|
On May 22 2017 22:21 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2017 20:05 Ghostcom wrote:
I mean in a perfect world no anonymity would exist as people would be objective about the quality of the work (both the submitted and the review). For the world we live in, I frankly much prefer the journals which have decided to have everyone (except the editor) anonymous. I have yet to encounter any issues with it personally. The biggest issue is that it takes a lot of work to review a paper and if you do it well, it makes the final paper significantly better, but you get 0 attribution, except perhaps a "we thank the anonymous reviewers" (and a boilerplate email from the editor thanking you for your review).
I can point to these two projects that are trying to address this.
https://twitter.com/AcademicKarma
https://twitter.com/Publons
|
I'd like to know who my referees were, so that I can tell them, what I really think about their review, after the article is already published.
|
On May 22 2017 22:40 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2017 22:21 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 20:05 Ghostcom wrote:
I mean in a perfect world no anonymity would exist as people would be objective about the quality of the work (both the submitted and the review). For the world we live in, I frankly much prefer the journals which have decided to have everyone (except the editor) anonymous. I have yet to encounter any issues with it personally. The biggest issue is that it takes a lot of work to review a paper and if you do it well, it makes the final paper significantly better, but you get 0 attribution, except perhaps a "we thank the anonymous reviewers" (and a boilerplate email from the editor thanking you for your review). I can point to these two projects that are trying to address this. https://twitter.com/AcademicKarmahttps://twitter.com/Publons
Thanks for the links!
There are quite a lot of initiatives. My own institute is involved with the idea of Liquid Publications, and right now curating a data set with review data (anonymized) for the largest AI conference in the world. Each scientific field will probably have its own sort of problems that need to be addressed, but that's why I said above that the whole world of peer reviewed publications is about to undergo large structural changes. It's not something that just some freeky subgroup of scientists is pushing. Dissatisfaction with the current form is quite widespread among different scientific communities and there are increasing numbers of initiatives for potential solutions.
|
On May 22 2017 19:52 Uldridge wrote:Ah yes, I understand. The scary stories of the established authorities undermining tue young upstarts  It does happen and it is sad. Sad a career can go down the drain when the guy just makes a fuss. Forgot to consider that. I guess I meant biased. Anonymous was a brainfart on my end. But I see now that with all the (potential) investment of both parties and the grudges that can be held, anonymity does have its advantages.
On May 22 2017 22:43 opisska wrote:
I'd like to know who my referees were, so that I can tell them, what I really think about their review, after the article is already published.
|
On May 22 2017 16:21 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2017 15:27 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 10:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 06:50 Acrofales wrote:On May 21 2017 00:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 17:01 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 16:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 13:43 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. But almost 100% believe it. I believe there are entire societies in the US right now who have never seen a single piece of physical proof in the existence of Madagascar outside of media references and books--but they believe it exists. For the grand majority of people, they are given a scientific "fact" but never actually do the research, test, analysis, and work to prove those facts beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe most people take those things in faith knowing that some guy hundreds of years ago did the experiment to show it was a true fact. Usually these "facts" are taught by trained people whose job it is to tell others of the trueness of these facts. Do I believe in Gravity? Why yes I do. As much as majority of the world does. As for you comment about abrahamic gods--that is irrelevant to the discussion. If a guy shows up telling me he believed in Thor, I would ask him "how do you know" and he would show me the proof. The proof could be shit--but I know *why* he believes in Thor. Same with unicorns, same with Jesus. If you asked an atheist what proof he has--he will be the only one without proof, and in fact, will argue that atheism doesn't need proof. When I point out that you can never prove the lack of existence of something, simply because you'll never know if you've simply never found it yet--they will then try to argue why Jesus or Faeries are bad things to believe in. But I don't care about Jesus or Faeries. How crazy other people are does not answer the question why do atheist believe an unprovable concept. Why go so far against the scientific method and come toca conclusion before you have proof of the conclusion. It's boggling. When people believe things I disagree with--I know why they believe it. When people believe things I agree with--I also know why they believe it. When someone is so certain of something that them know has no evidence for it--that sounds crazy to me. Do you, personally, believe I'm innocent? I can point to my lack of a criminal record, and can send you some character references. But you can never know. Right? Isn't it insane to believe I'm innocent? I don't believe anyone is innately innocent. I do believe that the state, by the goodness of their grace, can protect individuals until guilt is proven. But to believe they are innately innocent is naive. I still lock my car door even if no one is around the parking lot because o don't believe in the innate innocence of humans. But right now and me. I'm not interested in your opinion of humanity. Am I innocent? Or guilty of some crime? Both are equally likely. No. They really aren't. Just as you're not equally likely to get hit but a car or not get hit by a car today. But statistics aside, I could have made this argument about something you couldn't possibly gather statistics about. For instance your lack of belief in invisible flirgleknarps. Which I just made up right now, so I suppose you really don't believe in them despite having no evidence whether invisible flirgleknarps really do or don't exist. You must be insane! It would be insane to assume things don't exist just because it is simply something in your imagination today, but could possibly be found/discovered/learned about in the future. Many things of today are just things people simply "made up" and "imagined" decades or centuries or millennia prior. Never limit yourself to being certain of things that you aren't actually certain of. Pretty sure you're the insane one if you believe there might be invisible flirgleknarps. Some things are clearly just fantasy and there really is no reason to even entertain the idea they might be real. Do you believe in the potential realness of the Guardians if the Galaxy, Arthas and the Protoss (master) race too?  To me they seem just as likely as the Christian god as portrayed in society. Since so many people believe in that it seems responsible of me to consider them possible as well. (A bit sarcastic.) If I believe in an unlimited multi-verse they seem likely even.
I'd say they are either less likely or more likely than Jesus--but not of equal probability due to the order of data present.
Animals gaining high level sentience, alien species traveling the cosmos, trees that are more alive than what we have now--those are things that are very much possible in the I often universe. Kid taken by aliens being able to find a way to live with those creatures--all are in potentially real category, albeit unlikely. However, no proof of it (for or against) is presented and so it remains merely a potential possibility.
Christian God has data for the conclusions presented as evidence (The Bible)
That means you either
believe the data (then it's literally more true than talking raccoons)
Or you dismiss the data (then it's already proven false and hence strictly less likely than talking raccoons based on the data presented)
Because one has evidence presented for it while the other doesn't, you are forced to have a more defininite conclusion for one and not the other.
|
On May 22 2017 23:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2017 16:21 Yurie wrote:On May 22 2017 15:27 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 10:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 06:50 Acrofales wrote:On May 21 2017 00:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 17:01 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 16:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 13:43 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. But almost 100% believe it.
I believe there are entire societies in the US right now who have never seen a single piece of physical proof in the existence of Madagascar outside of media references and books--but they believe it exists.
For the grand majority of people, they are given a scientific "fact" but never actually do the research, test, analysis, and work to prove those facts beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I believe most people take those things in faith knowing that some guy hundreds of years ago did the experiment to show it was a true fact.
Usually these "facts" are taught by trained people whose job it is to tell others of the trueness of these facts.
Do I believe in Gravity? Why yes I do. As much as majority of the world does.
As for you comment about abrahamic gods--that is irrelevant to the discussion.
If a guy shows up telling me he believed in Thor, I would ask him "how do you know" and he would show me the proof. The proof could be shit--but I know *why* he believes in Thor. Same with unicorns, same with Jesus.
If you asked an atheist what proof he has--he will be the only one without proof, and in fact, will argue that atheism doesn't need proof.
When I point out that you can never prove the lack of existence of something, simply because you'll never know if you've simply never found it yet--they will then try to argue why Jesus or Faeries are bad things to believe in.
But I don't care about Jesus or Faeries. How crazy other people are does not answer the question why do atheist believe an unprovable concept.
Why go so far against the scientific method and come toca conclusion before you have proof of the conclusion. It's boggling.
When people believe things I disagree with--I know why they believe it. When people believe things I agree with--I also know why they believe it.
When someone is so certain of something that them know has no evidence for it--that sounds crazy to me. Do you, personally, believe I'm innocent? I can point to my lack of a criminal record, and can send you some character references. But you can never know. Right? Isn't it insane to believe I'm innocent? I don't believe anyone is innately innocent. I do believe that the state, by the goodness of their grace, can protect individuals until guilt is proven. But to believe they are innately innocent is naive. I still lock my car door even if no one is around the parking lot because o don't believe in the innate innocence of humans. But right now and me. I'm not interested in your opinion of humanity. Am I innocent? Or guilty of some crime? Both are equally likely. No. They really aren't. Just as you're not equally likely to get hit but a car or not get hit by a car today. But statistics aside, I could have made this argument about something you couldn't possibly gather statistics about. For instance your lack of belief in invisible flirgleknarps. Which I just made up right now, so I suppose you really don't believe in them despite having no evidence whether invisible flirgleknarps really do or don't exist. You must be insane! It would be insane to assume things don't exist just because it is simply something in your imagination today, but could possibly be found/discovered/learned about in the future. Many things of today are just things people simply "made up" and "imagined" decades or centuries or millennia prior. Never limit yourself to being certain of things that you aren't actually certain of. Pretty sure you're the insane one if you believe there might be invisible flirgleknarps. Some things are clearly just fantasy and there really is no reason to even entertain the idea they might be real. Do you believe in the potential realness of the Guardians if the Galaxy, Arthas and the Protoss (master) race too? To me they seem just as likely as the Christian god as portrayed in society. Since so many people believe in that it seems responsible of me to consider them possible as well. (A bit sarcastic.) If I believe in an unlimited multi-verse they seem likely even. I'd say they are either less likely or more likely than Jesus--but not of equal probability due to the order of data present. Animals gaining high level sentience, alien species traveling the cosmos, trees that are more alive than what we have now--those are things that are very much possible in the I often universe. Kid taken by aliens being able to find a way to live with those creatures--all are in potentially real category, albeit unlikely. However, no proof of it (for or against) is presented and so it remains merely a potential possibility. Christian God has data for the conclusions presented as evidence (The Bible) That means you either believe the data (then it's literally more true than talking raccoons) Or you dismiss the data (then it's already proven false and hence strictly less likely than talking raccoons based on the data presented) Because one has evidence presented for it while the other doesn't, you are forced to have a more defininite conclusion for one and not the other.
Nice way of not actually addressing the issue, but I'll let you get away with it. What makes the Bible a better source of evidence than Marvel comics (or videogames)?
|
On May 22 2017 23:42 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2017 23:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 16:21 Yurie wrote:On May 22 2017 15:27 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 10:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 06:50 Acrofales wrote:On May 21 2017 00:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 17:01 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 16:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 13:43 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
Do you, personally, believe I'm innocent? I can point to my lack of a criminal record, and can send you some character references.
But you can never know. Right? Isn't it insane to believe I'm innocent?
I don't believe anyone is innately innocent. I do believe that the state, by the goodness of their grace, can protect individuals until guilt is proven. But to believe they are innately innocent is naive. I still lock my car door even if no one is around the parking lot because o don't believe in the innate innocence of humans. But right now and me. I'm not interested in your opinion of humanity. Am I innocent? Or guilty of some crime? Both are equally likely. No. They really aren't. Just as you're not equally likely to get hit but a car or not get hit by a car today. But statistics aside, I could have made this argument about something you couldn't possibly gather statistics about. For instance your lack of belief in invisible flirgleknarps. Which I just made up right now, so I suppose you really don't believe in them despite having no evidence whether invisible flirgleknarps really do or don't exist. You must be insane! It would be insane to assume things don't exist just because it is simply something in your imagination today, but could possibly be found/discovered/learned about in the future. Many things of today are just things people simply "made up" and "imagined" decades or centuries or millennia prior. Never limit yourself to being certain of things that you aren't actually certain of. Pretty sure you're the insane one if you believe there might be invisible flirgleknarps. Some things are clearly just fantasy and there really is no reason to even entertain the idea they might be real. Do you believe in the potential realness of the Guardians if the Galaxy, Arthas and the Protoss (master) race too? To me they seem just as likely as the Christian god as portrayed in society. Since so many people believe in that it seems responsible of me to consider them possible as well. (A bit sarcastic.) If I believe in an unlimited multi-verse they seem likely even. I'd say they are either less likely or more likely than Jesus--but not of equal probability due to the order of data present. Animals gaining high level sentience, alien species traveling the cosmos, trees that are more alive than what we have now--those are things that are very much possible in the I often universe. Kid taken by aliens being able to find a way to live with those creatures--all are in potentially real category, albeit unlikely. However, no proof of it (for or against) is presented and so it remains merely a potential possibility. Christian God has data for the conclusions presented as evidence (The Bible) That means you either believe the data (then it's literally more true than talking raccoons) Or you dismiss the data (then it's already proven false and hence strictly less likely than talking raccoons based on the data presented) Because one has evidence presented for it while the other doesn't, you are forced to have a more defininite conclusion for one and not the other. Nice way of not actually addressing the issue, but I'll let you get away with it. What makes the Bible a better source of evidence than Marvel comics (or videogames)?
The Bible is presented as real, comics and video games are presented as imaginations and stories devoid of prediction. We can literally ask the writers of these comics, read their notes, read their editor's notes, and know definitely what the stories are.
But the concept itself, the idea presented, is not too far fetched. To believe that there are aliens out there in space helping each other solve problems is not as unlikely as the idea that we will invent some new way to fight cancer. Space is big, and there's a lot of it out there.
Are you saying it's impossible for there to be aliens out there helping each other?
|
Do you believe in the multiverse? Congrats, you are a theist by definition.
Infinite Multiverse => Infinite universes where god's are real => infinite gods who affects more than one universe => infinite gods that affect all universes => at least one of those infinite gods who affect infinite universes is the Christian god
|
On May 22 2017 23:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Do you believe in the multiverse? Congrats, you are a theist by definition.
Infinite Multiverse => Infinite universes where god's are real => infinite gods who affects more than one universe => infinite gods that affect all universes => at least one of those infinite gods who affect infinite universes is the Christian god
Spoken as someone who doesn't really know anything about the multiverse.
Just because there are an infinite number of them doesn't mean anything you can imagine is possible in them. As a simple illustration of the concept, there are infinite real numbers between 0 and 1. The number 2 is still not included in that infinite set. The multiverse so far is nothing more than a hypothetical, so no, I don't have "faith" that there is a multiverse, although I do believe it's a far more likely hypothesis than the existence of an Abrahamic god. But even if there is, what is possible in the multiverse is not everything we can imagine, and it's probable that God has no place in any of the other universes either.
|
On May 23 2017 00:08 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2017 23:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Do you believe in the multiverse? Congrats, you are a theist by definition.
Infinite Multiverse => Infinite universes where god's are real => infinite gods who affects more than one universe => infinite gods that affect all universes => at least one of those infinite gods who affect infinite universes is the Christian god Spoken as someone who doesn't really know anything about the multiverse. Just because there are an infinite number of them doesn't mean anything you can imagine is possible in them. As a simple illustration of the concept, there are infinite real numbers between 0 and 1. The number 2 is still not included in that infinite set. The multiverse so far is nothing more than a hypothetical, so no, I don't have "faith" that there is a multiverse, although I do believe it's a far more likely hypothesis than the existence of an Abrahamic god. But even if there is, what is possible in the multiverse is not everything we can imagine, and it's probable that God has no place in any of the other universes either.
2 not being in between 0 and 1 does not prove 2 does not exist. Just because everything known between a specific space (0 and 1) denotes that 2 cannot exist, 2 can still exist.
And it's true, your idea of infinite can be as limited to what you want to be true as you'd like. Even if that means infinite multiverses actually mean multiverses you deem are okay to exist.
|
On May 22 2017 23:27 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2017 19:52 Uldridge wrote:Ah yes, I understand. The scary stories of the established authorities undermining tue young upstarts It does happen and it is sad. Sad a career can go down the drain when the guy just makes a fuss. Forgot to consider that. I guess I meant biased. Anonymous was a brainfart on my end. But I see now that with all the (potential) investment of both parties and the grudges that can be held, anonymity does have its advantages. Show nested quote +On May 22 2017 22:43 opisska wrote:
I'd like to know who my referees were, so that I can tell them, what I really think about their review, after the article is already published.
Yeah this is actually a problem with everything involving people - that people hold these grudges and have all of these absurd motives and that leads to dishonesty and lack of sincerity.
I would really want to be able to tell the reviewer that what he wrote is total bollocks, but I can't do that in the response, because their ego would get ruffled and they'd deny the article. So now there is a reviewer who thinks he has done such a terrific job, while a lot of what he wrote was total nonsense and was just annoying and wasting my time, but I have no way to provide this kind of feedback to them. If I knew who they were, I would just frankly tell them, but it wouldn't put them into any danger, because there is no reason for me to hold any grudge against them just because they suck at reviewing and I also have no power at all.
|
On May 22 2017 23:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2017 23:42 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 23:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 16:21 Yurie wrote:On May 22 2017 15:27 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 10:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 06:50 Acrofales wrote:On May 21 2017 00:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 17:01 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 16:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
I don't believe anyone is innately innocent. I do believe that the state, by the goodness of their grace, can protect individuals until guilt is proven.
But to believe they are innately innocent is naive. I still lock my car door even if no one is around the parking lot because o don't believe in the innate innocence of humans. But right now and me. I'm not interested in your opinion of humanity. Am I innocent? Or guilty of some crime? Both are equally likely. No. They really aren't. Just as you're not equally likely to get hit but a car or not get hit by a car today. But statistics aside, I could have made this argument about something you couldn't possibly gather statistics about. For instance your lack of belief in invisible flirgleknarps. Which I just made up right now, so I suppose you really don't believe in them despite having no evidence whether invisible flirgleknarps really do or don't exist. You must be insane! It would be insane to assume things don't exist just because it is simply something in your imagination today, but could possibly be found/discovered/learned about in the future. Many things of today are just things people simply "made up" and "imagined" decades or centuries or millennia prior. Never limit yourself to being certain of things that you aren't actually certain of. Pretty sure you're the insane one if you believe there might be invisible flirgleknarps. Some things are clearly just fantasy and there really is no reason to even entertain the idea they might be real. Do you believe in the potential realness of the Guardians if the Galaxy, Arthas and the Protoss (master) race too? To me they seem just as likely as the Christian god as portrayed in society. Since so many people believe in that it seems responsible of me to consider them possible as well. (A bit sarcastic.) If I believe in an unlimited multi-verse they seem likely even. I'd say they are either less likely or more likely than Jesus--but not of equal probability due to the order of data present. Animals gaining high level sentience, alien species traveling the cosmos, trees that are more alive than what we have now--those are things that are very much possible in the I often universe. Kid taken by aliens being able to find a way to live with those creatures--all are in potentially real category, albeit unlikely. However, no proof of it (for or against) is presented and so it remains merely a potential possibility. Christian God has data for the conclusions presented as evidence (The Bible) That means you either believe the data (then it's literally more true than talking raccoons) Or you dismiss the data (then it's already proven false and hence strictly less likely than talking raccoons based on the data presented) Because one has evidence presented for it while the other doesn't, you are forced to have a more defininite conclusion for one and not the other. Nice way of not actually addressing the issue, but I'll let you get away with it. What makes the Bible a better source of evidence than Marvel comics (or videogames)? The Bible is presented as real, comics and video games are presented as imaginations and stories devoid of prediction. We can literally ask the writers of these comics, read their notes, read their editor's notes, and know definitely what the stories are. But the concept itself, the idea presented, is not too far fetched. To believe that there are aliens out there in space helping each other solve problems is not as unlikely as the idea that we will invent some new way to fight cancer. Space is big, and there's a lot of it out there. Are you saying it's impossible for there to be aliens out there helping each other?
Oh, ok. So you adhere to a Discworldian (or American Gods) version of belief, where the number of believers in a religion determines how likely it is to be real. What about Scientology? Admitted by the founder to have been invented with the sole purpose of dodging taxes and to part fools from their money. Yet it has thousands of believers, who really have faith in the Church of Scientology. Is that approaching biblical levels of likelihood of being real in your system.
Because I'm really trying to understand how faith works in your mind, but I am not managing.
And no, I wasn't talking about the vague concept of a "group of alien heroes banding together to battle evil". I was talking quite literally about the Guardians of the Galaxy. Just as with Protoss I didn't refer to "some space alien race", but quite specifically to the Starcraft race of space aliens.
|
I find it fascinating how you guys manage to sneak away with dozens of pages of religion discussion in this thread where no mod is looking because all they expect to find is precise physics calculations pertaining to impossible theoretical scenarios.
|
On May 22 2017 23:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Do you believe in the multiverse? Congrats, you are a theist by definition.
Infinite Multiverse => Infinite universes where god's are real => infinite gods who affects more than one universe => infinite gods that affect all universes => at least one of those infinite gods who affect infinite universes is the Christian god
This makes no sense, but you are nonetheless very confident in your tone. Not sure if you're trolling, or if you actually believe that you know what you are talking about. I'd enjoy reading your posts more if you were a bit more transparent with your expertise. Sorry for these remarks. In this case I'll elaborate a bit.
In TLDR, a multiverse do not require gods.
I think you are alluding to the principle that if you have infinitely many universes with random starting condition, then anything that can happen will happen. Then you go on to say that there will be universes with gods. In that step you assume that gods can happen. Ie, you assume that gods are consistent with whatever physical laws all these universes follow. That is a very controversial assumption. An atheist would probably believe that the multiverses are governed by equations that do not allows gods in the usual sense. An agnostic perhaps would be tempted by rules that create gods in some universes but not in others, but doesn't allow for cross-universe communication. A christian would maybe but the christian god in every universe, or maybe outside, governing them all. Maybe others would be fine with this universe being the universe of thier god while other universes can have other gods, as you suggested (as only possibility).
All in all, a multiverse can have or not have gods depending on what rules you to apply to the universes. So existence of a multiverse is independent of existence of a god.
|
On May 23 2017 00:22 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2017 23:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 23:42 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 23:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 16:21 Yurie wrote:On May 22 2017 15:27 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 10:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 06:50 Acrofales wrote:On May 21 2017 00:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 17:01 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
But right now and me. I'm not interested in your opinion of humanity. Am I innocent? Or guilty of some crime? Both are equally likely. No. They really aren't. Just as you're not equally likely to get hit but a car or not get hit by a car today. But statistics aside, I could have made this argument about something you couldn't possibly gather statistics about. For instance your lack of belief in invisible flirgleknarps. Which I just made up right now, so I suppose you really don't believe in them despite having no evidence whether invisible flirgleknarps really do or don't exist. You must be insane! It would be insane to assume things don't exist just because it is simply something in your imagination today, but could possibly be found/discovered/learned about in the future. Many things of today are just things people simply "made up" and "imagined" decades or centuries or millennia prior. Never limit yourself to being certain of things that you aren't actually certain of. Pretty sure you're the insane one if you believe there might be invisible flirgleknarps. Some things are clearly just fantasy and there really is no reason to even entertain the idea they might be real. Do you believe in the potential realness of the Guardians if the Galaxy, Arthas and the Protoss (master) race too? To me they seem just as likely as the Christian god as portrayed in society. Since so many people believe in that it seems responsible of me to consider them possible as well. (A bit sarcastic.) If I believe in an unlimited multi-verse they seem likely even. I'd say they are either less likely or more likely than Jesus--but not of equal probability due to the order of data present. Animals gaining high level sentience, alien species traveling the cosmos, trees that are more alive than what we have now--those are things that are very much possible in the I often universe. Kid taken by aliens being able to find a way to live with those creatures--all are in potentially real category, albeit unlikely. However, no proof of it (for or against) is presented and so it remains merely a potential possibility. Christian God has data for the conclusions presented as evidence (The Bible) That means you either believe the data (then it's literally more true than talking raccoons) Or you dismiss the data (then it's already proven false and hence strictly less likely than talking raccoons based on the data presented) Because one has evidence presented for it while the other doesn't, you are forced to have a more defininite conclusion for one and not the other. Nice way of not actually addressing the issue, but I'll let you get away with it. What makes the Bible a better source of evidence than Marvel comics (or videogames)? The Bible is presented as real, comics and video games are presented as imaginations and stories devoid of prediction. We can literally ask the writers of these comics, read their notes, read their editor's notes, and know definitely what the stories are. But the concept itself, the idea presented, is not too far fetched. To believe that there are aliens out there in space helping each other solve problems is not as unlikely as the idea that we will invent some new way to fight cancer. Space is big, and there's a lot of it out there. Are you saying it's impossible for there to be aliens out there helping each other? Oh, ok. So you adhere to a Discworldian (or American Gods) version of belief, where the number of believers in a religion determines how likely it is to be real. What about Scientology? Admitted by the founder to have been invented with the sole purpose of dodging taxes and to part fools from their money. Yet it has thousands of believers, who really have faith in the Church of Scientology. Is that approaching biblical levels of likelihood of being real in your system. Because I'm really trying to understand how faith works in your mind, but I am not managing. And no, I wasn't talking about the vague concept of a "group of alien heroes banding together to battle evil". I was talking quite literally about the Guardians of the Galaxy. Just as with Protoss I didn't refer to "some space alien race", but quite specifically to the Starcraft race of space aliens.
Why does the number of people presenting or believing the data matter at all?
The Christian god has evidence presented for him, Guardians of the Galaxy does not. As such you need to have a more definitive conclusion to the evidence presented for God while you do not need a definitive conclusion from the lack of evidence not being presented for guardians.
There are stories present that suggest a world/life where guardians of the galaxy is happening. Until proven otherwise, there is a non-zero chance of it happening. Without evidence presented we can't have an opinion on it one way or another, but since there is no proof that it's impossible aliens can exist, there is no proof that plants can't exist, and there is no proof space flight can't happen, there is no data present that definitely proves that guardians of the galaxy is not happening.
The closest you get to it is the author of the work telling you, to your face, that this scenario was made up in his head. But what are the chances he isn't close to describing something real? Automatic doors in Star Trek wasn't real, it was made up in some guy's mind. As are many things we eventually find or invent, as well as many things we prove to be impossibilities.
Could there be something happening in space that is similar to what is happening in guardians? Potentially yes.
1% chance? 100% chance?
1% similar? 100% similar?
Etc...
How is this hard for you to understand?
Potentially possible versus defintively impossible are not hard concepts to grasp.
|
On May 23 2017 00:28 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2017 23:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Do you believe in the multiverse? Congrats, you are a theist by definition.
Infinite Multiverse => Infinite universes where god's are real => infinite gods who affects more than one universe => infinite gods that affect all universes => at least one of those infinite gods who affect infinite universes is the Christian god This makes no sense, but you are nonetheless very confident in your tone. Not sure if you're trolling, or if you actually believe that you know what you are talking about. I'd enjoy reading your posts more if you were a bit more transparent with your expertise. Sorry for these remarks. In this case I'll elaborate a bit. In TLDR, a multiverse do not require gods. I think you are alluding to the principle that if you have infinitely many universes with random starting condition, then anything that can happen will happen. Then you go on to say that there will be universes with gods. In that step you assume that gods can happen. Ie, you assume that gods are consistent with whatever physical laws all these universes follow. That is a very controversial assumption. An atheist would probably believe that the multiverses are governed by equations that do not allows gods in the usual sense. An agnostic perhaps would be tempted by rules that create gods in some universes but not in others, but doesn't allow for cross-universe communication. A christian would maybe but the christian god in every universe, or maybe outside, governing them all. Maybe others would be fine with this universe being the universe of thier god while other universes can have other gods, as you suggested (as only possibility). All in all, a multiverse can have or not have gods depending on what rules you to apply to the universes. So existence of a multiverse is independent of existence of a god.
Just because Atheist think they know the definitive rules of how the universe works does not mean they know the definitive rules of how the universe works. As such, they don't actually know that the rules within a universe can or can't allow for deities. Nor can they know that the rules for one universe cannot affect the rules for others. As such, the only way for there to be no Gods in a multiverse is if you start with the axiom that it is definitely impossible for that to happen despite not having the data to support that assumption.
If you start as a skeptic and assume you don't know what all the rules of the universe are (I definitely don't think weVe discovered all there is to know about the universe but you could disagree with that if you'd like) then you'd see that yes, it is potentially possible that the rules of the universe allows gods, and if you believe in multiverses, then you are forced to see that god's can exist in infinite possibilities.
Don't let your absolutism limit your perceptions.
|
On May 23 2017 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 00:22 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 23:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 23:42 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 23:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 16:21 Yurie wrote:On May 22 2017 15:27 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 10:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 06:50 Acrofales wrote:On May 21 2017 00:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Both are equally likely. No. They really aren't. Just as you're not equally likely to get hit but a car or not get hit by a car today. But statistics aside, I could have made this argument about something you couldn't possibly gather statistics about. For instance your lack of belief in invisible flirgleknarps. Which I just made up right now, so I suppose you really don't believe in them despite having no evidence whether invisible flirgleknarps really do or don't exist. You must be insane! It would be insane to assume things don't exist just because it is simply something in your imagination today, but could possibly be found/discovered/learned about in the future. Many things of today are just things people simply "made up" and "imagined" decades or centuries or millennia prior. Never limit yourself to being certain of things that you aren't actually certain of. Pretty sure you're the insane one if you believe there might be invisible flirgleknarps. Some things are clearly just fantasy and there really is no reason to even entertain the idea they might be real. Do you believe in the potential realness of the Guardians if the Galaxy, Arthas and the Protoss (master) race too? To me they seem just as likely as the Christian god as portrayed in society. Since so many people believe in that it seems responsible of me to consider them possible as well. (A bit sarcastic.) If I believe in an unlimited multi-verse they seem likely even. I'd say they are either less likely or more likely than Jesus--but not of equal probability due to the order of data present. Animals gaining high level sentience, alien species traveling the cosmos, trees that are more alive than what we have now--those are things that are very much possible in the I often universe. Kid taken by aliens being able to find a way to live with those creatures--all are in potentially real category, albeit unlikely. However, no proof of it (for or against) is presented and so it remains merely a potential possibility. Christian God has data for the conclusions presented as evidence (The Bible) That means you either believe the data (then it's literally more true than talking raccoons) Or you dismiss the data (then it's already proven false and hence strictly less likely than talking raccoons based on the data presented) Because one has evidence presented for it while the other doesn't, you are forced to have a more defininite conclusion for one and not the other. Nice way of not actually addressing the issue, but I'll let you get away with it. What makes the Bible a better source of evidence than Marvel comics (or videogames)? The Bible is presented as real, comics and video games are presented as imaginations and stories devoid of prediction. We can literally ask the writers of these comics, read their notes, read their editor's notes, and know definitely what the stories are. But the concept itself, the idea presented, is not too far fetched. To believe that there are aliens out there in space helping each other solve problems is not as unlikely as the idea that we will invent some new way to fight cancer. Space is big, and there's a lot of it out there. Are you saying it's impossible for there to be aliens out there helping each other? Oh, ok. So you adhere to a Discworldian (or American Gods) version of belief, where the number of believers in a religion determines how likely it is to be real. What about Scientology? Admitted by the founder to have been invented with the sole purpose of dodging taxes and to part fools from their money. Yet it has thousands of believers, who really have faith in the Church of Scientology. Is that approaching biblical levels of likelihood of being real in your system. Because I'm really trying to understand how faith works in your mind, but I am not managing. And no, I wasn't talking about the vague concept of a "group of alien heroes banding together to battle evil". I was talking quite literally about the Guardians of the Galaxy. Just as with Protoss I didn't refer to "some space alien race", but quite specifically to the Starcraft race of space aliens. Why does the number of people presenting or believing the data matter at all? The Christian god has evidence presented for him, Guardians of the Galaxy does not. As such you need to have a more definitive conclusion to the evidence presented for God while you do not need a definitive conclusion from the lack of evidence not being presented for guardians. There are stories present that suggest a world/life where guardians of the galaxy is happening. Until proven otherwise, there is a non-zero chance of it happening. Without evidence presented we can't have an opinion on it one way or another, but since there is no proof that it's impossible aliens can exist, there is no proof that plants can't exist, and there is no proof space flight can't happen, there is no data present that definitely proves that guardians of the galaxy is not happening. The closest you get to it is the author of the work telling you, to your face, that this scenario was made up in his head. But what are the chances he isn't close to describing something real? Automatic doors in Star Trek wasn't real, it was made up in some guy's mind. As are many things we eventually find or invent, as well as many things we prove to be impossibilities. Could there be something happening in space that is similar to what is happening in guardians? Potentially yes. 1% chance? 100% chance? 1% similar? 100% similar? Etc... How is this hard for you to understand? Potentially possible versus defintively impossible are not hard concepts to grasp.
You're still confusing. If the Bible counts as evidence, then why don't Marvel comics? If the Bible doesn't count as evidence then what exactly are you referring to?
Also, I'm not talking about tricorders or automatic doors. I'm talking about a human called Peter and his talking racoon friend Rocket. Also fiction leading INVENTION is very different from fiction leading DISCOVERY.
|
On May 23 2017 00:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 00:28 Cascade wrote:On May 22 2017 23:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Do you believe in the multiverse? Congrats, you are a theist by definition.
Infinite Multiverse => Infinite universes where god's are real => infinite gods who affects more than one universe => infinite gods that affect all universes => at least one of those infinite gods who affect infinite universes is the Christian god This makes no sense, but you are nonetheless very confident in your tone. Not sure if you're trolling, or if you actually believe that you know what you are talking about. I'd enjoy reading your posts more if you were a bit more transparent with your expertise. Sorry for these remarks. In this case I'll elaborate a bit. In TLDR, a multiverse do not require gods. I think you are alluding to the principle that if you have infinitely many universes with random starting condition, then anything that can happen will happen. Then you go on to say that there will be universes with gods. In that step you assume that gods can happen. Ie, you assume that gods are consistent with whatever physical laws all these universes follow. That is a very controversial assumption. An atheist would probably believe that the multiverses are governed by equations that do not allows gods in the usual sense. An agnostic perhaps would be tempted by rules that create gods in some universes but not in others, but doesn't allow for cross-universe communication. A christian would maybe but the christian god in every universe, or maybe outside, governing them all. Maybe others would be fine with this universe being the universe of thier god while other universes can have other gods, as you suggested (as only possibility). All in all, a multiverse can have or not have gods depending on what rules you to apply to the universes. So existence of a multiverse is independent of existence of a god. Just because Atheist think they know the definitive rules of how the universe works does not mean they know the definitive rules of how the universe works. As such, they don't actually know that the rules within a universe can or can't allow for deities. Nor can they know that the rules for one universe cannot affect the rules for others. As such, the only way for there to be no Gods in a multiverse is if you start with the axiom that it is definitely impossible for that to happen despite not having the data to support that assumption. If you start as a skeptic and assume you don't know what all the rules of the universe are (I definitely don't think weVe discovered all there is to know about the universe but you could disagree with that if you'd like) then you'd see that yes, it is potentially possible that the rules of the universe allows gods, and if you believe in multiverses, then you are forced to see that god's can exist in infinite possibilities. Don't let your absolutism limit your perceptions.
Stop talking physics with the physicist. Right now. That's not an argument you can win. You are completely utterly wrong on this, and cascade is too polite to tell you you're being silly, but you're being silly.
|
On May 23 2017 00:18 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2017 23:27 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 19:52 Uldridge wrote:Ah yes, I understand. The scary stories of the established authorities undermining tue young upstarts It does happen and it is sad. Sad a career can go down the drain when the guy just makes a fuss. Forgot to consider that. I guess I meant biased. Anonymous was a brainfart on my end. But I see now that with all the (potential) investment of both parties and the grudges that can be held, anonymity does have its advantages. On May 22 2017 22:43 opisska wrote:
I'd like to know who my referees were, so that I can tell them, what I really think about their review, after the article is already published. Yeah this is actually a problem with everything involving people - that people hold these grudges and have all of these absurd motives and that leads to dishonesty and lack of sincerity. I would really want to be able to tell the reviewer that what he wrote is total bollocks, but I can't do that in the response, because their ego would get ruffled and they'd deny the article. So now there is a reviewer who thinks he has done such a terrific job, while a lot of what he wrote was total nonsense and was just annoying and wasting my time, but I have no way to provide this kind of feedback to them. If I knew who they were, I would just frankly tell them, but it wouldn't put them into any danger, because there is no reason for me to hold any grudge against them just because they suck at reviewing and I also have no power at all.
Speaking of: I encourage everyone to google "reviewer #2". Most of the memes are all too accurate. I just received comments on a paper I had submitted and frankly I'm not convinced #2 even read my paper - or has read any paper within the field.
|
On May 23 2017 00:44 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:22 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 23:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 23:42 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 23:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 16:21 Yurie wrote:On May 22 2017 15:27 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 10:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 06:50 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
No. They really aren't. Just as you're not equally likely to get hit but a car or not get hit by a car today. But statistics aside, I could have made this argument about something you couldn't possibly gather statistics about. For instance your lack of belief in invisible flirgleknarps. Which I just made up right now, so I suppose you really don't believe in them despite having no evidence whether invisible flirgleknarps really do or don't exist. You must be insane!
It would be insane to assume things don't exist just because it is simply something in your imagination today, but could possibly be found/discovered/learned about in the future. Many things of today are just things people simply "made up" and "imagined" decades or centuries or millennia prior. Never limit yourself to being certain of things that you aren't actually certain of. Pretty sure you're the insane one if you believe there might be invisible flirgleknarps. Some things are clearly just fantasy and there really is no reason to even entertain the idea they might be real. Do you believe in the potential realness of the Guardians if the Galaxy, Arthas and the Protoss (master) race too? To me they seem just as likely as the Christian god as portrayed in society. Since so many people believe in that it seems responsible of me to consider them possible as well. (A bit sarcastic.) If I believe in an unlimited multi-verse they seem likely even. I'd say they are either less likely or more likely than Jesus--but not of equal probability due to the order of data present. Animals gaining high level sentience, alien species traveling the cosmos, trees that are more alive than what we have now--those are things that are very much possible in the I often universe. Kid taken by aliens being able to find a way to live with those creatures--all are in potentially real category, albeit unlikely. However, no proof of it (for or against) is presented and so it remains merely a potential possibility. Christian God has data for the conclusions presented as evidence (The Bible) That means you either believe the data (then it's literally more true than talking raccoons) Or you dismiss the data (then it's already proven false and hence strictly less likely than talking raccoons based on the data presented) Because one has evidence presented for it while the other doesn't, you are forced to have a more defininite conclusion for one and not the other. Nice way of not actually addressing the issue, but I'll let you get away with it. What makes the Bible a better source of evidence than Marvel comics (or videogames)? The Bible is presented as real, comics and video games are presented as imaginations and stories devoid of prediction. We can literally ask the writers of these comics, read their notes, read their editor's notes, and know definitely what the stories are. But the concept itself, the idea presented, is not too far fetched. To believe that there are aliens out there in space helping each other solve problems is not as unlikely as the idea that we will invent some new way to fight cancer. Space is big, and there's a lot of it out there. Are you saying it's impossible for there to be aliens out there helping each other? Oh, ok. So you adhere to a Discworldian (or American Gods) version of belief, where the number of believers in a religion determines how likely it is to be real. What about Scientology? Admitted by the founder to have been invented with the sole purpose of dodging taxes and to part fools from their money. Yet it has thousands of believers, who really have faith in the Church of Scientology. Is that approaching biblical levels of likelihood of being real in your system. Because I'm really trying to understand how faith works in your mind, but I am not managing. And no, I wasn't talking about the vague concept of a "group of alien heroes banding together to battle evil". I was talking quite literally about the Guardians of the Galaxy. Just as with Protoss I didn't refer to "some space alien race", but quite specifically to the Starcraft race of space aliens. Why does the number of people presenting or believing the data matter at all? The Christian god has evidence presented for him, Guardians of the Galaxy does not. As such you need to have a more definitive conclusion to the evidence presented for God while you do not need a definitive conclusion from the lack of evidence not being presented for guardians. There are stories present that suggest a world/life where guardians of the galaxy is happening. Until proven otherwise, there is a non-zero chance of it happening. Without evidence presented we can't have an opinion on it one way or another, but since there is no proof that it's impossible aliens can exist, there is no proof that plants can't exist, and there is no proof space flight can't happen, there is no data present that definitely proves that guardians of the galaxy is not happening. The closest you get to it is the author of the work telling you, to your face, that this scenario was made up in his head. But what are the chances he isn't close to describing something real? Automatic doors in Star Trek wasn't real, it was made up in some guy's mind. As are many things we eventually find or invent, as well as many things we prove to be impossibilities. Could there be something happening in space that is similar to what is happening in guardians? Potentially yes. 1% chance? 100% chance? 1% similar? 100% similar? Etc... How is this hard for you to understand? Potentially possible versus defintively impossible are not hard concepts to grasp. You're still confusing. If the Bible counts as evidence, then why don't Marvel comics? If the Bible doesn't count as evidence then what exactly are you referring to? Also, I'm not talking about tricorders or automatic doors. I'm talking about a human called Peter and his talking racoon friend Rocket. Also fiction leading INVENTION is very different from fiction leading DISCOVERY.
The Bible is literally presented as evidence. When people are asked if Jesus is real the Bible is picked up and presented as evidence for his existence.
Guardians of the Galaxy is not presented as evidence. As in, when the writers of guardians of the galaxy wrote the text they did not present it as proof of the existence of peter quill and rocket.
Is it possible that some kid named peter was taken by aliens and is now riding on a ship with a talking racoon--yes, there is a non-zero chance of it. Is the chance high? Absolutely not. Is it above zero? There isn't any evidence that the possibility is definitively zero.
How is that hard for you to get? Where am I losing you? Do you not understand the difference is between presenting evidence and existence of evidence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
