0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
What is your cut of the action? If not, why aren't you maximizing your profitable activities?
Quote from: larens on 16/05/2020 00:52:51What is your cut of the action? If not, why aren't you maximizing your profitable activities?You think we're getting paid for this?
No, more likely you are Manchurian Candidates brainwashed by cognitively dissonant academic propaganda.
Quote from: larens on 16/05/2020 01:17:50No, more likely you are Manchurian Candidates brainwashed by cognitively dissonant academic propaganda.Ah yes, brain-washing. I guess I should have gotten into the habit of wearing tinfoil hats.
Maybe you should get more into the habit of being a moderator and enhancing the discussion. When I replied to your question of "what was my profession?", you ignored my replies and just allowed BoredChemist to continue trashing the discussion.
Quote from: larens on 16/05/2020 01:49:19Maybe you should get more into the habit of being a moderator and enhancing the discussion. When I replied to your question of "what was my profession?", you ignored my replies and just allowed BoredChemist to continue trashing the discussion.I got tired of what appeared to be a fruitless effort. If you want to count that as besting me in the debate, feel free to. The research I needed to do in order to be a part of it was illuminating, however. So you have my thanks for that.As far as Bored Chemist goes, I don't see how he has broken any of the rules.
It showed me how deeply the dogma that Life on Earth started on Earth is protected by cognitive dissonance.
That Bored Chemist was not breaking the rules of the forum is a problem of the forum.
Quote from: larens on 16/05/2020 05:58:52It showed me how deeply the dogma that Life on Earth started on Earth is protected by cognitive dissonance.To be fair, I am open to the possibility that life could have started elsewhere. I just have not seen sufficient evidence to convince me that it must have or must have not.
Quote from: larens on 16/05/2020 05:58:52That Bored Chemist was not breaking the rules of the forum is a problem of the forum.So which of his actions do you think should have a rule or rules barring it?
In the spirit of the Lighter Side people need to be allowed to present there evidence without being presented with unreasonably high standards for evidence.
Though there is going to be a struggle over epistemology, it should not degenerate into a fight.
Repeatedly asserting a position without presenting new evidence each time should be barred.
Enforcing this rule would require finesse because people nearly always modify their position a little each time. People mainly need to be reminded how they are violating the rule. This could move to barring offending replies. Only in extreme cases should people be barred.
Earlier on there were repeated changes in the format of the forum that tended to hide my posts followed by their revocation, so I am not sure of how much of a consensus there is now.
I thought that you were one of the people protecting me.
It isn't our duty to protect anyone's ideas from criticism, only from unreasonable behavior like insults or threats.
Quote from: larens on 16/05/2020 06:50:49Repeatedly asserting a position without presenting new evidence each time should be barred.I don't think I can agree with that. If an argument is a well-supported by the presented evidence, there is no need to bring new evidence to the table.
The Naked Scientists have generally been very lenient because we have allowed all kinds of crazy things to be posted here with questionable to zero evidence.
Insults or threats are too high a standard a limit when dealing with harassment.
If a good counterargument is presented, the first evidence may not really be well-supported.
Quote from: larens on 16/05/2020 06:50:49Repeatedly asserting a position without presenting new evidence each time should be barred. OK, stop repeatedly telling us that an entirely hypothetical satellite is the origin of life.
Quote from: larens on 16/05/2020 09:20:29Insults or threats are too high a standard a limit when dealing with harassment.What else did you have in mind?
People trying to force the order of discussion so as to make a logical and coherent presentation impossible.
That is a giant "if". With cognitive dissonance working most supposed evidence is not well-supported.
I don't see how that counts as harassment. Being illogical or frustrating is not necessarily being harassing. If you find it to be too much to deal with, there is supposedly some way to put a selected user on "ignore".
Quote from: larens on 16/05/2020 23:07:09That is a giant "if". With cognitive dissonance working most supposed evidence is not well-supported.Then the veracity of the evidence itself can become the subject of debate.
I'm not looking to continue the debate, but I'm just throwing this out there for curiosity's sake: why not consider Ceres as a possible abode for the origin of life? It has plenty of organic material, water ice, and iron minerals. Why couldn't your water circulation system and natural nuclear reactor be present there? Or what about Hygeia, which also has ice and organic material?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 16/05/2020 21:10:03Quote from: larens on 16/05/2020 06:50:49Repeatedly asserting a position without presenting new evidence each time should be barred. OK, stop repeatedly telling us that an entirely hypothetical satellite is the origin of life.You are the ones repeatedly bringing up the subject without consideration of evidence. I put the subject into the topic title so the discussion of the origin of life would be grounded with a specific location with specific solar radiation and specific solar nebula inputs. I then proceeded to present evidence, most of it only weakly dependent on that specific location. I lot of it was in rebuttal to the generally assumed location, the Earth. After I had shown that an asteroidal site was strongly preferable to a site on earth I could then show that a former satellite of Vesta was the only asteroidal site strongly favored by the evidence. Since evidence is strongly interconnected, one has to choose some such structure to make the presentation coherent and efficient. Remember that the origin of life was specifically in the title.Instead of allowing me to proceed laying out the evidence in the manner I thought best for putting together the entire model you demanded that I prove my specific location before tying down the evidence that supported it - a logical impossibility. Logical counterarguments need to attack points within the scientific model, not the presenters model of presentation. While the latter tactic may score points within a debating club, it does not within a scientific forum.
Your job, if you want us to believe your idea, is that you need to disprove the "null hypothese "(1) You have to show that life didn't start on Earth(2) You have to show that it didn't start somewhere else in the Solar system (I think we can agree that much further afield that that is impossible because radiation would destroy the DNA/RNA)
Until you have proved those, I'm going to continue to state the null hypothesis. And I recognise that there's no way I can do that without saying "you are wrong".
I repeatedly pointed out that the concentrations of chemical precursors on Earth would be too low because of dilution and catalytic destruction.