We don't take your arguments seriously Dirch because you have nothing to say .

(May 23, 2018 at 11:26 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: We don't take your arguments seriously Dirch because you have nothing to say .

Oh, he has plenty to say, but just like some wino on the street, it's just some sort of nonsensical maundering.

(May 24, 2018 at 12:18 am)Fireball Wrote:

(May 23, 2018 at 11:26 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: We don't take your arguments seriously Dirch because you have nothing to say .

Oh, he has plenty to say, but just like some wino on the street, it's just some sort of nonsensical maundering.

This just in (here recently); the constants of Nature are not changing:

These Physicists Watched a Clock Tick for 14 Years Straight

The simpleton in the OP video is simply wrong.

(May 23, 2018 at 3:30 pm)Drich Wrote:

(May 23, 2018 at 3:22 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Your a scientifically illiterate moron Dirch

Stick to sucking at defending you imaginary friend .

Hey retard, answer the OP's video. Or are you saying that guy is scientifically illiterate as well? Or are you saying anyone who disagrees with you is scientifically illiterate??

The consensus seems to be that 'that guy' is scientifically illiterate.

I had hoped for other things for this thread. Perhaps a discussion of the role of dogma in science ala Thomas Kuhn's scientific revolutions. I take it from some quarters, Kuhn's central thesis is regarded as at best an inaccurate simplification, but I think the question of whether there is such a thing as scientific dogma and what that means may be an interesting one, even if Sheldrake himself is out to lunch.

Maybe you could find someone who isn't out to lunch to illustrate your point? Sometimes it's hard not to get distracted by the source.

(June 16, 2018 at 9:26 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I had hoped for other things for this thread.  Perhaps a discussion of the role of dogma in science ala Thomas Kuhn's scientific revolutions.  I take it from some quarters, Kuhn's central thesis is regarded as at best an inaccurate simplification, but I think the question of whether there is such a thing as scientific dogma and what that means may be an interesting one, even if Sheldrake himself is out to lunch.

Most scientists prefer Popper to Kuhn:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcatio...ifiability

(June 16, 2018 at 9:56 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(June 16, 2018 at 9:26 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I had hoped for other things for this thread.  Perhaps a discussion of the role of dogma in science ala Thomas Kuhn's scientific revolutions.  I take it from some quarters, Kuhn's central thesis is regarded as at best an inaccurate simplification, but I think the question of whether there is such a thing as scientific dogma and what that means may be an interesting one, even if Sheldrake himself is out to lunch.

Most scientists prefer Popper to Kuhn:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcatio...ifiability

I find the section on Feyerabend an interesting stepping stone, for, for example, considering the relationship between language and logic, science and philosophy, and paradoxes in general, perhaps even including the demarcation problem itself. Tarski attempted to avoid the traps of the liar's paradox on the one hand, and deflationary accounts of truth on the other by restricting the expressiveness of language (T-schema). Unfortunately, it seems that the way out of such paradoxes is always meta, always an appeal to things "outside the system."

Quote:Feyerabend and Lakatos

---

Kuhn's work largely called into question Popper's demarcation, and emphasized the human, subjective quality of scientific change. Paul Feyerabend was concerned that the very question of demarcation was insidious: science itself had no need of a demarcation criterion, but instead some philosophers were seeking to justify a special position of authority from which science could dominate public discourse. Feyerabend argued that science does not in fact occupy a special place in terms of either its logic or method, and no claim to special authority made by scientists can be upheld. He argued that, within the history of scientific practice, no rule or method can be found that has not been violated or circumvented at some point in order to advance scientific knowledge. Both Lakatos and Feyerabend suggest that science is not an autonomous form of reasoning, but is inseparable from the larger body of human thought and inquiry.

Wikipedia || Demarcation problem

Quote:Stick to sucking at defending you imaginary friend .

Quote:Hey retard, answer the OP's video. Or are you saying that guy is scientifically illiterate as well? Or are you saying anyone who disagrees with you is scientifically illiterate??

Why? it not even a real question it's deluded pseudoscience ranting. And yes sheldrake is scientifically illiterate therefore his question is too .

Quote:That's a panic stop button you placed on the conversation if I ever saw one.

Your inner dialog:
"Question too deep for me to answer.. better.. press.. panic.. stop.. button.." Button reads: "you too scientifically literate for me to speak to."

 Whatever helps you sleep at night or salves your ego that you and your mystic dingbat are on my level or any level for that matter .

Quote:Whew, a second more and everyone would have found out I don't have the chops to hang with Drich or the OP video on this topic. Personal pride saved another christian eats my dust."

Lol your funny Dirch if this apologetics thing fails you should become a comedian.

---

(May 24, 2018 at 12:18 am)Fireball Wrote:

(May 23, 2018 at 11:26 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: We don't take your arguments seriously Dirch because you have nothing to say .

Oh, he has plenty to say, but just like some wino on the street, it's just some sort of nonsensical maundering.

Your right much better