Gay Bishop

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You've misunderstood your failure even to grasp the argument let alone to rebut to be a victory, even as you've put the gun to your head and pulled the trigger.

Again: how would you propose to go about falsifying leprechauns?

Since we are looking for Leprechauns I would deploy a team of primate hunters to go and visually detect extremely small irish men wearing green suits, the search to be concentrated in areas where there are rainbows.

For the loch ness monster I believe teams are on to it.

Alternatively I would completely cover the earth in cctv.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No - the (stupid) argument was always along the lines of whether a gay soldier would make the right decision in a crisis by saving six colleagues if the one he could save instead was also his boyfriend. Essentially it was painted as a conflict of interest issue. There was no requirement that soldier had been found in flagrante.

I didn't say that, I said intention to act not being caught in the act.

[Nearly Sane]

Since we are looking for Leprechauns I would deploy a team of primate hunters to go and visually detect extremely small irish men wearing green suits, the search to be concentrated in areas where there are rainbows.

For the loch ness monster I believe teams are on to it.

Alternatively I would completely cover the earth in cctv.

in which Vlad continues to illustrate his  problems with the problem  of induction

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Since we are looking for Leprechauns I would deploy a team of primate hunters to go and visually detect extremely small irish men wearing green suits, the search to be concentrated in areas where there are rainbows.

For the loch ness monster I believe teams are on to it.

Alternatively I would completely cover the earth in cctv.

That's nice. And if neither leprechauns nor the Loch Ness monster were found using these methods, would you consider them to be falsified or just not found?

You might want to refresh your memory re Russell's teapot before answering that one.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I didn't say that, I said intention to act not being caught in the act.

That's true, you didn't - but the risk of emotional attachment whether intended to be acted on or not was considered sufficient to disqualify gay people from military service.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That's nice. And if neither leprechauns nor the Loch Ness monster were found using these methods, would you consider them to be falsified or just not found?

You might want to refresh your memory re Russell's teapot before answering that one.

Probably non-existent.
If they were found extraterrestrially an argument could be made that they were not Leprechauns or the Loch Ness monster. We would be justified in assuming they were made up just like the Flying Spaghetti monster.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

That's true, you didn't - but the risk of emotional attachment whether intended to be acted on or not was considered sufficient to disqualify gay people from military service.

Obviously interpretation is important but the words were about those who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" . This indicates a leaning to intent to act or indeed action.

[Nearly Sane]

Probably non-existent.
If they were found extraterrestrially an argument could be made that they were not Leprechauns or the Loch Ness monster. We would be justified in assuming they were made up just like the Flying Spaghetti monster.

in which Vlad evades his problem with the problem of induction by begging the question

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You might want to refresh your memory re Russell's teapot before answering that one.

I have a teapot which happens to be orbiting the sun.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Probably non-existent.

Maybe, maybe not - after all bacteria weren't known to exist before we had the instruments to detect them. Were they probably non-existent up to that point too?

Either way though, "probably non-existent" does not mean falsified. To be falsified, something must be shown to be not the case.   

If they were found extraterrestrially an argument could be made that they were not Leprechauns or the Loch Ness monster. We would be justified in assuming they were made up just like the Flying Spaghetti monster.

Where they would be found is irrelevant - either they exist or they don't. Leprechauns domiciled on Mars could be asserted to flit to and from Earth as readily as various assertions are made about your God.

Are you finally beginning to see the problem here? If you want to use, say, the NPF as an argument for "God" then you have no choice but to accept it for other conjectures too - an orbiting teapot included. That you find some such conjectures more (or less) ridiculous than others has nothing whatever to do with the basic principle.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Obviously interpretation is important but the words were about those who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" . This indicates a leaning to intent to act or indeed action.

Yes, but the act of declaring oneself (or being discovered) to be gay was considered sufficient to show the "propensity" ipso facto. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes, but the act of declaring oneself (or being discovered) to be gay was considered sufficient to show the "propensity" ipso facto.

it was variable over time becoming not de facto from around 2006, and the interpretation was continually argued with and never declared fully. Of course those arguing that it was a wring policy were according to Vlad just trying to attack Christians

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Maybe, maybe not - after all bacteria weren't known to exist before we had the instruments to detect them. Were they probably non-existent up to that point too?

Either way though, "probably non-existent" does not mean falsified. To be falsified, something must be shown to be not the case.   

Where they would be found is irrelevant - either they exist or they don't. Leprechauns domiciled on Mars could be asserted to flit to and from Earth as readily as various assertions are made about your God.

Yes but you have only asked me to say how I would go about it.
A comprehensive search of the world through all means possible I.e. surveying every inch of the planet by CCTV surveillance and all the present means could show there weren't any.

If you meant falsify them now or suggest I'm going out to prove them non existent you've deliberately muddied the waters.

They are falsifiable because they are small green men. You dodged round that with a red herring.

However you were seen through again.

In terms of a flit to mars.........I suggest you take one.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have a teapot which happens to be orbiting the sun.

.......and so did Russell.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

it was variable over time becoming not de facto from around 2006, and the interpretation was continually argued with and never declared fully. Of course those arguing that it was a wring policy were according to Vlad just trying to attack Christians

Yes, in the Name of Richard Dawkins too no doubt.

I mentioned it only in the context of an example of a contractual term that was enforceable effectively for what someone was rather than because they acted on it. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

it was variable over time becoming not de facto from around 2006, and the interpretation was continually argued with and never declared fully. Of course those arguing that it was a wring policy were according to Vlad just trying to attack Christians

[Nearly Sane]

Yes but you have only asked me to say how I would go about it.
A comprehensive search of the world through all means possible I.e. surveying every inch of the planet by CCTV surveillance and all the present means could show there weren't any.

If you meant falsify them now or suggest I'm going out to prove them non existent you've deliberately muddied the waters.

They are falsifiable because they are small green men. You dodged round that with a red herring.

However you were seen through again.

In terms of a flit to mars.........I suggest you take one.

in which Vlad seems never to have heard of the problem of induction.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes, in the Name of Richard Dawkins too no doubt.

I mentioned it only in the context of an example of a contractual term that was enforceable effectively for what someone was rather than because they acted on it.

better ones might be Salic Laws or Test Acts

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes but you have only asked me to say how I would go about it.

Yes, and the answer is incompetently. That's the point - you can no more falsify leprechauns than you can falsify "God", despite your assertion to the contrary.   

A comprehensive search of the world through all means possible I.e. surveying every inch of the planet by CCTV surveillance and all the present means could show there weren't any.

No, it would just show that - according to the equipment and techniques available to you - there aren't any. You have a basic conceptual problem here: not being able to find something and that something not existing are not synonymous. Think bacteria pre-microscopes.

If you meant falsify them now or suggest I'm going out to prove them non existent you've deliberately muddied the waters.

Then you think wrongly. It's anything but muddying the waters to show you that "God" and leprechauns alike are unfalsifiable. What that means is that the NPF "works" equally for both - which should tell you that it's probably a bad argument.   

They are falsifiable because they are small green men. You dodged round that with a red herring.

And still you don't grasp the basic problem. Small and green, curing little Timmy of shingles, whatever - these are just properties. They have no relevance whatever to the fact that you cannot falsify either.

However you were seen through again.

Actually you were - again.

In terms of a flit to mars.........I suggest you take one.

Your defeat (again) is acknowledged.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

in which Vlad seems never to have heard of the problem of induction.

In which Sane keeps repeating the term 'Problem of induction' but can't say how it fits.

[Nearly Sane]

In which Sane keeps repeating the term 'Problem of induction' but can't say how it fits.

in which Vlad lies. because he hadn't asked. But illustrates again why he does not understand the problem


For others, if every swan you see is white, you cannot say there are no black swans because of that. If every day the sun cones up, you cannot say it will come  up tomorrow, because of that. If every CCTV film you have shows no leprechauns, you cannot say there are no leprechauns.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

   

No, it would just show that - according to the equipment and techniques available to you - there aren't any. You have a basic conceptual problem here: not being able to find something and that something not existing are not synonymous. Think bacteria pre-microscopes.

Piss poor analogy.
Prior to microscopes we could say we don't have the equipment.
To say that looking for diminutive people dressed in green is the same thing is wrong since we have the means to see those.

That's what comes of plucking stuff extra atmospherically. Don't do it.

[Nearly Sane]

Piss poor analogy.
Prior to microscopes we could say we don't have the equipment.
To say that looking for diminutive people dressed in green is the same thing is wrong since we have the means to see those.

That's what comes of plucking stuff extra atmospherically. Don't do it.

and your assumption, hidden by the problem of induction that you ignore here,  and have ignored despite this being pointed out to you many many timed,  is that leprechauns appear on film. Get back to me when you start to engage with the problem.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

in which Vlad lies. because he hadn't asked. But illustrates again why he does not understand the problem


For others, if every swan you see is white, you cannot say there are no black swans because of that. If every day the sun cones up, you cannot say it will come  up tomorrow, because of that. If every CCTV film you have shows no leprechauns, you cannot say there are no leprechauns.

If I can give total empirical surveillance of the world then I can state whether small humans dressed in green called Leprechauns exist.
I am not therefore establishing by prediction as the case of the sun coming up.
You are flat wrong in using the problem of induction here.

[Nearly Sane]

If I can give total empirical surveillance of the world then I can state whether small humans dressed in green called Leprechauns exist.
I am not therefore establishing by prediction as the case of the sun coming up.
You are flat wrong in using the problem of induction here.

How do yph give 'total empirical surveillance' of the world? How do you demanstate that is what you have done? Until you tell me, how it can be demonstrated the problem of induction applies. Black swan,black black swan.