logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2024-03-28 20:35:18 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Open for business: The CoV Store!

  Church of Virus BBS
  General
  Church Doctrine

  Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: Revisiting the Great Faith Wars  (Read 20550 times)
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4290
Reputation: 8.92
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #45 on: 2009-12-21 02:36:41 »
Reply with quote

[Mermaid] you wouldnt understand. you are not a woman. fuck off, please.

[Hermit] By Mermaid's "logic" (and while she becomes personal while ignoring or forgetting that there are two hermits, one female) has she has just asserted that as a woman and housewife, she is incompetent to comment on anything bar women's issues and concerns of the home maker? That might explain an awful lot. I just wish she had not been quite so vociferous when babbling on about matters which she couldn't understand.

[Mermaid] if you still want to flap your lips....talk about the mandatory/predatory circumcision of male children that is supposed to protect their future bedmates from..yes..cervical cancer. you know..that which has the blessings of the medical community..doctors, researchers and scientists.

[Hermit] Some in the medical community perhaps. Maybe those performing the highest number of circumcisions outside of Israel? This laughable assertion by Mermaid is almost certainly derived from a flawed study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2002 which asserted this, despite the readily available contradictory evidence that despite the fact that the USA has the highest circumcision rate in the Industrial world (83% in 1980) it simultaneously has the highest rate of cervical cancer. Most reputable medical institutions, including the American Cancer Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian Paediatric Society reject this thesis.

[Hermit] Still, female genital mutilation practically eliminates sexual activity by women - which prevents the transmission of STDs except through their husbands. Does this mean that Mermaid has flipped and is now advocating genital mutilation for girls and boys?

[Hermit] Mermaid had you considered hormone replacement therapy?
« Last Edit: 2009-12-21 03:24:51 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Mermaid
Archon
****

Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.79
Rate Mermaid



Bite me!

View Profile
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #46 on: 2009-12-21 03:48:30 »
Reply with quote

if the 'female' hermit wants to give her opinion, get her an ID on cov. this is convenient for you to keep dragging her into your screeds whenever you find that you need it. are we to assume that mr and mrs hermit are contributing to every single post you make here? perhaps you should sign off if that is the case? this is you lacking integrity. please ask the hermitess to gain a cov ID if she wishes to make her pov known.

moving on..

it is very simple. big pharma and the medical community wants young girls to get (a very expensive) vaccine that purports to prevent cervical cancer. you are willing to buy into that even though the vaccine is brand spanking new.

israelites before the american medical community have insisted on male circumcision. it is certainly an older practice to nick little boys' penii so that the women they shag in the future can avoid cervical cancer. circumcised by default. happens all over the united states. not by a rabbi, but by doctors and approved by most of the medical community. nobody went up in arms. they comply.

why are you reluctant to embrace the preventative measure(that is actually relevant to your gender) while you are convinced about gardasil. could it be that you(and the hermitess, altho' i'll just take your word that she agrees with you on everything you spew here) are willing to subject your child to a relatively untested vaccine because 'scientists' approve?

you faith in science is...how you say...very touching. and fucking stupid.

or perhaps you are vociferous in your support to the cervical cancer(hpv actually) vaccine because it is shunned by the religious community who preach abstinence. are you selectively 'pro-science' and support modern medicine only when it doesnt involve your junk?

what does female genital mutilation got to do with anything? wtf are you talking about? i have never heard the medical community endorse FGM.

have you considered a brain transplant?

Quote from: Hermit on 2009-12-21 02:36:41   
[Mermaid] you wouldnt understand. you are not a woman. fuck off, please.

[Hermit] By Mermaid's "logic" (and while she becomes personal while ignoring or forgetting that there are two hermits, one female) has she has just asserted that as a woman and housewife, she is incompetent to comment on anything bar women's issues and concerns of the home maker? That might explain an awful lot. I just wish she had not been quite so vociferous when babbling on about matters which she couldn't understand.

[Mermaid] if you still want to flap your lips....talk about the mandatory/predatory circumcision of male children that is supposed to protect their future bedmates from..yes..cervical cancer. you know..that which has the blessings of the medical community..doctors, researchers and scientists.

[Hermit] Some in the medical community perhaps. Maybe those performing the highest number of circumcisions outside of Israel? This laughable assertion by Mermaid is almost certainly derived from a flawed study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2002 which asserted this, despite the readily available contradictory evidence that despite the fact that the USA has the highest circumcision rate in the Industrial world (83% in 1980) it simultaneously has the highest rate of cervical cancer. Most reputable medical institutions, including the American Cancer Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian Paediatric Society reject this thesis.

[Hermit] Still, female genital mutilation practically eliminates sexual activity by women - which prevents the transmission of STDs except through their husbands. Does this mean that Mermaid has flipped and is now advocating genital mutilation for girls and boys?

[Hermit] Mermaid had you considered hormone replacement therapy?
« Last Edit: 2009-12-21 03:50:31 by Mermaid » Report to moderator   Logged
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4290
Reputation: 8.92
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #47 on: 2009-12-21 05:06:12 »
Reply with quote

[Mermaid] <snip>

[Hermit] You do have balls of steel  to continue spewing after that all too public brain infarct. And you do it in such a delightfully artless way too. Is it part and parcel of your anger management issues and poor comprehension that lets you stir, take umbrage at nothing at all and then have a tantrum about it? Do you think we should discuss this, your husband's role in your life, your relationship with him, your incompetence to post on issues due to your sex, your potty mouth and your relentless urge to insinuate your halfwitted advice about other people's relationships into your postings?

[Hermit] The US has an epidemic of STDs. One of them is nasty, causes cancer and is easily prevented by immunising females. Hopefully the studies (currently underway) into whether it protects males will be in the affirmative. If it does, I'll advocate it for all children, just as I recommend they all brush their teeth, wash their hands after using the toilet and take other sensible precautions.

[Hermit] All any vaccine does is it sensitises the immune system to a particular virus. If the person is subsequently exposed to the virus, it helps their body fight it more effectively. If they are never exposed to the virus, it does nothing. The effectiveness of a vaccine can be tested in vitro as well as through epidemiological analysis. So even before the vaccination program began, we knew it would work. With over 25 million vaccinated so far, with minimal side-effects and a good histological response, we know that this vaccine behaved exactly as expected. So this, like most immunization programs. is a clear case of first doing no harm, and even better, doing a huge amount of good.

[Hermit] Male genital mutilation indubitably causes harm (results in more bacterial infections, reduces lubrication and sensitivity) and evidentially is not sufficient to protect women from cervical cancer (refer my previous post). Being as delusional as you present yourself as being, the United States medical community adopted circumcision as an anti-masturbatory technique in the late 1800s (refer e.g. http://www.cirp.org/pages/whycirc.html), not on any valid medical grounds.

[Hermit] Trying to draw parallels between these two incomparable things is as asinine as trying to compare modern astronomy and astrology, even if the astrology has imaginary moons and you assert that it is "sidereal."

[Hermit] I don't comprehend your hysterical response to a life saving vaccination.  Equally I can't understand why you have an issue with female genital mutilation or why you can't comprehend its relevance to your ravings. If you can claim,  based on deeply improbable assertion, that male genital mutilation is good because you believe in the face of the evidence that it protects women from a particular STD, then you ought to accept that female genital mutilation, which unarguably reduces the transmission of STDs (along with sexual drive, pleasure and activity), is even better and so ought to embrace female genital mutilation with enthusiasm. The fact that you appear not to be doing so should be sufficient to allow you to recognize that the cognitive dissonance you are experiencing is due to your irrational sexist outlook - and take steps to correct it. I won't hold my breath - or advocate sexual mutilation of anyone - but sometimes I do wish you would hold yours.

[Hermit] I don't need a brain transplant - it isn't me engaging in a hissy fit in a public forum.


PS The female Hermit elected not  to participate in this particular thread because she thinks that it is "too silly". I suggest the silliness is yours. Why not work on it.
« Last Edit: 2009-12-21 05:08:54 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
David Lucifer
Archon
*****

Posts: 2641
Reputation: 8.89
Rate David Lucifer



Enlighten me.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #48 on: 2009-12-21 10:18:51 »
Reply with quote

[Lucifer] Yada, yada

[Hermit] Blah, blah, blah

[Lucifer] It appears that you haven't read or understood my claim so let me try again. If A is true, then ~A is false. Any evidence in favour of A is necessarily evidence against ~A. Do you still disagree?




[Lucifer] No one should go about trashing astrology, tarot, or anything else without evidence,

[Hermit] This is GW Bush grade logic. How about Saddam's nuclear weapons, ready to be launched on Europe with 45 minutes notice? How was he supposed to prove that these figments of malicious American invention were not real? Now about those fairies on my garden wall? Or about the IPU and the FSM? What can mountains of evidence about anything ever say to these figments? They are not real so all your evidence can address might be aspects of what is asserted for them, if that. If it does, you might catch them in a contradiction (like her infinite pinkness) but that leaves you trying to deal with the pre-emptive counter-assertion that the IPU is, like most females, contrary in nature, and it is part of her special mystery and allure that she embraces contradiction, and thus your evidence strengthens the supposition that she is in fact immensely more significant than your futile logic which cannot embrace such awe inspiring oneness.

[Lucifer] There must be very good reasons to believe that the examples you list don't exist, given you don't believe they exist. Those reasons count as evidence.




[Lucifer] Personal experience is just another form of evidence, specifically anecdotal evidence.

[Hermit] Unless there is external physical evidence and a contemporaneous recording, anecdotal evidence is utterly worthless, because, as, inter alia, any half-way competent lawyer knows and often can prove, the human mind is almost infinitely fallible. Deliberate fraud is even more difficult to address.

[Lucifer] Nonsense. I bet you trust your personal experience every time you cross the street.
« Last Edit: 2009-12-21 11:16:45 by David Lucifer » Report to moderator   Logged
David Lucifer
Archon
*****

Posts: 2641
Reputation: 8.89
Rate David Lucifer



Enlighten me.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #49 on: 2009-12-21 10:45:39 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-20 16:13:22   

anectodal evidence is biased, i agree. but if you are going to take someone's(say dawkins) word that astrology is bunk, how different is it from taking someone's word that astrology predicts the future?

If I'm going to just take someone's word for it then it depends entirely on their reputation. In Dawkins's case, he has earned a very high reputation with me as a clear thinker based on a huge body of work spanning decades. But usually I don't take someone's word for, I evaluate their arguments.


Quote:

the kind of astrology(sun signs) you mention is iffy, i agree, but the one i studied that is called sidereal astrology is entirely different.

Is this wikipedia article accurate? If sidereal astrology is based on the premise that constellations can be used to predict someone's future you can forgive me for being skeptical. What possible mechanism is involved? How exactly does astrology, homeopathy, tarot, crystal reading, etc. differ from superstition?

Report to moderator   Logged
Mermaid
Archon
****

Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.79
Rate Mermaid



Bite me!

View Profile
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #50 on: 2009-12-21 12:58:52 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: David Lucifer on 2009-12-21 10:45:39   


Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-20 16:13:22   

anectodal evidence is biased, i agree. but if you are going to take someone's(say dawkins) word that astrology is bunk, how different is it from taking someone's word that astrology predicts the future?

If I'm going to just take someone's word for it then it depends entirely on their reputation. In Dawkins's case, he has earned a very high reputation with me as a clear thinker based on a huge body of work spanning decades. But usually I don't take someone's word for, I evaluate their arguments.

ok. we are getting somewhere now. let's break this down.

firstly, dawkin's reputation is not in the field astrology. shouldnt you take the word of someone whose field of expertise is astrology rather than one who thinks astrology is bunk?

let us substitute astrology with physics. would you take the word of a philosopher or accountant on whether physics is 'bunk'.

the reason i am arguing with you is not so that you can run your life around astrological predictions or to 'convert' you. my point is that you are just as much dogmatic in your stance on science and what you think is superstition just as any fundie deist would be dogmatic about ID and the denial of evolution.

in my opinion, if one cannot arrive at a logical and rational conclusion about *any* subject because of the nature of evidence at hand or the lack of it, the best position is 'i dont know'. there is no shame in saying 'i dont know.'

granted..there is a emotional factor involved when dawkins says that astrology or homeopathy is bunk. i bring up these two examples because i have seen evidence of the former working in certain conditions and i have absolute unshakable faith that latter is a valid healing modality. i speak of it because i think i understand those two disciplines and have spent some time studying it. i have no clue about tarot or crystal healing. i suspect crystal healing is bunk, but if someone claims to have benefited from that kind of therapy, i would not argue with them.

but there too is an emotional element when creationists bring up their theories. while i value rationality, we have to accept that as human beings we are not rational animals. we are rationalising creatures. we cannot divorce from ourselves all the emotions and feelings and silliness that makes us human. and yes..superstitions and blind faith too.

i am sure there is a perfectly good EP take on why humans are superstitious. it works. to take away a man's beliefs or superstitions is to yank off their crutches. what gives you or me or dawkins the right to do that? one can only live one's life. one can make their opinions known. and one will still only be preaching to the choir.

that you would choose dawkin's opinion on astrology(or ..i dont know.. simon singh's opinion on homeopathy) than mine only goes to show that you place more value in his pronouncements than mine. which is perfectly fine, but it is neither logical nor rational. because i am more intimately familiar with astrology and homeopathy than either of them because i have had personal experiences and i have taken the effort to study and understand them.


Quote:

Quote:

the kind of astrology(sun signs) you mention is iffy, i agree, but the one i studied that is called sidereal astrology is entirely different.

Is this wikipedia article accurate? If sidereal astrology is based on the premise that constellations can be used to predict someone's future you can forgive me for being skeptical. What possible mechanism is involved? How exactly does astrology, homeopathy, tarot, crystal reading, etc. differ from superstition?

re wiki's sidereal astrology link, i cant comment because i studied everything in tamil and sanskrit. but how does it work? i dont know. i cant give you any number of online links that tell you how it works, but it probably doesnt matter. i was only taught how to calculate. how it all works wasnt explained to me. and i doubt if the one who taught me knew it himself. he started with a basic belief..(a fundamental premise...that constellations affect future and life on earth.. upon which the entire subject was built upon) and worked on it. dont we have assumptions for every formal scientific experiment preceding method and observations?

which is probably why i am not an astrologer, but i know enough to understand that it is more than the newspaper variety of 'fortune telling'. it is beyond feel-good pronouncements.("your charts say that you will be rich." subject believes it...ventures into areas that he was reluctant to explore before..takes risks and becomes successful.) even if those are dismissed as a form of psychotherapy or hypnotism, astrology has other uses like predicting dates, eclipses, natural disasters and of course, very important for india, in the area of agriculture. i dont know what the future holds, but in old india, life revolved around the monsoons and sowing and harvesting. astrology was very important to us and our way of life.

i dont know how tarot works..i dont think it has any inherent power...altho' i would imagine that it does indeed have some use in that it helps a person tap into his subconscious impressions about the question asked. some say that the answer 'come from the universe'..perhaps it is just an observation that is conveyed without any filters or censors. and so it does have its use..especially if you read your own cards. it is an excellent way to dig deep into your mind.

re feng shui...i have no idea what it means. but in india, we have our own version called vaasthu shastra. i believe too that it is valid but only if it applied to houses built in india. like i said earlier, astrology, vaasthu etc were tools with which indians managed to live their lives. how a house is built..cross ventilation..the placement of windows/doors, vegetation all contribute to a better quality of life. i dont know how it will translate for an indian living in alaska, but in the land where the vaasthu shastra was penned, it is relevant.

i dont consider it superstition. just like you trust dawkins, indians trust their ancient texts and teachers as a fount of knowledge and an authority on their subjects. life is easier for us if we follow ayurveda and adopt a vegetarian diet. india's climate, population, societal traditions and genetic legacy makes all of what you think of as 'old fashioned and superstitious' work. why westerners adopt it, i dont know. you have to ask them that. but from my pov, what you see as 'superstition' has probably proved itself with results for most people who follow them.

let me ask you this:you have a choice... to be rational and miserable/depressed....or...to be superstitious and happy. what would you choose?

and what if you didnt have that choice?

empathy..a tad bit lacking.

Report to moderator   Logged
Mermaid
Archon
****

Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.79
Rate Mermaid



Bite me!

View Profile
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #51 on: 2009-12-21 13:14:36 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: Hermit on 2009-12-21 05:06:12   
[Mermaid] <snip>

[Hermit] You do have balls of steel  to continue spewing after that all too public brain infarct. And you do it in such a delightfully artless way too. Is it part and parcel of your anger management issues and poor comprehension that lets you stir, take umbrage at nothing at all and then have a tantrum about it? Do you think we should discuss this, your husband's role in your life, your relationship with him, your incompetence to post on issues due to your sex, your potty mouth and your relentless urge to insinuate your halfwitted advice about other people's relationships into your postings?


look. you brought it up. its more about you than about me. shame on you.

Quote:
[Hermit] The US has an epidemic of STDs. One of them is nasty, causes cancer and is easily prevented by immunising females. Hopefully the studies (currently underway) into whether it protects males will be in the affirmative. If it does, I'll advocate it for all children, just as I recommend they all brush their teeth, wash their hands after using the toilet and take other sensible precautions.


for some, that precaution is to abstain from sex. what is wrong with that? mandatory vaccinations is a travesty and a crime.

secondly. said hpv vaccine is NEW. how can you place your faith without question on something that is barely a few years old?

Quote:
[Hermit] All any vaccine does is it sensitises the immune system to a particular virus. If the person is subsequently exposed to the virus, it helps their body fight it more effectively. If they are never exposed to the virus, it does nothing. The effectiveness of a vaccine can be tested in vitro as well as through epidemiological analysis. So even before the vaccination program began, we knew it would work. With over 25 million vaccinated so far, with minimal side-effects and a good histological response, we know that this vaccine behaved exactly as expected. So this, like most immunization programs. is a clear case of first doing no harm, and even better, doing a huge amount of good.


once again..a person should still have a choice to whether they want to vaccinate themselves or not. perhaps society has to change it's sexual mores if hpv is such a big problem. individuals shouldnt have to be asked to subject themselves to forced vaccinations.

big pharma comes up with a vaccine made in it's labs to combat this particular std. the church teaches their kids to abstain. its the same thing..children's sexual lives arent theirs anymore..its not about making informed choices which would involve gaining knowledge, thinking about it and making a decision for which one is responsible. it is about 'listening' to a 'greater authority'. it just makes the general population dumber.

research also shows that cancer is also preventable if one follows a vegetarian diet. you dont see anyone converting the world population into vegetarians, do you? that wouldnt go down well..would it? 'studies' and science has it's limits. and the line is drawn when people are made to do something against their will.

Quote:
[Hermit] Male genital mutilation indubitably causes harm (results in more bacterial infections, reduces lubrication and sensitivity) and evidentially is not sufficient to protect women from cervical cancer (refer my previous post). Being as delusional as you present yourself as being, the United States medical community adopted circumcision as an anti-masturbatory technique in the late 1800s (refer e.g. http://www.cirp.org/pages/whycirc.html), not on any valid medical grounds.


untrue. and you know this. because you have argued exactly what i am arguing. you are merely spewing nonsense..picking what suits you in this particular exchange. i am not going to waste my time.

Quote:
[Hermit] Trying to draw parallels between these two incomparable things is as asinine as trying to compare modern astronomy and astrology, even if the astrology has imaginary moons and you assert that it is "sidereal."


astrology doesnt have make anyone violently ill as a side effect. and of course, astrology isnt forced upon anyone.

Quote:
[Hermit] I don't comprehend your hysterical response to a life saving vaccination.  Equally I can't understand why you have an issue with female genital mutilation or why you can't comprehend its relevance to your ravings.


once again, i didnt bring up FGM. you did. FGM has no place in this discussion because the medical community has never EVER endorsed it.

on the other hand, circumcision is routinely carried out as something beneficial to the general population by the medical community even in the absence of evidence that indeed prevents cancer.

Quote:
If you can claim,  based on deeply improbable assertion, that male genital mutilation is good because you believe in the face of the evidence that it protects women from a particular STD, then you ought to accept that female genital mutilation, which unarguably reduces the transmission of STDs (along with sexual drive, pleasure and activity), is even better and so ought to embrace female genital mutilation with enthusiasm.


nope. i didnt say that. i asked you why you dont support mandatory circumcision which has the support of the medical community even though one of it's supposed benefit is the prevention of cancer. i asked you why you dont endorse male circumcision while you are happy to embrace giving young girls a relatively new vaccine that make the same claim of preventing the same kind of cancer.

i really want to know this..because the vaccine is given to girls who are young and not had sex before. WE DONT KNOW if it works because enough time hasnt passed to test the claims of gardasil.

what makes you so sure that it will work? faith?

my objection is based on something more fundamental. this vaccine hasnt had time to prove itself...when we dont know how it works or if it has any harmful side effects,  because..once again..it hasnt had time to prove itself...why is it being made mandatory for certain sections of the population?

your faith wants to trample upon other's freedom of choice and their control over their health. to me, you are no different than a pro-lifer who thinks every sperm is sacred.

Quote:
The fact that you appear not to be doing so should be sufficient to allow you to recognize that the cognitive dissonance you are experiencing is due to your irrational sexist outlook - and take steps to correct it. I won't hold my breath - or advocate sexual mutilation of anyone - but sometimes I do wish you would hold yours.

[Hermit] I don't need a brain transplant - it isn't me engaging in a hissy fit in a public forum.


PS The female Hermit elected not  to participate in this particular thread because she thinks that it is "too silly". I suggest the silliness is yours. Why not work on it.


that's exactly what i expected the hermitess to say...

at least you didnt lie and 'speak' in her voice. i am impressed.
« Last Edit: 2009-12-21 13:20:31 by Mermaid » Report to moderator   Logged
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4290
Reputation: 8.92
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #52 on: 2009-12-21 14:08:06 »
Reply with quote

[Lucifer] It appears that you haven't read or understood my claim so let me try again. If A is true, then ~A is false. Any evidence in favour of A is necessarily evidence against ~A. Do you still disagree?

[Hermit] Your use of A is not standard. Conventionally A is that which supports (implies) B (ie the evidence). In your formulation, the outcome depends on the nature of A (is it really bimodal?) and the nature of the evidence; did you reject A because of the evidence supporting ~A or did you reject A because there was no evidence supporting A. If the latter then there may not be evidence supporting ~A either.


[Lucifer] No one should go about trashing astrology, tarot, or anything else without evidence,

[Hermit] This is GW Bush grade logic. How about Saddam's nuclear weapons, ready to be launched on Europe with 45 minutes notice? How was he supposed to prove that these figments of malicious American invention were not real? Now about those fairies on my garden wall? Or about the IPU and the FSM? What can mountains of evidence about anything ever say to these figments? They are not real so all your evidence can address might be aspects of what is asserted for them, if that. If it does, you might catch them in a contradiction (like her infinite pinkness) but that leaves you trying to deal with the pre-emptive counter-assertion that the IPU is, like most females, contrary in nature, and it is part of her special mystery and allure that she embraces contradiction, and thus your evidence strengthens the supposition that she is in fact immensely more significant than your futile logic which cannot embrace such awe inspiring oneness.

[Lucifer] There must be very good reasons to believe that the examples you list don't exist, given you don't believe they exist. Those reasons count as evidence.

[Hermit] I have said that I try not to vest belief in anything. Your assertions about me do not change this. If I did not rely on evidence to form my opinions, I might be dominated by the need not to vest disbelief in things; as there are an infinite number of non-existent things in which not to vest belief. Does it keep you up at night thinking about all these things and deciding in which ones you might or might not vest belief? For myself, I rely on classical reasoning and logic.  When you show me evidence necessitating any of these things, and a possible operating mechanism, I will consider them. Until then, like the fairies on the garden wall, there are no grounds to even consider them, let alone to vest belief in them.


[Lucifer] Personal experience is just another form of evidence, specifically anecdotal evidence.

[Hermit] Unless there is external physical evidence and a contemporaneous recording, anecdotal evidence is utterly worthless, because, as, inter alia, any half-way competent lawyer knows and often can prove, the human mind is almost infinitely fallible. Deliberate fraud is even more difficult to address.

[Lucifer] Nonsense. I bet you trust your personal experience every time you cross the street.

[Hermit] As I don't make a habit of talking to myself, I don't rely on anecdotal experience - which is all I was addressing - to inform my judgement about the world. When other people tell me things (anecdotal evidence) I establish a provisional value for what they tell me based on many factors. I don't see what this has to do with crossing the street. Please have some basis for saying "nonsense" to me which is related to what I say, rather than your abuse of words.

wikipediaThe expression anecdotal evidence has two distinct meanings.

(1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity; the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy.

(2) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.

In both cases the conclusion is unreliable; it may not be untrue, but it doesn't follow from the "evidence".

Evidence can be anecdotal in both senses: "Goat yogurt prolongs life: I heard that a man in a mountain village who ate only yogurt lived to 120."

The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a "typical" experience; statistical evidence can more accurately determine how typical something is.

When used in advertising or promotion of a product, service, or idea, anecdotal reports are often called a testimonial, which are banned in some jurisdictions.[citation needed] The term is also sometimes used in a legal context to describe certain kinds of testimony. Psychologists have found that people are more likely to remember notable examples than typical examples.
« Last Edit: 2009-12-21 16:29:46 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
David Lucifer
Archon
*****

Posts: 2641
Reputation: 8.89
Rate David Lucifer



Enlighten me.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #53 on: 2009-12-21 16:58:11 »
Reply with quote

[Lucifer] It appears that you haven't read or understood my claim so let me try again. If A is true, then ~A is false. Any evidence in favour of A is necessarily evidence against ~A. Do you still disagree?

[Hermit] Your use of A is not standard. Conventionally A is that which supports (implies) B (ie the evidence). In your formulation, the outcome depends on the nature of A (is it really bimodal?) and the nature of the evidence; did you reject A because of the evidence supporting ~A or did you reject A because there was no evidence supporting A. If the latter then there may not be evidence supporting ~A either.

[Lucifer] I can use B or P or X if that helps. If there is no evidence supporting X or ~X then I neither accept or reject X, it is unknown (probability = 0.5 or 1:1 odds is equivalent to 0 bits of evidence). If I accept X it is because there is sufficient evidence to support X or sufficient evidence to reject ~X.




[Hermit] I have said that I try not to vest belief in anything. Your assertions about me do not change this. If I did not rely on evidence to form my opinions, I might be dominated by the need not to vest disbelief in things; as there are an infinite number of non-existent things in which not to vest belief. Does it keep you up at night thinking about all these things and deciding in which ones you might or might not vest belief? For myself, I rely on classical reasoning and logic.  When you show me evidence necessitating any of these things, and a possible operating mechanism, I will consider them. Until then, like the fairies on the garden wall, there are no grounds to even consider them, let alone to vest belief in them.

[Lucifer]Feel free to substitute your neologism "weyken" for belief in the above and try again.




[Lucifer] Personal experience is just another form of evidence, specifically anecdotal evidence.

[Hermit] Unless there is external physical evidence and a contemporaneous recording, anecdotal evidence is utterly worthless, because, as, inter alia, any half-way competent lawyer knows and often can prove, the human mind is almost infinitely fallible. Deliberate fraud is even more difficult to address.

[Lucifer] Nonsense. I bet you trust your personal experience every time you cross the street.

[Hermit] As I don't make a habit of talking to myself, I don't rely on anecdotal experience - which is all I was addressing - to inform my judgement about the world. When other people tell me things (anecdotal evidence) I establish a provisional value for what they tell me based on many factors. I don't see what this has to do with crossing the street. Please have some basis for saying "nonsense" to me which is related to what I say, rather than your abuse of words.

wikipediaThe expression anecdotal evidence has two distinct meanings.

(1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity; the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy.

(2) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.

In both cases the conclusion is unreliable; it may not be untrue, but it doesn't follow from the "evidence".

Evidence can be anecdotal in both senses: "Goat yogurt prolongs life: I heard that a man in a mountain village who ate only yogurt lived to 120."

The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a "typical" experience; statistical evidence can more accurately determine how typical something is.

When used in advertising or promotion of a product, service, or idea, anecdotal reports are often called a testimonial, which are banned in some jurisdictions.[citation needed] The term is also sometimes used in a legal context to describe certain kinds of testimony. Psychologists have found that people are more likely to remember notable examples than typical examples.

[Lucifer] OK, I retract my claim that personal experience is a form of anecdotal evidence. Personal experience is a form of evidence. When you cross the street you rely on personal experience to determine whether or not it is safe. Do you disagree?
Report to moderator   Logged
David Lucifer
Archon
*****

Posts: 2641
Reputation: 8.89
Rate David Lucifer



Enlighten me.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #54 on: 2009-12-21 17:26:16 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-21 12:58:52   
ok. we are getting somewhere now. let's break this down.

firstly, dawkin's reputation is not in the field astrology. shouldnt you take the word of someone whose field of expertise is astrology rather than one who thinks astrology is bunk?


I don't recall Dawkins making any pronouncements about astrology, but we can guess what he would say. And he has made some rather critical pronouncements about religion, and the same question has been brought up so it is worth addressing. Why should we believe Dawkins on religion over the experts (clergy)? The reason is that if the basic assumptions of the "experts" are wrong, it doesn't matter how many libraries they fill with discussions based on the assumptions. If god doesn't exist (and we can be almost certain that he doesn't), the rest is just castles built on quicksand.

Since we know that constellations are actually stars in space and not patterns of holes in the firmament letting light through at night, and we know that viewed from another perspective off earth the patterns disappear, and that the speed of light means that any interactions with these stars would take thousands or millions of years to reach earth, then the fundamental assumptions of astrology cannot be true.

Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-21 12:58:52   
granted..there is a emotional factor involved when dawkins says that astrology or homeopathy is bunk. i bring up these two examples because i have seen evidence of the former working in certain conditions and i have absolute unshakable faith that latter is a valid healing modality. i speak of it because i think i understand those two disciplines and have spent some time studying it. i have no clue about tarot or crystal healing. i suspect crystal healing is bunk, but if someone claims to have benefited from that kind of therapy, i would not argue with them.

but there too is an emotional element when creationists bring up their theories. while i value rationality, we have to accept that as human beings we are not rational animals. we are rationalising creatures. we cannot divorce from ourselves all the emotions and feelings and silliness that makes us human. and yes..superstitions and blind faith too.

i am sure there is a perfectly good EP take on why humans are superstitious. it works. to take away a man's beliefs or superstitions is to yank off their crutches. what gives you or me or dawkins the right to do that? one can only live one's life. one can make their opinions known. and one will still only be preaching to the choir.

that you would choose dawkin's opinion on astrology(or ..i dont know.. simon singh's opinion on homeopathy) than mine only goes to show that you place more value in his pronouncements than mine. which is perfectly fine, but it is neither logical nor rational. because i am more intimately familiar with astrology and homeopathy than either of them because i have had personal experiences and i have taken the effort to study and understand them.


On homeopathy I could take your word for it or I could believe the body of scientific studies that have examined it.

For example, from wikipedia:

Quote:
Claims of homeopathy's efficacy beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence.[8][9][10][11][12] While some studies have positive results, systematic reviews of all the published trials fail to conclusively demonstrate efficacy.[13][14][15][16][17] Furthermore, higher quality trials tend to report less positive results,[15][18] and most positive studies have not been replicated or show methodological problems that prevent them from being considered unambiguous evidence of homeopathy's efficacy.[8][11][19][20]

Homeopathic remedies generally contain few or no pharmacologically active molecules,[21] and for such remedies to have pharmacological effect would violate fundamental principles of science.[12][22] Modern homeopaths have proposed that water has a memory that allows homeopathic preparations to work without any of the original substance; however, the physics of water are well understood, and no known mechanism permits such a memory.[22][23] The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting homeopathy's efficacy[24] and its use of remedies lacking active ingredients have caused homeopathy to be described as pseudoscience or quackery.[25][26][27][28][29]

8. Ernst E (2002), "A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy", Br J Clin Pharmacol 54 (6): 577–582, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2125.2002.01699.x, PMID 12492603
9. "Homeopathy - Issues", National Health Service, retrieved 2009-07-30
10. AMA Council on Scientific Affairs (1997), "Alternative Medicine: Report 12 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (A–97)", American Medical Association, retrieved 2009-03-25.
11.  Altunç U, Pittler MH, Ernst E (2007), "Homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments: systematic review of randomized clinical trials", Mayo Clin Proc 82 (1): 69–75, doi:10.4065/82.1.69, PMID 17285788, "However, homeopathy is not totally devoid of risks ... it may delay effective treatment or diagnosis."
12. Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, Jüni P, Dörig S, Sterne JA, Pewsner D, Egger M (2005), "Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy", Lancet 366 (9487): 726–732, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2, PMID 16125589
13. Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G (1991), "Clinical trials of homoeopathy", BMJ 302 (6772): 316–323, doi:10.1136/bmj.302.6772.316, PMID 1825800
14. Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G et al. (1997), "Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials", Lancet 350 (9081): 834–43, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)02293-9, PMID 9310601
15. Linde K, Scholz M, Ramirez G, Clausius N, Melchart D, Jonas WB (1999), "Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy", J Clin Epidemiol 52 (7): 631–636, doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00048-7, PMID 10391656.
16. Boissel J, Cucherat M, Haugh MC, Gooch M (2000), "Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. HMRAG. Homeopathic Medicines Research Advisory Group", Eur J Clin Pharmacol 56 (1): 27–33, PMID 10853874
17. Mathie RT (2003), "The research evidence base for homeopathy: a fresh assessment of the literature", Homeopathy 92 (2): 84–91, PMID 12725250
18. Caulfield T, Debow S (2005), "A systematic review of how homeopathy is represented in conventional and CAM peer reviewed journals", BMC Complement Altern Med 5: 12, doi:10.1186/1472-6882-5-12, PMID 15955254.
19. Toufexis A, Cole W, Hallanan DB (25 September 1995), "Is homeopathy good medicine?", Time
20. Linde K, Jonas WB, Melchart D, Willich S (2001), "The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of homeopathy, herbal medicines and acupuncture", Int J Epidemiol 30 (3): 526–531, doi:10.1093/ije/30.3.526, PMID 11416076.
21. Ernst E (2005), "Is homeopathy a clinically valuable approach?", Trends Pharmacol Sci 26 (11): 547–8, doi:10.1016/j.tips.2005.09.003, PMID 16165225.
22. "When to believe the unbelievable", Nature 333 (6176): 787, 1988, doi:10.1038/333787a0
23. Maddox, J.; Randi, J.; Stewart, W. (1988). ""High-dilution" experiments a delusion.". Nature 334 (6180): 287–291. doi:10.1038/334287a0. PMID 2455869. edit
24. Adler J (4 February 2008), "No way to treat the dying", Newsweek.
25. National Science Board (2002), "Science Fiction and Pseudoscience", Science and engineering indicators 2002, Arlington, Virginia: National Science Foundation Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences
26. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. (1842), Homoeópathy and its kindred delusions: Two lectures delivered before the Boston Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, Boston as reprinted in Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. (1861). Currents and Counter-currents in Medical Science. Ticknor and Fields. pp. 72–188. OCLC 1544161.
27. Wahlberg A (2007), "A quackery with a difference—New medical pluralism and the problem of 'dangerous practitioners' in the United Kingdom", Soc Sci Med 65 (11): 2307–2316, doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.07.024, PMID 17719708
28. Atwood KC (2003), "'Neurocranial Restructuring' and Homeopathy, Neither Complementary nor Alternative (Letters to the Editor)", Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck 129 (12): 1356–1357, doi:10.1001/archotol.129.12.1356, PMID 14676179.
29. Ernst E, Pittler MH (1998), "Efficacy of homeopathic arnica: a systematic review of placebo-controlled clinical trials", Arch Surg 133 (11): 1187–90, doi:10.1001/archsurg.133.11.1187, PMID 9820349.


I'm leaning pretty heavily toward pseudoscience or quackery

Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-21 12:58:52   
i dont know how tarot works..i dont think it has any inherent power...altho' i would imagine that it does indeed have some use in that it helps a person tap into his subconscious impressions about the question asked. some say that the answer 'come from the universe'..perhaps it is just an observation that is conveyed without any filters or censors. and so it does have its use..especially if you read your own cards. it is an excellent way to dig deep into your mind.

re feng shui...i have no idea what it means. but in india, we have our own version called vaasthu shastra. i believe too that it is valid but only if it applied to houses built in india. like i said earlier, astrology, vaasthu etc were tools with which indians managed to live their lives. how a house is built..cross ventilation..the placement of windows/doors, vegetation all contribute to a better quality of life. i dont know how it will translate for an indian living in alaska, but in the land where the vaasthu shastra was penned, it is relevant.

i dont consider it superstition. just like you trust dawkins, indians trust their ancient texts and teachers as a fount of knowledge and an authority on their subjects. life is easier for us if we follow ayurveda and adopt a vegetarian diet. india's climate, population, societal traditions and genetic legacy makes all of what you think of as 'old fashioned and superstitious' work. why westerners adopt it, i dont know. you have to ask them that. but from my pov, what you see as 'superstition' has probably proved itself with results for most people who follow them.

let me ask you this:you have a choice... to be rational and miserable/depressed....or...to be superstitious and happy. what would you choose?

and what if you didnt have that choice?

empathy..a tad bit lacking.


I agree with you about tarot, it is an interesting way to explore the subconscious. But I highly doubt there is anything supernatural.

As for feng shui, it seems to be OK as an interior decorating aesthetic, but ascribing anything more to it is just superstition.

That's quite the dilemma you present: rational and miserable/depressed.... or...to be superstitious and happy. How would you choose between intelligent/educated/miserable or stupid/ignorant/happy?
« Last Edit: 2009-12-21 17:43:48 by David Lucifer » Report to moderator   Logged
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.85
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #55 on: 2009-12-21 18:24:02 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-20 16:13:22   

...if you are going to take someone's(say dawkins) word that astrology is bunk, how different is it from taking someone's word that astrology predicts the future?

[Blunderov] I don't think that Dawkins does in fact say that anything is bunk. What he does say is that experiments show that there is no basis to some popular beliefs. He does not aver that he has refuted these various claims. He merely demonstrates that the evidence for them is insufficient. This may at first glance appear to be an argument from ignorance but this is not so because he draws no conclusions other than that certain inferences cannot reliably be drawn from the evidence presented. Nor is he simply mincing words or preferring his own favoured axioms at the expense of other viable, if different, axioms. Dawkins does not need to be an expert crystal healer, clairvoyant or trickle down economist to question the reasoning upon which they are based. Astrologers, priests, numerologists - everybody - is constrained, a priori, to speak in terms of cause and effect. The minutiae of the various claims are not relevant to this conversation.

Superstition is the intractable belief that a pattern of cause and effect has been shown when this is actually not the case. What if "it" (reading entrails or whatever) works for some people anyway? Hooray. But "it" (dowsing for instance) remains a superstition until the evidence shows that the method produces results beyond those that could be expected from random outcomes. So, for me the (rhetorical)question is should people be encouraged to depend upon blind chance for peace of mind? Or is there a better way?
Report to moderator   Logged
Mermaid
Archon
****

Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.79
Rate Mermaid



Bite me!

View Profile
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #56 on: 2009-12-21 18:40:48 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: David Lucifer on 2009-12-21 17:26:16   


I don't recall Dawkins making any pronouncements about astrology, but we can guess what he would say. And he has made some rather critical pronouncements about religion, and the same question has been brought up so it is worth addressing. Why should we believe Dawkins on religion over the experts (clergy)? The reason is that if the basic assumptions of the "experts" are wrong, it doesn't matter how many libraries they fill with discussions based on the assumptions. If god doesn't exist (and we can be almost certain that he doesn't), the rest is just castles built on quicksand.

i do believe that's what he meant by superstitions...ref: blunderov's post.


Quote:
Since we know that constellations are actually stars in space and not patterns of holes in the firmament letting light through at night, and we know that viewed from another perspective off earth the patterns disappear, and that the speed of light means that any interactions with these stars would take thousands or millions of years to reach earth, then the fundamental assumptions of astrology cannot be true.

this is right if you examine the assumption. astrology does no such thing. it works on the basis of certain premises and builds upon it. there is sufficient evidence that astrology has indeed been accurate. i can vouch for it if you care to take my word for it.


Quote:


On homeopathy I could take your word for it or I could believe the body of scientific studies that have examined it.

For example, from wikipedia:

unless the 'body of scientific studies' are practicing homeopaths, i think the proof isnt valid. on the other hand, there are like thousands of books on homeopathy and study material and case studies etc. perhaps you should go to amazon instead of wikipedia?

the bone of contention is the high dilution. the studies do not take into account the results from homeopathy. this is shocking to me. it's like saying that the sky is purple and red when you can clearly see that it is blue. i have had shelter animals recover from chronic and acute illnesses with nothing more than homeopathy. i have heard that infants respond to homeopathy which strikes out the 'placebo' argument against homeopathy. i am loathe to discuss my personal medical history, but i can tell you that i am off medication that i had been taking for the past 15 years. every lab test result(which i promised my GP that i will take every six months) that proves that homeopathy works befuddles my GP(who is a medical doctor from stanford) and my homeopath(who is also a MD from stanford medical school).


Quote:
I'm leaning pretty heavily toward pseudoscience or quackery

i still work with homeopathy and shelter animals. i have benefitted directly and have seen numerous cases where it has worked. it's going to take more than wiki to convince me otherwise.

most of these studies are funded by big pharma. one bottle of liquid remedy costs $26.50 including shipping by fedex. without insurance. there is a vested interest for certain parties to eliminate alternative medicine. altho' i dont consider homeopathy alternative medicine. there is nothing 'alternative' about it..it's another school of thought advocating a different healing modality..who made allopathy mainstream and why should i accept it? my grandmother and mother did not grow up with allopathy medicine and vaccinations. to tell me that their lives were 'alternative' is ..how to put it politely...it's funny.


Quote:

Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-21 12:58:52   

i dont know how tarot works.[...]

let me ask you this:you have a choice... to be rational and miserable/depressed....or...to be superstitious and happy. what would you choose?

and what if you didnt have that choice?

empathy..a tad bit lacking.

I agree with you about tarot, it is an interesting way to explore the subconscious. But I highly doubt there is anything supernatural.

As for feng shui, it seems to be OK as an interior decorating aesthetic, but ascribing anything more to it is just superstition.

here's the deal. once again, i cant speak for feng shui..but it's indian cousin, vaasthu, is not 'superstition'..its a way of life for us..it is something that was part of indian culture and tradition. it is superstition to the westerners because they are adopting something that has no resonance to them.


Quote:

That's quite the dilemma you present: rational and miserable/depressed.... or...to be superstitious and happy. How would you choose between intelligent/educated/miserable or stupid/ignorant/happy?

consider this.. "rational, intelligent, educated, stupid, ignorant" are judgements. it's a label you stick on others.

"miserable, depressed, happy" ..it's more personal. our decisions give birth to these states of mind. the decisions we make and it's outcome affect us and us only.

is it less of a dilemma now?

it's easier for me.

1. people should be less judgemental and mind their own beeswax.
2. people ought to be themselves without fear of criticisms and judgements.
3. everyone should have the freedom to do what they do to themselves.

to grudge another's peace of mind/calm/happiness through judgement and criticism is petty, unnecessary and is a position that lacks empathy.

Report to moderator   Logged
Mermaid
Archon
****

Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.79
Rate Mermaid



Bite me!

View Profile
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #57 on: 2009-12-21 18:43:27 »
Reply with quote

i thought you mentioned dawkins said something to that effect.

i do know that simon singh has plenty to say about homeopathy, but even in his book about 'alternative' healing modalities..(i forget the name), he is kinder to homeopathy and leaves it open ended. he is brutal towards chiropractors tho'...led to a law suit and he had to retract his statements because he couldnt afford the legal fight due to lack of funds.

eta: if anyone cares:
http://www.amazon.com/Homeopathy-Science-Myth-Bill-Gray/dp/1556433328

the simon singh book: i really liked it..gave me a lot to think about..

http://www.amazon.com/Trick-Treatment-Undeniable-Alternative-Medicine/dp/0393066614



Quote from: Blunderov on 2009-12-21 18:24:02   

Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-20 16:13:22   
...if you are going to take someone's(say dawkins) word that astrology is bunk, how different is it from taking someone's word that astrology predicts the future?


[Blunderov] I don't think that Dawkins does in fact say that anything is bunk. What he does say is that experiments show that there is no basis to some popular beliefs. He does not aver that he has refuted these various claims. He merely demonstrates that the evidence for them is insufficient. This may at first glance appear to be an argument from ignorance but this is not so because he draws no conclusions other than that certain inferences cannot reliably be drawn from the evidence presented. Nor is he simply mincing words or preferring his own favoured axioms at the expense of other viable, if different, axioms. Dawkins does not need to be an expert crystal healer, clairvoyant or trickle down economist to question the reasoning upon which they are based. Astrologers, priests, numerologists - everybody - is constrained, a priori, to speak in terms of cause and effect. The minutiae of the various claims are not relevant to this conversation.

Superstition is the intractable belief that a pattern of cause and effect has been shown when this is actually not the case. What if "it" (reading entrails or whatever) works for some people anyway? Hooray. But "it" (dowsing for instance) remains a superstition until the evidence shows that the method produces results beyond those that could be expected from random outcomes. So, for me the (rhetorical)question is should people be encouraged to depend upon blind chance for peace of mind? Or is there a better way?
« Last Edit: 2009-12-21 18:47:53 by Mermaid » Report to moderator   Logged
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4290
Reputation: 8.92
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #58 on: 2009-12-22 06:38:31 »
Reply with quote

[Lucifer] It appears that you haven't read or understood my claim so let me try again. If A is true, then ~A is false. Any evidence in favour of A is necessarily evidence against ~A. Do you still disagree?

[Hermit] Your use of A is not standard. Conventionally A is that which supports (implies) B (ie the evidence). In your formulation, the outcome depends on the nature of A (is it really bimodal?) and the nature of the evidence; did you reject A because of the evidence supporting ~A or did you reject A because there was no evidence supporting A. If the latter then there may not be evidence supporting ~A either.

[Lucifer] I can use B or P or X if that helps. If there is no evidence supporting X or ~X then I neither accept or reject X, it is unknown (probability = 0.5 or 1:1 odds is equivalent to 0 bits of evidence). If I accept X it is because there is sufficient evidence to support X or sufficient evidence to reject ~X.

[Hermit] In this case the symbols don't matter, but you appear to be confusing logic (truth as membership in vaguely defined sets) with likelihood (probability* of an event occurring), which does. As far as I am aware, and have been arguing, we are trying to deal with a logical problem. Probability can only change when the logic is applicable, but does not change the logic itself.

[Hermit] The two major problems, which you seem to be ignoring, are that most problems are not bimodal and that negation of a universal does not prove the compliment. For example, following Aristotle, let A be "All men are quadripeds." Now I show you a man with two legs, which is evidence which falsifies the statement. What it does not do is prove the negative, "No men are quadripeds", but rather only a specific case, "Some men are not quadripeds." Following on this, if a card has blue on the one side, and red green or yellow on the other, and you see a green card, what foes this tell you about the other side of the card? Now, if you see a purple card, does that tell you anything about what is on the other side? Now, formally, let A be "Has Attribute Blue" and B be "Opposite side has one of attributes Red, Green or Yellow" and let us say that A implies B.  Can you see that you can absolutely confirm than A is purple, and thus that the statement is false (not supported) and still not be able to tell a damn thing about B. Further, you can absolutely confirm that A is Red, Green or Yellow and absolutely would have to turn over the card to tell the colour of the other side because the rule is only about IFF the one side is blue, the reverse is not implied. Test yourself. If the rule is "If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side." then which of the following cards must you turn over to validate the rule?

EF29


[Hermit] Now do you understand my objection? If not, you might find study of Aristotle's "square of opposition" helpful. Not very clear from the wikipedia article is that he divided problems into:
Contradictories where one must be true and one must be false (whay I think you are trying to address)
Contraries where both cannot be true at the same time and both may be false
Subcontraries where one only can be false and both may be true simultaneously
Subalternans where both may be true and both may be false, but if true the subalternate is true, if the subalternate is false the subalternans is false, if the subalternans is false the subalternate is indeterminate and if the subalternate is true then the subalternans is indeterminate.
In my opinion, all of these cases but the first contradict your assertiont.


[Hermit] I have said that I try not to vest belief in anything. Your assertions about me do not change this. If I did not rely on evidence to form my opinions, I might be dominated by the need not to vest disbelief in things; as there are an infinite number of non-existent things in which not to vest belief. Does it keep you up at night thinking about all these things and deciding in which ones you might or might not vest belief? For myself, I rely on classical reasoning and logic.  When you show me evidence necessitating any of these things, and a possible operating mechanism, I will consider them. Until then, like the fairies on the garden wall, there are no grounds to even consider them, let alone to vest belief in them.

[Lucifer]Feel free to substitute your neologism "weyken" for belief in the above and try again.

[Hermit] It doesn't help the case. I cannot weyken in the absence of evidence supporting the thing and a mechanism implying it. I don't know it to be true. Neither do I know it to be false. Nor do I have any need to know this to reject it as a proposition. Let me propose that there are undetectable Leprechauns that sit on shoulders and cause toothache. These undetectable Leprechauns can be driven away by throwing salt in their eyes. Do you assign this a probability of 0.5 because you have no evidence for or against the Leprechauns? Do you, like Mermaid, throw salt over your shoulder to blind the Leprechaun when next you develop a toothache on the basis that it can't do any harm and may do some good? Or do you ignore the idea as silly, as I would? Not because I know anything about Leprechauns, but because there is no evidence that necessitates them and no mechanism whereby a Leprechaun, undetectable or not, could cause toothache. I don't weyken that undetectable Leprechauns are not present. I don't believe that undetectable Leprechauns are not present. I don't even reject the idea of undetectable Leprechauns as not-useful, there being no difference between something undetectable and something non-existent, even though this is true. I simply don't think about Leprechauns, undetectable or not, at all (except to visualise one sitting on the shoulders of people too silly to reject the notion out of hand) because there is no evidence supporting the idea.


[Lucifer] Personal experience is just another form of evidence, specifically anecdotal evidence.

<snip>

[Lucifer] OK, I retract my claim that personal experience is a form of anecdotal evidence. Personal experience is a form of evidence. When you cross the street you rely on personal experience to determine whether or not it is safe. Do you disagree?

[Hermit] Not if it is unimportant to an argument :-) Nuance is important too. I am sure that I rely on many things that I do not usually consider consciously at all when crossing streets. Personal experience is undoubtedly a portmanteaux word covering some of what goes into the determination of "sufficiently safe" to "cross the street", but I am not sure it is all that is important. I was once told that in California, pedestrians have right of way. In Texas, cars have right of way. A lot of Californians are killed crossing the road in Texas. That happened 30 years ago and it still colours my thinking when crossing the street or hesitating for pedestrians that care to brave the street in front of me.


*I will mention again that using -1, 0, 1 rather than 0, 0.5, 1, has many virtues for dealing with fuzzy distributions, notably that commutation is correct, knowns and unknowns propagate appropriately and false logic correctly alternates in state.
« Last Edit: 2009-12-22 06:45:37 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4290
Reputation: 8.92
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #59 on: 2009-12-22 07:57:24 »
Reply with quote

Due to Mermaids habit of cherry picking points out of much longer pieces, I reserve the right to do the same.

[Hermit] You do have balls of steel  to continue spewing after that all too public brain infarct. And you do it in such a delightfully artless way too. Is it part and parcel of your anger management issues and poor comprehension that lets you stir, take umbrage at nothing at all and then have a tantrum about it? Do you think we should discuss this, your husband's role in your life, your relationship with him, your incompetence to post on issues due to your sex, your potty mouth and your relentless urge to insinuate your halfwitted advice about other people's relationships into your postings?

[Mermaid] look. you brought it up. its more about you than about me. shame on you.

[Hermit] Your assertion fails. You introduced the logical fallacy:

    [Mermaid] you wouldnt understand. you are not a woman. fuck off, please.

[Hermit] To which I responded, not that you are a rude fuck-wit (which would be true), nor even that I am quite capable of considering things from a womans perspective (which is also true), but that you missed the point that I do enjoy having a woman's perspective because the female Hermit and I discuss these and other issues at length. You decided to turn that into a further diatribe projecting your bilious perspective and trying to mandate how we ought to function. Your choice to expose your world view. It does make it quite obvious how petty, shitty, unempathetical and bitchy you can be. Please don't complain when it is revisited on you.


[Hermit] The US has an epidemic of STDs. One of them is nasty, causes cancer and is easily prevented by immunising females. Hopefully the studies (currently underway) into whether it protects males will be in the affirmative. If it does, I'll advocate it for all children, just as I recommend they all brush their teeth, wash their hands after using the toilet and take other sensible precautions.

[Mermaid] for some, that precaution is to abstain from sex. what is wrong with that? mandatory vaccinations is a travesty and a crime.

[Hermit] The evidence shows that most people are going to have sex at some time. The vaccination is only effective to age 26, but susceptibility to HPV and the probability of an infection developing into cervical cancer lasts a lifetime. As having an HPV reservoir makes no sense, and the costs to society of trating cervical cancer and the associated deaths is high, it makes absolute sense to mandate that people be vaccinated for it.

[Mermaid] secondly. said hpv vaccine is NEW. how can you place your faith without question on something that is barely a few years old?

[Hermit] Another logical fallacy. A vaccine is erficious (like this one) or it is not. It does not depend on how long it has been around for its efficaciousness.

[Hermit] All any vaccine does is it sensitises the immune system to a particular virus. If the person is subsequently exposed to the virus, it helps their body fight it more effectively. If they are never exposed to the virus, it does nothing. The effectiveness of a vaccine can be tested in vitro as well as through epidemiological analysis. So even before the vaccination program began, we knew it would work. With over 25 million vaccinated so far, with minimal side-effects and a good histological response, we know that this vaccine behaved exactly as expected. So this, like most immunization programs. is a clear case of first doing no harm, and even better, doing a huge amount of good.

[Mermaid] once again..a person should still have a choice to whether they want to vaccinate themselves or not. perhaps society has to change it's sexual mores if hpv is such a big problem. individuals shouldnt have to be asked to subject themselves to forced vaccinations.

[Hermit] Earlier you acknowledged that some vaccinations are justified. Why not this one? As for the argument that humans will give up having sex, I think that you will find that one tricky to accomplish.

[Mermaid] big pharma comes up with a vaccine made in it's labs to combat this particular std. the church teaches their kids to abstain. its the same thing..children's sexual lives arent theirs anymore..its not about making informed choices which would involve gaining knowledge, thinking about it and making a decision for which one is responsible. it is about 'listening' to a 'greater authority'. it just makes the general population dumber.

[Hermit] "Big pharma" is just a label for a mix of people and motives. Don't become rabid because of a label or imagine that the label really does make everyone involved act for a common purpose. All of the medical researcher I know are primarily wonderful caring humans whose first intention is to benefitr people and reduce scourges of mankind. Between the proven effective techniques of immunization, reducing dangerous behaviours, using barriers and delivering cures to some STDs, and the proven failure of "abstinence" based education, there is a world of difference and pain. Please don't lie that they are the same. Pathogens don't go to school, fon't become educated and people are very bad at estimating risk which is why STDs are as successful at disseminating as they are. In classic STDs (reported, thus trackable) one carrier typically results in over 60 downstream infections. THere is no reason to imagine that HPV is any different.


[Mermaid] research also shows that cancer is also preventable if one follows a vegetarian diet. you dont see anyone converting the world population into vegetarians, do you? that wouldnt go down well..would it? 'studies' and science has it's limits. and the line is drawn when people are made to do something against their will.

[Hermit] I wish you would study things before making assertions which are unsupported or just plain wrong. http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/myth-meat-causes-osteoporosis-kidney-disease-heart-disease-cancer might serve as a starting point.


[Hermit] Male genital mutilation indubitably causes harm (results in more bacterial infections, reduces lubrication and sensitivity) and evidentially is not sufficient to protect women from cervical cancer (refer my previous post). Being as delusional as you present yourself as being, the United States medical community adopted circumcision as an anti-masturbatory technique in the late 1800s (refer e.g. http://www.cirp.org/pages/whycirc.html), not on any valid medical grounds.

[Mermaid] untrue. and you know this. because you have argued exactly what i am arguing. you are merely spewing nonsense..picking what suits you in this particular exchange. i am not going to waste my time.

[Hermit] Please support your crap by citing a reference where I did what you allege.

[Hermit] Trying to draw parallels between these two incomparable things is as asinine as trying to compare modern astronomy and astrology, even if the astrology has imaginary moons and you assert that it is "sidereal."

[Mermaid] astrology doesnt have make anyone violently ill as a side effect. and of course, astrology isnt forced upon anyone.

[Hermit] It is still asinine to compare two incomparable things. And astrology often leads to stupid decisions, and may well lead to increased suffering and misery. And you seem to be swallowing "vedic astrology" just as you advocate other Indian inanities, such as "vaasthu shastra" which is founded upon the idea that people of differnet castes require different types of land and building, but caste is now outlawed due to it being as pernicious in its outcomes as apartheid which seems also to invalidate "vaasthu shastra". Could you be suffering from cultural bias? Is that a form of forcing?


[Hermit] I don't comprehend your hysterical response to a life saving vaccination.  Equally I can't understand why you have an issue with female genital mutilation or why you can't comprehend its relevance to your ravings.

[Mermaid] once again, i didnt bring up FGM. you did. FGM has no place in this discussion because the medical community has never EVER endorsed it.

[Hermit] You brought up male genital mutilation as a prevention for HPV. Whether or not it is recommended as a treatment or not, female genital mutilation is associated with lower rates of STDs (caution complex cause) and thus it is perfectly valid highlight the discrepency in your approach.

[Mermaid] on the other hand, circumcision is routinely carried out as something beneficial to the general population by the medical community even in the absence of evidence that indeed prevents cancer.

[Hermit] Yet another logical fallacy. Here the idea that what some unidentified benighted doctors allegedly say is equivalent to the medical community. Note that no national or international medical association recommends routine circumcision, that the USA, where medicalized circumcision began during the 1800s to prevent masturbation, which was believed to cause disease, is the only country to circumcise the majority of newborn boys without medical or religious reason. Here is a more competent source than the crap you appear to be sucking out of your thumb:http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement0.html

[Mermaid] i really want to know this..because the vaccine is given to girls who are young and not had sex before. WE DONT KNOW if it works because enough time hasnt passed to test the claims of gardasil. what makes you so sure that it will work? faith?

[Hermit] As previously noted, we know that it is effective because it establishes a histological response proving that it prevents some forms of HPV which are implicated in the genetic changes that result in cervical cancer; because of the testing performed as part of its acceptance trials; and due to the statistical results proving greatly reduced HPV incidence in the immunized population. As it is effective in females between the ages of 9 and 26, it is guaranteed that the vast majority of those inoculated are in fact sexually active.

[Mermaid] my objection is based on something more fundamental. this vaccine hasnt had time to prove itself...when we dont know how it works or if it has any harmful side effects,  because..once again..it hasnt had time to prove itself...why is it being made mandatory for certain sections of the population?

[Hermit] Your objection is hysterical, your assertion that we don't know how it works laughable, and your assertion that the vaccine is unproven is not only wrong but a logical fallacy. As shown on the earlier thread on the Serious Business forum: We know the vaccine works. We know the incidence of cervical cancer. We know the costs of treating cervical cancer. We know the cost of the vaccine. We know that there have been a few thousand cases of minor side effects with over 25 million inoculated to date. We know that the vaccine is much cheaper. Which shows your "objections" to be a crock of shit (as usual).

[Mermaid] your faith wants to trample upon other's freedom of choice and their control over their health. to me, you are no different than a pro-lifer who thinks every sperm is sacred.

[Hermit] You can't tell my motivations or desires outside of my words. I have repeatedly rejected "faith" as a motivation and provided grounds for thinking as I do. How you interpret this tells us much more about you than it does about me.


[Hermit] PS The female Hermit elected not  to participate in this particular thread because she thinks that it is "too silly". I suggest the silliness is yours. Why not work on it.

[Mermaid] that's exactly what i expected the hermitess to say... t least you didnt lie and 'speak' in her voice. i am impressed.

[Hermit] Is your face in the dictionary next to "left handed compliments"? You remain silly and shitty. Even if you are feeling old and confused and hurting it is not an excuse for your intolerable behaviour.
Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed