Someone has to ask it: Anyone else read the thread tittle as What's the diagnosis for asthma?
On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Glen thinks that atheists and theists are delusional. My claim is that > agnostics are non-existent. From which it follows, I guess that all > humans > are delusional. > > I am ok with that. > > N > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > Clark University > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. > Daniels > Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 4:57 PM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? > > Glen writes: > > ``Well, my specific problem is that I think atheists and theists are > delusional. They think they know things they cannot know. So, if Nick's > point is that the concept of "theist" (or "atheist") is too muddy to define > validatable[*] tests for, then, as an agnostic, I would completely agree.'' > > Let's say I have a program and it does something that I don't expect. > Someone says it is the witchcraft from a particular gal that works on the > HVAC system. > I ask "Is it because the computer got too hot? Did she fail to keep the > air conditioning running properly?" They respond, "No, it's not the > temperature, it's the witchcraft." I look in the index of the instruction > set under W and under remote access protocols, interrupt mechanisms, etc. > Nothing. I keep removing degrees of freedom from the code and environment > and all of my suggestions are rejected by my peer as "Not an instance of > witchcraft." I ask for suggestions on how to prove that witchcraft is at > work and they just show me pictures of their witch suspects and give me a > pamphlet on building big fires. Meanwhile, I discover a simple, > mechanical, explanation for why the program isn't doing what I expect, fix > it, and tell the growing mob of witch burners about what I discovered. > (Of > course, their explanation is that they were successful in intimidating the > witch and she was forced to release me from her spell.) > > It should be possible to associate with any proposition a probability > function that takes as arguments other routines that describe how to > perform > an experiment and the result of that experiment. The details of the > experiment routines should be provided and should not include "call a > friend" or reference anything that is already known or obvious. All > functions and routines should be written down before doing the experiment. > It should be possible that by sweeping over the space of unknowns > (potential > inputs) in the experiment routines to get some probabilities near zero and > some near one. > > The refusal or inability to write these functions and routines is an > indicator that the speaker is full of it and would rather talk about > witches. > When cornered on a question, can the believer justify or change their > belief? > > Marcus > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
