The use of the Courtiers reply in science.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The biologist PZ Myers discovered/invented/Arsepulled the alleged logical fallacy " The Courtiers Reply" to  excuse people ignorant of a subject commenting on it because it looked to that person to be bollocks anyway.

At the risk of either blowing String theory or Multiverse theory or maybe the Courtiers reply.....

Aren't people who put forward and defend Multiverse theory and String theory committing the Courtiers reply fallacy?

I tend towards no not because these are big noise science types we are talking about but because the Courtiers reply fallacy might be a bollocks idea anyway.

What say you?

[jeremyp]

The biologist PZ Myers discovered/invented/Arsepulled the alleged logical fallacy " The Courtiers Reply" to  excuse people ignorant of a subject commenting on it because it looked to that person to be bollocks anyway.

I'm no expert on tailoring or weaving or fashion design but I know when somebody in front of me is bollock naked.

Aren't people who put forward and defend Multiverse theory and String theory committing the Courtiers reply fallacy?

No. Why would you think they are?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm no expert on tailoring or weaving or fashion design but I know when somebody in front of me is bollock naked.
No. Why would you think they are?

Well take string theorists for example Theyve been working for decades and have fuck all to show for it. Ditto Multiverse.
Can you explain why these people arent the equivalent of being bollock naked?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The biologist PZ Myers discovered/invented/Arsepulled the alleged logical fallacy " The Courtiers Reply" to  excuse people ignorant of a subject commenting on it because it looked to that person to be bollocks anyway.

What say I is, dear god but when you go full stupid/full dishonest you really don't hold back do you. That's not what the Courtier's Reply entails at all. Surely you should know this after so many times of having it explained to you?

Accordingly the rest of your effort re string theory etc has collapsed before it even got its trousers off.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What say I is, dear god but when you go full stupid/full dishonest you really don't hold back do you. That's not what the Courtier's Reply entails at all. Surely you should know this after so many times of having it explained to you?

Accordingly the rest of your effort re string theory etc has collapsed before it even got its trousers off.

Vlad: Of course, Hillside, Your quite at liberty to show how my definition is at variance with yours.
Hillside: I have done......A long long time ago in a galaxy far far away........

Perhaps you can explain why String theorists and multiverseheads are not bollock naked?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The league of the possibly naked.

http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/StringTheory/actors.html

[jeremyp]

Well take string theorists for example Theyve been working for decades and have fuck all to show for it. Ditto Multiverse.
Can you explain why these people arent the equivalent of being bollock naked?

At the moment there is no experimental evidence that string theory is "real" or that the multiverse exists. You are absolutely entitled to not believe them.

But I still don't understand why you think this has anything to do with the courtier's reply. The phenomenon that the string theorists are seeking to explain definitely does exist. The Universe is not imaginary.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

At the moment there is no experimental evidence that string theory is "real" or that the multiverse exists. You are absolutely entitled to not believe them.

But I still don't understand why you think this has anything to do with the courtier's reply. The phenomenon that the string theorists are seeking to explain definitely does exist. The Universe is not imaginary.

No string theorists are seeking to explain strings as a fundamental phenomenon Jeremy.......that is why they are called string theorists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Vlad: Of course, Hillside, Your quite at liberty to show how my definition is at variance with yours.

FFS. It’s not at variance with “mine”, it’s at variance (to put it mildly) with what it actually says.

Wearily: the Courtiers’s Reply is essentially an example of the fallacy of irrelevance. There’s one category of argument to do with the epistemic claim “the Emperor is naked”, and there’s another category of argument to do with the type of hat he’s supposedly wearing etc. The second set of arguments have nothing whatever to do with the validity of the first.

If, say, I asserted unicorns to be real, you complained that I had bad/no arguments to validate the claim, and I said you’re not entitled to an opinion about that because you don’t know about my additional assertions regarding what kind of oats unicorns like for breakfast, how they like their manes plaited and what colour the feathers in their wings are you presumably would see the problem with that. In case you wouldn’t though, I’ll spell it out for you again: my second set of claims WOULD BE UTTERLY IRRELEVANT TO THE FIRST CLAIM THAT THEY EXIST AT ALL.

I really don’t know how to make it any clearer for you.

Hillside: I have done......A long long time ago in a galaxy far far away........

Er, no.

Perhaps you can explain why String theorists and multiverseheads are not bollock naked?

Because, obviously, they’re based on known principles and then speculate plausibly from there. Unlike claims of the religious, no part of these conjectures involves “it’s magic”.   

[Enki]

Well take string theorists for example Theyve been working for decades and have fuck all to show for it. Ditto Multiverse.
Can you explain why these people arent the equivalent of being bollock naked?

Only if they pull rank and dismiss relevant or pertinent questions/statements on the basis of the appropriate erudition of the questioner, then there might well be a case of using the term the 'courtier's reply'.

In exactly the same way I would not necessarily accuse theologians of the courtier's reply when it seems their attempts to show proof of the existence of God have 'fuck all to show for it'.

[jeremyp]

No string theorists are seeking to explain strings as a fundamental phenomenon Jeremy.......that is why they are called string theorists.

Ah, you don't understand what string theory is.

I suggest you do a little bit of research to get a basic understanding of what you are talking about.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Only if they pull rank and dismiss relevant or pertinent questions/statements on the basis of the appropriate erudition of the questioner, then there might well be a case of using the term the 'courtier's reply'.

In exactly the same way I would not necessarily accuse theologians of the courtier's reply when it seems their attempts to show proof of the existence of God have 'fuck all to show for it'.

I think that is a fair perspective.
Pulling rank? Isnt an expert in evolutionary science entitled to do so on a dumb ass bible belt creationist.
Or a theologian on a dumbass atheist?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think that is a fair perspective.
Pulling rank? Isnt an expert in evolutionary science entitled to do so on a dumb ass bible belt creationist.
Or a theologian on a dumbass atheist?

No.

[Enki]

I think that is a fair perspective.
Pulling rank? Isnt an expert in evolutionary science entitled to do so on a dumb ass bible belt creationist.
Or a theologian on a dumbass atheist?

Or an atheist on a dumb ass theologian?

Or even a dumb ass atheist on a dumb ass theologian?

[Outrider]

The biologist PZ Myers discovered/invented/Arsepulled the alleged logical fallacy " The Courtiers Reply" to  excuse people ignorant of a subject commenting on it because it looked to that person to be bollocks anyway.

At the risk of either blowing String theory or Multiverse theory or maybe the Courtiers reply.....

Aren't people who put forward and defend Multiverse theory and String theory committing the Courtiers reply fallacy?

I tend towards no not because these are big noise science types we are talking about but because the Courtiers reply fallacy might be a bollocks idea anyway.

What say you?

String theory is an attempt to explain demonstrable phenomena; whether or not it's a viable explanation, whether or not the various calculations sufficiently map to what's observed to consider it valid is up in the air at the moment, but the initial phenomenon is clearly established.

Theology (for instance) is centuries of convoluted navel gazing trying to justify acceptance of claims in the face of a complete lack of any evidence, and at times in spite of evidence to the contrary.

To claim that someone doesn't have the understanding of the underlying maths or physics to criticise a particular variant of String Theory is potentially verifiable, inasmuch as the underlying maths and physics can be verified.  How do you propose to verify the underlying theology if someone points out that Transubstantiation is nonsense?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

String theory is an attempt to explain demonstrable phenomena; whether or not it's a viable explanation, whether or not the various calculations sufficiently map to what's observed to consider it valid is up in the air at the moment, but the initial phenomenon is clearly established.

Theology (for instance) is centuries of convoluted navel gazing trying to justify acceptance of claims in the face of a complete lack of any evidence, and at times in spite of evidence to the contrary.

To claim that someone doesn't have the understanding of the underlying maths or physics to criticise a particular variant of String Theory is potentially verifiable, inasmuch as the underlying maths and physics can be verified.  How do you propose to verify the underlying theology if someone points out that Transubstantiation is nonsense?

O.

And several people are of the opinion that string theorising and multiverse is mere navel gazing. What is it then that leads you to believe one lot of academics is Courtier replying and the other isn't.

Theology has been a great comfort to millions and the training of  priests and vicars has had a useful pastoral aspect. Scientists with the exception of medical scientists and psychologists not so although have been looked upon as priestly people conferring the blessing of the multiverse and the gift of the string onto the mere mortals.....or is that just Sheldon Cooper. Talking of which I don't suppose there can be many a string theorist whose work hasn't been suspected by colleagues of being the Kings new clothes

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And several people are of the opinion that string theorising and multiverse is mere navel gazing. What is it then that leads you to believe one lot of academics is Courtier replying and the other isn't.

Theology has been a great comfort to millions and the training of  priests and vicars has had a useful pastoral aspect. Scientists with the exception of medical scientists and psychologists not so although have been looked upon as priestly people conferring the blessing of the multiverse and the gift of the string onto the mere mortals.....or is that just Sheldon Cooper. Talking of which I don't suppose there can be many a string theorist whose work hasn't been suspected by colleagues of being the Kings new clothes

First, whether or not claims are comforting tells you nothing about whether they're true.

Second, theoretical physics is reason- rather than magic-based, and your bizarre mischaracterisation re conferring blessings or some such is all your invention.

Third, I explained to you where you went wrong re the Courtier's Reply. Predictably you've just ignored the correction. What do you get from this type of dishonesty?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To claim that someone doesn't have the understanding of the underlying maths or physics to criticise a particular variant of String Theory is potentially verifiable, inasmuch as the underlying maths and physics can be verified.  How do you propose to verify the underlying theology if someone points out that Transubstantiation is nonsense?

Lord love you Outrider. Transubstantiation is hardly to theology what maths and physics is to science, you silly sausage.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

First, whether or not claims are comforting tells you nothing about whether they're true.

Second, theoretical physics is reason- rather than magic-based, and your bizarre mischaracterisation re conferring blessings or some such is all your invention.

Third, I explained to you where you went wrong re the Courtier's Reply. Predictably you've just ignored the correction. What do you get from this type of dishonesty?

No I'm saying there is a real pastoral aspect of theology and people find religion often not through church going but in a more personal way and need trained help to negotiate their entry into new life. and that is true and going to be true whether Essex accountants and residents like it or not.

Theoretical physics includes quantum mechanics with it's weird action at a distance. Real theoretical physics would not presume to comment on God and the only real bit of magic i've seen suggested around here is the universe where there is only contingency. Suggested by almost everyone on here professing to be an atheist. So atheist accusations about magic can go and multiply as far as I'm concerned.

When I gave my definition of the courtiers reply Jeremy P and I suspect others recognised what I was saying immediately. If your version is at variance with mine then I suspect there is a metaphorical giant neon sign over it going
''Flannel''.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No I'm saying there is a real pastoral aspect of theology and people find religion often not through church going but in a more personal way and need trained help to negotiate their entry into new life. and that is true and going to be true whether Essex accountants and residents like it or not.

Whether religion is necessary for pastoral care is a highly dubious claim, but in any case pastoral care or not theology still has nothing to offer to justify its claims of fact. That’s the point.

Theoretical physics includes quantum mechanics with it's weird action at a distance. Real theoretical physics would not presume to comment on God and the only real bit of magic i've seen suggested around here is the universe where there is only contingency. Suggested by almost everyone on here professing to be an atheist. So atheist accusations about magic can go and multiply as far as I'm concerned.

Was that car crash of a paragraph supposed to mean something? Any weirdness is still based on reason, science is indifferent to religious claims up to the point that theologians attempt scientific legitimacy and get the science wrong (WLC, Deepak Chopra etc), and no matter how theists describe it (“mystery” etc) using “it’s magic innit” is still the end of enquiry, and it answers nothing. Apart from all that though…       

When I gave my definition of the courtiers reply Jeremy P and I suspect others recognised what I was saying immediately. If your version is at variance with mine then I suspect there is a metaphorical giant neon sign over it going ''Flannel''.

As I explained to you perfectly clearly why you’d mischaracterised the CR and you just ignored the explanation, it stands. You screwed up or lied – deal with the reasons why or not as you please, but just ignoring the argument means your screw up/lie remains.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Whether religion is necessary for pastoral care is a highly dubious claim, but in any case pastoral care or not theology still has nothing to offer to justify its claims of fact. That’s the point.

Theology is not science and for some poor souls like yourselves with the bad meme of scientism that is unforgiveable.

Was that car crash of a paragraph supposed to mean something? Any weirdness is still based on reason, science is indifferent to religious claims up to the point that theologians attempt scientific legitimacy and get the science wrong (WLC, Deepak Chopra etc), and no matter how theists describe it (“mystery” etc) using “it’s magic innit” is still the end of enquiry, and it answers nothing. Apart from all that though…

As I say the only bit of magic i've seen suggested is a universe that is completely contingent. That is like a magic act where there is a rabbit but no magician ha ha ha       

As I explained to you perfectly clearly why you’d mischaracterised the CR and you just ignored the explanation, it stands. You screwed up – deal with the reasons why or not a you please, but the just ignoring the argument means your screw up remains.   

No I haven't. It was always merely a bit of rear guard action to cover a bit of Horses laugh fallacy and Alf Garnett behaviour which I believe is collectively referred to by Wikipedia as New Atheism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

Theology is not science and for some poor souls like yourselves with the bad meme of scientism that is unforgiveable.

As there’s no relationship between what I said and scientism I’ll assume you’re just lying again to cover your tracks.

As I say the only bit of magic i've seen suggested is a universe that is completely contingent. That is like a magic act where there is a rabbit but no magician ha ha ha

Yes, I know that’s the lie you’re trying – you don’t need to repeat it. Again, theoretical physics deals with ideas and conjectures based on sound principles that may or may not turn out to be true; religion makes claims of fact and gives up with the attempt to justify them – hence “mystery”/magic. 
       

No I haven't. It was always merely a bit of rear guard action to cover a bit of Horses laugh fallacy and Alf Garnett behaviour which I believe is collectively referred to by Wikipedia as New Atheism.

Yes you have. As again you’ve just ignored the explanation I gave you for why you’d screwed up/lied the explanation stands.

This seem to be your only MO these days – people give you arguments and you reply with pejorative terms but no counterarguments of your own. What would Jesus make of your dishonesty do you think?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

As there’s no relationship between what I said and scientism I’ll assume you’re just lying again to cover your tracks.

Yes, I know that’s the lie you’re trying – you don’t need to repeat it. Again, theoretical physics deals with ideas and conjectures based on sound principles that may or may not turn out to be true; religion makes claims of fact and gives up with the attempt to justify them – hence “mystery”/magic. 
       
Yes you have. As again you’ve just ignored the explanation I gave you for why you’d screwed up/lied the explanation stands.

This seem to be your only MO these days – people give you arguments and you reply with pejorative terms but no counterarguments of your own. What would Jesus make of your dishonesty do you think?

While the courtiers reply in the story is er, a courtiers reply it is obvious that the story is not transferable to the question of whether God exists and if there should be a theology. Well whether God exists is a debate and that debate is theological.

Dismissal is not debate and surely it is obvious that only a complete moron would say that God probably doesn't exist because I cannot see him(Surely the point of the story of the Emperors new clothes).

Luckily, such morons do exist and so the argument I cannot see God therefore he probably doesn't exist has been given a whole new lease of life. The story of the Emperor's new clothes does not apply to theology. It also turns out that it is based on opinion.

It was a cheeky wee ploy to cover a cheeky wee ploy. A bit of Tottenham Chutspah .

So being a crock I don't think scientists who propose Multiverse or String theory but especially multiverses are guilty of a courtiers reply or maybe ever could be.

No, The real Courtiers replies are in the field of politics.

So all Multiverse scientists and theologians are guilty of is philosophy with some scientists perhaps rightly miffed at colleague's palming it off as science.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

While the courtiers reply in the story is er, a courtiers reply it is obvious that the story is not transferable to the question of whether God exists and if there should be a theology.

“It’s obvious” is not an argument, and it’s perfectly transferable as an illustration of the fallacy of irrelevance. I explained why in Reply 8, but you continue to ignore the explanation. 

Well whether God exists is a debate and that debate is theological.

Four letters too many there: “logical“ is sufficient – the “theo-” adds nothing. Theologians don’t have access to special logic that ordinary logicians (or reasoning people generally for that matter) don’t have.

Dismissal is not debate and surely it is obvious that only a complete moron would say that God probably doesn't exist because I cannot see him(Surely the point of the story of the Emperors new clothes).

Straw man, and that’s not the CR argument at all. Perhaps if you bothered to read my explanation of were you went wrong in your OP you’d understand what it actually entails. 

Luckily, such morons do exist and so the argument I cannot see God therefore he doesn't exist has been given a whole new lease of life. The story of the Emperor's new clothes does not apply to theology. It also turns out that it is based on opinion.

It also has fuck all to do with what the CR argument actually concerns.

It was a cheeky wee ploy to cover a cheeky wee ploy a bit of Tottenham Chutspah which led atheist autoeroticism to spike.

Have you dropped a can of alphabet soup and photoshopped it into a post again?

So being a crock I don't think scientists who propose Multiverse or String theory but especially multiverses are guilty of a courtiers reply or maybe ever could be.

That’s right, they’re not. You though are.

No, The real Courtiers replies are in the field of politics.

Did that mean something in your head when typed it?

So all scientists and theologians are guilty of is philosophy…

You can’t be “guilty” of philosophy. What you can be guilty of is philosophically wrong arguments (theology) and philosophically right arguments (science).   

… with some scientists perhaps rightly miffed at colleague's palming it off as science.

So now you’ve finished throwing yourself from the tenth storey rather than from just the third, perhaps you like to start again but this time try at least to grasp what the CR actually entails. I set it out for you perfectly clearly in Reply 8. I suggest you start there.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can’t be “guilty” of philosophy. What you can be guilty of is philosophically wrong arguments (theology) and philosophically right arguments (science).   
.

Well let's do a short series on the great atheist scientist philosophers shall we?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-lawrence-krauss-a-physicist-or-just-a-bad-philosopher/

Firstly science can only speak of contingent things.
Secondly when you find someone who thinks because science only deals with contingent things there are only contingent things............You've found your Moron.

.