Poll: What's the biggest problem facing the United States today?
Religion
Lack of Education
Reliance on Figureheads instead of critical thinking
Apathy
[Show Results]
 
What the hell is wrong with the United States?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-07-2014, 12:58 PM
RE: What the hell is wrong with the United States?
(27-07-2014 12:55 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Crime, poverty and wars haven't been eradicated yet. If you consider public school education valid, then you are not applying standards of science to any kind of education. Science works and it has worked perfectly fine with many deadly infection diseases and technical problems. But what is done with crime, wars and poverty (law, politics and economy) is completely unscientific. Life gets better, but only as a side effect of better natural sciences. The humanities could give similar benefits as natural sciences, because humans are reality processing machines. But what is really done is not science, it's culture.
And I think even scientists do culture instead of science when it comes to humanities. They have this huge blind spot, 100 % testing at physics, 0 % testing at society.

That's an awful lot of endorsing science from a man who insists on the existence of a vast monolithic scientific conspiracy against his personal woo.

Consider

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2014, 01:03 PM
RE: What the hell is wrong with the United States?
(27-07-2014 12:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-07-2014 12:55 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Crime, poverty and wars haven't been eradicated yet. If you consider public school education valid, then you are not applying standards of science to any kind of education. Science works and it has worked perfectly fine with many deadly infection diseases and technical problems. But what is done with crime, wars and poverty (law, politics and economy) is completely unscientific. Life gets better, but only as a side effect of better natural sciences. The humanities could give similar benefits as natural sciences, because humans are reality processing machines. But what is really done is not science, it's culture.
And I think even scientists do culture instead of science when it comes to humanities. They have this huge blind spot, 100 % testing at physics, 0 % testing at society.

That's an awful lot of endorsing science from a man who insists on the existence of a vast monolithic scientific conspiracy against his personal woo.

Consider

Well you know, science is great until it shows him wrong then it is an evil monolithic conspiracy by space reptiles bent on ruling the world.

[Image: BisonOfCourse.jpg]

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
27-07-2014, 01:31 PM (This post was last modified: 27-07-2014 02:42 PM by Luminon.)
RE: What the hell is wrong with the United States?
The two assholes are lying. If it was as they say, I'd be down there with young Earth creationists and sun-gazing crystal healing homeopathy users.
I accept everything that science positively says.
I endorse science, I just understand things like theory of paradigms and politics, which have to do with philosophy, not with science.
Science does not prove me wrong, it just lacks information on some of the things I say.

Easy test: which scientific fact did I ever disagree with? Evolution, Big Bang, abiogenesis, theory of relativity?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2014, 02:42 PM
RE: What the hell is wrong with the United States?
(27-07-2014 01:31 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The two assholes are lying. If it was as they say, I'd be down there with young Earth creationists and sun-gazing crystal healing homeopathy users.
I accept everything that science positively says.
I endorse science, I just understand things like theory of paradigms and politics, which have to do with philosophy, not with science.
Science does not prove me wrong, it just lacks information on some of the things I say.

Science can't prove you wrong, because you're too incoherent to make definite testable predictions.

Now you're pulling a no true scotsman on all scientists. Do you understand this? You are saying that you agree with "science" only when it agrees with you, which allows you to freely dismiss as "lol conspiracy" anything you don't personally like.

Incidentally, who are these two assholes you refer to, and what are they lying about?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
27-07-2014, 02:47 PM (This post was last modified: 27-07-2014 03:08 PM by cjlr.)
RE: What the hell is wrong with the United States?
(27-07-2014 01:31 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Easy test: which scientific fact did I ever disagree with? Evolution, Big Bang, abiogenesis, theory of relativity?

The part where you don't have magic powers?

The part where you shit on every institution of modern science? Repeatedly? Here's another winner. Don't forget this gem! Oh, or this.
(man, trawling the archives like this is kinda fun - for extra fun, you can check the post dates and watch my patience slowly erode)

You've explicitly mentioned the Michelson-Morley experiments among others as being wrong.

oh, and hey, remember that time you said astrology was real?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
27-07-2014, 04:46 PM (This post was last modified: 27-07-2014 04:51 PM by Luminon.)
RE: What the hell is wrong with the United States?
(27-07-2014 02:47 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The part where you don't have magic powers?
I don't remember claiming I have magic powers. I'm just feeling weird. Really very weird, in a way described in some Hindu books and some more modern ones. But maybe it's an anomalous sensitivity to something that occurs naturally below the threshold of consciousness. Seth Andrews's fire in the belly, for example.

(27-07-2014 02:47 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The part where you shit on every institution of modern science? Repeatedly? Here's another winner. Don't forget this gem! Oh, or this.
(man, trawling the archives like this is kinda fun - for extra fun, you can check the post dates and watch my patience slowly erode)
I do not have respect to institutions, especially not institutions funded by money extracted from people by these guys. In a way, institutions don't exist, only people, so there is nothing to respect anyway, it's a make-believe like nationalism or blood is thicker than water.
Read the book of Thomas Kuhn on scientific revolutions. Sometimes people in important places just have to die from old age, so that new ideas get heard. It reminds me of Clarke's first law, when a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

(27-07-2014 02:47 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You've explicitly mentioned the Michelson-Morley experiments among others as being wrong.
Yes, the beam of light got phase-locked with the mirrors and it disagreed with earlier Sagnac and later Silvertooth experiment. Not my idea, you see. But I like to gather evidence to support the idea that the space is not empty and cold, maybe it is more high-powered and energy-packed than Earth surface itself.

(27-07-2014 02:47 PM)cjlr Wrote:  oh, and hey, remember that time you said astrology was real?
No. I think I might have said astrology can be real - only nobody knows what astrology actually is and what is the supposed mechanism, so it is impossible to make testable predictions.
What I have said more recently was how each planet has a magnetic field which leaves a great wake in the solar wind. With planet Jupiter this field is so large, that from Earth it would look about a size of the full moon. Therefore, in testing astrology scientists should focus on these solar wind effects (fluctuations from planetary wakes?) on human organism and planetary geomagnetic field and interaction between these two. From what I saw all my life, skeptics have considered only gravitational influence of the planets, which is negligible and they have rejected astrology on this basis. I called that a sloppy work. Another sloppy work is "testing" astrology on statistical life events, which means a boombazillion of factors and interpretations - but astrologers themselves are guilty of going along with such experiments. I called dowsing skepticism sloppy for the same reasons, sloppy scientists and sloppy proponents equals bad experiments. Skeptics can't design good experiments if all they wish is that all these weird people would stop being weird and go home.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2014, 05:21 PM (This post was last modified: 27-07-2014 05:35 PM by cjlr.)
RE: What the hell is wrong with the United States?
(27-07-2014 04:46 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-07-2014 02:47 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The part where you don't have magic powers?
I don't remember claiming I have magic powers.

You said you could remotely manipulate electricity.

More to the point, you are incapable of applying skepticism to your own perception, and remain convinced that your subjective personal experience must represent something external to yourself.

(27-07-2014 04:46 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I do not have respect to institutions, especially not institutions funded by money extracted from people by these guys. In a way, institutions don't exist, only people, so there is nothing to respect anyway, it's a make-believe like nationalism or blood is thicker than water.
Read the book of Thomas Kuhn on scientific revolutions. Sometimes people in important places just have to die from old age, so that new ideas get heard. It reminds me of Clarke's first law, when a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

"lol conspiracy" is not an answer. It's an astonishingly lazy cop-out. There are many people who are endlessly willing to investigate extraordinary claims. Nothing has ever been demonstrated. Period. End of story. Think you can do better? Put up or shut up.

(27-07-2014 04:46 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-07-2014 02:47 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You've explicitly mentioned the Michelson-Morley experiments among others as being wrong.
Yes, the beam of light got phase-locked with the mirrors and it disagreed with earlier Sagnac and later Silvertooth experiment. Not my idea, you see. But I like to gather evidence to support the idea that the space is not empty and cold, maybe it is more high-powered and energy-packed than Earth surface itself.

And you are wrong. Ether does not exist. The speed of light is invariant.

Nothing credible - ever - has been reliably shown to the contrary. Your nonsense link is nonsense, and there's a reason it's not in a competent peer-reviewed context. To which you will undoubtedly squawk "lol conspiracy", because holy shit, do you ever love to double down on failure.

(27-07-2014 04:46 PM)Luminon Wrote:  No. I think I might have said astrology can be real - only nobody knows what astrology actually is and what is the supposed mechanism, so it is impossible to make testable predictions.

Oh, perfect. "We don't know what we don't know, therefore I DO trolololololol".

Nope. Thanks for playing.

(27-07-2014 04:46 PM)Luminon Wrote:  What I have said more recently was how each planet has a magnetic field which leaves a great wake in the solar wind. With planet Jupiter this field is so large, that from Earth it would look about a size of the full moon. Therefore, in testing astrology scientists should focus on these solar wind effects (fluctuations from planetary wakes?) on human organism and planetary geomagnetic field and interaction between these two. From what I saw all my life, skeptics have considered only gravitational influence of the planets, which is negligible and they have rejected astrology on this basis. I called that a sloppy work. Another sloppy work is "testing" astrology on statistical life events, which means a boombazillion of factors and interpretations - but astrologers themselves are guilty of going along with such experiments. I called dowsing skepticism sloppy for the same reasons, sloppy scientists and sloppy proponents equals bad experiments. Skeptics can't design good experiments if all they wish is that all these weird people would stop being weird and go home.

Um, no. Astrology is (incoherent, contradictory) horseshit. Every testable prediction has failed. And if you can't formulate a testable prediction of your own, you can't even begin to pretend you know what you're talking about.

Do you know what statistical significance is? Within the Earth's magnetic field all other influences are statistically insignificant. Fact. The only people ever to leave the Earth's magnetic field zone of influence are the Apollo astronauts.

Protip: dowsing is also not real. Homeopathy is not real. Ancient aliens are not real. Acupuncture is not real. Telepathy is not real. Your own personal pet woo-tastic trollercoaster? Not real. Disagree? Fucking prove it. In a controlled manner before competent judges. Can't do that? Shut up.

You can go ahead and take "lol conspiracy" as your justification to privilege your subjective feels above all consistent verifiable external evidence. That's your prerogative. It's everyone else's prerogative to laugh you out of the room if you think that's remotely close to sufficient.

And finally, so long as you refuse to explore your own fallibility you are implicitly rejecting the scientific method in its entirety. Lip service notwithstanding.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
28-07-2014, 06:37 AM (This post was last modified: 28-07-2014 06:58 AM by Luminon.)
RE: What the hell is wrong with the United States?
(27-07-2014 05:21 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You said you could remotely manipulate electricity.
Facepalm Nope, I didn't say that. Our body has electric properties, naturally. By controlling our body we control its electric properties. I'm just more aware of it.
The rest of your post is just as precise.

(27-07-2014 05:21 PM)cjlr Wrote:  More to the point, you are incapable of applying skepticism to your own perception, and remain convinced that your subjective personal experience must represent something external to yourself.
You do not know how to apply skepticism to one's own perception, because that is a philosophical problem. All you know is using controls with external phenomena, external observers and external instruments. What you mean is simply an arbitrary denial of one's own perception except when reading instruments.

(27-07-2014 05:21 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It's an astonishingly lazy cop-out. There are many people who are endlessly willing to investigate extraordinary claims. Nothing has ever been demonstrated. Period. End of story. Think you can do better? Put up or shut up.
You are a denialist of philosophy and social sciences, that is astonishingly lazy, if it wasn't a standard in academia.
Science always has anomalies and yet little happens. For example, I have no noticeable experience with homeopathy, but this is weird. There is an anomaly that supports homeopathy. Would Madeleine Ennis from Belfast University receive a million dollars if she repeated the homeopathic histamine effect?

(27-07-2014 05:21 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And you are wrong. Ether does not exist. The speed of light is invariant.
There are other theories than luminoferous ether. Maybe if the MM experiment was done right, everyone would know that the ether is the same thing as dark matter.

(27-07-2014 05:21 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Nothing credible - ever - has been reliably shown to the contrary. Your nonsense link is nonsense, and there's a reason it's not in a competent peer-reviewed context. To which you will undoubtedly squawk "lol conspiracy", because holy shit, do you ever love to double down on failure.
Peer review is a sacred cow of lazy, disinterested people from academia, let's throw money at authorities and let them tell us what to think. And it's open to fraud.

(27-07-2014 05:21 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Do you know what statistical significance is? Within the Earth's magnetic field all other influences are statistically insignificant. Fact. The only people ever to leave the Earth's magnetic field zone of influence are the Apollo astronauts.
Earth doesn't shield us as much as it transforms. Its field fluctuates depending on what's impacting it from the outside. There's also a lot of electric traffic going from the ground to atmospheres through storms and sprites.
There's some research on how it affects human behavior, for example wars. But that's just solar activity, the most obvious factor.
According to Itzak Bentov, people in meditation increase their bodily electric activity and can be more strongly affected by these influences. I can only say, it certainly feels like that.

But why the fuck do I tell that to you? You are not interested possibilities, only in "yay" or "nay" from the Nature journal. And you claim the right of "nay" for yourself, you do not know what skepticism means. Skepticism is not nihilism, it's awareness of a possibility without yay or nay. There used to be "radical skeptics" around the time of old Athens, who fallaciously claimed that knowledge is impossible, only this middle position is possible. They were disproven by empirical and rational method. But still, I'm a greater skeptic than you. You are not a skeptic, but a nihilist who accepts argument from authority by journals.

(27-07-2014 05:21 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Protip: dowsing is also not real. Homeopathy is not real. Ancient aliens are not real. Acupuncture is not real. Telepathy is not real. Your own personal pet woo-tastic trollercoaster? Not real. Disagree? Fucking prove it. In a controlled manner before competent judges. Can't do that? Shut up.
You are contradicting yourself. If things are not real before their discovery, how can they be discovered at all? Consider That's why I say you are a nihilist. Real things exist regardless of being proven or not. And unreal things can not be proven, ever, so it makes no sense to ask me to prove them. Read a book on philosophy.

(27-07-2014 05:21 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You can go ahead and take "lol conspiracy" as your justification to privilege your subjective feels above all consistent verifiable external evidence. That's your prerogative. It's everyone else's prerogative to laugh you out of the room if you think that's remotely close to sufficient.

And finally, so long as you refuse to explore your own fallibility you are implicitly rejecting the scientific method in its entirety. Lip service notwithstanding.
I can not explore my own fallibility any more than you can do your own appendix surgery. I must not, in fact doubt my perception if it's consistent, there are no philosophical grounds for it.

Sufficiency is not my priority. When I lack evidence, which is often, I deal in possibilities. What is wrong about talking of possibilities? It begins with observation and inspiration. Yes, talking of possibilities can look like I am trying to get people to accept things as a finished fact, but nope, I am only trying to get people accept a possibility.
Fictitious things are not possible, because they are impossible to define. A well-defined possibility is as good as a hypothesis ready for testing.
But for you possibilities are impossible, because "unproven things are not real". That is a crazy-making thing, because you're still dependent on other people's hypotheses, and so you need authority to start testing. New ideas aren't brought in by storks, you know. Laboratory technicians do not have a monopoly on thinking.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2014, 08:29 AM
RE: What the hell is wrong with the United States?
(28-07-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-07-2014 05:21 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You said you could remotely manipulate electricity.
Facepalm Nope, I didn't say that. Our body has electric properties, naturally. By controlling our body we control its electric properties. I'm just more aware of it.
The rest of your post is just as precise.

That's because you don't understand electromagnetism, and thus don't understand the direct implications of what you're saying.

You say you have not just awareness but control over these incredibly vague and ill-defined "properties". That necessitates an observable - therefore testable - phenomenon.

(28-07-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-07-2014 05:21 PM)cjlr Wrote:  More to the point, you are incapable of applying skepticism to your own perception, and remain convinced that your subjective personal experience must represent something external to yourself.
You do not know how to apply skepticism to one's own perception, because that is a philosophical problem. All you know is using controls with external phenomena, external observers and external instruments. What you mean is simply an arbitrary denial of one's own perception except when reading instruments.

Oh, look, a facetious red herring. Actually, bud, "NO U" is not a cogent response.

You remain incapable of considering any falsifiability for your pet woo. Fact. End of line.

Protip: feels are not evidence. Perception is not evidence - or else fairies, aliens, ghosts, angels, mermaids, giants, and Elvis are all living amongst us right now.
(but, serious question: do you even admit of the possibility that perception is flawed? you blather on about possibility quite extensively, as this post goes on)

(28-07-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-07-2014 05:21 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It's an astonishingly lazy cop-out. There are many people who are endlessly willing to investigate extraordinary claims. Nothing has ever been demonstrated. Period. End of story. Think you can do better? Put up or shut up.
You are a denialist of philosophy and social sciences, that is astonishingly lazy, if it wasn't a standard in academia.
Science always has anomalies and yet little happens. For example, I have no noticeable experience with homeopathy, but this is weird. There is an anomaly that supports homeopathy. Would Madeleine Ennis from Belfast University receive a million dollars if she repeated the homeopathic histamine effect?

Any idiot with an internet connection can find an anomaly-hunting contrarian. This is you.

You don't even understand the woo properly. The latter paper (which has seven authors, so I'm not sure why you privilege Ennis, unless of course your copypasta did so first) has nothing to do with homeopathy. It does, however, dismantle your pathetic "lol conspiracy" response, seeing as that is in fact a published article in a peer-reviewed journal.
(so, I guess dat eeeeeevil peer-review is only bad when you think it's against you?)

Your choices for why nobody recognises this horseshit are either A), it is in fact horseshit, or B), lol conspiracy. And as we shall see...

(28-07-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-07-2014 05:21 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And you are wrong. Ether does not exist. The speed of light is invariant.
There are other theories than luminoferous ether. Maybe if the MM experiment was done right, everyone would know that the ether is the same thing as dark matter.

This is simply more evidence that you've fanatically latched onto some buzzwords (cf Michelson and Morley; dark matter) and blithely charge forward without actually understanding what you're talking about.

There are literally hundreds of subsequent confirmations of the findings of Michelson and Morley, who, buy the way, worked over a century ago. There is no ether. Fact. Stuffing your disingenuous ears and crowing to the contrary does not change reality.

Ether is defined as interacting electromagnetically. Dark matter is defined as not interacting electromagnetically. You cannot reconcile these two statements. I despair of your ever understanding them. Dark matter does not interact electromagnetically. I have told you this dozens of times. You refuse to understand it. It's a problem. Dark matter does not interact electromagnetically. Therefore it does not interact with light. Therefore it does not affect the propagation of light. Therefore it bears no resemblance whatsoever to any proposed ether.

Repeat after me:
Dark matter does not interact electromagnetically.
Dark matter does not interact electromagnetically.
Dark matter does not interact electromagnetically.
Dark matter does not interact electromagnetically.
Dark matter does not interact electromagnetically.
Dark matter does not interact electromagnetically.
Dark matter does not interact electromagnetically.
Dark matter does not interact electromagnetically.

Got that?

(28-07-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-07-2014 05:21 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Nothing credible - ever - has been reliably shown to the contrary. Your nonsense link is nonsense, and there's a reason it's not in a competent peer-reviewed context. To which you will undoubtedly squawk "lol conspiracy", because holy shit, do you ever love to double down on failure.
Peer review is a sacred cow of lazy, disinterested people from academia, let's throw money at authorities and let them tell us what to think. And it's open to fraud.

Yup. "lol conspiracy". Embrace that woo!

No shit it's flawed. It's a human process. Nobody ever said otherwise. It remains the only reliable method for discerning truth. Too bad for the likes of you.

If something is valid and coherent it will convince people. Sure; maybe this will take time. Sure; people sometimes don't like being wrong. Sure; editorial boards are not impartial constructs. So what?

Nothing credible - ever - has been shown by woo practitioners. Under any circumstances. At any time. In any place.

(28-07-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-07-2014 05:21 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Do you know what statistical significance is? Within the Earth's magnetic field all other influences are statistically insignificant. Fact. The only people ever to leave the Earth's magnetic field zone of influence are the Apollo astronauts.
Earth doesn't shield us as much as it transforms.

False. You don't understand what you're talking about.

Which wouldn't be a problem in and of itself, but you also refuse to educate yourself.

(28-07-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Its field fluctuates depending on what's impacting it from the outside.

Trivially true.

(28-07-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  There's also a lot of electric traffic going from the ground to atmospheres through storms and sprites.

Lower-atmosphere electric activity is a completely different phenomenon. You don't understand what you're talking about.
(WTF is a sprite?)

(28-07-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  There's some research on how it affects human behavior, for example wars. But that's just solar activity, the most obvious factor.
According to Itzak Bentov, people in meditation increase their bodily electric activity and can be more strongly affected by these influences. I can only say, it certainly feels like that.

Those are not credible sources. We both know you don't have any credible sources (say it with me kids: "lol conspiracy"!).

Your feels are not evidence. Of anything. You completely refuse to admit this. You completely fail to acknowledge your own fallibility. You therefore completely fail to treat your own experiences scientifically. Whoops!

(28-07-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  But why the fuck do I tell that to you? You are not interested possibilities, only in "yay" or "nay" from the Nature journal.

No, I'm interested in demonstrable, coherent statements. You've never provided a single one.

(28-07-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  And you claim the right of "nay" for yourself, you do not know what skepticism means. Skepticism is not nihilism, it's awareness of a possibility without yay or nay. There used to be "radical skeptics" around the time of old Athens, who fallaciously claimed that knowledge is impossible, only this middle position is possible. They were disproven by empirical and rational method. But still, I'm a greater skeptic than you. You are not a skeptic, but a nihilist who accepts argument from authority by journals.

Oh, sweet noodly appendage. Was there ever a True Believer™ born who didn't get pissy because skeptics didn't believe them?

No, champ, there's an important additional step. One begins without knowledge and judgement. True skepticism consists of applying judgement as well. Claims are investigated. When those claims are found wanting - as all of your incoherent untestable bull honkey invariably is - they are rejected. That is skepticism.

Learn some.

(28-07-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-07-2014 05:21 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Protip: dowsing is also not real. Homeopathy is not real. Ancient aliens are not real. Acupuncture is not real. Telepathy is not real. Your own personal pet woo-tastic trollercoaster? Not real. Disagree? Fucking prove it. In a controlled manner before competent judges. Can't do that? Shut up.
You are contradicting yourself. If things are not real before their discovery, how can they be discovered at all? Consider

I am not contradicting myself. You are manufacturing a pathetic straw man. They are not real, because they have been repeatedly tested and found wanting. That's how reality works. I get that you're not keen on it, but that's your problem, not mine.

(28-07-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  That's why I say you are a nihilist. Real things exist regardless of being proven or not. And unreal things can not be proven, ever, so it makes no sense to ask me to prove them. Read a book on philosophy.

The lack of self-awareness in this passage is so keen it hurts.

Unreal things can not be proven, ever. According to you. Just now. Well; it may interested you to know that the list of unreal things includes, but is not limited to, dowsing, homeopathy, ancient aliens, acupuncture, telepathy, and your own personal woo-tastic trollercoaster.

Here's a question for you: how do you know what's real or unreal?

The answer the rest of the world has worked out slowly and painfully over the millennia is called the scientific method. We test claims, and accept those which stand and reject those which fail. We call the former real and the latter unreal.

Protip: personal subjective feels is not an acceptable answer.

(28-07-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I can not explore my own fallibility any more than you can do your own appendix surgery.

Oh look, a disingenuous false analogy.
(fun fact: auto-appendectomy actually occurred)

(28-07-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I must not, in fact doubt my perception if it's consistent, there are no philosophical grounds for it.

Well; that's as near as it gets to a straight-up admission that you completely reject the tenets of the scientific method. You can mix and match the buzzwords; you can adopt some window dressing, but fundamentally, you do not understand science, and you do not wish to.

Your personal subjective feels are not privileged. Deal with it.

Most hallucinations are also consistent. Consistency is not validity; you've made that fallacy elsewhere. Read a book.

(28-07-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Sufficiency is not my priority. When I lack evidence, which is often, I deal in possibilities. What is wrong about talking of possibilities? It begins with observation and inspiration. Yes, talking of possibilities can look like I am trying to get people to accept things as a finished fact, but nope, I am only trying to get people accept a possibility.

Nothing is wrong with possibility. That's where all investigation starts. That's perfectly valid.

If you are presenting possibilities with an open mind, you must accept that what you present may turn out false. This is something you never actually do. You do not simultaneously get to demand investigation into something and refuse to accept the results of that investigation when it's null. That's unfalsifiable self-delusion.

(28-07-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Fictitious things are not possible, because they are impossible to define.

Which would neatly explain why you remain utterly incapable of formulating a coherent testable claim.

So there's that.

(28-07-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  A well-defined possibility is as good as a hypothesis ready for testing.
But for you possibilities are impossible, because "unproven things are not real".

Aaaand there you go failing at straw-manning again.

If things are investigated and not found, the provisional conclusion is that they don't exist. No matter how much you feel like it.

No one can prove an absolute negative. No one needs to. If every testable claim put forward is tested and it fails (cf the track records of dowsing, homeopathy, ancient aliens, acupuncture, telepathy, and your own personal woo-tastic trollercoaster) then it is not sane to deny those results and reiterate the exact same claims.

(28-07-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  That is a crazy-making thing, because you're still dependent on other people's hypotheses, and so you need authority to start testing. New ideas aren't brought in by storks, you know. Laboratory technicians do not have a monopoly on thinking.

I despair of your understanding a single point I've made in this post.

You like to wear the cloak of scientific rhetoric, but your attitude utterly denies any acceptance of its true precepts.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
28-07-2014, 04:36 PM
RE: What the hell is wrong with the United States?
(28-07-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-07-2014 05:21 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You said you could remotely manipulate electricity.

Facepalm Nope, I didn't say that. Our body has electric properties, naturally. By controlling our body we control its electric properties. I'm just more aware of it.
The rest of your post is just as precise.

Hold on; what exactly do you mean by 'properties'?
Do you mean to refer to the electrical charge within our fleshy meat-sacks?

If that's the case, how on Earth do you mean to control that? If I recall correctly, the charge of the individual cells is generated by the sodium-potassium pump; how on Earth do you figure to control that and keep the cells functioning?

The other electrical component is the electrochemical energy of our nervous impulses; those are easy enough to control with implants or other devices, but why would you want to alter that? You'd probably send yourself or your test subjects into all manner of seizure, spasm or arrest.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: