| o_O.Q said:
"When I challenged this claim and asked you to provide evidence to back it up, you avoided doing so by instead replying: "yeah... i've never met a human that wasn't ignorant or greedy to some degree... have you? ""
that was my evidence... the practitioners of science = humans... humans are greedy and ignorant ...therefore "i think what you are missing is that 'ignorance, greed' are indispensable aspects of the practitioners of science".
i honestly can't put it any better than this(edit)... actually i'll use your wording and say that indeed ignorance and greed are necessary qualities to the practitioners of science since practitioners are people and people are always greedy and ignorant
with regards to evidence for my claim... the entire field of sociology has established that the traits i identified are present in all people, do you have a rebuttal to that?
"You then replied that it was not about "needing", http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8688070 . I will therefore take this to mean that you would prefer to remove the word 'indispensable' from your claim, so that it reads 'ignorance, greed' are aspects of the practitioners of science" However, when Chizrum said “It was YOU who said scientists need to be ignorant and greedy. You literally said it in this quote (emphasis on the bold) "i think what you are missing is that 'ignorance, greed' are indispensable aspects of the practitioners of science".”, you then contradicted yourself in your reply by saying “yes i didn't deny it, i'm pointing out that he's rewording what i said to make it sound illogical even though its obviously true” http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8690050"
i didn't contradict myself, i said that you reworded what i said... i mean you even quoted me where i said it right there
"So you offered a replacement source, http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae251.cfm to back up the claim. Unfortunately, this link shows no proof that "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence". It is a question asked by an ordinary person, "What is a singularity and why do all laws of physics break down at singularity?" followed by an answer from a person with M.A. level qualifications in the field. The nature of the answer demonstrates a scientist's reliance on hypothesis (definition: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation) and theory (definition: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.) It cites examples and previously established physical laws, and talks about which types of theories cover the physics surrounding singularities. It also points out where new theories are required, but at no point is faith involved on the part of the scientist."
lol the link literally says that we need new physics laws that do not exist yet (a lack of evidence) "It also points out where new theories are required" to verify the hypothesis, or in other words evidence that does not exist sounds like faith to me but if you disagree so be it lol
"You said - “i know of people employed in scientific fields that believe in the big bang and most likely you do also... i think what you meant to say is people educated on this topic” http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8687828 "
you initially said that "These people you refer to are not scientists." to me saying there are scientists who believe in the big bang theory... i then stated that i know of scientists who do and that you probably intended to mean only people who are active in the field we discussed so you were wrong and i corrected you
" “you don't think people just believe in some things because an authority in the field told them and they just trust the authority?” http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8688070 and I had to remind you we were talking about people who were educated on the subject. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8688690"
no, i only mentioned that to correct you, i was talking as i said about people who believe in these things because an authority told them and they include as i said previously scientists in other fields
they have faith that what they are told is correct, even though as you acknowledge the theory breaks the laws of physics
" I explained how theories are not proposed to be believed in" and my post on singularities all by itself disproves this claim since as you have acknowledged that relies on evidence that has not yet been presented
"Despite me maintaining that they were knowledgeable physicians of their time, even though they may appear ignorant in comparison today, you then tried to tell me that you had been saying that all along (no evidence of this in the thread) and that I had been disagreeing with it (despite you quoting me as actually saying it) and even trying to cover your tracks by then making up the idea that “ignorant” generally by default has the present day as the context. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8688841 (no proof of that anywhere on the internet!) But regardless of the amusingly self-contradictory route you took, it seems that we both agree that medical practicioners of the time may have appeared ignorant when compared with modern knowledge and standards, but they certainly were not ignorant in their own time."
if you are going to deny that the word ignorant by default is a comparison to the present state of the user then we really can't have a conversation on this since you don't understand the meaning of the word or how its used in relation to language "regardless of the amusingly self-contradictory route you took" its only contradictory if you don't understand what ignorant means though, as i said your understanding of the word means i can't say something like "the people of the past were ignorant" and that's pretty much the main way ignorant is used
"On the subject of bloodletting, you implied that faith was employed prior to the advancement of medical science: “before medical science advanced they believed in these procedures without adequate evidence... so how does that not substantiate my claim?” On the subject of the archaeological hoax, you implied that faith was employed because the level of scientific testing of the time was not advanced enough to call the authenticity of the find into question. In both cases, you tried to argue that faith was being employed despite there being clear evidence within the sources you provided showing adherence to scientific methods and knowledge of the time."
yeah exactly in both cases they didn't have any evidence to justify their actions or beliefs so therefore there was faith involved "clear evidence within the sources you provided showing adherence to scientific methods and knowledge of the time." no that's not true the bloodletting procedure was carried out disregarding the evidence of its harm and with regards to piltdown man the claims were believed despite scepticism from some about the hoax because they were desperately searching for a missing link and chose to continue its promotion because they wanted to forward that narrative
"and of course, this post. My last 4 consecutive posts on this thread have addressed it." no you haven't, because you can't, all you have done so far is attempt to attack my wording, not address the point i made |
lol, so much sidestepping and contradiction going on here, I don't even know where to begin. At least I have the balls to admit when I'm wrong http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8687178 - something you haven't exhibited yet. Ironic, given our respective genders.
I'm done here, now, so good day to you sir, and enjoy your blinkered view of the world.
