222 replies to this topic

[luvsmyncis]

I am completely right because I don't spouse fallible ideas. I don't make dumb assumptions. I question critically. I read. Of course I am going to be completely right. There's room for growth on the other side. For example, someone just learned what falsifiable means.

But that is a flaw in your personality. Try searching the debates of "nunc", as well as the one I mentioned before. That's the direction you're headed in.

[tri]

This topic is spam. I mean everyone who is posting right now is just bumping it up. How did we get from banning Waser to not even talking about waser anymore.

[Waser Lave]

Yet you are unable to spell the word 'spout'. Yup, there's room for growth on one side.

I'd guess he meant espouse.

This topic is spam. I mean everyone who is posting right now is just bumping it up. How did we get from banning Waser to not even talking about waser anymore.

I know right...

[8143FF763271]

You are the master of your own discussions. When you make a thread, you own that thread and you determine the rules under which the thread will operate. Your threads operate under the "kami12 is right and everyone who disagrees will be mocked, have eyes rolled at them, and have their intelligence and stance belittled with dictionary definitions" rule. If Chavez stood up on the podium and just repeated the same thing over and over, made faces at everyone and twisted things around that people said in a way that openly shows how little you respect them or think of their intellect...

Spoiler

For example:

...then his time in the sun would probably be just as short as yours will no doubt prove to be.

If all that happened, they still wouldn't disregard valid statements made by Chavez. Again, if you could PROVE that my arguments are fallacious or redundant, you may be unto something... but you can't, because they aren't. On the stance where I need to repeat myself and roll my eyes, it's because people are being amazingly obtuse.

Take this for example. I was arguing with someone a very basic notion. It was that people do voluntary things to feel good. This may or may not include survival. Therefore, people have a will to pleasure. Not necessarily will to survival.

I want you to find a single hole in that line of logic. Would people have a reason to live life if they didn't enjoy it? No. Yet I made this same line of basic, infallible logic a billion times- and the person was still struggling with it. If that doesn't merit eye rolling to you, I don't know what does.

Edited by kami12, 21 August 2012 - 07:57 AM.

[Turnip]

I am completely right because I don't spouse fallible ideas. I don't make dumb assumptions. I question critically. I read. Of course I am going to be completely right. There's room for growth on the other side. For example, someone just learned what falsifiable means.

You should take a minute and reread this post and realise how arrogant you sound
Spoiler warning - humans aren't perfect and no one is completely right about everything. You aren't a special case! Have a superiority complex doesn't make you special or "right" either. Don't think you are, since it'll just hurt you down the road~

[8143FF763271]

I am having no trouble with the concept of something being falsifiable. What I am having trouble with is your obvious misunderstanding of the word or how you think that it applies to anything that you ever say.



You are such a condescending prick.

Within the philosophy of sciencefalsifiability or refutability is a quality or characteristic of a scientific hypothesis or theory. Falsifiability is considered a positive (and often essential) quality of a hypothesis because it means that the hypothesis is testable by empirical experiment and thus conforms to the standards of scientific method. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false, rather it means that if it is false, then observation or experiment will at some point demonstrate its falsehood.
--- Wikipedia

...was what I was explaining to you any different from that?

Edited by kami12, 21 August 2012 - 07:54 AM.

[Kyle]

If you're not trolling, I feel bad for you.

[Waser Lave]

Either way, anyone who is "right all the time" would have noticed their mistake before hitting submit

It certainly shits all over his idea of being infallible.

[Sweeney]

With not caring, I mean I don't mind it. It's not something that I desire or wish to prevent.

Then you have an awful fixation on things you don't mind.

[Orbit]

I can't believe I just read this entire thread.

[8143FF763271]

Then you have an awful fixation on things you don't mind.

I minded my thread being deleted. Not people talking about me. I never have and I never suggested the contrary.

The discussion of people's perception came up because we're discussing whether or not it is justified to reprimand me for their actions.

[Galadriel]

This thread is not one of codex's finest. Surely it has strayed off topic enough to be locked?

[Waser Lave]

I minded my thread being deleted.

Your thread is not and never has been deleted.

[Nymh]

Within the philosophy of sciencefalsifiability or refutability is a quality or characteristic of a scientific hypothesis or theory. Falsifiability is considered a positive (and often essential) quality of a hypothesis because it means that the hypothesis is testable by empirical experiment and thus conforms to the standards of scientific method. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false, rather it means that if it is false, then observation or experiment will at some point demonstrate its falsehood.
--- Wikipedia

...was what I was explaining to you any different from that?

Two things:

One, your "opinions" are not your hypotheses or theories. You accept them as fact, you "know" that you are right, therefore you regard them as law, not theory or hypothesis.

Two, nothing that is said in opposition will demonstrate the falsehood of your claims to you. Therefore, your claims are not falsifiable.

[Turnip]

This thread is not one of codex's finest. Surely it has strayed off topic enough to be locked?

There's not much point really, Kami will just make another thread and the shit-spouting nonsense will just continue there :c

I minded my thread being deleted. Not people talking about me. I never have and I never suggested the contrary.

Locked =/= deleted :V
http://www.neocodex....-khalil-thread/
http://www.neocodex....cussing-khalil/

Edited by Turnip, 21 August 2012 - 08:04 AM.

[8143FF763271]

Two things:

One, your "opinions" are not your hypotheses or theories. You accept them as fact, you "know" that you are right, therefore you regard them as law, not theory or hypothesis.

Two, nothing that is said in opposition will demonstrate the falsehood of your claims to you. Therefore, your claims are not falsifiable.

You really need to go over your scientific method. Things become a theory once they have been proven (I.E. theory of gravity).

"In science, the term "theory" refers to "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."^[11][12]"

Things can prove the falsehood of my claims to me. For example, if there was a consensus proving that things become a scientific theory before they have been proven through experimentation and empirical observation, I'd accept that. I just know that isn't the case.

You also don't understand the concept of scientific law, but I'm not getting paid to school you. (passive aggressive smiley).

[tri]

Member Joined Total Member Posts Posts Today % of today's posts

kami12 29-July 12 342 87 14.38%


Waser Lave 06-September 04 16,973 68 11.24%

• 
  
• 

Kiwi 17-September 11 656 59 9.75%

• 
  
• 

Nymh 02-September 11 1,941 51 8.43%

• 
  
• 

Woug 29-March 12 343 49 8.10%

• 
  
• 

Sweeney 24-August 05 17,237 41 6.78%

hmmmmm...wonder where all these people are posting.

Edited by Dorkie, 21 August 2012 - 08:10 AM.

[Sweeney]

Things become a theory once they have been proven (I.E. theory of gravity).

Wrong.

[8143FF763271]

Wrong.

Things only become theories in science after they've been submitted to experimentation and yield consistent results in favour of its propositions. Dk how you're gonna deny that, bro.

[Sweeney]

Things only become theories in science after they've been submitted to experimentation and yield consistent results in favour of its propositions. Dk how you're gonna deny that, bro.

That's not the same as proof.

[Nymh]

You really need to go over your scientific method. Things become a theory once they have been proven (I.E. theory of gravity).

"In science, the term "theory" refers to "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."^[11][12]"

Things can prove the falsehood of my claims to me. For example, if there was a consensus proving that things become a scientific theory before they have been proven through experimentation and empirical observation, I'd accept that. I just know that isn't the case.

You also don't understand the concept of scientific law, but I'm not getting paid to school you. (passive aggressive smiley).

I am 100% confident that I understand the difference between scientific law and scientific theory a little better than you do, for a variety of reasons, none of which I feel the need to point out to you.

But as an example of how you regard your opinions as law as opposed to theory:

kami12: The purpose of life is to seek pleasure. (Paraphrasing)

This offers NO explanation as to why this is the case. None of your arguments supporting yourself gave any evidence toward this claim. You simply stated that this was the case and then repeated yourself over and over. The entire thread was full of you trying to refute other people's claims while not fleshing out your own. If this was a THEORY, then it would offer an explanation as to why pleasure is the meaning of life. Offering no explanation whatsoever, and simply stating that pleasure is the meaning of life, makes it scientific law.

[Galadriel]

I believe it's a great thread. It is so lovely to see Codex come together to tell a person that the way he is acting towards others isn't warranted, needed, nor appreciated. It's almost beautiful~

It more distasteful and unnecessary than you imagine.

Quit kissing Khaligayla's ass cronus.

I do no such thing little Ingrid.

[Sweeney]

Theories are also required to have both explanatory and predictive power. "The purpose of life is to seek pleasure" offers neither.