Proposal: The Scientific Method is useless.

[scifes]

nope, this is different, coming from a moderator, a supposedly good one..

I have closed the Debate thread as no definitive agreement on the debate format has been reached, as far as I can tell.

but not as far as the participants and sci's administrator can tell.

Scifes, please post some definitive rules.

number of posts is as definitive as i can get, james didn't seem to mind it.

If/when GP agrees,

so you didn't read this?

Why don't you start, scifes? Do your worst. Or, preferably even a little better than than.

the debate thread will be reopened.

you haven't yet given a viable reason to close it in the first place.
still, now that GP has "agreed", it should reopened.

You may want to change your opening post in light of the formally agreed rules.

:bugeye:
it happens that i don't want to.

I suggest you need agreement on at least the following:

i suggest you read the thread.

-- Participants

mentioned;

so, this formal debate proposal is directed only at Geoffp, who i usually mollycoddle by G.

twice;

If someone else has the time, they can be my locum.

na'a, it's gotta be you

-- Debate title

i've written it in the proposal thread,
then again in the debate thread you locked..
would you like me to PM it to you, Hercules?

-- Definition of terms/scope of debate

for the definitions, you can check up a dictionary.
for the scope of debate, i believe i mentioned it here;

of course i guess it goes without saying that this debate is philosophical/religious in nature and not scientific.

which you didn't like;

What!?!? It doesn’t go without saying at all! The scientific method has everything to do with science and nothing to do with philosophy and religion.

to which i replied;

true, but the usefulness of something is truly a philosophical matter

-- Number of posts from each side

the answer to that is hidden somewhere in the page long post #10.

-- Format of posts

English, um fonts and sizes i'm not too picky with.
anything more complicated than that i see unnecessary.

-- Length restrictions, if any

bothered reading the OP?

the debate is open time wise

-- Requirement for supporting evidence?

ummm.....yes?!

Or, you can agree to adopt Sciforums’s Standard rules for debates.

i rather not.

I’d start with the debate title.

i would too, actually, i DID.

Clearly the scientific method is not useless; it’s used every minute of every day, so it has a use.

yes, i know what you think. which is why i didn't challenge you to this debate.

So the debate is lost for the affirmative before you even start.

I'm sorry, but no smiley on the internet shows a laughing fit worthy of your sentence.

As it stands, to me it looks like a big waste of time.

as it stands, YOU are a big waste of time, and for wasting my time in quoting half the thread for you, i'm reporting you.

 

[GeoffP]

Bonne chance, la.

Well, this thread has all the hallmarks of a successful exercise so far.

 

[James R]

Here's what I can distil from scifes's proposal:

Proposed debate topic: The scientific method is useless.
For the affirmative: scifes
For the negative: GeoffP, though this needs positive confirmation from GeoffP.

Rules:
1. Each debater will have 10 posts in total.
2. Dictionary definitions of terms are acceptable as authoritative (by scifes).
3. No time limit for responses or for the overall debate. (This is unacceptable. Debates must end at some point. Nobody wants to commit to an endless debate. Also, if there are no time limits on responses or the overall debate, there's no way to know if one side effectively abandons the debate. They might still, theoretically, come back in 10 years time and continue.)
4. Supporting evidence for all arguments is required.

What is needed to make this a viable debate are, at least:
* Acceptance by GeoffP that he will participate.
* A reasonable time limit either on the debate as a whole (after which the debate will be considered to automatically end), or on individual replies (for example, if no reply within 3 days, the non-replier is considered to have forfeited).
* Acceptance by GeoffP of proposed rule 2, above.
* A reasonable limit on post length (to prevent debaters deluging each other and general readers with cut-and-pastes from other web-sites, long lists of links, or large volumes of text that cannot be reasonably addressed in a reasonable period of time).

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I'm sorry, but no smiley on the internet shows a laughing fit worthy of your sentence.
as it stands, YOU are a big waste of time, and for wasting my time in quoting half the thread for you, i'm reporting you.

Ah, I see. You would rather be a precocious twerp. Fine by me. I shall not be bothering to reopen the debate thread for you. If, for once, you can muster enough brain power to actually be succinct and specific in a single post, as opposed to your usual unintelligent meandering dross spread over multiple posts, then maybe you could convince another moderator to re-open it for you.

 

[phlogistician]

I propose another rule. Scifes is not allowed to use any products of science to communicate his thoughts to the thread. He can pray, throw bones, make smoke signals or whatever, but using computers and the Internet, products of science, seems to defeat his proposition from the outset.

 

[GeoffP]

Nasty.

James: agreed to his conditions, but extending his proposed rule 2 to "reasonable sources of authority" outside dictionaries alone. Three days to respond. Otherwise, fine, I'll do the debate.

 

[Enmos]

Is this serious or is scifes just having a laugh?

use·less
–adjective
1. of no use; not serving the purpose or any purpose; unavailing or futile
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/useless

 

[GeoffP]

Actually I think the word "futile" will definitely feature in this debate.

 

[James R]

Now we need scifes to accept a three-day time limit on posts. Once we have that, I'll reopen the debate thread.

 

[scifes]

agreed.

 

[James R]

Debate thread is now open: [thread]106965[/thread]
Discussion thread is here: [thread]106991[/thread]