Thread: Science vs. Your Cracked-out "Theory"

Would that make the idea any more logical? What you're saying is that because more people believe in ghosts, that the idea of ghosts is more believable. Thinking like that is what holds back people from exposing logical, yet uncommonly believed ideas, such as the Earth being spherical, for example. It's sad to think that with all this scientific progress we've made that we still have close-minded people who can't think for themselves like you, who instead just pick the most popular idea without even thinking about it.

Are you kidding? I have done a shit load of more thinking when it comes to the unknown than you have. Do you know what I'm studying? Mechanical Engineering. Do you know what I am getting a minor in and even possibly a double major if I decide to go an extra year? Physics. My whole entire course schedule revolves around proofs. So tell me I can't fucking think for myself, or don't know 'science' - because while you dwell on what is already proven - you'll be the one waiting for me to make some kind of big discovery. Now tell me - who's the one making progress here? You are the one who is closed minded. While I'm learning what's already true, I'm already thinking about the possibilities of what might be true. You know how get the possibilities - based of proofs, common sense, and some guess work. Now again - who is the one making progress here?

I'm not a religious fanatic or follower of the masses - ghosts were used an example.

Answer to your question: Common sense - there's a reason for the saying "you may have book smarts but you haven't got any street smarts" - now answer my question(s).

Originally Posted by really

Did you say: Conclusion?

AHAHAHA!! You concluded that!?

(Laugh My Ass Off)

No, I haven't. Figure it out.

Ghost

• For - To most people, is a spirit, which is arises from the dead. So it is a familiar concept. - Appeal to popularity: Invalid.

For - Fits this situation to suit the daughter who no longer lives, and when the date of the death anniversary is reached, people of the family claim to see what is defined as a ghost, and/or what they seem can do.
- Pants idea fits the situation as well. The pants are magic and have a grudge against fire safty: Invalid.

• For - Fits this situation as no other alternative can at the current understanding of the environment in which the events occur. - Argument from ignorance: Invalid.
• For - The experiences of such from person to person have similar attributes and outcomes. - Appeal to popularity: Invalid.

Demon or maybe a rainbow-colored pair of pants

• Against – Does not fit the situation at all. Girl was not a demon, nor was/had any rainbow colored pants, or had any significant interest either of them. - False. The rainbow coloured pants explain the phenomenon. They do not necessarily have to relate to the girl.
  
• Against – Seems to be a sarcastically and non-seriously suggested conclusion. - Completely irrelevant.
  
• Against – Is proposed by someone with almost no information on the situation. - Ad hominem: Invalid.
  
• Against – Is a more uncommon experience. - Appeal to popularity: Invalid.
  
• Against – There is no progression, to any proof whatsoever - Correct. The same is said of ghosts.
  

Originally Posted by blade5x

Are you kidding? I have done a shit load of more thinking when it comes to the unknown than you have. Do you know what I'm studying? Mechanical Engineering. Do you know what I am getting a minor in and even possibly a double major if I decide to go an extra year? Physics. My whole entire course schedule revolves around proofs. So tell me I can't fucking think for myself, or don't know 'science' - because while you dwell on what is already proven - you'll be the one waiting for me to make some kind of big discovery. Now tell me - who's the one making progress here? You are the one who is closed minded. While I'm learning what's already true, I'm already thinking about the possibilities of what might be true. You know how get the possibilities - based of proofs, common sense, and some guess work. Now again - who is the one making progress here?

No, I'm not kidding. For someone who's studying science you're awfully unscientific.

Mechanical Engineering, if I'm to take your word for it.

Physics, if I'm to take your word for it.

It doesn't appear that anyone is making progress here, especially given your disproportionately large head.

It doesn't appear that anyone is making progress here, especially given your disproportionately large head.

Originally Posted by blade5x

I'm not a religious fanatic or follower of the masses - ghosts were used an example.

Answer to your question: Common sense - there's a reason for the saying "you may have book smarts but you haven't got any street smarts" - now answer my question(s).

Common sense seems to invalidate the ghost idea just as easily, so I'm afraid I don't see your point.

Common sense seems to invalidate the ghost idea just as easily, so I'm afraid I don't see your point.

If you think common sense doesn't pick ghost when it comes to 'ghost vs. magic pants' than well... I just don't really know what to say.

It doesn't appear that anyone is making progress here.

Finally something we agree on.

Good night.

Originally Posted by Mark75

No, I haven't. Figure it out.

Yes you have:

Originally Posted by Mark75

Now tell me why my conclusion is any more unfounded than that of ghosts.

Anyway, you definitely have some good points. But a few things need revision:

Originally Posted by Mark75

Ghost

For - Fits this situation to suit the daughter who no longer lives, and when the date of the death anniversary is reached, people of the family claim to see what is defined as a ghost, and/or what they seem can do.
- Pants idea fits the situation as well. The pants are magic and have a grudge against fire safty: Invalid.

You're ignoring the fact that the people of the family claim to see what is defined as a ghost, and/or what they seem can do. That is valid. And with that, the 'pants/demon idea' doesn't fit the situation.

Originally Posted by Mark75

• For - Fits this situation as no other alternative can at the current understanding of the environment in which the events occur. - Argument from ignorance: Invalid.

No, this is valid because it is not an argument from ignorance, it is an argument that the proposed solution best fits because anything else is probably not yet identified, or even suitable to suggest at the current level knowledge, such as the pants. When I say 'current level', I mean the knowledge is always growing with evidence at advancing levels, so the 'ghost' idea may be later disproved.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Demon or maybe a rainbow-colored pair of pants

• Against – Does not fit the situation at all. Girl was not a demon, nor was/had any rainbow colored pants, or had any significant interest either of them. - False. The rainbow coloured pants explain the phenomenon. They do not necessarily have to relate to the girl.

I think you've missed the point of this context. The idea is to prove why these events occur, and the events relate to the girl! So you don't say "they do not necessarily have to relate", because you would have to anyway. This isn't a massive coincidence, that REOCCURS!

Originally Posted by Mark75

• Against – There is no progression, to any proof whatsoever - Correct. The same is said of ghosts.

Not anymore.

Finally I think I see your point. It would make perfect sense why ghosts is no more proven than "pants/demon idea", but only given no context, and there is no point doing that. The context above, for example, easily rids the "magic pants" idea.

What you were on about is like saying:

"A car drove itself into a river, and sunk.

We don't know what caused it to happen. It could either have been a drunken driver, or an unlicensed Tyrannosaurus-Rex for all we know. Given little evidence, I could pick either of those solutions."

Know why I laughed my ass off now? I quote:

Originally Posted by blade5x

If you think common sense doesn't pick ghost when it comes to 'ghost vs. magic pants' than well... I just don't really know what to say.

Mark75, if given not a hint of evidence, or a context for that matter, there would be no reason to even argue ghosts over rainbow pants!

Originally Posted by Mark75

It doesn't appear that anyone is making progress here, especially given your disproportionately large head.

It doesn't appear that anyone is making progress here, especially given your disproportionately large head.

His head is bigger because it holds a bigger brain than yours.
His head is bigger because it holds a bigger brain than yours.

Wow I have only read the past 2 pages of this and the first thing I see is something about demons and rainbow pants. I'm so amused, you just don't know.

Originally Posted by Rainman

Wow I have only read the past 2 pages of this and the first thing I see is something about demons and rainbow pants. I'm so amused, you just don't know.

I do know how you feel. 'Twas quite funny, especially considering the whole idea of this topic.

Originally Posted by really

Yes you have:

No, I haven't, fuckhead. Look up "hypothetical" and come back when you realize how stupid you've been.

Originally Posted by really

You're ignoring the fact that the people of the family claim to see what is defined as a ghost, and/or what they seem can do. That is valid. And with that, the 'pants/demon idea' doesn't fit the situation.

Fine, I can just buttress the pants idea and say that the pants takes the form of a spirit. It's magical after all. It doesn't change the fact that this idea comes from nowhere.

Originally Posted by really

[/list]No, this is valid because it is not an argument from ignorance, it is an argument that the proposed solution best fits because anything else is probably not yet identified, or even suitable to suggest at the current level knowledge, such as the pants. When I say 'current level', I mean the knowledge is always growing with evidence at advancing levels, so the 'ghost' idea may be later disproved.

That's exactly what an argument from ignorance is. "Well, you aren't giving anything else that's definitely proven, so we'll go with this because it hasn't been disproven." Seriously, look it up before you make an idiot out of yourself.

Originally Posted by really

[/list]I think you've missed the point of this context. The idea is to prove why these events occur, and the events relate to the girl! So you don't say "they do not necessarily have to relate", because you would have to anyway. This isn't a massive coincidence, that REOCCURS![/list]Not anymore.

Fine, I can buttress the pants idea and say that they hated the girl and used its magic to cause her death. Not that this matters, as the events do not have to relate to the girl at all. This is just a little extra you stapled on at the last minute to lend the ghost idea more credibility. The annual timer doesn't relate to the girl, either, does it? All it has to relate to is the yearly timing. The fact that the girl's death was the same day means nothing.

Originally Posted by really

Finally I think I see your point. It would make perfect sense why ghosts is no more proven than "pants/demon idea", but only given no context, and there is no point doing that. The context above, for example, easily rids the "magic pants" idea.

It rids both the pants and the ghost. They're equally unfounded. The only difference is that one is more popular. See what is defined as a "spirit". "Spirit" is a magical entity split from the body of the deceased. "Spirit" is the manifestation of a magical pair of pants' will. They both "fit". They both logically come from no where.

Originally Posted by really

What you were on about is like saying:

"A car drove itself into a river, and sunk.

We don't know what caused it to happen. It could either have been a drunken driver, or an unlicensed Tyrannosaurus-Rex for all we know. Given little evidence, I could pick either of those solutions."

Exactly my fucking point you moron. Wouldn't make much sense to say a ghost jumped out on the road and made him swerve, either.

Originally Posted by really

Mark75, if given not a hint of evidence, or a context for that matter, there would be no reason to even argue ghosts over rainbow pants!

HOLY FLYING FUCK STOP THE PRESSES

In fact, I never asked for any evidence. I asked for reasons. You've given neither. Just hollow rhetoric.


Let's take this hypothetical situation as an example:

Mark sees strange shapes moving in his house late at night when no one else is home.

Mark hears unexplainable noises that same night.

Clearly, as no one has died recently or in any way that relates to this day, yet he had posted earlier that about rainbow coloured pants, this is the work of rainbow-coloured magic pants.

images-2.jpeg

Boo yah.

Why did this turn in to a thread about ghosts? Mark; you deny all the circumstantial evidence for ghosts that has built up over the centuries, thats cool. Some other people don't and your adolscent need to be the only one who is right doesn't invalidate their decision. The conversation on that particular "cracked out theory," as you call it, need go no further.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Why did this turn in to a thread about ghosts? Mark; you deny all the circumstantial evidence for ghosts that has built up over the centuries, thats cool. Some other people don't and your adolscent need to be the only one who is right doesn't invalidate their decision. The conversation on that particular "cracked out theory," as you call it, need go no further.

Hi, thanks for being useless.

Ahh, its okay little buddy. Some day when you're older you'll understand some of the things I've tried so hard to explain to you. Your under developed brain just isn't ready yet.

Forgiveness. My meager brain can only process so much BS at one time.

A pity your fingers are so capable of creating it without the aid of your meager brain then.

Oh, you're too kind.

Seriously Mark, grow up. Just grow up.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Fine, I can just buttress the pants idea and say that...

Fine, I can buttress the pants idea and say that...

Obviously you keep changing the idea I am asked to work with.

Originally Posted by Mark75

...they hated the girl and used its magic to cause her death. Not that this matters, as the events do not have to relate to the girl at all. This is just a little extra you stapled on at the last minute to lend the ghost idea more credibility. The annual timer doesn't relate to the girl, either, does it? All it has to relate to is the yearly timing. The fact that the girl's death was the same day means nothing.

Why does it mean nothing, can you answer that?

The annual timer was already proven not to exist. And no; you would like to think that I 'stapled' it on but I truly didn't. Revise.

Originally Posted by Mark75

It rids both the pants and the ghost. They're equally unfounded. The only difference is that one is more popular. See what is defined as a "spirit". "Spirit" is a magical entity split from the body of the deceased. "Spirit" is the manifestation of a magical pair of pants' will. They both "fit". They both logically come from no where.

Have you ever thought why one is more popular than the other?

Originally Posted by Mark75

Exactly my fucking point you moron. Wouldn't make much sense to say a ghost jumped out on the road and made him swerve, either.

Yeah but because it's your point, you'd believe that solution too.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Let's take this hypothetical situation as an example:

Mark sees strange shapes moving in his house late at night when no one else is home.

Mark hears unexplainable noises that same night.

Clearly, as no one has died recently or in any way that relates to this day, yet he had posted earlier that about rainbow coloured pants, this is the work of rainbow-coloured magic pants.

See - It depends on the context doesn't it? Feel better?

That post was so void of substance that it's not even worth insulting. Just go away.

Originally Posted by Mark75

That post was so void of substance that it's not even worth insulting. Just go away.

You didn't need to remind me that you were here just to insult people.

Originally Posted by really

You didn't need to remind me that you were here just to insult people.

I was actually reminding you that I can no longer tolerate your idiocy.

Originally Posted by Mark75

I was actually reminding you that I can no longer tolerate your idiocy.

You didn't need to remind me that you were here just to insult people.

Then how about I just keep insulting you instead?

Originally Posted by Mark75

Then how about I just keep insulting you instead?

'Cause then you'd get banned.

And there's no reason to insult someone, make peace.

If peace is your intention, then get out of my thread.

Originally Posted by Mark75

If peace is your intention, then get out of my thread.

Peace should be your intention, you're the one who's a bit cranky.

But it's not. Go away.