Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-02-2016, 11:39 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
Quote:I have objected to the presupposition that the Objective Age of the Universe "is" 13.8 billion years old, not on the grounds that I am a theist but on the grounds that it is still an assumption and not an "is".
When I hear people preach to me of an "is" I am within my rights to question that "is". I do not fear ridicule for questioning, in the same way many of the world's most reknown scientist did not fear ridicule for questioning.
I do not make "is" claims because they are subject to ridicule when proven wrong & rightly so, since we do not posses omniscience & science facts are always changing.

  1. Its no presupposition (or simple "assumption") of Paleophyte (and the rest of the scientific community) that the universe is 13bio years old. Its the result of observations, creating of theories and peer reviewing them.
  2. Nobody preaches "is", at least not in the scientific community. Straw man fallacy. When a scientist talks about an "is", then its within the limits of the very scientific method he is using, and that means: " *is* until disproven".
  3. You do not get ridiculed for questioning. You get ridiculed for ignorance. In the case of your debate with Paleophyte, it is because you demonstrated a lack of knowledge of cosmology in general and relativity in particuclar.


In the last point lies one of the many problems with your epistemology:
As peebo already pointed out, you keep yourself in a constant state of "i know almost nothing", if you really follow your line of reasoning, particularly if you havent examined the evidence yourself or lack the ability to do so.
Second: What if -as it is the case in regard to the question of the age of the universe- you arent intellectually equipped to "experience the evidence yourself"? Will you say "i dont know", as you arent able to solve the problem yourself? "Others know better" doesnt seem to be an option in your epistemology. Your whole approach seems quite arrogant, and that confirms my first impressions. Although you actually dont seem to be a theist, you still suffer from at least one of the same basic misconceptions many theists have: "Although i lack the proper education, i hereby reject any claims of knowledge by others who are demonstrably smarter than i am". You are free to do so, but it makes you look stupid.

You seem to think you are a lot smarter than you actually are. Hence the comparison between a scientist questioning established theories and you questioning the billion year old age of the universe. The difference between such scientists and you is: They understand the very theories they question.

Now, before you try to reply something to the effect that i am in fact the arrogant one in here: I do know in what fields of knowlegde i have some expertise and where absolutely not. I wouldnt have engaged someone like Paleophyte in more than 2 pages of debate, before i would have begged him to provide me informative links to learn from.
I wouldnt even have challanged him in fact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
28-02-2016, 12:35 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2016 12:51 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 11:36 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(28-02-2016 11:26 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  There you go again jumping to conclusion without applying the process.
1. You have an ailment
2. You seek a cure
3. You may ask mom/google/friends/yourself/doctor/etc what are the best options (this is where personal experience starts)
4. You choose the best option based on your own decision making process

This is a true story:
Last week my son was playing with his mom's makeup and went to school with some on his face. The school sent him to the doctor, who gave him an injection for allergies thinking it was a rash. It could have been worst.

The point is you don't stop asking questions just because you got an answer from the most qualified source, but this does not mean that you wont act based upon the probability that said source has the best answer.

There is a distinct difference between asking questions and acting regardless of whether they have been answered.

You seem to think that asking mom what she thinks you should do even when in front of the doctor is cause for ridicule. You even seem to think that we shouldn't second guess the doctor's diagnosis.
I call it the scientific method & it stems from skepticism. It's proven to be quite useful from an evolutionary stand point.

No

No, I am not jumping to anything. I repeatedly state as to my uncertainty as to your position.

This bit;

"The point is you don't stop asking questions just because you got an answer from the most qualified source, but this does not mean that you wont act based upon the probability that said source has the best answer."

It answers NOTHING.

How do you come to the point of accepting the verified source?

You're always seeming to find more worms in the can that you keep digging into after you've opened it.

Okay.. lets make an actual statement/claim.

Would you agree that there are people who are the current pinnacle in the understanding of/in their field of expertise?

Yes or No? (If my wording/example is possibly obscure, please let me know.)

I have a niggling suspicion that EvolutionKills has a slight handle on your world view. Perchance that your seeking level of assureds is... skewed... Consider
Using mobile data now. I guess I could spend a few bucks on data as the topic has peaked my interest. Will have to stop when I'm at the beach, though. If only the wife knew why I'm making her drive she might be upset.

The point where I supposedly accepted said source came as a result of the information I have gotten so far. The point in time is only relevant to the current situation. Without knowing the details of the current situation I will be unable to tell you when the decision was made & which source was used.
You are seeking to imply that by my methodology I can only come to a decision after becoming an expert in the field I am seeking answers for.
That's where you jumped to conclusions.
I am stating that we do not need a definitive conclusion on the subject matter in order to make a decision. If/When the time comes (by necessity) for me to make a decision it will be the statistical probability of risk (limited by my own knowledge base) that determines the best option regardless of my own biased beliefs. It may not have been the best omniscient option available but atleast I gave it my best shot.
If given more than one possible solution at 12pm today and I am forced to make a decision out of necessity at 12:01 then I must go with the most statistically viable option. If the doctor was about to stick my son for a rash when my wife called and said it's just make up then obviously I'm going to stop him, because the probability is higher that my wife is right as she was privy to additional information that the doctor did not have. This in no way detracts from the doctors credentials, it only makes him human as are Hawkins, Dawkins, Einstein, etc. The doctor may have been limited in his equipment to properly examine the cause of the rash or he could have been burdened by too much work to give it enough attention. There are so many variables that has nothing to do with the doc's credentials which could make his decision wrong that I would be foolish to throw caution to the wind based on a PHD.
I do not seek Omiscience to make decisions, nor do I base my decisions solely on the credentials of those advising me.
It is a simple matter of considering all data, leaving the question eternally open to new answers & acting based on the information you have received thus far.
What you call ignorance is a state we are all in as we do not possess Omiscience.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 12:37 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2016 12:44 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
Repost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 12:51 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2016 01:19 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 09:11 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Personally experience the evidence myself:
If you tell me the earth is flat/round I will not believe it unless I do some tests of my own.
I do not act based on personal beliefs however.
Only the statiscal probability of the outcomes given the data provided at the current point in time.
This includes validity of source and other factors.
Eg. A theist believes praying to god will save them from ailment but they still go to the doctor for treatment.

I call bullshit. This is all BS and complete intellectual dishonesty.
(BTW, "statistical" is not spelled "statiscal".)

There is no conceivable way any (one) human can possibly live this way, in 2016.
If he needs to "do some tests" to accept something as simple as the general geometry of the Earth, how many really important things will he also not accept, before "doing some tests" ? Like, should he give his kids an antibiotic if they are septic or have an infection, or consent to a medical procedure without "doing some tests" ? He lives in some sort of intellectual fantasy-land.
Just as was commented when he first arrived, he obviously has never examined his assumptions and presuppositions.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 01:00 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2016 01:10 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 12:51 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-02-2016 09:11 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Personally experience the evidence myself:
If you tell me the earth is flat/round I will not believe it unless I do some tests of my own.
I do not act based on personal beliefs however.
Only the statiscal probability of the outcomes given the data provided at the current point in time.
This includes validity of source and other factors.
Eg. A theist believes praying to god will save them from ailment but they still go to the doctor for treatment.

I call bullshit. This is all BS and complete intellectual dishonesty.
(BTW, "statistical" is not spelled "statiscal".)

There is no conceivable way any (one) human can possibly live this way, in 2016.
If he need to "do some tests" to accept something as simple as the general geometry of the Earth, how many really important things will he also not accept, before "doing some tests" ? Like, should he give his kids an antibiotic if they are septic or have an infection, or consent to a medical procedure without "doing some tests" ? He lives in some sort of intellectual fantasy-land.
Just as was commented when he first arrived, he obviously has never examined his assumptions and presuppositions.
Hello Mr Troll. Still haven't withdrawn your comments about Plagerism after reading my scrap notes I see. You're no different than someone that goes through my trash to find some scrap notes and post it in an effort accuse me of plagiarism. The post clearly states "do not respond" and 2 posts after it was asked to be removed from the debate because I cannot edit it myself. It was even further understood by my opponent to not be used as the topic of debate or for any informational purposes whatsoever as it is plagued with typos and errors & still carries the statement "do not respond".
Leaving these comments about plagiarism in this post and the neg rep comments as well (even after it has been pointed out to not be the case) only further proves what a troll you are. Others trying to get me banned based on your lies is a new level of trolling that is unprecedented.
Here is some Plagerism you might be firmiliar with:
"Shoo Troll, go back under the bridge you came from"
Not even going to respond to your dishonest replies any more, there are others here that are actually worth having a decent conversation with.
You don't even know the meaning of the word test, except based on your own based opinions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 01:09 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 11:26 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  There you go again jumping to conclusion without applying the process.
1. You have an ailment
2. You seek a cure
3. You may ask mom/google/friends/yourself/doctor/etc what are the best options (this is where personal experience starts). This is the reality, it's not a chronological fact, nor is it planned, it could just as likely have happened randomly.
4. You choose the best option based on your own decision making process

This is a true story:
Last week my son was playing with his mom's makeup and went to school with some on his face. The school sent him to the doctor, who gave him an injection for allergies thinking it was a rash. It could have been worst.

The point is you don't stop asking questions just because you got an answer from the most qualified source, but this does not mean that you wont act based upon the probability that said source has the best answer.

There is a distinct difference between asking questions and acting regardless of whether they have been answered based on the probability of risk (given the knowledge acquired thus far)

You seem to think that asking mom what she thinks you should do even when in front of the doctor is cause for ridicule. You even seem to think that we shouldn't second guess the doctor's diagnosis.
I call it the scientific method & it stems from skepticism. It's proven to be quite useful from an evolutionary stand point.

Heading to the beach with the wife and kids... will continue when I get back.


Experiment time.


This is a true story:
Last week my son was playing with his mom's makeup and went to school with some on his face. The school sent him to the doctor, who gave him an injection for allergies thinking it was a rash. It could have been worst.



Okay, how much certainty should I put into your story? Well, it's certainly possible, but not something I'd consider probable. Then again, there's also the very real possibility, and indeed probability, that there is crucial information being omitted either intentionally or on purpose.


Was the expert in question really a doctor, someone with years and years of experience, training, and education? If they really were, how likely is it that they'd be fooled by something as simple as makeup? How probable is all of that against the possibility of the story being either misremembered or misrepresented? How should I gauge your personal and unverified anecdote against all of the other uncountable instances of people lying on the internet to support their point?


Either, all, or none are all possible; and I wouldn't be surprised by any or all of then, nor would I bet my life on any of them.


That being said, if you weren't so personally invested in telling this story to shore up points in an internet debate, I'd be a bit less skeptical. The burden would be lower, because you then wouldn't have the rather obvious 'conflict of interest' hanging like an albatross around the neck of your anecdote.


In short, I'm skeptical of your militant skepticism, and your personal anecdote. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 01:22 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 01:00 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(28-02-2016 12:51 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I call bullshit. This is all BS and complete intellectual dishonesty.
(BTW, "statistical" is not spelled "statiscal".)

There is no conceivable way any (one) human can possibly live this way, in 2016.
If he need to "do some tests" to accept something as simple as the general geometry of the Earth, how many really important things will he also not accept, before "doing some tests" ? Like, should he give his kids an antibiotic if they are septic or have an infection, or consent to a medical procedure without "doing some tests" ? He lives in some sort of intellectual fantasy-land.
Just as was commented when he first arrived, he obviously has never examined his assumptions and presuppositions.
Hello Mr Troll. Still haven't withdrawn your comments about Plagerism after reading my scrap notes I see. You're no different than someone that goes through my trash to find some scrap notes and post it in an effort accuse me of plagiarism. The post clearly states "do not respond" and 2 posts after it was asked to be removed from the debate because I cannot edit it myself. It was even further understood by my opponent to not be used as the topic of debate or for any informational purposes whatsoever as it is plagued with typos and errors & still carries the statement "do not respond".
Leaving these comments about plagiarism in this post and the neg rep comments as well (even after it has been pointed out to not be the case) only further proves what a troll you are. Others trying to get me banned based on your lies is a new level of trolling that is unprecedented.
Here is some Plagerism you might be firmiliar with:
"Shoo Troll, go back under the bridge you came from"
Not even going to respond to your dishonest replies any more, there are others here that are actually worth having a decent conversation with.
You don't even know the meaning of the word test, except based on your own based opinions.

Nice try. Liar. Fail.
You addressed NOT ONE of the points above.
Your intellectual DISHONESTY is, and has been from day 1, evident for all to see.

Some day, when you get above your negative rep, you can maybe think about calling others a "troll".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 01:22 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 01:09 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(28-02-2016 11:26 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  There you go again jumping to conclusion without applying the process.
1. You have an ailment
2. You seek a cure
3. You may ask mom/google/friends/yourself/doctor/etc what are the best options (this is where personal experience starts). This is the reality, it's not a chronological fact, nor is it planned, it could just as likely have happened randomly.
4. You choose the best option based on your own decision making process

This is a true story:
Last week my son was playing with his mom's makeup and went to school with some on his face. The school sent him to the doctor, who gave him an injection for allergies thinking it was a rash. It could have been worst.

The point is you don't stop asking questions just because you got an answer from the most qualified source, but this does not mean that you wont act based upon the probability that said source has the best answer.

There is a distinct difference between asking questions and acting regardless of whether they have been answered based on the probability of risk (given the knowledge acquired thus far)

You seem to think that asking mom what she thinks you should do even when in front of the doctor is cause for ridicule. You even seem to think that we shouldn't second guess the doctor's diagnosis.
I call it the scientific method & it stems from skepticism. It's proven to be quite useful from an evolutionary stand point.

Heading to the beach with the wife and kids... will continue when I get back.


Experiment time.


This is a true story:
Last week my son was playing with his mom's makeup and went to school with some on his face. The school sent him to the doctor, who gave him an injection for allergies thinking it was a rash. It could have been worst.



Okay, how much certainty should I put into your story? Well, it's certainly possible, but not something I'd consider probable. Then again, there's also the very real possibility, and indeed probability, that there is crucial information being omitted either intentionally or on purpose.


Was the expert in question really a doctor, someone with years and years of experience, training, and education? If they really were, how likely is it that they'd be fooled by something as simple as makeup? How probable is all of that against the possibility of the story being either misremembered or misrepresented? How should I gauge your personal and unverified anecdote against all of the other uncountable instances of people lying on the internet to support their point?


Either, all, or none are all possible; and I wouldn't be surprised by any or all of then, nor would I bet my life on any of them.


That being said, if you weren't so personally invested in telling this story to shore up points in an internet debate, I'd be a bit less skeptical. The burden would be lower, because you then wouldn't have the rather obvious 'conflict of interest' hanging like an albatross around the neck of your anecdote.


In short, I'm skeptical of your militant skepticism, and your personal anecdote. Drinking Beverage
I assure you the story is true.
But even if it wasn't the truth why would you insinuate someone's dishonesty based on your own personal experience rather than reputation of the individual? Would you accuse Obama of being dishonest if he said he found monkeys in your back yard?

Any story would do but a true one requires no imagination to prove & would be much easier to use as reference to the topic.
What would you prefer no personal anecdotes & no references that would help the audience better conceptualize the points being raised?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 01:31 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 01:22 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(28-02-2016 01:09 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Experiment time.


This is a true story:
Last week my son was playing with his mom's makeup and went to school with some on his face. The school sent him to the doctor, who gave him an injection for allergies thinking it was a rash. It could have been worst.



Okay, how much certainty should I put into your story? Well, it's certainly possible, but not something I'd consider probable. Then again, there's also the very real possibility, and indeed probability, that there is crucial information being omitted either intentionally or on purpose.


Was the expert in question really a doctor, someone with years and years of experience, training, and education? If they really were, how likely is it that they'd be fooled by something as simple as makeup? How probable is all of that against the possibility of the story being either misremembered or misrepresented? How should I gauge your personal and unverified anecdote against all of the other uncountable instances of people lying on the internet to support their point?


Either, all, or none are all possible; and I wouldn't be surprised by any or all of then, nor would I bet my life on any of them.


That being said, if you weren't so personally invested in telling this story to shore up points in an internet debate, I'd be a bit less skeptical. The burden would be lower, because you then wouldn't have the rather obvious 'conflict of interest' hanging like an albatross around the neck of your anecdote.


In short, I'm skeptical of your militant skepticism, and your personal anecdote. Drinking Beverage
I assure you the story is true.
But even if it wasn't the truth why would you insinuate someone's dishonesty based on your own personal experience rather than reputation of the individual? Would you accuse Obama of being dishonest if he said he found monkeys in your back yard?

Any story would do but a true one requires no imagination to prove & would be much easier to use as reference to the topic.
What would you prefer no personal anecdotes & no references that would help the audience better conceptualize the points being raised?

Your "reputation" is not exactly *sterling* dude.
Sorry to burst your little fantasy-land bubble.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 01:32 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 01:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-02-2016 01:00 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Hello Mr Troll. Still haven't withdrawn your comments about Plagerism after reading my scrap notes I see. You're no different than someone that goes through my trash to find some scrap notes and post it in an effort accuse me of plagiarism. The post clearly states "do not respond" and 2 posts after it was asked to be removed from the debate because I cannot edit it myself. It was even further understood by my opponent to not be used as the topic of debate or for any informational purposes whatsoever as it is plagued with typos and errors & still carries the statement "do not respond".
Leaving these comments about plagiarism in this post and the neg rep comments as well (even after it has been pointed out to not be the case) only further proves what a troll you are. Others trying to get me banned based on your lies is a new level of trolling that is unprecedented.
Here is some Plagerism you might be firmiliar with:
"Shoo Troll, go back under the bridge you came from"
Not even going to respond to your dishonest replies any more, there are others here that are actually worth having a decent conversation with.
You don't even know the meaning of the word test, except based on your own based opinions.

Nice try. Liar. Fail.
You addressed NOT ONE of the points above.
Your intellectual DISHONESTY is, and has been from day 1, evident for all to see.

Some day, when you get above your negative rep, you can maybe think about calling others a "troll".
Remove plagerism comments Troll, they are baseless and everyone here knows that. It was debunked and you fail to respond to the debunking. You think your pos rep on these forums gives you the right to dishonestly call others trolls whilst negative rep removes that right? Try being honest for a change instead of slandering people resulting in baseless calls for the user to be banned. I am glad the moderators of these forums don't share your blatant dishonesty & respect the points of views of others.
Self proclaimed grammar police & Forum Troll Bucky Ball.
Shoo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: