Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery 2012
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 83 (672769)
09-11-2012 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by onifre
09-11-2012 8:13 AM


Re: ICANT maybe?
Anyone else suspect the "new" memeber TheRestOfUs in the Big Bang thread is ICANT?
I don't think so. Thou is better articulated.
What your noticing, I think, is the fact that they're both old dudes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by onifre, posted 09-11-2012 8:13 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by onifre, posted 09-11-2012 10:45 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 47 of 83 (672771)
09-11-2012 10:32 AM


BG Challenge - flat planets
From Message 208:
bluegenes writes:
My theory predicts that there cannot be a way of detecting non-imaginary supernatural beings.
Then it isn't capable of being proven wrong.
From Message 210:
bluegenes writes:
Of course my theory is testable against observations, for the same reason that "all flat planets are figments of the human imagination" is testable against observations. If we can't find any, and don't know of any way that they could form, it fits that we're making them up, and the theory is strong.
We know what planets are and we know what it is to be flat. We don't have anything regarding what it is to be supernatural. We can't be nearly as confident about supernatural beings as we can about flat planets.
If we're just going to use what people have imagined about supernatural beings, then we're only ever going to be dealing with imagination. There's no progress to make. The conjecture that they're all imagined becomes tautological. Supernatural beings become defined as coming from the imagination.

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Panda, posted 09-11-2012 12:45 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 54 by Straggler, posted 09-11-2012 1:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 48 of 83 (672778)
09-11-2012 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by New Cat's Eye
09-11-2012 10:15 AM


Re: ICANT maybe?
What your noticing, I think, is the fact that they're both old dudes.
Not just that. The whole focus on the "before the big bang" falacy. The T=O issue he keeps confusing. The condescending "just a thought" and signature on the way out with "Thou" all kind of mimicing ICANT. ALso, is seem to focusing on inflation which was ICANT's insane focus too.
But if you guys don't see it I guess I'm wrong.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2012 10:15 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2012 10:47 AM onifre has replied
 Message 51 by PaulK, posted 09-11-2012 11:10 AM onifre has seen this message but not replied
 Message 53 by ringo, posted 09-11-2012 1:12 PM onifre has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 83 (672779)
09-11-2012 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by onifre
09-11-2012 10:45 AM


Re: ICANT maybe?
Thou seems smarter. You can't really fake being smart. And I don't think ICANT was playing dumb...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by onifre, posted 09-11-2012 10:45 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by onifre, posted 09-11-2012 10:51 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 50 of 83 (672780)
09-11-2012 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by New Cat's Eye
09-11-2012 10:47 AM


Re: ICANT maybe?
This is true. As I read further, I may have jumped the gun. I guess lately I'm not trusting the whole "I'm new here" angle.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2012 10:47 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 51 of 83 (672785)
09-11-2012 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by onifre
09-11-2012 10:45 AM


Re: ICANT maybe?
ICANT had a pretty distinctive writing style and I don't see it in Trou's posts. And that alone is enough for me to say that they are almost certainly different people. Trou (and THAT is how he signs his messages - not "thou") also seems to have quite different interests - fringe physics rather than ICANT's obsession with his own idiosyncratic interpretations of the Bible,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by onifre, posted 09-11-2012 10:45 AM onifre has seen this message but not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 52 of 83 (672795)
09-11-2012 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by New Cat's Eye
09-11-2012 10:32 AM


Re: BG Challenge - flat planets
bluegenes writes:
My theory predicts that there cannot be a way of detecting non-imaginary supernatural beings.
CS writes:
Then it isn't capable of being proven wrong.
I agree with you regarding bluegenes' statement, but I think bluegenes' statement is wrong.
I think the theory predicts that we 'will not' detect SBs, but it doesn't predict that we 'can not' detect SB's.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2012 10:32 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 53 of 83 (672801)
09-11-2012 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by onifre
09-11-2012 10:45 AM


Re: ICANT maybe?
onifre writes:
The whole focus on the "before the big bang" falacy. The T=O issue he keeps confusing. The condescending "just a thought" and signature on the way out with "Thou" all kind of mimicing ICANT.
I think TheRestOfUs has been here before but I can't place who he was in his last incarnation. His style does seem very familiar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by onifre, posted 09-11-2012 10:45 AM onifre has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 54 of 83 (672807)
09-11-2012 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by New Cat's Eye
09-11-2012 10:32 AM


Re: BG Challenge - flat planets
bluegenes writes:
My theory predicts that there cannot be a way of detecting non-imaginary supernatural beings.
CS writes:
Then it isn't capable of being proven wrong.
The theory predicts that there won't be any way of detecting such things because it predicts that such things don't exist. And you cannot detect that which doesn't exist can you?
CS writes:
We know what planets are and we know what it is to be flat. We don't have anything regarding what it is to be supernatural.
Lots of people (including you I believe) have claimed to have detected supernatural beings. People are constantly and relentlessly claiming to have detected supernatural beings. Are you suggesting these people have no idea what they are talking about.....?
CS writes:
If we're just going to use what people have imagined about supernatural beings, then we're only ever going to be dealing with imagination. There's no progress to make. The conjecture that they're all imagined becomes tautological. Supernatural beings become defined as coming from the imagination.
No such definition is in place. If any of these people who claim to have interactions with supernatural beings can provide the rest of us with positive evidence of their claims then we will have cause to think they are doing something other than getting carried away with their imagination.
So far no such evidence has been forthcoming. As bluegenes theory predicts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2012 10:32 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-12-2012 2:23 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 55 of 83 (672888)
09-12-2012 8:39 AM


RAZD writes:
If it predicts that you cannot show whether they are there or not, then you cannot show whether they are imaginary or not. It's that simple.
If you can show that they are there the prediction is wrong and the theory is falsified. It is that simple.

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 83 (672933)
09-12-2012 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Straggler
09-11-2012 1:43 PM


Re: BG Challenge - flat planets
The theory predicts that there won't be any way of detecting such things because it predicts that such things don't exist. And you cannot detect that which doesn't exist can you?
If SB's don't exist then there's no way to detect them. But its worse than that: we don't even know what we're looking for. What makes it a being and what makes it supernatural?
Lots of people (including you I believe) have claimed to have detected supernatural beings. People are constantly and relentlessly claiming to have detected supernatural beings. Are you suggesting these people have no idea what they are talking about.....?
Of course they don't know what they're talking about. If they did, then it'd just be a common fact as opposed to something they're taking on faith.
That they're making up specifics about the SB's does show that their concepts of them stem from their imagination. But without a way to even test for any of the properties we'd expect if they did exist, we can't get to a conclusion that none of them exist.
No such definition is in place.
The definition emerges when you only consider the imagined instances of SB's for your determination of whether or not they exist outside the imagination. Its tautological.
(including you I believe)
I wouldn't say that I've detected them. I've just had experiences that convinced me they exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Straggler, posted 09-11-2012 1:43 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Straggler, posted 09-12-2012 3:28 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 57 of 83 (672941)
09-12-2012 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by New Cat's Eye
09-12-2012 2:23 PM


Re: BG Challenge - flat planets
CS writes:
What makes it a being and what makes it supernatural?
CS writes:
I've just had experiences that convinced me they exist.
Well Mr "I'm convinced they exist" what is it you are convinced of the existence of?
Straggler writes:
Lots of people (including you I believe) have claimed to have detected supernatural beings. People are constantly and relentlessly claiming to have detected supernatural beings. Are you suggesting these people have no idea what they are talking about.....?
CS writes:
Of course they don't know what they're talking about. If they did, then it'd just be a common fact as opposed to something they're taking on faith.
People believed in the existence of Scarab the godly dung beetle that rolled the Sun across the sky. They knew what they were talking about. It's just that the thing they were talking about was factually wrong.
Likewise - People like Buzsaw know what sort of supernatural entity they believe in. It just happens to be nonsense.
The only real difference between these and the sort of thing I suspect you are talking about is vaguety. And simply defining things to be unfalsifiable isn't really a valid argument for considering them anything other than imagined.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-12-2012 2:23 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 58 of 83 (673601)
09-20-2012 2:16 PM


Crashfrog vocabulary
From Message 54
opprobrium
pusillanimous
Where the fuck do you come up with these words from?

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 09-20-2012 2:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 61 by ringo, posted 09-20-2012 2:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 59 of 83 (673602)
09-20-2012 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by New Cat's Eye
09-20-2012 2:16 PM


Re: Crashfrog vocabulary
Where the fuck do you come up with these words from?
From the fucking English language? It's a good one; you should learn to speak it.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-20-2012 2:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-20-2012 2:20 PM crashfrog has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 83 (673604)
09-20-2012 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by crashfrog
09-20-2012 2:17 PM


Re: Crashfrog vocabulary
I've been speaking English for over 30 years and have never seen or heard those words before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 09-20-2012 2:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 09-20-2012 2:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024