Testability

[mitchellmckain]

I have never been treated this disrespectful before, I asked you to stop and you just went on and disrespected almost everyone you have directed a post at. That is what I don't like Mitch, I love it when people call me out on inconsistencies because it ultimately helps me, but being disrespected is uncalled for.

You get all upset when you suddenly decide that you are being disrespected. These things are themselves completely subjective opinions which you cannot prove and yet you assert them with all the absurd pretense of objectivity and authority as any fundamentalist in any religion. That right there is an inconsistency on your part.

No matter what your delusions about yourself may be, I guarantee that people do perceive disrespect by you in the same subjective manner that you do and some may indeed whine about in the same way, but I find this pointless and therefore I do not play this ridiculous defensive game of villifying and accusation. I simply stick to reciprocal principles that you cannot expect other people not to do the very same thing that you yourself are doing, and no I certainly will not accept your arbitrary dictation of absolute rules when you don't like people getting what they have been dish out to other people.

[mitchellmckain]

The problem is that we are not accusing him of being critical thinking. Being "too" philosophical and critical thinking are different things. I don't even understand what your points are half the time, they are splattered in between what you think philosophers and a bunch of other people think. Rian agrees with you and your style, I don't agree with either. We can keep it simple for now because we are still at the begining stages of the discussion, and that is learning about what each of us thinks as individuals. I honestly (for the purposes of these forums) could care less about what those people you are citing have to say. If they came on and stated their points and were able to defend them, then I would be more intrested. for now though I would rather you state and defend your points.

I know you are a theist Hare, but are you a Christian? perhaps I missed where you said what you were. Could you tell me why you are a Christian, if you are one?

I am a Christian because I have had an experience of God in Jesus Christ.
I don't think as an individual or at least not as an isolate. I really don't see any value in re-inventing the wheel and if an approach has already been competently refuted then I can't see any reason for not starting from that refutation. I can't really see why people would choose to be ignorant when there is such a wealth of knowledge out there. Did you build your own house starting from scratch and discover all the methods of architecture and building for yourself? So why not draw on the great intellectual traditions already established? Why insist on re-making all the mistakes that atheistic thinkers in the past have made?

There is a big difference between refusing to accept an assertion because someone else says so and trying to reinvent the wheel. But then there is also a big difference between refering to what someone says in order to put it in its historical context and trying to argue that something should be accepted because some respected writer says so. I cannot help feeling a sense of irony here, when half the time I see complaints that what is being expressed has no background that people can look into (with absurd accusations that you are just making stuff up), and the other half of the time we see complaints that you are daring to mention such a background because this supposedly amounts to an argument from authority -- sometimes by the very same person!

Look... We are all free to read whatever we want and we are all free to respond to whatever we want and there really is no need for policing the style and way that people have of expressing themselves. Get a grip. You can either challenge yourself to learn from people who think and express themselves differently than you do or you can retreat into you own little shell, but all this rhetoric arguing that there is something wrong with people who think and express themselves differently is pretty disgusting. AND this is NOT an accusation but simply pointing out one of the directions that people can be going towards, so lets not go there ok?

[gary_s]

Lot's of posts, I see. I've been out of town and will have to catch up.

Here we go again. Let's try to discuss this calmly and productively, and without assuming anything about what people are thinking, please!!!

I have no problem doing that, Rian. I'm always open to an honest and sincere exchange.

First, putting "some" in front DOES make a difference. I don't think that all atheists are like that, but some sure are. That's why I put "some" in front of it. And darn it, it DOES make a difference!!!! Of course it makes a difference! That means that I think that some atheists are NOT that way! No, I'm wrong - the way I worded it, it means MOST atheists are NOT that way!

Let me explain it this way. I know what you are trying to say, but it simply cannot be interpreted that way, and here's why. If a number of people are standing around and half of them have one opinion and the other half have the opposite opinion, then one person says "Well, I think some people..." and goes on to describe basically how he sees the opposite half of the room, everyone in the other half is bound to assume these comments are directed at them. They contain elements of that half's argument and position, although they do not accurately describe any particular person in that half. IOW, it's a vague and generally meaningless comment that could mean almost anyone in the other half. So, the result is that everyone in the opposite half will assume it at least includes them. So, such things are just better left unsaid. Why? Because what's the point? All you are bound to do is anger everyone who espouses any minute part of that opposing argument. Since you describe it in such a general and vague way, it can and will be taken personally by pretty much everyone who opposes you. So, if your intention is to anger and annoy everyone in the opposite half, then you have succeeded. If you had any other purpose, then it has failed. I don't despise you for having such an opinion (however misguided it may be), but I do despise this dishonest and destructive conversational device. It's pointless and should be avoided at all costs. And you should remember that such a blunt instrument can be used against you at any time just as easily.

I don't think it sounds "pompous", and we ALL do similar things. That accusation really confuses me - how is it bad to say that you see some people in a group doing something instead of ALL of them doing something? At least I do use "some", instead of lumping atheists into one group, as many atheists do with Christians.

Well, we just differ here. I do feel that it sounds pompous and also coy. It's a way of insulting everyone without naming anyone. It's a rather cowardly insult. If you really want to insult me, I'd rather you just say it to my face. And as I said, it adds no useful information to the conversation, so why use it at all unless you mean to insult someone? And regardless of the use of "some", just your continued harping on this idea that anyone on this forum who takes science seriously or defends certain aspects of science more than you, is a strange thing is insulting and ignorant, particularly when a heated debate on a scientific subject is about. A topic raised by a Christian member, I should point out. What a stupid thing to say, really. Oh, those guys over there are defending this position rather adamantly, so they must be obsessed with it. Oy! How strange they are.

I said specifically that I did NOT want to name names because I don't want to get personal. What in the world is wrong with that?

Let's see, how many people were in on this conversation? How many were atheists/agnostics? How many were directly debating Mitch? That narrows it down a bit, now doesn't it? Look, if you insist on keeping up this charade that this device is benign and appropriate, then go ahead even though you know it is not. But be warned that when it is used on you, then you have absolutely no room for complaint!

Or are you saying that NO atheist can be wrong in their attitudes about science?

This is not related at all to your "strange" comment. I have never stated such a thing, nor does it follow from any of my posts. Yes, atheists/agnostics can be wrong on just about anything. It depends on what they know. But whether they are right or wrong has nothing to do with the passion they use in debating others on topics they are passionate about. Ah, that would have been a wonderful choice of words. Am I passionate about science? Yes. See, nothing punitive or pejorative at all. Passionate sounds much better than strange, don't you think?

For cryin' out loud, I didn't even say "most"!! I said "some"!!! You are WAY over-reacting here, and making an insult where there is NONE - especially because I specifically said I would NOT name names.

If you don't consider your comment to be insulting even in the slightest, then consider how you would react had I made a similar statement that could easily include you. I think you would be just as offended as I am. In fact, I've seen you get offended by even less offensive things before.

I agreed with Mitch in something he saw AS LONG AS it was modified with "some". That's all. You guys are being WAY oversensitive - you're imagining a personal insult from me when there is none. Just because I agreed with a modified statement from Mitch doesn't mean that I act like him. Please just relax and read what I actually said. There is NO personal insult there. Please compare my posts with his - they're very different.

Well...this sounds like it might could be an apology, although it really isn't. But if you would simply retract the statement and agree not to make such ignorant generalizations in the future, then I'm willing to forget about it.

That's your opinion. Should I say you are being pompous because you're trying to be the judge of what is on topic and what isn't? Let's just cool down, OK?

I'm plenty cool right now and no, I don't think your statement works here. First of all, I didn't derail the conversation with off-topic rhetoric and insults; you and Mitch are guilty of that. I thought the discussion was going quite well and was enjoying it. I saw interesting points and counter points being made and was anxiously awaiting the next post and intriguing angle to think about. Considering and responding to these issues is a welcome challenge for me. That is, until Mitch just apparently ran out of both ideas and manhood and decided to rant and deflect and then you just piled on. But you are welcome to call me pompous or anal or anything you want for just wanting to continue a conversation without the participants starting to yell and rant at one another. That's no fun; it's bitter and disgusting and I despise it. And I swear that I don't believe you wouldn't do such a thing in a room of people. I believe you would think twice and filter your comments more. It's just too easy to type this stuff and then click the submit button. You don't have to look upon the hurt and offended face of your opposer. And, you are far out of reach of your opposer's fist. But with Mitch, I'm not so sure. I'm beginning to think that he may suffer from some sort of clinical emotional aberration or another.

As far as the rest - we probably better not go further until we resolve this bit.

1. Do you at least agree with me that your comment was off topic?

2. Do you agree that to move forward in a conversation, avoiding derailments of this nature is a important?

3. Do you agree that Mitch's comments were inappropriate, unproductive and off-topic?

Rian, if you do not agree with all three of these precepts, then I'm afraid we have no common ground on which to stand and it might be best if you simply ignored my posts from now on because if not, this cycle will only repeat itself. But its your decision; I only suggest one possible solution.

[gary_s]

The first thing that strikes me here is the difference between your concept of science and Dr. Mundo's. For him science has to be concerned with the natural world for you there is no restriction of subject matter. So for example we could use this method in psychology or history or even theology.

Again, I think your are merely parsing the definition. What is the 'natural world'? If I study the effect of child abuse on the learning ability of the abuse child, is that a psychological study? Isn't it also part of the natural world? When I think of the natural world, I think of anything excluding metaphysics, or the supernatural. So, I don't think there's really any space between our definition in this regard.

I find point 4 interesting because it implies that any hypothesis without a practical application is not really scientific. That gets rid of a large part of mathematics and quite a lot of physics.

I think you misunderstand point 4. Did you read my analysis of acupuncture? The fact that no realistic mechanism for acupuncture to work is part of the reason it is not science. It is claimed to work through a "magical" energy called qi, but this energy is not known to exist, so no mechanism is known. This alone doesn't exclude something from science, but it can be used as a factor. Since acupuncture fails otherwise, this only supports that conclusion.

Point 1 probably needs to be pushed in a more Popperian direction so that we can recognize that a hypothesis is not normally based on an individual's experience but has the whole history of science and even of humanity standing behind it. So if we ask what came first hypothesis or experience we acknowledge that our experience is shaped by prior hypotheses.

That's an interesting point, but I'm not sure I understand its relevance. Maybe if I think about it more; I'm a bit tired right now.

On point 3 we cannot literally test all the predictions implied in a universal hypothesis we can test a very small number of them. I find it intriguing also that you have not included the idea of falsifiability in your definition; would you see no need for that?

Ah, you caught my mistake. That was supposed to be point 3. I simply misworded it. It wasn't supposed to be about testing for the affirmative, but rather for falsifications. Sorry about that.

Well you have to disagree but I am not sure what we are disagreeing about. You had said the early scientists did not know they were doing science but were just exercising curiosity. So I drew on Newton as an example. My point was we have to take our understanding of what science is from present practice and then we can ask how much of what Newton did was science. Newton really did think the approach he was using could be applied in other fields like history and theology and that he could for example use the Bible as data. He was a Fundamentalist in the sense that he saw the Bible as a kind of encyclopedia which could be put to use as one of the tools of science. For example he thought the temple in Jerusalem was a model of the solar system. In these respects he differs very much from the Church Fathers or the Medieval Christian thinkers and has more affinity with modern day Creationists, Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists. We have to look back from our perspective and using our model of science say which parts of his work are truly science. And that means we have an idea of what science is which is different from his. If you ask what his idea of science was or how he thought the scientific method worked then it is pretty clear he was a Baconian inductivist. The question of what role he felt hypotheses play in science is quite tricky but he does seem to have thought he was to a large extent making inductions directly from experience and not using a hypothetical method as the medieval astronomers did. Around the mid nineteenth century people began to admit to using a hypothetico-deductive method in science and that is the model you describe above. To complete the picture of pre-Popperian philosophy of science John Stuart Mill questioned the hypothetical method in ways that anticipate Popper but tries to resolve it's problems by reintroducing the idea of induction but in a more sophisticated form. Anyway this is turning into an essay so I'll stop. On Newton and alchemy the book to read is Michael White's 'Newton the Last Sorcerer'. I found a copy in Newton's childhood home which is a few miles from where I live. Yes, I think you are wrong about the mental illness Newton was at the height of his powers when he delved into alchemy as far as I am aware.

OK, thanks for correcting me on that. Yes, it is beginning to sound like a history class. And at this point I can't remember what we disagree about, either. I think you are pointing out the differences in the way the scientific method is defined now, vs. in the past, and I don't disagree there. I was just saying that regardless of Newton's methods, his ideas worked well enough then to be accepted as science and have been upheld since then, except for the parts that were not strong enough and have been replaced by stronger models. I suppose it could be said that his work with alchemy reveals his limitations as a scientist, perhaps?

Well the molten metal case is not really relevant because when we decide if an event is real or imaginary what we do is take paradigm cases of real and imaginary events and compare them. But if we ask about the ultimate nature of reality we are asking a different kind of question. But I agree we should stick to ordinary common sense experience rather than be highly speculative when deciding what is real. However this means that those who find God as part of this common sense reality are fully justified in doing so and any philosophical speculation I indulge in is to establish this point as rationally valid. What annoys me is when people use a little bit of critical thinking to debunk religion but then as soon as you turn that critical method back on them say 'Oh no, now you are being too philosophical'.

Well, I'll grant you your point. This is and will always be the limit of a scientific approach. And I'll admit that I have only a limited capacity for philosophical labyrinths that forever seem to go nowhere. You are absolutely right that there is a limitation to our existence that science can perceive, and I've never been one to say that we can or should falsify this god idea. To me it isn't productive. If you or Mitch or anyone feels that god is real and that it speaks to you in some way, then who am I to say you are dead wrong? But here's the thing. For pretty much every person I know on a personal basis and have a relationship with who is a believer in some god, that god is supposedly constantly at work tinkering in the life and workings of the universe in ways which are simply not consistent with anything we know to exist, or how to exist. So, perhaps things do just pop into existence, but I see no reason to accept such a notion, and there are a great many to choose from. These people are champions of confirmation bias and nothing else. Your philosophical argument could just as well be written in Sanskrit and they would be no closer to following it. And just as we can never know if we exist, we can equally never know what gods exist. Now, maybe I'm wrong and god is real and I just don't see it, but I'm pretty sure that what they are describing to me as god, isn't really god either. It's more of a cartoon. This lay-man's god, the one that touched aunt Emma and cured her of her cancer, is the god that is not. It's an emotional reaction and nothing more. But to me, I simply see less value in pondering a potentially non-existence entity than pondering the known and possibly knowable universe. The treasures seem more real to me.

[Rian]

Rian agrees with you and your style, I don't agree with either.

Just to be clear - I don't think it's the right style, because I don't think there is one right style. I think it is a good style, one of many, because I value different ways of thinking.

[Dr Mundo]

Rian agrees with you and your style, I don't agree with either.

Just to be clear - I don't think it's the right style, because I don't think there is one right style. I think it is a good style, one of many, because I value different ways of thinking.

Yeah that's fine. I don't think there is a "right" style for conversation either, I just don't like Hare's style. because I don't understand what he is trying to say half the time.

BTW this thread has gone from testability, which I didn't really follow to begin with, to all sorts of different topics. For the sake of discussion, Can you in a brief and precise way tell me what you meant with your original post about testability? In other words what were you trying to prove or show?

[Rian]

Unfortunately, quoted posts get exponentially longer, but I'll hit the parts that I think are most helpful.

I have no problem doing that, Rian. I'm always open to an honest and sincere exchange.

So am I! I mean, I am SOOO there with you! But I'm starting to see more and more problems with the whole insult thing, where one person strongly feels like it is insulting, and the other strongly feels that it isn't, and vice-versa, and I just don't know what to do about it. Maybe the best thing is to just pick those people that you work better with, for whatever reason, and talk with them.

Let me explain it this way. I know what you are trying to say, but it simply cannot be interpreted that way, and here's why. If a number of people are standing around and half of them have one opinion and the other half have the opposite opinion, then one person says "Well, I think some people..." and goes on to describe basically how he sees the opposite half of the room, everyone in the other half is bound to assume these comments are directed at them. They contain elements of that half's argument and position, although they do not accurately describe any particular person in that half. IOW, it's a vague and generally meaningless comment that could mean almost anyone in the other half. So, the result is that everyone in the opposite half will assume it at least includes them. So, such things are just better left unsaid. Why? Because what's the point? All you are bound to do is anger everyone who espouses any minute part of that opposing argument. Since you describe it in such a general and vague way, it can and will be taken personally by pretty much everyone who opposes you. So, if your intention is to anger and annoy everyone in the opposite half, then you have succeeded. If you had any other purpose, then it has failed. I don't despise you for having such an opinion (however misguided it may be), but I do despise this dishonest and destructive conversational device. It's pointless and should be avoided at all costs. And you should remember that such a blunt instrument can be used against you at any time just as easily.

But I welcome the "some" thing, Gary, and so do others here. There are some (hey, that was unintentional, but funny - I just used "some"!) anyway, there are some people here who definitely agree that using modifiers like "some" is a good thing not a bad. However, your explanation made me realize how some people can take it wrong (I disagree that "everyone" will) because I've seen it in real life: when people give this big emphasis to the word "some" so that everyone knows they're meaning "all". But that's not how I used it, Gary - I used it because I saw some with the problem, and some not with the problem. I think this issue is totally a function of typed communication and how we perceive people on the "other side". And again, I don't know how to solve it. I can try to word it more carefully, but it starts to get ridiculous when every sentence is hedged 'round with all sorts of other sentences so that no one takes it wrong. Again, I'm thinking that maybe the answer is to just talk with people that don't tend to take you the wrong way.

And I'm fine with people using it, although I hope they don't use it "against" me - I hope they use it the way that I use it - to express what they mean! that what you're saying doesn't apply to the whole group. I think the opposite problem is worse, so we might just never agree here.

Well, we just differ here. I do feel that it sounds pompous and also coy. It's a way of insulting everyone without naming anyone. It's a rather cowardly insult. If you really want to insult me, I'd rather you just say it to my face.

I didn't want to insult you. And yes, it IS a way to insult everyone, but it doesn't HAVE to be a way to do that - it can also be a perfectly valid and necessary thing to say. So I guess we'll just have to differ here, although I hope you can understand what I'm saying.

And as I said, it adds no useful information to the conversation, so why use it at all unless you mean to insult someone?

Because as I said, I thought it added useful information to the conversation.

And regardless of the use of "some", just your continued harping on this idea that anyone on this forum who takes science seriously or defends certain aspects of science more than you, is a strange thing is insulting and ignorant, particularly when a heated debate on a scientific subject is about. A topic raised by a Christian member, I should point out. What a stupid thing to say, really. Oh, those guys over there are defending this position rather adamantly, so they must be obsessed with it. Oy! How strange they are.

I didn't say that, Gary. You're just projecting into it. I don't see every atheist having this problem, but I see some that do. And it is SO volatile a thought that I don't want to name names. All I want to do is raise awareness of it, even to those that aren't posting, and hope that they can see the mistake someday. And yet I see your point, too - but all it will make me do is be more careful with my wording.

Let's see, how many people were in on this conversation? How many were atheists/agnostics? How many were directly debating Mitch? That narrows it down a bit, now doesn't it? Look, if you insist on keeping up this charade that this device is benign and appropriate, then go ahead even though you know it is not. But be warned that when it is used on you, then you have absolutely no room for complaint!

Let's see - no, please don't let's use "let's see" - don't you think that's sarcastic?

Anyway, I said "the more outspoken of these", in addition to "some", and in a post to Dr. M, I said " Actually, the person that I think is the best example of this is on another forum". So it's no charade - I think it's you over-reacting. I think the atheist side was very defensive from Mitch's posts (and I wish he would back off a bit and find a better way to communicate ) and you just took that feeling and put it all on me, because I agreed with a modified version of what he said. I can understand that, but I also think that you should see better by now and apologize.

This is not related at all to your "strange" comment. I have never stated such a thing, nor does it follow from any of my posts. Yes, atheists/agnostics can be wrong on just about anything. It depends on what they know. But whether they are right or wrong has nothing to do with the passion they use in debating others on topics they are passionate about. Ah, that would have been a wonderful choice of words. Am I passionate about science? Yes. See, nothing punitive or pejorative at all. Passionate sounds much better than strange, don't you think?

But it doesn't fit what I was talking about. Nor does passionate mean strange. Nor does a passionate person necessarily personify science. I mean what I said, exactly that.

If you don't consider your comment to be insulting even in the slightest, then consider how you would react had I made a similar statement that could easily include you. I think you would be just as offended as I am. In fact, I've seen you get offended by even less offensive things before.

Gary, here we are again - how the different sides see insults. I continually see the atheist side drag up the tooth fairy and the FSM, when to me, those examples are both insulting and ridiculous. Yet "your side" keeps doing it. I thought what I said was WELL within the bounds of what I see going on here, and I thought it was a valuable observation that I hope will help someone someday. So yes, it was slightly insulting, but in the sense of "I think you're doing something wrong", not a personal insult. One could say that ANYTIME you disagree with someone, it's "insulting", but I think most of us here have a general feeling of what crosses the line. But it was NOT directed at the whole group here, and IMO it was FAR below what I see over and over from the atheist side.

I Well...this sounds like it might could be an apology, although it really isn't. But if you would simply retract the statement and agree not to make such ignorant generalizations in the future, then I'm willing to forget about it.

It's no apology, Gary - I don't think I did anything wrong - I thought I was WELL within what the atheist side constantly puts out, and I still think so. What I was saying is that I don't do the personal insult rant thing. So I will not retract the staement, unless you will retract everything that insults me. But then we can't talk about things we disagree on.

Also, it wasn't an ignorant nor was it a generalization - I was basing my statement on things that I've seen on various discussion boards - this makes it a fact - and it wasn't a generalization - I said it only applied to a certain group within atheists. You're just wrong here, and I hope you can see it, because I certainly won't stop.

I suggest that we just try to start over - it's clear to me that you mean well, and I hope it's clear to you that I mean well.

I'm plenty cool right now and no, I don't think your statement works here. First of all, I didn't derail the conversation with off-topic rhetoric and insults; you and Mitch are guilty of that.

I don't think it was off-topic, and certainly people go WAY more off-topic and derail conversations all the time, so please stop with that. Also, it wasn't an insult, unless you want to say the fairy tale thing is an insult, too, and stop saying it. We just disagree on what an insult is, but I still think that we have a general agreement on good behavior.

I thought the discussion was going quite well and was enjoying it. I saw interesting points and counter points being made and was anxiously awaiting the next post and intriguing angle to think about. Considering and responding to these issues is a welcome challenge for me. That is, until Mitch just apparently ran out of both ideas and manhood and decided to rant and deflect and then you just piled on.

I didn't "pile on", Gary. I think you're just projecting here. I think if you go back and read with an open mind, you'll see a huge difference. But also, I think you've done plenty of "piling on". It's just a matter of POV.

But you are welcome to call me pompous or anal or anything you want for just wanting to continue a conversation without the participants starting to yell and rant at one another. That's no fun; it's bitter and disgusting and I despise it. And I swear that I don't believe you wouldn't do such a thing in a room of people. I believe you would think twice and filter your comments more. It's just too easy to type this stuff and then click the submit button. You don't have to look upon the hurt and offended face of your opposer. And, you are far out of reach of your opposer's fist. But with Mitch, I'm not so sure. I'm beginning to think that he may suffer from some sort of clinical emotional aberration or another.

Well, actually I think what you said about me here was more insulting than what you said about Mitch! Sounds to me like you're saying I'm a coward and a bully that hides behind a keyboard. But then I could be wrong. And you were wrong about me.

1. Do you at least agree with me that your comment was off topic?

Only a little bit, but still WELL within the norm of discussion style here. And actually, it irritates me when a person designates themselves as the topic police - I think what should be done is to ask the person to put it on another thread, and then leave it alone and let group consensus decide.

2. Do you agree that to move forward in a conversation, avoiding derailments of this nature is a important?

Insults, yes, but we all draw different lines, so I'm not sure how to solve it. OT comments - I rather like them, and I keep well within what goes on here.

3. Do you agree that Mitch's comments were inappropriate, unproductive and off-topic?

Many of them, yes. Also a lot of them insightful and considerate. But I think it's been escalating, unfortunately, and I hate that because I think he has a lot of interesting things to say.

Rian, if you do not agree with all three of these precepts, then I'm afraid we have no common ground on which to stand and it might be best if you simply ignored my posts from now on because if not, this cycle will only repeat itself. But its your decision; I only suggest one possible solution.

It's certainly my decision. I mean, why suggest something for me to do? Why not YOU think of something for YOU to do? Why not say YOU will ignore my posts? That was kinda odd.

I've bent over backwards trying to discuss things with you, and I hope this post helps. If it doesn't, I'll have to ignore your posts. But it just stinks how this board has changed I hope we can reset here and try again one more time.

[Rian]

that was huge - I think we'll just have to take the discussion to the "insults" thread if you want to keep going. I won't post here anymore on this topic.

[Rian]

Rian agrees with you and your style, I don't agree with either.

Just to be clear - I don't think it's the right style, because I don't think there is one right style. I think it is a good style, one of many, because I value different ways of thinking.

Yeah that's fine. I don't think there is a "right" style for conversation either, I just don't like Hare's style. because I don't understand what he is trying to say half the time.

I don't either, but then I think about it or look it up, and I like having that option.

BTW this thread has gone from testability, which I didn't really follow to begin with, to all sorts of different topics. For the sake of discussion, Can you in a brief and precise way tell me what you meant with your original post about testability? In other words what were you trying to prove or show?

This is for Moonwood - hey, Moonwood! *waves*

[gary_s]

So am I! I mean, I am SOOO there with you! But I'm starting to see more and more problems with the whole insult thing, where one person strongly feels like it is insulting, and the other strongly feels that it isn't, and vice-versa, and I just don't know what to do about it. Maybe the best thing is to just pick those people that you work better with, for whatever reason, and talk with them.

I have no problem with that except that I generally don't like to put people on ignore. I post my comments for all to read and respond to and that is the best way to learn new things, by putting it out there and listening to the feedback of others. If I start excluding people, then I may as well just join a forum where everyone agrees with me and that isn't a learning experience at all. All I'm asking is that people use some restraint in their responses, that they filter their comments for such screed. I haven't seen Moon post anything so disruptive. Why is it that he seems to have self-control but Mitch does not?

But I welcome the "some" thing, Gary, and so do others here. There are some (hey, that was unintentional, but funny - I just used "some"!) anyway, there are some people here who definitely agree that using modifiers like "some" is a good thing not a bad. However, your explanation made me realize how some people can take it wrong (I disagree that "everyone" will) because I've seen it in real life: when people give this big emphasis to the word "some" so that everyone knows they're meaning "all". But that's not how I used it, Gary - I used it because I saw some with the problem, and some not with the problem. I think this issue is totally a function of typed communication and how we perceive people on the "other side". And again, I don't know how to solve it. I can try to word it more carefully, but it starts to get ridiculous when every sentence is hedged 'round with all sorts of other sentences so that no one takes it wrong. Again, I'm thinking that maybe the answer is to just talk with people that don't tend to take you the wrong way.

I think you've gotten too concerned with the use of the word "some", Rian, and you've missed my point entirely. The point is that you were definitely describing a group of people in a pejorative way; you were being offensive, calling their behavior "strange" and "obsessive", and particularly so when it had nothing to do with the topic. What has the passion and determination of someone defending a particular topic to do with the concept of validating our existence with testable claims? Nothing at all. So, my point is that you make this offensive statement, then put the cute little word "some" in front so as to make the claim that, no I wasn't talking about anyone in particular. My point is SO WHAT? What you are calling strange behavior is in fact, not strange at all, but rather intelligent and reasonable. And this same behavior is repeated over and over on nearly every topic by somebody on every topic. So, for your assertion to be correct, it really should apply to everyone here on some topic or another, because everyone, including you, has defended a topic passionately.

And I'm fine with people using it, although I hope they don't use it "against" me - I hope they use it the way that I use it - to express what they mean! that what you're saying doesn't apply to the whole group. I think the opposite problem is worse, so we might just never agree here.

And here you are applying such vague qualifiers that there's no hope anyone else can satisfy your expectations. Just avoid calling people strange and obsessive and you will see a marked improvement in your likability quotient.

I didn't want to insult you. And yes, it IS a way to insult everyone, but it doesn't HAVE to be a way to do that - it can also be a perfectly valid and necessary thing to say. So I guess we'll just have to differ here, although I hope you can understand what I'm saying.

Please tell me what is valid about saying that it is "strange" that someone defends a scientific position in a debate? Particularly as it relates to the topic of testability. No, I don't understand what you are saying here. I reject it in its entirety as being 100% wrong. It is nothing but an ad-hominem.

Because as I said, I thought it added useful information to the conversation.

Please tell me what that "useful information" was? By calling me or anyone else "strange" for defending a position, you are employing an ad-hominem, a personal defamation. What is valid about that? Even if I am a strange person, what has that got to do with the point I'm making? If my logic and facts are sound, should the fact that I'm black also be relevant?

I didn't say that, Gary. You're just projecting into it. I don't see every atheist having this problem, but I see some that do. And it is SO volatile a thought that I don't want to name names. All I want to do is raise awareness of it, even to those that aren't posting, and hope that they can see the mistake someday. And yet I see your point, too - but all it will make me do is be more careful with my wording.

Rian, the bottom line here is that you don't get to jab someone with a stick, then argue with them whether or not it hurt them? Get it? Now, I fully acknowledge misunderstandings, but when this occurs, the customary path toward reconciliation is to take ownership of the offensive statement, state that it was unintended to be offensive and then perhaps restate in a way that is more clear or to clarify why it is offensive in the first place. I've never seen you or Mitch do such a thing. In fact, all you ever do is defend your language and insist that the offended person shouldn't have been offended. And yet, YOU are the quickest person on this forum to get offended by something. We'll see if you do become more careful. In my estimation, your comment in question here was not unintended; it appeared to me to be nothing but an intentional blow in order to demean the very people who were taking an opposing view to that of Mitch.

Mitch is quote the master at qualifying his insults and rants with the adage that it should only offend you if you actually resemble his insult. What a total and complete cop-out! That's tantamount to saying that you should be allowed to walk around calling blacks "niggers" or Jews "Kikes" or women "cunts" and when they take offense, just saying that its only offensive if you feel that it resembles you. That's completely shitty reasoning.

If it's so volatile a thing to say, Rian, then why say it at all? I invite you to say these things to a real person who isn't of like mind with you and listen to their response. I think you will be astonished at the results.

Let's see - no, please don't let's use "let's see" - don't you think that's sarcastic?

No sarcasm intended on my part. Just pointing out that there were only a handful of people involved with this topic, and I was certainly taking up most of the space, so it's difficult to see how you weren't including me in your comment.

Anyway, I said "the more outspoken of these"

Yeah, that would be me.

in addition to "some", and in a post to Dr. M, I said " Actually, the person that I think is the best example of this is on another forum". So it's no charade - I think it's you over-reacting.

OK, fine, I over-reacted. Perhaps my response should have been. "Rian, that's bullshit" and moved on. Would you have liked that response better?

But again, what's the point of such a useless comment in the first place? It says absolutely nothing about the topic and does nothing but attack the person, not the commentary.

I think the atheist side was very defensive from Mitch's posts (and I wish he would back off a bit and find a better way to communicate ) and you just took that feeling and put it all on me, because I agreed with a modified version of what he said. I can understand that, but I also think that you should see better by now and apologize.

I have nothing to apologize for, Rian. You are severely confused if you think that I do. Do you understand what a debate is? Or a discussion? It's when people talk about something and point out different sides to an issue. If these people sincerely and passionately believe in them, then the discussion could get lengthy and powerful. I wasn't throwing any punches at Mitch, no personal attacks whatsoever. What you call "defensive" is merely me making a good point. But if you are talking about another member, then I can't comment. I really have no way of knowing because you are so vague.

But it doesn't fit what I was talking about. Nor does passionate mean strange. Nor does a passionate person necessarily personify science. I mean what I said, exactly that.

Then you were being an insulting bitch. And I don't mean that in an insulting, personal attack kind of way; I'm just describing the situation, you know.

Gary, here we are again - how the different sides see insults. I continually see the atheist side drag up the tooth fairy and the FSM, when to me, those examples are both insulting and ridiculous. Yet "your side" keeps doing it.

I don't play for an Atheist Team, Rian. What someone else says is not my responsibility. You don't hear me charging you will comments made by Mitch. I am only condemning you for your comments. So don't judge me for what someone else says.

I thought what I said was WELL within the bounds of what I see going on here, and I thought it was a valuable observation that I hope will help someone someday. So yes, it was slightly insulting, but in the sense of "I think you're doing something wrong", not a personal insult. One could say that ANYTIME you disagree with someone, it's "insulting", but I think most of us here have a general feeling of what crosses the line. But it was NOT directed at the whole group here, and IMO it was FAR below what I see over and over from the atheist side.

You are stretching and parsing the meaning of insult here to epic proportions. You just admitted that it was slightly insulting, then go on to say it wasn't a "personal" insult. What is an insult it if isn't personal? If you say that men everywhere are asses, then I will be insulted. I am a man, therefore you must believe me to be an ass. I'm going to say you are wrong, that I am an exception to your rule and then I suppose you are going to say it was nothing personal. What a laugh! (as in ridiculous) And again, again, again, you can't pin on me what someone else said just because you see them as on "my side". If I didn't say it; I don't own it.

It's no apology, Gary - I don't think I did anything wrong - I thought I was WELL within what the atheist side constantly puts out, and I still think so. What I was saying is that I don't do the personal insult rant thing. So I will not retract the staement, unless you will retract everything that insults me. But then we can't talk about things we disagree on.

Then you clearly don't understand my point. And how on earth would I retract everything that insults you? I will retract only what I say that is insulting and nothing more.

Also, it wasn't an ignorant nor was it a generalization - I was basing my statement on things that I've seen on various discussion boards - this makes it a fact - and it wasn't a generalization - I said it only applied to a certain group within atheists. You're just wrong here, and I hope you can see it, because I certainly won't stop.

So, I suggest a new thread to dig into this obsessive, odd and strange idea of yours. And be prepared to bar no holds.

I suggest that we just try to start over - it's clear to me that you mean well, and I hope it's clear to you that I mean well.

No, it is not. With every statement, you defend your position that you should be able to insult people. You also have a tendency to lump all non-believers into a group and hold each one accountable for what the others say and do, which I reject as silly. And I know from past experience that you will be the first person to cry "foul" when anyone says something you find offensive. You simply cannot have it both ways. So far nothing you have said suggests to me that you do mean well in this regard. All you say is that you have defensible offensive statements. I reject that as nonsense.

I don't think it was off-topic, and certainly people go WAY more off-topic and derail conversations all the time, so please stop with that. Also, it wasn't an insult, unless you want to say the fairy tale thing is an insult, too, and stop saying it. We just disagree on what an insult is, but I still think that we have a general agreement on good behavior.

There you go again, justifying your actions because someone else has done it before. Why does that make it ok? I don't remember making any "fairy tale" comment, and I am not responsible for what others say. And as to what an insult is; good behavior is all about intent, Rian. Anyone can make a mistake.

I didn't "pile on", Gary. I think you're just projecting here. I think if you go back and read with an open mind, you'll see a huge difference. But also, I think you've done plenty of "piling on". It's just a matter of POV.

Again, what I saw was you tacking on a "yeah, Mitch, I agree!" (with his offensive statements) and then making offensive statements to boot. That's my definition of "piling on". So, I did re-read it and no, I don't see a huge difference. You were piling on.

Well, actually I think what you said about me here was more insulting than what you said about Mitch! Sounds to me like you're saying I'm a coward and a bully that hides behind a keyboard. But then I could be wrong. And you were wrong about me.

I don't believe I am wrong, Rian. Your behavior is speaking much more loudly than your words.

1. Do you at least agree with me that your comment was off topic?

Only a little bit, but still WELL within the norm of discussion style here. And actually, it irritates me when a person designates themselves as the topic police - I think what should be done is to ask the person to put it on another thread, and then leave it alone and let group consensus decide.

I'm not trying to police the thread, Rian. I'm nearly positive that if you felt insulted by a comment, you would do the same; point out the issue. That's all I'm doing here. And if a conversation is going well, I see no point in derailing it with useless ad-hominems.

2. Do you agree that to move forward in a conversation, avoiding derailments of this nature is a important?

Insults, yes, but we all draw different lines, so I'm not sure how to solve it. OT comments - I rather like them, and I keep well within what goes on here.

In this case you did not.

3. Do you agree that Mitch's comments were inappropriate, unproductive and off-topic?

Many of them, yes. Also a lot of them insightful and considerate. But I think it's been escalating, unfortunately, and I hate that because I think he has a lot of interesting things to say.

No need for your further analysis, Rian. I already acknowledged that I was enjoying the conversation before Mitch switched to "rant and deflect" mode and before you jumped in with your trite insults. I have the preoperative to challenge someone's insulting, which some might define as "escalating". To me it's important to make this point clear. I would be happy to return to useful discourse.

Rian, if you do not agree with all three of these precepts, then I'm afraid we have no common ground on which to stand and it might be best if you simply ignored my posts from now on because if not, this cycle will only repeat itself. But its your decision; I only suggest one possible solution.

It's certainly my decision. I mean, why suggest something for me to do? Why not YOU think of something for YOU to do? Why not say YOU will ignore my posts? That was kinda odd.

Again, you and Mitch made the offending statements that derailed the thread, not me. And I AM doing something here. I'm challenging you on your behavior. If you don't like my comments, then you are free to ignore them. I won't be offended by that.

I've bent over backwards trying to discuss things with you, and I hope this post helps. If it doesn't, I'll have to ignore your posts. But it just stinks how this board has changed I hope we can reset here and try again one more time.

Well, Rian, you need look no further than your own reflection in the mirror if you dislike this forum. I could point to numerous examples of behavior of yours that you complain about all the time of others.

[Rian]

I'll respond on the insult thread.

Moonwood, do you want to restate your OP (and maybe add to it, in light of posts on the topic) and get things back on track? Here's what Dr. M requested:

For the sake of discussion, Can you in a brief and precise way tell me what you meant with your original post about testability? In other words what were you trying to prove or show?

[gary_s]

I agree, let's get back on track.

And to that point, I want to revisit a notion that Moonwood and I were discussing a few pages ago, that of the ultimate validity of the scientific method. I can't remember Moon's exact wording, but something to the effect of the scientific method cannot be be verified so why should we consider it valid to judge anything by it. I asked the question, by what other standard should we evaluate any idea?

I also want to point out, maybe I said this before or not, I can't remember, that the scientific method has provided us with a list almost too long to count of falsifiable and working theories. IOW, it has proved itself useful over time by working so well. No other methodology has done such a thing that I know of. So, isn't this enough proof? What more do we need?

[Moonwood the Hare]

Well let me pull a few points together. Firstly I began this thread by thinking of the person who says something like 'you should only believe things that can be proved' and the problem is that it cannot be proved that you should only believe what can be proved so the claim is self defeating. I noticed that often people were not talking about proof but about testability and that meant they avoided the problems raised by seeking something as strong as logical proof. So did the same logical flaw occur with testability. If someone said 'you should only believe things that can be tested' could that claim itself be tested. So that raised the question what did testability mean. If people meant by testing something quite strong like having incontrovertible evidence the problem would remain but It turns out that generally speaking people would regard a claim as having been tested if there was some confirming evidence for it. So the claim that you should only believe things which can be tested means that you should only believe things for which there is some confirming evidence. There is some confirming evidence for the claim that you should only believe things for which there is some confirming evidence because every instance of something being true and having having confirming evidence is confirming evidence for this claim. In other words all the thread had really managed to do was to demonstrate the logical asymmetry between affirming the antecedent and affirming the consequent which is something that has been known for thousands of years and is supposed to be self evident anyway.

Let me clarify that for those who are not familiar with the laws of inference. If I take any claim in the form if A then B then the first part A is called the antecedent and the second part B is called the consequent. Affirming the antecedent that is saying A therefore B is valid. Affirming the consequent that is saying B therefore A invalid. So I I say if theory A is true it would have consequence B I cannot say I have observed B and therefore A is true or rather I cannot always say it. There are certain circumstances where I can say it which is in those circumstances where observing B and observing A are more or less identical. Anyway this means that if a theory is fairly general as most scientific theories are I can never have enough evidence to prove it is true. And as the scientific method itself is a fairly general hypothesis I can never have enough evidence or enough examples of it working to prove beyond doubt that it is valid. I hope people can see why. And this means I can never have enough evidence to prove that any scientific theory is true. The most I can do is to show that it works sometimes. Even if it has worked perfectly every time it has been tested its number of potential operations are immeasurable and massively vaster than its number of tested fulfilments and this means it cannot even be held to have been shown to be probably true.

And yet e do not walk around in a fog of uncertainty. We are willing to risk our lives on the truth of scientific theories; engineers do this every day of their lives. Why are these guys so reckless? The answer I would claim is that people make a personal judgement that the theory is true or if you like that it works. This is not a random or subjective judgement but it is not wholly objective or provable. And if I can be forgiven a quote having gone so far without one Polanyi puts this beautifully when he calls this kind of knowing personal knowledge and says personal knowledge breaks the disjunct between subjective and objective knowledge.

So where does this leave us when examining claims for the existence of God? People say God's existence cannot be verified using the scientific method, well yes but nor can any scientific theory unless we use verified in the weak sense of meaning tested or having some confirming evidence. But is there confirming evidence for the existence of God. Are there things that would be true if there were a God and untrue if there were not. Opinions differ and they are bound to. That is because the claim that there is a God is not a claim that in addition to all the other things in the world there is something else; it is a claim about the whole of reality; the claim that the world exists because God created it. The claim that matter or matter/energy is the ultimate reality on which all things depend is a similar claim. Both claims are made by people living in this world who can point to features of the world which are compatible with the claim. Opponents of both claims can point to features of the world which seem to be incompatible with the claims. So a materialist may point to the existence of suffering. A theist may point to the existence of mind. How can we decide between these all embracing claims. I think the only answer is by personal judgement. And it is in the nature of these all embracing claims that those who have made different judgements will seem to us to be in error. This of course is a huge difference between scientific claims and worldview claims and I do have some ideas about why this must be so but feel I have gone on long enough.

One final point. If I define scientific method as method for gaining understanding of the natural world then say I refuse to believe in the existence of anything that cannot be demonstrated using the scientific method what I have done is to use viciously circular reasoning. Oh and Gary I did not introduce this talk of the natural or naturalistic world that was the work of Keep the Reason and Dr. Mundo. The question of whether and to what extent psychology must deal in purely natural or material realities is a really interesting one and I find it intriguing that those who have pursued this issue have often ended up denying a lot of common sense realities (I'm thinking mainly of Daniel Dennett surely one of the most interesting atheistic thinkers alive today - is anyone a fan?).

Oh and I do have some thoughts about acupuncture (I did get some done on the NHS a few years ago and it totally failed to work but my sister who is highly qualified psychologist reckons it did work for her.) I did a short unit on EFT (tapping) which is also based on Qi or chi as I am used to it being called and is a treatment sometimes used in trauma. When the process was explained I said 'I bet this would work wherever you tapped' and someone said, 'No the instructor said you need to tap on the pressure points' 'Well, I'm guessing she's wrong and she's never tested it.' I said. A while later I read something by one of the Human Givens theorists (it's a form of psychotherapy) arguing more or less the same thing. My guess would be that chi is a bit like the animal magnetism posited by mesmerists.Do you recall that in the late nineteenth century in spite of numerous cases where mesmerism worked to the extent that limbs were amputated without people feeling pain experts denied that it worked because animal magnetism could not be shown to exist? Now you can say hypnotism works by the placebo effect if you like but that to me seems no more than a confession that you have not a clue how it works.

[gary_s]

I decided to re-post a couple of comments that I Mitch used to wreck this thread because they went ignored due to his comments.

gary_s wrote: But if one is visiting the grocery for a healthy meal, wouldn't you agree that it's prudent to consider the information provided on packages and from your doctor and the medical field in general before grabbing that Stoffer's meat & potato with gravy and chocolate pudding Hungryman dinner?

gary_s wrote: The fact is, we practice very informal and subtle examples of the scientific method all the time when making decisions.

Now, I wanted to make it very clear that I was in no way suggesting that average people are doing anything official or formal in the way of science on a routine day; of this I was clear before but I wanted to make absolutely certain. But we are on an ongoing basis doing analysis using observation and weighing that information we gather with what we know and believe. So, this means that we are testing our environment on a regular basis to make decisions; that's not unlike science. The problem is that we are actually not very good at this because we rely too much on our intuition and our beliefs, and this is where thing like qi, homeopathy, powerbands and even religion can take advantage of us. We seek to complete patterns. We also seek to confirm what we believe. When you think about it, that's actually a bad combination. What it means is that we really can't trust ourselves to make decisions a large part of the time. We need outside help because you really have no idea when you are being fooled. It's a scary state to consider, but this is really how things are.

I could name thousands of real life examples, but that would get pretty cumbersome. And I'm sure that anyone else reading this could come up with some examples of their own. It's actually a very interesting thing to think about, to consider a few times when you made important decisions and you thought you had it all figured out. If you think about it a little more, particularly after the fact, you will usually come up with many things that could have gone terribly wrong. Not things like an unexpected disaster, but things that you should have considered and yet did not.

Moonwoods post was already done when I posted this, so I'll read it and comment later...

[Moonwood the Hare]

Ah yes, but deciding without having all the facts is often necessary, If I'm being chased by a tiger and I come to a fork in the road the longer I take weighing up which road to take the more likely I am to end up inside the tiger.