Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
28 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle (4 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,617 Year: 16,653/19,786 Month: 778/2,598 Week: 24/251 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')
vimesey
Member
Posts: 981
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 8.0


(2)
Message 713 of 1043 (693576)
03-18-2013 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 712 by Bolder-dash
03-18-2013 8:45 AM


Re: Great debate?
You never know when new people are going to come to this site actually expecting that its a debate site, rather than a propaganda site disguised as debate.

This is a debating site, and rather a good one too. And one of the reasons that it is so good, is that when it comes to debating scientific matters, it does a good job of holding the participants to a reasonably rigorous sticking to the scientific method. In short, participants are expected to point to evidence on the science threads.

I know you've hand-waved and denied that evidence has been provided that is contrary to your beliefs, but hand-waving and baseless denial doesn't cut the mustard, either here or in any other serious context. Evidence has been presented on the relevant threads - not mathematical proofs, but very strongly persuasive in the context of the theories and their predictions - and you simply pretend that it is suspect, without the slightest grounds for thinking so.

And when you are asked to provide evidence for your beliefs, you seek to assert, again and again, and without the slightest justification, that no evidence has been provided by your opponents.

Ask yourself this - if you are really interested in which way the fence sitters will jump, do you want to be (a) one of the people who presents example after example of evidence; or (b) one of the people who simply hand-waves that evidence away, and never produces any of their own.

I have a shrewd idea who most people find more persuasive.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 712 by Bolder-dash, posted 03-18-2013 8:45 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

    
vimesey
Member
Posts: 981
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 8.0


(2)
Message 913 of 1043 (815232)
07-17-2017 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 912 by Tanypteryx
07-17-2017 2:52 PM


Re: I support Faith's right to rant!
For my 5 cents, I really don't believe that Faith, in and of herself, is a bad person. I disagree vehemently with her on pretty much every topic we discuss here, but I think she is a fairly typical example of your standard human being - not evil, no saint, just normal.

What is truly depressing is what the right wing echo chamber can do to standard human beings, to make them believe what Faith writes.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 912 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-17-2017 2:52 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019