Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

[Nostradamus]

Since you chose to bad mouth me I bet you can't name the mathematical case in which there are 2 possible outcomes for a probabilistic event. Can you do that without doing a search? Can you calculate the expected variance of such an event?

[Indigo Child]

Nostradamus, you are playing with semantics now. The first escape clause for
somebody losing an argument. If they find they are losing an argument, they start
quibbiling over the language.

On coins and probability. No, your original argument was that the probability of something
can be found by tossing the coin, in order to demonstrate your argument that something can
be shown to be probable by increasing the sample size. When I said that no amont of repeat
instances will make anything more probable or likely. As the coin tossing demonstrates that the
only two outcomes are heads or tails and the probability in an ideal coin will be 50% on every trial.
It does not increase or decrease by any observations of repeat instances.

Relating it back to the earth like planets discussion, if we find 5 earth like planets or 500 earth like
planets we cannot know the probability of life. One can only know the probability of something if they
know the possible outcomes. In the case of the coin the outcomes are 1/2 for head or tail, in the case
of 6 sided dice, the outcome are 1/6 for any number. Since, as we do not understand how life happens,
how can we determine any probabilty of life? Therefore your suggestion that this can be done by frequency
is absurd, because that commits the same fallacy of trying to find out the probability of something through
the amount of times an instance appears. If does not matter how many times a coin tossed produces shows
up heads, even 1 million times in a row, the probability of it turning up heads on the next trial is still 50%.

Now, briging this back to the next issue of induction in a scientific experiment. Again you are quibbling over the
meaning of "confirmation", "truth" and "validation" You say that an experimental trial "validates" a theory. Then
say this is not the same as saying it is true? To say something is valid means you are saying it has truth-value.
So you are actually saying it is true lol

What you should be saying is what modern philosophy of science says, "No scientific trial ever confirms a scientific theory,
only shows that the theory has been yet to be falsified" This means there is no verification/validation/confirmation
or what other word you want to play with. Newtonian physics was experimentally tested over centuries. Does this establish
that Newtonian physics is confirmed/validated/verified or made more probable? No, because it then shown to be wrong by
General relativity. So what this shows us that no amount of experimental trials or repeat observations will ever establish a rule.
And I am flattered you think this is my logic, but this in fact the logical work of one of the most celebrated philosophers and
logicians of 20th century, Karl Popper. If you want to dispute him, you better do better than, "No, its weak" lol

[Nostradamus]

[Indigo Child]

Nope. I am talking about probabability in mathematics, where one sets probability based on possible outcomes.
You are the one trying to apply mathematics to empirical science, by making the absurd claim that one can show
something is probable in the real world based on the frequency of instances.

Mathematics does not apply to the real world, because mathematics is purely theoretical. It sounds like even you
are accepting this now as you are starting to accept that science cannot know anything certainly and that probability
cannot be applied to real events. Thank god the penny has dropped(heads or tails?) lol

So therefore you are back to my challenge you either reject science and all inferences, including the inference that
other minds exist because they are inductions, or you accept my argument that earth like planets have life(including intelligent life)
on them. Both work on the basis of inducing a conclusion from particular to universal.

You can either be inconsistent or reject science.

[Nostradamus]

[Nostradamus]

[Indigo Child]

[Indigo Child]

I just want to make an observation based on this debate. I have long noted that whenever you engage
in a discussion with a pseudoskeptic, the quality and tone of a discussion is always downgraded with
stupid and ignorant statements like "the probability of a coin landing heads or tails is not 50%" and "
scientific theories are confirmed" and relentless adhominems.

I would like to say thank Nostradamus for being a living example of pseudoskepticism, and showing
us what is exactly wrong with pseudoskepticism and why it needs to be dealt with and removed from
intelligent discussion on paranormal matters. Nothing is contributed by pseudoskeptics to any discussion,
their arguments are just an endless list of logical fallacies.

[Nostradamus]

[Nostradamus]

Did you see the title of the web page "Probability in the Real World". This simplistic web page offers a solution for the naive person and is not a general solution. What yo

Sorry, but learn something. A discrete bimodal event can have any probability p with the counterpart event having a probability of 1-p. This type of distribution is common with uniform probabilities exhibited when the value of p=0.5.

Do you realize how lame you are?

[Nostradamus]

So after your pointless commentary you still have been unable to provide anything but a lame claim to life outside the earth

What it all boils down to is this inane claim with no supporting evidence:
1. Something happened once.
2. The universe is big
3. It happened more than once

Do you realize how weak your argument is? Do you have any evidence to support your position? So far you have avoided supporting any of your arguments.

[Indigo Child]

I think we can safely saying at this point you are beyond reason lol
So far I have cited two maths sources which have confirmed the probability
of heads or tails on any trial is 50%. You say it isn't. If you're a mathmatician,
I am an astronaut

Anyway you long lost the debate with me pal. Do yourself a favour read a book
on probability(maths), quantum physics(physics) and philosophy of science(philosophy)
In short get an education.

If you are actually going to be prove me wrong and actually show me you are capable of
being reasonable then stop with the ceaseless adhominems, and actually engage the
arguments. There are 3 arguments we have looked at so far, which I have backed by
strong argument.

1) The argument of induction to show that earth like planets have life
2) The teleological argument that shows that the function of earth like planets is to support life
3) The probability argument that shows that it impossible that no other planet would have life in the universe.

Here is what you need to show.

1) You need to show my induction is invalid and remain consistent with other inductions you accept as valid(gravity, mind)
2) You need to show how it can be at all possible to have coherence between organic matter, inorganic matter and mind, and
disprove studies which show that ones biology actually transforms in relation to ones environment(epigenetics)
3) You need to show why it is reasonable to accept and take seriously the idea that Earth, out of a estimated 40 billion
trillion planets would be the only planet to have life on it.

[Nostradamus]

You referred to 2 articles directed at children offering simplified math you could understand.

[Nostradamus]

You have not made any strong arguments for life on other planets. You have provided no evidence for your claims.
Your teleological claim is not based on any evidence.
The probability argument doe snot make it impossible.

1. You need to show evidence that life can exist outside of the earth
2. You need to show evidence for your teleological claims
3. You need to show evidence that any of these planets can support life

[Indigo Child]

On the contrary I have provided a lot of logical arguments and evidence. You have simply chosen
to pretend no evidence has been offered and failed to engage in any discussion on points being
made. From the very start you have simply asserted something is wrong, without giving any reason
for why it is wrong. I am starting to think you are a troll. I am not going to waste my time.