0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 24/09/2013 20:00:04Stop being a jerk, be serious : and do not try to derail the discussion you obvioulsly cannot handle .I meant that my own belief warns me against the relative unreliability of that "radar ". so to speak .I know; but it's hard to be serious when you say stuff like that. Having something that tells you when the something that tells you when something is unreliable, is unreliable, is truly Kafkaesque
Stop being a jerk, be serious : and do not try to derail the discussion you obvioulsly cannot handle .I meant that my own belief warns me against the relative unreliability of that "radar ". so to speak .
QuoteQuote... Is there some particular 'real' issue you'd like me to look at?What ? Do you want me to draw you a picture ? I think i was clear enough .So, you can't remember either? QuoteIf you cannot deliver yourself from those reductionist indoctrinations and brainwash you obviously do confuse with science proper , that's not my problem , but yours to deal with ,otherwise just go see a ..shrink .If I don't agree with you I need a psychiatrist? Disappointing stuff... playground taunts really don't help your credibility.
Quote... Is there some particular 'real' issue you'd like me to look at?What ? Do you want me to draw you a picture ? I think i was clear enough .
... Is there some particular 'real' issue you'd like me to look at?
If you cannot deliver yourself from those reductionist indoctrinations and brainwash you obviously do confuse with science proper , that's not my problem , but yours to deal with ,otherwise just go see a ..shrink .
I will give you yet another chance , the very last one , after that , if you screw up again, we will have to go our separate ways :
I see dlorde saying to you that God is irrelevant for science , it is not the case...
Well, David Cooper was correct about one thing. Trolls are impossible and it is probably best to ignore them. No matter what logical evidence you support your arguments with, no matter what credible scientific studies provide positive proof for something, they will say "But it fails to explain this other thing," followed by an ideological rant about why something is "obviously" false just because they keep saying it is. What's worse, they offer no reasonable, verifiable alternative for any of it. Don essentially says you cannot expect him to provide scientific proof of the immaterial because it is immaterial. And my response is "Great! Go post these immaterial things on the The Mystical Angel My Little Pony Website."
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 25/09/2013 16:23:28I will give you yet another chance , the very last one , after that , if you screw up again, we will have to go our separate ways :You're funny
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 23/09/2013 19:16:31I see dlorde saying to you that God is irrelevant for science , it is not the case...So anyway Don, are you going to explain this? how is God relevant to science?
And while you're at it, can you explain the methods by which science will make progress when all reductionist approaches have been expunged as you advocate?
Both questions have been asked more than once and ignored so far.
I did not say that God is relevant to science ,did i ?
why didn't you quote the whole sentense ?
QuoteAnd while you're at it, can you explain the methods by which science will make progress when all reductionist approaches have been expunged as you advocate?Science has its own effective unparalleled method thanks to and through which science has been able to achieve all those "miracles " :<...blah...>
Both questions were previously answered : your own failure to see just that is your problem, not mine .
<... tl;dr ...>
It's an unreliable indicator of the reliability of an unreliable system, which is actually less unreliable than the indicator.
I think DonQ is actually female. When accused of talking improbable nonsense my mum used to say "I just know".
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 25/09/2013 17:54:58I did not say that God is relevant to science ,did i ?I thought so; 'Not irrelevant', says 'relevant' to me. If this isn't what you meant, you only had to say so.
Quotewhy didn't you quote the whole sentense ?What, "God is irrelevant to reductionism in science"? It appeared to confirm my interpretation - by implying that God might somehow be relevant to non-reductionist science (whatever that might be). The rest of it was fluff.
QuoteQuoteAnd while you're at it, can you explain the methods by which science will make progress when all reductionist approaches have been expunged as you advocate?Science has its own effective unparalleled method thanks to and through which science has been able to achieve all those "miracles " :<...blah...>If you mean the scientific method, that's the framework within which an approach (e.g. reductionism) is used. As I'm sure you're aware.
QuoteBoth questions were previously answered : your own failure to see just that is your problem, not mine .Ah; such subtle answers they just appeared to be ignoring the questions altogether...OK; I suppose that's that then
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 25/09/2013 20:57:38<... tl;dr ...>The normal way to discuss on forums is to post your own thoughts about what you've read, not copy-paste reams of someone else's work.