Faith is not "without evidence" argument

[Into the Night]

The $64 question being "Why only on Earth?" What little evidence we have is that life, once started, is hard to kill off. Even if the Earth had another impact event or super volcano, even a nuclear exchange, life would continue to exist....just not human life. LOL

Still, human beings have been looking for life ever since we realized we're on a planet and that the "wandering stars" were other planets. So far, nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero indication that life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. The religious say it's because God only put life on Earth. The realists think that's unlikely but have a hard time explaining Fermi's Paradox.

Current thinking, as Cypress and I have already discussed, is that life is very rare. An additional theory to explain why no other advanced species exist is that advanced species have a tendency to knock themselves back to lower levels. Something which our species has done a couple times and has come close to doing permanently.

Discussing this with yourself is no different than discussing things with Sybil, Sock.

 

[AProudLefty]

WRONG. RandU numbers have a pattern.

That is impossible.

 

[Into the Night]

Science begins first and foremost with educated guesses and informed hypotheses.

You are describing religion, not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all of science.

It's a very good educated guess that life is rare in the galaxy. That is a very good informed hypothesis.

No. That's just an argument of ignorance fallacy.

We have never found a single sign of life anywhere else in our solar system.

So?

The vast majority of exoplanets we discovered are almost certainly inhospitable for life because of temperature, chemistry, orbit.

SETI has never detected tangible evidence of any artificial signal in the cosmic EM spectrum. Despite decades of trying.

Biology is going to require chemical complexity. There is no atom that comes anywhere close to forming the amount and complexity of energetically stable chemical bonds to other atoms and molecules as carbon.

So?

Science fiction writers like to talk about silicon. Silicon does not come anywhere close to creating the numbers and complexity of bonds as carbon. If silicon based life were possible, why haven't we seen it on Earth? 4.5 billion years is plenty of time for evolution, silicon is way more abundant than carbon on our planet, and Earth is host to a vast array of thermal and chemical environments novel new forms of life could conceivably get toehold in.

Oh. No conclusion. Just an implied one based on an argument of ignorance fallacy.

Life is not a TV show.

 

[Into the Night]

That is impossible.

No, it isn't. It's the very nature of a randU.

 

[AProudLefty]

No, it isn't. It's the very nature of a randU.

If random numbers can be predicted, then they are not random.

 

[ZenMode]

Polling is flawed in a number of ways, but comparing them to basically pulling lottery balls from a cage is just silly and wrong.

 

[Commander Dutch]

Discussing this with yourself is no different than discussing things with Sybil, Sock.

Mantra 5 bulverism

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.

 

[gfm7175]

Polling is flawed in a number of ways, but comparing them to basically pulling lottery balls from a cage is just silly and wrong.

That comparison isn't being made.

Picking lottery balls from a cage describes a randN number (once generated, cannot be used again until a 'reset event' occurs), not a randU number (a "predictable" random number -- e.g. one that comes from someone's head).

 

[Cypress]

You are describing religion, not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all of science.

No. That's just an argument of ignorance fallacy.

So?

So?

Oh. No conclusion. Just an implied one based on an argument of ignorance fallacy.

Life is not a TV show.

Bulverism
Argument from ignorance fallacy

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

The Theory of the Big Bang is just a nonscientific theory

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

There is no such thing as an 'accelerating frame of reference'.

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

Axioms are not postulates!

The Nazis were also socialists.

Bulverism fallacy. Bigotry.

Bulverism. Bigotry. False Authority.

bigotry, bulverism

 

[Commander Dutch]

Random numbers consist of no recognizable patterns.

WRONG. RandU numbers have a pattern.

That is impossible.

No, it isn't. It's the very nature of a randU.

If random numbers can be predicted, then they are not random.

Agreed.....unless, like Sybil, you are "touched by God" and have ordered special X-ray vision glasses to see the numbers.

 

[ZenMode]

That comparison isn't being made.

Picking lottery balls from a cage describes a randN number (once generated, cannot be used again until a 'reset event' occurs), not a randU number (a "predictable" random number -- e.g. one that comes from someone's head).

How do either apply to polling?

 

[AProudLefty]

Agreed.....unless, like Sybil, you are "touched by God" and have ordered special X-ray vision glasses to see the numbers.

The more random numbers you generate, the more likely you'll see a pattern. It's like how you see images in snow on TV like Poltergeist. Look up the Infinite Monkey Theorem. It's a fascinating study.

There is a reason why the lotto balls or dice have to be balanced. The paint on them got weight which can influence the outcomes.

 

[AProudLefty]

That comparison isn't being made.

Picking lottery balls from a cage describes a randN number (once generated, cannot be used again until a 'reset event' occurs), not a randU number (a "predictable" random number -- e.g. one that comes from someone's head).

If the numbers come from someone's head, then it isn't random.

 

[AProudLefty]

How do either apply to polling?

That's what I want to know.

How do "predictable random numbers"and "unpredictable random numbers" apply to polling?

And how in the world are the random numbers predictable?

 

[Commander Dutch]

The more random numbers you generate, the more likely you'll see a pattern. It's like how you see images in snow on TV like Poltergeist. Look up the Infinite Monkey Theorem. It's a fascinating study.

There is a reason why the lotto balls or dice have to be balanced. The paint on them got weight which can influence the outcomes.

The human mind is geared to see patterns. It's a survival trait as shown by seeing the patterns below.

OTOH, too much of anything can lead to false conclusions and self-harm. Sybil is seeing things like people seeing images in television static or hearing voices in radio static. That part is normal, but believing they are secret messages only he can decipher is fucking nuts.

 

[IBDaMann]

After all this time, you still have nothing intelligent to say?

 

[Commander Dutch]

After all this time, you still have nothing intelligent to say?

Mantra 47 Bum Fuckery

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.

 

[Into the Night]

If random numbers can be predicted, then they are not random.

RandU numbers can be predicted.

 

[Into the Night]

Polling is flawed in a number of ways, but comparing them to basically pulling lottery balls from a cage is just silly and wrong.

I never compared them to pulling lottery balls from a cage (effectively a randR number, not a randU number).

 

[Into the Night]

That comparison isn't being made.

Picking lottery balls from a cage describes a randN number (once generated, cannot be used again until a 'reset event' occurs), not a randU number (a "predictable" random number -- e.g. one that comes from someone's head).

Wups. Correct. They are randN, not randR.