Evolution Confusion

[Mega City 5]

That we've established the dependence of thought upon the physical state of the brain using experimental research that, by their structure that is fundamentally different from correlational research, establishes causality.

That's not what I asked for.

Last chance, and then you get ignored.

What is some fact A which, if true, is evidence for your claim and evidence against the null hypothesis?

If your next post isn't a sentence, or set of sentences, in English which indicate some given fact A (without links), I am just going to ignore your subsequent posts until you do.

[Mavorpen]

Fixed. You actually aren't following the scientific method considering you've openly refused to provide evidence for your hypothesis.

I'm assuming the null hypothesis.

No, you aren't. "Invisible Unicorns took my missing socks" is not the null hypothesis.

[Mavorpen]

That we've established the dependence of thought upon the physical state of the brain using experimental research that, by their structure that is fundamentally different from correlational research, establishes causality.

That's not what I asked for.

What you're asking for is scientifically gibberish so I'm answering it if it made sense within science.

[Mega City 5]

No, you aren't. "Invisible Unicorns took my missing socks" is not the null hypothesis.

The null hypothesis, in this case, is "It is not the case that all forms of cognition are reducible to brain states."

By your own admission.

[Mavorpen]

Actually, it is.

Of course you won't find it in a scientific textbook because it's undefined gibberish in the first place.

No, God is one hypothesis of many about the question of the ultimate source of reality (if you say none of these are hypotheses are valid, because we just don't know, that's agnosticism). Because God is theoretically beyond the physical, being the source of the physical, questions about him are not explored through empiricism (although there are great works on why the Gospels are works of history, those are more rational arguments to support empirical work, rather than empirical arguments per se), but rather through philosophical or mathematical systems. The most promising development of late is "structural-systematic philosophy", which aims to be as rigorous as mathematics (which has lead to it requiring its own system of notation), and has made a great deal of progress toward establishing God as a factual necessity.

I'm not sure why you think this contradicts God not existing being the null hypothesis.

[Mega City 5]

What you're asking for is scientifically gibberish so I'm answering it if it made sense within science.

And with that, I bid you good day.

[Mavorpen]

No, you aren't. "Invisible Unicorns took my missing socks" is not the null hypothesis.

The null hypothesis, in this case, is "It is not the case that all forms of cognition are reducible to brain states."

No, it isn't. The null hypothesis is the common hypothesis that you're seeking to reject. I provided evidence for my hypothesis. If you're not arguing for an actual competing hypothesis, then you're not actually arguing with me. You're arguing with yourself.

By your own admission.

You mean by your strawman of my "admission."

[Mavorpen]

What you're asking for is scientifically gibberish so I'm answering it if it made sense within science.

And with that, I bid you good day.

It's never a good day when you're forced to endure a scientifically illiterate individual selectively chooses when they apply science and when they don't based on whether it helps them or not.

So no, a good day for me isn't gonna happen.

[Harkback Union]

I can't seem to find where all this debate started and have no Idea on what the heck is going on, but Allow me to share a complaints of mine about contemporary science and philosophy, relevant to the discussion at hand.

Its often claimed that you are "not required to prove a negative" or an "idea of the lack something carries no burden of proof" because "the default state of rationality is disbelief in all theories" And its often meant to say that rationality believes all theories are false until proven otherwise.

But that's not actually rational to say and is self contradictory. Negatives are no different from positives, its only a matter of perspective. They both exclude each other, that's the whole point of using logic... but I'm tired and I don't have time to go on explaining that, lets just clarify the source of confusion, a negative is not a maybe. A Negative is certain belief of the absence of something, that something cannot ever exist, and yet if it does, your entire system of logic must be flawed and you need to question the very foundations of your thought.

That wouldn't make much sense for scientists, for instance, why believe that entire universe is empty between the stars just because there is no proof to back up or disprove the claim due to the technological limitations of their current optical instruments or the lack of spacecraft at hand? This would cut off avenues of research and give way to falsehoods.

Instead, they believe that everything may or may not exist and that all theories may or may not be valid, until proven otherwise, thereby allowing for yet unproven ideas to act as foundation of new ideas. Eventually, we may arrive at an Idea that might actually be tested and proven right or wrong, resulting in huge leaps forward in human understanding, or large chunks of theoratical speculation being thrown out of the window, whereas if we waited for proof to come around for the most basic ideas and never think that they may be right, we would either be very slow at or completely unable to figure stuff out.

[Mega City 5]

I can't seem to find where all this debate started and have no Idea on what the heck is going on, but Allow me to share a complaints of mine about contemporary science and philosophy, relevant to the discussion at hand.

Its often claimed that you are "not required to prove a negative" or an "idea of the lack something carries no burden of proof" because "the default state of rationality is disbelief in all theories" And its often meant to say that rationality believes all theories are false until proven otherwise.

But that's not actually rational to say and is self contradictory. Negatives are no different from positives, its only a matter of perspective. They both exclude each other, that's the whole point of using logic... but I'm tired and I don't have time to go on explaining that, lets just clarify the source of confusion, a negative is not a maybe. A Negative is certain belief of the absence of something, that something cannot ever exist, and yet if it does, your entire system of logic must be flawed and you need to question the very foundations of your thought.

That wouldn't make much sense for scientists, for instance, why believe that entire universe is empty between the stars just because there is no proof to back up or disprove the claim due to the technological limitations of their current optical instruments or the lack of spacecraft at hand? This would cut off avenues of research and give way to falsehoods.

Instead, they believe that everything may or may not exist and that all theories may or may not be valid, until proven otherwise, thereby allowing for yet unproven ideas to act as foundation of new ideas. Eventually, we may arrive at an Idea that might actually be tested and proven right or wrong, resulting in huge leaps forward in human understanding, or large chunks of theoratical speculation being thrown out of the window, whereas if we waited for proof to come around for the most basic ideas and never think that they may be right, we would either be very slow at or completely unable to figure stuff out.

What you are saying is basically consistent/compatible with what I've been saying the entire time. The bolded is basically the source of the confusion of the atheists/social liberals. They just can't seem to wrap their head arounds the idea that saying "I don't know" is perfectly legitimate. Their "go to" practise is to prejudice the question by presupposing that they are right.

[Mavorpen]

I can't seem to find where all this debate started and have no Idea on what the heck is going on, but Allow me to share a complaints of mine about contemporary science and philosophy, relevant to the discussion at hand.

Its often claimed that you are "not required to prove a negative" or an "idea of the lack something carries no burden of proof" because "the default state of rationality is disbelief in all theories" And its often meant to say that rationality believes all theories are false until proven otherwise.

But that's not actually rational to say and is self contradictory. Negatives are no different from positives, its only a matter of perspective. They both exclude each other, that's the whole point of using logic... but I'm tired and I don't have time to go on explaining that, lets just clarify the source of confusion, a negative is not a maybe. A Negative is certain belief of the absence of something, that something cannot ever exist, and yet if it does, your entire system of logic must be flawed and you need to question the very foundations of your thought.

That wouldn't make much sense for scientists, for instance, why believe that entire universe is empty between the stars just because there is no proof to back up or disprove the claim due to the technological limitations of their current optical instruments or the lack of spacecraft at hand? This would cut off avenues of research and give way to falsehoods.

Instead, they believe that everything may or may not exist and that all theories may or may not be valid, until proven otherwise, thereby allowing for yet unproven ideas to act as foundation of new ideas. Eventually, we may arrive at an Idea that might actually be tested and proven right or wrong, resulting in huge leaps forward in human understanding, or large chunks of theoratical speculation being thrown out of the window, whereas if we waited for proof to come around for the most basic ideas and never think that they may be right, we would either be very slow at or completely unable to figure stuff out.

What you are saying is basically consistent/compatible with what I've been saying the entire time. The bolded is basically the source of the confusion of the atheists/social liberals.

What he's saying is wrong, so... yeah, you're basically admitting that his incorrect claims is compatible with your incorrect arguments.

Because, I'll stress again. Science isn't interested in proving things. You don't prove a negative claim nor do you prove a positive one. You either reject the null hypothesis or you fail to reject it.

[Harkback Union]

I can't seem to find where all this debate started and have no Idea on what the heck is going on, but Allow me to share a complaints of mine about contemporary science and philosophy, relevant to the discussion at hand.

Its often claimed that you are "not required to prove a negative" or an "idea of the lack something carries no burden of proof" because "the default state of rationality is disbelief in all theories" And its often meant to say that rationality believes all theories are false until proven otherwise.

But that's not actually rational to say and is self contradictory. Negatives are no different from positives, its only a matter of perspective. They both exclude each other, that's the whole point of using logic... but I'm tired and I don't have time to go on explaining that, lets just clarify the source of confusion, a negative is not a maybe. A Negative is certain belief of the absence of something, that something cannot ever exist, and yet if it does, your entire system of logic must be flawed and you need to question the very foundations of your thought.

That wouldn't make much sense for scientists, for instance, why believe that entire universe is empty between the stars just because there is no proof to back up or disprove the claim due to the technological limitations of their current optical instruments or the lack of spacecraft at hand? This would cut off avenues of research and give way to falsehoods.

Instead, they believe that everything may or may not exist and that all theories may or may not be valid, until proven otherwise, thereby allowing for yet unproven ideas to act as foundation of new ideas. Eventually, we may arrive at an Idea that might actually be tested and proven right or wrong, resulting in huge leaps forward in human understanding, or large chunks of theoratical speculation being thrown out of the window, whereas if we waited for proof to come around for the most basic ideas and never think that they may be right, we would either be very slow at or completely unable to figure stuff out.

What you are saying is basically consistent/compatible with what I've been saying the entire time. The bolded is basically the source of the confusion of the atheists/social liberals. They just can't seem to wrap their head arounds the idea that saying "I don't know" is perfectly legitimate. Their "go to" practise is to prejudice the question by presupposing that they are right.

I agree with the atheist part, but why the social liberals?

[Mavorpen]

They just can't seem to wrap their head arounds the idea that saying "I don't know" is perfectly legitimate.

Quote me or any atheist here saying "'I don't know' isn't legitimate."

I'll wait.

Their "go to" practise is to prejudice the question by presupposing that they are right.

I see you're projecting again.

[Mavorpen]

What you are saying is basically consistent/compatible with what I've been saying the entire time. The bolded is basically the source of the confusion of the atheists/social liberals. They just can't seem to wrap their head arounds the idea that saying "I don't know" is perfectly legitimate. Their "go to" practise is to prejudice the question by presupposing that they are right.

I agree with the atheist part, but why the social liberals?

Because he's butthurt he lost a debate in the abortion thread and now has a thing against "social liberals."

[Mega City 5]

I agree with the atheist part, but why the social liberals?

Atheism and social liberalism; conceptually, theoretically, dogmatically...there's really not much between them. I could go on, perhaps even write a thread about it, if you're interested.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

I agree with the atheist part, but why the social liberals?

Because he's butthurt he lost a debate in the abortion thread and now has a thing against "social liberals."

To be fair, he had a massive hatecrush even as he entered that thread.

[Mavorpen]

Because he's butthurt he lost a debate in the abortion thread and now has a thing against "social liberals."

To be fair, he had a massive hatecrush even as he entered that thread.

Addendum:

He's butthurt he's lost debates in general about abortion and any other "social liberal" topics and now he has a thing against "social liberals."

[Washington Resistance Army]

I agree with the atheist part, but why the social liberals?

Atheism and social liberalism; conceptually, theoretically, dogmatically...there's really not much between them. I could go on, perhaps even write a thread about it, if you're interested.

Something else you're wrong on, shocking.

[Mavorpen]

Atheism and social liberalism; conceptually, theoretically, dogmatically...there's really not much between them. I could go on, perhaps even write a thread about it, if you're interested.

Something else you're wrong on, shocking.

I considered making a drinking game out of it, but I don't want to get someone killed from alcohol poisoning.

[Mega City 5]

Something else you're wrong on, shocking.

Hubris. Sheer hubris.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Something else you're wrong on, shocking.

Hubris. Sheer hubris.

Truth. Sheer truth.

You evidently know absolutely nothing about Atheism (or social liberalism for that matter, but I'll leave that for someone else) because you make the hilariously stupid assertion that Atheism has a dogma. There's nothing to Atheism beyond not accepting theistic claims, that's it. So either you don't know what Atheism is or you don't know what the word dogma means.

[Pope Joan]

I am no scientist (poor at higher math) but I did enjoy reading what Loren Eiseley wrote. I guess he was more of a naturalist with philosophical leanings.

But he believed that evolution might not have been gradual, but sudden, caused by huge upheavals such as radiation or meteor impacts or many other cataclysms.

It seems possible to me.

[Mavorpen]

Hubris. Sheer hubris.

Truth. Sheer truth.

You evidently know absolutely nothing about Atheism (or social liberalism for that matter, but I'll leave that for someone else) because you make the hilariously stupid assertion that Atheism has a dogma. There's nothing to Atheism beyond not accepting theistic claims, that's it. So either you don't know what Atheism is or you don't know what the word dogma means.

That's not the worst part. The worst part was that he claimed that atheists state that "I don't know" is unacceptable, when atheists are usually the only ones who actually argue that "I don't know" IS acceptable in religious debates.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Truth. Sheer truth.

You evidently know absolutely nothing about Atheism (or social liberalism for that matter, but I'll leave that for someone else) because you make the hilariously stupid assertion that Atheism has a dogma. There's nothing to Atheism beyond not accepting theistic claims, that's it. So either you don't know what Atheism is or you don't know what the word dogma means.

That's not the worst part. The worst part was that he claimed that atheists state that "I don't know" is unacceptable, when atheists are usually the only ones who actually argue that "I don't know" IS acceptable in religious debates.

I might take you up on that drinking game

[BK117B2]

What you are saying is basically consistent/compatible with what I've been saying the entire time. The bolded is basically the source of the confusion of the atheists/social liberals. They just can't seem to wrap their head arounds the idea that saying "I don't know" is perfectly legitimate. Their "go to" practise is to prejudice the question by presupposing that they are right.

That is called projection. I brought this up before, but you were unwilling to reply:

If you are so interested in whining about atheists or social liberals, then why not make an actual thread about it? Why do you keep inventing excuses to whine about them elsewhere?