The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
Looks like Loss Leader has lost his position as the preferred opponent. Back to casting about hoping for a bite.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Proof of Immortality, the IV league
- Thread starter Mojo
- Start date
- Status
Looks like Loss Leader has lost his position as the preferred opponent. Back to casting about hoping for a bite.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Jabba, do you think that there is a reasonable possibility that you do not have an immortal soul?
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
I thought you only has time to respond to Loss Leader's posts.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Don't act surprised. I can only remember one person ever agreeing with you, and she doesn't come around this thread.
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Pack up and go home, Jabba. You have lost, badly.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, you are. And you should have known this from your experience in the Shroud thread where you attempted this same argument and it was roundly refuted by the same people, according to the same reasons which you refused to address there. Does it ever occur to you, even in the remotest possibility, that you may be wrong? Your critics are helping you by giving you the reasons why anecdotes cannot be evidence, even in the way you desire. You could address them rationally, but you do not. You just whine at how badly the thread treats you and how you can't make headway because of it. If you want a serious debate, stop behaving like a petulant child when he doesn't get his way.
How utterly childish and rude, Jabba! You played the martyr telling us you had time to deal with only your designated poster in this thread. Now that your anointed respondent has backed you into a corner, you drop him like a hot potato and beg for salvation from the people you have been ignoring for pages and pages. Do you think "effective debate" is merely shopping for people to soothe your ego or provide an easy foil? I have one foot in the professional entertainment industry, and even there I have yet to see a grown man behave like such a prima donna as you do in this thread.
So here we are, back to you polling every person in the thread individually and stalling until you get an answer from all of them. Their input is suddenly crucial to you after weeks or months of you ignoring it entirely. Anecdotes are not evidence, Jabba. You've been told why not. Let me know when you're ready to grow up and talk about those reasons, and not just elevate special pleading to an art form.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Not only in the thread, but even Wikipedia disagrees with you, as Loss Leader demonstrated earlier. It is time to admit that you were simply wrong.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
LL,
- "That's not a knife; this is a knife!"
- I didn't understand what you meant at first, but now I think you're just objecting to "basic." I.e., you accept that this is a clear disagreement between the two of us, but you don't understand why I would call it a basic disagreement.
- If I'm right about that, you're right to raise that objection -- I needed a modifier for the disagreement concept, and "basic" seemed like the best I could do...
- I'll rethink that...
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, he's telling you that you're wrong. Not only that, he and others have shown you the reasons why you're wrong.
Now you can either keep trying to pretend you're legitimately mired in some highfalutin dialectical quandary, or you can wake up and see that none of your pretentious nonsense is having the least effect. Choosing the latter, you should then move on to address the reasons given why your claim is wrong in stating that anecdotes can be considered evidence.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Mojo
Mostly harmless
I strongly suspect that the "engage one poster at at time" gambit is just an attempt to imply that it is just a question of Jabba and one other person having a difference of opinion rather than the rest of the world telling Jabba that he is wrong.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Dave,
- In general, I need to squelch my urge to address more than one sub-sub-etc-issue at a time, and responding to one person re one branch seems to be the best I can do in that regard.
- Here, LL and I have come to what I called a "basic" disagreement, and as far as I can tell, I'm the only one on this thread that agrees with my side of this argumnt. It seems to me that you and Hans have often diverged somewhat from the group, and I was hoping that you guys might have something to share in my favor...
No what you need to do is man up and actually make a point without playing stupid games.
No you and LL are not having a "basic disagreement." She is explaining why you are wrong. You left the realm of "basic disagreement" and all the argumentative slack a long, long time ago.
Stop wasting our time and yours. For someone who's so obviously scared of dying you don't seem to mind wasting the time you do have here.
"Also tide I'm going to have to ask you to not come in today." - Zooterkin.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No. You told me you ignored me because my posts were too challenging for you to answer. Your selective attention has nothing whatsoever to do with you supposedly being distracted by marginalia or minutia wrought by other posters. It has entirely to do with you shopping around for favorable answers, all the while pretending you've achieved a "stalemate" or even prevailed. Do you really think, after four years, your critics can't see the tricks you attempt?
You tell us that your ideas would be better received elsewhere. You tell us ISF is inappropriately closed-minded and incapable of the superior mode of thought that validates your claims. How is this anything but an admission that you can prevail in a debate only when surrounded by sycophants? And your difficulty here seems to be that you cannot beg or berate the real world into sycophancy.
No, Loss Leader told you exactly how you were wrong, using your own sources to do so. You can't handle it, so you're making up reasons not to address his rebuttal. For you that typically means silly word games like quibbling or equivocating over the definition of some word, like some hapless politician cornered in some scandal.
That would tell a rational person something. Especially after four years. Normal people aren't that thick.
Exactly as I said. After weeks or months of ignoring these posters, now you're just shopping for someone to soothe your bruised ego and come to your rescue. Their attention means nothing to you except what it can do to serve your selfish interests. You have no interest whatsoever in submitting your proof to an actual challenge that you might lose. You're only seeking praise and adulation, and you ignore anything that doesn't in some way give you that.
Last edited:
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
I agree with Loss Leader and Wikipedia that anecdotes are not scientific evidence.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Dave,
- I'm suggesting that there is a difference between strictly "scientific evidence" and information that has an effect upon the probability of a scientific hypothesis. My claim is that while anecdotes are not, strictly speaking, "scientific evidence," they can still have an effect upon the probability of a scientific hypothesis.
Stop it. You're not suggesting anything. You're groveling and begging and rules lawyering and hair splitting in a transparent attempt to trick someone, anyone into agreeing to lower the standards of evidence for you.
This whole "responding to only picked and choosen out of context quotes that I think I can twist into supportive" argumentative style of yours needs to stop.
No. You are wrong, and all this was minutely and exhaustively covered in the shroud thread.
It doesn't matter if there are hundreds of billions of anecdotes, they will not make one iota of difference to the probability of a scientific hypothesis being supported or falsified.
Be happy with your quasi-religious beliefs about immortality or reincarnation, but don't try to pretend that faith, beliefs, wishful thinking or anecdotes can change the requirements of science.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Jabba,
This is gibberish. You are wrong. I don't know why you're trying to quantify your degree of wrong-ness. I have explained with examples the evidence you need. You don't have it.
But let's approach this in a different way: Give me one example where untestable anecdotes have ever sufficed as generally accepted evidence in the study of anything since, let's say, 1900. That's 116 years of human history.
Simply claiming that anecdotes are evidence, as you are, is not acceptable.
- Status