(August 11, 2016 at 11:11 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:First, you clipped out my second sentence:(August 11, 2016 at 11:05 am)SteveII Wrote:(August 11, 2016 at 10:14 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: News flash, Steve: you don't get to throw around phrases like "proof", "evidence", and "cause and effect", and then turn around and declare this isn't a scientific discussion. You can't have your cake, and eat it too. Sorry. Thanks for playing though.
Human intuition? Do I think it is relevant? Yes. Do I think it's important? Sure, up to a point. Does it, by itself, qualify as indisputable "proof" of ANYTHING without corroborating scientific evidence? Of course not.
Quote:Proof, evidence and cause and effect are definitely not scientific terms.
LOL. Okay...if you aren't going to debate with intellectual honesty, then I'm out. I thought you were different from Drich and Huggy, but I was wrong. Lying to yourself for Jesus is still lying, Steve-o.
While they are used by science, they are also used in a number of different fields: philosophy (reason, logic, philosophy of mind, etc.), social sciences, mathematics, as well as intuitively used a thousands times every day by people (if I do x then my wife will do y).
No reply to that? You still think these terms apply only to science? Then tell me why this particular sentence is wrong.
Second, when you make a point and I reply (with reasons why I believe my point to be true) and then you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty is an unjustified leap and seems more like you don't know how to respond. Attacking one's character is pretty low.