Why Christianity Fails in Terms of the Evidence

[Obvious Leo]

NO, the heliocentric model isn't a better fit because it's simpler, it's a better fit because it fits the evidence better than the geocentric model.

Have a close look at this statement doc, and, assess it for its sense value. It's a better fit because it's a better fit?????

The laws of physics never claimed to be 100% accurate, only a close approximation.

You're missing my point. What this means is that they're not "laws" at all. The behaviour of matter and energy in the universe does not conform to a suite of laws and this is a profoundly significant metaphysical point which physics overlooks.

[thedoc]

The laws of physics never claimed to be 100% accurate, only a close approximation.

You're missing my point. What this means is that they're not "laws" at all. The behaviour of matter and energy in the universe does not conform to a suite of laws and this is a profoundly significant metaphysical point which physics overlooks.

You are using scientific laws incorrectly, scientific laws are not prescriptive but descriptive. They don't determine what will happen, but describe what is happening. And they are laws in that sense, and not in the sense that they determine what will happen.

[thedoc]

NO, the heliocentric model isn't a better fit because it's simpler, it's a better fit because it fits the evidence better than the geocentric model.

Have a close look at this statement doc, and, assess it for its sense value. It's a better fit because it's a better fit?????

Your statement is a tautology, I said heliocentricity fits the evidence better. Stop twisting my words to fit your agenda.

[Obvious Leo]

You are using scientific laws incorrectly, scientific laws are not prescriptive but descriptive. They don't determine what will happen, but describe what is happening. And they are laws in that sense, and not in the sense that they determine what will happen.

If you paid closer attention to what I was saying you'd have noticed that this is what I've been saying all along. However this is NOT what physics is saying. Physics quite clearly and unambiguously models the universe AS IF it were conforming to a suite of laws. This was something which Einstein in particular drew attention to and this is why he insisted that spacetime should NOT be regarded as physically real. It is an AS IF model.

NO, the heliocentric model isn't a better fit because it's simpler, it's a better fit because it fits the evidence better than the geocentric model.

Have a close look at this statement doc, and, assess it for its sense value. It's a better fit because it's a better fit?????

Your statement is a tautology, I said heliocentricity fits the evidence better. Stop twisting my words to fit your agenda.

Your own words are there plainly expressed. What I said was that heliocentrism offers a better fit for the evidence because it provides a simpler explanation for the evidence and what you said is that it offers a better fit for the evidence because it fits the evidence better. Which is the tautology?

[thedoc]

Your own words are there plainly expressed. What I said was that heliocentrism offers a better fit for the evidence because it provides a simpler explanation for the evidence and what you said is that it offers a better fit for the evidence because it fits the evidence better. Which is the tautology?

Suit yourself, I'm done.

[henry quirk]

"Hello Henry, ignoring this nonsense for the moment, how's the nephew? I don't remember if I told you, but my grandson decided to play in the school band, so he took my Cornet and started to learn for a few weeks last summer, and then started again when he went beck to school in the fall. I went to see his Christmas concert and even though I couldn't see him (he was sitting behind another player) I knew where he was because he had the only silver plated brass horn in the band. It seems horns haven't changed much in the last 60 or more years. When I started I took my grandfathers cornet, from the turn of the last century, in to school, and was told to put it back in the closet, so in the middle 50's my parents bought a new horn for me."

The BEAST is well...hates school but does pretty well in it...is xbox crazy but is pretty good about putting it away on his own...is an absolute terror in so many ways...hope he never changes.

So: is he a good corneticist (is that a word?)?

And: how goes it with 'you', Doc?

[thedoc]

"Hello Henry, ignoring this nonsense for the moment, how's the nephew? I don't remember if I told you, but my grandson decided to play in the school band, so he took my Cornet and started to learn for a few weeks last summer, and then started again when he went beck to school in the fall. I went to see his Christmas concert and even though I couldn't see him (he was sitting behind another player) I knew where he was because he had the only silver plated brass horn in the band. It seems horns haven't changed much in the last 60 or more years. When I started I took my grandfathers cornet, from the turn of the last century, in to school, and was told to put it back in the closet, so in the middle 50's my parents bought a new horn for me."

The BEAST is well...hates school but does pretty well in it...is xbox crazy but is pretty good about putting it away on his own...is an absolute terror in so many ways...hope he never changes.

So: is he a good corneticist (is that a word?)?

And: how goes it with 'you', Doc?

I'm doing well, when my grandson took my Cornet I was getting the itch to start playing again, so I bought a trumpet and am trying to get back into playing. The problem is that my grandson is in the school band and I don't have a group to practice with and no motivation to practice. I don't want to tell anyone I'm playing again or they will be asking me to play before I'm ready. But still with no reason to play there is no motivation to practice. Other than that things are pretty much the same, but the house guests are out of the house a few months ago so I'm keeping up on the piano.

[HexHammer]

Sam. There is no such thing as objective evidence. Evidence is simply raw data and no data can be interpreted in the absence of a subjective narrative which applies a meaning to it, which means that ALL evidence is subjective by definition. Kant 101.

Atto. I seldom find myself on the same side of an argument as you but on this occasion we find ourselves on common ground. Boole's Laws of Thought are derived explicitly from Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason and Boolean logic is nowadays seen as the understructure of all other logics. If this was not so then there would be no such thing as information theory and no such science as the science of computation.

I'm not sure you understand what you are saying. If you actually have a damn clue?

1) evidense can be objective, but some times, subjective and relative, but one has to be unusual stupid if one thinks that it's mere data that can never have the property of being objective evidense.

2) Kant is outdate, one has to be unusual stupid to believe in Kant.

[thedoc]

You are using scientific laws incorrectly, scientific laws are not prescriptive but descriptive. They don't determine what will happen, but describe what is happening. And they are laws in that sense, and not in the sense that they determine what will happen.

If you paid closer attention to what I was saying you'd have noticed that this is what I've been saying all along. However this is NOT what physics is saying. Physics quite clearly and unambiguously models the universe AS IF it were conforming to a suite of laws. This was something which Einstein in particular drew attention to and this is why he insisted that spacetime should NOT be regarded as physically real. It is an AS IF model.

Have a close look at this statement doc, and, assess it for its sense value. It's a better fit because it's a better fit?????

Your statement is a tautology, I said heliocentricity fits the evidence better. Stop twisting my words to fit your agenda.

Your own words are there plainly expressed. What I said was that heliocentrism offers a better fit for the evidence because it provides a simpler explanation for the evidence and what you said is that it offers a better fit for the evidence because it fits the evidence better. Which is the tautology?

I should point out that a tautology is not necessarily false, just circular.

[Obvious Leo]

I should point out that a tautology is not necessarily false, just circular.

I agree. However because a tautology is circular it cannot be used to validate an argument. This actually happens a lot more in science than most scientists would generally be willing to admit but in most cases they can't really be held to blame for this. The divorce between science and philosophy was finalised over a century ago and very few scientists take up the study of formal logic as a part of their education. As a straddler of the fence between science and philosophy I regard this as a great tragedy because there should be no such fence.

[thedoc]

I should point out that a tautology is not necessarily false, just circular.

I agree. However because a tautology is circular it cannot be used to validate an argument. This actually happens a lot more in science than most scientists would generally be willing to admit but in most cases they can't really be held to blame for this. The divorce between science and philosophy was finalised over a century ago and very few scientists take up the study of formal logic as a part of their education. As a straddler of the fence between science and philosophy I regard this as a great tragedy because there should be no such fence.

A hypothesis could be a tautology, and is only the first step in science, the idea is then tested and experiments are done to determine the truth or falsehood of the statement.

[Obvious Leo]

A hypothesis could be a tautology, and is only the first step in science, the idea is then tested and experiments are done to determine the truth or falsehood of the statement.

It sounds good in principle but in practice it doesn't work that way. Physics is purely an observational science and not an experimental one so its theories are specifically designed to predict what the observer will observe. It is therefore unsurprising that the observer then duly observes what the theory has predicted but the flaw in this method lies in the interpretation which the observer brings to his observation. He automatically interprets his observation in accordance with the narrative dictated by the theory and this is something which all of us intuitively do in the case of any observation about anything. This intrinsic confirmation bias was known to many of the pioneers of 20th century physics who were better schooled in the philosophy of knowledge than their modern counterparts.

"It is the THEORY which determines what the observer will observe"....Albert Einstein

"All of our observations of nature must first be filtered through the prism of our human consciousness"....Werner Heisenberg

[Sam26]

"It is the THEORY which determines what the observer will observe"....Albert Einstein

"All of our observations of nature must first be filtered through the prism of our human consciousness"....Werner Heisenberg

No one is saying that there aren't subjective components to all of our observations. The problem is that you said all evidence is subjective, which is clearly a misunderstanding. What makes something subjective is that it's determined by the subject. Thus, according to my understanding of what you're saying, when we observe things in the world, those things, be they evidence or something else, are determined by our view of them. While it's true that the observer does arrive at their own view of things, i.e., from their own standpoint, but this does not mean that one can interpret things any way one likes. Suppose I said that I see two moons in the sky, does my interpretation make this observation correct? No. Why? Because the evidence, which is objective, and seen by almost everyone, says quite the opposite regardless of my subjective interpretation.

So my question to you is the following: Is there one or two moons that revolve around the Earth? If you say one moon, then what's the evidence of that? Our sensory experiences tells us that there is one moon, i.e., the facts of our sensory perceptions tell us this. What is subjective is dependent upon the subject, which is each individual. Is the fact that the Earth has one moon dependent upon what I think or feel about the moon, or are there independent facts (objective facts) existing quite apart from us (objective things) that our sensory perceptions perceive? You seem to think that because I perceive this or that, that that makes it subjective, but again this is wrong. Subjective facts mean that the fact is dependent upon us for its existence, but the moon is not dependent upon us for its existence. If the moon was dependent upon us for it's existence, then when we cease to exist the moon would cease to exist, but we know this isn't the case.

An example, of a subjective fact is, I like oranges, I like blue, I like large homes, etc., these facts are dependent upon what I think or feel because they do cease to exist when I cease to exist. This is key to understanding what subjective means, at least partially.

Your quotes of Einstein and Heisenberg do not support your position.

[HexHammer]

Obvious Leo why are you intentionally skipping my answer to you? Let me post it again.

Sam. There is no such thing as objective evidence. Evidence is simply raw data and no data can be interpreted in the absence of a subjective narrative which applies a meaning to it, which means that ALL evidence is subjective by definition. Kant 101.

Atto. I seldom find myself on the same side of an argument as you but on this occasion we find ourselves on common ground. Boole's Laws of Thought are derived explicitly from Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason and Boolean logic is nowadays seen as the understructure of all other logics. If this was not so then there would be no such thing as information theory and no such science as the science of computation.

I'm not sure you understand what you are saying. If you actually have a damn clue?

1) evidense can be objective, but some times, subjective and relative, but one has to be unusual stupid if one thinks that it's mere data that can never have the property of being objective evidense.

2) Kant is outdate, one has to be unusual stupid to believe in Kant.

[Obvious Leo]

Obvious Leo why are you intentionally skipping my answer to you?

Because you're a fuckwit.