|
Post by gadreel on Jun 27, 2017 22:53:37 GMT
No: Search Results anecdotal ˌanɪkˈdəʊtl/ adjective adjective: anecdotal (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research. I have not read the book you are talking about, I am currently reading the kybalion, is there a synopsis? Anecdote: A short amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person. I see you still believe yours are more "factual" than mine. Why would you keep doing that when it has never been found the case? "No" to your "no," you are not the teacher. Neither is your source. Anecdotes are by definition NOT scientific research, and I have not provided any anecdotes to compare to yours. I ask again is there a synopsis of the book?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 28, 2017 8:44:38 GMT
It doesn't take an egghead to wonder where all the photographs taken by alleged abductees can be, given the ubiquity of camera phones these days. And an Unidentified Flying Object is just that, something which is just presently ... unidentified. It does not necessarily mean alien spacecraft, from Nibiru or otherwise. I never said anything about them being alien spacecraft. That is just the standard assumption. True; but when one places the words 'alien abductions' and 'UFO sightings' next to one another in the same sentence the implication can be made.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 28, 2017 8:54:12 GMT
Most of the things many people speaking out lately believe are "science" are not science at all and have never passed duplication. Or name some. Such as the claim that 'intelligent design' er, Creationism is a scientific area of research? Given that the Bible, say, is often nothing but a succession of colourful and extraordinary anecdotes, this is ironic.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 28, 2017 9:13:49 GMT
Anecdotes are by definition NOT scientific research, and I have not provided any anecdotes to compare to yours. I ask again is there a synopsis of the book? "Anecdote" is by definition singular and that's what's confusing you. It isn't any less "scientific" except that it is singular. When several are assembled together they can be just as scientific as any other evidence as I noted to phludowin. Your "factual" science has a disturbing paucity of anecdotes of the sort required. Has it never occurred you that evidence of anthropocentric climate change is anecdotal? Has it never occurred you that evidence of dark energy is anecdotal? For what reason if any did you decide any of those was more than anecdotal? Although they are not "by definition" first hand, anecdotes are in practice usually first hand, making them more scientific than any science I've seen from you. The book is the story of the early childhood of the author, especially moving with her mother to the religious community and attending its school. The perspective of a child can be enlightening in the same sense obtaining any other perspective can be. There are no "proofs" of the spirit. Her story confirms what you have heard about the Maharishi from other sources.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 28, 2017 11:31:05 GMT
evidence as I noted to phludowin . Your "factual" science has a disturbing paucity of anecdotes of the sort required. Science does not rely on anecdote as a final measure of anything, and so this would be hardly surprising lol. But at least we now know the subject of your internet column this week ... Sadly, this is nonsense, if by 'anecdotal' one claims that the science of climate change, or theoretical physics is (using Arlon's preferred definition of earlier) "based on personal accounts rather than facts or research". No-one has a 'personal account' of dark matter without research, the idea of which is based on a range of observational evidence as part of exactly that: the estimation of the masses of galaxy clusters, type Ia supernova distance measurements etc. The scientific research into climate change is widespread and virtually unanimous in judging cause and the tendency of outcomes. In short Newton may have told others that an apple fell on his head but is the work behind the Principia which is the science. Arlon, meanwhile, has had strong words previously on the board to say about the worthlessness of definitions previously, so one is surprised to see him arguing from precisely these points of reference.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 28, 2017 18:16:24 GMT
Anecdotes are by definition NOT scientific research, and I have not provided any anecdotes to compare to yours. I ask again is there a synopsis of the book? "Anecdote" is by definition singular and that's what's confusing you. It isn't any less "scientific" except that it is singular. When several are assembled together they can be just as scientific as any other evidence as I noted to phludowin . Your "factual" science has a disturbing paucity of anecdotes of the sort required. Has it never occurred you that evidence of anthropocentric climate change is anecdotal? Has it never occurred you that evidence of dark energy is anecdotal? For what reason if any did you decide any of those was more than anecdotal? Although they are not "by definition" first hand, anecdotes are in practice usually first hand, making them more scientific than any science I've seen from you. The book is the story of the early childhood of the author, especially moving with her mother to the religious community and attending its school. The perspective of a child can be enlightening in the same sense obtaining any other perspective can be. There are no "proofs" of the spirit. Her story confirms what you have heard about the Maharishi from other sources. I am not convinced you know what an anecdote is, certainly the way you are presenting it here indicates that you do not. Scientific evidence can be repeated anecdotes cannot. and just to be clear singular is not scientific, if it cannot be repeated it has failed in terms of science. I was kind of looking for a third party synopsis, I have noticed that you read things quite differently to most people.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 29, 2017 3:31:48 GMT
I'm using the Oxford definition, you aren't. I'm perfectly aware. You learned at some point to dismiss anecdotal evidence, but you did not learn that it has real value when a significant number of anecdotes is compiled. You want it simple, you want "anecdote bad" or "anecdote good" because it's too complicated to have to decide when it's one or the other. It's easier if it's one all the time. So you want "anecdote bad" all the time. Some of your "scientific" evidence has not been repeated. Have you repeated any experiments that confirm anthropomorphic climate change? Dark energy? Time dilation? I thought you did not. And who told you anecdotes cannot be repeated? How does an event happening to me prevent that event happening to anyone else or 500 of anyone else? That'll be the day when you're clear. Good luck with that.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 29, 2017 4:08:52 GMT
... if by 'anecdotal' one claims that the science of climate change, or theoretical physics is (using Arlon's preferred definition of earlier) "based on personal accounts rather than facts or research". No-one has a 'personal account' of dark matter without research, the idea of which is based on a range of observational evidence as part of exactly that: the estimation of the masses of galaxy clusters, type Ia supernova distance measurements etc. The scientific research into climate change is widespread and virtually unanimous in judging cause and the tendency of outcomes. In short Newton may have told others that an apple fell on his head but is the work behind the Principia which is the science. "No," the teacher said, personal accounts are not necessarily flawed. All facts and research are built up from accounts that are "personal" to someone or other. I never said or implied anything different. Although you at least seem to be concerned about the precise meaning "personal accounts" you fail to be precise about your "facts and research," which on close inspection are in fact nothing but personal accounts, and so likely wrong personal accounts. Have you ever noticed that everything Republicans do is fine with many Republicans and anything Democrats do is fine with many Democrats, but whenever the other party does something it's wrong? That is something like what you're doing here. Your personal accounts are "facts and research," to you at least, but if anyone else has a personal account it's necessarily wrong, to you at least.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 29, 2017 11:50:15 GMT
"No," the teacher said, personal accounts are not necessarily flawed. All facts and research are built up from accounts that are "personal" to someone or other. I never said or implied anything different. I think you confuse personal accounts with something originating from the individual, To use Newton and that apple again, there is a difference between Newton telling us about a fruit-based cranium contact and Newton the author of the Principia the contents of which be independently verified, and which is not anecdotal in the sense as you have already defined it. I shouldn't really have to keep pointing out the obvious. Once again, scientific research is often the work of an individual but it is different from anecdote, not least since it can be falsified, and repeated. Politics is not a science. (In fact Trump does not even make it an art) Please quote where I have asserted that "personal accounts are necessarily wrong".
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 29, 2017 12:21:29 GMT
The difference is that the apple falling is just one anecdote and thus insufficient to establish Principia, which utterly depends on countless similar anecdotes throughout history. By further anecdotes. What you have tried to do is say that your "facts and research" have no need for anecdotes or personal accounts since they lack something your facts and research have. If your facts and research have anything ( ) however it is just more anecdotes and personal accounts, as I have explained
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 29, 2017 12:38:14 GMT
The difference is that the apple falling is just one anecdote and thus insufficient to establish Principia, which utterly depends on countless similar anecdotes throughout history. The Principia depends on mathematics and a study of physics, not 'anecdotes' from history. Once again you seem to be confused. This time between peer review, repeatability, mathematical logic, the predictions of calculus etc and what people allegedly said they found when they checked stuff out. You need to check back on the definition of 'anecdote' you gave earlier which does not support your use of the term since. QED means to show that something is as was to be demonstrated. Expression an opinion does not qualify. And once again your own previous definition of 'anecdote' does not bear this view out, since some evidence is open to all, checkable and logically proved. So you cannot quote me then? OK. Please quote me instead where I say that "facts and research have no need for anecdotes or personal accounts". I hope you have better luck there. Thank you for explanation, which I find unconvincing.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 29, 2017 12:46:50 GMT
The difference is that the apple falling is just one anecdote and thus insufficient to establish Principia, which utterly depends on countless similar anecdotes throughout history. The Principia depends on mathematics and a study of physics, not 'anecdotes' from history. Once again you seem to be confused. This time between peer review, repeatability, mathematical logic, the predictions of calculus etc and what people allegedly said they found when they checked stuff out. You need to check back on the definition of 'anecdote' you gave earlier which does not support your use of the term since. QED means to show that something is as was to be demonstrated. Expression an opinion does not qualify. And once again your own previous definition of 'anecdote' does not bear this view out, since some evidence is open to all, checkable and logically proved. So you cannot quote me then? OK. Please quote me instead where I say that "facts and research have no need for anecdotes or personal accounts". I hope you have better luck there. Thank you for explanation, which I find unconvincing. Some anecdotes are notoriously unscientific, for example yours. Which is worse, childlike faith in science or childlike faith in a god? There are more people who are not scientists and yet demand to be treated like one than there are people who are not themselves a god and yet demand to be treated like one.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 29, 2017 13:59:19 GMT
Some anecdotes are notoriously unscientific, for example yours. Please quote where I have referenced any unproven personal experience in this thread in support of my views. Which is better, to follow a process relying on method, empiricism, evidence, observation and mathematics - or to follow your deliberate supernatural entity on the basis of credulity? You mean like the 'scientists' who support intelligent design, er, Creationism via their field of expertise?
|
|