Creationists: How do you test for "truth"?

[ImmortalFlame]

If the effectiveness of tools can be falsified, then the effectiveness of the magic talisman can also be falsified.

Please give an example of how you can falsify the effectiveness of a magic talisman.

 

[Zosimus]

"They" can be used as a singular pronoun.

Which of the following answers best replaces the underlined text?

A proposal has been made to trim the horns from rhinoceroses to discourage poachers; the question is whether tourists will continue to visit game parks and see rhinoceroses after their horns are trimmed.

(A) whether tourists will continue to visit game parks and see rhinoceroses after their horns are
(B) whether tourists will continue to visit game parks to see one once their horns are
(C) whether tourists will continue to visit game parks to see rhinoceroses once the animals’ horns have been
(D) if tourists will continue to visit game parks and see rhinoceroses once the animals’ horns are
(E) if tourists will continue to visit game parks to see one after the animals’ horns have been

 

[Zosimus]

Please give an example of how you can falsify the effectiveness of a magic talisman.

It is claimed that the magic talisman fends off the flu. If the person became infected with influenza while wearing the magic talisman, then the magic talisman would be known to have failed. This is called modus tollens.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Which of the following answers best replaces the underlined text?

I will not play your irrelevant games in order to continue to distract from your inability to respond to my arguments. You said "they" is not a singular pronoun, I demonstrated that this is false and that they can be and is appropriately used as a singular pronoun.

Now argue the point rather than continuing with childish distraction. You committed the fallacy of moving the goalposts in relation to Shunya, and you demonstrated a misunderstanding and misapplication of the survivorship fallacy in relation to Shunya's post. Respond to the argument or admit your fault.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is claimed that the magic talisman fends off the flu. If the person became infected with influenza while wearing the magic talisman, then the magic talisman would be known to have failed. This is called modus tollens.

False. It could be that the magic talisman does fend off flu, but only for people who are blessed by a specific God or are pure of heart and soul. Ergo, the magical talisman is not falsified. You may falsify the claim that the talisman works under all circumstances, but you are not falsifying the effectiveness of the talisman itself.

 

[blü 2]

As I have already amply demonstrated, it would require an infinite amount of evidence to prove a proposition true. You have not even disputed this claim. Why, then, do you rely on evidence?

To address a question of no interest to you ─ what's true in reality?

Personal attacks are not logical arguments.

I was simply giving you helpful feedback, given your difficulty with sensory inputs.

Amazon customers are your source of knowledge?

No, the blurb on the link you yourself provided.

I never claimed that God was real or imaginary. Surely you must be aware of who or what God is.

I have no idea what a real god might be. An imaginary god is anything the imaginer thinks it is. Since you chose to use the word, what did you intend to denote? It appears you don't know.

Well, you falsely claimed that the Bible said that the world was flat. It did not say that.

It uses a flat-earth, geocentric cosmology throughout. It says that the sky is a solid dome to which the stars are affixed and if they come loose they'll fall to earth. If you wish to be reassured, more >here<.

As I have already amply demonstrated, it would require an infinite amount of evidence to prove a proposition true.

I say that 'true' means conformity with reality. What definition of 'true' are you using?

 

[Polymath257]

No, it is a modus tollens argument. Your theory has made predictions that do not hold true in the real world. This implies that your theory is wrong.

Which theory was disproven? The Big Bang theory? Or the theory of the dynamics of clusters of galaxies? At this point, the BB theory is the more solid of the two (we know we don't know a lot about galactic dynamics), so the MT only shows we need to investigate the dynamics of galaxy clusters more. Not a surprise!

We are talking about patterns of *plausible* inference, not patterns of logical inference.

Yes, I can read you know. I simply pointed out that you misapplied the principle at work.

Really? Exactly how did I misapply it?

It's like saying: If you put a man and a woman together, you often get a baby so 1+1 can equal 3.

Nope. Not the same at all. I am showing that adding volumes using arithmetic fails in the real world. In other words, there is not a conservation of liquid volumes.

But to claim there *is* a conservation of mass is *also* something dependent on observation, and the limits of that conservation law are so determined. In particular, it is not always correct. it is quite easy to find situations where you take 2 pounds of one material and add two pounds of another and do NOT get 4 pounds of the result.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, I'm aware. However, how have you tested the theory that simpler testable explanations are superior to more complex testable explanations?

Well, yes. Superior in the sense of easier applicability to predict new phenomena? That has been shown in many cases.

Karl Popper, by the way, did not agree with your point of view. He felt that more restrictive theories were better than merely simpler ones because they were more testable and thus more predictive and more open to falsification.

And I am saying that both are important. Simplicity alone and testability alone are not enough. of the testable theories, the simplest consistent with observations is the one we choose to work with.

A math that seems to be beyond your ken. And again, the number of testable theories is infinite.

At no point do we have infinitely many theories to test. We always have finitely many that are consistent with the data so far and do not have ad hoc assumptions and are testable. The infinitely many claimed is a falsehood not relevant for actual scientific investigations.

Next, you will be bringing up grue.

Here is a standard analysis of Hempel's paradox:
Raven paradox - Wikipedia

 

[Polymath257]

This simplistic explanation completely ignores the problem of underdetermination in scientific theory. For any set of data points, an infinite number of graphs can be created that define those data points.

Which is why simplicity is a good criterion.

 

[shunyadragon]

I read your post with an eye to refuting any logical arguments contained therein. Unfortunately, there were none to refute.

Phfffffffffffft! Plop!!!

 

[shunyadragon]

You then speculate that flint, nephrite, and obsidian made the best tools. However, this speculation, even if true, would never falsify stone age tools. You claim that you can repeat these experiments today with verifiable results. This claim, even if true, would never falsify stone age tools.

Dense, dense. The hypothesis was on how to make stone age tools, the empirical verification of the methods of making Stone Age tools.

 

[shunyadragon]

Your answer is nonsensical. The question was: How can you falsify stone age tools? You speak of empirically testing the methods used by Stone Age. Ages do not have methods. Ages do not take action.

You then wanted to verify the predictability of the materials and methods used. Materials do not have predictability.

You then say that Stone Age humans found that some stones made better and more functional tools than others. This is speculation. You were not there. The only thing you know is that the artifacts you have found are made of stone. It is entirely possible that other tools were used made of wood or other decomposable material that did not survive the passage of time. This is called survival bias.

You then speculate that flint, nephrite, and obsidian made the best tools. However, this speculation, even if true, would never falsify stone age tools. You claim that you can repeat these experiments today with verifiable results. This claim, even if true, would never falsify stone age tools.

Go back to elementary school English and grammar, and then respond correctly to my post.

 

[Zosimus]

I will not play your irrelevant games in order to continue to distract from your inability to respond to my arguments. You said "they" is not a singular pronoun, I demonstrated that this is false and that they can be and is appropriately used as a singular pronoun.

Now argue the point rather than continuing with childish distraction. You committed the fallacy of moving the goalposts in relation to Shunya, and you demonstrated a misunderstanding and misapplication of the survivorship fallacy in relation to Shunya's post. Respond to the argument or admit your fault.

I'm sorry, but you failed. The first answer is wrong because it uses a bad pronoun. This is part of a standardized test. Maybe you should do some remedial pronoun work.

 

[Zosimus]

False. It could be that the magic talisman does fend off flu, but only for people who are blessed by a specific God or are pure of heart and soul. Ergo, the magical talisman is not falsified. You may falsify the claim that the talisman works under all circumstances, but you are not falsifying the effectiveness of the talisman itself.

You are obviously not paying attention to the posts. Take a look back at the original post in which we find the argument, which reads:

If my magic talisman keeps the flu at bay, I won't have the flu.
I don't have the flu.
So my magic talisman keeps the flu at bay.

Obviously, this is a logical fallacy -- of the type that is commonly banded about here.

The question is now whether the claim "My magic talisman keeps the flu at bay" could be falsified. The answer is, of course, yes. If the speaker of the argument got influenza, then his claim that the magic talisman keeps the flu at bay is falsified.
-------------------------------------
BUT

For the sake of argument, let's pretend that you're right. Let's pretend that his argument was different. Let's pretend that the argument was that the magic talisman usually keeps the flu at bay (but not always). How exactly would such an example tend to show that science was good, reliable, or anything else?

Oh that's right. It wouldn't.

 

[Zosimus]

To address a question of no interest to you ─ what's true in reality?

So you admit that your method of finding things that are "true in reality" is to commit logical fallacies. That's good! That's what I wanted you to fess up to in the first place.

No, the blurb on the link you yourself provided.

No, I provided you with a link to Amazon.com so that you could buy the book. If you wanted to know more about the book, you should have used Google to search for a review. Don't you know how to use computers?

I have no idea what a real god might be. An imaginary god is anything the imaginer thinks it is. Since you chose to use the word, what did you intend to denote? It appears you don't know.

I did not use the word god. I used the word God. The word, when capitalized, denotes the Abrahamic God. Should you wish to know about this god concept, it is a simple matter to use Google. Don't you know how to use computers?

It uses a flat-earth, geocentric cosmology throughout. It says that the sky is a solid dome to which the stars are affixed and if they come loose they'll fall to earth. If you wish to be reassured, more [/URL]>here<.

So you quoted an authority (yourself) on the matter? This is a joke, right?

I suppose that some future society will find some American textbook that assures children that the sun "rises in the East" and will use that as proof that ignorant 21st century Americans did not know that the world was round.

Give me a break.

I say that 'true' means conformity with reality. What definition of 'true' are you using?

As I have already outlined, true means coherence. It is possible for you to have a coherent system, but at the present you do not have one.

All systems that I'm aware of pay at least lip service to logic. However, if you can argue against logic without using logic, I will accept that your system does not rely on logic.At that point, I will let whatever nonsense you spew to go unchallenged.

 

[Zosimus]

Which theory was disproven? The Big Bang theory? Or the theory of the dynamics of clusters of galaxies? At this point, the BB theory is the more solid of the two (we know we don't know a lot about galactic dynamics), so the MT only shows we need to investigate the dynamics of galaxy clusters more. Not a surprise!

Yes. The Big Bang theory is known to be false. You can easily Google that and find a number of sites that point that out. Most of them say something like:

Quantum equations show that the Big Bang never occurred ... BUT Cosmic Background Radiation...
or
Very large structures in the universe show that the Big Bang never happened... BUT Cosmic Background Radiation...

So, basically what we are hearing is: The Big Bang is known false, but this logical fallacy that science adheres to -- namely that confirmations count -- convinces them to keep a refuted theory around.

Nope. Not the same at all. I am showing that adding volumes using arithmetic fails in the real world. In other words, there is not a conservation of liquid volumes.

No, you are not. If I take four jars of the size of a liter, fill two up with water and two up with alcohol, and place them all in a row, you will clearly see that two jars of liquid A plus two jars of liquid B makes four jars of liquid.

That doesn't mean that you couldn't freeze one, boil another, place another under 20 atm of pressure, and light the 4th on fire and claim that suddenly 2+2 no longer equals 4. You would be wrong, but you could do it all you want.

But to claim there *is* a conservation of mass is *also* something dependent on observation, and the limits of that conservation law are so determined. In particular, it is not always correct. it is quite easy to find situations where you take 2 pounds of one material and add two pounds of another and do NOT get 4 pounds of the result.

Sure. Like in your case, you have half a brain, add another half, and it still doesn't produce the output of a normal brain. It's a mystery indeed.

 

[Zosimus]

Well, yes. Superior in the sense of easier applicability to predict new phenomena? That has been shown in many cases.

You have failed to show that easier applicability makes a theory more likely to be true, confirmed, probable, or whatever other trait that you think science produces.

And I am saying that both are important. Simplicity alone and testability alone are not enough. of the testable theories, the simplest consistent with observations is the one we choose to work with.

Yes, I'm aware of this bias. What does that prove?

At no point do we have infinitely many theories to test. We always have finitely many that are consistent with the data so far and do not have ad hoc assumptions and are testable. The infinitely many claimed is a falsehood not relevant for actual scientific investigations.

If you think that, then you do not understand underdetermination at all. It's a simple matter to understand. Let's try an example:

A certain woman named Abby went out to sell cakes. She had chocolate cakes, which she sold for $3 each. She also had vanilla cakes, which she sold at $6 each. At the end of the day, she had made $9 in sales.

At this point you could easily say: Well, she must have sold one chocolate cake and one vanilla cake. Yes, that's true. That's one possible solution.
It's certainly the simplest solution. But how do we know that she didn't sell three chocolate cakes and no vanilla? Or perhaps she sold two chocolate cakes and half of a vanilla cake. Or perhaps she sold half of a chocolate cake and one and a quarter vanilla cakes. Or perhaps she sold 2 3/4 chocolate cakes and 1/8 of a vanilla cake. We could go on and on and on with this scenario inventing more and more scenarios.

The point is that the problem is underdetermined. And science suffers from the same problem. Any finite number of data points can have an infinite number of graphs to describe them.

Next, you will be bringing up grue.

No, actually I was going to start talking about tacking by disjunction.

Here is a standard analysis of Hempel's paradox:
Raven paradox - Wikipedia

Yes, I'm well aware of Wikipedia and the poor treatment it gives to the problem. I was incensed when consensus decided that Popper's commentary on the paradox should be removed.

The question of whether a green apple tends to demonstrate that all ravens are black depends entirely on the method that one pursued in order to find the green apple. If someone simply went into a store and said, "Give me an apple" and got a green one, then obviously there was zero chance that the green apple regardless the color might falsify the claim that all ravens are black. Thus, I fail to see the reason that a green apple found under those circumstances should provide any kind of support for the claim.

At any rate, Bayesian confirmation theory is so full of holes that it's indefensible. That's probably why you don't defend it rather you just mention it in passing. Or perhaps you don't know enough about it to put together an argument in favor of it.

 

[Astrophile]

the first son of Mary, born just north of Jerusalem in a town called Bethlehem,

First, Bethlehem is south of Jerusalem, as you will see if you look at an atlas. Second, Jesus was probably born in Galilee; the story of his being born in Bethlehem is a later invention designed to fulfill a supposed prophecy.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes. The Big Bang theory is known to be false. You can easily Google that and find a number of sites that point that out. Most of them say something like:

Quantum equations show that the Big Bang never occurred ... BUT Cosmic Background Radiation...
or
Very large structures in the universe show that the Big Bang never happened... BUT Cosmic Background Radiation...

So, basically what we are hearing is: The Big Bang is known false, but this logical fallacy that science adheres to -- namely that confirmations count -- convinces them to keep a refuted theory around.

Ahhh, I see what you are claiming. We do not have a validated thoery of quantum gravity. We *do* expect there to be corrections to the basic BB description, though. So in that very limited sense, it is incorrect. Nonetheless, the description of an expanding universe that was once hot and dense enough for nuclear reactions and where the current expansion is about 13.7 billion years long is not negated by quantum effects.

The very large structures are not well enough understood to be counter to the BB cosmology (as opposed to showing our lack of understanding of dynamics).

As for 'keeping it around', you might notice that Newtonian mechanics is still 'kept around'. Why? Because it is an exceedingly good approximation for most situations. Even if a quantum thoery of gravity is found and validated, we would still use the current BB description because it is an incredible approximation for almost all purposes.

No, you are not. If I take four jars of the size of a liter, fill two up with water and two up with alcohol, and place them all in a row, you will clearly see that two jars of liquid A plus two jars of liquid B makes four jars of liquid.

And if you pour them together, you do not. The total amount of liquid, when combined, is not four gallons.

That doesn't mean that you couldn't freeze one, boil another, place another under 20 atm of pressure, and light the 4th on fire and claim that suddenly 2+2 no longer equals 4. You would be wrong, but you could do it all you want.

Well, I would just claim that 2+2=4 doesn't apply in that situation. it is an abstract claim, subject to verification in any physical situation to see if it applies.

 

[Polymath257]

You have failed to show that easier applicability makes a theory more likely to be true, confirmed, probable, or whatever other trait that you think science produces.

I made no claim of truth. I do make claims of utility to make predictions of future phenomena.

Yes, I'm aware of this bias. What does that prove?

Nothing other than what I claimed.

If you think that, then you do not understand underdetermination at all. It's a simple matter to understand. Let's try an example:

A certain woman named Abby went out to sell cakes. She had chocolate cakes, which she sold for $3 each. She also had vanilla cakes, which she sold at $6 each. At the end of the day, she had made $9 in sales.

At this point you could easily say: Well, she must have sold one chocolate cake and one vanilla cake. Yes, that's true. That's one possible solution.
It's certainly the simplest solution. But how do we know that she didn't sell three chocolate cakes and no vanilla? Or perhaps she sold two chocolate cakes and half of a vanilla cake. Or perhaps she sold half of a chocolate cake and one and a quarter vanilla cakes. Or perhaps she sold 2 3/4 chocolate cakes and 1/8 of a vanilla cake. We could go on and on and on with this scenario inventing more and more scenarios.

The point is that the problem is underdetermined. And science suffers from the same problem. Any finite number of data points can have an infinite number of graphs to describe them.

Yes, so you need to make an observation of chocolate cakes before and after. The answer isn't just to claim underdetermination. The answer is to make more observations to limit possibilities.