Flawless Syllogism & Science Can't Investigate the Supernatural | Billy - TX | Talk Heathen 03.09
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 มี.ค. 2019
- Talk Heathen 03.09 for March 3, 2019 with Eric Murphy & Jamie Boone.
Call the show on Sundays 1:00-2:00pm CDT: 1-512-686-0279
Don't like commercials? Become a patron & get ad-free episodes & more: / talkheathentome
The podcast may be found at:
www.spreaker.com/show/talkhea...
-------
WHAT IS TALK HEATHEN?
Talk Heathen is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared toward long-form and on-going dialogue with theists & atheists about religion, theism, & secularism. Talk Heathen is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
Talk Heathen is filmed in front of a live studio audience every week at the Freethought Library of the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop & support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing & friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of government-religion separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists & to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
NOTES
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
Opening Theme:
Ethan Meixsell "Takeoff"
/ talkheathen is the official channel of Talk Heathen. "Talk Heathen" is a trademark of the ACA.
Copyright © 2017 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
I can't eat hot lava, therefore everything I can't eat is hot lava...
Wish they just repeated something like this expose how absurd his argument was. The fact he can’t see it himself speaks volumes.
Love you
Hopped down here to make sure someone said this!
I sure hope Mr. Flawless reads this.
I CAN eat hot lava but it will kill me.. therefore all things that i can eat will kill me
billy's demonstration of the dunning-kruger effect was flawless.
Your comment made me laugh so hard!! Thank you , I needed a laugh today
Dunning-Kruger University was actually where he took his syllogism to get feedback and criticism.
Selma Ave Dunning Kruger University... That needs to be on a t-shirt LOL
Calm down, dude. 🤪
Thx for keeping the DK-isms in play. I introduced "Dunning-Kruger Univ. of Reason Research & Wishery" in a forum in S. Diego about 5 yes ago, and am complimented anytime I see it's reverb.
Poor Billy...
He brought argument music to evidence & demonstration dance. Sad face :(
Argument will never substitute for evidence.
Argument is ultimately, ALWAYS circular. ("is not!" vs. "is so")
Evidence stands alone & supports it's own weight + the compounding of critique.
Every time Billy calls in, fallacies are presented,
therefore every time fallacies are presented, Billy must be the caller.
Consider your consequent affirmed.
Flawless conclusion-ShangTsung
Brilliant 🤣
Correct!!
I love it!
Billy: "I have the ultimate syllogism I have been working on for years and it is absolutely flawless, dude..."
Respondent: "Well, Billy..."
Billy: "JESUS CHRIST, CALM DOWN, dude, holy shit, wtf omg..."
Whenever he gets upset, he turns into Napoleon Dynamite on crack.
"My syllogism has no flaws". The first premise is in fact two premises. Even before getting to the truth or falsity of Billy's 'first premise', his syllogism is *already* flawed structurally. Instant fail.
His syllogism is a textbook example of a fallacy called affirming the consequent anyway.
His first attempt at a premise is actually a stupid premise and a stupid conclusion.💩
Guys, I think billy might not be super smart.
@@EustaBAracer indeed. His cognitive abilities are level-par with his ability to accept glaringly obvious constructive feedback.
His first premise is actually a single premise and a conclusion, complete with a "therefore."
Billy in a nutshell: "I don't need education because I think I'm smart."
Bigly so.
Well, he is in a nutshell.
Billy telling them to calm down is doubly hilarious after his recent Talk Heathen call with Katy and Genevieve.
The episode with Katy and Genevieve is my all time favorite. Hilarious, I thought he was going to either start slinging Pooh and/or cry.
I was just about to ask if this is the same Billy.
@@jimhoffmark6740the god of suffering title makes it perfect
@@badbonobo9985look up billy tx and you'll find all his calls dude has zero embarrassment
Cats aren't allowed in my house. The Queen of England isn't allowed in my house. Therefore, the Queen of England is a cat. ...... ...... ???
If you're in the UK the queen is allowed in your house as she owns everything in the UK, and she can take a cat with her.
Yes, she's a cool cat. But very old. More than nine lives already used.
lol, that's funny man.
Better than my analogy
Wow
"my syllogism is flawless therefore if you find a flaw in it your criticism is invalid because my syllogism is flawless"
"Why should I change if you're the one who sucks?!"
“You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.” -Inigo Montoya
Earth to Billy: science also cannot investigate things that don't exist.
This should have Jamie & Eric's response right off the bat.
He sure did appear to be adamant that his made up undetectable Billy was conclusive proof of the supernatural....
Exactly. There is no evidence of the 'supernatural'. It is just a failed black and white fallacy
His next move would just be to say sure, but the supernatural does exist
Kenton Baird Indeed. How desperate these people are? The mental gymnastics you have to go through in order to justify your nonexistent position is appalling (and frightening).
It'd be antithetical to the purpose of the show to just shut the man down, because how will he learn. Not from people just shutting him down. But it is hilarious how he worked on this for years and doesn't take what these two are saying as flaws in his argument
Billy: "There's no flaws there's no flaws"
*stamps feet*
I can't hold a conversation with algae, therefore everything I can't hold a conversation with is algae.
Strange how he hasn't addressed this flawless takedown of his "logic." He's been trolling these comments pretty hard.
@@sapago4166 That makes him algae.
did you just call Billy algae?
This is the best comment XD
Makes sense. Damn algae. 🤣🤣
"There are absolutely no flaws"
15 seconds in and we all spot the first flaw! Facepalm!
Fun fact, when Billy called the Atheist Experince the outcome was just as hilarious.
@zempath nah was an old video I think.
@zempath the one where Billy wanted to know how Matt knew that universe farting pixies were farting. And he tried to define quantum particles as supernatural.
th-cam.com/video/GRBktjJLpE8/w-d-xo.html
@@ROFT "How do you know they're farting, though?" That's when I knew this would be a classic repeat caller.
It's funny that he has posted on some of the other threads on this video, but has decided to change his "flawless" argument. He was also challenged by another poster on here and the end results was a long string of insults and throwing his dummy out of the cot. I don't think he is a poe, but sometimes its almost impossible to detect that from just plain stupidity.
Link to video!
>Premise 1- Non sequitur fallacy and equivocation fallacy.
>Premise 2- False premise and argument from ignorance fallacy.
>Conclusion: invalid and unsound argument.
This has been a completely broken syllogism.
Argument 2: Divine fallacy [Argument from personal incredulity fallacy].
Well, affirming the consequent fallacy. “All dogs are mortal; Socrates is mortal; therefore Socrates is a dog.” The supernatural cannot be investigated by science, Dark Matter cannot be investigated, therefor DM is supernatural. Same form.
@@MethodSkeptic The main issue with his syllogism is (as Eric states) the presumption that stuff will never be able to be investigated.
Hundreds of years ago, we couldn't investigate how the water cycle works or how exactly birds fly (cause it's not just the flapping of the wings, exemplified by early nonflying flying machines with flappy wings :D) - according to his logic, this means the water cycle or "flying" is supernatural.
Meh. :D
cy-one well, there are many problems. It’s been a while since I watched this clip.
How can the 1st premise include 2 fallacies? Fallacies apply to arguments, and the 1st premise is just a statement (a true one) and it is literally impossible for the 1st premise of any argument to be a non-sequitur.
A non-sequitur is where the conclusion or/and a premise(s) doesn't logically follow from the argument/previous premise(s). In order for a non-sequitur to be identified in any premise, there must be a preceding premise before it, from which it doesn't follow...
Don't get me wrong though, his argument is bullshit - it is a textbook version of a fallacy known as 'affirming the consequent'. His argument is identical to this:
If I snuggle a hedgehog, I'm in pain.
I'm in pain, therefore I must be snuggling a hedgehog.
That is structurally identical to what he said, which was...
Science can't investigate the supernatural, therefore anything science can't investigate must be supernatural.
"I have a flawless syllogism"
"I see some flaws"
"I've worked on this for years … it's flawless"
.
So the translation is "I'm not going to listen to any criticism, I'm just going to repeatedly assert that I'm right". Once you get past all of the pseudo-scientific word salad and philosophical sophistry ALL apologetics boil down to "believe what I believe because I say so".
Well apparently Mr.Moron took his syllogism to a YOUNIVerCity, and they iz found nuthin' rong wit itt. FFS it was probably a clown college.
Billy has made the assertion that dark matter can't be investigated. We are currently investigating dark matter. How does he not see how busted his assertion is?
I honestly don't think Billy knows what "investigate" means.
Billy is trying to be all macho about his argument, but he's really just a wimp (badum pish)
dark matter is matter... but dark...
I think it's the equivalent of "were you there?". Zealots don't seem to think you can observe or test things if you can't physically see them with your eyes.
@@ROFT I agree, and was thinking something similar this morning. His argument on dark matter could be applied just as well to molecules, leading to the conclusion that molecules are supernatural
"We can't ever investigate dark matter because we can't detect it." He then proceeds to explain exactly how it was first detected.
Billy claims to have gone to universities with this and they were unable to identify any flaw. Then when he's challenged on his "logic" he complains that people always microanalyse it, suggesting anyone he's presented this to did indeed find flaws but he just decided to ignore them because he didn't understand/it's not fair/reasons and then conclude that there were no objections.
remember old fashioned trousers? Exactly so.
Excellent point
Maybe that “university” where Kent Hovind bought his doctorate?
@@sternwheeler yeah but my point was that Billy just imagines any objections out of existence, whereas the type you refer to wouldn't object. So you raise a good point, but not related to mine.
remember old fashioned trousers?, mostly it was my way of calling BS that he had visited any university.
"'All wood burns', states Sir Bedevere, 'therefore all that burns is wood.'"
Paul Beaulieu “Build a bridge out of her!”
MONTY PYTHON SOUNDTRACK FROM THE MOVIE: THE HOLY GRAIL. My favorite record when I was 13.
But can you not also make bridges out of stone?
@@johnmorris2170 mine too, actually
Are germs supernatural?
No
Were they supernatural before the Germ Theory of Disease?
No
Could they be detected before the theory?
No
Could we see the results (the disease) caused by germs before germs were detected?
Yes
Were germs ever supernatural?
No
This defeats Billy's idiocy. I worked on this for 3 minutes. It is flawless.
Dude omg! calm down! calm down! 95% of your reply is supernatural!
@@sfprivateer Dude! OMG! Calm Down! My reply was soooo calm! Don't read more into it than was there! Take a pill! Find some Zen!
And have yourself a nice day.
@@Sparky1701 You REALLY did not understand sarcasm? I was basically replying as Billy would have ......
@@sfprivateer that was spot on
That's 3 minutes of your life you will never get back.
19:10 Lmao, his definition of "undetectable" is just being invisible. Billy, the aluminum cans being crushed IS THE DETECTABLE PART.
I knew wind was supernatural. :D
Edit: Oh, wind being supernatural means sailing boats are vessels powered by arcane magic, lol.
@@cy-oneI’m using this for DnD.
Warning, do NOT take a shot every time Billy says "flawless" you might die
As a student of physics, Billy makes me want to gouge my ears out.
As an aerospace engineering student (specifically space engineering)…
So say we all.
Billy might be the most conceited pseudo intellectual I’ve heard on the show.
Single best description of Billy I've ever seen.
Billy is so incredibly controlling and emotionally charged that he can't even reason.
'If I would be undetectable, and crushing aluminium cans...'
Dude, then you crushing aluminium cans is the way of detecting you.
You can wait until a can is crushed and then throw sticky colored stuff at the general area and make him visible.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 No, but I can deduce the properties of the thing crushing the cans. For example by how the can is being crashed we can learn about its shape and weight, or how he cant crush cans too far away from each other at the same time. We detect things by inspecting their effects on reality.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 Oh no I can already feel the "Did you just assume my gender" memes incoming! In my native language there is no separate he and she, so for some reason when speaking english i default to He. Plus the caller was a male. *meme intensifies*
@@tiffanyfrank3654 I dont know if its humanoid but the point is that its *not undetectable*. I may not be able to tell that its Billy crushing the cans but after a few crushed cans I can point out that i see no other reasons of the cans being crushed and that these crushings are consistent with the way those earlier cans were crushed. I wont know if its humanoid or even an entity but i will have good reason to propose that its the same or a very similar thing, and i will know some of its properties.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 I investigate the phenomenon and here is the tricky part because "Billy" in this case is effectively not an undetectable human but the phenomenon that cans are getting crushed.
We were only talking about a human because you stated as such in the original argument, but is it justified when it has no properties that a human does?
Noone:
Billy: I’ve been working on this syllogism for years, dude. It’s flawless.
Billy: **shits pants at the first premise**
One of the most flawed syllogisms I've EVER heard on this show... wow... just wow.
Having these kind of conversation with these kind of people,is hard not to get your heart pumping fast.
Ive said it before about a frustrating TAE clip, and it's appropriate for this clip too, "If you wanna raise your blood pressure, then watch this video!"
"If science cannot examine something.....it is supernatural"? Billy, until recently, nobody could examine the other side of the moon. Does this mean that the other side of the moon is supernatural? Come on, man. Think about what you are saying.
It's just an equivocation; he thinks if he can change the definition of supernatural and then get someone to accept his premise that he can immediately switch to the actual definition and claim that he's proven "god".
Aka he's a moron
Isn’t this a formal fallacy or something?
Hammer science cannot examine how skyrim is still relevant and people still didn’t find all the fun stuff. So skyrim is supernatural?
@@tiffanyfrank3654 I notice your go to argument is to point out things which weren't said word for word even though it is the gist of what was said, or is a fair inference.
What he put in quotes pretty much is what your argument was, which means it is not a straw man.
@@Revanbzn it's a non sequitur
"I'm probably twice as old as you..."
"I believe you, my evidence is: I've met some really stupid old people..."
His first mistake is calling it flawless. Nothing is flawless, specifically something that is produced by a human mind
This perfect syllogism has no flaws… except for the word “yet.” It all falls apart at “yet.”
Premise 1 :"Science cannot investigate supernatural "
The first question after that is "what is supernatural?"
If supernatural is that which can't be investigated by science, we're in a circle Billy
Excuse me it is not just a circle, it is a perfect circle! 😤
"Anything that science cannot investigate is supernatural!"
"Science cannot investigate a rock that doesn't exist. The rock that doesn't exist is not supernatural, because it doesn't exist and possesses no attributes beyond nonexistence. Therefore..."
...god? 🤣
Actually no. The rock that doesn't exist IS supernatural, because science can't investigate it. The characteristic of existence is irrelevant to the question of supernaturality.
That rock is supernatural.
According to Billy.
Oef... that guy is so butthurt....
The guy sounds like a narcist, the guy seems to not be able to handle any form of criticism of his clearly flawed reasoning.
@@rstevewarmorycom ah thanks. i wrote it like i would in my own language.
@@rstevewarmorycom Dutch
Hey don't diss us narcissists, actually yea go ahead we don't care, it doesn't matter.
No, but his syllogism IS flawless. See, he spent years on it! AND, he's older than you! So it MUST be flawless. It can't be that a person who hears it for the first time can find flaws in it right away.
Jesus H. C. his reasoning really reeks of autism.
@Josh but I'm literally 100% incapable of being wrong about it...
The homey with the glasses has the smoothest radio voice I've ever heard
Big fan of the show
You guys remind me We Are All On The Same Team
Billy argues like Reza Aslan. I was just waiting for him to say, “I have a degree.”
Billy is down here in the comments and named
"William Mills
"
The comments are as confused and full of absence of knowledge its almost funny.
Radar, X-ray, SONAR, indirect detection is detection.
I cannot detect air pressure. That is, I can notice rapid changes (ears, flying, connect the dots). Therefore air pressure is supernatural.
Even though I can detect the height change in a water or mercury column. Or the indentation of a (partially) evacuates can with a spring therein keeping it from collapsing - if I use long pointers and possibly some clever gears to magnify the miniature movements.
We can detect planets by minute but regular dips in brightness of stars. We cannot “see” or “directly detect” (most of) these planets, our current telescope systems do not resolve even the star itself … and we currently cannot step onto that planet (and likely not until, if ever, we manage some kind of FTL).
Dude - I don't think you get it. He's been working on this for YEARS. Like, pretend that you spend an entire afternoon on something. Think about how long that took... now extend the time... like... *way* longer than that. That's how long he's worked on this. It's FLAWLESS.
“I’ve been working on this syllogism for years. It’s perfect.” - Billy admitting he wasted years of his life on a complete lack of logic
Sitting here eating ice cream and gigggling my ass off. Loving Hill Billy. 😆 From Tex Ass.
While Jamie takes a second to try and calm everything down Eric starts taking his jacket off... that’s how you know shits about to get real😂😂😂
You damn Heathens with your logic and reason!
I love you guys, you're fantastic!!!
It's a perfect argument as long as I ignore every fault you have with it. I'm a genius.
His first "premise", "Science can't examine the supernatural; therefore everything science can't investigate is supernatural" is equivalent to "Firetrucks are never green; therefore everything that is not a fire truck is green."
Hey Billy, please produce something of the supernatural, then we can all see if science can investigate it. First things first. The first thing we need is evidence that the supernatural even can exist, in any form. It is quite possible that there are concepts that simply cannot exist, because they do not exist. Can science examine, for example, a unicorn that does not exist?
But once you produce evidence that the supernatural even can exist, you have already begun to investigate it. To believe in the supernatural you must, therefore, believe without evidence.
@@ecocentrichomestead6783 "...once you produce evidence..." suggests that you have to have a concept in your mind before evidence can be found. This is not true. Imaging that you go around a corner and see your friend. Did you have to have that vision in your mind for that to happen? No. I agree, however, that to believe in the "supernatural" you must believe without evidence, and this is why belief in the "supernatural" is not warranted. Otherwise, you can believe absolutely anything, even things that cannot be, like a large round peg fitting into a smaller square hole.
@@James-ye7rp I disagree. You can have evidence that something exists without having a concept of what that thing is.
Science often puts place holders (such as "dark matter") in there or just "we don't know yet". Those that believe in the supernatural say "Magic", "God", "Ghosts" and other ideas that can't be detected
@@ecocentrichomestead6783 That is correct, "we don't know ..." is a reasonable response. By they way, the term "yet" you applied is also unreasonable, as it assumes that evidence may well be forthcoming, even for something that cannot exist. It is a far better response than "yup, I believe it, even without evidence of it even existing". That is the whole idea of "place holders" or saying "we don't know". That is why reasonable people say they do not believe that a god/god's exist when nobody supplies any evidence of such a thing, at all. Before you suggest that I am insulting anyone by saying that they are acting without reason, that is exactly what they are doing, acting without reason. By definition, they are acting unreasonably.
When Billy said that the university didn't have any rebuttals. What he means is that, he did not understand their points.
This will go down in history as a classic episode. The "flawless" syllogism.
Billy has been working on this for years with no idea what he is doing or how the world works
Einstein though Black Holes, despite working out in his equations, couldn't actually exist. He also believed we would never be able to measure gravitational waves. Now we can.
Crap, there shooting holes in my first premise, time to put on my tap shoes.
Haha
It is spelled "They're" not "there."😀
@@elainejohnson6955 lol I didn't even notice that. I really need to proofread more often. 🤣
@@stevenb8611 No problem, it was still a funny post!
Man i love billy. Any day i feel stressed or upset i bring up a billy call and instantly feel better
I worked on it for years
I took it to a university
I showed it to the janitor
He said it was flawless
😉😁😂🤣
It was a janitor working for the coffee shop across the street, but anyway.
Insult to janitors
Will Hunting?
“No, it’s perfect. And if you don’t see it as perfect, then you’re just wrong.” That right there shows his mindset and that he’s not even open to actual conversation about it. He just wanted you to tell him he was right. That’s it.
Billy the supernatural can crusher. More sound than his original arguement
There is not a legitimate scientist in the world who would look at something, get confused and use the word "supernatural" to describe it!
I'm smelling Nobel.
Billy reminds me of Monty Python's Black Knight. "Your arm's off!" "No it's not."
Ahh, Billy makes a return to a different show after his painful defeat on The Atheist Experience.
"Billy, unexplainable things are not explained by you!"
The second he started his argument I face palmed so hard, you could probably here the “slap” 3 or 4 rooms away in my house.
His premise one is where this falls out.
"Dogs have 4 legs, so if we find a creature with 4 legs it's a dog."
That was a delightful ending to Billy's story.
Having listened to both TH and AXP a few times, I find it funny how Silly Billy here has being comprehensively dismantled by Matt D on multiple time, yet Billy hasn’t learned a single thing.
"I have been working on this syllogism for YEARS"
Billy is 100% the weird coworker who is always muttering to himself in the back office and as soon as something sets him off he just starts excitedly rambling.
"Yes i understand that in the past we didn't know things and that didn't mean those things were supernatural but have you considered the fact that we also don't know things now?" Wow, flawless
Billy. He's called the AE before using the Argument ad Poplulum, and couldn't be convinced that he was using it. Sad.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 no its because your arguments were bad and wrong
If most of us agree that you were arguing ad populum, then by your own logic it is more likely to be true.
I could send you a link to the video if you have trouble remembering what you said, but this twist of logic will suffice for now because it is impossible to use this argument to establish the truth of a statement. Besides, it ignores the fact that popular ideas have been proven false time and time again throughout history. The flat earth and heliocentric models are two prime examples.
I've visited your channel, btw. Seems like your ideas are unpopular. Since you've established this line of reasoning, maybe it is because they are not true and you've gotten destroyed on every call.
P.S. There are some really good examples in the comments section that lay bare the flaw in your perfect syllogism. You should address them.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 Is it possible for a perfect thing (under a normative usage of perfect) to be flawed (again, normative usage)?
@@tiffanyfrank3654 Yup. And I meant "geocentric." I'm basically Donald Trump talking about the oranges of the universe.
FWIW, I've been losing sleep due to chronic joint pain and have been distracting myself with TH-cam. I like to think I am not usually so scatterbrained, but I cannot claim objectivity in the matter.
Well, that was... painful
In a perfectly constructed way I may say.
To prepare oneself on a failing argument for years then fractally fail...
who wants to bet the man stil believes he is undefeated. (Remember the man says that he has talked to some people and they have torn apart his argument picking on every single thing. AND he still thinks he is undefeated)
"I'm not defensive, it's just there are no flaws."
Jamie is the eye of the shitstorm. Eric is the wind. I love you two. You make me laugh and learn everytime I watch your show.
Billy doesn't know the first thing about syllogisms.
Use another decade learning philosophy 101
i can investigate the supernatural...
i literally watch the show every evening...
its a passable tv series...
It was a PERFECT phone call!
“My syllogism has no flaws”… 🤣
There's a dark matter laboratory on the North York Moors not far from where I live. It'd be very odd if it wasn't investigating dark matter...
Is prayer a call to the supernatural? I believe science has weighed in on this.
No, prayer (especially for Christians) is even more funny (some details change based on the denomination):
It's basically a person who believes that everything follows God's perfect plan and has been pre-destined at least since that person existed, and quite possibly even since before that God created Adam and Eve to change one detail of his perfect plan according to the wishes of that one puny human.
Not only showing that the person doesn't think God's plan is perfect to begin with, but also showing that person either thinks his own wishes take priority over God's plan OR that something happened to negatively affect an all-powerful and all-knowing God's plan and that puny human knows how to get the perfect plan back on track.
Yeeeeaaaaaaahhhhh... Makes sense! :D
It's really easy to say something has no flaws when you don't understand that thing enough to identify it's flaws
Billy is as sharp as a bowling ball!
I will make a prediction. Whenever someone calls an atheist show with a "flawless" proof of god or the supernatural it will always be shown to be invalid and full of flaws.
This dude kills me every time he calls axp or th, he’s so incredibly full of himself XD
I hate it when people say to calm down when any emotion is expressed. Your discomfort with emotions doesn’t negate my position.
I'm so glad that I got to hear billy go on about how perfect he is (though he called it a syllogism).... 30 minutes of my life I'll never get back.😠
Wow.... I just learned that ageism is strong with this one
Can science investigate the results of this supernatural thing? If it can investigate the results, then it can be investigated.
This is impossible to listen to. No one can get a full sentence out
This call went about as well as his call to Katy and Genevieve.
That was a frustrating yet entertaining call. The caller showed the consequences of the easiest trap for a scientist or investigator, he became emotionally invested in his research or work thereby losing his ability to be objective or listen to constructive criticism or endure the rigors of peer review.
@25.07 He says he's twice as old as they are, like it means something. Older doesn't necessarily mean wiser otherwise there wouldn't be stupid old people which there clearly are.
It's the nuisance caller Billy again.
The best thing I ever bought was an answering machine.
Nuisance callers do not leave messages.
I bet Billy sits around his house and tells himself that he is a golden god.
I can't believe how patient Jamie and Eric were with that caller...
He misunderstood Matt. You cannot investigate something that does not manifests in reality is what Matt meant.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 My interpretation
Flawless as long as you redefine half the terms to mean something other than what they are accepted to mean.
We can observe 'supernatural' events based on inference from the effects they have on the natural world. We can't see Black Holes, but infer their existence based on detectable gravitational anomalies and the absence of starlight blocked by the hole.
Actually a picture of a black hole was taken just a few days ago.
I love you Jamie you brought everything back to the point so well I couldn't even process it. This is a so much more productive method of conversation if you really want to get through to the person you are talking to. You need to do this more that was beautiful. ❤️
All dogs have got four legs.
Therefore anything with four legs is a dog.
My table is a dog.
Christ on a crutch! What is Billy's actual definition of "supernatural"? Essentially, ANYthing that hasn't yet been explained by science is 'supernatural' according to him. This guy is his own Mutual Admiration Society with his assumed flawless reasoning; and I seriously doubt he has ever presented this non-affirming syllogism to anyone with a working knowledge of logic or philosophy.
Now wait a second, I hope you're at least twice as old as he is before you assert such things
I'm more than twice his age. @@BSunE
@@theunholyhorseman7139 well in that case, your criticism stands (I know because I'm 3 times everyone elses age)
Did you guys all come here from a question on a maths exam?
This guy sounds strangely like gary (DarthDawkins), he builds up a presup that makes zero sense. He defends it like an emotional child, then he lashes out when he doesn't get his way. Maybe this is a long lost cousin or something.
As a mathematician, I just love it when people violate my subject of passion like this. I've never heard this problem that Billy had described as "affirming the consequent", and I can't quite wrap my head around that terminology tbh, but this is a really basic simple structure that is embarrassing to get wrong once you think about it for even a second.
Formally speaking, "Dogs have hair" is an example of an _implication_ statement. If we're looking at an object, that object having the property of "being a dog" _implies_ that it also has the property of "having hair" (and if the object does not have the property of "being a dog" we just can't say anything further about it yet).
Notably there's a useful common thing we can do with implication statements called a _contraposition_ : if all dogs have hair, then we can also say that any creature that DOESN'T have hair cannot be a dog (because if it was it would have hair, which it doesn't). This is the legitimate way in which we can reverse an implication.
In the example of "science can't investigate the supernatural" the implication is "IF something is supernatural, THEN science can't investigate it". And the contraposition would be "If something can be investigated by science, it cannot be supernatural". Obviously both of these implications are completely untrue premises depending on your definition of "supernatural", but we could assume this is true for the sake of argument.
What we're NOT allowed to do is just reverse the implication arrow. "Dogs have hair" does not mean "Everything that has hair is a dog" (and the "affirming the consequent" example of "Jamie has hair, therefore Jamie is a dog" is just using this incorrect reverse implication claim on a concrete example case) and this is obvious to anyone who has ever done any math. You prove the reverse implication separately because it doesn't just follow. That's why "if" and "iff" are separate things, why ⇒ and ⇔ are different symbols. Now you can define the left hand side of this equivalence such that it's defined by the right hand side, a la "something is a dog exactly if it has hair"; but then we can argue if that's a useful definition of "dog", or "supernatural" (I'd argue it's a stupid definition).
We certainly can't both-ways it like Billy did: his later stuff relied on "supernatural" being defined as "unexplainable (or currently unexplained) by science"… but he also EXPLICITLY STATED that all he's saying is that "being uninvestigable" is just ONE OF the defining properties of the supernatural. Cool, so there are others. So it's not equivalent, because there may be uninvestigable things that do not meet the other defining properties of "supernatural". So we have both an implication and an equivalence statement, and Billy treats them like they're the same kind of statement, but they're not.
Maybe we really should make it illegal for anyone to say anything "logical" unless they've proved that they've successfully taken a logic 101, or just a math 101 course even. 99% of all stupidity in the world would just be over.
I love how they both raised the same issues and kept interrupting each other trying to say it at the same time, it was fun to watch