Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by leafar:
Bladerunner, do the research. If you wish to. Until then youre not in much of a position to comment, unless you just want to give your opinion, which is fine.
There is no research that stands up to any scrutiny. I don't need research to know that there is absolutely no evidence to support any case of human/reptile transformation. If you want to believe unsubstantiated and outlandish theories that's up to you, but please don't pretend or imagine that such theories have the same weight of evidence or research behind them as scientific/ demonstrable/repeatable knowledge. |
| |
|
|
You dont need to research something to know that theres no evidence to support it. I see. Do you have any idea why thats the most ridiculous statement?
And then you talk about the weight of evidence / reserach behind scientific/demonstrable/repeateable knowledge. Youve just contradicted yourself. First you say you dont have to reserach in order to know something, then you defend the reality of something else based on...research.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by leafar:
You dont need to research something to know that theres no evidence to support it. I see. Do you have any idea why thats the most ridiculous statement?
And then you talk about the weight of evidence / reserach behind scientific/demonstrable/repeateable knowledge. Youve just contradicted yourself. First you say you dont have to reserach in order to know something, then you defend the reality of something else based on...research.
Look leafar, I don't need to personally go into space to know that the world is round, nor do I even need to read the research, observe the satellite photos, or make the calculations myself, becuase its all been done, subjected to testing and verification, and enters the realm of known knowns. I guess if human/reptile hybrids really existed, I'd just know about it, as would we all. I think it would be pretty big news, huh? You may want to believe in them, thats up to you, but that's not knowledge, its belief. |
| |
|
|
Youre at it again. If human/reptile hybrids exists, you would know about it, and so would everyone else. Thats ridiculous. The world has always been round, except that not everyone knew it for a long time. And guess what, when it became common knowledge, it was pretty big news. Tell me if im wrong about anything so far.
And yes, it is a belief. I havent seen reptilians myself, so yes of course all i can do is have a belief or disbelief in it based on some kind of research. At no point did i say that they definately exist. You know i didnt say that.
|
| |
|
|
quote: First you say you dont have to reserach in order to know something, then you defend the reality of something else based on...research.
He's not contradicting himself at all. You are failing to grasp the difference between knowing a negative statement is true (smt doesn't exist) as opposed to a positive statement (smt does exist). Lets just reduce your logic to the point where it gets silly. Do you know that purple elephants which breathe fire don't live in Surrey? Of course they don't, but what exactly are you going to research to 'prove' it? It would only really matter if someone was trying to argue that such elephants existed. At which point if they fail to provide any evidence they can be confidently dismissed. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by leafar:
Youre at it again. If human/reptile hybrids exists, you would know about it, and so would everyone else. Thats ridiculous.
Why is it ridiculous? There is certainly the technology available to analyse the DNA of any animal/human, and plenty of methods by which to acquire such DNA (hairs off hair brushes, skin cells off clothes, saliva off glasses/cups). The world being round may have come as a shock, but if so, only becuase there had never been a way of knowing before hand, which is not the case with regard to the existence of animal/human hybrids. We know how to test for that, so if they existed, we'd know. quote: And yes, it is a belief. I havent seen reptilians myself, so yes of course all i can do is have a belief or disbelief in it based on some kind of research. At no point did i say that they definately exist. You know i didnt say that.
Believing is bad enough. To me, its like a devaluation of knowledge. There becomes no difference between knowable things and complete fantasies, all become equal. That way lies mediocrity and chaos. |
| |
|
|
He said that he doesnt have to research to know that something doesnt exist. But he hasnt looked into it, so he neither knows that it exists, nor that it does not exist. He just doesnt know, period. Its not about proving a negative or a positive, its about having a look in order to establish either the presence of a positive, or, in the absense of a positive, he can then say "i dont know".
Yes bladerunner, we have the technology. So lets use it. And like i said, the world was round before most people knew it. You have not disputed that.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by leafar:
Sorry leafar, life's too short. I'd like to say to you, don't waste it, but guess that would just sound patronising, but I mean it with the best of intentions. How will you ever be able to make appropriate, accurate, meaningful judgements if you cannot sort the wheat from the chaff? Bye. |
| |
|
|
Dont worry about me. David Icke, the son of God will take care of me.
Hes my guru, you know.
|
| |
|
New Member
|
quote: Originally posted by leafar:
Nice and simple. What do people think?
This is anything but simple, and the resulting mess was inevitable. If you were to take the Socratic approach to this question and really get into what you are asking, the result would be a multitude of competing realities unable to agree on any detailed meaning of thequestion, but nevertheless chomping at the bit to answer anyway. |
| |
|
|
Gee, it was only a question.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by leafar:
Youre at it again. If human/reptile hybrids exists, you would know about it, and so would everyone else. Thats ridiculous.
If no one knows about it, then they effectively do not exist. There is nothing ridiculous about that. quote: The world has always been round, except that not everyone knew it for a long time. And guess what, when it became common knowledge, it was pretty big news.
Really? When did it become common knowledge and what evidence do you have that it was big news? quote: Tell me if im wrong about anything so far.
You are wrong about almost everything so far. |
| |
|
|
I hate to have to state the obvious, but if no one knows about it, then it means that no one knows about it. Thats what no one knowing about it means. "Effectively" doesnt come into it. Knowing and existing are two different things. If you dont see something, it says more about your perceptions and nothing at all about its existence.
Your request for me to give evidence of when it became common knowledge (about the world being round) and it being big news is a childish one, because the point i was making was that people did not know something which had always been true.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by leafar:
I hate to have to state the obvious, but if no one knows about it, then it means that no one knows about it. Thats what no one knowing about it means. "Effectively" doesnt come into it. Knowing and existing are two different things.
If no one knows about it, then whether it exists or not is irrelevant. quote: If you dont see something, it says more about your perceptions and nothing at all about its existence.
If we look for something and do not find it, then it actually says far more about its probable non-existence than about our perceptions. If we cannot see it, no matter how hard we look, then it might as well not exists as we cannot know about it. quote: Your request for me to give evidence of when it became common knowledge (about the world being round) and it being big news is a childish one, because the point i was making was that people did not know something which had always been true.
You made a claim that you are unable to back up. This makes you dishonest. The earth was semi-spherical long before we humans evolved. The truth of its roundness only became apparent when we could measure it though. Truth and reality are often worlds apart. |
| |
|
|
If no one knows about it, then its existence or otherwise is relevant to whoever is interested in finding out the truth. And if you dont find it, it just means that you didnt find it. It doesnt mean that it exists or that it doesnt exist. I cant believe im having to keep explaining this to adults. And as for my analogy, i was making a point (which ive already defined). Nitpicking it is irrelevant, because lets say that everything i said in the example about the world being round was wrong. Maybe i picked the wrong example, but i made my point clearly.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by leafar:
If no one knows about it, then its existence or otherwise is relevant to whoever is interested in finding out the truth.
I prefer to find out about reality rather than some arbitary truth. Thus if no one knows about it, its reality is unknown; it might as well not exist. quote: ... And if you dont find it, it just means that you didnt find it. It doesnt mean that it exists or that it doesnt exist.
Incorrect. If one looks and doesn't find it; it lowers the probability it exists. Thus not finding something has a direct bearing on its existence. quote: ... I cant believe im having to keep explaining this to adults...
That'll be because adults can often think for themselves and thus can see through your childish views. I'd stick to kids if I were you; they'll be more receptive. quote: ... And as for my analogy, i was making a point (which ive already defined). Nitpicking it is irrelevant, because lets say that everything i said in the example about the world being round was wrong. Maybe i picked the wrong example, but i made my point clearly.
You are entitled to your opinion. In my opinion, your point was very badly made as you were unable to defend it is any way. |
| |
|
|
If you think it might as well not exist, thats fine. So just let those who feel that certain things exist get on with it, and let them accept the evidence that theyre able to accept. If youre intrigued as to why they believe them, then research it. If you find nothing, then youre back to square one, where its existence still remains a mystery to you. And on it goes.
If one looks and doesnt find it, it lowers the possibility that the method and criteria used can perceive it. Again, its existence or not remains another issue.
Ironically, youre right. Kids would be more receptive. Theres a meaning in that last sentence which i suspect youll never grasp or appreciate.
In your opinion, your 5 senses are the ultimate tools for perceiving reality, so if its all the same, i wont take it too seriously.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by leafar:
If you think it might as well not exist, thats fine. So just let those who feel that certain things exist get on with it, and let them accept the evidence that theyre able to accept.
What evidence? There is no evidence. It there were evidence, then it has been obversed. If it hasn't been observed, then there is no evidence. quote: ... If youre intrigued as to why they believe them, then research it. If you find nothing, then youre back to square one, where its existence still remains a mystery to you.
The only thing that remains a mystery is why people choose to believe in things for which there is no evidence. It is completely irrational behaviour. quote: If one looks and doesnt find it, it lowers the possibility that the method and criteria used can perceive it. Again, its existence or not remains another issue.
Incorrect. It would only lower the probability that the method and criteria used cannot perceive it if it has already been perceived by another means. This is always the parsimonious explanation for failing to observe something who's existence is unknown. quote: Ironically, youre right. Kids would be more receptive.
There is no irony to it. quote: In your opinion, your 5 senses are the ultimate tools for perceiving reality...
5 senses? Oh please! What decade are you living in? All of our senses (I favour the argument that we have 22 of them) are subjective and are a crap way of perceiving reality. |
| |
|
|
No, that right. Theres no evidence that you can perceive, or are willing to accept. If one person observes some evidence and you dont, we're back to the issue of the existence of it still being unknown to you yourself. And yes, its a mystery why people choose to believe things for which youve not seen evidence. Life is full of mysteries. Its irrational to you, but you are only you.
What makes you think that it only lowers the possibility that the observation method used cant see it if its already been seen with another method? That makes no sense whatsoever. Something can either see a thing or it cant, regardless of if its already been seen in some other way. I dont know where you get your ideas from. If i try to see a persons skeleton using a telescope and it doesnt work, it makes no difference whether an x ray was previously used. The telescope either works or it doesnt.
My point about the 5 senses (i too think there are many more) was that you seem to think that if your sense dont perceive it, it cant exist, which as you can guess, i think is silly.
Can we relate this somehow back to conspiracy theories? Its just that we're getting a bit off topic.
|
| |
|
|
And the fact that even our senses only perceive a narrow band of whats really there makes each of us even less able to say "it doesnt exist".
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by leafar:
No, that right. Theres no evidence that you can perceive, or are willing to accept. If one person observes some evidence and you dont, we're back to the issue of the existence of it still being unknown to you yourself.
No, you are confused. Whether I personally have perceived it is irrelevant. The whole point of the scientific method is that someone have observed something, recorded the method and results and carried out statistical analysis of the results to give a significance probability to those results. It is always a good idea for other people to test the experiment to ensure the significance probability is reliable, but that is all it takes. I need not observe it myself; I accept the evidence of others. Of course this is wholly different to someone merely claiming to have observed something. Such claims do not count as evidence. quote: And yes, its a mystery why people choose to believe things for which youve not seen evidence.
Please do not put words into my mouth. I said for which there is no evidence. That is wholly different to me having not seen the evidence. quote: ... Life is full of mysteries. Its irrational to you, but you are only you.
No life being full of mysteries isn't irrational. Filling those mysteries in with half-baked ideas for which there is no evidence is irrational though. quote: What makes you think that it only lowers the possibility that the observation method used cant see it if its already been seen with another method? That makes no sense whatsoever. Something can either see a thing or it cant, regardless of if its already been seen in some other way. I dont know where you get your ideas from. If i try to see a persons skeleton using a telescope and it doesnt work, it makes no difference whether an x ray was previously used. The telescope either works or it doesnt.
You are confused again. If a x-ray can see the skeleton, then it has been seen. Whether a telescope sees it is thus irrelevant; its existence is already observed. Of course an x-ray cannot see a person's xxedutractryylu. In fact nothing has yet been found that can see a person's xxedutractryylu. So when you try your telescope and it too fails to see a person's xxedutractryylu, the likelihood that the person's xxedutractryylu is pure invention increases. quote: My point about the 5 senses (i too think there are many more) was that you seem to think that if your sense dont perceive it, it cant exist, which as you can guess, i think is silly.
That is because you do not understand what I think and so must project a simplified version - that you can understand - upon me. quote: Can we relate this somehow back to conspiracy theories? Its just that we're getting a bit off topic.
This is completely related to conspiracy theories. Most conspiracy theories arise because people cannot accept the existence of a mystery and feel the urge to fill it with half-baked ideas for which there is no evidence. |
| |
|
|
If a scientist says that they carried out a test in the way you describe (which is fair enough) and you believe it, thats fine. But youll never quite really until you perceive it yourself, although i do accept that its ok to take the word of another person, if you trust them. Especially if they show you info that implies the truth in their claims.
You could say that bias is irrational, and that merely having a belief based on nothing in particular is irrational, but all of us believe in things that weve not seen. Whether something is or isnt irrational doesnt make a difference to whether its true.
Yes, youre right, if an x ray has seen it, then that can be taken as evidence, even if the telescope doesnt see it. But things either exist or they dont. You cant apply likelihood to it. Likelihood is something which can be used as a working assumption, but thats all it is.
You say that people go along with a conspiracy because they cant accept the existence of a mystery and want tio fill in the gaps, but scientists are always filling in the gaps with "well if i cant see it, then the chances are that it doesnt exist", rather than just saying " hey, you know waht, i just dont know, its inconclusive".
Its midnight and this forums now closed. You might want to continue this tomorrow.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by leafar:
If a scientist says that they carried out a test in the way you describe (which is fair enough) and you believe it, thats fine. But youll never quite really until you perceive it yourself, although i do accept that its ok to take the word of another person, if you trust them. Especially if they show you info that implies the truth in their claims.
| |
