|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
 Posted - 01/25/2010 : 07:10:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by cantbe323
It's impossible to find evidence for common sense, and I have no need to lie, so take it or leave it.
cantbe323
|
So you don't hold yourself to the same standards of "fact" as the theories and people you criticize. Interesting. I will "leave it" as you clearly have no knowledge in the field that you criticize.
You may not have a need to lie, but you can have a want to lie (perhaps to enhance your credibility), and it appears that you do (have a want to lie).
It is far easier to question and pick apart theories, than to provide an alternate theory that explains all existing evidence. Until you demonstrate expertise in the field, why should anyone consider your questions as serious? |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
 |
|
|
cantbe323
Suspended
242 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2010 : 13:18:29 [Permalink]
|
It is far easier to question and pick apart theories, than to provide an alternate theory that explains all existing evidence.>>
No doubt about that, and those do pick apart existing theories are called skeptics, the name of our group. Too bad most don't have the courage to venture into that dangerous never never land.
Until you demonstrate expertise in the field, why should anyone consider your questions as serious? >>
You demonstrate your obstructive expertise in the field, and I'll demonstrate my constructive expertise in all fields.
Remember, this is a supposed to be a group of dedicated skeptics who should be questioning established wrongs, not wasting time with gotchas...
cantbe323 |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2010 : 14:34:33 [Permalink]
|
Please provide examples where I am obstructive and you are constructive.
Edited to add: If I understand you correctly, we are both being skeptical in exactly the same manner, but when I am skeptical, I am "obstructive". Conversely, when you are skeptical, you are "constructive".
Am i correct? If not, please explain the difference. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
| Edited by - Fripp on 01/25/2010 15:58:18 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2010 : 14:46:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by cantbe323
It's impossible to find evidence for common sense, and I have no need to lie, so take it or leave it.
|
With your claimed age and life experience, your should know that "common sense" is the definition of an oxymoron if there ever was one. 
All your claims of science being bunk are nebulous and unspecified, and are because of that fairly impossible to evaluate. Give us specific statements you thing are pseudo-science, with a link for reference. Then you've given us something to play ball with.
And please...
Make an effort to learn formatting.
To quote someone, highlight the text of the quoted person in the text editor and click the Quote-icon... 
Then the editor will set the proper forum tags around the highlighted text.
Or just click the quote icon. Then it will produce the forum tags, [quote][/quote] just cut and paste the text you want to quote in the middle of the tags. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2010 : 15:49:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by cantbe323
I'll demonstrate my constructive expertise in all fields.
Remember, this is a supposed to be a group of dedicated skeptics who should be questioning established wrongs, not wasting time with gotchas...
cantbe323
|
In what fields do you have expertise and what ways are they constructive? Please provide concrete, researchable examples.
Illustrate where I've been setting up, or pursuing, "gotchas"? Precise quotes please. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2010 : 18:16:53 [Permalink]
|
Cantbe323,
I can appreciate the barrier between the "knower" and the known, but what are the possible responses to this? Shall we lose ourselves in a flailing despair, clutching at anything that happens to appeal to us just because it appeals to us, or shall we look for ways to try to understand this "unknowable" reality? There are question, sometimes profound ones, about the power of science to provide real knowledge (these are mostly matters of definition), but the evidence so far seems to (very strongly) suggest it is the most effective method for doing so yet devised - some evidence being what I've cites before (tripled lifespans, remarkable technologies, including the electronic abacus you write your responses on, and astonishing accomplishments).
Science, at least, provides (demand even), as part of its inquiring process, the possibility for error, and hence room for correction. Honestly, I don't see you saying anything terribly controversial if this is all you are saying. Now, let's see where you run with it. Are you now going to claim that there is "real" source of "real knowledge" that you know won't stand up under your own critique? Or are you going to recognize the power of solipsism without realizing that those handcuffed by it are taken in by a failure to recognize unwarranted assumptions.
Perhaps "knowledge" is not really what we need to find. Maybe the idea of "truth" is a fiction. But we demonstrably have efficacy. I'll take that over being helplessly blown along on the winds of haphazard, seemingly random, fate. Maybe someday we'll discover a means to some idea of truth that satisfies all stipulations (it doesn't help that people want to confuse the matter with irrational concepts of truth). Until then, we use methods like science to empower us and infer (tentatively) that we must be doing something right because (look at that!) it works.
I will now rely on scientific tehcnology that cannot be proven against impossible standards of truth to deliver this message to an unverifiable forum... ;) |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
cantbe323
Suspended
242 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2010 : 11:45:56 [Permalink]
|
So you don't hold yourself to the same standards of "fact" as the theories and people you criticize. Interesting. >>
I critize no one. I only point out wrongs in occupations I'm familiar with and hope others who recognize the same wrongs will join me in the debate. This is a skeptic forum, isn't it, or is it a save the conventional prayer meeting?
<<I will "leave it" as you clearly have no knowledge in the field that you criticize.
>>
I mentioned my seismograph job several times. Next time before you make stupid remarks do a little reasearch first.
cantbe323 |
|
|
|
cantbe323
Suspended
242 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2010 : 11:58:21 [Permalink]
|
It is far easier to question and pick apart theories, than to provide an alternate theory that explains all existing evidence. >>
If I want theories I'll read a sci fi book. I only relate with things that can be demonstrated. Demonstration should be the goal of all scientists, not educated guesses about things they don't know.
Cantbe323 |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2010 : 12:55:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by cantbe323
I critize no one. [/br] |
These aren't criticisms?
(from your initial post)
"Everything pseudoscientists say they know about earthquakes is just another pseudoscience blunder. They know the effect, but have no idea about the cause..."
"There's none so blind as those who won't see." |
Those are just two examples. I'm sure I could find more if I spent more than 30 seconds looking.
| I mentioned my seismograph job several times. Next time before you make stupid remarks do a little reasearch first. |
It seems like someone is a tad sensitive and doesn't like scrutiny to be turned upon him.
Tell me exactly how I am supposed to research your claim of holding a "seismograph job"? Are we to simply take your word for it? Are you willing to take other proven scientific professionals' (or in your words "pseudoscientists") word that what they say is accurate? |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2010 : 13:07:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by cantbe323
I critize no one. [/br] |
Here's another one:
| In short, sir, you're a loud mouth bore with no accomplishments of your own to speak of so you undermine everyone elses. |
|
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 01/26/2010 : 13:45:50 [Permalink]
|
This clown has yet to show any honesty nor any willingness at all to debate in these fora. So, I question every statement he's made here, including those in his profile.
| Bio: Engineer, business owner, pragmatist |
Cantbe, are you an engineer and if so what field? What schools do you hold degrees from and when did you earn them?
What business did you start up and what was it's product?
A pragmatist, I fear, you are not. Pragmatists tend to accept factual information and events, rather than ignore them.
Hobbies: debunking, debating, letters to editors, script writing, designing new things.
|
At this point, you have debunked nothing nor have you engaged in anything like legitimate debate.
Letters to editors, unless they are demands for payment or "gimmie-back-my-fuckin'-manuscript!," are a waste of time. I've been there.
What scripts have you written and were they accepted for production, and if so, what production(s)?
What new things have you designed and did you apply for any patents? Did you get those patents? Are any of those new things currently in public or military/government use?
Recent history tells me that I really shouldn't expect any coherent answers to all of this, and I don't. But I'll ask a couple more, anyway:
Exactly how old are you? Thus far, I've read 77 and 83, and find both to be questionable. Provide evidence that you actually experienced three CA earthquakes dating back to the '30s.
When are you going to give up methamphetamine?
I await your reply with something less than anticipation.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
cantbe323
Suspended
242 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2010 : 13:56:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by cantbe323
I critize no one. [/br]
Here's another one: >>
In short, sir, you're a loud mouth bore with no accomplishments of your own to speak of so you udermine everyone elses. >>
I suppose your realize, or maybe not... You've just reinforced my statement.
If you can't find anything constructive to add, find a another way to pass the time... Start a new hobby, make a new friend, get a life...
cantbe323
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2010 : 14:48:43 [Permalink]
|
dglas......
Part of your address to cantbe123:| There are question, sometimes profound ones, about the power of science to provide real knowledge (these are mostly matters of definition), but the evidence so far seems to (very strongly) suggest it is the most effective method for doing so yet devised - some evidence being what I've cites before (tripled lifespans, remarkable technologies, including the electronic abacus you write your responses on, and astonishing accomplishments). |
...and...
| Science, at least, provides (demand even), as part of its inquiring process, the possibility for error, and hence room for correction. Honestly, I don't see you saying anything terribly controversial if this is all you are saying. |
...also...| Or are you going to recognize the power of solipsism without realizing that those handcuffed by it are taken in by a failure to recognize unwarranted assumptions. |
Well-stated, cogent, and relevant discussion points, dglas
cantcountto123, however, makes statements like this:| They know the effect, but have no idea about the cause because they can't see through the tons of rocks to watch an earthquake while it's happening. |
and | Skepticism is more about debunking the conventional things people have accepted as a way of life with conflicting metaphors, common sense, experience, and critical observation, |
and | and I charted the bounce back time and location. So easy even a cave man could do it. |
and My criteria for true science is...
can it be physically demonstrated, or compared with something that has been demonstrated? |
and | How did I come to formulate it? I don't really know. Maybe the earthquake in Haiti stimulated my engineer's memory. |
and | Einstein OTOH, was more like a con artist. He stole ideas while he was a patent clerk, and faked his light bending theory by doctoring his photos of the 1919 solar eclipse. The last part was shone on TV a while back. |
dglas, you are not just engorging a troll, you (and many others here) are feeding caviar to maggots. This 323 person not only does not engage in debate, he simply babbles on about irrelevant misconceptions that seem to obsess him.
Your comment certainly has value to others reading here, myself included, and I in no way criticize it; but no one here is going to genuinely engage this handicapped person in any meaningful exchanges. He cannot articulate his viewpoint understandably because it is predicated on a completely incorrect grasp of what science is and how it works.
Two protons from the nuclei of hydrogen atoms have to be brought close enough for their mutual electric repulsion to be overcome by the nuclear force for the subsequent release of energy we know as a thermonuclear explosion to occur.
cantthink states that science can't see or directly sense protons, atomic nuclei, or the mutual repulsion of two negatively charged particles; therefore the hydrogen bomb was conceived, designed, built, and detonated by an incredible series of lucky guesses by a group of "pseudoscientists" who were literally working blind because they couldn't see the basic components of the phemomenon they created. All they had was a bunch of "theories" or wild guesses thst miraculously happened to all mesh together and create the largest explosion ever made by man - precisely what they intended to do when they started out. But it wasn't science, it was "pseudoscience".
It wasn't science from the first discovery of the electron by J.J. Thomson in 1897 right up to the explosion of the first thermonuclear device in November 1952 at Eniwetok atoll in the Pacific. It was all pseudoscience done by pseudoscientists.
I assume that 123 would comment on the explosion itself and the vaporization of the island as "Now that's what I'm talking about - that's REAL science. I can see it."
So over fifty years of pseudoscientists practicing pseudoscience finally kind of accidentally creates visible thermonuclear fusion. And finally, we have science!
Cantsee123 is just too comprehension challenged to be stumbling around in this Forum.
|
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2010 : 15:52:31 [Permalink]
|
I suppose your realize, or maybe not... You've just reinforced my statement. |
Ummm... exactly how did I reinforce your statement? You do realize that the "loud mouth bore" quote is yours. And you were directing it to Filthy.
If you can't find anything constructive to add, find a another way to pass the time... Start a new hobby, make a new friend, get a life...
cantbe323
|
So when you question other people's credibility, it's constructive. But when I question yours, it's not.
That's whats known as hypocritical. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Earthquake causes?
