Scope, Definition, Equivocation and Semantic Drift

When talking with the Theists, they often misuse the word heart. They say things like "Know in your heart". I recommend not tolerating that type of thing and point out to them that hearts pump blood and can't know anything. By tolerating a loose use of terms, it promotes "entropy" in the meaning of the word, allowing the meaning to shift, thereby permitting equivocation to take place, thereby permitting an illicit type of confirmation and commitment or acceptance of its appropriateness, thereby propagating inaccurate information.


In the course of a conversation, do not lose track of the scope and definition of a word. In the case that it is being used incorrectly to make a point, draw attention to its improper usage.Do not implicitly commit to any ideas that you do not intend to, and that includes any discussions of Adam and Eve. Don't forget that a huge base of established knowledge and technology that depends on that established knowledge unequivocally show that scriptural descriptions of Human Origins are false. Yes, I know that it falsifies the top four religions in the world, but that is an indicator that we need to reassess our culture, values, principles and beliefs to fit with what we know.

Ancient Penguin DNA Raises Doubts About Accuracy of Genetic Dating Techniques

This ScienceDaily article demonstrates the strengths of the Scientific Method compared to other ways of acquiring knowledge. Reasonable people agree that reassessing knowledge with new information is necessary and is a good thing.
ScienceDaily (Nov. 15, 2009)

Penguins that died 44,000 years ago in Antarctica have provided extraordinary frozen DNA samples that challenge the accuracy of traditional genetic aging measurements, and suggest those approaches have been routinely underestimating the age of many specimens by 200 to 600 percent.

Summary
A certain method of genetic dating techniques is used as a standard. There was evidence to suggest that it was flawed. New information and evidence has been discovered to support previous evidence suggesting that the method was flawed. Now the method is being reassessed with regard to the new evidence. It also necessitates reassessing any conclusions that were made using that technique.

Reassessing Knowledge With New Information is a Good Thing
The benefit is that reassessing conclusions in light of new information get us closer to a better understanding of our world and to making better decisions.

How Do Theists Know That God Communicates With Them?

Recently I had a discussion with a religious friend and asked him what I consider to be a key defining question. I've tried to record the dialog here as accurately as I can, but obviously the following is not a transcript. During the course of the conversation the "relationship" topic came up.  Knowing that communication is an important part of a relationship I asked him "Does God talk to you?".

Does God talk to you?
He said "Yes".
I said "When?".
He said "Right now."
I said "Well, what's he saying?"
And he said "He wants you to know he loves you and he wants you to come back..." yada, yada, yada.

So I said "Harvey, my six foot rabbit friend standing here next to me says he doesn't believe you".
He laughed. So then I said "God, did you really say that?". Of course there was no answer.  Then I said to my friend, "That is exactly what I would expect to happen if he wasn't really there. You don't believe in Harvey, and if you ask him a question, he won't answer.  Either he's ignoring you, or he's not really there. You decide. But seriously though, how do you know the difference between the thoughts that normally occur to you and the ones that you think come from God?".
He said he didn't know, but he could tell the difference. 

What is the difference?
I told him that I thought he was just making stuff up, and that he didn't really know what was auto-generated by his brain and what came from God.  My point was that if there is no demarcation, no point of delineation then it should all be assumed to be auto-generated.  The reason why, and to draw a loose analogy, is that until a schizophrenic learns what schizophrenia is, they are quite certain they are interacting with voices and persons that are auto-generated by their brain.  And to a lesser degree, I know people that hear things that aren't there, I know I do, and I know that when I was in a band, under certain conditions I could hear a bass line that I would "copy" and use in our original songs. 

No one could hear the notes but me. That wasn't supernatural, I am sensitive to frequencies in a way that others aren't and I am quite sure that a spectrum analyzer would be able to detect them. Now that I'm older, when I'm in a noisy industrial environment, I can hear "beats", "partial melodies", "phones ringing", "voices", you name it. If it kicks off that portion of my brain that recognizes a sound, whether its the real sound or not, I hear it.

The Difference is Easy to See in Most Other Cases. It Can be Cross-checked.
This problem of differentiating between what is auto-generated and what is perceived is easy in all other cases.  When I communicate with people, I see it, or hear it.  It comes in through my eyes, ears etc. I know how I perceived it. The source of the information is known, and it is usually of a sort that is generally independently verifiable. It can be cross checked.  I don't have to resort to special pleading to get someone to believe that I have perceived the communication.  If I tell you that my friend told me something in the course of our dialog and if you knew who it was, you could ask him.  When I told my band mates that I heard the notes, then immediately played them, the possibility that hearing the notes might be supernatural never occurred to them.  We all understood feedback, resonance and harmonics so that was adequate to explain the way I could come up with the perfect bass line after listening to the song for a minute.  If it was from some spirit, let them take the bass out of my hands and show me like any other person would. A spirit appearing before my eyes and giving me a bass lesson would be incontrovertible evidence to me.

Not So With Gods.  
As I pointed out to my friend, if I ask God if he really said that to my friend, I don't get an answer, and other religious people are just as certain as he is that they have a relationship with their Gods, and when I ask those Gods to talk to me, they don't either. 

Special Pleading and Disconfirmation Bias
If God exists, and he talks to my friend, then my friend should be just as willing to accept that any other God exists, or that Harvey exists on the same grounds.  If not, then he's committing the fallacy of special pleading to support what he already believes and ignoring disconfirming evidence aka Disonfirmation Bias.

Accuracy In Detecting The Spiritual Realm Using "Triangulation"

Over at Sophies Ladder Jeff agrees that accuracy and reliability are important but his view of accuracy and reliability all stem from some "inner knowing". This contradicts commonly held principles about accuracy and reliability which generally holds that the source of the information is known, can be verified, represents real world states and can be depended on to accurately reflect real world states when verification is not a viable option and when planning needs to be done. But for the moment, I'll stipulate the Spiritual Realm exists.


The Sixth Sense, AKA The Spirit Detector
Jeff says

But the real world for the Bible is God and the spiritual realms
Any value placed in accuracy and reliability must therefore be in relation to the spiritual, inward truth.

In this passage he has presumed the existence of the spiritual realm. But he has not defined the spiritual realm. Where does he get the Idea that the spiritual real exists? Does he get it from the Bible? Surely he does not get it from the Bible with as much effort as he is making to distance himself from it. If he knows the spiritual realm exists, and he knows that he has the spirit indwelling, and he gets information from it, then Jeff has a spiritual detector built in. If Jeff has a spiritual detector built in, like he does for colors and sounds, then we probably all do. And in fact we have most of the world exercising their spiritual detectors in one way or another. Muslims, Hindus, (some) Buddhists, Jews, smaller religions outside the scope of the "Big Five" additionally Psychics, New Agers, Tarot Card readers, etc all have their Spiritual Detectors running gathering data that they use to make decisions with. However, there is little consistency in the data they are gathering, but as a I said, there is a little.

Measuring The Effectiveness of The Spirit Detector
Does the spiritual realm that he's talking about apply to the rest of those groups or is it Christian only? Which groups Spiritual Detector is collecting data that represents the state of the real world. In this sense, I mean real world to include the spiritual world. If the spiritual world exists, and it can be detected, it must overlap with humans and our earth. I suppose a good analogy would be like its another dimension. If the spiritual world can be detected, then it can be described, and if it can be described then uncertainty about it can be reduced, and if uncertainty about it can be reduced then we would have some way of measuring it in relation to other descriptions, then we could find which groups spiritual detector is the more accurate. If we can find which groups spiritual detector is more accurate, then we might be able to whittle away at the myriad of religions and their gods that exist today.

Collectors, Custodians, and Consumers
In Information and Data Quality concepts, there are three groups of people that are stakeholders in ensuring quality of accuracy of data and information. They are Collectors, Custodians and Consumers. One person can belong to any or all groups simultaneously. Jeff and the other spiritual detectors are in the Collector and the Consumer group. In IDQ it is presumed that the data collectors goal is accuracy. It is presumed that the information coming from the collectors will represent real world states, but Humans make mistakes so the data collected must be audited to ensure its accuracy. The way this is done is using the concept of "Triangulation".

Triangulation
Triangulation is an approach to data analysis that synthesizes data from multiple sources.
"Triangulation", University of California, San Francisco, Global health Sciences
"Triangulation", Wikipedia
It recognizes the need to cross-check (aka cross-examine) information to ensure accuracy and reliability. The accuracy and reliability that IDQ measures and was designed to obtain cannot be equivocated to suit the observer, it has to be able to be used and applied to such things as Safety in the industries of Health Care, Aviation, Maritime, Nuclear Power, Chemical Engineering, Construction etc.

Humans Make Mistakes And Triangulation Mitigates Them
So now we just need to figure out a way to triangulate the data coming from all those spiritual detectors and find what they have in common. We can take all that data and put it in a set and reduce it to the lowest common denominator and start comparing it to other things that are relatively well understood. As I said above, there is little consistency in the data they are gathering, but there is some. I know one group of items in the spiritual detector set off the top of my head that are common to all of those sets of spiritual detector data, Human Cognitive Bias. Humans make mistakes, that is why there is a need to audit the accuracy of the data collectors. In my opinion, unless there is some way to increase the likelihood of any those spiritual detectors being more accurate than any other, I can only commit to agnosticism about the spiritual realm and, in principal, decisions should not be made using ambiguous information.

Jeff says

"Reliability, on the other hand, I take to mean “can be dependably used” and so, obviously, reliability relates to the purposes intended."

Reliability is not an IDQ dimension, however it clearly is important. But the use of the information does not determine its quality. Poor quality data can be used to make a living with. Its called Fraud. Information can be presented in such a way as to be persuasive whether it accurately represents real world states or not.

TO BE CONTINUED.....

RECOMMENDED READING
Information and Data Quality (IDQ)
* Anchoring Data Quality Dimensions in Ontological Foundations
* Beyond Accuracy: What Data Quality Means To Consumers
* Data Quality Assessment
* Journey to Data Quality, from Amazon

IDQ Applied To The Bible
1. How Accurate is the Bible?
2. Applying Data and Information Quality Principles To The Bible
3. Applying IDQ Principles of Research To The Bible
4. Overview of IDQ Deficiencies Which Are Evident In Scripture
5. Jesus As God From IDQ Design Deficincies
6. "Son of Man" As Jesus From IDQ Deficiencies
7. IDQ Flaw of Meaningless Representation In The Bible

Triangulation
* "Triangulation", University of California, San Francisco, Global health Sciences
* "Triangulation", Wikipedia

IDQ Applied
National Transportation Safety Board information quality standards

A Plausibility Heuristic

I think I've come up with a weighted ranking scale heuristic for scoring the plausibility of claims derived from government, business and theoretical criteria and I'd like to put it out here for critique. This weighted ranking scale could be used for the bible, literature, science, history, news articles etc... and we could compare them. Worksheet

I suspect that the score for a history text book would be much higher than the bible, the average historical fiction would be somewhat higher, and your average folklore tale would be about the same as the bible.

here's how it goes.
the number by the metric is its relative value.

0. an unsupported claim.
1. a claim has witness testimony
2. a claim that has a verifiable precedent
2. a claim has support of physical evidence
2. a claim that can be reproduced

for example lets take the simple claim that
"Yesterday, the ice in Jans drink melted before she finished it"
- I have seen this happen
- I can put ice in a drink and let it set till it all melts, therefore it has a verifiable precedent, it has support of physical evidence, and it can be reproduced.
So it gets a score of 7.

Now lets take the claim
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
- I have not seen this happen
- there is no physical evidence that this happened.
- There is no evidence that this has ever been reproduced
- there is a witness
therefore it gets a score of 1.

Therefore the more plausible claim of these two is that Jans Ice Melted.

Here are some more examples to test the heuristic with thanks to Jeff Carter over in the comments section at Exploring Our Matrix.

1. Mary loves me
2. John is thinking of the theory of relativity
3. James is happy or sad or afraid
4. David has faith in me
5. Greg wants to go to the store

"1. Mary loves me"
assuming the claim has a one to one relationship to a real world event ....

1. are there witnesses?
yes
2. a claim has a verifiable precedent?
people have reported feelings of love, I have experienced love and people that love each other, yes
2. a claim has support of physical evidence?
Love's all in the brain: fMRI study shows strong, lateralized reward, not sex, drive, maybe some other outward signs, rapid heartbeat, flushing skin, fast breathing, yes
2. is it a claim that can be reproduced?
does it happen to her again? yes

I give it a 7

"2. John is thinking of the theory of relativity"
assuming the claim has a one to one relationship to a real world event ....

1. are there witnesses?
maybe not
2. a claim has a verifiable precedent?
someone thought up the theory of relativity, yes
2. a claim has support of physical evidence?
when asked to explain it, he does, yes
2. is it a claim that can be reproduced?
when asked to explain it again, he does, yes

I give it a 6

"3. James is happy or sad or afraid"
assuming the claim has a one to one relationship to a real world event ....

1. are there witnesses?
yes
2. a claim has a verifiable precedent?
self-evident, yes
2. a claim has support of physical evidence?
Implicit perception of fear signals: An fMRI investigation of PTSD. The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry,5, 135 and if there are outward signs , yes
2. is it a claim that can be reproduced?
when given the same stimulus it happens again, yes

I give it a 7

"4. David has faith in me"
assuming the claim has a one to one relationship to a real world event ....

1. are there witnesses?
have people observed that his behavior is consistent with having faith in you? yes
2. a claim has a verifiable precedent?
self-evident, yes
2. a claim has support of physical evidence?
if there are outward signs, when asked he says yes, so yes
2. is it a claim that can be reproduced?
the behavior is independently verified on some other occasion, yes

I give it a 7

"5. Greg wants to go to the store"
assuming the claim has a one to one relationship to a real world event ....

1. are there witnesses?
maybe not
2. a claim has a verifiable precedent?
self-evident, "the store" implies that the identity of the store is understood further implying that Greg has been there before, and also other people want to go to the store otherwise the store would be unsustainable, so yes
2. a claim has support of physical evidence?
if there are outward signs, when asked he says yes, so yes
2. is it a claim that can be reproduced?
the behavior is independently verified on some other occasion, yes

I give it a 6, stipulating that the data recorder does not count as a witness

I think the real stickler here, would be quality of evidence. I think a quality heuristic for evidence is needed and possibly exists.

In any case, plausibility is not certainty, and since sometimes decisions need to be made using plausibility as a consideration (for example legislation related to womens rights, civil rights, Invitro fertilization, cloning, homosexuality, stem cell research, abortion, participating in war, etc) a plausibility ranking would come in handy.

How Accurate Is The Bible?

Accuracy is verifiable, quantifiable and measurable.
How much inaccuracy are you willing to invest in? 0%? 10%? 25%? 50%? How accurate do you want your road map? How accurate do you want your Scripture? All Christian Arguments can be reduced to the dependence on the presumption that the Bible is accurate to some degree. Accuracy is verifiable, quantifiable and measurable.

A Map is a model of the real world.
It is made to represent the world to some degree of accuracy decided upon before it was ever made. We can make value judgments about the map using whatever criteria are important to us. One criteria that should be important (because it is the purpose for the map) is how accurate it represents whatever it is that it is supposed to represent.

If we have to go somewhere and we are uncertain about how to get there, we can use a map. A map eliminates uncertainty to a degree because it represents a model of the world that we can use for planning. It gives us the ability to make choices and decisions that not only translate into success, but how comfortable it is to get there. We can see where the towns are in relation to one another, make rough guesses about the best route at a glance, make decisions about time and resources based on what resources are found along the path, we can make value judgments about those resources ahead of time. All in all it gives us the ability to form a strategy for the trip that probably has a high degree of likelihood for success. So a successful outcome for the trip really does reduce to the degree of accuracy of how well the map models the real world, and to what degree we are willing to tolerate and overcome whatever inaccuracies there are in the map.

The Bible is like a map.
Jesus describes himself as "the way" and goes on to further describe himself as a kind of "Model" to show what God is like.

John 14:6-11
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."
8 Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."
9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.
11 "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.

Jesus confirmed the Old Testament was the word of God by referring to it as such and referring back it frequently.

- Matthew 1-1:21, judgment of Tyre and Sidon
- Matthew 5:18, validates scripture
- Matthew 12:3, verifies Davids actions
- Matthew 12:39ff, verifies Jonah and the whale
- Matthew 15:3, validates scripture
- Matthew 15:6, validates scripture
- Matthew 15:7-9 He refers to the first part of Isaiah's work (Isaiah 6:9), verifies only one Isaiah
- Matthew 19:1-6, verifes Adam and Eve
- Matthew 19:8, 9, Moses wrote the Pentateuch
- Matthew 21:16, validates scripture by citing Psalm 8:2
- Matthew 22:31, validates scripture
- Matthew 24:15, verifies Daniel was a prophet
- Matthew 24:37, verifes Noah and the Global Flood

- Luke 4:17-21, He cites Isaiah 61:1, 2, verifies only one Isaiah
- Luke 11:51, the murder of Abel by his brother Cain
- Luke 17:29, 32, the destruction of Sodom and the death of Lot's wife

- Mark 12:26, calling Moses
- Mark 12:29-31, Moses wrote the Pentateuch

- John 6:31-51, manna in the wilderness
- John 7:19, Moses wrote the Pentateuch
- John 10:35, validates scripture

So how accurate should we expect the Word of God to be?
If we use a weighted raking we can get a rough idea. God is perfect, and man is not. So we can expect that man will be less accurate than God, but if God is helping man, then man should be more accurate that if he were working alone.

1. God is more accurate than man
2. Man is less accurate than God but more accurate with help from God
3. Man alone is less accurate

That should serve as a rough guideline and the first metric in an attempt to quantify the accuracy of the Bible.

Jesus intended us to use himself and, by extension, scripture as a model or a map for how to live our lives.
He intended it to reduce uncertainty about how to live a righteous life. Scripture was intended to eliminate uncertainty to a degree because it represents a model of the world that can be used for planning. It was intended to give us the ability to make choices and decisions that not only translate into success, but how comfortable it is to live with them. We can see where our goals are in relation to one another, make rough guesses about the best choices at a glance, make decisions about how to spend our time and resources based on what resources are found around us, we can make value judgments about those resources ahead of time. All in all it gives us the ability to form a strategy for our lives that probably has a high degree of likelihood for success. So a successful outcome for life really does reduce to the degree of accuracy of how well scripture models the real world, and to what degree we are willing to tolerate and overcome whatever inaccuracies there are in scripture.

Accuracy is verifiable, quantifiable and measurable.
How much inaccuracy are you willing to invest in? 0%? 10%? 25%? 50%? How accurate do you want your road map? How accurate do you want your Scripture? All Christian Arguments can be reduced to the dependence on the presumption that the Bible is accurate to some degree. Therefore, the probability of the likelihood that their conclusions are correct depend directly on the degree of accuracy of The Bible as a representation (or model) of events in the world past and present.

How Accurate Is The Bible?

Accuracy is verifiable, quantifiable and measurable.<!--more >
How much inaccuracy are you willing to invest in? 100%? 90%? 75%? 50%? How accurate do you want your map? How accurate do you want your Scripture? All Christian Arguments can be reduced to the dependence on the presumption that the Bible is accurate to some degree. Accuracy is verifiable, quantifiable and measurable.

A Map is a model of the real world.
It is made to represent the world to some degree of accuracy decided upon before it was ever made. We can make value judgments about the map using whatever criteria are important to us. One criteria that should be important (because it is the purpose for the map) is how accurate it represents whatever it is that it is supposed to represent.

If we have to go somewhere and we are uncertain about how to get there, we can use a map. A map eliminates uncertainty to a degree because it represents a model of the world that we can use for planning. It gives us the ability to make choices and decisions that not only translate into success, but how comfortable it is to get there. We can see where the towns are in relation to one another, make rough guesses about the best route at a glance, make decisions about time and resources based on what resources are found along the path, we can make value judgments about those resources ahead of time. All in all it gives us the ability to form a strategy for the trip that probably has a high degree of likelihood for success. So a successful outcome for the trip really does reduce to the degree of accuracy of how well the map models the real world, and to what degree we are willing to tolerate and overcome whatever inaccuracies there are in the map.

The Bible is like a map.
Jesus describes himself as "the way" and goes on to further describe himself as a kind of "Model" to show what God is like.

John 14:6
6Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

7"If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."

8Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."

9Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

10"Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.

11"Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.

Jesus confirmed the Old Testament was the word of God by referring to it as such and referring back it frequently.

- Matthew 1-1:21, judgment of Tyre and Sidon
- Matthew 5:18, validates scripture
- Matthew 12:3, verifies Davids actions
- Matthew 12:39ff, verifies Jonah and the whale
- Matthew 15:3, validates scripture
- Matthew 15:6, validates scripture
- Matthew 15:7-9 He refers to the first part of Isaiah's work (Isaiah 6:9), verifies only one Isaiah
- Matthew 19:1-6, verifes Adam and Eve
- Matthew 19:8, 9, Moses wrote the Pentateuch
- Matthew 21:16, validates scripture by citing Psalm 8:2
- Matthew 22:31, validates scripture
- Matthew 24:15, verifies Daniel was a prophet
- Matthew 24:37, verifes Noah and the Global Flood

- Luke 4:17-21, He cites Isaiah 61:1, 2, verifies only one Isaiah
- Luke 11:51, the murder of Abel by his brother Cain
- Luke 17:29, 32, the destruction of Sodom and the death of Lot's wife

- Mark 12:26, calling Moses
- Mark 12:29-31, Moses wrote the Pentateuch

- John 6:31-51, manna in the wilderness
- John 7:19, Moses wrote the Pentateuch
- John 10:35, validates scripture

So how accurate should we expect the Word of God to be?
If we use a weighted raking we can get a rough idea. God is perfect, and man is not. So we can expect that man will be less accurate than God, but if God is helping man, then man should be more accurate that if he were working alone.

1. God is more accurate
2. Man is more accurate with help from God
3. Man alone is less accurate

That should serve as a rough guideline and the first metric in an attempt to quantify the accuracy of the Bible.

Jesus intended us to use himself and, by extension, scripture as a model or a map for how to live our lives.
He intended it to reduce uncertainty about how to live a righteous life. Scripture was intended to eliminate uncertainty to a degree because it represents a model of the world that can be used for planning. It was intended to give us the ability to make choices and decisions that not only translate into success, but how comfortable it is to get there. We can see where our goals are in relation to one another, make rough guesses about the best choices at a glance, make decisions about how to spend our time and resources based on what resources are found around us, we can make value judgments about those resources ahead of time. All in all it gives us the ability to form a strategy for our lives that probably has a high degree of likelihood for success. So a successful outcome for life really does reduce to the degree of accuracy of how well scripture models the real world, and to what degree we are willing to tolerate and overcome whatever inaccuracies there are in scripture.

Accuracy is verifiable, quantifiable and measurable.
How much inaccuracy are you willing to invest in? 100%? 90%? 75%? 50%? How accurate do you want your map? How accurate do you want your Scripture? All Christian Arguments can be reduced to the dependence on the presumption that the Bible is accurate to some degree. Therefore, the probability of the likelihood that their conclusions are correct depend directly on the degree of accuracy of The Bible as a representation (or model) of events in the world past and present.

IDQ Dimension Category of Intrinsic Labels

Intrinsic IQ:
Accuracy, Objectivity, Believability, Reputation

[Other Categories]
Contextual IQ:
Relevancy, Value-added, Timeliness, Completeness, Amount of Information

Representational IQ:
Interpretability, Understandability, Concise Representation, Consistent Representation

Accessibility IQ:
Access, Security