Response to Parsifal regarding his belief

But you did claim that they can easily be affected by outside variables, thus I believed you implied that they are not very accurate. But if this is your belief I do not think you believe FET.

He didn't say he does.

He's arguing FOR, doesn't mean it's his belief.

But you did claim that they can easily be affected by outside variables, thus I believed you implied that they are not very accurate. But if this is your belief I do not think you believe FET.

My personal beliefs are irrelevant here.

Well if your personal beliefs do not matter using logic that contradicts FET should obviously not be used to provide evidence against something. I am speaking under the impression that FET is true and not RET thus I believe these indirect measurements can easily be used and justifiable as FET is quite heavily based off such measurements.

Well if your personal beliefs do not matter using logic that contradicts FET should obviously not be used to provide evidence against something. I am speaking under the impression that FET is true and not RET thus I believe these indirect measurements can easily be used and justifiable as FET is quite heavily based off such measurements.

 

Quote from: smith2031 on October 06, 2009, 07:22:34 AM

But you did claim that they can easily be affected by outside variables, thus I believed you implied that they are not very accurate. But if this is your belief I do not think you believe FET.

My personal beliefs are irrelevant here.

Does that mean that you are arguing for things that you don't believe in?  Sounds like you should study to be a lawyer, not a scientist.

Does that mean that you are arguing for things that you don't believe in?  Sounds like you should study to be a lawyer, not a scientist.

In fairness, belief should not enter the scientific process except the belief in experiment and logic.

Quote from: markjo on October 08, 2009, 11:42:29 AM

Does that mean that you are arguing for things that you don't believe in?  Sounds like you should study to be a lawyer, not a scientist.

In fairness, belief should not enter the scientific process except the belief in experiment and logic.

If scientists didn't believe in what they were doing, why would they be doing it? 

If scientists didn't believe in what they were doing, why would they be doing it? 

I suspect we may be talking across purposes here, but you should never approach an experiment believing that you know what is going to happen - that leads to the risk of misinterpreting data to fit your expectations.  You should always perform the experiment as objectively as possible, then worry about what the data means later.  As I said, the only belief you should need is in the scientific method itself, not the research you are doing.

I think you should get the data and then believe it so if you do not believe in it you are either stubborn or have no data to back it up.

Ya basically

Do the experiment first, then believe the results.

And so if I said "The earth is flat"

And you said "Why do you believe the earth is flat?"

Then if I replied "My personal beliefs are irrelevant here." it would be clear that I am a lame retarded troll who isn't worth giving a reply to.

I'm sorry, are you using me as a proxy to have a dig at another forum member?  Seriously, don't drag me into your little squabble!

If you do not agree with what you are arguing you can hardly make a good argument and if you do than you should ovbiously not believe it/

If you do not agree with what you are arguing you can hardly make a good argument and if you do than you should ovbiously not believe it/

Schprechen ze Englisch?