(May 9, 2025 at 3:29 pm)arewethereyet Wrote:

(May 9, 2025 at 3:20 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: I get that most of you here don't have a science background. Here's a brief explanation, what people call evidence is structurally identical to affirming the consequent.

Take the following argument or hypothesis: "If it rained, the grass would be wet."

Now, if you go make an observation and the grass is wet, and you take this to be evidence that it rained, then congratulations you just got yourself kicked out of science.

You sure are a ballsy bitch.  You don't know who here has a science background and who does not.  We won't get into just how many things fall under the label of science.

It doesn't matter, if John has even the most basic understanding of science, he's hidden it well here, by making assertions that are demonstrably false about science and it methods. Anyone with access to Google can see through his bullshit...

The real question here is what he hopes to gain by bluffing like this? He abandoned all pretence of debating the topic some time ago.

It surely can only be a matter of time, before he claims evolution is "just a theory".

(May 9, 2025 at 3:20 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: I get that most of you here don't have a science background. Here's a brief explanation, what people call evidence is structurally identical to affirming the consequent.

Take the following argument or hypothesis: "If it rained, the grass would be wet."

Now, if you go make an observation and the grass is wet, and you take this to be evidence that it rained, then congratulations you just got yourself kicked out of science.

That’s not really how it works. You observe it raining, and then gather evidence by looking at the grass. If you haven’t observed the rain (or gotten EVIDENCE of a recent rainfall), you can reasonably conclude that something other than rain made the grass wet. What your scenario does is test the hypothesis that rain is the only thing that makes grass wet.

You got it arse upwards. 

Boru

Edit: For the record, I have a science background - I once dated a biologist for almost a year.

(May 9, 2025 at 3:41 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: That’s not really how it works. You observe it raining, and then gather evidence by looking at the grass. If you haven’t observed the rain (or gotten EVIDENCE of a recent rainfall), you can reasonably conclude that something other than rain made the grass wet. What your scenario does is test the hypothesis that rain is the only thing that makes grass wet.

You're very close. Obviously, if you observed the rain itself it's pointless to look for evidence. The question is, if you didn't see the rain, would the wet grass be evidence for it? You're right that the answer is no, and you're right that it's because rain isn't the only thing that predicts wet grass.

But the broader conclusion I want you to draw, is that nothing you replace "wet grass" with can confirm that it rained. And anything you attempt to use as evidence, no matter how reasonable it might seem, will always be a logical fallacy.

That's why science doesn't confirm, doesn't evidence, doesn't prove or affirm anything. It does only one thing: falsify.

Johnny keeps digging !!!!

(May 9, 2025 at 3:56 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 9, 2025 at 3:41 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: That’s not really how it works. You observe it raining, and then gather evidence by looking at the grass. If you haven’t observed the rain (or gotten EVIDENCE of a recent rainfall), you can reasonably conclude that something other than rain made the grass wet. What your scenario does is test the hypothesis that rain is the only thing that makes grass wet.

You're very close. Obviously, if you observed the rain itself it's pointless to look for evidence. The question is, if you didn't see the rain, would the wet grass be evidence for it? You're right that the answer is no, and you're right that it's because rain isn't the only thing that predicts wet grass.

But the broader conclusion I want you to draw, is that nothing you replace "wet grass" with can confirm that it rained. And anything you attempt to use as evidence, no matter how reasonable it might seem, will always be a logical fallacy.

That's why science doesn't confirm, doesn't evidence, doesn't prove or affirm anything. It does only one thing: falsify.

Nah.

Boru

(May 9, 2025 at 3:56 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 9, 2025 at 3:41 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: That’s not really how it works. You observe it raining, and then gather evidence by looking at the grass. If you haven’t observed the rain (or gotten EVIDENCE of a recent rainfall), you can reasonably conclude that something other than rain made the grass wet. What your scenario does is test the hypothesis that rain is the only thing that makes grass wet.

You're very close. Obviously, if you observed the rain itself it's pointless to look for evidence. The question is, if you didn't see the rain, would the wet grass be evidence for it? You're right that the answer is no, and you're right that it's because rain isn't the only thing that predicts wet grass.

But the broader conclusion I want you to draw, is that nothing you replace "wet grass" with can confirm that it rained. And anything you attempt to use as evidence, no matter how reasonable it might seem, will always be a logical fallacy.

That's why science doesn't confirm, doesn't evidence, doesn't prove or affirm anything. It does only one thing: falsify.

Falsifying anything in science requires evidence, you are comically wrong here.

(May 9, 2025 at 3:56 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 9, 2025 at 3:41 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: That’s not really how it works. You observe it raining, and then gather evidence by looking at the grass. If you haven’t observed the rain (or gotten EVIDENCE of a recent rainfall), you can reasonably conclude that something other than rain made the grass wet. What your scenario does is test the hypothesis that rain is the only thing that makes grass wet.

 if you observed the rain itself it's pointless to look for evidence. 

If you observe the rain, then that IS evidence. No one here has suggested that all evidence warrants a conclusion, but to assert evidence doesn't exist is beyond asinine. 

This must be a windup...

(May 9, 2025 at 5:47 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Nah.

"At the heart of the underdetermination of scientific theory by evidence is the simple idea that the evidence available to us at a given time may be insufficient to determine what beliefs we should hold in response to it" (Stanford, 2023).

(May 9, 2025 at 5:59 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 9, 2025 at 5:47 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Nah.

"At the heart of the underdetermination of scientific theory by evidence is the simple idea that the evidence available to us at a given time may be insufficient to determine what beliefs we should hold in response to it" (Stanford, 2023).

It is only you who is prepared to hold a belief, without any / sufficient evidence John. 

You have failed to offer evidence that Jesus was a deity?

He just trying to avoid having any actual evidence because he knows he has none so he needs to epistemic and psychological games to dance around it