Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,166 Year: 5,423/9,624 Month: 448/323 Week: 88/204 Day: 4/26 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Assumptions involved in scientific dating
Stile
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 97 of 222 (827366)
01-23-2018 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 8:46 AM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:
My goal of providing a alternative valid narrative is providing truth...
I don't think you're interested in the truth.
Anyone interested in truth would understand that one never "provides" truth. And that the Scientific Method is the best-known method for discovering the truth so far.
Links to the issues in your ideas are not required to refute them.
There's nothing to refute... you didn't discuss them at all in the first place.
If you're going to claim an idea and then whine about it not being refuted... you have to describe why you claim the idea is the more-accurate truth.
Without doing that... it's clear to everyone how interested you are in finding the truth.
You seem more interested in "protecting" something. But I don't know what that something is. And I don't care.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 8:46 AM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 10:47 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 107 of 222 (827378)
01-23-2018 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 10:47 AM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:
If person A is biased, and B, and they debate person C who is just spectating is seeing the bias.
To all the "C" people reading this forum... you will be seen as person "A" for as long as you remain just posting links and not discussing them in your own words.
The tactic you're using ("I'm pointing out bias! Prove yourselves to me!!!") is one that any onlooker recognizes as someone who is merely protecting something and trying to deflect the conversation away from themselves.
As a parent pleads to their children: "Use your words."
If you have something to discuss that actually goes against the current scientific idea... by all means discuss it.
Or if you think you've discovered something that eats away at a current scientific assumption... by all means discuss it.
But posting links, claiming to be unbiased, and pointing fingers around without being able to discuss why or explain a better option is not searching for truth. It just seems like you don't actually have any confidence in what you're doing. People with confidence don't have a problem discussing their position.
There are always reasons not to think something is true.
That's why science never claims that anything is "true." They only claim that things are "as true as we can tell from this information."
That way, as new information is discussed they can adopt or change as required to get closer to the truth.
Your lack of discussion on your reasons-why-you-think-something-isn't-true is exactly what gives you away.
If you wanted to get to the truth... you would discuss the issues. Understand the current scientific ideas. Understand your own dissention. Understand why it's already been adopted and dealt with. Understanding and discussion leads to uncovering more truth.
Just sitting around "being unbiased" does exactly that... nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 10:47 AM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 1:30 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 109 of 222 (827380)
01-23-2018 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Percy
01-23-2018 11:34 AM


Re: Questions
Percy writes:
I think I disagree with both you and Stile. If we're talking science (and I hope we are, since this is a science thread), then science doesn't deal in truth, not in a theological sense or any other sense, not unless you define truth as in some way tentative.
I was getting there.
I just had a bush to beat around for a bit first
Don't mind that horse, either. He's only mostly dead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 01-23-2018 11:34 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by jar, posted 01-23-2018 12:04 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 115 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 1:01 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 149 of 222 (827435)
01-24-2018 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 1:01 PM


Re: Questions
Have anything you'd like to actually discuss yet?
Or is your "search for truth" limited to sentences of nonsense here and there?
Take a subject.
Take an idea.
State whether or not you think it's good or bad.
Then explain why you think such a thing.
Use your words.
That's what "searching for truth" really looks like. The more focused and specific you can be, the more likely you'll be able to learn something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 1:01 PM DOCJ has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024