|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 15, 2020 22:36:53 GMT
And yet your persuasive skills could use more honing. I am far less interested in what your sources can prove than what you can, else I would not be here. So you come to a forum where the use of reliable sources is the most credible way to back up empirical claims, and then say you're not interested in the use of those sources? You're like someone who would go to a golf course, watch a golfer hit a 250 yard drive from the tee, and then tell him, "I am far less interested in how far you send the ball with a club than in how far you can throw it with your arm, else I would not be here."
We have different concepts of what it means to support arguments with dependable sources. I was always taught, and I believe for good reasons, that it is important to be able to put things in your own words. It can show that you understand the source. It can help others understand the source. Suppose people in an internet chat room do not understand the source. (What are the odds?) Yet they seem determined to advance some "conclusion" or "finding," they believe it supports. What then? The blind should lead the blind?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 15, 2020 23:13:48 GMT
I'm the equal opportunity skeptic here. I treat all claims whether religious, scientific or otherwise the same. I accept nothing on faith except general principles. I do understand English. I do understand mathematics. I do understand physics, chemistry, economics, and statistical analysis. If you are still having difficulty persuading me of anything then you should check your understanding of those disciplines. Except it's ridiculous to treat all claims with equal skepticism. "I ate a ham sandwich today" is hardly equally likely as "I walked on water today." Likewise, claims that must pass peer-review have already been parsed by skeptics (aka scientists) for flaws in the reasoning or methodology; this doesn't happen in religion as there is no methodology for making/proving claims. You may understand those subjects on some level, but you do not understand them better than people who've spent a lifetime studying them. Knowing when to rely and trust in experts is what's known as wisdom; thinking you know better than them, or even that you have the sufficient knowledge to doubt them, is stupidity and arrogance, no matter your IQ. The glaring flaw in your attitude is that you assume incorrectly that "scientists" are any less likely to lie than anyone else. The fact of the matter is that many are more likely to lie. They have a reason to lie, to get money. Especially lately they arrange for their work to get required by law. I suppose there are preachers who lie for money too, but there is no way to force anyone to donate to them. Their proceeds are entirely voluntary. So who's ridiculous now? I know of no claims of anyone walking on water lately. I know most "miracles" in the Bible have reasonable explanations. A disadvantaged people "exaggerated" stories to frighten their enemies. Then too some spiritual phenomena are not so unlikely. You should not accuse people of ignoring experts if you are not one yourself. That's like wearing a dunce cap in public.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 15, 2020 23:58:53 GMT
So you come to a forum where the use of reliable sources is the most credible way to back up empirical claims, and then say you're not interested in the use of those sources? You're like someone who would go to a golf course, watch a golfer hit a 250 yard drive from the tee, and then tell him, "I am far less interested in how far you send the ball with a club than in how far you can throw it with your arm, else I would not be here."
We have different concepts of what it means to support arguments with dependable sources That has nothing to do with your categorical rejection of sources and telling Eva Yojimbo he must prove something himself, independent of sources.Demonstrating an understanding of what you're saying doesn't count as proof of what you say. So, bringing up the value of using your own words is just your attempt to change the subject.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 16, 2020 0:04:39 GMT
You should not accuse people of ignoring experts if you are not one yourself. That statement is akin to your other recent monumentally daft statement that non-scientists cannot point to the work of scientists.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 16, 2020 0:08:25 GMT
We have different concepts of what it means to support arguments with dependable sources That has nothing to do with your categorical rejection of sources and telling Eva Yojimbo he must prove something himself, independent of sources.Demonstrating an understanding of what you're saying doesn't count as proof of what you say. So, bringing up the value of using your own words is just your attempt to change the subject. I understood many years ago that many people on this board will not realize I'm right until some authority they recognize tells them so. Your utter dependence on authority is plain to see. Your concepts of "proof," "substantiation," and so on are not doing you or anyone else any good. You accept what your herd accepts, and you won't know what to believe till the television tells you.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 16, 2020 0:15:41 GMT
You should not accuse people of ignoring experts if you are not one yourself. That statement is akin to your other recent monumentally daft statement that non-scientists cannot point to the work of scientists. Science is not a democracy. Go ahead and vote any way you like for all the good it might do you though. If I may go off topic here to related politics, the trouble the United States is having right now is that too many people have no means of persuasion other than government force. They are currently trying to use the government to force others to believe what they believe because they copied some authority or other mindlessly.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 16, 2020 0:16:54 GMT
That has nothing to do with your categorical rejection of sources and telling Eva Yojimbo he must prove something himself, independent of sources.Demonstrating an understanding of what you're saying doesn't count as proof of what you say. So, bringing up the value of using your own words is just your attempt to change the subject. I understood many years ago that many people on this board will not realize I'm right until some authority they recognize tells them so. Your utter dependence on authority is plain to see. Your concepts of "proof," "substantiation," and so on are not doing you or anyone else any good. You accept what your herd accepts, and you won't know what to believe till the television tells you. And I understood only recently that you reside in your delusions.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 16, 2020 10:54:41 GMT
I understood many years ago that many people on this board will not realize I'm right until some authority they recognize tells them so. Your utter dependence on authority is plain to see. Your concepts of "proof," "substantiation," and so on are not doing you or anyone else any good. You accept what your herd accepts, and you won't know what to believe till the television tells you. And I understood only recently that you reside in your delusions. Please say that in real life. Then it will be clear whose delusions these are. Breaking news: both political parties in the United States are devoid of rational policy and driving the country into insane debt. Or perhaps you believe one of them has any good answers. Mob Rule 2019.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 16, 2020 11:18:39 GMT
1) You tell me. 2) That seems to indicate that plants are more alive than animals. Is that what you meant to say? Stop distorting what is truth about carnivorous consumption compared to herbivore consumption. Animal, vegetable or mineral, flora or fauna Arlon. Humans have to eat something and an alive plant operates on a different dynamic to what warm blooded creatures\mammals do. This is fundamental science and observation. The DNA speaks volumes. Are you saying you can rejuvenate a slaughtered animal by planting it and attempting to grow it again? No, and I have no idea what point you want to make by asking such a question.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 16, 2020 15:12:03 GMT
Except it's ridiculous to treat all claims with equal skepticism. "I ate a ham sandwich today" is hardly equally likely as "I walked on water today." Likewise, claims that must pass peer-review have already been parsed by skeptics (aka scientists) for flaws in the reasoning or methodology; this doesn't happen in religion as there is no methodology for making/proving claims. You may understand those subjects on some level, but you do not understand them better than people who've spent a lifetime studying them. Knowing when to rely and trust in experts is what's known as wisdom; thinking you know better than them, or even that you have the sufficient knowledge to doubt them, is stupidity and arrogance, no matter your IQ. The glaring flaw in your attitude is that you assume incorrectly that "scientists" are any less likely to lie than anyone else. The fact of the matter is that many are more likely to lie. They have a reason to lie, to get money. Especially lately they arrange for their work to get required by law. I suppose there are preachers who lie for money too, but there is no way to force anyone to donate to them. Their proceeds are entirely voluntary. So who's ridiculous now? I know of no claims of anyone walking on water lately. I know most "miracles" in the Bible have reasonable explanations. A disadvantaged people "exaggerated" stories to frighten their enemies. Then too some spiritual phenomena are not so unlikely. You should not accuse people of ignoring experts if you are not one yourself. That's like wearing a dunce cap in public. The glaring flaw in your attitude is that you assume incorrectly that "scientists" can lie without getting caught by other scientists; you know, the "peers" in "peer review." A scientist lying does nothing to get money for the scientists reviewing their research, and would also do nothing for other scientists replicating the research. Plus, for any subject in which there was a consensus you'd have to assume a massive conspiracy where almost all scientists in the world are lying, and that's just loony-bin land. You only "suppose" there are preachers who lie for money? You do realize there have been numerous scandals of this exact thing happening and, what's more, nearly every preacher doing the whole "prosperity gospel" shtick on TV are multi-millionaires who own private jets and live in mansions. The only scientists who get that much money are either hugely popular authors, speakers, or public intellectuals; and I dare you to find me one confirmed example of any of those scientist lying. You missed the point of my "walking on water" example. It was to show the obvious that not all claims are equally worthy of skepticism. You want to claim you're equally skeptical, but it's remarkable how easily you swallow religious claims but how critical you become of scientific claims. It should be the other way around. at your last paragraph. That doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 16, 2020 22:17:18 GMT
The glaring flaw in your attitude is that you assume incorrectly that "scientists" are any less likely to lie than anyone else. The fact of the matter is that many are more likely to lie. They have a reason to lie, to get money. Especially lately they arrange for their work to get required by law. I suppose there are preachers who lie for money too, but there is no way to force anyone to donate to them. Their proceeds are entirely voluntary. So who's ridiculous now? I know of no claims of anyone walking on water lately. I know most "miracles" in the Bible have reasonable explanations. A disadvantaged people "exaggerated" stories to frighten their enemies. Then too some spiritual phenomena are not so unlikely. You should not accuse people of ignoring experts if you are not one yourself. That's like wearing a dunce cap in public. The glaring flaw in your attitude is that you assume incorrectly that "scientists" can lie without getting caught by other scientists; you know, the "peers" in "peer review." A scientist lying does nothing to get money for the scientists reviewing their research, and would also do nothing for other scientists replicating the research. Plus, for any subject in which there was a consensus you'd have to assume a massive conspiracy where almost all scientists in the world are lying, and that's just loony-bin land. You only "suppose" there are preachers who lie for money? You do realize there have been numerous scandals of this exact thing happening and, what's more, nearly every preacher doing the whole "prosperity gospel" shtick on TV are multi-millionaires who own private jets and live in mansions. The only scientists who get that much money are either hugely popular authors, speakers, or public intellectuals; and I dare you to find me one confirmed example of any of those scientist lying. You missed the point of my "walking on water" example. It was to show the obvious that not all claims are equally worthy of skepticism. You want to claim you're equally skeptical, but it's remarkable how easily you swallow religious claims but how critical you become of scientific claims. It should be the other way around. at your last paragraph. That doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense. Are you really that stupid or just enjoy playing an idiot on the internet? Not only do scientists have more reason to lie they do not have any better oversight than anyone else. You just imagine they do. "Top scientists" disagree all the time. And yes, as an equal opportunity skeptic I realize there are preachers who might lie. I realize there are preachers who have been caught in scandalous positions. Now if I could just get you to realize that scientists are no better that would clear up much. I feel sorry for you. You are like a little kid who depends entirely on his father for everything. You have to believe your father is the altruistic best. It might not be the case.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 17, 2020 2:16:35 GMT
The glaring flaw in your attitude is that you assume incorrectly that "scientists" can lie without getting caught by other scientists; you know, the "peers" in "peer review." A scientist lying does nothing to get money for the scientists reviewing their research, and would also do nothing for other scientists replicating the research. Plus, for any subject in which there was a consensus you'd have to assume a massive conspiracy where almost all scientists in the world are lying, and that's just loony-bin land. You only "suppose" there are preachers who lie for money? You do realize there have been numerous scandals of this exact thing happening and, what's more, nearly every preacher doing the whole "prosperity gospel" shtick on TV are multi-millionaires who own private jets and live in mansions. The only scientists who get that much money are either hugely popular authors, speakers, or public intellectuals; and I dare you to find me one confirmed example of any of those scientist lying. You missed the point of my "walking on water" example. It was to show the obvious that not all claims are equally worthy of skepticism. You want to claim you're equally skeptical, but it's remarkable how easily you swallow religious claims but how critical you become of scientific claims. It should be the other way around. at your last paragraph. That doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense. Are you really that stupid or just enjoy playing an idiot on the internet? Not only do scientists have more reason to lie they do not have any better oversight than anyone else. You just imagine they do. "Top scientists" disagree all the time. And yes, as an equal opportunity skeptic I realize there are preachers who might lie. I realize there are preachers who have been caught in scandalous positions. Now if I could just get you to realize that scientists are no better that would clear up much. I feel sorry for you. You are like a little kid who depends entirely on his father for everything. You have to believe your father is the altruistic best. It might not be the case. Disagreeing has nothing to do with lying. Disagreeing means that when they DO agree it is called peer reviewed and is most of the composite of human scientific knowledge upon which civilisation is based. It also means that when they disagree, they try harder to find a 'fact', even if it has to be updated with further agreed upon knowledge at a later date. Lying rarely comes into except in some rare cases of scientists protecting a reputation and those trying to profit from faux science. Others usually find them out in the previously mentioned scenario of working towards scientific discovery that is useful and meaningful
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 17, 2020 11:56:29 GMT
The glaring flaw in your attitude is that you assume incorrectly that "scientists" can lie without getting caught by other scientists; you know, the "peers" in "peer review." A scientist lying does nothing to get money for the scientists reviewing their research, and would also do nothing for other scientists replicating the research. Plus, for any subject in which there was a consensus you'd have to assume a massive conspiracy where almost all scientists in the world are lying, and that's just loony-bin land. You only "suppose" there are preachers who lie for money? You do realize there have been numerous scandals of this exact thing happening and, what's more, nearly every preacher doing the whole "prosperity gospel" shtick on TV are multi-millionaires who own private jets and live in mansions. The only scientists who get that much money are either hugely popular authors, speakers, or public intellectuals; and I dare you to find me one confirmed example of any of those scientist lying. You missed the point of my "walking on water" example. It was to show the obvious that not all claims are equally worthy of skepticism. You want to claim you're equally skeptical, but it's remarkable how easily you swallow religious claims but how critical you become of scientific claims. It should be the other way around. at your last paragraph. That doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense. Are you really that stupid or just enjoy playing an idiot on the internet? Not only do scientists have more reason to lie they do not have any better oversight than anyone else. You just imagine they do. "Top scientists" disagree all the time. And yes, as an equal opportunity skeptic I realize there are preachers who might lie. I realize there are preachers who have been caught in scandalous positions. Now if I could just get you to realize that scientists are no better that would clear up much. I feel sorry for you. You are like a little kid who depends entirely on his father for everything. You have to believe your father is the altruistic best. It might not be the case. Name-calling now, Arlon? You must really be out of arguments. Scientists have a very good reason NOT to lie as I explained in my last post. If you want to live in Erjen's conspiracy theory land where most/all scientists are lying (including those peer-reviewing research, including those replicating research), then that's up to you; but I guarantee the only one who looks stupid here is you. As goz said, disagreement is not lying. I dare you to find a scientists who was caught lying who wasn't caught by other scientists. Go ahead. I'll wait. I feel sorry for you. You seem to think one must learn everything in life by themselves and can't rely on experts. Did you doubt every textbook you read as a kid (including the science ones written by scientists with reasons to lie)? Do you doubt every news report? Where does this "skepticism" end?
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 17, 2020 12:59:17 GMT
I dare you to find a scientists who was caught lying who wasn't caught by other scientists. Go ahead. I'll wait. Einstein often lied about his height but was caught by his tailor, Benny Rosenberg.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 17, 2020 23:13:31 GMT
Are you really that stupid or just enjoy playing an idiot on the internet? Not only do scientists have more reason to lie they do not have any better oversight than anyone else. You just imagine they do. "Top scientists" disagree all the time. And yes, as an equal opportunity skeptic I realize there are preachers who might lie. I realize there are preachers who have been caught in scandalous positions. Now if I could just get you to realize that scientists are no better that would clear up much. I feel sorry for you. You are like a little kid who depends entirely on his father for everything. You have to believe your father is the altruistic best. It might not be the case. Name-calling now, Arlon? You must really be out of arguments. Scientists have a very good reason NOT to lie as I explained in my last post. If you want to live in Erjen's conspiracy theory land where most/all scientists are lying (including those peer-reviewing research, including those replicating research), then that's up to you; but I guarantee the only one who looks stupid here is you. As goz said, disagreement is not lying. I dare you to find a scientists who was caught lying who wasn't caught by other scientists. Go ahead. I'll wait. I feel sorry for you. You seem to think one must learn everything in life by themselves and can't rely on experts. Did you doubt every textbook you read as a kid (including the science ones written by scientists with reasons to lie)? Do you doubt every news report? Where does this "skepticism" end? If you could follow the arguments I wouldn't need to clue you in otherwise. You're welcome. I'm not seeing the relevance in who catches whom. I'm certain much isn't caught. I'm certain much doesn't make the news. Consider the cannabinoid study, nobody cares what you believe about it. You seem to be aware that experts must be challenged by someone or other. Why not you? That's okay, I can guess.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 18, 2020 2:09:33 GMT
Name-calling now, Arlon? You must really be out of arguments. Scientists have a very good reason NOT to lie as I explained in my last post. If you want to live in Erjen's conspiracy theory land where most/all scientists are lying (including those peer-reviewing research, including those replicating research), then that's up to you; but I guarantee the only one who looks stupid here is you. As goz said, disagreement is not lying. I dare you to find a scientists who was caught lying who wasn't caught by other scientists. Go ahead. I'll wait. I feel sorry for you. You seem to think one must learn everything in life by themselves and can't rely on experts. Did you doubt every textbook you read as a kid (including the science ones written by scientists with reasons to lie)? Do you doubt every news report? Where does this "skepticism" end? If you could follow the arguments I wouldn't need to clue you in otherwise. You're welcome. I'm not seeing the relevance in who catches whom. I'm certain much isn't caught. I'm certain much doesn't make the news. Consider the cannabinoid study, nobody cares what you believe about it. You seem to be aware that experts must be challenged by someone or other. Why not you? That's okay, I can guess. You have to have enough knowledge to challenge them, something that YOU don't.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 18, 2020 9:19:38 GMT
If you could follow the arguments I wouldn't need to clue you in otherwise. You're welcome. I'm not seeing the relevance in who catches whom. I'm certain much isn't caught. I'm certain much doesn't make the news. Consider the cannabinoid study, nobody cares what you believe about it. You seem to be aware that experts must be challenged by someone or other. Why not you? That's okay, I can guess. You have to have enough knowledge to challenge them, something that YOU don't. And suppose you don't have enough knowledge to challenge them? What happens then?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 18, 2020 10:18:12 GMT
And suppose you don't have enough knowledge to challenge them? What happens then? Arlon, is your brain an active living thing? I think it needs a reboot.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 18, 2020 20:34:49 GMT
You have to have enough knowledge to challenge them, something that YOU don't. And suppose you don't have enough knowledge to challenge them? What happens then? You remain as ignorant as you clearly are.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 19, 2020 9:55:27 GMT
And suppose you don't have enough knowledge to challenge them? What happens then? You remain as ignorant as you clearly are. Do you ever wish you were smarter? I mean if somebody doesn't do something soon Donald Trump will win again in November, impeachment or not. I doubt that's a good thing. Why do you suppose he won in the first place? I think it means his opponents are not really scientific enough. Like you they merely have a childlike and misguided faith in science. Of course I was trying to tell them that they weren't scientific enough before he won, but no one much listens to me.
|
|