Skepticism!

[SHaYap]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

 Ok Then i excuse and understand  your difficulty with English.

What excuse do you have for having difficulties with understanding the English language when it is properly composed in such a way that clearly and definitively demonstrates your lies ?

~

Quote

  It is much better than my Malay and even my Chinese  

Why thank you, I don't doubt that, furthermore here you are beginning to show signs of avoiding your predisposition for deceitfulness, good for you

~

Quote

That doesn't excuse your tone  or ignorant personal commentary, but i guess that is just who you are. 

 

You must be tone deaf then,so I excuse your ignorant nature but not your propensity for lying .... nothing personal, just an honest analysis and sincere appraisal of your behavior

~

[psyche101]

1 minute ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

The plural of anecdote is NOT data. Take "slenderman" for example. How many anecdotal tales of that spectre are there? Do you take it as a given that 'slenderman' exists, because of those stories?

I have never called you a liar, however, anecdotes without data or evidence do not make you a 'truther' either.

You choose to believe in the existence of the unprovable because it in some way brings you comfort, and have eschewed reason or skepticism in favor of what you want to believe is true.

I have called him out on that. When he has lied. He said the science is wrong, people like Sean Carroll and Brian Cox misrepresent it and that he knows better than they do. He also said physics does not refute an afterlife when it does. 

All those claims are simply not true. They are indeed lies. 

[psyche101]

10 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

i don't even have reply saying i agree 100%- but i have logic & basic common sense WILL always rule

oh what fun

Indeed, because its true. Truth will always rise and challenge superstition. 

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

The plural of anecdote is NOT data.

And a sceptic who calls someone a liar, without knowing the situation, is no sceptic.

2 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

You choose to believe in the existence of the unprovable because it in some way brings you comfort, and have eschewed reason or skepticism in favor of what you want to believe is true.

I go with the data, that being an extensive array of frank demonstrations, nothing to do with choosing what brings comfort, or wanting to believe anything.

[onlookerofmayhem]

10 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

you still still still have not answered my question, mate!!! do i need to repeat it!?

Seems to be the common action of a good half dozen posters on this site. As soon as you post a question or conflicting information they do a few things :

1. Ignore your comment/question all together.

2. Take it as a personal insult and gripe about being "attacked" by everyone.

3. Follow up with completely nonsensical and/or unrelated posts.

4. Boldly proclaim that they are right and everyone else is wrong even though the have no way to convince anybody otherwise. 

5. Rehash the same argument without addressing any of the objections brought up earlier in the thread.

It's rather frustrating that an individual is harassed for asking for further proof of a claim.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

[psyche101]

Just now, Habitat said:

And a sceptic who calls someone a liar, without knowing the situation, is no sceptic.

That's why I list your lies. You have plenty of opportunity to challenge the accusation but nothing. 

Just now, Habitat said:

I go with the data, that being an extensive array of frank demonstrations, nothing to do with choosing what brings comfort, or wanting to believe anything.

You most certainly do not go with the data. You go with your personal preconceptions. Data does not support an afterlife idea. 

[Golden Duck]

29 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

well that's what i'm asking you to explain== class me as stupid & go from there if ya like

Are you doing this again?  You've forgotten what you wrote in the post to which I replied.

Specifically...

56 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

yep... like I've always said:

 how many years will take to change:  <absence of evidence is not evidence of absence> TO  <absence of evidence can only logically mean evidence of absence> 10/50/200 years?

will some be so engulfed in fantasy that they'll STILL be wondering the meaning of crop circles in 200 years time!?!? oh joy

 

 

 

42 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Because it doesn't strictly hold true.

See the Collatz Conjecture and Extraterrestrial Life.

To hold both of these examples as true mandates some arbitrary level of reasonable intuition.

No evidence for:

• Collatz Conjecture being false;
• Extraterrestrial Life;
• The existence of ghosts; 
• Extraterrestrial source of crop circles.

We are searching for the One Example to satisfy the above cases.

Accordingly, to hold a contrary position to the above (as I previously stated) requires an arbitrary level of reasonable intuition.

Therefore, you cannot redefine the common meaning of the aphorism in question.

Edited January 25, 2019 by Golden Duck

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

Indeed, because its true. Truth will always rise and challenge superstition. 

In this case, unbeknownst to you, truth trumps your supposition. As I say, you are a bloke that has tried to hijack science to shore up his belief system, a game that cannot work to your advantage.

[Dejarma]

3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Indeed, because its true. Truth will always rise and challenge superstition. 

yep... off topic but this just came to me:

what has god ever done for us?

change Romans to god

 

[SHaYap]

Just now, onlookerofmayhem said:

It's rather frustrating that an individual is harassed for asking for further proof of a claim.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

 

Ripe time for a special music video clip intermission ...
 

Quote

 

~

 

[00.04:02]

~

 

 

[Dejarma]

7 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Seems to be the common action of a good half dozen posters on this site. As soon as you post a question or conflicting information they do a few things :

1. Ignore your comment/question all together.

2. Take it as a personal insult and gripe about being "attacked" by everyone.

3. Follow up with completely nonsensical and/or unrelated posts.

4. Boldly proclaim that they are right and everyone else is wrong even though the have no way to convince anybody otherwise. 

5. Rehash the same argument without addressing any of the objections brought up earlier in the thread.

It's rather frustrating that an individual is harassed for asking for further proof of a claim.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

wow= you are a genius imo.. therefore i do not like you!

honestly, i wish i had a brain like yours where i could get straight to point- soooo easily

brilliant post, thanks..................

[Habitat]

4 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

 

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

 

Only at the price of accusing someone of being a liar, in many cases. And you may have no clue as to whether they are lying or not. But, if you're happy to be mouthing idle slurs, at least we got to find about your character, if nothing else ! Back down your burrow, rabbit !

[Habitat]

10 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That's why I list your lies.

If not accepting speculation by a scientist as a proof, is a lie, then I would be a liar, but only a peanut would accept that definition !

[psyche101]

5 minutes ago, Habitat said:

In this case, unbeknownst to you, truth trumps your supposition. As I say, you are a bloke that has tried to hijack science to shore up his belief system, a game that cannot work to your advantage.

Translation :

Hab still got nothing. 

You're not picking that bit up are you? 

Another empty claim from someone still catching up with physics. LOL. 

With the amount of opportunities you have had to support your position and failed, I feel sorry for you!!! 

[Dejarma]

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

Only at the price of accusing someone of being a liar, in many cases. And you may have no clue as to whether they are lying or not. But, if you're happy to be mouthing idle slurs, at least we got to find about your character, if nothing else ! Back down your burrow, rabbit !

yep nice.... still find it hard to answer simple question though, eh?? what does that say about you?

[Habitat]

Just now, psyche101 said:

Translation :

Hab still got nothing. 

You're not picking that bit up are you? 

Another empty claim from someone still catching up with physics. LOL. 

With the amount of opportunities you have had to support your position and failed, I feel sorry for you!!! 

"Hab" got to learn something I never imagined I would. No need for theories, experience trumps it.

[Golden Duck]

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Only at the price of accusing someone of being a liar, in many cases. And you may have no clue as to whether they are lying or not. But, if you're happy to be mouthing idle slurs, at least we got to find about your character, if nothing else ! Back down your burrow, rabbit !

It could be Dunning-Kruger rather than dishonesty.

[+Sherapy]

9 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

 

Probably part of his fantasy life. Disgusting. 

[onlookerofmayhem]

2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Only at the price of accusing someone of being a liar, in many cases. And you may have no clue as to whether they are lying or not. But, if you're happy to be mouthing idle slurs, at least we got to find about your character, if nothing else ! Back down your burrow, rabbit !

Actually I'm a Capricorn. Too bad I don't believe in astrology, eh?

If someone is lying they damn well know they are. That's pretty much the definition of the word. For the record I neither called anyone a liar or made any "idle slurs"

[psyche101]

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

If not accepting speculation by a scientist as a proof, is a lie, then I would be a liar,

I've not asked you to attack the messengers but the physics presented. 

The questions are still waiting for you. 

Namely I'd like to know how you propose to circumvent thermodynamics. 

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

but only a peanut would accept that definition !

I don't know what to say. You have been proposed as king peanut so by your own definition you accept the description. 

[psyche101]

5 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

yep nice.... still find it hard to answer simple question though, eh?? what does that say about you?

Evading questions and refusing to support claims whilst waving hands and bellowing ad homs seems to be Habs super power.

He is Belligerent man. 

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Actually I'm a Capricorn. Too bad I don't believe in astrology, eh?

If someone is lying they damn well know they are. That's pretty much the definition of the word. For the record I neither called anyone a liar or made any "idle slurs"

That quote you bolded, was a simple statement that anecdotal evidence has no value. Any scientist who agreed with that, would be a ding-dong ! After all, following up clues is the beginning of gathering knowledge.

[psyche101]

6 minutes ago, Habitat said:

"Hab" got to learn something I never imagined I would.

Belligerent behaviour? 

6 minutes ago, Habitat said:

No need for theories, experience trumps it.

You mean your personal interpretation of some unidentified knocks on the wall. Don't be shy, tell everyone what your irrefutable evidence that turns modern physics on its head is. 

Its just soooooo convincing after all....... 

 

[Habitat]

3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Evading questions and refusing to support claims whilst waving hands and bellowing ad homs seems to be Habs super power.

He is Belligerent man. 

You are a know-all who calls people liars, I'd much rather be called belligerent, than that !

[psyche101]

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

That quote you bolded, was a simple statement that anecdotal evidence has no value. Any scientist who agreed with that, would be a ding-dong ! After all, following up clues is the beginning of gathering knowledge.

Respecting known sciences isn't a bad way to unveil a real answer either.