Cont: Proof of Immortality VIII

Because I'm that bored, and I'm curious to see how it goes:

REF: http://www.internationalskeptics.co...p?do=newreply&postid=2821875&postnum=11871278

JayUtah said:
Fatal flaw 1: You err in formulating a Bayesian inference.
Click to expand...
I will cite a properly formulated Bayesian inference from a generally-accepted authority, and cite my formulation alongside it to show that the two are synonymous.


No. This is expressly what statistical inference is not. One applies a statistical inference to predict an as-yet unknown outcome so as to rationally inform decisions that must be made prior to knowing the outcome. The outcome, once known, is a fact. That it was previously deemed unlikely casts no doubt on the causality that produced it.

Fatal flaw 2: You err in your understanding of the probative nature of a statistical inference.
Click to expand...
I'll stop using statistical inference to support/undermine the causality of events that have a known outcome.

Fatal flaw 3: You don't know what the parts of a statistical inference are, how to formulate them, or what they do in an inference.
Click to expand...
Citing a generally-accepted authority, I will enumerate the parts of a statistical inference, along with their formulations and their role in an inference. I will then cite my formulation, and demonstrate how its parts and their roles are synonymous with the authoritative example.

Fatal flaw 4: You don't understand what evidence is.
Click to expand...
I will cite a generally-accepted authority on the different kinds of evidence and their appropriate scope of application. I will summarize my evidence and describe how it conforms to the authoritative citation.


And as with all fringe theorists, you try to drive a speculative wedge into the inductive gap in order to shift the burden of proof. You have explicitly said that all you need is a "reasonable alternative" to hold by default after you've purported to claim the prevailing theory is so unlikely as to be all but impossible.

Fatal flaw 5: Your argument is a blatant false dilemma.
Click to expand...
I will abandon the false dilemma argument, as it does not actually support my thesis.

Your theory was that you have an immortal soul -- that particular affirmative theory. Throwing shade on one of several other possible theories doesn't support yours.

Fatal flaw 6: Your argument commits the fallacy of converting the conditional.
Click to expand...
I will stop trying to support my theory by casting suspicion on other theories. My theory stands or falls on its own.

No, you simply beg the question that your existence is improbable.

Fatal flaw 7: You beg the question that existence is improbable without immortal souls, and use this begged question as a premise in your argument.
Click to expand...
I will re-work my argument to avoid having it depend on its own conclusion.

Fatal flaw 8: Your attempt to claim that materialism is false simply invents elements that are not part of materialism.
Click to expand...
I'll confine my arguments about materialism to the actual elements of materialism. I'll stop trying to claim that materialism is false - either it follows from proper arguments, or it does not.

Fatal flaw 9: The notion of existing selves as targets that must be met, and which it is improbable to meet, commits the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
Click to expand...
I'll abandon this notion entirely. I'll attempt to find some form of valid prior targeting, but if I can't then I admit the entire argument fails.

In order to avoid bogging down interminably on this point, I'll focus on this specific flaw in depth over the next month, and concede the failure of my argument if I can't address it by that time.

This is a bit of a challenge for me, and I would appreciate any help in reformulating my argument to avoid this fallacy. I understand that avoiding this fallacy may dramatically change the nature of my argument and its conclusion. Thanks in advance!

Dishonest tactic 1: You try to back-door important concepts that you know you can't prove.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry. I'll stop doing this. If you see me trying to do this in the future, please point it out. I'll either prove the concept in question, or remove it from my argument. Thanks in advance!

Dishonest tactic 2: You purport to search for a "fool proof" method of assuring equity in understanding, but you are clearly the source of the ambiguity and equivocation in this debate.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry. I'll stop doing this. If you see me trying to do this in the future, please point it out. I'm happy to accept correction on this matter. Thanks in advance!

Fatal flaw 10: You err in attributing mathematical countability to an abstract concept.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but I have nothing for this one. I know this is probably going to seem pretty obnoxious, but can you cite a specific example of this error? I will endeavor to work through it based on your assessment and feedback.

Dishonest tactic 3: Shoving words into your critics' mouths.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry. I'll stop doing this. If you see me trying to do this in the future, please point it out. I'll either cite the source of the words, or retract the associated claim. Thanks in advance!

Fatal flaw 11: Your formulation is pseudo-mathematical gibberish in a number of ways.
Click to expand...
I will cite the proper mathematical formulation from a generally-accepted authority. I will then cite my formulation and attempt to show that it is synonymous with the authoritative formulation. Where it is not, I will modify my formulation to be synonymous with the authoritative one. I accept that such modifications may result in a very different formulation leading to very different conclusions. This is fine.

I've spent almost an hour on this. I'm happy to receive feedback and discuss it, but my time and energy are limited, so I'd prefer to move on pretty quickly to the detailed work on each specific flaw and tactic listed. I'll be starting with a focus on the Texas Sharpshooter issue. Perhaps we can return to this list in a month or so and see where we are?

Thanks again!
 
Last edited:
Anyway, yeah. High-level overview of the entire case takes about an hour. It would have taken less time, probably, but I'm in the middle of a meeting that is even more trivial but still requires occasional attention from me.
 
Jabba said:
...
2. The strength of the evidence depends in part upon how unlikely the event is -- given the hypothesis...
Click to expand...

JayUtah said:
...
No, the strength of the hypothesis depends on how well it explains evidence. You simply make up the alleged relationship between the event and the hypothesis. You frankly stated up front this is what you're doing.

In the proper formulation, the event is a fact. It's neither likely nor unlikely by itself. A hypothesis may be likely or unlikely compared to another hypothesis in light of that fact. That's what this iterative form of inference allows us to determine. I won't continue here, since I wrote on this at length -- and you ignored it. You don't know the difference between an hypothesis and an event.

Fatal flaw 3: You don't know what the parts of a statistical inference are, how to formulate them, or what they do in an inference...
Click to expand...
- Unfortunately, I have, indeed, been using the wrong words. The term likelihood refers to the hypothesis and not the data/event...

https://alexanderetz.com/2015/04/15/understanding-bayes-a-look-at-the-likelihood/
Likelihood is a funny concept. It’s not a probability, but it is proportional to a probability. The likelihood of a hypothesis (H) given some data (D) is proportional to the probability of obtaining D given that H is true, multiplied by an arbitrary positive constant (K). In other words, L(H|D) = K · P(D|H). Since a likelihood isn’t actually a probability it doesn’t obey various rules of probability. For example, likelihood need not sum to 1.

- Anyway,
- P(H|E & k) = P(E|H)P(H|k) / (P(E|H)P(H|k) + P(E|~H)P(~H|k)).
- I think that I should have said, "The strength of the evidence depends in part upon how improbable the event is -- given the hypothesis...
 
Jabba said:
Unfortunately...
Click to expand...

I assume your blustering ahead on your terms alone is meant as deliberate disrepect to what has been asked of you.

Please correct your behavior and please do as I ask. I have been very open and honest about the reasons why we need to proceed as I have outlined. You have all but admitted you're trying to subvert that.
 
theprestige said:
It would have taken less time, probably...
Click to expand...

You answered the Dishonest Tactic parts too, which added to the time required. I excused Jabba from those from the very beginning because a claimant can still be right according to the facts even if his approach is dishonest and distasteful. I'm trying to focus Jabba on the actual structure and body of his argument.

We had another thread in which it was marginally appropriate to discuss respect for one's opponents; Jabba asked for and received a list of what we felt were his disrespectful behaviors. He paid it lip service and then ignored it. At this point it just seems easier to conclude that his arrogance and disrespect are deliberate, not about to change, and not strictly on-topic in the thread where his proof is discussed.

Jabba clearly just wants to forge ahead, ignoring everyone but himself. This is what Talk Stats concluded too was his only aim. But he wants to pretend this is (a) productive, and (b) what people should be engaged with. If you have a set of issues and each one of them individually is a show-stopper irrespective of all the others, then it's obviously unproductive to try so very had to solve only one of them before moving on to the others. There's no point to spending literally years delving into the first, oh say, eight fatal flaws if the ninth one is insurmountable, dooms the proof, and we could have known that right from the start.
 
JayUtah said:
Jabba clearly just wants to forge ahead, ignoring everyone but himself. This is what Talk Stats concluded too was his only aim. But he wants to pretend this is (a) productive, and (b) what people should be engaged with. If you have a set of issues and each one of them individually is a show-stopper irrespective of all the others, then it's obviously unproductive to try so very had to solve only one of them before moving on to the others. There's no point to spending literally years delving into the first, oh say, eight fatal flaws if the ninth one is insurmountable, dooms the proof, and we could have known that right from the start.
Click to expand...


He doesn’t even want to do that: he wants to address one objection at a time, but if the objection turns out to be insurmountable, he wants to be allowed to hand wave it aside and change the subject. He’s been quite explicit about this previously, for example concerning the Texas sharpshooter. Or see his recent comment that:
Jabba said:
- So now, I'm going to go back to one fatal flaw at a time. If no one is interested, so be it.
- If someone responds to this response, I'll have to decide whether to respond to that response or respond to the next fatal flaw.
Click to expand...
 
Jabba rushes into A&E (ER) shouting, "I've been shot in the chest seven times, I'm losing lots of blood, but I need a doctor to look at my athlete's foot!"
 
Jabba said:
- Unfortunately, I have, indeed, been using the wrong words. The term likelihood refers to the hypothesis and not the data/event...

https://alexanderetz.com/2015/04/15/understanding-bayes-a-look-at-the-likelihood/
Likelihood is a funny concept. It’s not a probability, but it is proportional to a probability. The likelihood of a hypothesis (H) given some data (D) is proportional to the probability of obtaining D given that H is true, multiplied by an arbitrary positive constant (K). In other words, L(H|D) = K · P(D|H). Since a likelihood isn’t actually a probability it doesn’t obey various rules of probability. For example, likelihood need not sum to 1.

- Anyway,
- P(H|E & k) = P(E|H)P(H|k) / (P(E|H)P(H|k) + P(E|~H)P(~H|k)).
- I think that I should have said, "The strength of the evidence depends in part upon how improbable the event is -- given the hypothesis...
Click to expand...

You have conceded defeat, Jabba. Why are you still arguing at all, let alone posting the same old worthless drivel?
 
Pixel42 said:
You have conceded defeat, Jabba. Why are you still arguing at all, let alone posting the same old worthless drivel?
Click to expand...

He didn't concede he was wrong. He conceded he couldn't prevail in the debate. Now he's in the face-saving part of the show where he tries to prove that if those despicable skeptics hadn't been so biased and unfair, he really would have won the debate. Presenting it all over again is part of the "See, I really do have a valid argument!" ploy.

This is an ego-reinforcement exercise, not a debate over a mathematical proof.
 
Jabba said:
...
3. It is evidence similar to “opportunity” in a murder trial in that it can be totally meaningless if other conditions are not met...
Click to expand...

JayUtah said:
...
This is the concept of circumstantial evidence that you introduced as part of your Shroud thread. We conducted an entirely separate thread to investigate the nature of circumstantial evidence, in which your theory of it was entirely refuted. And further, as we discussed in relation to your rigged-lottery example, you don't understand the fundamental difference between possibility and evidence.

Fatal flaw 4: You don't understand what evidence is...
Click to expand...
- Obviously, I disagree.
- You're just making 2 claims: that my claim in the Shroud thread was wrong, and that my claim here is analogous to the Shroud claim. To use these claims as evidence against my claim, you need to substantiate them.
 
Jabba said:
Obviously...
Click to expand...

You are not following the instructions, which were given for a specific purposes that you haven't seen fit to challenge. You've been shown an example of the kind of answer that would be acceptable. Your continued disobedience is disrespectful and insulting.

You're trying to browbeat everyone into going back to your time-wasting mode of "discussion." Quit playing games and do as I asked. Once your summary is submitted properly, we can determine whether it's valuable to follow any or all of the avenues of debate.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Good thing those threads exist, then.
Click to expand...

Three, actually. The Shroud thread itself, the circumstantial evidence thread that branched from it, and the anecdotal evidence thread that branched from this one. And since Jabba freely admits he doesn't read my posts, he has no basis for claiming the substantiation wasn't already provided. Which of course it was.

In any case, following the instructions, his 1-to-2-sentence answer describing his argument rather than attempting to make it would have been something like
I plan to deny the conclusion and pretend that we need to revisit all the evidence again.​
See, when you have to describe it instead of foisting it and pretending it's valid, it's harder to make an evasive answer stick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom