05-26-2007, 08:36 AM
> > WTF is a "particularly unanimous" anything? This is the kind of thinking that I reflexively
> > ridicule. Count yourself lucky that I've got a date in a few minutes...
>
> Everyone agrees it is a fact.
You qualified "unanimous" with the word "particularly."
It's not unanimous if it's only "sort of kind of maybe close to unanimous."
> Why does magus get to decide what's fact and what's not?
Until this point, I have not been the arbiter of "facts." You and Lux Interior have discussed "facts." But thanks for nominating me. I'll go ahead and take on the role of arbiter for a moment.
When I use the word "fact," I try to stick to the definition that a fact is something that can be proved true or false and which has by at least a preponderance of evidence been demonstrated true.
With my arbiter cap on, I'm telling you that you've been using the word "fact" incorrectly. To you, a fact is anything that appears truthful to a person or persons, regardless of the substance of the claim. Those statements of yours are among the things that I call "allegations." Not facts.
What I have continually challenged throughout this thread have not been -- by my definition -- facts. They have been allegations. And since I'm the arbiter what I say goes.
Get your facts straight.
I now doff my arbiter cap.
> Central to your arguments is the belief that everything that matters must be amenable to
> evaluation using the scientific method. It's circular.
No, central to my arguments is the premise that allegations about how the universe is run ought to be reasonable. As opposed to irrational.
For this kind of analytic, the scientific method is but one approach.
Logic, mathematics and other ways of making observable and repeatable proofs are also acceptable to me.
> It's circular.
Do you NEED it to be shaped like something? Okay...
Rather than calling it circular, I suggest that we come to a mutual agreement that the scientific method is metaphorically cone-shaped with the small-tip at an infinite point in the future. A scientific inquiry often starts with a broad hypothesis and continually refines it to ever more narrow hypotheses. Refining the model and testing it -- asking questions -- should never end.
> According to science, science is the only source of truth.
WTF are you talking about?
Scientists say that they pursue truth. I've never heard of any scientist claiming that he had a lock on it.
Find me the science textbook that says that science is the only source of truth. Someone has got to trade sharp words with that ignorant author.
> I don't see a lot of people on this forum dealing in undebatable facts.
What a great conversation that would be: "Hey!! LUX INTERIOR!! 2+2=4!! What? You agree? Okay... Hey!! LUX INTERIOR!! 2+2=4!! What? You agree? Okay... Hey!! LUX INTERIOR!! 2+2=4!! What? You agree? Okay... Hey!!..."
Is that the sort of conversation you prefer? With everyone just repeating the same crap endlessly, never being challenged and never learning anything new?
> > ridicule. Count yourself lucky that I've got a date in a few minutes...
>
> Everyone agrees it is a fact.
You qualified "unanimous" with the word "particularly."
It's not unanimous if it's only "sort of kind of maybe close to unanimous."
> Why does magus get to decide what's fact and what's not?
Until this point, I have not been the arbiter of "facts." You and Lux Interior have discussed "facts." But thanks for nominating me. I'll go ahead and take on the role of arbiter for a moment.
When I use the word "fact," I try to stick to the definition that a fact is something that can be proved true or false and which has by at least a preponderance of evidence been demonstrated true.
With my arbiter cap on, I'm telling you that you've been using the word "fact" incorrectly. To you, a fact is anything that appears truthful to a person or persons, regardless of the substance of the claim. Those statements of yours are among the things that I call "allegations." Not facts.
What I have continually challenged throughout this thread have not been -- by my definition -- facts. They have been allegations. And since I'm the arbiter what I say goes.
Get your facts straight.
I now doff my arbiter cap.
> Central to your arguments is the belief that everything that matters must be amenable to
> evaluation using the scientific method. It's circular.
No, central to my arguments is the premise that allegations about how the universe is run ought to be reasonable. As opposed to irrational.
For this kind of analytic, the scientific method is but one approach.
Logic, mathematics and other ways of making observable and repeatable proofs are also acceptable to me.
> It's circular.
Do you NEED it to be shaped like something? Okay...
Rather than calling it circular, I suggest that we come to a mutual agreement that the scientific method is metaphorically cone-shaped with the small-tip at an infinite point in the future. A scientific inquiry often starts with a broad hypothesis and continually refines it to ever more narrow hypotheses. Refining the model and testing it -- asking questions -- should never end.
> According to science, science is the only source of truth.
WTF are you talking about?
Scientists say that they pursue truth. I've never heard of any scientist claiming that he had a lock on it.
Find me the science textbook that says that science is the only source of truth. Someone has got to trade sharp words with that ignorant author.
> I don't see a lot of people on this forum dealing in undebatable facts.
What a great conversation that would be: "Hey!! LUX INTERIOR!! 2+2=4!! What? You agree? Okay... Hey!! LUX INTERIOR!! 2+2=4!! What? You agree? Okay... Hey!! LUX INTERIOR!! 2+2=4!! What? You agree? Okay... Hey!!..."
Is that the sort of conversation you prefer? With everyone just repeating the same crap endlessly, never being challenged and never learning anything new?