Author
|
Topic: Revisiting the Great Faith Wars (Read 20517 times) |
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
  
|
 |
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #60 on: 2009-12-22 10:50:10 » |
 |
[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."
[Lucifer] I can stop you right there because I can see your error. The logical inverse of "All men are quadrupeds" is "not all men are quadrupeds". Proving one automatically disproves the other. I agree with the rest of your post, but you are arguing against claims I have never made.
[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] I assign a low probability to the hypothesis that invisible leprechauns cause toothaches because I have no evidence supporting it, and lots of evidence against it. Such as you just made up the hypothesis to make a point. Leprechauns are understood to be mythical creatures. Leprechauns are magical which puts them in the realm of the supernatural which puts them in the same category as deities, unicorns, and IPUs. Toothaches have perfectly rational medical explanations. The list goes on and on, so I assign a probability close to zero.
[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.
[Lucifer] OK, I think we agree that we use personal experience (observing oncoming traffic) as evidence for determining when it is safe to cross the street, which was my only point. Subjective experience is biased and fallible, but it is still evidence to be added to rest.
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #61 on: 2009-12-22 11:25:00 » |
|
Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-21 18:40:48
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.
|
I'll bite. What are the premises?
Quote: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?
|
By that reasoning you should also believe in angels, alien abductions, the efficacy of chiropractic, and the end of the world in 2012.
Quote:
the bone of contention is the high dilution. the studies do not take into account the results from homeopathy. this is shocking to me.
|
Why do you think the studies don't take into account the results?
Quote:
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.
|
I agree everyone should have the freedom to do what they do to themselves. Everyone has the right to ignore skeptics. But I reserve the right to express my skepticism of bogus claims. Surely you wouldn't deny my free speech?
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.45
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #62 on: 2009-12-22 12:05:26 » |
|
Quote from: David Lucifer on 2009-12-22 11:25:00
Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-21 18:40:48 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.
|
I'll bite. What are the premises? |
that far away planets do influence the vibrational force of human beings on earth. hindu scriptures probably has some kind of explanation(altho' i doubt it would be 'scientific'), but i havent read any of those. i could ask someone if you like.
Quote:
Quote: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?
|
By that reasoning you should also believe in angels, alien abductions, the efficacy of chiropractic, and the end of the world in 2012. |
people who have seen angels, been abducted by aliens and been healed of some physical ailment by chiropractors probably do believe in all that.
Quote:
Quote:the bone of contention is the high dilution. the studies do not take into account the results from homeopathy. this is shocking to me.
|
Why do you think the studies don't take into account the results? |
i would assume big pharma. even in the states, a lot of allopathic drugs get into the market without sufficient testing or with test results that were manipulated/buried.
on a diff note: for the longest time, i was very disturbed by this and i was looking for some alternative. ayurveda simply didnt sit well with me. homeopathy seemed implausible, but i had used it on shelter animals and it worked beautifully. i was willing to take a leap of faith and i am glad i did.
you know..having said that i do agree with you that homeopathy doesnt pass modern scientific tests because we havent cracked the process. it cannot and should not have the approval of science because it doesnt fulfill the definitions of science. but the rules of science cannot become a hindrance to obtaining a higher quality of life.
perhaps one day we will find out how matter interacts to figure why and how homeopathy works. the process is certain..the understanding is lacking because it doesnt match anything in our science bible.
on the other hand, to abandon a perfectly valid healing modality that has shown consistent results would be a pity. in homeopathy, we begin from the materia medica. we start from there trusting that its solid ground and beyond that selecting the remedy is quite logical.
i can think of another reason. one of the other reasons(and a valid one, imo) why scientists and doctors would not want homeopathy to become mainstream is because it is not regulated. there is no 'homeopathic medical degree'. anyone can practice it(mostly because it generally doesnt cause any harm or side effect if the remedies are inaccurate.) from the layman to a trained physician. of course, it helps if your homeopath is also a physician because he'd know human pathology.
is it dangerous? nope. but it encourages tom, dick and harry to imagine that they are homeopaths..and therein lies the danger of homeopathy. sometimes an illness might just become worse because the so called homeopath doesnt find the right simillimum and the patient detriorates. but there is also a very good reason why its not regulated. its meant for a mother to deal with the regular childhood health burps that is the normal while growing up. it's meant for someone to self medicate for acute illnesses like a bruise or an injury. you can heal yourself for a pulled muscle, but a chronic condition always needs an expert. i think it boils down to common sense and integrity of the homeopath. like everything else, it doesnt hurt to get referrals.
Quote:
Quote: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.
|
I agree everyone should have the freedom to do what they do to themselves. Everyone has the right to ignore skeptics. But I reserve the right to express my skepticism of bogus claims. Surely you wouldn't deny my free speech?
|
of course not.
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.45
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #63 on: 2009-12-22 12:11:50 » |
|
wow..if you think i am going to reply that screed, you are mistaken. but thanks for the warning in the first sentence tho'.
Quote from: Hermit on 2009-12-22 07:57:24
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #64 on: 2009-12-22 14:28:11 » |
|
[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 complement. 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."
[Lucifer] I can stop you right there because I can see your error. The logical inverse of "All men are quadrupeds" is "not all men are quadrupeds". Proving one automatically disproves the other. I agree with the rest of your post, but you are arguing against claims I have never made.
[Hermit] My error was that the example I used is poor because of possible English word confusion (which does not happen in Latin or Greek). The inverse of the universal, "All men are quadrupeds," i.e. NOT (All men are quadrupeds) means the universal "No men are quadrupeds", not the limited "Some men are not quadrupeds." which is the effective meaning of your interpretation of the inverse of the Universal as NOT (all) "men are quadrupeds" The universal inference is, of course, not proven. Thus your assertion, "Proving one automatically disproves the other." fails. Invalidating a universal has not validated its complement since the time of Aristotle or more likely earlier. Due to this, I am restoring the elided paragraphs on this issue.
[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 complement. 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?
[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] 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] I assign a low probability to the hypothesis that invisible leprechauns cause toothaches because I have no evidence supporting it, and lots of evidence against it. Such as you just made up the hypothesis to make a point. Leprechauns are understood to be mythical creatures. Leprechauns are magical which puts them in the realm of the supernatural which puts them in the same category as deities, unicorns, and IPUs. Toothaches have perfectly rational medical explanations. The list goes on and on, so I assign a probability close to zero.
[Hermit] Again, my bad example. Let's talk about Zyguffs rather than Leprechauns. Let me further assert (just in case) that you have no information about Zygruffs. Further let me state that they thwooble your teeth. Again you know nothing about thwoobling. When your teeth are thwoobled, they become painful. The only effective remedy is to throw salt over your shoulder, blinding the Zyguff thwoobling your teeth. When you do that, your toothache will immediate experience some relief if it is caused by a Zyguff (other causes are not excluded but a Zyguff may take advantage of them to make it worse and when this is the case, some relief may still be had through blinding the Zyguff). Please feel welcome to attempt to address the issue of Zyguffs.
[Lucifer] OK, I think we agree that we use personal experience (observing oncoming traffic) as evidence for determining when it is safe to cross the street, which was my only point. Subjective experience is biased and fallible, but it is still evidence to be added to rest.
[Hermit] If your experience in crossing streets is invalid you will probably be hooted at, and learn to be a better judge of speed and distance, or squished, whereupon your invalid experience will no longer be an issue. If your "experience" is with astrology confirmatory bias will likely ensure that all your experiences are positive and confirmatory. This looks like a potential problem.
|
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: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #65 on: 2009-12-22 17:53:35 » |
|
[Lucifer] I can stop you right there because I can see your error. The logical inverse of "All men are quadrupeds" is "not all men are quadrupeds". Proving one automatically disproves the other. I agree with the rest of your post, but you are arguing against claims I have never made.
[Hermit] My error was that the example I used is poor because of possible English word confusion (which does not happen in Latin or Greek). The inverse of the universal, "All men are quadrupeds," i.e. NOT (All men are quadrupeds) means the universal "No men are quadrupeds", not the limited "Some men are not quadrupeds." which is the effective meaning of your interpretation of the inverse of the Universal as NOT (all) "men are quadrupeds" The universal inference is, of course, not proven. Thus your assertion, "Proving one automatically disproves the other." fails. Invalidating a universal has not validated its complement since the time of Aristotle or more likely earlier. [snip]
[Lucifer] I don't think that is correct. In first order logic (predicate calculus) negation of a universal quantifier yields an existential quantifier over the negation of the predicate. Using the notation "ForAll" for the universal quantifier, and "ThereExists" for the existential quantifier:
~ForAll(x) P(x) -> ThereExists(x) ~P(x)
So if x is "men" and P() is "quadruped", this translates to the English equivalent:
"If not all men are quadrupeds then there exists a man who is not a quadruped."
I don't think it matters which human (informal) language the logic is translated into, the inference is valid and establishes logical equivalence.
[Hermit] Again, my bad example. Let's talk about Zyguffs rather than Leprechauns. Let me further assert (just in case) that you have no information about Zygruffs. Further let me state that they thwooble your teeth. Again you know nothing about thwoobling. When your teeth are thwoobled, they become painful. The only effective remedy is to throw salt over your shoulder, blinding the Zyguff thwoobling your teeth. When you do that, your toothache will immediate experience some relief if it is caused by a Zyguff (other causes are not excluded but a Zyguff may take advantage of them to make it worse and when this is the case, some relief may still be had through blinding the Zyguff). Please feel welcome to attempt to address the issue of Zyguffs.
[Lucifer] Even stipulating that all information I know about Zygruffs comes from your description above, I can still infer quite a bit. If throwing salt over my shoulder blinds them, then they must have sight. Only animals have sight, so a Zygruff must be an animal. It is probably located over my shoulder for the salt to have any effect, yet it is undetectable except for the hypothetical thwoobling. I find it extremely unlikely that such an animal exists because its properties are inconsistent with every other animal I know about so until I learn more about it I will assign a very low probability to its existence.
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #66 on: 2009-12-22 18:26:37 » |
|
Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-22 12:05:26
that far away planets do influence the vibrational force of human beings on earth. hindu scriptures probably has some kind of explanation(altho' i doubt it would be 'scientific'), but i havent read any of those. i could ask someone if you like.
|
Would it be safe to assume this influence is supernatural?
Quote:
people who have seen angels, been abducted by aliens and been healed of some physical ailment by chiropractors probably do believe in all that.
|
Do you believe everything they believe? If not, why would you hold them to a higher standard than yourself?
Quote:
i would assume big pharma. even in the states, a lot of allopathic drugs get into the market without sufficient testing or with test results that were manipulated/buried.
|
In case you are curious, the first 12 of the studies I cited examined the results and concluded that no homeopathic remedy that was demonstrated to yield clinical effects that are convincingly different from placebo. In fact the first study cited is a "systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy". If you still believe homeopathy works I can see why you are forced to conclude there is a conspiracy in the scientific community.
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.45
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #67 on: 2009-12-22 20:34:56 » |
|
Quote:
Quote from: David Lucifer on 2009-12-22 18:26:37
Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-22 12:05:26 that far away planets do influence the vibrational force of human beings on earth. hindu scriptures probably has some kind of explanation(altho' i doubt it would be 'scientific'), but i havent read any of those. i could ask someone if you like.
|
Would it be safe to assume this influence is supernatural? |
i dont know! i do believe everything is natural. something is natural or man-made. what exactly is supernatural? that which is natural that you havent grokked?
Quote:
Quote:people who have seen angels, been abducted by aliens and been healed of some physical ailment by chiropractors probably do believe in all that.
|
Do you believe everything they believe? If not, why would you hold them to a higher standard than yourself? |
lucifer..hmm..i don't believe what everyone believes? i am not sure i understand your question.
Quote:
Quote:i would assume big pharma. even in the states, a lot of allopathic drugs get into the market without sufficient testing or with test results that were manipulated/buried.
|
In case you are curious, the first 12 of the studies I cited examined the results and concluded that no homeopathic remedy that was demonstrated to yield clinical effects that are convincingly different from placebo. In fact the first study cited is a "systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy". If you still believe homeopathy works I can see why you are forced to conclude there is a conspiracy in the scientific community.
|
|
i dont know what kind of studies those are...arsenicum album 200c, stops asthmatic wheezing immediately. natrum sulphuricum lm..over 20 days,potencies increased, completely stopped migraines for a person who has suffered from the headaches for over 30 years. injured pug with severe trauma to the eye..symphatum 30c..single dose. ear infection, chamomilla for teething woes, cat falls down..concussion like.. injury to head after falling down, arnica liquid dose, every 30 minutes. muscle strain, arnica. itching and patchy fur, sulphur. these are first hand experiences.
if you are going to tell me that homeopathy doesnt work because of a wiki entry about 'systematic reviews' by 'scientific community' (most of whom are faceless, nameless..the whole thing is without any details) when i have seen remedies work on children, adults and animals first hand(and all of them lived), what do you want me to say? that i dont trust homeopathy because modern science cannot prove that diluted substances are remedies?
disclaimer: nobody should try the remedies above for any of the above mentioned conditions because they were given to patients after intensive case taking. some are for acute remedies and others for chronic.
homeopathy believes that chronic conditions improve from constitutional remedies and that most ailments are reflections of chronic illnesses. e.g. muscle strain after working out = acute condition. asthma = chronic.
which means that its like a customised remedy for each individual..because every individual is different. every individual has a unique constitution. there are over 500 remedies for headaches in the materia medica. your headache might respond differently to the remedy prescribed for my headaches. a study that picks a random remedy and gives one dose or multiple doses is a flawed study because it doesnt follow the rules of homeopathy as written by samuel hahnemann in the organon of medicine. and dedicated homeopaths are still working on homeopathy and new remedies are proved everyday. it is a living breathing discipline that is dynamic.
i guess we will have to agree to disagree. there is nothing you can say to make me discard homeopathy as 'bunk' and there is nothing i can tell you that will convince you. but it's ok.
eta: also in britain, homeopathy is covered by NHS which invites extreme annoyance and hostility from doctors and hospitals.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #68 on: 2009-12-23 03:48:36 » |
|
[Lucifer] I can stop you right there because I can see your error. The logical inverse of "All men are quadrupeds" is "not all men are quadrupeds". Proving one automatically disproves the other. I agree with the rest of your post, but you are arguing against claims I have never made.
[Hermit] My error was that the example I used is poor because of possible English word confusion (which does not happen in Latin or Greek). The inverse of the universal, "All men are quadrupeds," i.e. NOT (All men are quadrupeds) means the universal "No men are quadrupeds", not the limited "Some men are not quadrupeds." which is the effective meaning of your interpretation of the inverse of the Universal as NOT (all) "men are quadrupeds" The universal inference is, of course, not proven. Thus your assertion, "Proving one automatically disproves the other." fails. Invalidating a universal has not validated its complement since the time of Aristotle or more likely earlier. [snip]
[Lucifer] I don't think that is correct. In first order logic (predicate calculus) negation of a universal quantifier yields an existential quantifier over the negation of the predicate. Using the notation "ForAll" for the universal quantifier, and "ThereExists" for the existential quantifier:
~ForAll(x) P(x) -> ThereExists(x) ~P(x)
So if x is "men" and P() is "quadruped", this translates to the English equivalent:
"If not all men are quadrupeds then there exists a man who is not a quadruped."
I don't think it matters which human (informal) language the logic is translated into, the inference is valid and establishes logical equivalence.
[Hermit] Perfectly true, as predicate calculus uses exactly the logical quality that for a "for all" clause to be true it must be true of each and all elements of x. Thus to falsify a universal set you only need falsify one or more elements of x and ad such you have not negated all of x. So this is, in formal language, precisely the point as Aritotle (and I) were making. You have "falsified the statement", by bringing forward evidence which speaks to "one or more" "men" who are not "quadrupeds". However, the existence of the one or more instances of men who are not quadrupeds has not spoken to the Universal negative (all men are not quadrupeds) and no matter how much evidence you collect negating the universal affirmative ("all men are quadrupeds") you will not (logically) prove the negative (although using inference (Bayes) you can often establish sufficient of a probability for Admiralty work (but again, that isn't logic, but probability)).
Which is one of the ways that negation of an assertion can fail to prove the opposite. Consult Aristotle (or my previous writing) for other ways. Which is what I was and am trying to say.
[Hermit] Again, my bad example. Let's talk about Zyguffs rather than Leprechauns. Let me further assert (just in case) that you have no information about Zygruffs. Further let me state that they thwooble your teeth. Again you know nothing about thwoobling. When your teeth are thwoobled, they become painful. The only effective remedy is to throw salt over your shoulder, blinding the Zyguff thwoobling your teeth. When you do that, your toothache will immediate experience some relief if it is caused by a Zyguff (other causes are not excluded but a Zyguff may take advantage of them to make it worse and when this is the case, some relief may still be had through blinding the Zyguff). Please feel welcome to attempt to address the issue of Zyguffs.
[Lucifer] Even stipulating that all information I know about Zygruffs comes from your description above, I can still infer quite a bit. If throwing salt over my shoulder blinds them, then they must have sight. Only animals have sight, so a Zygruff must be an animal. It is probably located over my shoulder for the salt to have any effect, yet it is undetectable except for the hypothetical thwoobling. I find it extremely unlikely that such an animal exists because its properties are inconsistent with every other animal I know about so until I learn more about it I will assign a very low probability to its existence.
[Hermit] I could extend the example by adding that the Zygruff is very small and not an animal, but in fact has all the characteristics of a bosun pair except that it is frightened by thrown salt, and you could probably counter practically ad infinitum. You are walking a very long path, but it seems to work for you. As I can't seem to come up with a sufficiently good example right now. I will continue to insist that the burden of proof is on the proposer and call on you for assistance if I get stuck.
|
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: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #69 on: 2009-12-23 15:50:39 » |
|
[Hermit] Perfectly true, as predicate calculus uses exactly the logical quality that for a "for all" clause to be true it must be true of each and all elements of x. Thus to falsify a universal set you only need falsify one or more elements of x and ad such you have not negated all of x. So this is, in formal language, precisely the point as Aritotle (and I) were making. You have "falsified the statement", by bringing forward evidence which speaks to "one or more" "men" who are not "quadrupeds". However, the existence of the one or more instances of men who are not quadrupeds has not spoken to the Universal negative (all men are not quadrupeds) and no matter how much evidence you collect negating the universal affirmative ("all men are quadrupeds") you will not (logically) prove the negative (although using inference (Bayes) you can often establish sufficient of a probability for Admiralty work (but again, that isn't logic, but probability)).
[Lucifer] It looks like we are very close to agreement now. Whether or not it is possible to prove a universal depends entirely on the size of the set. I agree it is not pragmatic to examine all men for quadrupedness, but I have a small number of co-workers (around 50), so it isn't too difficult to prove or disprove "all Lucifer's co-workers are married".
[Lucifer] More importantly, I'm not interested in proving my beliefs (or whatever you want to call the concepts I assign a probability of truth). I'm interested in weighing the evidence for and against in order to arrive at a rational mental model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference). An assertion and its logical negation are two side of the same coin, and evidence supporting one side is still necessarily evidence against the other side. But I agree with Hermit's point that sometimes the logical negation isn't obvious and can even be counter-intuitive (as in the case of universal and existential quantifiers).
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #70 on: 2009-12-23 16:28:27 » |
|
Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-22 20:34:56 | i guess we will have to agree to disagree. there is nothing you can say to make me discard homeopathy as 'bunk' and there is nothing i can tell you that will convince you. but it's ok. |
I'm not trying to convince you to do anything differently, but I will try to explain why I find the anonymous scientific studies more convincing than your testimonial.
First, I have no reason to think you are lying about your experience. I believe you administered the various treatments you described and your patients got better. I'm skeptical about the causal connection between the two. What was your control group? How did you arrange a double-blind study? What experimental protocols did you follow? All of these methods are used to tell the difference between efficacy and chance.
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.45
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #71 on: 2009-12-23 17:09:21 » |
|
lucifer..i dont understand why i need to conduct double blind tests? if the purpose of a double blind test is to eliminate bias, the point is moot when you are dealing with animals and children. a horse does not care if its a placebo or homeopathic remedy or steroids.
all homeopathic remedies have to be 'proved' before it is prescribed to a patient. on provings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Provings
if you want to read further: http://www.hpathy.com/research/shere-proving-homeopathy.asp
do you not see how homeopathy cannot really submit satisfactorily to modern scientific tests when the whole point of homeopathy is that there is a unique remedy for every individual constitution.
e.g. every year, homeopathic doctors would release a specific remedy for that year's flu because flu has different symptoms every year acc to them. (homeopathic remedies are NOT vaccines...the theory behind them anyways..altho' many people mistake it because it's like cures like and its about building immunity)
e.g. for this year's swine flu: http://www.hpathy.com/diseases/Swine-flu-symptoms-treatment.asp
look at the number of suggested remedies for flu. there is no 'swine flu' homeopathic remedy. it is different for every person because individuals suffer differently acc to their age/constitution/genetics etc.
Quote from: David Lucifer on 2009-12-23 16:28:27
Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-22 20:34:56 | i guess we will have to agree to disagree. there is nothing you can say to make me discard homeopathy as 'bunk' and there is nothing i can tell you that will convince you. but it's ok. |
I'm not trying to convince you to do anything differently, but I will try to explain why I find the anonymous scientific studies more convincing than your testimonial.
First, I have no reason to think you are lying about your experience. I believe you administered the various treatments you described and your patients got better. I'm skeptical about the causal connection between the two. What was your control group? How did you arrange a double-blind study? What experimental protocols did you follow? All of these methods are used to tell the difference between efficacy and chance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #72 on: 2009-12-24 10:52:17 » |
|
Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-23 17:09:21 lucifer..i dont understand why i need to conduct double blind tests? if the purpose of a double blind test is to eliminate bias, the point is moot when you are dealing with animals and children. a horse does not care if its a placebo or homeopathic remedy or steroids.
|
The purpose of the double-blind study is to prevent possible bias in the patient and the person giving the treatment. If you know which is which it is possible that there is something different about how you apply the treatment, subconsciously or unconsciously.
In any case, the control group is the really important missing factor in your testimonials.
From my point of view there is little difference between homeopathy and intercessory prayer. The proponents of both swear by them yet cannot reproduce the effects in controlled studies. If I use consistent standards of evidence I am forced to either accept both or reject both. Since you accept homeopathy do you also accept intercessory prayer as a valid healing modality?
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.45
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #73 on: 2009-12-24 13:33:57 » |
|
i dont consider your point of view to be valid. i.e. there is little difference between homeopathy and intercessory prayer. also, i dont understand why you bring up intercessory prayer which praying on behalf of others. i.e. priest prays for his congregation. mother prays for her child. church prays for community etc. if i take a homeopathic remedy instead of giving it to a patient, then your parallel makes sense.
i am not a lab or an experimenter. since you place so much importance on double blind studies, how come you have arrived at your conclusions re homeopathy without personally conducting any tests. all you have is a dozen studies from wiki. if you have faith in 'science' and you are willing to their words over your personal experience, then it's your call.
lucifer, i am not following you. do you know what kind of tests they conducted before it was declared that homeopathy is bunk? the objective, the kind of clinical trials? you cut and pasted a swathe of wiki references. it doesnt mean anything especially since most 'tests' dont apply to homeopathy as every remedy is tailor made for an individual, not a disease. how can there even be a comparison between..say..advil and arnica. for a muscle strain, the right remedy could be arnica or rhus tox or hypericum depending on the individual's description of the pain. advil works for everyone. but of course, advil causes stomach bleeding and acidity.(which is why it is often recommended that one takes a full glass of milk after taking advil) while none of the homeopathic medications have side effects. i dont have to test advil to check if my stomach bleeds and i dont have to conduct experiments to check if arnica works. i know arnica works.
the important point here is that allopathy treats diseases while homeopathy treats the individual. they are entirely different approaches to healing. the rules of allopathy are not the same as the rules of homeopathy. for example, if you have the flu, allopathy has tylenol flu or the flu vaccine. homeopathy doesnt recognise the word "flu"(or the name of any disease). it only looks at your symptoms. it finds a remedy that addresses the totality of YOUR symptoms. you might be running a fever while i may only be having body pain. you might have phlegm while i might be coughing. modern medicine labels it 'flu'. homeopathy doesnt give names a lot of importance. that i have to explain this fundamental difference tells me that you have not read anything about homeopathy..that you have no knowledge about homeopathy and you dont understand the most basic features of the very topic you are arguing against..and i have to wonder if you are being dogmatic and your faith in science and 'scientists' refuses to budge you. esp if you have to bring in intercessory prayer. it's like explaining programming to a 15th century farmer. i dont believe you hvae any concept of homeopathy and you have no interest in learning more about it, yet you argue against it. and i have to question the value of this exchange.
you expect me to have a control group and double blind studies over my personal experience while you have demonstrated nothing to show that you are actively involved in the studies that disprove homeopathy. except what you read on wiki. i'll take my personal experience over wiki anyday.
unless you subject yourself to a proper scientific experiment to convince me that homeopathy doesnt work. i have subjected myself to homeopathic treatment. and i refuse to divulge details here. you can always ask me privately if you wish to know the details.
my original point during the discussion about the sin of faith vs sin of dogma..was that your faith in science and scientists is no different from a religious person's faith in god and priests. i think that still holds true. sadly.
Quote from: David Lucifer on 2009-12-24 10:52:17
Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-23 17:09:21
lucifer..i dont understand why i need to conduct double blind tests? if the purpose of a double blind test is to eliminate bias, the point is moot when you are dealing with animals and children. a horse does not care if its a placebo or homeopathic remedy or steroids.
|
The purpose of the double-blind study is to prevent possible bias in the patient and the person giving the treatment. If you know which is which it is possible that there is something different about how you apply the treatment, subconsciously or unconsciously.
In any case, the control group is the really important missing factor in your testimonials.
From my point of view there is little difference between homeopathy and intercessory prayer. The proponents of both swear by them yet cannot reproduce the effects in controlled studies. If I use consistent standards of evidence I am forced to either accept both or reject both. Since you accept homeopathy do you also accept intercessory prayer as a valid healing modality?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.45
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #74 on: 2009-12-24 14:36:06 » |
|
to lucifer:
a dilemma.
i think we should end this discussion re homeopathy because i feel you are veering towards hermitesque argument with your previous parallel of homeopathy vs intercessory prayer. however i have to admit that you are more civil and i do enjoy discourse with you. so i present to you this..
i ask you to step into my shoes. you have an illness and you are not susceptible to mumbo jumbo. yet buoyed by curiosity due to first hand witnessing of recovery of your animals, you test homeopathy. and it works. you are pleased with the results, but you want to understand the system. not everything makes sense to you. the primary steps are shrouded in confusing language and inexplicable science. yet once you are past it, everything else fits logically.
you benefit from homeopathy. you help others and they benefit from homeopathy. having experienced something first hand even if you cant understand it, can you, in good conscience, abandon something that offers immeasurable benefit without side effects.
as a scientist, how do you reconcile the results with a method you do not understand. do you discard it because you cannot find a probable explanation or do you continue to try and understand why things work the way they do?
now back to me. i dont understand allopathy either. it has side effects in some people and absolutely none in others. many pharmaceutical products function as placebos in that their benefits are hyped. several medicines(prozac by eli lilly comes to mind) have not been tested adequately. and they have profoundly damaging side effects. while there are many life saving medications, not all medications are necessary. the body is a wonderful machine with self healing capabilities. what is wrong in exploring alternatives to nurture the body's self healing capabilities so that it heals itself when the situation isnt damning?
surely, there is no benefit for *anyone* to purposefully follow a course of treatment if it doesnt benefit them. to imagine that allopathy and modern medicine is the only valid healing modality is a fear based trap that elimanates alternatives to healing and good health.
i have been thinking about double blind testing and why you brought it up. i cannot think of one good reason why you'd expect a lay person like me to conduct double blind tests with a control group. here is a link to double blind testing in rational wiki(no friend of homeopathy, i assure you) > http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Double-blind_testing
i have to remove myself from this discussion, not because i disagree with you, but because i dont know where it's going or it's purpose. it would thrill me to bits if you would actually read or study homeopathy to understand how it works and explain it to me.. i'd love to know..i really would!
anyways..my vote is still dogma.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
