Statism and the Null Hypothesis (from Fail Quotes)

[Gumba Masta]

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.  

Yes, but you put such a negative spin to it.

[MrBogosity]

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.

The term "agnostic" was coined by T.H. Huxley to describe his own views, and who wrote:

"I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father [who] loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. So with regard to the other great Christian dogmas, immortality of soul and future state of rewards and punishments, what possible objection can I—who am compelled perforce to believe in the immortality of what we call Matter and Force, and in a very unmistakable present state of rewards and punishments for our deeds—have to these doctrines? Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them."

(Letter to Charles Kingsley, 6 May 1863)

How is that any different from Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens today?

[MrBogosity]

Yes every single one of those facts could turn out to be completely wrong.

So, the Earth COULD turn out to be a cube? SN1987A COULD turn out to be 6,000 light-years away? Why do you keep avoiding these questions?

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.

This is solipsism, nothing more.

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.

Why do you keep ignoring what he pointed out? And it's EXACTLY the same thing I quoted Huxley pointing out in my previous post. If you keep ignoring this, you will be no better than the creationists, clinging to a strawman version of our claims just for the point of refuting us.

Utter nonsense.  I do not make Astrology appear correct.

Yes, that's EXACTLY what your "big picture" does!

I make it appear more wrong then the current theories of astronomy.

Then you MUST have some sort of knowledge of what is real in order to make that evaluation.

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.

More projection.

False dichotomy fallacy.

How is that in ANY way a false dichotomy? How is it even PHRASED in a way that would allow it to be a false dichotomy?

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.

But the idea DOESN'T COME FROM Lamarckian evolution, so it would be ridiculous to say that Lamarck was confirmed by Darwin. For the same reason, Atomism didn't come up with the idea that stuff is made up of smaller stuff, so it's just as ridiculous to say that modern atomic theory confirms it.

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

Oh, come on--that sentence, and the arguments behind it, are CHOCK FULL of assumptions. You just don't want to see it.

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

Because doing otherwise has caused all sorts of trouble.

I asked for the ratio of Liberals vs. Libertarians among the entire group of people who call themselves atheist.

And I've pointed out how that's a) irrelevant to the point and b) argumentum ad populum.

Being outnumbered is perfectly relivant to the difficulties of changing people's minds.

But that's not what we're talking about!

Not so.  The NULL is what must be true of the positive statement is false.

No, the NULL is the default assumption that everyone MUST make until presented with an option. If you had never even HEARD of the concept of God, then your default position would be that there isn't one--how could it be otherwise, if you didn't even have the concept?--until someone presents it as an option. But that presentation is PRECISELY why it's up to them to support it.

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.

That makes absolutely no sense. With all your study of philosophy, do you not even know how to construct a simple syllogism?

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.

Reference to peer-reviewed scientific literature, please.

In fact, give them free food provided by humans, and their entire social structure breaks down into chaos.

Ditto.

And YouTube videos do NOT count. Besides, they weren't in a natural environment; they were in an artificially-created environment with an aspect (free food) that they would NOT have if they were in such numbers in the wild. It's not the numbers that cause them to behave selfishly; it's the fact that they were led to expect entitlements. This is NOT a demonstration of how badly they behave naturally, but it is, on the other hand, an EXCELLENT description of how people behave in an entitlement system.

See William Bradford's notes on Plymouth Plantation for an example of this happening in a small human population.

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.

If the case is based on fallacies, then you HAVEN'T made your case, no matter how many people find it convincing (there's a reason why they're fallacies: people tend to fall for them).

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.

Again, NOT WHAT HE SAID AT ALL.

This is because you misunderstand what the NULL is.

I'm the one defending the notion in this conversation; you don't get to make up the terms as to what it is.

The NULL is what must be true if the Hypothesis is false.

No, the null is what you use to test the hypothesis. Since verificationism leads to confirmation bias, only falsification can give you valid results. So to test the hypothesis, you try to falsify the null.

In other words, both cannot be logically true.

But both could conceivably be false, if there's a third option not being considered. So no one is saying the null MUST be true.

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.

HOW??? His quote is EXACTLY falsification as I've been using it, and as you've been denying!

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!

Bullshit, and a desperate rhetorical ploy.

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

This is not a falsifiable statement

Sure, it is: find a non-evidence-based statement and show how it speaks of reality.

You really don't understand this concept AT ALL, do you?

[Travis Retriever]

On a semi-related note: something tells me FlowCell isn't an atheist.

[VectorM]

I've known that since forever

[Travis Retriever]

I've known that since forever

Any idea what is religion actually is?

[Gumba Masta]

Whatever it is, if it involves licking toads I'm all in!

[Travis Retriever]

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.

[Citation Needed]
Even if that's the case, it's probably because WE don't have the burden of proof.  We are rejecting others God claims.
They've yet to meet their burden of proof.

For your benefit:  http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic

[yt]qs3RKZjSzYg[/yt]

"The question is, 'do you believe in the existence a deity or deities?'  If you answer 'yes' to that question, you're a theist.  If you answer anything else, including 'I don't know.' You're an atheist."

Agnosticism/Gnosticism on the other hand is answering a different question, one of knowledge.
If I claim to know that god exists or doesn't exist, I am a Gnostic theist or atheist respectively.
If I claim to do not claim to know, or even deny knowing, I am an Agnostic Theist or Agnostic Atheist.

[Travis Retriever]

That cartoon is humerus satire, but it could not be more of a straw man.

Whatever.  If the glove fits dude.

[Travis Retriever]

The term "agnostic" was coined by T.H. Huxley to describe his own views, and who wrote:

"I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father [who] loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. So with regard to the other great Christian dogmas, immortality of soul and future state of rewards and punishments, what possible objection can I—who am compelled perforce to believe in the immortality of what we call Matter and Force, and in a very unmistakable present state of rewards and punishments for our deeds—have to these doctrines? Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them."

(Letter to Charles Kingsley, 6 May 1863)

How is that any different from Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens today?

Even if that weren't the case, it would still be an Argument from etymology (argumentum ad etymologia).

[VectorM]

Any idea what is religion actually is?

Is it relevant? It would appear, from the exchange in this thread, that he is agnostic. Though the mannerism of some of his posts do remind me of the rhetoric that some Christians and/or Muslims use against us atheists. But now I am just dragging myself in to a fallacy.

[Travis Retriever]

Is it relevant? It would appear, from the exchange in this thread, that he is agnostic. Though the mannerism of some of his posts do remind me of the rhetoric that some Christians and/or Muslims use against us atheists. But now I am just dragging myself in to a fallacy.

I was just curious.

[Travis Retriever]

Scientists aren't immune to ape politics and territorial battles.

Nor are philosophers (or any other group of people); what's your point?

[Virgil0211]

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?

I'll believe it when I see it.

[Ex_Nihil0]

I'll believe it when I see it.

Rule 34: if it exists, there is porn of it.
Rule 35: if porn of it does not exist, porn will be made.