titan said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

titan said:

---

One quick thing:

Quote:

---

1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

---

False. Hate that saying, despite its pedigree.

There is no such thing as `extraordinary' evidence. There is only claims, and good reliable or very bad and uncertain evidence, whatever the topic.

The closest thing to `extraordinary evidence' that could be said to exist would be a video or photograph. And only for a narrow window ending as you approach the end of the 20th C because it can then be faked. So "extraordinary evidence' has never existed for most of human history.

Now let me read the rest of your post and mull it, as the above is entirely separate pet peeve.

---

I don't hate it. I think it's valid. It depends on how you interpret, "extraordinary evidence." To me, it is a totality of evidence that is or approaches unequivocal given the situation, and that despite the extraordinary nature of the claim, the evidence cannot be ignored or explained in any other way. For instance, if you claimed a cure for cancer and had large scale, documented trials with 100% remission of suffering cancers with low survival rates and no reoccurrence within 10 years in any patient, your extraordinary claim would be backed by extraordinary evidence.

---

No, no. This a big pet peeve, so need to ask you go to further.

WHAT constitutes "extraordinary evidence" between the dawn of the world and 1850 and then again from 2000-present?

Note: Those years are chosen because they are the golden-age of photographs and video as reliable arbiters in large measure (only in the time frame between 1850s during the golden age where photographs could not reliably be faked and video even less --- does it hold sway)

So tell me, what is "extraordinary evidence"?

---

"A totality of evidence that is or approaches unequivocal given the situation"

An example would be the, "meteor killed the dinosaurs," theory. When originally made, it was considered an extraordinary claim, supported almost solely by iridium levels in the KT boundary. It was not widely accepted by gradualists who supported theories that the KT extinction happened gradually and thought such a theory was nothing more than the dying breath of catastrophism.

Today, the totality of the evidence is extraordinary. Many of the arguments against it have been silenced by further evidence. The Chicxulub crater is shown to be about the right age and size to support the theory. It shows that something large, and probably on the size range predicted by the iridium levels in the KT boundary impacted the earth at about the same time. The Shoemaker-Levy 9 impact on Jupiter proved the power of cosmic impacts. Before that observation, many thought such impacts were far less powerful in nature. The question at the time was whether the impacts or evidence of them would even be discernible from earth. Turns out, they left scars on Jupiter's atmosphere for months that were visible even small telescopes, and even the smaller fragments produced massive dark spots the size of our planet.

Given the totality and breath of the evidence, the, "meteor killed the dinosaurs," theory is supported by what I would call extraordinary evidence. No photos or videos needed.

titan said:

---

One quick thing:

Quote:

---

1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

---

False. Hate that saying, despite its pedigree.

There is no such thing as `extraordinary' evidence. There is only claims, and good reliable or very bad and uncertain evidence, whatever the topic.

The closest thing to `extraordinary evidence' that could be said to exist would be a video or photograph. And only for a narrow window ending as you approach the end of the 20th C because it can then be faked. So "extraordinary evidence' has never existed for most of human history.

Now let me read the rest of your post and mull it, as the above is entirely separate pet peeve.

---

I have to disagree. The term may not be pre ise, but thinking in Bayesian terms, a claim will seem extraordinary because evidence has piled up against it. "Little green men lived in 5th century Kashmir" is an extraordinary claim because no one sober has ever seen little green men, there's no archaeological evidence, and so forth.

Now let's say that tomorrow someone finds a 5th century painting of a little green man in Kashmir. We probably dismiss it rather than accepting it as proof- it has a lot of counterevidence to overcome. Or put another way, the evidence updates the Bayesian prior just a little bit; it seems a little more likely but we still don't believe it.

The next day someone unearths a 4' tall skeleton with bits of green skin in Kashmir. Well, we probably don't immediately take it to the bank. Maybe the skin was tattooed, he was unusual short, or natural elements in the earth discolored the corpse. But we're starting to think something is there.

The next day someone conducts releases a study of DNA testing on a hundred 4' tall adult skeletons and they all have a DNA marker for green skin. Well that is very high evidence and it updates our prior all the way from 2% to 60 or 70%, now we believe in little green men.


I have no more positive evidence for the claim that there were blondes in 5th century Kashmir, but my prior is set at more like 40% rather than 0.0001% in the case of little green men. Show me a skeleton with a bit of yellow hair, or a texags poster asserting that its true, and I'll probably buy it. It's not an extraordinary claim so it doesn't take much to update my prior/change my mind.

SLAM said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Asians, Indians, hispanics for the most part are all integrating pretty damn good. When they have financial success comparitively to where they came from, they are happy to have their kids assimilate into the culture.

---

Little Vietnam, the various Chinatowns, Indians congregating in specific areas with other Indians prove otherwise.

I will grant you the Japanese though. They are the only group that really integrated into American culture and from top to bottom and have never really caused any issues even with the internment camps from WWII.

---

I think those pockets are healthy to the integration. The majority of people born in those populations become pretty Americanized and assimilated. For the few that wish to remain encompassed by their ancestral culture they can remain there and create unique pockets of diversity for other Americans to experience.

I wonder if something similar for black Americans would be a healthy way to build their cultural identity. Inner cities are not that though. I'm talking about a pocket of primarily black people who act and have a culture distinctly different than mainstream america and are filled with black owned businesses and successful black people who remain in the community.

Quote:

---

Given the totality and breath of the evidence, the, "meteor killed the dinosaurs," theory is supported by what I would call extraordinary evidence. No photos or videos needed.

---

Ah, I see. You are not talking about a particularly type of 'extraordinary evidence' you are talking about breadth, totality, and several interlocking factors all lining up. Got it now, and agreed.

So by that definition for example, yes, it can be asserted the Apostles definitely believed Christ was raised. They were telling the truth as they knew it. Wherever else one wants to go.

That's one reason that thinking in probabilities is so valuable. If I choose to frame it as "I believe x is true", it's very hard to change my mind. My pride gets wrapped up in it, I've made a claim about the world and can only be right or wrong.

If I choose to frame it as "I believe there is an 70% chance x is true", I haven't built a fort that has to be defended to the death. It's not even admitting that I might be wrong, it's just saying that I will act like x is true, but if it turns out not to be I've allowed for that.

It's a lot easier to update from 70% to 30% than it is to update from 100% to 0%.

Of course, there is value in going all-in on a belief, too. I will barely entertain the thought that certain things could be wrong because I find a lot of value in living as if they were right. Pick your spots though, don't treat every little thing like it's part of your core belief structure. Know when you have enough evidence to round to 100% and when you ought to be at 60%.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

SLAM said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Asians, Indians, hispanics for the most part are all integrating pretty damn good. When they have financial success comparitively to where they came from, they are happy to have their kids assimilate into the culture.

---

Little Vietnam, the various Chinatowns, Indians congregating in specific areas with other Indians prove otherwise.

I will grant you the Japanese though. They are the only group that really integrated into American culture and from top to bottom and have never really caused any issues even with the internment camps from WWII.

---

I think those pockets are healthy to the integration. The majority of people born in those populations become pretty Americanized and assimilated. For the few that wish to remain encompassed by their ancestral culture they can remain there and create unique pockets of diversity for other Americans to experience.

I wonder if something similar for black Americans would be a healthy way to build their cultural identity. Inner cities are not that though. I'm talking about a pocket of primarily black people who act and have a culture distinctly different than mainstream america and are filled with black owned businesses and successful black people who remain in the community.

---

Now THAT is something have always thought was probably the best route. Forget fairness for a second--- the fact is the net challanges worked out something like what the more disadvantage immigrants faced. The solution was probably same --- cultural holding together and employing, and creating a niche within that was fully functional for expanding beyond.

That is why have always been not especially critical of anything designed to assist black businesses and banking options. Not handouts -- for the same reason create terrible whites-- but YES, anything that actually improves black self-actualization. Putting the past on trial does not do it. The day after a statue comes down that only the agitator knew about (and usually inaccurate) NOTHING at all has changed. If the same governor and mayor are in charge the next week, no improvements. The Democratic Party control of the inner cities is the problem. They need to be liberated to be middle class `black pockets' of successful areas like you describe. Need a term for it.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

SLAM said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Asians, Indians, hispanics for the most part are all integrating pretty damn good. When they have financial success comparitively to where they came from, they are happy to have their kids assimilate into the culture.

---

Little Vietnam, the various Chinatowns, Indians congregating in specific areas with other Indians prove otherwise.

I will grant you the Japanese though. They are the only group that really integrated into American culture and from top to bottom and have never really caused any issues even with the internment camps from WWII.

---

I think those pockets are healthy to the integration. The majority of people born in those populations become pretty Americanized and assimilated. For the few that wish to remain encompassed by their ancestral culture they can remain there and create unique pockets of diversity for other Americans to experience.

I wonder if something similar for black Americans would be a healthy way to build their cultural identity. Inner cities are not that though. I'm talking about a pocket of primarily black people who act and have a culture distinctly different than mainstream america and are filled with black owned businesses and successful black people who remain in the community.

---

Are you serious? There are East Asians and Central Americans who have been here for 3+ generations and have still refused to assimilate.

This isn't a new problem. Go to the Northeast and see how many Italians and Jews are still congregating primarily with their own kind. We're 5-6 generations away from when they came over. They aren't going to integrate.

Some cultures/nations have high individuality index scores and some don't Those that can assimilate should be allowed in based on merit. Those who can't should not be here. Looking at you Mexico and China.

Ulrich said:

---

That's one reason that thinking in probabilities is so valuable. If I choose to frame it as "I believe x is true", it's very hard to change my mind. My pride gets wrapped up in it, I've made a claim about the world and can only be right or wrong.

If I choose to frame it as "I believe there is an 70% chance x is true", I haven't built a fort that has to be defended to the death. It's not even admitting that I might be wrong, it's just saying that I will act like x is true, but if it turns out not to be I've allowed for that.

It's a lot easier to update from 70% to 30% than it is to update from 100% to 0%.

Of course, there is value in going all-in on a belief, too. I will barely entertain the thought that certain things could be wrong because I find a lot of value in living as if they were right. Pick your spots though, don't treat every little thing like it's part of your core belief structure. Know when you have enough evidence to round to 100% and when you ought to be at 60%.

---

Well said. Entirely agree. Probabilities and willingness to change based on new valid information is the way to go. And have walked the talk. I have overthrown some of my own prior works when got new evidence.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

SLAM said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Asians, Indians, hispanics for the most part are all integrating pretty damn good. When they have financial success comparitively to where they came from, they are happy to have their kids assimilate into the culture.

---

Little Vietnam, the various Chinatowns, Indians congregating in specific areas with other Indians prove otherwise.

I will grant you the Japanese though. They are the only group that really integrated into American culture and from top to bottom and have never really caused any issues even with the internment camps from WWII.

---

I think those pockets are healthy to the integration. The majority of people born in those populations become pretty Americanized and assimilated. For the few that wish to remain encompassed by their ancestral culture they can remain there and create unique pockets of diversity for other Americans to experience.

I wonder if something similar for black Americans would be a healthy way to build their cultural identity. Inner cities are not that though. I'm talking about a pocket of primarily black people who act and have a culture distinctly different than mainstream america and are filled with black owned businesses and successful black people who remain in the community.

---

The Chinese diaspora has never become loyal to the US. You will find many don't even speak English in those areas and they are often havens for human trafficking, most Asian enclaves have horrific records of human trafficking and illegals. These places are not good examples of healthy integration into Western civilization.

Crime in entirely black areas is usually very high and it conducive to maintaining a healthy and thriving society. Crime causes poverty and even the wealthiest black counties have high crime. It won't really work for them for this reason but if they want to segregate and do their own thing then by all means feel free.

It goes back to fairness being tied to the social structure and hierarchy.

Individually, we don't like disadvantageously unfair individuals or groups because they pose a threat to us and our social standing. Society as a whole marginalizes them through the aggregate marginalization by individuals (the behavior of the whole is the median/average of its parts), so we as individuals strive to be perceived as fair to gain status and acceptance within our social structure. For modern leftists and historical communists, being fair for others is indistinguishable from being fair to others the gain social status and acceptance .

Capitalists recognize CEO compensation as fair because there is a perceived difference in the contribution to the organization of the CEO versus individual frontline employees. We see a retiree's wealth in relation to a student's lack of wealth as fair because the retiree has worked over time to accumulate it, whereas the student has, as of yet, done nothing. We don't generally perceive unfairness to ourselves or our class from other classes or groups because we see ourselves in a different bucket. We perceive unfairness from leftists and communists when they try to lump not just is as individuals, but the class or bucket we see ourselves in with others. Because they attack what we are, we see it as an attack on us directly.

For modern leftists and historical communists, they see all as equal, regardless of the totality of an individual's contribution or effort, so anything or anyone that is perceived as disadvantageously unfair to someone else is by their definition unfair to them because they occupy the same station and thus make the same contribution. Everyone is or should be in the same bucket. If anyone is a victim, everyone other than the perpetrator is equally a victim and should behave and react as such. If you do not acknowledge such, then, "logically" you are not a victim and must be of the perpetrator class. They see any other class or individual with "more" as being disadvantageously unfair because from their reference frame, every member of that class is equal to them. In their eyes, modern leftists aren't being outraged for someone else, they're outraged for themselves by being outraged for everyone because they make no distinction. All individuals are the same, so there is no individual, only the group. Being outraged or fighting for fairness for someone else is the same as being outraged and fighting for fairness for yourself because you're outraged and fighting not for them, but for the group.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Decay said:

---

EskimoJoe said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

It is terrible that this couple is now in a relationship where they see their partner as an enemy.

---

The globalists/main stream media/democrats have succeeded in their quest of division. This is what they want for all of us. They want to drive a wedge between us, right down to our marriages and home life. It ends in broken homes and children at risk for growing up in an unstable environment where their chance at succeeding in life is greatly diminished.

---

Which is why they attack religion so hard as well. It's one of the few things that can weather the storm.

The biggest threat to religion is not outright attack, it's the twisting and distortion. Stay strong.

---

This is something I have been thinking a lot about. I am no longer a believer yet I think religion, especially Judeo/Christian religion is something needed in the western world.

I have been pondering if the increase of atheism and non belief in the west has driven more people over to social justice and globalism. Whereas, under a belief of a fair and just God that watches over us all and makes everything work out for the good, there is not as much incentive to constantly worry about injustice in the world and trying to do whatever it takes to fix it.

As nonbelievers, people could look at injustice that happens around the world and become obsessed because they have no reason to believe that ultimately justice will be done. They then look at social justice movements as the only way to bring about global social justice and believe that all human efforts should be aimed at that goal.

I think the fact that Western Civilization was based upon Judeo/Christian values means that even when religion is not passed onto younger generations, the concept of ultimate justice is. Passing that on without religion and a belief in a just God would seem to encourage social justice type advocacy and thought.

---

Very interesting thoughts here and makes sense. Personally, I don't attend church because I get nothing out of it. I'm not an atheist but I can probably be considered an agnostic. Regardless of my personal religious beliefs, I'm astute enough to recognize that the cultural values and norms that flow from Judeo/Christiandom are largely beneficial and serve as the foundation for a functioning and fair society. If we cast that aside in this ever growing movement of making the physical our new religion then we simply fracture and fall apart.

We are, in fact, living that right now as much of the left has utterly abandoned the cultural pact this country was founded on in their pursuit of assigning religious sanctity to their various planks: climate, racial identity, social justice, etc. None of these things will ever have full buy-in simply because they are not universal.

We need Judeo/Christianity to survive and remain the underlying basis of this country because without it there is only anarchy as all of the various factions promote their personal cause as the one true religion. It's abundantly clear watching the Democrat party that they are living this right now. Their cast aside of a unifying cultural influence like religion has utterly destroyed them having a cohesive message. Last year women were all the rage, then Trans people had the spotlight, and now blacks own it for the moment. It's chaos and pits humanity against one another to the detriment of all.

The bottom line is that I'm more or less applying Pascal's Wager to Judeo/Christianity as the unifying force even though I don't participate in the traditional "Sunday rights".

Ulrich said:

---

That's one reason that thinking in probabilities is so valuable. If I choose to frame it as "I believe x is true", it's very hard to change my mind. My pride gets wrapped up in it, I've made a claim about the world and can only be right or wrong.

If I choose to frame it as "I believe there is an 70% chance x is true", I haven't built a fort that has to be defended to the death. It's not even admitting that I might be wrong, it's just saying that I will act like x is true, but if it turns out not to be I've allowed for that.

It's a lot easier to update from 70% to 30% than it is to update from 100% to 0%.

Of course, there is value in going all-in on a belief, too. I will barely entertain the thought that certain things could be wrong because I find a lot of value in living as if they were right. Pick your spots though, don't treat every little thing like it's part of your core belief structure. Know when you have enough evidence to round to 100% and when you ought to be at 60%.

---

THIS

I'd like to see hard numbers to back that up. What what I've seen, the majority of 3+ generational kids assimilate more into American culture and a minority remain in the segregated pockets while newer immigrants fill the voids and continue the process.

Quote:

---

For modern leftists and historical communists, they see all as equal, regardless of the totality of an individual's contribution or effort, so anything or anyone that is perceived as disadvantageously unfair to someone else is by their definition unfair to them because they occupy the same station and thus make the same contribution. Everyone is or should be in the same bucket. If anyone is a victim, everyone other than the perpetrator is equally a victim and should behave and react as such. If you do not acknowledge such, then, "logically" you are not a victim and must be of the perpetrator class. They see any other class or individual with "more" as being disadvantageously unfair because from their reference frame, every member of that class is equal to them. In their eyes, modern leftists aren't being outraged for someone else, they're outraged for themselves by being outraged for everyone because they make no distinction. All individuals are the same, so there is no individual, only the group. Being outraged or fighting for fairness for someone else is the same as being outraged and fighting for fairness for yourself because you're outraged and fighting not for them, but for the group.

---

This is so maddening. (Agree if it what the Leftists are). And it is so levelling of anything interesting and unique. Kind of like the kind that resents beauty of some women over others. If we have to have a group think, far more prefer an empire if the Left insists on destroying what we have. Imposed equality is far too gray.

The difference I'm seeing in the left today is that it is far more aggressive and unrealistic on level of fairness and how far of a net it should cast. The globalization aspect of it especially that calls for open borders and committing as much resources as it takes to saving all humanity that is suffering from it. The demand for perfectly representative diversity in every profession, organization, group, ect. The demand for renouncing reality itself so that those that are offended by reality are no longer offended.

I think a grounding in a belief in a just and fair God can stave off this level of extreme justice ideology.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

The difference I'm seeing in the left today is that it is far more aggressive and unrealistic on level of fairness and how far of a net it should cast. The globalization aspect of it especially that calls for open borders and committing as much resources as it takes to saving all humanity that is suffering from it. The demand for perfectly representative diversity in every profession, organization, group, ect. The demand for renouncing reality itself so that those that are offended by reality are no longer offended.

I think a grounding in a belief in a just and fair God can stave off this level of extreme justice ideology.

---

The other part of your insight that makes it so provocative is the reverse also seems to apply. You have the final proof that total naturalism and atheism will not work, and does not. Indeed, strong circumstantial evidence that such ideology is not `natural' and leads general society failure.

This has nothing to do with the wider question of believing in a specific kind of theism or `rites'.

But it does follow from what you are saying. The lack of it cannot work, and has indeed failed to the extent Europe and America has already embraced it.