The Kirk are doing it better

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

And the answer to that is yes since the Higgs is a generic testable claim, whereas the Jesus claim is a specific non testable one. Essentially Floo's claim is more comparable to 'There are no black swans'

Is it? The Higgs-Boson is testable in the way I described. You could also examine 3.5m deaths and find that every one of them stayed dead.

How then is the certainty value of the two statements different? Isn't "there isn't a Higgs-Boson" also equivalent to "there are no black swans" only with bigger data? Would't both "Higgs-Boson" and "dead people stay dead" be statements of equivalent probability if there was the same number of experiments with the same results to test each claim?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Is it? The Higgs-Boson is testable in the way I described. You could also examine 3.5m deaths and find that every one of them stayed dead.

How then is the certainty value of the two statements different? Isn't "there isn't a Higgs-Boson" also equivalent to "there are no black swans" only with bigger data? Aren't both "Higgs-Boson" and "dead people stay dead" statements of equivalent probability given the same number of experiments with the same results to test the claims?

no, the existence of the Higgs Boson is testabke for. When it is shown to happen, it is shown ti exists. The equivalebt claim would be thete are black swans. When one is found the claim is evidenced. No matter how many swans you  look at the claim there are no black swans, a positive claim isn't evidenced because of the problems of induction. The claim works the same as 'yoy cannot show Jesus isn't a rotren corpse, therefore he is a rotten corpse' ans we all know what that is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

no, the existence of the Higgs Boson is testabke for. When it is shown to happen, it is shown ti exists. The equivalebt claim would be thete are black swans. When one is found the claim is evidenced. No matter how many swans you  look at the claim there are no black swans, a positive claim isn't evidenced because of the problems of induction. The claim works the same as 'yoy cannot show Jesus isn't a rotren corpse, therefore he is a rotten corpse' ans we all know what that is.

How is it "shown to have happened" though? Isn't what happened that experiments were run with results consistent with the hypothesis and for which alternative explanations were so unlikely that the Higgs-Boson theory became a 5 Sigma event, and so is called a "fact"? What conceptually at least would be the difference between that and disinterring dead people 3.5 million times and concluding on the same basis that "dead people don't come alive again" is a fact of equivalent status?

I'm quite prepared to accept that I don't properly understand the significance of sigma certainty, but it still seems pretty analogous to me.

[Rhiannon]

My take on this is that Floo can't assert that Jesus is a rotted corpse without expecting challenge because there's no evidence of that. It's not the same as saying that 'dead people stay dead'. In order to be able to say that *Jesus* is dead we'd need to prove that Jesus was in fact alive at one point. And he still might not be a rotted corpse - cremation aside he could have been mummified, either intentionally or by the environment. And his resting place might not be the Middle East.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

How is it "shown to have happened" though? Isn't what happened that experiments were run with results consistent with the hypothesis and for which alternative explanations were so unlikely that the Higgs-Boson theory became a 5 Sigma event, and so is called a "fact"? What conceptually at least would be the difference between that and disinterring dead people 3.5 million times and concluding on the same basis that "dead people don't come alive again" is a fact of equivalent status?

I'm quite prepared to accept that I don't properly understand the significance of sigma certainty, but it still seems pretty analogous to me.

Which is how science works in terms of testing. It's not how specific history claims work.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

Is it? The Higgs-Boson is testable in the way I described. You could also examine 3.5m deaths and find that every one of them stayed dead.

How then is the certainty value of the two statements different? Isn't "there isn't a Higgs-Boson" also equivalent to "there are no black swans" only with bigger data? Would't both "Higgs-Boson" and "dead people stay dead" be statements of equivalent probability if there was the same number of experiments with the same results to test each claim?

Flaming 'eck and from a laddy who swears blind that he never suggests science equals atheism.

[floo]

My take on this is that Floo can't assert that Jesus is a rotted corpse without expecting challenge because there's no evidence of that. It's not the same as saying that 'dead people stay dead'. In order to be able to say that *Jesus* is dead we'd need to prove that Jesus was in fact alive at one point. And he still might not be a rotted corpse - cremation aside he could have been mummified, either intentionally or by the environment. And his resting place might not be the Middle East.

OK I accept that point.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

gonnagle

As you may recall, I read quite a few of Karen Armstrong's books and at the time made a point of listening when she was broadcasting. She certainly presented a very much more realistic view of what probably happened in the time of Christianity's beginnings. I have expressed my views on her writings, but I'll join in again here I think to say that I waited in vain for  her to come down clearly on one side of the fence, but she had obviously decided to take a disinterested stance about whether God existed, , especially as she had most decidedly moved well away from her RC upbringing.

In the end, I think that she has never stepped right outside God belief and, therefore, her opinions can never be those of someone who sees things from a non-belief point of view, whereas those who have stepped completely away can.

Yes but you've stepped into the pavement turd of New Atheism and subsequently reek of it.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

Boy!! you read a load of rubbish kiddin! old friend, kiddin!

Your book list sounds to me like, I should read more, but then I read avidly, if I have nothing to read I will read the back of a cornflake packet.

Anyway, down to business, and your first choice is a cracker, a wonderful Myth, my favourite book ( Sane and Gordon will be around to give you a big Mod Kiss ) "To Kill a Mockingbird".

I could be here all night, just let me check supplies, whisky, check, glass, check, I shall begin.

Let me see, a book written through a childs eye, now that could make you stop and ponder, to see the world through a childs eye, should we all stop and look at the world through a childs eye.

So this is the beginning of the Myth, everything is sweet and rosy in Maycomb county, sun is shining, and Scout is waiting for new adventures, but unknown to Scout all around her are hunger, greed, racism, rape, and mans inhumanity to man.

This book is very powerful, it is why it is always, and always will be in the top ten, it is explosive, and why it is a wonderful and powerful Myth.

And this is Armstrong's point, a Myth is not a true story, no fact, although it may be based on some actual event, it is a story to make you think, to take you away, to make you think about mans inhumanity to man.

Armstrong in her books ask for more of these, more writing to take us out of our  mundane, more books, poetry, to make us all think about our place on this planet.

So let me conclude with a Christian Myth, or  a Judaism myth, Adam and Eve, a story of walking away from God, a story of original sin, or a story of man waking up.

Gonnagle.

[Spud]

Which is how science works in terms of testing. It's not how specific history claims work.

There is also the thing that people currently are killed unjustly or in someone else's place from time to time - as is claimed with Jesus - and they stay dead. Some of those who become martyrs are motivated by making atonement for bad things they've done. But we don't know what happens when someone lives a truly good life, never does anything wrong, so that death just doesn't seem the right ending for them.

[Spud]

How can science test that, is what I'm getting at.

[Nearly Sane]

There is also the thing that people currently are killed unjustly or in someone else's place from time to time - as is claimed with Jesus - and they stay dead. Some of those who become martyrs are motivated by making atonement for bad things they've done. But we don't know what happens when someone lives a truly good life, never does anything wrong, so that death just doesn't seem the right ending for them.

So?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Which is how science works in terms of testing. It's not how specific history claims work.

Try this:

Hypothesis 1: Higgs-Boson

Experiment: Large Hadron Collider

Measure: Do results confirm to the hypothesis with a p-value of 3x10-7 (about 1 in 3.5 million) or better?

If "yes": Higgs-Boson therefore a 5-Sigma theory.

Hypothesis 2: Dead people stay dead

Experiment: Disinter lots of graves

Measure: Do results confirm to the hypothesis with a p-value of 3x10-7 (about 1 in 3.5 million) or better?

If "yes": "Dead people stay dead" therefore a 5-Sigma theory.

What conceptually at least is the difference? Isn't the clue in the word "burden" in the phrase "burden of proof"? "Burden" doesn't mean something like, "impossible to be wrong" but rather, "this is probabilistically correct beyond any reasonable doubt". The Higgs-Boson has 5-Sigma certainty, but no-one claims that it's technically impossible that there's another explanation for the results even though the burden of proof for it is comfortably satisfied. That is, the black swan risk would apply equally to "Higgs-Boson" and to "dead people stay dead" given the same experimental parameters wouldn't they?.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Flaming 'eck and from a laddy who swears blind that he never suggests science equals atheism.

Yes. This has got nothing to do with "science = atheism" - it's just a thought experiment in logic (and terminology).

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Try this:

Hypothesis 1: Higgs-Boson

Experiment: Large Hadron Collider

Measure: Do results confirm to the hypothesis with a p-value of 3x10-7 (about 1 in 3.5 million) or better?

If "yes": Higgs-Boson therefore a 5-Sigma theory.

Hypothesis 2: Dead people stay dead

Experiment: Disinter lots of graves

Measure: Do results confirm to the hypothesis with a p-value of 3x10-7 (about 1 in 3.5 million) or better?

If "yes": "Dead people stay dead" therefore a 5-Sigma theory.

What conceptually at least is the difference? Isn't the clue in the word "burden" in the phrase "burden of proof"? "Burden" doesn't mean something like, "impossible to be wrong" but rather, "this is probabilistically correct beyond any reasonable doubt". The Higgs-Boson has 5-Sigma certainty, but no-one claims that it's technically impossible that there's another explanation for the results even though the burden of proof for it is comfortably satisfied. That is, the black swan risk would apply equally to "Higgs-Boson" and to "dead people stay dead" given the same experimental parameters wouldn't they?.

Except the proposition is not Dead people stay dead. The statement from Floo is that an individual called Jesus is a rotting corpse and that this shows they are not the Messiah of some religion. That's the claim you have to evidence and using generic claims as above falls into the problem of induction.

[Nearly Sane]

Vlad,

Yes. This has got nothing to do with "science = atheism" - it's just a thought experiment in logic (and terminology).

Indeed, Vlad is, as ever, happy not to just miss the point but make one up from his bumper bundle of misrepresentations.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Except the proposition is not Dead people stay dead. The statement from Floo is that an individual called Jesus is a rotting corpse and that this shows they are not the Messiah of some religion. That's the claim you have to evidence and using generic claims as above falls into the problem of induction.

I know, but isn't the statement, "Jesus is a rotting corpse" (or, less colourfully, "Jesus is dead") just a sub-set of the general statement "dead people stay dead" though? The statement, "mammals give birth to live young" applies even if the claim was just, "dolphins give birth to live young". If the statement re mammals in general has 5-sigma certainty, then so it does for dolphins.

The escape clause incidentally would presumably be to argue that Jesus isn't a sub-set of "people" because he is/was a man-god, so any degree of certainty about what happens to people post mortem is irrelevant. Which would bring us back to the dead end of, "it's magic innit."

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I know, but isn't the statement, "Jesus is a rotting corpse" (or, less colourfully, "Jesus is dead") just a sub-set of the general statement "dead people stay dead" though? The statement, "mammals give birth to live young" applies even if the claim was just, "dolphins give birth to live young". If the statement re mammals in general has 5-sigma certainty, then so it does for dolphins.

The escape clause incidentally would presumably be to argue that Jesus isn't a sub-set of "people" because he is/was a man-god, so any degree of certainty about what happens to people post mortem is irrelevant. Which would bring us back to the dead end of, "it's magic innit?"

No, it's not a subset because it uses induction to apply to an individual claim. It's circular in that it states the initial claim of others is untrue because they can't be true. It also being a specific claim needs evidence for it, not a set of inductive reasoning.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

https://understandinguncertainty.org/explaining-5-sigma-higgs-how-well-did-they-do

You statistical pedant

And please don't try to explain ( well unless you can do it in one short sentence ) I am sure I will bump into 5 sigma certainty again in my travels through science and its wonderful achievements.

Gonnagle.

[Spud]

So?

So, that is a key factor because part of the claim is, he didn't stay dead because he hadn't sinned. "All dead people stay dead" applies to people who have sinned, and floo's claim is no different to saying that Caesar Augustus is a corpse in the middle East or wherever. So i think she would be correct except that she doesn't take the above factor into account, which is the mistake.

[floo]

So, that is a key factor because part of the claim is, he didn't stay dead because he hadn't sinned. "All dead people stay dead" applies to people who have sinned, and floo's claim is no different to saying that Caesar Augustus is a corpse in the middle East or wherever. So i think she would be correct except that she doesn't take the above factor into account, which is the mistake.

So you only go to heaven if you haven't done anything wrong? Therefore none of us are going skywards as none of us are perfect, including Jesus who was a flawed like the rest of us, that much is clear from the gospel accounts of his actions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, it's not a subset because it uses induction to apply to an individual claim.

Yes it does, but aren’t the two inextricably bound? “Evolution is true” is a general statement deductively obtained from exhaustive testing; “there isn’t a rabbit fossil in the precambrian layers” is an individual claim inductively obtained.

If the latter were to be not true though, nor could be the former - the specific borrows from the method that validates the general. A rabbit fossil in the precambrian cannot be true without destroying the certainty point that validates evolution.

It's circular in that it states the initial claim of others is untrue because they can't be true.

To be circular there’d be no reason to accept the premise unless you also accepted the conclusion, essentially: “A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true” with nothing outside that loop independently to validate either position. Here though the potential for circularity is broken by the sigma certainty method applied to one of them.

It also being a specific claim needs evidence for it, not a set of inductive reasoning.

Why? If I looked at the data of (say) 3.5 million excavated graves and found every dead person still to be dead, the probability of observing that outcome were the statement “dead people stay dead” not to be true would be insignificant. That is, the confidence level from a 5 sigma point means that the chances of something other than “dead people stay dead” explaining the results can be discounted. And that's the burden of proof right there.

I’m no statistician (as you can tell) but that makes sense to me.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Floo,

Me and you are going to the big bad fire, nevermind I think you are allowed to bring your own toasting fork, ah the romance!! me and you toasting our bread beside a big open fire, Heaven!! oh sorry Hell!!

Gonnagle.

[floo]

Dear Floo,

Me and you are going to the big bad fire, nevermind I think you are allowed to bring your own toasting fork, ah the romance!! me and you toasting our bread beside a big open fire, Heaven!! oh sorry Hell!!

Gonnagle.

Don't forget your asbestos clothing, I have mine stashed away. Mind you, my insides must be well protected against the fires of hell as I have inhaled plenty of asbestos dust as a kid when my father was sawing it up; I even liked to eat it as well!

[Nearly Sane]

So, that is a key factor because part of the claim is, he didn't stay dead because he hadn't sinned. "All dead people stay dead" applies to people who have sinned, and floo's claim is no different to saying that Caesar Augustus is a corpse in the middle East or wherever. So i think she would be correct except that she doesn't take the above factor into account, which is the mistake.

This piles Pelion upon Ossa and instead of doing any justifying makes your case worse. This now means you have made a claim that those who are without sin don't stay dead. First of all, that makes Floo's claim irrelevant because you have just made a positive claim, so from your position you have the burden of proof. Worse now you have three claims, 1, that Jesus didn't stay dead, and 2,that this was because he didn't sin, and 3, people without sin don't stay dead. Even worse than that since we are talking about a factual claim in history, and history is studied in a methodological naturalist manner, your claim is nonsensical in that methodology, 'sin' being a non naturalistic concept.

So, in summary you now have three claims to justify and also need to provide a methodology to evaluate part of them and Floo's claim is irrelevant to your position as you have made positive claims of your own which until you provide your methodology is meaningless.