Which of the following events would be extraordinary?

[Boojatta]

[tekisui]

1. It's held this long, finding it untrue now would be extraordinary.

[Boojatta]

2. If a mathematician had said in 1985...

that nobody would ever find a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, then would the mathematician have been making an ordinary claim or an extraordinary claim?

[tekisui]

4. I'd go with ordinary on that one.

Although, I must admit, it is all over my head. I have never study it.

[Boojatta]

3. When Fermat made the statement that is his "last theorem",

was he making an ordinary claim or an extraordinary claim?

[cyborg_jim]

5. He never made that statement

[Boojatta]

6. By "never made", do you mean "never uttered out loud"?

What statement do you have in mind when you say that he never made it?

[cyborg_jim]

7. He didn't sit down one day and go, "you know, that's my last theorem - time to die now"

He didn't utter it.

He didn't write it.

He didn't come up with it.

Even for you I would have thought this concept wouldn't leave too much room for misunderstanding.

[Boojatta]

8. I didn't say that he referred to it as "my last theorem."

I specifically wrote:

the statement that is his "last theorem"

Nowhere did I indicate that "last theorem" quotes Fermat.

[cyborg_jim]

9. Then why didn't you reply:

"It was written down in the margin - why are you saying it wasn't?"

I misread your original post but this seems to indicate you haven't even done any cursory research on what the history of the problem. Doesn't bode well for any ability to sensibly discuss this - but then given your history one cannot really expect that.

And no, it's not an "extraordinary claim," it's a conjecture. I really don't know what you hope to demonstrate by associating abstract symbolic problems with issues of whether or not particular physical events ever occurred.

[Boojatta]

10. "And no, it's not an extraordinary claim, it's a conjecture."

Are you suggesting that Fermat wrote that he had attempted to prove FLT, and that Fermat didn't actually assert that he had a correct proof?

[cyborg_jim]

15. No

[Az]

11. Um... Booj... baby.... dude... bubbala... just once... could you just come out and say what you mean

Just once state your case in a straight forward method. No polls. No dancing around the issue. Just state your argument and lets examine it all together. Please.

[Boojatta]

12. Didn't you suggest that an event can be classified as either

"ordinary" or "extraordinary"? Didn't you suggest that we need to know the classification of the event before we can determine what kind of evidence is required to justify a conclusion that the event actually occurred?

[Az]

13. So state your case

Top to bottom. We have lost track of what you are trying to say. Too much dancing. Too much subterfuge. Too many polls. Just say what your point is and how it relates to religion, belief, or theology.

[Occam Bandage]

16. Completely agreed. Getting irritated with Boojatta's oblique polls.

Wishing Boojatta would stop metaposting and actually make a concrete, defensible point one of these days.

[Boojatta]

17. "We have lost track"

Are the DU username Az and associated password being used by more than one person?

[Boojatta]

18. It's not a case. It's a question.

Consider these events: a proof of Goldbach's conjecture is published or a counter-example to Goldbach's conjecture is published, or both are published.

If such an event allegedly occurred, then would ordinary evidence be enough to establish that it actually occurred, or would we require extraordinary evidence? In other words, would you classify the event as "ordinary" or "extraordinary"?

[Az]

19. A proof for a math equation is not an extraordinary event

It may be difficult to come by. But proofs for math are rather mundane seeing as how they are simply expressions concerning abstract constructs which in the end are systems of rules we essentially make up and thus know the basic rules to. Reality on the other hand is a system which we must discover the rules to. We are not able to set down the rules of the universe and then try to find interesting formulas within its construct. We can suggest what may be formula and theories. But we must test and compare them to other things we have teased out of reality to verify that we have something approaching the truth.

Extraordinary evidence is required for extraordinary claims. Extraordinary in this case means a claim that goes against what the trend of evidence and theories currently suggest are true. If someone said rocks can float in mid air without any means of support that would be an extraordinary claim. It would require extraordinary evidence (which in this case would be to present a floating brick). To claim that a miracle had occurred you would have to present significant evidence, preferably testable, that it did in fact occur. Simply stating that a number of people saw it occur is insufficient. There are a number of possible explanations for people viewing things to report a supposed miracle.

This brings us to the question of why are you talking about this? Are you trying to leverage in claims of miracles through less than extraordinary means? Are you trying to undermine the need for significant evidence for claims of the miraculous? What is the point to which you are driving? Please... get to it. The journey is becoming tiresome.

Are we there yet?

[Boojatta]

21. You made a number of claims that I could challenge...

but they might simply be a distraction.

Are you willing to consider the notion of an "extraordinary allegation" rather than an "extraordinary event"? Modifying your slogan to fit the term "extraordinary allegation", one could say that one needs extraordinary evidence if one wishes to support an extraordinary allegation.

By "extraordinary evidence", I thought that you meant extremely strong evidence. In that case, a mathematical proof containing no errors would seem to be extraordinary evidence. You claim that mathematical proofs aren't extraordinary, but I don't see anything resembling a proof of your claim.

Suppose I say that I can make all of the gold in bank vaults throughout the world disappear by snapping my fingers. It's normal for banks to maintain records with care and to have a high level of security. Thus, the kinds of records and testimony that a bank would be able to provide to support my allegation might be classified by you as merely "ordinary" and not extraordinary. However, if some particular bank were notorious for often leaving the vault unlocked and the front door open, then you could say that they are providing extraordinary evidence if, on the day that I snap my fingers, they make a special effort and adhere to security standards that are typical for other banks.

[Az]

22. To overturn a well established theory you must provide a great deal of evidence

If you claim that you can make gold in banks disappear by snapping your fingers then you must provide evidence of being able to do so. And to rule out coincidence and other possible explanations you may have to repeat the experiment. To further establish that you can actually do so it may be necessary to set up controlled studies. Such an ability would certainly go against our current understanding of reality so a great deal of things must be ruled out. Bank fraud would have to be one of them. So records may be called into question. The search for evidence never really ends. Ever. The scientific method is not in the business of closing books on theories it supports. If you can think of a way to test a theory apply it. If the theory fails then it is discarded. So if you claim that you can disappear gold then all methods of faking it are going to be explored. Failure to do so would be failing to apply the methodology fully.

[cyborg_jim]

20. A proof is a proof is a proof

It is sufficient to present the proof.

[elshiva]

14. Yes, Az.

:toast: :thumbsup:

Your playing my song, hon.




buffy/