Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Straylight · 31-35, F
Eddiesolds · 61-69, M
@Straylight Can i have some of your popcorn? Lol
Straylight · 31-35, F
Eddiesolds · 61-69, M
@Straylight lmfao!!
robertsnj · 56-60, M
None, but that is the rub though. If there is evidence to support why refuse to believe?
The scientifc meathod is the most relibable process to understand the world we live in. In addition the scientists or researches who put their theories out there will have them challenged for vaidity by other academics in their field to test and validate the robustness of the idea and the evidence (data) presented to support it.
It doesn't matter if don't like it (which what I think refuse to believe often means). it went through the washing machine of the scientific meathod, of
observe / research / hypothesis / test / analyze data/ report conclusion, then was challenged by other experts in that field it probably got some teeth to it.
On a sidenote that isn't as relevant I think Dr Karl Popper',s theory of fasliblity I think is one of best thought ideas in modern history for this specific reason the idea of challenging the observatations and data recieved is the key to validating it. Actually that and I wish other people on here thought philosophy is cool on this forum.
The scientifc meathod is the most relibable process to understand the world we live in. In addition the scientists or researches who put their theories out there will have them challenged for vaidity by other academics in their field to test and validate the robustness of the idea and the evidence (data) presented to support it.
It doesn't matter if don't like it (which what I think refuse to believe often means). it went through the washing machine of the scientific meathod, of
observe / research / hypothesis / test / analyze data/ report conclusion, then was challenged by other experts in that field it probably got some teeth to it.
On a sidenote that isn't as relevant I think Dr Karl Popper',s theory of fasliblity I think is one of best thought ideas in modern history for this specific reason the idea of challenging the observatations and data recieved is the key to validating it. Actually that and I wish other people on here thought philosophy is cool on this forum.
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
BunnyWarrior · F
robertsnj · 56-60, M
@BunnyWarrior there is plenty of evidence / data that dogs know / respond to their names. I am not sure "dog not know names" could in theory qualify as a scientific fact.
robertsnj · 56-60, M
you guys are making me nervous... there is a different conspiracy theory thread. by SW Questiosns. Click on the bots profile and posts to see it.
This the fact thread--as in-has supporting evidence.
I am neverous because based on a lot of these posts many of you do not actually know what a science proven fact is.
This the fact thread--as in-has supporting evidence.
I am neverous because based on a lot of these posts many of you do not actually know what a science proven fact is.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
That the current scientific method is the most reliable.
We just are not willing to find anything better.
We just are not willing to find anything better.
View 1 more replies »
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@robertsnj see! You don't even want try yourself.
Let someone else do it for you. Defeatism!
BTW I said WE. Meaning the whole scientific community! Still no one WANTS to try.
It takes the whole community to even try. Much less agree on anything.
Let someone else do it for you. Defeatism!
BTW I said WE. Meaning the whole scientific community! Still no one WANTS to try.
It takes the whole community to even try. Much less agree on anything.
wildbill83 · 36-40, M
@DeWayfarer actually, they keep changing the definition of scientific method; The original was that something had to be observable, testable, and repeatable to be considered scientific
of course, that didn't bode well for big bang, evolution, global warming, and all the other bullshit, so they changed it... 🤔
of course, that didn't bode well for big bang, evolution, global warming, and all the other bullshit, so they changed it... 🤔
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@wildbill83 I know. It needs to be modernized better. With more input from a wider community. You limit the consensus, it's no longer the whole community.
You're wrong still about the big bang, evolution and climate change. Your religious fetish wasn't ever included in the scientific community to begin with.
This is why you're so upset about that change!
Your fetish was making inroads into what really was the scientific community, with it's [u][b]sophistry[/b][/u]. Why they limited the consensus so drastically, to excize religious sophistry.
Religion, sciences and politics [b][u]do not mix[/u][/b]!
At least they did that much. Yet they forgot the other sciences like logic and assigned them into other fields, like philosophy.
Huge mistake!
Logic is a science on its own. It's frequently used in computers and electronics! See how well sophistric faith works in either field with it's unending loop type of thinking‽
It simply can not, due to it's illogic!
Yet this limiting is why I had a Mormon for a logic instructor, as well as for philosophy.
For all the insanity, religion doesn't belong in philosophy either. Let alone science!
Most especially not logic despite religious sophistry, which the Christians stole from the pagan Greeks!
BTW Faith is sophistry! It goes in circles, eats itself and never ever ends. Which is a method to confuse the issue or rhetoric. AKA sophistry!
The whole concept was stolen from the pagan Greeks! Your so beloved anti religious and homosexual Aristotle was a master in sophistry! The father of Aristocrats!
Does that not question the validity of your own religion and political views, both? And why neither doesn't belong in any form of science?
You're wrong still about the big bang, evolution and climate change. Your religious fetish wasn't ever included in the scientific community to begin with.
This is why you're so upset about that change!
Your fetish was making inroads into what really was the scientific community, with it's [u][b]sophistry[/b][/u]. Why they limited the consensus so drastically, to excize religious sophistry.
Religion, sciences and politics [b][u]do not mix[/u][/b]!
At least they did that much. Yet they forgot the other sciences like logic and assigned them into other fields, like philosophy.
Huge mistake!
Logic is a science on its own. It's frequently used in computers and electronics! See how well sophistric faith works in either field with it's unending loop type of thinking‽
It simply can not, due to it's illogic!
Yet this limiting is why I had a Mormon for a logic instructor, as well as for philosophy.
For all the insanity, religion doesn't belong in philosophy either. Let alone science!
Most especially not logic despite religious sophistry, which the Christians stole from the pagan Greeks!
BTW Faith is sophistry! It goes in circles, eats itself and never ever ends. Which is a method to confuse the issue or rhetoric. AKA sophistry!
The whole concept was stolen from the pagan Greeks! Your so beloved anti religious and homosexual Aristotle was a master in sophistry! The father of Aristocrats!
Does that not question the validity of your own religion and political views, both? And why neither doesn't belong in any form of science?
Really · 80-89, M
If I don't believe it, obviously I don't consider it a 'scientifically proven fact'. If there are others who think it's proven, that may or may not have much influence on my own judgement.
SkeetSkeet · 100+, F
AthrillatheHunt · 51-55, M
Bill Cosby didn’t do it . Dr Huxtable isn’t a serial rapist .
eventtemple123 · 22-25, M
Women have sex drives (I used to be an incel)
MougyWolf · 36-40, M
that masks stop the spread of covid
iamonfire696 · 41-45, F
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment