|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jun 22, 2017 18:50:18 GMT
Yes, it's much better to get your information about science from Youtube videos made by lunatics than from actual scientists, oh excuse me..."so-called scientists" who just happen to have doctorate degrees in their chosen fields. Now that fuckwit you to whom you just replied can return and show once again that he's too fucking ignorant to know that he has no clue what an appeal to authority fallacy actually is. Like you and Blade he just makes up bullshit because he's read someone else use the terminology and thinks he can con people into thinking he knows what the fuck he's talking about. Really? Doctorate degrees? Wow. Then I suppose you had better put your faith in them. If they have doctorate degrees, they can't be wrong, and they are incapable of lying, yes? It might help if you actually understood the scientific method or peer-review or just anything at all about science.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 22, 2017 18:51:09 GMT
So do you think ALL science works like this--meaning that all science is just paid for by outsiders who want them to produce certain results--or just some science? And if it's just some science, then how do you distinguish between the "gangster" variety and the "real" variety? Further, in the gangster variety, how do you suppose they're able to maintain this on a global scale, being able to pay and convince almost all scientists (and all publications) in a field to produce the same results and preventing any others in the field from producing contradicting results? Seems like it require a massive amount of money and keeping everyone quiet about it, and I think with the latter you overestimate how likely it is for that many people to keep quiet. The Herd earns the money. There's a very large supply of it. TPTB can afford to spend money that they didn't earn on anything they want. This isn't really an answer to my questions. Do you have any evidence that any "TPTB" are funding every scientist in any given field to produce the same results, as oppose to every scientist in every field getting the same results because the results are correct?
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jun 22, 2017 18:52:21 GMT
Are you aware that what is being asked for when someone says "Journal, issue and page number?" , is actually that what is presented is supported by someone using the scientific method. There is a reason for peer review, it goes towards ensuring that what is claimed by one person is not just taken as gospel but that others who have training in the necessary disciplines have looked over the work and found that no errors were made in gathering the data. This is why things published in actual scientific papers will always carry more weight than youtube videos made in peoples basements. Sure but that is not an excuse for ignoring actual legitimate criticisms of scientific theories as Cash and co have done. Well now you're just fucking lying, just as you lied by saying I never post anything of substance when that claim actually applies to you. You can't cite a single time I've ignored a legitimate criticism of a scientific theory so why did you tell such an obvious and blatant lie?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 22, 2017 18:53:53 GMT
The Herd earns the money. There's a very large supply of it. TPTB can afford to spend money that they didn't earn on anything they want. This isn't really an answer to my questions. Do you have any evidence that any "TPTB" are funding every scientist in any given field to produce the same results, as oppose to every scientist in every field getting the same results because the results are correct? I think the video makes the point well enough, and you have a history of asking loaded questions. Off to work now. Y'all have fun while I'm gone, and play nice. Later.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 22, 2017 18:56:09 GMT
Yes, it's much better to get your information about science from Youtube videos made by lunatics than from actual scientists, oh excuse me..."so-called scientists" who just happen to have doctorate degrees in their chosen fields. Now that fuckwit you to whom you just replied can return and show once again that he's too fucking ignorant to know that he has no clue what an appeal to authority fallacy actually is. Like you and Blade he just makes up bullshit because he's read someone else use the terminology and thinks he can con people into thinking he knows what the fuck he's talking about. Then I suppose you had better put your faith in them. If they have doctorate degrees, they can't be wrong, and they are incapable of lying, yes? They can be wrong. The entire purpose of peer-review is so that multiple experts in the same field can critique studies to see if they are wrong; and the entire scientific method is set up so that if even if/when most (if not all) of them are wrong they can be disproven by better evidence/experiments/studies. Even a brief review of the history of scientific advancement in any field--the way General Relativity supplanted Newtonian mechanics, eg.--is proof of that. It would also seem to be strong evidence against the notion of "gangster science," since if "gangster science" was really a thing then there shouldn't be disagreements and paradigm-shifting studies produced at all, no advancements, no changes of mind.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 22, 2017 18:59:21 GMT
This isn't really an answer to my questions. Do you have any evidence that any "TPTB" are funding every scientist in any given field to produce the same results, as oppose to every scientist in every field getting the same results because the results are correct? I think the video makes the point well enough, and you have a history of asking loaded questions. So where in the video is the evidence produced? And where in the world have I asked a "loaded question?"
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 22, 2017 19:02:57 GMT
Are you aware that what is being asked for when someone says "Journal, issue and page number?" , is actually that what is presented is supported by someone using the scientific method. There is a reason for peer review, it goes towards ensuring that what is claimed by one person is not just taken as gospel but that others who have training in the necessary disciplines have looked over the work and found that no errors were made in gathering the data. This is why things published in actual scientific papers will always carry more weight than youtube videos made in peoples basements. Sure but that is not an excuse for ignoring actual legitimate criticisms of scientific theories as Cash and co have done. I have never seen them do that, I think you are going to have to provide evidence of that if you wish to have this claim taken seriously.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 22, 2017 19:03:56 GMT
tpfkar And yet you drew him into this thread with an insult. I believe the irreligious have a moral responsibility not to criticize religion.If you call that an insult then yeah sure. A post can contain insults and also be of substance.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 22, 2017 19:04:59 GMT
I must apologise to you, yesterday I thought you said the most ironic self un-aware thing ever and said that it was comedy gold, but apparently you just go from strength to strength. And just to be clear with you, it is obvious that you do not think for yourself, you follow any outlandish conspiracy theory you come across blindly and without reason. Collate that. It isn't worth collating. please excuse me, but I seem to have failed to quote the line of yours that was so funny, it was: "I would prefer that the good people of the world start thinking for themselves " Which is hilarious as you are obviously incapable of any independent thought
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 22, 2017 19:13:11 GMT
tpfkar Sure, "substance" being numbskull assertion and hefty evidence of functional impairment. I believe the irreligious have a moral responsibility not to criticize religion.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jun 22, 2017 19:14:59 GMT
Proggy:
Here you go,
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 22, 2017 19:20:23 GMT
Sure but that is not an excuse for ignoring actual legitimate criticisms of scientific theories as Cash and co have done. I have never seen them do that, I think you are going to have to provide evidence of that if you wish to have this claim taken seriously. FilmFlaneur has waved around articles by scientists favoring the Copenhagen interpretation and has ignored my criticisms by just appealing to the fact that scientists have favoured it.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 22, 2017 19:21:25 GMT
I have never seen them do that, I think you are going to have to provide evidence of that if you wish to have this claim taken seriously. FilmFlaneur has waved around articles by scientists favoring the Copenhagen interpretation and has ignored my criticisms by just appealing to the fact that scientists have favoured it. Again I would like evidence for this, as I have said I have not seen this.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 22, 2017 19:30:04 GMT
FilmFlaneur has waved around articles by scientists favoring the Copenhagen interpretation and has ignored my criticisms by just appealing to the fact that scientists have favoured it. Again I would like evidence for this, as I have said I have not seen this. I would find it on hollilla.com but I can't remember the thread name.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 22, 2017 19:43:10 GMT
Again I would like evidence for this, as I have said I have not seen this. I would find it on hollilla.com but I can't remember the thread name. I can't remember it either Sorry, but I have to take this with a grain of salt. You may be right but I have not seen any examples of this and frankly I find it quite hard to believe.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jun 22, 2017 19:44:46 GMT
I have never seen them do that, I think you are going to have to provide evidence of that if you wish to have this claim taken seriously. FilmFlaneur has waved around articles by scientists favoring the Copenhagen interpretation and has ignored my criticisms by just appealing to the fact that scientists have favoured it. That's nice, now back up your claim about me or admit you lied. Also, what makes you qualified to critique theories in quantum mechanics? You said "legitimate criticism" not "Erjen-level dunce criticism". Do you think people who know what they are talking about have an obligation to recognize every lame-ass "opinion"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2017 19:48:25 GMT
I never said planets were invisible or magical. You keep implying that I said it, based on the principle that if you say it enough, people will come to believe I said it. No, I keep saying it based on the fact that it would have to be that if it existed. You just don't know enough about how the solar system works to understand it. Feel free. You'll find I've said things along those lines, but you've scrambled and mixed different things up. To wit : Yes, if a large planetary body were in the inner system it would indeed mess up the orbits of the inner planets. Which would be highly noticeable since it would indeed change the length of the year, amongst other things. The other was in response to your claim that the sun and/or moon were in the wrong place by 20-30 degrees. Which, if true, would be even more noticeable change since it would alter the day/night balance and the tides radically - like making the arctic circles cover around half the world. Or vanish completely, depending. For these things to be hidden would be utterly impossible. The fact that you think it's already happened simply makes you an object of pity to anybody who has the most basic understanding of what you're talking about.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 22, 2017 19:51:43 GMT
FilmFlaneur has waved around articles by scientists favoring the Copenhagen interpretation and has ignored my criticisms by just appealing to the fact that scientists have favoured it. That's nice, now back up your claim about me or admit you lied. Also, what makes you qualified to critique theories in quantum mechanics? You said "legitimate criticism" not "Erjen-level dunce criticism". Do you think people who know what they are talking about have an obligation to recognize every lame-ass "opinion"? I cant think of any examples of you doing that, but that doesn't mean I was wrong. "what makes you qualified to critique theories in quantum mechanics?" Well interpretatioms of Quantum mechanics fall in to the category of Philosophy of physics. I am pretty well versed in philosophy or at least I am well versed in comparison to the average Joe. "Do you think people who know what they are talking about have an obligation to recognize every lame-ass "opinion"?" What on earth do you mean by recognise?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 22, 2017 19:54:44 GMT
Again I would like evidence for this, as I have said I have not seen this. I would find it on hollilla.com but I can't remember the thread name. I must confess, that site is painfully addicitive, in just three threads I looked at the shameless stupidity of the trio of idiocy is enough to make me want to bleach my brain.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jun 22, 2017 19:56:06 GMT
That's nice, now back up your claim about me or admit you lied. Also, what makes you qualified to critique theories in quantum mechanics? You said "legitimate criticism" not "Erjen-level dunce criticism". Do you think people who know what they are talking about have an obligation to recognize every lame-ass "opinion"? I cant think of any examples of you doing that, but that doesn't mean I was wrong. That's your fucking response? Okay, I can't think of any examples of you admitting to raping farm animals, but that doesn't mean you haven't admitted to raping farm animals. You lied and then came up with one of the worst "explanations" I've ever read.
|
|