The thread of movie titles and absence of badges. In previous episodes, it was signs you're getting older, chiropractic vs. medicine, atheism vs. Mormonism and religion vs. science with no existentialism nor philosophy thrown in
-
I really don't understand why you are so determined to dismiss every chiropractor because there are a few that don't know what they are doing.
I think he's trying to walk a mile in blakey's troll shoes.
-
Using his arguments we can dismiss all sorts of professions.
Counselors are quacks.
Leadership traits are useless.
etc.
-
I really don't understand why you are so determined to dismiss every chiropractor because there are a few that don't know what they are doing.
It's quite simple: what Scientists don't understand cannot possibly be true, because they have everything figured out.
-
I think it's more like,
What Scientists don't understand is not relevant to reality, because we have enough figured out to model reality, and the parts we haven't figured out are just components of what we already know.Which is why we haven't solved the uniform theory yet, because we are so certain that Newtonian and Quantum physics accurately describe reality, rather than the possibility that both are equally wrong, but simply produce accurate predictions.
-
But you created the circle.
No, you imagined the circle.
Placebos aren't magic.
No, but they are by their very nature and definition very short acting.
The body has to do something to have the effect that placebos cause.
Not necessarily. I would suggest you do a bit more research on the phenomenon.
However, if the cause of cancer remission was triggered by a placebo effect masked as faith healing
Doesn't happen. Most times it is a matter of either temporary remission due to interactions with various endorphins, etc. released by the body...or it was a remission that would have happened either way and the faith healing had nothing to do with it.
Compound this with the fact that correcting pressure against the nerves actually has a positive effect, and straightening the back actually has a positive effect, I really don't understand why you are so determined to dismiss every chiropractor because there are a few that don't know what they are doing.
Pseudoscience, pseudoscience, pseudoscience, quackery, pseudoscience, circular logic. (Had to translate what you said for the layperson)
The most you've proven is that the chiropractic field is not peer-reviewed as well as the rest of the medical field.
You are taking the stance of proving a negative. No, what I am saying is that the burden of proof is on the chiropractors. They need to prove that their "treatments" work and define a scope. When you have quacks saying that they can cure anything and are allowed to keep spouting their particular brand of bull excrement, I am not going to take them seriously.
The fact that you are certain that every chiropractic provider is a quack is your own sense of self-confirmation bias, which is worse than what you are accusing the field of doing.
Circular logic again. The burden of proof is not upon me.
I think he's trying to walk a mile in blakey's troll shoes.
That was low.
Using his arguments we can dismiss all sorts of professions.
Counselors are quacks.Leadership traits are useless.etc.
And I am being labeled the troll here? For arguing from a stance of reason and logic? Pffffbt. Alright then.
Which is why we haven't solved the uniform theory yet, because we are so certain that Newtonian and Quantum physics accurately describe reality, rather than the possibility that both are equally wrong, but simply produce accurate predictions.
OK, @boomzilla, I apologize for saying you had a twisted view of science earlier. I misunderstood what you were trying to say, and now I have found the person with the truly twisted version of science.
Newtonian physics and Quantum physics are both testable, verifiable and repeatable. We know that Newtonian physics is technically wrong, but for most purposes the equations are close enough to work without the added complexity. As scientists have stated before, Newtonian physics is wrong, but the calculations you can make from it are close enough to get you to the moon and back.
-
-
When you have quacks saying that they can cure anything and are allowed to keep spouting their particular brand of bull excrement, I am not going to take them seriously.
That's fine. The part where you're failing is this bit:
...and define a scope.
That was low.
I'm an easy mark for genuine trolls. Fortunately for me, it's because I like it.
OK, @boomzilla, I apologize for saying you had a twisted view of science earlier. I misunderstood what you were trying to say, and now I have found the person with the truly twisted version of science.
I don't see anything particularly wrong about what he said. Obviously, Newtonian stuff produced good predictions until we looked at bigger scales and relativity came forth.
Newtonian physics and Quantum physics are both testable, verifiable and repeatable. We know that Newtonian physics is technically wrong, but for most purposes the equations are close enough to work without the added complexity. As scientists have stated before, Newtonian physics is wrong, but the calculations you can make from it are close enough to get you to the moon and back.
I...don't see how what you said is materially different than what he said.
-
OK, @boomzilla, I apologize for saying you had a twisted view of science earlier.
I sort of trolled you, as the pedantic dickweed in me likes to do. I often say provocative things that a casual reading shows to be outrageous, but a careful analysis shows is pedantically correct. I'm infuriated by logically muddy arguments, even in service of noble (or at least agreeable causes).
That's probably a sign of my aging, too.
-
I...don't see how what you said is materially different than what he said.
The difference being that he asserts that science just follows Newtonian, Quantum and Relative physics without giving it thought. This is simply not true. When we see that what we receive from those calculations is not within the realm of what we would expect, science looks at the data, the hypothesis and the equations to find which is at fault. Any of those physics theories could be changed easily enough if they are shown to be incorrect.
Also, they do not have to be correct in order for the science to be correct. They just have to be good enough for the task at hand. That is why we only use Quantum or Relative physics calculations when warranted. Because Newtonian calculations are almost always good enough. It is only when the calculations are edge cases that the others are used.
-
I sort of trolled you, as the pedantic dickweed in me likes to do.
I know, which is why I am not mad about it. You do basically what blakey does, without being quite so huge a dick about it. ;)
That's probably a sign of my aging, too.
Also a sign of your aging, the receding hairline that is presenting itself as a reverse mohawk.
-
I...don't see how what you said is materially different than what he said.
He practically repeated me, in the form of a disagreement.
-
The difference being that he asserts that science just follows Newtonian, Quantum and Relative physics without giving it thought.
Sorry, I'm not getting it. This seems like super hair splitting to me.
-
Sorry, I'm not getting it. This seems like super hair splitting to me.
Is that not what we do here? I did not get that memo.
-
Is that not what we do here? I did not get that memo.
That was my intent of using the word "materially." I could have split hairs and gone all pedantic dickweed, too.
-
That was my intent of using the word "materially." I could have split hairs and gone all pedantic dickweed, too.
At times recently, I have flag-trolled people for pedantic dickweedery, set them up as it were, but hidden HTML comments to show that I was doing so and no one has bitten yet. I am rather disappointed and wondering whether everyone views raw and then ignores it. No fun.
-
without giving it thought
Not what I meant.
find which is at fault... if they are shown to be incorrect
What I was getting at.
they do not have to be correct... They just have to be good enough for the task at hand
That's the pragmatic approach, but that is counter to the 2nd point above.
And that's why I don't get the demagoguery of the scientific community (or rather the bigoted political opinionated worshipers of science).
People need to decide whether science is trying to accurately describe reality, or just pragmatically approximate it so we can form predictions.
The problem is that SCIENCE is treated as both, whereas they are two fundamentally different functions of SCIENCE. Laws are pragmatic approximations, theory are attempts to describe reality. It would do us a service to separate the functions into different fields.
The reason I say this, is that scientific theory is not necessary to generate scientific law.
Out of the "theory" of relativity have come useful calculations, which the predictions made by the theory have been "relatively" accurate. However, that doesn't PROVE the theory as reality. IMO theories can only be disproven, by being inaccurate. The effects of time dilation and gravitational pull need not be related. Spacetime need not be a single form. Effects can be causing two independent effects on time and space.
Even if the calculations produce accurate predictions, Newtonian law is incorrect. However it is practical.
Why can't someone speculate the same is true for Quantum Mechanics?
IMO, science need not be proven or disproven.... only accurate. If somehow an equation involving cheese being the cause of gravity, produces accurate predictions, I seriously don't care.
-
Goddess preserve us.... here we go again....
any chance we could all just give it a rest for a week or so?
please?
no?
Shimata.
-
What else do I have to discuss?
It's not religious.
-
It's not religious.
no, it's not but it's another flame war just waiting to happen and my flame filters are alreasy worn from that religion war we just had yesterday.
-
Waaaa
-
-
Waaaa
i thought that would be the answer.
i guess it's getting to be about time to mute another thread...
-
-
I'm not sure what to say. This certainly wasn't flaming on a level as the religion stuff yesterday. Everything seems reasonably civil.
Either way, I recommend watching the dog video I just posted.
-
People take themselves so seriously, they can't imagine two people having a discussion, disagreeing, and not wanting to put each other in cement blocks off the docks.
Can I maintain a friendship with @Polygeekery and fundamentally disagree on a topic?
I believe we are both mature enough.
-
This certainly wasn't flaming on a level as the religion stuff yesterday. Everything seems reasonably civil.
no, it was remarkable civil compared to yesterday, true.
doesn't mean i'm interested in following it.
sorry, but i've just been around that particular argument far too many times to have any interest in it left.
-
doesn't mean i'm interested in following it.
That's fine. I skim past lots of stuff around here.
-
People take themselves so seriously, they can't imagine two people having a discussion, disagreeing, and not wanting to put each other in cement blocks off the docks.
The problem with text based conversations is that they lack intonation, enunciation and body language.
I can say @xaade is an asshole two different ways and a spectrum in between. I can say it in anger, I can say it in jest and I can say it in between as in "@xaade is an asshole for trolling me so well. I wish I had not fallen for it, but it was funny."
Plus, male interactions are just freaking weird. When I answer the phone with curse words it can be either a person I sincerely dislike...or my best friend. The only thing you can say with any measure of certainty is that it probably is not my MIL.
-
I can say that I'm serious and pretty consistent about wanting people to stop taking themselves so seriously. I'm adverse to arrogance, and have a low tolerance for people who think they understand everything and have it all figured out.
I leave a lot of room in my interpretations on purpose, because I honestly do not know.
-
Plus, male interactions are just freaking weird.
+̼
Chicks don't get this. Not that interactions among chicks aren't weird. Just in a totally different way.
We're catching up on New Girl recordings on the DVR. We just watched the one about the differences in the way male and female friends fight. Hilarious.
-
I leave a lot of room in my interpretations on purpose, because I honestly do not know.
The only thing I can say with any certainty is that there is no god.
Also...Mormons...amirite? </intentional trolling for humor purposes only>
We're catching up on New Girl recordings on the DVR.
Did you lose a bet with your better half?
-
Did you lose a bet with your better half?
No. That show is hilarious. The humor seems more directed at men, frankly.
-
-
The only thing I can say with any certainty is that there is no god.
How much certainty?
-
There is at least a celestial being who loves irony.
And if it were inanimate.... that only starts my proof.
-
How much certainty?
I was taking a cue from the blakeyrat/boomzilla playbook. Really, it's the same playbook until the last page.
There is at least a celestial being who loves irony.
Someone on the ISS?
-
And then I realized...
There is at least a celestial being who loves irony.
counts as a paraphrase for the movie title "The gods must be crazy".
then I thought, what a fun game.
paraphrasing movie titles....
Shall we play?
-
then I thought, what a fun game.
paraphrasing movie titles....
Shall we play?
Sure. Let's play here so that all those who muted this thread because of the various levels of shitstorms will be left out.
-
The only thing I can say with any certainty is that there is no god.
<i realize that this will possibly start a flamewar, but damnit it's too interesting a question to pass up!>
from a scientific perspective only please, what's your proof of this?
it's pretty damn hard to prove a negative, so i am very interested in hearing your proof that any entity that could reasonably be called God with a capital g does not exist.
I know several classic proofs but they all fall short of the proof in the negative. they're all proofs that certain things that are commonly held up as proof of the existence of God can be explained with a non divine source.
<that should keep the hint that there's hidden comment>
-
Intergalactic journey entering the zone devoid of light.
Not sure if subtitle, or continuation of superfluous sunbeams.
-
I know several classic proofs but they all fall short of the proof in the negative. they're all proofs that certain things that are commonly held up as proof of the existence of God can be explained with a non divine source.
Indeed. Invoking 'Yea' or 'Nay' always seems to involve an article of faith somewhere.
-
from a scientific perspective only please, what's your proof of this?
Are you angling for another "whoosh" badge?
-
0 is a certainty!
-
Are you angling for another "whoosh" badge?
did you see my hidden comment that caused my post to go all italic?
if anything you nerdsniped me not wooshed me
-
0 is a certainty!
Zero certainly would fall inside of the realm of "any". Also, obvious troll is obvious. If you have any doubt, view raw on the post referenced.
-
To quote Nietzsche: There are no gods, because if there were, then how could I bear not being one!
-
0 is a certainty!
But does that count as "any?" Or is that just "none?" I guess it depends on how you interpret "any."
Choose any amount. That would support 0 as a valid amount of "any certainty."
But his usage (for normal English, at least) implies a positive amount.
-
did you see my hidden comment that caused my post to go all italic?
Did you see my hidden comment where I escaped the "i" to keep it from going italics? ;)
-
To quote Nietzsche: There are no gods, because if there were, then how could I bear not being one!
Nietzsche... now there is someone i've never been able to read without laughing out loud.
interesting philisophical points, but..... i just can't help laughing at the way he makes them
-
But his usage (for normal English, at least) implies a positive amount.
Ohhhhhh, that is so changing how pendantry works around here. <yes, I know, misspelled just to annoy the pedants.>
