• 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:
It's not whether the data predated the hypothesis (ie, a model) that matters; it is whether the data was used in the formulation of the model. Data that was used to formulate a model biases the model in favor of that data, so it is not valid to use that same data to test the hypothesis. To test the hypothesis, new data are needed. The reason we prefer data that were observed after the model was formulated is that we know that the scientist could not have used the data in the formulation of the model.
Click to expand...

I have a minor disagreement with this, but kind of pointless to go into unless someone's been following this exchange intently or something.
 
godless dave said:
You already engaged people and you failed to convince them. The best you could offer were unverified anecdotes that wouldn't be evidence for immaterial souls even if they were true.
Click to expand...


Note the word "latter" in Jabba's post. He's now trying to engage only those people he thinks might agree with him, or whose statements he can misunderstand in such a way that it appears that they agree with him.

So we get to add confirmation bias to the list of Jabba's errors.
 
jt512 said:
As I have explained before, the fundamental issue with Jabba's argument is that under both hypotheses, he can only observe the data (E), that he exists, if, in fact, he exists. Thus he is conditioning the data on the data itself. That is, his Bayes factor is

P(E|E, H1) / P(E|E, H2) = 1 / 1 = 1 ,

which, ironically, is the same mistake you made above.
Click to expand...

I believe I've disputed this in an earlier iteration but don't remember you responding to it. Do you accept the reasoning behind my electrical wire example from back then? If not, why not? If yes, what is the difference such that you accept it in one case but not in the other?

For reference, the electrical wire example:
Let H be "I touched an electrical wire which is live".
Let ~H be "I touched an electrical wire which is not live".
Let E be "I exist (survived touching the wire)".

Let P(E | H) << P(E | ~H). Then E (my own existence) is evidence for the wire not being live.

By your reasoning you should deny this conclusion, by rewriting the term above as P(E | H, E) = P(E | ~H, E)
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
I haven't been following Jabba much. Has he made the fine-tuning argument yet (the physical constants have been "tuned" to allow life in this universe to exist)?
Click to expand...

Interesting argument: If solid water were heavier than liquid water as it happens with almost all substances there wouldn't be life on Earth or elsewhere! Alleluia brothers! Blesses here and blesses there!

There are people who believe this nonsense.
 
Fudbucker said:
The bolded is totally wrong. My belief that you are a poker cheat, prior to playing you, might have some nebulous value that I haven't even bothered to consider. But after you've dealt yourself your fifth (or tenth, or 20th, whatever) royal flush, my belief that you cheat at poker will be .9999, no matter what my prior degree of belief was.
Click to expand...

But there is no relation between P(cheat/royal flush) and P(royal flush/cheat) as this "take Bayes and ignores all the things that govern everything, including Bayes" nonsense tells.
 
jt512 said:
It's not whether the data predated the hypothesis (ie, a model) that matters; it is whether the data was used in the formulation of the model. Data that was used to formulate a model biases the model in favor of that data, so it is not valid to use that same data to test the hypothesis. To test the hypothesis, new data are needed. The reason we prefer data that were observed after the model was formulated is that we know that the scientist could not have used the data in the formulation of the model.
Click to expand...

abaddon said:
Which leaves you claiming that immortal souls exist. Sorry. You bought it, you own it.
Click to expand...


As usual, your response is absurd and orthogonal to the post you're responding to.
 
marplots said:
What should count as "new data" then? It seems to me that mere repetition of the same type of data (from the same source) shouldn't count, but I'm not sure.

Best would be something new and unexpected. But let's say my model is based on one type of starfish being bigger than another (maybe I'm interested in starfish growth related to global warming). It doesn't seem like I can then bolster my model by finding more examples of one starfish being bigger, point to this "new" data, and claim I've found confirmation.
Click to expand...


New, independent data from the same population is as good as the population it comes from. If you observed a correlation between obesity and chicken consumption in US boys age 9 to 17, and you wanted to test the hypothesis that chicken causes obesity in that population, then a new, independent sample from that population would be ideal. If you wanted to test that the hypothesis generalizes to a wider population, then a sample from that population would be inadequate.
 
Mojo said:
In the current case the "new data" Jabba is suggesting using is not something that is predicted by the model. It is not something that the model says is impossible. It is just one of many possible outcomes that is consistent with the model. Because there are many of them the likelihood of this particular outcome is low, but the likelihood of one of them having occurred is 1. Selecting the one that happens to have occurred says nothing about the likelihood of the model being correct.
Click to expand...


That's basically correct. Jabba is guilty of HARKing. He developed hypotheses about the likelihood of his existence based on his having observed his own existence.
 
caveman1917 said:
I believe I've disputed this in an earlier iteration but don't remember you responding to it. Do you accept the reasoning behind my electrical wire example from back then? If not, why not? If yes, what is the difference such that you accept it in one case but not in the other?

For reference, the electrical wire example:
Let H be "I touched an electrical wire which is live".
Let ~H be "I touched an electrical wire which is not live".
Let E be "I exist (survived touching the wire)".

Let P(E | H) << P(E | ~H). Then E (my own existence) is evidence for the wire not being live.

By your reasoning you should deny this conclusion, by rewriting the term above as P(E | H, E) = P(E | ~H, E)
Click to expand...


I responded to this the last time. See brief response below.
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
It's not whether the data predated the hypothesis (ie, a model) that matters; it is whether the data was used in the formulation of the model. Data that was used to formulate a model biases the model in favor of that data, so it is not valid to use that same data to test the hypothesis. To test the hypothesis, new data are needed. The reason we prefer data that were observed after the model was formulated is that we know that the scientist could not have used the data in the formulation of the model.
Click to expand...

Fudbucker said:
I have a minor disagreement with this, but kind of pointless to go into unless someone's been following this exchange intently or something.
Click to expand...


I'd be interested in hearing your comments.
 
abaddon said:
No it isn't. Jabba says you support him and agree with his immortality proposition. Absent any disagreement, one must concur that you believe in immortal souls, no?
Click to expand...


No. Obviously, no.

I am going to go post something about you somewhere on the internet. If you don't disagree with it, I'm going to conclude it's true.
 
abaddon said:
That is what Jabba did to YOU. Right here. In this very thread.
Click to expand...


picard_sm.jpg
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
Let P(E | H) << P(E | ~H). Then E (my own existence) is evidence for the wire not being live.

By your reasoning you should deny this conclusion, by rewriting the term above as P(E | H, E) = P(E | ~H, E)
Click to expand...


P(A | B) ≢P(A | A, B) = 1 .
 
jt512 said:
Figure it out for yourself, if for some reason you care. I'm not going to play this game.
Click to expand...

It's a game of your creation. And Jabba's. May we all assume you support the existence of immortal souls? It seems that you do. Jabba states that you absolutely do and cites you as a supporter.
 
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