Dude, it’s the pit. When someone proves you’re wrong, you double-down and post something about his mother and the randy goat with which she consorted.
Invective aside, what you are saying **StS ** amounts to a suggestion that there is something wrong with people asking for cites and then rejecting the cites when given. Asking for a cite is a way of seeing what backing someone can find for their position. That backing may well exist but not be sufficient to convince people, if lame.
The fact that few here agree with you, **StS ** is probably because that’s the sort of guy you are, I suppose that’s why you go over people’s heads, a bit like an aeroplane. 'Cause you’re a rider at the gates of dawn and you take no prisoners. Right?
But that would be mean; why make enemies over a simple misunderstanding? I am about as mean as a polar wearing a feather boa…
I’ll practice. You…You…SLARTIBARTFAST! Hah! Take that…and your 42.
</douglasadams_overload>
~S.P.I.~
Okay, we’ll work on this. Tell him the reason his nephew is named “Charlie Company” is because that’s as much as his sister could narrow it down.
Sir, yes, sir!
If you’re a female,
Ma’am, yes, ma’am!
If you’re something else entirely (or in a culture with several sexes),
You, yes, you!
~S.P.I.~
</derailment_over>
A goat would imply your mother has standards.
See, Other Dreams? It’s really simple stuff.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
See, good example of the kind of ignorance about which I’m writing. Science is the philosophy of empiricism. It is not a long list of factoids spouted by old men in white smocks. Science is (supposed to be) the method used to obtain those factoids. Of course, the subtlety is lost on you, because you’re stupid. The part which really yanks my crank is how so many of you actually believe your boneheaded idiocy and lack of general knowledge outside of some esoteric field of nerd wankery makes you superior.
You’re just like every other message board community: full of self-important willy-waggers, strutting about in your tiny pond of incestuous clusterfucking, slapping each other on the back for supporting one another’s delusions of mastery.
I’m confused, SmashtheState. You are accusing others of ignorance; arrogance, and pure tactlessness…yet by bringing this topic to the pit, and speaking your concerns in such a way as you are now, you have inadvertently become the very thing you detest. Is this intentional?
If so, I hardly see the point of it. (Perhaps that is your point exactly?)
~S.P.I.~
No, you usually post something fucking retarded.
You know what I don’t understand?
I don’t understand how people with the anarchic turn of mind exhibited by SmashTheState and even our own elucidator can be so skilled at sentence construction and punctuation.
I mean, you have to absorb, think about and acquiesce to a lot of rules and shit in order to be such skillful linguists.
And yet rules and shit seems to be what they most disdain.
So, what’s up with that?
Starving Artist: Maybe my old high school Spanish teacher (who had fled Cuba) had it right. I asked him once why he was living up in cold northern Virginia instead of down in Miami with the other Cubans. His response was, “Those guys aren’t mad at Castro because he’s a dictator. They’re mad at him because Castro is the dictator, not any of them!” StS just wants it to be him and his cohorts pushing everone in Canada (and apparently posters on this board now) around.
An interesting answer…
So, it’s not so much rules and shit that they disdain as it is the fact that their rules and shit aren’t the ones that prevail?
This is correct.
I ask this in all seriousness: Could you describe how the scientific method works, and then apply the scientific method to a claim that you feel that we’re unfairly skeptical of, spelling out in detail why the claim is scientifically valid?
No. For a couple of reasons. First, because at this particular moment I am annoyed and not inclined to waste even more of my time on people who have made it clear they have no interest in actual discussion; all they want is a human football they can kick to make themselves feel superior. And second, because I have never made the claim that my views are arrived at solely by empiricism.
I recognize the value in empiricism, and employ it where needful. However, there are three means of obtaining useful information: empiricism, rationalism, and revelation. Each has its strengths and its weaknesses. I am irritated because so many here claim that science is the only useful means of obtaining information – and then appear to be completely ignorant of what scientific method actually entails. I have lost track of the number of times I’ve had to tell people here that science CANNOT make truth claims, by definition.
Dude, you cited Carl Jung as a reputable source on schizophrenia. Now, I can’t say much to your other cites, but I can tell you that Mr. Jung’s work is… ah… depreciated. He was a brilliant man, and an inspiration to the field, but he was pretty much wrong about everything.
I don’t have access to your other cites to examine them. Plus, it was a bit of a hijack of the thread, but…
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. People are, however, not entitled to their own facts.
Your OP says you came here looking for science, but you’re dissapointed that people would not engage on on that level. Here’s your chance. I am familiar with the methodology of science and I’m willing to listen to and evaluate your arguments.
… and yet you’re dismissing me as not worth your time, even though I’m willing to provide the thing you rant isn’t available. This makes you disingenuous and a troll.
Then what’s all the hoopla about us not knowing the methods of science? You’re willing to dismiss the scientific method and empiricism whenever it conflicts with what you want to believe.
So what is it? Is this thread about how you accept science when it arrives at the conclusion you want to be correct, but is otherwise faulty, or that we on this board don’t understand the scientific method?
All three of these work together, none is a sole proprietor of information. Specifically the empiricism should be used to validate the revelation, and the rationalism should help verify that you didn’t screw up in your empiricism (and, of course, empiricism should always be verified with independent empiricism and rationalism from outside sources).
Yes, you can post a shining revelation you (or a well known or not so well known scientist) had, but if it goes against any current empirical evidence it’s just a bunch of pretty words until it is empirically verified and doesn’t violate every means of common sense available. I haven’t browsed your threads too much* so I’m not speaking specifically to anything you said here. I’m just trying to see if I can reinforce what they’re saying. And I will agree with you that sometimes all of us do jump on the “yeah, right” train a bit quickly and stick our fingers in our ears, a lot of times because we’ve seen it before and had rather lengthy discussions in the past.
- Though you seem pretty cool in Cafe Society, but then again, if you only browsed CF you wouldn’t understand any of the Trihs pittings either so it’s entirely plausible I’m missing something.
Revelation’s weakness is that it doesn’t work. It’s just a word that sounds more dignified than “I pulled it out of my ass.”
Hang on, are you channeling Hunter Hawk’s thoughts here? I thought that fell in the realm of pseudo-science?