Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
John Jones said:
Oh ffs! The Texas sharpshooter fallacy in not an argument, it is an example of fallacious logic. Your trying to embrace it as if it supports your claims is pathetic incompetence.
Click to expand...
I don't interpret Jabba's statement quite that way. Trying to see his poorly written sentence as charitably as possible, I think he is acknowledging that people claiming he is committing that fallacy is a serious problem he has been unable to refute to date. I don't agree with his follow-on that threadies (threadites? threaditarians?) didn't want him to address it or something like that.

As to the rest, especially the use of statistics and Bayes, I agree with Jay, et al that the stats forum was his best chance. They did a good job of not caring about his claim, just focusing on his formulation and (ab)use of the math. And he was shot down immediately. And captured behind enemy lines. And taken to a POW camp. And released in a prisoner exchange at war's end.

At this point the only audience that might be swayed is one that does not know math or logic. There is no argument made by the stats folks that has not been made here.

CT
 
CriticalThanking said:
I don't agree with his follow-on that threadies (threadites? threaditarians?) didn't want him to address it or something like that.
Click to expand...

Indeed Jabba is misrepresenting his critics. We want him to address the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in his argument, but we don't want him to simply repeat the same ineffective defense that he has tried several times already. Jabba's equivocating his critics' desire not to sit through an ad nauseam repetition with a desire he purports to them not to want to discuss it at all.

At this point the only audience that might be swayed is one that does not know math or logic.
Click to expand...

That is the typical audience of these pseudo-Bayes endeavors. People who actually know about statistical inference know that it can't convert beliefs to facts. But proofs like Jabba's are almost always how it's misused by people who want to prove this or that fringe claim with it. They get suckered in by the notion that Bayes lets you quantify a belief as a probability and think that this gives them rigor and objectivity when all they have is belief. They simply don't understand what is meant in that field by "quantifying belief."
 
Jabba said:
11. The following are the issues and sub-issues I've come up with so far:
11.1. Prior probabilities.
11.2. Texas Sharp Shooter.
11.3. Whether Bayesian statistics is an appropriate tool.
11.4. Whether I'm using Bayes appropriately.
11.5. The definition of self.
11.6. Does H even address the "self"?
11.7. Definition of "potential self."
11.8. Is "potential self" a meaningful concept?
11.9. Does it apply here?
11.10. How many potential selves?
11.10. Random?
11.11. Cause and effect traceable?
11.12. How self different than Mt Rainier?
11.13. How self different than VW?
11.14. Self a process rather than thing?

- Theoretically, under each issue would be sub-issues and respective answers.
Click to expand...
Every single one of those items has been covered in depth in these threads on ISF alone over the past five years. Every single one. And the defections, the derails, the über-skeptics coming in from time to time to show everyone how it's really done :rolleyes: , and on and on.

Admit it, you're done. Hell, we've been sticking forks in you for years, telling you how cooked you are until there's nothing left but a black, greasy spot on the table.
 
godless dave said:
It's not that they didn't like the idea, it's that your attempts to focus on the Texas Sharp Shooter fallacy just committed more of the Texas Sharp Shooter fallacy.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- IMO, the TSS argument is the only real issue. The others seem non-issues to me, just difficult to express effectively.
- Do you not have any issues to add to my list, or are you just tired of the whole thing?
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- IMO, the TSS argument is the only real issue. The others seem non-issues to me, just difficult to express effectively.
- Do you not have any issues to add to my list, or are you just tired of the whole thing?
Click to expand...

The only real issue? Seriously? Good grief, Jabba: you have been shown how badly wrong you are on every issue you've raised, and then some. The only possible reason why you don't agree is because you're terrified by the implications, so you stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la, I can't hear you."
 
- So far, it looks like no one has any issues or sub-issues to add to my list...
- I can always add later.
- The idea is to summarize each side of each argument. I will summarize my side; you guys will summarize your side. That, at least, is the idea.
- Now, it's up to me to get my blog working...
 
jond said:
The only real issue? Seriously? Good grief, Jabba: you have been shown how badly wrong you are on every issue you've raised, and then some. The only possible reason why you don't agree is because you're terrified by the implications, so you stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la, I can't hear you."
Click to expand...
jond,
- I haven't been shown how badly wrong I am; I've been told (over and over again) how badly wrong you guys think I am.
 
Jabba said:
- So far, it looks like no one has any issues or sub-issues to add to my list...
Click to expand...

There are no such thing as sub-issues. The issue is whether you can express likelihood of existence by probability; you can't. Your contention that you can is based on wishful thinking and misunderstanding of probability, physics, neurology, and reality in general.

You have no case, no argument and no claim.
 
Jabba said:
jond,
- I haven't been shown how badly wrong I am; I've been told (over and over again) how badly wrong you guys think I am.
Click to expand...

What an utter and calamitous lie!!!

You've been shown, in excruciating detail, how wrong you are and why. Jay in particular has been a virtual saint addressing every single sub-sub-sub-issue you've raised, every dishonest tactic you've used, etc. We've all been tremendously patient in dealing with you civilly and rationally, and you've done nothing in returen but insult us and repeat your claim ad nauseam. You've made no effort to learn from your critics or on your own. All that matters is what you believe, and that you are right no matter what.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- IMO, the TSS argument is the only real issue. The others seem non-issues to me, just difficult to express effectively.
- Do you not have any issues to add to my list, or are you just tired of the whole thing?
Click to expand...

I don't see any reason to add to your list when we've discussed all those points several times already.
 
jond said:
The only real issue? Seriously? Good grief, Jabba: you have been shown how badly wrong you are on every issue you've raised, and then some. The only possible reason why you don't agree is because you're terrified by the implications, so you stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la, I can't hear you."
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- So far, it looks like no one has any issues or sub-issues to add to my list...
- I can always add later.
- The idea is to summarize each side of each argument. I will summarize my side; you guys will summarize your side. That, at least, is the idea.
- Now, it's up to me to get my blog working...
Click to expand...

:dl:
 
Jabba said:
IMO, the TSS argument is the only real issue.
Click to expand...

It isn't. Your argument is riddled with logical and mathematical errors which at least three groups have pointed out to you: us, statisticians you found on the web, and individual named statisticians you explicitly sought to review it. In many cases each of those errors is individually fatal to your claim.

The others seem non-issues to me, just difficult to express effectively.
Click to expand...

No, this is not an excuse no matter how hard you gaslight. Your critics have effectively refuted your claims, and you have been unable to equivocate your way around them. Your word games just don't work, Jabba.

Do you not have any issues to add to my list, or are you just tired of the whole thing?
Click to expand...

Neither. Experience has shown that these "maps" you put together have no purpose or effect other than to lie about how a debate elsewhere has gone. You've shown no reason or assurance that this one won't. After years of complaining about how allegedly badly you've been treated here, you're frankly just admitting having wasted everyone's time and proposing to lie again about your activity here. Your critics have a legitimate right to be angry and disappointed in your childish behavior.
 
Jabba, let me help if nobody else will. (Old meanies.)

Further issues, categorized the way you like 'em:

- 325.1.1.1. I gonna die & not come back.
- 401k. No I not!
- 666. Gonna live 4 ever n EVER!
- big number.1.1.1. Amen.
- 1.1= Bleagh.

You rinse 'em & repeat 'em, Jabba, while I make up some more. We're a great team!
 
Jabba said:
The idea is to summarize each side of each argument.
Click to expand...

No, the idea is to edit the debate to make it seem like you won. That was the outcome before, even though you approached it with the same faux altriusm you express here.

I will summarize my side; you guys will summarize your side. That, at least, is the idea.
Click to expand...

You've already presented your argument here, and your critics have already presented their response here. The only reason you would want the same participants to argue the same arguments in a venue that you control is so that you can do what you did before -- lie about how the debate is going.

Now, it's up to me to get my blog working...
Click to expand...

It's up to you to face the rebuttals you told us as lately as yesterday were the reason you were here. It's ludicrous to think that appointing yourself the editor of a debate in which you are a litigant -- and which you're clearly losing -- would produce an overall better outcome.
 
Jabba said:
jond,
- I haven't been shown how badly wrong I am; I've been told (over and over again) how badly wrong you guys think I am.
Click to expand...

Only because you ignore the responses that show in great detail how wrong you are.
 
jond said:
Only because you ignore the responses that show in great detail how wrong you are.
Click to expand...

This is why it's so vital for him to rewrite the debate in a venue he controls. While he claims that an honest impartial reader would conclude in his favor, he's never acted like he believes that. The "map" he produced for the Shroud debate tended to cut off the "summary" of a particular line of questioning right before someone asked him a question he couldn't answer, giving himself the last word. Or his "summaries" of others' posts would rewrite them to say something weaker.

When he writes, "I still think I'm right," what I hear is, "I desperately want to believe I'm right." That would work better for him if other people reinforced his belief. But simply directing people to this debate won't do. He has to make sure someone who actually is honest and impartial gets only the information he wants them to see.
 
Jabba said:
jond,
- I haven't been shown how badly wrong I am; I've been told (over and over again) how badly wrong you guys think I am.
Click to expand...
Jabba, your statement does not follow. You admit you often do not read anything but the first paragraph of long posts. You admit you ignore people you believe have been mean/unfair. You admit some posts are too complicated for you to understand. How can you know that the information has not been shown to you?

If by "shown" you mean "you understand/agree", well, that's not a failing of the other posters. Science is not a popularity contest, but if it's you vs the world, the safer money is usually on the world.

CT
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom