Did Roger or Francis Bacon Really Discover The Scientific Method ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-12-2011, 04:34 PM
RE: Did Roger or Francis Bacon Really Discover The Scientific Method ?
(18-12-2011 04:26 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(18-12-2011 12:13 PM)AbdelZ Wrote:  You do seem to honor your nick beautifully , silly biased subjective dude or girl , do not know which for sure

Regardless of my gender, you're still a prick with no capacity for realizing that ad hominems don't diminish your arguments, they instantly invalidate them.

Here is a more considered argument for the case our resident mullah is pathetically failing to make. A Defense of Dualism But note that this, like every other argument for dualism to date is untenable.

"This concludes my brief defense of dualism. While I acknowledge that many find the 'hard problem' of causal interaction discredits dualism, I find it more difficult to discard dualism. Likewise, many reject dualism on the grounds that it is inconsistent with scientific materialism. Others may stretch the definition of materialism to include the properties traditionally subsumed under dualism. At the end of the day, however, I find dualism gives the most satisfying account of the phenomena of the mind."

At the end of the day, however, this is every bit as unreasonable as Descartes' appeal to a benevolent God.


Well, since you were so talented & a genius that you put it so elegantly charmingly, the following in short : regardless of your silly childish vulgarity :

islam's vision of matter & spirit or object & subject is as follows :

they are 2 different entities that are one at the same time : combines Descartes' dualism & Spinoza's monism which give you a totally different vision from the latters : a kindda "emergent property " of both = dualism in the christian & Eurocentric sense does not exist in islam , as far as i know
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2011, 04:46 PM
RE: Did Roger or Francis Bacon Really Discover The Scientific Method ?
(18-12-2011 04:34 PM)AbdelZ Wrote:  Well, since you were so talented & a genius that you put it so elegantly charmingly, the following in short : regardless of your silly childish vulgarity :

islam's vision of matter & spirit or object & subject is as follows :

they are 2 different entities that are one at the same time : combines Descartes' dualism & Spinoza's monism which give you a totally different vision from the latters : a kindda "emergent property " of both = dualism in the christian & Eurocentric sense does not exist in islam , as far as i know

Since an atheist rejects Islam, the argument is not convincing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2011, 05:30 PM
RE: Did Roger or Francis Bacon Really Discover The Scientific Method ?
(18-12-2011 04:34 PM)AbdelZ Wrote:  regardless of your silly childish vulgarity :

Nanny nanny boo boo. Stick your head in doo doo.

(18-12-2011 04:34 PM)AbdelZ Wrote:  islam's vision of matter & spirit or object & subject is as follows :
they are 2 different entities that are one at the same time

Kinda like the Holy Trinity, only missing a leg or some other appendage?

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2011, 11:56 PM
RE: Did Roger or Francis Bacon Really Discover The Scientific Method ?
Goddamn AbdelZ, did you read what I wrote in my last post? STOP with the insults please. Look, every now and then a "you're an idiot" is OK, but your every post is covered in "childish racist nazi delinquent" etc etc. I *wish* I was exaggerating. The original point of this thread is now totally lost and we're all essentially hanging upside down from a tree throwing turds at each other.

Here are some rules for happy posting in future:
1. Be nice to other people even if they're rude to you.
2. Don't whine about "he started it" or other such crap. What is this? A playground?
3. Short posts.
4. Don't take it personally if people disagree with you. If they make a point you can't answer, don't reply with insults, just say something like "haha, yeah you got me there, I guess I'll have to think about that".
5. Don't make silly excuses like "I'm here just to make you guys think, are you thinking atheists or what, I don't have time to do anything other than point you in the right direction". It's stupid and makes me want to slap you. You came here with an obvious agenda, got immediately called out on it, and finished with this absurd shambles.

You seem like an OK guy. Like I said, I could even like you. But you need to calm down. I suggest that you and I and everyone else forget about this thread as of now, since it's gone totally to shit, and start from scratch. Here's a suggestion, start a post-modernism thread. We'll all rip into you there and you can practice being polite Smile It's not that we dislike you or think you're an idiot - you *have* obviously read a lot of books. But if you submit an idea to the forum, you have to realise that people will want to criticise it. Post-modernism... it'd be really interesting to discuss that, with a true believer Wink 'Cos from my impression of it it's a load of crap. But you've read lots on it so you can maybe make a case for it. On that score, one more rule:
6. Don't say "read this entire bookshelf and then you'll understand". We're all busy guys, even the teenagers among us. We're not gonna read a bunch of books because you say so. If you yourself can't put the ideas across, at least the basics, then you yourself do not understand them. You can link to say, short blog posts or wikipedia or whatever, but *extract* the relevant information, just supply the link to prove that you're not making it up - this is the concept of references yes?

Regards, and best wishes for becoming a nicer guy to debate with Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2011, 12:21 PM
RE: Did Roger or Francis Bacon Really Discover The Scientific Method ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2011, 12:24 PM
RE: Did Roger or Francis Bacon Really Discover The Scientific Method ?
(19-12-2011 12:21 PM)AbdelZ Wrote:  values & facts are inseparable , there exist no value- free knowledge or value -free information : even the fact that the molecule of water consisting of oxygen & hydrogen is not free of value : serves some purpose

Please explain what values are contained in the fact that a water molecule consists of oxygen and hydrogen.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2011, 12:29 PM (This post was last modified: 19-12-2011 12:41 PM by AbdelZ.)
RE: Did Roger or Francis Bacon Really Discover The Scientific Method ?
(18-12-2011 11:56 PM)morondog Wrote:  Goddamn AbdelZ, did you read what I wrote in my last post? STOP with the insults please. Look, every now and then a "you're an idiot" is OK, but your every post is covered in "childish racist nazi delinquent" etc etc. I *wish* I was exaggerating. The original point of this thread is now totally lost and we're all essentially hanging upside down from a tree throwing turds at each other.

Here are some rules for happy posting in future:
1. Be nice to other people even if they're rude to you.
2. Don't whine about "he started it" or other such crap. What is this? A playground?
3. Short posts.
4. Don't take it personally if people disagree with you. If they make a point you can't answer, don't reply with insults, just say something like "haha, yeah you got me there, I guess I'll have to think about that".
5. Don't make silly excuses like "I'm here just to make you guys think, are you thinking atheists or what, I don't have time to do anything other than point you in the right direction". It's stupid and makes me want to slap you. You came here with an obvious agenda, got immediately called out on it, and finished with this absurd shambles.

You seem like an OK guy. Like I said, I could even like you. But you need to calm down. I suggest that you and I and everyone else forget about this thread as of now, since it's gone totally to shit, and start from scratch. Here's a suggestion, start a post-modernism thread. We'll all rip into you there and you can practice being polite Smile It's not that we dislike you or think you're an idiot - you *have* obviously read a lot of books. But if you submit an idea to the forum, you have to realise that people will want to criticise it. Post-modernism... it'd be really interesting to discuss that, with a true believer Wink 'Cos from my impression of it it's a load of crap. But you've read lots on it so you can maybe make a case for it. On that score, one more rule:
6. Don't say "read this entire bookshelf and then you'll understand". We're all busy guys, even the teenagers among us. We're not gonna read a bunch of books because you say so. If you yourself can't put the ideas across, at least the basics, then you yourself do not understand them. You can link to say, short blog posts or wikipedia or whatever, but *extract* the relevant information, just supply the link to prove that you're not making it up - this is the concept of references yes?

Regards, and best wishes for becoming a nicer guy to debate with Smile


haha

Well, u do have some elements of truth in there , i must admit , to some extent at least , but u cannot be objective because objectivity does not exist

Thanks anyway , appreciate

But , there is always a but haha , depends on the audience how i behave ; if the audience is decent i behave the same , otherwise ...haha

You sound like a decent guy ,yes , i could have some intelligent decent discussions
with indeed ; note that decent & intelligent can go together as facts & morality cannot be separated from each other like Sam Harris proved somehow : see my above mentioned stuff

islam adds to that : everything in life is connected including truth morality easthetics & the rest even though their natures are different

Take care , see ya
(19-12-2011 12:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-12-2011 12:21 PM)AbdelZ Wrote:  values & facts are inseparable , there exist no value- free knowledge or value -free information : even the fact that the molecule of water consisting of oxygen & hydrogen is not free of value : serves some purpose

Please explain what values are contained in the fact that a water molecule consists of oxygen and hydrogen.

Do not play the smart wise guy with me haha by trying to be ironic : that might hurt you when u watch Harris ' video haha like a boomerang that missed its target hitting u back in the face = i do not want u to get hurt that way haha :

but then again, no pain no gain , no guts no glory

That fact serves a purpose = the fact that water consists of oxygen & hydrogen serves a purpose =life consists mainly of water , & indeed especially of carbon ....= that's not a random thing = fact joins morality = inseparable like Harris said in the above mentioned video

Another example he gave : smoking causes lung cancer ( i am smoking while writing this , silly dummy me haha ) = that's a fact

so, it's not good to smoke = morality

science can thus serve as a morality guide too , not just as a provider of ...facts

I do add to that : science can be a source of easthetics too = facts joined with easthetics = facts morality easthetics & the rest are ...inseparable

science has beautiful-ugly, good-bad & true-untrue sides

See also how science cannot be separated from...morality ethics , among other things , in this following unique jewel book :

"Lifting the veil : the feminine face of science " By Linda Jane Shepherd
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes AbdelZ's post
19-12-2011, 01:14 PM
RE: Did Roger or Francis Bacon Really Discover The Scientific Method ?
(19-12-2011 12:29 PM)AbdelZ Wrote:  Do not play the smart wise guy with me haha by trying to be ironic : that might hurt you when u watch Harris ' video haha like a boomerang that missed its target hitting u back in the face = i do not want u to get hurt that way haha :
but then again, no pain no gain , no guts no glory

That fact serves a purpose = the fact that water consists of oxygen & hydrogen serves a purpose =life consists mainly of water , & indeed especially of carbon ....= that's not a random thing = fact joins morality = inseparable like Harris said in the above mentioned video
Whose purpose? Life emerges from the chemistry, there is no purpose to chemistry.
Quote:Another example he gave : smoking causes lung cancer ( i am smoking while writing this , silly dummy me haha ) = that's a fact

so, it's not good to smoke = morality

science can thus serve as a morality guide too , not just as a provider of ...facts

I do add to that : science can be a source of easthetics too = facts joined with easthetics = facts morality easthetics & the rest are ...inseparable

Wow, you completely and utterly misunderstood Sam Harris.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2011, 01:17 PM
RE: Did Roger or Francis Bacon Really Discover The Scientific Method ?
(19-12-2011 01:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-12-2011 12:29 PM)AbdelZ Wrote:  Do not play the smart wise guy with me haha by trying to be ironic : that might hurt you when u watch Harris ' video haha like a boomerang that missed its target hitting u back in the face = i do not want u to get hurt that way haha :
but then again, no pain no gain , no guts no glory

That fact serves a purpose = the fact that water consists of oxygen & hydrogen serves a purpose =life consists mainly of water , & indeed especially of carbon ....= that's not a random thing = fact joins morality = inseparable like Harris said in the above mentioned video
Whose purpose? Life emerges from the chemistry, there is no purpose to chemistry.
Quote:Another example he gave : smoking causes lung cancer ( i am smoking while writing this , silly dummy me haha ) = that's a fact

so, it's not good to smoke = morality

science can thus serve as a morality guide too , not just as a provider of ...facts

I do add to that : science can be a source of easthetics too = facts joined with easthetics = facts morality easthetics & the rest are ...inseparable

Wow, you completely and utterly misunderstood Sam Harris.


Chemistry has a purpose , everything has, no time for more , sorry , later then

Just this :

I did understand Harris : if u read my words when i presented his video , i just corrected him from the islamic perspective
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2011, 01:32 PM
RE: Did Roger or Francis Bacon Really Discover The Scientific Method ?
(19-12-2011 01:17 PM)AbdelZ Wrote:  
(19-12-2011 01:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-12-2011 12:29 PM)AbdelZ Wrote:  Do not play the smart wise guy with me haha by trying to be ironic : that might hurt you when u watch Harris ' video haha like a boomerang that missed its target hitting u back in the face = i do not want u to get hurt that way haha :
but then again, no pain no gain , no guts no glory

That fact serves a purpose = the fact that water consists of oxygen & hydrogen serves a purpose =life consists mainly of water , & indeed especially of carbon ....= that's not a random thing = fact joins morality = inseparable like Harris said in the above mentioned video
Whose purpose? Life emerges from the chemistry, there is no purpose to chemistry.
Quote:Another example he gave : smoking causes lung cancer ( i am smoking while writing this , silly dummy me haha ) = that's a fact

so, it's not good to smoke = morality

science can thus serve as a morality guide too , not just as a provider of ...facts

I do add to that : science can be a source of easthetics too = facts joined with easthetics = facts morality easthetics & the rest are ...inseparable

Wow, you completely and utterly misunderstood Sam Harris.


Chemistry has a purpose , everything has, no time for more , sorry , later then

Whose purpose?

Quote:Just this :

I did understand Harris : if u read my words when i presented his video , i just corrected him from the islamic perspective

Yes, I see I misread your comment on the Harris video.
However, you 'correct' him by saying more of the same things you've been saying. Science is methodology, not 'cultural narrative'.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: