Thank you Claus

[Ed]

for my spiffy new avatar. It was originally a picture of Steve that Claus thought was funny, but I made it to be in .. well ... my own image. A God thing.

Off topic: Folks ... remember the mass meeting/rally today. For those that can't make it I will have a report and images late on Sunday, if it doesn't turn violent. On the Politics and Current Events forum.

We need your support on this important issue. It is important because it affects moi.

Featured Speakers

- His Holiness Pope John Paul II
- Paris Hilton
- Carrottop
- Keanu Reeves
- PM Tony Blair
- Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
Other speakers to be announced.

Prof. Gary Schwartz will be selling copies of his new book "A Bluffers Guide to Research" at the Wollman Skating Rink entrance.

[Cynical]

Oh, brother...:rolleyes: Just what Claus needs, Ed. More brown-nosing. Don't you think the guy has a high enough opinion of himself as it is? CF's ego is so inflated that he is on the brink of hysteria when somebody tries to disagree with him.

Pardon me for saying so, Ed, but whenever I see your name, the first thing that comes to mind is Mister Ed, the talking horse. You don't sound like an exceptionally "brainy" guy, so why not change your avatar to a horse? Then ol' Claus would have one less thing to pat himself on the back about.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Cynical
Pardon me for saying so, Ed, but whenever I see your name, the first thing that comes to mind is Mister Ed, the talking horse.

Of course, of course. Steve sneeringly referred to me as that a while back. It was certainly a thigh slapper, even funnier, if possible, than it was 30 years ago.

You don't sound like an exceptionally "brainy" guy, so why not change your avatar to a horse? Then ol' Claus would have one less thing to pat himself on the back about.



Well, thank you.

[CFLarsen]

Aw, Cynical, you're just envious, because you don't get the same kind of attention.

Are you still infatuated with LeFevre?

[wert]

Originally posted by Cynical
Then ol' Claus would have one less thing to pat himself on the back about. Ah, the taste of sour grapes! :D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by wert
Ah, the taste of sour grapes! :D

"The rowanberries are sour", said the fox. He couldn't reach them.

[Cynical]

CF queried:

"Are you still infatuated with LeFevre?"

INFATUATED??:rm: That's isn't exactly the right word, CF. Fascinated is more like it. But, since you brought it up and I didn't, what is YOUR theory as to where ol' hairy is hiding? I simply want to know where the dude has disappeared to.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Aw, Cynical, you're just envious, because you don't get the same kind of attention.

Are you still infatuated with LeFevre?


As Cynical stated, "infatuated" is not the word.

"Stalking" is getting closer, for example.

[Cynical]

How can I "stalk" someone that's not even here, NoZed Avenger?
LeFevre might as well be a ghost. Maybe I should confer with a psychic medium.

If you want an example of stalking, look at the way CFLarsen obsesses over SteveGrenard and Clancie.:roll: ;)

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Cynical
If you want an example of stalking, look at the way CFLarsen obsesses over SteveGrenard and Clancie.

I suspect that you're life is full of these small moments of unintended and unrecognized ironies, isn't it?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


I suspect that you're life is full of these small moments of unintended and unrecognized ironies, isn't it?

:dl:

[Clancie]

Posted by NoZed Avenger

As Cynical stated, "infatuated" is not the word.

"Stalking" is getting closer, for example.
Hmmmm....If someone ignores you and you still post to or about them every month or so and that's considered stalking....

....what's it called when someone ignores you and you still post to and/or about them every day for months (sometimes several times a day)?

Just musing...hypothetically and rhetorically.....:p

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
...what's it called when someone ignores you and you still post to and/or about them every day for months (sometimes several times a day)?

Its called "whack-a-woo." The fun is, the d**ned critters keep on popping up and make the same noises over and over.

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by Clancie

Hmmmm....If someone ignores you and you still post to or about them every month or so and that's considered stalking....

....what's it called when someone ignores you and you still post to and/or about them every day for months (sometimes several times a day)?

Just musing...hypothetically and rhetorically.....:p
Depends on the circumstances.

If someone makes claims, then chooses to ignore someone asking for proof of the claim, it's called avoidance .

The person being avoided might be called persistent

Hypothetically and rhetorically, that is.

[Chad Noles]

Ed wrote: Thank you Claus for my spiffy new avatar

You might also add a kudo to MICHELANGELO DI LODOVICO BUONARROTI SIMONI,lest we forget.;)

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Clancie

Just musing...

Better question: What do you call it when someone is questioned about -their- behavior and they choose to try and deflect the conversation by bringing up other people, knowing that at least one or two of the people involved in the other mess will then post, assisting them in changing the subject to the matter of old grudges?

Second (related) question: Is that an admission by that (hypothetical) person that their own behavior is essentially indefensible?

N/A

[Cynical]

I don't know what you mean by "old grudges" NoZed. But Mr. Skinny hit the nail on the head: I am PERSISTANT. I don't believe LeFevre is avoiding me, because I don't think he's here anymore.

As for you, Billy Hoyt, everytime I see your avatar I'm reminded of one of those "Pokemon" monsters...:r:

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Cynical
As for you, Billy Hoyt, everytime I see your avatar I'm reminded of one of those "Pokemon" monsters...:r:
Goody. More substance-free wastes of JREF bandwith. Perhaps we can turn it into something.

There's a reason for the avatar, Cynical. It represents a pivotal point in these endless science-versus-woo wars. Think Galileo and the Church. My avatar represents a call to drop your preconceived notions about the universe and look through the telescope.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Goody. More substance-free wastes of JREF bandwith. Perhaps we can turn it into something.

There's a reason for the avatar, Cynical. It represents a pivotal point in these endless science-versus-woo wars. Think Galileo and the Church. My avatar represents a call to drop your preconceived notions about the universe and look through the telescope.

:dl:

You made my Christmas!

Merry Christmas, everybody! XXX

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


:dl:

You made my Christmas!

Merry Christmas, everybody! XXX

Ah, Fromundus weighs in. :D Still worried that you haven't claws like a cat, Fromundus?

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

Goody. More substance-free wastes of JREF bandwidth.
Ever keep track of how many of your posts fall into this category, Bill? :rolleyes:

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie

Ever keep track of how many of your posts fall into this category, Bill? :rolleyes:
Have you, Clancie? Perhaps you might take some time out of your busy kaffee klatch schedule to actually read skeptical posts. Or not. After all, many of the bishops and archbishops went to their graves never having looked through Galileo's telescope. They simply asserted the satellites couldn't exist, or else they would have been written about in the Bible. They concluded that, if so many claimed to have looked through the telescope and to have seen them, Galileo's telescope must be making them appear! Perhaps it is an instrument of the devil.

Far better to scream at skeptics and science, to make bald and baseless assertions, than to actually look at reality through the telescope!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Ever keep track of how many of your posts fall into this category, Bill? :rolleyes:

That's it??

That's all you had to say?

What about addressing Mr. Skinny?
Originally posted by Mr. Skinny
If someone makes claims, then chooses to ignore someone asking for proof of the claim, it's called avoidance .

The person being avoided might be called persistent

Hypothetically and rhetorically, that is.

Or NoZed Avenger?
Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Better question: What do you call it when someone is questioned about -their- behavior and they choose to try and deflect the conversation by bringing up other people, knowing that at least one or two of the people involved in the other mess will then post, assisting them in changing the subject to the matter of old grudges?

Second (related) question: Is that an admission by that (hypothetical) person that their own behavior is essentially indefensible?

"Avoidance", indeed.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


:dl:

You made my Christmas!

Merry Christmas, everybody! XXX

And a merry Christmas to you, too, Luci

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

There's a reason for the avatar, Cynical. It represents a pivotal point in these endless science-versus-woo wars. Think Galileo and the Church. My avatar represents a call to drop your preconceived notions about the universe and look through the telescope.

I've no disagreement that Galileo did a lot. :)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Cynical

As for you, Billy Hoyt, everytime I see your avatar I'm reminded of one of those "Pokemon" monsters...:r:

Which one?


I've done a lot of Pokemon ( via my son ), and I can't think of anything I have seen that reminds me of Billy's avatar..

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

. My avatar represents a call to drop your preconceived notions about the universe and look through the telescope.

Oh shoot. That's what it is. I had never looked at your avatar that closely and have assumed, up until now, that it was an old fashioned microphone. I never noticed the fact that it blinked or the little guy standing behind it.

My keen powers of observation are shown once again. And I used to inspect airplane parts for a living....

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
...snip...

My keen powers of observation are shown once again. And I used to inspect airplane parts for a living....

Used to? Why am I thinking Mr Mugu (sp)? :)

[whitefork]

"Oh Magoo, you've done it again".

Perhaps you're thinking of Thurston Howell III?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Kullervo
"Oh Magoo, you've done it again".

Perhaps you're thinking of Thurston Howell III?

Heh heh, I wonder how many will get that one?

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Heh heh, I wonder how many will get that one?
Let's see. Jim Baccus, who played Thurston Howell, was the voice of Mr. Magoo?

[whitefork]

http://psych-www.colorado.edu/users/spencer/psyc2012/michelangelo.html

On the off-chance that someone hasn't seen this.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Ed


And a merry Christmas to you, too, Luci

And to you, kind Sir.

Ahhh. It takes me back to that Christmas in the trench.

Do you have a football?

[Cynical]

From BillyBoy:

There's a reason for the avatar, Cynical. It represents a pivotal point in these endless science-versus-woo wars. Think Galileo and the Church. My avatar represents a call to drop your preconceived notions about the universe and look through the telescope.

Hey, THANKS, Bill!:w2: For taking the time to explain your avatar. Why can't LeFevre take two seconds to explain his? However, your avatar still reminds me of a pokemon.

For your information, Bill, I don't have any preconceived notions about the universe. I'm open to any ideas, old or new.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Cynical
For your information, Bill, I don't have any preconceived notions about the universe. I'm open to any ideas, old or new.
Goody. You're part of the way there, except that you missed the next step. You must look through the telescope, lest you be so open-minded your brains fall out.

[Cynical]

Diogenes said:

I've done a lot of Pokemon ( via my son ), and I can't think of anything I have seen that reminds me of Billy's avatar..

Hey, Dio....remember "Uknown", which I think is supposed to be an unknown entity type of pokemon. Doesn't Billy's avatar remind you of that?:cool:

Hey, BillyBoy, why are you quoting me at in your signature??:confused:

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Goody. You're part of the way there, except that you missed the next step. You must look through the telescope, lest you be so open-minded your brains fall out.

Likewise...

...you're almost there, except that you missed the most crucial step in the process! You must also turn the viewing instrument towards yourself, lest you be so close-minded you think only learning about things "out there" is all that matters.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Likewise...

...you're almost there, except that you missed the most crucial step in the process! You must also turn the viewing instrument towards yourself, lest you be so close-minded you think only learning about things "out there" is all that matters.

You, who are so fond of quotes, should take heed of this:

"When you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you."
--Friedrich Nietzsche

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


And to you, kind Sir.

Ahhh. It takes me back to that Christmas in the trench.

Do you have a football?

:D

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Likewise...

...you're almost there, except that you missed the most crucial step in the process! You must also turn the viewing instrument towards yourself, lest you be so close-minded you think only learning about things "out there" is all that matters.
Tr'olldini,

What presumption and arrogance. What an idiotic leap to an unfounded conclusion. I have never said that. Many of your fellow woo woo whos from whodiniville have said that of me and other skeptics here. I don't think it is true of almost any of the skeptics here. Is your comprehension so low that you cannot hear what is actually being said to you and must substitute your own preconceived caricatures of skeptics?

The message here is quite simple and quite far from your caricature. There is only one way to obtain reliable knowledge about the universe. That is through the process of abduction. Deduction is entirely insufficient because it offers no new information. Induction is entirely insufficient because it offers new information that is not reliable.

That process of abduction involves the incredibly creative process of hypothesis spinning (and alternate hypothesis spinning) and the equally creative process of experimental design.

But who whos like you you prefer the cardboard cutouts of skeptics. The ones you can play strawman games with. The ones who can be made to appear scientistic. Or even more laughably, made to appear "linear thinking." Then you get to whip out more of the postmodernist feint you so dearly love.

You can't escape this, Whodini. It ain't so elementary, Sherlock Holmes. You can't Yang our Yins like that, T'ai Chi. You cannot substitute wild speculation for the hard work of investigation. You must start with the understanding that there is a truth out there and that the scientific process is the only way that will get you to it. And if you ever grow up, Tr'olldini, and find you continue to fail to see this, rest assured, I'm not going into that long dark age you are so wont to drag yourself and us into. Here is the telescope, Fromundus. You can pull up your robe and dance all over screaming about the Diabolical nature of the instrument or you can grow up and look through it and see the satellites for yourself.

[Jeff Corey]

Bill. I had to look up "abduction" because I thought it involved kidnapping. But the second meaning is a form of argumentation (from the Greek apagoge) "in which the major is evident, but the minor is so obscure as to require further proof..."

I prefer to view the scientific process as a cycle, going from gathering reliable data, to induction to form a testable hypothesis or question, deduction of new predictions, experimental testing of the predictions, and dumping the hypothesis if falsified. And then starting over.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Bill. I had to look up "abduction" because I thought it involved kidnapping. But the second meaning is a form of argumentation (from the Greek apagoge) "in which the major is evident, but the minor is so obscure as to require further proof..."

I prefer to view the scientific process as a cycle, going from gathering reliable data, to induction to form a testable hypothesis or question, deduction of new predictions, experimental testing of the predictions, and dumping the hypothesis if falsified. And then starting over.
Jeff,

It is also known as retroduction. Without the necessary falsification science employs, it would be affirming the consequent. By inverting it, however, we get:

If a then c
not c
Therefore not a

The process you describe is one of spinning and testing as many reasonable "a"s as we can think of until we build enough evidence for the one surviving a.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
The process you describe is one of spinning and testing as many reasonable "a"s as we can think of until we build enough evidence for the one surviving a.
Sort of analogous to the evolution of species.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt (emphasis added)
(snip)
You must start with the understanding that there is a truth out there and that the scientific process is the only way that will get you to it.


And there's where the scientism sneaks in, despite claims and handwaving to the contrary.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


And there's where the scientism sneaks in, despite claims and handwaving to the contrary.

Didn't do well on your verbal SATs, Tr'olldini? Or did you even take them yet? The only thing that puzzles me is whether you don't know what "scientism" means or if you can't read well enough to see the context is knowledge about the universe. D*** you are dumber than a bag of broken marbles.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Didn't do well on your verbal SATs, Tr'olldini? Or did you even take them yet?


Yes, I did quite well on them, scoring well above average. I then got a high school diploma and then a BS degree and then a MS degree, and I might go on to get a Ph.D sometime. Thanks for asking!


The only thing that puzzles me is whether you don't know what "scientism" means or if you can't read well enough to see the context is knowledge about the universe.


Scientism is the analytic counterpart to New-Age.

Don't you see the problem? How can your knowledge be truly reliable if you outright say that "only one way" is suitable for the job? Even if you've reached that stance through evidence, you have no way of knowing if it is the only way, or do you?

By what method do you come to know that your method is reliable, and that there is only one method suitable for the job? It seems to make those conclusions you necessarily rely on some other method, some "meta-method", if you will.


D*** you are dumber than a bag of broken marbles.

Yeah, probably. I'll have to get my Ph.D before I really start having some low self-esteem!

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Scientism is the analytic counterpart to New-Age.
No, I'm sorry. Would you care to choose another category? Okay, then, "More things Tr'oll don't know" for $250 it is. The answer is "Scientism."
Don't you see the problem? How can your knowledge be truly reliable if you outright say that "only one way" is suitable for the job? Even if you've reached that stance through evidence, you have no way of knowing if it is the only way, or do you?
No, I'm sorry. Wrong answer again! "Scientism" is the misapplication of science's methods to non-scientific topics. It is to claim that science can solve political problems or social problems or establish values. It is to claim that the methods of the physical sciences apply outside science's magisterium.
By what method do you come to know that your method is reliable, and that there is only one method suitable for the job? It seems to make those conclusions you necessarily rely on some other method, some "meta-method", if you will.
I'm sorry, contestant, the judges are quite sure you blew the question, and are now onto postmodernist musings. The methods of science are the only methods that have yielded reliable knowlege about the magisterium of science: the universe.

[Ed]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

The methods of science are the only methods that have yielded reliable knowlege about the magisterium of science: the universe.


BBBBLLLLLLLLLAAAAAATTT!!!!!!!

Sorry. Next time please be sure your answer is in the form of a question.

:D

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

No, I'm sorry. Wrong answer again! "Scientism" is the misapplication of science's methods to non-scientific topics. It is to claim that science can solve political problems or social problems or establish values. It is to claim that the methods of the physical sciences apply outside science's magisterium.


Yes, you have said part of what scientism could be. It is also a combination of the beliefs that science can solve all problems, or will solve all problems, is the best method no matter what, is the only method to consider, things expressed quantitatively are always superior to things expressed qualitatively, and much more.


The methods of science are the only methods that have yielded reliable knowlege about the magisterium of science: the universe.

The "universe" is considered in many other disciplines, not just science, and those non-scientific areas have indeed yielded reliable knowledge about aspects of the universe. As an example take a philosophy/religon that recognizes that the universe is always in a state of change. That is pretty reliable knowledge, about the universe, but it is non-scientific.

You are saying the methods of science have yielded reliable knowledge about the topics of science. OK, but it still doesn't answer the question of 'what method tells you science itself is reliable?'. If your answer is "science is the method which tells me science is reliable", your view is necessarily biased, and the question arises of 'how does on confirm your belief?' If the answer is something else other than science, then you have betrayed your own belief that there is only one method suitable for the job of learning about the universe, since you, in part, used a non-science method to help learn about the universe. So which is it?

Also, you still haven't answered the question of 'how do you know science is the "only way" that will get you to the truth?' (some truth being out there something which you outright assume by the way)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yes, you have said part of what scientism could be. It is also a combination of the beliefs that science can solve all problems, or will solve all problems, is the best method no matter what, is the only method to consider, things expressed quantitatively are always superior to things expressed qualitatively, and much more.[/b]
The definition is as I gave it.
The "universe" is considered in many other disciplines, not just science, and those non-scientific areas have indeed yielded reliable knowledge about aspects of the universe. As an example take a philosophy/religon that recognizes that the universe is always in a state of change. That is pretty reliable knowledge, about the universe, but it is non-scientific.
Surely you jest. You wish to weigh such lame "knowledge" against science?
You are saying the methods of science have yielded reliable knowledge about the topics of science. OK, but it still doesn't answer the question of 'what method tells you science itself is reliable?'. If your answer is "science is the method which tells me science is reliable", your view is necessarily biased, and the question arises of 'how does on confirm your belief?' If the answer is something else other than science, then you have betrayed your own belief that there is only one method suitable for the job of learning about the universe, since you, in part, used a non-science method to help learn about the universe. So which is it?

Also, you still haven't answered the question of 'how do you know science is the "only way" that will get you to the truth?' (some truth being out there something which you outright assume by the way)
Give it a rest, you light weight. You can play the meta game like an annoying little three year old who's just discovered "why?" If I were to name such a meta-method, what prevents you from asking for a meta-meta-method, and then a meta-meta-meta-method? Your demand that there be such a thing sophomorically demands an infinite regress.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Surely you jest. You wish to weigh such lame "knowledge" against science?


You are saying that a philosophy/religion saying the universe is constantly changing is NOT reliable knowledge??? Yes or no?


If I were to name such a meta-method, what prevents you from asking for a meta-meta-method, and then a meta-meta-meta-method? Your demand that there be such a thing sophomorically demands an infinite regress.

You are evading answering the question, but that is precisely the point. There shouldn't be any meta (or higher) method if you truly believed that science itself determines that itself is reliable. And if science does determine its own reliablility, you have not yet explained why anyone should believe your belief.

Also, you still haven't answered the question of 'how do you know science is the "only way" that will get you to the truth?' (some truth being out there something which you outright assume by the way) Will you please?

[thaiboxerken]

You are saying that a philosophy/religion saying the universe is constantly changing is NOT reliable knowledge??? Yes or no?

This is a loaded question. If he says yes, then you will likely say that it proves that philosophy/religious knowledge is reliable.. if no, then you will assert that he's foolish for not acknowledging that the universe is dynamic. Your question is fallicious and doesn't deserve an answer. Even though religion and philosophy is unreliable, such methods can make correct observations.


And if science does determine its own reliablility, you have not yet explained why anyone should believe your belief.

Science doesn't determine it's own reliability, results do. Nothing is as reliable or as successful in discovering knowledge as science.

Also, you still haven't answered the question of 'how do you know science is the "only way" that will get you to the truth?'

It may not be, but if you can find another method that is as reliable and works.. feel free to tell us.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You are saying that a philosophy/religion saying the universe is constantly changing is NOT reliable knowledge??? Yes or no?[/b]
I said it is lame. There is no explanatory power to it. No model. No predictive power. We don't know that it is reliable from any broader framework because it gives us nothing to go on. It is strictly observational and strictly postdictional. It is lame.
You are evading answering the question, but that is precisely the point. There shouldn't be any meta (or higher) method if you truly believed that science itself determines that itself is reliable. And if science does determine its own reliablility, you have not yet explained why anyone should believe your belief.

Also, you still haven't answered the question of 'how do you know science is the "only way" that will get you to the truth?' (some truth being out there something which you outright assume by the way) Will you please?
I'm evading nothing. You are so wrapped up in your postmodernism you won't hear the answers. The methods of science continue to work, they continue to yield results. The framework is open to both change of its conclusions and change of methods. From within the framework.

Do I know it is the only way? Not yet. Do you even understand the methods you are criticizing? Do you have a better one to proffer? Do you have an equal one to proffer? Do you even have one 50% as good to proffer? Do you have anything to proffer other than the lame "constantly changing" claim? If so, please present it, along with its results, including evidence of its explanatory and predictive power. Describe how it arrived at its conclusions and how it corrects its errors. Show historical evidence of both having occurred.

Now, tr'olldini, you've been on a long deflection from your initial error of claiming that I am scientistic. I am not. Skeptics, in general, are not. You have yet to demonstrate otherwise except to try to contort the proper definition of scientistic to fit your postmodern notions. So try again.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Science doesn't determine it's own reliability, results do. Nothing is as reliable or as successful in discovering knowledge as science.


If science is the most reliable thing out there as you say, then wouldn't the thing that determines science's reliability really be the more reliable thing, because we are relying on it to interpret science's results?


It may not be, but if you can find another method that is as reliable and works.. feel free to tell us.

That's not the point. The point is that Bill claimed science was the only way. It is up to him to prove his claim, not up to me to demonstrate other possibilities.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

There is no explanatory power to it. No model. No predictive power.


It doesn't matter I don't think because it is correct none-the-less. :) However, there are models (in various religions and philosophies), just not scientific ones, and I think the theory does have some power to it. Its is clearly falsifiable, unifying, and its truth is easy to demonstrate, among others.


Do I know it is the only way? Not yet.


Yet you'll say things like "You must start with the understanding that there is a truth out there and that the scientific process is the only way that will get you to it." still.

You have yet to show it is the only way (I showed that there is at least one other possibility), and you have yet to show that there is a truth out there as you assume. These are not small points, rather they seem to be axiom-ish in your belief system.


Do you have anything to proffer other than the lame "constantly changing" claim? If so, please present it, along with its results, including evidence of its explanatory and predictive power. Describe how it arrived at its conclusions and how it corrects its errors. Show historical evidence of both having occurred.


You don't seem to like that non-scientific 'the universe is constantly changing' claim because it demonstrates my point perfectly. It is non-scientific, reliable, has non-scientific models for it, many philosophies and religions endorse it, yet funny enough it is absolutely correct! The fact that you call it lame doesn't take away any of that.


, you've been on a long deflection from your initial error of claiming that I am scientistic. I am not.


Please show me where I've ever said "BillHoyt, you are a scientist!" That would be great. :) When I speak of science, scientists, scientistic, I am speaking of your views, beliefs, ideas, philosophies, claims, etc., and not your profession.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
It doesn't matter I don't think because it is correct none-the-less. :) However, there are models (in various religions and philosophies), just not scientific ones, and I think the theory does have some power to it. Its is clearly falsifiable, unifying, and its truth is easy to demonstrate, among others.[/b]
What model? It doesn't explain or predict anything.

Yet you'll say things like "You must start with the understanding that there is a truth out there and that the scientific process is the only way that will get you to it." still.
That's right. Confused? Of course you are. You constantly overlook two fundamental aspects of science. First, it has revised and refined its methods over time as it has presented itself with new challenges. Second, all scientific truth is provisional in nature. Chew on that a bit. I'm sure you'll fail to get it.
You don't seem to like that non-scientific 'the universe is constantly changing' claim because it demonstrates my point perfectly. It is non-scientific, reliable, has non-scientific models for it, many philosophies and religions endorse it, yet funny enough it is absolutely correct! The fact that you call it lame doesn't take away any of that.
What does it explain, tr'olldini? What does it predict, tr'olldini? Don't give us this tired old whine.
Please show me where I've ever said "BillHoyt, you are a scientist!" That would be great. :) When I speak of science, scientists, scientistic, I am speaking of your views, beliefs, ideas, philosophies, claims, etc., and not your profession.
Now you are really confused, tr'olldini. You said scientistic. Scroll back a few posts. Stop confounding that with science.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

What model? It doesn't explain or predict anything.


It explains that the universe is constantly changing. It predicts that the universe will change some more.


You constantly overlook two fundamental aspects of science. First, it has revised and refined its methods over time as it has presented itself with new challenges. Second, all scientific truth is provisional in nature. Chew on that a bit. I'm sure you'll fail to get it.


Yes, provisional, so why did you say science is the only way to find the truth. I think your statements would want to be more provisional...

By the way, just in case you missed it...

You still have yet to show science is the only way, and you still have yet to show that there is a truth out there as you assume. These are not small points, rather they seem to be axiom-ish in your belief system.

Also...

You still have yet to answer: "If science is the most reliable thing out there as you say, then what determines science's reliability?"

I'm curious to know if you are aruging circularly... or admit something else is as or more reliable than science, or...

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
It explains that the universe is constantly changing. It predicts that the universe will change some more. [/b]
Wow. Brilliant. Spectacular. About as deep as a puddle. So, tr'oll, give us five different and derivative tests of this fabulous woo truth.Then carefully explain how your derivativation differs from science. And carefully explain how your experimental method differs from science.
Yes, provisional, so why did you say science is the only way to find the truth. I think your statements would want to be more provisional...
This is yet another place where you and yours always stumble. Open up any science textbook. Chapter after chapter, page after page, paragraph after paragraph saying:
o We think multicellular organisms have many cells?
o We're 99.998% sure relativity describes the relationship between space and time?
o It looks like wolves and dogs are the same species?

Apparently you wonder why all these statements are not constantly qualified. It is because scientists and skeptics keep open minds. We neither dismiss those things we are quite certain of with "maybe"s, or "we think"s, nor accept every crank/quack/idiot claim that comes by. That is the meaning of an open mind. That is how it differs from credulity.
By the way, just in case you missed it...

You still have yet to show science is the only way, and you still have yet to show that there is a truth out there as you assume. These are not small points, rather they seem to be axiom-ish in your belief system.
No, this is more of the crap "claim/counter-claim" nonsense thread from some time ago. This time you've coupled it with the postmodernist feint. If you have problems with the concept of truth, then find a big rock, bend forward, and run straight into it. If it isn't really there, no harm should come to you. If you doubt your idiot claim that there isn't truth, I suggest you don't try the experiment. As for the "claim / counter-claim" nonsense, you fail to understand that when you say "Goat-cheese creatures are stealing my underwear," it is not up to us to look for your tighty-whiteys. If we then say "there are no such things as goat-cheese creatures," that does not become a claim requiring evidence. Similarly, you claim there are other ways to the truth about the magisterium of science. Now, you cough up evidence.
You still have yet to answer: "If science is the most reliable thing out there as you say, then what determines science's reliability?"

I'm curious to know if you are aruging circularly... or admit something else is as or more reliable than science, or...
I'm not "aruging" anything, tr'olldini. And I certainly have answered this dozens of times on this bb. The processes of science, and the clear progress of science determine its reliability and demonstrate that to external observers.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Wow. Brilliant. Spectacular. About as deep as a puddle. So, tr'oll, give us five different and derivative tests of this fabulous woo truth.Then carefully explain how your derivativation differs from science. And carefully explain how your experimental method differs from science.


That this predicts something, is falsifiable, is reliable, is absolutely correct, yet is non-scientific, seems to really be a thorn in your side.


Apparently you wonder why all these statements are not constantly qualified. It is because scientists and skeptics keep open minds.


Isn't that why they should be qualified? LOL.


If you have problems with the concept of truth, then find a big rock, bend forward, and run straight into it.


I see you can't argue rationally.


Now, you cough up evidence.


I see...


And I certainly have answered this dozens of times on this bb. The processes of science, and the clear progress of science determine its reliability and demonstrate that to external observers.

So just for the record, you're saying the 'processes of science' and the 'progress of science' determine the reliability of science?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
That this predicts something, is falsifiable, is reliable, is absolutely correct, yet is non-scientific, seems to really be a thorn in your side.

That may be so. Nevertheless, Bill asked you to back up your claim.

Please present just one test of your claim. (I'm lowering the bar here)

Please explain how your derivation differs from science.

Please explain how your experimental method differs from science.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I see you can't argue rationally.

Let's see if you can.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
That this predicts something, is falsifiable, is reliable, is absolutely correct, yet is non-scientific, seems to really be a thorn in your side.
Diversion. Answer the question, please. For the record, I accept Claus' lowered bar. So please answer the modified question.

Isn't that why they should be qualified? LOL.
Not at all. It is the best knowledge we have available. All this evidence says "X". Period. You must be present substantial contrary evidence to say "Not X". To base any argument on the provisional nature of science is to fall into the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

So just for the record, you're saying the 'processes of science' and the 'progress of science' determine the reliability of science?
How many times do you want me to repeat myself? Please don't try your next postmodernist move, dude. This bouncer has heard it too many times.

[thaiboxerken]

If science is the most reliable thing out there as you say, then wouldn't the thing that determines science's reliability really be the more reliable thing, because we are relying on it to interpret science's results?

There is nothing out there that determines science's reliability. The results speak for themselves.



That's not the point. The point is that Bill claimed science was the only way. It is up to him to prove his claim, not up to me to demonstrate other possibilities.

Science IS the only reliable and tested method. That is a fact and it's the convention. It's actually up to you to find just one method that beats science. The rules of evidence really evade you woo-woo types, doesn't it?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Diversion. Answer the question, please. For the record, (snip)

Typical!

You evade evade evade.

Try answering some of my questions before you get answers to your own.

My fabulous woo-woo powers tell me you won't.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

That may be so. Nevertheless, Bill asked you to back up your claim.


That may be so. Nevertheless, I asked him first to back up several of his claims/beliefs. I'm still waiting for him to comply.


Let's see if you can.

Let's see if Bill can.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

There is nothing out there that determines science's reliability. The results speak for themselves.


So what does that mean? First, Bill says science determines science's reliability. Then you say nothing does. Then you say the results do.

Any other guesses?


Science IS the only reliable and tested method. That is a fact and it's the convention.


LOL. We are skeptics. Dogmatically saying it is a fact, like you and Bill seem to want to do, will NOT do. You must provide evidence that science is the "only way". Get crackin'!


The rules of evidence really evade you woo-woo types, doesn't it?

"Rules of evidence". You really like to make up stuff don't you? What are these magical rules? Can you list them for us?

[thaiboxerken]

So what does that mean? First, Bill says science determines science's reliability. Then you say nothing does. Then you say the results do.

All 3 mean the same thing.. but then you really can't understand it can you? It means that it is self-evident. Anyone can look at the results of science and see that it works and that it's the most reliable system......... anyone but a woo woo. If you can find ONE, just ONE other method that comes close, let me know.


LOL. We are skeptics. Dogmatically saying it is a fact, like you and Bill seem to want to do, will NOT do. You must provide evidence that science is the "only way". Get crackin'!

Already been proven, sorry. Nothing is as successful at discovering knowledge as science.

"Rules of evidence". You really like to make up stuff don't you? What are these magical rules? Can you list them for us?

Facts that have already been established need not be proven over and over again. It is upon you to provide evidence that an established fact is wrong. All you have to do is find ONE example of a method that works as good as, or better than science.

We're waiting.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

All 3 mean the same thing.. but then you really can't understand it can you? It means that it is self-evident. Anyone can look at the results of science and see that it works and that it's the most reliable system......... anyone but a woo woo. If you can find ONE, just ONE other method that comes close, let me know.


"Nothing" means the same as "science" which means the same as "results"? OK...

What does self evident mean? It seems that there are many things which are not self evident. The levels of self evident-ness is as varied as the varieties of selfs out there.


Already been proven, sorry.


Sorry buddy. You and Bill have dogmatically stated it, but have presented nothing. Then again, if it has been proven, then please, it should be really really easy for you to type the answer...


Facts that have already been established need not be proven over and over again.


So "facts" are "rules of evidence"? Ok...

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Typical!

You evade evade evade.

Try answering some of my questions before you get answers to your own.

My fabulous woo-woo powers tell me you won't.

Played out already? Poor tr'oll. Can't even meet the lowered-bar challenge.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Played out already? Poor tr'oll. Can't even meet the lowered-bar challenge.

Yes! My fabulous woo-woo troll powers were proven correct, as he refused to address the questions posed to him yet again.

He once again tried to make it appear that he is the one asking the questions, when he, in fact, hasn't answered a single question that was first posed to him.

He needs to prove science is the only reliable method. Prove there is a truth out there. Prove that science is the only way to get to it. Prove that there is or isn't something that determines sciences' reliability. (FYI, saying it is "self evident" is not proof, evidence, or anything else besides saying "oh, duh, it is sooooooo common sense!")

He states his opinions on these as facts. Get real! There are skeptics here and will not accept dogma as fact, no matter how emotionally endorsed it is, no matter how much one bleets on about it.

Expect your claims to be challenged. I'll even "lower the bar" and settle for even one of them being proven. We're still waiting.

I might have to create a T'ai Chi Tally of questions...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
That may be so. Nevertheless, I asked him first to back up several of his claims/beliefs. I'm still waiting for him to comply.

Evasion noted. Once again, I might add.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I might have to create a T'ai Chi Tally of questions...

Of those you have evaded? Sure, go ahead...

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Evasion noted. Once again, I might add.


Bill's evasion noted. Once again, I might add.

You responding for him. Once again, I might also add. Tiresome.

This isn't too tough Claus. Person T asks person B some questions first. Then person B asks person T some questions, and bleets about when person T says 'hey, you haven't answered mine yet!'. Then person C comes along and moans about how person T won't answer person B's questions.

Shouldn't person B answer the original questions first? Hello? Why won't person B cooperate, and why won't person C defend person T, because person T asked questions first.

Oh well. I'll continue to note their evasions again, but I won't spend too much time doing it. I have better things to do, like anything else.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Bill's evasion noted. Once again, I might add.

You responding for him. Once again, I might also add. Tiresome.

This isn't too tough Claus. Person T asks person B some questions first. Then person B asks person T some questions, and bleets about when person T says 'hey, you haven't answered mine yet!'. Then person C comes along and moans about how person T won't answer person B's questions.

Shouldn't person B answer the original questions first? Hello? Why won't person B cooperate, and why won't person C defend person T, because person T asked questions first.

Oh well. I'll continue to note their evasions again, but I won't spend too much time doing it. I have better things to do, like anything else. [/B]

==Yawn== You really are a hoot when you corner yourself. I answered all your questions, and you mew and puke about me evading. Here is the issue: you know you made a crank, lame claim. You won't respond to my call for some evidence for the assertion because you just can't. You know you can't. The problem with this blunderbuss retreat is that Claus has also called for this evidence, and has no outstanding questions from you. Poof goes your bluff.

Call, raise or fold, tr'olldini?

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

I see Bill got there first. I have no outstanding points with you. So, I am asking you, directly:

Please present just one test of your claim. (I'm still lowering the bar here)

Please explain how your derivation differs from science.

Please explain how your experimental method differs from science.

I'm interested, too. I'm sure others could be as well.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

You really are a hoot when .....


Evasion noted.

Are you going to answer the questions I asked you first?


You won't respond to my call for some evidence for the assertion because you just can't. You know you can't.


I asked you questions first. What don't you understand?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

So, I am asking you, directly:
Please present just one test of your claim. (I'm still lowering the bar here)
Please explain how your derivation differs from science.
Please explain how your experimental method differs from science.
I'm interested, too. I'm sure others could be as well.

That's great, but I asked Bill some questions, directly, first.

Let me know when he answers them...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
That's great, but I asked Bill some questions, directly, first.

Let me know when he answers them...

I don't care what outstanding issues you have with Bill. It's completely irrelevant to my questions.

Please answer them:

Please present just one test of your claim. (I'm still lowering the bar here)
Please explain how your derivation differs from science.
Please explain how your experimental method differs from science.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Evasion noted.

Are you going to answer the questions I asked you first?



I asked you questions first. What don't you understand? [/B]
Liar.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I don't care what outstanding issues you have with Bill. It's completely irrelevant to my questions.

Please answer them:

Please present just one test of your claim. (I'm still lowering the bar here)
Please explain how your derivation differs from science.
Please explain how your experimental method differs from science.

Claus,

He's been piddling his panties ever since I called his bluff. This is the only ploy he can hang onto. And he will until there is no more blood flowing past his knuckles.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I don't care what outstanding issues you have with Bill. It's completely irrelevant to my questions.


Well I care since he hasn't answered my questions.

Will he please answer them?

Claus, your questions are completely irrelevant to my questions and I'm telling you right now will continue to be ignored.

Bill, if I'm a "liar", then simply copy and paste your answers again to these questions for us all to see. Thanks. You may have responded with non-answers, but clearly not answers to the questions.

1. You have yet to show science is the only way.

2. You have yet to show that there is a truth out there as you assume.

3. You have yet to show if science is the most reliable thing out there as you say, then what determines science's reliability?

4. and many more..

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Claus,
He's been piddling his panties ever since I called his bluff. This is the only ploy he can hang onto. And he will until there is no more blood flowing past his knuckles.

Evasion tactics noted. Talking to Claus about me won't help you answer my questions.

I'm still waiting for your miraculous proof that there is some truth out there.

I'm still waiting for your magical proof that science is the only way.

Do you have proof of these beliefs?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Bill, if I'm a "liar", then simply copy and paste your answers again to these questions for us all to see. Thanks. You may have responded with non-answers, but clearly not answers to the questions.

1. You have yet to show science is the only way.

2. You have yet to show that there is a truth out there as you assume.

3. You have yet to show if science is the most reliable thing out there as you say, then what determines science's reliability?

4. and many more..
You illiterate bat, here it was:
The methods of science continue to work, they continue to yield results. The framework is open to both change of its conclusions and change of methods. From within the framework.
This followed my addressing of your inane call for a meta-process. I pointed out the infinite regress nature of such a demand. You don't get the answer. You don't want to get the answer. The process itself establishes its reliability. It is that simple. The process is ever-open to more reality therapy, performed by many, independent researchers.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Well I care since he hasn't answered my questions.

Will he please answer them?

Claus, your questions are completely irrelevant to my questions and I'm telling you right now will continue to be ignored.

So, you refuse to answer the questions. You made claims, but can't back them up.

That's what this board is all about: We find out who can contribute, who knows things. And who is nothing but hot air.

Oops, you've heard that one before, haven't you?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Bill, if I'm a "liar", then simply copy and paste your answers again to these questions for us all to see. Thanks. You may have responded with non-answers, but clearly not answers to the questions.

Ah, the "Clancie CopOut": An answer will be deemed "not really an answer".

Weak, T'ai Chi. Weak.

[Cynical]

From Claus:

"That's what this board is all about : We find out who can contribute, who knows things. And who is nothing but hot air."

And which are YOU, Cantata?