Does it look flat?

Quote from: legion on July 07, 2014, 02:45:17 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 05, 2014, 08:45:52 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 05, 2014, 02:28:04 PM

You are creating a false dilemma by implying that the only criteria to believe secondary report is that someone says so. We have other criteria for direct observation as well don't we?  We don't trust eyewitness reports of people who are high on hallucinogens do we? Stop being reductionist.

I also wonder, if you saw an orange glow, felt heat and smelled smoke from the other side of your bedroom door, would you conclude its a fire or would you remain agnostic until actual flames made an appearance before calling 911.

What he's doing is ignoring the fire alarm somebody else pulled until he sees the fire, smells the smoke and feels the heat himself. It's moronic.

What's moronic is you comparing self preservation with bad science. But, I've come to expect that from you, shmeggley.

Just as a total lack of ability to use logic is what I've come to expect from you, legion.

Why would self preservation kick in when someone pulls a fire alarm, if you have no reason to believe there's a fire unless you can observe it yourself?

Because I observe the fire alarm. You're not very good at this, are you?

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 07, 2014, 02:55:06 PM

Quote from: legion on July 07, 2014, 02:45:17 PM

What's moronic is you comparing self preservation with bad science. But, I've come to expect that from you, shmeggley.

Just as a total lack of ability to use logic is what I've come to expect from you, legion.

Why would self preservation kick in when someone pulls a fire alarm, if you have no reason to believe there's a fire unless you can observe it yourself?

Because I observe the fire alarm. You're not very good at this, are you?

And why would you conclude that a fire alarm was an immediate threat to your life?

Quote from: legion on July 07, 2014, 02:58:22 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 07, 2014, 02:55:06 PM

Quote from: legion on July 07, 2014, 02:45:17 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 05, 2014, 08:45:52 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 05, 2014, 02:28:04 PM

You are creating a false dilemma by implying that the only criteria to believe secondary report is that someone says so. We have other criteria for direct observation as well don't we?  We don't trust eyewitness reports of people who are high on hallucinogens do we? Stop being reductionist.

I also wonder, if you saw an orange glow, felt heat and smelled smoke from the other side of your bedroom door, would you conclude its a fire or would you remain agnostic until actual flames made an appearance before calling 911.

What he's doing is ignoring the fire alarm somebody else pulled until he sees the fire, smells the smoke and feels the heat himself. It's moronic.

What's moronic is you comparing self preservation with bad science. But, I've come to expect that from you, shmeggley.

Just as a total lack of ability to use logic is what I've come to expect from you, legion.

Why would self preservation kick in when someone pulls a fire alarm, if you have no reason to believe there's a fire unless you can observe it yourself?

Because I observe the fire alarm. You're not very good at this, are you?

And why would you conclude that a fire alarm was an immediate threat to your life?

I would need to investigate, shmeggley, because that is the purpose of fire alarms. To alert one that there is a fire. It could be a false alarm, but I would follow my sensory data (my ears hearing the alarm) and see if more sensory data confirmed the initial sensory data. Clear? What on earth is your point?

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 07, 2014, 03:04:55 PM

Quote from: legion on July 07, 2014, 02:58:22 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 07, 2014, 02:55:06 PM

Quote from: legion on July 07, 2014, 02:45:17 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 05, 2014, 08:45:52 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 05, 2014, 02:28:04 PM

You are creating a false dilemma by implying that the only criteria to believe secondary report is that someone says so. We have other criteria for direct observation as well don't we?  We don't trust eyewitness reports of people who are high on hallucinogens do we? Stop being reductionist.

I also wonder, if you saw an orange glow, felt heat and smelled smoke from the other side of your bedroom door, would you conclude its a fire or would you remain agnostic until actual flames made an appearance before calling 911.

What he's doing is ignoring the fire alarm somebody else pulled until he sees the fire, smells the smoke and feels the heat himself. It's moronic.

What's moronic is you comparing self preservation with bad science. But, I've come to expect that from you, shmeggley.

Just as a total lack of ability to use logic is what I've come to expect from you, legion.

Why would self preservation kick in when someone pulls a fire alarm, if you have no reason to believe there's a fire unless you can observe it yourself?

Because I observe the fire alarm. You're not very good at this, are you?

And why would you conclude that a fire alarm was an immediate threat to your life?

I would need to investigate, shmeggley, because that is the purpose of fire alarms. To alert one that there is a fire. It could be a false alarm, but I would follow my sensory data (my ears hearing the alarm) and see if more sensory data confirmed the initial sensory data. Clear? What on earth is your point?

My point is, it sounds like you would have failed your last fire drill. And possibly in a real fire you'll die while others make their way out because they realize that when a fire alarm sounds, it's because someone who has seen a fire has pulled it. I'm pointing out that no rational person refuses to take anyone else's word for anything under any circumstances. But we're moving off topic a bit.

The larger point is that in science, while you don't have to take anyone's word for it, and you're free to perform experiments to your own satisfaction, it's not necessary to perform experiments that have been done thousands of times already. For example, if Einstein had waited until he could afford to replicate the Michelson-Morely experiments himself, he may never have developed the Theory of Special Relativity.

Looks like someone took a picture of the disk from the side.

Because I observe the fire alarm. You're not very good at this, are you?

And this is where you've shot yourself in the foot.  If you're asleep in your bedroom and the fire alarm goes off in your front hallway, you're not observing it.  You're hearing it.  And if you happen to be deaf, you'll possibly burn to death.

You also said earlier that "to be truly empirical, one needs to experience the evidence with ones own senses".

This is obviously disproved by the fire alarm scenario.

to be truly empirical, one needs to experience the evidence with ones own senses.

How else would one "experience" evidence?

Or are you saying that I have to directly collect the data myself for it to be "truly empirical"?  If I want the high temperature readings for, say, New York for the next 5 days I will need to travel all the way there with a thermometer and measure it myself?

If I upload readings from a weather station in New York would I not be using empirical evidence in your book?  Of course this data would be empirical, as it clearly fits the definition:

"a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation."

The temperature was observed in New York and then obtained by me.  Empiricism says nothing about who collected the observations.

Quote from: legion on July 07, 2014, 02:58:22 PM

Because I observe the fire alarm. You're not very good at this, are you?

And this is where you've shot yourself in the foot.  If you're asleep in your bedroom and the fire alarm goes off in your front hallway, you're not observing it.  You're hearing it.  And if you happen to be deaf, you'll possibly burn to death.

You also said earlier that "to be truly empirical, one needs to experience the evidence with ones own senses".

This is obviously disproved by the fire alarm scenario.

observe
əbˈzəːv/
verb
verb: observe; 3rd person present: observes; past tense: observed; past participle: observed; gerund or present participle: observing

    1.
    notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant.
    "she observed that all the chairs were already occupied"


perceive
pəˈsiːv/
verb
verb: perceive; 3rd person present: perceives; past tense: perceived; past participle: perceived; gerund or present participle: perceiving

    1.
    become aware or conscious of (something); come to realize or understand.
    "his mouth fell open as he perceived the truth"



In other words: you are wrong as observation is not only concerned with sight. I can empircally prove that clapping my hands makes a noise. Similarly, I can empirically prove the existence of thunder.

Quote

to be truly empirical, one needs to experience the evidence with ones own senses.

How else would one "experience" evidence?

Or are you saying that I have to directly collect the data myself for it to be "truly empirical"?  If I want the high temperature readings for, say, New York for the next 5 days I will need to travel all the way there with a thermometer and measure it myself?

If I upload download readings from a weather station in New York would I not be using empirical evidence in your book?  Of course this data would be empirical, as it clearly fits the definition:

"a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation."

The temperature was observed in New York and then obtained by me.  Empiricism says nothing about who collected the observations.

empirical
ɛmˈpɪrɪk(ə)l,ɪm-/
adjective
adjective: empirical

    "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

Yes, you need to take the readings yourself for them to be empirical. Let's say a sensor is collecting the readings in New York and it's faulty. You are relying on data that is incorrect. Unless you measure yourself how on earth do you know if the data is accurate? Is the sensor calibrated? How many samples are taken? The questions are numerous.

That's called being anal, not empirical.

That's called being anal, not empirical.

Shmeggly: Buy a dictionary instead of making definitions up to hide your ignorance. You'll be a better man/woman/child/whatever-you-are for it.

empirical
ɛmˈpɪrɪk(ə)l,ɪm-/
adjective
adjective: empirical

    "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

Yes, you need to take the readings yourself for them to be empirical. Let's say a sensor is collecting the readings in New York and it's faulty. You are relying on data that is incorrect. Unless you measure yourself how on earth do you know if the data is accurate? Is the sensor calibrated? How many samples are taken? The questions are numerous.

This definition merely opposes observation/experience to theory/logic.  It says nothing about who has to collect the information.

Btw, you might not believe this, but you can raise questions similar to this about any system of collecting data.  Did you know that lawyers tend to stay away from eye-witness accounts because of their unreliability to the point where there is academic talk about abolishing eyewitness testimony? So there is a case where a sensor is preferred to an eyeball.

Quote from: legion on July 08, 2014, 12:53:07 PM

empirical
ɛmˈpɪrɪk(ə)l,ɪm-/
adjective
adjective: empirical

    "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

Yes, you need to take the readings yourself for them to be empirical. Let's say a sensor is collecting the readings in New York and it's faulty. You are relying on data that is incorrect. Unless you measure yourself how on earth do you know if the data is accurate? Is the sensor calibrated? How many samples are taken? The questions are numerous.

This definition merely opposes observation/experience to theory/logic.  It says nothing about who has to collect the information.

Btw, you might not believe this, but you can raise questions similar to this about any system of collecting data.  Did you know that lawyers tend to stay away from eye-witness accounts because of their unreliability to the point where there is academic talk about abolishing eyewitness testimony? So there is a case where a sensor is preferred to an eyeball.

Which just goes to support my argument that people are inherently unreliable. "Scientists" included. Of course, people can trust who they want for whatever reason, but uncertainty is introduced when you offload data gathering to others in your experiments.

Sensors aren't perfect either, Rama. I work with them every day and they can fail or give faulty readings for a number of reasons.

I never said they were perfect.  I do challenge your assertion that they are inferior or less trustworthy than a human. 

Yes, humans are untrustworthy, so you argument that you should not use other humans probably has some hidden premises, but just so you know, you are human and also prone to the same errors.

Why is scientist in quotes?  Do you know what quotation marks are for?

I never said they were perfect.  I do challenge your assertion that they are inferior or less trustworthy than a human. 

Yes, humans are untrustworthy, so you argument that you should not use other humans probably has some hidden premises, but just so you know, you are human and also prone to the same errors.

Why is scientist in quotes?  Do you know what quotation marks are for?

Not all "scientists" are scientists. When you get older you'll understand. Hopefully.

Just so you know a bad scientist is still a a scientist.  Based on your posts, you do not seem to know very much about science or evidence, so I thought you might want to know that.

I am willfully ignoring any other implications due to the stupefying hypocrisy and/or idiocy involved in them.

Just so you know a bad scientist is still a a scientist.  Based on your posts, you do not seem to know very much about science or evidence, so I thought you might want to know that.

I am willfully ignoring any other implications due to the stupefying hypocrisy and/or idiocy involved in them.

Your understanding of science is clearly negligible as you've made nearly 4000 posts but still feel the need to show up and defend the work of "scientists" "proving" the theory you hold so dear. You are just another believer with nothing but other people's ideas in your head. So don't ever question my understanding of science.

Your understanding of science is clearly negligible as you've made nearly 4000 posts but still feel the need to show up and defend the work of "scientists" "proving" the theory you hold so dear.

What?  That made no sense.

You are just another believer with nothing but other people's ideas in your head.

Unlike you, you maverick.  You are so original, there has never been another like you.

So don't ever question my understanding of science.

Tell you what: When you stop making posts saying the only evidence that can be trusted is something you have experienced first hand, I will happily stop inferring that you know nothing about science.  Ball is in your court madam.

Pro-tip: You are not menacing so don't try to be.

Quote from: legion on July 08, 2014, 01:49:38 PM

Your understanding of science is clearly negligible as you've made nearly 4000 posts but still feel the need to show up and defend the work of "scientists" "proving" the theory you hold so dear.

What?  That made no sense.

Quote

You are just another believer with nothing but other people's ideas in your head.

Unlike you, you maverick.  You are so original, there has never been another like you.

Quote

So don't ever question my understanding of science.

Tell you what: When you stop making posts saying the only evidence that can be trusted is something you have experienced first hand, I will happily stop inferring that you know nothing about science.  Ball is in your court madam.

Pro-tip: You are not menacing so don't try to be.

One question. What is your purpose for being on this forum?

Education, entertainment, research, etc...

You?

Education, entertainment, research, etc...

You?

To make people less trusting.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 08, 2014, 02:06:34 PM

Education, entertainment, research, etc...

You?

To make people less trusting.

Good talk.

To make people less trusting.

I'm afraid you're going about that in a really unproductive way.

You already innately distrust the Man, the Other and the Authorities. You don't question your distrust and I can't make you but you won't pass that neurosis onto anyone else just by repeating that "you can't trust anyone" and calling them sheeple in a variety of ways. You can't give them a reason to distrust a scientific consensus, even if you do distrust your government or the Lizardmen or whoever.
Because
Science isn't a monolith, it isn't a single, organised cabal who agree on things in secret and then pass their decisions down to us mortals who are left to either take them blindly on trust or "think for ourselves".

Those claims, those decisions regarding the nature of the world have already been shot at and torn down by a multitude of viciously antagonistic critics with all the relevant expertise in the field. You have to understand that when a claim is made, it's hard work convincing all your rivals of it. They (typically) don't want you to be right. It's that adversarial process that I trust, not some amalgam or council of the people involved. If something is nonsense it would (almost) never get to us. And once the claim has been used to do stuff, then clearly it works and we're well past the point where some human dishonesty could be in play.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 08, 2014, 10:46:14 AM

Quote

to be truly empirical, one needs to experience the evidence with ones own senses.

How else would one "experience" evidence?

Or are you saying that I have to directly collect the data myself for it to be "truly empirical"?  If I want the high temperature readings for, say, New York for the next 5 days I will need to travel all the way there with a thermometer and measure it myself?

If I upload download readings from a weather station in New York would I not be using empirical evidence in your book?  Of course this data would be empirical, as it clearly fits the definition:

"a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation."

The temperature was observed in New York and then obtained by me.  Empiricism says nothing about who collected the observations.

empirical
ɛmˈpɪrɪk(ə)l,ɪm-/
adjective
adjective: empirical

    "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

Yes, you need to take the readings yourself for them to be empirical. Let's say a sensor is collecting the readings in New York and it's faulty. You are relying on data that is incorrect. Unless you measure yourself how on earth do you know if the data is accurate? Is the sensor calibrated? How many samples are taken? The questions are numerous.

Well, since you say that in the fire alarm example, you hearing the alarm is empirical evidence that there is a fire.  Based on what you just described, it isn't.  Maybe the alarm is faulty.  Maybe some kid pulled it to get out of an astronomy test.  Maybe a construction worker cut the wrong wire on accident.  Since you weren't the one who pulled the alarm, how could you say that you empirically proved that there was a fire?
 
So since you agree that the alarm would be empirical evidence, as in you are trusting a device to tell you what is going on, why can't you trust a sensor in NY telling you the temperature?  Also, how can you take the temperature yourself?  A thermometer?  That is trusting a device.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 08, 2014, 02:06:34 PM

Education, entertainment, research, etc...

You?

To make people less trusting.

Well, since no one trusts anything that you have to say, I'd say "Job well done."

Quote from: ausGeoff on July 08, 2014, 06:29:42 AM

Quote from: legion on July 07, 2014, 02:58:22 PM

Because I observe the fire alarm. You're not very good at this, are you?

And this is where you've shot yourself in the foot.  If you're asleep in your bedroom and the fire alarm goes off in your front hallway, you're not observing it.  You're hearing it.  And if you happen to be deaf, you'll possibly burn to death.

You also said earlier that "to be truly empirical, one needs to experience the evidence with ones own senses".

This is obviously disproved by the fire alarm scenario.

In other words: you are wrong as observation is not only concerned with sight. I can empirically prove that clapping my hands makes a noise. Similarly, I can empirically prove the existence of thunder.

I'm sorry; do you always rely merely on a dictionary to support your pseudo-scientific claims?  I would've thought a science text book would've been more appropriate in supporting a scientific concept.  Yes?

Can I ask you how you can observe a ringing fire alarm in another room of your house if you happen to be deaf?  You can't, obviously.

And you can clap your hands as much as you like, but you cannot prove to me—empirically—that it makes any sound, or even that you're doing so.  Unless you happen to live next door to my house.  Which, thankfully, you don't LOL.

I'm not sure as to why you seem to waste so much time looking up dictionary definitions every couple of posts;  you obviously have a love of semantics to the Nth degree.  Or you're obsessively pedantic.  Or both maybe?

Yes, you need to take the readings yourself for them to be empirical.

No, this is total bollocks.  Nobody uses the word like this.

Can you stop with the tedious Argumentum ad dictionarium?  In case you can't work out what that is:

Argumentum ad dictionarium is the act of pulling out a dictionary to support your assertions. More broadly speaking it can refer to any argument about definitions, semantics, or what label to apply to a person or idea - an actual dictionary may not be involved, sometimes the definition is purely personal, sometimes it can be a case of picking and choosing definitions raised by other sources, but the end use is the same. For the most part, "dictionary" is used as a short-cut to refer to any source of these definitions, including statement such as "well, if I define X like this...", which is possibly the most asinine form of the fallacy.

Quote from: legion on July 08, 2014, 12:45:10 PM

Quote from: ausGeoff on July 08, 2014, 06:29:42 AM

Quote from: legion on July 07, 2014, 02:58:22 PM

Because I observe the fire alarm. You're not very good at this, are you?

And this is where you've shot yourself in the foot.  If you're asleep in your bedroom and the fire alarm goes off in your front hallway, you're not observing it.  You're hearing it.  And if you happen to be deaf, you'll possibly burn to death.

You also said earlier that "to be truly empirical, one needs to experience the evidence with ones own senses".

This is obviously disproved by the fire alarm scenario.

In other words: you are wrong as observation is not only concerned with sight. I can empirically prove that clapping my hands makes a noise. Similarly, I can empirically prove the existence of thunder.

I'm sorry; do you always rely merely on a dictionary to support your pseudo-scientific claims?  I would've thought a science text book would've been more appropriate in supporting a scientific concept.  Yes?

Can I ask you how you can observe a ringing fire alarm in another room of your house if you happen to be deaf?  You can't, obviously.

And you can clap your hands as much as you like, but you cannot prove to me—empirically—that it makes any sound, or even that you're doing so.  Unless you happen to live next door to my house.  Which, thankfully, you don't LOL.

I'm not sure as to why you seem to waste so much time looking up dictionary definitions every couple of posts;  you obviously have a love of semantics to the Nth degree.  Or you're obsessively pedantic.  Or both maybe?

You have claimed many times to have a deep understanding of logic and science. If that were the case, you'd be aware that definitions have to be agreed upon otherwise you end up in ridiculous situations. Like the one you have put yourself in by redefining the words observe and empirical.

As for the other inane comments from markjo and crab: yawn.

You may have noticed that there is very little agreement on your side.

You may have noticed that there is very little agreement on your side.

Of course not. The indoctrinated are here in force on this site. Talking of which, anyone know what happened to starman?