First when you make a claim like that and state that you're 90% sure, and then continue claiming that you have evidence, you need to understand that you're pushing yourself from a random claim of informal surety and moving into something more based in math – especially if you’re claiming that your confidence itself is additional proof.

Here’s some links to help you understand confidence intervals:
[www.stat.yale.edu]
[www.stats.gla.ac.uk]
[www.itl.nist.gov]

etc.

You’ll notice a certain trend in terms of a p-value that is “appropriate”: 0.05

So if you actually wanted to argue from the point that the confidence or consistency in the data itself proved your point, you’d need to be kind enough to hit 95% instead of 90%.

But let’s ignore that and consider what you otherwise presented as your argument for why you are right. First, though, we need to know exactly how this argument has occurred and who needs to do what.
1) Bendak made a claim: Imms can control teleports
2) Bendak presents: “Because I teleported into Hillcrest while in Hillcrest during a fight”
3) People disagree with Bendak asking for evidence.

You’ll notice a problem. People want a step 2 that involves evidence. You didn’t offer any. You offered a singular experience of yours which could easily fall in the realm of the standard distribution since this happens to everyone at random times (but we don’t need other people to even have that experience to show that your singular one is worthless). That’s one experience of yours, as an example. Let’s even said you have 5 such experiences. Does that warrant the conclusion YOU are making from the data?

Stevers told you he lolled and disagreed with you since what you did wasn’t logical (and it’s true, if you’ve presented what you consider to be conclusive, and what you posted is that, then it absolutely isn’t logical).

You responded with

Quote

“How logical are you really, if you come to a conclusion that something is false without even glancing at the evidence presented that may indicate otherwise?”

To that, Stevers responded appropriately asking for the evidence. The evidence that, in the above example, should have been step 2 – remember? The step where you didn’t provide evidence. Yeah, that one. So assume you present the same data to two different people for the time being.
We’ll say Bob and John. The data you are presenting to them is “God can control toast because once when I dropped my toast it fell yummy side up”. Ignoring questions of omnipotence or theistic determinism, let’s consider the possible answers from them.
Bob says “That proves it! God can control toast!”
John says “That’s not evidence for God controlling toast”

Which of these is logical?
Obviously John, Bob is being retarded. Stevers is John in this example and then you are asking afterwards “WHY WON’T YOU LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE!” – the problem is that it’s hard to look at something that isn’t there.

In response to Artificial you said “I do have strong evidence of this”
Again, all people want is that evidence. When you refuse to provide it, but keep saying your claim, you sound like someone who says “I HAVE SUPERPOWERS, I CAN PROVE IT, BUT I WON’T PROVE IT TO YOU!” and then expect them to believe you anyway.

Eventually you said

Quote

Is it rock solid? No. But I think it presents the very real possibility that they can do this. I don't see any reason why not. Immortals have interfered in gameplay before in minor ways.

Is it rock solid? No. Does it present the very real possibility? No. All possibilities exist, that doesn’t make them likely, reasonable, implied, or proven. When you make a big claim like that, you need to provide big evidence. So to help, I asked on Gameplay so we can figure out if you’re right: [forums.carrionfields.com]

Hopefully that helps somewhat so we can figure out an answer – but regardless of the answer your actual process was entirely empty. The process is important yo’.

Stevers even pointed out that correlation does not equal causation – and then Daurwyn was nice enough to give you a good example of that so you can understand what it means. Correlation is correlation, causation is causation – they are different characteristics/relationships between occurrences, and correlation DOES NOT imply causation in the least, as that requires a different system of proof entirely.
Correlation vs causation:
[www.statisticslectures.com]


[www.grossmont.edu]





“that correlation proves causation, is one of several questionable cause logical fallacies by which two events that occur together are taken to have a cause-and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause. A similar fallacy, that an event that follows another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is sometimes described as post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this").”




You then are nice enough to say:

Quote

But I have also evaluated it to be true by my own judgement which does not significantly involve my wanting to believe that to be true indicating that is true. You can't really prove otherwise, and I suppose I can't really prove the aforementioned either.

The problem is that your judgment doesn’t make something true. It doesn’t. That is still you wanting to believe it, since you are believing it DESPITE of you never having proven your claim. Nobody else has to prove otherwise. Nobody has to prove what you said is false.
Why? I mean, Batman, that sounds pretty unfair that they don’t need to prove it false yet can be right, right?
I think Hitchens said it well as: 'That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.’
Or, if you haven’t given your claim the weight required to make it proven, ‘true’, likely, etc. Then nobody is required to prove it false. It’s hard to prove something false when it hasn’t been proven in the first place. Example: “in carrionfields, the bash command also drops your opponent’s moves by .005 if it lands!”. Does anyone need to prove me wrong? No, I am wrong by default, since this is my claim and I haven’t proven it yet. Now let’s say I did a bunch of experiments and had data to show this was true. THEN the burden moves to the person who is now fighting against something well proven. The problem is that you’re still back in that first step, where you make a claim and then don’t seem to understand why everyone isn’t bending to your will (or BENDAKing to your will).

Quote

Don't use words too big for your britches. You are getting caught up on semantics of correlation and causation.

No. They’re making accurate observations about your inability to separate the two.

Quote

I do consider the correlation of the two things which is their coincidence to be so unlikely and the likelihood that an Immortal has the ability and inclination to make them coincide to be of such a degree that I do believe that causation was present.

What’s almost amusing to me is that this fits your extremely non-mental religious attitude – or rather your dislike towards evidence and the way it works. This isn’t an insult, just an observation since it matches your argumentative style from the other various threads where you make large claims, don’t offer proof, and then appear upset at people who don’t believe you.

And also, mentioning your last line….You weren’t being intellectual. I make no claim to being so, and I’d prefer to have the bragging rights of a Socratic no-knowledge from epistemic lack, but intellectual would have you using your intellect rather than your emotions – and I really don’t see much intellect here. If anything, I feel like you used that word because you wrote a paragraph with more than 2 sentences while using the words “Semantics” and “inclination” (since the other words were already used before), so I’m really not sure exactly what you’re getting at.

If anything, I think you’re mainly just being irrational and rather hostile when presented with reasonable criticisms (you know, reasonable like “You have downs”).


But again, focus in on Daurwyn's last line: It is EASY to make that mistake.