• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:
Even the intellectual dishonesty is explainable - it's the ultimate denial mechanism.
Click to expand...
The ultimate denial mechanism if your failure to acknowledge the qualification problems [...]

Your denial of the qualification problems of your theory is the intellectually dishonest behavior.
Click to expand...
Again, what does "qualification" mean?

It's pretty central to your claims MM, but, as many have said, only you know what it means (and you do not seem to be trying very hard to explain this rather central concept).

How about trying to get others to understand?

Why not start here:

What, in the MM worldview, constitutes "demonstrat[ing] it exists here on Earth"? Specifically, what are the experiments which "demonstrate" (in the MM sense) that "gravity" exists (here on Earth)?

From those experiments, how does one (someone other than MM) go about "scaling up" gravity?

I need an answer that is objective, and describes a method that anyone with the necessary minimum of knowledge and capability can follow, and get exactly the same answer (i.e. objective, independent verification).

You may like to take the example of the discovery of Neptune.
 
D'rok said:
Please define "qualification".
Click to expand...

If I doubt the existence of gravity, I can drop a few items and watch it have an effect on objects. How do I demonstrate that "inflation" is real or has any effect on nature?

You are using this word in a bizarre manner.
Click to expand...

No I am not. If we were applying this term to the topic of God would you still find it "bizarre"? Is there evidence in your opinion that God exists? If not, why not?
 
I propose this as the DRD/D'rok formal syllogism of MM's conceptual misunderstanding of science.

If P (God) then Q (Mathemagics)
Q (Abracadabra ---> Mathemagics)
Therefore P (God)
 
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger said:
Sorry, but that's simplistic, even wrong. Three relevant examples:
  1. Program design is a creative enterprise that (in some respects) resembles theory building.
  2. Debugging, when done intelligently, involves hypothesis formation and empirical testing (falsification).
  3. Falsification involves deductive logic in science, just as in programming.
Click to expand...
It's not wrong, it's merely incomplete. I didn't include the falsification aspect, which can be expressed:

If P (hypothesis), then Q (predictions).
Q (dis-confirmed over and over through independent testing).
Therefore not-P.
 
D'rok said:
I propose this as the DDR/D'rok formal syllogism of MM's conceptual misunderstanding of science.

If P (God) then Q (Mathemagics)
Q (Abracadabra ---> Mathemagics)
Therefore P (God)
Click to expand...

No.

If "P" is real and is not a figment of your imagination, then Q (mathematics) can actually be "tested" in the lab. If P is a figment of your imagination however, then Q is not related to P and P will never show up in the lab.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Please define "qualification".
Click to expand...
If I doubt the existence of gravity, I can drop a few items and watch it have an effect on objects.
Click to expand...

What, in the MM worldview, constitutes "demonstrat[ing] it exists here on Earth"? Specifically, what are the experiments which "demonstrate" (in the MM sense) that "gravity" exists (here on Earth)?

From those experiments, how does one (someone other than MM) go about "scaling up" gravity?

I need an answer that is objective, and describes a method that anyone with the necessary minimum of knowledge and capability can follow, and get exactly the same answer (i.e. objective, independent verification).

You may like to take the example of the discovery of Neptune.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
In other words, Michael Mozina truly does not understand the process of falsification: By refusing to consider "if X, then Y" he rejects "if not Y, then not X".
Click to expand...

If Y is an observation then "not X" is never an issue and never a possibility. In this case Y has always been observed and X is simply an affirmation of the consequent. You simply *assumed* a "cause". If God, then acceleration. Acceleration is observed, therefore God. Never was an empirical link established between acceleration and God.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:
Again, what does "qualification" mean?
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, are you a theist or an atheist? If the later is the case, why? How does the "qualification" term apply to that argument in your opinion?
Click to expand...


Why the steadfast refusal to define your terminology? If it's because you simply don't know the meanings of the words you use (and there is a large body of evidence to support this notion), then you're just jabbering nonsense and it shouldn't surprise you at all when people call your comments crackpottery. If it's because you don't have the ability and/or desire to engage in honest communication where all parties can understand each other in an objective exchange of ideas, then your arguments are intentional and despicable contortions of legitimate science for your own gratification, and again, it shouldn't surprise you when people recognize your arguments as lies and call you on it.

There are over 200 words and phrases you use but haven't defined. Would you like me to post the list again so you can start defining them and get to the business of communicating in a sane, rational, and intelligent manner?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
If I doubt the existence of gravity, I can drop a few items and watch it have an effect on objects. How do I demonstrate that "inflation" is real or has any effect on nature?
Click to expand...

That isn't a definition. Please define the term.



No I am not. If we were applying this term to the topic of God would you still find it "bizarre"?
Click to expand...
Well, yes. Because as it turns out, I made a mental slip and interpreted "qualification" as "qualitative". If you define the term, it will help clear up confusion.
Is there evidence in your opinion that God exists? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
No. Because the God hypothesis is qualitative and cannot be quantified.
 
GeeMack said:
No, you can't. Your qualifications to do math at a level necessary to balance your own checkbook have been challenged, and you have been wholly incapable of demonstrating that you indeed possess those qualifications.
Click to expand...

Why is it that the moderators let you get away with murder when it comes to personal attacks?
 
GeeMack said:
Why the steadfast refusal to define your terminology?
Click to expand...

Because they aren't "my terms" in the first place, and you don't even properly understand the term "opaque", so what's the point? You made up the list. You figure out what to do with it.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No.

If "P" is real and is not a figment of your imagination, then Q (mathematics) can actually be "tested" in the lab. If P is a figment of your imagination however, then Q is not related to P and P will never show up in the lab.
Click to expand...
Once again, you want P to be established before getting to Q, the part where P is established.

You're stuck in a loop. Break! Break!
 
D'rok said:
No. Because the God hypothesis is qualitative and cannot be quantified.
Click to expand...

I can pilfer your same math and quantify it too. You're ignoring the point here. The math isn't a "qualifier". It's simply a "quantifier". I can slap on some math to "Godflation", but that won't "quality" the concept in the slightest.
 
D'rok said:
Once again, you want P to be established before getting to Q, the part where P is established.

You're stuck in a loop. Break! Break!
Click to expand...

Q is an "observation". There's no point in proceeding to an observation without qualifying any sort of cause/effect relationship between the observation in question and P. You're affirming the consequent and stuck in that loop. Break! Break!. :)
 
Michael Mozina said:
I can pilfer your same math and quantify it too. You're ignoring the point here. The math isn't a "qualifier". It's simply a "quantifier". I can slap on some math to "Godflation", but that won't "quality" the concept in the slightest.
Click to expand...
:confused:
 
Michael Mozina said:
Q is an "observation". There's no point in proceeding to an observation without qualifying any sort of cause/effect relationship between the observation in question and P. You're affirming the consequent and stuck in that loop. Break! Break!. :)
Click to expand...
The following is not GeeMack speaking:

Please define, define, these three terms:

qualify
qualification
hypothesis
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom