Arguments here are psychologically similar to people of different religion. - Page 3

Zeuzzz · 30th June 2012, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

There becomes a point at which science doesn't yet have answers to some questions. (True but that's a pointless truism.)
Therefore science can't ever answer those questions. (False.)
Therefore everyone fills those gaps in with religious style faith. (False.)
Therefore everyone is religious in some way. (False)
Therefore religious style faith is useful. (False.)
Therefore religious style faith and rational though are equally useful methods for determining truth. (False.)
Therefore rejecting religious style faith is just as dogmatic and intolerant and rejecting rational thought. (False.)

Bolded = Correct.
Italicised blue = not scientific words, so bear no relation to science. No scientific inferences can be deduced by their vague definitions. Science works on probabilities, not absolutes.
Underlined = false (as you agreed)

So I actually agree with everything you said, in a roundabout way.

tsig · 30th June 2012, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Science as a method for determining truth has proved itself useful. We don't need faith in it.

I'll never understand this glee apologist have for trying to call trust in science a "faith." It's illogical, nonsensical, and just plain not true.

As Bob Dylan said 'they're just trying to get you down in the hole that they're in".

Zeuzzz · 30th June 2012, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

As Bob Dylan said 'they're just trying to get you down in the hole that they're in".

Your hallucinating the 'they'. I'm making a scientific argument.

PixyMisa · 30th June 2012, 10:01 PM

You're not making any sort of argument. You're just wrong.

Zeuzzz · 30th June 2012, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

You're not making any sort of argument. You're just wrong.

What can I say to productively reply to this pixy?

From a scientific standpoint, of progressing an argument based on logic and reasoning.

You being the uber-scientist here.

tsig · 30th June 2012, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Your faith in science as truth is just as nonsensical as their beliefs.

I've spent over five years at universities studying physics, music, and all sorts. Yet I don't think that other peoples personal beliefs are 'nonsense' unless i can scientifically prove otherwise.

Some of the most scientifically literate people I've met have faith outside of their scientific discipline of choice.
Science is not truth.

Comprende?

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Ironically your one of the most religious people I've encountered on this forum, pixy. As much as I still love you.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

No you are hiding.

You are using a fake name, with a fake avatar, on a random forum of your choice.

Did you watch the video?

add me: http://www.facebook.com/grgkitson

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Your hallucinating the 'they'. I'm making a scientific argument.

Yep, all science so far.

Zeuzzz · 30th June 2012, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

Yep, all science so far.

You probably didn't read my criterion for those statements of what differentiates a religious person from a scientist to see the in the correct context I made them in. And if you did, you didn't comment on them.

How many

s have you seen in science journals?

PixyMisa · 30th June 2012, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

What can I say to productively reply to this pixy?

Say that you've read the essay and that you now understand why you don't have an argument.

Zeuzzz · 30th June 2012, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Say that you've read the essay and that you now understand why you don't have an argument.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Ok I tried. I got as far as:

"It seemed that in one of my innumerable essays, here and elsewhere, I had expressed a certain gladness at living in a century in which we finally got the basis of the Universe straight."

Burst out in hysterics, and could not continue.

Is there a particular point you are making that you can quote from that in this thread? Because i'm failing to see the relevance of it so far, apart from re-enforcing my own views.

???

PixyMisa · 30th June 2012, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

???

Read the essay. It's short, engaging, and it explains precisely why you are wrong.

Zeuzzz · 30th June 2012, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Read the essay. It's short, engaging, and it explains precisely why you are wrong.

I've started reading it, but it just seems like a massive argument from anecdote, as I dually noted from one of the reviewers:

"This is a compilation of essays from Issac Asimov. It's mostly scientific but the last essay that shares the title of the book is not so scientific but a really fun read."

So why are you asking me to read this?

PixyMisa · 30th June 2012, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I've started reading it, but it just seems like a massive argument from anecdote, as I dually noted from one of the reviewers:

"This is a compilation of essays from Issac Asimov. It's mostly scientific but the last essay that shares the title of the book is not so scientific but a really fun read."

Just read the essay.

Quote:

So why are you asking me to read this?

Because it's short, engaging, and explains precisely why you are wrong.

Zeuzzz · 30th June 2012, 11:24 PM

Can you link to it? I've only found a seventeen essay PDF, and I still don't have a clue what you're on about.

And I think if you did yourself, you would have stated it in this thread already.

PixyMisa · 30th June 2012, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Can you link to it? I've only found a seventeen essay PDF, and I still don't have a clue what you're on about.

It's the one you quoted from. Keep reading that.

If you type the relativity of wrong into Google, the very first hit takes you to the text of the essay.

Zeuzzz · 30th June 2012, 11:49 PM

Ok so:

"It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts, and I will devote this essay to an explanation of why I think so. [....]

Naturally, the theories we now have might be considered wrong in the simplistic sense of my English Lit correspondent, but in a much truer and subtler sense, they need only be considered incomplete."

So that's relevant to you not explaining why i'm wrong every time you say it how exactly? Considering he defines it as a fuzzy concept, I expect either a more rigourous definition from you, or further clarification of your previous 'wrong' proclamations.

PixyMisa · 30th June 2012, 11:50 PM

Read the essay. It explains why you're wrong every time.

Zeuzzz · 30th June 2012, 11:57 PM

Its like speaking to a robot where you've forgotten to program the end of a loop based algorithm

PixyMisa · 1st July 2012, 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Its like speaking to a robot where you've forgotten to program the end of a loop based algorithm

Have you read the essay?

Zeuzzz · 1st July 2012, 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Have you read the essay?

Yes, thus my two quotes above. I fail to see it's relevance.

I would be humbly obliged if you could explain it to me.

Zeuzzz · 1st July 2012, 12:16 AM

PixyMisa · 1st July 2012, 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Yes, thus my two quotes above. I fail to see it's relevance.

Do you now understand what wrong means in a scientific context?

Zeuzzz · 1st July 2012, 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Do you now understand what wrong means in a scientific context?

Evidence of obfuscation noted (despite me taking the time to read that entire essay)

Do you? [understand what wrong means in a scientific context?]

You see pixy, if I define it first you're just going to reply and say 'no' or 'wrong'.

So I would be humbly obliged if you would define it for me first, especially considering your inordinate use of the word here.

Thanks.

PixyMisa · 1st July 2012, 12:32 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Evidence of obfuscation noted (despite me taking the time to read that entire essay)

Baloney.

Quote:

Do you?

Read the essay.

Quote:

So I would be humbly obliged if you would define it for me first, especially considering your inordinate use of the word here.

Read the essay.

Zeuzzz · 1st July 2012, 12:39 AM

I have read it, I fail to see its relevance.

Apart maybe from the word wrong being 'fuzzy'.

I personally don't think that 'wrong' even has a scientific definition, but I'd much rather you defined it first, since you use the word so much in the science section.

PixyMisa · 1st July 2012, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I have read it, I fail to see its relevance.

Then you can't have actually read it.

Quote:

I personally don't think that wrong even has a scientific definition, but I'd much rather you defined it first, since you use the word so much in the science section.

That's precisely what the essay explains.

Zeuzzz · 1st July 2012, 12:43 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

That's precisely what the essay explains.

I know, I read it, thus the quotes.
Why didn't you say that before?

Why do you use it all the time in the science section then?

PixyMisa · 1st July 2012, 01:01 AM

Because people are wrong all the time.

Zeuzzz · 1st July 2012, 01:04 AM

Just like you then.

Well that was a nice, if a little long winded, way of getting that out of you.

PixyMisa · 1st July 2012, 01:13 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Just like you then.

I'm certainly not saying I'm never wrong, but you have never pointed out an instance of it.

On the other hand, you have, throughout this thread, demonstrated the exact biases you are complaining about.

Zeuzzz · 1st July 2012, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

I'm certainly not saying I'm never wrong, but you have never pointed out an instance of it.

How can I when you always right though?*

Quote:

On the other hand, you have, throughout this thread, demonstrated the exact biases you are complaining about.

How so?

* "Right", is a non scientific fuzzy word, just like wrong.

JoeBentley · 1st July 2012, 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

"Right", is a non scientific fuzzy word, just like wrong.

Yeah people who are wrong always try to convince others (and themselves) that there is no such thing as right or wrong. Funny that.

Science doesn't really mesh well with absolute right or wrong, true. But to simply dismiss the very concepts of factually correct and factually incorrect as "non-scientific" or "fuzzy" is self serving B.S.

Zeuzzz · 1st July 2012, 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Science doesn't really mesh well with absolute right or wrong, true. But to simply dismiss the very concepts of factually correct and factually incorrect as "non-scientific" or "fuzzy" is self serving B.S.

Well thats how pixy defined it, and I presume he's currently trying to untie himself before he replies.

Would you agree with my other thread Joe? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=239023

PixyMisa · 1st July 2012, 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

How so?

What you have said about the Dawkins and the other people you have criticised or quoted is not true. Either what you have claimed they said or wrote is not in fact what they said or wrote, or the meaning you attributed to it is a blatant distortion.

Quote:

"Right", is a non scientific fuzzy word, just like wrong.

No. It's relative. Read the essay.

PixyMisa · 1st July 2012, 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Well thats how pixy defined it

That's so obviously untrue that I don't know why you even bothered saying it.

Zeuzzz · 1st July 2012, 02:05 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

What you have said about the Dawkins and the other people you have criticised or quoted is not true. Either what you have claimed they said or wrote is not in fact what they said or wrote, or the meaning you attributed to it is a blatant distortion.

Where?

Dawkins set out to prove god does not exist by using science.

Science doesn't make it impossible to belive in a deity, it just makes it possible to not belive in a deity.

It was a stupid position he took, but served a kind of worthwhile purpose, as well as a bad one. The bad one being it's impacts on peoples positive spiritual beliefs.

Acleron · 1st July 2012, 02:35 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Where?

Dawkins set out to prove god does not exist by using science.

Science doesn't make it impossible to belive in a deity, it just makes it possible to not belive in a deity.

It was a stupid position he took, but served a kind of worthwhile purpose, as well as a bad one. The bad one being it's impacts on peoples positive spiritual beliefs.

No he didn't.

He used scientific methods to show the implausibility of a deity.

You may not agree with his methods or his facts, but argue on the basis of those, not your perception of Dawkins.

These are the positive spiritual beliefs that make people murder each other in Ireland, the Middle East, India, Iraq etc. Those positive spiritual beliefs that enable people to firebomb abortion clinics. These positive spiritual beliefs that make people mutilate their children.

Stopping all that is obviously real bad.

Zeuzzz · 1st July 2012, 02:44 AM

Originally Posted by Acleron

No he didn't.

He used scientific methods to show the implausibility of a deity.

You may not agree with his methods or his facts, but argue on the basis of those, not your perception of Dawkins.

These are the positive spiritual beliefs that make people murder each other in Ireland, the Middle East, India, Iraq etc. Those positive spiritual beliefs that enable people to firebomb abortion clinics. These positive spiritual beliefs that make people mutilate their children.

Stopping all that is obviously real bad.

Yes he did, I've heard him use the word truth countless times when replying to people.
The God Delusion was a massive argument from anecdote.
Your speaking about fundamentalists, here when you say that.
Not the vast majority of spiritual or religious people.
Positive spiritual beliefs have been scientifically tested to have a positive effects on peoples wellbeing, health and life expectancy. This seems mainly dependant on if their beliefs are based on fear or not.

Zeuzzz · 1st July 2012, 02:51 AM

I feel in attacking Dawkins a bit unduly here. Making a book about god and using anecdotes and science to disprove them is a good thing to do. Some people have whacky beliefs.

But he didn't do much good for the public perception that it's science vs religion, like you either choose religion or science. They are not incompatible.

PixyMisa · 1st July 2012, 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Yes he did, I've heard him use the word truth countless times when replying to people.

Non-sequitur.

Zeuzzz · 1st July 2012, 03:04 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Non-sequitur.

Q: "How can you prove there's no god"
A: "Because we know the truth"

That's the non sequitur.

30th June 2012, 09:05 PM	#81
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by JoeBentley There becomes a point at which science doesn't yet have answers to some questions. (True but that's a pointless truism.) Therefore science can't ever answer those questions. (False.) Therefore everyone fills those gaps in with religious style faith. (False.) Therefore everyone is religious in some way. (False) Therefore religious style faith is useful. (False.) Therefore religious style faith and rational though are equally useful methods for determining truth. (False.) Therefore rejecting religious style faith is just as dogmatic and intolerant and rejecting rational thought. (False.) Bolded = Correct. Italicised blue = not scientific words, so bear no relation to science. No scientific inferences can be deduced by their vague definitions. Science works on probabilities, not absolutes. Underlined = false (as you agreed) So I actually agree with everything you said, in a roundabout way.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 30th June 2012 at 09:42 PM.

30th June 2012, 09:56 PM	#83
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by tsig As Bob Dylan said 'they're just trying to get you down in the hole that they're in". Your hallucinating the 'they'. I'm making a scientific argument.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 30th June 2012 at 09:58 PM.

30th June 2012, 10:01 PM	#84
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,903	You're not making any sort of argument. You're just wrong.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

30th June 2012, 10:09 PM	#85
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by PixyMisa You're not making any sort of argument. You're just wrong. What can I say to productively reply to this pixy? From a scientific standpoint, of progressing an argument based on logic and reasoning. You being the uber-scientist here.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

30th June 2012, 10:13 PM	#87
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by tsig Yep, all science so far. You probably didn't read my criterion for those statements of what differentiates a religious person from a scientist to see the in the correct context I made them in. And if you did, you didn't comment on them. How many s have you seen in science journals?
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 30th June 2012 at 10:15 PM.

30th June 2012, 09:40 PM	#82
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,622	Originally Posted by JoeBentley Science as a method for determining truth has proved itself useful. We don't need faith in it. I'll never understand this glee apologist have for trying to call trust in science a "faith." It's illogical, nonsensical, and just plain not true. As Bob Dylan said 'they're just trying to get you down in the hole that they're in".

30th June 2012, 10:09 PM	#86
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,622	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Your faith in science as truth is just as nonsensical as their beliefs. I've spent over five years at universities studying physics, music, and all sorts. Yet I don't think that other peoples personal beliefs are 'nonsense' unless i can scientifically prove otherwise. Some of the most scientifically literate people I've met have faith outside of their scientific discipline of choice. Science is not truth. Comprende? Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Ironically your one of the most religious people I've encountered on this forum, pixy. As much as I still love you. Originally Posted by Zeuzzz No you are hiding. You are using a fake name, with a fake avatar, on a random forum of your choice. Did you watch the video? add me: http://www.facebook.com/grgkitson Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Your hallucinating the 'they'. I'm making a scientific argument. Yep, all science so far.

30th June 2012, 10:18 PM	#88
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,903	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz What can I say to productively reply to this pixy? Say that you've read the essay and that you now understand why you don't have an argument.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

30th June 2012, 10:22 PM	#89
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by PixyMisa Say that you've read the essay and that you now understand why you don't have an argument. Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Ok I tried. I got as far as: "It seemed that in one of my innumerable essays, here and elsewhere, I had expressed a certain gladness at living in a century in which we finally got the basis of the Universe straight." Burst out in hysterics, and could not continue. Is there a particular point you are making that you can quote from that in this thread? Because i'm failing to see the relevance of it so far, apart from re-enforcing my own views. ???
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

30th June 2012, 11:00 PM	#90
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,903	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz ??? Read the essay. It's short, engaging, and it explains precisely why you are wrong.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

30th June 2012, 11:07 PM	#91
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by PixyMisa Read the essay. It's short, engaging, and it explains precisely why you are wrong. I've started reading it, but it just seems like a massive argument from anecdote, as I dually noted from one of the reviewers: "This is a compilation of essays from Issac Asimov. It's mostly scientific but the last essay that shares the title of the book is not so scientific but a really fun read." So why are you asking me to read this?
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

30th June 2012, 11:17 PM	#92
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,903	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz I've started reading it, but it just seems like a massive argument from anecdote, as I dually noted from one of the reviewers: "This is a compilation of essays from Issac Asimov. It's mostly scientific but the last essay that shares the title of the book is not so scientific but a really fun read." Just read the essay. Quote: So why are you asking me to read this? Because it's short, engaging, and explains precisely why you are wrong.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO Last edited by PixyMisa; 30th June 2012 at 11:21 PM. Reason: NM.

30th June 2012, 11:24 PM	#93
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Can you link to it? I've only found a seventeen essay PDF, and I still don't have a clue what you're on about. And I think if you did yourself, you would have stated it in this thread already.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

30th June 2012, 11:40 PM	#94
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,903	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Can you link to it? I've only found a seventeen essay PDF, and I still don't have a clue what you're on about. It's the one you quoted from. Keep reading that. If you type the relativity of wrong into Google, the very first hit takes you to the text of the essay.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

30th June 2012, 11:49 PM	#95
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Ok so: "It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts, and I will devote this essay to an explanation of why I think so. [....] Naturally, the theories we now have might be considered wrong in the simplistic sense of my English Lit correspondent, but in a much truer and subtler sense, they need only be considered incomplete." So that's relevant to you not explaining why i'm wrong every time you say it how exactly? Considering he defines it as a fuzzy concept, I expect either a more rigourous definition from you, or further clarification of your previous 'wrong' proclamations.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

30th June 2012, 11:50 PM	#96
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,903	Read the essay. It explains why you're wrong every time.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

30th June 2012, 11:57 PM	#97
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Its like speaking to a robot where you've forgotten to program the end of a loop based algorithm
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

1st July 2012, 12:05 AM	#98
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,903	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Its like speaking to a robot where you've forgotten to program the end of a loop based algorithm Have you read the essay?
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

1st July 2012, 12:07 AM	#99
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by PixyMisa Have you read the essay? Yes, thus my two quotes above. I fail to see it's relevance. I would be humbly obliged if you could explain it to me.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

1st July 2012, 12:16 AM	#100
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

1st July 2012, 12:23 AM	#101
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,903	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Yes, thus my two quotes above. I fail to see it's relevance. Do you now understand what wrong means in a scientific context?
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

1st July 2012, 12:27 AM	#102
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by PixyMisa Do you now understand what wrong means in a scientific context? Evidence of obfuscation noted (despite me taking the time to read that entire essay) Do you? [understand what wrong* means in a scientific context?]* You see pixy, if I define it first you're just going to reply and say 'no' or 'wrong'. So I would be humbly obliged if you would define it for me first, especially considering your inordinate use of the word here. Thanks.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 1st July 2012 at 12:29 AM.

1st July 2012, 12:32 AM	#103
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,903	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Evidence of obfuscation noted (despite me taking the time to read that entire essay) Baloney. Quote: Do you? Read the essay. Quote: So I would be humbly obliged if you would define it for me first, especially considering your inordinate use of the word here. Read the essay.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

1st July 2012, 12:39 AM	#104
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	I have read it, I fail to see its relevance. Apart maybe from the word wrong being 'fuzzy'. I personally don't think that 'wrong' even has a scientific definition, but I'd much rather you defined it first, since you use the word so much in the science section.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 1st July 2012 at 12:42 AM.

1st July 2012, 12:41 AM	#105
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,903	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz I have read it, I fail to see its relevance. Then you can't have actually read it. Quote: I personally don't think that wrong even has a scientific definition, but I'd much rather you defined it first, since you use the word so much in the science section. That's precisely what the essay explains.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

1st July 2012, 12:43 AM	#106
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by PixyMisa That's precisely what the essay explains. I know, I read it, thus the quotes. Why didn't you say that before? Why do you use it all the time in the science section then?
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 1st July 2012 at 12:44 AM.

1st July 2012, 01:01 AM	#107
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,903	Because people are wrong all the time.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

1st July 2012, 01:04 AM	#108
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Just like you then. Well that was a nice, if a little long winded, way of getting that out of you.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

1st July 2012, 01:13 AM	#109
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,903	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Just like you then. I'm certainly not saying I'm never wrong, but you have never pointed out an instance of it. On the other hand, you have, throughout this thread, demonstrated the exact biases you are complaining about.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

1st July 2012, 01:27 AM	#110
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by PixyMisa I'm certainly not saying I'm never wrong, but you have never pointed out an instance of it. How can I when you always right though?* Quote: On the other hand, you have, throughout this thread, demonstrated the exact biases you are complaining about. How so? * "Right", is a non scientific fuzzy word, just like wrong.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

1st July 2012, 01:49 AM	#111
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 1,754	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz "Right", is a non scientific fuzzy word, just like wrong. Yeah people who are wrong always try to convince others (and themselves) that there is no such thing as right or wrong. Funny that. Science doesn't really mesh well with absolute right or wrong, true. But to simply dismiss the very concepts of factually correct and factually incorrect as "non-scientific" or "fuzzy" is self serving B.S.
	__________________ - Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count. - In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness. - Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries would that.

1st July 2012, 01:54 AM	#112
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by JoeBentley Science doesn't really mesh well with absolute right or wrong, true. But to simply dismiss the very concepts of factually correct and factually incorrect as "non-scientific" or "fuzzy" is self serving B.S. Well thats how pixy defined it, and I presume he's currently trying to untie himself before he replies. Would you agree with my other thread Joe? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=239023
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

1st July 2012, 02:01 AM	#113
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,903	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz How so? What you have said about the Dawkins and the other people you have criticised or quoted is not true. Either what you have claimed they said or wrote is not in fact what they said or wrote, or the meaning you attributed to it is a blatant distortion. Quote: "Right", is a non scientific fuzzy word, just like wrong. No. It's relative. Read the essay.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

1st July 2012, 02:02 AM	#114
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,903	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Well thats how pixy defined it That's so obviously untrue that I don't know why you even bothered saying it.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

1st July 2012, 02:05 AM	#115
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by PixyMisa What you have said about the Dawkins and the other people you have criticised or quoted is not true. Either what you have claimed they said or wrote is not in fact what they said or wrote, or the meaning you attributed to it is a blatant distortion. Where? Dawkins set out to prove god does not exist by using science. Science doesn't make it impossible to belive in a deity, it just makes it possible to not belive in a deity. It was a stupid position he took, but served a kind of worthwhile purpose, as well as a bad one. The bad one being it's impacts on peoples positive spiritual beliefs.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 1st July 2012 at 02:09 AM.