A rant : Magic (possibly Spirituality to)

[Cain]

ETA: NONE OF YOU ARE GETTING BIRTHDAY PRESENTS

[LMNO]

Is there a term for when someone performs a Reductio ad Absurdum on their own arguments?



If not, I propose the term, a "Singerism".

[Kai]

the utterance was backed up with years of evidence of the I AM AWESOME AT SCIENCE sort. It was not taken straight off as good, mostly because when Hustle first met me, I had just started my formal education. In other words, my claim is backed up by my consistent ability to show I know what the hell I'm talking about.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Sigh I was gonna stop posting here... but I'm giving one more attempt at clearing the air on the issue of evidence. This is because I am a masochist.


I think the main issue here is a confusion of models.

The model which most affects Kai's life is justifiably the Scientific Model. The model has specific requirements and parameters around what can be called evidence within that model. Most obviously, observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments under controlled conditions. These are used to support or disprove a hypothesis.

However, that is not the only model or the only definition of evidence. Evidence is everything that is used to determine the truth/veracity of an assertion. Some evidence is strong, some evidence is weak. Some evidence is useless on its own, and has value only when combined with other evidence (but then may depend upon inference and interpretation). Different models use the term evidence in different ways.

For example, in a court of law "eyewitness testimony" is an acceptable form of evidence. In scientific inquiry, that alone is NOT acceptable (they better have documentation etc). Indeed, 'evidence' is labeled as such by the judge who can decide if a prosecutions exhibit or testimony meets the standard for evidence in the Judge's view. This model is obviously far more relaxed than the scientific one.

Thus, we can say that anecdotes are 'evidence'. They are not strong evidence, they do not have a high level of trust associated with them... but they are considered 'evidence' in many different models. Intuition, Personal experience, Testimonial, Anecdotal are all forms of evidence... but they are not Scientific Evidence (they are not evidence that can be used when modeling the topic within the scientific model).

[Kai]

Sorry, I'm still caught up on the "Correlation and Causation are interchangeable" bullshit.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

Didn't you read their signature?  

I have sigs turned off.  FOR SCIENCE!



Somewhere around here, I've posted something about magic¹ and magic², or some such shit, in order to clarify terms.  Maybe I should look for it.


But honestly, the fact that Rat argued for two pages against something he ended up agreeing with should tell you something.


EDIT: oh yeah, it was here -- http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=21358.msg727843#msg727843

I was being a smartass on the magic.....  but I deserve at least a bit of credit for the jesus reference right?

Didn't you read their signature? 

That's actually a reference to the "Prime Mover" of Aristotle's Metaphysics treatise.

Oh wow, don't I feel intellectually inferior 

hmmmmmm metaphysics....  science.....  should I go on?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Sorry, I'm still caught up on the "Correlation and Causation are interchangeable" bullshit.

I said 'mutable' not interchangable. Those words do not mean the same thing.

[Kai]

Sorry, I'm still caught up on the "Correlation and Causation are interchangeable" bullshit.

I said 'mutable' not interchangable. Those words do not mean the same thing.
[/quote

They're not mutable either.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Sorry, I'm still caught up on the "Correlation and Causation are interchangeable" bullshit.

I said 'mutable' not interchangable. Those words do not mean the same thing.
[/quote

They're not mutable either.

Really? Philosophers all over the world will rejoice now that you've settled the issue then!!

I mean, its not like Aristotle had four different types of causality... or that John Sowa modified the traditional Max Born definition less than a decade ago.

And we certainly can't discuss probabilistic causality, because apparently that doesn't exist either (must have been that Italian sub I ate last night).

Nor can we discuss the theories that causality is an artifact of the way our brains process data... nope can't look there! Oh, can we discuss how 'cause and effect' are finding patterns and how a single 'cause/effect' statement is usually incomplete?

And obviously our understanding of correlation is restricted to a single value as well... "When I smoke pot,, the phone rings, therefore smoking pot causes the phone to ring".... It's not like correlation could be useful in assembling evidence through, oh I don't know statistical analysis, modeling climate or anything like that, hell no!

Obviously I was wrong and the definitions of cause and correlation are etched in stone by the finger of God.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Just so you know, I have been aware of Kai's scientific career for several years as well. I have been pretty impressed with Kai's education and opinions in the past and I expect I will continue to be so.   I did not (and do not) question his credibility.

Yes you did.

[Kai]

Sorry, I'm still caught up on the "Correlation and Causation are interchangeable" bullshit.

I said 'mutable' not interchangable. Those words do not mean the same thing.
[/quote

They're not mutable either.

Really? Philosophers all over the world will rejoice now that you've settled the issue then!!

I mean, its not like Aristotle had four different types of causality... or that John Sowa modified the traditional Max Born definition less than a decade ago.

And we certainly can't discuss probabilistic causality, because apparently that doesn't exist either (must have been that Italian sub I ate last night).

Nor can we discuss the theories that causality is an artifact of the way our brains process data... nope can't look there! Oh, can we discuss how 'cause and effect' are finding patterns and how a single 'cause/effect' statement is usually incomplete?

And obviously our understanding of correlation is restricted to a single value as well... "When I smoke pot,, the phone rings, therefore smoking pot causes the phone to ring".... It's not like correlation could be useful in assembling evidence through, oh I don't know statistical analysis, modeling climate or anything like that, hell no!

Obviously I was wrong and the definitions of cause and correlation are etched in stone by the finger of God.

And correlation still corresponds to patterns and causality still corresponds to process; they still have the same definitions. Thank you for the supporting evidence.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Sorry, I'm still caught up on the "Correlation and Causation are interchangeable" bullshit.

I said 'mutable' not interchangable. Those words do not mean the same thing.
[/quote

They're not mutable either.

Really? Philosophers all over the world will rejoice now that you've settled the issue then!!

Since when were we discussing philosophy?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Sorry, I'm still caught up on the "Correlation and Causation are interchangeable" bullshit.

I said 'mutable' not interchangable. Those words do not mean the same thing.
[/quote

They're not mutable either.

Really? Philosophers all over the world will rejoice now that you've settled the issue then!!

I mean, its not like Aristotle had four different types of causality... or that John Sowa modified the traditional Max Born definition less than a decade ago.

And we certainly can't discuss probabilistic causality, because apparently that doesn't exist either (must have been that Italian sub I ate last night).

Nor can we discuss the theories that causality is an artifact of the way our brains process data... nope can't look there! Oh, can we discuss how 'cause and effect' are finding patterns and how a single 'cause/effect' statement is usually incomplete?

And obviously our understanding of correlation is restricted to a single value as well... "When I smoke pot,, the phone rings, therefore smoking pot causes the phone to ring".... It's not like correlation could be useful in assembling evidence through, oh I don't know statistical analysis, modeling climate or anything like that, hell no!

Obviously I was wrong and the definitions of cause and correlation are etched in stone by the finger of God.

And correlation still corresponds to patterns and causality still corresponds to process; they still have the same definitions. Thank you for the supporting evidence.

*groan*

Ah, so we go from the definitions are not mutable (changeable)... to "Well, let's define them ion the broadest sense so Kai can be right"?

Correspond != definition

That's just dishonest.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Sorry, I'm still caught up on the "Correlation and Causation are interchangeable" bullshit.

I said 'mutable' not interchangable. Those words do not mean the same thing.
[/quote

They're not mutable either.

Really? Philosophers all over the world will rejoice now that you've settled the issue then!!

Since when were we discussing philosophy?

Since the beginning of the thread, given the topic... catch up old man.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Sorry, I'm still caught up on the "Correlation and Causation are interchangeable" bullshit.

I said 'mutable' not interchangable. Those words do not mean the same thing.
[/quote

They're not mutable either.

Really? Philosophers all over the world will rejoice now that you've settled the issue then!!

Since when were we discussing philosophy?

Since the beginning of the thread, given the topic... catch up old man.

Really?  I thought we were talking about how magic is really psychology and whether or not science is reliable.

I saw no discussion of philosophy.  However, if this IS a discussion about philosophy, then it's totally pointless, since 99% of philosophy is utter bullshit intended only for lazy Greeks and French people to use to look busy.