(June 19, 2023 at 1:01 pm)R-Farmer Wrote:

(June 19, 2023 at 10:06 am)arewethereyet Wrote: @R-Farmer I am in awe of the fact that you think you brought new arguments to this raving band of heathens.

lol weren't you the person who mock the idea that all baby mammals had to be nursed by Mrs. Noah?

You are the dumb ass that said all the animals on the ark were babies.  Then went on to say that dairy animals would have to be there to provide nourishment.  I pointed out that baby dairy animals don't give milk.  I deduced that the one mature female on the boat would have to be Mrs. Noah.

Of course, you tried to back pedal on the only baby animals part.

But however you shovel it, it's still bullshit.

(June 19, 2023 at 11:51 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(June 16, 2023 at 11:19 am)R-Farmer Wrote: 1, why are you arguing with the Father of modern Philosophy of Science? Karl popper set narrow parameters on what can be considered 'science.'

2, please Note the primary methodologies to vetting scientific theory verses historical facts.

I ask you to look up and read the first section of the wiki page concerning the scientific method. (I can't post links or quote the page because of the links imbedded on the page)

Do you notice how the Historical method and scientific method have different rules and standards of proof? Do you see how in the scientific method requires 7 different steps. Karl Popper said these 7 steps are necessary and must be observed and completed before a subject can be considered to be a scientific subject or field of study. Anything that falls outside of the rigors of the scientific method Can NOT be considered science.. One can not observe any point of history and one can not produce a reproducible experiment to prove or disprove history as again history is based on eye witness testimony or commentary of a given event. Or primary or secondary source material.

1. I don't believe in reverencing authority figures, I am freaking' allowed to disagree with Carl Popper. Citing him is one thing, saying he's right because he's Carl Popper is another. I'm perfectlly comfortable with not bowing to Carl Popper as the be-all and end--all of what science is.

2. Don't assign me homework.

lol, If you aren't going to align your self with Religion nor with established science.. then what is the point of having a discussion with you? again this is nothing more than gate keeping. Where whatever I say is just summarily dismissed because you don't want to believe or don't want/can't argue a point. So it is dismissed on your say so.

Which is fine, if you want to live your life that way. but at the same time I do not want to be apart of a discussion founded on your personal world view that is grounded in nothing more than "because I said so."

(June 19, 2023 at 11:56 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(June 16, 2023 at 11:30 am)R-Farmer Wrote: Again back to my analogy of turning lead into gold.

Your 'reasonable standard' in my story was when you took an already known defeated process of turning lead into gold, using those finding to assume all other claims are equally invalid.

Meaning your reasonable standard is NOT a reasonable standard. Your reasonable standard becomes a confirmation bias when you refuse to test the formula as prescribed, and substituted your own processes/known failed experiment.

If you made an honest effort you would test the formula as prescribed.

I'm getting really tired of you impugning my honesty. It's not my obligation to test your formula. It's your obligation to demonstrate it, an obligation you are clearly seeking to evade. You don't need to tell, or even be convincing, if you can show.

Did you forget the topic of discussion? We are not talking about a specific subject that 'proof' can be applied to, but rather the methodology in which you gather and apply proof. The reason for this discussion is that if you are only going to source proof through means that confirm your predetermined bias on a given subject, then you never accept anything you do not already want to believe.

(June 19, 2023 at 1:07 pm)R-Farmer Wrote:

(June 19, 2023 at 11:51 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: 1. I don't believe in reverencing authority figures, I am freaking' allowed to disagree with Carl Popper. Citing him is one thing, saying he's right because he's Carl Popper is another. I'm perfectlly comfortable with not bowing to Carl Popper as the be-all and end--all of what science is.

2. Don't assign me homework.

lol, If you aren't going to align your self with Religion nor with established science.. then what is the point of having a discussion with you? again this is nothing more than gate keeping. Where whatever I say is just summarily dismissed because you don't want to believe or don't want/can't argue a point. So it is dismissed on your say so.

Which is fine, if you want to live your life that way. but at the same time I do not want to be apart of a discussion founded on your personal world view that is grounded in nothing more than "because I said so."

(my bold)

And yet, that's all you offer.

(June 19, 2023 at 12:02 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Asserting that it's a confirmation bias doesn't make it one.

the assertion made was confirmed by the methodology that you admitted in using when purposing to test for the existence of "buddhist hell" which had nothing to do with anything written in buddhist canon. I compared and explained how this was a confirmation bias in several different ways. Testing my formula for turning lead to gold, by using a formula you know did not work, or baking banana bread with apples then complaining the recipe I gave was garbage/did not taste like bananas at all.

If you will not test a subject like buddhist hell with the methodology prescribed in canon, then you know there is no reason for whatever you do to work.

Quote: I can as easily claim that you have a confirmation bias because you won't accept a comparison with observable reality as a standard for what's true.

you can make that claim all day long, but you can not cite an example of it. As this is not true.

Quote:Your recipe is more like 'I can't tell you the recipe, but if you try hard enough to believe it tastes like bananas, it will'. Or maybe 'the recipe IS to convince yourself it tastes like bananas'?

Actually no. The formula for buddhist Hell (*reminder YOUR Example not mine) is defined with in their holy text. all you need do is read it. Whether you can access it or not will be determined by their canon.

again this is not a discussion on the legitimacy of a given subject but the methodology used to research and study a NON SCIENTIFIC/Theological subject. Everything isn't or doesn't fall under the category of 'science' if you insist that it does I'm afraid there is nothing more I can discuss with you here.

(June 19, 2023 at 12:03 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(June 16, 2023 at 11:40 am)R-Farmer Wrote: Not what I said. I said:
I'm not saying all vision question are successful, but I am saying ALL Vision quests That Are successful Do in fact result in information not previously known to the quester. Which is in fact the evidence you claim did not exist.

In that case, I doubt any vision quest is successful. I note you not actually showing any evidence that a vision quest has been successful, that would have been my first move were I you.

Again if you are gate keeping the discussion without providing parameters for said evidence then your gate keeping/confirmation bias will not allow any evidence I can provide to be considered. So what would be the point?

***note to self - change thread title to 'What's the Point?"

It is interesting to wonder whether a vision quest can succeed by those criteria you offered - of novelty and externality. I don't think it's clear that it would. If a vision quest is to be anything different from normal empirical observation - it seems like we'd be discussing some sort of inward-searching. Whether we can acquire something we don't already possess by looking inward is an open question. OTOH, I'm sure we can come up with novel arrangements of items already possessed.

A hard requirement for externality probably does endanger most of what we refer to as a vision quest to being unsuccessful.

(June 19, 2023 at 12:06 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(June 16, 2023 at 11:50 am)R-Farmer Wrote: So again, If I provided you with the world's best banana bread recipe, and you said no way! I bet it does even taste like banana! Then to test/prove me wrong, would you substitute the bananas for apples, and say to me that this banana bread (you baked with apples) doesn't even taste like B-bread?

If so how is this any different than NOT following God's prescribed path, but demanding He follow your methodology?

Because 'God's prescribed path' is self-brainwashing. That's the last thing I think a real God would have to resort to in order to gain believers, but it sounds a LOT like the method a con artist would like me to use.

There are no paths that are immune from being used as a tool of brain washing. The fact that you yourself want to attribute all forms of learning to 'science' (like History and or theology) means at some point you were told or maybe you decided for yourself that everything falls under a scientific umbrella. When in fact it does not. Again Karl popper the father of the Philosophy of all modern science placed limits to what true science can be applied to and what it can not. 

You decided for whatever reason that the scientific limitations that the whole world yields to doesn't apply to your understanding of how science works. Where the indoctrination (or rather attempted indoctrination) comes in is found in your own efforts to push past, the established limits of science and demand scientific evidence for subject matter that do not fall under purview of science. Your constance insistence and call for scientific evidence for theological subject matters is nothing more than a form of gas lighting.

(June 19, 2023 at 12:35 pm)arewethereyet Wrote:

(June 19, 2023 at 12:30 pm)zebo-the-fat Wrote: Actually colours don't really exist, what we see as colour is a byproduct of biology and chemistry, in reality there is just a spectrum of radiation from long radio waves all the way up to high engergy gamma rays.

My colorblind son-in-law agrees that most colors don't exist.  

Granddaughter used to trick him into believing certain clothes went together due to color when they really didn't.

I have slight red/green colour blindness, I know for a fact that I have a brown jacket even though my wife insists that it's green!