Proof of Immortality II

Status
Not open for further replies.
- The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Odd that you choose to quote that (I'm sure I've seen it somewhere), when you have a very similar quote in your signature.

Remind me who is certain that there is life after death?
 
The ability of Woo Slingers to read that quote and somehow reach the conclusions that it means "The side that is able to support their argument with evidence, data, logic, reason, and logical consistency must be the wrong one" is breathtaking.


See Kruger, Justin; Dunning, David (1999). "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (6): 1121–34. The quotation is basically an expression of the described effect.
 
Last edited:
See Kruger, Justin; Dunning, David (1999).

Without diminishing the value of that research, I would argue a largely opposite effect. Rather than "unskilled and unaware," I would argue some fringe claimants are "unskilled and in purposeful denial." That is, Dunning and Kruger open their paper with an anecdote of a bank robber who thought he would be invisible to the security cameras if he rubbed lemon juice (you know -- the original "invisible ink") on his face. That culprit was genuinely ignorant of how the science worked and was genuinely flabbergasted when it didn't. He didn't try to evade the questioning or display any face-saving (no pun intended) behavior when confronted with the evidence of his guilt.

In contrast fringe claimants aggressively engage in the face-saving maneuver. This indicates they not only realize their position is precarious, but knew it all along and proceeded anyway. Had Jabba been laboring under the Dunning-Kruger illusion, he likely wouldn't have refused for so long to tell us where his numbers came from.

Jabba is simply trying to change the rules in mid-game. He originally proposed to prove immortality as a mathematical (i.e., statistical) enterprise. Now that he can't, the rules change from deductive rigor to, "You guys are just not open-minded enough." The rules of math didn't work for him, so he switched to the rules of rhetoric. Critic-shaming is a common fallback position when one's actual argument falls flat. Perhaps Jabba hopes his critics are as ignorant as he in the actual mechanics of the various sciences he invokes, and that the confidence bred in his critics from their knowledge and study is actually just as much a bluff as his.

In the most charitable sense, perhaps Jabba believes no rebuttal can possibly be as well-informed and confident as those against him appear to be. Thus he cannot distinguish confidence from overconfidence and begs for a more favorable standard of review. Such is usually the fate of fringe claims made outside the walled gardens to which Jabba has alluded.
 
Let's be honest here - Jabba is playing to an audience, and it's not us. He gave up any illusion of logic, reason or rigour long ago and it's now just "obsfucation by numbers".

Tawdry, lazy, intellectually dishonest, a fraud. Choose any two, then choose the other two. Or something....
 
Let's be honest here - Jabba is playing to an audience, and it's not us.

Correct. You've heard the old poker saying: If you sit down at a game and can't tell who the mark is, it's you. Repeated allusions to not getting a fair shake on "this forum" are fairly telling. The goal is not to test his theory or garner agreement. I think the goal is to portray skeptics generally as irrational, entrenched, biased, and unfair. And yes, that portrayal would indeed be aimed at a different audience -- I'm thinking those other places to which he alludes where people don't question his assumptions.
 
- The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell

The problem with the Russel quote is that it is misused by woo people to dismiss good evidence and good reasonning.

It is the same as an einstein quote really. Rule number 1 of skeptic debate : if you quote one of them because you are being rebuffed for your woo, then you demonstrate clearly that you lost and all you can come up is "if you are sure of you then you are wrong".

ETA:_ in fact the guy arguing he can prove mathematically immortality is far more the butt of this quote than his detractor , just sayin' , so thanks for acknowledging that you are out of shallow water and deep in the depth.
 
Last edited:
The problem with the Russel quote is that it is misused by woo people to dismiss good evidence and good reasonning.

It is the same as an einstein quote really. Rule number 1 of skeptic debate : if you quote one of them because you are being rebuffed for your woo, then you demonstrate clearly that you lost and all you can come up is "if you are sure of you then you are wrong".

ETA:_ in fact the guy arguing he can prove mathematically immortality is far more the butt of this quote than his detractor , just sayin' , so thanks for acknowledging that you are out of shallow water and deep in the depth.

At least he had the decency to refrain from translating the quote in Latin pidgin Italian...
 
- Does anyone here believe that the opinion that we each have but one, finite, lifetime is possibly wrong?
 
- Does anyone here believe that the opinion that we each have but one, finite, lifetime is possibly wrong?

My Dear Mr. Savage:

I am sorry to seem obstreperous, but you offered to provide "proof" of "immortality". What does it matter what others think?

If you have "proof" (and not just a pop-culture misapplication of an incorrect understanding of Bayes' work) offer it up for inspection. Is it is convincing, and testable, and more than just a perfervid hope, it will change minds.

I remain tractably yours, &ct.
 
- Does anyone here believe that the opinion that we each have but one, finite, lifetime is possibly wrong?

If you took the time to actually read the responses, you would find that the overwhelming majority of responses has been: show me the evidence. That means, every one of those responses indictates an open mind to the possibility that the opinion/consensus/standard position is possibly wrong. However, all the evidence thus far is that it is not wrong.

Speaking of open mindedness: are you, Jabba, open minded enough to accept the possibility that you are wrong?
 
Does anyone here believe that the opinion that we each have but one, finite, lifetime is possibly wrong?

Do you have any arguments that rise above simply begging people to agree with you? It's especially disingenuous of you to claim your critics are biased and intransigent when you treat them this disrespectfully.

You told us you could prove immortality to mathematical rigor. You failed. Which is to say, you were given ample time and opportunity to present your proof, whereupon it was duly questioned by your audience. At first you declined to answer any questions, but when pressed you admitted you simply made up the numbers and insinuated that the only reason we should not accept them is some imagined bias.

Your promised argument now having fallen flat, you're frantically begging people to let you aim at a weaker standard of proof (mere "possib[ility]").

The answer is no.

You failed to do what you promised to do. If you cannot endure the consequences of that failure, then life outside the walled garden of those who already think and believe as you do is frankly not for you.
 
- Does anyone here believe that the opinion that we each have but one, finite, lifetime is possibly wrong?
If there is sufficient evidence to show it, then I would believe it. I'm waiting (as are we all, I think) for you to show us some evidence.

My mind is open to the possibility, I just need the evidence. Is your mind open to the possibility that we do only have one finite lifetime?
 
- Does anyone here believe that the opinion that we each have but one, finite, lifetime is possibly wrong?

I'll agree if you use the most liberal sense of the term. For example: There is a possibility that my car is actually a polymorphed dragon.

Please don't waste your time trying to calculate the odds of that.
 
- Does anyone here believe that the opinion that we each have but one, finite, lifetime is possibly wrong?

You have contrived what you mean by life into something beyond bio-chemistry and into the spiritual, and you have done it in such a way to make it undetectable.

You question is therefore meaningless.


Nonetheless, it is reasonable to believe we each get zero lifetimes, as you mean the term.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom