relationship between sunspot frequency and ant steps I'm going to stick with the "bat-shit insane" descriptor.

Experiments can be done with total disregard for filtering.

Name one.

I've never said that such data derived would have any consistency in meaning. Until the Feynman video you balked at using the term guess at all. Only after the vid did you accept it and modify it, though the essence of the term is embodied in the literal meaning of the word "guess." Not known if right or wrong.

"Guess" has the connotation of randomness, or lack of forethought.

Instead of intelligent, why not think of the filtering as a science that requires a series of tests, failures, feedbacks, adaptations, retesting until a guess is shown to have been proved false more than not and then test it as an assumed best guess, eh, excuse me, ...then test it as the hypothesis? Get rid of all that terminological junk we've been hanging on the theory to be tested and call it THE HYPOTHESIS? The form that these tests take will be contained in its name: Gedankenexperiments. Thought experiments.

I had been using the term hypothesis for quite some time. I greatly prefer it over "guess" and "assumption", which you seem to like forcing into the conversation (until apparently now?).

Why do you conclude so?

Because I lack relevant data to make such a judgement.

Especially after doing all the filtering you'd have us do. Why, after being done with thought experiments, is assuming non-agency irrational?

Yes.

Even though you've eliminated it in your best guess filters it remains irrational after all?

It has not been eliminated by any filters. It is not contrary to reason or past observation.

And there, I would agree, it is irrational to assume non-agency.

Then I fail to see why you even have been arguing this whole time. You do not hold my point in contention... and the details seem to just be arguing semantics.

During the thought experiments stage it can be rational to assume no agency or agency as the experiments demands, especially in the thought experiment stage.

...again depending on your definition of "assume".

You made an either/or statement where one option was already established as being the case. No either/or statement is required. You are wrong that the purpose of an experiment is NOT to prove a hypothesis false. It must in order to be science. Do you think the experiment proves it true still? I thought we had risen above that myth.

Strawman. I never said that an experiment proves a hypothesis true. I have said from the very beginning this is impossible.

Your point?

That this whole tangential, irrelevant anecdote of yours does NOT show how one messes up by trying to "find truth" with the scientific process.

Assuming the process spits out the most qualified candidate is irrational isn't that your assessment?

Not at all. The process was designed to spit out such a candidate by their own definition of "most qualified".

No. The form of your arguments demand their relevance. The form is fallacious, that is it does not guarantee true conclusions from true premises. You are even unable to parse them correctly since they are not well formed. What you say may not be what you intended to say but the form you use belies your intent, IMO. Straighten out the forms to get validity, and the true premises will make your inferences sound. First the form. You leave yourself open without the well formed formula.It is difficult for any to take you seriously, as respecting reason and logic, when you don't respect them in your own expositions.

The form of my arguments does not rely on motive in the least. You are reading that into my statements when it is not there.

Failing to catch bad data or interpretation of data is NOT failing to follow the process. Catching all errors is not a mandate of the process, while attempting to do so is. Failing to catch the errors does not mean the process was not done.

Review is part of the process. He followed the process in part, but not perfectly since he did not catch the correlation in review.
I am not saying it is a rare occurrence.

Does the process call on a reviewer to duplicate an experiment? If he doesn't has he failed to follow the process? A reviewer is doing the process by looking for error. Where in the heck is the demand that it be found? Are you saying a reviewer is not following the process of science unless errors are found? I'd look to the form of your arguments for errors.

The "demand" that it be found? It is part of the process that the conclusions drawn be supported by the data. In this case they were not because of his error in properly analyzing the data.
Duplicating the experiment would not have been necessary at all, so I do not see why you bring it up.

If reviewers look for errors but don't see them they are not following the scientific process, only seeing errors warrants it being said of them, "They followed the scientific process." Really? What balderdash!!
Irrational assumption. Lying rules political campaigning.

If you fail to construct an experiment that tests your hypothesis, that is a failing to properly follow the process.
If you fail to draw conclusions that are supported by your data, that is a failing to properly follow the process.

But they are not distinct parts of reality, eh?

...as distinct as any parts of reality? Your questions continue to be meaningless.

I am incapable of telling the truth. Am I lying?

You are making a logically invalid statement. What of it?

Abstract reasoning from specifics to general, induction, can only support propositions, but not guarantee them. This is science's forte. But logical demands on perfection, deity, require guarantees. There is no deity. What is taken for deity's prophets success is, absent myth, the workings of science that require less than certitude, faith, from the mythical deity's followers. Anything less than observation by an individual that it is raining drops the chances of saying, "It is raining." being found true. Hearsay introduces agency which can lie or err. This is the false god, the graven image.

More irrelevance. That is not the presentation of idols as defined in the Bible. Your introduction of definitions completely contrary to those used in the Bible does not make a comparison in the argument possible.

Why do you say there was very little doubt regarding his approach being judged negative? Do you not think he would be the more trustworthy witness of any for his doubtings being erased thru experience? Aren't you concerned with truth? There is no truth greater than the lie, IMO.

I say so because Jesus specifically said those that don't doubt are more blessed. He was rebuked.

[Questatement]

There is no evidence than that in nature supporting the Biblical creation story.

Here's something to chew on.

I grew being taught that Neanderthal were, in the vernacular... cavemen. Primitive, hunter-gathers that went extinct due to their inability to farm and when game because scarce, they died off.

Since then, each new discovery has changed their story toward more advanced acheivements (hence intelligence), bringing their lifestyles more and more toward that of modern man. Artistry, medicine, musical instruments, dental work, language, cooking, etc.

As a Christian, one of the things that challenged my beliefs was the number of healed, bone fractures found in all Neanderthals. This seemed to verify their daily struggle against the wild beasts they took on with only arrow, spear, and/or rocks in hand.

I’ve yet to see an adult Neanderthal skeleton that doesn’t have at least one fracture, and in adults in their 30s, it’s common to see multiple healed fractures.” (That they suffered so many broken bones suggests they hunted large animals up close, probably stabbing prey with heavy spears—a risky tactic).

Then, Jack Cuozzo put forth that Neanderthal was simply modern man that lived into the ages of hundreds of years (pre-flood) and he was, of course, ridiculed by naturalists. As we know, the bible states that pre-flood man ate plants and animals were only allowed after the flood - the exact reverse of naturalist's version of human development.

I recently did a search of Neanderthal grave sites and was unable to find any hunting tools (hand knives excepted and being useful for plant based foods) directly placed, hence associated, with Neanderthal. Sure, there are hundreds of 'Neanderthal camps' considered 'slaughtering grounds' but no Neanderthal bones in those camps... just the assumption it was Neanderthal (I think) largely due to the assumption that they were predominately hunters as compared to more modern 'humanoids.'

However, recent technology investigating Plant Microfossils in Dental Calculus shows that Neanderthal not only had a plant rich diet, but had as much variety as modern man and either returned regularly to their 'gathering' grounds or farmed the ol' homestead.

Dental calculus was sampled from 33 fossil hominin individuals or dental samples (isolated teeth or groups of teeth), including 10 Neandertals from the Near East and Europe, and 23 early Homo sapiens from the Near East, Europe and Africa. Starch microfossils were sampled from crevices in stone tools at six sites, four of which also yielded some of the dental calculus samples mentioned above. The results suggested that Neandertals ate a wide range of plant foods throughout their range, including grains, tubers and legumes, and that the Homo sapiens who succeeded them did not have a broader plant diet. Additionally, the Iraqi Neandertals appear to have prepared grain, probably a kind of barley, by cooking it in water, and also consumed dates and possibly other tree fruits.

It is also assumed that because Neanderthal had higher levels of N15 than (what are today, post flood) carnivores / omnivores of Neanderthal's era, that Neanderthals had a meat rich diet. However, higher nitrogen isotopes simple denotes a higher protein diet which, if both were eating plant foods only, Neanderthal could have easily beat any animals in protein food consumption.

The cause of their demise is much debated. One theory concerning their extinction has focused on differential diets and foraging abilities between Neandertals and Homo sapiens. Stable isotope studies of Neandertals suggested that their bones had very high levels of a heavy isotope of nitrogen, N15 , which is increasingly concentrated as an animal eats higher and higher on the food chain. Neandertals had higher levels then cave bears from the same sites, suggesting to some that they ate almost entirely a meat-based diet, mostly based on the large game animals whose bones were found in the same sites.

So, just how does modern man compare to Neanderthal with N15 isotopes in fossilized bones?

Despite these caveats, isotopic analysis is the only direct measure of the protein sources in past diets, and it allows reconstruction of this aspect of Neanderthal and early modern human diets in Europe. The isotopic evidence for Neanderthal diets is notable for its consistency. Although the Neanderthals that have been studied to date come from different regions of Europe and time periods, the isotopic data show that, in each case, they have δ15N values between ≈3 and 5‰ higher than the local herbivores, and plot close to carnivores from the same or nearby sites. These higher δ15N values indicate that European Neanderthals had similar dietary adaptations.

Early modern humans in Europe have a more varied range of isotopic values that indicates that some of them consumed significant quantities of aquatic foods, both from freshwater and marine sources. The only human contemporary with the Neanderthals that currently provides isotopic data, Oase 1, has δ15N values that are the highest of all of the modern humans and higher than all of the Neanderthal values.

Okay, so modern man ate more protein than Neanderthal who, shockingly?, have almost perfectly consistent N15 rates regardless of where Neanderthal bones are found. Almost like they were all eating nothing but the same plant based foods? Almost like modern man's N15 varied based on availbility of meat food sources?

*scratches head*

What about all those broken bones by 'age 30' from fighting mammoths and the like?

Well, if you were 800+ years old, how many broken bones would you have living a pre-industrial revolution, modern man lifestyle... without ever having to tackle a wild beast?

[minorwork]

Here's something to chew on.

*scratches head*

What about all those broken bones by 'age 30' from fighting mammoths and the like?

Well, if you were 800+ years old, how many broken bones would you have living a pre-industrial revolution, modern man lifestyle... without ever having to tackle a wild beast?

Looks to me and I am looking at me, that they played football, rode motorcycles and crashed them, fell off roof helping to shingle, boiler blew up broke neck some, get drunk fall down, then skydiving fracture tibia, broke femur in mine, broke back some skydiving, laid open forehead at racquetball, took a bullet sized piece of steel in the chest stopped by a rib from a sledge hammer strike to a sprocket, was circumcised, appendectomy. Black eyes, busted nose, bruised testicles all from bar fights. Left bicep tore trying to keep a jitney motor on end, right bicep tore trying to make up my mind to hit a forehand and backhand and did both, not recommended. 800 years for Neanderthals???? What? Did their mommas nurse and carry them around?

I wasn't even in the military. Couldn't be the Neanderthals fought some, you think?

[Questatement]

I wasn't even in the military. Couldn't be the Neanderthals fought some, you think?

Sure, but I thnk that's a whole different injury set than what is found.

[minorwork]

Sure, but I thnk that's a whole different injury set than what is found.

Didn't I tell you I'm 800 years old?

[Brian]

Personally, I think all things will be explained within, what we call, natural. So in that sense, supernatural is something unseen. It by definition, something unexplainable. This means it is within the 'hidden' realm, and therefore not seen in any way shape or form. In a personal way, it is possible to perceive things which are not normally seen, such as understanding scripture. This might be called supernatural, though I don't like the term myself.

For something "supernatural" "hidden", why go to church every Sunday and read the Bible everyday to understand it? Why make it your life mission? Shouldn't you be more interested in natural and visible things?