Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Insults do not invalidate arguments, logical premises do.
But hey! You cling to useless slogans!
Continuing to cling to useless insults is not a valid method of rational persuasion nor is it a valid approach to problem-solving nor is it essential to the scientific method.
How can one expect to manage anything, if one cannot even manage one's own emotional response/reaction to criticism or peer review?
You seem to be grasping at straws, maybe it's time to try a different approach.
Continuing to cling to useless insults is not a valid method of rational persuasion nor is it a valid approach to problem-solving nor is it essential to the scientific method.
Your position does not follow the scientific method. You can not validate with guesses (aka models). You are evading and taking issue with my insult so you don't have to attend to the argument. This is why you dismissed the entire post and only focused on that. You have no valid rebuttal here, just a narrow dismissal to avoid the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
How can one expect to manage anything, if one cannot even manage one's own emotional response/reaction to criticism or peer review?
You seem to be grasping at straws, maybe it's time to try a different approach.
More evasion of the actual argument to dismiss what was actually made.
You did not attend to my argument, you simply threw a tantrum on a simple sentence and then ignored the rest.
Your argument is invalid, it is a fallacy, and nobody is buying your oh so obvious attempt at avoiding the actual argument (my insult was not the argument, but then you deviously new that).
Typical activist diatribe.
Feign the victim, then use it to dismiss the need to attend to the argument.
You are seriously going to quote some opinion pace to dismiss centuries of process to which is already established?
Where? Where is this evidence of such? Show me the history of this claim, where it exists in the scientific method? Please?
I mean for the love of sanity, your article has no sources, no citation, NOTHING... it is flipping GARBAGE!
Unbelievable the crap you people spew.
Scientific method.
Consensus is not science.
Sigh when the vast majority of the scientific world agrees on a certain model, after decades of research, those that oppose that model are the ones that need to provide an alternative that fits what the research has shown. Do you have an alternative theory that is supported by all the research and evidence so far? If so you really ought to get that news out as you'll have made a huge discovery... but somehow I doubt it.
On this anniversary of D-day I think it's appropriate to remind you French surrender monkeys that we have willingly given so much more for the world and for your sorry ungrateful haughty little French tribe than you will ever do for us or the world.
Your snooty attempt to baffle and impress the American 'rubes' with your "apres le deluge" quote makes you look like the hypocritical fool that you are. After all wasn't it primarily France who punished Germany after WWI with a punitive reparations burden that begot WWII? Ah yes ... You selfishly got your piece of the pie then left it to us to save you once again from the next deluge you just made.
Hoist by your own petard, you condescending French know-nothing.
Sigh when the vast majority of the scientific world agrees on a certain model, after decades of research, those that oppose that model are the ones that need to provide an alternative that fits what the research has shown. Do you have an alternative theory that is supported by all the research and evidence so far? If so you really ought to get that news out as you'll have made a huge discovery... but somehow I doubt it.
What is your personal technical knowledge of the subject? I'm not interested in an "I'm with these guys" answer. I hear too much of that. I want to know what you know on the subject.
Sigh when the vast majority of the scientific world agrees on a certain model, after decades of research, those that oppose that model are the ones that need to provide an alternative that fits what the research has shown. Do you have an alternative theory that is supported by all the research and evidence so far? If so you really ought to get that news out as you'll have made a huge discovery... but somehow I doubt it.
Sorry, that is not science.
You are promoting politics.
I do not need to give you an alternate explanation to combat your explanation of an observation. I need only show a flaw in your explanation (ie your hypothesis does not properly validate itself according to the scientific method).
Again, validity has nothing to do with the number of people who agree. Consensus is not science and never was science.
The scientiifc method works like this:
1. You make an observation.
2. You come up with an explanation for that observation.
3. You test that explanation, comparing it to observation through experiments.
4. Your explanation must pass all tests, or any fails must be reproducible under the same processes to show its failure.
4a. If your tests fail without meeting the above conditions, then it is scrapped, and the explanation is revised and the process of testing begins again.
5. When your explanation has reached this point, it is passed on to others to also test your explanation under their own methods to show the same explained result.
5a. If at any point another shows a failure of the explanation, the explanation is scrapped, revised and then the process begins at the start again.
6. If all the above processes are shown to pass, then the explanation is considered verified, validated and replicated. It has stood the test of all tested scrutiny and is tentatively accepted as a proper explanation UNTIL a means of testing occurs that provides a failure.
This is science, this is how science works. There is no requirement for consensus, no requirement in the testing that another provide a better explanation. It is simply a basic process for testing that explanation and seeing if it properly establishes itself to that observation.
As Feynman said "if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong!"
Also, I want you to know that not only is your claim not science, but it is also not logical. In fact, it is a common logical fallacy.
So your point is not scientific, nor is it logical.
I do not need to give you an alternate explanation to combat your explanation of an observation. I need only show a flaw in your explanation (ie your hypothesis does not properly validate itself according to the scientific method).
Again, validity has nothing to do with the number of people who agree. Consensus is not science and never was science.
The scientiifc method works like this:
1. You make an observation.
2. You come up with an explanation for that observation.
3. You test that explanation, comparing it to observation through experiments.
4. Your explanation must pass all tests, or any fails must be reproducible under the same processes to show its failure.
4a. If your tests fail without meeting the above conditions, then it is scrapped, and the explanation is revised and the process of testing begins again.
5. When your explanation has reached this point, it is passed on to others to also test your explanation under their own methods to show the same explained result.
5a. If at any point another shows a failure of the explanation, the explanation is scrapped, revised and then the process begins at the start again.
6. If all the above processes are shown to pass, then the explanation is considered verified, validated and replicated. It has stood the test of all tested scrutiny and is tentatively accepted as a proper explanation UNTIL a means of testing occurs that provides a failure.
This is science, this is how science works. There is no requirement for consensus, no requirement in the testing that another provide a better explanation. It is simply a basic process for testing that explanation and seeing if it properly establishes itself to that observation.
As Feynman said "if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong!"
Also, I want you to know that not only is your claim not science, but it is also not logical. In fact, it is a common logical fallacy.
So your point is not scientific, nor is it logical.
What is your personal technical knowledge of the subject? I'm not interested in an "I'm with these guys" answer. I hear too much of that. I want to know what you know on the subject.
Based on his responses I can tell you it is ZERO knowledge or education in any hard sciences. The claims he is making would get him laughed at in a first year physics course. Most likely they are parroting off political talking points. To be honest though, this is the first time I heard the "you must have someone provide an alternative explanation that is better to invalidate the one made", that isn't just non-scientific, it is plain stupid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
