Tristen Posted October 4, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 9 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,357 Content Per Day: 0.63 Reputation: 1,327 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/26/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 4, 2017 9 hours ago, one.opinion said: One quick note here: If the only thing I said was "You should agree with my viewpoint because most other scientists agree with my viewpoint", then I could completely understand an objections. But it isn't. Your most recent attempt at this went, " A great majority of biologists would agree that the most useful definition of species would be a group of reproductively compatible individuals. ". Such a claim is utterly meaningless - unless you provide the argument why they agree. But even then, it is the argument that is meaningful, not the expertise or agreement of those making the argument. Therefore, your making any such a claim in the context of our discussion is fallacious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tristen Posted October 4, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 9 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,357 Content Per Day: 0.63 Reputation: 1,327 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/26/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 4, 2017 3 hours ago, Enoch2021 said: Preposterous! And you have been corrected on this many times in the past. Proof is "Evidence". Scientific Evidence comes directly from Experiments: "TESTING". Mathematical "Proofs" are not EVIDENCE of anything in reality. Watch... 1 Apple - 6 Apples = -5 Apples. This is ABSOLUTIST "Nonsense". So essentially your position is: "1 Apple - 6 Apples = -5 Apples" is an Absolute PROOF. But... Lack of Insulin causing DKA in Type 1 Diabetes Patients (or any of the 10,000+ Experiments I could post) is not Absolute or Proof of anything, eh Mathematics isn't "Science" and Peer-Review is the Antithesis of it. What's the difference between Scientific Logic and just plain ole run-o-the-mill logic...? Really... how "intense"? Well when something has Experiment after Experiment showing the same result, then it's VERIFIED beyond question...because we VERIFIED it beyond question via Experiment. Critical Reasoning has nothing to do with it. What would you suggest as a replacement for Observation?? Imagination? And "Observation" is merely the First Step of The Scientific Method because The Scientific Method doesn't solely rely on Observation; Hence...the next six steps are invoked. Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy and Mind Numbing Bullocks; Non-Sequitur Fallacy. So you're saying that since we don't know how the sun works; THEREFORE, the Lack of Vit C causing Scurvy is Unverifiable?? ps. We don't TEST Ideas, in "Science"...that's Philosophy. regards "Preposterous!" Nice argument. "you have been corrected on this many times in the past" If by "corrected" you mean pompously assuming yourself to be right whilst trying to intimidate me out of the conversation through ridicule and condescension, then yes, I have been thoroughly "corrected" by you in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted October 5, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted October 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Tristen said: "Preposterous!" Nice argument. That wasn't the Argument, that was the Assessment. The detailed 'Point by Point' Argument supporting that Assessment was directly beneath it. It was in the post that you quoted in it's "Entirety" but didn't speak a single word to any of it; Ergo: Cherry Picking Fallacy. Quote "you have been corrected on this many times in the past" If by "corrected" you mean pompously assuming yourself to be right ... No I mean 'Point by Point' Correcting each claim. You know, these you Wholesale DODGED... Proof is "Evidence". Scientific Evidence comes directly from Experiments: "TESTING". Mathematical "Proofs" are not EVIDENCE of anything in reality. Watch... 1 Apple - 6 Apples = -5 Apples. This is ABSOLUTIST "Nonsense". So essentially your position is: "1 Apple - 6 Apples = -5 Apples" is an Absolute PROOF. But... Lack of Insulin causing DKA in Type 1 Diabetes Patients (or any of the 10,000+ Experiments I could post) is not Absolute or Proof of anything, eh Mathematics isn't "Science" and Peer-Review is the Antithesis of it. What's the difference between Scientific Logic and just plain ole run-o-the-mill logic...? Really... how "intense"? Well when something has Experiment after Experiment showing the same result, then it's VERIFIED beyond question...because we VERIFIED it beyond question via Experiment. Critical Reasoning has nothing to do with it. What would you suggest as a replacement for Observation?? Imagination? And "Observation" is merely the First Step of The Scientific Method because The Scientific Method doesn't solely rely on Observation; Hence...the next six steps are invoked. Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy and Mind Numbing Bullocks; Non-Sequitur Fallacy. So you're saying that since we don't know how the sun works; THEREFORE, the Lack of Vit C causing Scurvy is Unverifiable?? ps. We don't TEST 'Ideas', in "Science"...that's Philosophy. Quote whilst trying to intimidate me out of the conversation through ridicule and condescension, then yes, I have been thoroughly "corrected" by you in the past. No. Just as before, I merely provided a 'Point by Point' deconstruction of your claims (SEE: above in green). And since you have no coherent response, apparently you're reduced to: Conjured Caricatures, Appeals to Emotion, and Baseless Ipse Dixit 'bare' Assertion Fallacies to somehow cloak your lack of support in lieu of the aforementioned coherent argument. ProTip: Asking for coherent support or correcting the ERRORS for claims made, isn't an attack on you sir.........for goodness sakes. The real concern is the employment of Red Herring Fallacy (Diversions) away from them. regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted October 5, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Author Share Posted October 5, 2017 Tristen, this conversation is getting off-track. I respect you and your position and don't want this spiraling any further downward. I will take care to better support any sort of claims using expert scientific consensus, or better yet, avoid it altogether! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tristen Posted October 5, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 9 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,357 Content Per Day: 0.63 Reputation: 1,327 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/26/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 5, 2017 53 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said: “Proof is "Evidence".” Proof is not evidence. Proof refers to absolute verification of a claim. Evidence means facts interpreted to support a claim. “Mathematical "Proofs" are not EVIDENCE of anything in reality” Correct. “1 Apple - 6 Apples = -5 Apples. This is ABSOLUTIST "Nonsense". So essentially your position is: "1 Apple - 6 Apples = -5 Apples" is an Absolute PROOF.” You would recognise this as a Strawman Argument. The phrase “Absolute PROOF” is redundant. “Lack of Insulin causing DKA in Type 1 Diabetes Patients (or any of the 10,000+ Experiments I could post) is not Absolute or Proof of anything, eh” Correct. The correlation between insulin deprivation and DKA are observed facts. “Proof” is incorrect/unscientific terminology. “Mathematics isn't "Science"” Correct. Though science uses mathematics. “and Peer-Review is the Antithesis of it.” Science or math? “What's the difference between Scientific Logic and just plain ole run-o-the-mill logic...?” Scientific logic is a subset of logic, with more robust rules for generating confidence. E.g. scientific logic only permits acceptance of a claim to the degree that it is supported by observation. But that standard doesn’t limit all of logic. “Really... how "intense"?” We are to hold all claims of science up to scrutiny. Nothing should be accepted without said scrutiny. “Well when something has Experiment after Experiment showing the same result, then it's VERIFIED beyond question...because we VERIFIED it beyond question via Experiment. Critical Reasoning has nothing to do with it.” Only if you assume a perfect experimental design that can account for every possible causal factor in the hypothesis. But apart from perfect knowledge, I am permitted to question and scrutinize any claim I choose. “What would you suggest as a replacement for Observation?? Imagination?” What? I have no issue with “observation”. However, there are logical limitations to how much confidence can be derived from observation (i.e. generally more than other standards, but not absolute confidence). At the most basic level, we have to have faith that observation itself can be trusted. We choose to agree that it generally can so we can make sense of the world, but that assumption is ultimately unverifiable. What if we are in the Matrix? “"Observation" is merely the First Step of The Scientific Method because The Scientific Method doesn't solely rely on Observation” Scientific confidence in the hypothesis or theory is derived from the observations of the experimental results. Observation (or fact) is the fundamental unit of science. “Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy” You commonly make this error. Appeal to ignorance fallacy is arguing for a position using the lack of evidence; e.g. “just because we haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it isn’t true” (like some do with Abiogenesis). In my attempt to acknowledge the logical limitations of observation, I am not arguing for any particular position. How many times has knowledge had to be updated to account for newly discovered information? Therefore we cannot assume we have all the information now – even for claims about which we are very confident. “and Mind Numbing Bullocks” more meaningless ridicule. “So you're saying that since we don't know how the sun works; THEREFORE, the Lack of Vit C causing Scurvy is Unverifiable??” Is that what I’m saying, because I don’t remember saying that. That would be another Strawman fallacy. “ps. We don't TEST 'Ideas', in "Science"...that's Philosophy.” An hypothesis is an idea. Science is a discipline of philosophy. " Asking for coherent support or correcting the ERRORS for claims made, isn't an attack on you sir " If you are incapable of asking without condescension and ridicule, then I am skeptical of your capacity to give give fair consideration of my position. Therefore my avoidance was not a dodge (since, as you noted, we have discussed these issue before), but an attempt to save myself time in a pointless conversation. I don't care about personal attacks either way, except that they are a waste of my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted October 5, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted October 5, 2017 12 hours ago, Tristen said: Proof is not evidence. Factually Incorrect: EVIDENCE -- a : an outward sign : indication b: something that furnishes PROOF: testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence PROOF Synonyms: attestation, Confirmation, corroboration, documentation, EVIDENCE, substantiation, testament, testimonial, testimony, Validation, voucher, witness.https://www.merriam-webster. com/thesaurus/proof Ergo, your entire argument is refuted right here. Quote "1 Apple - 6 Apples = -5 Apples" is an Absolute PROOF.” You would recognise this as a Strawman Argument. How so...? Quote The phrase “Absolute PROOF” is redundant. I agree, but you used it in that context... so I retorted. Quote “Lack of Insulin causing DKA in Type 1 Diabetes Patients (or any of the 10,000+ Experiments I could post) is not Absolute or Proof of anything, eh” Correct. The correlation between insulin deprivation and DKA are observed facts. The lack of insulin CAUSING DKA in Type 1 Diabetes Patients is NOT a Correlation (Epidemiological) Study; it's Direct Experiment. And it's not merely "Observed", it's TESTED (Experiment). Quote “Mathematics isn't "Science"” Correct. Though science uses mathematics. And my son's bike uses a chain; but the chain isn't a bike. Quote “and Peer-Review is the Antithesis of it.” Science or math? Science. Quote Scientific logic is a subset of logic, with more robust rules for generating confidence. 1. CITE Source differentiating "Scientific Logic" and "Logic"...? 2. More "robust" than what? Quote We are to hold all claims of science up to scrutiny. 1. Reification Fallacy. "Science" doesn't make claims, Science is A Method: The Scientific Method. 2. Claims are TESTED (Experiment); there is no further or more robust "Scrutiny". Quote Only if you assume a perfect experimental design that can account for every possible causal factor in the hypothesis. Well there's only ONE possible "CAUSAL FACTOR" in every Scientific Hypothesis; it's called the Independent Variable; So there is no assumption. Quote But apart from perfect knowledge, I am permitted to question and scrutinize any claim I choose. 1. Post your "Scrutiny" Method...? a. Does your Scrutiny Method trump The Scientific Method (Experiment)...? 2. There is no "Perfect Knowledge", save for God. Quote I have no issue with “observation”. However, there are logical limitations to how much confidence can be derived from observation (i.e. generally more than other standards, but not absolute confidence). Again, "Observation" is merely the First Step of The Scientific Method. We don't trust 'observations' solely, that's why they're TESTED (Experiment). Quote At the most basic level, we have to have faith that observation itself can be trusted. Well as mentioned here (and many times in the past), observation alone can't be 'Trusted', that's why we subject those observations to Experiment -- it's called The Scientific Method. Quote What if we are in the Matrix? We kinda do, that has been Validated by Experiment (SEE: Quantum Mechanics). Quote Scientific confidence in the hypothesis or theory is derived from the observations of the experimental results. Observation (or fact) is the fundamental unit of science. Huh? 1. What is "Scientific" Confidence...? Juxtapose that with "Confidence"...? 2. Observing Phenomena (The First Step of The Scientific Method) and "LOOKING" at Experimental Results are not "The Same". It's a clumsy Equivocation Fallacy. Quote You commonly make this error. Appeal to ignorance fallacy is arguing for a position using the lack of evidence I know what it is. How did I make this error here or anywhere else...? Quote In my attempt to acknowledge the logical limitations of observation, I am not arguing for any particular position. 1. Your position on 'observations' was already exposed above, SEE: Equivocation Fallacy. 2. You are arguing for a Position: Tristen: "Until we have infinite knowledge, we don’t know what we don’t know." Your Position is: You contrive 'Infinite Knowledge' as the Standard for knowing anything (The Premise), then... State we can't know anything without it (Conclusion). It's a Trainwreck. Your position is based on a Lack of Knowledge (actual or perceived). Well... Ignorance: Lack of Knowledge. Appeal to Ignorance (Fallacy): arguing for a position using the lack of evidence/knowledge. Voila Quote How many times has knowledge had to be updated to account for newly discovered information? Because the "Knowledge" wasn't obtained through The Scientific Method...to begin with. "Just-So" Stories need 'Updated', not ACTUAL Science. Quote Therefore we cannot assume we have all the information now – even for claims about which we are very confident. Non-Sequitur Fallacy resulting from a Begging The Question Fallacy Premise: "How many times has knowledge had to be updated to account for newly discovered information?" Quote “So you're saying that since we don't know how the sun works; THEREFORE, the Lack of Vit C causing Scurvy is Unverifiable??” Is that what I’m saying, because I don’t remember saying that. That would be another Strawman fallacy. Yes you did, it was IMPLIED ... Tristen: "Until we have infinite knowledge, we don’t know what we don’t know. Therefore, every idea remains subject to scrutiny." Ergo, No Straw Man. Quote An hypothesis is an idea. Science is a discipline of philosophy. 1. A Hypothesis is generated from Observing Phenomena, The Antecedent. The "Idea" part is The Consequent. 2. Actually EVERYTHING we do is based on "Philosophy". Quote If you are incapable of asking without condescension and ridicule Factually Incorrect. It's merely your "Subjective" Opinion, and it's Baseless. regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tristen Posted October 8, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 9 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,357 Content Per Day: 0.63 Reputation: 1,327 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/26/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 8, 2017 On 06/10/2017 at 2:04 AM, Enoch2021 said: Factually Incorrect: EVIDENCE -- a : an outward sign : indication b: something that furnishes PROOF: testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence PROOF Synonyms: attestation, Confirmation, corroboration, documentation, EVIDENCE, substantiation, testament, testimonial, testimony, Validation, voucher, witness.https://www.merriam-webster. com/thesaurus/proof Ergo, your entire argument is refuted right here. How so...? I agree, but you used it in that context... so I retorted. The lack of insulin CAUSING DKA in Type 1 Diabetes Patients is NOT a Correlation (Epidemiological) Study; it's Direct Experiment. And it's not merely "Observed", it's TESTED (Experiment). And my son's bike uses a chain; but the chain isn't a bike. Science. 1. CITE Source differentiating "Scientific Logic" and "Logic"...? 2. More "robust" than what? 1. Reification Fallacy. "Science" doesn't make claims, Science is A Method: The Scientific Method. 2. Claims are TESTED (Experiment); there is no further or more robust "Scrutiny". Well there's only ONE possible "CAUSAL FACTOR" in every Scientific Hypothesis; it's called the Independent Variable; So there is no assumption. 1. Post your "Scrutiny" Method...? a. Does your Scrutiny Method trump The Scientific Method (Experiment)...? 2. There is no "Perfect Knowledge", save for God. Again, "Observation" is merely the First Step of The Scientific Method. We don't trust 'observations' solely, that's why they're TESTED (Experiment). Well as mentioned here (and many times in the past), observation alone can't be 'Trusted', that's why we subject those observations to Experiment -- it's called The Scientific Method. We kinda do, that has been Validated by Experiment (SEE: Quantum Mechanics). Huh? 1. What is "Scientific" Confidence...? Juxtapose that with "Confidence"...? 2. Observing Phenomena (The First Step of The Scientific Method) and "LOOKING" at Experimental Results are not "The Same". It's a clumsy Equivocation Fallacy. I know what it is. How did I make this error here or anywhere else...? 1. Your position on 'observations' was already exposed above, SEE: Equivocation Fallacy. 2. You are arguing for a Position: Tristen: "Until we have infinite knowledge, we don’t know what we don’t know." Your Position is: You contrive 'Infinite Knowledge' as the Standard for knowing anything (The Premise), then... State we can't know anything without it (Conclusion). It's a Trainwreck. Your position is based on a Lack of Knowledge (actual or perceived). Well... Ignorance: Lack of Knowledge. Appeal to Ignorance (Fallacy): arguing for a position using the lack of evidence/knowledge. Voila Because the "Knowledge" wasn't obtained through The Scientific Method...to begin with. "Just-So" Stories need 'Updated', not ACTUAL Science. Non-Sequitur Fallacy resulting from a Begging The Question Fallacy Premise: "How many times has knowledge had to be updated to account for newly discovered information?" Yes you did, it was IMPLIED ... Tristen: "Until we have infinite knowledge, we don’t know what we don’t know. Therefore, every idea remains subject to scrutiny." Ergo, No Straw Man. 1. A Hypothesis is generated from Observing Phenomena, The Antecedent. The "Idea" part is The Consequent. 2. Actually EVERYTHING we do is based on "Philosophy". Factually Incorrect. It's merely your "Subjective" Opinion, and it's Baseless. regards “your entire argument is refuted right here” When we debated the meaning of theory, you made a song and dance about how theory means something different in a scientific context, than to the general dictionary definition. But now that it suits your argument, Webster’s is the irrefutable king of unequivocal definitions. Dictionaries common use words with similar connotations, and common word usage (including miss-usage) to convey a definition. The definition of “proof” you provided seems more related to a legal setting, than scientific. But even in the legal setting, we know enough to add the caveat “beyond reasonable doubt”; recognising that no evidence can rationally generate absolute certainty. Science philosopher Karl Popper wrote (in The Problem of Induction, 1953); “in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory” Now here’s my dilemma – I could very well adopt your strategy and claim some kind of victory here; i.e. “your entire argument is refuted right here”. Unfortunately, I am aware that just because I provided an argument supporting my position doesn’t mean I’ve conquered the debate or won anything. So I can’t arrogantly declare the opposing position to be “preposterous” or “nonsense” – or any like assertions. In the sense of absolute verification, there is no proof in science. But if you take proof to mean “evidence” (i.e. facts interpreted to support a particular position), then yes, there is evidence in science. Testimony, witness, documentation etc. are all types of evidence which can be valid in some scientific contexts. “How so...?” In the original statement you presented a silly argument on my behalf, then made a “So essentially your position is” statement based on the silly argument you attributed to me. That is a classic Strawman tactic. “The lack of insulin CAUSING DKA in Type 1 Diabetes Patients is NOT a Correlation (Epidemiological) Study; it's Direct Experiment. And it's not merely "Observed", it's TESTED (Experiment).” The results of those tests were first observed/recorded, then those observations were analyzed and interpreted. The basis of all legitimate scientific confidence is fact/observation. “And my son's bike uses a chain; but the chain isn't a bike” Did I ever claim math was science? “1. CITE Source differentiating "Scientific Logic" and "Logic"...?” Do you really need me to find references supporting the claim that science employs critical reasoning? “2. More "robust" than what?” More logically robust than other methods of establishing confidence in claims – such as when investigating claims about the unobserved past. “1. Reification Fallacy. "Science" doesn't make claims, Science is A Method: The Scientific Method.” This is pernickety. The end of scientific research is a claim about how much confidence we can place in the researched hypothesis. “2. Claims are TESTED (Experiment); there is no further or more robust "Scrutiny".” Right, but I get to assess the experimental design, the premise of the hypothesis, how much confidence can be legitimately attributed to a conclusion based on the reported facts etc. I can, if motivated, repeat the experiment to ensure the consistency of the reported outcome. I may be able to narrow the experimental design to exclude other variables potentially contributing to the results. “Well there's only ONE possible "CAUSAL FACTOR" in every Scientific Hypothesis; it's called the Independent Variable; So there is no assumption” I’m not sure why such a limitation would apply. An hypothesis can propose a combination of factors influencing an experimental outcome. But even if your statement was correct, that doesn’t mean there aren’t other factors (perhaps even unknown factors) contributing to the results – i.e. factors that aren’t accounted for in the experimental design. “1. Post your "Scrutiny" Method...?” As above – I assess the experimental design, the logic of the study, and how well the claims of the research are supported by the facts. If able (and motivated), I perform my own experiments. “a. Does your Scrutiny Method trump The Scientific Method (Experiment)...?” I consider scrutiny of research to be fundamental to the scientific method. Many flowcharts of the scientific method include peer-review as part of the process. Given your above comments, I suspect yours doesn’t. “2. There is no "Perfect Knowledge", save for God.” Agreed – That was my point. Only God can claim absolute knowledge. The rest of us have to acknowledge the limitations of our finite existence. “Again, "Observation" is merely the First Step of The Scientific Method. We don't trust 'observations' solely, that's why they're TESTED (Experiment)” We don’t “TEST” observations. We test hypotheses based on observations. That’s the point of experimentation – to see if the observed results are consistent enough with the hypothesis to provide rational support. “Well as mentioned here (and many times in the past), observation alone can't be 'Trusted', that's why we subject those observations to Experiment -- it's called The Scientific Method” That’s not accurate. We test hypotheses through experimentation, not observations. Observations are the source of the hypothesis, but also the outcome/results of the experiments. “We kinda do, that has been Validated by Experiment (SEE: Quantum Mechanics).” If we are in the Matrix, then the scientific method is an illusion. “1. What is "Scientific" Confidence...? Juxtapose that with "Confidence"...?” Scientific confidence is derived from experimental outcomes (i.e. facts/observations/data). Confidence arrived at by other means (faith, for example) are not scientific. “2. Observing Phenomena (The First Step of The Scientific Method) and "LOOKING" at Experimental Results are not "The Same". It's a clumsy Equivocation Fallacy.” Not sure why the facts attained through experimentation are excluded from your definition of observation. There’s no equivocation in my position. Observations are entities which are observed. Often, new hypotheses are generated based on the observed experimental results. “How did I make this error here or anywhere else...?” Acknowledging the logical possibility that future discoveries may undermine what we think we know now is not an Appeal to Ignorance. Arguing for a particular claim based on this possibility is an appeal to Ignorance. There remains an ever-present possibility that our current understanding of any issue could be overthrown by a newly discovered fact. The purpose of logic fallacies is to describe departures from logic. Whereas you have ascribed this fallacy to the mere recognition of logical possibilities. “1. Your position on 'observations' was already exposed above, SEE: Equivocation Fallacy.” Right – so do a little victory dance, since in your mind, presenting a rebuttal is the equivalent of securing victory in the debate. You can pre-emptively assume your triumph without bothering to consider my response. You presented a case. Therefore you win. The error of my position has been “exposed”. You have a position and you made it. What else could there possibly be to discuss? “2. You are arguing for a Position” I am not suggesting that you consider the truth of any particular claim based on the fact that lack of observation doesn’t preclude the possibility of that claim being true – i.e. that the claim could be true, since is hasn’t been demonstrated to be untrue. That is what an Appeal to Ignorance is. My argument/position is about acknowledgement of logical limitations. Only someone with infinite knowledge can claim certainty based on their knowledge of every fact. Everyone else has to recognise that there might be missing information in their knowledge. If acknowledging logical limitation is fallacious, then the concept of fallacy is altogether meaningless. “Your Position is: You contrive 'Infinite Knowledge' as the Standard for knowing anything (The Premise)” My position is not technically about knowledge. My position relates more to confidence – i.e. how much confidence we can place in each claim of knowledge based on the scientific method. The scientific method makes no logical provision for certainty. “State we can't know anything without it (Conclusion). It's a Trainwreck.” OMG, you called my position a “trainwreck”. Should I turn tail and run away – since you are clearly so much better than me – so much so that you don’t even need to consider my response to the argument you are miss-attributing to me. My position is not that “we can't know anything without” “'Infinite Knowledge'”, but that we can’t be scientifically certain about anything – i.e. we can’t arrive at a position of certainty for any claim using the scientific method. “Because the "Knowledge" wasn't obtained through The Scientific Method...to begin with. "Just-So" Stories need 'Updated', not ACTUAL Science.” There is no such thing as a perfect, catch-all experiment. Experimentation itself is limited by current knowledge and technologies. There are so many examples of conclusions derived from experiments, that later had to be adjusted because of new discoveries (can you really not think of even one?). Your confidence in the process of experimentation approaches faith. That level of confidence is not justified by the scientific method. You seemingly forget that fallible people with limited knowledge design and perform experiments. If God were performing experiments, then I would agree with your assessment – but God already knows everything there is to know with unequivocal certainty. “Yes you did, it was IMPLIED ... Tristen: "Until we have infinite knowledge, we don’t know what we don’t know. Therefore, every idea remains subject to scrutiny." Ergo, No Straw Man” I am happy to respond to your assessment of anything I actually stated, but not to any strawman interpretation you decide to attribute to me. “1. A Hypothesis is generated from Observing Phenomena, The Antecedent. The "Idea" part is The Consequent.” Yes, the idea hypothesises some form of causal relationship resulting in the observed phenomena. The phenomena is a necessary premise of the hypothesis, but the hypothesis itself is the idea stemming from the observations. “2. Actually EVERYTHING we do is based on "Philosophy".” Yup. It can all be conceptually related back to philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted October 9, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted October 9, 2017 42 minutes ago, Tristen said: “your entire argument is refuted right here” When we debated the meaning of theory, you made a song and dance about how theory means something different in a scientific context, than to the general dictionary definition. Song and Dance?? Ya mean this 'Song and Dance'... "It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".[4][Note 1] In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis;[4] such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory That's a Pretty Strong 'Song and Dance'. Quote But now that it suits your argument, Webster’s is the irrefutable king of unequivocal definitions. No. Now that is suits the MEANING of the Words. Quote Dictionaries common use words with similar connotations, and common word usage (including miss-usage) to convey a definition. Come again? Quote The definition of “proof” you provided seems more related to a legal setting, than scientific. Well then CITE a Source differentiating "Proof" and "Evidence" to SUPPORT your Baseless Assertion Fallacy here...? Quote But even in the legal setting... In any 'Setting' Proof and Evidence are Synonymous. Quote Science philosopher Karl Popper wrote (in The Problem of Induction, 1953); “in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory” Karl Popper was a PHILOSOPHER not a Scientist. Quote This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic) I've already PUMMELED this nonsense in a previous post to you. Quote Now here’s my dilemma – I could very well adopt your strategy and claim some kind of victory here; i.e. “your entire argument is refuted right here”. It's not a "Victory" for goodness sakes, it's simply "Proof" and "Evidence" are Synonymous; rendering your appeal to the contrary, Factually Incorrect. Quote Unfortunately, I am aware that just because I provided an argument supporting my position doesn’t mean I’ve conquered the debate or won anything. 1. You have yet to provide a Coherent Argument supporting any position. 2. And your continued "Couching" this in a Victory Genre, is quite inane. Quote So I can’t arrogantly declare the opposing position to be “preposterous” or “nonsense” – or any like assertions. No just simply say Factually Incorrect then Cogently SUPPORT IT by CITING References. Quote In the sense of absolute verification, there is no proof in science. Errr...Factually Incorrect. It doesn't matter how many times you say it...it's still Factually Incorrect. Quote But if you take proof to mean “evidence”... Yes, that's what it is; "Proof" and "Evidence" are Synonymous. Quote (i.e. facts interpreted to support a particular position), then yes, there is evidence in science. Well if there's "Evidence" in Science THEN...there's "PROOF" in Science, because Again... the words are Synonymous. Quote “How so...?” In the original statement you presented a silly argument on my behalf, then made a “So essentially your position is” statement based on the silly argument you attributed to me. That is a classic Strawman tactic. Specifically State the Argument in lieu of your Circular Argument here...? Quote “The lack of insulin CAUSING DKA in Type 1 Diabetes Patients is NOT a Correlation (Epidemiological) Study; it's Direct Experiment. And it's not merely "Observed", it's TESTED (Experiment).” The results of those tests were first observed/recorded, then those observations were analyzed and interpreted. The basis of all legitimate scientific confidence is fact/observation. You're inexplicably continuing to conflate Observing Phenomena (The First Step of The Scientific Method with "LOOKING" at Experimental Results. And... Not all "Observations" are Facts. That's why we TEST them. (See: The Scientific Method) Quote “1. CITE Source differentiating "Scientific Logic" and "Logic"...?” Do you really need me to find references supporting the claim that science employs critical reasoning? No I need you to CITE SUPPORT for your CLAIM... Tristen -- "Scientific logic is a subset of logic, with more robust rules for generating confidence." ...In lieu of your Straw Man Fallacy here. Quote “2. More "robust" than what?” More logically robust than other methods of establishing confidence in claims – such as when investigating claims about the unobserved past. That's not what you said (Another Straw Man), Again... Tristen -- "Scientific logic is a subset of logic, with more robust rules for generating confidence." ...So post the more ROBUST RULES 'subset' of logic...Scientific Logic ? Quote “1. Reification Fallacy. "Science" doesn't make claims, Science is A Method: The Scientific Method.” This is pernickety. No. It's a Fallacy, Reification Fallacy... Reification (Fallacy) - When an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity -- when an idea is treated as if had a real existence.https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/154/Reification Quote The end of scientific research is a claim about how much confidence we can place in the researched hypothesis. 1. Factually Incorrect. The End of Scientific Research on a particular "Cause" is called Validated Experiment. (Hypothesis TEST). 2. Please post (CITE) this "Confidence Scale" ...?? a. Who created this "Confidence Scale"...? b. When is this "Confidence Scale" Invoked...? Quote “Claims are TESTED (Experiment); there is no further or more robust "Scrutiny".” (1.) Right, but I get to assess the experimental design, (2.) the premise of the hypothesis, (3.) how much confidence can be legitimately attributed to a conclusion based on the reported facts etc. (1.) Well to 'legitimately' do so, you would have to know the fundamentals of The Scientific Method and Study Designs. (2.) The 'Premise' of Every Single Scientific Hypothesis is "Observing Phenomena". That's a pretty easy assessment. (3.) Sure, right after you... a. Please post (CITE) this "Confidence Scale" ...?? b. Who created this "Confidence Scale"...? Quote I can, if motivated, repeat the experiment to ensure the consistency of the reported outcome. This is one of the Hallmarks of Empirical Evidence "Proof": Observable, Testable, Repeatable, Falsifiable. Quote I may be able to narrow the experimental design to exclude other variables potentially contributing to the results. Yes. Quote “Well there's only ONE possible "CAUSAL FACTOR" in every Scientific Hypothesis; it's called the Independent Variable; So there is no assumption” I’m not sure why such a limitation would apply. Well because that's what a VIABLE Scientific Hypothesis is... Scientific Hypothesis - a special kind of prediction that forecasts how the INDEPENDENT VARIABLE will affect the dependent variable.http://www.csef.colostate.edu/resources/vocabulary.pdf "The scientist applies his/her present knowledge to predict the effect of the INDEPENDENT VARIABLE on the DEPENDENT VARIABLE. https://www2.lv.psu.edu/jxm57/irp/pred.htm "Formalized hypotheses contain TWO VARIABLES. One is "INDEPENDENT" and the other is "DEPENDENT". The independent variable is the one you, the "scientist" control and the dependent variable is the one that you observe and/or measure the results. Notice there are two parts to a formalized hypothesis: the “IF” portion contains the testable proposed relationship and the “THEN” portion is the prediction of expected results from an experiment. An acceptable hypothesis contains BOTH aspects, not just the prediction portion."http://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm Are you sure now? Quote An hypothesis can propose a combination of factors influencing an experimental outcome. A Viable Scientific Hypothesis contains only ONE Potential CAUSE (Independent Variable). ps. Why on Earth would you even consider... much less actualize, more than one Potential CAUSE, Pray Tell?? How would you VALIDATE the Experiment? Quote But even if your statement was correct It is. Quote that doesn’t mean there aren’t other factors (perhaps even unknown factors) contributing to the results That's why you limit your Experiments to ONE Independent Variable at a time; then if needed, conduct "Different" Experiments. Quote – i.e. factors that aren’t accounted for in the experimental design. Well go ahead and use my Lack of Insulin/DKA Experiment as a for instance...? Quote “a. Does your Scrutiny Method trump The Scientific Method (Experiment)...?” I consider scrutiny of research to be fundamental to the scientific method. Huh? Quote Many flowcharts of the scientific method include peer-review as part of the process. Yes and I'm a Saudi Prince and a Mau Mau Fighter Pilot. How can a "Method"--The Scientific Method... that's based SOLELY on the Objective (Empirical) include the Subjective (Peer-Review) ?? Post these 'flowcharts'...? Quote I suspect yours doesn’t. It's not mine. There's only ONE Scientific Method; the 'give away' is that it's "SINGULAR". It's not The Scientific Methods Quote “2. There is no "Perfect Knowledge", save for God.” Agreed – That was my point. Only God can claim absolute knowledge. The rest of us have to acknowledge the limitations of our finite existence. That doesn't mean we can't know SOME THINGS, "Absolutely". Quote “Again, "Observation" is merely the First Step of The Scientific Method. We don't trust 'observations' solely, that's why they're TESTED (Experiment)” We don’t “TEST” observations. We test hypotheses based on observations. Yes, that's what I just said. Quote “Well as mentioned here (and many times in the past), observation alone can't be 'Trusted', that's why we subject those observations to Experiment -- it's called The Scientific Method” That’s not accurate. We test hypotheses through experimentation, not observations. Huh? Scientific Hypotheses (3rd Step of The Scientific Method) are derived from "Observed Phenomena"...The First Step of The Scientific Method. Quote (1.) Observations are the source of the hypothesis, (2.) but also the outcome/results of the experiments. (1.) Yes I know, that's what I've been saying; AND...what you just said wasn't accurate. So, What on Earth are you talking about?? (2.) Sir again, "LOOKING" at Experimental Results (Step 5 of The Scientific Method: Analyze Results) is not the same as Step 1 of The Scientific Method: "Observe Phenomena". Quote “We kinda do, that has been Validated by Experiment (SEE: Quantum Mechanics).” If we are in the Matrix, then the scientific method is an illusion. Factually Incorrect. Philosophical Naturalism/Realism (aka: atheism) is an illusion. The Scientific Method is unscathed. Quote “1. What is "Scientific" Confidence...? Juxtapose that with "Confidence"...?” Scientific confidence is derived from experimental outcomes (i.e. facts/observations/data). Well that's been my case since the beginning. Quote “2. Observing Phenomena (The First Step of The Scientific Method) and "LOOKING" at Experimental Results are not "The Same". It's a clumsy Equivocation Fallacy.” Not sure why the facts attained through experimentation are excluded from your definition of observation. Sir again, "LOOKING" at Experimental Results (Step 5 of The Scientific Method: Analyze Results) is not the same as Step 1 of The Scientific Method: "Observe Phenomena". Quote There’s no equivocation in my position. Observations are entities which are observed. There is, I just showed it a couple of times above. Quote Often, new hypotheses are generated based on the observed experimental results. Then the process starts again with Step 1 "Observe Phenomena". Quote “How did I make this error here or anywhere else...?” Acknowledging the logical possibility that future discoveries may undermine what we think we know now is not an Appeal to Ignorance. Well if what you 'think' you know wasn't initially availed by The Scientific Method to begin with (as I elucidated earlier)... then your point is quite Academic/Moot. And actually, this Appeal is also Fallacious: Argument to the Future Fallacy. Quote If acknowledging logical limitation is fallacious, then the concept of fallacy is altogether meaningless. It's fallacious when you use Fallacious Reasoning to conjure logical limitations, as you've done. Quote “Your Position is: You contrive 'Infinite Knowledge' as the Standard for knowing anything (The Premise)” My position is not technically about knowledge. Yes it was, it was based on a Lack of Knowledge as I Highlighted. Quote “State we can't know anything without it (Conclusion). It's a Trainwreck.” OMG, you called my position a “trainwreck”. Should I turn tail and run away – since you are clearly so much better than me Yea, because it is a Trainwreck as demonstrated. You don't need to take it personally...just recognize it and don't make the same mistake again. It happens to all of us. That's how we LEARN; No need for all the Theatrics...it merely makes it worse. Quote “Because the "Knowledge" wasn't obtained through The Scientific Method...to begin with. "Just-So" Stories need 'Updated', not ACTUAL Science.” There is no such thing as a perfect, catch-all experiment. Straw Man Fallacy....I never claimed there was a "perfect, catch-all experiment". Quote There are so many examples of conclusions derived from experiments, that later had to be adjusted because of new discoveries (can you really not think of even one?). Post them, to SUPPORT your claim... a. What Phenomenon was Observed...? b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...? c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...? d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...? Quote Your confidence in the process of experimentation approaches faith. Yes, Biblical Faith --it's based on Substance and Evidence. Not "Blind-Faith" that you're attempting to Equivocate Fallacy here. Quote “1. A Hypothesis is generated from Observing Phenomena, The Antecedent. The "Idea" part is The Consequent.” Yes, the idea hypothesises some form of causal relationship resulting in the observed phenomena. The phenomena is a necessary premise of the hypothesis, but the hypothesis itself is the idea stemming from the observations. Yes, that's what I just said. regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tristen Posted October 10, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 9 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,357 Content Per Day: 0.63 Reputation: 1,327 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/26/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 10, 2017 On 09/10/2017 at 12:32 PM, Enoch2021 said: " Karl Popper was a PHILOSOPHER not a Scientist " You mean unlike those great bastions of science; Webster's and Wikipedia? " You're inexplicably continuing to conflate Observing Phenomena (The First Step of The Scientific Method with "LOOKING" at Experimental Results. " I am not conflating them as the same steps in the process, but they are both observations. I think it is inexplicable that you restrict the definition of observation to "The First Step of The Scientific Method". It certainly is that, but not only that. How does Webster's define observation? I'd wager they don't even mention hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted October 11, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted October 11, 2017 3 hours ago, Tristen said: " Karl Popper was a PHILOSOPHER not a Scientist " You mean unlike those great bastions of science; Webster's and Wikipedia? 1. The meaning of Proof and Evidence is a Semantics Argument. Semantics is concerned with the MEANING of WORDS. ERGO....we then consult a DICTIONARY..."Merriam-Websters". Next Block of Instruction: How to make a Sandwich with a Light On. 2. Wikipedia, eh? Well I posted this to refute your clumsy repeated Equivocation Fallacy with the term "theory"... "It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".[4][Note 1] In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis;[4] such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Ya see the [4] above (??) That means it's a "CITATION". Guess what the [4] is Referencing ??... The National Academy of Sciences. <==== Is that a Great Bastion of Science? So in summary, you posted a False Equivalence Fallacy comparing my treatment of (Proof and Evidence) with a previous Equivocation Fallacy claim you made ("theory"-- Colloquial and "Scientific Theory" -- of which I PUMMELED then) which renders the entire ensemble Non-Sequitur. ps. Thanks for allowing me to illustrate (ONCE AGAIN) your confusion between a Colloquial "theory" and a Scientific Theory. Quote " You're inexplicably continuing to conflate Observing Phenomena (The First Step of The Scientific Method with "LOOKING" at Experimental Results. " I am not conflating them as the same steps in the process, but they are both observations. Ahh yea...you did: Tristen: "Observations are the source of the hypothesis, but also the outcome/results of the experiments." So AGAIN... "LOOKING" at Experimental Results (Step 5 of The Scientific Method: Analyze Results) is not the same as Step 1 of The Scientific Method: "Observe a Phenomena". ps. It's getting well beyond painfully tedious having to post and explain back to you what you've said/written. Quote I think it is inexplicable that you restrict the definition of observation to "The First Step of The Scientific Method". Well because "Observing Phenomena"-- Step 1 of The Scientific Method is not the same as "LOOKING" at Experimental Results --Step 5 of The Scientific Method: Analyze Results. Which part of this Painfully Prima Facie concept is confusing? Quote How does Webster's define observation? You're position is so Utterly BANKRUPT that this is what it comes down to, eh? Quote I'd wager they don't even mention hypothesis. oy vey sir regards ps. Should we take your Non Responses to the other 25 rebuttals in the post you partially quoted tacitly as "Uncle"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts