In article WVVRa.91477$Ph3.10754@sccrnsc04,
Bob White wrote:

"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Richard Alexander wrote:
"Bob White" wrote in message
news:xEBRa.82631$N7.11056@sccrnsc03...

What prevents us from using the logical, systematic, scientific method
of
investigation to investigate any proposition at all,

Before the scientific method can be used, the object of investigation
must be accessible. Thus, one-time events are likely to be beyond the
scope of the scientific method. Historical events in general are
beyond the scope of the scientific method, though one can use the
scientific method on some on-going after-effects.

I wouldn't say that's strictly true. We can't repeat SN1987a, for one
example. Data about it was gathered from multiple sources, but even if it
weren't, we have a larger context of stellar physics and astronomical
observation to fit it into. Including our own Sun, and neutrinos created
reliably in reactors and accelerators.


One lesson emphasized in my classes of Logic and Critical Thinking is
that logic is a wonderful servant, but a wretched master. There are
those who would make logic and the scientific method our masters. You
sound like one of them.

Vulcans on Star Trek are the worst, spouting off "Your behavior isn't
logical" when they have no idea what goals that behavior is even meant to
achieve.

I think this guy has more faith in, and gives more scope to science than
the typical scientist does. He has an issue -- God is not merely unproven
or untestable, God must be provably false ...

Straw man. That is not what I am saying at all, certainly nothing like, "God
must be provably false." Please try to get it straight, instead of building
a straw man

All right, then. God might exist, there's no proof that he doesn't.
--
"When fighting with sharpened Bronze, or harder Metals from the Heavens,
it is Wise to kick thy Opponent, be he a Chaldean or a man of Uruk, in his
Man Sack, that thou mayst defeat him more handily than by Arms. So sayeth
INNAMURUTUSHIMMILODEK, who hath slain threescore Ammelekites."

Sorry, I thought this thread was dead.

Unless you were born yesterday, you know about Nature-Nurture debate.
(of which nurture appears to be winning by genetics - at the moment.
even if they also are wrong. Our behavior on the genetic account arise
from our genes - Matt Riley in The Genome talks about 'The Language
Gene.' I don't think much of this either) The Nature-Nurture debate is
simply part of a much longer debate and that being between Empiricism
and Rationalism going all the way back to Aristotle (as Empiricist) and
Plato (as Rationalist).

For Skinner---

My information comes from Professor Daniel Robinson Ph.D. in Psychology
at Georgetown University in Washington DC course Great Ideas of
Psychology Lectures14 B.F. Skinner and Modern Behaviorism and Lecture 15
B.F. Skinner and the Engineering of Society. His information listed in
the referernce for his course are B.F. Skinner Science and Human
Behavior, (1953) New York: Macmillion/B.F. Skinner "Can Psychology be a
science of the mind?" 1990 American Psychologist, vol 45 1206-10.
Robinson has taught at Georgetown University since 1971where he is a
professor of psychology. He also has a number of books, one of which is
Philosophy of Psychology.

Robinson Lecture 14 Outline pamphlet p7-8 ---

"I. Skinner sought to establish psychology as a descriptive science of
behavior."
"A.Ernst Mach took a the grounding of every science to be at the level
of observation and experiment."
"B. Skinner was committed to the Machian perspective in the
psychological domain. This would become clear in Skinner's first work,
Behavior of Organisms.. In this work he declared a scientific psychology
based on behavior could be independent from physiology, chemistry, and
the like."
"1. Throughout the 19'th century, influential psychological thinkers
tied psychological phenomena to "physiological phenomena."
"2. In dealing with this question, Skinner argued that the facts of
behavior survive any theoretical construction. Nothing is added to the
information of behavior by knowing what is inside the organism, even if
there isn't anything inside the organism at all."

[Read that last line again --- real carefully.]

"II. A purely descriptive science of behavior must be lean in its
terminology, avoiding the use of private, mentalistic terms. To avoid
the use of mentalistic terms, one may adopt operational definitions. For
instance, one can define hunger as hours of food deprivation. The
determinants of behavior, from Skinner's perpective, are external to the
organism.


"Rolf Marvin Bøe Lindgren" wrote in message
...
[Mike Dubbeld] (apparently quoting Skinner)

| You are the product of your environment.

[Rolf Marvin Bøe Lindgren]

| and where does he say that?

[Bob White]

Nobody ever said this was a Skinner quote. But it most certainly does
fit Skinners idiot ideas. From above --

"---Skinner argued that the facts of behavior survive any theoretical
construction. Nothing is added to the information of behavior by knowing
what is inside the organism, even if there isn't anything inside the
organism at all." D. Robinson

In other words Skinners version of psychology was independent of all
physiology whatsoever. It was not necessary to know what the physiology
of the organism was - only how it behaved. And its behavior was a result
of past experience. This same idiot idea arose with John Locke - Tabula
Rasa/blank slate. Per idiot brain Empiricists, humans have no innate
intelligence - let alone animals.

It is likely you do not know how Gestalt Psychology was the first to
deal Behaviorism a fatal blow. Kohler and his experiments on Sultan the
ape most certainly can not be accounted for by Behaviorism not the work
of Toleman and Blotchet wheeling rats around in wheelbarrows through
mazes. Also Robinson lectures. That was long ago. Anyone that does not
believe that animals have mental life is a total whacko/loser -
especially Skinner. Behaviorism has its place but it is only a small
place. I also know of nightmare stories of Behaviorists attempting to
associate behavior with catatonic schitzophrenia - yes sportsfan, this
was attempted to be diagnosed as a behavioral problem too. Idiots.

In the 'Enlightenment' thousands of witches were burned at the stake.
Who do you think your chances of being tried as a witch would be
better - tried by the church or by the state? (Crown) The Church. Know
why? Because the Kings and so forth sought to be holier than the holy
and thus prosecuted more vigorously. What does this have to do with
anything? Psychology is a science wannabe. It too attempts to be more
scientific than science. In so doing it makes a lot of stupid decisions.
B.F. Skinner was one such decision. Empirical means to justify itself as
a science - not to further understanding in psychology. Yes lugnuts
psychology idiot behaviorists, it is ok to once again talk about the
mind and the mental life of animals without concern for cuts in funding
as not being scientific. I call it the 'Skinner Rein of Terror.' Skinner
did at least as much harm to psychology as he did help to it.


Mike Dubbeld



| Ferster and Skinner demonstrated that bhavior is determined by the
| contingencies of reinforcement from the environment acting upon the
genetic
| heritage of the organism. See _Schedules of Reinforcement_ by B. F.
| Skinner, Carl D. Cheney, W. H. Morse, P. B. Dews, Charles B. Ferster

where exactly here does Skinner state that we are products of our
environment?

[Rolf Marvin Bøe Lindgren]

| why do you assume that Skinner studied philosophy, physiology and
| neurology? why did he put so much emphasis on the biological makeup
of
| the organism?

[Bob White]

| On the contrary, for Ferster and Skinner, et al, the emphasis is on
| the experimental variable, "contingencies of reinforcement from the
| environment." The variable, "genetic heritage (biological makeup)"
is
| a variable that has been controled for in the experiments
| demonstrating that behavior is determined by the contingencies of
| reinforcement.

where does Skinner state that "behavior is determined by the
contingencies of reinforcement"? exactly where does he use the word
_determined_?

--
Rolf Lindgren
http://www.roffe.com/

wrote in
:

Richard Alexander wrote:
I think this guy has more faith in, and gives more scope to science than
the typical scientist does. He has an issue -- God is not merely unproven
or untestable, God must be provably false, it must not even make sense to
bring up the subject, and let science and logic be modified such that it
is so. Which is about as bad as the creationists who pick their own
premise -- the Bible -- and let all other intellectual endeavor be
modified such that the premise remains intact.

Yep, we see here again the pattern that all zealots, no matter what
their particular brand of zealotry is, are essentially the same.



Neither of you know what you're talking about.

You cannot include religion into science but you certainly
can include science into religion. You just need to know the
boundaries for each. If you've tried and failed then your
religion is not good enough. Or you know nothing about your
religion, or ANY religion. You think people are fools?


Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

Now that's a lasting clue to the very tip of your own
zealotry. I'd like to see it dug on your tombestone one day.
You know, just to prove me right. Looks I can't keep myself
immune to your "faculty"-level shit even in sci.med. Your
shrine has also been your prison.


--

az in emAmzAdeh kasi mo'jez nemibineh.

wrote in
:

Richard Alexander wrote:
I think this guy has more faith in, and gives more scope to science than
the typical scientist does. He has an issue -- God is not merely unproven
or untestable, God must be provably false, it must not even make sense to
bring up the subject, and let science and logic be modified such that it
is so. Which is about as bad as the creationists who pick their own
premise -- the Bible -- and let all other intellectual endeavor be
modified such that the premise remains intact.

Yep, we see here again the pattern that all zealots, no matter what
their particular brand of zealotry is, are essentially the same.



Neither of you know what you're talking about.

You cannot include religion into science but you certainly
can include science into religion. You just need to know the
boundaries for each. If you've tried and failed then your
religion is not good enough. Or you know nothing about your
religion, or ANY religion. You think people are fools?


Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

Now that's a lasting clue to the very tip of your own
zealotry. I'd like to see it dug on your tombestone one day.
You know, just to prove me right. Looks I can't keep myself
immune to your "faculty"-level shit even in sci.med. Your
shrine has also been your prison.


--

az in emAmzAdeh kasi mo'jez nemibineh.

Uncle Al wrote in
:

Discovery cannot be managed, nor is it subject to statistical quality
control. The big discoveries are invariably made by undeserving
personal in wretched circumstances, by "accident."

Bullshit.

The "bigger" discoveries were made by very modest
management/quality-control and lots of enthusiasm, not
accidents. You're wrong on both accounts.

--

be yek ghureh sardish mikoneh be yek keshmesh
garmi.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:05:42 -0500, Maleki
wrote:

wrote in
:

Richard Alexander wrote:
I think this guy has more faith in, and gives more scope to science than
the typical scientist does. He has an issue -- God is not merely unproven
or untestable, God must be provably false, it must not even make sense to
bring up the subject, and let science and logic be modified such that it
is so. Which is about as bad as the creationists who pick their own
premise -- the Bible -- and let all other intellectual endeavor be
modified such that the premise remains intact.

Yep, we see here again the pattern that all zealots, no matter what
their particular brand of zealotry is, are essentially the same.

Neither of you know what you're talking about.

You cannot include religion into science but you certainly
can include science into religion. You just need to know the
boundaries for each. If you've tried and failed then your
religion is not good enough. Or you know nothing about your
religion, or ANY religion. You think people are fools?

Theists who make falsifiable real-world claims for their religion are
fools for making them outside their religion. Eg creationists.

It's their problem that science falsifies them, not ours.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:05:42 -0500, Maleki
wrote:

wrote in
:

Richard Alexander wrote:
I think this guy has more faith in, and gives more scope to science than
the typical scientist does. He has an issue -- God is not merely unproven
or untestable, God must be provably false, it must not even make sense to
bring up the subject, and let science and logic be modified such that it
is so. Which is about as bad as the creationists who pick their own
premise -- the Bible -- and let all other intellectual endeavor be
modified such that the premise remains intact.

Yep, we see here again the pattern that all zealots, no matter what
their particular brand of zealotry is, are essentially the same.

Neither of you know what you're talking about.

You cannot include religion into science but you certainly
can include science into religion. You just need to know the
boundaries for each. If you've tried and failed then your
religion is not good enough. Or you know nothing about your
religion, or ANY religion. You think people are fools?

Theists who make falsifiable real-world claims for their religion are
fools for making them outside their religion. Eg creationists.

It's their problem that science falsifies them, not ours.

"Bob White" wrote in message news:ruURa.90117$ye4.65151@sccrnsc01...
"Jeff Young" wrote in message
m...
"Bob White" wrote in message
news:jIHRa.84306$Ph3.10244@sccrnsc04...
"Jeff Young" wrote in message
m...
"Bob White" wrote in message
news:xEBRa.82631$N7.11056@sccrnsc03...
"Jeff Utz" wrote in message
...
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte
limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper
postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:16:35 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ![$;F1k-Y'hiac\&8#rjC`%+^ (Encoded at Airnews!)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165


"Richard Alexander" wrote in message
om...
root wrote in message
...
Richard Alexander wrote:
Historical events are--surprise!--History, not Science, and
History
is
distinct from Science.

But it might take science to reveal history. The distinction
isn't
as clear as you suggest.

There is a difference between science involvement and being a
science.
Many church auditoriums are designed through the science of
acoustics,
but that doesn't mean that religion is a science.

Certain terms have taken on a life of their own. A "quantum
leap" or
"quantum advance" is used where we would normally say a "huge
leap"
or
a "huge advance." Of course, a true quantum leap is an extremely
small
thing, the difference, say, in electron orbits. Likewise, saying
that
something is not scientific has become akin to saying that
something
is erroneous.

I disagree. I would argue that creationism is not scientific,
because
the
hypothesis that creation exists is not testable. That does not
mean
the
creationism does not exist, only that science cannot answer the
question
whether or not creationism is true.


What prevents us from using the logical, systematic, scientific
method
of
investigation to investigate any proposition at all,

Like the proposition "God does not exist"?

That what

That what

Th- th- th- that's all folks.

snip Fallacies of Ignoratio Elenchi and Argumentum ad Nauseum

Septic remains the completely tongue-tied, mendacious, confused,
fallacious, and discredited old idiot fool liar of alt.atheism.

Jeff

"Jeff Young" wrote in message
...
"Bob White" wrote in message
news:ruURa.90117$ye4.65151@sccrnsc01...
"Jeff Young" wrote in message
m...
"Bob White" wrote in message
news:jIHRa.84306$Ph3.10244@sccrnsc04...
"Jeff Young" wrote in message
m...
"Bob White" wrote in message
news:xEBRa.82631$N7.11056@sccrnsc03...
"Jeff Utz" wrote in message
...
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte
limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report
improper
postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:16:35 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ![$;F1k-Y'hiac\&8#rjC`%+^ (Encoded at
Airnews!)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165


"Richard Alexander" wrote in message
om...
root wrote in message
...
Richard Alexander wrote:
Historical events are--surprise!--History, not Science,
and
History
is
distinct from Science.

But it might take science to reveal history. The
distinction
isn't
as clear as you suggest.

There is a difference between science involvement and being
a
science.
Many church auditoriums are designed through the science of
acoustics,
but that doesn't mean that religion is a science.

Certain terms have taken on a life of their own. A "quantum
leap" or
"quantum advance" is used where we would normally say a
"huge
leap"
or
a "huge advance." Of course, a true quantum leap is an
extremely
small
thing, the difference, say, in electron orbits. Likewise,
saying
that
something is not scientific has become akin to saying that
something
is erroneous.

I disagree. I would argue that creationism is not scientific,
because
the
hypothesis that creation exists is not testable. That does not
mean
the
creationism does not exist, only that science cannot answer
the
question
whether or not creationism is true.


What prevents us from using the logical, systematic, scientific
method
of
investigation to investigate any proposition at all,

Like the proposition "God does not exist"?

That what

That what

Th- th- th- that's all folks.

[unsnip]

That what does not exist? Define your term. So far none of you
true-believers has ever presented anything for consideration, nor specified
anything meaningful, verifiable to search for.

The proposition in question is that an invisible something (still
essentially undefined) may in reality exist, knucklehead. "There is no such
thing" never stands in need of proof, since the burden of proof cannot be
shifted. I'm sure you know this principle of valid argument (logic) by now.


You can stop any time your fallacy of trying to shift the burden of proof to
the non-believers. The non-believers have nothing (no thing) to prove,
knucklehead.


[unsnip]

What prevents us from using the logical, systematic, scientific method of
investigation to investigate any proposition at all, even a proposition
like, "It is true that a magic invisible creator of everything might really
exist"?

We have an ongoing scientific investigation of the theory that ETs (not in
evidence) might really exist. Here is how that theory is being investigated,
using the scientific method:


Null : of, being, or relating to zero
www.m-w.com
(as in, "There are no ETs.")


---
Testing the Null Hypothesis
by John Marcus, MD
email

http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm

SETI is perhaps the most highly interdisciplinary of sciences,
encompassing not only astronomy, biology, engineering and physics, but
also psychology, metaphysics, probability, and belief. But it is, first
and foremost, a science, one to which we hope to apply the scientific
method.

[...]

The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:

There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).

.... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try to
prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear,
unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ...

---

"Bob White" wrote in message news:BJTSa.101044$OZ2.20188@rwcrnsc54...

[snip]

That what does not exist? Define your term. So far none of you
true-believers has ever presented anything for consideration, nor specified
anything meaningful, verifiable to search for.

To search for? You mean, you can't find something without knowing what
it is?

The proposition in question is that an invisible something (still
essentially undefined) may in reality exist, knucklehead. "There is no such
thing" never stands in need of proof, since the burden of proof cannot be
shifted. I'm sure you know this principle of valid argument (logic) by now.

You can stop any time your fallacy of trying to shift the burden of proof to
the non-believers. The non-believers have nothing (no thing) to prove,
knucklehead.

What prevents us from using the logical, systematic, scientific method of
investigation to investigate any proposition at all, even a proposition
like, "It is true that a magic invisible creator of everything might really
exist"?

I already gave you one obstacle that would prevent you from you from
using the scientific method; the object of your investigation has to
be accessible. Now, I will further illustrate the futility of your
proposal.

Our Universe contains matter and energy. Some of this matter is barely
detectable to us. Neutrinos are just one of these ghostly particles.
Every day, many billions of neutrinos pass through your body, without
a trace. But, neutrinos are not the most difficult particles to
detect. There are particles of strange matter that may amount to
several tons of mass, but which can pass completely through Earth
almost as easily as neutrinos.

But now suppose that there are still more exotic objects out there,
such as matter that cannot interact either electromagnetically
(similar to neutrons) or through the interactions with which we are
familiar. Indeed, suppose there is another state of being that is
neither matter nor energy. The Universe could be filled with objects
that we cannot detect, because they don't interact with matter.

The scientific method cannot examine objects that it cannot detect.

We have an ongoing scientific investigation of the theory that ETs (not in
evidence) might really exist. Here is how that theory is being investigated,
using the scientific method:

No, what you present is the logical theorum that you are testing. That
does not tell us how you will actually detect these ETs. Failing
detection, you cannot begin your analysis.

But, what are you looking for? You never defined what attributes ET
has that you can observe. An electromagnetic signal? It would be a
shame if they aren't producing one. A spectral fingerprint of complex
organic compounds? Too bad if ET isn't organic.

If ET is not accessible, if he is not detectable by you, then your
science cannot begin to analyze him.

[snip]

"Bob White" wrote in message news:BJTSa.101044$OZ2.20188@rwcrnsc54...
"Jeff Young" wrote in message
...
"Bob White" wrote in message
news:ruURa.90117$ye4.65151@sccrnsc01...
"Jeff Young" wrote in message
m...
"Bob White" wrote in message
news:jIHRa.84306$Ph3.10244@sccrnsc04...
"Jeff Young" wrote in message
m...
"Bob White" wrote in message
news:xEBRa.82631$N7.11056@sccrnsc03...
"Jeff Utz" wrote in message
...
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte
limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report
improper
postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:16:35 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ![$;F1k-Y'hiac\&8#rjC`%+^ (Encoded at
Airnews!)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165


"Richard Alexander" wrote in message
om...
root wrote in message
...
Richard Alexander wrote:
Historical events are--surprise!--History, not Science,
and
History
is
distinct from Science.

But it might take science to reveal history. The
distinction
isn't
as clear as you suggest.

There is a difference between science involvement and being
a
science.
Many church auditoriums are designed through the science of
acoustics,
but that doesn't mean that religion is a science.

Certain terms have taken on a life of their own. A "quantum
leap" or
"quantum advance" is used where we would normally say a
"huge
leap"
or
a "huge advance." Of course, a true quantum leap is an
extremely
small
thing, the difference, say, in electron orbits. Likewise,
saying
that
something is not scientific has become akin to saying that
something
is erroneous.

I disagree. I would argue that creationism is not scientific,
because
the
hypothesis that creation exists is not testable. That does not
mean
the
creationism does not exist, only that science cannot answer
the
question
whether or not creationism is true.


What prevents us from using the logical, systematic, scientific
method
of
investigation to investigate any proposition at all,

Like the proposition "God does not exist"?

That what

That what

Th- th- th- that's all folks.

That what

Th- th- th- th- that's all folks.

snip Fallacy of Argumentum ad Nauseum

Septic remains the completely fallacious, mendacious, ridiculous, and
discredited old idiot fool liar of alt.atheism.

Jeff

wrote in message
...
In article , "Jeff Utz"
writes:

How does one saying "this is not proven; it's just a theory" differ from
a
scientific theory? Not all scientific theories are proven.

Correction. No scientific theory is proven, nor can it be.


So...maths is not science?


--

Robert Bronsing

Can't you see?
It all makes perfect sense,
expressed in dollars and cents, pounds, shillings and pence

(R. Waters)

wrote in message
...
In article , "Jeff Utz"
writes:

How does one saying "this is not proven; it's just a theory" differ from
a
scientific theory? Not all scientific theories are proven.

Correction. No scientific theory is proven, nor can it be.


So...maths is not science?


--

Robert Bronsing

Can't you see?
It all makes perfect sense,
expressed in dollars and cents, pounds, shillings and pence

(R. Waters)

wrote in message
...
In article , "Jeff Utz"
writes:

How does one saying "this is not proven; it's just a theory" differ from
a
scientific theory? Not all scientific theories are proven.

Correction. No scientific theory is proven, nor can it be.


So...maths is not science?


--

Robert Bronsing

Can't you see?
It all makes perfect sense,
expressed in dollars and cents, pounds, shillings and pence

(R. Waters)

"Bronsing" wrote in message
...


wrote in message
...
In article , "Jeff Utz"
writes:

How does one saying "this is not proven; it's just a theory" differ
from
a
scientific theory? Not all scientific theories are proven.

Correction. No scientific theory is proven, nor can it be.


So...maths is not science?

The only way that numbers come into play concerning existential propositions
is that the only reasonable presumption concerning the proposition, "X
exists" is the null, "There is no X."


Null : of, being, or relating to zero
www.m-w.com
(as in, "There are no ETs.")


---
Testing the Null Hypothesis
by John Marcus, MD
email

http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm

SETI is perhaps the most highly interdisciplinary of sciences,
encompassing not only astronomy, biology, engineering and physics, but
also psychology, metaphysics, probability, and belief. But it is, first
and foremost, a science, one to which we hope to apply the scientific
method.

[...]

The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:

There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).

.... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try to
prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear,
unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ...

---