A Theory Conforms to the Evidence

[kola]

well jraxi

I use the scientific crap when I try and debate with people who accept the scientific crap. How can I play baseball with folks if i have a football and goalposts? I try and speak your language and use your rules. What would you say if I just said that science is trash and that its 99% garbage and left it at that? Would that change things? I dont think so. So I present YOUR accepted info in hopes that I may shed light and tear down the walls of YOUR so-called "logic and reasoning". I do not need a scientist to tell me all the specifics of how a flower grows. I can observe it and acknowledge that. And I can simply figure out how to make it grow with damn old common sense.   

OTOH I stop discussing a topic when I know the discussion is going nowhere and all that happens is headbutting. I for one, TRY to stick to a discussion but (and take a good hard look) almost always get sidetracked with childplay bs when someone posts funny cartoons or dumbass videos that are only aimed at attacking me personally. Don't be telling me that I am starting ad hom attacks and playing games when its others (your buddies) who are carrying on like teenagers. Why not go back and read some of the topics? Show me where I INTIALLY started being agressive or demeaning without first being provoked. Go ahead and I''ll wait. Fair enough?

Kola

[ReverendRyan]

 

In other words, he uses evidence and reason when it's in his favor, and uses inconsistent rhetoric and logical fallacies when it doesn't.

[J’raxis 270145]

well jraxi

I use the scientific crap when I try and debate with people who accept the scientific crap. How can I play baseball with folks if i have a football and goalposts? I try and speak your language and use your rules. What would you say if I just said that science is trash and that its 99% garbage and left it at that? Would that change things? I dont think so. So I present YOUR accepted info in hopes that I may shed light and tear down the walls of YOUR so-called "logic and reasoning". I do not need a scientist to tell me all the specifics of how a flower grows. I can observe it and acknowledge that. And I can simply figure out how to make it grow with damn old common sense.   

It's not about science, it's about using logic, backed by evidence, to arrive at a position. These aren't the same thing. If you don't want to accept certain scientific theories, fine; just have a logical or evidence-based reason for doing so.

Concluding that an entire field is faulty, because a few specific examples are, is illogical. It's like saying that all swans are white because you've observed a dozen white swans. It may be true, but it may not be, and it hasn't been proven. Additionally, people point out specific counterexamples, and you ignore them. That's like concluding all swans are white because you've observed a dozen white ones and only one black one—oh, the black one doesn't count. For some reason. (And, didn't you just post a story the other day criticizing mainstream AIDS scientists for doing this exact same thing?)

If you go back and look at the debates we've had, you'll actually find me agreeing with a lot of what you say about modern medicine—until you go off on these broad-brush tangents like this. Most of the stuff you point out about specific cases of bad vaccines, dangerous GMO, the profit-based medical industry, the AIDS theories, &c., is all or mostly true. But then you use these anecdotes to try to prove something you can't prove that way.

OTOH I stop discussing a topic when I know the discussion is going nowhere and all that happens is headbutting. I for one, TRY to stick to a discussion but (and take a good hard look) almost always get sidetracked with childplay bs when someone posts funny cartoons or dumbass videos that are only aimed at attacking me personally. Don't be telling me that I am starting ad hom attacks and playing games when its others (your buddies) who are carrying on like teenagers. Why not go back and read some of the topics? Show me where I INTIALLY started being agressive or demeaning without first being provoked. Go ahead and I''ll wait. Fair enough?

I don't think I've ever accused you of starting by being aggressive or demeaning, so I have no idea why you're asking me to do this.

[Vitruvian]

Into the Great Wide Open: The Hubble Deep Field

Full-size video here

[kola]

It's not about science, it's about using logic, backed by evidence, to arrive at a position. These aren't the same thing.

are u doublespeaking or what?

logic backed by evidence and arriving to a position/conclusion is a form of science.

--------------------------
Main Entry: log·ic 
Pronunciation: \?lä-jik\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, from Latin logica, from Greek logik?, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason — more at legend
Date: 12th century
1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2): a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3): a branch of semiotic; especially : syntactics (4): the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1): a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2): relevance, propriety c: interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d: the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves
2: something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason <the logic of war>
-----------------------------------------------------

Main Entry: sci·ence 
Pronunciation: \?s?-?n(t)s\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split — more at shed
Date: 14th century
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
5capitalized : christian science






http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

[kola]

logic, reasoning, research, science, evidence, etc  are all open to scrutinization for their validity. All groups and/or individuals do so in one form or another...and they reject or accept it based on many factors.  Anyone can have an opinion on whether or not the logic, reasoning, research, science or evidence is truth.

If I reject something, I try to post a source to support my claim. In regards to document A, I say vaccine researchers fudged numbers or used skewed stats and therefore I won't accept document A.
I follow it with a source. Sometimes I will reject a source based on other assumptions and back it by another source. To use the reasoning part and the logic is based on the information presented and my assessment of it. You (or someone else) might see it differently. It doesn't mean I rejected it just because I just felt like it. (ie your bad analogy of swans)

Now as far as my beliefs of a God or a Creator goes, no I can't provide "scientific evidence" that he exists. In this case, I do not care (or have any need) to prove anything to anyone about a Creators existance. You see, it doesn't matter to me what other people want to believe. If I say there is a God that doesnt mean you have to believe me nor do I need to explain it. In my world (and this is where we differ), I accept some things that just are. I accept a flower for what it is and do not care to know its anatomy and how it undergoes photosynthesis. It appears in your world, you need the science and logic and reasoning behind the flower and/ or maybe you are just happy to accept its existance because you can see, touch and smell it. My world is different and I have an opinion that there are things I feel besides the basic six senses of the scientific explanations for their "boxed" entity called a "living being". When I get a bad feeling in my stomach about someone, I know something isnt right. When someone verbally hurts me or I read a sad story my hearts aches. I do not care if there is any science,logic or reasoning to prove it, I know it happens, I feel it and reflect and act accordingly. There are all kinds of chemical hormones firing my neurotransmitters and sparking about in my brain and no one has any idea what is really happening at the "scientific level". I love the brain because the so-called scientists are so in the dark about its functions and as it should be IMO. They think they know and say they know and then 5 years later they change their tune...and then jump onto so new and better idea/theory.   

I think some of the most powerful things us human have are untouched by logic science reasoning and whatever else you want to call it or not call it. Thus the Great Mystery.

I have no problems with saying "I don't know why" and in my world I do not need to prove to anyone that a Great Mystery/Creator exists.  I drive down the road and begin to think about someone and next thing I know they pass by me in a car. Why? How? coincidence? I dont know and don't care. It happened and happens often. I dream things that later come true. Coincidence? It happens often. I don't have any explanation. In my office, I would often get a patients name to pop in my head. I would tell my receptionist Bob Jones is going to call today. Later that day Bob calls. I could go on.

I think we are wired like communication towers and tune into different frequencies. Some better than others and we can surf channels. Some of these spark an idea and some can spark a feeling or spark a premonition (sp?) Your "science" can in a primitive way measure some of those signals either awake or when asleep. And your "science" gives them fancy names and tries to box them into neat little groups but I think it just a primitive glance at the tip of the iceberg. Lots ot ponder about the "death" experience and what actually happens too. But the "science" doesnt really have clue what really happens when the physical body expires. I do not need science to prove that I have dreams and label it REM. They happen. I know they happen and experience them. And I dont need science logic reasoning or news ads and crystal balls to prove the existance of a Creator. And I have no interest in proving it to others.
You see it doesn't matter at all to me. You see it as blind faith but it's not. But I see you as the blind one.

Kola
 

[TresJay]

there are things I feel besides the basic six senses of the scientific explanations

Six?  Not five?  Not nine?  Which additional sense do you include in the basic six?  My apologies if this was covered in another thread or is readily understood here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senses

[Jim Johnson]

there are things I feel besides the basic six senses of the scientific explanations

Six?  Not five?  Not nine?  Which additional sense do you include in the basic six?  My apologies if this was covered in another thread or is readily understood here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senses

kola sees dead people... they're everywhere.

[dalebert]

I saw this image on another forum and immediately thought of Ryan and just wanted to post it for him. I don't know if it's really completely on topic for this thread but whatever.

[kola]

6 so-called senses and there are probally more.

for simplification here the sixth is ESP

everyone has it to a certain degreee. some have more and some can develop it to high level.

there is also synesthesia which i catagorize into ESP.

certain drugs can enhance and/or illicit these senses.

the universe is not such a neat little box with a lid...unless that is what you want.

kola

[TresJay]

the basic six senses of the scientific explanations

for simplification here the sixth is ESP

The scientific explanation of ESP is what threw me.  Maybe you meant to type

"there are things I feel besides the basic six senses for the scientific explanations"

?

[KBCraig]

for simplification here the sixth is ESP

everyone has it to a certain degreee.

Hell, I get five or six channels of it! I try to watch Sports Center every day during baseball season.

[ReverendRyan]

I saw this image on another forum and immediately thought of Ryan and just wanted to post it for him. I don't know if it's really completely on topic for this thread but whatever.

I actually emailed you that comic......

[dalebert]

There's nothing wrong with exploring the potential for these things. There are numerous unseen things that we've only recently learned to detect. It makes sense that we will likely discover more. We're starting more and more unusual senses that animals have developed that are downright mind-boggling. Dolphin's and bats have incredible echo location. Birds have a directional sense for flying South for the winter. All these things are natural. We just haven't always been able to explain them and to some extent still can't, but our understanding will continue to grow.

We've learned to manipulate radio waves to transmit information long distances. It's more than possible, IMO, that in time we might evolve new senses and methods of communication that put speech to shame. It's even more likely, IMO, that we will create them in the nearer future with technology. It's just a matter of developing ways of interfacing technology with the human body and mind. We have EKGs now and we have ways to transmit complex information digitally. Imagine a device that simply converts EKG info digitally to a similar device on someone elses head. It's probably just a matter of time before our brains, perhaps even subconsciously, learn to interpret that information. Voila! Telepathy.

But here's the thing. It's silly not to be open to the possibilities for things that we haven't been able to explain yet. Like, if a person is seeing something happen from miles away or receiving the thoughts of another person. Still, we should be able to see the effects. Like, we know birds have a directional sense and we have theories of how but we still don't know really well. We can witness that effect. I'm sure we speculated wildly about how bats were navigating in the dark and catching insects before we figured out how. There is no evidence of an effect beyond the five senses we already know about in people. There is no evidence that people are gathering information that they didn't obtain from the five senses. When such an effect is demonstrated and testable, it will make sense to say that there is something going on that we don't understand that is worth exploring.

[dalebert]

I actually emailed you that comic......

Uh, ok. If so, then it was long enough ago that I'd forgotten it. I just saw it on Anti-state.com and it looked new to me.
*shrug*