Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

The Fracty

Stronn
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 7:19:32 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I had never heard the phrase "fractal wrongness" until today, and it gave me an idea (tongue-in-cheek, of course): The Fracty. An award for the most fractally wrong person on the forum. What do you think?

http://rationalwiki.org...

"Debating a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder, full of half-truths, leaps of poor logic, and outright lies, which requires just as much refutation to debunk as the first one"kind of like a recursive Gish Gallop, where each point both surrounds and is surrounded by an equally wrong argument. It is worth noting that being fractally wrong can be handy for the losing side in a public debate, since you are likely to leave your opponent looking baffled and unable to deal with each level of wrongness."

"It is as impossible to convince a fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the Mandelbrot set in finite time."
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 12:57:01 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 7:19:32 PM, Stronn wrote:
I had never heard the phrase "fractal wrongness" until today, and it gave me an idea (tongue-in-cheek, of course): The Fracty. An award for the most fractally wrong person on the forum. What do you think?
http://rationalwiki.org...

Sometimes you trip over an idea you wish you'd invented, Stronn, and for me, this is one. It's irony on a scale of humour worthy of Douglas Adams, and props to Keunwoo Lee for coining it. :)

In reading the list of Fractally Wrong ideas, I note that pretty much every major pseudoscience is represented. Since 80% of this forum's discussions involves swatting clouds of pseudoscientific flies, I don't think they need to be awarded so much as acknowledged in their more egregious forms. Fortunately, there are many images online one could link to do so. [http://daily-steampunk.com...][https://lh3.googleusercontent.com...]

Again, thank you for this thread. :)
bamiller43
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 7:58:47 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 7:19:32 PM, Stronn wrote:
I had never heard the phrase "fractal wrongness" until today, and it gave me an idea (tongue-in-cheek, of course): The Fracty. An award for the most fractally wrong person on the forum. What do you think?

http://rationalwiki.org...

"Debating a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder, full of half-truths, leaps of poor logic, and outright lies, which requires just as much refutation to debunk as the first one"kind of like a recursive Gish Gallop, where each point both surrounds and is surrounded by an equally wrong argument. It is worth noting that being fractally wrong can be handy for the losing side in a public debate, since you are likely to leave your opponent looking baffled and unable to deal with each level of wrongness."

"It is as impossible to convince a fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the Mandelbrot set in finite time."

I nominate Akhenaten for the Fracty!
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2016 5:07:07 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 7:58:47 PM, bamiller43 wrote:
At 6/23/2016 7:19:32 PM, Stronn wrote:
I had never heard the phrase "fractal wrongness" until today, and it gave me an idea (tongue-in-cheek, of course): The Fracty. An award for the most fractally wrong person on the forum. What do you think?

http://rationalwiki.org...

"Debating a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder, full of half-truths, leaps of poor logic, and outright lies, which requires just as much refutation to debunk as the first one"kind of like a recursive Gish Gallop, where each point both surrounds and is surrounded by an equally wrong argument. It is worth noting that being fractally wrong can be handy for the losing side in a public debate, since you are likely to leave your opponent looking baffled and unable to deal with each level of wrongness."

"It is as impossible to convince a fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the Mandelbrot set in finite time."

I nominate Akhenaten for the Fracty!

You are speaking from a fractally wrong reference frame and are totally unaware of it. A dysfunctional fractal would never admit that it is dysfunctional. The human race is too arrogant to admit any error, let alone a 200 year old fully entrenched error like germ theory.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2016 12:33:25 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/25/2016 8:35:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/24/2016 7:58:47 PM, bamiller43 wrote:
I nominate Akhenaten for the Fracty!

He deserves the shame, just not the attention.

More hit and run cowardice. lol
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2016 12:47:36 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
A list of fractually wrong science.

1. Germ theory. lol

2. Hundreds of sub-atomic particles. lol

3. Vaccination as a cure. lol

4. The existence of viruses. lol

5. The existence of prions. lol

6. The concept of time as a 4th dimension. lol

7. The concept that speed can change time. lol

8. The concept that gravity pulls from a distance. lol

9. Light travels as a wave packet. lol

10. Continental drift theory. lol

11. There is no such thing as a conspiracy. lol

12. Fluoride in the water stops tooth decay. lol

13. Anti-biotics cure bacteria infection. lol

14. That legless germs ATTACK humans. lol

15. That space is an empty vacuum. lol

16. The universe is torus shaped. lol

Yes folks! The nincompoops that wrote this post believe all of the above as TRUE! lol
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2016 1:10:54 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/26/2016 12:33:25 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 6/25/2016 8:35:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/24/2016 7:58:47 PM, bamiller43 wrote:
I nominate Akhenaten for the Fracty!

He deserves the shame, just not the attention.

More hit and run cowardice. lol

Akh, in order to participate in this forum in good faith as a peer you must make your ideas accountable to falsification by independent observation, because that is a minimum standard of accountability required for science.

While ever you avoid that standard, your contributions are unrelated to science. Essentially you're promoting pseudoscience while pretending it's scientific. I realise you may be doing so in sincere conviction, but that's irrelevant. Because your approach respects neither this forum nor fellow members, it is vain, self-indulgent, and shameful. Because it is trolling, attention-seeking, disruptive and unproductive, it also deserves to be dismissed and ignored.

If you ever want to understand what scientific accountability means, you are welcome to ask. if you ever want to discuss why that is the minimum standard of scientific accountability, you are welcome to ask. I at least would be glad to help, and I don't doubt that other members would too.

So there is no hit and run cowardice here. It's simply that you are not participating in good faith -- not because your ideas are unpopular, but because you do not understand and do not respect what it means to participate in a science discussion.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2016 4:27:30 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/26/2016 1:10:54 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

Akh, in order to participate in this forum in good faith as a peer you must make your ideas accountable to falsification by independent observation, because that is a minimum standard of accountability required for science.

While ever you avoid that standard, your contributions are unrelated to science. Essentially you're promoting pseudoscience while pretending it's scientific. I realise you may be doing so in sincere conviction, but that's irrelevant. Because your approach respects neither this forum nor fellow members, it is vain, self-indulgent, and shameful. Because it is trolling, attention-seeking, disruptive and unproductive, it also deserves to be dismissed and ignored.

If you ever want to understand what scientific accountability means, you are welcome to ask. if you ever want to discuss why that is the minimum standard of scientific accountability, you are welcome to ask. I at least would be glad to help, and I don't doubt that other members would too.

So there is no hit and run cowardice here. It's simply that you are not participating in good faith -- not because your ideas are unpopular, but because you do not understand and do not respect what it means to participate in a science discussion.

By accountability, do you mean adhering to the peer review system?

To my knowledge the peer review system is corrupt and unreliable. More than 50 percent of peer reviewed papers which are accepted are eventually found to be fraudulent at a later date.

http://www.the-scientist.com...-
Retractions-of-2015/

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Highly respected system??????????????????? lololololololololololo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2016 6:29:53 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/26/2016 4:27:30 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 6/26/2016 1:10:54 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

Akh, in order to participate in this forum in good faith as a peer you must make your ideas accountable to falsification by independent observation, because that is a minimum standard of accountability required for science.

While ever you avoid that standard, your contributions are unrelated to science. Essentially you're promoting pseudoscience while pretending it's scientific. I realise you may be doing so in sincere conviction, but that's irrelevant. Because your approach respects neither this forum nor fellow members, it is vain, self-indulgent, and shameful. Because it is trolling, attention-seeking, disruptive and unproductive, it also deserves to be dismissed and ignored.

If you ever want to understand what scientific accountability means, you are welcome to ask. if you ever want to discuss why that is the minimum standard of scientific accountability, you are welcome to ask. I at least would be glad to help, and I don't doubt that other members would too.

So there is no hit and run cowardice here. It's simply that you are not participating in good faith -- not because your ideas are unpopular, but because you do not understand and do not respect what it means to participate in a science discussion.

By accountability, do you mean adhering to the peer review system?

To my knowledge the peer review system is corrupt and unreliable. More than 50 percent of peer reviewed papers which are accepted are eventually found to be fraudulent at a later date.

http://www.the-scientist.com...-
Retractions-of-2015/

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Highly respected system??????????????????? lololololololololololo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did you even read those articles? They show how the peer review system found papers of a dubious nature, exposing and pulling them. That's how it should work.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2016 7:14:00 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/26/2016 4:27:30 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 6/26/2016 1:10:54 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

Akh, in order to participate in this forum in good faith as a peer you must make your ideas accountable to falsification by independent observation, because that is a minimum standard of accountability required for science.

If you ever want to understand what scientific accountability means, you are welcome to ask. if you ever want to discuss why that is the minimum standard of scientific accountability, you are welcome to ask. I at least would be glad to help, and I don't doubt that other members would too.

By accountability, do you mean adhering to the peer review system?

I mean the full spectrum of methods for scientific accountability.

Can you list those methods, Akh? Can you summarise even five measures science routinely takes to promote accountability?

If not, why are you commenting on them at all?
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 1:20:03 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/26/2016 7:14:00 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

I mean the full spectrum of methods for scientific accountability.

Can you list those methods, Akh? Can you summarise even five measures science routinely takes to promote accountability?

If not, why are you commenting on them at all?

It wouldn't matter is there were a thousand safety checks and measures. They would still come up with the same theories and conclusions because it is a matter of money, status and power and not of scientific advancement. Money, power and status always comes before scientific advancement.
Axonly
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 12:22:50 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 1:20:03 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 6/26/2016 7:14:00 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

I mean the full spectrum of methods for scientific accountability.

Can you list those methods, Akh? Can you summarise even five measures science routinely takes to promote accountability?

If not, why are you commenting on them at all?

It wouldn't matter is there were a thousand safety checks and measures. They would still come up with the same theories and conclusions because it is a matter of money, status and power and not of scientific advancement. Money, power and status always comes before scientific advancement.

Sure they do, buddy
Meh!
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 10:10:38 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 1:20:03 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 6/26/2016 7:14:00 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

I mean the full spectrum of methods for scientific accountability.

Can you list those methods, Akh? Can you summarise even five measures science routinely takes to promote accountability?

If not, why are you commenting on them at all?

It wouldn't matter
So, that's a no. You neither know nor care how science produces accountability, because you argue endlessly based on what you wish to believe, not what can be independently tested and refuted. Your beliefs themselves are not accountable to evidence.

They would still come up with the same theories and conclusions
I can answer how many scientific theories could be falsified. Yet how are yours falsified? What independent evidence would persuade you that you're wrong?

You cannot answer that either because you argue based on what you wish to believe, and not what can be independently observed. Your beliefs themselves are not accountable to evidence. Moreover, they're motivated by... wait, you said it yourself:

because it is a matter of status and power and not of scientific advancement.
That's why you don't care how science works, and won't subject your ideas to independent criticism.

it's easy to blame others for flaws you know within yourself.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 1:53:08 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 10:10:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

So, that's a no. You neither know nor care how science produces accountability, because you argue endlessly based on what you wish to believe, not what can be independently tested and refuted. Your beliefs themselves are not accountable to evidence.

I know that the science community doesn't care about accountability. That's why they keep falsifying their results and finding results that suits their purpose rather than the advancement of science. The examples that I have given you clearly shows that scientists make up fictitious names of other researchers which they add to bogus research papers. The whole process of accountability is a minefield of non-accountability.


They would still come up with the same theories and conclusions
I can answer how many scientific theories could be falsified. Yet how are yours falsified? What independent evidence would persuade you that you're wrong?

All the evidence proves that I am right. I have already proved my theories correct many times thus far. Its just that you keep ignoring the evidence and pretend that it doesn't exist. Its the same old inquisition game of constant questions when the questioner is not really interested in any answers. Its all about power and authority and not about science.

You cannot answer that either because you argue based on what you wish to believe, and not what can be independently observed. Your beliefs themselves are not accountable to evidence. Moreover, they're motivated by... wait, you said it yourself:

because it is a matter of status and power and not of scientific advancement.
That's why you don't care how science works, and won't subject your ideas to independent criticism.

it's easy to blame others for flaws you know within yourself.

As always, you attack the PERSON and not the ISSUES. THAT is the WEAKNESS of your argument.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 2:51:41 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 1:53:08 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 6/27/2016 10:10:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
So, that's a no. You neither know nor care how science produces accountability, because you argue endlessly based on what you wish to believe, not what can be independently tested and refuted. Your beliefs themselves are not accountable to evidence.
I know that the science community doesn't care about accountability. That's why they keep falsifying their results and finding results that suits their purpose
Science has detection and correction for systematic error built-in. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists in tens of thousands of independent institutions across hundreds of countries, each checking the others' work in ways you don't care to review. But you know they publish methods and share data because there are sites showing them doing that, and you've seen some.

Yet you'll let nobody critique your ideas, and ignore information that doesn't agree with you. So which is more likely to suffer from systematic ignorance, error and self-deceit: hundreds of thousands of highly-trained, unrelated people all funded differently, checking one another -- or you alone, cherry-picking your information?

They would still come up with the same theories and conclusions
I can answer how many scientific theories could be falsified. Yet how are yours falsified? What independent evidence would persuade you that you're wrong?
All the evidence proves that I am right.
Actually most of what you cite is opinion, so you don't seek much evidence in the first place. Once you have enough opinion to gossip with and conjecture over, you stop looking.

As always, you attack the PERSON and not the ISSUES.
You want to critique scientific procedures, yet can't say what they are. You wish to impugn science's professional integrity, yet can't say what the principles are, or how they're enforced. Your theories don't uphold basic empirical criteria, yet you don't care what those criteria are or why they matter.

So what issues are there that you didn't create yourself?
Stronn
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 9:44:18 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 2:51:41 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/28/2016 1:53:08 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 6/27/2016 10:10:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
So, that's a no. You neither know nor care how science produces accountability, because you argue endlessly based on what you wish to believe, not what can be independently tested and refuted. Your beliefs themselves are not accountable to evidence.
I know that the science community doesn't care about accountability. That's why they keep falsifying their results and finding results that suits their purpose
Science has detection and correction for systematic error built-in. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists in tens of thousands of independent institutions across hundreds of countries, each checking the others' work in ways you don't care to review. But you know they publish methods and share data because there are sites showing them doing that, and you've seen some.

Yet you'll let nobody critique your ideas, and ignore information that doesn't agree with you. So which is more likely to suffer from systematic ignorance, error and self-deceit: hundreds of thousands of highly-trained, unrelated people all funded differently, checking one another -- or you alone, cherry-picking your information?

They would still come up with the same theories and conclusions
I can answer how many scientific theories could be falsified. Yet how are yours falsified? What independent evidence would persuade you that you're wrong?
All the evidence proves that I am right.
Actually most of what you cite is opinion, so you don't seek much evidence in the first place. Once you have enough opinion to gossip with and conjecture over, you stop looking.

As always, you attack the PERSON and not the ISSUES.
You want to critique scientific procedures, yet can't say what they are. You wish to impugn science's professional integrity, yet can't say what the principles are, or how they're enforced. Your theories don't uphold basic empirical criteria, yet you don't care what those criteria are or why they matter.

So what issues are there that you didn't create yourself?

Keep plugging away, Ruv. You will eventually reach the endpoint of that Mandlebrot set. I just know it.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 3:07:23 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 2:51:41 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

Science has detection and correction for systematic error built-in. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists in tens of thousands of independent institutions across hundreds of countries, each checking the others' work in ways you don't care to review. But you know they publish methods and share data because there are sites showing them doing that, and you've seen some.

If you go to university and question a professor about basic physics they will throw you out by the ear hole. That's how the system protects itself. They instill fear into all graduates so that they become too scared to question anything. Thus, its only the subservient ones that make it through the system. The rebels never make it through.

Yet you'll let nobody critique your ideas, and ignore information that doesn't agree with you. So which is more likely to suffer from systematic ignorance, error and self-deceit: hundreds of thousands of highly-trained, unrelated people all funded differently, checking one another -- or you alone, cherry-picking your information?

They have all been indoctrinated with the same system. Thus, it doesn't matter that they live thousands of miles apart. They all know the consequences of bucking the system.


Actually most of what you cite is opinion, so you don't seek much evidence in the first place. Once you have enough opinion to gossip with and conjecture over, you stop looking.
I am just carrying on where Nikola Tesla left off. Now, would you say that he just made it all up?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 12:25:31 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 3:07:23 PM, Akhenaten wrote:

If you go to university and question a professor about basic physics they will throw you out by the ear hole.

You've never been in a university or even know what a professor is.

That's how the system protects itself. They instill fear into all graduates so that they become too scared to question anything.

That's just plain stupid.

Thus, its only the subservient ones that make it through the system. The rebels never make it through.

Rebels? LOL. Clearly, you have no clue what goes on in a university.

They have all been indoctrinated with the same system.

Sorry, but people get indoctrinated in churches, not universities.

Thus, it doesn't matter that they live thousands of miles apart. They all know the consequences of bucking the system.

You really have no clue.


I am just carrying on where Nikola Tesla left off.

No, you're not, you're just an idiot.

Now, would you say that he just made it all up?

Of course not, but you wouldn't know anyways.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
bamiller43
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 3:43:28 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 7:19:32 PM, Stronn wrote:
I had never heard the phrase "fractal wrongness" until today, and it gave me an idea (tongue-in-cheek, of course): The Fracty. An award for the most fractally wrong person on the forum. What do you think?

http://rationalwiki.org...

"Debating a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder, full of half-truths, leaps of poor logic, and outright lies, which requires just as much refutation to debunk as the first one"kind of like a recursive Gish Gallop, where each point both surrounds and is surrounded by an equally wrong argument. It is worth noting that being fractally wrong can be handy for the losing side in a public debate, since you are likely to leave your opponent looking baffled and unable to deal with each level of wrongness."

"It is as impossible to convince a fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the Mandelbrot set in finite time."

After examining the contents and conversations in this thread between Akh and the other users, I very, very firmly stand by my nomination.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 4:09:03 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 12:25:31 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:


I am just carrying on where Nikola Tesla left off.

No, you're not, you're just an idiot.

Now, would you say that he just made it all up?

Of course not, but you wouldn't know anyways.

Haven't you got that right arm under control yet, Dr Strangelove? lol
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 993
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 6:04:24 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/26/2016 12:47:36 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
A list of fractually wrong science.

1. Germ theory. lol

2. Hundreds of sub-atomic particles. lol

3. Vaccination as a cure. lol

4. The existence of viruses. lol

5. The existence of prions. lol

6. The concept of time as a 4th dimension. lol

7. The concept that speed can change time. lol

8. The concept that gravity pulls from a distance. lol

9. Light travels as a wave packet. lol

10. Continental drift theory. lol

11. There is no such thing as a conspiracy. lol

12. Fluoride in the water stops tooth decay. lol

13. Anti-biotics cure bacteria infection. lol

14. That legless germs ATTACK humans. lol

15. That space is an empty vacuum. lol

16. The universe is torus shaped. lol

Yes folks! The nincompoops that wrote this post believe all of the above as TRUE! lol

WOW. You really do deserve the fracty!

All this is just defectu ratione intellegens es argumentum.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 12:26:24 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 6:04:24 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

WOW. You really do deserve the fracty!

All this is just defectu ratione intellegens es argumentum.

You can't even speak English! There's no hope for you! lol
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 2:36:59 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 3:07:23 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 6/28/2016 2:51:41 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Science has detection and correction for systematic error built-in.
If you go to university and question a professor about basic physics they will throw you out by the ear hole.
Could we see the results of a reputable independent statistical study to substantiate your claim of global ideological conspiracy, or do you only have unsubstantiated rumour? Where did your information come from, and how did you test it?

They instill fear into all graduates so that they become too scared to question anything.
Do you believe your claims should be questioned? If so, how can they be falsified?

Actually most of what you cite is opinion, so you don't seek much evidence in the first place. Once you have enough opinion to gossip with and conjecture over, you stop looking.
I am just carrying on where Nikola Tesla left off. Now, would you say that he just made it all up?
How can Tesla's more idiosyncratic claims be verified? How could they be falsified? How much of that testing have you done yourself? How much have you confirmed occurred, and how did you confirm that it was diligent, independent, competent and exhaustive?
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 3:49:24 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 2:36:59 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/28/2016 3:07:23 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 6/28/2016 2:51:41 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Science has detection and correction for systematic error built-in.
If you go to university and question a professor about basic physics they will throw you out by the ear hole.
Could we see the results of a reputable independent statistical study to substantiate your claim of global ideological conspiracy, or do you only have unsubstantiated rumour? Where did your information come from, and how did you test it?

They instill fear into all graduates so that they become too scared to question anything.
Do you believe your claims should be questioned? If so, how can they be falsified?

Actually most of what you cite is opinion, so you don't seek much evidence in the first place. Once you have enough opinion to gossip with and conjecture over, you stop looking.
I am just carrying on where Nikola Tesla left off. Now, would you say that he just made it all up?
How can Tesla's more idiosyncratic claims be verified? How could they be falsified? How much of that testing have you done yourself? How much have you confirmed occurred, and how did you confirm that it was diligent, independent, competent and exhaustive?

Falsification itself is a fraudulent process and idea. Thus, if I comply to it I would be untrue to reality and truth.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 993
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 9:32:48 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 12:26:24 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 6/30/2016 6:04:24 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

WOW. You really do deserve the fracty!

All this is just defectu ratione intellegens es argumentum.

You can't even speak English! There's no hope for you! lol

You can't even use google translate! There's no hope for you, you sad little ad hominem user!