DeSepiero:


Wouldn't it be erroneous to assume that truth can't be peddled as conspiracy?

Sure, as long as the founding rumors and conjectures were true in the first place.

I think our discussion is coming to an end and you are going round in circles.

vaxx:
I am simply asking you wish of this process undergo in peer review method you are discarding? Your opinion was "" have I involve in this research particularly myself to validate how it work""?you went on to bring a scenario of an individual which findings was rejected base on political reason...... and I ask you? Since you of this opinion how do you determine if peer review is not universally true or what method of the process are you discarding?

It only takes one counterexample to prove that something cannot work universally. When I gave an example you said that you were not interested in that type of argument. This was your illogical response:

vaxx:
I don't see this as a good debate using one individual as model of defence, what about the numerous scientific research that had being published and it's accepted on merit. I am not really interested in this kind of argument, it is baseless.

You are not genuinely open to discussion. So there is no point discussing further.

vaxx:
I already told you, I am simply a student.....

Again, you are evasive. Being a student does not answer the question of whether you have direct personal experience of peer review. Why write nine evasive words instead of a simple "yes" or "no" answer? You are deliberately being evasive.

vaxx:
something that has been peer review means it has scienctifc backup and can be trusted.

Here you go again, repeating your opinion instead of explaining what it is based on.

vaxx:
The word Fact you are using here is ambiguous. Even people with noble laurel have seen their work discredited . That is the beauty of science, it can easily falsify itself. People who normally refuse to publish thier work are those who are afraid of scientific scrutiny.

More repetition and arbitrary assertions. No explanation.

vaxx:
This is fallacy at best, let me make you understand something .. Most of us, I mean most of the time, are to some extent a scientist. I.E. Your car won’t move. You Hypothesize that something is wrong. You gather information - the keys aren’t in the ignition, or their is a ‘boot’ on your tire, or the gas gauge is on E. You redress the hypothesized issue - filling the gas tank, puting the key in the ignition and turning it, paying your fines. You check your Hypothesis validity by seeing if your car will move now, if not you return to observing why the car may not move (oops, forgot that this car had its battery stolen) and test that observed possible cause of the issue, and so on, until you got the car moving. This is all what science is all about.

Repetition. The point has been addressed. You are clearly not reading and understanding the answers.

vaxx:
Another fallacious claim, I recently told you, I learn , read and practice. You need to have enough evidence of me before you can make any assumptions of me.

I have enough evidence about you from the way you reply. Your ideas are virtually a carbon copy of the popular responses laypeople have been programmed to make.

vaxx:
Do i need to make claim in my corner room for you to understand I am not a novice of scientific discipline....

You have to be more than "not a novice" to understand the depth of this topic.

vaxx:
science is a method not a believe. Only the person using science can be consider immoral or moral ...religious is a believe system....bro where do you dig this logic out?

I have explained this already.

vaxx:
false.. if there were no mechanism in the program of this universe. it would not have exist. ( you may even be arguing against religion here)The laws of physics that we understand so far show us that the change in value of a single one of them would cause the current universe to cease to exist.

The problem is that this discussion belongs in philosophy.

What you are doing is the very common mistake of trying to critique science from within science. Even Richard Dawkins started out naively trying to do this, but eventually he got clued up and realized that the questions were way deeper than he thought.

vaxx:
why are you so close minded?

I could call that an "ad hominem ATTACKKKK"

But I won't. You see, I can tell that it is your honest opinion relating to how YOU see my argument. For me, that is fine in an argument. I do the same thing.

vaxx:
I am tempted to say you might not really be whom you claim. Your point is hogwash, I give reasons as to why it is. You can hold fallacious claim as point and think you have a fact, how do you even validate or verify your own claim. I want to know? And let's put this method into scrutiny.

i think your best question should be ""those animal use scientific experiment"" You can't ask an error questions on its own? ". Well it has not crossed my mind before, but now that you mention it, yes I think you could say some animals use scientific method. Crows, for example, are very good problem-solvers. Other animals as well are good at experimenting, and evaluating the results of their problem-solving attempts. The only thing missing is verbatim.

I am not sure what you are typing on, but your grammar is coming out confusing. Your definition of science means that we are talking at cross-purposes in any case.

As for closed-mindedness, you may think that you are writing stuff I have not heard before. I have heard almost everything you are writing. It is the automatic response of hundreds and hundreds of layfolk. I have seen it on many forums, like masses of programmed folk who don't or can't discuss enough of the nitty-gritty of science and philosophy of science.

I carried out one experiment, on several forums dedicated to discussing the theory of evolution. I did a search on those forums for the word "mutation" which is a key concept in theory of evolution (Neo-Darwinian ToE). I typically got 200 search results. Then I did a search for the word "spaghetti", and I got MORE results than for "mutation". Thanks to Richard Dawkins, more people were yammering on about flying spaghetti monsters than arguing the science and talking about mutation. That is not debate. If you try to get into scientific debate with most of these jokers, they turn out to be ignorant clowns. (I later had a thought and searched for "spagetti" without the "h". I got even more results than for "spaghetti"...then I spelled it with one "t" and more hits spewed forth... jeez!)

Holding science back from what? Where is science heading to?

killsmith:
Holding science back from what? Where is science heading to?

It's in something of a crisis right now, with experiments in Quantum Theory creating, for the first time, FUNDAMENTAL LOGICAL INCONSISTENCIES, in science.

To stand in denial of scientific principle in 2018 is clearly an act of ignorance .

sinequanon:
I think our discussion is coming to an end and you are going round in circles.



It only takes one counterexample to prove that something cannot work universally. When I gave an example you said that you were not interested in that type of argument. This was your illogical response:



You are not genuinely open to discussion. So there is no point discussing further.



Again, you are evasive. Being a student does not answer the question of whether you have direct personal experience of peer review. Why write nine evasive words instead of a simple "yes" or "no" answer? You are deliberately being evasive.



Here you go again, repeating your opinion instead of explaining what it is based on.



More repetition and arbitrary assertions. No explanation.



Repetition. The point has been addressed. You are clearly not reading and understanding the answers.



I have enough evidence about you from the way you reply. Your ideas are virtually a carbon copy of the popular responses laypeople have been programmed to make.



You have to be more than "not a novice" to understand the depth of this topic.



I have explained this already.



The problem is that this discussion belongs in philosophy.

What you are doing is the very common mistake of trying to critique science from within science. Even Richard Dawkins started out naively trying to do this, but eventually he got clued up and realized that the questions were way deeper than he thought.



I could call that an "ad hominem ATTACKKKK"

But I won't. You see, I can tell that it is your honest opinion relating to how YOU see my argument. For me, that is fine in an argument. I do the same thing.



I am not sure what you are typing on, but your grammar is coming out confusing. Your definition of science means that we are talking at cross-purposes in any case.

As for closed-mindedness, you may think that you are writing stuff I have not heard before. I have heard almost everything you are writing. It is the automatic response of hundreds and hundreds of layfolk. I have seen it on many forums, like masses of programmed folk who don't or can't discuss enough of the nitty-gritty of science and philosophy of science.

I carried out one experiment, on several forums dedicated to discussing the theory of evolution. I did a search on those forums for the word "mutation" which is a key concept in theory of evolution (Neo-Darwinian ToE). I typically got 200 search results. Then I did a search for the word "spaghetti", and I got MORE results than for "mutation". Thanks to Richard Dawkins, more people were yammering on about flying spaghetti monsters than arguing the science and talking about mutation. That is not debate. If you try to get into scientific debate with most of these jokers, they turn out to be ignorant clowns. (I later had a thought and searched for "spagetti" without the "h". I got even more results than for "spaghetti"...then I spelled it with one "t" and more hits spewed forth... jeez!)

Already I have ended the discussion? Why sbouild i allow this baiting to continue.


Sure most of my evidence are back up objectively. Knowledge is not a monopoly of vaxx. Continue with your line of thought even when it has been shown to you, it is hogwash ....is a wast of time arguing in basket....

vaxx:
To stand in denial of scientific principle in 2018 is clearly an act of ignorance . Already I have ended the discussion? Why sbouild i allow this baiting to continue.

Yep. Typical logic. Scientific principles are truth because 2018.

I advise you to go and develop your critical faculties and come up with real substantive debate, instead of your posturing.

sinequanon:


Yep. Typical logic. Scientific principles are truth because 2018.

I advise you to go and develop your critical faculties and come up with real substantive debate, instead of your posturing.

i can see you could not make sense of it, just like you denied objective evidence throw at you.

My opinion though , you may discard it. Go relearn all what you claim as a fact. No academia will take you serious with this line of thought . You sound more like an apologetic rather than educationist.

vaxx:
i can see you could not make sense of it, just like you denied objective evidence throw at you.

My opinion though , you may discard it. Go relearn all what you claim as a fact. No academia will take you serious with this line of thought . You sound more like an apologetic rather than educationist.

My background is in mathematics. It is abstract. It doesn't have this problem that science has.

The shrillest advocates of the scientific method are those who know little about it. Real scientists are far more cautious, but unfortunately, many dare not talk in public.

The rise of academia in India is going to be a game changer. They are more willing to discuss things that have become taboo in the West. Brainwashed folks like yourself, will then be able to follow follow..

sinequanon:


My background is in mathematics. It is abstract. It doesn't have this problem that science has.

The shrillest advocates of the scientific method are those who know little about it. Real scientists are far more cautious, but unfortunately, many dare not talk in public.

The rise of academia in India is going to be a game changer. They are more willing to discuss things that have become taboo in the West. Brainwashed folks like yourself, will then be able to follow follow..

Another confused apologetic, you don't even know the importance of axioms in science which is liking to abstract in mathematics.

Arguably mathematics is science in the sense that it use the broad sense of "systematic and formulated knowledge" like that of axioms which is use in mainstream science.


You ignorantly do not know math has its own problem, just like science (who is denying that). You are even part of the problem . Holding hogwash knowledge and celebrating it as a fact.

The ignorant did not even know mathematics is taught as a bunch of random rules ""à la SOHCAHTOA ""and FOIL which you have to apply blindly -- without understanding what you're doing, with no coherence whatsoever to solve random, purposeless questions. I am sure you are yet to consider this as a problem.


You hide under the cover of cyber space and thinks you can cover truth with false. Sincerely speaking you might not be holding a mathematics degree.....it is common norms(those that talk too much of themselves are empty basket) as it is said empty drum make the loudest sound.


Even budaatum thinking is a basket case prove me wrong reading your response..

vaxx:
Argument ad hominem fallacy, instead of you to attack the argument you claimed is not universally true, you are now attacking my own personality.

Isn't that what you do when you attack my emotions?

sinequanon:
The problem is obvious: if your definition of proof is "what the authorities say", then you cannot prove that the authorities are doing anything wrong. You are in a position where you just have to believe what you are told.

You are not "in a position where you just have to believe what you are told"! You were in the position that you needed to handle at the time. And when it got too much for you, you quit! Some people, Bruno Galileo Copernicus, they died fighting not to believe what they were told. They should be a lesson.

budaatum:

Isn't that what you do when you attack my emotions?

Either You like it or not, you can never fight me.......

I hope to see you someday, at least talk like a human........it seems we have forgotten that aspect due to internet barrier.

budaatum:

You are not "in a position where you just have to believe what you are told"! You were in the position that you needed to handle at the time. And when it got too much for you, you quit! Some people, Bruno Galileo Copernicus, they died fighting not to believe what they were told. They should be a lesson.

There is no need to drag issue with individual who fall outside community standard, as that alone is a medical condition. You know what I mean. ( if everyone is saying A and he want to treat it like B) you should be skeptic about such individual.

All we have has a human is our intuition. All nature has is her evidence. The marriage of the two is called science. And if someone in 2018 is claiming this is base on false standard. You should know the person is only acting ignorance.

And do not be decive by too much lies, anybody can wrote anything whatsoever on cyberspace.: "" Your right is to check and validate it thru objective evidence.

killsmith:
Holding science back from what? Where is science heading to?

I mean from scientific progress and innovation....

vaxx:
Either You like it or not, you can never fight me.......

I hope to see you someday, at least talk like a human........it seems we have forgotten that aspect due to internet barrier.

Just yesterday, as I was about, I wondered why vaxx thinks being emotional is a negative thing. Does he think 'passion' is bad perhaps. Maybe he does not see the power in words. They after all are full of passion.

Yeah, I can't fight you. But I will challenge what you say if I need to. Emotionally and passionately too. Nothing is a barrier to the human aspect to a human being worshipper, vaxx. Indeed, one day.

budaatum:

Just yesterday, as I was about, I wondered why vaxx thinks being emotional is a negative thing. Does he think 'passion' is bad perhaps. Maybe he does not see the power in words. They after all are full of passion.

Yeah, I can't fight you. But I will challenge what you say if I need to. Emotionally and passionately too. Nothing is a barrier to the human aspect to a human being worshipper, vaxx. Indeed, one day.

don't mind me, i am carried away by the flick of internet.


I am not talking to stranger but talking to omo ilu oyinbo.... yes criticised my work.......

budaatum:

You are not "in a position where you just have to believe what you are told"! You were in the position that you needed to handle at the time. And when it got too much for you, you quit! Some people, Bruno Galileo Copernicus, they died fighting not to believe what they were told. They should be a lesson.

Galileo and Copernicus died of natural causes?

rekinomtla:


Galileo and Copernicus died of natural causes?

Ok, not die, exactly, I exaggerate, but only a bit. They at least fought for the validity of their observations instead of "believing what you were told". I'm adding one more name to that list.

Jesus Bruno Galileo Copernicus were scientists who died for causes.

budaatum:

Ok, not die, exactly, I exaggerate, but only a bit. They at least fought for the validity of their observations instead of "believing what you were told". I'm adding one more name to that list.

Jesus Bruno Galileo Copernicus were scientists who [i]died[\i] for causes.

At least they do this by validating this using natural philosophy

vaxx:
I mean from scientific progress and innovation....

that's my question. Progressing to where? What scientific innovation can solve all of man's problems and fill that void in the heart of man?

sinequanon:


It's in something of a crisis right now, with experiments in Quantum Theory creating, for the first time, FUNDAMENTAL LOGICAL INCONSISTENCIES, in science.

logical inconsistencies? Kindly Explain this term.

killsmith:
that's my question. Progressing to where? What scientific innovation can solve all of man's problems and fill that void in the heart of man?

Science does not even pretend to offer solution for every man problem. It is simply a methodology for exploring phenomena, explaining their causes in a way that can be predictive and repeatedly and testing hypotheses about the way things work. It’s a good method man has been exposed to for obtaining a working approximation of reality, most of the time.

killsmith:
logical inconsistencies? Kindly Explain this term.

Human logic is ignorant and objective verified evidence is conclusive, it does not owes human logic any explanation.

vaxx:
Science does not even pretend to offer solution for every man problem. It is simply a methodology for exploring phenomena, explaining their causes in a way that can be predictive and repeatedly testing hypotheses about the way things work. It’s a good method man has been exposed to for obtaining a working approximation of reality, most of the time.

science is a tool to help enjoy and relax in his illusion. Ethics and morality are mans means of running from the burden called freedom. I think both terms are distinct i.e none is obstructing or limiting the other.

killsmith:
science is a tool to help enjoy and relax in his illusion. Ethics and morality are mans means of running from the burden called freedom. I think both terms are distinct i.e they have nothing to do with each other.

Perfect, so how will you feel if someone called a tool like hammer immoral?

vaxx:
Human logic is ignorant and objective verified evidence is conclusive, it does not owes human logic any explanation.

can you prove this claim?

vaxx:
Perfect, so how will you feel if someone called a tool like hammer immoral?

sir, what exactly is your point?

killsmith:
can you prove this claim?

i don't prove ( we are not dealing with mathematics model) I will give you evidence using quantum mechanics as an example. There are theory that logically it make no sense to human , like there are different rules that exist on the subatomic level than on the atomic level (particles that can be in two places at the same time, particles traveling faster than light, things that can exist and not exist simultaneously, and especially, that two particles can be placed in a state in which observing one of them immediately affects the state of the other—even if they have traveled light years from each other before measuring one of them.

killsmith:
sir, what exactly is your point?

my point is you call science a tool and want to know if this tool can be called evil using hammer as an example?

killsmith:
logical inconsistencies? Kindly Explain this term.

I can already tell from your posts that we are not going to get very far in a discussion.

If a system conforms to a logic, it is logically consistent. If not, it is logically inconsistent.

sinequanon:


I can already tell from your posts that we are not going to get very far in a discussion.

Be patient. You're going to stumble anytime soon

sinequanon:
if a system conforms to a logic, it is logically consistent. If not, it is logically inconsistent.

"if a system conforms to logic", isn't a mathematical system rooted in logic? Is it impossible for a consistent system to show or exhibit contradictions and ambiguities? Can you name a mathematical system that doesn't have a set of axioms and rules, as its base? In simple words, give an example of an inconsistent system.


Let's start from here.

vaxx:
Another confused apologetic, you don't even know the importance of axioms in science which is liking to abstract in mathematics.

Arguably mathematics is science in the sense that it use the broad sense of "systematic and formulated knowledge" like that of axioms which is use in mainstream science.


You ignorantly do not know math has its own problem, just like science (who is denying that). You are even part of the problem . Holding hogwash knowledge and celebrating it as a fact.

The ignorant did not even know mathematics is taught as a bunch of random rules ""à la SOHCAHTOA ""and FOIL which you have to apply blindly -- without understanding what you're doing, with no coherence whatsoever to solve random, purposeless questions. I am sure you are yet to consider this as a problem.


You hide under the cover of cyber space and thinks you can cover truth with false. Sincerely speaking you might not be holding a mathematics degree.....it is common norms(those that talk too much of themselves are empty basket) as it is said empty drum make the loudest sound.


Even budaatum thinking is a basket case prove me wrong reading your response..

i just dey laugh the guy since....they read a few pages and they come to carry their shoulder on the internet.