Stand on a low chair or stool. You will feel a brief sense of acceleration as you are falling down. — EricH

Actually, in freefall you feel weightless. What you feel is some air resistance and then the floor hitting you.

As described in the article, Trump's term as president led to some striking cross-party unity among his opponents. Former officials of the Bush administration, and then Republican national security officials, came out in support of Biden's campaign, the latter being specifically concerned with foreign policy. — jamalrob

I think if you're conjecturing a conspiracy between enemies to explain unanimity in hatred of Trump, you're missing the blindingly obvious! :rofl:

As noted, Jacalyn Duffyn whose interest in these cases grew from her own expert testimony, found much evidence
— Wayfarer

This in no way constitutes broad concern and interest.
— Kenosha Kid

Says you. The facts remain, and they're directly relevant to the OP. — Wayfarer

If you're insisting that one single person's interest constitutes "broad interest", then I'm afraid our disagreements on the English language are rather fundamental, and an impediment to any meaningful conversation.

Then, it should, for that reason, accommodate religion. — TheMadFool

In the contrary, for that very reason it should not. It is precisely that theory must be falsifiable, testable, modifiable, or even rejectable, i.e. self-correcting, i.e. not a claim to perfect and eternal truths, that makes them scientific. To count a religion as such a theory would be to make a heinous category error.

If I must say anything at this point, it's that science, by its own admission, is tentatively right which is another way of saying it could be completely wrong. — TheMadFool

Well, it depends what you mean by "completely wrong". Newtonian gravity is good enough to wang a probe around the solar system and land it on an asteroid. I wouldn't say that it was "completely wrong" in that regard. But yes artefacts of models, such as the ether of electromagnetic theory, or Thompson's plum pudding model of atomic theory, were certainly wrong enough!

And these just the objects and tools of the science. I imagine every scientist worth the name has wondered where it all came from, but at the same time recognized there is no scientific approach to that question. — tim wood

Ultimately, that seems right. In terms of intermediate steps, the universe is our lobster, but we can't exactly kick of a universe and study it. The best we are likely to get is a compelling reason for one model over all others.

The usual account for the unaccountable is a god of some kind - and a convenient account it is! — tim wood

Among the religious, yes. It is not typical for scientists to ascribe the as-yet- unexplained to a god, especially in the last 100 years.

Historically the Christian God was in Western thinking what got science out of a darkness in bestowing on nature just that quality that made it a subject for science that it had lacked, a uniform and consistent determinateness - a quality of perfection. And ultimately this comes down to how a group of people look at something - their presuppositions. Basic, fundamental, absolute presuppositions run deep and do not easily change. Nor are they usually near the surface - they are what makes any surface possible. — tim wood

This is effectively saying that if the Christian God had never been believed in, we wouldn't have science. I think that extremely unlikely and another example, like miracles, of rending unto God that which is definitely not God's. I think what you're talking about is the popularisation of the deterministic (and therefore predictable in principle) universe.

I acknowledge, for instance, the importance of Christian scholars of Greek philosophy, but the fact that that was the course of history, it does not follow that that was the only factor nor that, had things been otherwise, we would not have taken a different path to the same route. Determinism underpins teleological modes of our thinking (if I do X, then Y shall follow), and technology is a great driver of science that has informally and indirectly encoded laws for tens of thousands of years. So long as people were erecting buildings and bridges, making vehicles, improving agriculture and manufacturing weapons for wars -- all of which were well underway long before JC appeared -- then science was working along deterministic lines even if it wasn't particularly well formalised. I think that formalisation and generalisation was an inevitable result of the importance of technology.

Lastly, a miracle is itself a suspension of deterministic natural law. So I further disagree that the universe of Christians bears all that much of a resemblance to that of science.

Within the science, the scientist denies the possibility of mystery — tim wood

There are many scientific mysteries. I think you mean miracles.

? I mean, if you're going to challenge the "perfect and eternal truth" of religion, does it seem reasonable to claim "perfect and eternal truth" yourself? — TheMadFool

But science doesn't present perfect and eternal truths. It is, by its nature, self-correcting and incomplete.

So, how does science know it's right? — TheMadFool

Empiricism. Scientific models are primarily tools for generating hypotheses -- predictions of specific experimental outcomes which may be tested and retested in a lab. Typically a model will assume the existence of an external reality that is the cause of such phenomena, but really you can replace this with whatever you like, including, as you say, God. For instance, if we assume that God causes every motion, then science is good at predicting what motions God will cause. If we assume that there is no external reality, only hallucinatory impressions for instance, then science is good at predicting hallucinations. The same model will work as well. That is the limit to which it can be considered 'right'; everything else is a belief.

Pardon the brain fart. — TheMadFool

We all get em!

Of course but take the religious perspective for a second and many scientific claims are false. :chin: — TheMadFool

Yes. Although the God hypothesis we suppose to be compatible with science would not have any criteria by which to assess. Those who believe the Bible to be a perfectly accurate, eternally true, literal description of historical facts, do have criteria: is it consistent with scripture? And that's when things get heated.

Then, the matter is settled, cut-and-dried, as they say, for you. You've already used the logos-mythos paradigm on the issue and labeled Christianity as a mythology. Good for you. — TheMadFool

This is following the supposed rejection of a literal, historical interpretation of perfect and eternal truth. The pseudo-historical aspects thus yielded would constitute a mythology, yes.

Perhaps, but look at from a best-case scenario viewpoint. If the religious believed that god created the universe, they have no reason at all to level criticism against science; after all, the raison d'etre of science is to understand the universe (creation). — TheMadFool

Yes, but like I said, the religious are not only defending the God hypothesis; they are defending specific historical narratives that *are* falsified by science.

Galileo did not uncover that God did not exist; he merely concluded that the Earth orbited the Sun. By your argument, the church should have been happy to know God's universe better, but they weren't because, above and beyond the God hypothesis, church dogma placed the Earth at the centre of the universe.

the phrase "scientific heresy" makes complete sense — TheMadFool

The phrase "scientific orthodoxy" or "scientific consensus" makes sense. I've never heard of "scientific heresy" and would describe any scientist employing it as histrionic at best.

The bottom line, is "creationist myths [that] are falsifiable" must exist in a framework of other assumptions, assumptions that may not be, you know, strong enough to provide sufficient support for the claim. Personally, I haven't tried it myself but I'm fairly certain that the trail of assumptions for the claims of science won't end in "happy place" if you know what I mean. — TheMadFool

I meant 'falsifiable' in precisely the same sense it is meant in meeting the criterion of scientific hypothesis. If we next have to undermine the basis of the falsifiability criterion, one can bypass most of this conversation entirely and just have one of those threads that pop up from time to time stating that science doesn't work, etc, in which case religion presumably has nothing to worry about.

I sense, slippery slope fallacy notwithstanding, a progression of the Bible's status from fact to fiction. — TheMadFool

I think it's more of a qualitative shift from logos to mythos, but yeah, that's the fate of all religions it seems. Nonetheless, while I wholeheartedly refute that Christianity is the foundation of science, it is the historical keystone of our moral superstructure. I think it will always be the most relevant mythology.

If god created the universe then, necessarily, all in it - matter, energy, the laws that govern them - are god's doing. — TheMadFool

Sure. But then it is the creationist that presupposes, not the scientist.

It appears then that, in this respect at least, the dissatisfied party is science - science is accusing religion of being non-scientific. Religion, on the other hand, can be said to be applauding the work of scientists in their efforts to understand god's laws. — TheMadFool

And yet historically the opposite is true. Even the new atheist movement was driven by the intolerance of religious zealots toward e.g. teaching science in science classrooms, or an insistence on teaching non-science *as science*.

Perhaps it is the tacit understanding that we will never know everything, that the God hypothesis, while having no scientific relevance, will never be falsified, which makes science disinterested in religion, while creationists who believe in the concept of blasphemy do have cause for upset when evidence contrary to *specific* creationist narratives is discovered.

Because that's the difference between what you're describing and what has typically occurred. You're describing a generic, non-detailed creationism that can absorb any scientific discovery and claim it for a god. What we actually have is specific creationist myths that are falsifiable even when the underlying motif -- the God hypothesis -- is not.

As noted, Jacalyn Duffyn whose interest in these cases grew from her own expert testimony, found much evidence — Wayfarer

This in no way constitutes broad concern and interest.

Is there any way to find common ground? A way out for those who, say, want to have the best of both worlds, so to speak? — TheMadFool

I think so. People have found wisdom in the stories of the Bible, particularly the teachings of Christ, without insisting on a literalist, historical interpretation that must be treated as perfectly and eternally true. To quote Monty Python, there's little to quarrel with Mr Christ about. The contention has historically arisen when science has discovered facts contrary to literalist interpretations of the Old Testament.

So I think it's a falsehood to claim that the Church denies or ignores science in these matters. — Wayfarer

In effect, it is obliged to interpret the action of medicine, along with the resilience of the human body, viz:

She had to be sick or dying despite receiving the best of care

and the function of medicine itself, viz:

medicine is just one more manifestation of God’s work on earth

as all part of the miracle.

I've cited one instance already where the church misrepresented the medical opinion of doctors to claim a recovery for their religion. One can do that all day, but the broader point stands in its stead: if these miracles pointed at recoveries despite the failures of medical science, they would be of broad concern and interest. As it happens, no one outside the church finds anything miraculous in such cases.

On which, and getting back to the point in hand, I guess I should qualify my earlier statement: miracles do not look like what scientific mysteries look like to scientists, the case of Teresa being a perfect and usefully recent example.

Half of the country is excited of Trump leaving. That's for sure. But come February 2021, just few months from now, that isn't the focus anymore. Then the fact is that Biden has to pick up from the situation that Trump has left the US.

Before that btw, we'll see an epic lame duck period with the last days of the Trump presidency. — ssu

Agreed.

Not agreed their presuppositions, the basic axioms of their thinking, were modern in any sense. — tim wood

I never said otherwise.

Agreed monotheism is much older than 2,000 years. Agreed the world was the world. Agreed there have always been people who tried to understand the world. Not agreed their presuppositions, the basic axioms of their thinking, were modern in any sense. — tim wood

Doesn't add up to: scientists presuppose a god.

And if you do not think most scientists believe in - presuppose - god in some sense, then what do they believe in? Turtles all the way down? — tim wood

This might astonish you, but the choice isn't God or turtles. In fact, those are both wrong answers based on ignorance to quite different questions.

Monotheism - Christianity - changed that in supposing nature made by God, therefore perfect and a proper subject for a universal science. Science, then, presupposes God in that science presupposes one and only one set of rules. — tim wood

That doesn't follow. Even if Christians were the first monotheists (they weren't), and the first scientists (they weren't), the universe existed for scientific study whether some people first claim it as the work of their god or not. Certainly now, whatever the history of Christianity or science, scientists do not presuppose the existence of God in order to study the universe.

[

Not actually.

As you can observe from even this Forum, there's not much genuine excitement for Biden as there was when Obama came into power. Excitement breeds loyal following. Trump's thing was to be outrageous. Not the thing that people who voted for Biden want from Joe. I assume the only thing that his voters will give him slack if he gets more senile in public appearances and speaking, but not on the policy decisions the administration as a whole makes. — ssu

It's difficult to pin down exactly which parts of this are relevant to what you quoted. While there does seem to be plenty of excitement (don't get your news from internet forums), I feel like people are much less excited by the prospect of Biden than by ridding themselves of Trump. Either way, the point of what you quoted had nothing to do with people's feelings about the election; it was a reaction to hearing a president who can speak eloquently, humbly, respectfully, reasonably and positively after four years of hateful verbal diarhhoea, before remembering that actually used to be expected.

Forget miracles for a moment and consider the fact that, if I'm correct, scientists thought/think of themselves as involved in an enterprise which they affectionately describe as reading the mind of god. — TheMadFool

Some individual scientists have, because science does not close its doors to the religious, and the religious see natural law as the will of God. Speaking as a lapsed physicist, I can vouch that this is an atypical view of what science is about in my experience.

extraordinary, scientists see god in the ordinary, the so-called laws of nature. What's the deal here? I mean if both the ordinary and the extraordinary can be interpreted as having divine origins how do we disprove the existence of god? A classic case of eating the cake and having it too! — TheMadFool

Yes, it's a hugely circular argument. If both X and ~X are support the same argument, the argument can be dismissed as not meaningful.

I still think it would be smarter to simply wait until a deciding state officially announces a winner. Hey, it'll make for a longer party! — Hippyhead

Agreed, I can't see the purpose in not waiting until it's unambiguous.

But why be fancy pants about it? Why not just wait until all the votes are counted? — Hippyhead

On the one hand, some states might be prematurely called on the basis of modelling that might well be excellent, but not 100% certain; on the other hand you can be 100% certain of the winner without waiting for all the votes. You seem to be using the former as an argument against the latter. Even if we had the stringent condition of 100% certainty, we still don't need to wait for every vote, we merely need to wait until one person's lead exceeds the uncounted votes.

Is Hitchens' definition too stringent? After all, it makes a nigh impossible demand - that our knowledge of the laws of nature is both complete and accurate. Is it possible to know that we know everything there is to know? Thereby hangs a tale. I wish to discuss that if you're game? — TheMadFool

Well, let's compare:

if a cup broken into pieces suddenly reassembles and becomes whole again or your long-dead grandfather whose ashes you personally disposed off in the ocean appears at your front doorstep, that would be a bona fide miracle. — TheMadFool

with things that, historically, science couldn't explain but now can, such as the blackbody radiation spectrum, or the stability of the atom, or the orbit of Mercury, or the cause of radiation, or how and why children inherit characteristics of their parents, or how and why lightning occurs, why winds blow, etc., etc. Most of these have not been considered miracles, merely the scientific mysteries I mentioned earlier. Some, like weather phenomena, might have been considered the will of a god, but not the will of a human fulfilled by a god (a miracle).

Scientific mysteries -- the holes you refer to in our understanding of natural law -- are not like miracles because they are generally true, we just don't know why. Miracles on the other hand are specific instances of specific people's desires being manifest by specific gods; as such, they are as good as their historical evidence.

And the problem with historical evidence for miracles is threefold: first, the event is almost always claimed rather than demonstrated (i.e. there is no evidence that the event ever took place); second, that the miracle worker in question is responsible for that event can never be established; third, that the means by which the actor achieved the event is often miraculous only nominally (i.e. it was perfectly possible for the actor to bring about the event without divine assistance).

Which brings us to the other obvious difference between a scientific mystery and a miracle, which Wayfarer has kindly brought into the conversation:

However there is actually a data set for miracle cures, or cures that seem to have been effected by prayers to Cathoic saints. Those are the records required for the beatification of saints in the church, and have been kept for centuries. The beatification process requires two bona fide, attributable miracles, and the process of obtaining those bona fides is extremely rigorous. — Wayfarer

The Vatican's criterion for recognising a miracle is that no natural explanation will do, which is problematic because the Pope is also the head of the church that insists that miracles occur at all. They are like a prosecuting attorney who really wants to be your defence attorney, and the judge and jury to boot. One would expect that, if the Vatican genuinely were this adept at spotting deviations from natural law, the scientific community would be racing to find natural explanations for these apparent miracles. But they don't.

One could interpret this as a 100% ubiquitous disdain for the Catholic church, a conspiracy of silence if you will, so as not to lend weight to archaic ideas. Or, more reasonably, one could conclude that the scientific community see nothing in these miracles worth investigating, and nothing in Vatican's CV that lends weight to their claims of breaches of natural law.

For example, one of Mother Teresa's alleged miracles is the cure of Monica Besra's cancer by placing a locket of Teresa on her breast. A witness claimed that light shone from the locket and eradicated the cancer, and that is the judgment of the Vatican. The judgment of medical science is quite different: Besra didn't have cancer at all, but a cyst caused by tuberculosis, for which she was medicated and treated by doctors for nine months prior to the cyst's eradication. It is a fortunate case of investigation and medicine -- two things forbidden by Teresa who left her worst patients in agony rather than allow them more than paracetamol -- working, which happens regularly enough to not merit attention.

Miracles are not like scientific mysteries and scientific mysteries are not like miracles. This is why imperfect knowledge, which may support and even incline people toward miraculous answers to mysterious questions, supports but does not explain miracles imo.

Ah, I see, was that the case in Pennsylvania? I was following it for awhile but perhaps didn't make it that far. — Hippyhead

Not quite. Biden's lead is 41K, the uncounted votes number 68K. The modelling is more sophisticated than that; for instance, the uncounted votes are postal and postal votes overwhelmingly skewed towards Biden (which is why Trump thinks they ought to be illegal); the majority of the uncounted votes are also in blue-leaning counties, etc. My point was just that you don't need to wait until every count is voted to know who won.

Just another reminder of how impatient we Americans are I guess. We just can't wait until the votes have actually been counted. — Hippyhead

Arizona was obviously premature, but when the remaining votes can't support one party, the other has won. That seems reasonable. If it's 100,000 to 80,000 and there are 15,000 votes remaining, you have the same winner no matter what those 15,000 votes say.

Don't you find it odd that the whole world is celebrating Biden's victory — Hippyhead

As Charlie Brooker said, it's like taking a crap after four years of constipation. Politics is international, and when the leader of the most powerful country in the world is a vile, self-serving idiot, it rather thwarts the hopes of concerned world citizens. The Paris agreement being an example, but also just the general wave of white supremacy and fascism (viz. Brexit) that's got the west by the balls at the moment. Hopefully someone like Biden, who is at least saying the right sorts of things about the environment and about equality (which is more than Trump could manage), will be a positive influence worldwide. Maybe not, but it would be nice to see the kind of evil that Trump legitimised and personified recede.

I think Biden's record with race... — NOS4A2

Oh too late.

And especially for those moments when this campaign was at its lowest – the African American community stood up again for me. They always have my back, and I’ll have yours. — Joe Biden

Looks like your idea of a good record with race -- White House support for violent white supremacists; the assault and arrest of peaceful, lawful BLM protesters -- has already been used as toilet paper.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was quite something to contrast Biden's eloquent, respectful, humble and optimistic speech with the idiotic cry-baby megalomania of Trump. The hard-working people who counted votes in the midst of a pandemic and under horrific conditions (Trump-supporting fascist scumbags who waved guns and yelled abuse at them) get a massive show of gratitude from Biden but accusations of fraud for counting Biden votes from Trump. "We are not enemies, we are Americans" is the polar opposite of Trump's approach to persecute and demonise anyone who deviates from whatever ridiculous thought just entered his miniscule brain.

It's also quite something to realise that Biden's speech wasn't particularly special; it just feels alien after a mere four years of Trump. Like I said earlier, Trump has lowered the standards for everyone, inculcating a new normal more horrifying than Covid 19: a normal of race hate, compulsive lying, childish retribution, misogyny, self-contradiction to the destruction of any meaning, abject incompetence, thwarted justice, and naked self-interest as a model of the highest level of service. I think the best hope is that, whatever Biden's limitations (including life expectancy), he will at least set a new new normal far above the cesspit that he has inherited, such that the next President, and the one after, and hopefully the one after that, will be anchored to a much less apocalyptic take on the presidency.

That said, the Republican voting trajectory would suggest maybe a brief respite (another GBSr perhaps) followed by something that, right now, seems inconceivable. From Reagan to Bush Jr to Trump... where next? Steve Bannon, maybe, with his Al Qaida-inspired take on government (agree or be beheaded).

merely not being Trump is not good enough — Pfhorrest

Not being Dubbya garnered Obama a Nobel prize...

What I am hearing you say is that you didn't like Donald Trump. — Bitter Crank

I'm torn :p

I hope this inspires the Republicans to start backing other than the bent idiots and feckless facades they seem mostly addicted to these past several decades. In a sane world, Biden would not be the most powerful man in the west. This really is only a slice of optimism in a world where a racist, misogynistic, fraudulent, fascistic, infantile, corrupt lunatic fantasist moron is being led out of the White House. People like Trump lower everyone's standards.

That's what I've been getting wrong all this time. Christianity isn't about faith. There's evidence, at least it's meant to be such - Jesus miracles. — TheMadFool

They're anecdotes from the same dubious sources they're supposed to be evidence for. They don't pass any muster as evidence. But I do see what you mean: they are meant to play the same role evidence. After all, these stories originate from a time when record-checking wasn't generally possible.

A penny for your thoughts... — TheMadFool

Just the one that you're no doubt expecting...

We view religion as, another word for it is, faith(s) as if to say that, in the context of faith defined as belief sans evidence, religions are belief systems that are completely lacking evidence of any kind.

This is false for what are so-called miracles if not evidence of a divine nature. — TheMadFool

Quite clearly you cannot use the claims of a religion -- such as miracles -- as evidence for that religion. Belief in miracles is part of Christian dogma, not some separate source. Now if you had evidence, not just claims, that a given miracle occurred, then that would be something. However the presence of evidence would then remove the necessity of faith and the peculiarity of a particular religion, insofar as it would generally thought to have occurred by believers and atheists alike. It would be not a miracle but a mystery.

I think we have to acknowledge the man has a great charismatic gift. — Hippyhead

I think we have to acknowledge that anyone who confuses obnoxious, whiny, and moronic with charismatic has had a fucked up upbringing.

How many Americans do we expect Trump will have killed on election Day by trying to convince people that postal votes might not be counted? A record number of cases recorded both nationwide and in five particular states.

So as far as I can tell, the protests are currently:

Democrats nationwide: Count Every Vote
Republicans in states where Biden leads: Count Every Vote
Republicans in counties where Biden leads in otherwise Trump-centric states: Stop Counting Votes
Republicans in states where Trump leads: Stop Counting Votes

Well Trump's gonna contest the results in with his 6-3 SCOTUS and hopes they're as eager to dismantle democracy as he is. If enough people think he actually won then he thinks he could get away with it. — Mr Bee

They don't seem to be doing his bidding thus far. Take a hint, Donald.

So many of his tweets being blocked by Twitter now...

As a guy who is all about optics, Trump wants to control the narrative and thinks that if he just proclaims victory enough, people would think he's won. — Mr Bee

But tricking people into thinking you've won doesn't serve any purpose in itself, since the vote goes on and the actual result will get declared anyway. The obvious interpretation would be that the false claimant is a lying scumbug.

What is the thinking behind falsely declaring election victories? Is it just to lay the groundwork for false accusations of voter fraud?

Are there an infinite number of dimensions higher than the 4d spacetime that defines our universe outside of our universe? — an-salad

You seem to be using "our universe" in two different ways.

Some of the white supremacist militia types resemble fascists. But it doesn't matter in the end whether they fit the formal definition or not (whatever one uses). What does matter is that crypto or pre-fascist groups not be allowed to develop into militias, parties, or gangs that have the power to disrupt democratic society. — Bitter Crank

Such as a President who unifies and validates them?

The motivation for the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory is to have a time-symmetric formulation of classical electrodynamics, right? Both Type I and Type II absorptions are symmetric, but I don't see why you have to have both, and not just Type I. Type I is just an interpretation of classical electrodynamics, since it is formally equivalent to it. Type II constitutes a net new addition to the theory, for which we have no evidence. — SophistiCat

I think it's more that the Wheeler-Feynman (WF) theory automatically includes Type II. It's an addition to classical EM, yes, but you'd have to add something to WF in order to get rid of it.

I have no idea what you said here. — RogueAI

Things have properties. These properties a) dictate their behaviours and therefore b) distinguish them. For instance, we can distinguish a hot potato from a cold potato by their different behaviours, which correspond to their respective properties of hot and cold.

If your definition of consciousness is distinct from non-consciousness, as it ought to be to be meaningful, then conscious things will have different properties from non-conscious things, thus are distinct. Therefore they should also behave differently in certain circumstances. (If they behave the same under all circumstances, then they have the same properties, are indistinct, and therefore your definition of consciousness is meaningless.)

Empiricism is a way of examining how distinguishable things behave differently. Put a thermometer on a hot potato, it will read one temperature. Put it on a cold potato, it will measure a different temperature.

If it is meaningful to say that a rock is conscious, as opposed to unconscious, one should be able to discern that difference empirically due to their different behaviours corresponding to their different properties.

How does empiricism tell you that non-conscious stuff exists? Is there a hidden anti-panpsychist proof in empiricism? — RogueAI

Well, first you need a definition of consciousness that is distinct from unconscious, otherwise you're not making a meaningful claim. Then you study the object of doubted consciousness for whether its behaviours, which correlate to its properties, are consistent with it being conscious or unconscious. If you cannot distinguish then, again, it's a meaningless claim.

What is your justification for assuming physical non-conscious stuff exists? — RogueAI

Empiricism.

Thus one can never in any way positively confirm any beliefs to be true — Pfhorrest

I don't think that's shown, or right. If I believe Jon has blonde hair, I can positively affirm this. Rather, it is general laws, such as are sought in science, that cannot be confirmed, because exceptions to those laws are always, in principle, discoverable.

It's possible that a given belief is not falsifiable at all, which should be a sign that it is extremely unlikely rather than robust. For this reason, I prefer a default position of scepticism for want of a good cause to entertain the idea.

The other benefit of scepticism is that saves one believing in two contradictory but as yet unfalsified theories: pending good cause to believe in one over the other, I'll usually credit neither.

So a number is not an idea or a concept - but a jellyfish? — Wayfarer

Yeah, those were my exact words.

I wonder why he thinks that Type II emission is equally possible as Type I. Type I is an interpretation of a well-studied phenomenon (emission/absorption of EM radiation), while it takes work to explain away Type II. What's the rationale in proposing it? Just a general preference for symmetry? — SophistiCat

Yes, I think because the general formalism underlying Type I also allows for Type II such that disallowing Type II requires extra by-hand theory.