Page 60 of 105 [ 1680 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 ... 105  Next

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

16 Mar 2015, 9:59 am

AngelRho wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
I have just spent an hour or two repudiating this mushy, sentimental pigs swill and it is vanished into the aether.

Makes me even less inclined to treat charlatans as mere fools.

lol

I'm still going to pop in from time to time just to lurk, but I just can't keep up my end of the discussion until I get some meatspace issues out of the way. So, for starters, I'm going to wish you luck.

Some pro tips: WP is often buggy. Never compose your replies in a web browser. Use a text editor or word processor. Save work often. That's the safest way to work in PPR.

The next best thing is what I normally do. Copy your in-browser reply before submitting. That way, when the internet eats your treatise or tl;dr diatribe, just paste it right back into the reply window.

At one time I did spend hours on replies. It's mentally and emotionally draining, not to mention a waste of time better spent being productive. I may still spend an hour or two on a reply occasionally, but if it really means that much to me, I break it up over the course of the day. Otherwise, I try to limit myself to roughly 15 minutes at most.

Finally, here's the advice I myself find difficult to follow consistently: Keep replies to simple one-liners. There's nothing more frustrating than having your doctoral dissertation thesis completely destroyed by a single short sentence. With practice, it gets easy to do, and I'm a long way from mastering that one. It keeps discussions lively and flowing. If you succeed in unlocking all the mysteries of the universe in one long diatribe, you leave nothing for anyone else to contribute. You might as well just be arguing with yourself for all the good it does.
:lol: You are giving me almost the same advice I was giving you.
:) I thought I had this forum sussed as to how to post replies etc. but I went looking for a quote and came back to find everything vanished.

Good luck to you.
I'm not doing this for enjoyment... although I was hoping to find some intelligent and challenging intercourse with interesting people but, unfortunately, the place seems to be swamped with egomaniacs selling the same stuff that the mass media is selling. Worship fashionable Materialism (Caesar) or be flogged to death.

I've done it all before and it is irksome in the extreme. I don't like it at all. The trouble is, if I don't stand and fight the mindless will take it as an admission that there is no good and true other than their egomaniacal fancies.

If I get a chance tomorrow I will try to reconstruct some of my lost submission.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

16 Mar 2015, 10:13 am

AngelRho wrote:
Do you require evidence for the efficacy of the scientific method? That makes sense if you do. We wouldn't waste our time with something that doesn't consistently get reliable results. But the efficacy of the method is not what is being challenged. It's falsifiability that is being challenged.


Falsifiying a method doesn't make sense. Statements can be falsified. Models can be falsified. But a method is just a series of steps taken to achieve an end. Efficacy really is the only measure.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

16 Mar 2015, 10:21 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
I guess it depends on the BS.

You should know this:

Sometimes, BS could be the thing that saves your crop for the year.
Uh huh! But you will have to have a lot of burly mates to convince me that what's good to grow a lettuce is good to stuff a child's head with.

Your ideological prejudices have nothing to do with science or any scientific method. I suggest that what you and your mates propose is only good for growing acres of lettuce.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 72,282
Location: Queens, NYC

16 Mar 2015, 10:30 am

I see a Manifesto coming!



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

16 Mar 2015, 10:38 am

Janissy wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Do you require evidence for the efficacy of the scientific method? That makes sense if you do. We wouldn't waste our time with something that doesn't consistently get reliable results. But the efficacy of the method is not what is being challenged. It's falsifiability that is being challenged.


Falsifiying a method doesn't make sense. Statements can be falsified. Models can be falsified. But a method is just a series of steps taken to achieve an end. Efficacy really is the only measure.
Nonsense! You are effectively claiming that any series of steps (method) that achieve your predetermined end are unassailable simply because they deliver the desired "result". No one would ever swallow that nonsense unless they'd been brainwashed to think that "Big Brother" is always right... even when he contradicts himself.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 72,282
Location: Queens, NYC

16 Mar 2015, 10:44 am

"Pre-determined ends," it is true (in science), could be obtained via a sort of "self-fulfilling prophecy." It, obviously, takes away from the IDEALLY OBJECTIVE results obtained via the Scientific Method.

IDEALLY, when the Scientific Method is employed primarily, the result is not "pre-determined" in and of itself.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,100
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

16 Mar 2015, 10:53 am

Oldavid wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
I have just spent an hour or two repudiating this mushy, sentimental pigs swill and it is vanished into the aether.

Makes me even less inclined to treat charlatans as mere fools.

lol

I'm still going to pop in from time to time just to lurk, but I just can't keep up my end of the discussion until I get some meatspace issues out of the way. So, for starters, I'm going to wish you luck.

Some pro tips: WP is often buggy. Never compose your replies in a web browser. Use a text editor or word processor. Save work often. That's the safest way to work in PPR.

The next best thing is what I normally do. Copy your in-browser reply before submitting. That way, when the internet eats your treatise or tl;dr diatribe, just paste it right back into the reply window.

At one time I did spend hours on replies. It's mentally and emotionally draining, not to mention a waste of time better spent being productive. I may still spend an hour or two on a reply occasionally, but if it really means that much to me, I break it up over the course of the day. Otherwise, I try to limit myself to roughly 15 minutes at most.

Finally, here's the advice I myself find difficult to follow consistently: Keep replies to simple one-liners. There's nothing more frustrating than having your doctoral dissertation thesis completely destroyed by a single short sentence. With practice, it gets easy to do, and I'm a long way from mastering that one. It keeps discussions lively and flowing. If you succeed in unlocking all the mysteries of the universe in one long diatribe, you leave nothing for anyone else to contribute. You might as well just be arguing with yourself for all the good it does.
:lol: You are giving me almost the same advice I was giving you.
:) I thought I had this forum sussed as to how to post replies etc. but I went looking for a quote and came back to find everything vanished.

Good luck to you.
I'm not doing this for enjoyment... although I was hoping to find some intelligent and challenging intercourse with interesting people but, unfortunately, the place seems to be swamped with egomaniacs selling the same stuff that the mass media is selling. Worship fashionable Materialism (Caesar) or be flogged to death.

I've done it all before and it is irksome in the extreme. I don't like it at all. The trouble is, if I don't stand and fight the mindless will take it as an admission that there is no good and true other than their egomaniacal fancies.

If I get a chance tomorrow I will try to reconstruct some of my lost submission.

Soldier on, brother.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

16 Mar 2015, 10:55 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
"Pre-determined ends," it is true (in science), could be obtained via a sort of "self-fulfilling prophecy." It, obviously, takes away from the IDEALLY OBJECTIVE results obtained via the Scientific Method.

IDEALLY, when the Scientific Method is employed primarily, the result is not "pre-determined" in and of itself.
What are you talking about? Are you pumping steroids in some madhog gymnasium?



Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

16 Mar 2015, 11:04 am

cyberdad wrote:
Narrator wrote:
Seriously, there are only maybe 2 true scientists on this forum. The rest of us do the best we can with what we know and the journey we've made. Only a true brain surgeon can tell you ALL of the ins and outs of brain surgery. In the same way, there are few if any true theologians here. I studied theology for a year - it gives me a big step up from your average "Bible study" class, but it doesn't make me an expert.


I worked as a "true scientist" for a number of years. What exactly is your point?

My point is this. (And perhaps I'm a little jaded with arguments going in circles.) In a forum of mostly lay people, polarized on an issue, neither side is going to budge. On top of that, people expect lay people to put up or shut up. Sometimes the adversarial nature of this type of forum just seems bizarre - even more so when I get caught up in it.


_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.


Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

16 Mar 2015, 11:14 am

Oldavid wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
"Pre-determined ends," it is true (in science), could be obtained via a sort of "self-fulfilling prophecy." It, obviously, takes away from the IDEALLY OBJECTIVE results obtained via the Scientific Method.

IDEALLY, when the Scientific Method is employed primarily, the result is not "pre-determined" in and of itself.
What are you talking about? Are you pumping steroids in some madhog gymnasium?

Your insults are getting more creative. So there's that.

But here's what he's talking about:


Quote:
AngelRho wrote:
Do you require evidence for the efficacy of the scientific method? That makes sense if you do. We wouldn't waste our time with something that doesn't consistently get reliable results. But the efficacy of the method is not what is being challenged. It's falsifiability that is being challenged.

Janissy wrote:
Falsifiying a method doesn't make sense. Statements can be falsified. Models can be falsified. But a method is just a series of steps taken to achieve an end. Efficacy really is the only measure.
Oldavid wrote:
Nonsense! You are effectively claiming that any series of steps (method) that achieve your predetermined end are unassailable simply because they deliver the desired "result". No one would ever swallow that nonsense unless they'd been brainwashed to think that "Big Brother" is always right... even when he contradicts himself.


The end that the scientific method seeks to achieve is an accurate-as-possible model of nature. What this model will look like is not predetermined, though you claim it is. What kraftiekortie is pointing out is that when the test results don't fit the hypothesis, it is the hypothesis that must be discarded but that in actuality, sometimes individual scientists will get so enmeshed with their hypothesis that they can't bear to discard it and will stick with what you call "pre determined result". That is where the repeatability comes in. No theory ever rests on the strength of a single scientist (or group of scientists) and a single experiment. Not only must a hypothesis stand up to testing. It must stand up to multiple testing by multiple groups over multiple years. Nothing ever rests on one experiment.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,269

16 Mar 2015, 11:18 am

Oldavid wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
I guess it depends on the BS.

You should know this:

Sometimes, BS could be the thing that saves your crop for the year.
Uh huh! But you will have to have a lot of burly mates to convince me that what's good to grow a lettuce is good to stuff a child's head with.

Your ideological prejudices have nothing to do with science or any scientific method. I suggest that what you and your mates propose is only good for growing acres of lettuce.


A CHILD'S HEAD IS a disconnected piece of not much of anything when not connected IN MIND AND BODY BALANCE, by the TRUE DRIVING FORCE OF PHYSICAL INTELLIGENCE THAT CAN BE Enhanced Emotional Regulation, Sensory Integration, and Cognitive Executive Functioning WITH elements of FOCUS and short Term Working MEMORY WORKING TOGETHER IN AN incredible POTENTIAL synergy, of human being FORCE in balance.

SO in other words, if one is only feeding a Head, one may end up with a talking head, and not much else, AS HUMAN CHILDREN BECOME more machines, instead of MOVING, FEELING, FULLY ACTING unconditionally loving CREATURES of LIFE in LOVE and not death in living, and all things associated with human fears and HATE.

Without a MORE FULLy employed, developed and PRACTICED human heArt, as HEART, the so-called burliest of mates are only weak, when it comes to MUCH FULLER human potential and STRENGTH; BOTH METAPHORICAL AND MUSCLE POWERED, IN UNCONDITIONAL LOVE, FULL of pro-emotions but never the REAL NEED TO BRING SOMEONE ELSE DOWN TO lift an ego truly WEAK IN NATURE THAT comes from the con-social EMOTIONS OF pride, jealousy, envy, and such as that.

BUT AGAIN, I can prove this, by the ounce
and LB, in living color.

I am can move 'mountains', with my emotions, moreover than the size or rippling of my muscles.

There is NOTHING MORE POWERFUL IN HUMAN EXISTENCE THAN HUMAN PHYSICAL INTELLIGENCE DRIVING EMOTIONAL REGULATIOn, Sensory Integration, and Cognitive Executive Functioning to more FULLY CONNECT AND EXPRESS THE GOD OF Nature fuller potential, gifted as Human Nature,

BY THE GOD THAT IS NATURE.

And the best thing of all IS, It is A potentially TOTALLY INNATELY INSTINCTUALLY, INTUITIVELY DRIVEN GIFT OF THE GOD of Mother Nature True that THAT CAN BE Employed all natural within, WITH THE FORCE OF GOD, DEVELOPED AS SUCH, and when DEVELOPED AND practiced like THIS CAN make REAL HUMAN 'SUPERMEN' AND 'SUPER WOMEN' come true in empirical evidence.

But again, with our new ways of Information Technology, I can WHIP IT OUT WITH A LINK.

BUT I'LL use my G-rated sources here, of course, once again, for any new readers in the audience, WHO are looking for proof of GOD THAT IS NATURE, manifest in amazing feats of FEET, IN GIFTS OF GOD GIVEN HUMAN NATURE, LEG PRESSING STRENGTH..;)



Humans are innately gifted with the ability to be MORE THAN talk and THINK with HEADS.

THIS is simply MORE EVIDENCE OF THAT, as I too used to be, more or less, a frigging talking head, with a worm of a body, almost disconnected from that head of illusion OF straight A'ed REASONED GRADES, as evidenced here.

Image

Change is possible, when human nature is regained and REBORN, AS MORE FULLY ALIVE IN HUMAN POTENTIAL, though neuroplastic and POTENTIAL epigenetic effect and AFFECT, MORE FULLY Expressed in flesh and blood life; the REAL THING, BEYOND skeletons of text, math, and all of that abstract illusory stuff, FAR far from flesh and blood REAL HUMAN LIFE, AND only an approximation of REAL TRULY FULLER HUMAN Potential realized, AS SUCH in MOVING emotional and sensory FEELING WAYS OF LIFE.

THAT'S THE glue of life,

WITH OTHER HUMANS AND

NATURE AKA GOD, IN GENERAL.

Not to have IT, IS
to BE simply

AND COMPLEXLY imbalanced

and

DISCONNECTED FROM other humans, AND THE

REST OF NATURE AKA GOD.

AND truthfully Atheism in its militant forms is
a byproduct, at least, in part, of that

DEFICIT IN LIFE.

YES, the truth can be hard to hear.

But the TRUTH CAN SET 'YA'S' FREE!

I FOR ONE KNOW THAT AND evidence IT
as REAL by way of the most important of all
human intelligences for survival, per
PHYSICAL NON-VERBAL INTELLIGENCE WAYS
OF RECIPROCAL SOCIAL COMMUNICATION;

BOTH in power-lifting and over 3200 miles of
martial arts/ ballet style dance walking closing
in now on 19 months. And STRAIGHT male nude
free verse nude poetry..
'NEW AGE renaissance' self art, in restricted Adult blog way

that literally
no human in the entire word (world) does, expressed as such'

by

the 'GOD OF GOOGLE', PER CHARIOTS OF 'IT' FIRE..;)

AND truly 'Bart Simpson', would be proud of me..;)

'MY' HERO, in a way, come to life in tall head, and
standing hair.

OR 'Minderella' walking care-free in the rain.

Image



Ya can call me crazy but ya DAM SURE CAN'T CALL ME

NOT FREE!..;)

FREE IS GOD and AM i Yoda flavored too..;)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Last edited by aghogday on 16 Mar 2015, 11:27 am, edited 4 times in total.

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,269

16 Mar 2015, 11:18 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
I see a Manifesto coming!


Oh, you prophet, you..;)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,499
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

16 Mar 2015, 11:31 am

An interesting Scientific American blog about a Thomas Nagel book attacking materialism:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro ... nly-false/


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,269

16 Mar 2015, 11:55 am

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
An interesting Scientific American blog about a Thomas Nagel book attacking materialism:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro ... nly-false/


Yes, trapped in our caves of SYSTEMIZING belief,

AKA Science, SUMS

'IT' ALL UP, QUITE WELL..:)

"GOD "IT's" 'GOOD'

TO


'GET' 'OUT'..;)"


- VISHNU BUDDHA SOCRATES PLATO JESUS MUHAMMAD
Friedrich Nietzsche CINDERELLA BART SIMPSON
MINDERELLA AND ME PARAPHRASED..;)

OH GOD COULD 'WE'

BE 'one PERSON',

OR

JUST RELATED

AND

'ONE' AT THE 'SAME TIME

NOW'..

'Food' for 'QUANTUM' 'thought'...;)

ANY

way..:)

Postscript:



AND ALL THE other FOLKS

ON THIS ALBUM

cover..

including 'me'
up front

as THE STONE STATUE
COME ALIVE AGAIN...

FROM THE

funeral ceremony...

in LIFE

IN "A DAY in the LIFE"

OF me...

YES.. LIFE IS STRANGE..R than fiction...

BUT SERIOUSLY

i for one..

WOULD

LOVE TO TURN
Y'all
ON

too..;)

with A resounding

E.................................WHAT..EVER........


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Last edited by aghogday on 16 Mar 2015, 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

16 Mar 2015, 12:07 pm

Janissy wrote:
The end that the scientific method seeks to achieve is an accurate-as-possible model of nature. What this model will look like is not predetermined, though you claim it is. What kraftiekortie is pointing out is that when the test results don't fit the hypothesis, it is the hypothesis that must be discarded but that in actuality, sometimes individual scientists will get so enmeshed with their hypothesis that they can't bear to discard it and will stick with what you call "pre determined result". That is where the repeatability comes in. No theory ever rests on the strength of a single scientist (or group of scientists) and a single experiment. Not only must a hypothesis stand up to testing. It must stand up to multiple testing by multiple groups over multiple years. Nothing ever rests on one experiment.
Bulldust! Scientific Method is not a model of anything. It is a method of investigation and nothing more. "Individual scientists" are every bit as susceptible to the lure of fame and fortune as is the meanest celebrity or prostitute in any other arty sphere.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,269

16 Mar 2015, 12:09 pm

Oldavid wrote:
Janissy wrote:
The end that the scientific method seeks to achieve is an accurate-as-possible model of nature. What this model will look like is not predetermined, though you claim it is. What kraftiekortie is pointing out is that when the test results don't fit the hypothesis, it is the hypothesis that must be discarded but that in actuality, sometimes individual scientists will get so enmeshed with their hypothesis that they can't bear to discard it and will stick with what you call "pre determined result". That is where the repeatability comes in. No theory ever rests on the strength of a single scientist (or group of scientists) and a single experiment. Not only must a hypothesis stand up to testing. It must stand up to multiple testing by multiple groups over multiple years. Nothing ever rests on one experiment.
Bulldust! Scientific Method is not a model of anything. It is a method of investigation and nothing more. "Individual scientists" are every bit as susceptible to the lure of fame and fortune as is the meanest celebrity or prostitute in any other arty sphere.


ART IS GOD.

YOU ARE WHAT.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick