Falsification revisited, part 2

[ericmurphy]

Oh, and in case anyone is having doubts, at this point, about my sanity, let me just point out that I am neither "arguing" with nor trying to persuade Magellan of anything. Obviously neither is possible.

I'm really just having a cheap laugh, at this point.

I will admit, however to a somewhat pathological fascination, watching someone who can apparently string words together into reasonably grammatical sentences who is actually arguing that it is impossible to distinguish between a white swan and a black swan. I keep waiting for Magellan to finally admit that he's having us all on, but it keeps not happening.

At this point, I'm just trying to see how far he will go in pretending things like he doesn't think it's possible to tell a white swan and a black swan apart, or that it can still be true that all swans are white even though some swans are black, or that it's impossible to tell if any statement is either true or false, or that there is no way, even in principle, to figure out if anything actually even exists.

It's like the most extreme case of someone who actually sincerely believes he's a Boltzmann brain I've ever seen.

I've argued with a fair number of creationists in my time, but I have never, ever seen anyone take such absurd, ridiculous, obviously false positions as this joker.

Seriously: I doubt I will ever run into anyone else again as long as I live who apparently seriously takes the position that a white swan and a black swan are indistinguishable to any test known to science.

Or even to three year olds of average intelligence, for that matter.

[pancreasman]

Oh, and in case anyone is having doubts, at this point, about my sanity, let me just point out that I am neither "arguing" with nor trying to persuade Magellan of anything. Obviously neither is possible.

I'm really just having a cheap laugh, at this point.

I will admit, however to a somewhat pathological fascination, watching someone who can apparently string words together into reasonably grammatical sentences who is actually arguing that it is impossible to distinguish between a white swan and a black swan. I keep waiting for Magellan to finally admit that he's having us all on, but it keeps not happening.

At this point, I'm just trying to see how far he will go in pretending things like he doesn't think it's possible to tell a white swan and a black swan apart, or that it can still be true that all swans are white even though some swans are black, or that it's impossible to tell if any statement is either true or false, or that there is no way, even in principle, to figure out if anything actually even exists.

It's like the most extreme case of someone who actually sincerely believes he's a Boltzmann brain I've ever seen.

I've argued with a fair number of creationists in my time, but I have never, ever seen anyone take such absurd, ridiculous, obviously false positions as this joker.

Seriously: I doubt I will ever run into anyone else again as long as I live who apparently seriously takes the position that a white swan and a black swan are indistinguishable to any test known to science.

Or even to three year olds of average intelligence, for that matter.

I was just thinking today that if he consented, I'd like to interview Magellan on a science thread, asking him to clarify some of his apparent positions. I'd honestly love to see this, purely from an anthropological, psychological point of view.

So Magellan, if you're up for it, I'd love to ask you some questions about your thoughts and beliefs and I promise I could do it respectfully and without trying to trap you into anything.

[ericmurphy]

This is what we know about scientific testing and observation - It can result in errors.

But YOUR position is apparently that it is impossible to detect, or correct, those errors. That there is no way to distinguish an accurate observation from an erroneous observation.

You believe that your observations lead to truth (white swans etc).

I believe that they CAN lead to truth. You believe that they CANNOT lead to truth.

You believe that some of my observations lead to truth (white swans etc).
You want us to agree so that it's more 'proof' of objectivity.

No one who knows anything about science talks about "proof," Magellan. Any hypothesis is at best provisionally correct.

And all that is fine. I have no argument with it. It works. It leads to useful , good results.

Obviously you're not fine with it, because you don't believe we can ever determine anything to be true. You apparently don't believe it is possible, even in principle, to e.g., distinguish a white swan from a black swan.

But it can lead to errors. A process that leads to truth cannot lead to some errors.

Of course it can. Just because it's possible to mistake a white swan for a black swan does not mean we can never know whether a swan is black or white.

If you really believed this, Magellan, you wouldn't be able to drive a car. How could you be sure that the light you see is green, and not red?

Today you assert 'I see a white swan ', tomorrow you might acknowledge an error. That is what happens all the time in science.
Science is not error free. Truth is error free.

Capital "T" Truth might be error free, Magellan, but science does not deal with capital "T" truth. As we have been telling you for months now, no hypothesis can be proven to be true. Any hypothesis is at best provisionally true. It's true until it is proven false.

That doesn't mean we can't distinguish between hypotheses which have not yet been proven false and those that have.

Science therefore cannot lead invariably to truth.

But no one claims it can. It can certainly lead to determining whether singular statements are true or not. In the picture I last attached, it is definitely true that the swan on the left is white and the swan on the right is black.

You are essentially claiming that it is impossible, even in principle, to distinguish true statements from false statements. You are claiming that 2 + 2 = 5 is just as likely to be true as 2 + 2 = 4. You are claiming that it is just as likely that the earth is flat as it is that it is round.

But the thing is, Magellan, if what you are saying is true, then you cannot distinguish a "designed" swan from a "not designed" swan, which is what you continue to insist you can do. It can definitely be the case that it is possible to distinguish between black and white but not between "designed" and "not designed," for reasons which have by now been sufficiently pounded into your skull.

But if you deny that it is ever possible to make that sort of distinction, because the presence of the possibility of error means we can never determine "truth," then it is absolutely the case that you cannot tell if a swan is "designed" or not.

I can have it my way and still be consistent, Magellan. You absolutely cannot have it your way and still be consistent. If you can't tell a white swan from a black swan, you absolutely cannot tell if a swan is "designed" or isn't.

We cannot tell whether our scientific conclusions are error free,

We don't need to. It is already understood that there are errors in science, and always will be.

therefore they cannot be used to show anything true or false.

Nonsense. We may not be able to prove any hypothesis is true, but we can CERTAINLY prove that a hypothesis is false.

No matter how convinced you are that your observations reveal a white swan, you cannot discount the possibility of error.

I don't need to. I live in the real world, Magellan. I don't live in some sort of Platonic ideal world.

If you deny that I can distinguish a white swan from a black swan, you see yourself exposed as a fool, and as a drooling idiot.

And if you maintain in the light of such a denial that you can still distinguish between a "designed" swan and a "not designed" swan, you see yourself exposed as a liar.

Especially after I've already done it.

[pancreasman]

I think here we might be getting close to the nub. For Magellan it is of fundamental importance that there is a set of concepts or statements, a body of knowledge, which is always absolutely true. It is imperative to him that not only does this bunch of absolutely true things exist, but that he knows what it is without possibility of error. He is pope of his own little church of one.

[magellan004]

Now that's just silly ... AND a bald assertion. Who SAYS a process cannot both lead to truth sometimes and error other times? Did you ever make a mistake in arithmetic? Following your line of thought, arithmetic can then NEVER be right.

Never before have I seen a collection incoherent and irrelevant mumblings concentrated into such a concentrated elixir of babble.

Regards,
Magellan.

[pancreasman]

Never before have I seen a collection incoherent and irrelevant mumblings concentrated into such a concentrated elixir of babble.

Regards,
Magellan.

And I note you didn't address any of it.

[Faid]

This is what we know about scientific testing and observation - It can result in errors.
You believe that your observations lead to truth (white swans etc).
You believe that some of my observations lead to truth (white swans etc).
You want us to agree so that it's more 'proof' of objectivity.
And all that is fine. I have no argument with it. It works. It leads to useful , good results.

But it can lead to errors. A process that leads to truth cannot lead to some errors.
Today you assert 'I see a white swan ', tomorrow you might acknowledge an error. That is what happens all the time in science.
Science is not error free. Truth is error free.
Science therefore cannot lead invariably to truth.
We cannot tell whether our scientific conclusions are error free, therefore they cannot be used to show anything true or false.

No matter how convinced you are that your observations reveal a white swan, you cannot discount the possibility of error.

Regards,
Magellan

How do you know which of your observations lead to truth and which do not, Mags?
If you do not, and cannot, know, then what good are they?

Science is not error free. Truth is error free.
Science therefore cannot lead invariably to truth.

Since when is possibility the same as equality?

We cannot tell whether our scientific conclusions are error free, therefore they cannot be used to show anything true or false.

Then HOW are they "useful, good results"? Explain their usefulness, please.

[Faid]

Never before have I seen a collection incoherent and irrelevant mumblings concentrated into such a concentrated elixir of babble.

Regards,
Magellan.

Seemed pretty short, concise, simple and clear to me. It was two plain, meaningful sentences.

I dunno about white swans guys, but at this point I believe that observing a Yellow Magellan is even more trivial.

[ericmurphy]

Never before have I seen a collection incoherent and irrelevant mumblings concentrated into such a concentrated elixir of babble.

Regards,
Magellan.

Magellan, your own irrelevant mumblings and babblings have led you to a corner where you have to deny that black and white are distinguishable. So you are in NO position to whine about someone else's "mumblings" and "babblings" in lieu of addressing their devastating obliteration of your arguments.

Also—look up "elixir." I do not think it means what you think it means.

[magellan004]

Now that's just silly ... AND a bald assertion. Who SAYS a process cannot both lead to truth sometimes and error other times? Did you ever make a mistake in arithmetic? Following your line of thought, arithmetic can then NEVER be right.

There were a few assertions in my post. That made your reply ambiguous so I apologise for not being clear in my response.

Science does lead to both true outcomes and false outcomes.
A process that leads to truth (and only truth) cannot lead to different outcomes, so we know that science is not a process that only leads to truth.

I don't see that I gave any grounds for concluding that arithmetic can never be right.

Regards,
Magellan

[FreezBee]

There were a few assertions in my post. That made your reply ambiguous so I apologise for not being clear in my response.

Science does lead to both true outcomes and false outcomes.
A process that leads to truth (and only truth) cannot lead to different outcomes, so we know that science is not a process that only leads to truth.

Of course it isn't. If it were, we wouldn't need falsification, would we?

- FreezBee

[ericmurphy]

There were a few assertions in my post. That made your reply ambiguous so I apologise for not being clear in my response.

Science does lead to both true outcomes and false outcomes.

Gee Magellan, could you maybe try to be more ambiguous?

What does this statement even mean? Does it mean that science can determine the truth or falsity of singular statements? Or does it mean that science sometimes determines an assertion is true when it is actually false, or vice versa? Both? Neither? Do you even know? Do you know the contents of your own head? That seems increasingly unlikely.

A process that leads to truth (and only truth) cannot lead to different outcomes, so we know that science is not a process that only leads to truth.

Well, that's certainly an original insight. We've only been telling you for months that in general, scientific hypotheses can never be proven to be true, but only proven to be false.

I don't see that I gave any grounds for concluding that arithmetic can never be right.

A straightforward interpretation of your statements leads to the conclusion that that's what you think. That's why I asked you if you believe that 2 + 2 = 4 is no more likely to be true than that 2 + 2 = 5.

A question you declined, as usual, to answer.

But your position seems to be that since science can occasionally lead to error, then it can never be correct. Is that, or is that not, your position?

Or will this be another question you never answer, leaving us just as in the dark about what you think as you evidently are.

[ericmurphy]

For someone who doesn't think we can tell the difference between black and white, Magellan sure seems to think in terms of black and white.

Science is either always right, or it's always wrong.

[magellan004]

Science does lead to both true outcomes and false outcomes.

But your position seems to be that since science can occasionally lead to error, then it can never be correct. Is that, or is that not, your position?

Stoopid


Stooopid


Stoooopid


Regards,
Magellan

[ericmurphy]

Stoopid


Stooopid


Stoooopid


Regards,
Magellan

Explain why Magellan! Why do you think my statement is "stupid." You don't know, do you! You're just angry and upset because once again the stupidity of your OWN position—a position you cannot even articulate!—has been exposed for the world to see.

Your position seems to be that because science can "lead to both true outcomes and false outcomes"—whatever that means, and as usual you steadfastly refuse to say what you think it means—it therefore cannot lead to truth at all! Isn't that what you're saying? Do you even KNOW what you're saying? Do you even know what your own position is?

Given how internally contradictory it is, I'd say there's essentially no chance you even know what your own position is.

There is someone stupid here, Magellan. But it's not me.

It's YOU.

ETA: and if this is NOT your position—that since science can "lead to true outcomes and false outcomes," therefore it cannot establish truth—then WHAT IS YOUR POSITION?

I'm asking you this not because I think you actually know—I'm pretty sure you don't—but so the question is available for everyone to see, and your failure to answer it is also available for everyone to see.

If you can't even state your position, you have no business trying to argue it.