Evidence, science and religion and that evidence matters.

[Magic Man]

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

It's easy. You do the research with an open mind. You read about it, listen to people when they explain it. If you want a detailed explanation of all of these basic subjects, I'm sorry, but I'm not really up for that. But there are plenty of resources available for you to learn about them. You could start with Wikipedia or the dictionary and move on from there.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's easy. You do the research with an open mind. You read about it, listen to people when they explain it. If you want a detailed explanation of all of these basic subjects, I'm sorry, but I'm not really up for that. But there are plenty of resources available for you to learn about them. You could start with Wikipedia or the dictionary and move on from there.

Well, it doesn't become obejctive and a fact, just because people write about it.
You use the words, you do the work. Then I can check, if I can replicate it.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, it doesn't become obejctive and a fact, just because people write about it.
You use the words, you do the work. Then I can check, if I can replicate it.

Correct. It doesn't become fact just because people write about it. It's fact, and then people point out the fact, like I'm doing here. The world isn't round because I say it is. It's round because it's round. I'm just relaying the fact to you.

I already did the work. I'm not taking the time to explain the meanings of very basic words to you. If you need help with that, it's up to you to do the work.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Correct. It doesn't become fact just because people write about it. It's fact, and then people point out the fact, like I'm doing here. The world isn't round because I say it is. It's round because it's round. I'm just relaying the fact to you.

I already did the work. I'm not taking the time to explain the meanings of very basic words to you. If you need help with that, it's up to you to do the work.

Yeah, but that the world is round, doesn't mean that vhat you otherwise say, is fact. That is not how that works.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

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.

I can’t resist noticing that your irrational distaste for magic is pretty subjective.

You chose a strange name, as well.

Perhaps your subjective distaste for magic has to do with the fact that you’ve never needed to use your magical healing powers and brujeria to save your life?

Magic is just not a part of your culture and your history, that’s all.

That’s why you need science to have any chance of understanding it.


SON DE CAPELLANIAS - LA BRUJA

 

[Magic Man]

Yeah, but that the world is round, doesn't mean that vhat you otherwise say, is fact. That is not how that works.

Of course. No one said it does. I used it as an example. A fact exists. My stating it doesn't make it a fact. The world is round. That's a statement of fact, and that statement has no bearing on the fact itself. Similarly, science is what I said. That is another fact, regardless of what you or I think.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course. No one said it does. I used it as an example. A fact exists. My stating it doesn't make it a fact. The world is round. That's a statement of fact, and that statement has no bearing on the fact itself. Similarly, science is what I said. That is another fact, regardless of what you or I think.

Yeah, but it doesn't follow that the next claim you state is a fact.
So please again. You made the claim. You deliverer the evidence beyound just claiming it is a fact.

 

[Magic Man]

I can’t resist noticing that your irrational distaste for magic is pretty subjective.

You chose a strange name, as well.

Perhaps your subjective distaste for magic has to do with the fact that you’ve never needed to use your magical healing powers and brujeria to save your life?

Magic is just not a part of your culture and your history, that’s all.

That’s why you need science to have any chance of understanding it.


SON DE CAPELLANIAS - LA BRUJA

I have no idea what any of this has to do with anything. My screenname is from a movie. I don't have an irrational distaste for magic. I actually love magic. I love fantasy books and movies. I even write my own with magic. Magicians are fascinating too. Of course, in the real world magic isn't real, in the sense that magicians perform tricks, not actual magic.

But aside from that, this has absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about. We were talking about good evidence vs. bad and using examples of statistics. A small sample size is bad evidence. A large sample size is good evidence. (To put it maybe a little too simply.)

 

[Magic Man]

Yeah, but it doesn't follow that the next claim you state is a fact.
So please again. You made the claim. You deliverer the evidence beyound just claiming it is a fact.

Correct. It doesn't follow that the next claim I state is a fact. No one said it did. I'm giving you one example of a fact that is factual regardless of what I say. I'm then pointing out another fact that is also factual regardless of what I say. The evidence is that that is the definition of science. You can look it up anywhere. In an English dictionary, in a Chinese one, in a Ugandan one. There will be slight variations, but they'll all say the same thing. Again, because science isn't subjective, which is why it works and why scientists from around the world can work together.

 

[Pogo]

But the earth is an oblate spheroid and Kansas is flatter than a pancake and so facts are subjective matters of opinion and mine is just as good as a consensus so we should use my ideas since there is no objectivity because exceptions.......

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I have no idea what any of this has to do with anything. My screenname is from a movie. I don't have an irrational distaste for magic. I actually love magic. I love fantasy books and movies. I even write my own with magic. Magicians are fascinating too. Of course, in the real world magic isn't real, in the sense that magicians perform tricks, not actual magic.

But aside from that, this has absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about. We were talking about good evidence vs. bad and using examples of statistics. A small sample size is bad evidence. A large sample size is good evidence. (To put it maybe a little too simply.)

Good evidence for me is reading what the experts have to say.

I have no reason to discount any data I collect.

I’m losing information by doing so.

Why would I want to do that?

I’d prefer to keep all the data, stretch it, shake it, hold it upside down, and turn it inside out, and examine it like a mathematician would.

Throwing away the data doesn’t help me in any way. It just doesn’t.

I understand that you find throwing away data to be useful, because of something you read in a stat 101 book somewhere. But the only real reason for me to throw away data would be as an act of submission to authority. Not because throwing away data has any use for me.

 

[Magic Man]

Good evidence for me is reading what the experts have to say.

I have no reason to discount any data I collect.

I’m losing information by doing so.

Why would I want to do that?

I’d prefer to keep all the data, stretch it, shake it, hold it upside down, and turn it inside out, and examine it like a mathematician would.

Throwing away the data doesn’t help me in any way. It just doesn’t.

I understand that you find throwing away data to be useful, because of something you read in a stat 101 book somewhere. But the only real reason for me to throw away data would be as an act of submission to authority. Not because throwing away data has any use for me.

Experts can provide good evidence in some cases. They're not at all relevant to what we're talking about here, though.

No one is asking you to discount or throw away any data you collect. I'm pointing out that if the data you collect is a tiny sample size, it's not good evidence. You need more. You're even agreeing with that. The only difference is I'm pointing out the "more" you need in this case is a much larger sample size, while you're talking about talking to experts and getting data from 25 years ago, which isn't relevant.

Think of it this way. You can use both Bob's and Jane's data. Don't throw anything out. But Bob's data by itself is insufficient. Jane's by itself is sufficient.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Correct. It doesn't follow that the next claim I state is a fact. No one said it did. I'm giving you one example of a fact that is factual regardless of what I say. I'm then pointing out another fact that is also factual regardless of what I say. The evidence is that that is the definition of science. You can look it up anywhere. In an English dictionary, in a Chinese one, in a Ugandan one. There will be slight variations, but they'll all say the same thing. Again, because science isn't subjective, which is why it works and why scientists from around the world can work together.

No, it doesn't. Here is one defintion of God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
Now it is fact, that God is the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

 

[Magic Man]

No, it doesn't. Here is one defintion of God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
Now it is fact, that God is the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

That's not how it works. Yet again, science is the definition I provided. Not because I said it, but because it is. That doesn't mean you can make any claim you want, and it's now a fact.

With your example, that is one definition. You're right about that part. It is a fact that that is A definition. It is not a fact that God is the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Experts can provide good evidence in some cases. They're not at all relevant to what we're talking about here, though.

No one is asking you to discount or throw away any data you collect. I'm pointing out that if the data you collect is a tiny sample size, it's not good evidence. You need more. You're even agreeing with that. The only difference is I'm pointing out the "more" you need in this case is a much larger sample size, while you're talking about talking to experts and getting data from 25 years ago, which isn't relevant.

Think of it this way. You can use both Bob's and Jane's data. Don't throw anything out. But Bob's data by itself is insufficient. Jane's by itself is sufficient.

I’m talking about using science to study religion.

You’re talking about taking polls.

That’s the disconnect.

Your approach doesn’t work for me.

All it gives me is superficial fluff, which is why it is so painful to have you try to tutor me in silly stuff I already know.

Instead, you could be giving me tips on Spanish. That would be much more useful to me than some regurgitated dumbed down stat 101 course. Your approach to science is also somewhat insulting to the intelligence of your intended audience.

I want real information. With real meat. From real cows. Stolen from their former masters.

That’s science.

I keep reading your posts and asking myself that age old question. “Where’s the Beef?”

Superficiality just doesn’t cut it for me. Especially condescending superficiality.

It’s better for me if we just talk like adults.

It doesn’t matter to me how important you think stat 101 is to science. I get it. You liked stat 101. That’s a good thing, but I’m bored with it.

Remember. I’m retired. I don’t want to teach stat 101 any more. It’s not my job.


HACIENDA DE CHALGUAYACO EKLIPSE DE LUNA video oficial

 

[firedragon]

Now this is not just Danish culture as this can also be found in other cultures, but what science is, is cultural.
You give evidence for what science is as humam behaviour be observing people and asking people what science is to them, i.e. how they understand it.
So the evidence for what science is, is not indepedent of humans and has an elemant of being internal.
Now here is some Danish text about what science is in this culture:
"Naturvidenskaben undersøger fænomener i naturen for at finde de bagved liggende love, også kaldet naturlovene. I samfundsvidenskab og humaniora er man ikke på samme måde interesseret i love. Her retter man i stedet blikket mod forståelse.

I humaniora er man for eksempel interesseret i at forstå menneskets tanker ‘indefra’. Det vil sige, at man forsøger at forstå menneskers motiver, meninger og intentioner. Her handler det blandt andet om at forstå sproget, litteraturen, kunsten og historien."

Hvad er videnskab?

Vi hører ordet ’videnskab’ alle vegne, men hvad betyder det egentlig, og hvornår kan man kalde sig videnskabsmand? Få svaret her.

videnskab.dk

If you google translate you get this:
"Natural science examines phenomena in nature to find the laws behind them, also called the laws of nature. In the social sciences and humanities, people are not interested in laws in the same way. Here, the focus is instead on understanding.

In the humanities, for example, one is interested in understanding human thoughts 'from the inside'. This means that you try to understand people's motives, opinions and intentions. Here it is, among other things, about understanding the language, literature, art and history."

The key words for non-natural science being to understand from the inside.
And now I can ask this: For the claim that evidence matters, is that that evidence matters, with evidence from the method of natural science or is it a case of understanding it from the inside?

The same applies to what science is and what religion is, as in part both are about understanding from the inside using different norms for how to do so.
E.g. that there must be evidence as per natural science if I claim something, is not with evidence, but a norm for how I ought to behave.

So here is a very simple internal rule I use for the universe. Is it external or internal? If external, use natural science. If internal use more than natural science.
And now as a reductio ad absurdum. Since only the external is true and real, the parts in this text about internal understanding is not real at all. In fact, there are not even here as text and you are right now delusional as only the external is true and real.

So here is a simple test for internal. If it is internal, check if other humans can understand it differently. It is that simple.
And then please don't do the following becuase it works in both direction: If I can't understand what matters to you, then it doesn't matter to you. But it is different when it matters to me, because I am special and you are not.

And yes, how external and internal relates to each other, is so far as for all claims I have ever read internal. Regardless of science, religion or philosophy claimed as internal method. Not that there is no external part to the universe, but that there is no evidence, that it is the only part.

As for the debate, do you know of any model of the universe that is only external and don't require internal understanding in part?

One of the primary axioms of the philosophy of science is methodological naturalism. Science does not engage with the metaphysical.

Thus, using science as the tool for the topic of the metaphysical is a category error.

 

[Magic Man]

I’m talking about using science to study religion.

You’re talking about taking polls.

That’s the disconnect.

Yes, that is the disconnect. The topic is good evidence vs. bad evidence. The statistics example I used was to illustrate that point. The actual details of that example are unimportant. That's why I gave other examples that have completely different details (like the grass one). The point is the good evidence vs. bad. You're focusing on the specifics of the example, rather than what the example is illustrating.

If you want to talk about using science to study religion, go ahead, but that's a different discussion.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Yes, that is the disconnect. The topic is good evidence vs. bad evidence. The statistics example I used was to illustrate that point. The actual details of that example are unimportant. That's why I gave other examples that have completely different details (like the grass one). The point is the good evidence vs. bad. You're focusing on the specifics of the example, rather than what the example is illustrating.

If you want to talk about using science to study religion, go ahead, but that's a different discussion.

Good evidence is not good enough for me.

Again, applying your algorithm to my sample resulted in a total failure. So your methodology only applies to your samples, not mine. That makes your methodology subjective, since you yourself admitted that we can’t stray from your single example one iota. So your results are not replicable by me.

How silly do you want me to get here? I could go on, if superficiality entertains you more than it does me.

Your good evidence may be good enough for you. But that just comes down to a matter of standards.

I want extraordinary evidence, not good evidence.

 

[PureX]

It does mean that. They explicitly are rejecting science at that point.

They are rejecting the conclusions being drawn from the science. You can't understand this because you think science produces conclusions, when it does not. It formulates hypotheses based on data returned from experimentation.

It's a weirdly extremist thing to say they're not.

Only to the scientism cultists that cannot grasp the idea that science is not the oracle of truth and reality.

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

The Earth is a whole lot of things far more significant than it's geometric shape.

No such thing as scientism cultists.

Every scientism cultist says this. It's how we know them when we encounter them. They are not able to recognize the difference between science and scientism, so in their minds, there is no such identifiable thing as scientism.

Another way we identify them is that they automatically defend what they believe is science without doubt or question. It absolutely never occurs to them that their idea of science might be wrong. (It's why I call them 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.

Real scientists don't draw conclusions. They simply keep exploring the possibilities. The scientism cultists draw conclusions because they think science is the oracle of truth.

A scientist does not conclude that global warming is being caused by humans. He simply accepts that this is a strong possibility when the data corresponds to this theory when it's tested. And then he explores that theory further, to learn more.

 

[Magic Man]

Good evidence is not good enough for me.

Again, applying your algorithm to my sample resulted in a total failure. So your methodology only applies to your samples, not mine. That makes your methodology subjective, since you yourself admitted that we can’t stray from your single example one iota. So your results are not replicable by me.

How silly do you want me to get here? I could go on, if superficiality entertains you more than it does me.

Your good evidence may be good enough for you. But that just comes down to a matter of standards.

I want extraordinary evidence, not good evidence.

None of that made sense. You said you understand statistics. That's what we're talking about.

I didn't mention an algorithm. There's nothing for you to apply to your sample. My methodology applies to all samples. This is statistics and not subjective. The results are replicable by everyone.

I'm not sure where your disconnect is at this point. This is just basic statistics. A small sample size is bad evidence because it is likely to give inaccurate results regarding the larger population.

If you were trying to find out how many Americans believe in God and you asked your wife, that's not nearly good enough. That won't give you a good answer to the question. If you were trying to answer a different question, that's not part of this example, and it's irrelevant.

I'm not interested in "extraordinary vs. good". I'm interested in the difference between good evidence and bad, which is the entire point here.