10 Jan 14
Originally posted by googlefudge"logicspeak" gives me a headache.
Sigh.
Schools really need to do better at teaching basic math.
That was the English version.
You evidently don't want to see the maths one.
For one thing, I was never good at Boolean operators/operations. Ditto set notation/theory. Now math I am fairly good at, at least until you start talking calculus. But up to that, I'm tolerable. But "logicspeak" may as well be Venusian to me.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
11 Jan 14
Originally posted by SuzianneNot sure what you mean by 'logic speak' but that was very basic probability.
"logicspeak" gives me a headache.
For one thing, I was never good at Boolean operators/operations. Ditto set notation/theory. Now math I am fairly good at, at least until you start talking calculus. But up to that, I'm tolerable. But "logicspeak" may as well be Venusian to me.
I can go over it in more detail if you're genuinely interested, but the point and
benefit of using that notation is that it saves lots and lots of words.
P[X|E] simply means "The probability of 'proposition X' given 'evidence E'"
In other words, if E is true then what is the probability that X is also true.
11 Jan 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeSo--- basically--- a magician.
Basically....
Evidence [E] for X, is a fact/ observation about our reality that makes P more likely.
So the probability of X given E {p[X|E]} is greater than the probability of X a priori. {p[X]}
So in mathematical terms p[X|E] is greater than p[X].
Sufficient evidence for belief is evidence that raises the probability of X being true past th ...[text shortened]... ee no evidence for god, the kind of thing that qualifies is not something
anyone could miss...
Didn't think you'd give in so readily.
Huh.
Essentially, you've said that you really don't have a standard.
Not one that means anything to anyone but you, of course.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
11 Jan 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYes. Welcome to scientific skepticism 101.
There is no second effort, sorry.
You haven't presented anything other than meaningless formulas with no basis in reality. By your 'standard' everything comes under suspicion.
Everything is suspect and must be tested and verified.
Fortunately we have been doing this for hundreds of years and have an awful
lot of stuff pinned down so you have no need of starting from scratch.
And these are not 'my' formulas, this is the basic fundamentals of science
and probability theory that go back centuries before I was born.
The fact that you are ignorant of them and how they function is not a reflection on
their validity, only of your own education.
11 Jan 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeOriginally posted by googlefudge
Yes. Welcome to scientific skepticism 101.
Everything is suspect and must be tested and verified.
Fortunately we have been doing this for hundreds of years and have an awful
lot of stuff pinned down so you have no need of starting from scratch.
And these are not 'my' formulas, this is the basic fundamentals of science
and probability theory ...[text shortened]... them and how they function is not a reflection on
their validity, only of your own education.
Yes. Welcome to scientific skepticism 101.
Everything is suspect and must be tested and verified.
Fortunately we have been doing this for hundreds of years and have an awful
lot of stuff pinned down so you have no need of starting from scratch.
And these are not 'my' formulas, this is the basic fundamentals of science
and probability theory that go back centuries before I was born.
The fact that you are ignorant of them and how they function is not a reflection on
their validity, only of your own education.
googlefudge, since "everything is suspect and must be tested and verified",
how would "scientific skepticism 101" test and verify the tenets of atheism applying
"the basic fundamentals of science and probability theory that go back
centuries before I was [you were] born"?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThere are no tenets of atheism.
Originally posted by googlefudge
[b]Yes. Welcome to scientific skepticism 101.
Everything is suspect and must be tested and verified.
Fortunately we have been doing this for hundreds of years and have an awful
lot of stuff pinned down so you have no need of starting from scratch.
And these are not 'my' formulas, this is the basic fund ...[text shortened]... mentals of science and probability theory that go back
centuries before I was [you were] born"?
And you know this because you have been told countless times what
atheism is.
So answer your own question.
EDIT: You are doing better at making posts where it's clear what you are
quoting and what your response is... so that's good.
12 Jan 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeIf "there are no tenets of atheism", of what is atheism comprised?
There are no tenets of atheism.
And you know this because you have been told countless times what
atheism is.
So answer your own question.
EDIT: You are doing better at making posts where it's clear what you are
quoting and what your response is... so that's good.
12 Jan 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeAs I said, despite your whining otherwise, lack of education has nothing to do with the issue.
Yes. Welcome to scientific skepticism 101.
Everything is suspect and must be tested and verified.
Fortunately we have been doing this for hundreds of years and have an awful
lot of stuff pinned down so you have no need of starting from scratch.
And these are not 'my' formulas, this is the basic fundamentals of science
and probability theory ...[text shortened]... them and how they function is not a reflection on
their validity, only of your own education.
Rather, inaccurate application is more the order of the day.
If one were to use your (I didn't say you created it, dimwit, I said you offered it) formula, everything is suspect.
Apparently the weight of that concept is lost in your scale, but it essentially means your formula is meaningless and therefore ineffectual.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 Jan 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyHead... Desk... impact...
If "there are no tenets of atheism", of what is atheism comprised?
If you can't remember from last time then you wont remember this time so there is really no point in me ever answering your questions.
USE YOUR BRAIN AND FIGURE IT OUT.