A shockingly stoopid demonstration of scientific illiteracy.

(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.

By contrast, we observe that there is no grass yet theists claim that it rained anyway. You have to take the wetness on faith.

(May 9, 2025 at 8:26 pm)Belacqua Wrote: They become evidence when a human being interprets them in support of a conclusion. Then the interpretation of the fact may be used to increase the credibility of a proposition -- which is what evidence does.

Precisely, if evidence does anything at all, it seeks to increase the credibility of a proposition. It can justify your beliefs, irrespective of whether they are true or false. (Curiously, the whole endeavor is almost meaningless unless there's a social context to it; it's as if the goal of evidence is exclusively persuasion—evidence is good to the extent that it can persuade others of the belief.)

(May 9, 2025 at 8:35 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: Update: John emailed me to say he's sorry and he's just trolling a bit. He went on to say he agreed with about 90% of what I said.

Appreciate it Johnny

Revealing the contents of private communications is against forum rules.

(May 9, 2025 at 7:47 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 9, 2025 at 7:30 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I strongly urge you to read the entire article. Or, if you’ve already done so, get someone to explain it to you.

I am the only one here in a position to explain it. Unless, of course, you know someone here who's also taken graduate courses on the philosophy of science?

... or so you claim, for yourself. You sure don't think like it.

(May 9, 2025 at 8:10 pm)Alan V Wrote:

(May 9, 2025 at 7:54 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote: Johnny just keeps digging he will be in the earths core before long 

Far too many Christians who post at atheist forums are know-it-alls.  That clashes badly with Christians' assumed humility, but I guess that figures with the self-appointed.

However, I sometimes wonder whether the real problem is that they believe they are guided by the Holy Spirit no matter what kind of nonsense they spout.

Internet Christians aren't humble. They take to the ether to virtue-signal their faith and proclaim their righteousness. They ignore the message of Jesus, they ignore the example of Jesus.

They suffer the sin of pride, to use their own lens.

(May 9, 2025 at 9:02 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 9, 2025 at 8:35 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: Update: John emailed me to say he's sorry and he's just trolling a bit. He went on to say he agreed with about 90% of what I said.

Appreciate it Johnny

Revealing the contents of private communications is against forum rules.

Luckily He made a public website about it too.

(May 9, 2025 at 7:47 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: I am the only one here in a position to explain it. Unless, of course, you know someone here who's also taken graduate courses on the philosophy of science?

They let you take that for credit? Standards at Biola must be slipping.

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

And when we observe that the grass is dry, what does that tell us about the proposition that it rained?

(May 9, 2025 at 9:52 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: And when we observe that the grass is dry, what does that tell us about the proposition that it rained?

That it's disconfirmed. Modus Tollens: Standard hypothesis testing.

(However, it does fall prey to the problem of auxillary hypothesis. Which is to say that any theory or proposition is composed of many, seen and unseen, auxillary hypothesis. And when observation appears to refute a theory, we don't actually know what is being disconfirmed. For example, in this scenario there is an auxiliary hypothesis that rain always falls uninterrupted. And perhaps a tarp interrupted the rainfall, disconfirming the auxiliary hypothesis, but not the main hypothesis.)