Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Jedi]

I guess you missed my response here.

just responded to.

 

[jt512]

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Moderated content redacted.

i can see why you like anecdotes so much.
it was suspected after 1 case and confirmed after 15 more cases were found. it was also already known to exist in semen. and these cases are CONFIRMED cases, i.e., much interviewing and follow-up was done to vet that these are actual cases. but even if the confirmation is wrong, the CDCs mission is to swiftly investigate disease outbreaks. and they make recommendations inline with protecting the public good given the risk. so it's a no brainer to tell people to use condoms even if they are wrong.

of course it's not always ethical to conduct trial. people with terminal illnesses is a common example. but there are lot's of statistically sound studies you can do instead, even if they're not as good as a clinical trial. doesn't change the fact that trials are still the gold standard and anecdotes the worst.

but, as in your earlier zinc example, if condoms had a 1% chance of working, i highly doubt the CDC will encourage their use. would you use a condom with a 1% success rate? how about if i told you we had more anecdotal information that increase the chance to 1.01%? i wouldn't be buying stock in any condom companies just yet.

so, tell us how you get unbiased results with anecdotal data? given you worked as a statistician for years and years you do know that to mathematically show a statistic is unbiased you have to assume that the data used to calculate the statistic come from a random sample (among other things). biased samples lead to biased conclusions, whether you're a Bayesian or a Frequentist (user of classical statistics).

your zika anecdote is not a response to the fact that anecdotes are not random samples, have no control group, are unmasked, etc.. you have yet to respond to this (7th attempt).

Why do you keep asking me to respond to your questions after I've stated that I won't? You can ask 10, 20, 100 times. I don't care. I'm done with you on this subject for the reasons stated.

 

[annnnoid]

Anecdotes, as we are discussing them, are unverified. If they were verified, they would have value as evidence.

But they aren't, so they don't.

Here we go again with this nonsense about ‘only anecdotes that have been verified have any value as evidence.’

Where has this ever been established to be a fact and by whom and how?

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Edited for compliance with rule 8 of the Membership Agreement.

If you review (just for example) the recordings of any 911 call center anywhere in the world (and there are thousands, if not tens of thousands)…every single one operates EXCLUSIVELY on the basis of the credibility of anecdotal evidence!!!!

…someone calls to report an incident of some kind. Do you think they spend hours establishing that the ‘unverified report’ (YOUR definition of an anecdote) as communicated by any caller is in fact legitimate AND verifiable BEFORE they make a decision to send out an emergency response (IOW…they logically infer or deduce a conclusion…which is YOUR definition of EVIDENCE!!!!).

Everyone would be dead long before the ambulance even left the station! The fire would have burnt itself completely out! The robbers would have left the bank and spent the bloody money by the time the police even got in their car!!!

…and what of the countless examples in jurisprudence where evidence presented by a witness is EXCLUSIVELY a function of the credibility of the witness. And if you doubt this INDISPUTABLE fact …just go and ask our residence lawyer how often the credibility of a witness is an issue in any kind of trial.

Why?....quite obviously…because the ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE that many witnesses report cannot be verified. Which is the whole POINT of witnesses. If the evidence could be verified without the witness…the witness wouldn’t bloody well be necessary!

IOW...what someone says has value (is evidence) for no other reason than that it is what someone says!!!!

People get convicted for no other reason than a single CREDIBLE witness established that the crime in question was committed by that individual. Exclusively anecdotal evidence in such cases is not just relevant…but relevant enough to send someone to jail!

…but do move the goalposts again.

Quite obviously, every single one of the examples above IS an unverified report … by definition!!!!

…that is YOUR definition of an anecdote.

And in every single example above…these unverified reports qualify as evidence (they generate the logical inference or deduction of a conclusion…which is YOUR definition of EVIDENCE).

…but I’m sure you’ll find some way to conclude that none are, in fact, unverified reports (anecdotes) or evidence that generated a conclusion.

…that ambulance / police car / fire engine that you see racing down the road is just going to grab a doughnut…they’re not actually, y’know…working.

…that guy you see going to jail…he’s not actually going to jail. It’s just a reality TV show and he’s just an actor.

Somehow…I have no doubt that you will find some way to establish that there is some manner of unique definition for ‘anecdote’ and unique definition for ‘evidence’ such that a description of a personal experience just does not qualify.

“My house is on fire.”

“…sorry ma’am…unless we have some way of establishing that your anecdotal evidence is valid…I’m afraid that we just can’t believe you…!”

Critical thinking anyone????....nope. Not around here!

 

[Fudbucker]

Great sideshow you got going here, Jabba. Fine distraction from the utter failure of your Bayesian proof attempt.

The real distraction are the numerous "skeptics" who haven't a clue what evidence is and how it's used to update beliefs. But this forum has been going downhill for awhile now, so I can't say I'm surprised.

 

[Jedi]

Why do you keep asking me to respond to your questions after I've stated that I won't? You can ask 10, 20, 100 times. I don't care. I'm done with you on this subject for the reasons stated.

it's obvious you won't cause you can't. unrandomized self-reported data are biased. mathematically, in order to show any statistic is unbiased you must assume data drawn from a random distribution inter alia. statistics such as the mean are not unbiased unless data are assumed to come from a random distribution. but you're a statistician so you know all that.

but you still want to use anecdotes for some reason.

and your reason for not responding is that, you're so smart i wouldn't be able to understand your answer? lol! how is anyone able to distinguish your excuse for not answering from you not knowing what you're talking about, cause either excuse works perfectly well. in fact, that latter works better.
2+2 = 4.
no it doesn't
why?
can't tell you cause you don't know enough about math to understand!

dunning-krueger in action.

ok, i'm done as well.

 

[Nonpareil]

As I'll explain to you just once, the discussion has been transferred over from another thread where the discussion was more general. It should have been left there, but the moderators, unfortunately stuck it back here.

I am aware. I was participating in both. My objection had nothing to do with the fact that this discussion was carried over from another thread, as it was the same issue over there as well.

Here we go again with this nonsense about ‘only anecdotes that have been verified have any value as evidence.’

Yes. "Nonsense". Sure.

Where has this ever been established to be a fact and by whom and how?

Evidence is something that supports the logical inference or deduction of a given conclusion. Assertions with unknown truth values do not do this.

As anecdotes are unverified, they have an unknown truth value. Therefore, they are not evidence.

This is not complicated. It has been explained to you before.

Read before responding.

If you review (just for example) the recordings of any 911 call center anywhere in the world (and there are thousands, if not tens of thousands)…every single one operates EXCLUSIVELY on the basis of the credibility of anecdotal evidence!!!!

Another repeat. This always comes up when discussing anecdotes as evidence, and it is always, invariably, proof that the person bringing it up does not understand what "anecdote" means, what "evidence" means, or how the legal system works.

I could go into a long and pointless tangent about how the police are there as a protective measure and are required to respond to these calls regardless of any supporting evidence that does or does not exist. I could also repeat the earlier point about the difference between taking the existence of a report as evidence of something happening and assuming that the contents of the report are necessarily an accurate description of what that something is. I could raise the point that Garrette and JayUtah have already made regarding situations like this having, in fact, quite a lot of surrounding evidence regarding knowledge about the speaker and the context in which the thing is being said. I could even, if I felt particularly feisty, repeat the point about people behaving irrationally on a consistent basis, even in the context of the police, not changing the fact that they are behaving irrationally.

In fact, I think I'll do all of the above.

Try harder.

…and what of the countless examples in jurisprudence where evidence presented by a witness is EXCLUSIVELY a function of the credibility of the witness. And if you doubt this INDISPUTABLE fact …just go and ask our residence lawyer how often the credibility of a witness is an issue in any kind of trial.

Why?....quite obviously…because the ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE that many witnesses report cannot be verified. Which is the whole POINT of witnesses. If the evidence could be verified without the witness…the witness wouldn’t bloody well be necessary!

And if the witness' claims cannot be corroborated with other evidence, they are thrown out. Because they are anecdotes, and anecdotes have no value as evidence.

People are not convicted on hearsay -

IOW...what someone says has value (is evidence) for no other reason than that it is what someone says!!!!

People get convicted for no other reason than a single CREDIBLE witness established that the crime in question was committed by that individual. Exclusively anecdotal evidence in such cases is not just relevant…but relevant enough to send someone to jail!

- despite your delusions to the contrary. And, for the record, if a witness is established as credible, that means that there is evidence to support what they are saying, at which point it is no longer anecdotal.

Stop trying to act as though you understand anything about the legal system, annnnoid. You are only making yourself look sillier.

While you're at it, you might try not pretending that you actually understand anything that I have said when you so obviously haven't even read it. I'm fairly certain that we even had this exact conversation not too long ago, where you brought up courtroom evidence and tried to maintain that pure hearsay could result in a conviction.

Maybe not, though. Like I said, this is a depressingly common non-argument.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- I can't remember what I've presented so far, and it would take me awhile to look them (or it?) up, but the book I'm slowly reading (The Self Does Not Die) is only $10 by KIndle, and contains 100 anecdotes that I consider evidence of immateriality...

My Dear Mr. Savage:

Thank you for answering my post.

I have no interest in reading yet another source offered up as "support" for your hopes that there might be something that might be considered evidence for your aspirations. Especially if that "evidence" is, in fact, no more than anecdotal rehearsals of perfervid hopes that the "soul" might exist. Sorry, but I have gone down that road before. If you, personally, cannot "remember" what evidence you have presented for your central thesis; it is, at best churlish of you to expect me to go find it for you.

Not that I actually expected otherwise.

I remain in-a-new-hat-but-not-my-first rodeo-ally yours, &ct.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Argumemnon,
- That's exactly what I did.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

Why is it, then, that you are chary of presenting such "evidence"?

I remain disenchantedly yours, &ct.

 

[annnnoid]

Evidence is something that supports the logical inference or deduction of a given conclusion. Assertions with unknown truth values do not do this.

So you haven't a clue where any of your claims have been established or by who. Nothing but hand-waving. There now…that was easy.

As anecdotes are unverified, they have an unknown truth value. Therefore, they are not evidence.

Since your claim that unverified anecdotes have no truth value is itself an unverified anecdote…we’ll just have to assume it also has no truth value.

But we knew that already!

I could go into a long and pointless tangent about how the police are there as a protective measure and are required to respond to these calls regardless of any supporting evidence that does or does not exist.

…which still make’s them evidence because they logically infer or deduce a conclusion from nothing more than the call.

How do we know this?...They RESPOND…and the RESPONSE is an explicit reflection of the information contained in the anecdote.

I could also repeat the earlier point about the difference between taking the existence of a report as evidence of something happening and assuming that the contents of the report are necessarily an accurate description of what that something is.

“My house is on fire.” I am curious…how many different ways are there to interpret this anecdote?

I could raise the point that Garrette and JayUtah have already made regarding situations like this having, in fact, quite a lot of surrounding evidence regarding knowledge about the speaker and the context in which the thing is being said.

Neither Garrette nor JayUtah is remotely ignorant enough to make any such claims.

“My house is on fire.” Do your best to identify all this ‘surrounding evidence regarding knowledge about the speaker and the context in which the thing is being said.”

...when you're done...also explain how all this 'surrounding evidence' (which isn't even there) in any way shape or form changes the anecdotal evidentiary legitimacy of "my house is on fire".

I could even, if I felt particularly feisty, repeat the point about people behaving irrationally on a consistent basis, even in the context of the police, not changing the fact that they are behaving irrationally.

Besides the fact that this statement is utterly incoherent…actually…it is utterly incoherent so I have no idea what it means. Are you suggesting that the first response of a 911 operator upon receiving the call “my house is on fire” is to assume the caller is behaving irrationally and that the call can be ignored!

…that would, of course, be a really really really dumb claim to make wouldn’t it, so I’m doubting that can possibly be what you have in mind.

In fact, I think I'll do all of the above.

Try harder.

What is sad…is that you are so convinced that you actually have some manner of credible argument in that pile of nonsense!

And if the witness' claims cannot be corroborated with other evidence, they are thrown out. Because they are anecdotes, and anecdotes have no value as evidence.

Sorry dude, but this is a truly embarrassing claim. I cannot comprehend how anyone can seriously believe this. Fortunately (for you)…we have on this forum a lawyer. Not just a lawyer…but a moderator as well (which means...that merely by virtue of the fact that he is a moderator, he has some credibility).

Tell me Loss Leader…in the judicial system…if the testimony of a credible witness cannot be corroborated with other evidence, is that testimony ‘thrown out’ as Nonpareil claims it is?

Second question: Can the exclusively anecdotal unverified testimony of a credible witness contribute to a conviction in a criminal or civil case?

I already know the answers to these questions (my brother is a lawyer…and a very very successful one at that)…but I think Nonpareil needs an education.

You are only making yourself look sillier.

Mirror mirror on the wall…

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Edited for compliance with Rule 8 of the Membership Agreement.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Moderated content redacted.

And I notice that you keep avoiding my questions.

 

[annnnoid]

And I notice that you keep avoiding my questions.

There’s a marked difference between “avoiding” and “couldn’t care less.”

Would you consider it methodologically sound, in the testing of a scientific hypothesis, to assume that nobody could or would lie when speaking to you?

This question is ridiculous.

How would you eliminate this possibility when conducting a scientific experiment?

Presumably you are asking how I would eliminate the possibility of fraudulent answers.

Quite OBVIOUSLY….that is impossible. Usually anecdotes are collected under an assumption of integrity.

A question is asked…and an honest answer is provided.

I know that must sound like a truly mind-boggling concept. Strangely enough…it seems to work.

How would you ensure that this wasn't the case when conducting a scientific experiment?

You ask people to be honest. It’s an amazing idea. Been around for a little while. Couple thousand years last I checked!

….every heard of it????

 

[Nonpareil]

So you haven't a clue where any of your claims have been established or by who. Nothing but hand-waving. There now…that was easy.

Thank you for establishing that you do not read. Or care.

Since your claim that unverified anecdotes have no truth value is itself an unverified anecdote…

You don't understand what any of those words mean, up to and including "claim".

That is the definition of "unverified", annnnoid. It means we don't know whether or not it is true.

…which still make’s them evidence because they logically infer or deduce a conclusion from nothing more than the call.

How do we know this?...They RESPOND…and the RESPONSE is an explicit reflection of the information contained in the anecdote.

Read before responding. I addressed this in three separate ways already. Ignoring the rebuttal does not make it go away.

“My house is on fire.” Do your best to identify all this ‘surrounding evidence regarding knowledge about the speaker and the context in which the thing is being said.”

...when you're done...also explain how all this 'surrounding evidence' (which isn't even there) in any way shape or form changes the anecdotal evidentiary legitimacy of "my house is on fire".

You are saying it on an internet forum, which means you are presumably typing it in a situation wherein you are not surrounded by flames and have access to a keyboard. Which means you are likely at home, wearing a rather unreasonably smug grin, thinking that you have proved some grand point, and probably not dying of third-degree burns.

Your house is probably not on fire. Your claim of it has no value as evidence; your observed behavior in claiming it, and in doing so on this forum, does.

This is not complicated, annnnoid. Deliberately silly and trivial attempts at time-wasting are not going to convince anyone of anything.

Besides the fact that this statement is utterly incoherent…actually…it is utterly incoherent so I have no idea what it means. Are you suggesting that the first response of a 911 operator upon receiving the call “my house is on fire” is to assume the caller is behaving irrationally and that the call can be ignored!

No. I am repeating the point that I have already raised to Fudbucker and other posters: even if emergency responders were being irrational in responding to 911 calls, that would not support your argument.

All it would mean is that people were being irrational. People can be irrational all they like. No matter how many of them do it, or how frequently, it doesn't make the behavior any less irrational.

Stop attempting to make pathetically shallow appeals to popularity and expect them to stand up as an argument. Even if you were correct in your assessment of these behaviors - and you aren't - your argument would still collapse.

Tell me Loss Leader…in the judicial system…if the testimony of a credible witness cannot be corroborated with other evidence, is that testimony ‘thrown out’ as Nonpareil claims it is?

I reiterate, because you once again failed to read before responding: if a witness is established as credible, that means that there is evidence to support what they are saying, at which point it is no longer anecdotal.

<snip>

<snip> and I don't particularly care about what you think he said. You have yet to demonstrate that you even understand the words you use, let alone the ones I do. I do not care about what comparisons you think you can make between my posts and someone else's.

Edited by jsfisher: 

Moderated content and response to same redacted.

This question is ridiculous.

And yet you immediately follow this on by saying...

Presumably you are asking how I would eliminate the possibility of fraudulent answers.

Quite OBVIOUSLY….that is impossible. Usually anecdotes are collected under an assumption of integrity.

A question is asked…and an honest answer is provided.

I know that must sound like a truly mind-boggling concept. Strangely enough…it seems to work.

...that you think that science does operate on simply assuming that people tell the truth.

Your lack of understanding is staggering.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

There’s a marked difference between “avoiding” and “couldn’t care less.”

I will note that for the next time you tell someone off for not answering yours.

This question is ridiculous.

That's not an answer.

The claim under discussion is whether or not anecdotes can alter the probability of a scientific hypothesis. Within this context you raised the "anecdote" of someone claiming they loved their wife. I repeated this anecdote and you believed it, having assumed I was telling the truth. Then I revealed that I don't have a wife, and you have now concluded that I was lying.

Would you consider it scientifically valid to assume that people telling anecdotes are not lying? Does such an assumption always lead to an accurate understanding of the truth?

Presumably you are asking how I would eliminate the possibility of fraudulent answers.

That's what I explicitly asked you, yes.

Quite OBVIOUSLY….that is impossible. Usually anecdotes are collected under an assumption of integrity.

A question is asked…and an honest answer is provided.

I know that must sound like a truly mind-boggling concept. Strangely enough…it seems to work.

Then, despite declaring the first question "ridiculous", you have actually answered it - namely, you would consider it scientifically valid to simply assume that all anecdotes are true.

You ask people to be honest. It’s an amazing idea. Been around for a little while. Couple thousand years last I checked!

….every heard of it????

In your experience, are 100% of people 100% honest 100% of the time? If not, then do all the percentages rise up to 100% if you ask people to be honest? If not, then why do you feel that that isn't something that needs to be taken into consideration when performing a scientific experiment?

 

[Pixel42]

Even if people were 100% honest 100% of the time they could still be mistaken or misremembering.

Still waiting for Jabba to give his evidence for immateriality. A book of anecdotes which can be explained in several different ways, of which immateriality is the only one that doesn't have any supporting evidence, is clearly not it.

 

[Mojo]

Even if people were 100% honest 100% of the time they could still be mistaken or misremembering.

Or, if we're talking about 100 accounts selected from millions of experiences, it is quite possible that everyone is remembering perfectly accurately and we're just seeing the results of coincidence.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Even if people were 100% honest 100% of the time they could still be mistaken or misremembering.

One step at a time.

 

[jt512]

The real distraction are the numerous "skeptics" who haven't a clue what evidence is and how it's used to update beliefs. But this forum has been going downhill for awhile now, so I can't say I'm surprised.

There's no way to explain it to them. That's pretty clear at this point.

 

[Pixel42]

Can we please get back to the argument Jabba is actually making?

We have plenty of evidence that people lie, are mistaken, hallucinate, make lucky guesses, misremember, and experience odd things when their brains are under stress. We do not have any evidence that we have immaterial selves which can temporarily leave our bodies. There is therefore no good reason to seriously consider that last explanation for NDEs until and unless we have at least one example of an NDE which cannot be accounted for by one of the explanations highlighted.

I have not read the particular book mentioned by Jabba but I have read many accounts of NDEs, and I have yet to come across one which cannot be accounted for by one or more of the highlighted explanations. If there is such an example in Jabba's book by all means let him present it.

 

[wea]

Since your claim that unverified anecdotes have no truth value is itself an unverified anecdote

You don't understand what any of those words mean, up to and including "claim".
That is the definition of "unverified", annnnoid. It means we don't know whether or not it is true.
Read before responding.

annnnoid ... can we ... consider ... at least the above ... adjudicated ... ?

one word at a time

 

[Jabba]

.


I am saying that evidence is anything that is necessarily true or necessarily false if the hypothesis is true...

LL,
- I don't understand what you mean by that. Where can I find that definition?