tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post6894908026651951521..comments2024-03-18T11:13:57.904-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Cause, Coloration and Causality in Miracle HuntingJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-45454736947298251332020-02-05T13:38:22.580-08:002020-02-05T13:38:22.580-08:00Anonymous said...
Joe: Yes yes yes but be honest. ... Anonymous said...<br />Joe: Yes yes yes but be honest. The only way you know you found it is through another tight correlation (that us after the theory is laid out).<br /><br />But this is where the prediction comes in. If you can predict that correlation in advance, especially if the prediction is not obvious, then that is good evidence.<br /><br /><b>that does't change my point </b><br /><br />Joe: You are getting ahead of the discussion of paradigm That requires a discussion of paradigms that has not been laid out yet.<br /><br /><b>time = necessity</b><br /><br />Ah, I see. You have decided to limit the discussion, so we cannot get into areas that might expose how vacuous your claims are.<br /><br />Joe: Smoking was assumed to cause cancer based only on correlation, it took them 40 years to find a mechanism., Then when they did they only knew they found it because they had a tight correlation. Granted the mechanism had to be sound theoretically. I'm not saying don't other to work things out theoretical, but I am saying science and religion are different categories, you will never get scientific results from religious categorizes, that does not disprove truth calms.<br /><br />True, but controlled studies were done. The first major study had a cohort of 188,000 men, tracked over 5 years. You can read the abstract here:<br />https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12308037<br /><br /><b>we have controlled studies on mystical experience, We have controlled studies on Lourds miricles.</b><br /><br />This means that we can quantify the statistics, we can give a number and say how big the correlation is - hence the abstract says "statistically significant".<br /><br />Has anyone done that for miracles? Where are the statistics?<br /><br /><b>Yes. The point of essay is that you can;t study God but you can study the effects of God especially if you have a control factor like the M scale.</b><br /><br />Joe: You just proved you don't understand my argument.<br /><br />Maybe you should explain it better.<br /><br /><b>trylistening</b><br /><br />Pix: So in fact we cannot tell if there is correlation, let alone causation.<br /><br /><br /><b>why not? Since we are now able to define what is and what is not mystical experience you can draw correlation between that experience and certain outcomes</b><br /><br />Joe: yea that's really brilliant, guy comes with broken leg,pray not broken five seconds latter, hey cab't probe a causal mechanism so no miracle. Bur you could accept labeling it as "unknown factor"as along as we stipulate no God. Your objector is not rational but ideological.<br /><br />I have no idea how that relates to my point about you having no evidence of correlation.<br /><br /><b>you can always draw some kind of correlation You can't assert no healing = no <br />God.</b><br /><br />Joe: in dealing with healing miracles we can;t approach it like a drug or a law of nature because it;s dependent upon a will we are not access to understanding, ...<br /><br />No, we cannot. There is no way to show causation. So what is your point?<br /><br /><b>with a tight enough correlation we can assume God.</b><br /><br />Joe: I am not saying there are no correlations with healing. Of all those healed miraculously at Lourdes there is a correlation to being prayed for. But you can;t establish a fool proof way to make it happen every time.<br /><br />A drug does not have to be 100% successful to be useful. Smoking does not always cause cancer. That is not how correlation works.<br /><br /> <b>super,then miracles are granted</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-56964915965902629092020-02-05T13:00:19.459-08:002020-02-05T13:00:19.459-08:00Joe: Yes yes yes but be honest. The only way you k...Joe: <i>Yes yes yes but be honest. The only way you know you found it is through another tight correlation (that us after the theory is laid out).</i><br /><br />But this is where the prediction comes in. If you can predict that correlation in advance, especially if the prediction is not obvious, then that is good evidence.<br /><br />Joe: <i>You are getting ahead of the discussion of paradigm That requires a discussion of paradigms that has not been laid out yet.</i><br /><br />Ah, I see. You have decided to limit the discussion, so we cannot get into areas that might expose how vacuous your claims are.<br /><br />Joe: <i>Smoking was assumed to cause cancer based only on correlation, it took them 40 years to find a mechanism., Then when they did they only knew they found it because they had a tight correlation. Granted the mechanism had to be sound theoretically. I'm not saying don't other to work things out theoretical, but I am saying science and religion are different categories, you will never get scientific results from religious categorizes, that does not disprove truth calms.</i><br /><br />True, but controlled studies were done. The first major study had a cohort of 188,000 men, tracked over 5 years. You can read the abstract here:<br />https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12308037<br /><br />This means that we can quantify the statistics, we can give a number and say how big the correlation is - hence the abstract says "statistically significant".<br /><br />Has anyone done that for miracles? Where are the statistics?<br /><br />Joe: <i>You just proved you don't understand my argument.</i><br /><br />Maybe you should explain it better.<br /><br />Pix: <i>So in fact we cannot tell if there is correlation, let alone causation.</i><br /><br />Joe: <i>yea that's really brilliant, guy comes with broken leg,pray not broken five seconds latter, hey cab't probe a causal mechanism so no miracle. Bur you could accept labeling it as "unknown factor"as along as we stipulate no God. Your objector is not rational but ideological.</i><br /><br />I have no idea how that relates to my point about you having no evidence of correlation.<br /><br />Joe: <i>in dealing with healing miracles we can;t approach it like a drug or a law of nature because it;s dependent upon a will we are not access to understanding, ...</i><br /><br />No, we cannot. There is no way to show causation. So what is your point?<br /><br />Joe: <i>I am not saying there are no correlations with healing. Of all those healed miraculously at lauds there is a coronation to being prayed for. Bt you can;t establish a fool proof way to make it happen every time.</i><br /><br />A drug does not have to be 100% successful to be useful. Smoking does not always cause cancer. That is not how correlation works.<br /><br />PixAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-25329923425890402192020-02-05T07:27:23.736-08:002020-02-05T07:27:23.736-08:00Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: Science can't p...Blogger The Pixie said...<br />Joe: Science can't prove causes. We can only prove correlations. When I assume causes on miracles, it's the only way we ever establish cause.<br /><br />Technically true, but pretty misleading.<br /><br />If we find a correlation between A and B, that might suggest A causes B. In science, you would perform a range of controlled experiments in different situations, some with A and some not. If you consistently see B when A and not B then not A, then that is pretty good evidence.<br /><br /><b>Yes, In my essay that comes under the heading of establishing a tight correlation </b><br /><br />But science goes a step further, and tries to find a mechanism by which A causes B. It is only when that mechanism has been established that A is taken as a cause for B. And even then it is not proven.<br /><br /><b>Yes yes yes but be honest. The only way you know you found it is through another tight correlation (that us after the theory is laid out).</b><br /><br />None of that applies to miracles. No one has done any controlled experiments, no one has found a mechanism.<br /><br /><b>You are getting ahead of the discussion of paradigm That requires a discussion of paradigms that has not been laid out yet.</b><br /><br />Joe: What it boils down to is in the final analysis a really tight correlation is the only way to determine cause.<br /><br />Wrong. If C causes A and B, then there would be a really tight correlation between A and B, but no causation.<br /><br /><b>Smoking was assumed to cause cancer based only on correlation, it took them 40 years to find a mechanism., Then when they did they only knew they found it because they had a tight correlation. Granted the mechanism had to be sound theoretically. I'm not saying don't other to work things out theoretical, but I am saying science and religion are different categories, you will never get scientific results from religious categorizes, that does not disprove truth calms.</b><br /><br />You just proved you do not understand the difference between correlation and causation.<br /><br /><b>You just proved you don't understand my argument.</b><br /><br />Joe: Knowing the hit rate is not true in terms of empirical evidence of healing because:<br /><br />So in fact we cannot tell if there is correlation, let alone causation.<br /><br /><b>yea that's really brilliant, guy comes with broken leg,pray not broken five seconds latter, hey cab't probe a causal mechanism so no miracle. Bur you could accept labeling it as "unknown factor"as along as we stipulate no God. Your objector is not rational but ideological.</b><br /><br /><br />Joe: Thus if one miracle happens that proves miracles and all it takes is one.<br /><br />Obviously. Let us know when you have a proven miracle.<br /><br /><b>stay tuned</b><br /><br />So, why the post about correlation and causation? All you have done is admitted you cannot quantify the correlation, and do not get the difference between correlation and causation.<br /><br /><b>in dealing with healing miracles we can;t approach it like a drug or a law of nature because it;s dependent upon a will we are not access to understanding, Now in dealing with religious experience those studies o effects can be subjected to correlation.Because we have triggers that reduce experiences more readily and less randomly. we can compare hit rates. <br /><br />I am not saying there are no correlations with healing. Of all those healed miraculously at lauds there is a coronation to being prayed for. Bt you can;t establish a fool proof way to make it happen every time.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-40781345494763585282020-02-05T04:17:23.182-08:002020-02-05T04:17:23.182-08:00Joe: Science can't prove causes. We can only p...Joe: <i>Science can't prove causes. We can only prove correlations. When I assume causes on miracles, it's the only way we ever establish cause.</i><br /><br />Technically true, but pretty misleading.<br /><br />If we find a correlation between A and B, that might suggest A causes B. In science, you would perform a range of controlled experiments in different situations, some with A and some not. If you consistently see B when A and not B then not A, then that is pretty good evidence.<br /><br />But science goes a step further, and tries to find a mechanism by which A causes B. It is only when that mechanism has been established that A is taken as a cause for B. And even then it is not proven.<br /><br />None of that applies to miracles. No one has done any controlled experiments, no one has found a mechanism.<br /><br />Joe: <i>What it boils down to is in the final analysis a really tight correlation is the only way to determine cause.</i><br /><br />Wrong. If C causes A and B, then there would be a really tight correlation between A and B, but no causation.<br /><br />You just proved you do not understand the difference between correlation and causation.<br /><br />Joe: <i>Knowing the hist rate is not true in terms of empirical evidence of healing because:</i><br /><br />So in fact we cannot tell if there is correlation, let alone causation.<br /><br />Joe: <i>Thus if one miracle happens that proves miracles and all it takes is one.</i><br /><br />Obviously. Let us know when you have a proven miracle.<br /><br />So, why the post about correlation and causation? All you have done is admitted you cannot quantify the correlation, and do not get the difference between correlation and causation.The Pixiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16476236397678245197noreply@blogger.com