Are you Logical?

[Marc O'Brien]

Clear Thinking is the ultimate spiritual experience and I recommend it to all angry gods and people alike.

Generally, religious people are being very very human. Humans, being social animals, have had to evolve to have illogical minds. When the Wasan selection task testing for the logic powers of an individual is presented to 3rd year university students specialising in the study of logic they find that only 10% get the task right. So even those who study logic tend to remain illogical. I got the Wason selection task right by the way.

There is nothing wrong with generalising. Generally water boils at 100°C but not always, depending on variables including altitude, our whole existence depends on many many generalities. So generalisations are not wrong - only wrong generalisations are.

The Wason selection task also demonstrates why humans generally ignore or do not seek dis-confirming evidence when in investigation mode. It explain why humans that are already vulnerable for their lack of logical abilities are further weakened by a tendency to only ever seek confirming evidence for their beliefs and tend to not recognise dis-confirming evidence even if presented to them in clear daylight.

*The Wason Selection Task*

You are given 4 cards from a pack that has an infinite number of cards, on one side of each card there are numbers and on the other side of each card there are letters. Then you are given a rule and asked to select only 2 of the 4 cards to turn over and check the rule. You may turn over only 2 cards.

Rule: If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side.

Before you read further pick only two of the four cards below to check the rule, the cards are laid out such that when lined up together they read EK45 which on it's on has no meaning...

E K 4 5


Don't read further until you have had an honest bash at the selection task!

Okay, so you've had an honest bash, given it your best...
95% of laymen will pick one wrong card. Only 10% of logic students will not do the same. This demonstrates that the human mind has not evolved to be logical. But it also demonstrates that people almost always only ever seek evidence that confirms their views and almost always ignore or do not look for evidence that dis-confirms their views.

Hence the slip of the tongue statement "I will see it when I believe it"

Don't be disappointed that you chose E and 4. As already mentioned, about 95% of laymen do the same.

Let's look at the problem...

Rule: If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side.

E K 4 5

If we turn over E and find an even number then we confirm the rule. If we turn over E and find an uneven number then we dis-confirm the rule.

Turning over K is pointless because even if we find an even number on the other side the rule does not say anything about the relationship between consonants and even numbers. So the K card can neither confirm or dis-confirm the rule reliably.

Turning over 4 is also pointless because the rule does not say that there will also be a vowel on the other side of every even number. You see, there are also many more even numbers than there are vowels and so it is in fact likely there will be many cards with even numbers on one side but without vowels on the other side. So the 4 card can neither confirm or dis-confirm the rule reliably.

Turning over 5 and finding a vowel will positively dis-confirm the rule. The rule would have been demonstrated to be wrong.

So we should turn over cards E and 5 and utterly ignore K and 4.

Only people who have trained their minds to seek also dis-confirming evidence in their moments of investigation will turn over the 5 card. This is one of the most robust explanations for why so many people tend to be religious despite all the dis-confirming evidence that properly denies the claims made by religions.

Here is a summary of the logic...

You are given a statement:

If P then Q

The possible answers are P or not P (-P) then Q or not Q (-Q).

P -P Q -Q

Now we assign validity to the possible answers...

P = Valid
-P = Fallacy
Q = Fallacy
-Q = Valid

So not P and Q are always fallacies.

For example...

If I am running (P) then I am moving (Q)

I am running therefore I am moving: P = Valid

I am not running therefore I am not moving: -P = Fallacy: I could instead be walking and therefore still moving.

I am moving therefore I am running: Q = Fallacy: I could instead be walking as running is not the only way to move.

I am not moving therefore I am not running: -Q = Valid

To pick card 4 is the same as saying "I am moving therefore I am running" a fallacy because one could be moving for many other reasons but not be running.

If anyone is interested then I can demonstrate also why humans have evolved to be illogical.

========================

Atheist Epicurus 270BC explained the following:
True Happiness, How to Live Happily, The Atom, The Molecule, Law of Inertia, Principle of Universal Natural Law, Rain Cycle, Sound as a Pressure Wave in Air, Light Composed of Particles, Sense of Smell Caused by Shape of Molecule Fitting Shape of Receptor in Nose, Lightning Caused by Friction between Storm Fronts, Lightning Composed of Tiny Particles, Earthquakes Caused by Slipping Fault Lines, Nile Rises from Snow Melting at its Source, Animals & Men Evolved by Natural Selection, Matter is Mostly Empty Space, Magnetism Caused by Exchange of Particles, Fire is not an Element, No Center of the Universe, Other Planetary Systems, Speed of Light is Finite, Theory of Relativity, Quantum Indeterminism, Brownian Motion.

[bootlen]

I'm just a dumb ol' country boy so maybe it's just me. But something seems to be missing in at least the first part of the above post. I see no task...no goal to determine test outcome.

[mrs reb77]

So...what are you trying to say Marc? :D


(I picked 5 by the way...);)

[Some Dude]

I'm just a dumb ol' country boy so maybe it's just me. But something seems to be missing in at least the first part of the above post. I see no task...no goal to determine test outcome.

He didnt really explain what the rules were , i just kinda winged it and got the right answer.
Man i wish i could believe its because im logical , i think i just screwed up in reverse.

[cehs]

Here is the logical conclusion:
If we ignore Marc, he will go away, because he cannot control what he believes/ and he does not believe what he controls. :D

He plants seeds of confusion to make a point that is pointless to persue.
It is like the child that wants to argue, when the adults keep getting more and more frustrated with the child, it all ends up in caos.

[Marc O'Brien]

So...what are you trying to say Marc? :D


(I picked 5 by the way...);)

Lol, are you being sarcastic? It's outright obvious what I'm saying :)

But if you picked the 5 as your other card then you should also make for an expert arguer and researcher of facts. Ordinarily the test is not presented with all the preceding explanations I gave, ordinarily you are just given four cards and the rule and you are simply told to choose only two cards to test the rule. You are told nothing else not even anything about the history of the test, what it tests for or what the statistics on the results are. You are just given the rule, 4 cards and told to pick 2. And then asked to explain your selections.

[bootlen]

Lol, are you being sarcastic? It's outright obvious what I'm saying :)

But if you picked the 5 as your other card then you should also make for an expert arguer and researcher of facts. Ordinarily the test is not presented with all the preceding explanations I gave, ordinarily you are just given four cards and the rule and you are simply told to choose only two cards to test the rule. You are told nothing else not even anything about the history of the test, what it tests for or what the statistics on the results are. You are just given the rule, 4 cards and told to pick 2. And then asked to explain your selections.

That would have been simple enough. Why the extra info? You would make a lousy tester. Apparently, you are the one who is illogical. Or you yourself do not understand logic.

[Marc O'Brien]

That would have been simple enough. Why the extra info? You would make a lousy tester. Apparently, you are the one who is illogical. Or you yourself do not understand logic.

I posted the piece to illustrate a point, not so much to test anyone. In order for it to be used by you as a test there is clearly a dependence on your honesty :)

If you doubt my ability to create and manage good tests then ask Andy Schoen about the puzzles I create for people to solve, all done in the spirit of my "Black Book" :)

[acmanko]

I picked K -5
but as with all tests, they reveal little or nothng about logical thinking

[Marc O'Brien]

However one interesting feature of the task is how participants react when the classical logic solution is explained:

A psychologist, not very well disposed toward logic, once confessed to me that despite all problems in short-term inferences like the Wason Card Task, there was also the undeniable fact that he had never met an experimental subject who did not understand the logical solution when it was explained to him, and then agreed that it was correct.

The selection task tends to produce the "correct" response when presented in a context of social relations. For example, if the rule used is "If you are drinking alcohol then you must be over 18", and the cards have an age on one side and beverage on the other, e.g., "17", "beer", "22", "coke", most people have no difficulty in selecting the correct cards ("17" and "beer").

Adherents of evolutionary psychology have argued that a simple rule distinguishes Wason tasks which people find easy from those that they find difficult. The suggested rule is that a Wason task proves to be easier if the rule to be tested is one of social exchange (in order to receive benefit X you need to fulfill condition Y) and the subject is asked to police the rule, but is more difficult otherwise.

If this classification is accepted, then it supports the contention of evolutionary psychologists that certain features of human psychology may be mechanisms that have evolved, through natural selection, to solve specific problems of social interaction, rather than expressions of general intelligence.


Consider this social situation where you are looking out for a fellow human in an area of hazardous material...

If you are wearing the protective gear you may handle the hazardous substance.

P) You are wearing the gear: P = Valid: So I should select this situation for checking. But in fact we do not do any checking because if the person is wearing the gear he/she is safe to handle the stuff anyway. We do exactly the opposite of what is logical. A person not so enlightened on what it means to be logical will erroneously complain "but surely it is logical to do it that way" but no, it is not logical and you have to be logical to understand why it is not logical.

-P) You are not wearing the protective gear: -P = Fallacy: So I should not select this situation for checking. But in fact we do check because if the person is not wearing the protective gear then we should check that they do not handle the stuff.

And so on with Q and -Q you find the cards to select are in fact the opposite to the abstract logical version of the task.

The same works with social contracts:

If you have paid the price then you may enjoy the ride (Rollercoaster)

If they have paid the price you do not check that they stay off the ride.
If they have not paid the price then you check that they do not enjoy the ride
and so on with Q and -Q.

The Wason selection task is the most respected test used to determine whether one is logical and books and books have been written by academics about the use of the selection task.

[Marc O'Brien]

More from wikipedia...

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and to irrationally avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.

Confirmation bias is of interest in the teaching of critical thinking, as the skill (of thinking critically) is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence challenging a preconceived idea but not to evidence supporting it.

The subject of confirmation bias overlaps with or is closely related to a number of similar concepts and syndromes, including belief bias, belief preservation, biased assimilation, belief overkill, hypothesis locking, polarization effect, positive bias, the Tolstoy syndrome, selective thinking, myside bias, law of fives, Plate pick-up, and Morton's demon.

Alternately, Murphy's Law of Research dictates that "Enough research will tend to support your theory."

Within a single experiment, confirmation bias on the part of the experimenter may exhibit itself as expectation bias in the final published results. Data agreeing with the experimenter's expectations may be more likely to be considered "good", while data that conflicts with those expectations may be more likely to be discarded as the product of assumed experimental error.

[Marc O'Brien]

From Wikipedia - another task invented by Wason...

2-4-6 problem


Among the first to investigate this phenomenon or confirmation bias was Peter Cathcart Wason (1960), whose 2-4-6 problem presented subjects with three numbers (a triple):

2 4 6

Subjects were told that the triple conforms to a particular rule. They were then asked to discover the rule by generating their own triples and using the feedback they received from the experimenter. Every time the subject generated a triple, the experimenter would indicate whether the triple conformed to the rule. The subjects were told that once they were sure of the correctness of their hypothesized rule, they should announce the rule.

While the actual rule was simply “any ascending sequence”, the subjects seemed to have a great deal of difficulty in inducing it, often announcing rules that were far more complex than the correct rule. The subjects seemed to test only “positive” examples — triples the subjects believed would conform to their rule and confirm their hypothesis. What they did not do was attempt to challenge or falsify their hypotheses by testing triples that they believed would not conform to their rule. (e.g. Subjects would test "4,6,8" and "11,13,15" but not "4,7,8" or "9,15,19" if they thought the rule was each number is two greater than its predecessor.)

Wason referred to this phenomenon as confirmation bias, whereby subjects systematically seek only evidence that confirms their hypotheses, an explanation he made appeal to also for performance on his selection task (Wason 1968), though he did briefly consider that participants might be using a three-valued rather than two-valued logic. Confirmation bias has been used to explain why people believe in the paranormal.

[Marc O'Brien]

In another thread I showed RoBoTeq how it was that his conclusions were disconnected from his premises...

Evans experiment
In a series of experiments by Evans, et al., subjects were presented with deductive arguments (in each of which a series of premises and a conclusion are given) and asked to indicate if each conclusion necessarily follows from the premises given. In other words, the subjects are asked to make an evaluation of logical validity. The subjects, however, exhibited confirmation bias when they rejected valid arguments with unbelievable conclusions, and endorsed invalid arguments with believable conclusions. It seems that instead of following directions and assessing logical validity, the subjects base their assessments on personal beliefs.

It has been argued that like in the case of the matching bias, using more realistic content in syllogisms can facilitate more normative performance, and the use of more abstract, artificial content has a biasing effect on performance.

[bootlen]

I posted the piece to illustrate a point, not so much to test anyone. In order for it to be used by you as a test there is clearly a dependence on your honesty :)

If you doubt my ability to create and manage good tests then ask Andy Schoen about the puzzles I create for people to solve, all done in the spirit of my "Black Book" :)

!!!??!!! You question people on your girl friends? Just kidding.

As to the rest of the post, I was being facetious...except, I'd have understood better with the original instructions. The additional stuff just added confusion as I thought it played into how I should answer.

[Marc O'Brien]

Reasons for effect

There are several possible reasons that beliefs persevere despite contrary evidence. Embarrassment over having to withdraw a publicly declared belief, for example, or stubbornness or hope. Tradition, superstition, religion, worldview, or ideology can allow a believer to give a greater weight to some data over other data.

One explanation may lie in the workings of the human sensory system. Human brains and senses are organised in such a manner so as to facilitate rapid evaluation of social situations and others' states of mind. Studies have shown that this behaviour is evident in the choosing of friends and partners[4] and houses,[5] even though it is largely subconscious. Although it can be a very fast process[6], the initial impression has a lasting effect as a byproduct of the brain's tendency to fill in the gaps of what it perceives and the unwillingness of the believer to admit a mistake.

[Senior Tech]

"C"...I always choose "C"...:D

[mrs reb77]

All of the above! :p

[acmanko]

logically speaking, remember your P's and Q's

[yellowirenut]

i got distracted, did not finish the first paragraph..If i was 10 they would put me on meds to make me keep focus.

[RoBoTeq]

I'm just a dumb ol' country boy so maybe it's just me. But something seems to be missing in at least the first part of the above post. I see no task...no goal to determine test outcome.
Maybe Marc copy/pasted it wrong. Since Marc does not have the decency to put quotes on all of the postings he does, therefore claiming the material to be his own, we really can't know what Marc's agenda is becauser the thoughts are not from Marc.

[RoBoTeq]

And for the record, I am an extremely logical person, and I am a man of faith in God. Marc has no clue as to how this can even be because Marc only has the rantings of others to cut and paste and adopt as his own.

This, by the way, makes Marc a very illogical person.

[Some Dude]

The left one, no no the right one wait wait wait the left one.
This doesnt make any sense.

[Marc O'Brien]

Maybe Marc copy/pasted it wrong. Since Marc does not have the decency to put quotes on all of the postings he does, therefore claiming the material to be his own, we really can't know what Marc's agenda is becauser the thoughts are not from Marc.

Oh come on Robo, play nice. There is no need to become a monster robot over such trivialities.

Do a google for Wason and confirmation bias, check out all the stuff on Wikipedia... stop being so hurt. It's not personal. It's about the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[acmanko]

Wason is about par with the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Test

[RoBoTeq]

Oh come on Robo, play nice. There is no need to become a monster robot over such trivialities.

Do a google for Wason and confirmation bias, check out all the stuff on Wikipedia... stop being so hurt. It's not personal. It's about the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
:DBlaine is a pain, and that is the truth!:D

[ACFIXR]

Reasons for effect

There are several possible reasons that beliefs persevere despite contrary evidence. Embarrassment over having to withdraw a publicly declared belief, for example, or stubbornness or hope. Tradition, superstition, religion, worldview, or ideology can allow a believer to give a greater weight to some data over other data.

One explanation may lie in the workings of the human sensory system. Human brains and senses are organised in such a manner so as to facilitate rapid evaluation of social situations and others' states of mind. Studies have shown that this behaviour is evident in the choosing of friends and partners[4] and houses,[5] even though it is largely subconscious. Although it can be a very fast process[6], the initial impression has a lasting effect as a byproduct of the brain's tendency to fill in the gaps of what it perceives and the unwillingness of the believer to admit a mistake.
I believe that you need to quit playing with yourself and get a wife.

[newoldtech]

Marc, I read all your posts in the hope that one day I'll understand one of them. :o , Is the answer latent heat? :)

[RoBoTeq]

I believe that you need to quit playing with yourself and get a wife.
He's probably the only one good enough for him;)

[The Doctor]

Was zum Teufel?

Having read the OP, I can firmly conclude that there went about 10 minutes that I'll never get back.

Oh boy, backing it up with Wiki entries?

What's next?

Wait wait don't tell me. The truth :rolleyes:

[acmanko]

wait, wait, thats not all. we'll double the offer. yes two for the unheard of price of 20 minutes of your time all for 19.95

[Some Dude]

He's probably the only one good enough for him;)

Personally i think there is no weed over there and Marc is spending to much time playing Timothy Leary.

[coolwhip]

Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic. :)

[billygoat22]

Clear Thinking is the ultimate spiritual experience and I recommend it to all angry gods and people alike.

Generally, religious people are being very very human. Humans, being social animals, have had to evolve to have illogical minds. When the Wasan selection task testing for the logic powers of an individual is presented to 3rd year university students specialising in the study of logic they find that only 10% get the task right. So even those who study logic tend to remain illogical. I got the Wason selection task right by the way.

There is nothing wrong with generalising. Generally water boils at 100°C but not always, depending on variables including altitude, our whole existence depends on many many generalities. So generalisations are not wrong - only wrong generalisations are.

The Wason selection task also demonstrates why humans generally ignore or do not seek dis-confirming evidence when in investigation mode. It explain why humans that are already vulnerable for their lack of logical abilities are further weakened by a tendency to only ever seek confirming evidence for their beliefs and tend to not recognise dis-confirming evidence even if presented to them in clear daylight.

*The Wason Selection Task*

You are given 4 cards from a pack that has an infinite number of cards, on one side of each card there are numbers and on the other side of each card there are letters. Then you are given a rule and asked to select only 2 of the 4 cards to turn over and check the rule. You may turn over only 2 cards.

Rule: If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side.

Before you read further pick only two of the four cards below to check the rule, the cards are laid out such that when lined up together they read EK45 which on it's on has no meaning...

E K 4 5


Don't read further until you have had an honest bash at the selection task!

Okay, so you've had an honest bash, given it your best...
95% of laymen will pick one wrong card. Only 10% of logic students will not do the same. This demonstrates that the human mind has not evolved to be logical. But it also demonstrates that people almost always only ever seek evidence that confirms their views and almost always ignore or do not look for evidence that dis-confirms their views.

Hence the slip of the tongue statement "I will see it when I believe it"

Don't be disappointed that you chose E and 4. As already mentioned, about 95% of laymen do the same.

Let's look at the problem...

Rule: If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side.

E K 4 5

If we turn over E and find an even number then we confirm the rule. If we turn over E and find an uneven number then we dis-confirm the rule.

Turning over K is pointless because even if we find an even number on the other side the rule does not say anything about the relationship between consonants and even numbers. So the K card can neither confirm or dis-confirm the rule reliably.

Turning over 4 is also pointless because the rule does not say that there will also be a vowel on the other side of every even number. You see, there are also many more even numbers than there are vowels and so it is in fact likely there will be many cards with even numbers on one side but without vowels on the other side. So the 4 card can neither confirm or dis-confirm the rule reliably.

Turning over 5 and finding a vowel will positively dis-confirm the rule. The rule would have been demonstrated to be wrong.

So we should turn over cards E and 5 and utterly ignore K and 4.

Only people who have trained their minds to seek also dis-confirming evidence in their moments of investigation will turn over the 5 card. This is one of the most robust explanations for why so many people tend to be religious despite all the dis-confirming evidence that properly denies the claims made by religions.

Here is a summary of the logic...

You are given a statement:

If P then Q

The possible answers are P or not P (-P) then Q or not Q (-Q).

P -P Q -Q

Now we assign validity to the possible answers...

P = Valid
-P = Fallacy
Q = Fallacy
-Q = Valid

So not P and Q are always fallacies.

For example...

If I am running (P) then I am moving (Q)

I am running therefore I am moving: P = Valid

I am not running therefore I am not moving: -P = Fallacy: I could instead be walking and therefore still moving.

I am moving therefore I am running: Q = Fallacy: I could instead be walking as running is not the only way to move.

I am not moving therefore I am not running: -Q = Valid

To pick card 4 is the same as saying "I am moving therefore I am running" a fallacy because one could be moving for many other reasons but not be running.

If anyone is interested then I can demonstrate also why humans have evolved to be illogical.

========================

Atheist Epicurus 270BC explained the following:
True Happiness, How to Live Happily, The Atom, The Molecule, Law of Inertia, Principle of Universal Natural Law, Rain Cycle, Sound as a Pressure Wave in Air, Light Composed of Particles, Sense of Smell Caused by Shape of Molecule Fitting Shape of Receptor in Nose, Lightning Caused by Friction between Storm Fronts, Lightning Composed of Tiny Particles, Earthquakes Caused by Slipping Fault Lines, Nile Rises from Snow Melting at its Source, Animals & Men Evolved by Natural Selection, Matter is Mostly Empty Space, Magnetism Caused by Exchange of Particles, Fire is not an Element, No Center of the Universe, Other Planetary Systems, Speed of Light is Finite, Theory of Relativity, Quantum Indeterminism, Brownian Motion.

I chose E and K, since the reverse of the rule wasn't stated to be true, that an even card would have a vowel on back , just that a vowel would be even on back. I suppose any of the other three would prove nothing if that were the case?

also, God isn't perceived by logic in any religion I know of, but by faith,so why would illogical thought predispose to religion?

[glennac]

Hey Mark if you are going to argue in threads like these you should start eating brain food and vitiamens such as wheat germ, fish and ginkgo bloko instead of taking what appears to be steroids and testosterone from your picture I guess so you can admire yourself in poses in front of mirrors and cameras.:D:) Just couldn't help that aorry.:)

[Hugh B]

Clear Thinking is the ultimate spiritual experience and I recommend it to all angry gods and people alike.

Generally, religious people are being very very human. Humans, being social animals, have had to evolve to have illogical minds. When the Wasan selection task testing for the logic powers of an individual is presented to 3rd year university students specialising in the study of logic they find that only 10% get the task right. So even those who study logic tend to remain illogical. I got the Wason selection task right by the way.

There is nothing wrong with generalising. Generally water boils at 100°C but not always, depending on variables including altitude, our whole existence depends on many many generalities. So generalisations are not wrong - only wrong generalisations are.

The Wason selection task also demonstrates why humans generally ignore or do not seek dis-confirming evidence when in investigation mode. It explain why humans that are already vulnerable for their lack of logical abilities are further weakened by a tendency to only ever seek confirming evidence for their beliefs and tend to not recognise dis-confirming evidence even if presented to them in clear daylight.

*The Wason Selection Task*

You are given 4 cards from a pack that has an infinite number of cards, on one side of each card there are numbers and on the other side of each card there are letters. Then you are given a rule and asked to select only 2 of the 4 cards to turn over and check the rule. You may turn over only 2 cards.

Rule: If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side.

Before you read further pick only two of the four cards below to check the rule, the cards are laid out such that when lined up together they read EK45 which on it's on has no meaning...

E K 4 5


Don't read further until you have had an honest bash at the selection task!

Okay, so you've had an honest bash, given it your best...
95% of laymen will pick one wrong card. Only 10% of logic students will not do the same. This demonstrates that the human mind has not evolved to be logical. But it also demonstrates that people almost always only ever seek evidence that confirms their views and almost always ignore or do not look for evidence that dis-confirms their views.

Hence the slip of the tongue statement "I will see it when I believe it"

Don't be disappointed that you chose E and 4. As already mentioned, about 95% of laymen do the same.

Let's look at the problem...

Rule: If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side.

E K 4 5

If we turn over E and find an even number then we confirm the rule. If we turn over E and find an uneven number then we dis-confirm the rule.

Turning over K is pointless because even if we find an even number on the other side the rule does not say anything about the relationship between consonants and even numbers. So the K card can neither confirm or dis-confirm the rule reliably.

Turning over 4 is also pointless because the rule does not say that there will also be a vowel on the other side of every even number. You see, there are also many more even numbers than there are vowels and so it is in fact likely there will be many cards with even numbers on one side but without vowels on the other side. So the 4 card can neither confirm or dis-confirm the rule reliably.

Turning over 5 and finding a vowel will positively dis-confirm the rule. The rule would have been demonstrated to be wrong.

So we should turn over cards E and 5 and utterly ignore K and 4.

Only people who have trained their minds to seek also dis-confirming evidence in their moments of investigation will turn over the 5 card. This is one of the most robust explanations for why so many people tend to be religious despite all the dis-confirming evidence that properly denies the claims made by religions.

Here is a summary of the logic...

You are given a statement:

If P then Q

The possible answers are P or not P (-P) then Q or not Q (-Q).

P -P Q -Q

Now we assign validity to the possible answers...

P = Valid
-P = Fallacy
Q = Fallacy
-Q = Valid

So not P and Q are always fallacies.

For example...

If I am running (P) then I am moving (Q)

I am running therefore I am moving: P = Valid

I am not running therefore I am not moving: -P = Fallacy: I could instead be walking and therefore still moving.

I am moving therefore I am running: Q = Fallacy: I could instead be walking as running is not the only way to move.

I am not moving therefore I am not running: -Q = Valid

To pick card 4 is the same as saying "I am moving therefore I am running" a fallacy because one could be moving for many other reasons but not be running.

If anyone is interested then I can demonstrate also why humans have evolved to be illogical.

========================

Atheist Epicurus 270BC explained the following:
True Happiness, How to Live Happily, The Atom, The Molecule, Law of Inertia, Principle of Universal Natural Law, Rain Cycle, Sound as a Pressure Wave in Air, Light Composed of Particles, Sense of Smell Caused by Shape of Molecule Fitting Shape of Receptor in Nose, Lightning Caused by Friction between Storm Fronts, Lightning Composed of Tiny Particles, Earthquakes Caused by Slipping Fault Lines, Nile Rises from Snow Melting at its Source, Animals & Men Evolved by Natural Selection, Matter is Mostly Empty Space, Magnetism Caused by Exchange of Particles, Fire is not an Element, No Center of the Universe, Other Planetary Systems, Speed of Light is Finite, Theory of Relativity, Quantum Indeterminism, Brownian Motion.


Now on what basis would I trust this man's logic? He admits that his very existance resulted from an accident of nature, that chaos and evolution (another accident of nature) brought him into existance.

Why should I trust the mind of a man to think the right thoughts when that same mind resulted from an accident?

[Marc O'Brien]

Hugh, it is far more likely that we happened by chance than that an even more complex instantly omni potent creator happened by chance. So, back over to you :)

[Marc O'Brien]

Hey Mark if you are going to argue in threads like these you should start eating brain food and vitiamens such as wheat germ, fish and ginkgo bloko instead of taking what appears to be steroids and testosterone from your picture I guess so you can admire yourself in poses in front of mirrors and cameras.:D:) Just couldn't help that aorry.:)

Never taken Steroids, Glen.

I have a few buddies who have and they are enormous benching well over 200kg. My best bench free weights was a single at 150kg. I do 140kg x 10 reps routine on a smith machine and really couldn't care to try more or steroids. I get asked so many times by people passing by while I train "if you do 140kg x 10 reps so easy why don't you try go heavier?". My reply always is "And where do you stop, when your joints are arthritic? - nah, heavier is for body builders" Christ, I have a coffee belly Glen, no vain there.

[Hugh B]

Hugh, it is far more likely that we happened by chance than that an even more complex instantly omni potent creator happened by chance. So, back over to you :)

That just will not work for you Marc. You continue to face the problem that as a product of chaos and random chance your mind cannot be trusted to reach the right conclusion. Therefore, even your reasoning that it is more likely that we happened by chance than via a creator is highly untrustworthy.

On the otherhand, I as a product of that creator even though I am finite have a far, far better chance of reaching the correct conclusion. And, I reject your position.

Given your position there is no reason I should believe anything you say at all. Given your position there is no need for me to try to reason with you logically since the chances are not very good that your flawed mind would understand anyway.

[Marc O'Brien]

Hugh, you believe that we were created rather than happened by chance? And that if we were created then we have a better chance of reaching a correct conclusion? So why then suggest that my conclusion is less likely true than yours? Are you suggesting that I happened by chance while you were created? If so then you do believe we could have come by chance.

It is highly untrustworthy making positive claims that you cannot provide a single shred of evidence for. I make a negative claim and so I do not have to provide any supporting evidence, you make a positve claim, give me the supporting evidence.

Your reasoning here is called "circular reasoning" or "begging the question" and is a common form of faulty reasoning.

[RoBoTeq]

Hugh, it is far more likely that we happened by chance than that an even more complex instantly omni potent creator happened by chance. So, back over to you :)
I completely disagree with your logic, or lack there of. That all of existance is due chance occurences of non-specific matter is not only logically less likely then an intelligent Creation, it still does not answer the question; "where did that random matter come from?"

Given ingredients, I suppose something could come out of chaos, but first we need the ingredients.

When you continue to argue that this became that and that this was a result of something and that something was caused by the collision of a voomer and a whitzat.....no matter how far to the beginning you go, you are eventually going to get to what was not, and there you will be looking at God.

Now there may be an explanation of what we call God, the Creator of the physical realm. There may be a bunch of Gods who themselves were Created by something that they view as we view God. Since we can't even figure out how to relate to our own Creator, it is certainly an act of futility to attempt to think any further then the Creator of all of physical existance.

You may say that with science you don't need God. I say that God Created science for us to understand His Creation.

You may say that evolution rules out Creation. I say that God Created evolution to keep His Creation in constant flux.

You may say that the laws of physics determine how events occur. I say that God Created laws of physics as parameters to His Creation of laws of nature in order for His Created physical realm to operate perpetually, while at the same time constantly changing.

[Marc O'Brien]

When you continue to argue that this became that and that this was a result of something and that something was caused by the collision of a voomer and a whitzat.....no matter how far to the beginning you go, you are eventually going to get to what was not, and there you will be looking at God.

Robo, our ancestors used to think it was the gods throwing and banging stuff around in anger when explaining thunder and lightening.

You are doing nothing better than using a more sophisticated version of this same primitive thinking.

[Hugh B]

Hugh, you believe that we were created rather than happened by chance? And that if we were created then we have a better chance of reaching a correct conclusion? So why then suggest that my conclusion is less likely true than yours? Are you suggesting that I happened by chance while you were created? If so then you do believe we could have come by chance.

It is highly untrustworthy making positive claims that you cannot provide a single shred of evidence for. I make a negative claim and so I do not have to provide any supporting evidence, you make a positve claim, give me the supporting evidence.

Your reasoning here is called "circular reasoning" or "begging the question" and is a common form of faulty reasoning.

Sorry Marc, but this is not going to work on me. As a philosophy major I actually know and understand formal and informal logic and am not the pretender you are.

It is you who has made the claim and you who has the responsibility to back your claim. This is your thread and your claim not mine.

I will not fall for you making an attempt at reversing the burden of truth when you find yourself up against someone who is able to force you to answer the difficult questions regarding your claim. And, there are many difficult questions you cannot answer regarding your position.

[Marc O'Brien]

Sorry Marc, but this is not going to work on me. As a philosophy major I actually know and understand formal and informal logic and am not the pretender you are.

It is you who has made the claim and you who has the responsibility to back your claim. This is your thread and your claim not mine.

I will not fall for you making an attempt at reversing the burden of truth when you find yourself up against someone who is able to force you to answer the difficult questions regarding your claim. And, there are many difficult questions you cannot answer regarding your position.

Lol, what nonsense. There is nothing properly known of our origins, in the context of our disagreement? You claim there is but offer no supporting evidence.

Too, you claim I have erred somewhere but offer no references whatsoever.

I am trying to reverse the burden of proof? Where so.

Let's see these skills you have, try come up against me, I dare you, give it go :)

Then tell me one question I cannot answer that you can.

Seriously, don't talk about it, have a bash, I beg you try walk the walk here. For your own good actually.

[RoBoTeq]

Robo, our ancestors used to think it was the gods throwing and banging stuff around in anger when explaining thunder and lightening.

You are doing nothing better than using a more sophisticated version of this same primitive thinking.
How does this help your cause?

Obviously mankind is learning more and more as we go along. There is much scripture worldwide that has corrected primitive misunderstandings of our spiritual nature and the nature of God, or whatever the spiritual entity that Created the material world should be called.

All you are doing is denying logic and/or progressive thought about how we came to be and what our purpose is. By blocking your spiritual senses, you are making yourself deliberatly ignorant of what you are, a spiritual being.

[Marc O'Brien]

How does this help your cause?

Obviously mankind is learning more and more as we go along. There is much scripture worldwide that has corrected primitive misunderstandings of our spiritual nature and the nature of God, or whatever the spiritual entity that Created the material world should be called.

All you are doing is denying logic and/or progressive thought about how we came to be and what our purpose is. By blocking your spiritual senses, you are making yourself deliberatly ignorant of what you are, a spiritual being.

What precisely is a spiritual being?

What logic am I denying? How is it you determine the probabilities to be higher on your part.

[RoBoTeq]

What precisely is a spiritual being?

What logic am I denying? How is it you determine the probabilities to be higher on your part.
Just as we have to use some term for what we are referring to, spiritual is simply a term used to describe what we also call our soul, or inner being that is not physically defined.

Spirit simply means "breath" in Latin, presumably used for describing our souls due to the fact that a breath is not easily defined physically.

Precisely, to me, our spiritual being is what we truly are and always have been. I personally believe our spiritual being is actually part of what we refer to as God, who is only spiritual other then His brief 3 decades on Earth as a physical man.

So, you are denying the logic that we are more then just physical in nature. We think, we have emotions and we rationalize. None of those things can be measured in terms of physical attributes. It is not like we have a bank of predetermined answers somewhere in our brains that we access when making decisions. We "think" and "rationalize" our answers using a combination of learned data and emotional reasoning in order to come to a logical conclusion.

If we try to become like a character from Vulcan, we deny our spirituallity and lose the part of logic that is based on that part of us that can not be physically determined.

Of course you and all who claim to be atheists do use your spiritual nature, you just deny it. Maybe you are afraid of a part of you that cannot be physically defined. Maybe you are afraid of "ghosts"....ooooohhhhhhh:p, and so you simply deny them;)

[coolwhip]

Coolwhip has seen ghosties!:eek:

[Marc O'Brien]

Just as we have to use some term for what we are referring to, spiritual is simply a term used to describe what we also call our soul, or inner being that is not physically defined.

Spirit simply means "breath" in Latin, presumably used for describing our souls due to the fact that a breath is not easily defined physically.


Unfalsifiability

This error in explanation occurs when the explanation contains a claim that is not falsifiable, because there is no way to check on the claim. That is, there would be no way to show the claim to be false if it were false.

Example:
He lied because he's possessed by demons.

This could be the correct explanation of his lying, but there's no way to check on whether it's correct. You can check whether he's twitching and moaning, but this won't be evidence about whether a supernatural force is controlling his body.

The claim that he's possessed can't be verified if it's true, and it can't be falsified if it's false. So, the claim is too odd to be relied upon for an explanation of his lying. Relying on the claim is an instance of fallacious reasoning.

[acmanko]

Unfalsifiability

This error in explanation occurs when the explanation contains a claim that is not falsifiable, because there is no way to check on the claim. That is, there would be no way to show the claim to be false if it were false.

Example:
He lied because he's possessed by demons.

This could be the correct explanation of his lying, but there's no way to check on whether it's correct. You can check whether he's twitching and moaning, but this won't be evidence about whether a supernatural force is controlling his body.

The claim that he's possessed can't be verified if it's true, and it can't be falsified if it's false. So, the claim is too odd to be relied upon for an explanation of his lying. Relying on the claim is an instance of fallacious reasoning.

It cannot be fallacious and scriptual too.

which , after all, has more to do with logic than anything else, being scripture carries more weight than logic

[Marc O'Brien]

It cannot be fallacious and scriptual too.

which , after all, has more to do with logic than anything else, being scripture carries more weight than logic

Scripture is one big fallacy!!

Scripture is the fallacy of begging the question. That is presuming to be true precisely the point in question, whether there even is a god.

Scripture is an attempt to bypass the question, is there a god, and arrogantly march on choosing to just assume there is one.

Referring to scripture is irrelevant when it comes to the question "is there a god?". It offers nothing in the form of supporting evidence.

Scripture also lies. For instance, the 10 commandments came from the Egyptian book of the dead and were not given to Mosses by some angry power hungry desert warrior living in the sky.

[hvacrmedic]

Unfalsifiability

This error in explanation occurs when the explanation contains a claim that is not falsifiable, because there is no way to check on the claim. That is, there would be no way to show the claim to be false if it were false.

Example:
He lied because he's possessed by demons.

This could be the correct explanation of his lying, but there's no way to check on whether it's correct. You can check whether he's twitching and moaning, but this won't be evidence about whether a supernatural force is controlling his body.

The claim that he's possessed can't be verified if it's true, and it can't be falsified if it's false. So, the claim is too odd to be relied upon for an explanation of his lying. Relying on the claim is an instance of fallacious reasoning.

Is the claim that people can "think and feel" falsifiable? I don't think science has all of the answers Marc. OTOH, neither do I, but I've studied physics and found that it is incapable of answering the hard questions, even in principle. So where are those answers to be found if not in the intangible "or spiritual" realm? I'm not suggesting that they can be found by us mere mortals at all, but physics is definitely where they can't be found, so what's left? We should at least recognize, as Socrates did, that "I only know that I know nothing."

In "Plato", Plato's characterization of Socrates has the latter formulating arguments about spiritual things that are actually quite profound. Love, justice, beauty, truth, and all sorts of other intangible things, even geometry, he argues because they exist, are proof enough of the reality of the spiritual being. You may choose to call that entity the psyche rather than the spirit of man, but that doesn't change what it is, or the fact that it exists and is nevertheless intangible. It only changes the name by which you call it.

Now the thing about logic is that it requires one to argue spiritual things, that is, things that we have assumed be valid subjects of a discussion, i.e. "real" things. But how many of the things that a person argues about are purely physical things? A chair, for instance, isn't a thing, its a form, an intangible "idea", nevertheless it is regarded as a physical thing, subject to physical laws. It can be ascribed a mass, for instance. If we define a chair as what we sit on, then the world was full of chairs before mankind arrived on it, because he sat on whatever was convenient to sit on. If we instead define a chair as a portable device designed for the express purpose of sitting in it, then we are again talking about a form, because physically the "chair" is just a collection of charged particles just like every other object we see. How do you define "purpose"? Without a definition of purpose that definition of chair is meaningless as well. Isn't the "chair" a purely sentient thing, a mere idea, and thus a spiritual thing? Surely the particles of which we are made don't understand what "purpose" means, nor do they care about chairs or any other things that we have named. Our reality, which includes things like "chairs", mentally, spiritually, or however you want to describe it, is something more than what you get by randomly collecting a bunch of particles into one place. Like the chair, we are more than the particles of which our bodies are made. We are emergent entities, purely physical on the most base level, but purely intangible (spiritual) on the macroscopic level.

From the standpoint of physics this isn't true--we are indeed just a collection of particles obeying specific rules of interaction. But in this interpretation physics fails, in that it's conclusion is not valid for emergent features, and thus physics has barred itself from being useful beyond alchemy and the building of structures and machines. It cannot in principle explain why it itself exists, nor can the form of logic that it applies prove anything. Even the physical laws that have been adopted, and that physics is essentially composed of, cannot be "proved" by logic. Indeed they have a long history of being overturned.

Logic can be used to disprove things, but never to prove them. Morover all forms of logic are necessarily incomplete, and all require some base assumptions to be made. Logic (reasoning) is itself a spiritual thing, it is intangible. You cannot hope to argue logically against the existence of spiritual things, that would be a direct contradiction in itself.

Now like you, I'm opposed to man made religions, which is pretty much all of them, because they involve unfounded beliefs, but I don't believe as you do that we (humans) are just clumps of walking clay going involuntarily through a bunch of motions until we dissolve and cease to exist as humans. There is something else going on that we can't see with our eyes and telescopes and other lab instruments, and I'll be damned if I know what it is, but that it exists I have no doubt at all.

[coolwhip]

edited after further reading.lol :D

[Hugh B]

Unfalsifiability

This error in explanation occurs when the explanation contains a claim that is not falsifiable, because there is no way to check on the claim. That is, there would be no way to show the claim to be false if it were false.

Example:
He lied because he's possessed by demons.

This could be the correct explanation of his lying, but there's no way to check on whether it's correct. You can check whether he's twitching and moaning, but this won't be evidence about whether a supernatural force is controlling his body.

The claim that he's possessed can't be verified if it's true, and it can't be falsified if it's false. So, the claim is too odd to be relied upon for an explanation of his lying. Relying on the claim is an instance of fallacious reasoning.

Marc, I have been waiting for the falsifiable argument to come up as it applies perfectly to evolution. It is evolution that is not a falsifiable view. Evolution is a metaphysical story based upon a set of presuppositions, a worldview of its own which contains its own bias against any possibility of a supernatural cause.

Real science follows the evidence regardless of where the evidence leads. Material evolution automatically discards any possibility of another view other than its own thru its bias. Philosophers of science have pointed this out and several of the more honest evolutionary scientists have come clean and agreed to the fact of their bias. For example;

1) Professor Richard Lewontin a geneticist and evolutionist made the following statement. "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a committment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Taken from the New York Review Jan 9, 1997

2) Richard Dickerson, evolutionary biologist "Science is fundamentally a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule; Rule #1; Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without involking the supernatural."

You see, this is a presuppositional philosophical biased worldview which automatically rejects following where the evidence leads regardless of where the evidence leads.

As I proposed earlier, assuming evolution is true and you did ultimately come from chaos and have slowly become more and more organized, I can't actually trust the mind of a man to think logically and reasonably when that mind is the result of chaos.

So, the very refusal to even consider some possible conclusions regardless of where the evidence may lead is a good example of just how biased and flawed that very mind actually is.

BTW Marc, you post so many amazing illogical and false claims here that I could have a field-day with you. As a professional debater I know that when I agree to a public debate I always limit the debate topic to a single narrow claim before agreeing to the debate. Otherwise we go everywhere and focus on nothing in particular. It is a common tactic for evolutionists to change the immediate topic to another when they are unable to defend their terf.

If you want to argue another of the many possible topics on cosmology, materialism, evolution, relativism, the philosophy of science or the accuracy of the Bible, just start another thread dedicated to that topic.

[Hugh B]

Would you consider Steven Hawking logical? This is what he had to say regarding the universe.

"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

So, Hawking in the process of following the evidence acknowledges that the evidence leads to a God-creator. It seems that he may be with the ID folks.

[Marc O'Brien]

HVACRMEDIC, indeed, thinking and feeling are very good examples of something that is falsifiable, a priori. Unless you want to take on one of the Demon hypotheses.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/demons/

Science doesn't have all the answers - true - but irrelevant. It is not being offered as an alternative.

FCS put me onto "Down the Rabbit Hole - What the bleep do we know?" which I think is a very entertaining attempt to explain how science can offer some answers in the future. I recommend the 5 disk DVD set.

And regarding Socrates, well, in this context, his position is precisely my position as stated previously above.

Regarding Plato, and the use of the word "Spiritual" - well, this is just equivocation, you are simply employing mixes and matched of senses and definitions of the word to make it fit here and there. You can not give a person a third leg merely by calling them a tripod - they will remain a person with no extra leg. Love, Justice, truth are what they are. It is silly trying to imagine they have some other intrinsic property or they as concepts are spiritual just because you now want to include concept and another sense of the word spiritual. Strawberries are strawberries, they do not have any intrinsic property called "nice", they do not carry within them niceness. Otherwise every person who tried strawberries would find them nice.

Logic requires clarity and consistency in the flow of relationships between concepts. There is no "Spiritual" in this unless you butcher the word "concept" and then dress it up in the mask of the word "spiritual".

Chair describes the purpose. Many things have many uses, forgotten, known and yet to be discovered. But we call them by the primary or most common purpose known which is merely a fashion title only used to facilitate ease of communication.

My idea that Jesus never existed, according to you, is a spiritual thing. You are imagining something extra about something that is really quite sufficient on its own, you are looking too deep into something that has no depth.

We can never prove something for sure, we can only ever be sure something is wrong. For instance, there is nothing known of any gods and so very likely everything thought about gods will be wrong with very high probability.

But with regards to physics and sub atomic particles, Einstein discovered, like Heisenberg, that the results of experiments at the sub atomic level depended very much on both how much observing went on and what the observer wished to happen. This implies that we can control the world and its future simply with our thoughts.Nothing therefore is predetermined. Einstein wasn't happy with this interpretation hence his dice quote - but he likely is was wrong.

If you think there is any single area or point that you could challenge me in debate then please do, take a point and let's run with it. I am very keen :)

[Marc O'Brien]

Would you consider Steven Hawking logical? This is what he had to say regarding the universe.

"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

So, Hawking in the process of following the evidence acknowledges that the evidence leads to a God-creator. It seems that he may be with the ID folks.

This is a common cognitive illusion, on your part, it is called the hedonistic asymmetry.

Hawking is expressing his awe at the fine balance of things. The fine balance of things that I just happened to be in the right place at the right time to prevent a tragic accident - er, what about all tragic accidents you never were at?

[Marc O'Brien]

Marc, I have been waiting for the falsifiable argument to come up as it applies perfectly to evolution.

This is good, so you have discovered something you'd like to debate. Okay.

You suggest that evolution is not falsifiable. This is like saying whether or not London is the capital of England is not falsifiable. It is like saying it is impossible for anyone to find out whether or not the capital of England truly is London? Not true, Hugh, and regarding evolution, well, all you have to do is show that nothing has ever mutated. That's all, show that there is no known incidence of anything having ever mutated. This would put you on the right path. However, even if nothing was yet known to mutate, it can still be demonstrated either possible or not possible. A method to measure whether a mutation could take place is still possible. And so it is known with absolute certainty that evolution is a damn good example of something falsifiable.

Is London of higher atmospheric pressure altitude than New York? If I chose to say it was would you be able to falsify my claim? Indeed, you would. What if I said London was more of a number 38 in spirit to me, could you falsify this claim? You cannot, so it is a nonsense to try even debate it.


It is evolution that is not a falsifiable view. Evolution is a metaphysical story based upon a set of presuppositions, a worldview of its own which contains its own bias against any possibility of a supernatural cause.


Could you tell me what some of these presuppositions are?

Could you explain to me how evolution contains its own bias against any possibility of a supernatural cause? After that, even if there was a supernatural causation regarding mutation, would evolution by mutation and natural selection still be wrong because a supernatural influence was not being spoken of any time a mutation was discussed. What about me explaining to you how to kick a rugby ball, would my explanations be wrong because I did not acknowledge a supernatural influence at the beginning of each sentence?

Don't rush off with other off-topic references here, stick strictly to the above until it arrives at a conclusion.

[RoBoTeq]

Unfalsifiability

This error in explanation occurs when the explanation contains a claim that is not falsifiable, because there is no way to check on the claim. That is, there would be no way to show the claim to be false if it were false.

Example:
He lied because he's possessed by demons.

This could be the correct explanation of his lying, but there's no way to check on whether it's correct. You can check whether he's twitching and moaning, but this won't be evidence about whether a supernatural force is controlling his body.

The claim that he's possessed can't be verified if it's true, and it can't be falsified if it's false. So, the claim is too odd to be relied upon for an explanation of his lying. Relying on the claim is an instance of fallacious reasoning.
Once again, how does this support your stand?

Is this any different then your claiming that there is no way that demons caused someone to lie? Of course not. That claim would also be "unfalsifiable", as many things in life are.

Whether we believe in something that cannot be verified or refuse to believe in something unless it can be verified, we are working on faith. The difference between your faith and mine is that your faith comes from a standpoint of negative deniability whereas my faith comes from a standpoint of positive possibility to positive probability.

The degree of faith does not matter. From which direction we have faith does. An open minded, open hearted progressively thinking person can easily have faith in what cannot be measured in physical terms. A person who denies anything that cannot be measured in physical terms is a very closed minded person who has made the decision to handicap themselves by closing their eyes to possible and probable things we simply cannot yet explain.

[Marc O'Brien]

Once again, how does this support your stand?

Is this any different then your claiming that there is no way that demons caused someone to lie? Of course not. That claim would also be "unfalsifiable", as many things in life are.

Whether we believe in something that cannot be verified or refuse to believe in something unless it can be verified, we are working on faith. The difference between your faith and mine is that your faith comes from a standpoint of negative deniability whereas my faith comes from a standpoint of positive possibility to positive probability.

The degree of faith does not matter. From which direction we have faith does. An open minded, open hearted progressively thinking person can easily have faith in what cannot be measured in physical terms. A person who denies anything that cannot be measured in physical terms is a very closed minded person who has made the decision to handicap themselves by closing their eyes to possible and probable things we simply cannot yet explain.

Okay, so I cannot explain why the existence of a number 13 floating in a tea cup on the dark side of the moon is not evident to all but I am okay to remain faithful that just because it is not as evident to others as it is to me still one day you all will be a able to understand it.

Okay, so, I from now on wish to be seen by you as an open minded person... I have decided then to believe, um, er, um, okay, I have an idea to believe in... billions and trillions of years upon trillions of years of multiple universes, some re-collapsed and re-expanded and others never stopped expanding but somehow by chance life came to be and that life was so omnipotent that it decided to create living things from the materials of one of the universes and then got bored and moved off to another dimension where there is nothing but nothing with no distractions at all where this omni potent life could imagine many things in peace not being distracted by the material universes.

Whew, one long sentence that was, this being open minded is really hard work, isn't it. Okay, so the living stuff created by this omni potent thing that just happened or appeared out of shear chance, expands its existence throughout the universe. But that universe than collides with another. The other universe then gets buffeted by a new exploding universe which results in the living matter being carried through 4 different universes. And just by chance, a dude riding a magic donkey and a dude in white robes riding a cloud comes along and they carry some of this living stuff to a 5th universe, our universe. They find a planet, put us here, and then start writing story books for us.

Oh boy, you know what, this open-minded stuff, it is bloody terribly boring.

I think it'll be easier for me to look, with closed eyes, as you say, at what's actually around me and stick to theories that will explain what I see. Anyone who wants to modify my open minded discoveries about our origins can carry-on as they please. If however, they think we are the 6th universe and not the 5th universe, then I want proof - I want solid proof, because remember it is already my open minded Gospel that this is the 5th universe. Give me proof if yo think otherwise - the problem is, only a closed minded faithless person would deny that this is the 5th universe.

[Marc O'Brien]

Robo, do you agree with me that the Bible is utterly irrelevent to anything regarding gods until it is first proved that there is at least one god?

Show me why it would be okay for anyone to open the bible, in seeking knowledge of any gods, before it is even proven whether there is a god.

[Hugh B]

Marc:

Once again your flawed logic which is the result of a mutated mind which has chance and chaos as its mother and father fails to follow along. You seem to have a problem making common distinctions such as confusing the falsification of a simple single fact as opposed to a metaphysical metanarrative based upon presupposition/bias which rules out falsification.

You bring up mutations and assume that I reject them when I accept them. However, you assume that one who accepts mutations must also accept macro biological evolution. You should know better than that or perhaps I have given you more credit than you deserve. There are a series of problems with using and applying mutations to Darwinian evolution. I just need to point out here that it is you not me who has now broadened this discussion to include the topic of mutations. Previously, I warned against broadening this discussion and then in your last post you use the tactic of stealing my capital by attempting to take my warning of off-topic discussions and make it look as if it were your own. Then you do that very thing by introducing mutations. Mutations which are 99% harmful and have never once been shown to accumulate and bring about a new species.

So, you want to know what some of the presuppositions are that cause the evolutionary metanarrative to reject a supernatural causation without consideration. It is amazing to me that you asked. I guess you were not following along since I not only did so I did it by quoting several of the most highly regarded evolutionist scientists representing your side of this discussion. Atheistic evolution assumes that the physical-material world is the only thing that exists. Regardless of what the evidence may indicate, regardless of where the evidence leads, a supernatural intelligence has been ruled out of consideration. That sir, is not real science, it is a fixed outcome in favor of a predetermined bias which does not allow for its story to be falsified. It is still worse than that but I will not tax you with rest at the moment. Just re-read the quotes from your own professional biologists as I posted earlier. They sir, are being more honest than you are. They do not pretend to not see their own presuppositional bias.

It is not I who needs to defend my position as you made the claim and you therefore have the responsibility of backing it with evidence.

Since you think atheistic evolution is a real testable scientific theory then you tell me what evidence you would accept as that which would falsify it.

[RoBoTeq]

Oh boy, you know what, this open-minded stuff, it is bloody terribly boring.

No Marc, you are the one who is terribly boring. If all you are going to do is to make up absurd scenarios in order to appear to support your faith that other others of theological faith are wrong, you are indeed just a boring person to converse with.

Like I stated before, those of you who deny anything that you cannot verify by physical means are prone to illogical conclusions because you deny the existance of an entire way of thinking.

[Marc O'Brien]

No Marc, you are the one who is terribly boring. If all you are going to do is to make up absurd scenarios in order to appear to support your faith that other others of theological faith are wrong, you are indeed just a boring person to converse with.

Like I stated before, those of you who deny anything that you cannot verify by physical means are prone to illogical conclusions because you deny the existance of an entire way of thinking.

Lol, Robo, re-read your post very carefully then come back with a better presentation.

[Marc O'Brien]

Marc:

Once again your flawed logic which is the result of a mutated mind which has chance and chaos as its mother and father fails to follow along. You seem to have a problem making common distinctions such as confusing the falsification of a simple single fact as opposed to a metaphysical metanarrative based upon presupposition/bias which rules out falsification.


Hugh, I didn't read all of your post, you need to spend more time writting shorter verse so that I might immediately see each of your points.

Don't bother starting off with "once again..." when so far not once have you demonstrated a single flaw in my logic.

I did not bother addressing the stuff you quoted because it is meaningless material. All it was to me was testament. No facts, no substantiation, just vague opinions by other people. Now, if these people also happen to be experts then they should be able to also present substantiated arguments. Let me see the substantiation otherwise I could not care the slightest what they feel might be or might not be true.

Experts carried out a survey of the viability of a cellular telphone system, they came back with the expert opinion that there would never be a market for cell phones. Great, they may have been correct, but they may also have been wrong - whether which depends on the substance their expertise were applied to.

You not heard of the speech gene?

Now, I have narrowed the limits of our discussion to the falsifiability of the fact of evolution. Do not waste you time commenting on my choice of playing field - either play or shut up.

[RoBoTeq]

Robo, do you agree with me that the Bible is utterly irrelevent to anything regarding gods until it is first proved that there is at least one god?

Show me why it would be okay for anyone to open the bible, in seeking knowledge of any gods, before it is even proven whether there is a god.
No Marc, I do not at all agree with you because I have all the proof I need that there is a God. There may not be imperical proof that those of you who limit yourselves to the such require, but there is plenty of proof for those of us who believe in our spiritual nature and are in touch with our souls. I'm real sorry you can't see it, but it is always available for all to believe in.

The Bible is not for those seeking knowledge of gods. The Bible is for those who do not deny thousands of years of writings by hundreds of various authors that that have been identified with by billions of people worldwide...to have true meaning.

To deny that such writings are relevant is simply not logical. Just because we don't know why we have emotions that result in physical reactions does not mean they don't exist. We may not understand why scripture is revered by or enthralling to so many millions of peoples, but we cannot deny that there is something about scripture that absolutely no other writings that ever existed has. That thing is a spiritual draw. Why? Obviously because of the spiritual relevance.

Many passages in scripture discuss those who deny what they cannot sense with the physical senses. Not believing in something just because it cannot be physically measured is just illogical and downright showing ignorance of the desire to learn.

[RoBoTeq]

Hugh, I didn't read all of your post, you need to spend more time writting shorter verse so that I might immediately see each of your points.


I'm just a little curious as to why someone would think they are so superiour that they have the right to continuously tell others how to conduct their conversations. You do this crap a lot, and it is very annoying. No one but you thinks you are somehow entitled to tell others how to communicate.

Is your issue with God that you don't like something competing with your godlike complex? I wonder if you have ever enjoyed the sometimes unpleasant yet fulfilling feeling of humility. I don't believe you are bright enough to even understand how little you know about some things.

[Hugh B]

Marc

Another of the brightest minds of science Carl Sagan clearly indicated his presuppositional bias against following the evidence regardless of where it leads when he stated the following;

"The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." from his book Cosmos and the highly acclaimed video series.

Marc, I am quoting the brightest atheist minds in science and they freely admit to their bias. And, the best you can do is ignore them. You started this thread with the question "Are your Logical?"

Well, by the very words of your own atheist humanist scientists they admit to a bias, a presuppositional world view which violates the foundation of science. Following the evidence where ever it happens to lead.

Steven Hawking knows better. Your incorrect application of a so called logical flaw happens to be your interpretation of incorrectly applying a rhetorical device to his statement in an effort to rid yourself of its real meaning.

[Hugh B]

Marc, you are really not as good at this as you may like to think you are. I have faced a number of your kind in live debates on this very topic and it would be sort of fun to do so with you.

[RoBoTeq]

Marc, you are really not as good at this as you may like to think you are. I have faced a number of your kind in live debates on this very topic and it would be sort of fun to do so with you.
Making a grown man cry is your idea of having fun? Hmmmm, you got a little mean streak in you Hugh;)

I do agree and have mentioned before that Marc is pretty much a wannabe antagonist. I believe the problem comes from Marc's using the words of others more then his own thoughts. By doing this, Marc can initially appear to be insightful but since the words are not his own, they lack conviction and therefore fall flat.

[Hugh B]

I'm just a little curious as to why someone would think they are so superiour that they have the right to continuously tell others how to conduct their conversations. You do this crap a lot, and it is very annoying. No one but you thinks you are somehow entitled to tell others how to communicate.

Is your issue with God that you don't like something competing with your godlike complex? I wonder if you have ever enjoyed the sometimes unpleasant yet fulfilling feeling of humility. I don't believe you are bright enough to even understand how little you know about some things.


RoBo;

Marc is committed to a presuppositional bias (like his famous scientific friends I quoted) which prevents him from allowing a logical questioning of his atheistic-humanistic-psudo-scientific view of the world.

No evidence contrary to his position would be considered valid according to his world view. This is also evident by his own admission that he has not actually been reading our posts on this thread.

There is no need to bother continuing a discourse with someone who is not paying attention to the reasoned discussion of his opposition. That is insulting to his host debater. Don't waste any more time Robo.

[Hugh B]

Making a grown man cry is your idea of having fun? Hmmmm, you got a little mean streak in you Hugh;)

I do agree and have mentioned before that Marc is pretty much a wannabe antagonist. I believe the problem comes from Marc's using the words of others more then his own thoughts. By doing this, Marc can initially appear to be insightful but since the words are not his own, they lack conviction and therefore fall flat.

I believe I know the position Marc is trying to represent better than Marc does himself. I have faced all of these points and rebuttals many times and I believe I could actually switch sides and take his position and do a better job than he does.

[coolwhip]

I must say that this was an interesting read and am sad that it seems to have fizzled.
I wish there could be a difference of opinions omitting the belittling comments though.

[bigtime]

I believe I know the position Marc is trying to represent better than Marc does himself. I have faced all of these points and rebuttals many times and I believe I could actually switch sides and take his position and do a better job than he does.


What is your position, and what is Marcs position. Im not sure what you are talking about. After you explain this, please switch sides and argue Marcs position.

[klove]

Here's a question on logic for you, Marc - after the innumerable rambling diatribes that you've posted in this and other threads, where do you get the gall to tell Hugh or anyone else that they need to "shorten their verse"?

[hvacrmedic]

HVACRMEDIC, indeed, thinking and feeling are very good examples of something that is falsifiable, a priori. Unless you want to take on one of the Demon hypotheses.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/demons/

Science doesn't have all the answers - true - but irrelevant. It is not being offered as an alternative.

FCS put me onto "Down the Rabbit Hole - What the bleep do we know?" which I think is a very entertaining attempt to explain how science can offer some answers in the future. I recommend the 5 disk DVD set.

And regarding Socrates, well, in this context, his position is precisely my position as stated previously above.

Regarding Plato, and the use of the word "Spiritual" - well, this is just equivocation, you are simply employing mixes and matched of senses and definitions of the word to make it fit here and there. You can not give a person a third leg merely by calling them a tripod - they will remain a person with no extra leg. Love, Justice, truth are what they are. It is silly trying to imagine they have some other intrinsic property or they as concepts are spiritual just because you now want to include concept and another sense of the word spiritual. Strawberries are strawberries, they do not have any intrinsic property called "nice", they do not carry within them niceness. Otherwise every person who tried strawberries would find them nice.

Logic requires clarity and consistency in the flow of relationships between concepts. There is no "Spiritual" in this unless you butcher the word "concept" and then dress it up in the mask of the word "spiritual".

Chair describes the purpose. Many things have many uses, forgotten, known and yet to be discovered. But we call them by the primary or most common purpose known which is merely a fashion title only used to facilitate ease of communication.

My idea that Jesus never existed, according to you, is a spiritual thing. You are imagining something extra about something that is really quite sufficient on its own, you are looking too deep into something that has no depth.

Indeed, your belief that Jesus never existed is a spiritual thing. If it were a mechanical or physical thing, then you'd be able to tell us how much mass/energy it had, at least in principle its mass/energy could be determined, or in the least its trajectory. Since it is clearly not a tangible thing, then if it exists it is not physical, and is thus spiritual. You can attempt to negate my use of the word "spiritual", but I don't believe myself to be redefining it, but rather redefining those things that I am calling spiritual, as spiritual things. I'm only adding to the list the things that are spiritual. It isn't my fault that others have unnecessarily limited the scope of that word. Indeed, they cannot even satisfacorily define what spiritual means, whereas I have defined it objectively as "all those things that aren't tangible" but that nevertheless exist. I do not include those things that aren't falsifiable, and this, again, is where I part company with the religious crowd. We are not entirely on opposite pages, but I do not reject my own humanity whereas you seem to be rejecting everyone's humanity. We are just machines, you seem to be saying. Well that is true in the physical sense, but not true in the spiritual sense. I tend toward the notion, despite it's outwardly absurd appearance, that the spiritual aspect is the reality, and the physical aspect is the illusion. If there were no sentient beings to concieve of "existence", then would the universe that we see around us still exist? How could it, there would be nothing to hold and "experience" that concept anymore. It would for all practical purposes be equivalent to nothingness without something to percieve it.

Some quantum theorists thought along similar lines, as you have already noted. Thier speculations led Einstein to suggest that they were maintaining the equivalent view that the moon only exists when somebody is looking at it. Well, how do we know this is not exactly the case? We don't. In fact we don't "know" anything at all, except our experiences, which are beyond logical means to define.

[Marc O'Brien]

Marc

Another of the brightest minds of science Carl Sagan clearly indicated his presuppositional bias against following the evidence regardless of where it leads when he stated the following;

"The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." from his book Cosmos and the highly acclaimed video series.

Marc, I am quoting the brightest atheist minds in science and they freely admit to their bias. And, the best you can do is ignore them. You started this thread with the question "Are your Logical?"

Well, by the very words of your own atheist humanist scientists they admit to a bias, a presuppositional world view which violates the foundation of science. Following the evidence where ever it happens to lead.

Steven Hawking knows better. Your incorrect application of a so called logical flaw happens to be your interpretation of incorrectly applying a rhetorical device to his statement in an effort to rid yourself of its real meaning.

Hi Hugh, as I say, tackle yet only your claim that evolution is unfalsifiable. I'm not interested in testament, Carl had his opinions and those opinions come out of a context, yipee for Carl, now, I want a thorough explanation. Why is evolution unfalsifiable?

[Marc O'Brien]

We are not entirely on opposite pages, but I do not reject my own humanity whereas you seem to be rejecting everyone's humanity. We are just machines, you seem to be saying. Well that is true in the physical sense, but not true in the spiritual sense.


What is "humanity"? How do I reject it?

[Marc O'Brien]

Here's a question on logic for you, Marc - after the innumerable rambling diatribes that you've posted in this and other threads, where do you get the gall to tell Hugh or anyone else that they need to "shorten their verse"?

After an investigation you might find this to be true. But your mentioning it is still illogical.

You see, if you are wearing a yellow jersey, and so am I, when I notice and tell you that you are wearing a yellow jersey would you bother to tell me "well, so are you!"? Would the fact that I am wearing a yellow jersey make your jersey any less yellow?

I just remembered, You guys call a jersey and jumper.

Being correct on whether your jumper is yellow does not entail a consideration of whether mine is or is not also yellow. The colour of your jumper can stand on its own independent of the colour of my jersey. It may very well turn out that I am a hypocrite, but it is entirely another matter whether I am also wrong.

[behappy]

Rule: If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side.

Before you read further pick only two of the four cards below to check the rule,

In my first reading of the post, I missed this...
This is the key to the question.

The OP put in more words and BS just to keep you from seeing the true answer.
He may have a career as a president.

[hvacrmedic]

What is "humanity"? How do I reject it?

In context, that would be defined as "the totality of the human experience". I suppose that more specifically I was referring to the subjective apect of our experience.

[acmanko]

In my first reading of the post, I missed this...
This is the key to the question.

The OP put in more words and BS just to keep you from seeing the true answer.
He may have a career as a president.

I don't know. I answered it the first time

[Marc O'Brien]

In context, that would be defined as "the totality of the human experience". I suppose that more specifically I was referring to the subjective apect of our experience.

I'm still confused though, I honestly don't see a satisfactorily clear picture of what "humanity" is. I wouldn't know whether I reject it or not until I understand what it is you are talking about.

[klove]

After an investigation you might find this to be true. But your mentioning it is still illogical.

You see, if you are wearing a yellow jersey, and so am I, when I notice and tell you that you are wearing a yellow jersey would you bother to tell me "well, so are you!"? Would the fact that I am wearing a yellow jersey make your jersey any less yellow?

I just remembered, You guys call a jersey and jumper.

Being correct on whether your jumper is yellow does not entail a consideration of whether mine is or is not also yellow. The colour of your jumper can stand on its own independent of the colour of my jersey. It may very well turn out that I am a hypocrite, but it is entirely another matter whether I am also wrong.


Go back and take a look at my post that you put this as an answer to, and then tell me, would it be possible for me to purchase the same drugs that you're taking? What in heavens name does this answer have to do with my question?????????? Where do you come up with this crap???????? Do you post here because they booted you from the forums in the UK? Talk about something "begging" questions, it's starting to look like your sanity fits in that category.

[RoBoTeq]

RoBo;

Marc is committed to a presuppositional bias (like his famous scientific friends I quoted) which prevents him from allowing a logical questioning of his atheistic-humanistic-psudo-scientific view of the world.

No evidence contrary to his position would be considered valid according to his world view. This is also evident by his own admission that he has not actually been reading our posts on this thread.

There is no need to bother continuing a discourse with someone who is not paying attention to the reasoned discussion of his opposition. That is insulting to his host debater. Don't waste any more time Robo.
You're right of course. I gave up on trying to converse with Marc before for the same reason.

[RoBoTeq]

I must say that this was an interesting read and am sad that it seems to have fizzled.
I wish there could be a difference of opinions omitting the belittling comments though.
Wow! Did you really have to be so hard on us?;)

[Marc O'Brien]

Go back and take a look at my post that you put this as an answer to, and then tell me, would it be possible for me to purchase the same drugs that you're taking? What in heavens name does this answer have to do with my question?????????? Where do you come up with this crap???????? Do you post here because they booted you from the forums in the UK? Talk about something "begging" questions, it's starting to look like your sanity fits in that category.

Okay, firstly, your original question...


Here's a question on logic for you, Marc - after the innumerable rambling diatribes that you've posted in this and other threads, where do you get the gall to tell Hugh or anyone else that they need to "shorten their verse"?


Now, imagine I flew my own plane into the airport across the sea flying low where over I saw a man possibly drowning near an overturned boat. If I called in an emergency to the coast guard would the coast guard first have to varify the truth value of my message? How would they do it? Would they first fly or boat over to where I am to check whether I am drowning with the view that if I am then the other person can't be? Would it be only after they find that I am not drowning that they could then conclude that my claim regarding the drowning man must be true? What is the relevence of my state - also drowning or not also drowning? No relevence, it is irrelevent. The man could still be drowning whichever way.

Surely it is illogical to ask whether I might be a hypocrite or not.

I do make long posts, this is true. However, I do not share your view that my posts are long ramblings. I try to make impersonal factual statements my priority. Look at Hugh's posts, they are all about me and very little on-topic substance is offered in between all the emotional commentary on me. He only offers testament in a debate where we are seeking only substantiated facts.

Regarding the UK discussions boards. Well, I had established the best UK discussion board on Fridgetech.com. The discussions there were so enjoyed by folks in the Uk that 2 of the industry's magazines even asked me to start writting regular articles for them. Later when I started a business I pushed everyone towards another UK discussion board because I did not have the time to manage my own. I also participated on that other board and in fact was the leading poster there. A fellow South African on the other UK discussion board, an Indian, whom I was friends with and even sub contracted work out to, took offence when I told the board that during my apprenticeship in South Africa the best technicans I worked under were Indian. He said this was not possible, Apartheid forbid non whites to progress like that. He was wrong, the company I worked for as an apprentice was British anyway APV Hall Ltd and was encorouged by the Uk to set examples regarding racial equalities. We had a dispute over this, he never appologised. Then I happened to mention that since Mandela had taken over South Africa the economy, value of the Rand and the country's infrastructure were collapsing. He accused me of only wishing this were true because I despised Mandela - I also disputed this. I was offended by his twisted reasoning, as I am by yours now. In the end I demanded that the owner of the discussion board either demote that person from being a moderator or I will delete all my posts and leave the discussion board.

Now too, I will delete as many posts as I can from this discussion board and then request that my account is deleted.

Regards...

[RoBoTeq]

I just remembered, You guys call a jersey and jumper.


Really? Do you consider your home country that which we guys saved or that which we guys kicked butt?:D

Just so you don't continue not knowing what we guys call things;


A jumper is either a skydiver or a disraugt person on top of a bridge, high building or cliff ledge.
A jersey is a pullover shirt.
A New Jersey is a state.
Now you know, and knowing is half the battle (a quote from one of our American heroes):rolleyes:

[klove]

Okay, firstly, your original question...



Now, imagine I flew my own plane into the airport across the sea flying low where over I saw a man possibly drowning near an overturned boat. If I called in an emergency to the coast guard would the coast guard first have to varify the truth value of my message? How would they do it? Would they first fly or boat over to where I am to check whether I am drowning with the view that if I am then the other person can't be? Would it be only after they find that I am not drowning that they could then conclude that my claim regarding the drowning man must be true? What is the relevence of my state - also drowning or not also drowning? No relevence, it is irrelevent. The man could still be drowning whichever way.

Surely it is illogical to ask whether I might be a hypocrite or not.

I do make long posts, this is true. However, I do not share your view that my posts are long ramblings. I try to make impersonal factual statements my priority. Look at Hugh's posts, they are all about me and very little on-topic substance is offered in between all the emotional commentary on me. He only offers testament in a debate where we are seeking only substantiated facts.

Regarding the UK discussions boards. Well, I had established the best UK discussion board on Fridgetech.com. The discussions there were so enjoyed by folks in the Uk that 2 of the industry's magazines even asked me to start writting regular articles for them. Later when I started a business I pushed everyone towards another UK discussion board because I did not have the time to manage my own. I also participated on that other board and in fact was the leading poster there. A fellow South African on the other UK discussion board, an Indian, whom I was friends with and even sub contracted work out to, took offence when I told the board that during my apprenticeship in South Africa the best technicans I worked under were Indian. He said this was not possible, Apartheid forbid non whites to progress like that. He was wrong, the company I worked for as an apprentice was British anyway APV Hall Ltd and was encorouged by the Uk to set examples regarding racial equalities. We had a dispute over this, he never appologised. Then I happened to mention that since Mandela had taken over South Africa the economy, value of the Rand and the country's infrastructure were collapsing. He accused me of only wishing this were true because I despised Mandela - I also disputed this. I was offended by his twisted reasoning, as I am by yours now. In the end I demanded that the owner of the discussion board either demote that person from being a moderator or I will delete all my posts and leave the discussion board.

Now too, I will delete as many posts as I can from this discussion board and then request that my account is deleted.

Regards...

What????? No demands that I be shot first??? Sorry, Marc. I reckon I should have overlooked your "holier than thou" attitude, but I just ain't wired that way. Have a nice day............................................... ............

[RoBoTeq]

Surely it is illogical to ask whether I might be a hypocrite or not.I don't believe anyone was asking "if" you might be a hypocrite. I do believe it was establised as a fact that you are a hypocrite.




Now too, I will delete as many posts as I can from this discussion board and then request that my account is deleted.

Regards...
I see we can add spoiled sport to hypocrite, Marc. What? You don't get your way and everyone doesn't bow to your believing in what others that you copy and paste have to say, you can't play?

Do you even have any thoughts of your own Marc? Are you really this insecure that you can't post your own thoughts? Are you so insecure in the things that you have posted that you feel the need to make them go away? Geeez, Marc, it must really suck to be you. I mean that sincerely. Have some thoughts of your own and maybe you will be able to actually communicate with others rather then only feel comfortable talking down to those who put you on a pedastool.

[geerair]

Marc, I have been waiting for the falsifiable argument to come up as it applies perfectly to evolution. It is evolution that is not a falsifiable view. Evolution is a metaphysical story based upon a set of presuppositions, a worldview of its own which contains its own bias against any possibility of a supernatural cause. Evolution is imminently falsifiable. Where you go off the track is that because evolution has not been falsified you belive it is not falsifiable. Find us a bunny rabbit in the Cambrian and you will have not only falsified evolution, but the Nobel, riches and fame are yours.


All of science, not just evolution, by definition and practice is concerned solely with the natural world.




Real science follows the evidence regardless of where the evidence leads.True.

And a gigantic mountain of evidence clearly leads to evolution.







Material evolution automatically discards any possibility of another view other than its own thru its bias.All of science, not just evolution, follows the only proper arena open to empirical evaluation, which is the natural world.



Philosophers of science have pointed this out and several of the more honest evolutionary scientists have come clean and agreed to the fact of their bias. For example;

1) Professor Richard Lewontin a geneticist and evolutionist made the following statement. "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a committment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Taken from the New York Review Jan 9, 1997

2) Richard Dickerson, evolutionary biologist "Science is fundamentally a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule; Rule #1; Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without involking the supernatural."

You see, this is a presuppositional philosophical biased worldview which automatically rejects following where the evidence leads regardless of where the evidence leads. I agree with Lewontin and Dickerson that the only proper field of scientific enquiry is the natural world.


As I proposed earlier, assuming evolution is true and you did ultimately come from chaos and have slowly become more and more organized, I can't actually trust the mind of a man to think logically and reasonably when that mind is the result of chaos.Rather, it is your misunderstanding of biological evolution that is causing your confusion.





So, the very refusal to even consider some possible conclusions regardless of where the evidence may lead is a good example of just how biased and flawed that very mind actually is.See above reply.

[geerair]

Mutations which are 99% harmfulNyet!!!!!!!!! The majority of mutations are neutral.



and have never once been shown to accumulate and bring about a new species.Nonsense. Speciation has been observed in the lab, in the field and in the fossil record.








So, you want to know what some of the presuppositions are that cause the evolutionary metanarrative to reject a supernatural causation without consideration. It is amazing to me that you asked. I guess you were not following along since I not only did so I did it by quoting several of the most highly regarded evolutionist scientists representing your side of this discussion. An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. But since the authorities didn't support your argument in the slightest way I'll let it slide.





Atheistic evolution assumes that the physical-material world is the only thing that exists.Rather, all of science, not just "Atheistic evolution", by definition and practice, is properly an investigation of the natural world.


BTW-What is "Atheistic evolution"?




Regardless of what the evidence may indicate, regardless of where the evidence leads, a supernatural intelligence has been ruled out of consideration.Rather, there has been no credible, empirical evidence presented supporting the exsistence of the supernatural or supernatural intelligence.




That sir, is not real science, it is a fixed outcome in favor of a predetermined bias which does not allow for its story to be falsified.You are confused and uninformed about what constitutes real science.





It is still worse than that but I will not tax you with rest at the moment. Just re-read the quotes from your own professional biologists as I posted earlier. They sir, are being more honest than you are. They do not pretend to not see their own presuppositional bias.they are honest but you are ill-informed about science.


It is not I who needs to defend my position as you made the claim and you therefore have the responsibility of backing it with evidence.You have no intelligible position.






Since you think atheistic evolution is a real testable scientific theory then you tell me what evidence you would accept as that which would falsify it.The Cambrian rabbit fossil.

[geerair]

"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."This is a quotemine.

Quotemining is a despicable practice.


No doubt you did not quotemine it yourself but plucked it from some Lying For Jesus website. This does not however relieve you of the intellectual responsibility of reviewing the quote in its proper context before vouching for the credibility of the interpretation of the quote.



Hawking does not mean what you want or think he means.

Don't take my word for it.........google the quote and read the entire context.

[bootlen]

Well, I'll be darned! The things ya see when ya ain't got a gun.

Hello, Geer! Glad to see ya back. No, really.

[Marc O'Brien]

What????? No demands that I be shot first??? Sorry, Marc. I reckon I should have overlooked your "holier than thou" attitude, but I just ain't wired that way. Have a nice day............................................... ............

I have requested that my request for my account to be deleted be reversed.

I see there is now at least one other person on this discussion forum who is somehwat read in logic and critical analysis.

Klove, you do not need to be shot, you are not a moderator gone off on a mad rage. You are just another reason to believe that this discussion board has no hope for logic. Even after my first posts in this thread where I explained what is logic and what is not you still get it wrong in thinking that hypocrisy is a logical fallacy - it is not. It is a fine example of being illogical - the assumption that someone being hypocritical is also being illogical.

Further, you need to go look up precisely what begging the question means! You used the expression in a recent post demonstrating a total misunderstanding of its meaning.

Geer, you cannot understand how refreshing it is to see someone else on this discussion board who is familiar with the study of logic. Until you arrived there was only demonstration of some readings in philosophy but none in logic and critical analysis.

[Marc O'Brien]

This is a quotemine.

Quotemining is a despicable practice.


No doubt you did not quotemine it yourself but plucked it from some Lying For Jesus website. This does not however relieve you of the intellectual responsibility of reviewing the quote in its proper context before vouching for the credibility of the interpretation of the quote.



Hawking does not mean what you want or think he means.

Don't take my word for it.........google the quote and read the entire context.

Very pleasurable reading your stuff, Geer, you are pretty well rounded smart!!

I didn't want to consider any of the quotes Hugh offered as the fallacy of appealing to authority, aka fallacy of universal expertise, because I wasn't sure how contextually relevent those being quoted were. I can only know after hearing their arguments in full rather than being just offered their conclusions. So I prefer to consider the quotes mere testament that is yet to be followed up with supporting evidence and therefore irrelevant to the matter at hand whether or not the fact of evolution is now somehow unfalsifiable.

[k-fridge]

Very pleasurable reading your stuff, Geer, you are pretty well rounded smart!!



Now you've done it, he won't be able to find a hat big enough for that head. :p:D

[Marc O'Brien]

Ah, Geer, I now understand how you were using the fallacy marker "Appeal to Authority".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

I am more used to understanding it as applied to a situation where someone might ask Einstein "You're clever man, Albert, tell me, which are better, Strawberries or Berries?" Transferring authority onto someone who is an authority just not in the field of inquiry whether or not the inquiry is a valid one or in this instance a subjective one making even the question meaningless in the search of universals.

[Marc O'Brien]

Now you've done it, he won't be able to find a hat big enough for that head. :p:D

A big hat, nah, the man should be given a crown!! He has a clear fluid mind.

[Marc O'Brien]

Damn, Wiki is getting good with its info - I think I might start spending more time on Wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

[Marc O'Brien]

Quote mining

Scientists and their supporters used the term quote mining as early as the mid-1990s in newsgroup posts to describe quoting practices of certain creationists. It is used by members of the scientific community to describe a method employed by creationists to support their arguments, though it can be and often is used outside of the creation-evolution controversy. Complaints about the practice predate known use of the term: Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote in his famous 1973 essay "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" that...

...The 'Creationists' favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really anti-evolutionists under the skin.

[klove]

I have requested that my request for my account to be deleted be reversed.

I see there is now at least one other person on this discussion forum who is somehwat read in logic and critical analysis.

Klove, you do not need to be shot, you are not a moderator gone off on a mad rage. You are just another reason to believe that this discussion board has no hope for logic. Even after my first posts in this thread where I explained what is logic and what is not you still get it wrong in thinking that hypocrisy is a logical fallacy - it is not. It is a fine example of being illogical - the assumption that someone being hypocritical is also being illogical.

Further, you need to go look up precisely what begging the question means! You used the expression in a recent post demonstrating a total misunderstanding of its meaning.

Geer, you cannot understand how refreshing it is to see someone else on this discussion board who is familiar with the study of logic. Until you arrived there was only demonstration of some readings in philosophy but none in logic and critical analysis.

Well, Marc, some things don't need explanation - they "are what they are", and you are a pompous, big-headed, know-it-all, hypocrite (who apparently goes off half-cocked when making decisions, since you can't make up your mind whether or not you want to be here). You've filled your quota - only one reversal is allowed per year, so now you're stuck. Hard to believe that a 9th grade educated backwoods Alabama refrigerator repairman could get someone as educated as you that flustered. :rolleyes: Oh, and by the way, I know what "begging the question" means - I won the spellin' bee when I was in the 4th grade........................Has to be sad to be you, Marc. The rest of us get to look forward to learning something new daily. I worked with a guy that you remind me of who once said "It's tough being the smartest one where you work". My reply was that I wouldn't know - I'd never had, nor would I ever have that problem with which to contend.

I'm learning something valuable in this thread. In a lot of ways, I've acted just like you at different times in my life. Now that I see first hand what it looks like from the other side, I can honestly say that I'll do my best to not let that happen again. Oh, and my little tirade here ain't about logic - it's about "acting like somebody", as my mom used to tell me to do.

[klove]

A big hat, nah, the man should be given a crown!! He has a clear fluid mind.

I'll agree with the fluid part......................

[Marc O'Brien]

Well, Marc, some things don't need explanation - they "are what they are", and you are a pompous, big-headed, know-it-all, hypocrite..

I'm the one who tries to stick to clear thinking free of ad hominem commentaries. That is not big-headed. It may hurt people to discover that their thinking is erroneous but being hurt does not make the messenger big-headed.

There simply is no point in me staying here if everyone else will have no respect for logic and only practice dishonesty.

Whether or not I am hypocritical is debatable but also irrelevant to the point at hand.

Regarding honesty again - please tell me what precisely is the fallacy of "begging the question" and then tell me precisely how this fits with the way you used the term earlier. Then I'd like to see if you are willing to admit that you got it wrong? This may hurt you, okay, but it is not big-headed of me to try draw a smidgen of honesty out of all this nonsense,

[Marc O'Brien]

I'll agree with the fluid part......................

As in mercurial... Having the characteristics of eloquence, shrewdness, swiftness, and thievishness attributed to the god Mercury.

[klove]

I'm the one who tries to stick to clear thinking free of ad hominem commentaries. That is not big-headed. It may hurt people to discover that their thinking is erroneous but being hurt does not make the messenger big-headed.

There simply is no point in me staying here if everyone else will have no respect for logic and only practice dishonesty.

Whether or not I am hypocritical is debatable but also irrelevant to the point at hand.

Regarding honesty again - please tell me what precisely is the fallacy of "begging the question" and then tell me precisely how this fits with the way you used the term earlier. Then I'd like to see if you are willing to admit that you got it wrong? This may hurt you, okay, but it is not big-headed of me to try draw a smidgen of honesty out of all this nonsense,


This is my final post on this thread (I hope), because it's just simply a waste of time. The problem here, Marc, is not that you, and I, and some others, agree or disagree on what is logical or illogical. My first post simply addressed the fact that you expect others to live to a standard that you are not willing to comply to. Simply put, you are a hypocrite (and in the context of what I'm speaking of, yes, it is VERY relevant. And who has been dishonest?). It only adds fuel to the fire that when someone disagrees with you, that you can't agree to disagree, but that you start treating people as if they're not smart enough to read writin', or write readin'. You certainly won't see the logic in this explanation, simply because you think that I'm wrong. Just think about this: managers push strings, leaders pull them. Live by your own words, or don't expect anyone else to listen to what you have to say.

[Marc O'Brien]

This is my final post on this thread (I hope), because it's just simply a waste of time.

Klove, it is a waste of time because you confuse opinion with fact. It is a matter of opinion whether strawberries are nice. It is a matter fact that they are a fruit. The British Broadcasting Corporation set up a national telephone vote for the best Britain that had ever lived. Such things are not a matter of opinion. There is in fact a factual best Britain that ever lived. The BBC should have said that the phone-in vote was instead to establish popular opinion on the matter rather than to establish the fact itself. Do you see what I'm saying about a subtle difference between opinion and fact. The issue of hypocrisy is one of fact. Am I or am I not a hypocrite? You will have to substantiate the claim, Klove.


The problem here, Marc, is not that you, and I, and some others, agree or disagree on what is logical or illogical. My first post simply addressed the fact that you expect others to live to a standard that you are not willing to comply to.

Yes, you brought it up. You however only expressed an opinion. Not a fact. To show that it is a fact you must demonstrate that I have been practicing precisely the same as I have been preaching others not to do. Like I smoke a few cigarette's a week and so does my sister - I keep telling her to stop smoking - it is not good for her - she keeps replying "well, so do you, hypocrite!" - well, yeah, so do I, so what, how does that disprove the claim that she should stop because it is unhealthy?

With regard to Hugh, well, he does not use long paragraphs to explain things as I do, like I am doing here above, he uses long paragraphs to commit the ad homonym fallacy affecting a red-herring - he bores me to death giving me long stories of his opinion of me. I have no interest in his opinion of me, I am only interested in any coherent argument he might offer. Hugh is not arguing, he is quarreling - we argue to get at the truth and we quarrel to get at others. I am only interested in arguing as I am doing in this very post.

Now, show me why you think you used the term "begging the question" correctly. Explain to me what it means and then how you used it.

[acmanko]

well, its not logical that so many of you can have such a diverse definition for being logical

[Some Dude]

This whole thing reminds me of star trech. When Captain Kirk would look at spock like he wanted to smack him because he couldnt see the forest for the trees.
Ok maybe half the time spock was right,maybe, but i dont think he had any friends?:D

[Marc O'Brien]

This whole thing reminds me of star trech. When Captain Kirk would look at spock like he wanted to smack him because he couldnt see the forest for the trees.
Ok maybe half the time spock was right,maybe, but i dont think he had any friends?:D

Generally, 20% of the people you know will seriously dislike you. 60% are fairly mutual - don't care much and don't mind much. Then 20% tend to be pretty good friends.

The things we do in life are done in search of a net benefit. We always do the things that make us happiest. To me seeking truth, knowledge and clear thinking makes me happiest - it is my crutch in life. I also love the physics of refrigeration which entails keeping fresh with high school math.

I am always deeply upset when people deliberately bull****, others or themselves - especially out of stubbornness.

It is better to be hated for what one is, than loved for what one is not. Be true to yourself, be honest and never cower.

[Some Dude]

Marc i dont hate you , i dont even dislike you. You my friend are missing out on so much. Knowledge and wisdom are two completely different things.
My dear old dad told me 'you can learn something from the dumest sob on the earth, even if its not to be a dumb sob.

Rudyard Kipling wrote many wonderful works, i try to read this one once a month.

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream–and not make dreams your master,
If you can think–and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on!”

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings–nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And–which is more–you’ll be a Man, my son!

[Marc O'Brien]

Marc i dont hate you , i dont even dislike you. You my friend are missing out on so much. Knowledge and wisdom are two completely different things.
My dear old dad told me 'you can learn something from the dumest sob on the earth, even if its not to be a dumb sob.

I teach exactly what your father taught. I also tell people that if you only hang out with people you like or who you think are like you then you just become more so what you were at the outset. Rather hang out with everyone reciprocating with everyone.

Regarding wisdom - I teach that this can only come from enlightenment which can only come from learning to have an honest open mind that never develops absolutes regarding truths only absolutes regarding falsities and fallacies. It is a wonderful experience feeling your conscience suddenly being raised. I try to acheive this in some form at least once a week.

[Some Dude]

Thats all well and good , just dont forget to live a life while your at it.
A person could watch peaceful warrior once a week,study philosophy [ which i consider mental masturbation ] And be the best at their given profession, find a cure to cancer and invent time travel.
But if they cant come home, pat the dog and hug their families it is all a complete and total waste of energy.
Everything i learned from those poor ,happy farmers where i grew up was the truth. Considered salt of the earth good simple people, and some of them didnt have a high school diploma.
Early to bed early to rise
What goes around comes around
And a basic very basic way of looking at things.

I saw all the works that were done under the sun, and, look! everything was vanity and a striving after wind.

[Marc O'Brien]

But if they cant come home, pat the dog and hug their families it is all a complete and total waste of energy.

I wouldn't say it would be a total waste of energy. That's a subjective thing. It depends on the persons tastes. However, we have all evolved to be highly sociable people. In times gone past the less sociable mutations choosing to wonder off into the mountains on their own tended not to survive and so did not perpetuate those genes. So there has tended to be an innate need for these things but it is not true that everything otherwise is a total waste of energy.

I'm quite certain that there is no purpose to life so whatever makes you happy, as long as it doesn't harm the society you belong to then go for it - especially if there is a net benefit.

[Some Dude]

I wouldn't say it would be a total waste of energy. That's a subjective thing. It depends on the persons tastes. However, we have all evolved to be highly sociable people. In times gone past the less sociable mutations choosing to wonder off into the mountains on their own tended not to survive and so did not perpetuate those genes. So there has tended to be an innate need for these things but it is not true that everything otherwise is a total waste of energy.

I'm quite certain that there is no purpose to life so whatever makes you happy, as long as it doesn't harm the society you belong to then go for it - especially if there is a net benefit.

Ah so you are a student of Darwin is assume.
While pol pot took things to extremes there is much to be said for a simpler way to live our lives.
People living on top of each other in cities is as unnatural as you get, its also unhealthy. There has been an extreme increase in murder especially serial killers since the industrial revolution along with countless other issues like people not being able to think.
And nothing ever mutates to a higher species, that is scientific fact.

[Marc O'Brien]

Ah so you are a student of Darwin is assume.

And nothing ever mutates to a higher species, that is scientific fact.

Well, one can't help but be an evolutionist, it is the only conclusion to arrive at. Any other conclusion can only happen by prejudice.

But mutations happen in all directions. Including into higher species, all the time. This is a scientific fact born out of naked observation. It is so well established that it has long ago been promoted from hypothesis to theory and today is as strong a theory as is the theory of ohms law.

[Some Dude]

Well, one can't help but be an evolutionist, it is the only conclusion to arrive at. Any other conclusion can only happen by prejudice.

But mutations happen in all directions. Including into higher species, all the time. This is a scientific fact born out of naked observation. It is so well established that it has long ago been promoted from hypothesis to theory and today is as strong a theory as is the theory of ohms law.

And that is completely opinion and not a shred of fact. But the words are pretty.
The fact is there had to be a creator,period.

[glennac]

A big hat, nah, the man should be given a crown!! He has a clear fluid mind.

Shame James isn't around to give Geer a proper greeting. Their is no logic in arguing with geer he just spouts the far left Democratic talking points. He was known as geerbot back when the site was a little more wilder than now.:)

[RoBoTeq]

well, its not logical that so many of you can have such a diverse definition for being logical
It is really sad when things are so bad that one of your posts makes sense mancow;)

[RoBoTeq]

Well, there is obviously no hope for Marc. It is mind boggling that Marc considers geer to be a logical person. It is like some sort of reverse universe where what is said means the exact opposite:rolleyes:

In any event, I now see that I cannot learn anything from Marc, which is a shame because I know he must have some experiences or thoughts of his own that I could learn from if he didn't crush his own thoughts beneath his ego.

Geer logical.......WOW!

The man who uses ad hominims and red herring arguments as if they were the only means of discussion....logical? I can get my head around a lot of things, but this one; I cannot:cool:

[k-fridge]

Gentlemen - there has been some great discussion in this thread, but also some unnecessary smugness from a few posters. Disagreement is not bad, it is what fuels the debate we enjoy. All we ask is that we extend a reasonable amount of respect to each other as we enjoy our ARP forum.

Please try to get back on topic and keep the discussion civil.

Thanks

ARPC

[RoBoTeq]

Smug is such a neat little word. Sounds all cozy and warm;


http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/jby0029l.jpg

[Marc O'Brien]

Shame James isn't around to give Geer a proper greeting. Their is no logic in arguing with geer he just spouts the far left Democratic talking points. He was known as geerbot back when the site was a little more wilder than now.:)

In this thread Geer is pure logic. That is to someone who has studied logic and studied those elements of cognitive science that explain why humans have such a hard time being logical.

I created this thread to demonstrate to everyone a little of what it means to be logical and then also why we have evolved to not be logical.

The Wason selection task given in the beginning of the thread is so far the most famous test for a logical mind. It also demonstrates the tendency for those less logical to seek only confirming evidence regarding their pre-established beliefs.

You have formal logic and informal logic. Then you have human social contract monitoring which is not logical by the proper definition of logic. Yet it is what people have evolved to be and because we have all evolved to be like that we have this illusion that being like that is logical when in fact by the proper definition of logic we tend to be illogical.

If P then Q - where P and -Q (not Q) are valid but -P and Q are fallacies.
If I am running then I am moving
P = Am running so am moving = Valid.
-P = Am not running so not moving = Fallacy - can move for other reasons.
Q = Am moving so must be running = Fallacy - can be moving for other reasons.
-Q = Am not moving so am not running = Valid - can not be running if am not moving.

So you can see above that the middle two, -P and Q are logical fallacies. Lawyers in court shout objection anytime they hear a statement of the -P or Q form.

Now, with human social contracts it is in fact common sense, rather than logical, to usually consider -P and Q as valid rather than fallacy - exactly the opposite of logic.

If they have paid the price they can enjoy the ride.
P = They have paid - so we don't bother to check they don't enjoy the ride.
-P = They have not paid - so checking they do not enjoy the ride is now valid - opposite of logic.
Q = They are enjoying the ride - so checking they have paid is again valid - Opposite of logic.
-Q = They are not enjoying the ride - so we don't care to check if they have paid the price.


Humans tend to make the mistake of employing common sense to solving problems of matters of evolution rather than logic. Evolution is not a social contract it is a scientific study of fact with conclusions arrived at by following the evidence, it is natural for humans to wish to tackle the matter using common sense but the correct tool is instead logic.

Geer is logical - he has escaped the realm where humans tend to employ common sense
always, he knows when instead logic will give the more truthful results to a consideration. At some time in the past his conscience has been raised to a higher order.

Humans collectively have had their conscience raised when it became okay to allow woman to vote and then to allow blacks to vote. Or when it was realised slavery was unethical. These are occasions when the mind steps up to a higher level.

[Marc O'Brien]

Quoting the Wikipedia article on common sense...

"Opponents of one of the traditional views of common sense sometime regard reliance on common sense (in its disguise as "received knowledge") as an impediment to abstract and even to logical thinking. This view appears especially popular in mathematics and physics, where human intuition often conflicts with "probably correct" or experimentally verified results. A definition attributed to Albert Einstein states: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.""

[Marc O'Brien]

Who cares about logic?

People take many paths to truth. Most people use a combination of personal experience, gut feeling, and testimony from others to discern the truth. These methods might do you well enough to manage some relationships and get you to and from work, but they have a horrible track record when it comes to getting at truth about much of anything else.

The fact is that throughout history, nearly all the people who have ever lived have been wrong about damn near everything. Wrong about magic. Wrong about spirits. Wrong about gods. Wrong about medicine. Wrong about diet. Wrong about astronomy. Wrong about economics. Wrong about political theory. Wrong about chemistry and physics. Wrong about biology. Wrong about the afterlife. Wrong about the opposite sex. Wrong about psychology. Wrong about pretty much everything.

[RoBoTeq]

Sounds more like Marc has logic confused with rhetoric. I personally find rhetoric very annoying, although I suppose it does serve attorneys and others who need to argue by misdirection very well.

Speaking of James, I believe James had studied rhetoric, which I found very interesting.

[Some Dude]

Give him time he may grow up one day.

[Marc O'Brien]

Sounds more like Marc has logic confused with rhetoric. I personally find rhetoric very annoying, although I suppose it does serve attorneys and others who need to argue by misdirection very well.

Speaking of James, I believe James had studied rhetoric, which I found very interesting.

What is the difference between Logic and Rhetoric and then in what way am I confusing the two?

[Some Dude]

Marc i think its a waste of space to post so much. No one reads more than the first line or two if they have a brain in their head or any experience at all in life.
Those are all your opinions or even worse wiki which is written by anybody.

You remind me of a little 8th grader who was kicked out of his dungeons and dragons clique and had to find something else even cooler to do. Just has to know something no one else knows so they feel cool, now weather its true or not is a different story:) but you are now trying to find people for your new clan.
Either that or your at the prison library and spend your day doing this eating cheetos and watching porn, but what do i know?
Is your keyboard orange? or anything else?

[RoBoTeq]

What is the difference between Logic and Rhetoric and then in what way am I confusing the two?
I was posting about you Marc, not to you. I have no interest in conversing with someone like you. Once you alligned yourself with geer, I realized that having a conversation with you would continue to be an act of futility.

You think highly enough for the both of us Marc, so you should not be that upset that I don't buy into your illogical "rhetoric".

[Marc O'Brien]

Marc i think its a waste of space to post so much. No one reads more than the first line or two if they have a brain in their head or any experience at all in life.
Those are all your opinions or even worse wiki which is written by anybody.

You remind me of a little 8th grader who was kicked out of his dungeons and dragons clique and had to find something else even cooler to do. Just has to know something no one else knows so they feel cool, now weather its true or not is a different story:) but you are now trying to find people for your new clan.
Either that or your at the prison library and spend your day doing this eating cheetos and watching porn, but what do i know?
Is your keyboard orange? or anything else?

This is ARP? Is it not?

This is where people debate or speculate about all sorts of things - especially controversial things. Well, such places also need to have rules, first and formost rules of logic. Without rules of logic you just have a kennel of dogs barking and no one understanding anyone else.

Is the stuff opinion. No, it is not opinion. I have said many times before that there is a big difference between opinion and fact.

You don't seem to realise that facts stand on their own and are imminently falsifiable. If I said Washington DC was the capital of the USA would you dare tell me that that was just some guy on Wiki's opinion that I am regurgitating?

What is or is not logic is fact. Syllogistic reasoning is fact.

If I am running then I am moving
I am running
Ergo I am moving

In the above syllogism both the formal and informal logic are valid.

All mammals are warm blooded
I am a mammal
Ergo I am warm blooded.

Logic is not a matter of opinion. It is self evident.

Just because you might not know that Washington DC is the capital of the USA it does not mean you are then correct it telling me it is just my opinion. What if it was true that Washington was the capital of the USA, and you later discovered so, then what would you say? You would have planted yourself deep in **** just arogantly assuming that because you are ignorant of the detail that it is therefore just my opinon. You would be embarrassed to discover later that it was in fact a fact and not an opinion at all.

Trying to explain to me your opinion of me, as you have done above, is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. It is just an irrelevant changing of the subject. You might just as well have started talking about how tall Joe Pesci is for all it contributes to the subject at hand here. I am not offering testament, what is and is not logical is verifiable and I have given all the necessary proof. I am not asking you to believe that I saw who shot JFK, that would be testament where my character would become relevant. We are instead talking of verifiable facts but you are so far away from rising above common sense to the higher levels of logic that this reality doesn't even occur to you.

[Marc O'Brien]

I was posting about you Marc, not to you. I have no interest in conversing with someone like you. Once you alligned yourself with geer, I realized that having a conversation with you would continue to be an act of futility.

You think highly enough for the both of us Marc, so you should not be that upset that I don't buy into your illogical "rhetoric".

Sorry, I didn't hear that for all the bull**** in the background, tell me again, what is the difference between logic and rhetoric and why do I confuse the two?

[Some Dude]

This is ARP? Is it not?

This is where people debate or speculate about all sorts of things - especially controversial things. Well, such places also need to have rules, first and formost rules of logic. Without rules of logic you just have a kennel of dogs barking and no one understanding anyone else.

Is the stuff opinion. No, it is not opinion. I have said many times before that there is a big difference between opinion and fact.

You don't seem to realise that facts stand on their own and are imminently falsifiable. If I said Washington DC was the capital of the USA would you dare tell me that that was just some guy on Wiki's opinion that I am regurgitating?

What is or is not logic is fact. Syllogistic reasoning is fact.

If I am running then I am moving
I am running
Ergo I am moving

In the above syllogism both the formal and informal logic are valid.

All mammals are warm blooded
I am a mammal
Ergo I am warm blooded.

Logic is not a matter of opinion. It is self evident.

Just because you might not know that Washington DC is the capital of the USA it does not mean you are then correct it telling me it is just my opinion. What if it was true that Washington was the capital of the USA, and you later discovered so, then what would you say? You would have planted yourself deep in **** just arogantly assuming that because you are ignorant of the detail that it is therefore just my opinon. You would be embarrassed to discover later that it was in fact a fact and not an opinion at all.

Trying to explain to me your opinion of me, as you have done above, is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. It is just an irrelevant changing of the subject. You might just as well have started talking about how tall Joe Pesci is for all it contributes to the subject at hand here. I am not offering testament, what is and is not logical is verifiable and I have given all the necessary proof. I am not asking you to believe that I saw who shot JFK, that would be testament where my character would become relevant. We are instead talking of verifiable facts but you are so far away from rising above common sense to the higher levels of logic that this reality doesn't even occur to you.

When i stop laughing i may post back, man it would be so fun to have you on a job. Very entertaining.does Britian have liberals or just you. seriously your a riot.

[Marc O'Brien]

When i stop laughing i may post back, man it would be so fun to have you on a job. Very entertaining.does Britian have liberals or just you. seriously your a riot.

As long as you are learning something, Zach, as long as you have material to digest helping you to become more mentally mature then I am happy :)

At the moment, those regularly replying to my posts are behaving like 8 years olds holding their hands over their ears shouting "We can't hear you, we can't hear you". Increadibly juvinile and in many instances utterly dishonest.

I thought Geer summed it up when he said "lying for Jesus websites..."

You guys lie and pretend because you are not sufficiently mature to stand up and say "Yeah, that's right, this is right, not sure about that other thing, disagree on this thing but this other thing is right and I want to know more about it..etc" There is none of that from you guys - just a bunch of juviniles shouting "we can't hear you and you stink anyway!"

Why? Well, because the better arguments here just haven't gone your way and until you get it your way you'll just keep on pretending to either be too stupid or that what I say is too funny etc.

This is ARP - try be adult.

[Some Dude]

Thanks again you should be on stage.
A little hint for ya Marc.
Basic psychology teaches that the things we see ,hate and fear in others are in fact our biggest problems. That my friend is why you are so hysterical, you just havent lived long enough or seen enough to know really anything.
There is nothing new under the sun Marc we just want to believe we are all special, some more than others.
My advise to you is find who you consider to be the dumbest person you know and do everything they say, you would probably be better off.:D

[Marc O'Brien]

Thanks again you should be on stage.
A little hint for ya Marc.
Basic psychology teaches that the things we see ,hate and fear in others are in fact our biggest problems. That my friend is why you are so hysterical, you just havent lived long enough or seen enough to know really anything.
There is nothing new under the sun Marc we just want to believe we are all special, some more than others.
My advise to you is find who you consider to be the dumbest person you know and do everything they say, you would probably be better off.:D

Sorry, is there any relevence? I'm trying to understand from where suddenly does the contents of this post come from? Are you talking to me?

What has wanting to be special got to do with anything? Are you for real? I tell you that Washington DC is the capital of the USA and all you can say is "That's just your opinion Marc, and there is nothing new under the sun Marc we just want to believe we are all special, some more than others". What on earth are you on - an overdose of anti ADD drugs? Geez guy, try stay focused here.

[Some Dude]

I was wondering what you were on, i never said washington wasnt the capitol, if you read your post you are the one with add. you formulate an argument before anyone has a chance to raise an objection.
Instead of having those feelings of low self esteme think positive and actually read what is written to you, not what you read, what was written to you.
I would start with your second post,,,,and work forward from there.
Apologie accepted.

[Marc O'Brien]

You are unbelievable, Zach, unbelievable. You just have to be taking the piss, trying to be funny in a juvenile way. I know damn well you never actually said Washington wasn't the capital. It's an analogy representative of your arguments, or lack of, in general. Lol, I gave up with Robo I think I just have to give up with you too.

[bootlen]

Quitter.:p



















:D

[Marc O'Brien]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnu-O5x_pRU

[Marc O'Brien]

The biased view of the scientific minority...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPuKoEYCs2o

[RoBoTeq]

You guys lie and pretend because you are not sufficiently mature to........This is ARP - try be adult.
Just who the hell do you think you are to be calling those who don't agree with you "liars"?

You are pathetic, Marc!

You are pretty much exactly what you keep insisting those who see through your bullcrap are.

[RoBoTeq]

You are unbelievable, Zach, unbelievable. You just have to be taking the piss, trying to be funny in a juvenile way. I know damn well you never actually said Washington wasn't the capital. It's an analogy representative of your arguments, or lack of, in general. Lol, I gave up with Robo I think I just have to give up with you too.
You should give up, since you are pathetically wrong about pretty much everything you post, even when most of it are the ideas and writings of others.

I just love the kind who says he "gave up" on me...AFTER...I posted that I have no desire to converse with him any longer. I guess you're the kind of bloke who quits moments after getting fired too:rolleyes:

[RoBoTeq]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnu-O5x_pRU
I believe posting links with no personal commentary are against the rules of the ARP. If all you want to do is to belittle and antagonize those of faith, at least take the effort to post something you have thought of all by yourself.

[Marc O'Brien]

I believe posting links with no personal commentary are against the rules of the ARP. If all you want to do is to belittle and antagonize those of faith, at least take the effort to post something you have thought of all by yourself.

Hey, hi there Robo, damn, still can't hear you for the bull**** in the background, sorry, please, tell me again, what did you say was the difference between logic and rhetoric and why did you say I confuse the two? Maybe turn down the background bull**** and try talking a little louder.

[royc]

Marc its difficult to teach logic to those who refuse to put away their bias and personal opinions.

Just by reading some of the replies in here its obvious that when some are confronted with how logic should operate, one can see the obvious bias and years of indoctrocation that shapes their way of thinking. The more others chime in on their side, the more it re-enforces such believes.

When I first came to this forum and the ARP section here, I figured that since many here are professional technicians in the HVAC trade, that even in the ARP section more logic would be applied about the subject of politics and religion, but found out otherwise. Which shows just because one is in a technical trade where logic is a must, doesnt automaticly make such a person aplly logic in other parts of their lives.

Keep up the good posts, I enjoy reading them, and I bet there are many others who do also, but dont want to get involved in some of the imature arguments in here.

Roy

[k-fridge]

Thread closed

At least until tempers cool

ARPC