Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 11:29:13 GMT
So no list available of scientists who have published peer-reviewed papers in support of Creationism, er, intelligent design then? That seems odd. Perhaps you ought to check again? Personal insults instead of a real answer just suggest you are growing annoyed since you are obliged to be defensive. But I forgive you. So if a "peer-reviewed" paper is published in an "authoritative journal" which says the earth is flat and the sun moves around it, then it becomes scientific fact, right? No you stupid prick. A peer reviewed scientific journal would never publish such claims because they would never pass the peer review process which involves applying the scientific method to claims. It's the same reason why creationism has never passed peer review. You have absolutely no ability to evaluate the information you read or how that information and conclusions are arrived at.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 5, 2017 11:31:41 GMT
Of course you would argue it. I hope you're getting paid something for arguing it. What a shame it would be if you argued it for free because you actually believed it.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 5, 2017 11:34:06 GMT
So no list available of scientists who have published peer-reviewed papers in support of Creationism, er, intelligent design then? That seems odd. Perhaps you ought to check again? Personal insults instead of a real answer just suggest you are growing annoyed since you are obliged to be defensive. But I forgive you. So if a "peer-reviewed" paper is published in an "authoritative journal" which says the earth is flat and the sun moves around it, then it becomes scientific fact, right? You still haven't provided a list of any peer-reviewed research which purports to show the truth of Creationism, er, intelligent design, as I am asking. Is there a problem? I answered your first question, after all. You really do seem evasive now by offering another wild hypothetical.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 5, 2017 11:36:35 GMT
Of course you would argue it. I hope you're getting paid something for arguing it. What a shame it would be if you argued it for free because you actually believed it. I am not suggesting that there is no place for credulity in this world. In fact it seems to make its own place regardless, very quickly and easily.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 5, 2017 11:57:23 GMT
So if a "peer-reviewed" paper is published in an "authoritative journal" which says the earth is flat and the sun moves around it, then it becomes scientific fact, right? You still haven't provided a list of any peer-reviewed research which purports to show the truth of Creationism, er, intelligent design, as I am asking. Is there a problem? I answered your first question, after all. You really do seem evasive now by offering another wild hypothetical.
I'm not required to, nor is anyone else. "Peer review," or gangster science as I prefer to more accurately call it, is a complete load.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 5, 2017 12:08:15 GMT
tpfkar New wives' tale yts are the way to enlightenment. Strange, but I didn't see it that way. For the longest time I have been thinking that God the Father might be a collective, but I never thought of them as flesh and blood ETs. They would command incredible power, and not with science that we would understand, but with what would appear to be magic, or science we don't understand.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 5, 2017 12:13:02 GMT
You still haven't provided a list of any peer-reviewed research which purports to show the truth of Creationism, er, intelligent design, as I am asking. Is there a problem? I answered your first question, after all. You really do seem evasive now by offering another wild hypothetical.
I'm not required to, nor is anyone else. Well, it might be useful at least to have a supposed science's assertions reviewed and passed by fellow scientists would it not? You know, just to see if the methodology and technical research work out and have actual evidence, and so on? Since you have failed to provide any scientific articles arguing for Creationism, er, intelligent design which have been through a quality control process at the appropriate standards, then one imagines that you have no choice but to assert this.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 5, 2017 12:19:49 GMT
I'm not required to, nor is anyone else. Well, it might be useful at least to have a supposed science's assertions reviewed and passed by fellow scientists would it not? You know, just to see if the methodology and technical research work out and have actual evidence, and so on? Since you have failed to provide any scientific articles arguing for Creationism, er, intelligent design which have been through a quality control process at the appropriate standards, then one imagines that you have no choice but to assert this. No, I didn't fail, you silly turd. In order to have failed, I would first have had to try. Instead of trying to convince you, I simply wrecked your stupid premise that "peer-review" is a legitimate path to higher knowledge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 12:23:13 GMT
Well, it might be useful at least to have a supposed science's assertions reviewed and passed by fellow scientists would it not? You know, just to see if the methodology and technical research work out and have actual evidence, and so on? Since you have failed to provide any scientific articles arguing for Creationism, er, intelligent design which have been through a quality control process at the appropriate standards, then one imagines that you have no choice but to assert this. No, I didn't fail, you silly turd. In order to have failed, I would first have had to tried. Instead of trying to convince you, I simply wrecked your stupid premise that "peer-review" is a legitimate path to higher knowledge. You wrecked "peer review"😃 Poor deluded simpleton. And what would you know about the path to higher knowledge? Do you think that path involves youtube videos?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 5, 2017 12:28:10 GMT
No, I didn't fail, you silly turd. In order to have failed, I would first have had to tried. Instead of trying to convince you, I simply wrecked your stupid premise that "peer-review" is a legitimate path to higher knowledge. You wrecked "peer review"😃 Poor deluded simpleton. And what would you know about the path to higher knowledge? Do you think that path involves youtube videos? Piss off, Supes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 12:30:18 GMT
You wrecked "peer review"😃 Poor deluded simpleton. And what would you know about the path to higher knowledge? Do you think that path involves youtube videos? Piss off, Supes. When are you going to realise you have no power to make me do anything you impotent little turd of a man.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 5, 2017 12:30:45 GMT
Well, it might be useful at least to have a supposed science's assertions reviewed and passed by fellow scientists would it not? You know, just to see if the methodology and technical research work out and have actual evidence, and so on? Since you have failed to provide any scientific articles arguing for Creationism, er, intelligent design which have been through a quality control process at the appropriate standards, then one imagines that you have no choice but to assert this. No, I didn't fail, you silly turd. In order to have failed, I would first have had to try. Things are best achieved when one tries. So then, I would recommend it. I see you haven't borne in mind what I said about personal insults. Such things tell the reader more about you than I. Actually my suggestion was that a peer-review system is a way to check competency and quality, especially when assessing formal and technical work where matters can be falsified. But I think you really know that. Otherwise, without such professional standards, one just ends up accepting any old thing as the truth, just because you are told, saw it on YooToob university or read it in some book. As you know. But, evasion noted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 12:59:31 GMT
Of course you would argue it. I hope you're getting paid something for arguing it. What a shame it would be if you argued it for free because you actually believed it. I am not suggesting that there is no place for credulity in this world. In fact it seems to make its own place regardless, very quickly and easily. FilmFlaneur, Although peer review is essential in advancing knowledge, so is countering the resentment that can distract us from the dialogue necessary to stay open to difficult arguments in the face of the constant distractions our culture throws at us. This board demonstrates the fervor some have to disrupt that dialogue, fervor bred and sustained by stories that have long since been co-opted by the powerful to keep the rest of us in servitude. Even those who have overcome most distractions are vulnerable to the resentment we feel at the fervent who disrupt.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 5, 2017 13:43:39 GMT
I am not suggesting that there is no place for credulity in this world. In fact it seems to make its own place regardless, very quickly and easily. FilmFlaneur, Although peer review is essential in advancing knowledge, so is countering the resentment that can distract us from the dialogue necessary to stay open to difficult arguments in the face of the constant distractions our culture throws at us. This board demonstrates the fervor some have to disrupt that dialogue, fervor bred and sustained by stories that have long since been co-opted by the powerful to keep the rest of us in servitude. Even those who have overcome most distractions are vulnerable to the resentment we feel at the fervent who disrupt. I agree, and the best way to overcome the resentment, as you put it, is to remain focused and to realise that no idea or belief system, no matter how much cherished, is beyond trenchant criticism. It is people who have the rights not the things they believe in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 14:33:51 GMT
FilmFlaneur, Although peer review is essential in advancing knowledge, so is countering the resentment that can distract us from the dialogue necessary to stay open to difficult arguments in the face of the constant distractions our culture throws at us. This board demonstrates the fervor some have to disrupt that dialogue, fervor bred and sustained by stories that have long since been co-opted by the powerful to keep the rest of us in servitude. Even those who have overcome most distractions are vulnerable to the resentment we feel at the fervent who disrupt. I agree, and the best way to overcome the resentment, as you put it, is to remain focused and to realise that no idea or belief system, no matter how much cherished, is beyond trenchant criticism. It is people who have the rights not the things they believe in. Fair enough, though staying focused often requires more motivation than peer-reviewed journals can provide. Perhaps a belief system that features the need for evidence-based, rational dialogue - and the rights of all who would participate - could help? (Of course, this is not to say that there will ever be a definitive one beyond criticism, just that those criticisms themselves should be thoughtful and based on the system's own terms: effectiveness in providing necessary motivation.)
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jun 5, 2017 15:00:26 GMT
No, you are going about it in the incorrect way, not me. Of course I do seem a bit arrogant because of my mathematical superiority to the rest of you, and I only do that because of the self righteousness that your establishment has regarding its own delusion and ignorance. That's really quite amusing. How old did you say you were again?
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Jun 5, 2017 15:17:20 GMT
And the purpose of "peer-review" is.... What would be your alternative to a peer-review?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 5, 2017 15:39:13 GMT
I agree, and the best way to overcome the resentment, as you put it, is to remain focused and to realise that no idea or belief system, no matter how much cherished, is beyond trenchant criticism. It is people who have the rights not the things they believe in. Fair enough, though staying focused often requires more motivation than peer-reviewed journals can provide. Perhaps a belief system that features the need for evidence-based, rational dialogue - and the rights of all who would participate - could help? (Of course, this is not to say that there will ever be a definitive one beyond criticism, just that those criticisms themselves should be thoughtful and based on the system's own terms: effectiveness in providing necessary motivation.) Well, personally speaking, I am not sure that I would see any peer-reviewing as 'motivation' per se. Merely one standard against which (in this context) scientific claims can be assessed. It is certainly a bar which none of the Creationists have passed so far as has been demonstrated here. As for the rights (of free speech, say) offered to all, that's not anything I would argue with, for reasons just expressed. By staying focused I meant in a rhetorical sense, during disputations such as we find here. There is a system which is evidenced and rationally- based by the way. It is called Empiricism. It is not one which is applicable to all things, but it always a good place to start.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 5, 2017 16:28:12 GMT
The point too many people seem to miss is that some things are decided by voting and some things are not. In government argumentum ad populum prevails -- especially and readily in a democracy. In science argumentum ad populum is a "logical fallacy" as the kids like to call it. If an officer of the government says I need a parking pass to public property then I do because whether I need one is ordinarily something government does decide. Medical decisions are not matters of majority opinion and no count of heads, or peers, or anything else matters. No "authority" is empowered except as patients proscribe. In my case I grant no authority whatever to anyone whomsoever. I make the final decision on medical matters. I am the only "peer" that matters. Whether "we" need experts does not matter to me. Many of you likely do need them and I would encourage you to depend on them if and when you must. I would add the caution though that it is best to inform yourselves of enough science to make your own decisions just as I do. If the doctor can't explain it to you, then the doctor doesn't understand it enough himself. I don't argue against authority for the sake of a qualified populace. I argue against the authority of the unqualified populace where it strays into matters it should not, like my medical decisions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 16:58:55 GMT
So if a "peer-reviewed" paper is published in an "authoritative journal" which says the earth is flat and the sun moves around it, then it becomes scientific fact, right? No you stupid prick. A peer reviewed scientific journal would never publish such claims because they would never pass the peer review process which involves applying the scientific method to claims. It's the same reason why creationism has never passed peer review. You have absolutely no ability to evaluate the information you read or how that information and conclusions are arrived at. Erjen is an authority junkie. Deep down, he thinks that things can only be true if an authority figure informs you that they are true. It's why everything he believes is based on youtube videos telling him what to think. Worse, he can't comprehend that there are other people who aren't like this. So in his mind, people only believe the conclusions of science because they regard scientists as authority figures. So he thinks that you and I would believe anything scientists said. The idea that people accept scientific conclusions because they're backed by evidence, and that people would refuse to believe a scientific conclusion if it wasn't wasn't, is something that is beyond his ability to believe. All he's really doing is revealing his own inadequacies. Though he will of course deny all this.
|
|