Author Topic: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2  (Read 333405 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #350 on: August 21, 2009, 04:39:50 PM »
I find it appropriate that you compare yourself to a crazy man, em.  :biggrin:

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #351 on: August 21, 2009, 05:29:43 PM »
I get that way when you don't understand basic and refuted fallacious arguments.  :angel:

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #352 on: August 21, 2009, 07:13:28 PM »
I get that way when you don't understand basic and refuted fallacious arguments.  :angel:

I'd say it's more foolish to think something is a fallacy, when it is not.

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #353 on: August 21, 2009, 07:27:40 PM »
I get that way when you don't understand basic and refuted fallacious arguments.  :angel:
I'd say it's more foolish to think something is a fallacy, when it is not.
It's more foolish not to accept defeat. Accepting ones mistake is a virtue.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #354 on: August 21, 2009, 07:56:53 PM »
I get that way when you don't understand basic and refuted fallacious arguments.  :angel:
I'd say it's more foolish to think something is a fallacy, when it is not.
It's more foolish not to accept defeat. Accepting ones mistake is a virtue.

Why accept defeat, when you haven't been defeated? Cowardice is a vice. You saying over and over again that I'm wrong does not make me wrong anymore than me saying your wrong over and over again makes you wrong.

By the way, nice projection.  :biggrin:

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #355 on: August 21, 2009, 08:06:40 PM »
You are wrong. There's no doubt about it. You've been pointed out many times why you are wrong. It's that you find the reason you are wrong as a way to prove you are right. Doesn't work, buddy.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #356 on: August 21, 2009, 08:12:06 PM »
You are wrong. There's no doubt about it. You've been pointed out many times why you are wrong. It's that you find the reason you are wrong as a way to prove you are right. Doesn't work, buddy.

From your perspective. You really are just getting silly now. An argument is rather worthless when both sides can use the same argument. I could just as easily tell you that you've been pointed out many times why and how you are wrong.

Get off your high horse.

Offline millahh

  • Retired Pedantic Bastard
  • Moderator Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3800
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Mark
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #357 on: August 22, 2009, 06:11:53 AM »
Quote
Man:
Oh look, this isn't an argument!

(pause)

Other Man:
Yes it is!

Man:
No it isn't!

(pause)

Man:
It's just contradiction!

Other Man:
No it isn't!

Man:
It IS!

Other Man:
It is NOT!

Man:
You just contradicted me!

Other Man:
No I didn't!

Man:
You DID!

Other Man:
No no no!

Man:
You did just then!

Other Man:
Nonsense!

Man:
(exasperated) Oh, this is futile!!

(pause)

Other Man:
No it isn't!

Man:
Yes it is!

(pause)

Man:
I came here for a good argument!

Other Man:
AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument!

Man:
An argument isn't just contradiction.

Other Man:
Well! it CAN be!

Man:
No it can't!

Man:
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

Other Man:
No it isn't!

Man:
Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.

Other Man:
Look, if I "argue" with you, I must take up a contrary position!

Man:
Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'.

Other Man:
Yes it is!

Man:
No it isn't!

Other Man:
Yes it is!

Man:
No it isn't!

Other Man:
Yes it is!

Man:
No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.


Other Man:
It is NOT!

Man:
It is!

Other Man:
Not at all!

Man:
It is!

 :biggrin:
Quote from: parallax
WHEN WILL YOU ADRESS MY MONKEY ARGUMENT???? NEVER???? THAT\' WHAT I FIGURED.:lol

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7550
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #358 on: August 24, 2009, 05:01:46 AM »
I'm considering drawing up a formal proposal of "Unintelligent Design" as an explanation of life. Anyone want to help me write it?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #359 on: August 24, 2009, 10:28:32 AM »
I'm considering drawing up a formal proposal of "Unintelligent Design" as an explanation of life. Anyone want to help me write it?

As in, just point to the spleen, gills when we're in the womb, hiccups, etc?

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7550
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #360 on: August 24, 2009, 10:42:17 AM »
The first 3 chapters will be dedicated to the platypus. I mean, whats up with that shit?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #361 on: August 24, 2009, 12:54:21 PM »
Quote
I'm considering drawing up a formal proposal of "Unintelligent Design" as an explanation of life. Anyone want to help me write it?

Were you abused by a priest or something when you were younger?

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #362 on: August 24, 2009, 01:13:58 PM »
Quote
I'm considering drawing up a formal proposal of "Unintelligent Design" as an explanation of life. Anyone want to help me write it?

Were you abused by a priest or something when you were younger?

Why do you ask that? To XJ and others (including me), the whole "Intelligent Design" movement is an affront on serious inquiry. Given how prolific the movement is, one (sadly) has to counter one way or the other.
Ignoring it is sadly not an option.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #363 on: August 24, 2009, 03:03:14 PM »

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #364 on: August 25, 2009, 03:50:40 AM »
Quote
Why do you ask that? To XJ and others (including me), the whole "Intelligent Design" movement is an affront on serious inquiry. Given how prolific the movement is, one (sadly) has to counter one way or the other.
Ignoring it is sadly not an option.

Ignoring it, like you ignore anything else is an option.

Science is not an atheist only pet rock that proves whatever they believe, many men who have earned there scientific educations and backgrounds do indeed choose to believe in and support intelligent design.

So to go on that ID or religion in general is an affront to serious inquiry not only makes you sound as if you are some self appointed defender of science (aka douche), but it is simply untrue. Not just that, but for someone to use that as a reason to continuously mock something they don't like is very poor justification.

Live and let live.

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7550
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #365 on: August 25, 2009, 12:24:34 PM »
Quote
I'm considering drawing up a formal proposal of "Unintelligent Design" as an explanation of life. Anyone want to help me write it?

Were you abused by a priest or something when you were younger?

...what the hell type of question is that?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Offline millahh

  • Retired Pedantic Bastard
  • Moderator Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3800
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Mark
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #366 on: August 25, 2009, 12:35:51 PM »
Quote
I'm considering drawing up a formal proposal of "Unintelligent Design" as an explanation of life. Anyone want to help me write it?

Were you abused by a priest or something when you were younger?

Quote
Why do you ask that? To XJ and others (including me), the whole "Intelligent Design" movement is an affront on serious inquiry. Given how prolific the movement is, one (sadly) has to counter one way or the other.
Ignoring it is sadly not an option.

Ignoring it, like you ignore anything else is an option.

Science is not an atheist only pet rock that proves whatever they believe, many men who have earned there scientific educations and backgrounds do indeed choose to believe in and support intelligent design.

So to go on that ID or religion in general is an affront to serious inquiry not only makes you sound as if you are some self appointed defender of science (aka douche), but it is simply untrue. Not just that, but for someone to use that as a reason to continuously mock something they don't like is very poor justification.

Live and let live.

NG, cut it out.  You've been warned about this before, and now this is two posts in a row.  Final warning.  Next time you step out of line, you're getting a vacation.
Quote from: parallax
WHEN WILL YOU ADRESS MY MONKEY ARGUMENT???? NEVER???? THAT\' WHAT I FIGURED.:lol

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #367 on: August 25, 2009, 03:57:59 PM »
Quote
NG, cut it out.  You've been warned about this before, and now this is two posts in a row.  Final warning.  Next time you step out of line, you're getting a vacation.

My bad.

Quote
...what the hell type of question is that?

There has to be some reason besides this crappy affront to scientific inquiry thing you and all the dawkinites keep trying to push. I mean really, you live with so many more retarded things in your life than religion and intelligent design yet somehow these need to be destroyed because.....they are wrong...according to you. I dont understand why you cant just turn a blind eye and like I said, live and let live.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #368 on: August 25, 2009, 04:24:29 PM »
Because "intelligent designers" won't live an let live. They're the ones affronting Science, by trying to claim "Intelligent Design" is science - by asking that it be taught in science class. Again, this does not ay anything about the truthfullness of intelligent design, it just say that it is not Science.

I have nothing wrong with the philospihcal idea of creationism being taught in schools, but not in Science class.

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #369 on: August 25, 2009, 04:57:24 PM »
Intelligent design is a legitimate idea backed by many scientifically sound people and should be given the same equal attention as evolution is given. Its not biased or one sided, its simply fair. But the dawkinites seem to have this idea that it will destabilize science as a whole and reign terror on the masses.

Also maybe your definition of live and let live is a little different than mine. I am not telling, or suggesting we tell anyone how to think or behave. But by disallowing teachers or schools to teach ID in any science class you are by default telling them that what you think they believe is not science and that science is defined as this and only this. Kind of a breach of you believe what you want and I believe what I want and we wont tell each other what to believe by default is it not?

Teaching children that there are very popular alternative ideas to evolution wont do anything, the distinction here is that we are not telling them that ID is correct or incorrect which is not the case in science classes right now for evolution.

Offline AcidLameLTE

  • Nae deal pal
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11134
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #370 on: August 25, 2009, 04:59:49 PM »
It's still not science. It may be a legitimate idea but it's not science.

I am not trying to disprove Intelligent Design in this post. I am simply saying that it's not science.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #371 on: August 25, 2009, 05:20:46 PM »
Intelligent design is a legitimate idea backed by many scientifically sound people and should be given the same equal attention as evolution is given. Its not biased or one sided, its simply fair. But the dawkinites seem to have this idea that it will destabilize science as a whole and reign terror on the masses.

Also maybe your definition of live and let live is a little different than mine. I am not telling, or suggesting we tell anyone how to think or behave. But by disallowing teachers or schools to teach ID in any science class you are by default telling them that what you think they believe is not science and that science is defined as this and only this. Kind of a breach of you believe what you want and I believe what I want and we wont tell each other what to believe by default is it not?

Teaching children that there are very popular alternative ideas to evolution wont do anything, the distinction here is that we are not telling them that ID is correct or incorrect which is not the case in science classes right now for evolution.


No dude, intelligent design isn't Science by definition. Science is very strictly defined, and one of the characteristics it requires is "falsifiability" and "reproducibility." Intelligent design can't offer anything of this sort. Intelligent designeres offer no experiments, nothing which can be reproduced, it makes no predictions, no hypothesis. There is nothing to test. This means it is not science.

Seriously, I'm not saying anything about the idea of creationism or intelligent design. I'm saying it's not science. And like I just said, I have no qualms about intelligent design being taught in schools, just not in the fucking science class.

Also, science says nothing of the sort. YOu have to completely misunderstand science in order to come to your conclusion (but you've already proven that by thinking ID is science).

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #372 on: August 25, 2009, 05:52:00 PM »
I didnt know philosiphy majors had the credentials to tell other people they do not understand science.   :rollin

This is not a discussion I wish to have with anyone on the internet.

As denton so conveniently put it in the other thread:

Quote
Can we not just agree that noone on this forum knows a sufficient amount of climatology to make these arguments worth anything? It would save alot of senseless arguing.

Also, maybe a little reading.

https://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/832

https://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/IntelligentDesign.htm#_ftnref4

https://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/2003Why.htm

https://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/GRAPHICS-CAPTIONS/Flagellum.html
« Last Edit: August 25, 2009, 06:07:44 PM by Nigerius Rex »

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #373 on: August 25, 2009, 06:07:26 PM »
I didnt know philosiphy majors had the credentials to tell other people they do not understand science.   :rollin


Seeing as how philosophy created science and the scientific method, I would say philosophy has a rather good claim at defining what science is. Scientific inquiry and Philosophic inquiry are motivated by the same things. There isn't' the saying, "Philosophy is the queen of the sciences" for no reason. To make the point even further, "science" is latin for "knowledge," and a heavy and integral part of Philosophy is epistemology - or the theory of knowledge.

Besides which, this is a retarded thing to say. First of all, the first two years of college, I was a physics major (did quite well in it too). I've taken high end physics courses as early as a year ago, and would love continue doing so in Grad school. You also didn't actually address the points. It also begs the question: what's your major?

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #374 on: August 25, 2009, 06:13:06 PM »
1. None of your business. Even if it was a related science it wouldn't be good enough or I wouldn't have enough experience or some other crap which you will make up on the spot if I told you and we continued this debate.

2. Like I said, don't want to have this discussion with anyone on the internet because the same thing happens over and over. Especially with dawkinites who will never acknowledge their own bias and think they are the science god.

The fact that you are even trying to justify your criticisms of a science that you don't have a degree for just reinforces what I thought about debating religion on the internet in the first place.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #375 on: August 25, 2009, 06:48:29 PM »
1. None of your business. Even if it was a related science it wouldn't be good enough or I wouldn't have enough experience or some other crap which you will make up on the spot if I told you and we continued this debate.

No I wouldn't. Your projecting becuase that's what you've done, and what you were trying to do. The problem is, according to your own logic, you can't make any of the justifications you are trying to make. You've already tried to make up some crap that I don't have enough experience (because I'm a philosophy major).

Quote
2. Like I said, don't want to have this discussion with anyone on the internet because the same thing happens over and over. Especially with dawkinites who will never acknowledge their own bias and think they are the science god.

I'm not a dawkinite. Not even close. In this field, you would have to call me a Heideggarian. But please, go on insisting that intelligent design is Science, when it's not by definition. Go read Francis Bacon, please.

Plus, like I've said numerous times, I have no problem with creationism being taught in schools, it just doesn't belong in the Science class room. It would be like teaching Spanish in English class. That is simply not the subject matter.

Quote

The fact that you are even trying to justify your criticisms of a science that you don't have a degree for just reinforces what I thought about debating religion on the internet in the first place.


You're right, I don't have a degree in the "science" of Creationism/Intelligent Design because it's not a Science. Intelligent design theory does not follow the Scientific Method, and is basically forecluded from being so by it's very stance on the issue.

Offline millahh

  • Retired Pedantic Bastard
  • Moderator Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3800
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Mark
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #376 on: August 25, 2009, 07:13:03 PM »
I didnt know philosiphy majors had the credentials to tell other people they do not understand science.   :rollin


Y'know, there's a reason that the terminal degree in a scientific degree is called a Ph.D....
Quote from: parallax
WHEN WILL YOU ADRESS MY MONKEY ARGUMENT???? NEVER???? THAT\' WHAT I FIGURED.:lol

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #377 on: August 25, 2009, 07:20:07 PM »
Quote
No I wouldn't. Your projecting becuase that's what you've done, and what you were trying to do. The problem is, according to your own logic, you can't make any of the justifications you are trying to make. You've already tried to make up some crap that I don't have enough experience (because I'm a philosophy major).

I am not projecting and it wasn't specific to you. I am saying you don't have enough experience, because you don't and not in the right field. Remember a while back when I gave you that petition of the thousands of scientists who thought global warming was a load of bull? Remember the general response that you seemed to agree with? The majority of the petition was filled with scientists who were not directly involved in climate science.

Why is your case with your two years of physics any different for biology or evolution and intelligent design?

Quote
I'm not a dawkinite. Not even close. In this field, you would have to call me a Heideggarian. But please, go on insisting that intelligent design is Science, when it's not by definition. Go read Francis Bacon, please.

Once again, not specific to you. It was a general reply encapsulating the entire internet debate atmosphere.

Quote
Plus, like I've said numerous times, I have no problem with creationism being taught in schools, it just doesn't belong in the Science class room. It would be like teaching Spanish in English class. That is simply not the subject matter.

Heres one of the humps. People who do have relevant degrees in the fields relating to evolution/creation debate do support ID. You cant deny they do, you cant challenge there backgrounds or degrees, and you cant dismiss what they believe. So how do you get off dismissing ID as not science without contradicting something that very clearly exists?

edit: Srsly millah...srsly.

Quote
Y'know, there's a reason that the terminal degree in a scientific degree is called a Ph.D

I cant believe the same crowd that has shot me down all these times for bringing unqualified experts to the table is now supporting scheavo as he becomes a scientist with his philosophy degree. This is exactly what I mean when I say debating on the internet. You know as well as I, thats not what it means. Maybe historically, but the meaning is very obviously not philosophy in sheavos sense.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #378 on: August 25, 2009, 08:20:12 PM »
Quote
No I wouldn't. Your projecting becuase that's what you've done, and what you were trying to do. The problem is, according to your own logic, you can't make any of the justifications you are trying to make. You've already tried to make up some crap that I don't have enough experience (because I'm a philosophy major).

I am not projecting and it wasn't specific to you. I am saying you don't have enough experience, because you don't and not in the right field. Remember a while back when I gave you that petition of the thousands of scientists who thought global warming was a load of bull? Remember the general response that you seemed to agree with? The majority of the petition was filled with scientists who were not directly involved in climate science.

Why is your case with your two years of physics any different for biology or evolution and intelligent design?

Hehe. Sorry, it's funny becuase you report to evidence which proves you wrong. From that thread:


Second of all, modern scientific surveys are amazingly accurate. That, and it is simply a landslide. 82% of scientists and 97% of climatologists. Seriously, do you somehow think that this survey magically, and pretty much mathematically impossibly, surveyed simply the scientists who agree with the movement?




97% of Climatologists, which was defined as people, "who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals n total). Of these specialists, 96.2%(76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2."

Quote
Quote
I'm not a dawkinite. Not even close. In this field, you would have to call me a Heideggarian. But please, go on insisting that intelligent design is Science, when it's not by definition. Go read Francis Bacon, please.

Once again, not specific to you. It was a general reply encapsulating the entire internet debate atmosphere.

C'mon man, just admit you assumed I was a "dawkinite."

Quote
Quote
Plus, like I've said numerous times, I have no problem with creationism being taught in schools, it just doesn't belong in the Science class room. It would be like teaching Spanish in English class. That is simply not the subject matter.

Heres one of the humps. People who do have relevant degrees in the fields relating to evolution/creation debate do support ID. You cant deny they do, you cant challenge there backgrounds or degrees, and you cant dismiss what they believe. So how do you get off dismissing ID as not science without contradicting something that very clearly exists?

So um... why are you assuming every scientists actually performs Science? I go about calling it not Science based upon the definition of what science is. Meaning, if something doesn't follow a very exact method, meaning very exact means to an end, it is not Science. ID, and every single 'scientific' paper about ID doesn't follow these criteria, nor this definition. Also: The New Organon . That is how any science department in the country, and in the world, is going to define modern Science.

Quote
edit: Srsly millah...srsly.

Quote
Y'know, there's a reason that the terminal degree in a scientific degree is called a Ph.D

I cant believe the same crowd that has shot me down all these times for bringing unqualified experts to the table is now supporting scheavo as he becomes a scientist with his philosophy degree. This is exactly what I mean when I say debating on the internet. You know as well as I, thats not what it means. Maybe historically, but the meaning is very obviously not philosophy in sheavos sense.

Quote from: Wiki
Doctor of Philosophy, abbreviated PhD (also Ph.D.), for the Latin philosophić doctor, meaning "teacher of philosophy",

That's why? Because if Philosophy isn't related, why is every single Ph.D in any science called a "teacher of philosophy"?

And, thanks milahh... I forgot about that one.

Offline millahh

  • Retired Pedantic Bastard
  • Moderator Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3800
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Mark
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #379 on: August 25, 2009, 08:36:36 PM »

I cant believe the same crowd that has shot me down all these times for bringing unqualified experts to the table is now supporting scheavo as he becomes a scientist with his philosophy degree. This is exactly what I mean when I say debating on the internet. You know as well as I, thats not what it means. Maybe historically, but the meaning is very obviously not philosophy in sheavos sense.

I'm not calling scheavo a scientist, or an expert in science.  So far as I know, he lacks the technical knowledge, the experience, and the insight (nothing personal, scheavo).  What he brings to the table is being well versed in logic, which is the foundation upon which science is built, and IMHO the part of science education that is most lacking in this country.
Quote from: parallax
WHEN WILL YOU ADRESS MY MONKEY ARGUMENT???? NEVER???? THAT\' WHAT I FIGURED.:lol

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #380 on: August 25, 2009, 09:24:31 PM »

I cant believe the same crowd that has shot me down all these times for bringing unqualified experts to the table is now supporting scheavo as he becomes a scientist with his philosophy degree. This is exactly what I mean when I say debating on the internet. You know as well as I, thats not what it means. Maybe historically, but the meaning is very obviously not philosophy in sheavos sense.

I'm not calling scheavo a scientist, or an expert in science.  So far as I know, he lacks the technical knowledge, the experience, and the insight (nothing personal, scheavo)[/b].What he brings to the table is being well versed in logic, which is the foundation upon which science is built, and IMHO the part of science education that is most lacking in this country.

Meh, being ignorant never bothered me so much as being irrational. It's rather easy to fix ignorance if you're rational.

That, and good ol' Socrates.

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #381 on: August 25, 2009, 09:47:58 PM »
Arguing with you guys is like talking to a dining room table.

Quote
C'mon man, just admit you assumed I was a "dawkinite."

I will sick millahh on you if you don't stop telling me what I was trying to say.


Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #382 on: August 25, 2009, 10:01:11 PM »
Arguing with you guys is like talking to a dining room table.


Yes, we're the stubborn ones.

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #383 on: August 25, 2009, 10:18:25 PM »
Yep. Its good to see you finally starting to realize it.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #384 on: August 25, 2009, 11:04:07 PM »
Lol.

That's why I'm the one who answers with a yes or no; and why I create straw men, bring up red herrings, and employ other fallacies; and that's also why I ignore arguments completely.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2009, 11:10:01 PM by Scheavo »