Quote:
Originally Posted by
mcwillis
Look I understand that you are still a kid that has poor interpersonal skills due to a lack of life experience.
Personal and irrelevant insults, how enlightened. You realise you could have just berated an autistic person? Not that you did, but shouldn't one be 'open minded' towards other people..?
Quote:
You are right it was a poor example from a purely scientific viewpoint, which I was fully aware of when I made it, but I am certain many of the lurking viewers of this thread would have agreed competely with the essence of the point I was making. I was pointing out very clearly that what at one time was considered to be preposterous on an esoteric scientific level is now, today, an exoteric scientific fact.
It was never preposterous on a scientific level. I don't have any clue what 'esoteric science' is.
Quote:
What I find pathetic is that you are so imbecilic to have missed the whole point of the thread. Was it a mistake that Omnis Dei put this thread in the Philosophy sub-forum instead of the Science & Mathematics sub-forum?
Philosophy is not a bunch of 'anything is true' crap, it is an extremely stringent analysis of the limits of what we can know. No true philosopher would accept something without evidence.
Quote:
I am confident enough to say obviously not. I cannot speak for him, but I presume that he placed it here because, as I have pointed out in post #19, that science has its limitations and should not be the arbiter of explaining reality and dictating the truth about any aspect of the manifested universe.
Science just means physical evidence and reasoned argument. So in other words, no I don't have any evidence, but you should believe me anyway.
No.
Quote:
Again you are completely missing the point. You are an intelligent and educated but you are extremely arrogant and narrow minded.
Ad hominem, and, incidentally, wrong. I am open to literally anything you could tell me. It's just that I require you to provide some kind of justification before I believe in it, and you have failed.
Quote:
Have I not pointed out several scientists, that I presume have far more knowledge and understanding of science than yourself
Ad hominem, appeal to authority, also likely wrong.
Quote:
who have studied areas of the natural universe and made discoveries about the occult nature of the natural universe that were at one time were considered non-existant or could not have valid quantitative empirical data to support a new scientifc theory.
What are you talking about?
Quote:
Your arrogance and narrow-mindedness blind you to cultivating the characteristics of a good scientist. You are clearly intelligent and well educated but you do have a lot to learn sunshine which goes back to the first sentence in my thread. I was reading Einsteins general and special theories of relativity just out of pure interest probably before you were born.
Congratulations, you get 10 debate points for being able to read before I existed.
Quote:
Hey kid I like you, that is why I sent you a friend request, which you still haven't accepted. I may not have the same level of knowledge and understanding as yourself but I have made some very good, valid points in this thread backed up by good scientific methods. I have pointed out out that you really are 'off the bat' at times. So calm yourself a little and help this sub-form forum to become more interesting and debatable rather than a subforum that often displays a great deal of egomaniacal competitiveness.
I like you too but after all this we're still not any closer to seeing some evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wolfwood
I'm interested in what you think would actually happen if a Precambrian rabbit was discovered - how scientists would deal with it. Do you think its presence would falsify the tree of life, or do you think scientists would do their utmost to generate ad-hoc hypotheses so as to defend the model and incorporate this anomaly?
I do think it would essentially destroy the idea, as it clearly should. The point is that I am only able to do this because I base knowledge on induction.
Quote:
It raises questions as to whether heavily substantiated models are clearly falsifiable by one counter-example (as is often said) - can one say it's more scientific to accept the falsification rather than generating further ad-hoc hypotheses? As an example, there are many who still believe in the flat earth theory, and despite the 'shift' away from this, attempt to incorporate all counter-examples into their model through these ad-hoc hypotheses.
Is there a line here, between scientific and non-scientific, or am I generating a false dilemma?
It's a good and... messy question. I think a lot of it is about the meaning we ascribe to facts. The rabbit clearly disproves that all organisms are on a tree of life. But on the one hand you can view this as meaning that it is false that 0 organisms are not on the tree of life; on the other hand you can view it as disproving the general principle (inductive pattern) that organisms are on the tree of life. The latter seems to be the sensible view.