Argumentum ad populum

[nPeace]

So sorry that you are so thin skinned that asking you questions constitutes 'bullying' in your mind. Perhaps a site like this where people ask questions isn't the best place for you.

And I DO have a problem with you dodging a simple question. I really don't care what this practicing scientist you know happens to think, because I asked YOU. Are YOU of the opinion that there are genuine scientists out there who do NOT use the scientific method? If not, what makes them scientists?

If you need to ask someone else what YOU think then attempting a conversation with YOU is apparently a worthless endeavor.

Whatever QuestioningMind. Suit yourself.
Let's observe the evidence for the thin-skinned, and childish.
Do you know of children who always demand they get what they want (their own way), and when they don't, they rant and rave and accuse others (children of course), of being what they are? "Oh you selfish. You this. You that." they rave.

Maybe they are afraid of something. What are you afraid of?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Whatever QuestioningMind. Suit yourself.
Let's observe the evidence for the thin-skinned, and childish.
Do you know of children who always demand they get what they want (their own way), and when they don't, they rant and rave and accuse others (children of course), of being what they are? "Oh you selfish. You this. You that." they rave.

Maybe they are afraid of something. What are you afraid of?

I'm afraid that I'm talking to someone who can't carry on a mature conversation and who appears to be terrified of answering a simple question. So sad that you have to consult SOMEONE ELSE to figure out what YOU think about something.

Clearly if you don't know what you personally think and believe, then attempting further conversation is a complete waste of time.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I probably don't understand what you are saying, because I don't know what you are trying to say.

Why not just make things easy for me, and explain how what you are saying, is different to what Mr. Crichton is saying, or how he is not referring to what you are saying..

You can start with this quote...
In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

Even better, can you add how he is right, and yet not right?

As simply as I can, Crichton is right that "consensus science isn't science." But he's wrong because nobody else is saying that it is.

You are making the mistake of assuming that when someone refers to the work of anyone, on any subject, that they are "agreeing with them," or coming to consensus. Not so. They are simply using a short-cut. Rather than every time someone wants to show evidence for evolution, they book passage on a ship, spend five years circling the globe and redoing all of Darwin's work, they simply cite Darwin's work itself. The work has been done. If anyone wishes to refute that work, then yes, they would have to bet on that ship, spend the years examining everything that they find, and show how what they've discovered shows that Darwin was wrong.

And if, when I cite Darwin in support of my views of evolution you wish to refute me, all you would have to do is cite the work of that other diligent pursuer of truth. That there isn't one, of course, makes that difficult. But if Darwin was wrong, it has always been entirely possible for anyone who cared to try, to demonstrate that fact.

Okay, so you don't know what the point of the OP is.
I wonder why it's not clear. I see you are a humanist.
I'm not going to say that is responsible, but we know that oftentimes people tend to create arguments even against something they agree with, simply because they don't want to agree with the person.


Ah. So it's the case then? You do agree, but you want to create something so that you can disagree with the poster?

So then it's not that you don't get the point. You do, but let's find something to disagree on.
Okay, so since we are here, please now explain how by quoting Michael Crichton, the point somehow is lost, or out of focus.


It does not matter to me who uses the fallacies - whether Eskimo, or Hermit. Saying that one group does it, does not excuse the other.
All are guilty, isn't that so?
So I fail to see what that has to do with the OP.
If you heard me use it, then it would make a valid argument, but that is not the case.

Look, let me try a different approach. You are trying to make the case that "agreement" is not a valid argument, yes? Well, then, let's see how agreement works when comparing science (the way I am describing scientific agreement) and religion. Let's look at Darwin's finches.

What's the evidence he gave? He did meticulous studies, throughout the Galapagos archipelago, of all the species of finches that existed. He produced drawings of their beaks, which we can compare today with the birds that still live there. He studied the available food supply in each area where the finches were different, and noted that the birds' beaks were suitable (adapted) to what they ate. In other words, everything he conjectured was based upon meticulous observation that is eminently repeatable today.

How are the arguments about the nature or desires of God comparable to that? I've read the Gospels, and the early Christian fathers (Origen, Clement of Rome and the rest) and Augustine, and Aquinas, and so on. Not one of them, ever, examines something that can be said to be objectively true (like the finch, the beak or the food), just what someone else has said before. We never get back to some verifiable, repeatable event that we can use to show for ourselves that "this is true." It is all, all of it, from beginning to end, purest conjecture, based on nothing at all except the purest conjecture of others. If ever there were a house built on sand, this is it.

 

[nPeace]

I'm afraid that I'm talking to someone who can't carry on a mature conversation and who appears to be terrified of answering a simple question. So sad that you have to consult SOMEONE ELSE to figure out what YOU think about something.

Clearly if you don't know what you personally think and believe, then attempting further conversation is a complete waste of time.

LOL. Cheerio.
I hope it has been well mashed.

 

[cladking]

As simply as I can, Crichton is right that "consensus science isn't science." But he's wrong because nobody else is saying that it it.

What you say was once true but the educational system has failed because there is no responsibility. It takes a village. Cumbaya, and all that, rot.

Good Science

Subject the hypothesis to peer review. A valid hypothesis will withstand outside scrutiny by other researchers in the field. Making the hypothesis available for constructive criticism is a necessary step in the formulation of valid theories. It allows others to repeat steps 3 and 4 above, thus providing a wider base of knowledge to verify the hypothesis. If any criticism cannot be effectively refuted, then the hypothesis must then be reformed (again, back to step 2 above). Scientists, like other human beings, may individually be swayed by some prevailing worldview to favor certain results over others, or to "intuit" some broad theory that they then seek to prove. The scientific community as a whole, however, judges the work of its members by the objectivity and rigor with which that work has been conducted; in this way the scientific method prevails.

You can find this phrased better and more in keeping with sanity but the fact is this is what most people and most scientists believe now. The "scientific community" is irrelevant to reality. It is irrelevant to experiment, hypothesis, and even observation because only individuals can invent experiment, observe, or hypothesize. It's not only individuals who "may individually be swayed by some prevailing worldview to favor certain results over others" but entire groups and committees. Did you never wonder how Congress can be wrong consistently? Why did EVERY surgeon once believe hand washing was a waste?

Consensus science is not science.
Look and See Science is not science.
Soup of the day science is not science.
Peer review is nonsense.

Observation and experiment are real science and nothing else is even window dressing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you say was once true but the educational system has failed because there is no responsibility. It takes a village. Cumbaya, and all that, rot.

Good Science


You can find this phrased better and more in keeping with sanity but the fact is this is what most people and most scientists believe now. The "scientific community" is irrelevant to reality. It is irrelevant to experiment, hypothesis, and even observation because only individuals can invent experiment, observe, or hypothesize. It's not only individuals who "may individually be swayed by some prevailing worldview to favor certain results over others" but entire groups and committees. Did you never wonder how Congress can be wrong consistently? Why did EVERY surgeon once believe hand washing was a waste?

Consensus science is not science.
Look and See Science is not science.
Soup of the day science is not science.
Peer review is nonsense.

Observation and experiment are real science and nothing else is even window dressing.

You really should drop the phrase "look and see science" since no one is doing that. A personal inability to understand science does not refute it.

 

[nPeace]

As simply as I can, Crichton is right that "consensus science isn't science." But he's wrong because nobody else is saying that it is.

How is that logic?
How can a person be wrong for saying what is true? Can you explain that?
The point he is making is that one should stick to science, and not worry with consensus, because In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.

You are making the mistake of assuming that when someone refers to the work of anyone, on any subject, that they are "agreeing with them," or coming to consensus. Not so.

Where exactly did I assume that please?

They are simply using a short-cut. Rather than every time someone wants to show evidence for evolution, they book passage on a ship, spend five years circling the globe and redoing all of Darwin's work, they simply cite Darwin's work itself. The work has been done. If anyone wishes to refute that work, then yes, they would have to bet on that ship, spend the years examining everything that they find, and show how what they've discovered shows that Darwin was wrong.

And if, when I cite Darwin in support of my views of evolution you wish to refute me, all you would have to do is cite the work of that other diligent pursuer of truth. That there isn't one, of course, makes that difficult. But if Darwin was wrong, it has always been entirely possible for anyone who cared to try, to demonstrate that fact.

So you agree consensus is evidence of nothing, and proves nothing... other than that men can agree on something though not unanimously.
Not that it is often mentioned, but it is true that some agree for reasons other than agreement.

Look, let me try a different approach. You are trying to make the case that "agreement" is not a valid argument, yes? Well, then, let's see how agreement works when comparing science (the way I am describing scientific agreement) and religion. Let's look at Darwin's finches.

What's the evidence he gave? He did meticulous studies, throughout the Galapagos archipelago, of all the species of finches that existed. He produced drawings of their beaks, which we can compare today with the birds that still live there. He studied the available food supply in each area where the finches were different, and noted that the birds' beaks were suitable (adapted) to what they ate. In other words, everything he conjectured was based upon meticulous observation that is eminently repeatable today.

How are the arguments about the nature or desires of God comparable to that? I've read the Gospels, and the early Christian fathers (Origen, Clement of Rome and the rest) and Augustine, and Aquinas, and so on. Not one of them, ever, examines something that can be said to be objectively true (like the finch, the beak or the food), just what someone else has said before. We never get back to some verifiable, repeatable event that we can use to show for ourselves that "this is true." It is all, all of it, from beginning to end, purest conjecture, based on nothing at all except the purest conjecture of others. If ever there were a house built on sand, this is it.

Okay, so let's go to Japan, and study car engines. We make drawings, which we can compare. What we study there, is no different to what was studied a century ago.
Engines function as they were designed to. All we did was learn how they were designed to function.
This is how they were made.
So what?

The engines give evidence they were designed, and so were the finches. So observing them adapt is proof of what? Adaptation?
Different cars. Different engines.
Different finches. Different beak.

Regarding God and objective truth, see my post here.

 

[blü 2]

The problem with this is that objective reality is apparently subjective.

'Objective reality' refers to the world external to the self (hence which we know about through our senses), also called 'nature', 'reality', 'the realm of the physical sciences' ─ we could add, 'the sum of all things that exist whether I'm alive or not' and so on.

The role of science is to explore reality, identify its elements and processes, describe them and set out to explain them, in each case using scientific method, which is to say, arguing honestly and transparently from examinable evidence. It also involves maximizing objectivity by skepticism, empiricism, induction, absence of prejudice. peer review, repeatable experiment, publication of results, open debate about results, and so on, It uses the definition of 'truth' that I mentioned ─ that is, it does its best to hold 'truth' to an objective standard.

It's correct that 'truth' about objective reality involves the consensus of the best informed minds for the time being, and so may vary from time to time. For example, when the bible was written, it was true that the earth was flat, and immovably fixed at the center of creation (there being no concept of the solar system, stars, galaxies or the universe as we understand those terms). Later it was true that fire is the result of phlogiston, that light propagates in the lumeniferous ether, that the earth's crust is uniform and solid, and so on. None of those things is true any more. Nor was the statement 'the Higgs boson is real' true until 2012. In QM the Copenhagen interpretation, presently the dominant paradigm, is still debated. Truth isn't absolute, just retrospective.

So that's the frame for science. What fault do you attribute to it, and what do you want to replace it with?

So objective reality is, but man knows very little about those realities.

Perhaps, but the record is clear that science knows more about reality than any alternative system of enquiry, and certainly more than religion, which has no objective test for truth and if we take just the example of Christianity has for that reason been able to divide into many thousands of sects, including Rastafarianism, Mormonism, Moon's Unification Church and a great many large and small cults and etceteras. Not even Roman or Orthodox Christianity, despite their incompatible boasts of catholicism, let alone the myriad forms of Protestantism, can agree. Those data are even by themselves a ringing demonstration that at very best, if there's a god, that god makes no effort to promulgate any particular message as true.

For me, the reason I believe with 99.99% certainty that I have the truth, is based on many reasons, but one is mentioned here...
1 Timothy 4:7-10, 15, 16 7 But reject irreverent false stories, like those told by old women. On the other hand, train yourself with godly devotion as your aim. 8 For physical training is beneficial for a little, but godly devotion is beneficial for all things, as it holds promise of the life now and the life that is to come. 9 That statement is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.

Self-applause doesn't cut it eg

Everything Donald Trump says is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.
Everything Krishnamurti says is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.
Everything Kant says is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.
Everything Einstein says is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.
Everything Mary Baker Eddy says is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.
Everything you say is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.
Everything I say is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.
Everything anyone says is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.
Everything ...​

That's why you need a standard of truth, a test for whether any statement is true or not, which is as objective as you can make it.

What test are you using?

 

[nPeace]

'Objective reality' refers to the world external to the self (hence which we know about through our senses), also called 'nature', 'reality', 'the realm of the physical sciences' ─ we could add, 'the sum of all things that exist whether I'm alive or not' and so on.

The role of science is to explore reality, identify its elements and processes, describe them and set out to explain them, in each case using scientific method, which is to say, arguing honestly and transparently from examinable evidence. It also involves maximizing objectivity by skepticism, empiricism, induction, absence of prejudice. peer review, repeatable experiment, publication of results, open debate about results, and so on, It uses the definition of 'truth' that I mentioned ─ that is, it does its best to hold 'truth' to an objective standard.

It's correct that 'truth' about objective reality involves the consensus of the best informed minds for the time being, and so may vary from time to time. For example, when the bible was written, it was true that the earth was flat, and immovably fixed at the center of creation (there being no concept of the solar system, stars, galaxies or the universe as we understand those terms). Later it was true that fire is the result of phlogiston, that light propagates in the lumeniferous ether, that the earth's crust is uniform and solid, and so on. None of those things is true any more. Nor was the statement 'the Higgs boson is real' true until 2012. In QM the Copenhagen interpretation, presently the dominant paradigm, is still debated. Truth isn't absolute, just retrospective.

I see no problem with your first two paragraphs.
The third, I have repeatedly told you is untrue, but I am not going through this again with you.

So that's the frame for science. What fault do you attribute to it, and what do you want to replace it with?

Perhaps, but the record is clear that science knows more about reality than any alternative system of enquiry, and certainly more than religion, which has no objective test for truth and if we take just the example of Christianity has for that reason been able to divide into many thousands of sects, including Rastafarianism, Mormonism, Moon's Unification Church and a great many large and small cults and etceteras. Not even Roman or Orthodox Christianity, despite their incompatible boasts of catholicism, let alone the myriad forms of Protestantism, can agree. Those data are even by themselves a ringing demonstration that at very best, if there's a god, that god makes no effort to promulgate any particular message as true.

This is not true at all.
If it were then science would never have to change, adjust, or discard anything, in order to catch up, or meet with anything.
Put it this way. a hundred years ago science knew more about reality, than anyone, or anything, right?
Fifty years later, science realizes that it didn't really know about reality. In fact science realized it was dead wrong, and it caught up to a system that already knew reality, and why? Because a scientist demonstrated it.

Unless of course you agree, knowledge was always around long before they coined the word science.
I don't see why you would disagree with that.

Self-applause doesn't cut it eg

Everything Donald Trump says is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.
Everything Krishnamurti says is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.
Everything Kant says is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.
Everything Einstein says is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.
Everything you say is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.
Everything I say is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.
Everything anyone says is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.
Everything ...​

That's why you need a standard of truth, a test for whether any statement is true or not, which is as objective as you can make it.

What test are you using?

You did read the last three sentences of my post, did you?

 

[ecco]

Maybe they are afraid of something. What are you afraid of?

Ducking and dodging, which you do many times, is a sign that you are afraid to address questions. Why is that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see no problem with your first two paragraphs.
The third, I have repeatedly told you is untrue, but I am not going through this again with you.


This is not true at all.
If it were then science would never have to change, adjust, or discard anything, in order to catch up, or meet with anything.
Put it this way. a hundred years ago science knew more about reality, than anyone, or anything, right?
Fifty years later, science realizes that it didn't really know about reality. In fact science realized it was dead wrong, and it caught up to a system that already knew reality, and why? Because a scientist demonstrated it.

Unless of course you agree, knowledge was always around long before they coined the word science.
I don't see why you would disagree with that.


You did read the last three sentences of my post, did you?

You seem to object tot he fact that science is constantly changing but ignore the pattern of the changes. The changes in any topic get smaller and smaller as we learn more and more. That indicates that our answers are getting closer and closer to being correct. Of course you have to ignore that because your creationism beliefs were shown to be wrong over 100 years ago. One thing you will find with scientific findings is that refuted ideas simply do not come back.

 

[nPeace]

You seem to object tot he fact that science is constantly changing but ignore the pattern of the changes. The changes in any topic get smaller and smaller as we learn more and more. That indicates that our answers are getting closer and closer to being correct. Of course you have to ignore that because your creationism beliefs were shown to be wrong over 100 years ago. One thing you will find with scientific findings is that refuted ideas simply do not come back.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote.

I doubt it.

 

[blü 2]

I see no problem with your first two paragraphs.
The third, I have repeatedly told you is untrue, but I am not going through this again with you.

This is not true at all.

So spell it out, make it plain ─ what definition of 'truth' are you using? What test, do you say, will tell us whether a statement is true or not?

If it were then science would never have to change, adjust, or discard anything, in order to catch up, or meet with anything.

I don't understand your objection. I've already mentioned how science changes over time, and how the concept of what is true changes with it. I've mentioned a number of things that used to be true and no longer are (and If you want examples of the cosmology found throughout the bible, >some are set out here<). If you think about it, the conclusions of science are inductive, and no inductive conclusion can be protected from further facts not presently known.

Put it this way. a hundred years ago science knew more about reality, than anyone, or anything, right?

That'd be hard to argue against.

Fifty years later, science realizes that it didn't really know about reality.

If you've followed the science press ─ I grew up on SciAm and New Scientist, and still keep an eye on Science Daily ─ you'll know that science realizes every day that it doesn't know enough about reality and often enough that something taken as accepted about reality needs to be fixed. Repeatable experiments, peer review, open argument, checking and rechecking are part of scientific method, so that science needs amendment from time to time is hardly surprising. As you know, there are no absolute statements about reality.

In fact science realized it was dead wrong, and it caught up to a system that already knew reality, and why? Because a scientist demonstrated it.

It's called progress. I've given you examples of scientific ideas that were overtaken by new discoveries ─ and there are plenty more than phlogiston, the lumeniferous ether, &c. Newton wasn't wrong (if we leave the alchemy out of it), but as Einstein showed, his theories were insufficient when difference frames of physical reference were involved.
[

You did read the last three sentences of my post, did you?

You did read my request that you spell out your definition of truth, didn't you?

With that on the table, we can at last have a serious discussion of the OP.

 

[sayak83]

"REAL scientists follow the scientific method"
Let me ask the poster below you what they think. @sayak83 is that true?
In regard to your question @sayak83, I didn't see you respond to my last post, so I thought you had nothing more to say.
I didn't bother pushing anything else, since I wanted to be sure we were going to be "on even keel".

I may have missed your last reply. Will check.
I have clearly laid out my ideas regarding the scientific method and you may quote it if you wish. Don't want to get into a third party conversation without knowing the context.

 

[sayak83]

"REAL scientists follow the scientific method"
Let me ask the poster below you what they think. @sayak83 is that true?
In regard to your question @sayak83, I didn't see you respond to my last post, so I thought you had nothing more to say.
I didn't bother pushing anything else, since I wanted to be sure we were going to be "on even keel".

Real scientists publish peer reviewed scientific papers or technical monograms on the subject in high-quality science journals. Anything else can't be considered scientifically valid for consideration.

 

[Polymath257]

This is not true at all.
If it were then science would never have to change, adjust, or discard anything, in order to catch up, or meet with anything.
Put it this way. a hundred years ago science knew more about reality, than anyone, or anything, right?
Fifty years later, science realizes that it didn't really know about reality. In fact science realized it was dead wrong, and it caught up to a system that already knew reality, and why? Because a scientist demonstrated it.

Except that is NOT at all what happened. Yes, the scientists 100 years ago knew more than anyone else at the time. And yes, some of the ideas then have been changed.

But *in the domains that the scientists then had tested*, the old views still work. What has been changed is in those areas that had not yet been tested or where explanations were still largely in doubt.

As a better example, Newton proposed a theory of gravity and dynamics in the 1600's. This theory worked incredibly well. It is now known to be wrong in many details. BUT, Newton's ideas can still be used to send probes to Mars. They can still be used to design buildings and bridges. So, while 'wrong', Newton's ideas were incredibly good *approximations*.

And it is a good idea to understand why Newton's ideas were overturned. When Newton's laws were applied to the orbit of Mercury, they were found to be off by a small, but consistent, amount. Over the course of a *century* Newton's description was off by 43 *seconds* of arc in where Mercury was predicted to be. Now, there are 360 degrees in a full circle, 60 minutes of arc in a degree, and 60 seconds of arc in a minute. So, Newton was off by less than 1/100th of a degree over the course of a century.

No matter how you take this, Newton was incredibly close to being correct here. But that small difference was enough to overturn Newton's ideas and have them replaced by Einstein's, which are even *more* accurate.

This is how science works: we go from one approximation to a *better* approximation. The old ideas still work to a certain degree of approximation. So, even if the explanation is very different, the actual predictions of what will be seen are going to be close in most cases.

In the case of 100 years ago versus now, the differences are even smaller. The explanations from 100 years ago were incredibly accurate for the vast majority of phenomena. The approximations we have today are even more accurate and work for even more phenomena.

 

[cladking]

Except that is NOT at all what happened. Yes, the scientists 100 years ago knew more than anyone else at the time. And yes, some of the ideas then have been changed.

But *in the domains that the scientists then had tested*, the old views still work. What has been changed is in those areas that had not yet been tested or where explanations were still largely in doubt.

As a better example, Newton proposed a theory of gravity and dynamics in the 1600's. This theory worked incredibly well. It is now known to be wrong in many details. BUT, Newton's ideas can still be used to send probes to Mars. They can still be used to design buildings and bridges. So, while 'wrong', Newton's ideas were incredibly good *approximations*.

And it is a good idea to understand why Newton's ideas were overturned. When Newton's laws were applied to the orbit of Mercury, they were found to be off by a small, but consistent, amount. Over the course of a *century* Newton's description was off by 43 *seconds* of arc in where Mercury was predicted to be. Now, there are 360 degrees in a full circle, 60 minutes of arc in a degree, and 60 seconds of arc in a minute. So, Newton was off by less than 1/100th of a degree over the course of a century.

No matter how you take this, Newton was incredibly close to being correct here. But that small difference was enough to overturn Newton's ideas and have them replaced by Einstein's, which are even *more* accurate.

This is how science works: we go from one approximation to a *better* approximation. The old ideas still work to a certain degree of approximation. So, even if the explanation is very different, the actual predictions of what will be seen are going to be close in most cases.

In the case of 100 years ago versus now, the differences are even smaller. The explanations from 100 years ago were incredibly accurate for the vast majority of phenomena. The approximations we have today are even more accurate and work for even more phenomena.

This is all very well said and I find many points of agreement.

However, what you say hardly applies equally to all branches of "science". And then even where it does apply (physics) there is no reason to believe our paltry knowledge excludes much of anything since it doesn't even include a basic understanding of the fundamental forces and their interrelatedness. Our understanding is insufficient to make predictions about anything but the shortest durations and grossest events like the position of Mars in 12 years. And then when it's off several feet we'd probably ascribe it to rounding error or poor observation.

Just because we do know various means by which life might have arisen and changed over time hardly means we can look back and see the strange and wondrous things that have affected a virtually infinite number of individuals. It doesn't even mean we can predict consciousness or even define it. Just because it's a safe bet to imagine that consciousness is the result of chemical interactions chiefly in the brain hardly is a window to understanding it or how it arose.

Everyone thinks we know everything so we appeal to the priests of science, most of whom also have a massive overestimation of what is actually known and what is just interpretation and extrapolation.

I believe EVERY science is in its infancy and the "soft sciences" are off the rails. They went wrong long ago and no one noticed because we all see what we believe.

 

[Thief]

Obviously not.

it was pretty simple

no excuses

 

[Thief]

Self-applause doesn't cut it eg

Everything Donald Trump says is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.
Everything Krishnamurti says is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.
Everything Kant says is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.
Everything Einstein says is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.
Everything Mary Baker Eddy says is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.
Everything you say is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.
Everything I say is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.
Everything anyone says is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.
Everything ...
That's why you need a standard of truth, a test for whether any statement is true or not, which is as objective as you can make it.

What test are you using?

so.....someone listed quotes
and you dismiss the effort

because you have greater quotes?
or a litmus test that is infallible