(February 3, 2015 at 10:16 am)Drich Wrote: http://atheistforums.org/thread-13378.html
http://atheistforums.org/thread-15622.html

That is anecdotal not empirical. I just saw a UFO. Are you going to take my word for it or do you want pictures? That is the difference between anecdotal and empirical. Empirical evidence is tangible evidence.

(February 2, 2015 at 5:30 pm)IATIA Wrote: From our observations of the cosmos, we have gathered a plethora of information (empirical data) that agrees with the the hypothesis of the big bang as presented through QM and allows us to present it as a theory. To date, there is no evidence (empirical data) that suggests otherwise. There are other hypotheses (and I even have one that I have been discussing with a couple of physicists), but again, no evidence that contradicts the present theory.

(February 3, 2015 at 10:16 am)Drich Wrote: You do know that everything we have observed in space that supports our current throies come from relitivly one single point in time and in space.

When you look at a star that is 100,000 light years away, you are looking at what the star was 100.000 years ago. When you look at the sun, you see what it was 8 minutes ago. We can see into the past.

wordlesstech Wrote:Right now, Hubble’s Ultra Deep Field IR can see as far as 480 million years after the Big Bang.

The James Webb Space Telescope will allow us to see 200 million years after the Big Bang. In a cosmic scale, that’s almost like looking at the beginning of the Universe.

(February 3, 2015 at 10:16 am)Drich Wrote: but again they are both just PURE theory based on logic. The application of the theory in these cases takes observiable phenominoma like the fossile record and 'old light' and assimilates them into what is believed. Nothing conclusive in the fossile records point to the viablity of Evolution, nor can the theory of evolution be vetted through the scientific method. That why it remains pure theory with no empirical evidence that supports it. Rahter it works backwards from real science. In real/applied science the observation of emperical evidence supports a theory from the ground up. In fringe sciences like with evolution and the big bang, their creators (darwin and Lemaître 'a priest') postiulated their theories LONG before we have anything to support what they thought. So in the cases of the big bang as well as evolution we are working from the top down. Meaning we have a core theory and then we look for anything to support what is already believed. (confirmation bias)

Which aagain has been attributed to belief in God.

It seems to me 'science' is the faith based system of belief while Belief in God is supported by evidence.

My understanding of science is that somebody develops a hypothesis and then tests that hypothesis using data that was not available to develop the hypothesis (otherwise we get the Texas sharpshooter fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy ).

The hypothesis can be developed any way we want - as long as it isn't developed using the same data we use to test it later. A person can develop a hypothesis by consulting a Ouija board if he/she wants.

The data we use to test the hypothesis can be from the past - as long as it isn't used to develop the hypothesis. So a newly discovered fossil can be used to test the theory of evolution. Likewise a newly observed star from billions of years ago can be used to test the theory of the Big Bang.

So evolution and the Big Bang are perfectly scientific. (Again, I hope somebody will correct me if I have the details wrong in my explanation.)

(February 3, 2015 at 8:42 am)Tonus Wrote:

(February 2, 2015 at 7:29 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I hate to break the news to you, but observation is empirical evidence. Go back and look at the definition you yourself linked.

If I am not mistaken, he used that definition to show that his personal experience served as empirical evidence because he observed the events he described. So we'll probably have to define "observation" now.

This is what he wrote:

Quote: [...] for the big bang we have nothing more than observation and theory which again does not fit the defination of empirical evidence [...]

If he states that observation is good enough to support his own point, to then turn around and deprecate it (wrongly in this case, but what's new?) when it supports the opposing view is disingenuous, and that is why I laid my point: to demonstrate his dishonest argumentation.

---

(February 3, 2015 at 10:16 am)Drich Wrote:

(February 2, 2015 at 1:06 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Can't you keep track of this discussion? I haven't proffered any "redefinition"; I've only pointed out that your understanding of your own definition is inapt.

Also, I'd like an answer to my question: don't you agree that all genocide, rape, and oppression is bad?

It's a simple yes or no.

On what grounds do you identify Merrium-Websters defination inapt? Your say so?


Your douche baggery has reached it's highest point in a long time.

Of course, anyone with half a brain would understand that I wasn't criticizing their definition, but rather, your understanding of it. Your clue, since you clearly missed it, was where I wrote, "your understanding of your own definition is inapt." I've emphasized the key phrase. Hopefully, you'll understand my plain English this time around.

(February 2, 2015 at 10:42 am)Drich Wrote: Believe it or not even rape has it's place in the assimilation of one culture into another. If not for rape we (the majority) would all still live in xenophobic clans, all related to one another in one way or another. How long before our genetic material was too corrupt? According to the example The Modern Amish population has provided about 8 generations.

Believe it or not, some of us can get laid without resorting to force, and even pick up gals from other countries.

Using genetic mixing to provide an ex post facto justification for rape as a weapon of war is only one more demonstration of the moral degeneration blind faith causes in humans.

Go on, tell us more about how violent rape is good for humans. I'm all ears.

(February 3, 2015 at 10:16 am)Drich Wrote: Before you respond remeber we are going to be using the dictionary defination of 'empirical evidence' not the atheist/butchered version.

Please cite the definition 'we' are going to be using.

(February 3, 2015 at 10:16 am)Drich Wrote: Belief: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

Excellent point, Drich, I hate it when people conflate faith and belief, he should have just said 'faith'.

faith/fāTH/
noun
1.complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2.strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

(February 3, 2015 at 10:16 am)Drich Wrote: The problem you guys have (those Atheist without reading disorders) is that you think you understand the terms you use.

That's a good example of a claim that will be easy for you to prove with examples if it's true.

(February 3, 2015 at 10:16 am)Drich Wrote: Where as I have to look everything up. but, when I do I see that many of you misuse terms and misunderstand principles like how the big bang and Evolution are not supported by empirical evidence as they are just pure theory and can not be verified/vetted by following the steps in the scientific method.

It might help if you looked up scientific issues on sites run by scientists instead of dishonest creationists who have never met a lie they weren't willing to tell for Jesus.

(February 3, 2015 at 10:16 am)Drich Wrote: While belief in God literally follows the definations provided by the term "empirical evidence," and on a personal level one can apply the 'scientific method' to what God provides you.

Yet, you didn't bother to demonstrate how belief in God literally follows the definition of 'empirical evidence'. I think it's because you know your assertion won't stand up to scrutiny, so the less you support it, the better.

(February 3, 2015 at 10:16 am)Drich Wrote: But again they are both just PURE theory based on logic.

But again, they are not. They are based on evidence, as is required for a theory to be considered scientific. They explain observed phenomena better than any alternative explanation known. That the universe is expanding is based on observation. Predictions were made of what evidence we would expect to find if the universe was once in a hot, dense state; and that evidence was found. And to increase the absurdity of your position, many Christian apologists point to the 'Big Bang' as evidence of God 'poofing' the universe into existence.

(February 3, 2015 at 10:16 am)Drich Wrote: The application of the theory in these cases takes observiable phenominoma like the fossile record and 'old light' and assimilates them into what is believed. Nothing conclusive in the fossile records point to the viablity of Evolution, nor can the theory of evolution be vetted through the scientific method.

Among the many evidences of the theory of evolution is that it can be used to make useful predictions, such as what sort of fossils we can expect to find in a previously unexplored sedimentary bed. The funny thing about 'missing links' is that they're only 'missing' if evolution is true. Each one we find is another board in the scaffold of evolution and another nail in the coffin of creationism.

(February 3, 2015 at 10:16 am)Drich Wrote: That why it remains pure theory with no empirical evidence that supports it.

You keep using that term 'pure theory'. I don't think it means what you think it does.

(February 3, 2015 at 10:16 am)Drich Wrote: Rahter it works backwards from real science. In real/applied science the observation of emperical evidence supports a theory from the ground up.

In real science, we don't form the theory in advance of observations that it explains. Evolution and cosmological theories are no exception.

(February 3, 2015 at 10:16 am)Drich Wrote: In fringe sciences like with evolution and the big bang, their creators (darwin and Lemaître 'a priest') postiulated their theories LONG before we have anything to support what they thought.

I guess we can add fringe science to the list of terms you don't really understand. Darwin traveled the world and based his theory on what he observed, and Wallace nearly beat him to publication drawing the same conclusions from similar evidence. Lamaitre was also an astronomer and physicist (him being a priest is entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand) who proposed an expanding universe to explain astronomical observations of the radial velocity of certain nebulae. The important thing about both of those theories that you seem unable to comprehend is that they were used to make predictions which had the potential to falsify them, but instead the evidence that they were essentially correct continues to mount to this day.

(February 3, 2015 at 10:16 am)Drich Wrote: So in the cases of the big bang as well as evolution we are working from the top down.

That would be a good point if it weren't a lie.

(February 3, 2015 at 10:16 am)Drich Wrote: Meaning we have a core theory and then we look for anything to support what is already believed. (confirmation bias).

Another lie. What you look for with a theory, including and perhaps especially with these two, is evidence that they are wrong. There's a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone who can actually do that. People have been trying to tear down Darwin's theory for nearly two centuries, and there's no way to better support a theory than sincere and repeated efforts to dismantle it continually failing.

(February 3, 2015 at 10:16 am)Drich Wrote: Which aagain has been attributed to belief in God.

Which again is completely irrelevant. At any point in the history of these theories, we could have found evidence that disproves them, if it exists, whether God is real or not...unless you're proposing that there is evidence, which God is hiding from scientists?

(February 3, 2015 at 10:16 am)Drich Wrote: It seems to me 'science' is the faith based system of belief while Belief in God is supported by evidence.

It seems that way to you because fundamentalist religion has nearly ruined the mind which, if he exists, God gave you.

(February 3, 2015 at 10:16 am)Drich Wrote: You do know that everything we have observed in space that supports our current throies come from relitivly one single point in time and in space.

One can't be said to truly know something that is false. With the Hubble Telescope we have peered about 13.2 billion years into the past, when the universe was probably less than a billion years old. We can see the universe's youngest galaxies. We have had literally millions of chances to discover something that disconfirms the essentials of the initial expansion model of the universe. And that's not taking into accound the centuries we've been making observations or the distance our solar system has traveled in that time.

(February 3, 2015 at 10:16 am)Drich Wrote: That would be like trying to witness events going on 1000 years ago in China sitting from the observation deck on top of the empire state building two days from now. Yes your really high up and yes you can really see a long way, but your vantage point will not allow you to witness what it is you want to see.

As an astronomer, what do I actually want to see? Our solar system or China? Because if I was a thousand light years away with a telescope as powerful as the Hubble, I could see our solar system as it was 1,000 years ago. We'll likely never be able to view our own past directly because we would have to travel faster than the speed of light to do so, but we can learn a lot about the history of our universe, galaxies, and solar systems by seeing them as they were a long time ago.

(February 3, 2015 at 10:16 am)Drich Wrote: Why? because you are tied to one point in time and space, and what you want to see occupies another.

Except that you've misidentified what we want to see in order to learn about the history of the universe. Earth has no special significance in that story. Galaxies that formed before the universe was half-a-billion years old do...and we can see them.

(February 3, 2015 at 10:16 am)Drich Wrote: ... while belief in God literally follows the definations provided by the term "empirical evidence," and on a personal level one can apply the 'scientific method' to what God provides you.

Not even close. If you cannot show me, then it is not empirical. If it cannot be examined then it is not empirical. Let us have lunch sometime with a war veteran that is missing a limb and have your god regrow it on the spot. Now we have some empirical evidence that can be examined. It does not yet prove that god exits, but it does make the hypothesis plausible and worth investigating.

(February 3, 2015 at 2:01 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(February 3, 2015 at 10:16 am)Drich Wrote: ... while belief in God literally follows the definations provided by the term "empirical evidence," and on a personal level one can apply the 'scientific method' to what God provides you.

Not even close. If you cannot show me, then it is not empirical. If it cannot be examined then it is not empirical. Let us have lunch sometime with a war veteran that is missing a limb and have your god regrow it on the spot. Now we have some empirical evidence that can be examined. It does not yet prove that god exits, but it does make the hypothesis plausible and worth investigating.

IMO, Drich's beliefs are empirical, because they are based on his own experiences and not based solely on logic. The problem with Drich's claims is that many ex-Christians and current Christians have failed to replicate his results using his A/S/K method. Drich says they gave up too soon or knocked on the wrong doors, but I say Drich should consider other explanations for his experiences. (Of course if he's happy believing what he believes then that's great. Good for him. )

Here is the dictionary definition of empirical:

Quote:Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría).

Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered to be evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions. The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory and the testimony of others, ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

(February 2, 2015 at 3:43 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: In the case of evolution, we know that natural selection causes changes to a genome.

No, it doesn't.

Mutation and errors in transcription cause changes to the genome.
Differential reproductive success is the sieve that called natural selection.

---

(February 3, 2015 at 12:08 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: My understanding of science is that somebody develops a hypothesis and then tests that hypothesis using data that was not available to develop the hypothesis (otherwise we get the Texas sharpshooter fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy ).

We use all the data available to us to form a hypothesis.

Quote:The hypothesis can be developed any way we want - as long as it isn't developed using the same data we use to test it later. A person can develop a hypothesis by consulting a Ouija board if he/she wants.

The hypothesis is tested against new data. It was already consistent with existing data.

Quote:The data we use to test the hypothesis can be from the past - as long as it isn't used to develop the hypothesis. So a newly discovered fossil can be used to test the theory of evolution. Likewise a newly observed star from billions of years ago can be used to test the theory of the Big Bang.

I suggest that a clearer way to think about that is that the newly discovered fossil is new data.

Quote:So evolution and the Big Bang are perfectly scientific. (Again, I hope somebody will correct me if I have the details wrong in my explanation.)

I tried to clarify a little.

---

(February 3, 2015 at 3:02 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote:

(February 3, 2015 at 2:01 pm)IATIA Wrote: Not even close. If you cannot show me, then it is not empirical. If it cannot be examined then it is not empirical. Let us have lunch sometime with a war veteran that is missing a limb and have your god regrow it on the spot. Now we have some empirical evidence that can be examined. It does not yet prove that god exits, but it does make the hypothesis plausible and worth investigating.

IMO, Drich's beliefs are empirical, because they are based on his own experiences and not based solely on logic. The problem with Drich's claims is that many ex-Christians and current Christians have failed to replicate his results using his A/S/K method. Drich says they gave up too soon or knocked on the wrong doors, but I say Drich should consider other explanations for his experiences. (Of course if he's happy believing what he believes then that's great. Good for him. )

Here is the dictionary definition of empirical:

Quote:Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría).

Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered to be evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions. The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory and the testimony of others, ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

That definition does not allow "stuff that happened only in my head" which is what Drich wants it to say and you seem to want to let in.

For example, if you say you see auras around people, that is not empirical evidence of auras.

@Chas, I don't think we are disagreeing on any of those issues where you are correcting and clarifying. I'm sure part of the fault is my poor writing, but I wonder if you are making assumptions about my views that aren't fair.

I do disagree with your post quoted below (that empirical doesn't allow "stuff that happened only in my head"). We don't know if anything is real outside our heads. If I'm a scientist taking a measurement, I can't know that I'm really taking a measurement.

In the example of auras, if we had several people that claim to see auras, we could form a hypothesis and do experiments. For example, I might show the same set of 100 people in randomized order to each psychic who claims to see auras, and I can find out if their aura measurements are consistent. If one psychic sees an aura for Joe while the other psychic does not see an aura for Joe, then I would disprove certain hypotheses about auras.

(February 3, 2015 at 4:34 pm)Chas Wrote:

(February 3, 2015 at 3:02 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: IMO, Drich's beliefs are empirical, because they are based on his own experiences and not based solely on logic. The problem with Drich's claims is that many ex-Christians and current Christians have failed to replicate his results using his A/S/K method. Drich says they gave up too soon or knocked on the wrong doors, but I say Drich should consider other explanations for his experiences. (Of course if he's happy believing what he believes then that's great. Good for him. )

Here is the dictionary definition of empirical:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

That definition does not allow "stuff that happened only in my head" which is what Drich wants it to say and you seem to want to let in.

For example, if you say you see auras around people, that is not empirical evidence of auras.

(February 3, 2015 at 5:41 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: @Chas, I don't think we are disagreeing on any of those issues where you are correcting and clarifying. I'm sure part of the fault is my poor writing, but I wonder if you are making assumptions about my views that aren't fair.

I said I was just clarifying. I assumed you basically understood evolution.

Quote:I do disagree with your post quoted below (that empirical doesn't allow "stuff that happened only in my head"). We don't know if anything is real outside our heads. If I'm a scientist taking a measurement, I can't know that I'm really taking a measurement.

Useless solipsism.

Quote:In the example of auras, if we had several people that claim to see auras, we could form a hypothesis and do experiments. For example, I might show the same set of 100 people in randomized order to each psychic who claims to see auras, and I can find out if their aura measurements are consistent. If one psychic sees an aura for Joe while the other psychic does not see an aura for Joe, then I would disprove certain hypotheses about auras.

While their testimony might prompt you to investigate, it still does not qualify as empirical evidence.

(February 3, 2015 at 6:48 pm)Chas Wrote:

(February 3, 2015 at 5:41 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: In the example of auras, if we had several people that claim to see auras, we could form a hypothesis and do experiments. For example, I might show the same set of 100 people in randomized order to each psychic who claims to see auras, and I can find out if their aura measurements are consistent. If one psychic sees an aura for Joe while the other psychic does not see an aura for Joe, then I would disprove certain hypotheses about auras.

While their testimony might prompt you to investigate, it still does not qualify as empirical evidence.

Consider two cases:
(1) I go to the Amazon and report sighting a strange bird species which is eventually confirmed
(2) I go to the Amazon and report seeing a flying saucer which is never confirmed
(3) I am a scientist who publishes my breakthrough in cold fusion that turns out to be my mistake

Those are all sensory observations for me, and they are second-hand sensory observations for other people. If I read about an experiment confirming general relativity, that is not first-hand observation for me. It is no different from hearing Drich's claims.

The difference IMO is that general relativity has been tested and confirmed by many careful scientists. They are both equally empirical.

I've had psychosis, so I can sympathize with Drich's reasoning. People with psychosis are being completely rational and scientific, but their senses are giving them weird information. (Of course I'm not suggesting that Drich is mentally ill, but maybe some of his experiences years ago were hallucinatory. Sane people can also hallucinate. That is my theory.)