Thread: My Ghost Story
View Single Post
Old 20th November 2015, 11:32 PM   #581
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
OK, so you grudgingly acknowledge that I haven't insulted you, so would you now like to withdraw the insult you levelled at me?
And for the record, I do reject what you're saying. My understanding of the scientific method is sufficient to reject it based on that alone. JayUtah and others, who are way more knowledgeable about physics that I, have shown in great depth how the sources you quote do not support your claims. Conversely, you have provided nothing but speculation to support what you say. Who wouldn't reject such claims?
No they haven't. I've stated that my theory is speculative since the discussion started.

Quote:
He is most definitely a fundamentalist. I suggest actually looking at the links before you reply, especially in light of what you've been saying about others not doing so.
The fact that he is a fundamentalist may create bias in his interpretation. Unlike others, I think he and Tegmark are essentially asking the same questions but approaching it in slightly different ways. Tegmark states he is trying to show that consciousness is not influenced by something outside and then goes on to demonstrate the opposite IMO.

[qoute]Nice try. I asked you this:[/quote]

Quote:
You responded with this:
Quote:
My response:

Your response was a dodge. You admit that the scientific method did not exist in the Dark Ages, but stop short of admitting it was therefore an irrelevant comparison. Nothing in the Dark Ages was based on science, as science as we know it now did not yet exist- as you admit. To then say that a paradigm shift in scientific thinking such as I outlined has occurred by citing this example is deeply flawed. Your response does not answer my point at all: in fact, you tacitly admit you were in error. Why not just admit it? After all, this is just a discussion- no emotions involved, so nothing to get upset or embarrassed about, right?
Quote:
And here comes another dodge!
I asked you

You responded by citing the germ theory. My response:
Quote:
You ignored that entirely:

I didn't ask you if it revolutionised medicine. I asked you if it had destroyed decades of research, experiment, predictions and replicable results. Your response dodges that entirely. Care to try again?
Then you go on to contradict yourself entirely. Having tried to claim as fact something that would totally overturn decades of scientific research, you then say

Quote:
So which is it? Is science built on evidence from previous research, or is it a series of unexpected, out-of-the-blue paradigm shifts in our thinking? You can't have it both ways.
I haven't responded because the discussion is completely off topic and irrelevant to the conversation, and ill informed to say the least. Science is built on evidence from previous research. If you think that the scientific method didn't exist during the dark ages, or prior to that, you are incorrect. It was definitely the exception instead of the rule. No one called it that but the exercise and application of the process did exist, or at least it did in the field of medicine. These are just a few from antiquity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medici..._Islamic_world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrodora

http://sri.sagepub.com/content/19/3/337.extract

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...early_cultures
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd

Last edited by Jodie; 20th November 2015 at 11:46 PM.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top