Posts: 3495
Threads: 25
Joined: August 9, 2015
Reputation:
27
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 11:24 am
(August 7, 2019 at 11:07 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Nailed it. Flat trolling by page 47, lol.
I had him nailed a bit farther back when I asked him why he skipped giving an intro.
So breezy joins a growing list of lost lambs who fell to the might of the lord's glorious noodly tendrils.
"For the only way to eternal glory is a life lived in service of our Lord, FSM; Verily it is FSM who is the perfect being the name higher than all names, king of all kings and will bestow upon us all, one day, The great reclaiming" -The Prophet Boiardi-
Conservative trigger warning.
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 11:26 am
(August 7, 2019 at 11:03 am)Grandizer Wrote: (August 7, 2019 at 9:02 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:
In scientific terms, space pixies would be a hypothesis at best, seeing as there is no evidence at all that space pixies exist. Do you not know the difference between the scientific definition of a theory and the colloquial definition?
If "space pixies" was a hypothesis, it would be a terrible one, scientifically speaking. 
Did I say, “hypothesis”? I meant drug-induced hallucination. 😛
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 6610
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 11:28 am
(August 7, 2019 at 11:20 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: (August 7, 2019 at 11:03 am)Grandizer Wrote: If "space pixies" was a hypothesis, it would be a terrible one, scientifically speaking.
How so? Scientifically speaking, of course.
Shouldn't you know this as a grad student in cog science?
It's not a clear statement. I mean what does "space pixies" mean exactly? You can't find a way to test this, and you can't even determine what are the variables exactly. It's a terrible hypothesis.
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 11:29 am
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 11:29 am by LadyForCamus.)
(August 7, 2019 at 11:00 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: (August 7, 2019 at 9:02 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:
In scientific terms, space pixies would be a hypothesis at best, seeing as there is no evidence at all that space pixies exist. Do you not know the difference between the scientific definition of a theory and the colloquial definition?
No ma'am, I don't know the difference.
Trololololl.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 1713
Threads: 16
Joined: August 2, 2019
Reputation:
6
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 11:36 am
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 11:36 am by John 6IX Breezy.)
(August 7, 2019 at 11:28 am)Grandizer Wrote: (August 7, 2019 at 11:20 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: How so? Scientifically speaking, of course.
Shouldn't you know this as a grad student in cog science?
It's not a clear statement. I mean what does "space pixies" mean exactly? You can't find a way to test this, and you can't even determine what are the variables exactly. It's a terrible hypothesis.
Ok, good, then we're on the same page. Since we don't know what the hypothesis actually is yet, it seemed as though you were calling it terrible because of an assumption that it would be falsified. But we agree then. A hypothesis is terrible when it is formulated in an untestable way, not when it is wrong. Hypothesis are allowed to fail experimentation, and still be great hypothesis.
Posts: 6610
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 11:41 am
(August 7, 2019 at 11:36 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: (August 7, 2019 at 11:28 am)Grandizer Wrote: Shouldn't you know this as a grad student in cog science?
It's not a clear statement. I mean what does "space pixies" mean exactly? You can't find a way to test this, and you can't even determine what are the variables exactly. It's a terrible hypothesis.
Ok, good, then we're on the same page. Since we don't know what the hypothesis actually is yet, it seemed as though you were calling it terrible because of an assumption that it would be falsified. But we agree then. A hypothesis is terrible when it is formulated in an untestable way, not when it is wrong. Hypothesis are allowed to fail experimentation, and still be great hypothesis.
No, we're not on the same page. You had to be corrected on your usage of the word "theory" in a scientific context.
And good to know you Google at the last minute, at least, lol.
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 11:42 am
(August 7, 2019 at 11:36 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: (August 7, 2019 at 11:28 am)Grandizer Wrote: Shouldn't you know this as a grad student in cog science?
It's not a clear statement. I mean what does "space pixies" mean exactly? You can't find a way to test this, and you can't even determine what are the variables exactly. It's a terrible hypothesis.
Ok, good, then we're on the same page. Since we don't know what the hypothesis actually is yet, it seemed as though you were calling it terrible because of an assumption that it would be falsified. But we agree then. A hypothesis is terrible when it is formulated in an untestable way, not when it is wrong. Hypothesis are allowed to fail experimentation, and still be great hypothesis.
What does any of that have to do with you not knowing the definition of a theory in science?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 1713
Threads: 16
Joined: August 2, 2019
Reputation:
6
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 11:50 am
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 11:53 am by John 6IX Breezy.)
(August 7, 2019 at 11:41 am)Grandizer Wrote: (August 7, 2019 at 11:36 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Ok, good, then we're on the same page. Since we don't know what the hypothesis actually is yet, it seemed as though you were calling it terrible because of an assumption that it would be falsified. But we agree then. A hypothesis is terrible when it is formulated in an untestable way, not when it is wrong. Hypothesis are allowed to fail experimentation, and still be great hypothesis.
No, we're not on the same page. You had to be corrected on your usage of the word "theory" in a scientific context.
And good to know you Google at the last minute, at least, lol.
So, are you saying theories are hypothesis that graduated to theories because of positive results? If we run the pixie experiment and the results support the hypothesis, it should be promoted to theory? Because if you're not saying that, then I don't see where I was corrected.
Posts: 67386
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
161
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 11:53 am
You know what I say? Lol...I say that you came to this board completely unprepared and under equipped.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 6610
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 12:00 pm
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 12:01 pm by GrandizerII.)
(August 7, 2019 at 11:50 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: (August 7, 2019 at 11:41 am)Grandizer Wrote: No, we're not on the same page. You had to be corrected on your usage of the word "theory" in a scientific context.
And good to know you Google at the last minute, at least, lol.
So, are you saying theories are hypothesis that graduated to theories because of positive results? If we run the pixie experiment and the results support the hypothesis, it should be promoted to theory? Because if you're not saying that, then I don't see where I was corrected.
Stop with the games, dude, lol. You didn't know what a theory means (you probably do now thanks to Google), LFC had to correct you on that, and now you're trying to save face by acting like you were trying to make some clever rhetorical point.
|
![[Image: s-l640.jpg]](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/DjAAAOSwpIhe1HCM/s-l640.jpg)
