|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jan 1, 2019 21:22:45 GMT
gozzy
Referencing yourself again, honey?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 1, 2019 23:28:53 GMT
We've been over this before and "scientists" here did not "independently verify" relativity, climate change, late progress against cancer or the like. I'm afraid the individual bits of evidence supporting all those ideas have been independently verified, so long as you are using standard English and not your clueless bullshit. You are most incorrect. Climate change and late progress against cancer are not science because of ceteris paribus. That means the statistical analysis cannot be science because of the impossibility of eliminating even most of the other factors. Relativity might be "independently" verified, but no more than many claims of children speaking in a language they never studied, and other spiritual/psychic phenomena. You aren't seeing the similarities. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jan 2, 2019 11:44:18 GMT
You are most incorrect. Climate change and late progress against cancer are not science because of ceteris paribus. That means the statistical analysis cannot be science because of the impossibility of eliminating even most of the other factors. Relativity might be "independently" verified, but no more than many claims of children speaking in a language they never studied, and other spiritual/psychic phenomena. You aren't seeing the similarities. Again: no one one the planet thinks about or defines science the way you do and no one ever will. You might as well just give up, because we all know you are completely full of shit. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 2, 2019 12:05:05 GMT
You are most incorrect. Climate change and late progress against cancer are not science because of ceteris paribus. That means the statistical analysis cannot be science because of the impossibility of eliminating even most of the other factors. Relativity might be "independently" verified, but no more than many claims of children speaking in a language they never studied, and other spiritual/psychic phenomena. You aren't seeing the similarities. Again: no one one the planet thinks about or defines science the way you do and no one ever will. You might as well just give up, because we all know you are completely full of shit. Again: You are most incorrect. You seem to think I made much of this stuff up. I did not. My contribution to most of these arguments is minimal. They existed before me and will continue without me. Although Democrats and Republicans detest me about the same, they are not authorities in anything but politics, and not much good at politics either. The internet is dominated by poorly schooled people with regimented thinking. Notice how they oppose criticism of the military here. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jan 2, 2019 17:51:38 GMT
You seem to think I made much of this stuff up. I did not. Yes you did, shit for brains. You are talking to someone who actually attended a graduate level course on the philosophy of science, so I know you are pulling this stuff out of your dumb, ignorant ass and no where else. Your agenda is plain to all of us who are actually scientifically literate: you believe in bullshit, so like the creationists who got their asses handed to them in Dover, you are trying to redefine how science works so your bullshit beliefs look less bullshitty. There is literally nothing else going on here, and you are fooling absolutely no one. |
|
|
|
Post by Individual 1 on Jan 3, 2019 5:37:01 GMT
Since you refuse to name any. Your request for name dropping was fucking stupid beyond words. You don't even know why you asked; it was a thoughtless reflex that actually had no relationship to the point being made. And no, you wouldn't recognize a single name of anyone doing work in the field since you know jack shit about any of it.
The point, shit for brains, is that Heeeyyy does not get to dictate how scientists studying the mind, as a community using common terms via a process of consensus, use those terms. If she thinks there is a better way, then the only choice she has is to become a member of that community, do significant work, and convince folks to shift their vocabularies. That is how science works--not that you would have the slightest idea.
He / she is amusing though. IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/2445533 |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 3, 2019 8:59:54 GMT
You seem to think I made much of this stuff up. I did not. Yes you did, shit for brains. You are talking to someone who actually attended a graduate level course on the philosophy of science, so I know you are pulling this stuff out of your dumb, ignorant ass and no where else. Your agenda is plain to all of us who are actually scientifically literate: you believe in bullshit, so like the creationists who got their asses handed to them in Dover, you are trying to redefine how science works so your bullshit beliefs look less bullshitty. There is literally nothing else going on here, and you are fooling absolutely no one. There's only one? Philosophy of science, that is. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 3, 2019 20:17:20 GMT
Yes you did, shit for brains. You are talking to someone who actually attended a graduate level course on the philosophy of science, so I know you are pulling this stuff out of your dumb, ignorant ass and no where else. Your agenda is plain to all of us who are actually scientifically literate: you believe in bullshit, so like the creationists who got their asses handed to them in Dover, you are trying to redefine how science works so your bullshit beliefs look less bullshitty. There is literally nothing else going on here, and you are fooling absolutely no one. There's only one? Philosophy of science, that is. I can see that Faustus did not reply to SUCH a stupid comment, so let me do the honours. EVEN the most limited of idiotic losers could gather that in a graduate level course on the philosophy of science, the course might involve ALL current knowledge and /or theories on the subject where there might be more than one philosophy or many intertwined ideas for intellectual study. It possibly had history of philosophy of science and possibly other academic aspects to it, plus who knows what else. I did not do the course, however course curriculum in academia is pretty standard within fields of study. You're welcome! You sure have a 'thing' and get triggered by the words 'science' and creationism and dictionaries! |
|
