222 replies to this topic

[Nymh]

She said that I think I am right, therefore, they don't count as theories. That's fallacious. That something is "RIGHT" doesn't prevent it from being a theory, nor does it prevent it from being falsifiable. That's the entire argument. Your epistemological debate here? Irrelevant to it.

Again, wrong. I said that your unwillingness to be proven wrong makes your claims unfalsifiable. Your inability to flesh out your claims with any supporting evidence makes them not count as theories.

[8143FF763271]

The only thing that is obvious to me is that you are wrong, but cannot admit it. Instead of owning up to the fact that you have a lesser understanding of these concepts than multiple people who have been schooled in them for decades, you resort to being condescending and throwing around generalizations about how we "don't know the meaning" of things that we obviously do when you are undeniably wrong.

But you just said that you know that you're right. How can your claims be falsifiable if you know that you're right?

Just going to leave this here and lol.

[Sweeney]

I was arguing one thing with your GIRL (whom you are obviously derailing this argument for) and it's that things don't have to be FALSE to be falsifiable.

I quoted the definition of falsifiable from wikipedia and it stated that theories and hypothesis are falsifiable IF they can be empirically proven wrong.

She said that I think I am right, therefore, they don't count as theories. That's fallacious. That something is "RIGHT" doesn't prevent it from being a theory, nor does it prevent it from being falsifiable. That's the entire argument. Your epistemological debate here? Irrelevant to it.

Then show one logically consistent, empirically verifiable way that your theory could be tested, and potentially fail.

[8143FF763271]

Again, wrong. I said that your unwillingness to be proven wrong makes your claims unfalsifiable. Your inability to flesh out your claims with any supporting evidence makes them not count as theories.

Theories require evidence. I will be proven wrong... if someone proves my arguments false. People can do this... with good arguments and evidence (you haven't provided either).

[Neoquest]

lol

[Nymh]

Just going to leave this here and lol.

I still fail to see how pointing out that your claims consistently lack one of the basic necessities of being "falsifiable" is laughable or shows that I have no understanding of the concept.

[Mishelle]

For every shitty thread Kami makes I'm going to make an average to slightly above average thread.

[Mishatu]

For every shitty thread Kami makes I'm going to make an average to slightly above average thread.

Oh, whatever are we going to do with all these awesome threads you post? Maybe have a decent, non-roundabout discussion?

Egads.

I'm looking forward it :3

[8143FF763271]

Then show one logically consistent, empirically verifiable way that your theory could be tested, and potentially fail.

The purpose of life is pleasure theory? Easy. If I telepathically controlled you to get you to do only what I want you to do, then the purpose of (your) life wouldn't be pleasure. It would be serving me. You aren't operating on a system of cognitive rewards and punishments. You have no conscious control over your actions and, thus, can't direct them towards pleasure. Pleasure can't be the terminal value of your life (since you aren't doing things for pleasure).

Edited by kami12, 21 August 2012 - 09:03 AM.

[Sweeney]

The purpose of life is pleasure theory? Easy. If I telepathically controlled you to get you to do only what I want you to do, then the purpose of (your) life wouldn't be pleasure. It would be serving me. You aren't operating on a system of cognitive rewards and punishments. You have no conscious control over your actions and, thus, can't direct them towards pleasure. Pleasure can't be the terminal value of your life (since you aren't doing things for pleasure).

Well, there we go.
Now we know you haven't got a clue.

[8143FF763271]

I still fail to see how pointing out that your claims consistently lack one of the basic necessities of being "falsifiable" is laughable or shows that I have no understanding of the concept.

You still haven't understood that something being right doesn't mean it's not falsifiable? Oh, lord.

[Waser Lave]

Is anybody taking bets on how many times kami was dropped on his head as a child?

[Nymh]

You still haven't understood that something being right doesn't mean it's not falsifiable? Oh, lord.

You still haven't understood that my argument has nothing to do with whether or not you are correct.

[8143FF763271]

Well, there we go.
Now we know you haven't got a clue.

I conceived one instance in which the purpose of life would not be pleasure. That's what you asked me to do.

[Mishatu]

Is anybody taking bets on how many times kami was dropped on his head as a child?

I wasn't, but it sounds like a brilliant idea.

$20 says it's at least a thousand.

[8143FF763271]

You still haven't understood that my argument has nothing to do with whether or not you are correct.

I think I'm just going to stick to arguing with your sweeney.

[Sweeney]

I conceived one instance in which the purpose of life would not be pleasure. That's what you asked me to do.

No, it isn't.

[Nymh]

I think I'm just going to stick to arguing with your sweeney.

Cop-out because you know you're wrong? Yep.

[8143FF763271]

No, it isn't.

How isn't it? Looks pretty solid to me.

Cop-out because you know you're wrong? Yep.

Sure thing.

[tri]

Is anybody taking bets on how many times kami was dropped on his head as a child?

I will guess 20. Maybe 22.

[Sweeney]

How isn't it? Looks pretty solid to me.

It's not what I asked you for.

[GoGoGoJon]

Is anybody taking bets on how many times kami was dropped on his head as a child?

More like how many times his ego was stroked as a child

[ShadowLink64]

For someone that is making a big deal about the enforcement of a rule, you're not very good at following them yourself. This topic is in violation of rule 5.3:

5.3 - Public complaints about members will not be tolerated. It is expected that any problems with specific members or staff will be reported to a superior of that member, such as a moderator or an administrator.

• 5.3.1 - Disruptive and/or obnoxious dissent against a member, or against staff will be removed and a notification via. PM will be sent with information on how the complaint can be dealt with internally.
  5.3.2 - Repeated offences will result in a 10% warn and subsequent removal of the offending content.

It has been advised to you by Waser Lave via. PM, and by Nymh in this topic on how to deal with any issues you have experienced. Not having done so in a timely manner (since I, nor Pyro have not received anything regarding this issue) indicates to me that your intent is to be disruptive and are therefore a troll.

Rule 5.4 should tell you that you are not welcome here:

5.4 - Trolling is not welcome at Neocodex.

• 5.4.1 - Ubuntu Forums describes these folk quite nicely. Don't give them any attention, because they will eventually lead you to break some of the other rules listed here (especially ones in Section 5).
• 5.4.2 - These people are known to slip on occasion, and break either 5.1, 5.2, or 5.3 eventually. If you really don't like them that much, put them on your ignored user list and wait for them to slip. Then, report them to staff. Harassment will definitely result in you being punished, not the troll.
• 5.4.3 - Debate these very obnoxious people at your own risk; they are definitely known for their deliberate defiance of logic and reason.

I have already followed 5.4.2 by placing you on an ignore list, and lo and behold, you have violated a rule (5.3), just like our rules said you would. I have also chose to follow 5.4.3 by not engaging in any of your debates. Lastly, I should end this post and close this topic before I break rule 5.4.1 by giving you too much attention.