Evidence, science and religion and that evidence matters.

[Magic Man]

How is your Evidence A any different from my Evidence A?

Yeah, I know. My sample size was half of your sample size.

I chose not to discount Evidence A, and used the tools of science to learn more.

You could do that with your two friends, but you choose not to.

Instead, you discount the evidence, rather than using it as a foundation from which to look at the science behind it.

Your methodology wouldn’t have worked for me.

It basically consists of uttering the word “science” over and over again as some kind of magical incantation.

Now, don’t get me wrong.

I like magic.

But have you ever noticed how few times that you’ll actually see the word “science” in scholarly articles in particular sciences?

That would be like saying the word “logic” over and over again in a research article in logic.

It just doesn’t happen.

Something New Everyday film (2011)

'Something New Everyday: The Math and Magic of Ron Graham', a film by George Csicsery.

This 21-minute film was prepared for Ron Graham's 80th birthday. It celebrates Graham's remarkable career as a mathematician and magician, as well as his important leadership roles in many of the institutions that support the pursuit of mathematics throughout the world. The film contains outtakes from the film 'N is a Number: A Portrait of Paul Erdős' that were shot between 1988 and 1991, scenes from a day of filming at Graham's December 1999 retirement event at Bell Labs, and interviews filmed for 'Erdős 100', a 30-minute film that was screened at Paul Erdős's 100th birthday celebration in Budapest in 2013.

I'm really not sure how to make this any clearer, but I'll try.

There are 100 million people. Not white, not Black, not indigenous, not native, not colonizers, etc. Just generic people.

Do they all believe X?

It doesn't matter what X is. You ask Bob and Jane to gather the evidence to answer the question.

Bob comes back after asking two people he knows and present his "evidence".

Jane comes back after conducting a rigorous, carefully-controlled poll of 1,500 random people.

Bob's "evidence" is bad and likely to give an inaccurate answer. Jane's evidence is very good and likely to give an accurate, although not 100% guaranteed, answer.

There is no "discounting" anything or using "the tools of science" to learn more. There is Bob's evidence and Jane's evidence. One is bad, and one is good.

 

[Magic Man]

You are misusing statistics in such a way as to privilege western cultures here in America over non-western cultures, based on demographics related to centuries of ethnic cleansings and genocides.

That’s a horrible misuse of statistics.

I'm not doing any of that. That's a completely separate discussion. As I said above, it doesn't matter what it is. You don't even have to use people.

Are all blades of grass green?

Bob looked at two of them and reported back.
Jane looked at 5,000 of them and reported back.

Bob's evidence is very insufficient.
Jane's is probably sufficient.

All I'm pointing out is the difference between good evidence and bad. I just happened to use an example that you decided to go off on a tangent about. Forget any "indigenous" or "western" stuff or "ignoring peoples". Just focus on the actual point.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I'm not doing any of that. That's a completely separate discussion. As I said above, it doesn't matter what it is. You don't even have to use people.

Are all blades of grass green?

Bob looked at two of them and reported back.
Jane looked at 5,000 of them and reported back.

Bob's evidence is very insufficient.
Jane's is probably sufficient.

All I'm pointing out is the difference between good evidence and bad. I just happened to use an example that you decided to go off on a tangent about. Forget any "indigenous" or "western" stuff or "ignoring peoples". Just focus on the actual point.

Likening human beings to blades of grass.

I’m done with you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, there is. Science is "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained". Again, there is an objective standard, which is why scientists from all over the world can collaborate on it, regardless of culture.

You don't understand the status of that "is".
It is not the same as for the verb be in the leaves on the tree are green.
Rather it is a language is as in the defintion of how we use the word science is... You are saying how you subjectively understand what science is to you. You are not making an observation like the leaves on the tree are green.
Please learn to analyze a sentence for how the words work and if the content have subjective or obejctive referents. You do know what a referent is in regards to words, don't you?

 

[PureX]

Probably, but that's not helpful.

A lot of people don't accept science. There are people who deny climate change and evolution for example.

That doesn't mean they don't accept science. To claim that they don't accept science is a weirdly extremist thing to say.

Some people thought the earth was flat at one point. Since then, we developed ways to determine whether that's true and so verified that it's not.

Well, we think we have. And yet we are still defining an incredibly complex phenomenon (the Earth) by it's geometric shape. Which is quite silly and absurdly antiquated.

Every time we draw these kinds of (true) conclusions they end up not being true, but rather being limited and relative truisms. The Earth IS flat when assessed via a limited experiential context. It is also spherical when assessed via a different experiential context. And it will cease to be assessed via the context of geometric shape soon enough, as our experience of it changes.

A scientific conclusion is a conclusion. It is not a new hypothesis or proposition.

Not for actual scientists. Only for the scientism cultists.

 

[Magic Man]

Likening human beings to blades of grass.

I’m done with you.

No one likened human beings to blades of grass. I used a completely different example to try to get you to understand that all of your focus on indigenous people and cultures and statistics ignoring such things was irrelevant. I used a completely neutral example to get away from that and try to get you to understand the point about the difference between good and bad evidence.

If you refuse to even try to understand, then it's probably good for you to be done with the discussion.

 

[Magic Man]

You don't understand the status of that "is".
It is not the same as for the verb be in the leaves on the tree are green.
Rather it is a language is as in the defintion of how we use the word science is... You are saying how you subjectively understand what science is to you. You are not making an observation like the leaves on the tree are green.
Please learn to analyze a sentence for how the words work and if the content have subjective or obejctive referents. You do know what a referent is in regards to words, don't you?

I'd advise not to try to lecture people on subjects you're not particularly knowledgeable about, especially when the person you're trying to lecture is an expert in the subject, having a degree in it.

The fact remains, science is "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained". None of your attempts to get around that will succeed in making that fact not true.

 

[Magic Man]

That doesn't mean they don't accept science. To claim that they don't accept science is a weirdly extremist thing to say.

It does mean that. They explicitly are rejecting science at that point. It's a weirdly extremist thing to say they're not.

Well, we think we have. And yet we are still defining an incredibly complex phenomenon (the Earth) by it's geometric shape. Which is quite silly and absurdly antiquated.

Every time we draw these kinds of (true) conclusions they end up not being true, but rather being limited and relative truisms. The Earth IS flat when assessed via a limited experiential context. It is also spherical when assessed via a different experiential context. And it will cease to be assessed via the context of geometric shape soon enough, as our experience of it changes.

Nope. The Earth is spherical. That's a fact.

Not for actual scientists. Only for the scientism cultists.

No such thing as scientism cultists. I'm talking about science and scientists. A conclusion is a conclusion. It can lead to other research and hypotheses, but it itself is a conclusion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'd advise not to try to lecture people on subjects you're not particularly knowledgeable about, especially when the person you're trying to lecture is an expert in the subject, having a degree in it.

The fact remains, science is "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained". None of your attempts to get around that will succeed in making that fact not true.

And that is, is the defintion of what the word means as used by humans, not that it is a fact.
So you are an expert on what sicence is for all time and all cultures.

So here is how a fact works as per external observation. You state what you observe. But you don't state what you observe science to be. You explain what you think it is.
Now the problem is that I were taught how words work. in that regard Are you an expert in that field?

 

[Magic Man]

That doesn't mean they don't accept science. To claim that they don't accept science is a weirdly extremist thing to say.

It does mean that. They explicitly are rejecting science at that point. It's a weirdly extremist thing to say they're not.

Well, we think we have. And yet we are still defining an incredibly complex phenomenon (the Earth) by it's geometric shape. Which is quite silly and absurdly antiquated.

Every time we draw these kinds of (true) conclusions they end up not being true, but rather being limited and relative truisms. The Earth IS flat when assessed via a limited experiential context. It is also spherical when assessed via a different experiential context. And it will cease to be assessed via the context of geometric shape soon enough, as our experience of it changes.

Nope. The Earth is spherical. That's a fact.

Not for actual scientists. Only for the scientism cultists.

No such thing as scientism cultists. I'm talking about science and scientists. A conclusion is a conclusion. It can lead to other research and hypotheses, but it itself is a conclusion.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

No one likened human beings to blades of grass. I used a completely different example to try to get you to understand that all of your focus on indigenous people and cultures and statistics ignoring such things was irrelevant. I used a completely neutral example to get away from that and try to get you to understand the point about the difference between good and bad evidence.

If you refuse to even try to understand, then it's probably good for you to be done with the discussion.

Have a nice day.

 

[Magic Man]

And that is, is the defintion of what the word means as used by humans, not that it is a fact.
So you are an expert on what sicence is for all time and all cultures.

So here is how a fact works as per external observation. You state what you observe. But you don't state what you observe science to be. You explain what you think it is.
Now the problem is that I were taught how words work. in that regard Are you an expert in that field?

Yes, that's the field I was talking about. I have a degree in linguistics.

I'm not observing a personal experience here. I'm stating a fact. I'm explaining what science factually is. Again, it's what science is regardless of culture, which is why scientists from all different cultures perform science the same way and abide by the same scientific principles.

 

[Magic Man]

Have a nice day.

You too. I'm always around, if you'd like to learn more about statistics and the difference between good evidence and bad.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, that's the field I was talking about. I have a degree in linguistics.

I'm not observing a personal experience here. I'm stating a fact. I'm explaining what science factually is. Again, it's what science is regardless of culture, which is why scientists from all different cultures perform science the same way and abide by the same scientific principles.

You are not stating a fact. You are stating how some people subjectively behave.
That you write what sceince is and behave according to that norm, does not make it an objective fact.
What you are explaing is in part convered by the word:
Intersubjectivity: In philosophy, psychology, sociology, and anthropology, intersubjectivity is the relation or intersection between people's cognitive perspectives.
You are describing how different people shared the same thoughts and behaviours in regards to what they think and do in regards to the word science.

 

[Magic Man]

You are not stating a fact. You are stating how some people subjectively behave.
That you write what sceince is and behave according to that norm, does not make it an objective fact.
What you are explaing is in part convered by the word:
Intersubjectivity: In philosophy, psychology, sociology, and anthropology, intersubjectivity is the relation or intersection between people's cognitive perspectives.
You are describing how different people shared the same thoughts and behaviours in regards to what they think and do in regards to the word science.

Nope. I'm stating a fact. I stated what science factually is. It doesn't matter if you disagree with that. That doesn't change that it's a fact. Just like when people reject the fact that the world is round. It's still a fact that the world is round. I'm not stating anything subjective here.

One more time, if this was subjective, scientists from different cultures would not view it the same way and would not follow the scientific method the same way. An American scientist could not collaborate with a Kenyan scientist, and a Chinese scientist would not be able to peer review research by a Danish scientist.

Some things are subjective. Some things are objective. Science is objectively what I stated.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope. I'm stating a fact. I stated what science factually is. It doesn't matter if you disagree with that. That doesn't change that it's a fact. Just like when people reject the fact that the world is round. It's still a fact that the world is round. I'm not stating anything subjective here.

One more time, if this was subjective, scientists from different cultures would not view it the same way and would not follow the scientific method the same way. An American scientist could not collaborate with a Kenyan scientist, and a Chinese scientist would not be able to peer review research by a Danish scientist.

Some things are subjective. Some things are objective. Science is objectively what I stated.

So what you state as a language act become an objective fact. That is in effect magical thinking.
Here is an language act. You are dead. That is now an objective fact, because I stated it. Now report me or not.

But that is utter nonsense what you claim.

 

[Magic Man]

So what you state as a language act become an objective fact. That is in effect magical thinking.
Here is an language act. You are dead. That is now an objective fact, because I stated it. Now report me or not.

But that is utter nonsense what you claim.

What I claim is fine. What you claim I claim is utter nonsense.

My stating something doesn't make it fact. It's a fact, and I'm relaying that fact to you. The earth is round. Not because I say so, but because it's factually accurate. The statement represents the real state of the earth. You stating something doesn't make it an objective fact.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

You too. I'm always around, if you'd like to learn more about statistics and the difference between good evidence and bad.

Why are you offering to teach statistics to somebody whose job involved, among other things, teaching statistics?

As for good evidence vs bad evidence, I’ll let the experts sort that stuff out for me. Good thing I know who they are,

My offer to provide you with information and resources on religion, and in particular, Catholicism, stands.

I can tell you who the experts are, and provide you with a bibliography should you ever develop an interest in real science, instead of this silliness.

It’ll be easy for you too, given your linguistic background.

I’m guessing that you’re better at linguistics than you are at whatever it is you think you are doing here.

It’s best to go with your strengths, rather than your weaknesses.

I have a feeling that it might actually be fun to chat with you about something that you know, but this silliness is profoundly boring for me.

I’ll try to say the word “science” more often.

Remember, imitation is the sincerest form
of flattery.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What I claim is fine. What you claim I claim is utter nonsense.

My stating something doesn't make it fact. It's a fact, and I'm relaying that fact to you. The earth is round. Not because I say so, but because it's factually accurate. The statement represents the real state of the earth. You stating something doesn't make it an objective fact.

Explain how a fact works. Explain what is entailed by the words objective, observation and fact.
Explain how you objectively observe what science is?

 

[Magic Man]

Why are you offering to teach statistics to somebody whose job involved, among other things, teaching statistics?

As for good evidence vs bad evidence, I’ll let the experts sort that stuff out for me. Good thing I know who they are,

My offer to provide you with information and resources on religion, and in particular, Catholicism, stands.

I can tell you who the experts are, and provide you with a bibliography should you ever develop an interest in real science, instead of this silliness.

It’ll be easy for you too, given your linguistic background.

I’m guessing that you’re better at linguistics than you are at whatever it is you think you are doing here.

It’s best to go with your strengths, rather than your weaknesses.

I have a feeling that it might actually be fun to chat with you about something that you know, but this silliness is profoundly boring for me.

I’ll try to say the word “science” more often.

Remember, imitation is the sincerest form
of flattery.

Your posts indicate a lack of understanding of statistics, but maybe it's just a willful lack of understanding of what I'm saying.

There are no experts needed in the context of what we're talking about. You going to experts to research something is completely irrelevant and unhelpful. The question is what do people believe. Asking your wife isn't good enough. Going to experts to do research after she answers you is not a good approach. Asking a random sample of 1,500 people a well-formed question is a good approach. If you understand statistics, you understand why a sample size of 1-2 is insignificant. You also understand why a sample size of 1,500 is significant. You then understand why the small sample size is bad evidence, while the large sample size is good evidence.

My strength is understanding things like this. I admit it's possible I don't explain things perfectly sometimes, but that's not the issue here. The issue is you're refusing to understand.