Believe in science & ethics
-
So you are referring to the two posts below?Originally posted by soul_rage:read the previous posts at 10.20am and 11.03am. You have already posted an example of how you say ALL humans are stupid. Though you did not use the word ALL, your statement is a sweeping statement, and in Mathematics, an implying statement is the same as an outright statement.
Don't be like Gazelle, so self-delusional.
Does Gollum sound familiar to you?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap: 19 September 2007 · 10:20 AMHumans are like that, they want absolute certainty where there is none. They then go on to make the stupid mistake of assuming that since there are no absolute certainties, then it is free for all and people should be allowed to create their own unfounded / delusional rubbish.
You are the one that said "ALL humans are like that" and "all human make the SAME stupid mistake" and "ALL humans are making the SAME stupid mistake in general"Originally posted by soul_rage: 19 September 2007 · 11:03 AMIn mathematics, you are saying ALL humans are like that. And all human make the SAME stupid mistake, and since you never mentioned it is specific to Science, therefore you are implying ALL humans are making the SAME stupid mistake in general.
Correct, you should not do that. You mus not use the words "ALL humans are..." so now tell us, why did you make the stupid mistake of saying "ALL humans are ..." when you know you shouldn't.
This is call presenting evidence? Present evidence to pwn yourself? Brilliant!
-
Would someone please tell me why this turned into a nitpick fest?
-
Because some people, when confronted with sound reasoning...Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Would someone please tell me why this turned into a nitpick fest?
They decided to attack the messenger. Cheap trick. Lose and commit an ad hominem to try to hide their fallacies.Originally posted by Ibram Gaunt:Yup, I totally agree with you.
And as I said before, the scientific methodology is not 100% foolproof (becos it is a tool of "imperfect humans"), but it is still much better (and more trustworthy) than other methods of studying the world around us.
People like soul_rage love to slam science, but can they come up with a better alternative methodology in studying the natural world? Nope, science may not be 100% foolproof but it is definitely more reliable than other mental tools mankind can employ in understanding our universe. -
Interesting. Making sweeping statements is a sound reasoning?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:They decided to attack the messenger. Cheap trick. Lose and commit an ad hominem to try to hide their fallacies.
Calling people stupid is valid and sound?
Fallacy? Ya, you are demonstrating it
-
As an advocator of Science, it saddens me to see you do not understand the basics of science at all.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:You are the one that said "ALL humans are like that" and "all human make the SAME stupid mistake" and "ALL humans are making the SAME stupid mistake in general"
Correct, you should not do that. You mus not use the words "ALL humans are..." so now tell us, why did you make the stupid mistake of saying "ALL humans are ..." when you know you shouldn't.
This is call presenting evidence? Present evidence to pwn yourself? Brilliant!
Your statement starts as "Humans are like that..."
"Humans are like that" IS a sweeping statement in logic mathematics.
It literally means "ALL". Did you or did you not read what I posted about implications?
"Humans are like that" IS an ALL statement.
A VERY clear example:
"Sharks are fish."
Does this statement imply ALL sharks are fish? Or does this statement imply some or most sharks are fish? Using proper English, I think its correct to agree that the statement implies an ALL phrase.
By continuing down this road, you are exposing more and more of what you do not know about Science, in which case, this is a public forum. You are free to continue making yourself look ignorant. -
This is actually NOT a nitpick fest.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Would someone please tell me why this turned into a nitpick fest?
In fact, this is a demonstration to show a pretender who claims he believes in Science, but doesn't understand Science at all.
It shows how one person, who made a sweeping statement, refuses to admit he made an implied "All" statement, when logic clearly shows otherwise.
It shows the difference between a pretender, and a true Science believer (like Ibram or you) who argues out their beliefs clearly -
I'd like to use an example taken from today's news as a "thought-demonstration":
The following news article dated 18 Sep 07 can be found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20838944/?GT1=10357
Villagers fall ill after fireball hits Peru
A fireball fell from the sky and slammed into southern Peru over the weekend, creating a huge crater that emitted a sickeningly smelly gas, local authorities said. More than 600 villagers fell ill, the Peruvian radio network RPP reported Tuesday. Video reports from the scene, near the remote Andean village of Carancas along Peru's border with Bolivia, showed what appeared to be a 100-foot-wide (30-meter-wide), 20-foot-deep (6-meter-deep) impact crater with a bubbling pool of water at the bottom. Authorities said that the crater was made Saturday by a falling meteorite. Agence France Presse quoted a local official, Marco Limache, as saying that "boiling water started coming out of the crater, and particles of rock and cinders were found nearby."
Limache told RPP that the gases emanating from the crater caused nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headaches and stomach pain — so much so that authorities were considering calling a state of emergency. Villagers decided not to drink the water in the area because they regarded it as contaminated in the wake of the impact, RPP reported. Experts from Peru's Geological, Mining and Metallurgical Institute, or Ingemmet, were reportedly on their way to the village in the country's Desaguadero region to evaluate the health risk.
A scientific process would involve researchers going to the site of the crash to take physical samples of the rock, water, ground, etc. There will be lab examination of the samples and evaluation of the health threat posed to the villagers due to toxic fumes emanating (as a result of natural physical and chemical processes) from the crash site. Apart from chemical and human health studies, biologists can determine threats to wildlife in the area, astrophysicists can research upon the physical properties and pre-crash dynamics of the meteorite. The scientists (fr various fields of specialisations) will adopt a methodological process to determine the cause and effect of this phenomenon.
However.....
In contrast to the above, a non-scientific or pseudo-scientific process will not involve methodological studies as I've outlined.
Most likely a person with little/no knowledge of scientific methodology (e.g. a victim of cultist superstitions) will jump to conclusions and make wild proclamations/speculations. Quacks may see this incident to be the sign of the apocalypse and that this meteorite is a herald of Wormwood. Or the quack will give other wilder speculations like the gods are wrathful or that the heavens are trying to "teach Mankind" a lesson for their arrogance. Or 'pseudoscience' quacks will exclaim that this "space rock" contain alien lifeform that is a precursor of an invasion.....without bothering to first study the "rock" and verify their wild hypothesis. Such false "prophets" spread wild rumours that can very well forment unrest among susceptible villagers....or worse, they can con people into subscribing to irrational beliefs.
In fact this is happening as can be seen in the following quack sites:
http://www.theapocalypsetimes.com/bloggin/
http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=a6c70a2533f1cb95d42ee2fcbf0e1de8&t=14461&page=2
(most likely more such unsubstantiated "paranormal postings" will appear on the Net in the days to come)
Science, on the other hand, takes a well-reasoned approach. Science does not jump to wild speculations or invoke superstitious beliefs to "fill the gaps" in explaining the natural world. Of course, at times technical errors may be made, but at the end of the day, science is self-correcting and when more/better data comes in, improved hypothesis can be formulated.
Science is certainly more trustworthy than paranormal beliefs. -
You are right, and I agree with that. Again the argument is not about Science is NOT great, or Science is NOT believable, or that Superstition rules.Originally posted by Ibram Gaunt:I'd like to use an example taken from today's news as a "thought-demonstration":
Science, on the other hand, takes a well-reasoned approach. Science does not jump to wild speculations or use superstition to "fill the gaps" in explaining the natural world.
The arguments are about
1) Are there things beyond Science's comprehension that are true but cannot be proven by Science?
2) Are there things that Science has proven but may be incorrect if new scientific methodologies are discovered in the future in this domain, that can yield more accurate and concise results? -
Originally posted by soul_rage:
You are becoming to sound more and more idiotic. You assume that it is ALL means it is ALL?
As an advocator of Science, it saddens me to see you do not understand the basics of science at all.
Your statement starts as "Humans are like that..."
"Humans are like that" IS a sweeping statement in logic mathematics.
It literally means "ALL". Did you or did you not read what I posted about implications?
"Humans are like that" IS an ALL statement.
[b]A VERY clear example:
"Sharks are fish."
Does this statement imply ALL sharks are fish? Or does this statement imply some or most sharks are fish? Using proper English, I think its correct to agree that the statement implies an ALL phrase.
By continuing down this road, you are exposing more and more of what you do not know about Science, in which case, this is a public forum. You are free to continue making yourself look ignorant.[/b] You cannot ask? You cannot clarify? You are suddenly "dumb"? You prefer to ASSUME and run with your assumptions? 
There are many types of people as everyone knows. Are you too stupid to know that? -
So what if it is? You have a better method than the scientific method? What is it? What is this method that you are promoting?Originally posted by soul_rage:You are right, and I agree with that. Again the argument is not about Science is NOT great, or Science is NOT believable, or that Superstition rules.
The arguments are about
1) Are there things beyond Science's comprehension that are true but cannot be proven by Science?
2) Are there things that Science has proven but may be incorrect if new scientific methodologies are discovered in the future in this domain, that can yield more accurate and concise results? That is the whole point of the argument. That there are no better ways of discovering truths about the universe other than through the scientific method. -
so funny. You sound more and more unable to defend yourself.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:You are becoming to sound more and more idiotic. You assume that it is ALL means it is ALL? You cannot ask? You cannot clarify? You are suddenly "dumb"? You prefer to ASSUME and run with your assumptions?
There are many types of people as everyone knows. Are you too stupid to know that?
In the outside world, once you made a statement, anything later to say "Oh, I din mean that", is called damage control.
If you really don't understand the above, don't worry, you will learn it as you experience more of this world
Many things, once said, cannot be taken back. -
and you are sounding more and more ridiculous... Why should I take back the statement that "Humans are like that...?" You are a great example of the "Humans that are like that" in my statement. Irrational and delusional, imagining that the delusions in your head are also in other people's head.Originally posted by soul_rage:so funny. You sound more and more unable to defend yourself.
In the outside world, once you made a statement, anything later to say "Oh, I din mean that", is called damage control.
If you really don't understand the above, don't worry, you will learn it as you experience more of this world
Many things, once said, cannot be taken back.
Why did you have to edit my post and add the word ALL? After you add the word ALL, you turn around and accuse me for your own stupidity in adding the word ALL? -
*shrugs*Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:So what if it is? You have a better method than the scientific method? What is it? What is this method that you are promoting? That is the whole point of the argument. That there are no better ways of discovering truths about the universe other than through the scientific method.
As a pretender who don't understand Science and keep bringing in new assumptions to protect yourself, you are like the mosquito, really noisy
Once again, its not the whole point of argument about no better way. The idea is that Science cannot be 100% correct, and it allows the person to keep an open mind.
When I was a tutor in the university, I found a mistake in the model answer, and deliberately still put up the incorrect model answer, and then ask my students if the answer is correct.
Only 1 dared to think and challenge the answer I put up. The rest accepted the wrong answer as the correct answer. My lesson to them then was to learn how to question, and learn how to think beyond what is given to you. Even the tutor or the lecturer can be wrong.
The tutor or lecturer to the student then was like Science. They believe all answers are correct just because the professor is the most experienced in that field, and that answers after many semesters should not have any more errors. -
ahhh... NOW you are changing your statement.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:and you are sounding more and more ridiculous... Why should I take back the statement that "Humans are like that...?" You are a great example of the "Humans that are like that" in my statement. Irrational and delusional, imagining that the delusions in your head are also in other people's head.
"Humans are like that..." becomes "Humans THAT are like that..."
Note that there is a huge difference between the two.
You really don't understand Science, lucky you do not represent the scientific community
So answer the question. By not taking back your statement "Humans are like that", are you then agreeing that based on Mathematics, you are now agreeing that you are using the "ALL" phrase in that statement? -
and you are? a delusional that is unable to answer a very simple question, "What is the great proposal that you have that is better than the scientific method?" and yet thinks that he is very smart.Originally posted by soul_rage:*shrugs*
As a pretender who don't understand Science and keep bringing in new assumptions to protect yourself, you are like the mosquito, really noisy
Once again, its not the whole point of argument about no better way. The idea is that Science cannot be 100% correct, and it allows the person to keep an open mind.
When I was a tutor in the university, I found a mistake in the model answer, and deliberately still put up the incorrect model answer, and then ask my students if the answer is correct.
Only 1 dared to think and challenge the answer I put up. The rest accepted the wrong answer as the correct answer. My lesson to them then was to learn how to question, and learn how to think beyond what is given to you. Even the tutor or the lecturer can be wrong.
The tutor or lecturer to the student then was like Science. They believe all answers are correct just because the professor is the most experienced in that field, and that answers after many semesters should not have any more errors.
edited to add: -
I did not add the word "ALL"Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Humans are like that, they want absolute certainty where there is none. They then go on to make the stupid mistake of assuming that since there are no absolute certainties, then it is free for all and people should be allowed to create their own unfounded / delusional rubbish.
here's your original statement again, in its full naked glory
If you still don't understand why "Sharks are fish" = "All Sharks are fish", kindly ask those who understand Science better to explain to you. -
haha, you are so funnyOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:and you are? a delusional that is unable to answer a very simple question, "What is the great proposal that you have that is better than the scientific method?" and yet thinks that he is very smart.
I did not propose anything. I did not say I am smart as well. I am just encouraging everyone to remember that
"Science is NOT 100% foolproof", and
(1) There are things which Science cannot explain
(2) There are things which Science explained, but later found to be incorrect. -
Are you lying or is this your post where you added the word ALL?Originally posted by soul_rage:I did not add the word "ALL"
here's your original statement again, in its full naked glory
If you still don't understand why "Sharks are fish" = "All Sharks are fish", kindly ask those who understand Science better to explain to you.Originally posted by soul_rage: 19 September 2007 · 11:03 AM
highlighting in bold the word ALL, by me.
In mathematics, you are saying [b]ALL humans are like that. And all human make the SAME stupid mistake, and since you never mentioned it is specific to Science, therefore you are implying ALL humans are making the SAME stupid mistake in general.[/b] -
and so what is it that you proposed to replace the "NOT 100% foolproof science"?Originally posted by soul_rage:haha, you are so funny
I did not propose anything. I did not say I am smart as well. I am just encouraging everyone to remember that
"Science is NOT 100% foolproof", and
(1) There are things which Science cannot explain
(2) There are things which Science explained, but later found to be incorrect.
If you cannot then what's the point of telling people that?
Even though it is not "NOT 100% foolproof " you have to trust scientific findings instead of the delusions in your own head simply because it is better than the delusions in your head. -
Did you read that I wrote "You are saying.." ?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:highlighting in bold the word ALL, by me.
If this is not understandable, time for you to go for English lessons. I did not quote you. If I quoted you, and put the word "ALL" in front, I will accept that as my error graciously.
How about you, are you gracious in admitting that you don't understand Science at all, but instead goes around with a bad mouth insulting others? -
As a pretender, I must say you really don't understand much don't you?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:and so what is it that you proposed to replace the "NOT 100% foolproof science"?
If you cannot then what's the point of telling people that?
Even though it is not "NOT 100% foolproof " you have to trust scientific findings instead of the delusions in your own head simply because it is better than the delusions in your head.
When you are in a box, you can either choose
1) To think out of the box (like what Einstein did)
2) To think within the box (question if the box has any faults)
3) Accept everything that you can see in the box
Researchers mostly do (2). You can choose to do (3), but I prefer to do (2) to understand more -
This is rich, you attack me first and then ask me not to go around "bad mouth insulting others"Originally posted by soul_rage:Did you read that I wrote "You are saying.." ?
If this is not understandable, time for you to go for English lessons. I did not quote you. If I quoted you, and put the word "ALL" in front, I will accept that as my error graciously.
How about you, are you gracious in admitting that you don't understand Science at all, but instead goes around with a bad mouth insulting others?
I don't know anything about science? Then answer these questions oh Brilliant one.. instead of "bad mouth insulting others"....
and so what is it that you proposed to replace the "NOT 100% foolproof science"?
If you cannot then what's the point of telling people that? (that it is not foolproof)
and try invalidating this:
Even though it is not "NOT 100% foolproof " you have to trust scientific findings instead of the delusions in your own head simply because it is better than the delusions in your head. -
Interesting, after what you said about Gazelle, your behavior is somewhat like him.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:This is rich, you attack me first and then ask me not to go around "bad mouth insulting others"
I don't know anything about science? Then answer these questions oh Brilliant one.. instead of "bad mouth insulting others"....
and so what is it that you proposed to replace the "NOT 100% foolproof science"?
If you cannot then what's the point of telling people that? (that it is not foolproof)
and try invalidating this:
Even though it is not "NOT 100% foolproof " you have to trust scientific findings instead of the delusions in your own head simply because it is better than the delusions in your head.
Calling others stupid (whether is it at me or others is irrelevant) is not insulting others?
For your questions, I have already replied in the previous posting, so I am puzzled why you keep harping on and on.
Or are you doing something Gazelle loves to do, diverting attention away from your mistakes, which you are not gracious enough to admit? -
some more questions for everyone to think about
Do you believe in Reiki or spiritual healing?
Do you believe in fengshui?
Do you believe in religion and of God, given that Science cannot prove God exists? -
You did not add the words ALL in those sentences? Liar (in that case, not that you are always lying)Originally posted by soul_rage:Did you read that I wrote "You are saying.." ?
If this is not understandable, time for you to go for English lessons. I did not quote you. If I quoted you, and put the word "ALL" in front, I will accept that as my error graciously.
How about you, are you gracious in admitting that you don't understand Science at all, but instead goes around with a bad mouth insulting others?