Again, you love invoking Bayesian analysis without actually doing any math.
The first step is to decide upon the a priori chance that the Queen of England exists. How do you do so?
Then you must update your a posteriori chance that the Queen of England exists. How do you do so?
Show your work...
I'm not an adherent of voodoo. Why do you claim that I am? Since you're so enamored of verificationism, please provide verification of my belief in voodoo.
You've finally said something I agree with! Yes, that's right. Science doesn't conclude that theories (such as the theory of evolution) are...
This simplistic explanation completely ignores the problem of underdetermination in scientific theory. For any set of data points, an infinite number of graphs can be created that define those data points.
I seriously doubt that, but I'm willing to entertain your argument. Provide some sort of...
Yes, you do rely on the Bible. You see, for you, the Bible is the ultimate straw man argument. Any time someone shows up with a real argument, you dismiss it claiming that the person is just pretending to have a good argument. In reality, the person is secretly a Bible-thumping Christian...
Ahh, so you accept Hempel's paradox. That's nice.
Well, let's use Hempel's Paradox to test whether the Queen of England exists. I, for example, have met thousands of people in my life. Those around me have similarly met thousands more. While there must certainly be some overlap, there must also...
You haven't learned anything, have you?
Let's suppose that we have a belief — a claim, a hypothesis, a theory — and you wish to use evidence to verify your beliefs. Exactly how do you propose to do so?
Your theory (T) predicts certain observations (O).
You make those observations (O).
Then you...
Yes, you did say something like that before, but I assumed that it was a typo. Surely you meant to say: "Neither science nor I assumes evolution occurs." Ahh, but you do. What you have failed to understand is the negation test for assumptions. To divorce the argument from content, let's take a...
I thought it was painfully obvious what my philosophical predilection was. I am a [url+http://www.philosophybasics.com/movements_rationalism.html]rationalist [/url]. I believe that logic and human reason are superior to appeals to holy books (such as the Bible) or appeals to sensory input (such...
Science is like the following story.
A certain man was found dead in his apartment. There was a pool of blood around him and a nearby pistol. Experts were called in to examine the scene and shortly thereafter, a report emerged.
1) The man died from blood loss and a collapsed lung.
2) The blood...
Like, for example, if there were a theory that predicted that light were a particle and another theory that predicted that light was a wave, then I could test and show that light had properties of a wave, thus falsifying the theory that light is a particle? Interesting.
Well, of course, you...
I said: Your argument presupposes that evolution occurs -- to which you respond, "No I do not"? Do you even understand the statement that I made?
I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the argument. We can know whether an argument involves an assumption by using the negation test. If we...
Your argument presupposes that evolution occurs.
However, it is a simple matter to demonstrate that truth can be arrived at through pure reason. Imagine that we contemplate the idea: "Absolute truth exists." If we start by assuming that this idea is false, we can say "Absolute truth does not...
Let me summarize your argument to see whether I have understood it.
You have a theory of an electron, hereinafter ("T")
This T predicts certain observations ("O").
You observe O.
You conclude that T is correct.
Isn't this a classic example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy...
Please indicate how you verified that.
Please indicate how you verified that.
Please indicate how you verified that.
I'm not familiar with the Encycopedia. At any rate, all of the arguments that I've made can be found in these excerpts from Karl Popper.
How did you verify that?
How did you...
This post only shows that despite your previous rhetoric about testability and falsifiability, you don't actually believe in it. It's just a thin philosophical veneer that you spread over the real nonsense that you peddle.
No, I did not. The only thing you have proved is an abysmal lack of reading comprehension skills.
I said that if one simultaneously believes (or claims) that all elephants are blue and that he (or she) has a pink elephant in his basement, then he is making incoherent statements. An incoherent...
That you can make such a ridiculous statement is a sign of just how ignorant you are. Verificationism is unverifiable -- that's the first problem. The second problem is that it is impossible to verify anything. Let's suppose, for example, that you made the claim: "Trump traveled to Japan...