Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Yanlin]

wasn't it
hypothesis first, proof later  ?

I removed the hypothesis part because that's obvious.

Here's how it goes.

Step 1: Hypothesis
Step 2: Evidence
Step 3: Proof
Step 4: Attempt at disproving as hard as possible
Step 5: Conclusion
Step 6:
Step 7: SCIENCE!!!

[andrea]

i prefere agnostics than atheists. in fact, i might even be one.
at least, the rational part of my mind is agnostic. if by reason i had to think about God, agnosticins is where i would end, since i have gathered no proof about existence or non existence of any God.

[G-Flex]

wasn't it
hypothesis first, proof later  ?

I removed the hypothesis part because that's obvious.

Here's how it goes.

Step 1: Hypothesis
Step 2: Evidence
Step 3: Proof
Step 4: Attempt at disproving as hard as possible
Step 5: Conclusion
Step 6:
Step 7: SCIENCE!!!

I'm not sure you know how the scientific method works.

Hardcore logical proofs are not necessarily involved. Where do you even get this distinction between "evidence" and "proof"?

The basic guideline given in most schools of the scientific method is more like (from wikipedia):

   1. Define the question
   2. Gather information and resources (observe)
   3. Form hypothesis
   4. Perform experiment and collect data
   5. Analyze data
   6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
   7. Publish results
   8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Of course, it gets a bit more complicated than that, but you can see there's no "proof" involved. Science lies in getting evidence together, drawing conclusions, and testing those conclusions again.

[Sergius]

You should rename this the "There's a 50/50 chance God exists because it can't be proven not to and I don't understand logic or statistics or Occam's Razor, yet this works only for God because he is special, unlike flying pink invisible unicorns which are just ridiculous and quite obviously don't exist and you're making fun of me and God, otherwise you are wrong and don't post in this thread" thread.

Because that's apparently what you think Agnosticism means.

[Yanlin]

To paraquote a demotivator I can't find now for some reason:

Look, nobody REALLY knows where all this shit came from. But I'd rather trust the dudes in lab coats who are not asking me to wake up early every morning, overdress and apologize for being human.

[Idiom]

flame

Don't start that again.

Occam's razor says the simplest solution is the likely or should be preferred. That's it. It isn't that the simplest is correct or that it being simple even proves anything. How simple simple solutions are is very much a matter of opinion and perception.

[Captain Hat]

To paraquote a demotivator I can't find now for some reason:

Look, nobody REALLY knows where all this shit came from. But I'd rather trust the dudes in lab coats who are not asking me to wake up early every morning, overdress and apologize for being human.

Every morning? Overdress? I don't think 11:00 and blue jeans fit in either catagory...

I'll shall get back to you on the third one later.

[Yanlin]

See, Occam's razor is a METHOD of RESEARCH. Not a method of PROVING SOMETHING.

When you got two or more possible explanations, go with the one that requires the least proof and time. Should that turn out to be wrong, do the same after eliminating that option.

So... Atheism. I'm waiting for the research to finish.

To paraquote a demotivator I can't find now for some reason:

Look, nobody REALLY knows where all this shit came from. But I'd rather trust the dudes in lab coats who are not asking me to wake up early every morning, overdress and apologize for being human.

Every morning? Overdress? I don't think 11:00 and blue jeans fit in either catagory...

I'll shall get back to you on the third one later.

You're obviously not very religious. In Judaism for example, a religious person does that EVERY FUCKING MORNING. So do hardcore Christians.

[LegoLord]

When you get right down to it, what exactly is the difference between Catholicism and protestantism aside from the church's hierarchy?  Also, how does a chart showing the origins of various branches of Christianity qualify as a method of research?  Is there any indication that current research is pointing towards denying the possibility of gods?  To counter the logic that the simplest explanation should be favorable, look at Quantum Physics as it applies to atomic structure.  I was first taught that electrons just orbit the nucleus like planets orbit the sun.  This was once a scientifically accepted theory.  I hit Honors Chemistry my sophomore year in high school, and it turns out they scrapped it for something much more complicated.

Just because something is a simple explanation does not mean it is right, and you should therefore not deny another person's belief in a more complex explanation.  They might not be right, but you may not be right either.  Outright denying the existence of any sort of god is saying those who believe there is one wrong.  Proclaiming as fact that god exists is calling all the atheists wrong.  Neither of which you can do, as there is no evidence of either possibility.

You also keep calling atheism, agnostics, and religion "hypotheses."  They are not.  As you have pointed out, there is no evidence supporting religion.  If you look, you will also see there is no evidence pointing towards a lack of god or gods.  Therefore neither can be called a hypothesis, going by the scientific method which G-flex pointed out earlier.  They are explanations for things we lack sufficient information to form a hypothesis on.  Even if we could, how would we set up any way to test it?

I get your point, but in this case, I can, because there's no way in hell that a creature like that would get enough hydrogen sacks inside itself to support its own weight, unless it's got this giant tumor-looking thing twenty times its own size floating above it like an actual blimp.

Yes there is.  Fish have similar structures within their bodies to control their depth, you know.  They don't stick out like tumors, and use heavier things than hydrogen and seem to work out pretty well for their environment.  The book goes on to explain the physics behind it, how much it would have to weigh per cubic inch, and with things such as enough flight bladders, honeycomb-structured bones, and other various techniques for reducing weight that we see in creatues that are alive today, that number gets small enough.  The author explains that the flight bladders would be precisely why dragons would grow to such large sizes.  I read through the whole book, that doesn't mean I'm going to post its entire contents here.  If you want to point out all the fallacies of it that you can see, then go ahead and read it yourself so you know which parts I left out.  Then we can talk.

[andrea]

also, i think it shouldn't be forgotten that dragons would have wings. while wings alone can't make something that big fly, remember that dragons wouldn't be zeppelins.

[G-Flex]

I get your point, but in this case, I can, because there's no way in hell that a creature like that would get enough hydrogen sacks inside itself to support its own weight, unless it's got this giant tumor-looking thing twenty times its own size floating above it like an actual blimp.

Yes there is.  Fish have similar structures within their bodies to control their depth, you know.  They don't stick out like tumors, and use heavier things than hydrogen and seem to work out pretty well for their environment.  The book goes on to explain the physics behind it, how much it would have to weigh per cubic inch, and with things such as enough flight bladders, honeycomb-structured bones, and other various techniques for reducing weight that we see in creatues that are alive today, that number gets small enough.  The author explains that the flight bladders would be precisely why dragons would grow to such large sizes.  I read through the whole book, that doesn't mean I'm going to post its entire contents here.  If you want to point out all the fallacies of it that you can see, then go ahead and read it yourself so you know which parts I left out.  Then we can talk.

Apples and oranges.

Fish have to float in water. Dragons have to float in air.

The difference in density between biological matter and water isn't that much, so something like a fish or a submarine can control its depth fairly easily, and can be fairly buoyant.

The difference in density between biological matter and AIR, on the other hand, is seriously very high.


I mean, the density of the human body (and I presume most other vertebrates), being mostly water, is only slightly higher THAN that of water. I know that I can float just by holding some air in my lungs, and I have pretty low body fat, and it would be even easier in saltwater, which is denser. So a fish wouldn't need to have as much of a density-altering mechanism at *all*.

Oh the other hand, the density of air is about 1/800 that. So about 0.125% the density of water.

This is why a blimp needs such a huge-ass envelope full of helium to stay afloat, compared to what it takes to keep me or you (or a boat, even a metal one) afloat.

Also, using hydrogen instead of helium doesn't make that much of a difference. It might displace something like 8% more weight in buoyancy, but that's it, and even using hard vacuum (can't get any lighter than that) as your lift volume only increases it by about another 8%.

Seriously now, if you want to have a creature the size of a dragon that can fly, it winds up looking more like a netch from Morrowind: A big balloon with a little bit of flesh inside it. There's no way I can see to make a creature that's both lighter-than-air but also at all sturdy, because the vast, vast, VAST majority of its volume would have to be the buoyant gas, and the rest of it would have to be fairly low-density. There's a reason why birds' bones are so brittle.

Considering the fact that they have wings, they wouldn't need to be lighter-than-air, but they'd still need to be incredibly light, especially given how huge they are compared to real flying creatures. To make something that large fly with wings, it would have to be EXTREMELY lightweight, and the same general problems apply; the fact is that you'd need so much goddamn buoyant force and such light structure that you'd end up with a giant paper balloon in the end.

[MrWiggles]

Religion is about faith. Heck, if you're an atheist, you're putting faith that God(s) is/are non-existent. Agnosticism is the faithless ground.

This caused a physical convulsion in me. A lack of belief in something takes no faith. For this to be true, then the faith you hold in your god, is out weighed by the faith you must hold for all the possible religion you don't believe in.

Here's an analogy:

LegoLord Dragon thing. (Obviously not his post but there link to it up there.)

Even if we give this as fact that dragon somehow dissolve themselves after death. This wouldn't explain their lack of proto dragons from the fossil records. This wouldn't explain on how something not an insect family could have six limbs. As this is entirely contradictory from all other none insect animals.

And this can only be used to explain why we should never find european style dragons, it wouldn't explain asian style ones.

But anyhow, this would mean that we should treat all mythological creatures as existence. From vampires, to vicious kenids. 

An item lack of proof is reason to not think its true.

There is equal proof for a dragon and /any/ gods.

No one has stated Occam Razor correctly. It the simplest answer /with/ the least assumptions.

To determine an assumption size is its evidence. The larger the claim the more evidence needed.

Most do not think God to be a small assumption. If God is such a small assumption, there the issue of why even bother with a tiny god?

When you get right down to it, what exactly is the difference between Catholicism and protestantism aside from the church's hierarchy? 

Various tid bits. Catholicism has limbo. Protestantism has thoughts as a crime. Catholicism let you get away with everything with hell maries. Protestantism has the death right forgiveness thing. (though this may not be the correct differences, but there lots of small difference that make up to a much larger difference.)

Also, how does a chart showing the origins of various branches of Christianity qualify as a method of research?  Is there any indication that current research is pointing towards denying the possibility of gods?

It was to illustrate that lack of belief was the simplest alternative with the least amount of assumptions.

  To counter the logic that the simplest explanation should be favorable, look at Quantum Physics as it applies to atomic structure.  I was first taught that electrons just orbit the nucleus like planets orbit the sun.  This was once a scientifically accepted theory.  I hit Honors Chemistry my sophomore year in high school, and it turns out they scrapped it for something much more complicated.

sighs... They didn't teach you it as a bonified structure theory, (I am aware of the fact that it once was)

They taught you a metaphor to help explain the concept of electron valance orbits. Oddly enough I brought this up in the atheist thread. Its not wrong. Much how in elementary school, they teach the beginning of algebra with 'finding the missing number!' and allowing for remainders in division problems. Just a simplified format to describe the basic concepts.

Just because something is a simple explanation does not mean it is right...

Correct sir. Its favored.

and you should therefore not deny another person's belief in a more complex explanation.

Um. You totally can. That the vary reason why Occosm razor exist, to eliminate other possibilities for the time being. It gives us focus, and reduces wasted effort.

  They might not be right, but you may not be right either.

And this is why Evidence is needed. The negative position is the default. And is correct as long as tempter with ability to change. Not all claims have the equal chance of being correct. And its wasteful to act as if they do. In the end, your holding up the rough as if its all diamonds.

Reality is finite. It perfectly okay for claims to be wrong. In fact, most claims are wrong. It far more common to be wrong then to be correct. That why we need such tools as Occosm razor to help guide us to truth/correct.

And acting under the fact that it may be wrong, or it may be disproven, then progression would stop. We act with what we know and assume its correct and move forward and change the position once other evidence comes to light. Then we march forward again.

Outright denying the existence of any sort of god is saying those who believe there is one wrong.  Proclaiming as fact that god exists is calling all the atheists wrong.  Neither of which you can do, as there is no evidence of either possibility.

Well, I know Sorid and I didn't outright deny the existence. We examined and evaluated the evidence in comparison of the claim its trying to support. Then we draw a satisfactory claim amount from prior knowledge.

And denial is loading the statement. It implies there something to deny. When there is nothing.

Dragon Rebuttal

Dragon retort.

The dragon thing that Legolord is really neat. I saw and own the discovery/natgeo special inspired from it. For the most part, its math holds up fairly well. However with in the previous, just because a model can be made convincible, doesn't mean the model is convincible. This is why evidence is needed.

[LegoLord]

How . . . what?  Denial . . . it's regardless of the facts.  I can deny the sky is red, and I can say it as a fact.  The fact that it is blue supports this and I am just in saying it.

If you deny that there is a god, the only thing backing you up is the lack of evidence, and it can only be stated as a belief, not a fact. 

To retort the statement about dragons having six limbs, if you read the book you would see the more realistic explanation.  There are lizards with wing-like fins formed from their rib cages, and these can be folded against the lizards body.  They use these wings to glide and control direction.  That is what dragon "wings" would be.  As to why there wouldn't be proto-dragons, maybe the hydrogen-producing bacteria came first in a species of dinosaur that could be considered similar in appearance to a dragon.  Also, Read The Book.  What I say is From The Book. I have only stated summaries, as I said before.  I cannot retype the whole thing.  Read it and then we can talk.  To help, it is The Flight of Dragons.  I'd give the author if I could find my copy of it, but anyone who doesn't get all their info about dragon myths from D&D and other recent fantasy games should know what I'm talking about anyway.  It is the predecessor for just about every book that goes into how dragons could exist.

Anyway, the point is that, like the dragon, there is no evidence of it, but there's nothing outright denying it.  Like God/gods.

[Idiom]

It was to illustrate that lack of belief was the simplest alternative with the least amount of assumptions.

That chart showed the change of the ideas. It only shows atheism hasn't evolved one bit. Tell me why a long paper on quantum physics and general relativity to explain a phenomena as autonomous is simpler than "God did it". All theism has according to that chart is a more complex history, not necessarily idea.

Um. You totally can. That the vary reason why Occosm razor exist, to eliminate other possibilities for the time being. It gives us focus, and reduces wasted effort.

We'd still have the plum pudding model if that were always the case. Occam's razor says what you should lean towards for focus. It proves nothing and so can reject and eliminate nothing. If you used it to reject as you do with religion, we wouldn't be where we are today.

The negative position is the default.

Are you going to quote another famous philosopher by name for this, or is that just you?

That why we need such tools as Occosm razor to help guide us to truth/correct.

How? According to Occam's razor I we should have ditched most modern theories that we investigated and found to be true.

[LegoLord]

No one here should even suggest a statement by a philosopher disproves anything.

They are not scientists.