Evangelising young children

[Nearly Sane]

So far that is an assertion.
How long was it between you starting the experiment and concluding that it had failed?
It sounds like you have turned a dependent variable (time taken for result to appear) into an independent variable ( If it doesn't happen within X minutes it hasn't worked)

And you exclude possibility of it not working by your approach. You build in unfalsifiability. In which case it means that contradictory positions are validated by it. Logically this seems untenable

[Nearly Sane]

Yes it is

Not by your logic. Surely to be rational you should be consistent. In one case you say inconsistent results mean something is neither a method nor a science and then in the case of medicine with inconsistent results you insist it is?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And you exclude possibility of it not working by your approach. You build in unfalsifiability. In which case it means that contradictory positions are validated by it. Logically this seems untenable

Have I, where did I do that ? I think science only gets us a certain way beyond that which is amenable to it. That idea comes from Chomsky although you seem to share the sentiment.

Given that science can help, a little, BR has failed in his basic science by turning a dependent variable into an independent.

I think you may have made a good Chomskyesque case for the limits of the application in science and then insisted on applying it utterly.

[BeRational]

Have I, where did I do that ? I think science only gets us a certain way beyond that which is amenable to it. That idea comes from Chomsky although you seem to share the sentiment.

Given that science can help, a little, BR has failed in his basic science by turning a dependent variable into an independent.

I think you may have made a good Chomskyesque case for the limits of the application in science and then insisted on applying it utterly.

But when people follow your method and do not get the answer YOU did, you just say they did not do it correctly.

This is not an honest approach.

How does your method handle different answers to yours?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But when people follow your method and do not get the answer YOU did, you just say they did not do it correctly.

Be Rational, you have eliminated a dependent variable and replaced it with an independent variable or something.

We do not know the time taken.

[Nearly Sane]

Have I, where did I do that ? I think science only gets us a certain way beyond that which is amenable to it. That idea comes from Chomsky although you seem to share the sentiment.

Given that science can help, a little, BR has failed in his basic science by turning a dependent variable into an independent.

I think you may have made a good Chomskyesque case for the limits of the application in science and then insisted on applying it utterly.

It only taking us so far doesn't give a free pass to anything that claims to go further. If you want to cite Chomsky as an authority then you will need to accept he would insist on the limits of any other claims such as yours and that your built in unfalsifiability makes it not a method.

And you have done it by positing that any negative results are to be ignored

[Nearly Sane]

Be Rational, you have eliminated a dependent variable and replaced it with an independent variable or something.

We do not know the time taken.

So consistency is irrelevant. lack of response is irrelevant - unfaslfiable - no method - Chomsky saya no

[BeRational]

Be Rational, you have eliminated a dependent variable and replaced it with an independent variable or something.

We do not know the time taken.

So I can claim ANYTHING and just say you have not tried long enough.

SO I claim that Kevin the Magic leprechaun created the universe, and if you seek him earnestly he will reveal this to you.

Do not seek him and tell me he has not revealed himself to you, as you already know the answer to that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So consistency is irrelevant. lack of response is irrelevant - unfaslfiable - no method - Chomsky saya no

How is there inconsistency?
To use an analogy of cultivating bacteria.
Be Rational has done the equivalent of saying
If one opens a petri dish and closes it and count the numbers immediately one learns whether there are microbes in the atmosphere.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So I can claim ANYTHING and just say you have not tried long enough.

SO I claim that Kevin the Magic leprechaun created the universe, and if you seek him earnestly he will reveal this to you.

Do not seek him and tell me he has not revealed himself to you, as you already know the answer to that.

How is Kevin distinguishable from God?

[BeRational]

How is Kevin distinguishable from God?

How is god distinguishable from Kevin?

[jeremyp]

How is Kevin distinguishable from God?

If Kevin the Magic Leprechaun created the Universe, then he is God.

[Nearly Sane]

How is there inconsistency?
To use an analogy of cultivating bacteria.
Be Rational has done the equivalent of saying
If one opens a petri dish and closes it and count the numbers immediately one learns whether there are microbes in the atmosphere.

Why are you talking about Be Rational. I am talking about your inconsistency, Be Rational is irrelevant to that? You want to use Chomsjy to talk about method and then ignore that in Chomsky's terms your method is spurious. Why is that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If Kevin the Magic Leprechaun created the Universe, then he is God.

Yes.....so where would that put claims that he looks on those occasions when he chooses to appear like a small irish chap dressed in Green?

Of at least secondary interest I would have thought.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why are you talking about Be Rational. I am talking about your inconsistency, Be Rational is irrelevant to that? You want to use Chomsjy to talk about method and then ignore that in Chomsky's terms your method is spurious. Why is that?

I'm sorry you've lost me. When you talk about method you seem to be talking about science........have you got that right?

And then you seem to be talking about the limits of science while insisting on science being the final arbiter of everything. That seems contradictory.

Unless of course you mean compliance with science is the cast iron standard for any method?

Please enlighten.

[BeRational]

Yes.....so where would that put claims that he looks on those occasions when he chooses to appear like a small irish chap dressed in Green?

Of at least secondary interest I would have thought.

Kevin did not have a son that was nailed to a cross.

That's a difference.

[torridon]

No, I am aware of people for whom such an approach has worked,
even eventually after time.

So how can you say the method has failed.

How long does one persist before accepting that the experiment has failed ? It's not always good policy to keep on banging away at something that is clearly not working.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Kevin did not have a son that was nailed to a cross.

Damn difficult proving a negative isn't it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How long does one persist before accepting that the experiment has failed ? It's not always good policy to keep on banging away at something that is clearly not working.

Seems to vary but apparently people are finding a relationship with God.
How long before they should give up string theory?

[BeRational]

Damn difficult proving a negative isn't it.

So you accept that using your method I have come up with Kevin the leprechaun as the true creator of the universe.

This means that your belief if god is now wrong.

Will you stop believing and convert to Kevinism?

If not why not, as I used your method and got a success.

[Maeght]

Seems to vary but apparently people are finding a relationship with God.

How does this relationship manifest itself? Never quite worked that out.

[torridon]

Seems to vary but apparently people are finding a relationship with God.
How long before they should give up string theory?

Of course string theory is not a thing with its own existence such that one could have a relationship with.  But if the claim for god is that it is some sort of independent being capable of holding telepathic relationships with humans then what are we to make of the variability of response. Why would god be so erratic ? A benevolent god would treat people with fairness and not respond to some immediately whilst seemingly ignoring others. If I kept asking a girl for a date and she kept ignoring my approaches, after some time, the right thing to do is give up and walk away.

[wigginhall]

An interesting point here about the validity of experience, which has been made before, but I am old and repetitive.   If someone experiences a reciprocal relationship with God, this gets top marks, and is pronounced valid, I suppose.  However, what about Jim who doesn't?  His experience is also valid, isn't it? 

In other words, the avenue of personal experience seems to be a cul de sac. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you accept that using your method I have come up with Kevin the leprechaun as the true creator of the universe.

This means that your belief if god is now wrong.

Will you stop believing and convert to Kevinism?

If not why not, as I used your method and got a success.

Are you telling the truth?

[torridon]

Are you telling the truth?

Is the aborigine, relating his communion with his ancestors, telling the truth ?