You really are a piece of work telling lie after lie to suit your own agenda.
And more pathetic projection.
Can you provide a direct quote of a single lie?
And if it is calling you out on one of your claims, that means you also need to show that your claim wasn't a lie, especially if it was a statement about me you made.
What is this fixation you have with religion? Why do you keep peddling it?
Because what you are promoting is entirely anti-science. It goes against the very foundations of science and tries to replace it with religion.
Religion has continually held us back. If we followed your thinking regarding science we wouldn't have progressed very far.
For example, once someone decided light was a wave, that would be it, no questioning it every.
I am under no obligation to defend the points you have invented and falsely claimed I have made"
Inventions! It was you who invented this ridiculous notion of religion. I never mentioned it.
Yes, I was the one who pointed out that what you are doing is effectively religion, and saying why it is bad.
And I have explained why repeatedly, repeatedly defend this fact and you being unable to refute it.
But instead of honestly and rationally responding to that, you instead dishonestly pretend that it is a religion I follow and promote, to pretend I despise science.
You dishonestly pretend that I think science is religion.
They are entirely your own fabrication. They are pathetic strawmen you have set up to attack because you can't refute my actual position which I have made clear repeatedly.
I don't despise science. I despise the religion you are trying to turn it into.
So stop pretending I think science is religion. Stop pretending I don't accept anything I can't validate myself.
You never defend any points I make you just evade and ignore Jack.
You appear by insisting science and its knowledge is akin to a religion that you don't accept anything it produces instead preferring to go with your own discoveries.
Again, as I have explained repeatedly, this claim of your is pure BS.
It is a pathetic strawman you have set up to attack.
Every time you spout crap like this you are showing that all those insults you throw at me are describing you.
You are showing that you are lying or deluded.
I have never acted that science itself is akin to a religion. I have stated and explained how your attempted treatment of it is.
And like many religious people trying to defend their religion, you use all sorts of dishonest tactics/logical fallacies.
Another example is the false dichotomy you present here.
Is that the case or not? If not why do you insist on referring to accepting the validated findings of science as following a religion?
You can't have it both ways, you either accept proven validated facts or you don't.
This is effectively a false dichotomy where you again misrepresent my position.
Where have I ever said anything like that?
Again, can you provide a quote of where I did?
If not, stop pretending I have.
What I have objected to is your idea that accepting the findings of science is all someone can do, that they can't do an experiment to determine it for themselves or verify it or anything like that. Understand the difference?
With what you are suggesting, these findings are facts, that must be accepted as gospel and never challenged, not even challenged by doing an experiment to verify them yourself, even if you fully expect the results to agree with those "facts".
With what you are suggesting, these findings are the only way people can ever learn, they are incapable of discovering anything new or even discovering something that is already known but not to them. Instead all they can do is simply read the word of experts and accept it as fact.
"What I have actually said is your hatred of independent thought and people doing experiments themselves rather than just accepting what you are told is akin to a religion.
I have said that if the only way to obtain knowledge is by reading what an expert has said it is, then it is a religion"
Where have I ever expressed hatred of independent thought?
All over the place.
The first in this thread is here:
In a nutshell their whole stance is based on negativity and refusal to believe what is accepted by mainstream science.
Where you are indicating people should just accept what is provided by mainstream science, without questioning.
Another is here:
The issue is not how he is taking the photo but the fact he’s doing in the first place!
Where you attack people for thinking independently and carrying out experiments of their own.
And again here:
What is the point in doing pointless experiments?
Only a fool would do such an experiment.
and here:
What is the point in performing an experiment that was designed almost 200 years ago when the information it provides is readily available and far more accurate?
You have made it clear that you hate the idea of someone performing an experiment when the result is already "known".
That sure seems like hating independent thought, hating people thinking for themselves and instead treating science like a religion where they must simply accept the word of the priests of your religion.
What's incredible and unbelievable is you appear to give the impression that you have personally validated all the knowledge you have.
Again, stop repeating this same pathetic lie.
If you wish to claim such pure BS, then provide the direct quotes where I have stated that.
If you can't, then stop repeating the same pathetic lie.
You can't have it both ways
But I can, as what you present is another false dichotomy.
I can happily verify things for myself, rather than just blindly accepting what people say without question.
But that doesn't mean I have to verify EVERYTHING myself.
Likewise, I can discover things myself and contribute to the growing body of knowledge.
Try applying the BS you are spouting to people like Einstein or Newton.
Did they discover everything themselves, or did they just accept the knowledge of those who came before them without questioning or thinking?
If you or anyone else repeated that experiment they would be doing it with the assistance of a past expert. There would be no other way of doing that experiment without resorting to expert help!
You already went through this tantrum on the other thread, and had it repeatedly refuted with you unable to defend your position.
There is no need to bring in here for you to be repeatedly refuted on it again.
But you do need to accept much of the knowledge that science has produced as there is no way a single individual can do it on their own. Thats not a religion thats just accepting reality.
Again with a false dichotomy and more misrepresentation.
There is a fundamental distinction between having to just accept all knowledge, with no other option, or a combination of validating knowledge which you can and have an interest in while accepting other knowledge.
But you want to pretend there is not this middle ground, that you either accept everything without questioning or experiment or you accept nothing and validate everything yourself.
Even the Cavendish example you use is accepting expert help, in that you accepted that Cavendish had produced a valid experiment that produced valid results. As I said you can't have it both ways.
You suggesting that you can interrogate every scientific concept is plainly ridiculous. You said
" I said you don't need to just accept what an expert says."
So Jack what methods do you use that you yourself have devised to validate scientific knowledge. To pass the methods must be your own and not plagiarised from other experts, as you know how much you hate the whole idea of having to resort to experts, except Cavendish!
And more false dichotomies and misrepresentation.
Replicating the Cavendish experiment is not simply just accepting what an expert says.
Just accepting what an expert says would be not doing the experiment at all, and in fact doing no experiments ever.
Just accepting what an expert says would be accepting Newton's claim regarding gravity and Cavendish's result about the value of G, and never questioning it.
It would mean claiming Vulcan is real and rejecting general relativity.
Getting expert help or assistance is not the same as just accepting what an expert says.
If you get the assistance of an expert to design an experimental apparatus to test something and then carry out the test yourself to verify it, you are not just accepting what they say, especially if you understand the experimental setup and how it all works.
To understand why, in perhaps the simplest way, what happens if you get a different result?
For example, what happens if you go to measure the curvature of Earth, but a get a result of 9000 km for the radius?
Or go to measure the value of G and get a result that is twice the value provided by Cavendish?
That means you can come to a different conclusion (and people have, with more and more accurate results).
Just accepting what the expert says would mean taking the value they have and not verifying it at all.