Papal Visit to Ireland

[omaghjoe]

Firstly circumstantial evidence does not relate to the conclusion one arrives at, its a type of evidence, a type of evidence that requires reasoning to connect it to a proposition.

So lets put all the cards on the table so far.....

Your thought is that if that data is empirical and is used as evidence, whether related directly or circumstantially, it always equates to be empirical evidence? Correct?

My understanding is that to be "empirical evidence" it would also have to be directly related to what is being proved, and is completely direct and definitive

The key word here is evidence, if we have data that is being used to corroborate a statement or theory then it becomes evidence. When you also apply the word empirical as an adjective to the word evidence it means that the evidence would be empirical and not just the method for collecting it.

So I feel that your definition is not correct. As I stated before if evidence is circumstantial it requires furthering theorising to connect it to the subject, therefore could not be empirical. Nothing you have proposed so far would sway me towards your definition, not least the fact that it opens up the possibility to serious ambiguity of the term empirical evidence, which I don't believe it is.
 
But I guess you are thinking SNAP! So unless you have anything of substance to add, I think that we should call it a day on this, as we evidently have different understandings of the term.

Are you deeming evidence presented from a bias source to be always incorrect? If so, I sure wouldn't like to be a defendant with you a juror? Catholic country's have lower HIV/AIDs rates in Africa, I am sure you can find it on Wikipedia if you want to trawl through it. Its circumstantial evidence I admit, not empirical (my definition)

Not sure what the Nazis and Climate Change have to do with anything or how they address my points. Your analogy about the Nazis in particularly is perplexing but your conviction is impressive.
I was talking about church teachings being effective on spreading HIV/AIDS.  For example the Catholic church's teachings on Abstinence/Chasity/Monogamy (ACM) is based on the foundation of faith. This method would likely differ significantly from other religions and organisations that teach ACM. So therefore to make a statement about Catholic teaching being ineffective, a study on these areas exclusively for Catholics would be required for it to even begin to have any relevance.

Anyway whether you take my advice or not your original statement is incorrect. Dogmatically sticking to it will not change this.

[easytiger95]

Your thought is that if that data is empirical and is used as evidence, whether related directly or circumstantially, it always equates to be empirical evidence? Correct?

My understanding is that to be "empirical evidence" it would also have to be directly related to what is being proved, and is completely direct and definitive

Even after me explaining this time and time again, and even with you cleaning up your grammar, you still don't get this. Data is empirical if it is gathered using the empirical method - through observation and/or measurement. Whether it is used as evidence for a proof is immaterial. It is the method with which it is gathered.

he key word here is evidence, if we have data that is being used to corroborate a statement or theory then it becomes evidence. When you also apply the word empirical as an adjective to the word evidence it means that the evidence would be empirical and not just the method for collecting it.

I applied the word empirical to the evidence that I referred to let people know it had been gathered in a scientific manner - because in this debate, especially from the religious side, they tend to argue from rationalism "Abstinence is a Catholic religious teaching, Catholics obey all religious teaching, therefore Catholics obey teaching on abstinence, therefore abstinence is an effective tool in reducing HIV spread."

That makes sense until you gather data empirically which shows that it is not true ie the pieces that I linked to.

Empirical evidence can be used for anything. If for instance, i was to make the point that condom sales were going up because I had empirical evidence that the rate of HIV was falling, that would be using that evidence in a circumstantial way. If however, I looked at my empirical evidence that the rate of HIV as falling, and then I went and measured condom sales across the group, then i would have my definitive evidence.

And all this, Joe is unfortunately self evident to anyone with any sense.

As I stated before if evidence is circumstantial it requires furthering theorising to connect it to the subject, therefore could not be empirical.

No Joe, what you stated before was that data could not be empirical. You now think that by calling it evidence you can get away with the stupidity of the previous statement. You are also employing a cheap rhetorical trick by trying to apply the rules of legal proof to the world of scientific research to try and muddy the waters.

But I guess you are thinking SNAP! So unless you have anything of substance to add, I think that we should call it a day on this, as we evidently have different understandings of the term.

I have never thought SNAP! in my life, as I am not a character in an American sitcom. We don't have different understandings. I understand the term and you don't.

Are you deeming evidence presented from a bias source to be always incorrect? If so, I sure wouldn't like to be a defendant with you a juror? Catholic country's have lower HIV/AIDs rates in Africa, I am sure you can find it on Wikipedia if you want to trawl through it. Its circumstantial evidence I admit, not empirical (my definition)

Once again you are confusing the legal system with science. In a western legal system, the standard of evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt, and judgements are based on probability. In scientific research, because it is dealing with data empirically gathered, the standard is at once simpler and higher. You must back up your assertions with peer reviewed data and analysis.

So if I'm a regular Church goer and I'm on trial for my life, I definitely want my parish priest to speak up for me, as my behaviour with him speaks to the probability that i have a moral code that would prohibit me committing a heinous crime. But if I am a researcher trying to get to the bottom of HIV rates in Catholic countries, I do not go to the church for their figures - why? Because there is an observable phenomenon called confirmation bias, where people with strong pre-existing beliefs let that belief skew how they look at evidence, unconsciously favouring only the datea that might confirm that belief. 

Which is where you are getting all your evidence - which reveals not only the weakness of your argument, but your own bias in the matter.

Not sure what the Nazis and Climate Change have to do with anything or how they address my points. Your analogy about the Nazis in particularly is perplexing but your conviction is impressive

Nice sidestep. My analogy about the Nazis was in response to this point

so since this is a study of human behaviour it could never be a fact as the behaviour could change, so it could never actually be deemed a fact, that goes for both sides of the coin BTW.

which remains, to my mind, one of the most stupid f$%king things I've ever read on this board. So if you'd like to try and explain it, feel free, rather than evading it, as you are still attempting to do.

For example the Catholic church's teachings on Abstinence/Chasity/Monogamy (ACM) is based on the foundation of faith. This method would likely differ significantly from other religions and organisations that teach ACM. So therefore to make a statement about Catholic teaching being ineffective, a study on these areas exclusively for Catholics would be required for it to even begin to have any relevance.

Most abstinence programmes have a background in faith - for instance the US government's abstinence policy was formed during the Bush admin's years and were heavily influenced by Evangelical Protestant Christian teaching. The same with many NGOs who are backed by Christian organisations - the argument is always from faith. Abstinence has been shown to be a failure - but is your argument now that  Catholics have a stronger faith, so it is more likely to be effective for Catholics specifically? That is an argument you must prove - with some significant, empirically gathered evidence - which means no confirmation bias, so no Church sources.

Anyway whether you take my advice or not your original statement is incorrect. Dogmatically sticking to it will not change this.

I think i have proved fairly conclusively that my original statement was not incorrect, and your original objection to it, where you argued about the definition of empirical evidence, to be based on a complete misunderstanding of the term. The only dogma spouted on this thread has come from you, where you blindly accepted Church backed sources as evidence of your argument. (Remember the definition of dogma - a set of principles laid down by a higher authority as incontrovertibly true - which is the very opposite of informed, scientific enquiry)

At the end of the day Joe, as seen above, you don't even know what a fact is. Declaring a win and walking off the pitch is straight from the Tony Fearon handbook. Well done and facts be damned.

[bennydorano]

Easytiger, you've the patience of a saint, I admire your refusal to let him 'fillibuster' the debate.

[stew]

yawn...

back to the pope... if the catholic church/rome/the pope, gave a shite about catholics in Ireland, then the pope would have been here years ago. Catholicism is dying out in this country big time. is everyone supposed to flock to see this pope when he arrives and bow down to him?! i for one, wont be and couldn't care less if he never came.

This man wants nobody bowing or scraping to him, you must know this having seen the way he has behaved since he became Pope.

I never bothered me arse going to see  JP when he came, if I was in Ireland I would go to see this lad.

[Olly]

Would the Pope take a drink? You never see the Pope wrote off getting out of the back of a taxi like the modern celebs do.

[omaghjoe]

Rhetorical Tricks...most stupid things you've read (how many is it now?).... Tony Fearon...blah blah....  wud u ever catch urself on

Tiger this is a pointless escapade, it has become an maelstrom a long time ago. Your unwillingness to even entertain the idea that one thing I said is correct (Manipulategate is the perfect example FFS  ) and my gullibility in believing you would engage without pride, have been the perfect fuel to keep this going. But I have neither the time or the interest to do so.

I am not claiming any sort of victory but you can if you want, I have already stated before that I seen this as a discussion and not a debate.

[easytiger95]

Your unwillingness to even entertain the idea that one thing I said is correct (Manipulategate is the perfect example FFS 

If you said anything correct, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately you didn't.

Just read the "Vegetarian" thread - you pulled the same shit over there. Judgemental, condescending and prejudiced and whenever you got called on it "Oh, I was just asking questions, I'm trying to understand the rationale behind it."

Same thing on the gay marriage thread - very boring MO Joe - you should try a new approach.

[omaghjoe]

Your unwillingness to even entertain the idea that one thing I said is correct (Manipulategate is the perfect example FFS 

If you said anything correct, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately you didn't.

Just read the "Vegetarian" thread - you pulled the same shit over there. Judgemental, condescending and prejudiced and whenever you got called on it "Oh, I was just asking questions, I'm trying to understand the rationale behind it."

Same thing on the gay marriage thread - very boring MO Joe - you should try a new approach.

You shoulda read some of the stuff i wrote about the Tiernan McCann lynch mob back in the summer, you'd have a total fit.

Tiger, you gotta rememeber this is an anon forum, it is not personal, taking something personal that some faceless nothing writes is as pointless as making personal insults to that same faceless nothing.

[Olly]

If Jesus was real, why would he make badgers only to be mown down on the road. What kind of a sick mind is that?

[Eamonnca1]

If Jesus was real, why would he make badgers only to be mown down on the road. What kind of a sick mind is that?

Hey now. He didn't know that after all these years we'd be wearing glasses, but look how perfectly he positioned our noses and ears.

[armaghniac]

If Jesus was real, why would he make badgers only to be mown down on the road. What kind of a sick mind is that?

Hey now. He didn't know that after all these years we'd be wearing glasses, but look how perfectly he positioned our noses and ears.

How do you know He didn't know?

[muppet]

If Jesus was real, why would he make badgers only to be mown down on the road. What kind of a sick mind is that?

Hey now. He didn't know that after all these years we'd be wearing glasses, but look how perfectly he positioned our noses and ears.

How do you know He didn't know?

Its in the really old Testament.

[Eamonnca1]

Good point. If it's been around for 2000 odd years, why's it called the "New" Testament? What's up with that, Tony? Why the false advertising? Can you answer that ? Hmm? Well? Can you?

[Declan]

Pope Francis says it's better to be an atheist than a 'hypocritical Catholic'

The pontiff said it is not good enough to merely go to Mass.

POPE FRANCIS HAS said that it is better to live your life as an atheist rather than be a Catholic who doesn't subscribe to the values of the religion.

The pontiff said it is not good enough to merely go to Mass and said it would be better to be a non-believer rather than someone who says they have faith but who practices otherwise.

According to a Vatican Radio transcript, he said: "There are those who say 'I am very Catholic, I always go to Mass, I belong to this and that association'."


He said that some of these people should also say "'my life is not Christian, I don't pay my employees proper salaries, I exploit people, I do dirty business, I launder money, I lead a double life'.


There are many Catholics who are like this and they cause scandal. How many times have we all heard people say 'if that person is a Catholic, it is better to be an atheist'.

Pope Francis is no stranger to liberal thinking such as this. Last year, he said that Christians and the Roman Catholic Church should apologise to gay people and seek their forgiveness for the way they have been treated.

Speaking to reporters after he flew back to Rome from Armenia, the pope was asked if he agreed with comments by German Cardinal Reinhard Marx that the Church needed to say sorry for the way it has treated the gay community.

"We Christians have to apologise for so many things, not just for this (treatment of gay people), but we must ask for forgiveness," he said.

The questions is: if a person who has that condition, who has good will, and who looks for God, who are we to judge?" the pope added, repeating his famous "Who am I to judge?" remark about homosexuality made early in his papacy.

[Hardy]

"... who are we to judge?" the pope added, repeating his famous "Who am I to judge?" remark about homosexuality made early in his papacy.

Well exactly. That's Tony Fearon's job.