• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
jt512 said:
I think that if that were Jabba's reply, then, for once, he'd have a good point.
Click to expand...
It would, indeed, be a valid inference. "Finding water was so unlikely that the intrepid explorer must have been guided to it by God", however, would not.
 
wea said:
have you read Jabba's post I was responding to?
Click to expand...


Yes. And the point I am implicitly making is that multiple measurements by multiple nurses are unnecessary. A single measurement made by a single nurse that Joe weighs over 200 lb has greater credibility than a claim made by Joe that he weighs less than 200 lb.
 
Jabba said:
LL,
- I don't see how you can believe that. Say that 3 different nurses claim that Joe is over 200 lbs because they each claim to have weighed him recently, on 3 different scales -- but Joe is no longer around to defend his claim to you, over the phone, that he was less than 200 lbs. Wouldn't the nurses' claims affect the strength of your belief that Joe was under 200 lbs?
- Should the nurses' claims not be considered anecdotes?
Click to expand...
Jabba,

First of all, as has been pointed out, this is not the type of evidence we are talking about. There is no repaatable test of a falsifiable hypothesis.

Now, your story about the nurses isn't evidence of anything. But let's assume your story is true. In that case, you have objective scientific instruments that require no human judgement. You have a specific result the nurses probably weren't looking for ahead of time, so there's some blinding. You have a general result that was defined ahead of time - a weight in the adult human range. You have repeatability because the experiment of weighing Joe was repeated. The scales actually determine the thing we want to measure, Joe's weight. There's a predefined way of recording and keeping the information. You even have a hypothesis of sorts: Joe weighs something.

So this does pass a lot of the criteria we need to say the measurements were competent evidence. Upon repeating, we might find the scales were off, the nurses were improperly trained, Joe was wearing silks gold shoes, etc.

Note how none of this applies to your story about pennies. There is no objections measuring device. The story about the penny was not generally defined ahead of time. It was completely unrepeatable. It was not kept in the normal course of medical record keeping. And it has now passed through the subjective lenses of the reporter, the book's author, and you.

If these differences are not obvious to you, then you need to ask yourself if you aren't trying to see only what you want.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
There’s a marked difference between “running away from” and “couldn’t care less.”
Click to expand...

For those who missed it: the question in question is "are your posts evidence of what you think?", which annnnoid wants to conflate with "are your posts anecdotal evidence?".

The answer to the former is "yes", and has been supplied and explained several times. He simply ignores the answers. The answer to the latter is "no", both because anecdotes are not evidence and because these posts are not anecdotes.

And then he goes off on a tangent about how they must be anecdotes, because they match the definition I gave... and then repeats the definition I gave. Which is "unverified report". Which is not what these posts are.

So it's rather self-defeating in pretty much every respect. Particularly since it's been answered before, and he just ignored it.

This entire thread can basically be summed up by these three posts.

And this one, if you want to get really into it.

I think we're done here, folks. We've seen everything there is to see. You can all go home now.
 
Loss Leader said:
Jabba,

First of all, as has been pointed out, this is not the type of evidence we are talking about. There is no repaatable test of a falsifiable hypothesis...
Click to expand...
LL,
- It is the kind of evidence that I've been talking about.
 
jt512 said:
Why would three nurses taking repeated measurements be required? Why wouldn't a single nurse taking a single measurement be legitimate evidence that Joe weighed over 200 lb? If Joe told me he weighed 195 lb, and the nurse told me that (on the same day) he weighed 205 lb. I would gladly accept an even-money bet that his actual weight was over 200 lb.
Click to expand...
jt,
- I was hoping to touch a chord with LL.
 
Nonpareil said:
For those who missed it: the question in question is "are your posts evidence of what you think?", which annnnoid wants to conflate with "are your posts anecdotal evidence?".

The answer to the former is "yes", and has been supplied and explained several times. He simply ignores the answers. The answer to the latter is "no", both because anecdotes are not evidence and because these posts are not anecdotes.

And then he goes off on a tangent about how they must be anecdotes, because they match the definition I gave... and then repeats the definition I gave. Which is "unverified report". Which is not what these posts are.

So it's rather self-defeating in pretty much every respect. Particularly since it's been answered before, and he just ignored it.

This entire thread can basically be summed up by these three posts.

And this one, if you want to get really into it.

I think we're done here, folks. We've seen everything there is to see. You can all go home now.
Click to expand...

Yep.
 
And we're back to silly word games and "If you agree with me then you agree with me" argumentatives.

Sure Jabba if we agree anecdotes are evidences then your anecdotes are evidence. And if you call lava snow it won't burn you if you touch it. If you call a trout an eagle it can fly.
 
Jabba said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11601160#post11601160

Originally Posted by Loss Leader View PostAbsolutely not. Even in the immortality thread there is no reason for you to "describe" any studies. Just let us know where we can find controlled, falsifiable evidence of immateriality - not a summary or a summary of a summary - the actual controlled studies. And be sure the studies accounted for confounding factors such as the person not actually being dead, and the person describing that which could not be known by a conscious person in the same position.

Originally Posted by Jabba View PostLL,
- So far, I can't find anywhere that someone is dealing with "falsifiable evidence." Can you give me an example? They talk about falsifiable hypotheses, but not falsifiable evidence.

Originally Posted by Loss Leader View PostI will pay somebody to answer this for me.

LL,

- How much?

- But first, do you accept that the summaries have included falsifiable claims of events or situations surrounding a resuscitation?
__________________
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
LL,
- I don't see how you can believe that. Say that 3 different nurses claim that Joe is over 200 lbs because they each claim to have weighed him recently, on 3 different scales -- but Joe is no longer around to defend his claim to you, over the phone, that he was less than 200 lbs. Wouldn't the nurses' claims affect the strength of your belief that Joe was under 200 lbs?
- Should the nurses' claims not be considered anecdotes?
Click to expand...

Are you expecting people to answer more than one question at a time?
 
Jabba said:
LL,
- It is the kind of evidence that I've been talking about.
Click to expand...
No, it's the kind of evidence you wish you were talking about. But, as has been explained over and over again, it isn't evidence insofar as demonstrating immateriality is concerned. It's not poor evidence. It's nothing. It's a waste of time. Use you time wisely and read a book about Millard Fillmore. You won't be any closer to supporting your foolishly simple ideas, but at least you'll know about Millard Fillmore.
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
I think that if that were Jabba's reply, then, for once, he'd have a good point.
Click to expand...
He would have an accurate point but not a relevant one as it would be inapplicable to his claims here yet he would attempt to show it was.
 
Nonpareil said:
For those who missed it: the question in question is "are your posts evidence of what you think?", which annnnoid wants to conflate with "are your posts anecdotal evidence?".

The answer to the former is "yes", and has been supplied and explained several times. He simply ignores the answers. The answer to the latter is "no", both because anecdotes are not evidence and because these posts are not anecdotes.

And then he goes off on a tangent about how they must be anecdotes, because they match the definition I gave... and then repeats the definition I gave. Which is "unverified report". Which is not what these posts are.

So it's rather self-defeating in pretty much every respect. Particularly since it's been answered before, and he just ignored it.

This entire thread can basically be summed up by these three posts.

And this one, if you want to get really into it.

I think we're done here, folks. We've seen everything there is to see. You can all go home now.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you ignore Jabba, the real meat of the thread is JT512's efforts to school "skeptics" here on what evidence is and how it's used to update beliefs.
 
Jabba said:
jt,
- I was hoping to touch a chord with LL.
Click to expand...


There is no chord to touch. There is rational, logical thinking. If you want to make me irrational, accuse me of child abuse because I had my sons circumcised.

That's the one issue on which I was unable to keep my counsel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom