God without Religion?

[WalterP]

19 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I was just looking for the first sentence...thanks.

And regarding sentences 2 & 3, the difference is sentence one. 

Yes my lab is successful because the science is more complete.  I don't argue with my clients and tell them to believe one way or the other, or insinuate they should with less complete science.

 

For the record, I don't dislike you nor wish you in hell.  I dislike the attitude.  Perhaps I am misunderstanding yours.  I discuss with "ardent fervor".   I think I'm part limey bastard myself....my  family that I can tell originated in Devon?

 

Thank you sir.

 

 

No offence taken, Edgarcito.

 

I like Devon, especially Salcombe, and after this lockdown is fully lifted my wife and I might be driving down that way.  

 

 

For the record, in this thread I'm taking the same approach as I did in this one.  

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/83166-a-notice-to-christians-visiting-the-lions-den/

 

I don't have the power or authority to enforce anything.  If asked questions I will respond accordingly.  It's up to others if they are persuaded by my replies, or not.

 

 

I'm sorry if you dislike my attitude.

 

I don't discuss with ardent fervour - I try to confine myself to the facts, to reason and to logic.  

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[TrueFreedom]

On 5/18/2020 at 9:32 AM, florduh said:

I'd go have a beer with Ed anytime. Not in Texas, of course. 

 

Ed, are you in Texas? What area? I would definitely take florduh up on that beer. 

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, TrueFreedom said:

 

Ed, are you in Texas? What area? I would definitely take florduh up on that beer. 

west Texas TF.... a small city, 100K folks....on the edge of the desert essentially that is far west Texas.  Our natural trees reach ten to 30 feet where 100 miles west of here, they are 3 to 6 feet.  We have a historic cavalry fort, Ft. Concho, that is part of our claim to fame.  Big beer country.

[Myrkhoos]

7 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

Ok Myrkhoos.

 

I see that now and I have no quibble with your point.  If anything, we agree. 

 

Since humans share a great deal in common and occupy the same 'bubble' as each other, it's hardly surprising that two different people can relate to one another empathically.

 

Even with our limited, biased and flawed senses one person can readily empathize with another.

 

Our evolution has supplied us with this latent ability and some people can express it better than others.

 

Our natural capacity for empathy is a powerful argument for the unity and commonality of all humans.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

Well anyway I am trying these days to read a philosophy 101 and then move to philosophy of science. I have lots of unanswered questions about it. I wish philosophy would be a school subject and practice since kindergaten and there would be philosophy clubs all over. I think people as individuals and karger society at hand needs more philosophy. Even the name of the original thread demonstrates a lack of clarity . "God without religion". Subject, object, knowledge , science ..these words are thrown around without a minimal understanding sometimes. 

  The name of the thread in itself it sounds like an absurdity. Maybe belief in God without a strict hierarchical institutional structure for dictating belief and practice. That sounds clearer. 

    My guess is though that honest philosophical inquiry and not science in itself is the enemy of tyranny and many people in a ruling position highly dislike clear headed, lucid analysis of them and the world. Religion as I was taught was explicit in demonizing such inquiry and sanctifying church hierarchy. Politics seems to be going that rabbit hole also. Asking questions equates with high treason or smth.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@WalterP, although I understand, and agree with, your IS approach here, I should point out that the argument does fail to take American Exceptionalism into account.  Even in the scientific community here, I've seen distances given in inches, temperatures given in Fahrenheit, volumes rendered in ounces, and weights measured in pounds.  We will reluctantly convert to metric when we have to in order to collaborate with the rest of the world; but we are perfectly content to give the finger to Industry Standard for our own convenience.

 

I worked a contract as a technical writer for a local steel mill here.  The lab manager was a Brazilian, of German ancestry (not sure what his grandpa might have been up to back in the '40s).  He never could wrap his head around the basic units of measurements used in the lab.  He would often thrust a piece of steel at me and exclaim "How much does this Stück Scheiße actually weigh?  How long is it, in real length?"  Eventually, i took it upon myself to startvusing both Imperial and metric standards in all of the documents I wrote.

[florduh]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Even in the scientific community here, I've seen distances given in inches, temperatures given in Fahrenheit, volumes rendered in ounces, and weights measured in pounds.

My British friends always refer to driving distance in miles. A person's weight is in "stones." I guess we all have our quirks.

[WalterP]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

@WalterP, although I understand, and agree with, your IS approach here, I should point out that the argument does fail to take American Exceptionalism into account.  Even in the scientific community here, I've seen distances given in inches, temperatures given in Fahrenheit, volumes rendered in ounces, and weights measured in pounds.  We will reluctantly convert to metric when we have to in order to collaborate with the rest of the world; but we are perfectly content to give the finger to Industry Standard for our own convenience.

 

I worked a contract as a technical writer for a local steel mill here.  The lab manager was a Brazilian, of German ancestry (not sure what his grandpa might have been up to back in the '40s).  He never could wrap his head around the basic units of measurements used in the lab.  He would often thrust a piece of steel at me and exclaim "How much does this Stück Scheiße actually weigh?  How long is it, in real length?"  Eventually, i took it upon myself to startvusing both Imperial and metric stsndards in all of the documents i wrote.

 

Your point is well made and well taken, TRNP.  Thank you for making it. 

 

What I was trying to do (however well or badly) was to make Edgarcito aware that when it comes to evidence-gathering and evidence-sharing in science he doesn't have unlimited personal choice.

 

Even taking American Exceptionalism into account he still has no choice but to use the units of measurement that his job requires.

 

He has no choice when it comes how many ounces there are in a pound, how many degrees there are in the Fahrenheit scale, where boiling point and freezing point are on that scale, how that scale converts to other scales, what the ratios are between inches and feet, and so on.

 

He can't exercise unlimited personal choice and choose have 13 inches in a foot today, 9 tomorrow and 14 next week.

 

Nor can he choose how he records these units and how he reports them to others, varying the quantities and ratios, hour by hour or day by day.

 

I was trying to get him to see that, every day, in his life and in his work, he doesn't have a completely free hand to choose how to record and report evidence.

 

But when he arrives here he passionately pleads to be allowed to freely choose what constitutes evidence - in total contradiction to the way he works and thinks outside of Ex-C.

 

I really can't say if he sees that now or if seeing it, he can't accept that the rules of evidence apply just as much in this forum as they do outside of it.

 

Anyway, i hope this clarifies what I was trying to do, Prof.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@WalterP, I understood your approach and the intent behind it, as you have done a good job articulating it.  However, one of End3/edgarcito's favorite tactics is to find technicalities and loopholes with which to get himself off.  He doesn't "win" the argument like he thinks he does.  But he also won't give up, once he's found what he sees as a flaw in your position.  American standard units of measure would be the exact kind of technicality he'd use.

[Edgarcito]

32 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Your point is well made and well taken, TRNP.  Thank you for making it. 

 

What I was trying to do (however well or badly) was to make Edgarcito aware that when it comes to evidence-gathering and evidence-sharing in science he doesn't have unlimited personal choice.

 

Even taking American Exceptionalism into account he still has no choice but to use the units of measurement that his job requires.

 

He has no choice when it comes how many ounces there are in a pound, how many degrees there are in the Fahrenheit scale, where boiling point and freezing point are on that scale, how that scale converts to other scales, what the ratios are between inches and feet, and so on.

 

He can't exercise unlimited personal choice and choose have 13 inches in a foot today, 9 tomorrow and 14 next week.

 

Nor can he choose how he records these units and how he reports them to others, varying the quantities and ratios, hour by hour or day by day.

 

I was trying to get him to see that, every day, in his life and in his work, he doesn't have a completely free hand to choose how to record and report evidence.

 

But when he arrives here he passionately pleads to be allowed to freely choose what constitutes evidence - in total contradiction to the way he works and thinks outside of Ex-C.

 

I really can't say if he sees that now or if seeing it, he can't accept that the rules of evidence apply just as much in this forum as they do outside of it.

 

Anyway, i hope this clarifies what I was trying to do, Prof.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

I think you are misunderstanding.  My problem is not with how the evidence is standardized, it's that I might inquire of all types of evidence that I desire.  An example of anecdotal evidence leading to SI units:

 

My ex wife put a bunch of chickens and ducks in our yard one year.  We lived in the country.  Subsequently the ducks were dragged off to the pasture to be eaten by coyotes, but a few of the chickens/hens survived to lay eggs.  Me, being the yard guy, would find random nests of eggs where the hens had laid....but were unfertile.  So I picked up all the eggs in a bucket and poured them out over a fence.  During the hot summertime, when the grass didn't grow much, I'd weedeat past a spot where the grass was always growing and green.  Was always in my mind why was the grass growing there and no where else.  Then I remembered this was where I had poured out those eggs. 

 

Long story short I started experimenting with using eggs as fertilizer.  Not the shells, but the whites and yokes make excellent fertilizer....NPK, micros, etc.  And since I worked in a lab, I could measure the NPK values, the micros, the soil.  And it turns out that the egg industry has many broken eggs...and no yoke... and double yoke... that they crack and dry and sell to the pet food industry for protein.  Turns out, the eggs work almost as fast as inorganic ferts....which is exceptional in the organic fert industry.  The problem is even as a waste stream, it's a bit expensive as a fertilizer and also animals can still smell the eggs in/on the ground and dig up the plants looking for the eggs. 

 

But what I hear you saying is that we may not use anecdotal evidence as a tool in science, even for inquiry.  Could you please elaborate?

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

@WalterP, I understood your approach and the intent behind it, as you have done a good job articulating it.  However, one of End3/edgarcito's favorite tactics is to find technicalities and loopholes with which to get himself off.  He doesn't "win" the argument like he thinks he does.  But he also won't give up, once he's found what he sees as a flaw in your position.  American standard units of measure would be the exact kind of technicality he'd use.

Lol, as opposed to what....claiming that we're going to write off understanding the brain because of the complexities and challenges.  Don't see that as a loophole their sir.

[Edgarcito]

2 hours ago, florduh said:

My British friends always refer to driving distance in miles. A person's weight is in "stones." I guess we all have our quirks.

You know, standardization is arbitrary.  I measure in pink elephants and fractions thereof.  It covers weight an length in one multi unit...

 

 

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

I think you are misunderstanding.  My problem is not with how the evidence is standardized, it's that I might inquire of all types of evidence that I desire.  An example of anecdotal evidence leading to SI units:

 

My ex wife put a bunch of chickens and ducks in our yard one year.  We lived in the country.  Subsequently the ducks were dragged off to the pasture to be eaten by coyotes, but a few of the chickens/hens survived to lay eggs.  Me, being the yard guy, would find random nests of eggs where the hens had laid....but were unfertile.  So I picked up all the eggs in a bucket and poured them out over a fence.  During the hot summertime, when the grass didn't grow much, I'd weedeat past a spot where the grass was always growing and green.  Was always in my mind why was the grass growing there and no where else.  Then I remembered this was where I had poured out those eggs. 

 

Long story short I started experimenting with using eggs as fertilizer.  Not the shells, but the whites and yokes make excellent fertilizer....NPK, micros, etc.  And since I worked in a lab, I could measure the NPK values, the micros, the soil.  And it turns out that the egg industry has many broken eggs...and no yoke... and double yoke... that they crack and dry and sell to the pet food industry for protein.  Turns out, the eggs work almost as fast as inorganic ferts....which is exceptional in the organic fert industry.  The problem is even as a waste stream, it's a bit expensive as a fertilizer and also animals can still smell the eggs in/on the ground and dig up the plants looking for the eggs. 

 

But what I hear you saying is that we may not use anecdotal evidence as a tool in science, even for inquiry.  Could you please elaborate?

 

Unless James Randi was there it didnt happen.

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Lol, as opposed to what....claiming that we're going to write off understanding the brain because of the complexities and challenges.  Don't see that as a loophole their sir.

Oh, and changing the subject is another of his tactics, @WalterP.  Forgot to mention that.

[WalterP]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I think you are misunderstanding.  My problem is not with how the evidence is standardized, it's that I might inquire of all types of evidence that I desire.  An example of anecdotal evidence leading to SI units:

 

My ex wife put a bunch of chickens and ducks in our yard one year.  We lived in the country.  Subsequently the ducks were dragged off to the pasture to be eaten by coyotes, but a few of the chickens/hens survived to lay eggs.  Me, being the yard guy, would find random nests of eggs where the hens had laid....but were unfertile.  So I picked up all the eggs in a bucket and poured them out over a fence.  During the hot summertime, when the grass didn't grow much, I'd weedeat past a spot where the grass was always growing and green.  Was always in my mind why was the grass growing there and no where else.  Then I remembered this was where I had poured out those eggs. 

 

Long story short I started experimenting with using eggs as fertilizer.  Not the shells, but the whites and yokes make excellent fertilizer....NPK, micros, etc.  And since I worked in a lab, I could measure the NPK values, the micros, the soil.  And it turns out that the egg industry has many broken eggs...and no yoke... and double yoke... that they crack and dry and sell to the pet food industry for protein.  Turns out, the eggs work almost as fast as inorganic ferts....which is exceptional in the organic fert industry.  The problem is even as a waste stream, it's a bit expensive as a fertilizer and also animals can still smell the eggs in/on the ground and dig up the plants looking for the eggs. 

 

But what I hear you saying is that we may not use anecdotal evidence as a tool in science, even for inquiry.  Could you please elaborate?

 

Hello Edgarcito. 

 

For the record, I never said that. 

 

Furthermore, I have no right and no authority to say what may or may not be used as evidence, either in this forum or outside of it. 

 

You've accused me of doing that more than once and each time I've pointed out that I cannot and will not do that.  

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/83166-a-notice-to-christians-visiting-the-lions-den/

 

If you look at my opening post of the above thread you'll read these words.

 

Hello and welcome to the Lion’s Den. 

 

This message is designed to help visitors with how this part of the forum functions and it covers some issues that frequently crop up here.  These are the Burden of Proof, the test of Relevance and the test of Reliability.  Visiting Christians and people of other faiths can expect to encounter these issues in the Den, so please read on and learn about them.  Thank you.

 

If you look at my May 7 post of this thread you'll read these words.

 

Posted May 7

For the sake of transparency, clarity and the understanding of my fellow members I'd just like to explain the purpose this notice.

 

If you go to the Lion's Den main page you'll see that the list of threads is topped with six pinned threads.  Three of them were initiated by me, WalterP.  I can say nothing much about the other three, but I can say this about mine.  The Failed Cosmology of William Lane Craig and William Lane Craig and the BGV were pinned by the Moderators because their content was deemed to have an ongoing relevance to the members of this forum.  The Notice to Christians Visiting the Lions Den was pinned because its content was also deemed to have an ongoing relevance to the members.

 

As I have been at pains to explain, the notice is simply an advisory and nothing more.  Even though it was pinned with the blessing of the Moderators it does not give them (or me) any special power or authority to limit or control anything written by anyone in the Den.  

 

I hope this is now clear.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

That covers matters inside this forum. 

 

When it comes to matters outside this forum I can assure you that I have no right or authority to enforce anything, anywhere.

 

So, please, can you stop accusing me of trying to limit what evidence is submitted in Ex-C.

 

Christians and other religious people can submit whatever they like as evidence.

 

All that advisory is doing is ADVISING them that we expect their evidence to meet certain standards.

 

It's up to them to heed or ignore that advice.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[WalterP]

But what I hear you saying is that we may not use anecdotal evidence as a tool in science, even for inquiry.  Could you please elaborate?

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Ok Edgarcito, now I'll have a go at explaining this.

 

Of course anecdotal evidence is a useful tool for science.  What patients relate to their doctors is vital in the making of an accurate diagnosis. But anecdotal evidence on it's own, unsupported by other, independent evidence fails the twin tests of Relevance and Reliability.

 

Please go to the sections on Relevance and Reliability in this thread.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/83166-a-notice-to-christians-visiting-the-lions-den/

 

To continue the medical scenario, a doctor cannot directly feel a patients pain, but can establish that they are in pain by various means.

 

He can listen to what they tell him and how they describe the sensation, he can observe them (are they pale, sweating, crying out, etc.) and he can also run various tests that might indicate they are in pain.  

 

But what he cannot do is to experience their pain as they experience it.

 

Their subjective and personal experiences are only relevant to themselves, not to him and not to any other person.

 

 

When it comes to reliability there are many problems when it comes to anecdotal evidence.

 

Patients can be confused, suffer from memory loss, speak a different language to the doctor or be hiding certain symptoms.  (My mother was notorious for this, btw.)

 

Therefore, anecdotal evidence that isn't supported by independent indicators of reliability fails the test of Reliability. 

 

Independent indicators would be things like blood tests, brain scans and such like.  

 

These are independent of the patient themselves and so don't suffer from problems like confusion, memory loss, etc.

 

 

So you see Edgarcito, anecdotal evidence is ok up to a point and is useful in many areas of science.

 

But when it's subjective and intimately personal anecdotal evidence, it simply isn't relevant to anyone except the evidence-giver.

 

Nor is it reliable because instead of being independent of the evidence-giver, it is totally dependent on the evidence-giver.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Oh, and changing the subject is another of his tactics, @WalterP.  Forgot to mention that.

Sorry I ruined your black panther party..

 

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

But what I hear you saying is that we may not use anecdotal evidence as a tool in science, even for inquiry.  Could you please elaborate?

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Ok Edgarcito, now I'll have a go at explaining this.

 

Of course anecdotal evidence is a useful tool for science.  What patients relate to their doctors is vital in the making of an accurate diagnosis. But anecdotal evidence on it's own, unsupported by other, independent evidence fails the twin tests of Relevance and Reliability.

 

Please go to the sections on Relevance and Reliability in this thread.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/83166-a-notice-to-christians-visiting-the-lions-den/

 

To continue the medical scenario, a doctor cannot directly feel a patients pain, but can establish that they are in pain by various means.

 

He can listen to what they tell him and how they describe the sensation, he can observe them (are they pale, sweating, crying out, etc.) and he can also run various tests that might indicate they are in pain.  

 

But what he cannot do is to experience their pain as they experience it.

 

Their subjective and personal experiences are only relevant to themselves, not to him and not to any other person.

 

 

When it comes to reliability there are many problems when it comes to anecdotal evidence.

 

Patients can be confused, suffer from memory loss, speak a different language to the doctor or be hiding certain symptoms.  (My mother was notorious for this, btw.)

 

Therefore, anecdotal evidence that isn't supported by independent indicators of reliability fails the test of Reliability. 

 

Independent indicators would be things like blood tests, brain scans and such like.  

 

These are independent of the patient themselves and so don't suffer from problems like confusion, memory loss, etc.

 

 

So you see Edgarcito, anecdotal evidence is ok up to a point and is useful in many areas of science.

 

But when it's subjective and intimately personal anecdotal evidence, it simply isn't relevant to anyone except the evidence-giver.

 

Nor is it reliable because instead of being independent of the evidence-giver, it is totally dependent on the evidence-giver.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

Thank you.....I'm just saying that when I see patterns and similarities even to science in the Bible, they are always readily dismissed.  I don't see that as a wise choice.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

54 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Sorry I ruined your black panther party..

 

It's okay.  Hopefully someday you'll see the Forrest instead of the trees.

[WalterP]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Thank you.....I'm just saying that when I see patterns and similarities even to science in the Bible, they are always readily dismissed.  I don't see that as a wise choice.

 

I hear you Edgarcito and I know just what you're referring to.

 

But please consider this.

 

When we Ex-Christians and unbelievers hear people of different faiths say that they see scientific vindication of the Bible, whom are we to believe?

 

Muslims can make just as good a scientific case as Christians for Allah being the true creator of everything.

 

There are passages in the Quran that seem to agree very well with modern cosmology.  As someone deeply into cosmology I've checked them out.

 

So then, who is the creator? Jesus Christ or Allah the Compassionate and the Merciful?

 

We Ex-Christians and unbelievers have no reliable way of deciding who has the better claim.

 

Why?  Because both the Christians and the Muslims are interpreting science through the lens of their faith.

 

But science is totally agnostic when it comes to anything supernatural, theological or religious.

 

It was never meant to be interpreted from a faith-based standpoint. 

 

Therefore, just as science is agnostic about this, so are we.

 

Which means that we have no choice but to dismiss any and all faith-based interpretations of science.

 

Because we cannot choose which of the many contenders is the right one, we opt to reject them all.

 

Can you see, how, in the face of many competing claims we are obliged to reject them all until the conditions described by Christof Koch are met?

 

https://alleninstitute.org/what-we-do/brain-science/about/team/staff-profiles/christof-koch/

 

 Unless there is extraordinary, compelling objective evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to abandon this assumption. 

 

Extraordinary and compelling objective evidence, Edgarcito.

 

Not anecdotal evidence.  Not subjective evidence.  Not a faith-based interpretation of science.  Not the words of a holy book written long ago.

 

Objective evidence.

 

That's what we want to see.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

[WalterP]

8 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

@WalterP, I understood your approach and the intent behind it, as you have done a good job articulating it.  However, one of End3/edgarcito's favorite tactics is to find technicalities and loopholes with which to get himself off.  He doesn't "win" the argument like he thinks he does.  But he also won't give up, once he's found what he sees as a flaw in your position.  American standard units of measure would be the exact kind of technicality he'd use.

 

Ok Prof, I see where you're going.

 

But there really is no wriggle room for Edgarcito to occupy.

 

Whatever system of units he chooses to use, his choice stops right there.

 

Inches, metres, furlongs, cubits... it doesn't really matter what measure he uses to gather evidence.

 

First off, he didn't exercise any freedom of choice in determining what an inch or a centimetre actually is.  That was chosen for him. 

 

Second, he can't choose how one system converts to another, he can't choose the ratios of the various units to each other and he can't choose how they relate to universal physical constants.

 

Finally, his hands are tied in another way too.

 

Part of his work is to share evidence with other people and to do that he has to surrender his unlimited personal choice and agree terms with others.

 

If he reports things in units they can't understand or won't accept then he has to toe someone else's line and not his own.

 

The same goes if he chooses to have 12 inches in a foot in today's report and 13 in tomorrow's. 

 

His evidence will be rejected and once again he'll have to toe some else's line and not his own.

 

No choice!

 

His belief in unlimited personal choice in evidence-gathering and evidence-sharing is a baseless fantasy.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[Myrkhoos]

4 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

Ok Prof, I see where you're going.

 

But there really is no wriggle room for Edgarcito to occupy.

 

Whatever system of units he chooses to use, his choice stops right there.

 

Inches, metres, furlongs, cubits... it doesn't really matter what measure he uses to gather evidence.

 

First off, he didn't exercise any freedom of choice in determining what an inch or a centimetre actually is.  That was chosen for him. 

 

Second, he can't choose how one system converts to another, he can't choose the ratios of the various units to each other and he can't choose how they relate to universal physical constants.

 

Finally, his hands are tied in another way too.

 

Part of his work is to share evidence with other people and to do that he has to surrender his unlimited personal choice and agree terms with others.

 

If he reports things in units they can't understand or won't accept then he has to toe someone else's line and not his own.

 

The same goes if he chooses to have 12 inches in a foot in today's report and 13 in tomorrow's. 

 

His evidence will be rejected and once again he'll have to toe some else's line and not his own.

 

No choice!

 

His belief in unlimited personal choice in evidence-gathering and evidence-sharing is a baseless fantasy.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

I think your argument is actually made stronger by the fact that even faith based systems accept only certain kinds of evidence in a certain way. There is little choice there once a general agreement has been made. I mean there stadardized tests for witches from what I know.

[Edgarcito]

On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2020 at 6:04 PM, WalterP said:

 

Ok Prof, I see where you're going.

 

But there really is no wriggle room for Edgarcito to occupy.

 

Whatever system of units he chooses to use, his choice stops right there.

 

Inches, metres, furlongs, cubits... it doesn't really matter what measure he uses to gather evidence.

 

First off, he didn't exercise any freedom of choice in determining what an inch or a centimetre actually is.  That was chosen for him. 

 

Second, he can't choose how one system converts to another, he can't choose the ratios of the various units to each other and he can't choose how they relate to universal physical constants.

 

Finally, his hands are tied in another way too.

 

Part of his work is to share evidence with other people and to do that he has to surrender his unlimited personal choice and agree terms with others.

 

If he reports things in units they can't understand or won't accept then he has to toe someone else's line and not his own.

 

The same goes if he chooses to have 12 inches in a foot in today's report and 13 in tomorrow's. 

 

His evidence will be rejected and once again he'll have to toe some else's line and not his own.

 

No choice!

 

His belief in unlimited personal choice in evidence-gathering and evidence-sharing is a baseless fantasy.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Thinking all the units we have were derived at some point.....which makes them gospel apparently.  Stand by for further announcements.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

36 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Thinking all the units we have were derived at some point.....which makes them gospel apparently.  Stand by for further announcements.

Derived and agreed upon, which is, apparently, the ox-goad against which you're determined to kick.

[SarahJaneSmith]

I’ve been fascinated following along here but also so flipping confused!

[WalterP]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Thinking all the units we have were derived at some point.....which makes them gospel apparently.  Stand by for further announcements.

 

You are missing the point, Edgarcito.

 

Regardless of whether the units we have are entirely arbitrary, derived from something or set in stone, you abide by them in your work and in everything you do in your life.

 

And if you abide by them outside of this forum, why won't you abide by them inside this forum?

 

That's the elephant in the room.

 

Why won't you?