Proof of God

[Saquist]

"

As for the rest., I find it offensive to be compared to psychotics such as Hitler, inter alia. If that's the best you can come up with, it does no more than show what an arrogant, ignorant person you are. You are about as open minded as a sponge.

It took you three hours and three post to make reply. Of course you don't find it offensive. One would set forth the premise if you don't want your rationale scrutinized then it would be logical to consider scrutinizing other's rationale as undersirable. You blazed the trail and I followed it.
Anything else you'd like to get off your chest?

 

[Myles]

It took you three hours and three post to make reply. Of course you don't find it offensive. One would set forth the premise if you don't want your rationale scrutinized then it would be logical to consider scrutinizing other's rationale as undersirable. You blazed the trail and I followed it.
Anything else you'd like to get off your chest?

I find it extremely offensive and , if you cannot see why, then I cannot help you. You say I blazed a trail which you followed. Find an example of where I addressed you in the language of the gutter. You are not scrutinizing as you claim; you are simply indulging in highly offensive language as opposed to addressing the issue. just as you did on a previous occasion when your language was at least more moderate.

It did not take three hours to make a response, as you suggest. Within a matter of minutes I reported you.

If you do not wish to have your arguments criticized then don't post them. Why should you be immune to criticism ?

 

[Saquist]

Oh I see why one would take offense....It wasn't a flattering comparison at all, Miles. But it was just a comparison between two very similar behaviors. Your post, 3 hours later, was an effort to bolster you case. That's transparent.

It is not offensive when others express an opinion about my behavior unless I hold their opinion in high regard or it is from an authority figure. I don not require external affirmation to build self esteem, neither can it be assailed by petulant insults. I realize that is not true for everyone.

 

[Myles]

Oh I see why one would take offense....It wasn't a flattering comparison at all, Miles. But it was just a comparison between two very similar behaviors. Your post, 3 hours later, was an effort to bolster you case. That's transparent.

It is not offensive when others express an opinion about my behavior unless I hold their opinion in high regard or it is from an authority figure. I don not require external affirmation to build self esteem, neither can it be assailed by petulant insults. I realize that is not true for everyone.

What a twisted way you have of looking at things. You interpret a delay in replying to you as an attempt to bolster my case. How did you work that out ? I have already told you that I reported your offensiver, so I let some time pass to see what, if anything would happen.

On no occasion have I referred to you in anything like the terms in which you addressed me. Prove me wrong !

 

[Myles]

PS Do not make any inferences about my not getting back to you. I'm going to bed.

 

[Saquist]

What a twisted way you have of looking at things. You interpret a delay in replying to you as an attempt to bolster my case. How did you work that out ? I have already told you that I reported your offensiver, so I let some time pass to see what, if anything would happen.

On no occasion have I referred to you in anything like the terms in which you addressed me. Prove me wrong !

Probably because you were on line at the time.

 

[Leo Volont]

As you are something of a Platonist, may I remind you of what I told you recently, that Plato distinguished between belief/opinian ( doxa ) and knowledge ( episteme ). You believe god exists; you do not know.

Oh, Myles, you went to College, and so you know that your argument is either disingenuous, or, charitablly speaking, incomplete.

We don't KNOW anything. Not since Hume's critique on reason, not to mention the skeptical works of the German Philosophers (too boring for me to read through, but decent philosophers have told me what was said).

Anyway, if Philosophy has decided we cannot KNOW anything, then it makes the word more or less useless.

Oh, yes, Science has confronted the Skeptical Philosophies and now we pretend to know whatever has been shoved through double blind experiments. Since all Science costs money, and people don't want to pay much for Certain Knowledge, Science insists that we KNOW next to nothing, until somebody PAYS for a Research Grant.

But is it really fair to have to PAY for Knowledge about things that our own Sensory Experience and Anecdotal Evidence gives us a very strong likelihood for.

For instance, the Legal System allows for its own genre of Established Proofs and Legal Certainties without resorting to Scientific Certainty. Why not cut Religion the same break. Do we REALLY have to do Double Blind Studies of Spirituality when the Legal Community can still get away with Eye Witness Testimony?

 

[Saquist]

Let us weigh the stakes involved.

The Scientific Method has no rules of engagement decorum, diplomacy or ethics, or fact gathering. It can not decipher truth from lie. It''s true purpose is the discover the working processes that govern our enviroment, to allow facts to that end to rise refined by analysis. It's biggest handicap: The Scientific Method is stumped by lack of evidence and testimony. It is ill equipped to tackle these two entries. The ultimate stakes...the truth as we know it.

However as Volont wrote most legal systems are set up to accept all relevant data and evidence. There are standards of approach for that evidence, prosecution, defense, procedure, testimony and even the lack of evidence. There are rules of decorum.
The stakes invovled are of the ultimate level possible...freedom and life.

The Judical System IS the ultimate crucible in which all irrelevancies are burned away for One purpose. At the end of the day, whether it be reprehensible or not, Science answers to the Judicial System's superior authority.

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

As you are something of a Platonist, may I remind you of what I told you recently, that Plato distinguished between belief/opinian ( doxa ) and knowledge ( episteme ). You believe god exists; you do not know. Pick up a book on epistemology and see for yourself.
.

You lack credibility but I am not surprised to find you repeating the same old stuff on here. You have nothing else to offer.

:bugeye::bravo::roflmao:

 

[Leo Volont]

Let us weigh the stakes involved.

The Scientific Method has no rules of engagement decorum, diplomacy or ethics, or fact gathering. It can not decipher truth from lie. It''s true purpose is the discover the working processes that govern our enviroment, to allow facts to that end to rise refined by analysis. It's biggest handicap: The Scientific Method is stumped by lack of evidence and testimony. It is ill equipped to tackle these two entries. The ultimate stakes...the truth as we know it.

However as Volont wrote most legal systems are set up to accept all relevant data and evidence. There are standards of approach for that evidence, prosecution, defense, procedure, testimony and even the lack of evidence. There are rules of decorum.
The stakes invovled are of the ultimate level possible...freedom and life.

The Judical System IS the ultimate crucible in which all irrelevancies are burned away for One purpose. At the end of the day, whether it be reprehensible or not, Science answers to the Judicial System's superior authority.

Whose Judicial System?

America is simply about a contest to bamboozle and hoodwink people too stupid to get out of Jury Duty.

Adverserial Justice is essentially a competition between two sets of liars... or at least exaggerators. The Truth is lost as everybody tries to wrap the BEST POSSIBLE STORY around whatever few facts can be brought forward. Indeed, the System needs to be Reformed. Whenever two lawyers tell completely different stories, one needs to go to jail after it is all over. Somebody had to have been lying, and shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

Everybody should go back to Magisterial Justice. No prosecution lawyers and defense lawyers. Just One Judge. It would be alot cheaper for one thing. If one is to have Jurors, then let them be Professional and Educated for the Job... not the worst idiots of society as they now are -- Yeah, O.J. didn't do it, but maybe a few COMPETANT Jurors would have seen otherwise.

 

[Myles]

Let us weigh the stakes involved.

The Scientific Method has no rules of engagement decorum, diplomacy or ethics, or fact gathering. It can not decipher truth from lie. It''s true purpose is the discover the working processes that govern our enviroment, to allow facts to that end to rise refined by analysis. It's biggest handicap: The Scientific Method is stumped by lack of evidence and testimony. It is ill equipped to tackle these two entries. The ultimate stakes...the truth as we know it.

However as Volont wrote most legal systems are set up to accept all relevant data and evidence. There are standards of approach for that evidence, prosecution, defense, procedure, testimony and even the lack of evidence. There are rules of decorum.
The stakes invovled are of the ultimate level possible...freedom and life.

The Judical System IS the ultimate crucible in which all irrelevancies are burned away for One purpose. At the end of the day, whether it be reprehensible or not, Science answers to the Judicial System's superior authority.

So you regard the scientific method as stumped. Why ? You recently referred to the scientific method as a system of trial and error, or something of the kind. You were given a proper definition which you are choosing to ignore. Do you regard ID as scientific ?

 

[Saquist]

Whose Judicial System?

America is simply about a contest to bamboozle and hoodwink people too stupid to get out of Jury Duty.

Adverserial Justice is essentially a competition between two sets of liars... or at least exaggerators. The Truth is lost as everybody tries to wrap the BEST POSSIBLE STORY around whatever few facts can be brought forward. Indeed, the System needs to be Reformed. .

Most Justice Systems, including the American and the British Justice System are designed to prevent the seizure of life and freedom from the innocent. Their secondary goal is to prosecutor offenders to the fullest extent of the soical law. They are based on the rules of fair hearing and equal treatment.

While there has been cases of unruled behavior in court rooms it is not as common as the TV melodramas would have you believe. As a system designed to decipher truth from fiction it better equipped to give answer to harder questions and in the case of mistakes it has an ordered process of appeal and correction. That corrective process is something which science sorely lacks.

Science is based in entertaining the facts. The problem is putting together any theory based on those facts must run a disorderly gaunlet of opposers who likely have opposite theories. The Society of Science is something like Wall Street. A cluster of yelling individuals on a floor attempting to capture the attention of buyers to forward their own goals. There is no central board or application process. In the same respect it is completely chaotic. A relevant theory may come to consideration but is black-balled by individuals who's established the current status quo. The general public gets a minimum exposure of the theory instead of full disclosure.

While the Justice System is far from 100% effective it is designed with fairness and correction in mind. Despite the happenstance that bring the Justice System down, would you really prefer to go before a group of scientist that have standards of investigation procedure, of evidence, no decorum at all, and no appeals process, no assurance of a fair hearing and absolutely no assurance of full disclosure. You don't even get an attorney to defend your case. Litteraly it's you vs a mob. The Judicial System is designed to be impartial invovling more different points of view aswell as peers. Would you really prefer the "guility before proven innoncent" scientific course? I really doubt it.

Science and the Scientific Method are exceptional at discovery and fact finding. Interpreting those facts are a differnt ball game entirely.

 

[Myles]

Oh, Myles, you went to College, and so you know that your argument is either disingenuous, or, charitablly speaking, incomplete.

We don't KNOW anything. Not since Hume's critique on reason, not to mention the skeptical works of the German Philosophers (too boring for me to read through, but decent philosophers have told me what was said).

Anyway, if Philosophy has decided we cannot KNOW anything, then it makes the word more or less useless.

Oh, yes, Science has confronted the Skeptical Philosophies and now we pretend to know whatever has been shoved through double blind experiments. Since all Science costs money, and people don't want to pay much for Certain Knowledge, Science insists that we KNOW next to nothing, until somebody PAYS for a Research Grant.

There are things we know. The motion of the planets, the fact that in our society more and more people are living longer and more active lives, we are finding cures for diseases that would previously been a death sentence. This is the result of science which is not based on belief but knowledge.

I think you are possibly confusing Hume with Kant. Hume was a mitigated sceptic which is not the same thing as being an out and out sceptic.

Kant, who wrote the Critique of Pure Reason was NOT a sceptic.


I don't think you will find any philosopher who is an unmitigated sceptic because his argument can easily be refuted. If someone claims that we know nothing then the onus is on him to explain how he knows that we know nothing.


Lastly, as far as scientific knowledge is concerned, nobody but a blockhead would argue that we have all the answers, Knowledge can only be regarded as provisional as the history of sciece clearly shows, But that must not be taken to mean that no progress is being made. There is evidence for that all around us

Ps, Sorry about the mess I made of this post, When I discovered what I had done wrong I lacked the energy to start all over.


But is it really fair to have to PAY for Knowledge about things that our own Sensory Experience and Anecdotal Evidence gives us a very strong likelihood for.

For instance, the Legal System allows for its own genre of Established Proofs and Legal Certainties without resorting to Scientific Certainty. Why not cut Religion the same break. Do we REALLY have to do Double Blind Studies of Spirituality when the Legal Community can still get away with Eye Witness Testimony?

 

[chuuush]

You eat the best, drink the best, indulge youself in the most beautiful places, fall in love, are loved, make love, play games and have a good time..

I eat the best, drink the best, indulge myelf in the most beautiful places, fall in love, am loved, make love, play games and have a good time..

So, If you are right and there is no God, I will not lose anything, but
if there is a God as they say,
you will be a..
big LOSER!!!

 

[jayleew]

You eat the best, drink the best, indulge youself in the most beautiful places, fall in love, are loved, make love, play games and have a good time..

I eat the best, drink the best, indulge myelf in the most beautiful places, fall in love, am loved, make love, play games and have a good time..

So, If you are right and there is no God, I will not lose anything, but
if there is a God as they say,
you will be a..
big LOSER!!!

Pascal's wager in all its glory. It is the only argument that I consider worthy of entertaining the idea of believing in a god....but we're here to talk about the proof of God.
.....

.....


Ok, no more evidence? I think we're done here folks.

 

[Sarkus]

Most Justice Systems, including the American and the British Justice System are designed to prevent the seizure of life and freedom from the innocent. Their secondary goal is to prosecutor offenders to the fullest extent of the soical law. They are based on the rules of fair hearing and equal treatment.

While there has been cases of unruled behavior in court rooms it is not as common as the TV melodramas would have you believe. As a system designed to decipher truth from fiction it better equipped to give answer to harder questions and in the case of mistakes it has an ordered process of appeal and correction. That corrective process is something which science sorely lacks.

Science is based in entertaining the facts. The problem is putting together any theory based on those facts must run a disorderly gaunlet of opposers who likely have opposite theories. The Society of Science is something like Wall Street. A cluster of yelling individuals on a floor attempting to capture the attention of buyers to forward their own goals. There is no central board or application process. In the same respect it is completely chaotic. A relevant theory may come to consideration but is black-balled by individuals who's established the current status quo. The general public gets a minimum exposure of the theory instead of full disclosure.

While the Justice System is far from 100% effective it is designed with fairness and correction in mind. Despite the happenstance that bring the Justice System down, would you really prefer to go before a group of scientist that have standards of investigation procedure, of evidence, no decorum at all, and no appeals process, no assurance of a fair hearing and absolutely no assurance of full disclosure. You don't even get an attorney to defend your case. Litteraly it's you vs a mob. The Judicial System is designed to be impartial invovling more different points of view aswell as peers. Would you really prefer the "guility before proven innoncent" scientific course? I really doubt it.

Science and the Scientific Method are exceptional at discovery and fact finding. Interpreting those facts are a differnt ball game entirely.

You really have little comprehension of either the legal system or of the Scientific method, do you?

Your diatribe is littered with inaccuracies and undeniable prejudice:
"would you really prefer to go before a group of scientist that have... no decorum at all, and no appeals process, no assurance of a fair hearing and absolutely no assurance of full disclosure. You don't even get an attorney to defend your case. Litteraly it's you vs a mob."

Where to start...
"no decorum at all..." - while it is true the legal system has a formal dress code - since when does dress code or the like influence the words or evidence put forth? It is a logical fallacy to hold that it does. I can only assume you mentioned this lack of decorum as a point against the validity of the process. Pathetic.

"... no appeals process..." - you are blind to reality, Saquist. Science is one big appeals process. You have no conception of papers, peer reviews and the like? Publications? The Scientific method can be nothing but an appeals process! If you doubt the conclusion, any one can put in the same evidence and try to come to a different conclusion. If 2 conclusions fit then we have 2 competing "theories" - not "truths" - but mechanisms that are open to refinement / correction etc as new evidence arises. It is a perpetual system of improvement and progress that you fail to grasp.

"... no assurance of a fair hearing... - other than peer review by the very people in your field who understand the evidence? Noone needs to convince Joe Public of anything... there does not need to be "reasonable doubt" - as there is no "fact" produced at the end... merely a better understanding of how things are. Please indicate one case where the Scientific method did not give a fair hearing to someone?
Yes, other scientists might not have given a theory a fair hearing - but they are NOT the Scientific method - they are merely people with their own agendas who happen to utilise the Scientific method (hopefully!).

"... absolutely no assurance of full disclosure." - Eh? You think the Scientific method works on partial disclosure of information??? Either you disclose the information you are using, or it is not taken into account. Simple as that.
Please - provide evidence that there is no assurance of full disclosure.
Please - I am intrigued as to where these notions you have are stemming from.

"You don't even get an attorney to defend your case." - Why should you? The scientific method requires repeatable, testable evidence - not some supposedly eloquent person versed in a legal system to put your case forward. The Scientific method requires that the claim be supported by sufficient evidence that rationally leads to the claim, and the evidence be repeatable and testable.
And the defense of the claim is in the ability to survive peer review and utilisation / application without falling down.

"Litteraly it's you vs a mob." - Literally it is not.

If you continue to suggest that the Legal system is a better system for judging evidence-based claims over the scientific method - you won't find many here who will continue to find you credible - if any currently do. As soon as you try to use any system that has the rights of the individual at the forefront... impartiality is lost and thus useless to science.

 

[Saquist]

I'm not surprised this was the full extent of you comprehension, Sarkus.
Decorum refers to conduct. It's not surprising as your nature requires that you adopt an adversarial posture at all times for the purpose of rank antangonism. It's best liken to an archer missing the target on purpose to prove the bough does not work. I'm afraid the only logical fallacy here is your aim.

An appeals process is a formal challenge to an official decision. Both appeal and the original decision aswell as an overturned verdict are a matter of official record. The individuals involved are apointed by their dedication to neutrality. Bias is condemned and are grounds for removal.

In contrast what you call a "process" is nothing more than chaotic melee of infighting and posturing. Again no surprise it is what is conducted regularly on these forums. I find it a propper measure of the civil temperture not to mention the papers and the peer review that is conducted. I'm not sure when contempt and petulance became the new definition for order and respect but the scientificly respected seem to take these tools to work more often than not. I will not contest the use of the Scientific Method as a usefull tool but it as a means of propper and official appeal to document every part of the exchange is ludicrous which is the low level of reasoning I notice you make frequent stops to.

There is no dedication, no oath toward truth in the scientific community. It's a free for all. There is no concept of decorum. I have read transcripts of scientic debates it is nothing resembling civility. These individuals hold the seat reputation has earned them and their reputation is the power that they wield like a club. That brash use of esteem is the result of the lack of governing policy, proceedure and precision in the process itself. These individuals are in direct competition with one another and of course you call this a propper hearing of appeal. You use the Scientific method like broad spectrum anitbiotics. I suggest some perspective there are other more reliable systems than just the scientific method, systems better adapted and refined for specialized purposes. and determining the truth. Use them when called for but a philips head does not fit all inlets.

The process is so congested in reputation it some times bypasses legit theory and revelations, or at other times becomes threaten by them and seeks suppression. That's not a search for truth it's a search for belief. Welcome to the politics of science. It's real and it is a problem.

"Litteraly it's you vs a mob." - Literally it is not.

It is conforting that you substaniate that your familarity with your own confidence. But more importantly you have errored if you think I require your "credibility". That appeal to the oh so important reputation proves you are as rudimentay as a high school education. If you're going to insist on responding to my post you'll have to aspire to higher expectations than a common adolescent dare.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

The Scientific Method has no rules of engagement decorum, diplomacy or ethics,......

It's not supposed to. It's a process to ask reality questions.

...or fact gathering.

A big part of science is making observations. An observation is a fact.

It can not decipher truth from lie.

Progress is being made in that area:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040731/bob8.asp

While at the same time it can be used to test claims of truth.

It''s true purpose is the discover the working processes that govern our enviroment, to allow facts to that end to rise refined by analysis.

Close enough.

It's biggest handicap: The Scientific Method is stumped by lack of evidence and testimony. It is ill equipped to tackle these two entries. The ultimate stakes...the truth as we know it.

Well as far as determing whether a person believes their testimony is true, science helping us to get closer to that as you saw from the link. As for determining if testimony is actually true about a past event... you are correct that a lack of evidence might be an issue. It depends on the event really. Take any claim of the paranormal. Science has made alot of progress as to why people make such claims and that knowledge combined with the absence of evidence shows the paranormal is not objectively real.

However as Volont wrote most legal systems are set up to accept all relevant data and evidence. There are standards of approach for that evidence, prosecution, defense, procedure, testimony and even the lack of evidence. There are rules of decorum.
The stakes invovled are of the ultimate level possible...freedom and life.

The Judical System IS the ultimate crucible in which all irrelevancies are burned away for One purpose. At the end of the day, whether it be reprehensible or not, Science answers to the Judicial System's superior authority.

It's the other way around. Here is an example:

http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/focus/DNA.pdf

The Judicial system's authority can be overturned by science.

 

[Sarkus]

I'm not surprised this was the full extent of you comprehension, Sarkus.
Decorum refers to conduct.

I am aware of that... but then you seem to think that the Scientific method requires conduct?? How bizarre. Does a spanner need to abide by conduct? Or just used?
On the other hand, the legal system DOES require conduct to operate.
So I assumed you couldn't possibly be talking about decorum as in conduct, as it would just make you seem all the more odd.

It's not surprising as your nature requires that you adopt an adversarial posture at all times for the purpose of rank antangonism.

Not for rank antagonism, but to highlight woeful shortcomings in arguments that appear arrogant. If you are antagonised by my comments then I suggest you improve the accuracy of your arguments, stop posting logical fallacies and support your claims with evidence.

It's best liken to an archer missing the target on purpose to prove the bough does not work.

Bough? Oh, you mean "bow". Wasn't sure if you were talking about archers or woodcutters.

Anyhoo - it's more like someone (me) explaining to an archer (you) why they keep missing the target, and why they continue to be neglected as a competent bowman. And more, those explanations seem to be ignored, further compounding (no pun intended) the perception of the archer.

I'm afraid the only logical fallacy here is your aim.

Wow - a mixed metaphor that has no actual comprehensible message.

An appeals process is a formal challenge to an official decision.

There are no OFFICIAL DECISIONS with the Scientific method. There needs to be no FORMAL CHALLENGE or a formal APPEAL PROCESS.
You again show your utter lack of comprehension on what the Scientific method is.

In contrast what you call a "process" is nothing more than chaotic melee of infighting and posturing.

And your evidence...?

Again no surprise it is what is conducted regularly on these forums. I find it a propper measure of the civil temperture not to mention the papers and the peer review that is conducted. I'm not sure when contempt and petulance became the new definition for order and respect but the scientificly respected seem to take these tools to work more often than not. I will not contest the use of the Scientific Method as a usefull tool but it as a means of propper and official appeal to document every part of the exchange is ludicrous which is the low level of reasoning I notice you make frequent stops to.

Oh, please. The scientific method is not used in these forums, per se, no more than religion is practiced on these forums. We merely require those who make claims to support them with evidence. What is so hard to understand about that?
What we are dicussing is the requirements for claims to be supported and be subjected to the Scientific method - especially over your claimed superior court of law.

There is no dedication...
blah blah blah
...

When you understand the difference between the Scientific method and the arguments after its use, come back to us.
You do know what the Scientific method is, don't you? You do know what you are actually arguing against?

The process is so congested in reputation it some times bypasses legit theory and revelations, or at other times becomes threaten by them and seeks suppression. That's not a search for truth it's a search for belief. Welcome to the politics of science. It's real and it is a problem.

But this is politics of scientists, bringing everything into it such as reputation, ego, finances etc - not the Scientific method. Again - you seem not to comprehend what the Scientific method actually is.
You are arguing about how bad murderers are but blaming the weapon.
Or how bad a mechanic is and blaming just the tool-box he uses.

But more importantly you have errored if you think I require your "credibility".

No error - I know you don't need it, as you will continue to write your unsubstantiated drivel and argue against that you know little about. Hey ho.

That appeal to the oh so important reputation proves you are as rudimentay as a high school education. If you're going to insist on responding to my post you'll have to aspire to higher expectations than a common adolescent dare.

I doubt I would have to, Saquist - as I seriously doubt you'd be able to keep up - after all you have yet to demonstrate that you can argue without use of logical fallacy, and you demonstrate a clear lack of comprehension of what the Scientific method is.
When you want to step up the level, let us know, but first please demonstrate that you are at least capable and of worth. This is where credibility helps.

 

[Saquist]

I am aware of that... but then you seem to think that the Scientific method requires conduct?? How bizarre. Does a spanner need to abide by conduct? Or just used?

Sarkus only you think the scientific method requires conduct.

Not for rank antagonism, but to highlight woeful shortcomings in arguments that appear arrogant. If you are antagonised by my comments then I suggest you improve the accuracy of your arguments, stop posting logical fallacies and support your claims with evidence.

You say it is inaccurate. I have observed otherwise. You have not highlighted woefull. And despite what you might think my claim is merely an opinion I can chose to back it up with my oberservations or with the oberservations of others in the field. None of it will alter your persepective.

Anyhoo - it's more like someone (me) explaining to an archer (you) why they keep missing the target, and why they continue to be neglected as a competent bowman. And more, those explanations seem to be ignored, further compounding (no pun intended) the perception of the archer.

Wow - a mixed metaphor that has no actual comprehensible message.

Or another missed shot by the bowman (you)

There are no OFFICIAL DECISIONS with the Scientific method. There needs to be no FORMAL CHALLENGE or a formal APPEAL PROCESS.
You again show your utter lack of comprehension on what the Scientific method is.

I already know there is no official decisions, no appeals process or anything else. What you miscomprehend is why it's necessary.
You believe this is about the scientific method.
Once again you're wrong.

And your evidence...?

Put your eyes back in place, Sarkus
Chicago Confrence 1979 covered by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Oh, please. The scientific method is not used in these forums, per se, no more than religion is practiced on these forums. We merely require those who make claims to support them with evidence. What is so hard to understand about that?

What kind of comparisons is that?

What we are dicussing is the requirements for claims to be supported and be subjected to the Scientific method - especially over your claimed superior court of law.

If we're not using the Scientific Method (which is a requirement) then why are you asking for proof on my opinion and observations?

When you understand the difference between the Scientific method and the arguments after its use, come back to us.
You do know what the Scientific method is, don't you? You do know what you are actually arguing against?

THANKS! I'll do that.

But this is politics of scientists, bringing everything into it such as reputation, ego, finances etc - not the Scientific method. Again - you seem not to comprehend what the Scientific method actually is.
You are arguing about how bad murderers are but blaming the weapon.
Or how bad a mechanic is and blaming just the tool-box he uses.

Brilliant Sarkus...excellent. You just might have figured it out after all the circling you've done to avoid the obvious statements of the underlying problem.

I doubt I would have to, Saquist - as I seriously doubt you'd be able to keep up - after all you have yet to demonstrate that you can argue without use of logical fallacy, and you demonstrate a clear lack of comprehension of what the Scientific method is.

When you want to step up the level, let us know, but first please demonstrate that you are at least capable and of worth. This is where credibility helps.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, Sarkus as usual you've missed the point again. Those logical fallacy labels you're so handy with are only dished out when you've failed to miss the mark. It's the failure in your understanding that runs the discussion aground. You've bounced between the use of the method to logical fallacies to a flawed requirement of reputation. Your aim is aweful. I am attempt to alter your aim. For if you really are trying to hit me and make your accusations stick you're going to have actually hit your target.

This isn't about the Scientific Method. It's about those that use the Scientific Method. This is about taking responsibility, this is about bias, this about using the right tool for the job.

You've danced expertly to avoid these points and I suspect you've waltz your way around them again an again. The Scientifi Method doesn't need a code of conduct WOW you're right, Sarkus. It doesn't. It needs support by people that DO have a code of conduct.

Over and out, Sarkus.