[b]Londoner[/b] wrote:Spectrum wrote:
As far as my thesis on why Islam is Contributing to SO Much Evil, I have already presented my thesis in general, i.e. reducible to two main proximate root causes, i.e....
If your thesis is supposed to be empirical, describe an actual state of affairs, then it must involve objective (and accurate) measurement. In other words, it must be testable. Your scores for 'evil' must be objective in that
everybody, no matter what their personal opinions, would agree that '
talking with your mouth full' is 8.5% evil.
Note my basic hypothesis is easily proven with evidences, i.e.
- 1. DNA wise all humans [including Muslims] are potentially evil and 20% are born with an active evil tendency.
2. The Quran has tons of evil laden elements.
3. The above combine to create terrible evils and violence.
The above hypothesis is easily proven with the current glaring EMPIRICAL evidences around the world, i.e.
- a. Terrible evils and violence are committed by SOME Muslims all over the world at present.
b. I can predict with my 'hypothesis', where there are sufficient numbers of Muslims, there will definitely be evils, terror and violence of various degrees wherever there are Muslims or locations where Muslims just want to spread terror.
Based on the above there is already some obvious credibility to my hypothesis, say 60% confidence level.
Now what my thesis provide is merely specifics and precision.
If you don't like the term 'evil' we can agree use the word 'bad', elsewhere I will use the term evil, define evil with a taxonomy and notes.
In the specifics and precision I will present it as objective as possible to correlate with the real terrible evil, terrors and violence committed by SOME Muslims who are evil prone.
You bet for every major variable within my main thesis, I will present a sub-thesis to justify and support each premise.
As for premise 2 above, I have done extensive research to conclude Islam [a major part] is inherent evil or bad [very very bad] as supported by evidence from the Quran - the core doctrinal text of Islam.
-- Updated Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:50 pm to add the following --
[b]Londoner[/b] wrote:That measurement cannot be simply a matter of mutual agreement, or convention, because we also need another measurement to relate it to, a measurement of what you call 'the cause'. 'Two main proximate root causes' will not do - you have to be precise. Again, we need something we can objectively measure. For example, we can use an electron microscope on the DNA and observe that some base is, or isn't, present. But as it stands, you have not identified what we are measuring, let alone how we would do so.
Note at present there are tons of research and findings out there that are based on what is observable.
It is not difficult to link the terrible evils and violence to the verses in the Quran and Ahadiths, i.e. the core text of Islam.
My point on the precision re DNA and neural connections is based on my optimism of the potential of the Human Genome Project [completed] and Human Connectome Project [re brain and this is progressing fast]. With this scientists will be able to map out the whole chart of how evils, terror and violence is manifested.
If you could identify the two, then your thesis would describe the relationship between the two numbers, using symbols (a formula, like F=kX.) (So strictly speaking it does not describe a 'cause' but a relationship). And again remember, it must be falsifiable.
Is that clear? You need two empirical objective measurements, and to assert a mathematical relationship between them. This must be testable. That is science.
I am well aware of this “y = f(x)”.
Note my project is based on a complex set of thesis, sub and sub-thesis. It will be something [not exactly] like studying the weather with a complex set of two-linkage variables.
As I had stated I will subject my thesis to various stress test to determine the weakest link that is likely to lead to failure [falsifiability].
-- Updated Mon Sep 04, 2017 11:07 pm to add the following --
Londoner wrote:We don't have to do science. We can discuss ethics, or aesthetics, or whether we prefer beer or wine. But when we do so we understand that this isn't science, ultimately this is just subjective opinion, no particular view is either verifiable or falsifiable.
I expect my thesis to be as objective as possible resulting in either
- 1. we do something with Islam [the ideology] and its inherent evil or
2. tweak the DNA or brain wiring.
Theoretically it is so easy, get rid of Islam then there will be no more Islamic-related evils, terror and violence because those SOME Muslims who commit evils always refer to their religion and Allah.
Practically it is not easy because there are psychological consequences as a trade off.
So we have to deal with this psychological issue as well.
Note I have another project and thesis to hypothesize the root of Islam and Allah [as with all other theistic religions] is reducible to human psychological not on a God that is illusory.
I think you are doing the second. You do not like Muslims and you are simply expressing your opinion. That is OK, but there is no 'thesis'.
This is an expression of 'evil' from you accusing me of hating humans [Muslims] rather than the ideology.
Note morally all humans has a basic human dignity to be respected.
I raised a relevant OP, i.e. DO NOT BASH MUSLIMS [even the evil ones] but unfortunately not approved. But the such accusing like yours is raised very often because people conflate the ideology with the believers.
Expressing my opinions??
Kant has 3 categories of what is held to be truths, i.e.
- 1. opinion [totally empty of subjectivity and objectivity].
2. beliefs [high subjectivity, low on objectivity - insufficient consensus]
3. knowledge [[high subjectivity, high on objectivity]
What I have presented are perhaps beliefs, i.e. high personal objectivity [subjective] but lack consensus [not yet].
So my point and task it to present my thesis as objective as possible to gain greater objectivity from greater consensus. I am confident my thesis is convincing when presented in full. I have not presented my thesis in full [only partly] here to avoid plagiarism.
I have told you many times, my hypothesis started with my concern [re adopted Bodhisattva's vow] when there is so much terrible evils, terror and violence that has been committed around the world which are now personally effecting everyone including me. As a concerned citizen of the world I have to do something about this category of evils [religious and Islam related] since I have the expertise to contribute in terms of words [not arms nor funds].
As a citizen of humanity, what are you doing?
You are trying to shut me up and complicitly allowing the cancer of Islam to fester??
You are likely to divert and insist it is foreign affairs [note I posted some indications, ISIS has already stated foreign affairs is not the main reason why the spread terror], poverty, blah blah but like most you are so blind to what [the 500 pound gorilla] is in front of you.
Just to be clear, of course we can collect statistics about opinions; we can draw correlations as in; '50% of football players prefer beer to wine' But these are different; we cannot express them in formula because they are descriptive. They do not describe a rule, fixed relationship between objective measurements of 'football playing-ness' to 'beer prefereing-ness'. It does not say this must be the case. Also, the correlation does not say that 'one football player contains 50% of a wine preference'. This last is something you seem to be stuck on.
With Islam and its consequences, the empirical evidence is so obvious.
I have already stated, there is already an obvious hypothesis from abduction that there is an obvious correlation between the terrible evils & violence committed by SOME Muslims to the religion of Islam.
Note the parallel with the case of Violence in various medias [movies, games, etc.] where the authorities has introduced laws to ban, censor and control these violent elements that can easily influence the vulnerable. I don't think there are specific % to support this restrictions. I estimate 20% of humans are vulnerable to be influenced by violent elements in the various media.
Now the Quran and its related Ahadith [worst] are loaded with tons of evils and the vulnerability is much serious because Muslims has to obey whatever is in the Quran or else they could go to hell. The associated existential crisis in a religious environment is more compelling than what drive vulnerable folks to violence in a secular setting.
-- Updated Mon Sep 04, 2017 11:21 pm to add the following --
Spectrum wrote:I am very surprised of your lack of knowledge re Pure and Applied Statistics.
The principles of the Bell Curve is based on a study of variables of large samples.
[b]Londoner[/b] wrote:Samples of what? As I explained, if you are doing science your samples have to be of something objective and quantifiable (so not 'evil'). And if your thesis is scientific it won't involve a bell curve. Hooke's law (F=kX) describes the physics of springs; it applies exactly like that, in every case. There is no 'bell curve'; it doesn't apply in varying degrees, i.e. some springs conform strongly to the law, others only a little bit, around a 'mean' figure.
The above is not relevant to my point.
Note I understand the Principles of the Bell Curve and the standard deviations from the mean.
With the above principles and based on my own observations, readings and samplings where necessary, I can predict the various sigma % and numbers of what is at the two extremes.
For example I can predict at 3 sigma [99.7%] and 1.5% on one side, there is like to be 10.5 million people taller than 6.5 feet. [statistics on tallest, shortest and average are easily available]. (1.5% x 7 billion). I don't think my estimation [subject to improvement and revision] will be far off if I were to apply this statistics to start a global clothing, bed or shoe factory.
I have applied the same estimation to arrive at 20% of humans are born with an active evil tendency on a conservative basis based on various available evidences. For those who are unable to grasp this estimation I can present a detailed paper to support my point and note it has room for a large margin of error before my thesis failed.
Once again, we could take samples of opinions about 'evil', but then we have only described those; opinions. We have not shown that those opinions are 'true' or 'meaningful'. We could then display our results in the form of a graph, which might - or might not - resemble a bell curve. But it would tell us nothing about 'evil', any more than creating a graph of 'how much people believe in unicorns' would tell us a fact about unicorns.
Note roughly, I stated 20% of humans has an active evil tendency.
I have defined evil on a continuum from 1% to 99.9%.
Petty crimes. lying, cheating, bribing, etc., are rated 1-10% of evilness.
Based on this, surely we can predict 75% of humans are likely to commit petty crimes, lying, cheating, bribing. From this we can say 75% of humans are evil prone.
Instead of 75% I am now using only 20%, i.e. 20% of human are evil prone.
As I had stated even if the % is 5% my main thesis is still effective.
As such there should no issue with my premise, 20% of human are evil prone.
Frankly you are merely making a fuss of it for the sake of fussing.
Here is one example I hope you can get my point;
Say I define “blackness” as in humans as having black pigment color [of various shades] in their skin cells.
If I apply the above on a
continuum basis, then
we will have a range from 100% to .01% blackness.
Some ordinary white people may look 'white' but could they have a 5% black pigmented skin cells. Such a person is generally observed as 'white' but
technically on a continuum basis we can identify this 'white' person as a 5%-black-person. Thus the inference is at least 90% of humans are blacks, i.e. at least 5%-black-person.
What is ordinary a brown person may have skin cells with 50% blackness, thus technically can be identify as a 50%-black-person.
What is ordinary a recognized as a black person will have 80% and > of black pigmented skin cells, thus technically a 80%+ black-person.
Now if I infer there are 20% of blacks on Earth, my inference will be rationally accurate based on various observations and sampling studies. This is a very save estimate based on the point there there 90% of humans are black, i.e. at least 5%-blackness.
Note the popular 50% full or 50% empty.
It can be 99% full or 1% empty.
It can be 99% empty or 1% full.
The above premises are all valid depending from the point of reference or perspective one is relying on.
The above example is how I arrive at 20% of humans has an active evil tendency on a conservative basis from the estimate that 80% of people are likely to have an evil tendency to commit petty crimes, cheat, lie, bribe and the likes. Note the religion of Islam condone lying [a low % evil].
-- Updated Mon Sep 04, 2017 11:28 pm to add the following --
[b]Lucylu[/b] wrote:I know that there is the B.R.A.I.N initiative in the US and the Human Brain Project in Europe which are plowing millions, if not billions, in to discovering the workings of the brain, probably due to the weight of the dementia crisis! There is interesting work with injecting stem cells in to injured parts of the brain. So there's hope for us yet. It would be nice to have some people live forever, but perhaps not others!
wiki wrote:Inspired by the Human Genome Project, BRAIN [White Houses' project under Obama] aims to help researchers uncover the mysteries of brain disorders, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, depression, and traumatic brain injury (TBI).
The underlying driver is the Human Genome Project [HGP] and my hope is for the findings of this project [HGP] to understand "Realism [philosophical] is not Realistic".
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.