Creation/evolution3

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

This is nonsense.

You can demonstrate your convictions on this point by jumping off a building. I'd be very willing to bet that the ground will demonstrate its objective reality to both you, and the people who scoop you up into a gurney.

A scientist taking a measurement elides solipsism by presenting his work to the broader science community, which then replicates his experiment. If the results match, the hypothesis is strengthened. If the results don't match, the hypothesis is refined, new experiments are run, and the disparate results are again compared.

By using multiple vantage points of individuals who do not know each other and report their own observations, we can be reasonably certain that an objective reality exists outside our perceptions.

Mind-altering drugs are, ironically, another way we can see that there is an objective reality, because they tend to have the same effects on different people. The fact that individual brains experience psychoactive substances in a similar manner is strong evidence that there is an objective material substrate to our perceptions.

Simply because Drich claims to have experienced god doesn't mean that that claim is true. He may have experienced an excitation of the left parietal lobe, inducing a religious experience; or he may simply be a lying sack of shit. But it is not an empirical claim because it cannot be observed.

Indeed, Drich cannot himself observe his alleged interaction with his deity and given the plasticity and corruptibility of human memory, may have no clear idea of what he experienced and is merely coloring in shapes.

Anyone hearing his claim is perfectly justified in asking for observable evidence; and they are equally justified in dismissing the "empiricism" of his claim when you comes up with nothing.

[Mr.wizard]

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.)

Which is why empirical evidence can not be subjective. By using just the definition of empirical to describe empirical evidence is where you are having the confusion. Just because you collect data empirically about a phenomenon does not make your data, evidence of your conclusions. i.e., I saw god, is not "evidence" for god.

[watchamadoodle]

Simply because Drich claims to have experienced god doesn't mean that that claim is true. He may have experienced an excitation of the left parietal lobe, inducing a religious experience; or he may simply be a lying sack of shit. But it is not an empirical claim because it cannot be observed.

Those are good points, but I disagree with the above quote. Assuming Drich is right, then everybody can experience God through the A/S/K method. It is not different than a scientist who publishes experimental results that anybody can replicate.

The difference is that Drich's claims aren't falsifiable, because every time some ex-Christian says he/she failed to replicate Drich's experiences, Drich makes excuses for God - you didn't knock on the right door, or you didn't give God enough time to get off the couch and answer the door.

---

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.)

Which is why empirical evidence can not be subjective. By using just the definition of empirical to describe empirical evidence is where you are having the confusion. Just because you collect data empirically about a phenomenon does not make your data, evidence of your conclusions. i.e., I saw god, is not "evidence" for god.

I think we are all using slightly different definitions, but what you say is sensible.

[IATIA]

IMO, Drich's beliefs are empirical, because they are based on his own experiences and not based solely on logic.

"I saw a green faerie in my house last night" is not empirical data. Anecdotal evidence is not useful without corroboration at least. Empirical data is information that can be exchanged. Empirical data is then used in a hypothesis which can now be tested to develop a theory. If Drich's "empirical data" can be used to test a hypothesis (without drugs, shock therapy, brainwashing, torture, hypnosis, self-hypnosis, lobotomies, etc.), then I will step back.

Show how my "green faerie" sighting can be used as empirical data. (The batteries were dead in my camera or I would have got a picture and that would be empirical data.)

@ watchamadoodle

Read the rest of your wiki entry or better yet:

[Thumpalumpacus]

Simply because Drich claims to have experienced god doesn't mean that that claim is true. He may have experienced an excitation of the left parietal lobe, inducing a religious experience; or he may simply be a lying sack of shit. But it is not an empirical claim because it cannot be observed.

Those are good points, but I disagree with the above quote. Assuming Drich is right, then everybody can experience God through the A/S/K method. It is not different than a scientist who publishes experimental results that anybody can replicate.

The problem is, many of us even here have run this heuristic and found it wanting. If I have to assume Drich is right in order to experience his feelings, well, that doesn't necessarily bring me closer to reality, does it?

Or, put another way: I've already run his prescribed course of action, and I didn't find god. Now what?

The difference is that Drich's claims aren't falsifiable, because every time some ex-Christian says he/she failed to replicate Drich's experiences, Drich makes excuses for God - you didn't knock on the right door, or you didn't give God enough time to get off the couch and answer the door.

Of course. And the fact that his claims aren't falsifiable, or replicable, means that those claims aren't worth a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.

I'm not going to give his little god a pass when I see him shoehorning evil into it.

---

Simply because Drich claims to have experienced god doesn't mean that that claim is true. He may have experienced an excitation of the left parietal lobe, inducing a religious experience; or he may simply be a lying sack of shit. But it is not an empirical claim because it cannot be observed.

Those are good points, but I disagree with the above quote. Assuming Drich is right, then everybody can experience God through the A/S/K method. It is not different than a scientist who publishes experimental results that anybody can replicate.

Firstly, assuming Drich is right is not a good way to find your path to the truth.

Secondly, comparing faithful worship to the scientific method is silly. Not anyone can experience god. But anyone can experience science.

The difference is that Drich's claims aren't falsifiable, because every time some ex-Christian says he/she failed to replicate Drich's experiences, Drich makes excuses for God - you didn't knock on the right door, or you didn't give God enough time to get off the couch and answer the door.

Being unfalsifiable, his claims are rendered meaningless. The fact that he has to create just-so stories in order to defend his own faith doesn't make that faith stronger.

[Tonus]

Those are good points, but I disagree with the above quote. Assuming Drich is right, then everybody can experience God through the A/S/K method. It is not different than a scientist who publishes experimental results that anybody can replicate.

But as you point out, he presents a moving target. A scientist who presents a particular hypothesis should provide the manner in which he reached it, so that others may test it. If others test it and come up with different results and his reaction is to continually add steps or tell them that their results prove the hypothesis regardless, the obvious implication is that his hypothesis is nonsense.

What's more, the A/S/K method doesn't exist in a vacuum; it's part of the Bible, and from that book one can infer the likelihood of success of any sincere attempt at reaching god via any particular method. When every result is 'evidence' that it works, the obvious implication is that the method is nonsense. If you were trying to find out why the drapes were ruined while you were gone and your children offered up an explanation using that approach, you'd immediately become suspicious. If we have to change the rules for god to make sense, then he doesn't make sense.

[watchamadoodle]

IMO, Drich's beliefs are empirical, because they are based on his own experiences and not based solely on logic.

"I saw a green faerie in my house last night" is not empirical data. Anecdotal evidence is not useful without corroboration at least. Empirical data is information that can be exchanged. Empirical data is then used in a hypothesis which can now be tested to develop a theory. If Drich's "empirical data" can be used to test a hypothesis (without drugs, shock therapy, brainwashing, torture, hypnosis, self-hypnosis, lobotomies, etc.), then I will step back.

Show how my "green faerie" sighting can be used as empirical data. (The batteries were dead in my camera or I would have got a picture and that would be empirical data.)

@ watchamadoodle

Read the rest of your wiki entry or better yet:

O.k. I started reading the livescience link you provided, but I didn't see anything that differed from what I said. I think the words I used in my post must have different meanings or implications to different people. So you are reading things into my posts that I didn't intend?

---

The problem is, many of us even here have run this heuristic and found it wanting. If I have to assume Drich is right in order to experience his feelings, well, that doesn't necessarily bring me closer to reality, does it?
...
Firstly, assuming Drich is right is not a good way to find your path to the truth.

I agree with the points in your post, but I quoted your comments about assuming Drich's claims.

I think what you mean by "assuming Drich is right". is putting much confidence in Drich's claims? I agree with that.

Of course we need to assume Drich's claims are true to design experiments that might falsify his claims. That is what I mean when I say "assuming Drich is right".

Another problem with Drich's claims and Christian claims in general is the notion that God only delivers results when people stick their necks out in faith. If we are trying to build an Apollo spacecraft, we begin with lots of testing before risking the lives of astronauts. God doesn't want us to do it that way - just follow the divinely inspired instructions and blast off. That's a recipe for distaster IMO.

---

Those are good points, but I disagree with the above quote. Assuming Drich is right, then everybody can experience God through the A/S/K method. It is not different than a scientist who publishes experimental results that anybody can replicate.

But as you point out, he presents a moving target. A scientist who presents a particular hypothesis should provide the manner in which he reached it, so that others may test it. If others test it and come up with different results and his reaction is to continually add steps or tell them that their results prove the hypothesis regardless, the obvious implication is that his hypothesis is nonsense.

What's more, the A/S/K method doesn't exist in a vacuum; it's part of the Bible, and from that book one can infer the likelihood of success of any sincere attempt at reaching god via any particular method. When every result is 'evidence' that it works, the obvious implication is that the method is nonsense. If you were trying to find out why the drapes were ruined while you were gone and your children offered up an explanation using that approach, you'd immediately become suspicious. If we have to change the rules for god to make sense, then he doesn't make sense.

I agree, and your mention of the Bible reminds me of the claims about the Genesis timeline which were the original thread topic. IMO Drich should accept that there is no way to reconcile a literal belief in the Biblical narratives with science (unless we assume God deliberately planted evidence to mislead scientists into believing in evolution, the Big Bang, etc.) We don't need to perform any experiments to disprove claims that the Bible is literally historical. Drich's observation that the genealogies can start when Adam leaves the Garden of Eden is valid, but we still need to deal with the seven days of creation that are sequenced wrong and describe a period of billions of years instead of the literal seven days that Drich insists upon.

[Chas]

Consider two cases:

Two?

(1) I go to the Amazon and report sighting a strange bird species which is eventually confirmed

Sighting a bird is potentially replicable by others. However, without a picture or other evidence, the report of a sighting is not empirical evidence.

(2) I go to the Amazon and report seeing a flying saucer which is never confirmed

See previous.

(3) I am a scientist who publishes my breakthrough in cold fusion that turns out to be my mistake

You have published methodology and results; others can confirm or deny it.

Those are all sensory observations for me, and they are second-hand sensory observations for other people.

No, the third of your two examples is entirely unlike the first two.

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.

Wrong. You could replicate the experiment. You cannot replicate Drich's internal mental state (for which you should be thankful).

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

What both?

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.)

Their senses do not, in and of themselves, guarantee empirical data for precisely the reason you just gave.

[Hoopington]

Bottom line of this theory is that the bible doesn't provide a time line between the last day of creation and the day of the fall of man. The rest is indeed speculation and how it all COULD have worked out. But in the end with no given time line between the end of the seven days of creation and the day of the fall of man. The whole fossil record could be accounted for.

Quite brilliantly, you are demonstrating why you can get so many wildly differing ways to believe in the same shit. The books that people like you base their entire lives on are so incredibly vague that nearly any interpretation is viable.

In this respect, you are no different to those who have joined ISIS.....actually, a little different, at least there are actual passages supporting their actions....you, on the other hand, are just making shit up.

[watchamadoodle]

---

Consider two cases:

Two?

(1) I go to the Amazon and report sighting a strange bird species which is eventually confirmed

Sighting a bird is potentially replicable by others. However, without a picture or other evidence, the report of a sighting is not empirical evidence.

(2) I go to the Amazon and report seeing a flying saucer which is never confirmed

See previous.

(3) I am a scientist who publishes my breakthrough in cold fusion that turns out to be my mistake

You have published methodology and results; others can confirm or deny it.

Those are all sensory observations for me, and they are second-hand sensory observations for other people.

No, the third of your two examples is entirely unlike the first two.

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.

Wrong. You could replicate the experiment. You cannot replicate Drich's internal mental state (for which you should be thankful).

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

What both?

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.)

Their senses do not, in and of themselves, guarantee empirical data for precisely the reason you just gave.

---

@Chas, I agree with your assessment of the differences between the examples. I think the difference is simply definitions and application of those definitions. I understand that most would consider that I'm stretching the definitions. I was simply trying to point-out that these definitions are stretchable. I guess most here disagree and that is fine.