The number of "scientists" who believe something does not equate to good science. I am sure that most "navigators" would have thought that Columbus was sailing off the edge of the earth...or "most" astronomers would have said that Galileo was wrong. Heck, even closer to our times...many "scientists" thought the first atomic bomb exploded in New Mexico was going to set the atmosphere on fire and wipe out the world...I am going to go out on a limb...and say that those "scientists" were wrong! LOL!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Video| Fine Tuning from the Top Scientists
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
The number of "scientists" who believe something does not equate to good science. I am sure that most "navigators" would have thought that Columbus was sailing off the edge of the earth...or "most" astronomers would have said that Galileo was wrong. Heck, even closer to our times...many "scientists" thought the first atomic bomb exploded in New Mexico was going to set the atmosphere on fire and wipe out the world...I am going to go out on a limb...and say that those "scientists" were wrong! LOL!
Let me get this straight for Stu and FC...
regarding an appeal to authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Its is perfectly expected to appeal to a physicist or cosmologist who makes statements based on science.
For instance... do scientists agree that small changes in the comsological constant would result in a universe which flies apart or crunches too fast for life.
It is a fallacy to appeal to those same scientists and say the majority of them support suport the Lakers so the Lakers are the best team in basketball.
Finally it is fraudulent to misrepresent them... i.e. taken conditional and or speculative statements and pretending they are non conditional and declarative on a particular subject.
The argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) can take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, the argument has the following basic structure:[1]
Most of what authority A has to say on subject matter S is correct.
A says P about subject matter S.
Therefore, P is correct.
The strength of this authoritative argument depends upon two factors:[1][2]
The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion.
The two factors â legitimate expertise and expert consensus â can be incorporated to the structure of the statistical syllogism, in which case, the argument from authority can be structured thus:[2]
X holds that A is true.
X is a legitimate expert on the subject matter.
The consensus of subject-matter experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there exists a presumption that A is true.
[edit]Fallacious appeal to authority
Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the required two conditions (legitimate expertise and expert consensus) structurally required in the forms of a statistical syllogism.[1][2] First, when the inference fails to meet the first condition (inexpert authority), it is an appeal to inappropriate authority, which occurs when an inference relies upon a person or a group without relevant expertise or knowledge of the subject matter under discussion.[3]
Second, because the argument from authority is an inductive-reasoning argument â wherein is implied that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises â it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[2] Such a determinative assertion is a logical non sequitur, because, although the inductive argument might have merit â either probabilistic or statistical â the conclusion does not follow unconditionally, in the sense of being logically necessary.[4][5]
regarding an appeal to authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Its is perfectly expected to appeal to a physicist or cosmologist who makes statements based on science.
For instance... do scientists agree that small changes in the comsological constant would result in a universe which flies apart or crunches too fast for life.
It is a fallacy to appeal to those same scientists and say the majority of them support suport the Lakers so the Lakers are the best team in basketball.
Finally it is fraudulent to misrepresent them... i.e. taken conditional and or speculative statements and pretending they are non conditional and declarative on a particular subject.
The argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) can take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, the argument has the following basic structure:[1]
Most of what authority A has to say on subject matter S is correct.
A says P about subject matter S.
Therefore, P is correct.
The strength of this authoritative argument depends upon two factors:[1][2]
The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion.
The two factors â legitimate expertise and expert consensus â can be incorporated to the structure of the statistical syllogism, in which case, the argument from authority can be structured thus:[2]
X holds that A is true.
X is a legitimate expert on the subject matter.
The consensus of subject-matter experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there exists a presumption that A is true.
[edit]Fallacious appeal to authority
Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the required two conditions (legitimate expertise and expert consensus) structurally required in the forms of a statistical syllogism.[1][2] First, when the inference fails to meet the first condition (inexpert authority), it is an appeal to inappropriate authority, which occurs when an inference relies upon a person or a group without relevant expertise or knowledge of the subject matter under discussion.[3]
Second, because the argument from authority is an inductive-reasoning argument â wherein is implied that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises â it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[2] Such a determinative assertion is a logical non sequitur, because, although the inductive argument might have merit â either probabilistic or statistical â the conclusion does not follow unconditionally, in the sense of being logically necessary.[4][5]
You're still trying to have it both ways. You can't.Quote from jem:
The fine tuning of the fundamentals are observed.
The Landscape of bubble universes or Multiverse explanation for the fine tunings is just pure speculation.
When Susskind, Hawking Carr, Rees and many others say that a Tuner (God) could be a reason for the tunings. That is not really speculation as much as it is just logical.
If something appears finely tuned... you logically presume Tuner unless you find evidence to the contrary.
---
Multiverse and Landscape are the same.
See the Susskind video... about 11 minutes in... when he said he does not like the name multiverse vs... because it reminds him of multiplex and he likes small cinemas. But he says the landscape and multiverse are the same thing.
Susskind wrote the book which named the Landscape. You can see that in the video too.
----
My... link is to the paper and the author... which / created Top Down Cosmology. The paper is therefore as a authoritative as can be on the subject. (unless you have Hawking on Video saying he was wrong).
If you say your authorities in science are speculating when they give "The Landscape of bubble universes or Multiverse explanation for the fine tunings", then they are also speculating should they give a Tuner (God) as explanation for the fine tunings.
It is illogical to suggest someone you choose as authority is not speculating and is speculating at the same time. As an appeal to authority, they are one or the other on what they state.
It is illogical to contradict your own links which are also used as authority.
Especially when they specifically state top-down cosmology does NOT call for the existence of a multiverse.
It does not invoke or even mention a multiverse in the Hawking landscape paper, which you state, is authoritative as can be on the subject.!!
Why insist on contradicting yourself, your links and the authorities you choose, when doing so presents no kind of rational argument.
Quote from jem:
Let me get this straight for Stu and FC...
regarding an appeal to authority.
You link another authority!!!... Is it an authority which is speculating!?
Ask a scientist about science and their statements need be backed up in the tools of their trade; fact, math, physics etc..
Ask a scientist about god/tuner things, and it can't and won't, (like other make believe concepts) be backed up by any of the tools of their trade.
Quote from jem:
Its is perfectly expected to appeal to a physicist or cosmologist who makes statements based on science.
It is a fallacy to appeal to those same scientists and say the majority of them support suport the Lakers so the Lakers are the best team in basketball."
Then you keep making the fallacy of appealing to those same scientists about a god/tuner . You might as well appeal to them about Lakers!
Why do you keep posting stuff that contradicts your claims?
Quote from jem:
Let me get this straight for Stu and FC...
regarding an appeal to authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Its is perfectly expected to appeal to a physicist or cosmologist who makes statements based on science.
For instance... do scientists agree that small changes in the comsological constant would result in a universe which flies apart or crunches too fast for life.
It is a fallacy to appeal to those same scientists and say the majority of them support suport the Lakers so the Lakers are the best team in basketball.
Finally it is fraudulent to misrepresent them... i.e. taken conditional and or speculative statements and pretending they are non conditional and declarative on a particular subject.
The argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) can take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, the argument has the following basic structure:[1]
Most of what authority A has to say on subject matter S is correct.
A says P about subject matter S.
Therefore, P is correct.
The strength of this authoritative argument depends upon two factors:[1][2]
The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion.
The two factors â legitimate expertise and expert consensus â can be incorporated to the structure of the statistical syllogism, in which case, the argument from authority can be structured thus:[2]
X holds that A is true.
X is a legitimate expert on the subject matter.
The consensus of subject-matter experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there exists a presumption that A is true.
[edit]Fallacious appeal to authority
Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the required two conditions (legitimate expertise and expert consensus) structurally required in the forms of a statistical syllogism.[1][2] First, when the inference fails to meet the first condition (inexpert authority), it is an appeal to inappropriate authority, which occurs when an inference relies upon a person or a group without relevant expertise or knowledge of the subject matter under discussion.[3]
Second, because the argument from authority is an inductive-reasoning argument â wherein is implied that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises â it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[2] Such a determinative assertion is a logical non sequitur, because, although the inductive argument might have merit â either probabilistic or statistical â the conclusion does not follow unconditionally, in the sense of being logically necessary.[4][5]
it was only a matter of time before you resorted to your own juvenile troll game.
he is now denying anyone the authority to define what the fallacy of an an appeal to a authority is.
Coming from an non troll that would be humorous.
Coming from Stu it is his is best surrender signal.
So I will bring us back to point.
he is now denying anyone the authority to define what the fallacy of an an appeal to a authority is.
Coming from an non troll that would be humorous.
Coming from Stu it is his is best surrender signal.
So I will bring us back to point.
Quote from stu:
You link another authority!!!... Is it an authority which is speculating!?
Ask a scientist about science and their statements need be backed up in the tools of their trade; fact, math, physics etc..
Ask a scientist about god/tuner things, and it can't and won't, (like other make believe concepts) be backed up by any of the tools of their trade.
Then you keep making the fallacy of appealing to those same scientists about a god/tuner . You might as well appeal to them about Lakers!
Why do you keep posting stuff that contradicts your claims?
as you follow the course of stu's bullshit here.
you will learn that even he can not make a rational argument disputing the claim....
that:
A. the constants of our universe appear fine tuned...
as the Martin Rees (Astronomer Royal) says in the beginning of this video...
B. One explanation for the fine tuning is a Tuner another explanatin is the speculation there are almost infinite universes.
you will learn that even he can not make a rational argument disputing the claim....
that:
A. the constants of our universe appear fine tuned...
as the Martin Rees (Astronomer Royal) says in the beginning of this video...
B. One explanation for the fine tuning is a Tuner another explanatin is the speculation there are almost infinite universes.
Quote from jem:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/z4E_bT4ecgk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Quote from jem:
One explanation for the fine tuning is a Tuner another explanatin is the speculation there are almost infinite universes.
Quote from jem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
It is a fallacy to appeal to those same scientists and say the majority of them support suport the Lakers so the Lakers are the best team in basketball.
Finally it is fraudulent to misrepresent them... i.e. taken conditional and or speculative statements and pretending they are non conditional and declarative on a particular subject.
Calling on the authority of science and scientists as legitimate experts who you then say are speculating, has the consequence that your authority is speculating about a "Tuner" too.
Why do you keep posting links that destroy your own claims?
I just wonder when you 2 are going to figure out it's just a matter of opinion and neither guy is going to be able to offer evidence enough to convince the other?
Obviously something else is at work here.
I suspect you each think you are making fools of each other.
That may be the case for a few posts but eventually all you are doing is proving you yourselves are arrogant and perhaps desperate fools.
IOW: Give it a rest guys you're both making yourself look stupid at this point.
Obviously something else is at work here.
I suspect you each think you are making fools of each other.
That may be the case for a few posts but eventually all you are doing is proving you yourselves are arrogant and perhaps desperate fools.
IOW: Give it a rest guys you're both making yourself look stupid at this point.
1)Maybe if you had some reading comprehension it would help.Quote from stu:
1)I just wonder why someone who says they don't give a fuck, gives a fuck.
2) It 's not just a matter of opinion. 3)There are facts. 4)Those are the things that people like Jem and you for that matter who only have opinion, try to dodge around.
2) Yeah it is.
3) And your facts are inconclusive get over it.
4) Pretending for it to not be your opinion is just intellectually lazy and silly, but hey don't let me stop you.
5) Tell you what since you have over 5000 posts arguing this nonsense: why don't you state your belief or hypothesis just for clarity?