Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Make the CT forum Members only
Options
Comments
-
I minced my words, was very tired at the time...
No you completly changed your opinion from no evidence is needed to evidence is needed, what caused the change?
Well, first of all, you haven't provided any evidence to support your theory so how is it even valid?
I posted it back when you where using the stance that no evidence was needed to support a theory, the funny thing is I posted it to highlight that saying a theory with no evidence is a valid as any other was silly, then you changed your opinion
Where did I say that? complete rubbish man....
Please read over your posts before rubbishing mine; I asked;
Are you dismissing the entirety of scientific knowledge?
Your reply;
I haven't dismissed anything, I'm just not accepting it as fact, there's a difference.
Is this all fact? I think we've established it isn't. Yes, I'm being pendantic.
You accept it as factual despite information being inconclusive.
Let's call it a supposition, that's exactly what it is.
.
I've said all I can be bothered to say to you at this point, you're putting words in my mouth now. .
I never put words in your mouth, I asked questions and looked for a consistant answer but if you don't want to discuss things anymore then thats fine. Lets leave it there.0 -
No you completly changed your opinion from no evidence is needed to evidence is needed, what caused the change?
I had a good nights sleep.I posted it back when you where using the stance that no evidence was needed to support a theory, the funny thing is I posted it to highlight that saying a theory with no evidence is a valid as any other was silly, then you changed your opinion
I'd say at the time I was thinking irrationally due to tiredness, it happens.
Lets leave it there.
I would never dismiss well-founded science but how do you personally evaluate scientific data as a non-scientific person? (presumably)
If a scientist with all the relevant qualifications and experience proposes some theory to be groundbreaking science and you accept that to be true based on your faith in science, are you 100% sure the scientist is telling the truth?
We never question science enough and I have a huge problem with accepting scientific results because I know just about anybody can be a scientist with enough time and effort.
At least be aware we live in a world with people motivated by money who will falsify evidence to promote themselves and seek a higher level of stature within the scientific/corporate world.
Unfortunately you have opportunists who see an easy way to elevate their career through lying...it's the oldest trick in the book to promote oneself.
You can't always trust scientists just as you couldn't trust the church to provide answers to the meaning of life ..many years ago.
One must always be neutral where there's inconclusive data.
To do otherwise is short sighted IMHO of course. 0 -
If a scientist with all the relevant qualifications and experience proposes some theory to be groundbreaking science and you accept that to be true based on your faith in science, are you 100% sure the scientist is telling the truth?
We never question science enough and I have a huge problem with accepting scientific results because I know just about anybody can be a scientist with enough time and effort.
At least be aware we live in a world with people motivated by money who will falsify evidence to promote themselves and seek a higher level of stature within the scientific/corporate world.
Unfortunately you have opportunists who see an easy way to elevate their career through lying...it's the oldest trick in the book to promote oneself.
You can't always trust scientists just as you couldn't trust the church to provide answers to the meaning of life ..many years ago.
One must always be neutral where there's inconclusive data.
To do otherwise is short sighted IMHO of course.
Peer reviewed studies exist to examine the findings of scientists. This acts both to prove and evaluate the legitimacy of the work. The studies are freely available. This is not remotely comparable to trusting the infallible word of the pope for example. If flaws are found, they are revealed. Science will happily accept other results if there is evidence of errors, falsification etc. Falsification is in fact counterproductive. Here's an example of a fairly big story in science that was examined and found to be a result of an error and it was happily revealed to be an error.
Anyway, I'm fairly certain that this is going fairly off topic at this point.The news last September that the nearly-massless subatomic particles called neutrinos traveled faster than light rocked the physics world. The finding threatened to upend Einstein's rules of relativity, which describe the speed of light as the maximum possible speed in the universe, and brought with it the potential for exciting new physics.
But the workgroup at CERN that made the measurement last Fall announced Friday at the Neutrino 2012 conference in Kyoto, Japan, that after repeated tests by both collaborators and competitors, neutrinos don't break the cosmic speed limit.
http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/3175/20120611/einstein-right-cern-confirms-faster-light-neutrinos.htm0 -
Peer reviewed studies exist to examine the findings of scientists. This acts both to prove and evaluate the legitimacy of the work.
If a company has a patent on a drug, it's impossible to peer review.
The review process is executed by the owner itself and the FDA approves drugs distribution, usually based on the proprietors trial tests.
It's not right for me to say how these tests are carried out.The studies are freely available.
Patents would prevent this.
If not for patents, we would probably cure most of the worlds diseases today.
It's sad...but that's the corporate world, they want to monopolise the medicine industry and so people get treated like criminals for smoking plants like marijuana.
I say fck em, if a plant can help you, have no fear.
Who gives companies the right to ban a plant?0 -
leaving aside any plans of "raze the forum to the ground and rebuild" I'd like to pick up on something Channel Zero posted.
thanks whoring
I've seen it in other fora where the same users constantly thank each others posts making what appear to be (and could well actually be) cliques that constantly clump together if not to batter any who dare oppose into submission or just give unthinking support to whichever one of them is proving their dominance of the forum that day.
sounds silly, but I have seen users quit boards.ie entirely because they weren't made mod when a space opened up because they honestly believed that no-one else deserved it as much as they did.
would turning off the ability to "thank" a post help dilute this tribal effect thats beign spoken about in the CT forum? If all posts have to be *on topic* and more than just "yeah" or "me too" and you cant just throw your name under a post to add weight to an argument , would this help or would it just decrease the signal to noise ratio?
this is, of course, my subtle way of reminding users that this is feedback where your opinions on the forum are more than welcome. Some ideas might even spark a thought in a mod and result in a positive experiment (on the forum, not the users) so any effort to stay on the topic at hand and leave the nature of Conspiracy Theory vs the right to question discussions for the CT forum itself.
thank you 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Advertisement