Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Anyhow, it may not gain weight in the scientific community, but if it has good proof and can not be disproved then it is still true. :

I am sorry laymen, it is not "still true." There is always a possiblity that it is true independent of our observations, and experimentations...but until it has been rigorously tested it will not be accepted as "truth."

Being accepted as truth and going through the scientific method are two vastly different things.

You are not using the connotations of the words in the body of science. You are using it on a POLITICS FORUM. The words then have different connotations. :

Strawman. In the body of science the words "truth" and "proof" carry a different meaning which I have already explained. Being in a politics forum changes nothing.

Being in a politics forum does indeed change the connotations. It is a lingistic fact that the connotations of a word change with the context of their use.

It is in the objective/subjective truth definition of the word. :

Um no. The definition of "objective" means to be free from personal opinion, bias, and interpretation. Science although can be affected by subjectivity, is rather objective in its nature.

Urm no. There are many definitions of the word "objective".

ob·jec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-jktv)
adj.
1 Of or having to do with a material object.
2 Having actual existence or reality.

Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
Medicine. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
Grammar.
Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.

I use the second one, which means something is true, if you can't interpret.

If you believe in the big bang then what created the big bang??....gay thread

Ah, a change of topic, how clever of you! Having been absolutly and utterly humiliated in an area which you know asolutely JACK SHIT about you have decided that you won't defend your disdain for philosophy. :

You filthy liar. You have already admitted that science is superior in aspects as the creation of the universe [and other scientific concepts]. It has remained my point since the beginning.

And I have not debated this point, I joined this thread when you said
Immediate VS. 2500 years.

Look at how far we have come in the last 100 years vs. the philosphical nonsense of 2500 years. Philosophy cannot, and will not ever answer its own questions. It is subjective poppycock, designed only to make one think, not to answer objective questions.

Something which has been the topic for a good few posts now. I have not said anything about the Big Bang or God, I have not claimed that the Big Bang didn't happen, I don't think I even posted on this subject till you mentioned philosophy. :

Since my core arugment was that science is superior to other "branches" of philosophy in this regard...I am correct. Deal with it.

But I have not been arguing with that.

Frankly you've just left hundreds of unanswered questions while trying to pick out little points in arguements, or claiming that people are wrong and you are right. :

When your arguments are nothing more than red herrings or strawmen...yes I will. Deal with my argument, or do not post at all.

Deal with my argument! I have NOT ONCE attacked your position on science being the best tool.

Atleast you should come away from this "debate" with the idea that you really shouldn't fuck with me. I bid you good day!:

Your ill use of logic does not frighten me, it entertains me.

I said good day!(Ah I love Fez.)

And strangely enough...I am home!

Before you continue with your attempt to redefine what I have been talking about I will show you the thing that I have been debating the entire time.

Immediate VS. 2500 years.

Look at how far we have come in the last 100 years vs. the philosphical nonsense of 2500 years. Philosophy cannot, and will not ever answer its own questions. It is subjective poppycock, designed only to make one think, not to answer objective questions.

Here you have clearly used objective(as its meaning in truth), not in a "scientific" sense. So before you try you "red herring/strawman" crap again and your changing the subject crap, remember, don't fuck with Slizor.

At 2/2/03 03:25 PM, Slizor wrote: Being accepted as truth and going through the scientific method are two vastly different things. :

This is why laymen are such boneheads. In the body of science does not accept theories out of hand even with evidence. It must be rigorously tested to meet expected predictions. If so, then the theory gains weight and it "true." You stated that "Philosophy accepts theories as true, and then they must be disproven." This is the antithesis of scientific method. If this is the case, then practically anything is true based on the most minute of evidences. Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance of science! Hahahah, dirty n00b.

Being in a politics forum does indeed change the connotations. It is a lingistic fact that the connotations of a word change with the context of their use. :

I have clarified my useage of the words according to what they mean in the body of science. Simply posting them on a BBS forum does not change the conotation of the word. Stop trying to manufacture a weakness so you can claim victory on your personal opinion on what you think they should mean in science. Dirty n00b.

As to your pathetic attempt to complain about the word "objective", my stance remains correct. You want to argue that "something is real indepently whether we have proof or not." Of course this is a very real possibility...however in order to show that something exists, we must be able to observe it, or the very least, make a logical deduction from the evidence available.

Science does use objective processes to describe the physical universe as per your post on the definition of "objective." Which again, falls onto the conotation that it is used within the body of science.

Stop playing word games and go home Slizor.

At 2/2/03 03:02 PM, Alakazam wrote: Both of you have admitted that science is superior to philosophy in regards to the creation of the universe and other scientific concepts...which was my point all along.

I never admitted that at all. I never once stated that science is better than philosophy is describing the origins of the universe. Like you said to someone else before, have you even read these posts?

I'm getting tired of this thread, of defending myself and other users, and of listening to Alakazam repeat the same things over and over.

Stop posting in this topic. It has gotten out of control, way off the original topic. It has turned into a mud-slinging match, and pages and pages of insults. I'll be working on this topic locked.

Slizor, you dirty n00b...

My argument was that science is superior to other philosophical concepts to describe the creation of the universe. I said that other philosophical concepts are useless to explain these concepts. Then your dirty n00b self enters the debate trying to support philosophy because it seeks "absolute truth" i.e. "objective", accepts things as "true" before any verification is given, and ultimately is greater than science. But later you admitted that you were wrong, and that science is the best tool possible.

Do not continue any further. You lost.

Being accepted as truth and going through the scientific method are two vastly different things. :

This is why laymen are such boneheads. In the body of science does not accept theories out of hand even with evidence. It must be rigorously tested to meet expected predictions. If so, then the theory gains weight and it "true." You stated that "Philosophy accepts theories as true, and then they must be disproven." This is the antithesis of scientific method. If this is the case, then practically anything is true based on the most minute of evidences.

This is actually a word game, and a long continued one. True, my wording was unelloquant, yet I'm sure the meaning was understood.

Being in a politics forum does indeed change the connotations. It is a lingistic fact that the connotations of a word change with the context of their use. :

I have clarified my useage of the words according to what they mean in the body of science. Simply posting them on a BBS forum does not change the conotation of the word.

Please, please, I beg of you stop using words which you don't understand. A connotation is a contextual-based idea linked to a word.

Stop trying to manufacture a weakness so you can claim victory on your personal opinion on what you think they should mean in science. :

I'm not saying what they should mean in science, I am saying what they mean.

As to your pathetic attempt to complain about the word "objective", my stance remains correct. You want to argue that "something is real indepently whether we have proof or not."

I didn't say that.

At 2/2/03 03:45 PM, Freakapotimus wrote:

I'm getting tired of this thread, of defending myself and other users, and of listening to Alakazam repeat the same things over and over. :

Not my problem that you or Slizor can understand the basics of logic now is it?

Then your dirty n00b self enters the debate trying to support philosophy because it seeks "absolute truth" i.e. "objective", accepts things as "true" before any verification is given, and ultimately is greater than science. But later you admitted that you were wrong, and that science is the best tool possible.

I have not once said philosophy was better than science, I have not said that I would use philosophy to understand how the universe is made or anything like that. I was defending the merits of a subject you called "subjective poppycock" in your supreme ignorance.

At 2/2/03 03:51 PM, Slizor wrote:

Please, please, I beg of you stop using words which you don't understand. A connotation is a contextual-based idea linked to a word. :

The context of the words "truth" and "proof" have a different meaning in the body of science. Dirty n00b. Your concession is accepted again...

I'm not saying what they should mean in science, I am saying what they mean. :

You are disregarding their conotation a.k.a. "context" in the body of science. Dirty n00b.

As to your pathetic attempt to complain about the word "objective", my stance remains correct. You want to argue that "something is real indepently whether we have proof or not."

I didn't say that. :

You imply it, you stated that you prefer the second defintion of "objective" i.e. that something exists. If you mean that it independently exists of our observations...or you have no clue what you talking about.

Please, please, I beg of you stop using words which you don't understand. A connotation is a contextual-based idea linked to a word. :

The context of the words "truth" and "proof" have a different meaning in the body of science.

And isn't this a shocker....this is a politics forum, not the "body of science."

I'm not saying what they should mean in science, I am saying what they mean. :

You are disregarding their conotation

I ain't disregarding no connations. Infact I'm using a different definition.

As to your pathetic attempt to complain about the word "objective", my stance remains correct. You want to argue that "something is real indepently whether we have proof or not."

I didn't say that. :

You imply it, you stated that you prefer the second defintion of "objective" i.e. that something exists.

Look below, you misunderstood, as seems normal with you.

If you mean that it independently exists of our observations

No I mean that it is objective truth, something which is 100% true. Not that I believe there is such a thing.

At 2/2/03 04:06 PM, Slizor wrote:

And isn't this a shocker....this is a politics forum, not the "body of science." :

Dude, shut the hell up. A stupid BBS forum or for that matter, a stupid NG user does not change the conotations of the words in respect to the body of science. Now you are just being a total moron.

I ain't disregarding no connations. Infact I'm using a different definition. :

It does not matter how you use them. It only matters how they are used in respect to the body of science. You and your personal feelings do not override the conotation of the word, or how it is understood; especially in the body of science.

No I mean that it is objective truth, something which is 100% true. Not that I believe there is such a thing. :

And of course, once again, you abuse the meaning of the word. Who gives a damn what you think? Certainly not the entire body of science.

Now you are an official laughing stock. I will have to post this on my website.

Stupid comment of the day:
Slizor says: "Philosophy is greater than science!"

Alakazam, this bbs sig is very ofensive. You should remove it because this tries to be a peaceful discusion not a tavern brawl. Philosophy, in certains aspects which are not the physical one, is far superior to science because some things can't be observed but only thought.

Let's finish this fights and insults ok?

At 2/2/03 04:40 PM, Dr_Natch_Kilder wrote:

Alakazam, this bbs sig is very ofensive. You should remove it because this tries to be a peaceful discusion not a tavern brawl. :

He said it, so if his own words embarrass him, that's too bad.

Philosophy, in certains aspects which are not the physical one, is far superior to science because some things can't be observed but only thought. :

Thoughts are rather subjective and if you want to call that "superior" then that is your choice. Bet that as it may, this is nothing more than a red herring.

Alakazam: You need to change your BBS signature, or I'll have to temporarily ban you.

At 2/2/03 05:16 PM, Freakapotimus wrote: Alakazam: You need to change your BBS signature, or I'll have to temporarily ban you.

Why of course your heinous.

And isn't this a shocker....this is a politics forum, not the "body of science." :

Dude, shut the hell up. A stupid BBS forum or for that matter, a stupid NG user does not change the conotations of the words in respect to the body of science.

I didn't say it does. I'm saying that connotations are different in different contexts. Finally English Language is coming in useful!

I ain't disregarding no connations. Infact I'm using a different definition. :

It does not matter how you use them. It only matters how they are used in respect to the body of science. You and your personal feelings do not override the conotation of the word, or how it is understood; especially in the body of science.

Again I am not saying that I want or it should be changed in this so-called "body of science". I am merely stating that there are many different meanings to words and connotations which go with them.

The real question is, do you understand what a connotation is?

No I mean that it is objective truth, something which is 100% true. Not that I believe there is such a thing. :

And of course, once again, you abuse the meaning of the word. Who gives a damn what you think? Certainly not the entire body of science.

What's this? You say my view is wrong, then add that it is irrelevant. Do you want another dictionary definition to shut you up?

Now you are an official laughing stock. I will have to post this on my website.

Ooh, are you then going to start the "We hate Slizor club". Actually I think there was oe of them started by NewYorkGuy, ah sad people crack me up.

He said it, so if his own words embarrass him, that's too bad.

Please, can you give me the entire message, I don't quite remember saying this.

Thoughts are rather subjective and if you want to call that "superior" then that is your choice. Bet that as it may, this is nothing more than a red herring.

Depends on the subject matter, the subject, as defined quite a while ago, is the uselessness of philosophy.

At 2/2/03 05:32 PM, Slizor wrote:

I didn't say it does. I'm saying that connotations are different in different contexts. Finally English Language is coming in useful! :

HOLY MARY MOTHER OF GOD. You complained that the words "truth" and "proof" carry a different meaning in this BBS, specifically on the Politics forum. Did you not say this? YOU are trying to imply that they are different here, totaly disregarding how they are used according the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.

I ain't disregarding no connations. Infact I'm using a different definition... Again I am not saying that I want or it should be changed in this so-called "body of science". I am merely stating that there are many different meanings to words and connotations which go with them. :

Liar...you stated...

You are not using the connotations of the words in the body of science. You are using it on a POLITICS FORUM. The words then have different connotations.

and again...

Being in a politics forum does indeed change the connotations. It is a lingistic fact that the connotations of a word change with the context of their use.

You are not simply stating that they have different meanings. You SPECIFICALLY stated that they automatically mean whatever YOU want them to be in this SPECIFIC FORUM. And because of this, you somehow think that THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY should conform to your own usesage and that their requirements or conotations are invalid by a stupid BBS user.

And of course, once again, you abuse the meaning of the word. Who gives a damn what you think? Certainly not the entire body of science.

What's this? You say my view is wrong, then add that it is irrelevant. Do you want another dictionary definition to shut you up? :

What? Mad because you realized that it is both wrong and irrelevant to the entire scientific community?

Ooh, are you then going to start the "We hate Slizor club". Actually I think there was oe of them started by NewYorkGuy, ah sad people crack me up. :

Speak for yourself. Examples of scientific ignorance should always be put on display...you can sit right next to the Creationist.

Give it up boy...

Again, I'm going to say: Stop posting in this topic.

Both Alakazam and Slizor are not debating the topic anymore, and have turned this into a name-calling insult match. Both of you shut the hell up, stop fighting, stop posting here, or I'll start deleting posts in this topic and ban the two of you. I don't want to take sides, and both of you keep egging each other on. Quit it.