Scientific Knowledge

Panda goes: Any of us would possibly love to do that, but...only after you tell us when you quit beating & cheating on your wife. Sorry pal. You asked for it. Come on, Panda - you started out so well here.....and there's NO WAY I'm giving you a Jeer here. You are a good human.

Straggler continues: Aren't we all doing this? Why are you so special? Shit! I thought you were smarter than that. I am talking about your fucking barrier. To make you understand that one size does not fit all.

Straggler writes: WTF!!??So now you say your question is in fact bullshit. Okay - I can dig it. Whoa - I think ZD's story went completely over your head. It was only to point out that if you don't have the means to test what you are investigating, then you don't have the ability to make a conclusion about what you are investigating. Pretty simple really. Here you are assuming that ZD is making this error. Perhaps, once again for the benefit of the class, you can demonstrate this? No bare links - show quote boxes.

Straggler writes: DUH. BTW my friend, "unfalsifiable" DOES NOT EQUAL "untestable", so nice sneak attack again by someone who is increasingly being sly & dishonest or just confused about the point they are trying to make. I am still saying DUH.Nothing can be demanded. That also includes your several 6+ atheistic stances. There are other aspects that need to be considered for each issue.

Straggler writes: Depends on how you define "better"...is "more accurate" or quicker and a simple app on my iPod "better". And if you do get the GPS app on your iPod that does use GR, then that still may not change how you would calculate your approach to Ganymede with the tie fighters on your ass. CS kinda alluded to GR being more closely matching reality, didn't he?

Panda wries: Excuse me. Maybe your future ex-wife?
Maybe something even more fundamental? Why? Is there a sobriety test here now? Will this affect my career? Ooooo, gimme some of that "woo woo" Straggler has alluded to.No - I admit that this place is a place where I like to spout off. It's an intelligent forum.

Panda writes: Yes, and, unfortunately, you would be passing it.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Too bad.I sense that the Gang of Four* would be even willing to LIE in order to discredit my brother. I also sense that my brother is willing to go off the deep end. I sense that I am willing to off the deep end. I sense that some of us on the sidelines pick our peccadilloes when it suits us.FIRSTLY!: Consider this blatant mischaracterization from PaulK, and also claimed by Panda earlier in his argumentum ad populum: Panda says:Here is the actual relevant passage from Message 205: You will notice, if you ninnies can read, that this refers to the Absence of Evidence, which is a legitimate form of SUPPORTING testimony, despite it not being, in and of itself, direct convincing evidence - such as he described elsewhere in Message 205. Instead the Gang of Four blindly latches on to this huge number, 450 million, and it's like a little pavlovian light bulb goes "ooo, I see a large number = argumentum ad populum". This indicates to me that the Gang of Four has a different agenda than arguing Scientific Knowledge, the title of this thread. Instead they would rather prefer to slash and burn. They seem to have a confirmation bias that RAZD is wrong and they will do everything they can to pick apart and quotemine whatever he says & twist it around to confirm their bias. It is truly sad to see defenders of the Atheist side resort to such deceitful techniques. These are my buddies??? Hello? Why do I, someone who does not think there is any need to posit a supernatural being at all, feel disgusted at my buddies. It's like watching my Red Sox blow the 2011 season. Disappointing.There has been a pattern to caste out, to excommunicate if you will, one of your strongest proponents of evolution, all because he wishes to subjectively and privately think that there may indeed be an untestable pre-Big Bang Deist God who went off to do other things - this somehow upsets your applecart. Shame on you. And you accuse me of drinking.....SECONDLY!: - ZD seems hellbent on being the first in history to find an ironclad way to use formal logic & the rigors of systematic analysis to eventually arrive at the position that not only does his position make sense - it can be proved. BEEEEEEEP - no. Not so. The Gang of Four has managed to make the subsequent attempts of recasting these approaches look "desperate". As Percy has said, the chances of anything interesting happening, anything changing, are now all but gone.THIRDLY!: Can't we all agree that substantiated objective scientific evidence represents reality? Postulates or directly derived Theorems - who cares - any proper formal system can move the postulates and theorems around like musical chairs and either each can be postulated or derived within the whole system.* Straggler, Panda and, now, PaulK these days - Modulous has responsibly gone elsewhere, and bluegenes is not in the building either.