The Ownership of Science

[Anomalocaris]

Why should we believe your cosmology as opposed to someone else's?

P.S.  Sometimes I get the impression that you are just a troll, and are not a serious participant of this community.

My cosmology is very unique, maybe it wouldn't get critical acclaim.

for the same reason shit thrown by monkeys don’t get acclaim.

[Jehanne]

You mean it works for you.

Well I suppose it would work for anyone who wanted to adhere to it.

Scientific truth is contingent truth, testable and correctable. What other systems of knowledge open themselves up to the possibility of being proven wrong??

[Anomalocaris]

if by validity you mean conjecture is more likely to be right than any pure bullshit that there is no other form of valid intellectual conjecture.  all other forms are 100% bullshit.

So you're saying everyone in the world who doesn't put science above all else - which is quite a lot of people - are all wrong?

exactly.  everything they say is bullshit because everything they say can have no better chance of being right than any random bullshit.  in fact what they say is very often even  less likely to be true than mere random bullshit because they deny science specifically for the purpose of rejecting what is more likely to be true..    so they preferentially aim their guessing darts at where the truth is already known to not be..

[Ahriman]

So you're saying everyone in the world who doesn't put science above all else - which is quite a lot of people - are all wrong?

exactly.  everything they say is bullshit because everything they say can have no better chance of being right than any random bullshit.  in fact what they say is very often even  less likely to be true than mere random bullshit because they deny science specifically for the purpose of rejecting what is more likely to be true.

So my cosmology is stupid and makes no sense?

.

[Paleophyte]

Because it works.

My own personal cosmology works pretty well too. You just gotta believe.

Does it have any predictive or explanatory power?

[Spongebob]

@Spongebob

So you agree that science is not the only valid form of intellectual conjecturation?

I agree you have absolutely no sense whatsoever.

---

My own personal cosmology works pretty well too. You just gotta believe.

Does it have any predictive or explanatory power?

Careful.  Asking reasonable, direct questions that have explicit answers will make airhead disappear.  Oh, yeah, that's a good thing.  I forgot.

[Ahriman]

My own personal cosmology works pretty well too. You just gotta believe.

Does it have any predictive or explanatory power?

Actually yes it does.

[Spongebob]

Does it have any predictive or explanatory power?

Actually yes it does.

Prove it!

[Ahriman]

Actually yes it does.

Prove it!

Oh please. You can't prove any of your future-based scientific shit.

[Paleophyte]

One of the primary characteristics of hoaxers and promoters of pseudo-science is to accuse everyone else of being a shill for something they don't trust.  Just sayin'.

Gamers are the worst about this. There is an online card game I play, so (of course) there are theories flying around about the broken/rigged shuffle algorithm. But anyone who scrutinizes those claims or questions them is a "fanboi" or a "shill." Like... I never once gave a fuck about the integrity of this card game or the shuffler. I was just questioning claims.

If anthropologists want to learn about the origins of religious beliefs, all they need to do is create an online card game with a working shuffler. Then observe forum posts about that game. I think an unknown causal chain + apophenia are the primary ingredients for religious belief.

Skinner, B. F. (1948). 'Superstition' in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38(2), 168–172. 

"A pigeon is brought to a stable state of hunger by reducing it to 75 percent of its weight when well fed. It is put into an experimental cage for a few minutes each day. A food hopper attached to the cage may be swung into place so that the pigeon can eat from it. A solenoid and a timing relay hold the hopper in place for five sec. at each reinforcement. If a clock is now arranged to present the food hopper at regular intervals with no reference whatsoever to the bird's behavior, operant conditioning usually takes place." The bird tends to learn whatever response it is making when the hopper appears. The response may be extinguished and reconditioned. "The experiment might be said to demonstrate a sort of superstition. The bird behaves as if there were a causal relation between its behavior and the presentation of food, although such a relation is lacking."

And we thought they were only useful for chess tournaments.

---

Does it have any predictive or explanatory power?

Actually yes it does.

Such as...?