Determinism - a scientific or a philosophical position?
- Thread starter Beth Paulkey
- Start date
-
- Tags
- determinism scientific
Guest
Unregistered
G
Soubrette said:
I sat on a jury once. Drunk driving case. The defendant's attorney did a stellar job of explaining away:
o the weaving car (he was avoiding patches of snow on the road)
o the slurred speech (he had worked hard that day and was tired)
o the failed "walk this line" test (he was nervous- a cop had just pulled himover)
o the failed "ABC" test (he was nervous and tired - see above)
o the wildly varying driving speed (he was being cautious because it was winter)
Was each explanation plausible on its own? Yes. As a totality, no.
Flip it around for a second. Is it really plausible that, at the same time Bethke was trying to get back on the forum (because he was kicked off) somebody else is inspired to become the anti-bethke? Is it plausible for the anti-bethke to also be very religious, bible-quoting and generally fight rationalism at every turn? Then how is it an anti-Bethke? Is it plausible for someone's first post to promise to behave? Do you have any other examples?
The driver was convicted. But the jury struggled with this because members looked at each bit of evidence on its own, and bought each excuse on its own, rather than viewing the totality of evidence.
Okay, so what? I maintain she's a he. So what? Nothing per se. My point is this: Paul was a bible-witnessing, obnoxious abusive threatening troll. Beth is a bible-witnessing troll. We've still got a troll. We're infested with trolls. Troll-infestation discussions abound on this board. I know you know this. They have become one of the main topics of the board. A recurring theme, if you will.
It is time to change the channel.
Cheers.
BillHoyt said:
Who cares about that guy?
He cannot undermine the JREF in any way. He does not have the intellectual capacity or evil power to do that. He is one of the most inoffensive person I've ever seen in this forum.
In fact, IMO the most abusive posters here are a small group of the so-called Atheists and "Skeptics", they're really undermining and threatening this board's credibility. But nobody says a word because they are "Skeptics"
The trolls come here to learn. Who do you think the JREF educates...?
Skeptics?
Physicists?
No, the mission of the JREF is to educate ignorants and paranormal believers.
I read the whole thread and I did not see him preaching or saying nonsense.
How do you think that people learn?. For example, I learn from the responses he gets from people like Stimpson.
Again, don't waste your time and energy on this one.
Guest
Unregistered
G
Q-Source said:
What changed your mind, Q? Here is what you had said a while ago:
So, at one point you understood the frustration and civil disobedience. Now, you don't. Okay, something has changed.
If it is just that you don't like me, that is okay, too. There are many people here who don't. Many who do. I'm not here to be liked or loved. I'm here to do my part in fulfilling JREF's mission.
I see the JREF mission as two-fold. It keeps an open mind by actively seeking evidence of paranormal abilities. It offers a tremendous sum of money to inspire people to come forward and test their claims. The actively open mind of JREF does not preclude it from taking a scientific and rational stance on these claims. Neither does it preclude JREF from educating the public about critical thinking and whacky claims. That educational mission (along with a little bit of marketing) is part of the purpose of this board.
This board needs to do what every marketing and communications piece needs to do: Attract, Inform and Persuade. The graphics have to be inviting. The topics must be interesting and informative. Moreover, it must all be persuasive. It must both inform the audience about facts and must persuade them that the facts are there is no evidence for the paranormal, no evidence for miracles. That alternative medicine is a sham. That people are being bilked daily by ministers, chiroquacks, homeopaths, clairvoyants, psychics, and mediums who take your money while telling you your Uncle Albert Einstein is in a better place and wishes you well. Of course, old Al suddenly has the IQ, knowledge of science and working vocabulary of a 14-year old. But what the hey.
The more time and bandwith we spend babysitting frankos, wraiths, paul bethkes, beth paulkeys, carlos and the droves of others, the less time and bandwith we spend getting our message out. Beth/Paul was allowed back in, to JREF's great credit. He is much tamer now, but still an attention-seeking evangelist.
So what is this board about? Teaching everybody to think critically. Helping them separate the wheat from the chaff. That can only happen in the wind, though, and somebody has got to get the fans going here and blow away the chaff.
If you want to discuss this further, may I suggest we start yet another thread on trolls, trolling, where this board wants to go and how to get there?
Cheers,
Simon Bar Sinister
Student
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2002
- Messages
- 39
BillHoyt said:
But isn't engaging these people part of "getting our message" out? I know that it's invaluable for somebody such as myself whose critical thinking and intellectual abilities are nowhere near the caliber of most of the board members. It seems to me that more of what I learn here comes from the "babysitting" responses to these people than anything else. I remember, sometime last year, when Franko had gone for a while and R & P was nearly troll-free. And you know what? It was boring. Nobody was starting discussions because everybody was basically in agreement. The trolls are apparently the catalyst that inspires the rest of you to share your knowledge with us. The only alternative I can see is for the more intelligent among us to start more threads.
On the other hand, I can understand your frustration because it must become tiresome to debate the same people on the same topics over and over again. Again, I can only suggest that you ignore them, start your own threads, and only respond to people who don't aggravate you as much.
BillHoyt said:
Sorry Bill. I tried to start a thread in the Banter section but then I realised that it is worthless.
To me, Trolls and flammers do not represent any threat at all. Many people think that they are responsible for the quality and crisis of this board, but I totally disagree with that idea.
I have said it many times, we all are responsible.
Besides, I also disagree with the definition of "Troll" and who you think that fell in this category. To me, a troll is someone who is abusive, someone who's purpose is to flame other people. It has nothing to do with their religious or philosophical positions. In this regard, there are many "skeptics" and atheist who we should call trolls as well.
Q
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
Q-Source said:
Well said Q
Now Bill, might I suggest that you admit that you were wrong about Beth and apologise to her? People will respect you more for it.
Guest
Unregistered
G
Q-Source said:
The correct definition of a troll is someone who "baits" posters with carefully-designed incorrect statements. That includes people who bait with seemingly innocent questions, but who really want to engage people on an opposing battlefield.
It hasn't anything to do with abuse or flaming or spamming. It is all about attention-getting and "tweaking."
Cheers,
bait how? By calling anyone who isn't a member of your magical religion (A-Theism) names? If you call someone a "Troll" who is far more skeptical than You, but they are opposed to your cornbread religion, wouldn't that make YOU the "Troll" by your own definition?
Why is it okay for you to believe in your god -- "free willy" -- based on no evidence, but it is a horrible sin for a Theist to believe in his god based on the evidence that YOUR god obviously doesn't exist?
TLOP (God) controls YOU controls CAR
You've been brainwashed. Deal with it.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Franko said:
Bam Bam Bam
another driveby assertion!
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Determinism:
the biggest mistake about an event is to assume that you can find the true cause. I think it can be done by science in a very limited fashion for certain events. But it is a real mistake when looking at history or evolution!
The greatest evil is progessive-ism; the notion that things make progress.
I don't buy determinsism as a a take on science either, when you have so many enery bits interacting over such great distances , they behave well is aggregate but actual deterministic prediction is impossible.
Acausal: does it mean with out cause or that the cause can not be known?
the biggest mistake about an event is to assume that you can find the true cause. I think it can be done by science in a very limited fashion for certain events. But it is a real mistake when looking at history or evolution!
The greatest evil is progessive-ism; the notion that things make progress.
I don't buy determinsism as a a take on science either, when you have so many enery bits interacting over such great distances , they behave well is aggregate but actual deterministic prediction is impossible.
Acausal: does it mean with out cause or that the cause can not be known?
slimshady2357
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2001
- Messages
- 1,093
Well, Bill and I were both wrong 
And to think, Beth turned out to be my good buddy whitey.... what a little bastard!
Bad whitefork! Don't make me get the newspaper out again!
Adam
And to think, Beth turned out to be my good buddy whitey.... what a little bastard!
Bad whitefork! Don't make me get the newspaper out again!
Adam
slimshady2357
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2001
- Messages
- 1,093
hammegk said:
It's possible I am misremembering, but I am not kidding. I seem to remember whitefork admitting this at some point. Now I'm hoping it wasn't in a PM
Adam
Wrath of the Swarm
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,855
Okay, I've just finished reading the preceding posts in this thread.
In my mind, part of the problem with this debate is while that the general understanding of causality has been disproven, there's a broader definition of causality that remains.
"Causality loops" such as the solution to the Grandfather Paradox and the "Babylon 4" plot in Babylon 5 would be good examples of non-local determinstic variables working to direct events, but in a wider sense causality really is preserved. It's just necessary to take a non-temporal perspective on the whole thing.
In my mind, part of the problem with this debate is while that the general understanding of causality has been disproven, there's a broader definition of causality that remains.
"Causality loops" such as the solution to the Grandfather Paradox and the "Babylon 4" plot in Babylon 5 would be good examples of non-local determinstic variables working to direct events, but in a wider sense causality really is preserved. It's just necessary to take a non-temporal perspective on the whole thing.
whitefork
None of the above
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 2,326
Yes, whitefork/beth paulkey/kullervo/franko's goddess/rosetta stone/the lord god almighty/desianarchy (my favorite)
I outed these guys a while back. Every once in a while I use one of them if the occasion seems to warrant it.
People got all wrapped around the axle about Beth for some reason. She's really a nice person, really.
I outed these guys a while back. Every once in a while I use one of them if the occasion seems to warrant it.
People got all wrapped around the axle about Beth for some reason. She's really a nice person, really.