Distance to Venus, the sun, and beyond to STICKS!

Quote from: SergeantPepper on August 17, 2020, 09:49:05 AM

Quote from: JJA on August 17, 2020, 09:24:39 AM

Uh, no, that's not an example.

Here is an example: Semiconductors, the bases of all our computer technology.

How were semiconductors arrived at without the evidence-based system?

They were arrived at WITH an evidence based system. That's my example of what evidence based does. An example to show you what you are being asked to provide for your side.

You need to provide an example of something done WITHOUT evidence.

I have.
The evidence system itself does not function unless you allow for it to be believed without evidence. If you rely on the evidence based system, then until you can justify it with non-circular reasoning, you must also accept the importance of non-evidence systems.

You can develop a hypothesis based on no evidence, but you have to test that hypothesis with evidence to support it.   I can hypothesize anything, but until I can prove it with evidence it is just a guess.  There is no basis for testing a guess without evidence.  There is no circular reasoning, even if the hypothesis is based on evidence, the testing of the hypothesis requires evidence to be valid.  Otherwise all you have is a guess.  Your arguments make no sense.

You can develop a hypothesis based on no evidence, but you have to test that hypothesis with evidence to support it.   I can hypothesize anything, but until I can prove it with evidence it is just a guess.  There is no basis for testing a guess without evidence.  There is no circular reasoning, even if the hypothesis is based on evidence, the testing of the hypothesis requires evidence to be valid.  Otherwise all you have is a guess.  Your arguments make no sense.

Why do you believe evidence is required?
Do you base that on evidence, or do you have non-circular reasoning?

Quote from: JJA on August 17, 2020, 10:10:03 AM

Quote from: SergeantPepper on August 17, 2020, 09:49:05 AM

Quote from: JJA on August 17, 2020, 09:24:39 AM

Uh, no, that's not an example.

Here is an example: Semiconductors, the bases of all our computer technology.

How were semiconductors arrived at without the evidence-based system?

They were arrived at WITH an evidence based system. That's my example of what evidence based does. An example to show you what you are being asked to provide for your side.

You need to provide an example of something done WITHOUT evidence.

I have.
The evidence system itself does not function unless you allow for it to be believed without evidence. If you rely on the evidence based system, then until you can justify it with non-circular reasoning, you must also accept the importance of non-evidence systems.

Noooo... that's not an example.

Give me an example of something discovered or proven with non-evidence based systems.

You keep claiming it's better, but can't actually produce an example of any accomplishments?

That's not even circular reasoning, it's simply not reasoning at all.

Suspecting a troll here.

Noooo... that's not an example.

How is it not? I have shown that you rely upon the non-evidence systems you otherwise say are wrong. Tell me why that does not suffice.

It is all I can give you. I can list many conclusions that can be reached (I did one such example in another thread on the site) and you disagreed because it was not arrived at by the means you prefer. If I list things shown by non-evidence means, you will reject them because they were not shown by evidence-based means, or you will say it was coincidence, or you will say evidence was actually what was responsible. This is not my first time having this discussion.
So instead I pointed out that evidence itself requires non-evidence based conclusions in order to be held by any rational person.

If you do not believe that this is true, then say why evidence is required without a circular argument.
And if you cannot do that, then I believe this has effectively shown why evidence is not the only way that we can draw truths about the world.

My example is evidence itself. Something you have no choice but to accept as proven. Tell me why that is not enough. Tell me why supporting evidence with evidence is not circular.

Quote from: JJA on August 17, 2020, 11:22:44 AM

Noooo... that's not an example.

How is it not? I have shown that you rely upon the non-evidence systems you otherwise say are wrong. Tell me why that does not suffice.

It is all I can give you. I can list many conclusions that can be reached (I did one such example in another thread on the site) and you disagreed because it was not arrived at by the means you prefer. If I list things shown by non-evidence means, you will reject them because they were not shown by evidence-based means, or you will say it was coincidence, or you will say evidence was actually what was responsible. This is not my first time having this discussion.
So instead I pointed out that evidence itself requires non-evidence based conclusions in order to be held by any rational person.

If you do not believe that this is true, then say why evidence is required without a circular argument.
And if you cannot do that, then I believe this has effectively shown why evidence is not the only way that we can draw truths about the world.

My example is evidence itself. Something you have no choice but to accept as proven. Tell me why that is not enough. Tell me why supporting evidence with evidence is not circular.

No, no and no again.

You keep claiming there is an alternative, but won't provide any examples of what that is.  You say you did but I don't remember any such conversation, you have a link to it at least?

You can't just keep saying science sucks and evidence is bad and we should use this better thing without actually saying what this better thing actually IS, or what it's done.  Just excuses as to why you won't tell us what this other system is or what it's done.

If you think it's so weak it will be immediately dismissed, that should tell you something right there.

But making a claim, swearing you have all kinds of support for it but you're not going to tell anyone... yeah. You get to go in my troll box for now.

The evidence system itself does not function unless you allow for it to be believed without evidence.

Time to update the Trophy, looks like Wise has competition now.

It is a way, but monopolies are rarely considered a good thing. It's strange to insist that the most fundamental thing upon which we all depend must be one.
It can't even sustain itself. How do you confirm that experimental evidence works?

It isn't a monopoly. Anyone can do it.
We can confirm that experimental evidence works because of what it has allowed us to do, including building the very device you are using to read this message and type your response.

Quote from: JJA on August 17, 2020, 07:45:19 AM

You keep saying there are alternatives to evidence based research.
Please give a real example of another path.

I am.

No, you are continually deflecting from a very simple question.
Attacking an evidence based system is NOT providing an example of an alternative.

You cannot base evidence on itself. Evidence itself requires non-evidence to function. Anything else is circular.

Are you secretly John?
Because you sure seem to be going down the same path.

Here is the key thing you are ignoring, science is based upon inductive reasoning and trying to best understand the world. It never claims absolute truth and is more focused on disproof.

Unlike circular reasoning which cannot support itself, you can disprove by first assuming they are true.

I provided an example of why religion does not work to obtain the truth as it requires beleiving multiple contradictory things which cannot all be true, due to the multitude of religions.

So it isn't the case of showing that science allows us to instantly obtain absolute truth, but instead showing that other methods result in contradictions.

And no, it isn't using evidence to prove the evidence based system.
It is using a real world functioning device which was produced based upon this evidence based system.
So unless you are going to claim the real world is evidence and thus demand something literally not from the real world to try to justify the truth about the real world, that is all that is needed.
And that claim would also mean that real world is evidence and thus that is what is true.


The other thing you seem to be ignoring is that your conclusion is not based upon your premise.
If you truly went down that rabbit hole of philosophy you would not be claiming there are alternatives. You would be claiming there is no way to know anything.
That even an evidence based system doesn't allow you to know things.

But that isn't what you claimed. You claimed there are alternatives to an evidence based system.


Now again, if you actually believe there is an alternative that works, then provide it. And no, circular reasoning is not an alternative as that has been repeatedly shown (not necessarily here) to not work.

Quote from: Mikey T. on August 17, 2020, 10:53:42 AM

You can develop a hypothesis based on no evidence, but you have to test that hypothesis with evidence to support it.   I can hypothesize anything, but until I can prove it with evidence it is just a guess.  There is no basis for testing a guess without evidence.  There is no circular reasoning, even if the hypothesis is based on evidence, the testing of the hypothesis requires evidence to be valid.  Otherwise all you have is a guess.  Your arguments make no sense.

Why do you believe evidence is required?
Do you base that on evidence, or do you have non-circular reasoning?

What are you talking about?   How do you test an assertion's validity?  With evidence that supports it.  There is no other way.  You can assert, guess, theorize, etc anything you wish but it is just an unsupported guess until you can back it up with evidence.  Where do you get that evidence based experimentation and s circular reasoning?  Do you honestly believe that because the word "evidence" is sometimes used to describe the "stuff" that points you to a guess and it is used for the results that confirm that guess.  Please tell me you are not just being pedantic over the use of a word and trying to claim that qualifies as circular reasoning?

You misunderstand. This is not me objecting to evidence, this is me giving an example.

Evidence cannot support the validity of an evidence-based system, that is strictly circular, we all seem agreed on that. And yet we are all content to use evidence nonetheless to support our claims. The evidence-based system itself is the example you want, of something that we believe without support by evidence.
You could call the alternative any number of things. It is not circular reasoning, as we have said we are not using evidence to support the evidence-based system. That would be circular, and that is why we reject it as reasoning. We still use evidence. This is not to say science is useless or wrong, far from it, but to use the evidence-based system exclusively without recourse to what it is that underpins that very system is to use an incomplete view of the world.

This is not to reject evidence, but rather to demonstrate that there is by necessity more out there. This is not to say that nothing can be proven, just that if you believe in the concept of proof, you must by necessity believe in paths to it other than evidence.
If you do not, evidence does not sustain itself. Evidence is my example.

You misunderstand. This is not me objecting to evidence, this is me giving an example.

Evidence cannot support the validity of an evidence-based system, that is strictly circular, we all seem agreed on that. And yet we are all content to use evidence nonetheless to support our claims. The evidence-based system itself is the example you want, of something that we believe without support by evidence.
You could call the alternative any number of things. It is not circular reasoning, as we have said we are not using evidence to support the evidence-based system. That would be circular, and that is why we reject it as reasoning. We still use evidence. This is not to say science is useless or wrong, far from it, but to use the evidence-based system exclusively without recourse to what it is that underpins that very system is to use an incomplete view of the world.

This is not to reject evidence, but rather to demonstrate that there is by necessity more out there. This is not to say that nothing can be proven, just that if you believe in the concept of proof, you must by necessity believe in paths to it other than evidence.
If you do not, evidence does not sustain itself. Evidence is my example.

This is yet again several paragraphs of nonsense, and it's clear you really don't have anything but some kind of quasi-philosophical argument here. Which is fine, but if you want to argue philosophy or faith there are other boards to do that in.

You have danced around the issue long enough to prove that whatever this non-evidence thing you are talking about is, doesn't actually exist and you aren't going to ever explain it.

Science makes cell phones, airplanes and the internet that lets you debate with people all around the world. You can claim it doesn't work or is flawed or can't prove this or that all you want, but it's a silly argument since everything around you is proof that it works just fine.

Come back when you actually have an actual example of something and not just... whatever that was.

You misunderstand. This is not me objecting to evidence, this is me giving an example.

I wouldn't call it an example.
It either amounts to using circular reasoning due to using evidence to support evidence, or literally using reality, i.e. the one pure source of truth, to determine the truth.

It is not a methodology that can be used to determine the truth.

You misunderstand. This is not me objecting to evidence, this is me giving an example.

Evidence cannot support the validity of an evidence-based system, that is strictly circular, we all seem agreed on that. And yet we are all content to use evidence nonetheless to support our claims. The evidence-based system itself is the example you want, of something that we believe without support by evidence.
You could call the alternative any number of things. It is not circular reasoning, as we have said we are not using evidence to support the evidence-based system. That would be circular, and that is why we reject it as reasoning. We still use evidence. This is not to say science is useless or wrong, far from it, but to use the evidence-based system exclusively without recourse to what it is that underpins that very system is to use an incomplete view of the world.

This is not to reject evidence, but rather to demonstrate that there is by necessity more out there. This is not to say that nothing can be proven, just that if you believe in the concept of proof, you must by necessity believe in paths to it other than evidence.
If you do not, evidence does not sustain itself. Evidence is my example.

Please try to make sense.  The only way to prove anything is with evidence.  Yes you can make a hypothesis based on evidence and then use OTHER evidence to prove it.  It is NOT circular reasoning.  The only thing anyone can gather from your nonsense is that you reject evidence.  Or you are trolling which I am almost 100% sure of since what you say is designed to be nonsensical.  Again, the ONLY way to support a hypothesis is with evidence and yes you can study evidence and form a hypothesis which then must be supported by other evidence.  Without evidence you only have conjecture which is utterly worthless.

This is yet again several paragraphs of nonsense, and it's clear you really don't have anything but some kind of quasi-philosophical argument here. Which is fine, but if you want to argue philosophy or faith there are other boards to do that in.

You have danced around the issue long enough to prove that whatever this non-evidence thing you are talking about is, doesn't actually exist and you aren't going to ever explain it.

Science makes cell phones, airplanes and the internet that lets you debate with people all around the world. You can claim it doesn't work or is flawed or can't prove this or that all you want, but it's a silly argument since everything around you is proof that it works just fine.

Come back when you actually have an actual example of something and not just... whatever that was.

This is where I feared we would end up. You are asking a question, but hold to a framework where that question cannot be answered. You ask for a basis other than evidence that can be used to arrive at a conclusion, but decide any examples are 'quasi philosophical' and thus should be ignored, no matter what merit to them is shown. The question has an answer, but you hold to a framework where the question must not be answered. if there is any circular reasoning in this thread, there is that.
Science suffices in many instances, but as I have pointed out, the foundation of science cannot be evidence. Until you are able to show that an evidence-based system can somehow support itself without being circular, than the existence of non-evidence based foundations must necessarily exist. It isn't silly, it isn't nonsense, it may be 'philosophical' but that does not make it wrong.

And this is the only example that you would accept. Let us not forget that. I could listen dozens of truths about the world, but the problem is if the support for them was not evidence, then you would not consider them truths. Do you deny that? Either it would be something with limited practical ramifications, that you would decide is useless, or it is something with many practical ramifications, and so you would claim that those practical illustrations, that evidence, was the original basis.
Which is why this philosophy is necessary. It is a fact that must be faced if you are to champion evidence. Do so, by all means, but you cannot if you do not also accept the fact that pure reason must necessarily come before evidence.

Or, to simplify:
1. The evidence-based system works.
2. Using evidence to demonstrate that the evidence-based system works is to presuppose the success of the evidence-based system, and thus engage in flawed circular reasoning.
3. Either the evidence-based system does not work (A), or the foundation of it is non-evidential (B).
4. A contradicts 1.
Thus, non-evidential means give us valuable insights as to how the world works. QED.

I fail to see how you can claim I am not explaining it. I have presented it several times. I do not present it as though it fits into an evidence-based framework, because by definition that is not what we are talking about. Do not reject it simply because it is different. If you believe there is a flaw, you are welcome to search, but wiser men than both of us have tried and failed.

When you can face up to and accept that, then we can discuss other consequences. If you cannot even accept how we rely on evidence, I could not even begin to discuss deeper consequences. This is not 'trolling,' this is a well-established field, and this is the bare basics of it.

Quote from: JJA on August 20, 2020, 02:34:24 PM

This is yet again several paragraphs of nonsense, and it's clear you really don't have anything but some kind of quasi-philosophical argument here. Which is fine, but if you want to argue philosophy or faith there are other boards to do that in.

You have danced around the issue long enough to prove that whatever this non-evidence thing you are talking about is, doesn't actually exist and you aren't going to ever explain it.

Science makes cell phones, airplanes and the internet that lets you debate with people all around the world. You can claim it doesn't work or is flawed or can't prove this or that all you want, but it's a silly argument since everything around you is proof that it works just fine.

Come back when you actually have an actual example of something and not just... whatever that was.

This is where I feared we would end up. You are asking a question, but hold to a framework where that question cannot be answered. You ask for a basis other than evidence that can be used to arrive at a conclusion, but decide any examples are 'quasi philosophical' and thus should be ignored, no matter what merit to them is shown. The question has an answer, but you hold to a framework where the question must not be answered. if there is any circular reasoning in this thread, there is that.
Science suffices in many instances, but as I have pointed out, the foundation of science cannot be evidence. Until you are able to show that an evidence-based system can somehow support itself without being circular, than the existence of non-evidence based foundations must necessarily exist. It isn't silly, it isn't nonsense, it may be 'philosophical' but that does not make it wrong.

And this is the only example that you would accept. Let us not forget that. I could listen dozens of truths about the world, but the problem is if the support for them was not evidence, then you would not consider them truths. Do you deny that? Either it would be something with limited practical ramifications, that you would decide is useless, or it is something with many practical ramifications, and so you would claim that those practical illustrations, that evidence, was the original basis.
Which is why this philosophy is necessary. It is a fact that must be faced if you are to champion evidence. Do so, by all means, but you cannot if you do not also accept the fact that pure reason must necessarily come before evidence.

Or, to simplify:
1. The evidence-based system works.
2. Using evidence to demonstrate that the evidence-based system works is to presuppose the success of the evidence-based system, and thus engage in flawed circular reasoning.
3. Either the evidence-based system does not work (A), or the foundation of it is non-evidential (B).
4. A contradicts 1.
Thus, non-evidential means give us valuable insights as to how the world works. QED.

I fail to see how you can claim I am not explaining it. I have presented it several times. I do not present it as though it fits into an evidence-based framework, because by definition that is not what we are talking about. Do not reject it simply because it is different. If you believe there is a flaw, you are welcome to search, but wiser men than both of us have tried and failed.

When you can face up to and accept that, then we can discuss other consequences. If you cannot even accept how we rely on evidence, I could not even begin to discuss deeper consequences. This is not 'trolling,' this is a well-established field, and this is the bare basics of it.

I said come back when you had an actual example of whatever it is you're going on about.

You are claiming there is something better than science and evidence and I'm asking you to name ONE example of it.

And you just respond with a lot of nonsense about frameworks and circular reasoning.  Or are trolling.  It's hard to tell the difference. 

I'm not asking you to explain it, you've spent post after post 'explaining' it.  I want you to show me ONE thing this non-evidence anti-science mumbo-jumbo has done or achieved.  If it has done nothing then it can't be all that, right?

And this is the only example that you would accept. Let us not forget that. I could listen dozens of truths about the world, but the problem is if the support for them was not evidence, then you would not consider them truths. Do you deny that? Either it would be something with limited practical ramifications, that you would decide is useless, or it is something with many practical ramifications, and so you would claim that those practical illustrations, that evidence, was the original basis.
Which is why this philosophy is necessary. It is a fact that must be faced if you are to champion evidence. Do so, by all means, but you cannot if you do not also accept the fact that pure reason must necessarily come before evidence.

Or, to simplify:
1. The evidence-based system works.
2. Using evidence to demonstrate that the evidence-based system works is to presuppose the success of the evidence-based system, and thus engage in flawed circular reasoning.
3. Either the evidence-based system does not work (A), or the foundation of it is non-evidential (B).
4. A contradicts 1.
Thus, non-evidential means give us valuable insights as to how the world works. QED.

I fail to see how you can claim I am not explaining it. I have presented it several times. I do not present it as though it fits into an evidence-based framework, because by definition that is not what we are talking about. Do not reject it simply because it is different. If you believe there is a flaw, you are welcome to search, but wiser men than both of us have tried and failed.

If there is no evidence for it then it cannot be tested.  If it cannot be tested, it is faith.  Faith is not fact.  Faith requires there to be no evidence.  They are mutually exclusive.  What you are talking about and trying to pawn it off as an alternative is faith.  This is why you make no sense.  Understand, I am not belittling faith, it just has absolutely no place in the discussions about the actual provable natural reality.  You are still trying to claim it is circular reasoning to use evidence to support an evidence based hypothesis, noone said it was the same evidence.  Here, an example:  I hear my car crank up, I am not in it.  The sound of my car cranking is evidence that I base my hypothesis that someone is stealing my car.  I go outside, I see a stranger in my car, I now have further supporting evidence for my car being stolen but it is now visual evidence.  So in effect I proved the hypothesis, that I only made from gathering sound evidence, that my car was being stolen with visual evidence of it driving away with a stranger at the wheel.  Is that circular reasoning?  So now you give me an example of no evidentiary proof af a hypothesis without invoking faith. 

I'm not asking you to explain it, you've spent post after post 'explaining' it.  I want you to show me ONE thing this non-evidence anti-science mumbo-jumbo has done or achieved.  If it has done nothing then it can't be all that, right?

I have.
Evidence. You cannot have evidence without a non-evidential framework. It has given you your concept of evidence, it has given you every single conclusion you have brought up so far.
That is my example. I don't know how I can possibly be any clearer.

Quote from: JJA on August 20, 2020, 03:54:02 PM

I'm not asking you to explain it, you've spent post after post 'explaining' it.  I want you to show me ONE thing this non-evidence anti-science mumbo-jumbo has done or achieved.  If it has done nothing then it can't be all that, right?

I have.
Evidence. You cannot have evidence without a non-evidential framework. It has given you your concept of evidence, it has given you every single conclusion you have brought up so far.
That is my example. I don't know how I can possibly be any clearer.

Are you basically saying, "Any evidence for the existence of anything we refer to as evidence is actually non-evidential"?

Quote from: SergeantPepper on August 20, 2020, 04:47:56 PM

Quote from: JJA on August 20, 2020, 03:54:02 PM

I'm not asking you to explain it, you've spent post after post 'explaining' it.  I want you to show me ONE thing this non-evidence anti-science mumbo-jumbo has done or achieved.  If it has done nothing then it can't be all that, right?

I have.
Evidence. You cannot have evidence without a non-evidential framework. It has given you your concept of evidence, it has given you every single conclusion you have brought up so far.
That is my example. I don't know how I can possibly be any clearer.

Are you basically saying, "Any evidence for the existence of anything we refer to as evidence is actually non-evidential"?

I will never understand this bizarre desire to take a post where something was simplified for the purposes of clarity, and then pretend that all the discussion leading up to that point never happened.

Quote from: JJA on August 20, 2020, 02:34:24 PM

This is yet again several paragraphs of nonsense, and it's clear you really don't have anything but some kind of quasi-philosophical argument here. Which is fine, but if you want to argue philosophy or faith there are other boards to do that in.

You have danced around the issue long enough to prove that whatever this non-evidence thing you are talking about is, doesn't actually exist and you aren't going to ever explain it.

Science makes cell phones, airplanes and the internet that lets you debate with people all around the world. You can claim it doesn't work or is flawed or can't prove this or that all you want, but it's a silly argument since everything around you is proof that it works just fine.

Come back when you actually have an actual example of something and not just... whatever that was.

This is where I feared we would end up. You are asking a question, but hold to a framework where that question cannot be answered. You ask for a basis other than evidence that can be used to arrive at a conclusion, but decide any examples are 'quasi philosophical' and thus should be ignored, no matter what merit to them is shown. The question has an answer, but you hold to a framework where the question must not be answered. if there is any circular reasoning in this thread, there is that.
Science suffices in many instances, but as I have pointed out, the foundation of science cannot be evidence. Until you are able to show that an evidence-based system can somehow support itself without being circular, than the existence of non-evidence based foundations must necessarily exist. It isn't silly, it isn't nonsense, it may be 'philosophical' but that does not make it wrong.

And this is the only example that you would accept. Let us not forget that. I could listen dozens of truths about the world, but the problem is if the support for them was not evidence, then you would not consider them truths. Do you deny that? Either it would be something with limited practical ramifications, that you would decide is useless, or it is something with many practical ramifications, and so you would claim that those practical illustrations, that evidence, was the original basis.
Which is why this philosophy is necessary. It is a fact that must be faced if you are to champion evidence. Do so, by all means, but you cannot if you do not also accept the fact that pure reason must necessarily come before evidence.

Or, to simplify:
1. The evidence-based system works.
2. Using evidence to demonstrate that the evidence-based system works is to presuppose the success of the evidence-based system, and thus engage in flawed circular reasoning.
3. Either the evidence-based system does not work (A), or the foundation of it is non-evidential (B).
4. A contradicts 1.
Thus, non-evidential means give us valuable insights as to how the world works. QED.

I fail to see how you can claim I am not explaining it. I have presented it several times. I do not present it as though it fits into an evidence-based framework, because by definition that is not what we are talking about. Do not reject it simply because it is different. If you believe there is a flaw, you are welcome to search, but wiser men than both of us have tried and failed.

When you can face up to and accept that, then we can discuss other consequences. If you cannot even accept how we rely on evidence, I could not even begin to discuss deeper consequences. This is not 'trolling,' this is a well-established field, and this is the bare basics of it.

The concept of an evidence-based system is circular and cannot sustain itself unless you allow for non-evidential means of arriving at conclusions. Ergo, you can only have evidence if you acknowledge that there are other ways of concluding things.

Quote from: JJA on August 20, 2020, 03:54:02 PM

I'm not asking you to explain it, you've spent post after post 'explaining' it.  I want you to show me ONE thing this non-evidence anti-science mumbo-jumbo has done or achieved.  If it has done nothing then it can't be all that, right?

I have.
Evidence. You cannot have evidence without a non-evidential framework. It has given you your concept of evidence, it has given you every single conclusion you have brought up so far.
That is my example. I don't know how I can possibly be any clearer.

Do you not understand the question?

You are saying science and evidence isn't enough and is broken or whatever and there is a better way.  Saying you can't have evidence without non-evidence is saying nothing at all.

So, what is this other way and what's it accomplished?  Don't say evidence not evidence again please. 

Quote from: SergeantPepper on August 20, 2020, 04:47:56 PM

Quote from: JJA on August 20, 2020, 03:54:02 PM

I'm not asking you to explain it, you've spent post after post 'explaining' it.  I want you to show me ONE thing this non-evidence anti-science mumbo-jumbo has done or achieved.  If it has done nothing then it can't be all that, right?

I have.
Evidence. You cannot have evidence without a non-evidential framework. It has given you your concept of evidence, it has given you every single conclusion you have brought up so far.
That is my example. I don't know how I can possibly be any clearer.

Do you not understand the question?

You are saying science and evidence isn't enough and is broken or whatever and there is a better way.  Saying you can't have evidence without non-evidence is saying nothing at all.

So, what is this other way and what's it accomplished?  Don't say evidence not evidence again please. 

That's not the same question you were asking. You were asking for something that is shown through non-evidential means ("I want you to show me ONE thing this non-evidence anti-science mumbo-jumbo has done."). That is why I was giving you something shown by said means.
What has this other way accomplished? It gave you evidence. That is why I am reiterating this point. I don't know why you are still asking that question.
Further, I would ask you to please stop claiming I am saying science is broken. I have never done any such thing. In fact, I have refuted your claim on multiple occasions. My stance is that science and evidence do function, but they cannot function alone by necessity, thus there are other ways to reach conclusions.

If you want to discuss what this other way is and how it works ("what is this other way"), I will be glad to, but we need to mark a checkpoint to avoid backtracking. Are you acknowledging that some things (namely, the principle behind evidence) are by necessity proven by non-evidential means?
I don't want to start the lengthy breakdown only to go back to having to argue this point. This is the first step of explaining the other way, regardless, once I know we are on the same page then I can continue. I cannot be expected to explain something if you are just going to deny it exists. Step one is showing that the gap for it is present. I believe I have done that. if we are in agreement, then I will continue.

Quote from: Stash on August 20, 2020, 05:05:29 PM

Quote from: SergeantPepper on August 20, 2020, 04:47:56 PM

Quote from: JJA on August 20, 2020, 03:54:02 PM

I'm not asking you to explain it, you've spent post after post 'explaining' it.  I want you to show me ONE thing this non-evidence anti-science mumbo-jumbo has done or achieved.  If it has done nothing then it can't be all that, right?

I have.
Evidence. You cannot have evidence without a non-evidential framework. It has given you your concept of evidence, it has given you every single conclusion you have brought up so far.
That is my example. I don't know how I can possibly be any clearer.

Are you basically saying, "Any evidence for the existence of anything we refer to as evidence is actually non-evidential"?

I will never understand this bizarre desire to take a post where something was simplified for the purposes of clarity, and then pretend that all the discussion leading up to that point never happened.

It's precisely the point. No one would be asking any questions if you made what you're getting at simple and clear. It appears to you that you have succeeded in that effort but it appears to everyone else that you have not.  What people have been asking for is a simple and clear example and you have failed to produce anything like that. Take something in reality that was begat by evidence and show/explain what non-evidential framework led to that evidence. A clear and concise real world example.
In the mean time, all we have is, "You cannot have evidence without a non-evidential framework." I for one have no idea what that means nor can I conjure a real world example that fits that statement. If you can, that would be great. If you can't, we're stuck with, "You cannot have evidence without a non-evidential framework" and I guess that's just that. No further discussion is needed.

Quote from: JJA on August 20, 2020, 05:31:09 PM

Quote from: SergeantPepper on August 20, 2020, 04:47:56 PM

Quote from: JJA on August 20, 2020, 03:54:02 PM

I'm not asking you to explain it, you've spent post after post 'explaining' it.  I want you to show me ONE thing this non-evidence anti-science mumbo-jumbo has done or achieved.  If it has done nothing then it can't be all that, right?

I have.
Evidence. You cannot have evidence without a non-evidential framework. It has given you your concept of evidence, it has given you every single conclusion you have brought up so far.
That is my example. I don't know how I can possibly be any clearer.

Do you not understand the question?

You are saying science and evidence isn't enough and is broken or whatever and there is a better way.  Saying you can't have evidence without non-evidence is saying nothing at all.

So, what is this other way and what's it accomplished?  Don't say evidence not evidence again please. 

That's not the same question you were asking. You were asking for something that is shown through non-evidential means ("I want you to show me ONE thing this non-evidence anti-science mumbo-jumbo has done."). That is why I was giving you something shown by said means.
What has this other way accomplished? It gave you evidence. That is why I am reiterating this point. I don't know why you are still asking that question.
Further, I would ask you to please stop claiming I am saying science is broken. I have never done any such thing. In fact, I have refuted your claim on multiple occasions. My stance is that science and evidence do function, but they cannot function alone by necessity, thus there are other ways to reach conclusions.

If you want to discuss what this other way is and how it works ("what is this other way"), I will be glad to, but we need to mark a checkpoint to avoid backtracking. Are you acknowledging that some things (namely, the principle behind evidence) are by necessity proven by non-evidential means?
I don't want to start the lengthy breakdown only to go back to having to argue this point. This is the first step of explaining the other way, regardless, once I know we are on the same page then I can continue. I cannot be expected to explain something if you are just going to deny it exists. Step one is showing that the gap for it is present. I believe I have done that. if we are in agreement, then I will continue.

No I'm not going to agree with your "evidence is not evidence needs non evidence evidence" weirdness.

You need to give an example of what your non-evidence evidence can do.

Like... "Method X was used to invent the toaster."

Because nobody here has ANY idea what non-evidence evidence is. You haven't explained it, other than it's not evidence based. Well.. that's not helpful! That's not an answer.

You keep claiming there are OTHER ways than science to reach conclusions.  Well, what?  And what conclusions have they reached?

You just keep dodging that question, repeating the same stuff over and over.  My opinion is you don't HAVE any examples, because this other method doesn't exist, so prove me wrong. Show me one.

Are you acknowledging that some things (namely, the principle behind evidence) are by necessity proven by non-evidential means?

No. I, for one, do not.

Evidently, your non-evidence evidence is not evidence of anything.

Science suffices in many instances, but as I have pointed out, the foundation of science cannot be evidence. Until you are able to show that an evidence-based system can somehow support itself without being circular, than the existence of non-evidence based foundations must necessarily exist.

No, it does not necessarily exist. You leave out the other possibility which has already been pointed out.
It leaves open the very possibility of what you trying to show being wrong. That the evidence based system doesn't actually work.
In reality, the evidence is limited, but far less so than others.

Or, to simplify:
1. The evidence-based system works.
2. Using evidence to demonstrate that the evidence-based system works is to presuppose the success of the evidence-based system, and thus engage in flawed circular reasoning.
3. Either the evidence-based system does not work (A), or the foundation of it is non-evidential (B).
4. A contradicts 1.
Thus, non-evidential means give us valuable insights as to how the world works. QED.

Now try to prove any of those points, without circular reasoning or using evidence.

It is a simple case of the fact that if you take things to their logical conclusion and don't start with an assumption of something working, you cannot know anything.

So instead of trying to prove something works, we find things which appear to work and see if they do.
We know that circular reasoning doesn't work to establish the truth due to just how easy to refute it.
We know that evidence based reasoning is limited in that it is limited to the scope of the evidence.
But so far evidence based reasoning is the only thing shown to be reliable for determining things about reality.

No I'm not going to agree with your "evidence is not evidence needs non evidence evidence" weirdness.

Then how do you expect me to explain it when you won't acknowledge that it even exists? If you cannot pass the first hurdle, how am I meant to explain it? Understanding what is required for evidence to function is the first step to understanding this approach. If you cannot understand that, how am I meant to break it down?

I have never said evidence is not evidence. At this point all I can do is repeat what I have said, I have given you an example. The conclusion this reasoning has reached is that evidence can be used to describe the world: I have said this many times over. I have also pointed out that you would not listen to any other example I gave.
The problem is that you are using an approach divorced from this. You believe in evidence, but you do not seem to understand why you believe in evidence. That renders the system you use incomplete. You have no non-circular basis upon which to rest evidence, or else you would have given it by now. You must know that an alternative foundation is required. If you cannot even acknowledge that it exists, how will you understand any explanation of it?

And this is the only example that you would accept. Let us not forget that. I could listen dozens of truths about the world, but the problem is if the support for them was not evidence, then you would not consider them truths. Do you deny that? Either it would be something with limited practical ramifications, that you would decide is useless, or it is something with many practical ramifications, and so you would claim that those practical illustrations, that evidence, was the original basis.

This seems the simplest breakdown. Point 1 is something you clearly believe. Point 2 is pure logic, as is 3 and 4. If you disagree, please give me some idea of where your objection lies. If you want to progress this conversation, this seems required.

Or, to simplify:
1. The evidence-based system works.
2. Using evidence to demonstrate that the evidence-based system works is to presuppose the success of the evidence-based system, and thus engage in flawed circular reasoning.
3. Either the evidence-based system does not work (A), or the foundation of it is non-evidential (B).
4. A contradicts 1.
Thus, non-evidential means give us valuable insights as to how the world works. QED.

Quote from: JJA on August 20, 2020, 06:55:57 PM

No I'm not going to agree with your "evidence is not evidence needs non evidence evidence" weirdness.

Then how do you expect me to explain it when you won't acknowledge that it even exists? If you cannot pass the first hurdle, how am I meant to explain it? Understanding what is required for evidence to function is the first step to understanding this approach. If you cannot understand that, how am I meant to break it down?

The whole reason we are debating is because I don't agree with you. Why do you think I have to agree with you for you to give an example?

I disagree that you need non-evidence to understand evidence, because that's just a nonsense statement.  You can't even define what non-evidence is!

At this point all I can do is repeat what I have said, I have given you an example.

You're hilarious.  You have not given any evidence, other than saying you need non-evidence to prove evidence which makes no sense and is backed up by nothing but you claiming it's true.

You must know that an alternative foundation is required.

No I do not. You are the one claiming this, without evidence, without any examples, without explaining WHAT this alternate foundation is.

Again, I can show you a cell phone, using a microprocessor developed with the foundations of science and evidence.

What has your alternate foundation done? How did it do it? You keep avoiding answering that because as you well know, it's done nothing because it doesn't exist.

Maybe you think it does, maybe you even believe it, but if you can't point to something and say THIS is your method, THIS is what it has done... then it's all just vague concepts in your mind, and nothing to do with reality.

The whole reason we are debating is because I don't agree with you. Why do you think I have to agree with you for you to give an example?

You don't have to agree, you have to understand. You do not understand.

You're hilarious.  You have not given any evidence, other than saying you need non-evidence to prove evidence which makes no sense and is backed up by nothing but you claiming it's true.

I backed it up with a broken down chain of reasoning and asked you where the problem was. You have not acknowledged it. I do not believe I am the person backed up by nothing here.
You cannot even justify your evidential system without recourse to circular thinking. Is it truly so strange to you that there needs to be more?

Quote from: JJA on August 21, 2020, 07:26:37 AM

The whole reason we are debating is because I don't agree with you. Why do you think I have to agree with you for you to give an example?

You don't have to agree, you have to understand. You do not understand.

Quote from: JJA on August 21, 2020, 07:26:37 AM

You're hilarious.  You have not given any evidence, other than saying you need non-evidence to prove evidence which makes no sense and is backed up by nothing but you claiming it's true.

I backed it up with a broken down chain of reasoning and asked you where the problem was. You have not acknowledged it. I do not believe I am the person backed up by nothing here.
You cannot even justify your evidential system without recourse to circular thinking. Is it truly so strange to you that there needs to be more?

Again, this is all just claims you are making.

Are you disagreeing that your cell phone is real?  Are you claiming science didn't have anything to do with it?  Are you claiming nobody used evidence in the creation of the transistor?

You are claiming evidence needs "something else" but can't say what this something else is, or what it does, or how it works, or anything at all about it.

Your chain of reasoning is... you say so. You claim circular reasoning because you say it is. That's circular reasoning!

You say things that make no sense then complain nobody understands them. Maybe... it's not us, it's you.

Wait, what example was given?  And you still keep assuming that because we use the word evidence for multiple different items that fall into that category then that mean they can't support each other because the descriptor word for that category is evidence.  It most certainly is not circular reasoning, you seem to have no idea what you are talking about.  Please provide this example so we can help you understand how you are misunderstanding things.