Discussion: The Scientific Method is useless

keith1 said:
I believe some addendum should be added to the debate rules suggesting some punishment for the loser of a debate, for continuing to whine in the discussion level of the debate,..
Click to expand...
GeoffP said:
Thankfully, no. It's rare we still throw children onto funeral pyres any more.

- Now listen, you. The formal debate has done. I'm not abusing you on my spare time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/Argument_Clinic.png[/-img]

[INDENT][I]Can't fool me![/I][/INDENT][/QUOTE]

[quote="GeoffP, post: 2716100"]Stop your rationalism, you dirty Trotskyite.[/QUOTE]

[quote="GeoffP, post: 2716223"]I think we've all grown from this experience.

No, wait: what's the one where you feel all dejected and forlorn? That's the one.

Thanks for coming, all. ;-)[/QUOTE]

[quote="GeoffP, post: 2716261"]Two members enter! One member leaves!

[img]http://mrmokelly.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/TinaTurnerThunder.jpg[/-img]

[indent][I]Trolling were damn near the death of us all[/I][/indent][/QUOTE]

[quote="GeoffP, post: 2716445"]I love how the bitter personal attacks from scifes have started up.[/QUOTE]

[quote="GeoffP, post: 2717477"][I]Fuck[/I], yes. You think I have innumerable hours to waste bantering with madmen? Expediency should be the watchword of the serious.



Sure: [I]that[/I] and all the other things I already said.[/QUOTE]

[quote="GeoffP, post: 2718588"]How could you possibly know how much time I actually require in a day?

scifes. You lost. Give it up.



Why wouldn't I be? You know, I'm beginning to see why Dwy takes a much harsher stance to near-belligerent inquiry much faster. Perhaps this is a trait I should adopt.



Oh no! More ignorant assertion! Whatever will I do??[/QUOTE]

[quote="GeoffP, post: 2718713"]Waa waa waa. :bawl:

scifes, there was simply no real debate to be had. Myuu go with you.[/QUOTE]

[quote="GeoffP, post: 2718715"]Scifes: it takes time to knock down almost any poster. I wasn't sure I'd have time for it. In the end, I decided I did. [I]I decided to make time for you.[/I] Now, however, I'm regretting being so generous at all.[/QUOTE]

[quote="GeoffP, post: 2732920"]Excuse me, troll? I won that debate. Hands down. You begged me to continue. Begged. Like a dog.[/QUOTE]

[quote="GeoffP, post: 2733073"]What? He impugned me. I write back.



[I]TO THEM.[/I] To everyone else, it may make a difference.



And you begged and pleaded to continue when your time was up.[/QUOTE]

[quote="GeoffP, post: 2734664"]Seconded. Provided it's a large cap.[/QUOTE]

there, that was all what g contributed to the discussion thread, minus one single post...


...and [I]i'm[/I] whining?

i'm merely debating intellectually, most of the others who came here tackled the subject at hand, and look at what g chimes with every time he posts here, things to the effect of "[I]oh please let it be scifes, you were late in replying by a day and i couldn't miss that chance to get my ass out of the whopping corner you had me in, so please let it be, i wanna KEEP FACE![/I]"
i mean, "beg like a dog"? when did Geoffp ever lose his cool like that?:cool:
i just knew when i saw that how frantic the other side is getting.

[QUOTE] ...after the debate level has concluded. Since this debate is probably the blueprint of worst debates on record, one could suggest the loser of all further debates be given at least a "dunce-cap" venue thread to finish their ranting in a closed environ (for example, call it the "scifes conclusion hole", for instance, in commemoration of this lowly event). In that thread let the egg-throwing commence, and not within the discussion forum level.[/QUOTE]
and what should commence in the discussion forum level?
why the loser was a day late and not two?:rolleyes:
the discussion thread exists for the SOLE REASON that what wasn't fully covered in the formal debate gets covered in the discussion thread.
that's why the discussion thread is there, get a clue.
for a formal debate that wasn't even finished properly, a discussion thread is even more important.
now, the problem with this thread, is that most members think it shouldn't have started from the beginning, that it was lost from the start, due to intellectual incapacity.
i try to fix that here with rational, well supported logical arguments, and what i get from our well respected members;

-"science's usefulness is self evident"!

-"this debate was lost before it started, everybody says so"!

and the repetitive;
-"i already won scifes, let me go"!

even Dywyddyr, who is a fan of dissecting his opponents post, and replying to every sentence with his own sentence, couldn't face me in this thread but with two short "it's self evident" and "they all say so". which greatly disappoints me.

my rational arguments are still here ladies and gentlemen, yes i'm saying science is useless in a science forum, yes the idea is inconceivable for the majority here, but my arguments still sit unanswered, and i'm waiting for someone to SHOW me, in a logical systematic way, that i really did, in fact, lose the formal debate, in matters of intellectual content.
Click to expand...
 
GeoffP said:
No. And why should it be?
Click to expand...
because you believe atheists who strictly follow the SM, by believing what is supported by scientific evidence, and disbelieving in what isn't supported by scientific evidence, you believe they're going to eternal hell, aren't you?

i really thought it was common sense:shrug:


Er, "things unrelated to God will end by death"? People who are more religious will not end by death then? This sounds like the contrast you're making.
Click to expand...
in their subjective eye, yes.
religious people believe there's more to life than this life.
atheistic people believe life ends with death, due to no evidence to the contrary.


So if I use the SM, I'll end up in hell?
Click to expand...
properly, yes.



I do? I'd always thought God a bit more discerning than that.
Click to expand...
wikipedia said:
Most Christians believe that human beings experience divine judgment and are rewarded either with eternal life or eternal damnation. This includes the general judgement at the Resurrection of the dead (see below) as well as the belief (held by Roman Catholics,[89][90] Orthodox[91][92] and most Protestants) in a judgment particular to the individual soul upon physical death.

In Roman Catholicism, those who die in a state of grace, i.e., without any mortal sin separating them from God, but are still imperfectly purified from the effects of sin, undergo purification through the intermediate state of purgatory to achieve the holiness necessary for entrance into God's presence.[93] Those who have attained this goal are called saints (Latin sanctus, "holy").[94]

Christians believe that the second coming of Christ will occur at the end of time. All who have died will be resurrected bodily from the dead for the Last Judgment. Jesus will fully establish the Kingdom of God in fulfillment of scriptural prophecies.[95][96] Jehovah's Witnesses deny the existence of hell. Instead, they hold that the souls of the wicked will be annihilated.[97]
Click to expand...
now, dear Geoffp;

you either are a christian;

and believe atheists are going to heaven.
in which case you're not a christian by definition.

or believe atheists are going to hell.

or are a jehova witness and believe their souls will be destroyed.

or are a liar, and you're not christian at all.
or you're a hypocrite, and you believe atheists are going to hell but are running away from saying it out loud.

so, which is it g?:D
 
:rolleyes:
i stand corrected.
now how about presenting me with something other than "they all said so", and "it's self evident"?:rolleyes:

----------------
alternative reply:
i said "face me", and not "reply to me".
although you started out with so many sentences, the only two last standing were the two i mentioned:D
 
and a personal note D, from this thread i've found out that either i over estimated your intellect, or that you're the kind who puts a friend ahead of logic.
the latter being not so bad.
 
scifes said:
:rolleyes:
i stand corrected.
now how about presenting me with something other than "they all said so", and "it's self evident"?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Actually I did. You're just cherry-picking. For instance the "they all said so" was actually an addendum to my opinion which was asked for. I.e. I was pointing out that my conclusion was much the same as everyone else's: a conclusion you have chosen to ignore.

If you'd bothered to read my post #9 maybe you'd have a clue.
 
scifes said:
and a personal note D, from this thread i've found out that either i over estimated your intellect, or that you're the kind who puts a friend ahead of logic.
the latter being not so bad.
Click to expand...
Or maybe you just don't read.
You, for instance, appear to put your own personal "satisfaction" of your accomplishments over and above that of anyone those accomplishments might help in the future.
 
scifes said:
there, that was all what g contributed to the discussion thread, minus one single post...


...and i'm whining?
Click to expand...

http://www.sciforums.com/member.php?u=21145

:shrug:

i'm merely debating intellectually
Click to expand...

I think you mean ineffectually. Let's carry on analyzing your not-whining.

now, the problem with this thread, is that most members think it shouldn't have started from the beginning, that it was lost from the start, due to intellectual incapacity.
Click to expand...

Interesting. And why do you suppose the scientists on the forum thought that?

I didn't even have to get to the giant-text whining. Sheesh. But please continue. It's funny watching you hanging after me, complaining and whimpering about arguments I already dealt with. Post some big text again. I promise, it'll all be worth it.
 
As a friend of mine said, the scientific method (postulation and testing by the community) works for everything (and therefore is the most useful method of learning the truth) because even if God caused something to happen, I want to find out how he did it and learn how to get him to do it for me. And the scientific method is the only way to make sure we can figure that out, because contemplating my naval hasn't proven particularly productive.
 
One practical problem with the scientific method is, testing and experiments cost money and require resources. This creates a potental problem. Theoretically, preponderance of the data, between two equal weight theories, can be bought simply by how you allocate resources. If I give theory A 90% and theory B 10%, who will have more data? Therefore theory A wins due to the preponderance of the data.

If you look at man-made global warming, the preponderance of the data is stacked on one side. I wonder if both sides have the same resources? The pro's and con's are not equally represented in resources. If reality was important I would spead the data collecting resources over both sides to see how the data stacks without political gaming.

There would never be any funding allowed to prove whether there is God. The physics labs will never get funding for this. Many scientists are mercenaries and woudl go where the money is. If no money, mercenaries will of elsewhere. Since there is no data from top scientists, God can not exist according to the scientific method with no resources. We can decide the outcome of competing theories, before we start by simply shifting or stacking the resources. We can ake use of the scientific method resource allocation loophole for reality defining. This capacity to manipulte the outcome is a problem that needs to be addressed.
 
Rewriting books is the liberal and PC thing. Those in religion tend to perpetuate theories that were once in vogue. Creationism was not invented this century but is from 6000 years ago. Leaving words out of classical literature, to change the past, so it can look like the present, is purely PC. Religion is more about changing the present into the past. While PC and liberal tries to alter the past so the present appears more valid.
 
wellwisher said:
...If you look at man-made global warming, the preponderance of the data is stacked on one side. I wonder if both sides have the same resources? The pro's and con's are not equally represented in resources. .
Click to expand...

Correct, the con side, which says there is no man made global warming, are much better funded by their corporate sponsors... and yet they are still losing the argument. Pretty neat huh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top