Faith is not "without evidence" argument

[ZenMode]

If you conduct polling in my household, you will get a result of 100% Trump, 0% Biden.

Right... that's why actual polls get much higher numbers and a variety of people. Not a single person would expect polling done in one household to accurately reflect the general public.

 

[ZenMode]

Accurate at WHAT? They are not accurate at gauging public opinion when they are purposefully intending to manipulate public opinion.

Again, polling has many flaws, but they are still more accurate than throwing darts at a dart board.

 

[gfm7175]

Right...

So you agree with the point that I'm making?? However, for some reason, I feel as if you're going to continue disagreeing with me...

that's why actual polls

There's that word again... 'actual'... as if my poll wasn't somehow an "ACTUAL" one... If I only would have taken a "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAL" poll......

My poll WAS a real poll. I asked every member of my household who they support for President between Trump and Biden. They all responded with "Trump". That's a polling result of 100% Trump, 0% Biden.

get much higher numbers and a variety of people. Not a single person would expect polling done in one household to accurately reflect the general public.

I thought you said, and I quote, "To say that you could put up a dart board, with numbers between 0% and 100%, and get more accurate results by throwing dart than you would by actually conducting polling, no matter how flawed or biased, is just not true."

???

 

[gfm7175]

Again, polling has many flaws, but they are still more accurate than throwing darts at a dart board.

You evaded my question.

Accurate at WHAT? They are not accurate at gauging public opinion when they are purposefully intending to manipulate public opinion.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You evaded my question.

Accurate at WHAT? They are not accurate at gauging public opinion when they are purposefully intending to manipulate public opinion.

Like you evade mine, Sybil?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

So you agree with the point that I'm making?? However, for some reason, I feel as if you're going to continue disagreeing with me...

There's that word again... 'actual'... as if my poll wasn't somehow an "ACTUAL" one... If I only would have taken a "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAL" poll......

My poll WAS a real poll. I asked every member of my household who they support for President between Trump and Biden. They all responded with "Trump". That's a polling result of 100% Trump, 0% Biden.

I thought you said, and I quote, "To say that you could put up a dart board, with numbers between 0% and 100%, and get more accurate results by throwing dart than you would by actually conducting polling, no matter how flawed or biased, is just not true."

???

Mantra 52 Fecal Leakage

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

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

 

[Cypress]

The guess is only as "informed" as you decide you want to consider it.

In the grand scheme of things, if someone were coming to you asserting an informed guess with as little unambiguous evidence as you are using to make your guess...and on as galactic a scale as this...you might very well laugh at it...or do what I did: Call it absurd.



You do. I do. Scientists do.

For the here and now.

The entire of our galaxy is a totally different ball game.

Anyway, we've discussed this thoroughly...and I doubt either of us will move off our position. If you think "life is rare in our galaxy" makes more sense than "I have no idea of whether life is rare or plentiful in our galaxy...and I have no way to determine what rare or plentiful would even be on this scale"...

...then keep it as yours.

Unless you ask me a question, you get the last word.

While we cannot know about everything out there, the laws of physics and chemistry place serious constraints on what can reasonably be expected to exist.

Life is going to be defined as a self sustaining organized network of self sustaining chemical reactions capable of metabolizing energy, capable of reproduction and adaptation capable of transmitting heritable traits and evolving along the lines of natural selection.

There is not going to be any flying spaghetti monsters.

No multidimensional organic nanobots.

No copper and silicon-based rock people.


And even if they existed, we wouldn't recognize them as life.


Life is almost certainly going to be based on carbon for the reasons mentioned earlier.

And liquid water, because biochemistry requires a liquid solvent and water is by far the best natural solvent by a country mile.


Once you limit yourself to carbon and liquid water, you have placed serious constraints on whether, or if life is abundant in the galaxy.

 

[IBDaMann]

However, Faith is not generated without evidence.

But it can be. Faith has no evidentiary requirements and need not be justified to anyone. I think you are wasting your time trying to prove the evidence of faith when it is not a requirement.

The evidence these folks use is the eyewitness accounts written down in the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita etc.

Many do not. The word of their parents is sufficient.

 

[Cypress]

Frank thinks all knowledge comes from blind guesses. A rather bizarre idea.

I agree that alien life is guesswork.

I don't agree that it's ignorant blind guesses.

We know a sufficient amount of chemistry, astronomy, planetary dynamics to make some educated guesses about whether alien life is ubiquitous, or unusual.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm introducing a statistical reality.

Buzzword fallacy. No statistical mathematics is being used here. You are trying to discuss probability math and making math errors there also.

When you have two candidates, there is a range of popularity/approval they are going to navigate in almost the entire time.

This statement introduces bias. Math error. Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX. Argument from randU fallacy.

To say that you could put up a dart board, with numbers between 0% and 100%, and get more accurate results by throwing dart than you would by actually conducting polling, no matter how flawed or biased, is just not true.

It is true. Bias is being introduced in both cases. You are simply trying to deny both probability and statistical mathematics.

Nearly 1/3 of the numbers on the dart board are going to be outside the range of the actual range of support for the candidate.

I'm sorry you are terrible at darts, but bias introduction is just the same.

 

[BidenPresident]

I agree that alien life is guesswork.

I don't agree that it's ignorant blind guesses.

We know a sufficient amount of chemistry, astronomy, planetary dynamics to make some educated guesses about whether alien life is ubiquitous, or unusual.

I don't find speculation about life elsewhere in the universe very interesting with a complete lack of empirical evidence.

 

[Into the Night]

The guess is only as "informed" as you decide you want to consider it.

In the grand scheme of things, if someone were coming to you asserting an informed guess with as little unambiguous evidence as you are using to make your guess...and on as galactic a scale as this...you might very well laugh at it...or do what I did: Call it absurd.



You do. I do. Scientists do.

For the here and now.

The entire of our galaxy is a totally different ball game.

Anyway, we've discussed this thoroughly...and I doubt either of us will move off our position. If you think "life is rare in our galaxy" makes more sense than "I have no idea of whether life is rare or plentiful in our galaxy...and I have no way to determine what rare or plentiful would even be on this scale"...

...then keep it as yours.

Unless you ask me a question, you get the last word.

Scientists do not. Science is not gambling.

 

[Into the Night]

^^^
Once again, Sybil doesn't get the difference.

You don't see the difference, Sock? Too bad. I guess you can't tell the difference between matchsticks and ice cream sticks.

 

[ZenMode]

You evaded my question.

Accurate at WHAT? They are not accurate at gauging public opinion when they are purposefully intending to manipulate public opinion.

More accurate at assessing public opinion than throwing darts at a dart board.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't find speculation about life elsewhere in the universe very interesting with a complete lack of empirical evidence.

The evidence exists. Life on Earth itself. That itself is evidence of life possibly being somewhere else in the universe.

 

[Into the Night]

More accurate at assessing public opinion than throwing darts at a dart board.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are just making up numbers now.

 

[BidenPresident]

The evidence exists. Life on Earth itself. That itself is evidence of life possibly being somewhere else in the universe.

you're dumb as shit

 

[Into the Night]

you're dumb as shit

...annnnd back to your usual insults...

 

[BidenPresident]

...annnnd back to your usual insults...

because you're a fucking moron

 

[gfm7175]

More accurate at assessing public opinion than throwing darts at a dart board.

Okay. I just polled 4,029 people and the results were ~90% Trump and ~10% Biden.