Statism and the Null Hypothesis (from Fail Quotes)

[Travis Retriever]

This isn't the definition used by libertarians, by the way. To a libertarian, having an authority over a geographic location does NOT give that authority the moral or legal right to initiate force.

I never said (or at least didn't mean) that having the authority over a geographic location gives said authority.
Only that when an group of people has that authority over a geographical area, that it is what we call government.

It's a system of mutual protection, but it should fund itself and operate itself by means of voluntary participation.

An anarchist would respond to that by saying that it's not really a government then. It's one of the ways that anarchists and libertarians continually talk past each other

OK, so to be fair, the philosophies of anarchists and libertarians ARE somewhat different then in terms of what constitutes a "government" (And I doubt that's the only way they're different).
I guess this is one of the reasons why it pisses you off (and rightly so) when people say that libertarians are anarchists.
Or, even stupider, when they say libertarians are Ayn Rand followers.

Heck, I just had some idiot claim I was a Randroid on my profile page on youtube.
Is he not aware that Rand HATED libertarians AND anarchists?

[Travis Retriever]

On the other hand, the assumption that the sun will stop rising one day is NOT falsifiable, as no matter how many times the sun rises once could always say that the day is not here yet.

Am I the only one reminded of end-times prophecies by this point and how they have the same error you mention here?

[Travis Retriever]

Also, FlowCell's posts about philosophy vs science remind me of this:



And the mouse-over text: "I mean, what's more likely -- that I have uncovered fundamental flaws in this field that no one in it has ever thought about, or that I need to read a little more? Hint: it's the one that involves less work."

[MrBogosity]

I guess this is one of the reasons why it pisses you off (and rightly so) when people say that libertarians are anarchists.
Or, even stupider, when they say  libertarians are Ayn Rand followers.

And from the other direction: when anarchists say that libertarians are statists.

[Travis Retriever]

And from the other direction: when anarchists say that libertarians are statists.

Touché.

[Travis Retriever]

2) You made the claim that metaphysics had the hallmark of fiction, so how is it any different then science fiction?

From Shane's very post:

No, it very much is! For the refusal to make a falsifiable statement is the hallmark of fantasy.

[Ex_Nihil0]

Those terms are defined as the atheist community dictates.  Agnosticism has always been separate from atheism until the new atheist movement annexed the term so they could have more credibility, even though their actual arguments would never bring you to that conclusion.  This bate and switch is patently dishonest.  If you find a genuine agnostic, which are rather hard to find, the'll be more then happy to give you a definition that separates themselves from their atheist contemporaries and explain why atheists are every bit as dogmatic as their theists counterparts.

And do you know why they are different?  Modern atheism is based primarily on the philosophy of foundationalism.  That is, they operate on a ridged set of principles that they can neither prove nor disprove as fundamental truth, yet they dogmatically claim that absolute certainty could be had from such foundations, anyway, assuming they are applied without error.   Destroying Shane's argument is as easy as understanding the Münchhausen Trilemma because demonstrates clearly the dogmatic nature of foundationalism. 

The agnostic argument, however, bases itself on falabilism.  That is, because foundationalists have yet to conclusively prove any of their axioms and definitions are grounded in the truth of reality, certainty cannot be assumed towards anything a foundationalist says, be they religious or secular.  This means, for example, that both papal infalability and the infalability of mathematics can be rejected.  This does not mean that the pope and mathematical proofs are necessarily wrong, it just means they offer no promises of actual certainty and are subject to partial or even complete revision.

The identification of foundationalism in every atheist argument I have ever heard clearly shows that atheists are an entirely different specie from Agnostics.  Agnostics think falliblisticly, Atheists do not.

I should point this out now, but, you do realize that atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive right?
From  http://www.atheist-community.org/faq/#atheist_agnostic
"Q: What's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?

A: It has to do with the difference between what you believe and what you think you know. For any particular god that you can imagine, a "theist" is one who has a belief in that god. In contrast, an "atheist" is one who does not have a belief in the god. A "gnostic" is one who knows about the existence of god and an "agnostic" is one who thinks that god is unknowable.

Notice that the terms "atheist" and "agnostic", by these definitions, are not mutually exclusive. You could be an agnostic atheist, meaning you don't think that the existence of gods is knowable, but you don't choose to believe in one without further proof. Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn't strictly true and there is no proper word to describe this. You could call such a person an "untheist", perhaps. Or, you could just call such a person a "gnostic atheist", one who doesn't believe in a god and thinks that his non-belief can be proved.

So there are four possible ways one could be.

    1. Agnostic-Theist: believes god exists, but the existence of a god is unknowable
    2. Gnostic-Theist: believes in a god for which he claims knowledge
    3. Agnostic-Atheist: does not believe god exists, but it can't be proved
    4. Gnostic-Atheist: believes it can be proved that god does not exist

Case 3 is sometimes referred to as "weak atheism" and case 4 is sometimes referred to as "strong atheism". Only strong atheism positively asserts that there are no gods.

Finally, it should be pointed out that when a person is asked about their beliefs and replies that they are agnostic, they are avoiding the question and answering a different one. Someone who can't positively say he/she believes in a god is an atheist."
I'd recommend reading the entries on the subject on the Iron Chariots Wiki.
It covers it in greater depth.

Also, why all the metaphysical jibber-jabber?
An Atheist is simply one without a belief in a deity or deities.
An Anarchist is simply one without a belief in the necessity or virtue of the state.
Both are simply the H0 at work.
Also, a libertarian can be an anarchist, such as Murray Rothbard and Mary Ruwart.

[Ex_Nihil0]

Well, gee, I guess all these scientists just waste their time doing math. I guess my video using trigonometry to show the distance to SN1987A didn't really prove anything at all and we really have no idea how far away it is.

You dig yourself in deeper and deeper with every post.

I'm said to be digging myself into a bigger hole from a dogmatic foundationalist?  Shane, this is bad comedy.  Yes every single one of those facts could turn out to be completely wrong.  It won't be as wrong as the creationists claims you debunked if you were ever debunked yourself, but you'd still be wrong.  If you aren't prepared to accept findings that would shake your perception of reality to the point where you'd question that SN19787A even exists in the first place, you are being dogmatic.  You might not think so, but you are.  Try thinking with a little more falliblism and you'll see that my being in a hole is a delusion of your own creation.

Okay: in what way is my proof of the distance to 1987A uncertain, beyond just the margin of error of the measuring precision?

Its uncertain because you can't even be sure that 1978A is actually there.  Everything we observe could be a perceptual illusion and everything we think we know about reality could be completely wrong.  That said, their is nothing wrong with science doing what it does.  In fact, this line of reasoning means that science should be even more critical, not less.

No, pi is the same ratio, regardless of how you define the numbers. You can use whatever base you want, you can even use whatever non-integral system you can come up with, it'll still be the same ratio.

Then you could just as easily say that 1) Pi is defined as this ratio which, coincidentally gives you an irrational number or, if you don't like that, 2) Pi is an artifact of human logic.  No perfect circles actually exist to test this because they are mental abstractions, just like any other shape.  In fact, if you measured the values of a shame similar to a circle, you'd end up with a number similar to Pi, but you'd never actually get Pi.  Does this mean that your postulate is wrong?  Not necessarily, it does mean you can't say that speaks of reality's true nature.  Again, you are using another axiom with a truth value taken for granted.  If you are going to use rationality as your basis of truth, then you may as well throw out empiricism it the garbage. 

Scientific conclusions ARE NOT BASED ON BELIEFS. I don't know if you're being think here or deliberately trolling.

If you take the truth value of knowledge for granted, then yes, science would be based on beliefs.  Stop being a stubborn foundationalist.

You have yet to show how.

It isn't my fault you project your own foundationalism on what he said.  He never disagreed with Kaku, and you never once pointed out how he did.

Well, if you look at THAT big a picture, you can make astrology appear correct! If the fundamentals don't work out, then the theory is WRONG. That's just all there is to it. And the "big picture" you are left with is nothing specific to atomism; it was universally accepted that things were just larger structure of smaller things. Atomism said that there was one and only one small thing that could come together in infinite patterns to make everything. That was WRONG, and the only part of atomism that you're left with which was right was the part people believed without atomism anyway.

Utter nonsense.  I do not make Astrology appear correct.  I make it appear more wrong then the current theories of astronomy.  With each revolution of theories, the hope is to be less wrong then the previous theories before it.  If Astrology never existed, their would have been no foundation for astronomy to replace it.  For how could humanity learn about the stars if humanity didn't have an interest in them in the first place?  I get really frustrated with your straw man bastardizations of what I say.  You are either dishonest or your thinking is so ridged you may as well be an unimaginative computer. 

Yes, it is! If Atomism was right because things are made of smaller things, then Lamarckism is right because species change and evolve. That's your "big picture" again.

False dichotomy fallacy.

The big picture was the realization that animals do change over time.  Both theories on how animals evolve share this common thread.  That means Lamarckian evolution wasn't completely wrong.  In fact, you could line up creationism, lamarchian evolution and Darwinian evolution in order from most wrong to least wrong and it would show, if you will excuse the pun, a natural evolution of thought.  A theory wrong in part does not make it wrong in whole.  Why do you continue to make the same binary error?

The point is you aren't making any specific statement about metaphysics.

Why would I make a specific statement about metaphysics?  It is a consideration of potability which, by its very nature, is non-specific.

It's not, really. Occasionally it's right, usually it's wrong. And the way we know when it's right or wrong is because of SCIENCE.

I don't disagree with this at all.  In fact, its the fist thing you've said so far that I have not disagreed with in quite a while.  Perhaps we are talking past each other.

So, you were NOT making an assumption when you said, "Agnosticism is the only rational choice"?

Its not an assumption unless you believe that not making an assumption is itself an assumption. 

Again, H0 has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with probabilities.

Then why assume the NULL when a statement isn't testable?

These are prominent and influential libertarian atheists. Deal with it.

I don't care if these are prominent libertarian atheists or not, that isn't what I asked for.  I asked for the ratio of Liberals vs. Libertarians among the entire group of people who call themselves atheist.  I never said nor implied that I was looking for prominent ones.  It may not have been very clear to you, but that was what I was asking for. 

I never said they weren't, stop lying. You were the one who said they were practically nonexistent.

I never said atheists libertarians were practically non-existent.  Clearly you can find prominent ones, but that doesn't speak for the general makeup of the larger community of atheists. 

Shifting Burden Fallacy.

Asking for evidence contrary to my observation isn't a shifting of the burden.  I actually want a clearer picture of the community's break down.

Again, COMPLETELY irrelevant. Not to mention argumentum ad populum.

Bullshit!  Its only a fallacy when a commonly held opinion its a premise to an argument.  Being outnumbered is perfectly relivant to the difficulties of changing people's minds.

Null IS nothing. Assuming the null IS assuming nothing.

Not so.  The NULL is what must be true of the positive statement is false.  That is completely different then assuming nothing.

Let me give you an example. 

Fred rides the train six days per week. 
Fred has ridden the train Sunday through Thursday and it is Friday.

Hypothesis: Fred will ride the train today on Friday.
NULL: Fred will ride the train on Sunday.

Observation: Fred did not ride the train on Friday.

Conclusion: Fred will ride the train tomorrow on Sunday.

Yes, it is! Assuming nothing is a rejection of something.

No it isn't.  Rejection of something IS an assumption, or perhaps even a truth statement.  Your concept of the NULL hypothesis is wrong and I'm begining to understand why their was such a fundamental disagreement between yourself and C0nC0rdance on the subject of free choice vs. government restriction.  You would have had more success debating him if you used fallibility instead of your ridged and incorrect understanding.  It would have made far more sense to him.

No, they aren't. Most humans--and most primates, for that matter--are good and generous and altruistic. This is very well-supported and documented.

That depends on what monkey's can get away with or not.  Its very difficult to get away with something in a small group and much easier to get away with something in a large group.  Put a bunch of monkey's in a large group, much larger then they would naturally exist, and all their altruism vanishes.  In fact, give them free food provided by humans, and their entire social structure breaks down into chaos. 

[yt]jwsXuMYEHkQ[/yt]

As you can see, once the monkey's expect free food they don't care about fairness or altruism.  It becomes a grab and go operation.  You can even observe some of the monkey's steeling from one another when they get the chance.  It may be well supported that primates are altruistic in an natural setting (save for dominant males sometimes engaging in sexy by force), but the condition of greed and selfishness is a property of primates under the right circumstances.  The implications of this video should speak volumes about why communities with high levels of welfare distribution are also afflicted with high levels of violence.  If you have to work together with your community to get your food, you are less likely to be a dick to everybody else then if your next meal is also a guarantee. 

I will revise my statement to say that primates are selfish greedy bastards when don't have to work for very much.  This still includes a large number of people, though.

Yes. Now where in that statement is there ANYTHING about balance? THEY HAVEN'T MADE THEIR CASE. That's the point. If you haven't made your case, then no one else is under any logical obligations to consider it.

I would disagree and say that the theists did make there case.  They just didn't prove anything by it because their case is based on fallacies that many people find convincing. 

And just what are you claiming he meant by "that level"?

That by stooping to the level of the theists, he's can use reason as a counterweight to their emotional appeals.  I.e. he's balancing the scale for the sake of the easily swayed. 

Incorrect. Saying that the burden of proof is on the statists is NOT the same thing as saying that there's no way they can ever meet that burden.

This is because you misunderstand what the NULL is.  The NULL is what must be true if the Hypothesis is false.  In other words, both cannot be logically true.  I actually think that C0nC0rdance had it right all along.  You'd be better off defending freedom from the likes of him with fallibility then using your misunderstanding of the NULL.

And just so you know that I'm not making this up about C0nC0rdance, here's the link to the video where he explains it at 6:32.  And yes, there Is a part 2 if you are interested.

[yt]u34BhEgO_es[/yt]

He also quotes Einstein as saying: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
And also quotes Popper saying: The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability."

If you erroneously interpret Einstein's quote as you have dishonestly (or ignorantly) interpreted my arguments, then this should be more then enough evidence that Einstein thought Astrology and Lamarkian evolution had the same validity as astronomy and Darwinian evolution.

Oh, and here is another cool point.  The way you use use the NULL hypothesis begins with a positive test for the evidence of evidence.  Its a positive confirmation and subjects you to confirmation bias regarding metaphysical statements!

Also, when you say "Only evidence based statements speak of reality."

This is not a falsifiable statement and, therefore, does not speak of reality by its own standard, making it completely self refuting nonsense.

[Gumba Masta]

So what is the problem here exactly?

[Ex_Nihil0]

Also, FlowCell's posts about philosophy vs science remind me of this:



And the mouse-over text: "I mean, what's more likely -- that I have uncovered fundamental flaws in this field that no one in it has ever thought about, or that I need to read a little more? Hint: it's the one that involves less work."

That cartoon is humerus satire, but it could not be more of a straw man.  Philosophy is a means to an end, not an end as this the bearded stick figure would suggest.  To the contrary, I advocate a much higher standard of critical inquire regarding scientific theory.  All theories are wrong at least in part, so the goal is to develop newer and better theories that make the old ones obsolete.  But if one is to fully critique Eisenstein's theories, one better understand his theories very well.  And if you are going to outright reject his theories, you'd better have something that explains things a whole lot better.

[Ex_Nihil0]

So what is the problem here exactly?

1) The question of fallibility vs. foundationalism, and whether or not foundationalism is dogmatic.

2) The uncertainty of science regarding the true nature of reality.

3) The proper application of the NULL hypothesis and falsification.

4) The question that older theories are either completely wrong vs. partly wrong relative to newer and better theories.

That covers most of it.

[Gumba Masta]

Well, which approach would be more like to yield a viable result?

[Gumba Masta]

1) The question of fallibility vs. foundationalism, and whether or not foundationalism is dogmatic.

2) The uncertainty of science regarding the true nature of reality.

3) The proper application of the NULL hypothesis and falsification.

4) The question that older theories are either completely wrong vs. partly wrong relative to newer and better theories.

That covers most of it.

Okay...So half of these question are meaningless technobabble to me, one sounds like new age hogwash and the final one is appealing to my personal common sense so it's most probably invalid by definition.

[Ex_Nihil0]

Well, which approach would be more like to yield a viable result?

It depends on what you mean by viable.

Nothing in science can prove any theory 100%, but it only takes 1 contradiction to render it false in part or in whole.  Fallibility and Falsification will not give you certainty, but they are powerful tools for applying criticism to scientific theories.  Fallibility by itself is very powerful for debasing authority because the basis of fallibility is the uncertain nature of everything.  If nothing is certain, then neither is authority or its legitimacy.  This can apply to Biblical and Papal authority, too.  Biblical and papal authority both claim infallibility, but since fallibility hasn't been proven wrong, the concept holds.  Biblical and Papal authority are indeed fallible.  

Fallibility is not a self contradiction because it is a falsifiable concept.  All it takes is one instance of proving that something can be known with absolute certainty.  

Okay...So half of these question are meaningless technobabble to me, one sounds like new age hogwash and the final one is appealing to my personal common sense so it's most probably invalid by definition.

Meaning is gained by experience.  If you haven't experienced what these words mean, they are meaningless to you.

Google would be your friend.

Go look up:
Falsification
Fallibility
Foundationalism
Neopragmatism

If you want a good mindfuck, look up: Linguistic turn

I also suggest looking stuff up on these three men:
Willard Van Orman Quine
Carl Popper
Thomas Kuhn

[Gumba Masta]

Would you believe it if I told you that one of the search results was a site with photos and videos of girls in nun habbits and nurse uniforms stuffing dictionaries up each other's fannies?