When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?

[McBell]

No, you don't seem to realize that your position is merely a claim as well, which has to have evidence. You are presuming a position of correctness, which is why the argument of logical fallacy, in these debates, does not work. So, you have to prove your fallacious claim.

the only thing that was done was to point out your fallacy.
I have not made a fallacious claim.
You have.

 

[McBell]

geez.
the lengths some people go to to avoid supporting their claims.....

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Open for discussion for the Theists and the Atheists alike.
Regards

Whether it's gibberish or not, all scientific evidence proves that Angellous is your daddy.

 

[McBell]

Whether it's gibberish or not, all scientific evidence proves that Angellous is your daddy.

AND that he will not pay child support on you....

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No it isn't. It's a claim. Again, you are conflating subjective, with objective. What is objective to one person, may not be objective to another, it's ''off topic'', if that helps. ie it doesn't apply to many arguments.

The definition of objectivity never changes. The earth revolves around the sun. This is objective, and is entirely independent of what others may think. Harry Potter being a good series of novel or not is subjective, and entirely dependent upon what someone thinks.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

AND that he will not pay child support on you....

Everyone gets their kick in the pants.

 

[Desert Snake]

The definition of objectivity never changes. The earth revolves around the sun. This is objective, and is entirely independent of what others may think. Harry Potter being a good series of novel or not is subjective, and entirely dependent upon what someone thinks.

Logical fallacy does not mean, everything that can't be ''proven'', ''objectively'', is a logical fallacy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Logical fallacy does not mean, everything that can't be ''proven'', ''objectively'', is a logical fallacy.

As I said, the logical fallacy arises when you take an unknown and insist you know answer, despite the lack of evidence to support you claim.
Objective is not a logical fallacy. They are facts. The moon reflects the light of the sun. This is an objective fact. When you mix red and green, you get yellow. This too is an objective fact. The Association of Professional Piercers states to use either an additive-free saline solution of non-iodized sea salt mixed in water to clean a new piercing, and to avoid things like hydrogen peroxide. This is an objective fact, as you can look it up and find the information on their website. Objective claims are facts, and they do not change in regards to what someone thinks. Even when some people thought the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around it, this was not objective as the facts are the Earth is an oblate sphere and it revolves around the sun.
X-Men is the greatest comic book ever. This is a subjective statement, as it is an opinion. Picasso's art sucks. This, another opinion, is also subjective. Coke or Pepsi? The choice is always subjective because the answer is entirely dependent upon what people think.
Another example is whether or not a food item is hot. We can taste the same hot sauce, and we'll both have a different opinion as to whether or not is taste hot or not. We can objectively measure it on the Scoville scale (the scale that heat is measured in), but whether or not we taste it as hot is subjective, as you may think the sauce is really hot and I may not taste any heat at all. But, regardless of what we think, it's measurement of Scoville heat units is the same.

 

[viole]

No, you are talking about convincing, not evidence. A person can be convinced of Deity, this does not mean that you would be, etc. Your position renders anything, literally anything, unprovable. /Hence also a contradictory stance, as you are asking for proof within an unprovable parameter or context. It's essentially nonsense

I am talking of convincing evidence, not certainties. Evidence that is proportional to the extraordinary character of the claim. at the moment, I do not even see ordinary evidence.

For instance, I have convincing evidence, not certainty, that gravity is always atractive. And for this reason I do not believe that masses repel each others gravitationally in some remote part of the Universe, even if I cannot exclude it with absolute certainty. Perfectly valid claim of falsifiable knowledge. Show me such repelling masses and I will revise my knowledge.

Until that point i will not believe in repelling masses nor God because they both have the exact same evidence, or lack thereof.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Desert Snake]

I am talking of convincing evidence, not certainties. Evidence that is proportional to the extraordinary character of the claim. at the moment, I do not even see ordinary evidence.

For instance, I have convincing evidence, not certainty, that gravity is always atractive. And for this reason I do not believe that masses repel each others gravitationally in some remote part of the Universe, even if I cannot exclude it with absolute certainty. Perfectly valid claim of falsifiable knowledge. Show me such repelling masses and I will revise my knowledge.

Until that point i will not believe in repelling masses nor God because they both have the exact same evidence, or lack thereof.

Ciao

- viole

Why is your lack of evidence, my problem? Since when does ones personal stance, affect the proposed truth of an argument?

 

[paarsurrey]

Not having all the answers and some forms of science being in their infancy do not count as gibberish.

Gibberish from the point of view of an ordinary man. The pseudo-science or self-styled spokespersons of science make it as such and create a wedge between religion and science. Scientific terminology is for use of science in there specific fields and not for everybody.

Regards

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Scientific terminology is for use of science in there specific fields and not for everybody.

If it bothers you that much, then learn them. There are reasons they use the terms that they do. It's not like they're making them up or trying to confuse people.

 

[paarsurrey]

If it bothers you that much, then learn them. There are reasons they use the terms that they do. It's not like they're making them up or trying to confuse people.

I have got nothing against science, I am talking of the pseudo-science/scientist the self-proclaimed spokespersons of science.
Regards

 

[gnostic]

I have got nothing against science, I am talking of the pseudo-science/scientist the self-proclaimed spokespersons of science.
Regards

Can you name these pseudoscientists?

 

[McBell]

Why is your lack of evidence, my problem? Since when does ones personal stance, affect the proposed truth of an argument?

 

[McBell]

Can you name these pseudoscientists?

If he doe snot have Zakir Naik on that list, I call foul.

 

[viole]

Why is your lack of evidence, my problem? Since when does ones personal stance, affect the proposed truth of an argument?

If you have a convincing case that a particular deity exists, then... Well, show it. Where is it? Do you expect me to provide evidence that things that have no evidence do not exist?

Things that have no evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It is a pretty reliable epistemology.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

No, that isn't how it works, of course. The argument is either worthy of consideration, or it isn't. This is subjective //literally subjective, as in, people have different beliefs/evidence, and so forth. Your lack of evidence, again, is not my problem. It doesn't help your position.

People have different evidence?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Yes of course. If you are referring to evidence as some sort of standard, than that becomes subjective as to how one applies the evidence. Hence things like the creationism vs non-creationism stances,

For some reason, your personal evidence generates a fragmentation of beliefs. Some believe that God had a Son, others that He looks like an Elephant. Others have evidence that He flew to Heaven on a winged horse. And this "evidence" seem to be driven by geography.

Alas, other types of evidence seem to be independent from geography. For instance, that the speed of light is constant in vacuum.

Why is that, in your opinion?

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

Dunno, is that relevant, seems arbitrary
anyways, nice chat, I think were off topic though

Yes.
You are well skilled at drawing attention away from your ignorance.