Dr. Itch's (idiotic) answers to Mathida's questions / boxing ring commentary
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-03-2014, 07:11 PM
RE: Drich's (idiotic) answers to Mathida's questions / boxing ring commentary
"Yes, new variables or a change in the conditions/parameters that define an absolute is reason to reexamine what is 'known." -- Drich

"Just because one questions an absolute does not mean it changes. In fact the oppsite is true. Absolutes become absolutes because they do not change in face of ever changing circumstances and variables. In essence the fact that we can question something without it changing proves that absolutes do indeed exist." -- Drich


Laugh out load
This guy's head is so far up his ass, he wouldn't recognize a contradiction if it bit him ON the ass.

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
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
20-03-2014, 07:31 PM
Drich's (idiotic) answers to Mathida's questions / boxing ring commentary
He spews them as logic, of course he doesn't recognize them!

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
21-03-2014, 03:32 AM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2014 03:57 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Drich's (idiotic) answers to Mathida's questions / boxing ring commentary
[Image: tumblr_n1x40zptM81rs31w8o1_1280.jpg]

[Image: tumblr_n0tdvzAhaZ1sehgt6o1_1280.jpg]

/drich

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
24-03-2014, 01:00 PM
RE: Drich's (idiotic) answers to Mathida's questions / boxing ring commentary
He just claimed his way of thinking is the scientific method...

[Image: 1zc5yq.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Elder Cunningham's post
24-03-2014, 01:15 PM
RE: Drich's (idiotic) answers to Mathida's questions / boxing ring commentary
He didn't even bother to read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry he linked:

"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2]"

[Image: 3z4j9k.jpg]

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
24-03-2014, 02:34 PM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2014 02:44 PM by rampant.a.i..)
RE: Drich's (idiotic) answers to Mathida's questions / boxing ring commentary
(24-03-2014 02:27 PM)Drich Wrote:  Formulation of a question: The question can refer to the explanation of a specific observation, as in:
Is there a God?

Hypothesis: An hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while formulating the question, that may explain the observed behavior of a part of our universe.

Or in this case what we personally can observe of God/Personal experience. In such an instance we can use the bible as a guide line to better define or even to falsify our experience.

Prediction: This step involves determining the logical consequences of the hypothesis.
Prediction in this case would be if one A/S/Ks as outline in Luke 11 one would find God. Subsequently if one goes about it his own way he won't find anything.

Testing: This is an investigation of whether the real world behaves as predicted by the hypothesis.
This Testing of God and the other absolutes we have been discussing for a week now.

Analysis: This involves determining what the results of the experiment show and deciding on the next actions to take. The predictions of the hypothesis are compared to those of the null hypothesis, to determine which is better able to explain the data. In cases where an experiment is repeated many times..

Which again is what you've identified as 'my method.' I have absolutly no issue with testing and retesting what i consider to be absolutes.

[Image: JblQP.gif]


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
   

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
24-03-2014, 02:36 PM
RE: Drich's (idiotic) answers to Mathida's questions / boxing ring commentary
OMFG!!!



(24-03-2014 07:18 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(24-03-2014 02:00 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Sorry, been distracted by the mafia game which required significantly more brain power than this thread.

For the sake of brevity let's call your method for deciding what to believe in, the Drich method. This method is to scrutinize new personal experiences and evidence and see how it fits into what you already know (post 139).

Is there a better method for determining truth?

-Or-
We could call this method of "deciding what to believe in" by it's formal name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

What was that about 'brain power again?'Consider


[Image: I+laughed+so+hard+_b839ba29af350cf7f1de5383e887e2b5.jpg]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2014, 02:40 PM
RE: Drich's (idiotic) answers to Mathida's questions / boxing ring commentary
(24-03-2014 01:00 PM)Elder Cunningham Wrote:  He just claimed his way of thinking is the scientific method...

[Image: 1zc5yq.gif]

[Image: CA230_1Trever.gif]


[Image: x_facepalm_motivational_by_ajtnz-d35wiy3.jpg]

[Image: thumb.jpg]

[Image: %D1%88%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%...85079.jpeg]

[Image: h989D03CC]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 10:44 AM
RE: Drich's (idiotic) answers to Mathida's questions / boxing ring commentary
While I was looking through my YouTube subscriptions and came across that great debunking of WLC's take on special relativity posted by ozmoroid, I also came across another that I thought seemed appropriate to the drivel Drich spews forth. Mainly that science can be a woo as you want, so long as you're not afraid to have it tested and falsified. As an example he explains the work of Paul Dirac. While he is a physicist, it is explained for an educated but layman audience and it is far more than just a dry info-dump, so enjoy!




[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2014, 05:24 AM
RE: Drich's (idiotic) answers to Mathida's questions / boxing ring commentary
"Appearently there are at least 6 fools who didn't."

Nope. 7, (+ the 26 who gave him his -26 status).

*Apparently* he still can't figure out how to use a fucking spell-checker.

Mathilda, I can't believe you put up with his bullshit this long. I was wondering why in hell you were doing it. But congrats. You did make him expose himself to be the dishonest, prevaricating, slippery, slimy idiot he is. He is sounding a bit "uncomfortable".

But not to worry Dr. Itch. "Things are dying down on TTA, and AF", (as you lied said), right ?

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: