Why does Pagano ignore me?
Joe Cummings
I posted a little comment about Fatima a few days ago, and the
Champion of Fatima, Tony Pagano, has seen fit to ignore it.
Well, not actually ignore it, but pretended to ignore it. In
a little while, he'll claim "not to have seen it," and then in another
little while, will show that he has, indeed read it.
It isn't all that important, because if he did respond, it
would be only in order to avoid getting to grips with the main point
of the comment, which was that claimed miraculous events have sordid
political consequences.
Hr does, however seem to be making some points about
eyewitness statements which need some further ventilation, if only to
clear away that confusion which is such an endearing feature of his
postings.
The point has rightly been made by more than one poster that
eyewitness accounts can sometimes be in error.
In his usual misunderstanding way, Tony takes this to mean
that all eyewitness accounts are in error. He then proceeds to commit
a series of blunders which need correcting.
To say that some eyewitness accounts may be wrong immediately
brings to the forefront for everyone except Tony the need for some
kind of criterion by which they may be judged.
To normal, mainstream scientists, one important criterion is
repeatability; if the initial conditions are repeated, are the
reported results repeated?
Another criterion is corroboration by others; is the report
made by other people?
Tony is in serious difficulty, because he wants to be able to
say that there are certain reports that are absolutley true, namely,
reports of miracles or of divine activity.
How to guarantee the truth of these reports? The short answer
is that we can't, and neither Tony nor any other creationist is able
to either. All he has ever been able to say is that "they are true,"
without any support from anywhere.
It's a bit more difficult than that, however.
A Christian may say that the miracles reported on in the Bible
are absolutley true. But a Muslim or a Hindu can also say that the
reports in their holy books are true also, and there is no way that
either Tony, or a Muslim or a Hindu. can guarantee the truth of their
stories. None at all, for if there were, then there would only be one
religion, the true one.
And would you believe it, but it gets even worse.
If a charlatan, or someone who is unscrupulous, wanted to make
some money, of wanted a free ride, then all he has to do is assure
believers that he is "one of them," and there is no way that Tony or
any other believer is able to disprove the claim.
It so happened that a friend wrote to tell me of such a free
rider who is travelling around the world using the gullibility of
members of the "Vineyard" group of churches to get free board and
lodgings wherever he goes.
So there's Tony's problem, or problems:
How do you guarantee the truth of a reported miracle or
belief,
how do you pick out the true religion, and
how do you detect a charlatan.
I report, Tony won't answer.
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
Chris Thompson
news:j8fpa0l5is0t6gdib...@4ax.com:
>
>
> I posted a little comment about Fatima a few days ago, and the
> Champion of Fatima, Tony Pagano, has seen fit to ignore it.
>
> Well, not actually ignore it, but pretended to ignore it. In
> a little while, he'll claim "not to have seen it," and then in another
> little while, will show that he has, indeed read it.
>
snip
>
> I report, Tony won't answer.
>
> Have fun,
>
> Joe Cummings
His goalposts are in the shop for a tuneup.
Chris
--
"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so
as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry
on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that
sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually
on a battlefield." --George Orwell, 1946, "Under Your Nose"
Adam Ritthaler
"Chris Thompson" <ctho...@TAKEOUTbmcc.cuny.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns94EF82154DCF9er...@128.228.100.230...
> Joe Cummings <joseph....@wanadoo.fr> wrote in
> news:j8fpa0l5is0t6gdib...@4ax.com:
>
> >
> >
> > I posted a little comment about Fatima a few days ago, and the
> > Champion of Fatima, Tony Pagano, has seen fit to ignore it.
> >
> > Well, not actually ignore it, but pretended to ignore it. In
> > a little while, he'll claim "not to have seen it," and then in another
> > little while, will show that he has, indeed read it.
> >
>
> snip
>
> >
> > I report, Tony won't answer.
> >
> > Have fun,
> >
> > Joe Cummings
>
>
> His goalposts are in the shop for a tuneup.
recommended very 20,000 kilometres
Bobby D. Bryant
>> His goalposts are in the shop for a tuneup.
>
> recommended very 20,000 kilometres
\subject
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
T Pagano
<joseph....@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
> I posted a little comment about Fatima a few days ago, and the
>Champion of Fatima, Tony Pagano, has seen fit to ignore it.
> Well, not actually ignore it, but pretended to ignore it. In
>a little while, he'll claim "not to have seen it," and then in another
>little while, will show that he has, indeed read it.
> It isn't all that important, because if he did respond, it
>would be only in order to avoid getting to grips with the main point
>of the comment, which was that claimed miraculous events have sordid
>political consequences.
Pagano replies:
The consequences of Fatima shortly after the miracle were wide ranging
and not just political. The political consequences for both local and
national politics in Portugal were significant but I wouldn't describe
them as sordid. The consequences were certainly disasterous for the
anti-Catholic Masons, the atheists, and the communists in positions of
political power.
>
> Hr does, however seem to be making some points about
>eyewitness statements which need some further ventilation, if only to
>clear away that confusion which is such an endearing feature of his
>postings.
Pagano replies:
Can't comment without details. Where are the quotes from my posts
showing the confusion?
>
> The point has rightly been made by more than one poster that
>eyewitness accounts can sometimes be in error.
Pagano replies:
This wasn't disputed at all by me. The dispute lie with Noodleman's
fallacious conclusion (from the undisputed premise) that therefore ALL
eyewitness reports or eyewitness reports IN GENERAL are of dubious
veracity. Noodleman's conclusion is a non sequitur. Apparently
Cummings didn't bother to read Noodleman's post. Let's look at the
offending quote from Noodleman:
[BEGIN QUOTE FROM NOODLEMAN"
"People lie. People misinterpret what they see. People have mental
problems. For those reasons and others, eyewitness reports are of
dubious veracity."
[END QUOTE]
Noodleman paints a broad brush over all eyewitness reports. Nowhere
in this quote or anywhere else in his post did he limit the offending
eyewitness reports; they were all offending. This was consistent with
Noodleman's goal. Noodleman knew that he had no means of
discrediting eyewitness reports in Scripture so he attempted the next
best thing; that is, to discredit the whole class of such reports.
His attempt was fallacious.
>
> In his usual misunderstanding way, Tony takes this to mean
>that all eyewitness accounts are in error. He then proceeds to commit
>a series of blunders which need correcting.
Pagano replies:
First I suggest that Joe-me-boy read the thread beginning with
Spaceman's post. Had he done so he probably wouldn't have made this
mistake. Again I present Noodleman's quote:
[BEGIN QUOTE FROM NOODLEMAN]
"People lie. People misinterpret what they see. People have mental
problems. For those reasons and others, eyewitness reports are of
dubious veracity."
[END QUOTE]
Where in Noodleman's quote does he limit the eyewitness reports which
are of dubious veracity? He doesn't because he was attempting to
discredit the eyewitness reports in Scripture by discrediting all
eyewitness reports. Noodleman knew that he had no means of
discrediting eyewitness reports in Scripture so he attempted the next
best thing; that is, to discredit the whole class of such reports.
>
> To say that some eyewitness accounts may be wrong immediately
>brings to the forefront for everyone except Tony the need for some
>kind of criterion by which they may be judged.
Pagano replies:
Again Cummings missed what Noodleman was attempting to accomplish.
Noodleman knew that he had no means of discrediting eyewitness reports
in Scripture so he attempted the next best thing; that is, to
discredit the whole class of such reports. He failed and Cummings
agrees.
>
> To normal, mainstream scientists, one important criterion is
>repeatability; if the initial conditions are repeated, are the
>reported results repeated?
Pagano replies:
Unfortunately eyewitness reports may not be of repeatable events. And
mainstream scientists are often very interested in unique events like
the cosmic singularity, the creation of the first self-replicating
molecule or the purported unique transformational events which lead to
the eye, the brain, etc. These events were never observed, nor are
they repeatable.
>
> Another criterion is corroboration by others; is the report
>made by other people?
Pagano replies:
Unique events in prehistory had no observers. And eyewitness reports
in Scripture are never based upon one witness only.
>
> Tony is in serious difficulty, because he wants to be able to
>say that there are certain reports that are absolutley true, namely,
>reports of miracles or of divine activity.
Pagano replies:
In the thread at issue it was Noodleman who attempted to discredit all
eyewitness reports in the hopes of discrediting eyewitness reports in
Scripture. I made no universal or absolute claims. Produce quotes
please.
Furthermore Scriptural eyewitness historical accounts have been
frequently corobborated by archeologists because they implied
empirical consequences that could be observed by those scientists. As
a result it is encumbent upon the doubters (like Noodleman and
Cummings) to produce evidence discrediting Scriptural eyewitness
accounts.
>
> How to guarantee the truth of these reports? The short answer
>is that we can't, and neither Tony nor any other creationist is able
>to either. All he has ever been able to say is that "they are true,"
>without any support from anywhere.
Pagano replies:
Cummings fails to take the next logical step already provide by Hume.
After realizing that we cannot guarrantee the truth of our statements
neither can we justify them to be true with reasons, or make them more
probable with corroborations. But if corroborative evidence is what
interests secularists and practical atheists, archeologists have
cooroborated many of the Scriptural observation reports.
Unlike the verificationism of modern secularists I require no entrance
exams to admit statements as provisionally true. Once they are
admitted as provisionally true however we must be committed to
exposing them to harsh rational criticism and a concerted effort made
to falsify them. If the Scriptural eyewitness accounts are false let
Cummings show them to be so. This is a logical possibility while
showing them to be true is not.
>
> It's a bit more difficult than that, however.
>
> A Christian may say that the miracles reported on in the Bible
>are absolutley true. But a Muslim or a Hindu can also say that the
>reports in their holy books are true also, and there is no way that
>either Tony, or a Muslim or a Hindu. can guarantee the truth of their
>stories. None at all, for if there were, then there would only be one
>religion, the true one.
Pagano replies:
Nor can Cummings guarrantee the truth of any of any of the interesting
stories of neoDarwinism, Big Bang Cosmology or Abiogenesis. If he
could then we wouldn't be able to falsify Naturalism and we would all
become self-fulfilled Atheists like Dawkins. Also it isn't clear
that the Koran or the books of Hinduism (or any other religion for
that matter) have much to say about the creation of the universe or
the life in it.
As to Cummings's conundrum: We can admit all the statements of
interest to solving some real problem as provisionally true and apply
harsh rational criticism and attempt to falsify those statements. To
the extent that we cannot classify them as false they remain as
provisionally true. So far there is no better means of advancing our
background knowledge.
>
> And would you believe it, but it gets even worse.
>
> If a charlatan, or someone who is unscrupulous, wanted to make
>some money, of wanted a free ride, then all he has to do is assure
>believers that he is "one of them," and there is no way that Tony or
>any other believer is able to disprove the claim.
> It so happened that a friend wrote to tell me of such a free
>rider who is travelling around the world using the gullibility of
>members of the "Vineyard" group of churches to get free board and
>lodgings wherever he goes.
Pagano replies:
But Cummings has things backwards. It is logically possible to show
that a claim is false while it is not logically possible to show that
it is true. However, one must be committed to exposing claims to
harsh criticism and tests to falsify.
If one's plan is to admit statements because of some subjective
reliability without a plan to be critical then one gets what one
deserves.
>
> So there's Tony's problem, or problems:
>
> How do you guarantee the truth of a reported miracle or
>belief,
Pagano replies:
One cannot guarrantee the truth of any statement. For example, we had
50,000 witnesses many of them recorded concerning the miracle of
Fatima which occurred on Oct 17, 1917 at about 12pm local time. Under
my philosophy of science my opponents (like Cummings) should be able
(better than I) to expose the eyewitness reports to harsh rational
criticism and attempt to falsify them.
>
> how do you pick out the true religion, and
Pagano replies:
One must first think that religion is the solution to some real
problem. If not then one is not predisposed to believe that "true
religion" exists. Does Cummings pass this first test?
>
> how do you detect a charlatan.
Pagano replies:
This is security problem. And industry often has plans which are more
or less effective at detecting frauds. Nothing is 100 percent
effective. There are any number of security books which could offer a
number of strategies for detecting and/or preventing fraud.
> I report, Tony won't answer.
Pagano replies:
Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't.
Regards,
Tony
>
> Have fun,
>
> Joe Cummings
Steven J.
"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
news:gfphb01l33b5ehg2v...@4ax.com...-- [snip]
>
> > The point has rightly been made by more than one poster that
> >eyewitness accounts can sometimes be in error.
>
> Pagano replies:
> This wasn't disputed at all by me. The dispute lie with Noodleman's
> fallacious conclusion (from the undisputed premise) that therefore ALL
> eyewitness reports or eyewitness reports IN GENERAL are of dubious
> veracity. Noodleman's conclusion is a non sequitur. Apparently
> Cummings didn't bother to read Noodleman's post. Let's look at the
> offending quote from Noodleman:
>
true, *and* be of dubious veracity; this is part of the point of the fable
of "the boy who cried wolf." You can have true reports mixed in with false
reports, and no way to tell them apart -- *all* are of "dubious" veracity
(as opposed to definitely lacking veracity), and although you have true
reports, you don't *know* they're true, or have adequate grounds to believe
them.
>
> [BEGIN QUOTE FROM NOODLEMAN"
> "People lie. People misinterpret what they see. People have mental
> problems. For those reasons and others, eyewitness reports are of
> dubious veracity."
> [END QUOTE]
>
> Noodleman paints a broad brush over all eyewitness reports. Nowhere
> in this quote or anywhere else in his post did he limit the offending
> eyewitness reports; they were all offending. This was consistent with
> Noodleman's goal. Noodleman knew that he had no means of
> discrediting eyewitness reports in Scripture so he attempted the next
> best thing; that is, to discredit the whole class of such reports.
> His attempt was fallacious.
>
scripture which are presented as eyewitness accounts. Certainly neither the
creation nor Noah's Flood accounts are offered as eyewitness accounts; we
are given no indication of how the author knows any of this. Arguably the
miracles recorded in the Gospel of John are presented as *based* on
eyewitness accounts (the closing remarks of the gospel refer to the disciple
who knows these things are true), but by the same token it is not, itself,
an eyewitness account.
For that matter, when an eyewitness account contradicts the "naturalistic"
interpretation of empirical data, that does tend to discredit the eyewitness
account. When the event is not directly contradicted by empirical data,
but as described would be incredibly unlikely or (given current
understandings of the laws of nature) flat impossible, at least we are
justified in demanding more evidence than would be sufficient to establish
that a more normal sort of event had happened.
>
> > In his usual misunderstanding way, Tony takes this to mean
> >that all eyewitness accounts are in error. He then proceeds to commit
> >a series of blunders which need correcting.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> First I suggest that Joe-me-boy read the thread beginning with
> Spaceman's post. Had he done so he probably wouldn't have made this
> mistake. Again I present Noodleman's quote:
>
> [BEGIN QUOTE FROM NOODLEMAN]
> "People lie. People misinterpret what they see. People have mental
> problems. For those reasons and others, eyewitness reports are of
> dubious veracity."
> [END QUOTE]
>
> Where in Noodleman's quote does he limit the eyewitness reports which
> are of dubious veracity? He doesn't because he was attempting to
> discredit the eyewitness reports in Scripture by discrediting all
> eyewitness reports. Noodleman knew that he had no means of
> discrediting eyewitness reports in Scripture so he attempted the next
> best thing; that is, to discredit the whole class of such reports.
>
As noted, one *is* justified in doubting all eyewitness reports. That is
not the same as saying one is justified in *rejecting* all eyewitness
reports, but one is entitled to ask for corroboration -- additional evidence
that such a thing happened, or was likely in the circumstances to happen.
>
> > To say that some eyewitness accounts may be wrong immediately
> >brings to the forefront for everyone except Tony the need for some
> >kind of criterion by which they may be judged.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Again Cummings missed what Noodleman was attempting to accomplish.
> Noodleman knew that he had no means of discrediting eyewitness reports
> in Scripture so he attempted the next best thing; that is, to
> discredit the whole class of such reports. He failed and Cummings
> agrees.
>
It is so kind of you to keep Cummings apprised of his own thoughts on
various issues. Indeed, you show similar kindness to most of the posters to
whom you respond. In time, perhaps you will go so far as to inform us of
your own thoughts on various issues where curiousity regarding those
thoughts has been expressed, e.g. how methodological supernaturalism would
work, or what the distinctive empirical consequences of Noah's Flood might
be.
>
> > To normal, mainstream scientists, one important criterion is
> >repeatability; if the initial conditions are repeated, are the
> >reported results repeated?
>
> Pagano replies:
> Unfortunately eyewitness reports may not be of repeatable events. And
> mainstream scientists are often very interested in unique events like
> the cosmic singularity, the creation of the first self-replicating
> molecule or the purported unique transformational events which lead to
> the eye, the brain, etc. These events were never observed, nor are
> they repeatable.
>
The cosmic singularity was not an event; it is a point at which attempts to
describe the history of the universe in terms of known physics break down,
and start yielding meaningless results. If abiogenesis is actually a field
susceptible to scientific research, then the creation of the first
self-replicating molecule is *not* a unique event; it ought, given the
correct conditions, be duplicable (although we may not know whether it has
been duplicated, or some equivalent but different replicator has been
produced). Again, the "transformation events" of evolution are not more
"unique" than any number of events in the recent past (e.g. plane crashes,
or crimes investigated by forensic scientists) which are investigated by
scientific methods.
>
> > Another criterion is corroboration by others; is the report
> >made by other people?
>
> Pagano replies:
> Unique events in prehistory had no observers. And eyewitness reports
> in Scripture are never based upon one witness only.
>
All manner of events in quite recent history had no observers, or at least
no living or reliable observers. Some events are concluded to have quite
real but quite unreliable observers (one thinks, even at this late date, of
the O.J. Simpson trial).
>
> > Tony is in serious difficulty, because he wants to be able to
> >say that there are certain reports that are absolutley true, namely,
> >reports of miracles or of divine activity.
>
> Pagano replies:
> In the thread at issue it was Noodleman who attempted to discredit all
> eyewitness reports in the hopes of discrediting eyewitness reports in
> Scripture. I made no universal or absolute claims. Produce quotes
> please.
>
> Furthermore Scriptural eyewitness historical accounts have been
> frequently corobborated by archeologists because they implied
> empirical consequences that could be observed by those scientists. As
> a result it is encumbent upon the doubters (like Noodleman and
> Cummings) to produce evidence discrediting Scriptural eyewitness
> accounts.
>
By that line of reasoning, would not "eyewitness historical accounts" which
have been contradicted by archaeologists or paleontologists seem to be of
rather lesser valdity?
>
> > How to guarantee the truth of these reports? The short answer
> >is that we can't, and neither Tony nor any other creationist is able
> >to either. All he has ever been able to say is that "they are true,"
> >without any support from anywhere.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Cummings fails to take the next logical step already provide by Hume.
> After realizing that we cannot guarrantee the truth of our statements
> neither can we justify them to be true with reasons, or make them more
> probable with corroborations. But if corroborative evidence is what
> interests secularists and practical atheists, archeologists have
> cooroborated many of the Scriptural observation reports.
>
As noted before when this subject has come up, multiple convergent lines of
evidence that, e.g. Moscow, Washington, DC, or Pope John Paul II exist do
not establish that Tom Clancy's _Red Rabbit_ is accurate history. Scarcely
any interesting conspiracy theory bandied about involves people and places
whose existence cannot be verified, but that does not establish that all
such theories are reliable.
>
> Unlike the verificationism of modern secularists I require no entrance
> exams to admit statements as provisionally true. Once they are
> admitted as provisionally true however we must be committed to
> exposing them to harsh rational criticism and a concerted effort made
> to falsify them. If the Scriptural eyewitness accounts are false let
> Cummings show them to be so. This is a logical possibility while
> showing them to be true is not.
>
This is quite a fascinating epistomological system. If someone says it, you
admit it as "provisionally true," and then, if it cannot be proved false,
continue to accept it as provisionally true. What a truly astonishing
variety of varied and contradictory assertions you must provisionally
accept! Although, come to think of it, it seems likely that you *reject*
(or at least fail to grant provisional acceptance to) claims of both
Muhammed and Joseph Smith to be true prophets, eyewitnesses of revelations
from God.
To be sure, if the "Scriptural eyewitness accounts" to which you refer
include anything in the early chapters of Genesis, they do seem to be
contradicted by a rather overwhelming weight of circumstantial evidence,
which you discount as only contradicty when (mis)interpreted
"naturalistically." But is there *any* eyewitness account, anywhere of
anything, which could not be preserved from falsification by assuming a
"supernaturalistic" interpretation of contrary evidence?
>
> >
> > It's a bit more difficult than that, however.
> >
> > A Christian may say that the miracles reported on in the Bible
> >are absolutley true. But a Muslim or a Hindu can also say that the
> >reports in their holy books are true also, and there is no way that
> >either Tony, or a Muslim or a Hindu. can guarantee the truth of their
> >stories. None at all, for if there were, then there would only be one
> >religion, the true one.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Nor can Cummings guarrantee the truth of any of any of the interesting
> stories of neoDarwinism, Big Bang Cosmology or Abiogenesis. If he
> could then we wouldn't be able to falsify Naturalism and we would all
> become self-fulfilled Atheists like Dawkins. Also it isn't clear
> that the Koran or the books of Hinduism (or any other religion for
> that matter) have much to say about the creation of the universe or
> the life in it.
>
Cummings can come up with *evidence* supporting theories on these topics.
He can come up with criteria for deciding whether to accept one theory in
preference to another, or to suspend judgment and accept nothing. In
contrast, can you come up with any reason other than sheer willfulness for
accepting the "eyewitness accounts" of one religion over those of another?
Hinduism, as I understand it, makes some rather interesting claims about the
nature of the universe (most commonly, that it is cyclic, and that the
universe and life have been "reborn" over and over). And there are, of
course, rather interesting claims made by many religions that have nothing
much to do with origins -- e.g. the previously noted claims that this or
that person is a prophet, and his teachings the directly revealed word of
God. How would you decide whether such a claim is true or false?
>
> As to Cummings's conundrum: We can admit all the statements of
> interest to solving some real problem as provisionally true and apply
> harsh rational criticism and attempt to falsify those statements. To
> the extent that we cannot classify them as false they remain as
> provisionally true. So far there is no better means of advancing our
> background knowledge.
>
I claim that you do not do this (not that I would recommend that you do it,
actually). You *cannot* accept all "statements of interest to solving some
real problem" (since some of them contradict each other), unless you adopt
eccentric or even perverse definitions of "of interest" or "real problem."
You do not, clearly, either subject statements you wish to accept to "harsh
rational criticism" (your attitude towards, e.g. Noah's Flood seem rather
more along the lines of "desperate and none-too-rational apologetics").
You do not limit yourself to merely *rational* criticism of ideas you wish
to reject; your approach to falsify "neoDarwinism" demonstrate truly
astonishingly levels of goal-post moving, question-begging, and
god-of-the-gap false-dilemma argumentation.
>
> >
> > And would you believe it, but it gets even worse.
> >
> > If a charlatan, or someone who is unscrupulous, wanted to make
> >some money, of wanted a free ride, then all he has to do is assure
> >believers that he is "one of them," and there is no way that Tony or
> >any other believer is able to disprove the claim.
> > It so happened that a friend wrote to tell me of such a free
> >rider who is travelling around the world using the gullibility of
> >members of the "Vineyard" group of churches to get free board and
> >lodgings wherever he goes.
>
> Pagano replies:
> But Cummings has things backwards. It is logically possible to show
> that a claim is false while it is not logically possible to show that
> it is true. However, one must be committed to exposing claims to
> harsh criticism and tests to falsify.
>
Actually, this view reflects a very naive view of falsification which has
been explained to you many times. One can always deal with any purported
falsification by adjusting auxiliary hypotheses, or rejecting the
falsification as a bad observation. Conversely (although this is not part
of the standard critique of Popper's falsification criterion, it is
applicable to your own attempts to use it), one can mistate a theory and
regard, as falsifications, phenomena which are permitted by the theory. But
again, you show no signs of actually exposing your own views to "harsh
criticism," or even stating them clearly enough that anyone else could do
so.
>
> If one's plan is to admit statements because of some subjective
> reliability without a plan to be critical then one gets what one
> deserves.
> >
> > So there's Tony's problem, or problems:
> >
> > How do you guarantee the truth of a reported miracle or
> >belief,
>
> Pagano replies:
> One cannot guarrantee the truth of any statement. For example, we had
> 50,000 witnesses many of them recorded concerning the miracle of
> Fatima which occurred on Oct 17, 1917 at about 12pm local time. Under
> my philosophy of science my opponents (like Cummings) should be able
> (better than I) to expose the eyewitness reports to harsh rational
> criticism and attempt to falsify them.
>
I should point out that "many" of 50,000 (how many is "many" -- 50? 500?)
might suggest to a cynic a bit of "cherry-picking" of the data, selecting
reports that agreed with some desired account, and ignoring contrary views.
But in any case, it is the contention of very few skeptics that the
witnesses did not see what they reported seeing; it is only noted that [a]
hundreds of millions of witnesses in other parts of the world apparently
noted nothing of the kind (i.e. the sun did not actually move, or else God
hid all the evidence from everyone outside the area of Fatima), and [b]
there are naturalistic explanations (e.g. involuntary movements of the eye
interpreted as movements of an object against an undifferentiated
background) for the observations.
>
> > how do you pick out the true religion, and
>
> Pagano replies:
> One must first think that religion is the solution to some real
> problem. If not then one is not predisposed to believe that "true
> religion" exists. Does Cummings pass this first test?
>
I believe his question was, how do *you* pick out the true religion, not how
he did. Please pay attention.
>
> > how do you detect a charlatan.
>
> Pagano replies:
> This is security problem. And industry often has plans which are more
> or less effective at detecting frauds. Nothing is 100 percent
> effective. There are any number of security books which could offer a
> number of strategies for detecting and/or preventing fraud.
>
>
> > I report, Tony won't answer.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> >
> > Have fun,
> >
> > Joe Cummings
>
-- Steven J.
Joe Cummings
<not....@address.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 20 May 2004 14:45:12 +0000 (UTC), Joe Cummings
><joseph....@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I posted a little comment about Fatima a few days ago, and the
>>Champion of Fatima, Tony Pagano, has seen fit to ignore it.
>> Well, not actually ignore it, but pretended to ignore it. In
>>a little while, he'll claim "not to have seen it," and then in another
>>little while, will show that he has, indeed read it.
>> It isn't all that important, because if he did respond, it
>>would be only in order to avoid getting to grips with the main point
>>of the comment, which was that claimed miraculous events have sordid
>>political consequences.
>
> Pagano replies:
>The consequences of Fatima shortly after the miracle were wide ranging
>and not just political. The political consequences for both local and
>national politics in Portugal were significant but I wouldn't describe
>them as sordid. The consequences were certainly disasterous for the
>anti-Catholic Masons, the atheists, and the communists in positions of
>political power.
I'll refer to this issue after dealing with the questions of
substance.
Let's have a look at what Noodleman was saying to Tony:
"You seem to consider "eyewitness" reports to be the only
worthwhile
evidence. That's a touchingly naive view of things. People lie. People
misinterpret what they see. People have mental problems. For those
reasons and others, eyewitness reports are of dubious veracity." (May
15th., Re: The Object of Science...)
He is saying that eyewitness accounts are not enough by
themselves. In his usual confused way, Tony failed to read the first
sentence and proceeded to make an argument against a misreprenation of
Noodleman's position.
A little while ago, as I mentioned in my posing of the 16th.,
Tony once claimed not to have read something Iwrote about Fatima and
later said that what I wrote was "drivel." I immediately pointed out
that one of these statements couldn't be true. I concluded from this
that Tony was lying when he said he hadn't read my posting.
Now, if MurphyInOhio or my friend Mike Goodrich were to say
that Tony always tells the truth, I could quite legitimately say that
he had lied on one occasion; I could also say quite legitimately that
Tony tells lies. Neither MurphyInOhio nor Mike Goodrich could
legitimately reply that I'd said that Tony always lies, but this is
what Tony is trying to do here in relation to Noodleman..
>
>Where in Noodleman's quote does he limit the eyewitness reports which
>are of dubious veracity? He doesn't because he was attempting to
>discredit the eyewitness reports in Scripture by discrediting all
>eyewitness reports. Noodleman knew that he had no means of
>discrediting eyewitness reports in Scripture so he attempted the next
>best thing; that is, to discredit the whole class of such reports.
>>
>> To say that some eyewitness accounts may be wrong immediately
>>brings to the forefront for everyone except Tony the need for some
>>kind of criterion by which they may be judged.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Again Cummings missed what Noodleman was attempting to accomplish.
>Noodleman knew that he had no means of discrediting eyewitness reports
>in Scripture so he attempted the next best thing; that is, to
>discredit the whole class of such reports. He failed and Cummings
>agrees.
>
No, what Noodleman was saying was that eyewitness reports need
corroboration.
>>
>> To normal, mainstream scientists, one important criterion is
>>repeatability; if the initial conditions are repeated, are the
>>reported results repeated?
>
> Pagano replies:
>Unfortunately eyewitness reports may not be of repeatable events. And
>mainstream scientists are often very interested in unique events like
>the cosmic singularity, the creation of the first self-replicating
>molecule or the purported unique transformational events which lead to
>the eye, the brain, etc. These events were never observed, nor are
>they repeatable.
>>
>> Another criterion is corroboration by others; is the report
>>made by other people?
>
> Pagano replies:
>Unique events in prehistory had no observers. And eyewitness reports
>in Scripture are never based upon one witness only.
>>
>> Tony is in serious difficulty, because he wants to be able to
>>say that there are certain reports that are absolutley true, namely,
>>reports of miracles or of divine activity.
>
> Pagano replies:
>In the thread at issue it was Noodleman who attempted to discredit all
>eyewitness reports in the hopes of discrediting eyewitness reports in
>Scripture. I made no universal or absolute claims. Produce quotes
>please.
I didn't say you did. You are avoiding here the issue of the
criterion, and are merely claiming an equivalence between scientific
discussion of certain data which led to the postulating of the Big
Bang theory and the myths of a religious book.
>
>Furthermore Scriptural eyewitness historical accounts have been
>frequently corobborated by archeologists because they implied
>empirical consequences that could be observed by those scientists. As
>a result it is encumbent upon the doubters (like Noodleman and
>Cummings) to produce evidence discrediting Scriptural eyewitness
>accounts.
>>
>> How to guarantee the truth of these reports? The short answer
>>is that we can't, and neither Tony nor any other creationist is able
>>to either. All he has ever been able to say is that "they are true,"
>>without any support from anywhere.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Cummings fails to take the next logical step already provide by Hume.
>After realizing that we cannot guarrantee the truth of our statements
>neither can we justify them to be true with reasons, or make them more
>probable with corroborations.
Echos of Popper. Although Tony claims to follow Popper, he is
silent on Popper's discussion of the truth. What true statements does
Popper accept?
> But if corroborative evidence is what
>interests secularists and practical atheists, archeologists have
>cooroborated many of the Scriptural observation reports.
>
>Unlike the verificationism of modern secularists I require no entrance
>exams to admit statements as provisionally true. Once they are
>admitted as provisionally true however we must be committed to
>exposing them to harsh rational criticism and a concerted effort made
>to falsify them.
>If the Scriptural eyewitness accounts are false let
>Cummings show them to be so. This is a logical possibility while
>showing them to be true is not.
>
>
>>
>> It's a bit more difficult than that, however.
>>
>> A Christian may say that the miracles reported on in the Bible
>>are absolutley true. But a Muslim or a Hindu can also say that the
>>reports in their holy books are true also, and there is no way that
>>either Tony, or a Muslim or a Hindu. can guarantee the truth of their
>>stories. None at all, for if there were, then there would only be one
>>religion, the true one.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Nor can Cummings guarrantee the truth of any of any of the interesting
>stories of neoDarwinism, Big Bang Cosmology or Abiogenesis.
This doesn't answer the point I'm making, namely that there
is no criterion for determining the True Religion.
>If he
>could then we wouldn't be able to falsify Naturalism and we would all
>become self-fulfilled Atheists like Dawkins. Also it isn't clear
>that the Koran or the books of Hinduism (or any other religion for
>that matter) have much to say about the creation of the universe or
>the life in it.
>
>As to Cummings's conundrum: We can admit all the statements of
>interest to solving some real problem as provisionally true and apply
>harsh rational criticism and attempt to falsify those statements. To
>the extent that we cannot classify them as false they remain as
>provisionally true. So far there is no better means of advancing our
>background knowledge.
I've often put it a little more clearly:
"Science is a cocatenaion of as yet undisproved hypotheses."
I really wonder how many books have been published on the
detection and exposure of religious charlatans? Do the security firms
have a religious affairs division?
>
>
Let me revert to Fatima and the sordid consequences thereof.
I did mention the notorious Blaue Legion, the Spanish division that,
under the banner of Fatima, fought alongside the Nazis in WWII, and
the atrocities committed by them..
These people believed themselves to be fighting a holy war
against atheism, bolshevism, and all the demons of Fascist ideology.
Today, some Muslims believe themselves to be fighting a holy
war against the forces of Satan, the US and all the demons of
Muslim ideology.
I wonder if Tony could tell us the criterion for determining
when a holy war is actually demanded by God, and when it is a
convenient fig-leaf?
Have fun,
Joe Cummings