jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:

A recent T.O. topic illustrated a poster's failure to distinguish
between evidence and conclusions based on evidence. My experience is
this is an especially common problem among pseudoskeptics. To further illustrate the point, the following is a recent X post aka Tweet from
a U.S. Congressperson:

************************************
God is sending America strong signs to tell us to repent.
Earthquakes and eclipses and many more things to come.
I pray that our country listens.
*************************************

Stipulating for argument's sake that natural events like earthquakes
and eclipses are evidence of God's displeasure, that would still be no reasonable basis to conclude what to repent about. ISTM as likely God
is pissed about willfully stupid people invoking God as a means of
virtue signaling.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

But people also say they know electrons exist, whereas they have never
actually seen one, but interpret electricity as evidence of them.

So you could have the same discussion in a less emotive way by
discussing electrons and lightning instead of God and earthquakes.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:

That's quite false as there exist many different independent lines
of evidence for the existence of electrons beyond modeling the flow of electricity.

Yes there are, but people often offer electricity, or worse still,
television, as evidence.

Are you even aware of who JJ Thomson is? If so, do you understand

Oh it's you again. Are you even aware the standard model is a model?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:

Richmond wrote:

j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:

That's quite false as there exist many different independent lines
of evidence for the existence of electrons beyond modeling the flow of
electricity.

Yes there are, but people often offer electricity, or worse still,
television, as evidence.

Are you even aware of who JJ Thomson is? If so, do you understand

Oh it's you again. Are you even aware the standard model is a model?

Cathode ray tubes don't produce models, they produce electron beams.

The data interpretation doesn't require the standard model of particle physics. Neither do slit experiments. What it looks like is there's
a lack of evidence that you understand either bit of evidence. Or have
ever seen that evidence? I'm guessing you never looked. I guess as
long as you play see no, hear no, speak no games, your
assertion will survive your personal belief system.

What are you talking about you gormless fuckwit?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:

Richmond wrote:

j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:

That's quite false as there exist many different independent lines
of evidence for the existence of electrons beyond modeling the flow of >>>> electricity.

Yes there are, but people often offer electricity, or worse still,
television, as evidence.

Are you even aware of who JJ Thomson is? If so, do you understand

Oh it's you again. Are you even aware the standard model is a model?

Cathode ray tubes don't produce models, they produce electron beams.

The data interpretation doesn't require the standard model of particle
physics. Neither do slit experiments. What it looks like is there's
a lack of evidence that you understand either bit of evidence. Or have
ever seen that evidence? I'm guessing you never looked. I guess as
long as you play see no, hear no, speak no games, your
assertion will survive your personal belief system.

What are you talking about you gormless fuckwit?

And there we have it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:

Richmond wrote:

j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:

That's quite false as there exist many different independent lines
of evidence for the existence of electrons beyond modeling the flow of >>>>> electricity.

Yes there are, but people often offer electricity, or worse still,
television, as evidence.

Are you even aware of who JJ Thomson is? If so, do you understand

Oh it's you again. Are you even aware the standard model is a model?

Cathode ray tubes don't produce models, they produce electron beams.

The data interpretation doesn't require the standard model of particle
physics. Neither do slit experiments. What it looks like is there's
a lack of evidence that you understand either bit of evidence. Or have
ever seen that evidence? I'm guessing you never looked. I guess as
long as you play see no, hear no, speak no games, your
assertion will survive your personal belief system.

What are you talking about you gormless fuckwit?

And there we have it.

The problem with this group is people argue with imaginary people. You
see at the end there he talks about my personal belief system, and yet
he has no idea what it is. I said that people interpret electricity as
evidence of electrons, and he says that is false, but I know it is true,
I have spoken to such people.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/6/2024 7:57 AM, jillery wrote:

A recent T.O. topic illustrated a poster's failure to distinguish
between evidence and conclusions based on evidence. My experience is
this is an especially common problem among pseudoskeptics. To further illustrate the point, the following is a recent X post aka Tweet from
a U.S. Congressperson:

************************************
God is sending America strong signs to tell us to repent.
Earthquakes and eclipses and many more things to come.
I pray that our country listens.
*************************************

Stipulating for argument's sake that natural events like earthquakes
and eclipses are evidence of God's displeasure, that would still be no reasonable basis to conclude what to repent about. ISTM as likely God
is pissed about willfully stupid people invoking God as a means of
virtue signaling.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

The eclipse example indicates that the Congressperson's God planned his signalling of displeasure billions of years ago when the moon was
created and started it's journey on an expanding orbit. Eventually the
moon will get far enough away from the earth that it will not be able to occlude the entire sun as seen from the surface of the earth.

We can even predict when Her God will be showing another bout of
displeasure. We just can't predict what the god will be fussing about
at that time.

Ron Okimoto

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-04-06, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:

Richmond wrote:

j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:

That's quite false as there exist many different independent lines >>>>>> of evidence for the existence of electrons beyond modeling the flow of >>>>>> electricity.

Yes there are, but people often offer electricity, or worse still,
television, as evidence.

Are you even aware of who JJ Thomson is? If so, do you understand

Oh it's you again. Are you even aware the standard model is a model?

Cathode ray tubes don't produce models, they produce electron beams.

The data interpretation doesn't require the standard model of particle >>>> physics. Neither do slit experiments. What it looks like is there's
a lack of evidence that you understand either bit of evidence. Or have >>>> ever seen that evidence? I'm guessing you never looked. I guess as
long as you play see no, hear no, speak no games, your
assertion will survive your personal belief system.

What are you talking about you gormless fuckwit?

And there we have it.

The problem with this group is people argue with imaginary people. You
see at the end there he talks about my personal belief system, and yet
he has no idea what it is. I said that people interpret electricity as evidence of electrons, and he says that is false, but I know it is true,
I have spoken to such people.

He said more than that - and you know it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> writes:

On 2024-04-06, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:

Richmond wrote:

j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:

That's quite false as there exist many different independent
lines of evidence for the existence of electrons beyond modeling >>>>>>> the flow of electricity.

Yes there are, but people often offer electricity, or worse
still, television, as evidence.

Are you even aware of who JJ Thomson is? If so, do you
understand

Oh it's you again. Are you even aware the standard model is a
model?

Cathode ray tubes don't produce models, they produce electron
beams.

The data interpretation doesn't require the standard model of
particle physics. Neither do slit experiments. What it looks like
is there's a lack of evidence that you understand either bit of
evidence. Or have ever seen that evidence? I'm guessing you never
looked. I guess as long as you play see no, hear no, speak no
games, your assertion will survive your personal belief system.

What are you talking about you gormless fuckwit?

And there we have it.

The problem with this group is people argue with imaginary
people. You see at the end there he talks about my personal belief
system, and yet he has no idea what it is. I said that people
interpret electricity as evidence of electrons, and he says that is
false, but I know it is true, I have spoken to such people.

He said more than that - and you know it.

I didn't say that that was *all* he said, and you know it. The rest of
what he said was irrelevent and aimed mainly at people who have never
been to school. Does everyone who believes in God believe it because of earthquakes and eclipses? no, but some people do. Does the fact that
other people believe in God for other reasons mean that no one believes
it because of earthquakes and eclipses? no, that's a silly
assumption. Does everyone who believes in electrons believe in them
because of electricity? no, but some people do. Does the fact that some
people believe in them for other reasons mean that no one believes in
them because of electricity? no, that's a silly assumption.

None of this has anything to do with me. He's arguing with the voices in
his head.

"Cathode ray tubes don't produce models, they produce electron beams." -
Simple begging the question, how does he know they produce electron
beams and not beams of something else?

The slit experiments show that whatever is going through the slit
behaves like a wave as if it has gone through both slits, unless you
intercept it, and then it is like a particle. It doesn't prove anything
about what it is that is going through the slits, that's more begging
the question.

The electron is a theoretical particle, no one really knows if it exists
or what it is. The model makes accurate predictions, and you can believe
they exist on that basis if you like, but you don't know, and you don't
have any proof.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:

On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 14:09:21 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:

A recent T.O. topic illustrated a poster's failure to distinguish
between evidence and conclusions based on evidence. My experience is
this is an especially common problem among pseudoskeptics. To further
illustrate the point, the following is a recent X post aka Tweet from
a U.S. Congressperson:

************************************
God is sending America strong signs to tell us to repent.
Earthquakes and eclipses and many more things to come.
I pray that our country listens.
*************************************

Stipulating for argument's sake that natural events like earthquakes
and eclipses are evidence of God's displeasure, that would still be no
reasonable basis to conclude what to repent about. ISTM as likely God
is pissed about willfully stupid people invoking God as a means of
virtue signaling.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

But people also say they know electrons exist, whereas they have never >>actually seen one, but interpret electricity as evidence of them.

So you could have the same discussion in a less emotive way by
discussing electrons and lightning instead of God and earthquakes.

We could have had a more rational discussion if that congressperson
hadn't posted the above nonsense. Besides, there's more evidence for electrons than the mere fact of electricity.

The above is not nonsense. You think it is nonsense because you don't understand.

Yes there is more evidence, but as I have pointed out, the fact that
there is more evidence does not mean that people do not make the
assertion that electricity is evidence. In fact we've had a variation on
the theme, asserting that an electron beam is evidence of electrons.

This is all reciting scripture, and begging the question. Confusing
evidence with interpretation of evidence, if you like.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:

The above is not nonsense. You think it is nonsense because you don't >>understand.

I understand quite well.

It cannot be nonsense then can it?

The cited comments are mindless and infantile.

The usual ad hominems, being the last resort of the incompetent.

Your confusion about these things is likely a result of your ignorance
of relevant facts.

More ad hominems. You are either a troll or you have been in this
newsgroup so long you think this is normal behaviour.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)