Evolution Confusion

[Mega City 5]

You haven't given al any evidence against my hypothesis.

You haven't given any evidence for your hypothesis. I'm still waiting for you to give a piece of evidence which is inconsistent with the null hypothesis, and so far, you've failed miserably.

[Mavorpen]

I already explained twice now. I'm not doing so a third time. Go back and read.

If it please you, quote the relevant paragraphs of the articles.

Quote it for what, specifically?

If it please you, quote the relevant paragraphs of the articles.

He's taking it on atheist faith. Because science.

Science is atheist faith?

Wow, I've seen you post some stupid shit but thus takes the cake.

[Morr]

Quote it for what, specifically?

To demonstrate that causality is more than an instinctual linking of two things based on a one-way street perception of time.

[Mavorpen]

You haven't given al any evidence against my hypothesis.

You haven't given any evidence for your hypothesis. I'm still waiting for you to give a piece of evidence which is inconsistent with the null hypothesis, and so far, you've failed miserably succeeded fantasically.

Fixed. I've given you the evidence repeatedly. You continue to reject it based on your faith in your hypothesis that you refuse to actually substantiate because shifting the burden of proof is easier than actually debating. That's the only thing you're good at.

[Mavorpen]

Quote it for what, specifically?

To demonstrate that causality is more than an instinctual linking of two things based on a one-way street perception of time.

You fucking wot?

When did I say ANYTHING about this?

[Mega City 5]

To demonstrate that causality is more than an instinctual linking of two things based on a one-way street perception of time.

Actually, that's what he's assuming. If that's his assumption, then by Hume's standards of causality, then he's entirely correct. There is a causal link, i.e., a constant conjunction, between thought and brain states, at least in this state of life.

In fact, however, that's not what causality is. Causality is existential dependence. A is because B is.

[Geanna]

Do you have a paper establishing that a hypothesis other than the one supported by the above evidence is consistent with said evidence or not?

I don't have to.

Unless you can tell me a piece of evidence which would be true if your hypothesis is correct and false if the null hypothesis is incorrect, you haven't given enough evidence to merit my giving evidence against your hypothesis. It's failed to be supported.

Actually, you do. The burden of proof lies on you. Outside of getting answers you clearly don't like, and watching the discussion like a hawk on that pole of yours, the discussion hasn't gotten anywhere and you've not helped in the slightest to actually move it forwards, much less make it engaging.

[Mega City 5]

Fixed. I've given you the evidence repeatedly. You continue to reject it based on your faith in your hypothesis that you refuse to actually substantiate because shifting the burden of proof is easier than actually debating. That's the only thing you're good at.

Ok. Then briefly, in a single proposition, tell me something which scientists have found which would be true if your hypothesis is correct and false if mine is incorrect.

Just a single proposition. That's all that I am asking for. "If I am right, and you are wrong, then A. Scientists have found A."

[Mega City 5]

Actually, you do. The burden of proof lies on you. Outside of getting answers you clearly don't like, and watching the discussion like a hawk on that pole of yours, the discussion hasn't gotten anywhere and you've not helped in the slightest to actually move it forwards, much less make it engaging.

No, it doesn't. I haven't actually advanced a claim. My assumption, for argumentative purposes, is agnosticism. Mavorpen is the one arguing for something other than: "I don't know."

Incidentally: did my nation flag inspire the hawk comment? Just out of curiosity.

[Mavorpen]

Actually, you do. The burden of proof lies on you. Outside of getting answers you clearly don't like, and watching the discussion like a hawk on that pole of yours, the discussion hasn't gotten anywhere and you've not helped in the slightest to actually move it forwards, much less make it engaging.

No, it doesn't. I haven't actually advanced a claim. My assumption, for argumentative purposes, is agnosticism. Mavorpen is the one arguing for something other than: "I don't know."

Incidentally: did my nation flag inspire the hawk comment? Just out of curiosity.

I LITERALLY explained this to you already. Agnosticism. Does. Not. Exist. In. Science. Not in any way that makes ME have the burden of proof

You DO, in fact, have the burden of proof. See: Russel's Teapot.

[Mega City 5]

I LITERALLY explained this to you already. Agnosticism. Does. Not. Exist. In. Science. Not in any way that makes ME have the burden of proof

You DO, in fact, have the burden of proof. See: Russel's Teapot.

The burden of proof lies on the one making the positive claim (i.e., any claim other than "I don't know"). Always.

I'm still waiting.

[Morr]

I LITERALLY explained this to you already. Agnosticism. Does. Not. Exist. In. Science. Not in any way that makes ME have the burden of proof

You DO, in fact, have the burden of proof. See: Russel's Teapot.

Russel was a philosopher, not a scientist. It is not assumed God doesn't exist in science, at least as far as I know, not a single scientific textbook suggests that.

[Geanna]

Actually, you do. The burden of proof lies on you. Outside of getting answers you clearly don't like, and watching the discussion like a hawk on that pole of yours, the discussion hasn't gotten anywhere and you've not helped in the slightest to actually move it forwards, much less make it engaging.

No, it doesn't. I haven't actually advanced a claim. My assumption, for argumentative purposes, is agnosticism. Mavorpen is the one arguing for something other than: "I don't know."

Incidentally: did my nation flag inspire the hawk comment? Just out of curiosity.

It was an analogy to you swooping in whenever you saw fit, and believing that your position is entirely infallible. Which means that really, we have better luck arguing with a wall than participating in this discussion. You've already made up your mind, and are merely wasting our times in this tripe. Cheers.

[Mavorpen]

I LITERALLY explained this to you already. Agnosticism. Does. Not. Exist. In. Science. Not in any way that makes ME have the burden of proof

You DO, in fact, have the burden of proof. See: Russel's Teapot.

The burden of proof lies on the one making the positive claim. Always.

I'm not making a positive claim. I'm making a negative one.

I'm still waiting.

I'm also waiting for you to back up your argument.

[Mega City 5]

Furthermore, Mavopen, if I've understood you correctly, then "I don't know" is, in fact, the very starting point and "go to" assumption of science.

In science, every claim is assumed false until given evidence for the contrary, by your own admission.

[Mavorpen]

I LITERALLY explained this to you already. Agnosticism. Does. Not. Exist. In. Science. Not in any way that makes ME have the burden of proof

You DO, in fact, have the burden of proof. See: Russel's Teapot.

Russel was a philosopher, not a scientist. It is not assumed God doesn't exist in science, at least as far as I know, not a single scientific textbook suggests that.

Actually, it is.

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

[Mega City 5]

I'm not making a positive claim.

"Thoughts are reducible to brain states."

Looks like an assertion to me.

Can you provide evidence for it or not? Evidence, note, which is not consistent with thoughts not being or being reducible to brain states?

[Mavorpen]

Furthermore, Mavopen, if I've understood you correctly, then "I don't know" is, in fact, the very starting point and "go to" assumption of science.

So basically, you didn't understand me correctly.

In science, every claim is assumed false until given evidence for the contrary, by your own admission.

Good for you, you actually understood something.

[Mega City 5]

Good for you, you actually understood something.

Well great! I'm assuming that what you are saying is false until evidence is presented otherwise.

As per the scientific method.

[Mavorpen]

I'm not making a positive claim.

"Thoughts are reducible to brain states."

Looks like an assertion to me.

It's not mine. It's a straw man you created that I ran with, under the negative form, for simplicity's sake.

Can you provide evidence for it or not?

Already have.

Evidence, note, which is not consistent with thoughts not being or being reducible to brain states?

Already have.

[Mega City 5]

You already have? Well ok.

Simply explain to me, in plain English, why your evidence rules out the null hypothesis.

[Mavorpen]

Good for you, you actually understood something.

Well great! I'm assuming that what you are saying is false until evidence is presented otherwise.

As per the opposite of the scientific method.

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

[Mavorpen]

You already have? Well ok.

Simply explain to me, in plain English, why your evidence rules out the null hypothesis.

In brief, what is your evidence for the claim that all forms of thought are reducible to physical states?

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.

[Mega City 5]

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.

[Morr]

Russel was a philosopher, not a scientist. It is not assumed God doesn't exist in science, at least as far as I know, not a single scientific textbook suggests that.

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.