I have a Certificate of Proficiency in English from Cambridge University with a perfect score on reading. I also scored perfect on the verbal section of the GMAT. My reading comprehension makes your reading comprehension wet its pants.
Yet you completely missed the fact that people only used the principle to reject an idea rather than accepting one out of two ideas.
The problem is that your sentences don't make any sense. You want me to work on my reading comprehension and vocal? How am I to work on my vocal? Do you want me to sing or what?
Read my points again. These made perfect sense once you spend the time reading what the principle is rather than an assumption of what it is.
Your hearing ie vocal communication from your YT video. If you need an example look up comprehensions of vocal communication
Why would you say this? It's needlessly redundant and unhelpful. My inability to understand what I read and hear? Have you recorded some audio on here that I haven't been accessing? If you have, please link me to it! I need all the help I can get to understand the endless babbling you engage in. Case in point: Why would you say "...a problem which ends up causing you to lash out..."? Why not just say "...a problem that causes you to lash out..."? Eliminate the redundancies, please!
Your YT video link was vocal communication.
Do you mean "an unstated hypothesis" or "unstated hypotheses"? I'm not a mind reader here. I cannot know which of the two errors you made when constructing the sentence, thus I cannot figure out what your real meaning is.
I guess your inability to understand anyone that does not use perfect English is a problem for you. You should fix that considering you are using a public international forum.
Regardless of singular or plural you missed the fact that people mimicked the principle rather than actually following it. This was further hammered home by your video which misapplies the principle. You are arguing pointless grammar and sentence structure which is nothing more than a dodging the point
I allowed people to only STATE the one they rejected? Wrong. I allow them to state, to read, to deny, to infer, and to do anything else. I can only assume that your "only" is misplaced. I allowed any of a variety of actions from the people who post. Why would I press for the accepted idea when the idea I was attacking was the principle itself?
You never pointed out the misapplication of the principle. There is no point is talking about a principle no one actually used. Your attacks on the idea were flawed and didn't support your conclusion regardless if the conclusion was right or not.
I know you want to think that, but the data do not support your position. In addition, when you use the word "it" more than once in the same sentence to refer to completely different things, it becomes hard to understand what you mean.
It completely failed since it only used simplicity as the criteria which is not the only criteria of the principle. Its not hard to follow which it I am referring to since there is a reference point right before it.
I think that you didn't understand the video at all. The point was that eliminating things just because they're not as simple as you want is a bad idea. Your rebuttal is that atomic theory needed an extra assumption to work well? How does this rebut the idea that simplicity for simplicity's sake is a bad idea? Oh wait... IT DOESN'T. It reinforces the idea.
No I understood it made a poor argument based on a misapplication of the principle. The first was simplicity. The second was treating science and religion as equal. then injecting a third as if was equal to the others
My point about atomic theory was that simplicity was used to dismiss the idea as atom were an assumption required by the theory to work. Those that rejected the idea put forward that atoms were an unwarranted assumption with those that supported the theory put forward it was warranted.
Again your lack in reading comprehension failed you. My points about atomic theory were to demonstrated the appeal to simplicity is flawed. You assumed it was a rebuttal. It wasn't. This is not the first time I have said as much
You see? I cannot process this sentence because the subject and the verb don't agree. You said "...is typical here." What is typical? Misapplication and not understanding? That's two things, so the verb should be are. Unless you think that "not understand the principle is typical" and the "misapplication" is supposed to be some sort of a modifier.
Irrelevant really. Most people can easily figure out is/are issues and move on. Another dodge, nothing more.
I think you should seriously consider the idea that I might not understand your point not because my reading comprehension is bad but because your writing skills are so poor. You said you agreed with me, but now you want to argue about agreeing with me? What for?
Again you are inability to function out of your perfect english bubble is your problem. You are using your bubble as a dodge to cover your errors. Build a bridge and get over it.
I agree with the conclusion but your arguments do not support your conclusion since you, and your YT video, are not even applying it correctly. Hence why I provided actually examples when the appeal to simplicity failed.
The major issue with using this principle is subjectivity. People assign simplicity based on their view points. People will call God simply, or not, then invoke the principle. People will call God an unnecessary, or not, then invoke the principle. It is nothing but a rationalization of a previous view point rather than a conclusion based upon the principle
