Brought to you by scientists, not by weirdos with a blog!
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
You're the one who keeps stumping for an ideology that rejects critical thinking and promotes "other ways of knowing". You can't have your cake and eat it too, Daft Cunt. You need to decide whether you are someone who values the truth of material reality or not. You can't claim to be an ally of science with one breath, and then with the next support movements and ideologies that are fundamentally opposed to the way of thinking necessary to produce good science.
You want to claim the esteem without actually engaging in disciplined thinking. You're like a simp for science - you don't really understand what it is, but you know it has power and that's pretty much the extent of your thinking process I suspect.
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"You're the one who keeps stumping for an ideology that rejects critical thinking and promotes...."
Quite the opposite! As I explained to you a felt 1000 times I want people to come up with ideas and I want them to publish them and get them reviewd by other competent people (in literally any topic you would not be one of them), we have a system for this, which works pretty well.
If people (especially when they know how this process works because they published via these channels before) don't do that but rather promote their claims that prove real science wrong in blogs (to people whol like what thy have to say of course) or maybe even books then they don't have a leg to stand on.
It is really that simple.
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
You always tell me to do this, so I'll do it now. You're lying. Your comments indicate that what you call "proper channels" have an ideological filter imposed on them and are influenced by factors well outside of the normal process of Science. Because I believe you know this is true, when you write something like that above I believe you are lying.
Notice how the one thing you didn't write was that what's important to you is that scientific research and conclusions must be studied and verified by those who are fanatically committed to the integrity of the scientific process. Nope. You said "proper channels". In doing so, all you've managed to do, Daft Cunt, is support my initial response to you. You see that right? You support a movement to take science from what it was and turn it into something that isn't science, and you hope that by saying you "simply want peer review" and then demand that peer review be based on a system that has become deeply corrupted with regard to the proper methods, principles and empirical verification that underly science you'll fool enough people into sleep-walking along with the end of science.
I think science grew out of the underlying principles of Christ's gospel, and many atheists (including, to my surprise, some Dawkinites - they seem confused) acknowledge this, and I think you also know it's true. That's why you want to change it from a pursuit of truth to a mechanism for power.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
*sigh*
"Proper channels" as I stated a tousand times is publication for peer review. Nothing more nothing less.
They don't have an "ideological filter", the process simply requires that findings can be reproduced.
Science has nothing to do with gospel (unless it somehow proves or disproves what is written in them) and the scientific process has not been invented to abolish religion or theocrazy or their folowers' statements, if it does it is an unintentional byproduct.
The religious still have a lot left to get philosophical about and say "god did it", like "the soul" or cosciousness as such etc., just not things that can be verified by other means.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
Cool story, bro. The Gospel of Christ is that we should pursue truth - we should always be seeking to understand what's actually going on in the material world - and that superstition, ideological doctrine, and dogma, prevent us from doing that. This is also the mode of thinking behind the scientific method.
The problem you have, Daft Cunt, is that you perceive "the religious" and "the spiritual" as the same thing when they are not. The application of the Hegelian dogma and doctrine of power-seeking authority, at the expense of truth, to science corrupts science. It destroys the thing you claim to value. But what you value is not the fact that science seeks the truth. What you value is the original power conveyed by that truth-seeking intent now corrupted to the religious dogma of Hegelian doctrine, which dispenses with the idea of "finding out what's actually going on" and substitutes a very specific social engineering doctrine that merely exploits - simply "uses" - the material power and value built up around science to further it's ideological agenda (even if that agenda is simply "let's all get even more fucking filthy rich off these idiot milgrams"). You eat it up - you parrot the ideological talking points of Hegelian dogma misrepresenting itself as science ad nauseum. It's like your schtick here - try just science instead, dude. Science doesn't care about what strange little arguments you've contstructed in your mind to justify the things you've done in your life. That's all in your head, bud - has nothing to do with science.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
yeah, blablabla. Get a hobby. Since you are "back" contributions to the site have diminished, as in real life you seem to alienate people.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
I alienate your "folk". It's inevitable. An admission of rational failure is better than a mindless GIF, however. Yes your "folk" are noticeably subdued today. I wonder why? Not really.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Still too full of yourself so you don't see that you are just an awkward deluded little hater cunt, no change, no surprise.
Comments
(Old Spike)
Brought to you by scientists, not by weirdos with a blog!
(Old Spike)
You're the one who keeps stumping for an ideology that rejects critical thinking and promotes "other ways of knowing". You can't have your cake and eat it too, Daft Cunt. You need to decide whether you are someone who values the truth of material reality or not. You can't claim to be an ally of science with one breath, and then with the next support movements and ideologies that are fundamentally opposed to the way of thinking necessary to produce good science.
You want to claim the esteem without actually engaging in disciplined thinking. You're like a simp for science - you don't really understand what it is, but you know it has power and that's pretty much the extent of your thinking process I suspect.
(Old Spike)
"You're the one who keeps stumping for an ideology that rejects critical thinking and promotes...."
Quite the opposite! As I explained to you a felt 1000 times I want people to come up with ideas and I want them to publish them and get them reviewd by other competent people (in literally any topic you would not be one of them), we have a system for this, which works pretty well.
If people (especially when they know how this process works because they published via these channels before) don't do that but rather promote their claims that prove real science wrong in blogs (to people whol like what thy have to say of course) or maybe even books then they don't have a leg to stand on.
It is really that simple.
(Old Spike)
You always tell me to do this, so I'll do it now. You're lying. Your comments indicate that what you call "proper channels" have an ideological filter imposed on them and are influenced by factors well outside of the normal process of Science. Because I believe you know this is true, when you write something like that above I believe you are lying.
Notice how the one thing you didn't write was that what's important to you is that scientific research and conclusions must be studied and verified by those who are fanatically committed to the integrity of the scientific process. Nope. You said "proper channels". In doing so, all you've managed to do, Daft Cunt, is support my initial response to you. You see that right? You support a movement to take science from what it was and turn it into something that isn't science, and you hope that by saying you "simply want peer review" and then demand that peer review be based on a system that has become deeply corrupted with regard to the proper methods, principles and empirical verification that underly science you'll fool enough people into sleep-walking along with the end of science.
I think science grew out of the underlying principles of Christ's gospel, and many atheists (including, to my surprise, some Dawkinites - they seem confused) acknowledge this, and I think you also know it's true. That's why you want to change it from a pursuit of truth to a mechanism for power.
(Old Spike)
*sigh*
"Proper channels" as I stated a tousand times is publication for peer review. Nothing more nothing less.
They don't have an "ideological filter", the process simply requires that findings can be reproduced.
Science has nothing to do with gospel (unless it somehow proves or disproves what is written in them) and the scientific process has not been invented to abolish religion or theocrazy or their folowers' statements, if it does it is an unintentional byproduct.
The religious still have a lot left to get philosophical about and say "god did it", like "the soul" or cosciousness as such etc., just not things that can be verified by other means.
(Old Spike)
Cool story, bro. The Gospel of Christ is that we should pursue truth - we should always be seeking to understand what's actually going on in the material world - and that superstition, ideological doctrine, and dogma, prevent us from doing that. This is also the mode of thinking behind the scientific method.
The problem you have, Daft Cunt, is that you perceive "the religious" and "the spiritual" as the same thing when they are not. The application of the Hegelian dogma and doctrine of power-seeking authority, at the expense of truth, to science corrupts science. It destroys the thing you claim to value. But what you value is not the fact that science seeks the truth. What you value is the original power conveyed by that truth-seeking intent now corrupted to the religious dogma of Hegelian doctrine, which dispenses with the idea of "finding out what's actually going on" and substitutes a very specific social engineering doctrine that merely exploits - simply "uses" - the material power and value built up around science to further it's ideological agenda (even if that agenda is simply "let's all get even more fucking filthy rich off these idiot milgrams"). You eat it up - you parrot the ideological talking points of Hegelian dogma misrepresenting itself as science ad nauseum. It's like your schtick here - try just science instead, dude. Science doesn't care about what strange little arguments you've contstructed in your mind to justify the things you've done in your life. That's all in your head, bud - has nothing to do with science.
(Old Spike)
yeah, blablabla. Get a hobby. Since you are "back" contributions to the site have diminished, as in real life you seem to alienate people.
(Old Spike)
I alienate your "folk". It's inevitable. An admission of rational failure is better than a mindless GIF, however. Yes your "folk" are noticeably subdued today. I wonder why? Not really.
(Old Spike)
Still too full of yourself so you don't see that you are just an awkward deluded little hater cunt, no change, no surprise.