Building Bridges - The Debates

[The Founder]

Thanks!

Yes, I know long-windedness has always been a weakness of mine. It's strange because a long time ago, a very long time ago (when everything was in black and white ) I used to be very concise and to the point. However after years of talking to people who tend to need everything spelling out for them, or risk facing the slightest opening or avenue not accounted for being attacked by slavering critics, I seem to have developed the tendency to explain things in unnecessary detail filled with redundancies.

I'm so used to people pouncing on the first opening I leave, however obvious its implication should be, that I seem to have developed a kind of legal disclaimer style of writing that covers every possible angle of attack and clarifies every term used in every clarification just to avoid the debate or discussion descending into a mindless dictionary fight. Naturally, this is not very helpful in civil discussions such as this one, however you will see in future logs how it does become neccesary more often than not.


As I said, though, this was a couple of years ago and hopefully I've improved somewhat since then. For me the biggest challenge is leaving things unsaid, or points un-countered. I tend to feel a need to reply to every sentence with several of my own in reply. This tends to inevitably spiral down into quote tennis that grows exponentially in detail and complexity - especially when reciprocated.

I've tried adapting my approach to just quoting the general post and merely remembering the sequence of points I wanted to respond to, then doing so in a more general way, but I was immediately criticized for this approach too, compelling me back to the quote tennis approach. I'm still working on ways to be less redundant and get my message across briefly.

Any pointers? 

Thanks again for your feedback, both of you.


The Founder

[Ait]

H'mm.  I think for me, when I debate, I tend to focus on the key ideas and points in someone's post.  That involves summarizing in my head the 'gist' of what someone said.  Then, I try to focus on what I can do to achieve my goal, which is usually getting across my own 'gist' to someone else and being persuasive about it.

As I'm sure you know, replying to every single point gets both counter-productive and tedious after a while, so you have to learn which points are important ones and which are periphery and not important to what you're trying to accomplish.  By the same token, which explanations/metaphors/etc are important to making your case, and which are just tangents or superfluous or preaching.  This really only comes with practice, unfortunately.

I think.. also be open to tailoring your approach.  Be flexible.  You say you keep changing your overall debating tactics because of criticism, but maybe instead of changing your overall tactic, you should change your tactic on an individual basis when dealing with that particular person/group.  With some people, verbosity may be a plus.  With others, conciseness is best.  With some, you need to cover every possible angle.  Others just want to get to the point.  Get a feel for the way the other person is arguing, and follow their lead.  When I'm in a debate with someone who's making sentence-long replies, all they'll get from me is sentence-long replies.  When I'm debating someone who writes paragraphs, I'll write paragraphs.  Formality gets formality, informality gets informality, etc.  The other person will always show you what sort of effort they're willing to put in, both in making their own response and in reading yours.  If they're not willing to write much, why would they be willing to read much?  Tailor your approach to the person; with this guy, I would have kept it short and simple and quick because that's what he was doing, and tried to prove him wrong about critics by example, my example.

I think that you unwittingly sabotaged yourself in the very beginning when you said you weren't going to pick up a book without being pre-informed, because he later said that's the exact kind of attitude he dislikes about critics.  At that point, he saw you as another example of a bad critic and wasn't going to give you the time of day.  It was your turn to get him off the defensive and prove him wrong, but you did not.  [If you want me to explain that further, let me know.  I don't want to start rambling in a caffeine-induced incoherent way right now..]

[*]

and you are?

[Fox]

and you are?

The artist formerly known as spiritgurl13 from the olden days   

[*]

oh...okay.

[Ait]

Dammit, Fox!  I was trying to keep her confused a little while longer!  It was becoming hilarious.

[Psssst- Laudrin- If you went and checked where you first asked me who I am, you'd have known by now. ]

[Hal]

i've known this for a long time now.. founder.. you write too much.. as the saying goes these days 'no need for 50 paragraphs'

contemplate that for a while..

no, no, NO, dont even try to defend your constitution.. lay it all out in the open.. youre fucking DEAD.. you can't write away you're salvation.. you have to dumb it all down now.. like pet0r.. now you sleep..

it's better this way..

[The Founder]

Thanks for your advice, Ait. I'll work at tailoring my approach, though I tend to be quite static and methodocal in these things.

I think that you unwittingly sabotaged yourself in the very beginning when you said you weren't going to pick up a book without being pre-informed, because he later said that's the exact kind of attitude he dislikes about critics.  At that point, he saw you as another example of a bad critic and wasn't going to give you the time of day.  It was your turn to get him off the defensive and prove him wrong, but you did not.  [If you want me to explain that further, let me know.  I don't want to start rambling in a caffeine-induced incoherent way right now..]

You may be right, however it was intrinsic to my argument that I make a case explaining why those he calls critics do not blindly choose to read such material. I can see that I should have gone straight with the third party approach (the crazy man who thinks the moon is made of cheese argument) rather than explaining that I was in that position.

i've known this for a long time now.. founder.. you write too much.. as the saying goes these days 'no need for 50 paragraphs'

contemplate that for a while..

no, no, NO, dont even try to defend your constitution.. lay it all out in the open.. youre fucking DEAD.. you can't write away you're salvation.. you have to dumb it all down now.. like pet0r.. now you sleep..

it's better this way..

I'll..... try to bear that in mind.

Clearly I do need to work at being more consice - if anyone has any suggestions on how I could rephrase any of my arguments to make them more simple then please by all means show me.

Coming up next, a more recent debate as requested by Ait.


The Founder

[The Founder]

Okay. here we have a more recent debate - and again I use the term lightly, it's really more of a brief exchange of ideas than an actual debate.

This time I cross swords with AronRa, a very popular Atheistic Youtuber who has made many videos explaining the misunderstandings in creationist arguments and applying science and logic to matters of the religious and spiritual. He has a HUGE following (over 30,000 subscribers), his Youtube channel can be found here.

I was very fortunate to get a moment of his time, when I responded to a video he did on Buddhism, so I decided to run with it and offered some observations I had made about another of his videos, in which he argues that belief in the paranormal is superstitious and unscientific. During the course of this video he mentions that he had performed an experiment in his youth to test the validity of Astral Projection, and this test was passed to his satisfaction. Yet, he makes it clear that he no longer believes.

I was again honoured to have him respond to my comment and open up a short dialogue on the matter. I do admire that no matter how popular he gets on Youtube, this man works very hard to respond to as many comments as he can. I intended to make the most of it.


Me
  
I find your perspective fascinating, AronRa, I like how you're capable of questioning your beliefs, even when it feels ugly. Something that particularly interests me though, is the experiment with Astral projection you performed.

Now, maybe I missed something, or couldn't make something out, but it seems to me that your friend apparently passed your experiment to your satisfaction. While far from being conclusive proof, do you maintain that Astral Projection is false, in spite of this evidence?


AronRa

There were a few problems with astral projection -to say nothing of the lack of any supportive explanation for it. I was never able to adequately experiment with it myself, and everyone else I know who says they did -gave contradictory descriptions which were fanciful at best, and couldn't all be true at the same time. Worst of all, my mentor in that no longer believes in it herself and laughs at me for believing her then. How else could I respond to that?



Me
  
To paraphrase you, I would argue that belief - or lack thereof is irrelevant, even hers. Only evidence counts.

I don't know how to drive, if I tried to drive I would fail, my not being able to do it is not proof that it cannot be done.

Descriptions are subjective, especially when dealing with a matter that happens through perception, and could therefore feel different for everyone.

What matters is the evidence. You performed an experiment, and you said the results were satisfactory, correct?
  
Not having an explanation for it is a hurdle certainly, but at the same time, it's also not a reason to conclude it is false. I may not have an explanation for how my computer works, but I can observe that it does.

If you observed satisfactory evidence that Astral projection is real, even if you don't understand how it works, then at the very least it would surely be a leap of faith to conclude that it's false.

Accepting the evidence comes first, understanding what's happening is what follows.


AronRa

It was interesting, but inconclusive. Worst of all it couldn't be repeated or tested for consistency.



Me

You're absolutely right, it is inconclusive - as much as any subjective concept would be like the existence of consciousness.

I suppose it can't be repeated, especially if she no longer practices, and even then not dependably. Although, I would argue that what you did, *does* constitute a test.

However, all of this gives you sufficient reason to doubt it - not to conclude it is false. Hence my original question. Given your witnessing satisfactory evidence, do you still conclude that?


AronRa

My previous belief was based on other evidence which also happened to be exposed as fraud. Without that, there was no longer sufficient evidence to even grant the benefit of the doubt anymore.


Me
  
While I grant you that the event described in this video isn't sufficient reason to *believe* in Astral projection (whatever other evidence that convinced you of this not withstanding) what I am asking you is; considering that you have experienced *some* evidence, albeit not conclusive- can you in good conscience hold the opinion that the practise is false?

Note I said opinion this time because I don't want to get into the whole negative conclusion cheap shot that spiritualists tend to rely on.


AronRa

Having neither precedent nor parallel, nor any evidence indicative of this conclusion, nor any proposed explanation that is plausible, and considering also the inconsistent claims, potential delusion and already known frauds involved, I can only conclude that there is insufficient evidence to even seriously consider the apparently remote possibility.


Me

So, allow me to summarize:

1. You set up an unbiased experiment to prove the truth behind a belief.

2. This test was passed to your satisfaction.

3. Your conclusion is that the belief should not even be considered.

I remind you of the thing I admire most about you, the fact that you are capable of questioning your preconceptions, even when it feels ugly - or unpopular.

I may be missing something, but it is my understanding that a scientist must "consider" all possibilities.
  
Your test wasn't sufficient to conclude that the ability is genuine, not by a long shot. But when we're discussing what you would "consider", that's a different matter isn't it?

Now, I already addressed how lack of an explanation isn't a reason to make your mind. And some things, such as consciousness, are inherently subjective and therefore inconsistent. And even things that DO exist in reality can be simulated by fraud and delusion.

So these are not reasons to decide something is not true.
  
I guess the real point I'm trying to make is this:

You went looking for evidence for or against something. You found it. Yet you now seem to suggest that you are decided *against* that possibility, using reasons that could be applied to any other field of science and would still not merit such a conclusion.

When a man performs an experiment and fails to accept the conclusion, does not that indicate some form of bias? I've watched with admiration as you take on others for that kind of reasoning.
  
So my only point is to refresh your attention to the fact that it was, as you described, "interesting".

This is the same conclusion that many scientists and skeptics have reached during studies and peer review of psychic experimental data, namely because it feels wrong or an abandonment of science to concede anything further.

But if the result is *interesting*, that is, itself, worthy of further consideration. As such, I just find your conclusion that it may not be considered to be premature.



AronRa

Yes certainly, when an experiment fails, if one cannot accept the obvious indication, I would consider that a bias, yes. If I were that way, I would still believe in astral projection despite all its subsequent failures, and I would cling to that just because that one possible coincidence seemed compelling at the time. But obviously that's not good enough to go on anymore.

Have you never heard Sagan say that "Postive claims require positive evidence, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? Well, here we have a truly extraordinary claim. But the evidence to support it is insufficient to support even a trivial claim. Now having failed to gather anything better than that, my conclusion is that I haven't anything further to go on, and the associated frauds imply that I shouldn't have taken it as far as I did. What other conclusion could I draw?


Me

Although I personally would probably not give up at that point, I certainly respect and concur with your conclusion that there is no evident reason to continue your investigation.

I completely agree with this. However my original question was "Do you maintain that it is false" - and that is quite different to the conclusion you just described.

Even more so is it different to your previous response, that seemed to suggest that there was essentially absolutely no room for consideration.


AronRa

My initial success showed that this was a possibility warranting further examination, and I was very excited about that. However its subsequent (and disappointing) failure on every level demanded reconsideration.


Me
  
I see, thanks for clarifying.

Would it be an imposition to ask what that examination entailed? And do you have any other explanation for the initial success?

Building a house of cards could analogize my aim here. We've all built one, and we know that you more often fail than succeed. Some people may never.

So if, in the pursuit of proof that it can be done, I find that I and others repeatedly fail to succeed, this could give a deceptive conclusion. Even a fluke is cause for consideration.


AronRa

My examination included my own experiments of course. It also demanded the cooperation of another, who was only successful to any degree once and one time only. That could be attributed to coincidence if not conspiracy too. My friend certainly could have clued her. But my examination also included research of literature and interviews with others making similar claims. Sadly there was nothing consistent about any of it, and a lot of it were obviously flights of deliberate fancy.


Me
  
Far be it for me to question your metholody, but some things I don't understand. I appreciate the need for literature and interviews for background info on the matter you're investigating, but surely those things don't count as evidence?

Consider I were to research dreams, and interviewed people, only to find their dreams were all inconsistent with one another, and the results of researching literature vary greatly. What matters is the evidence that they happen, not the individual experience.
  
As for the "flights of fancy".

I remember some years ago I was debating about one of Randi's test handlers. The point I was making was this handler was judging people by how extraordinary their claims were, then dismissing them unfairly. In response to each example, my opponent reiterated what that person's claim was and acted as though that somehow makes his case. The fact is, it doesn't matter if something sounds fanciful, what matters is the evidence. I certainly hope you considered that.
  
I don't know how many tests you performed with this person who achieved one hit, but for the sake of argument let's say you attempted it 5 times. (<--I meant to say 50) I would expect the one occasion you got a hit must have been pretty significant for it to meet your standards. So that's one definite hit out of fifty, or 2%.

If we looked at this as a statistic, assuming you were to get the same results consistently, this comes out higher than the success rate for the FDA approval requirements of many medicines.


AronRa

I consider that anything that really exists has properties. That means that if I and others are really looking at something real, there has to be some commonality between our observations, some sort of consistency that we can analyze. There just wasn't in this case. But I still had to find that out by examining all these other claims first.


Me

I agree that everything real has properties, however one property of the human mind is subjectiveness. If someone were hypothetically colour-blind with no detriment to their vision, say, by seeing the colours red and green reversed- this would be proven by looking at the eye, not their perspective, which we have no way of knowing.

I acknowledge that there is no "eye" equivalent to look at in things like AP. But then, if you have no way of knowing you're colour blind, why would you try?
  
To that end I feel that extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims is an unrealistic standard, though I do not contest its fairness.

Consider, if something is so extraordinary, it must also be extraordinarily hard to repeat, control, and to test. It is therefore only in very long term correlations, that can factor out this unreliability, that you begin to see the proof.

Nevertheless, I thank you for the honour of your time and this opportunity to discuss this matter with someone rational.




He did not respond; but I can hardly consider that a retreat from the debate. As I said I was lucky to get all the time I did with him, if he were to respond to each comment he gets on his videos it would be a full time job.


Conclusion.

All in all this was a fair, civil debate. He was a delight to talk to and was patient enough to wade through whatever redundancies I used to get to the heart of the matter. I was disconcerted that I needed to repeat my points a couple of times - with him choosing to respond but not to address them. This is often the behaviour of people who are too set in their own beliefs to face a logical counterargument, however he more or less got there in the end.

The result of the discussion is, in my mind, a kind of stalemate that draws attention to a weakness in metaphysics that I have been writing about for years. Suffice to say, everything AronRa said is perfectly true and fair. Neither I nor anyone else can expect someone to devote time and resources to studying something which, at a glance, appears to bear no fruit.

He had successes in his experiments, and of course failures. He is willing to write off both successes as either unexplained coincidence or deception; and that's fair enough. However the same could be said of any controversial scientific experiment which appears to be successful - and this is why I believe correlation is the best form of evidence in any field. He wasn't willing to make that leap, and fair enough, there's nothing wrong with that.

As long as the conclusion one comes to, reflects the limitations of the experiment. He should no more be able to speculate that AP is obviously fake after a limited study, than anyone else should claim it is true. As I explained, the popular saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is absolutely fair, but incomplete.

Extraordinary claims, also require extraordinary circumstances. And these cannot always recreated at our own convenience.

To summarize, he is not wrong about his methodology or his choice not to continue pursuing the tests, but his conclusion? That's open to interpretation.


What I learned.

Time and time again I find that the problems between science and metaphysics arrives at this same stalemate. Why should scientists waste their time trying to prove something that at least appears to consistently fail? Yes, there are plenty of explanations for such failures, which I will be getting into in my upcoming articles - but we can't blame the SCIENTISTS for not wanting to waste time and money trying to get past this.

What I learned from this is simple; it is one of life's cruel tricks that sometimes a circumstance arises in which everyone can do everything the right way, and the wrong thing still happens. There's no one to blame, no one to accuse of close-mindedness, it's just a sad reality of life. These things often get figured out with time, through chance discovery or revolution, but as it stands, it would be unreasonable to criticize those who appear to disprove the paranormal, even using inadequate testing standards - when we have no better alternatives to offer.

This stalemate is something that must be accepted, and the study of metaphysics taken down new routes, before we can expect any progress to be made in this volatile relationship. This, I shall endeavour to help achieve to the best of my ability. If anything this conversation has highlighted the urgent need for such a thing, and reminded me that we cannot blame those who stick to their guns too stubbornly.

After all, at least they know their guns work.


The Founder

[*]

how is that cruel?
Who told you that life was gonna be nice?
They lied....its hard for those you cherish the bittersweet and you do. Thats not to say that you enjoy any of it...more that normal life would bore you to death.

Maybe there just isnt a scientific reasoning........

[Fox]

I'm not sure how much time I have to spend on this, but I can say I'm very interested in the progression - even if at the end of it all that comes out of it is everyone learning something about how to debate better.

What I said before about being a disinterested/passive narrative, and pretty much everyone's mentioned it in a round about way, is your wordiness. It really does detract from your debating skills; I know a lot of it is probably you trying to 'continue the debate,' but the two extracts you've posted thus far clearly show that you're trying to extract information, in some form or another, from the other party. Now, that is true; you're trying to find out what they believe and so on and so forth - but you're not really getting the full deal because you're not getting them to open up to you.

As an analogy, you wouldn't walk up to someone you wanted to talk to on the street and say:

You: Hey, I'm The Founder. I'm from somewhere in somplace, I fix ironing boards for a living, I drive a Honda from 2003, my mother has a cat named cecil and the guy who lives across the road from me is called Guy and likes to surf in his spare time. Yeah, he's even got a little beach hut in somewheresville and its kinda nice.

Because that person is probably going to say something along the lines of

Him/Her: Oh. Thats.. nice.

As opposed to giving you what it is you need. The first thing you need to do is get rid of 'if a scientist does this..' 'so what you're saying is..' etc.

You're targetting, it seems to me, people who have their mind made up one way or another; they don't want to hear what the scientific method dictates, or that the burden of proof for universal acceptance is this or that. You've got to decide whether you're observing the interviewed or enlightening them. If its the former as you've suggested, you need to get rid of all the standard arguments on objectivism and break the ice by making them feel as though they are completely correct, and you have something more to offer them on their chosen path. After you've gained rapport with them you can start grilling them - but until that time, you've got to accept that they aren't invested enough to take more time out of their schedule to answer your questions.

The important thing that means for you, is it ruins your results.

[The Founder]

You're absolutely right; looking back I can see that in the course of that debate I was putting too much emphasis on trying to make *him* see the flaws in his attitude, and not enough on simply allowing him to make the mistakes and then stepping back so you guys can see it for yourselves.

Now, it has to be said that I do need to try to get my point across to some degree, even if my opponant is unwilling to be reasonable (which I feel was not the case with AronRa), since that is of course the whole point of the project. However I should learn to simply make my point and allow him to reply, instead of making my point in three different ways then sending it via telegram with a wax stamp and a certificate of authenticity.

I didn't think I was anywhere near as wordy in this latest debate as the previous one, but if you feel it was still too much I shall have to work on compressing my case a little better in future. If you have any suggestions on how I could rephrase things, please share them. Although, be forewarned, most of the debates I have archived waiting to be posted took place before I had started to work on this flaw, so there are some chunky discussions ahead.

I hope we can weather them and get around to making some progress.

Thanks for your reply!


The Founder

[The Founder]

This next debate is another recent one, figured I would keep things balanced by using a spiritualist debate from the same general time frame as the last one. In this debate I’ll be taking on a creationist, one who posted a comment (that I initially took to be a legitimate question) on a video about the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. Though before we begin I want to make a few things clear.

Firstly, I am not going to be making a big habit of picking on creationists. The reason, although this should be obvious, is that they are too easy prey and give an unfair impression of spirituality. Creationists have all too often been the ambassadors representing metaphysics, mainly because they are the most publically outspoken, and fundamentally stupid enough to get noticed above all others for their comedic value alone.

I could easily fill up the entire spiritualist side of this series with Creationist debates just to show these people up, and it would certainly be entertaining enough; but that would not serve my purpose very well because as a general rule these people do not represent metaphysics or those who believe in it. It’s easy to focus on the flaws of the individual, rather than sticking to the facts. This is a flaw all too often perpetrated by the pseudo-skeptical, and I would like to avoid that pitfall.

However, my resorting to this particular debate has brought to my attention an alarming fact that may compromise my work in this field, and that is that there just aren’t anywhere near as many useful debates  with spiritualists in my holster as there are debates with skeptics. The reason being, debating with spiritualists is largely redundant, every argument I could make has been done a thousand times before by skeptics. However there is almost no one out there informed and patient enough to take on the skeptics in the same way.

So in the process of my research I see spiritualist arguments getting torn apart to such an ad nauseum level that I just have no interest in making those same tired points myself when it comes to debating. Although I do need examples of the misunderstandings and mistakes being made on both sides, I tend to gravitate more towards debating skeptics purely because I find them to be more fulfilling arguments. This is something I am going to have to rectify, as I do intend to continue this system of alternation between skeptic and spiritualist in my debates.

A final point I need to bring to your attention, and I’ll make it quick honest Please bear in mind that I do not claim in any way to be an expert in the field I am about to debate. And if anyone notices any glaring flaws in my argument I wholly apologize for my ignorance, and I am more than willing to be educated to fill the gaps in my knowledge. This debate is merely a laymen correcting a very misinformed individual on some very basic points, but there is also a lot of guess work and conjecture in there because honestly I just wasn’t qualified to define some of the things I was discussing.

With that, I leave you to savour my frustrated arguments, or spit them out at the discretion of your discerning, yet critical tastes.

*Names have been changed to protect the intellectually inept.


Creationist 

What would colliding particles have to do with a "big bang"? Are they trying to use a "big crash" to prove a "big bang"? What crashed together to start the "big bang"? Where did the energy come from that started this "crash" or "bang"?


Me

The collision of the protons in the LHC may release unique energies and radiations that may only have previously been present at the start of the cosmic expansion (aka big bang).

Think of it like this... if we wanted to simulate the heat generated in the sun, we could either try to make an entire sun, or use focussed lasers to heat up a single point to that temperature.

This is basically a highly focussed simulation of some of the factors in the big bang but in a very small area.


Creationist 

Sorry but you haven't explained anything. You've only perpetuated all the assumptions. In your own words your said; "MAY only HAVE previously been present". it doesn't matter what particles or energy are produced measured with the LHC, it doesn't prove a "big band" it only proves that they smashed something together and got a result from the smash. There's nothing there that can connect it to a "big bang".


Me

It's not an attempt at "proving" the big bang, it's an attempt at *understanding* it. Cosmic expansion is a fact, we know this because it's still going on, the "big bang" isn't something that happened, it's happenING.

Everything in the universe, even space itself, is all flying away from a single point, a massive burst that basic physics tells us must have certain properties.

The LHC emulates some of those properties so we can get a closer look at them and understand them better.


Creationist 

Expansion is a theory as well as the "big bang theory". So please excuse me if I don't except it as fact. All is based on assumption. So yes it is an attempt to prove "big bang" theory in a since.

Speaking of expansion
If I were on another "planet" in a galaxy in the far reaches of the universe and I were looking back in the direction of the Earth in my own version of the hubble, tell me, what do you think I would see?


Me

No, expansion *theory* is a theory. What the theory attempts to do is explain the observed *fact* of expansion. Just like gravity, the *theory* of gravity is an attempt to explain the *fact* that it exists. These theories can be wrong, indeed there are conflicting theories about gravity, but the facts can't.

Understanding the difference between an observation and a theory that attempts to explain it is very important. You need to recognize that expansion is observation, NOT theory.

Also, I can't answer your question because you didn't stipulate a distance. Hubble has a very limited range despite being highly advanced, someone at "the far reaches of the universe" using their own Hubble would likely be unable to even make out our galaxy (assuming there wasn't something else in the way to block their sight of our galaxy in the first place that is).


Creationist 

What the heck does not being able to see galaxy have to do with what I said. The would be plenty other galaxies around to see.


Me

You said looking back in the direction of earth. I assumed you were asking if you would be able to see Earth or our galaxy from there.

Either way, I can't say with any certainty what you would see from there, it would take a complex universe model to extrapolate such a thing and the universe is not so well charted I think at this point to make such an estimation.

Suffice to say you would likely see plenty of other stars, galaxies, planets and nebulas from that vantage point.


Creationist 

I agree to disagree on expansion.
1) What exploded?
2) Where did the energy to explode it come from?
3)How can something explode into a region that is nothing.
4)Even if it did explode into a region of nothing how is it that it is still expanding into that nothingness.
All of these things need to be addressed or you have no complete theory, much less a fact.
LHC is just a giant expensive toy for egg heads.


Me

I'll try to answer each of your questions in separate posts. So please bear with me and wait for me to finish before replying.

I also ask that you be more open-minded, you've clearly already come into this with your mind made up. Have some respect for science. Science is what allows us to have this conversation, and in all likelihood you already owe your life to it many times over.

The experts know what they're doing, and we need to be properly educated before we have the right to criticize.

1) - 2)

If this information is required before we can "have a complete theory", then by the same standard, we need to understand absolutely everything about the brain before we can theorize that it is where our intelligence resides.

Cosmic expansion is not a theory on how the universe began, or what precipitated it. Cosmic expansion is a phenomenon wherein we can observe that the universe has exploded from a single point. The theory attempts to explain the expansion, not the preceding cause.

So just as with the brain analogy, not having all the data on something doesn't mean the data you *do* have has no value. There's no bias in observation, we don't need to be forwarding an agenda (such as speculating on what started expansion) in order to observe the expansion itself. You're the one assigning this motive, not science.

So for the theory on expansion being studied by the LHC, the actual beginnings of the universe are irrelevant. It's no more a part of that theory than evolution is.

3)

Expansion is not an explosion of material *into* a spatial region, expansion is an explosion *of* space. Understanding this distinction is very important. Space itself is being created by the big bang and creating the void which matter is filling, the entire thing is self-contained so there is no concept of "outside" the explosion, because space would not exist outside it, and therefore there would *be* no outside of it.

We're not expanding *into* a region, we are an *expanding region.*

4)

Same answer. We're not expanding to occupy a space, what's happening is the fabric of space is growing. Picture a slightly limp balloon with many dots drawn on it, now picture inflating it. The distance between the dots increases, not just because they're moving, but because the space between them is actually lengthening.

The *reason* we're still expanding is because the big bang is still happening, we're all riding on the inertia of that explosion as is space itself, this is the expansion.

You need to remember that facts are observable, theories are the conjecture. There's no such thing as a 100% proven theory in science because there could always be something we never knew about that turns everything on its head. Thus the only factual things are what we observe.

What we can observe is that the universe is for some reason expanding from a single point, the explosiong (Explosiong? o_@) is factual because we see it. The LHC is an attempt to better understand that explosion by simulating it closely.


Creationist 

You need to remember your facts are only self evident. They mean nothing to me.
"because there could always be something we never knew about" this is the crux of the argument, you will admit there could be something besides what you think to be true as long as it fits into your perceived idea of the universe. That is not science, real science would allow for anything to be possible, not just what you choose to label as scientific.


Me

"You need to remember your facts are only self evident. They mean nothing to me"

Exactly! Facts *are* self evident. They do not *have* any intrinsic meaning, either to you or anyone else. If an apple falls from a tree in front of you, that is a fact. What caused it, that's what you apply speculation to.

The fact that science is not so arrogant as to claim it can never be wrong is not a weakness, so pointing out that every theory is falsifiable proves that they're *good* science.


Creationist 

LOL, sounds liek yo uread this straight out of a book. There is absolutely no proof of this balloon analogy. It's a theory.


Me

No... **sigh** you don't get "proof" for an analogy..

..jesus christ...

Ok, look, the balloon thing is an example to simplify the expansion of space in a way that you can relate to easier. The expansion of space is observable fact, it isn't a theory because it doesn't need a theory.

It's like saying "It's only a theory that the apple fell from that tree just now". The theory is the *explanation*, not the observation. Why can't you understand this, I've explained it several times?


Creationist 

Just because you think someone doesn't understand a particular thing doesn't make you argument fact. That's a little arrogant don't you think? The rest of this is nothing but speculation.

Me

You're putting words in my mouth, I never said my "argument" is fact because I'm not *making* an argument. Nevertheless, the fact that you don't understand this matter and yet already have made up your mind against it is indicative that you are guilty of the arrogance you accuse me of

I'm explaining the difference between theory and fact, while not *having* a theory or opinion of my own.

You are attempting to prove a theory must be wrong Without understanding it.

So which of us is arrogant?


Creationist 

I never said the LHC was studying expansion, that is part of your argument not mine.

Of course it matters what was before the "bang" you only say it is irrelevant because you refuse to accept that there could be another alternative. You can throw out theories, assert your opinions, try to dismiss everything with different kinds of analogies but in the end you will have to accept that there are other possibilities. Simply denying it doesn't make it go away.


Me

You're misunderstanding my case. I'm not refusing to accept an "alternative" because I'm not accepting anything for there to be an alternative TO. There is no theory relevant to the LHC or cosmic expansion which has anything to do with what happened to CAUSE expansion.

I don't *know* what caused it, I don't have an opinion on what caused it because there is no evidence, no observable facts on which to speculate about such a thing. The LHC is about studying the *expansion* itself.


Creationist 

The purpose of the LHC is to try and capture the moments just after the "big bang". I've heard this from the scientist's own mouths. This implies a "big bang", never mind expansion. Expansion doesn't bother me, what bothers me is to say expansion is proof of a "big bang" when it is not. It may appear to be proof but appearances can be deceptive. But I predict, what ever they find they will use it as proof, when it cannot be proof. Collision doesn't equal "big bang"


Me

First of all, the phrase "big bang" was a pejorative term invented by proponents of the steady state universe model in order to make fun of the expansion model when it was first conceived. Big bang and cosmic expansion mean the same thing.

Try to understand, the observable fact is that the entire universe is expanding -you just said this doesn't bother you. The universe is flying apart. The LHC simulates the moment just after this explosion first began -not what happened before it.

Now, while expansion theories do not offer an actual genesis theory, there are other theories out there (such as cosmic expansion triggered by an unstable super massive singularity or the higgs boson particle).

It is possible that the LHC might give us so much information about what the universe was like the instant after it started expanding, that we might be able to figure out if any of these theories are correct. But the only thing we can actually hope for is to learn as much as we can.

Moments after the expansion began, when the raw material of the universe was all still jammed together into one place having not yet flown very far apart, protons would have collided with each other as a part of the energetic reactions taking place at the time.

Now as I understand it, the LHC is designed to simulate those reactions, reactions that could only have previously taken place in that one instant at the start of time. There's nothing to "prove" with this, only things to understand.


Creationist 

“So just as with the brain analogy, not having all the data on something doesn't mean the data you *do* have has no value.”

Brains don't explode.
All you can observe is the current state of the universe, anything you derive from that is assumption/theory.

I could walk into a kitchen and see ketchup all over the walls the floor and the ceiling, am I to assume a bottle of ketchup exploded?


Me
 
As I said, expansion is the observation, expansion theory attempts to explain it. Yes it is assumption - well, speculation really, but so is all science. If we didn't make assumptions science would stop.


Creationist 

Well, I'm sorry you believe that fairy tale and have faith in it. but that does not make it scientific fact, it's only belief. You have to believe that the whole universe was jam packed into a infinitesimal dot then one day it exploded or what ever to get what you think to be true to work out in paper. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it fact. If it were fact there would be no argument about it.


Me
 
Your argument is inconsistent, you just said that you already don't have a problem with expansion. As I explained, it's observable fact that the universe is expanding away from a single point.

Something cannot expand if it was not once closer together. If you accept that the universe is expanding then you also accept that it was once *less* expanded, and that's all that I'm saying.

Belief doesn't enter into it, I don't have any opinions on what caused expansion one way or another.

I also made it perfectly clear that the singularity theory is *separate* from the expansion theory.

There is no way of knowing with the data that we have how expansion was initiated - all we can know for a fact is that it is expanding. The evidence indicates we're expanding apart from a single point but that doesn't necessarily mean that a singularity was at the root of it.

You're ignoring evidence you already conceded because you don't like the conclusion it leads to. That is *bad* science.


Creationist 

Hmm, This post is pretty much bases on the same assumption made in the last post.

"big bang" and expansion are not separate, they are joined at the hip.

Who is we?
What theories or equations did you come up with to explain expansion theory?
What telescope(s) have you built to study stars?
What measuring device(s) have you built to study the light spectrum?

This whole post is built on a fallacy. You need to re-read my post. It in no way implies that I accept expansion as fact, you assume it to mean I accept it. It does not bother me is because it in no way can be use as evidence of a 'big bang". And please stop denying you believe in "big bang" theory you cannot have an expansion with some sort of explosion or initial cause.


Me

Again, big bang and expansion are the SAME THING, I didn't say they're separate. The term big bang was used to describe the expansion theory. If you haven't even understood that, then you haven't been paying attention.

I don't have the funds, nor the interest frankly, to gather the means required to observe expansion, it takes a long time to do as we need sufficient time for bodies to drift apart in order to map the changes. Fortunately the experts do, and they offer the data freely.

Another contradiction.

"It does not bother me is because it in no way can be use as evidence of a 'big bang"."

"you cannot have an expansion with some sort of explosion or initial cause"

If, in your own words, expansion is automatic proof of an "explosion" (which is redundant, because expansion *is* explosion) then not having a problem with expansion equates to not having a problem with the explosion.

Also, I didn't deny the big bang because it's the same thing as expansion.


Creationist 

Making a statement does not imply agreement, unless the statement specifically points to an agreement. Try again.

Please answer the questions


Me
 
I didn't say you agreed, I said you have no problem with it. You're putting words in my mouth to accuse me of putting words in yours.

Ironic much?


Creationist

"I also made it perfectly clear that the singularity theory is *separate* from the expansion theory.
"


Creationist 

"If, in your own words, expansion is automatic proof of an "explosion" (which is redundant, because expansion *is* explosion) "
Who's putting words in who's mouth?


Me

Post 1:
I do not have a clue what you find confusing about the quoted passage.

Post 2:
First of all, the quote you supplied here is not what you were referring to when you accused me of putting words in your mouth; what you were referring to was me saying that you "accept" expansion - when in truth, I did not.

Secondly, that quote is an accurate paraphrase of what you said. You told me that you cannot have expansion without an explosion. Therefore, to you, explosion is proof of expansion.


Creationist 

I've stated throughout my post that I don't agree with expansion theory nor "big bang" theory, ((((even before the suppose examples you give))) go back and read. How could you possibly conclude any statement I've made afterwords point to me agreeing with "expansion' or 'big bang"?


Me

I'll tell you for the third time, I haven't said you agree with it. You told me that you don't have a problem with it, and that's all I've referenced.

The fact that I've had to repeat this triviality over and over implies you are being intentionally dishonest, trying to drag this debate in circles for fear of being wrong - I would like to believe that you're better than that.

I'll explain it again. Expansion is observable, it isn't a theory. Expansion theory attempts to explain it.

Also, I'll explain once more than expansion theory and "big bang" theory are the same thing.


Creationist 

LOL, ok, just escuse yourself from anythign you wish, anyone reading will see your attempt to twist what I said.

Yes, they are the same thing, they are theories. You cannot prove expansion is fact. The only thing you have to go on is others opinions of a picture of a red dot on a picture.


Me

Again, expansion is the observable fact, expansion theory is the attempt to explain it.

We can observe expansion happening in real time (albeit a long time) because the universe is still flying apart. Technically the only expansion we can prove is that which happened since we started to observe it and the present day, this is all that can be really considered observable; therefore factual.

Mathematical models take this information and retrace expansion to the start. This is theory.

So far he has not replied.



Conclusion.

You may have noticed that I was a little more devil may care in this debate (and the next one to come for that matter) this is because I was not planning for this to be one of my actual debates – it just kind of evolved that way from an innocent situation.

This individual’s characteristics were typical of his class, creationists tend to group together and share propaganda among themselves while never seeking any counterarguments, then come to the bizarre conclusion that there are no counterarguments. As a result they tend to have a very poor understanding of even basic science because they simply do not educate themselves, assuming instead that the misinformation they have been fed must be accurate.

I think the actual results of this debate pretty much speak for themselves, every time I proved one point he abandoned it without conceding and fixated on dragging another one along for a wild goose chase, and tenaciously held onto his misunderstandings (many of which seemed to be deliberate) even when they had been explained to him repeatedly because that’s pretty much all he had.

In the end all he could fall back on was dismissal and self-reinforcement. The frustrating thing is that he probably does genuinely believe that he was in the right, even though he was utterly incapable of proving (or for that matter even making) a single intelligible point. I would like to believe that some part of him recognized what he was doing. I do not see how I could have handled this debate any better, but if you do, please tell me.


What I learned.

It is important to remember that when you are dealing with faith-driven spiritualists, it is quite literally a fact that they are determined never to give any ground even if they are wrong, they have to be this way, their doctrine, their faith requires it. You can prove them wrong until they have no more arguments, but they will still insist they are right because their entire belief system – and often years of wasted devotion all depend on that insistence.

In my goal to bring science and metaphysics together, these are not the kinds of people I would ideally want involved. Blind faith in anything has no place in a scientific, or an open-minded world. However, it is necessary to point out the tactics made by these people if there is any hope at all of getting the less devout to recognize their own crude behaviour at work when reading these debates, and to make that all important decision to change.

And that’s what we need, if any progress is ever to be made, we need change. On both sides. If we’re not willing to change, we must accept being left behind. However, that also applies to you. It’s easy to sit there and judge, it’s easy for me, it’s easy for you. The hard part is being in this person’s shoes, carrying the burden of a lifetime of hard-held beliefs, and having the humility to accept that you could be wrong.

Can you do it?


The Founder

[Mars]

Are you familiar with the work of Rupert Sheldrake?

[Fox]

Are you familiar with the work of Rupert Sheldrake?

I just did a bit of Wikipedia level digging; it seems quite interesting and could potentially tie in well with what I've been doing recently.