Post by Kurt NicklasPost by TimPost by Kurt NicklasPost by TimPost by Kurt NicklasPost by TimPost by Kurt NicklasPost by TimPost by Kurt NicklasPost by TimPost by Kurt NicklasPost by TedPost by Marvin SebournPost by TedPost by Kurt NicklasOn 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right
Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human RightPost by Cloud HobbitHe keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.
I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?
Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell
you?
Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.
Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that
geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never
reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide
stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about
6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common
false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of
paleontology and biogeography.
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn
Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists are
among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book that's
obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on faith,
without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100% true.
You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal
with the meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable
assumptions underlying science.
Shame that you keep making this accusation that science is befuddled by
assumptions, but keep failing to say what assumptions.
Post by Kurt NicklasYes, it's a real shame.
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've been
piling up you could try acting like adults.
Or is that too much to expect?
Well kunt, what are these assumptions that science relies on?
<crickets>
Poor Dim. So much effort. So little outcome.
Start with these...assuming you know how to click on a link.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions
Silly kunt, you claimed they were a priori assumptions. But they
aren't. Now stop being a coward and either explain how they are a
priori or shut your fool mouth.
1. Look up what 'a priori' means in Latin, silly girl.
I don't need to, but you do.
LOL Yes you do, Dimmy.
No kunt, I don't.
Your link to a priori describes it as "a philosophical term that is used
in several different ways. The term is suppose to mean knowledge [see
that kunt] that is gained through deduction, and not through empirical
evidence...The problem, though, is that the word is used to describe
something entirely different. It is used to describe knowledge that
exists without reference to reality."
No mention of assumption is there, kunt. Also note that a priori
knowledge exists "without reference to reality." The assumptions in the
other link do refer to reality.
Post by Kurt NicklasPost by TimPost by Kurt Nicklas2. Deny that science has assumptions that must be taken on faith for
science to function.
I deny that the assumptions you cited are a priori.
Then you're a fool.
No kunt, you simply haven't grasped the fact that the assumptions
mentioned in the other link are not a priori. They are derived from given experience.
"There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us."
That is derived from reality and not "without reference to reality." See
kunt? The above assumption simply can not be a priori since it is
derived from experience. It is a posteriori.
a pos·te·ri·o·ri
ˌä ˌpästērēˈôrē,ˌā ˌpästērēˈôrī/Submit
adjective
1.
relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge that proceeds from
observations or experiences to the deduction of probable causes.
adverb
1.
in a way based on reasoning from known facts or past events rather than
by making assumptions or predictions.
Post by Kurt NicklasBut we knew that long ago.
Post by TimPost by Kurt NicklasPost by TimPost by Kurt NicklasPoor Dimmy. Can't even understand the meaning of the words a priori.
Wrong kunt. You claimed the assumptions of science are a priori.
Explain how they are so.
Post by Kurt NicklasProbably too stooooopid to even use a dictionary...
Here's the meaning, Dim. But I'm afraid you'll first need to learn
how to click on the link. Can you do that, Dimmy? Are all Canucks
as stoooopid as you?
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_APriori.html
We're smart enough to know that you're too much of a coward to admit
that the assumptions you referred to are not a priori. But you
aren't smart enough to see that and you'll never admit to it if you
ever figure it out, stupid kunt.
Click on the links I've provided yet, Dimmy? No? Why not?
LOL Read it again, moron. Heck, the link itself contains the word >
Post by Tim'assumptions' so that should give you a clue!
Wrong link, dumb kunt.
Nope.
Post by TimYou can't just sew them together.
When they're related I can, DimWit.
Post by TimPost by Kurt Nicklashttp://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions
Post by TimA Priori is a philosophical term that is used in several different
ways. The term is suppose to mean knowledge that is gained through
deduction, and not through empirical evidence...The problem, though,
is that the word is used to describe something entirely different. It
is used to describe knowledge that exists without reference to reality.
So now you get to explain how those assumptions you cited were not
arrived at "through empirical evidence." and how scientists managed to
conjure them up "without reference to reality."
The fact that the are assumptions that form the basis of science and
the >scientific method and are not, by themselves, capable of being
empirically >proven makes them a priori, Dimwit.
You're an idiot. They are proven empirically. They were derived from
empirical observation.
No, it's YOU who's the idiot. You can't begin to prove something
"empirically" unless you first make the assumption that the universe is
perceivable and that our sense give accurate data about the world.
Post by TimThere are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us.
Evidence from the natural world can be used to learn about those causes.
There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world.
Which ones were derived "without reference to reality."?
All of them, in the sense that are assumptions and not provable, DimWit.
Post by TimPost by Kurt NicklasNo conjuring necessary, therefore.
Because they are given by experience and not ""without reference to
reality." And are thereby not a priori.
Stupid, Dimwit. You can't prove ANYTHING by experience unless you FIRST -
a priori - make the assumption that sense data gives a true and
consistent picture of the universe.
Without that assumption, you can't prove anything "by experience".
And before you try to say it...no, you can't prove sense impressions are
true by using sense impressions.
Post by TimPost by Kurt NicklasIf you weren't such a Dimwit, you'd understand that science operates on
Post by TimPost by Kurt NicklasFAITH in the truth of those assumptions.
Wrong again. Faith is to assume without evidence. All the assumptions
mentioned in the link are based on evidence found in reality.
Nonsense. See above, Dimmy.
Post by TimPost by Kurt NicklasBut then you're too stoooopid to understand, obviously.
Wrong again kunt. You're just too much of a coward to admit that you're
wrong and you're too eager to try and put theistic mumbo jumbo on par with science.
Science is your God, Dim. It's your FAITH. You can't go ANYWHERE with it
unless you believe in things that, in the final analysis, you cannot prove.
It's okay, Dimmy. I don't expect you to understand.....
You might enjoy reading Russell's essay on the problem of induction, Kurt.