ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 14th July 2017, 09:32 PM   #321
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
I needn't lie, regarding my uwi status.

Here is my student uwi email:
jordan.bennett@mymona.uwi.edu

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 14th July 2017 at 09:47 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan 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
Old 14th July 2017, 09:39 PM   #322
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,070
Funny thing where someone is using an incognito window to post their "private" information in public.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is online now   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
Old 14th July 2017, 09:44 PM   #323
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Funny thing where someone is using an incognito window to post their "private" information in public.
I reserve normal windows for merely directly artificial intelligence aligned data.
ProgrammingGodJordan 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
Old 14th July 2017, 09:55 PM   #324
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
BWAHAHAHAH! PGJ got nailed!!

Pssst: Anyone else interested in a degree from that fine university? Here ya go. http://www.topdiplomaservice.com/SAM...0803/1118.html

ETA:

The REAL University of the West Indies does not offer a general "computer science" degree program; the only ones available are also only available on one of their three or four campuses (no online degrees for CS, in other words).
How silly Norseman; for it is undoubtable that I am a graduate via uwi.

Part A

Here is my student uwi email:
jordan.bennett@mymona.uwi.edu






Part B

Here is my researchgate profile, which is bound strictly to the uwi student email (jordan.bennett@mymona.uwi.edu):

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jordan_Bennett6






Part C

And once more, an image capture of the degree:


Last edited by Locknar; 15th July 2017 at 04:34 PM. Reason: Images resized, rule 6
ProgrammingGodJordan 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
Old 14th July 2017, 10:06 PM   #325
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,070
I guess that shows all of us?

Nobody ********s on the 'net, or in real life, do they? go to 8:25:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is online now   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
Old 14th July 2017, 10:37 PM   #326
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
I guess that shows all of us?

Nobody ********s on the 'net, or in real life, do they? go to 8:25:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
I have observed the desired range of the video you presented.

Of what consequence is such a sequence, betwixt your nonsensical accusation, and the valid evidence amidst my uwi status prior presented?
ProgrammingGodJordan 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
Old 14th July 2017, 10:57 PM   #327
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
Why would a 'god' (even of programming) be pushing non-beliefism? Gods require belief and worship. Why use word god in your name when you're striving (badly) to be king of the atheism hill?

Oh, wait, THUSLY.....sorry, MostlyDead, almost forgot it.
Astronomy once included mythical components, amidst science in antiquity.

Like astronomy, the archaic God concept is scientifically re-definable/updatable, such that nonsense is purged.

The resulting definition:



As such, humans thereafter persist as Gods, as scientifically redefined; and one need not believe in empirically observed sequences, such as humans.

Thereafter, God as scientifically redefined, need not be believed in, as such persists as an empirically observable distribution; i.e. humans.

Thusly, one may be an atheist, and observe the redefinition as valid, as one need not believe in such a redefinition as scientifically prescribed.

http://www.academia.edu/31660547/A_s..._by_an_atheist


FOOTNOTE:
Belief by definition, opposes science.
ProgrammingGodJordan 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
Old 15th July 2017, 12:19 AM   #328
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,564
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post


Ironically, rather than 'hand waving away' that words have multiple meanings, the prior image had underlined that fact.

It is silly to garner that multiple meanings of a word (within a particular dictionary) oppose each other; for opposite meanings are discovered amidst sequences, called....antonyms.
It rather sounds like you're arguing against what you quoted yourself as saying, with this. You've got nothing to dispute what I said, then, unsurprisingly. Belief is still not even close to a system. Of course, there are plenty of systems made out of beliefs, just like there are many castles made out of sand, but just like sand is not a castle, belief is not a system.




Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Regardless of your failure, belief (while having the probability of concerning evidence) does not, by definition, have high evidence concern.
More accurately, to qualify as a belief, evidence is entirely irrelevant. High or low "evidence concern" cannot even come into the picture. To qualify as the subset of beliefs that do indeed concern themselves with evidence, evidence concern can come into play, but that's dealing with a subset of the larger set.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas 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
Old 15th July 2017, 12:36 AM   #329
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,564
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Astronomy once included mythical components, amidst science in antiquity.
And unlike astronomy, the stories collectively classified as mythology were never even superficially science, even among the sciences of antiquity. That archaic sciences sometimes borrowed from mythological tales cannot make what they were borrowing from scientific retroactively.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Like astronomy, the archaic God concept is scientifically re-definable/updatable, such that nonsense is purged.
"God" is redefinable, but only via semantics. It was never a scientific term in the first place, though, and such very much needs to be taken into account when anyone is trying to invoke the more ancient beginnings of science as somehow being in any way relevant to the case that they're making. Serious thought should also be put into why one would be trying to arbitrarily redefine the word "god," as well, though, rather than simply using one of the much clearer and more currently appropriate terms that are already widely accepted to describe the trait in question.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 15th July 2017 at 12:46 AM.
Aridas 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
Old 15th July 2017, 01:04 AM   #330
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,989
Believing you're a god, because you can redefine God to mean 'person', is scientific and not based on belief because... word salad. Sure.

And about that degree, I don't see what others are seeing, what's the proof that it's fake?
Porpoise of Life 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
Old 15th July 2017, 01:27 AM   #331
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342


Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
And unlike astronomy, the stories collectively classified as mythology were never even superficially science, even among the sciences of antiquity. That archaic sciences sometimes borrowed from mythological tales cannot make what they were borrowing from scientific retroactively.
As is evident, mythology is ancient science.

That mythological components were purged from science, does not suddenly render mythology separate from ancient science.


Originally Posted by Aridas
"God" is redefinable, but only via semantics. It was never a scientific term in the first place, though, and such very much needs to be taken into account when anyone is trying to invoke the more ancient beginnings of science as somehow being in any way relevant to the case that they're making. Serious thought should also be put into why one would be trying to arbitrarily redefine the word "god," as well, though, rather than simply using one of the much clearer and more currently appropriate terms that are already widely accepted to describe the trait in question.
Quite the invalid response, of yours.

See the cosmological argument (source).

By extension, that a model is semantically updatable, does not suddenly render the updating to be non-scientific.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th July 2017 at 01:42 AM.
ProgrammingGodJordan 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
Old 15th July 2017, 01:31 AM   #332
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
It rather sounds like you're arguing against what you quoted yourself as saying, with this. You've got nothing to dispute what I said, then, unsurprisingly. Belief is still not even close to a system. Of course, there are plenty of systems made out of beliefs, just like there are many castles made out of sand, but just like sand is not a castle, belief is not a system.
Simply, that belief may concern science, is not separate from its entire definition; that it is especially absent evidence.

Both beliefs and systems are expressible as plans or ideas.

https://www.google.com.jm/search?q=b...belief+synonym
https://www.google.com.jm/search?q=s...system+synonym



Originally Posted by Aridas
More accurately, to qualify as a belief, evidence is entirely irrelevant. High or low "evidence concern" cannot even come into the picture. To qualify as the subset of beliefs that do indeed concern themselves with evidence, evidence concern can come into play, but that's dealing with a subset of the larger set.
Don't you tire of expressing nonsense?

No, evidence is not "entirely irrelevant", it is largely so, as expressed in the standard definition:



That it especially concerns non-evidence, designates that it has low concern for evidence.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th July 2017 at 01:54 AM.
ProgrammingGodJordan 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
Old 15th July 2017, 02:17 AM   #333
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
Believing you're a god, because you can redefine God to mean 'person', is scientific and not based on belief because... word salad. Sure.

And about that degree, I don't see what others are seeing, what's the proof that it's fake?
It is rather odd that there is doubt regarding my computer science training; for like many other computer scientists, I encode programming languages and programming language IDE's, operating system interfaces, artificial neural networks, and quasicrystal based algorithms.


An image capture of an operating system interface, encoded by myself:

Last edited by Locknar; 15th July 2017 at 04:34 PM. Reason: Resized, rule 6
ProgrammingGodJordan 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
Old 15th July 2017, 02:58 AM   #334
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,989
Well, I can't tell whether or not that's impressive, because I'm not a programmer myself.
I was just wondering what made them say your diploma is fake.
Porpoise of Life 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
Old 15th July 2017, 03:56 AM   #335
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,962
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
Well, I can't tell whether or not that's impressive, because I'm not a programmer myself.
I was just wondering what made them say your diploma is fake.
If you followed the link, you would have found that anyone could buy that diploma OTC for a few bucks.

Now, it happens that I still have mine and they are replete with watermarks, embossing, wax seals, etc. Getting a little threadbare and worn after 30 years service but still the real deal. Not anything near a printed A4 page that one could simply cobble together. I cannot even scan mine, I don't own a scanner larger than A4.

Now, when I was challenged, on this very site, over my credentials some years back, I didn't post any fake diploma. What I posted was my full on membership of the Institute of Engineers, my membership number, and an open invitation to anyone to simply call the institute and verify with them that I was really a professional in the game.

I supplied no phone number for the institute intentionally, in order that others could look it up independently, not rely upon some number I provided.

How many folks do you think actually checked and verified? Guess.

Zero.

Simply stated, cranks are all noise and nothing else.

Rightio, then. On we go to the diploma in question. At the very least, Genuine UWI diplomas have as a bare minimum an embossed stamp. This is absent. UWI diplomas are regularly faked as evidenced above. I could easily lash together a diploma for "Porpoise of Life" in the field of "Behaviour of Pixies" should I be so motivated. Actually, that is tempting.

As for the so called evidence of attendance at UWI, all that tells us is that our protagonist obtained a user account. So what? It's easy to do so and means nothing. Even the janitor could have such.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   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
Old 15th July 2017, 04:02 AM   #336
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,962
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
http://i.imgur.com/sA6PAz9.jpg

What nonsense.

I have not mentioned anywhere, that my degree was of the online aligned nature.


FOOTNOTE:
A degree in computer science from the university of the West Indies, is not that difficult to attain.
Are you suggesting that any random moron could get one?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   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
Old 15th July 2017, 08:00 AM   #337
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
MostlyDead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,744
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
What nonsense.

I have not mentioned anywhere, that my degree was of the online aligned nature.
I think The Norseman was preemptively addressing a possible counterclaim, that you earned the degree online and that is why the diploma looks like it came off the back of a box of breakfast cereal.

Quote:
FOOTNOTE:
A degree in computer science from the university of the West Indies, is not that difficult to attain.
Agreed, and you are claiming no relevant expertise on the subject of CS. UWI's website does list Computer Science as a standalone program, too, at the St Augustine and Cave Hill schools (linked below). FWIW, I accept your claim of a legit BSc and congratulate you for that accomplishment. You really should demand a refund if you took any courses relating to English language use and comprehension though.

http://apps.uwi.edu/programmes/
MostlyDead 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
Old 15th July 2017, 09:17 AM   #338
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,070
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I have observed the desired range of the video you presented.

Of what consequence is such a sequence, betwixt your nonsensical accusation, and the valid evidence amidst my uwi status prior presented?
That there is a universe of delusional individuals that present themselves as having earned all manner of qualifications and decorations when in fact they have neither.

Between your tortured use of the english language and everything else you posted in the last couple of pages you're neck and neck with the #1 guy on the Stolen Valor hit parade.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is online now   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
Old 15th July 2017, 10:23 AM   #339
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,771
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
It is rather odd that there is doubt regarding my computer science training...
No, not odd at all. You're proffering a questionable diploma as proof of expertise in an unrelated field. Computer science is not a science in the sense that it does not generally rely upon teaching and applying the scientific method. It used to be something of a science, but these days it seems to be little more than vocational training. Proffering a questionable and inapplicable credential suggests an irrational desire to be accepted as an expert. People who appear desperate to be seen as experts generally have the poorest claim to expertise. Facts have been presented which challenge your claim to whatever expertise you're claiming, for whatever reason. You did not explain those facts, so no, it's not at all odd to continue question your claim on the basis of evidence provided. Can you explain why your diploma resembles those that can be purchased online, right down to the snippets of poorly redacted signtures? If you're holding up a CS diploma as a special qualification in general science -- no. That's a non-starter. You got no more applicable scientific training than anyone else who also went to a college.

Quote:
...for like many other computer scientists, I encode...
Nope.

I taught computer science classes at a major American university -- one of the first original Internet sites. You're using the word "encode" completely incorrectly. What you mean is that you code them. "Coding" is the practice of expressing an algorithm in an interpretable programming language. Encoding, in contrast, is the technique of representing higher-order information as bit patterns corresponding to computable units. Unicode, for example, is an encoding. A program that works on Unicode strings would be said to have been coded.

I went to GitHub and looked at the toy programs you have there. Sorry, not impressed. They're straightforward implementations of existing basic algorithms, at least some of them apparently contributed to by others. That does not make you a scientist. In my organization that would qualify you to apply for a junior programmer position, but for reasons all too apparent here I doubt you'd pass the interview. If you're trying to pass yourself off as a scientist apart from code-monkey practicum, don't bother. You are to a scientist as an apprentice carpenter is to an architect. Certainly not a basis from which to suggest we should accept your psychology navel-gazing as the product of an appropriately trained and tested author.

Last edited by JayUtah; 15th July 2017 at 10:24 AM.
JayUtah is online now   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
Old 15th July 2017, 10:47 AM   #340
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,771
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
A degree in computer science from the university of the West Indies, is not that difficult to attain.
Then don't claim any great expertise on the basis of one. As I said, you would be qualified to apply for a junior software developer position in my organization, but certainly not as any sort of scientist. And yes, I hire scientists -- I have two full-time physicists (PhD level) on my staff. The general-education classes you may have taken as part of a baccalaureate may have given you some rudimentary knowledge of various other sciences, and an introduction to scientific methodology. But it does not bestow any elevated qualification. You may safely assume that most if not all your critics here have at least a similar level of education.

Thirty years ago you could call computer science something of a science. The programs that arose out of mathematics departments required their graduates to understand a great deal of the theory that makes computing work. Conversely, the programs that arose out of engineering departments often required their graduates to complete the core engineering curriculum, which is intensely rigorous. While neither of these is especially congruent with the classic sciences such as physics, chemistry, or with the social sciences such as psychology and some forms of economics, they nevertheless required a substantial rigor of thought.

You can still get this in modern computer science curricula, but only at the graduate level from what I've seen. Most modern undergraduate computer science programs seem to have been diluted to little more than vocational training, which to me is a disappointment. I suspect there may be a reason for it, but it's still disappointing.
JayUtah is online now   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
Old 15th July 2017, 11:00 AM   #341
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,841
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
http://i.imgur.com/sA6PAz9.jpg

What nonsense.

I have not mentioned anywhere, that my degree was of the online aligned nature.


FOOTNOTE:
A degree in computer science from the university of the West Indies, is not that difficult to attain.
Again you misunderstand. I never said you "obtained" that degree through an online curriculum. The only way one could get such a CS degree from that university is face-to-face. So, which campus did you "earn" your CS degree?




Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I needn't lie, regarding my uwi status.

Here is my student uwi email:
jordan.bennett@mymona.uwi.edu
Who cares about the email?

What would be RELEVANT and much more CONVINCING is if you post your transcripts the classes you took and the grades you received. That should be easy enough as you have all that available online and it would make it easy to demonstrate to everyone here how your schooling is applicable to your so-called theories and "expertise."



Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
Believing you're a god, because you can redefine God to mean 'person', is scientific and not based on belief because... word salad. Sure.

And about that degree, I don't see what others are seeing, what's the proof that it's fake?
There is no straightforward proof. The degree looks fake and even matches the sample one sold online as I linked to. There are no other indicators that he graduated from that school legitimately. His English is mangled and sad and no instructor/prof/teacher I ever knew would pass a single one if he wrote papers anything like as he writes here.

So no smoking gun, just a good chunk of circumstantial evidence.




Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
I think The Norseman was preemptively addressing a possible counterclaim, that you earned the degree online and that is why the diploma looks like it came off the back of a box of breakfast cereal.
Yes, thank you, that's exactly why I mentioned it. Usually (but not always) universities with multiple campuses mention which campus the work was done at. I'm not willing to do more research to see if that's the case here with UWI, but I would bet good money that they do. Sort of like saying "UC- Berkeley" to distinguish it from other University of California campuses.

Telling us which campus the degree was earned would help establish the legitimacy of his CS degree; but even if it's true, it would only make me sad that UWI would actually grant a bachelor degree to someone who cannot properly express him or herself with the English language.




Quote:
Agreed, and you are claiming no relevant expertise on the subject of CS. UWI's website does list Computer Science as a standalone program, too, at the St Augustine and Cave Hill schools (linked below).
http://apps.uwi.edu/programmes/
Strange I missed that. I stand corrected.
The Norseman 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
Old 15th July 2017, 12:37 PM   #342
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
There is no straightforward proof. The degree looks fake and even matches the sample one sold online as I linked to. There are no other indicators that he graduated from that school legitimately. His English is mangled and sad and no instructor/prof/teacher I ever knew would pass a single one if he wrote papers anything like as he writes here.

So no smoking gun, just a good chunk of circumstantial evidence.
That there are fake degrees for a sequence of real universities, does not suddenly invalidate my Computer Science degree via UWI Mona Campus.




Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Yes, thank you, that's exactly why I mentioned it. Usually (but not always) universities with multiple campuses mention which campus the work was done at. I'm not willing to do more research to see if that's the case here with UWI, but I would bet good money that they do. Sort of like saying "UC- Berkeley" to distinguish it from other University of California campuses.

Telling us which campus the degree was earned would help establish the legitimacy of his CS degree; but even if it's true, it would only make me sad that UWI would actually grant a bachelor degree to someone who cannot properly express him or herself with the English language.


Strange I missed that. I stand corrected.
Yes, your invalid expressions were incorrect.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th July 2017 at 02:08 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan 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
Old 15th July 2017, 12:48 PM   #343
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Then don't claim any great expertise on the basis of one. As I said, you would be qualified to apply for a junior software developer position in my organization, but certainly not as any sort of scientist. And yes, I hire scientists -- I have two full-time physicists (PhD level) on my staff. The general-education classes you may have taken as part of a baccalaureate may have given you some rudimentary knowledge of various other sciences, and an introduction to scientific methodology. But it does not bestow any elevated qualification. You may safely assume that most if not all your critics here have at least a similar level of education.

Thirty years ago you could call computer science something of a science. The programs that arose out of mathematics departments required their graduates to understand a great deal of the theory that makes computing work. Conversely, the programs that arose out of engineering departments often required their graduates to complete the core engineering curriculum, which is intensely rigorous. While neither of these is especially congruent with the classic sciences such as physics, chemistry, or with the social sciences such as psychology and some forms of economics, they nevertheless required a substantial rigor of thought.

You can still get this in modern computer science curricula, but only at the graduate level from what I've seen. Most modern undergraduate computer science programs seem to have been diluted to little more than vocational training, which to me is a disappointment. I suspect there may be a reason for it, but it's still disappointing.
As I had prior expressed here, the CS program in UWI was but somewhat disappointing.



However, I hadn't ended my education amidst UWI Mona's scope:

(1) I separately, independently studied some regime of quantum computing:

https://www.quora.com/How-does-quant...rdan-Bennett-9


(2) I separately, independently studied machine learning:

https://github.com/JordanMicahBennet...NEURAL-NETWORK
https://github.com/JordanMicahBennet...ETECTION-MODEL
https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/God



FOOTNOTE:


That belief opposes science, (the topic par the original post) is valid, regardless of my CS degree's status.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th July 2017 at 12:49 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan 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
Old 15th July 2017, 12:57 PM   #344
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No, not odd at all. You're proffering a questionable diploma as proof of expertise in an unrelated field. Computer science is not a science in the sense that it does not generally rely upon teaching and applying the scientific method. It used to be something of a science, but these days it seems to be little more than vocational training. Proffering a questionable and inapplicable credential suggests an irrational desire to be accepted as an expert. People who appear desperate to be seen as experts generally have the poorest claim to expertise. Facts have been presented which challenge your claim to whatever expertise you're claiming, for whatever reason. You did not explain those facts, so no, it's not at all odd to continue question your claim on the basis of evidence provided. Can you explain why your diploma resembles those that can be purchased online, right down to the snippets of poorly redacted signtures? If you're holding up a CS diploma as a special qualification in general science -- no. That's a non-starter. You got no more applicable scientific training than anyone else who also went to a college.



Nope.

I taught computer science classes at a major American university -- one of the first original Internet sites. You're using the word "encode" completely incorrectly. What you mean is that you code them. "Coding" is the practice of expressing an algorithm in an interpretable programming language. Encoding, in contrast, is the technique of representing higher-order information as bit patterns corresponding to computable units. Unicode, for example, is an encoding. A program that works on Unicode strings would be said to have been coded.

I went to GitHub and looked at the toy programs you have there. Sorry, not impressed. They're straightforward implementations of existing basic algorithms, at least some of them apparently contributed to by others. That does not make you a scientist. In my organization that would qualify you to apply for a junior programmer position, but for reasons all too apparent here I doubt you'd pass the interview. If you're trying to pass yourself off as a scientist apart from code-monkey practicum, don't bother. You are to a scientist as an apprentice carpenter is to an architect. Certainly not a basis from which to suggest we should accept your psychology navel-gazing as the product of an appropriately trained and tested author.



(1)
I am a computer scientist, for I possess a degree in such a field, and I solve tasks by applying computer science.


(2)
On google's outcome, encode means to put information into some other form.


(3)
It is typical for scientists to utilize formulas established by prior scientists.


(4)
Regardless of your feelings, Computer Science is not surprisingly, a science.



(5)



It is not typical for an undergraduate CS student to possess some range of detailed mathematical knowledge, regarding quantum computing.

https://www.quora.com/How-does-quant...rdan-Bennett-9





FOOTNOTE:

That belief opposes science, (the topic par the original post) is valid, regardless of my CS degree's status.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th July 2017 at 02:43 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan 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
Old 15th July 2017, 01:19 PM   #345
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,564
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
As is evident, mythology is ancient science.
Except for the part where it's NOT evident in the first place and your attempt to push that claim is in complete contradiction with your evidence concern line of argument regarding belief. Sadly enough, this is a case where the evidence concern line of argument is somewhat relevant, unlike how you've been using it. The stories classified as mythological have no concern for evidence in the first place, after all, unlike the actual ancient sciences which had at least some.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
That mythological components were purged from science, does not suddenly render mythology separate from ancient science.
That's not much of a counter for the fact that the stories that count as mythology weren't science in the first place. It's not that they would stop being science, it's that they were never science and that they cannot be retroactively called science because some science used elements from them.


Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Quite the invalid response, of yours.

See the cosmological argument (source).

By extension, that a model is semantically updatable, does not suddenly render the updating to be non-scientific.
To get this response, you entirely ignored what I said. Is attempting to take a part of a sentence out of the context provided by the full statement anything other than dishonest? Your reading comprehension is so terrible that it strains credibility. Enough so that I couldn't trust your assessment of any scientific paper.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 15th July 2017 at 01:53 PM.
Aridas 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
Old 15th July 2017, 01:37 PM   #346
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,564
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Simply, that belief may concern science, is not separate from its entire definition; that it is especially absent evidence.

Both beliefs and systems are expressible as plans or ideas.

https://www.google.com.jm/search?q=b...belief+synonym
https://www.google.com.jm/search?q=s...system+synonym
I see your assertion. I don't see any support for your assertions in what you've presented. Neither of your links suggest that either beliefs or systems are expressible as plans or ideas. Nor do I see how the assertion that you're making would validly allow you to call belief a system.



Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Don't you tire of expressing nonsense?
Projection is ever a sad thing to see.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
No, evidence is not "entirely irrelevant", it is largely so, as expressed in the standard definition:
When it comes to determining whether something qualifies as a belief in the first place? It is entirely irrelevant. "Especially" does not mean exclusively, after all, and "exclusively" would be the inescapable requirement for your argument to have value. Indeed, most beliefs do not depend on valid evidence and the term is more frequently used to denote that subset. Beliefs that depend on valid evidence count as beliefs just as surely as beliefs that don't depend on valid evidence, though. When one is trying to categorically dismiss all beliefs, as you are, one cannot hide behind mostly, primarily, especially, or anything else of the sort to conveniently eliminate the parts that demonstrate one's claim to be indefensible.

Your argument is equivalent to arguing that most sand is not part of a sand castle (which is true), therefore the sand that is part of a sand castle is not actually sand (which is false).
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 15th July 2017 at 01:57 PM.
Aridas 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
Old 15th July 2017, 01:40 PM   #347
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
If you followed the link, you would have found that anyone could buy that diploma OTC for a few bucks.

Now, it happens that I still have mine and they are replete with watermarks, embossing, wax seals, etc. Getting a little threadbare and worn after 30 years service but still the real deal. Not anything near a printed A4 page that one could simply cobble together. I cannot even scan mine, I don't own a scanner larger than A4.

Now, when I was challenged, on this very site, over my credentials some years back, I didn't post any fake diploma. What I posted was my full on membership of the Institute of Engineers, my membership number, and an open invitation to anyone to simply call the institute and verify with them that I was really a professional in the game.

I supplied no phone number for the institute intentionally, in order that others could look it up independently, not rely upon some number I provided.

How many folks do you think actually checked and verified? Guess.

Zero.

Simply stated, cranks are all noise and nothing else.

Rightio, then. On we go to the diploma in question. At the very least, Genuine UWI diplomas have as a bare minimum an embossed stamp. This is absent. UWI diplomas are regularly faked as evidenced above. I could easily lash together a diploma for "Porpoise of Life" in the field of "Behaviour of Pixies" should I be so motivated. Actually, that is tempting.

As for the so called evidence of attendance at UWI, all that tells us is that our protagonist obtained a user account. So what? It's easy to do so and means nothing. Even the janitor could have such.
(1)
The highlighted portion of your response is correct.
See the embossing in the image below:





(2)
By extension, I invite others to call my institution to verify my receipt of the degree.

Here is my national id, containing valid elector registration number:
ProgrammingGodJordan 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
Old 15th July 2017, 01:46 PM   #348
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 23,272
Why are you posting diplomas and driver's licenses?

Either your ideas are logically necessary or they're nonsense. Diplomas don't change that.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader 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
Old 15th July 2017, 01:55 PM   #349
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,771
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I am a computer scientist, for I possess a degree in such a field, and I solve tasks by applying computer science.
You solve them by writing programs. That is a vocation. If you want to demonstrate skill at problem analysis and creative solution, you will have to provide more than simply parroted algorithms on GitHub.

Quote:
It is typical for scientists to utilize formulas established by prior scientists.
Yes, to build upon them and extend the science. You're merely implementing the work of others -- restating it, as it were. That does not make you a scientist.

Quote:
Regardless of your feelings, Computer Science is not surprisingly, a science.
My "feelings" come from having taught the subject at the college level at a university far more respected than yours. I'll keep my own counsel on whether it constitutes a science such as would let you make the claims you're making on that basis.

It does not.

Quote:
Is it not typical for an undergraduate CS student to possess some range of detailed mathematical knowledge, regarding quantum computing.
It is typical for an undergraduate CS student to have a rudimentary understanding of discrete mathematics and numerical methods. Set theory and formal logic used to be part of the field, but is no longer commonly taught. It is not common for such a student to have knowledge of subfields such as quantum computing. If you are claiming expertise in that field as the basis for your thesis, you will need to lay the appropriate foundation. A general CS diploma is not enough.

Quote:
That belief opposes science...
I don't recognize you as an expert on science. I'll draw my own conclusions on whether your claims have scientific merit.
JayUtah is online now   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
Old 15th July 2017, 01:56 PM   #350
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
I see your assertion. I don't see any support for your assertions in what you've presented. Neither of your links suggest that either beliefs or systems are expressible as plans or ideas. Nor do I see how the assertion that you're making would validly allow you to call belief a system.
That you fail to detect facts, does not suddenly render those facts in-existent:











Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
When it comes to determining whether something qualifies as a belief in the first place? It is entirely irrelevant. "Especially" does not mean exclusively, after all, and "exclusively" would be the inescapable requirement for your argument to have value. Indeed, most beliefs do not depend on valid evidence and the term is more frequently used to denote them. Beliefs that depend on valid evidence count as beliefs just as surely as beliefs that don't depend on valid evidence, though.

Your argument is equivalent to arguing that most sand is not part of a sand castle, therefore the sand that is part of a sand castle is not actually sand.
There is a non-trivial degree of contradiction amidst your response.

The second highlighted portion of your response above, is as I had been long expressing, by the very definition of belief, belief is observed to occur especially absent evidence.

That belief has low concern for evidence, does not render that belief is exclusively absent evidence, as I had long mentioned. (See original post)

Albeit, by definition, that belief opposes science, is unavoidable; for science is not a construct that is especially absent evidence, but instead is evidence bound.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th July 2017 at 01:58 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan 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
Old 15th July 2017, 01:59 PM   #351
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,114
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
[...]
I don't recognize you as an expert on science. I'll draw my own conclusions on whether your claims have scientific merit.
That seems to be about the consensus around these parts. That and an exceedingly poor command of English
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is online now   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
Old 15th July 2017, 02:03 PM   #352
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Except for the part where it's NOT evident in the first place and your attempt to push that claim is in complete contradiction with your evidence concern line of argument regarding belief. Sadly enough, this is a case where the evidence concern line of argument is somewhat relevant, unlike how you've been using it. The stories classified as mythological have no concern for evidence in the first place, after all, unlike the actual ancient sciences which had at least some.



That's not much of a counter for the fact that the stories that count as mythology weren't science in the first place. It's not that they would stop being science, it's that they were never science and that they cannot be retroactively called science because some science used elements from them.



To get this response, you entirely ignored what I said. Is attempting to take a part of a sentence out of the context provided by the full statement anything other than dishonest? Your reading comprehension is so terrible that it strains credibility. Enough so that I couldn't trust your assessment of any scientific paper.
A large regime of you responses, tend to be absent research. (Research doable in a matter of few minutes)

Mythology was ancient science, regardless of your feelings or ill-researched comments. [Aristotle, etc]

One shall recognize that humans had not always had modern science; for science was once embroiled in much nonsense.
ProgrammingGodJordan 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
Old 15th July 2017, 02:05 PM   #353
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
That seems to be about the consensus around these parts. That and an exceedingly poor command of English
Regardless of that of the feelings of the beings amidst this thread, I am a scientist, for I posses a modern CS degree, whence I typically apply computer science, such that computer science aligned problems are solved.
ProgrammingGodJordan 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
Old 15th July 2017, 02:09 PM   #354
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
If you followed the link, you would have found that anyone could buy that diploma OTC for a few bucks.

Now, it happens that I still have mine and they are replete with watermarks, embossing, wax seals, etc. Getting a little threadbare and worn after 30 years service but still the real deal. Not anything near a printed A4 page that one could simply cobble together. I cannot even scan mine, I don't own a scanner larger than A4.

Now, when I was challenged, on this very site, over my credentials some years back, I didn't post any fake diploma. What I posted was my full on membership of the Institute of Engineers, my membership number, and an open invitation to anyone to simply call the institute and verify with them that I was really a professional in the game.

I supplied no phone number for the institute intentionally, in order that others could look it up independently, not rely upon some number I provided.

How many folks do you think actually checked and verified? Guess.

Zero.

Simply stated, cranks are all noise and nothing else.

Rightio, then. On we go to the diploma in question. At the very least, Genuine UWI diplomas have as a bare minimum an embossed stamp. This is absent. UWI diplomas are regularly faked as evidenced above. I could easily lash together a diploma for "Porpoise of Life" in the field of "Behaviour of Pixies" should I be so motivated. Actually, that is tempting.

As for the so called evidence of attendance at UWI, all that tells us is that our protagonist obtained a user account. So what? It's easy to do so and means nothing. Even the janitor could have such.

That there are fake degrees for a sequence of real universities, does not suddenly invalidate my Computer Science degree via UWI Mona Campus.


Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
FOOTNOTE:

That belief opposes science, (the topic par the original post) is valid, regardless of my CS degree's status.
ProgrammingGodJordan 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
Old 15th July 2017, 02:13 PM   #355
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,564
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
That you fail to detect facts, does not suddenly render those facts in-existent:

http://i.imgur.com/iCgHF5W.png

http://i.imgur.com/vHcu7cs.png

http://i.imgur.com/9G9z31q.png
Hmm. Those didn't come up for me... but you're really, really pushing things past credibility here. Synonyms are not perfectly the same, especially when you're dealing with words that have multiple meanings, and by chaining together synonyms, you can fairly certainly get from red to elephant, which by your logic here would mean that red and elephant are the same thing. Even past that, belief, for example, is ALSO synonyms with words like hypothesis and conclusion that are quite important terms to science. I wasn't aware that system was considered a synonym with attack, though, and I wonder a little about how that's supposed to work.







Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
There is a non-trivial degree of contradiction amidst your response.

The second highlighted portion of your response above, is as I had been long expressing, by the very definition of belief, belief is observed to occur especially absent evidence.

That belief has low concern for evidence, does not render that belief is exclusively absent evidence, as I had long mentioned. (See original post)

Albeit, by definition, that belief opposes science, is unavoidable; for science is not a construct that is especially absent evidence, but instead is evidence bound.
Your logic is still as faulty as ever, though. On top of that, internally contradictory when we get to the part where you're trying to claim that mythological tales, which have no concern for the evidence, qualify as science, which you claim to be evidence bound.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas 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
Old 15th July 2017, 02:13 PM   #356
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,771
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Regardless of that of the feelings of the beings amidst this thread, I am a scientist, for I posses a modern CS degree, whence I typically apply computer science, such that computer science aligned problems are solved.
Computer science is a science the same way library science is a science. "Science" is a very misused word today. You're not a scientist in the way the word is commonly understood. A scientist can demonstrate a mode of critical thought that, based on your arguments here, completely escapes you. You have been given basic training in a vocation that employs technical tools. You are not a scientist.
JayUtah is online now   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
Old 15th July 2017, 02:18 PM   #357
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Why are you posting diplomas and driver's licenses?

Either your ideas are logically necessary or they're nonsense. Diplomas don't change that.
Precisely.

I simply had to respond to the Norsemans and the BStrongs, in relation to my CS degree's status.

As I had prior mentioned:

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
FOOTNOTE:

That belief opposes science, (the topic par the original post) is valid, regardless of my CS degree's status.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th July 2017 at 02:42 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan 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
Old 15th July 2017, 02:19 PM   #358
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,564
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
A large regime of you responses, tend to be absent research. (Research doable in a matter of few minutes)

Mythology was ancient science, regardless of your feelings or ill-researched comments. [Aristotle, etc]

One shall recognize that humans had not always had modern science; for science was once embroiled in much nonsense.
So, are we to accept that Harry Potter would have counted as science, if only it was told in classical times?
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas 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
Old 15th July 2017, 02:32 PM   #359
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Hmm. Those didn't come up for me... but you're really, really pushing things past credibility here. Synonyms are not perfectly the same, especially when you're dealing with words that have multiple meanings, and by chaining together synonyms, you can fairly certainly get from red to elephant, which by your logic here would mean that red and elephant are the same thing. Even past that, belief, for example, is ALSO synonyms with words like hypothesis and conclusion that are quite important terms to science. I wasn't aware that system was considered a synonym with attack, though, and I wonder a little about how that's supposed to work.
Don't you tire of expressing nonsense?

Synonyms, are, rather than opposing, quite similar, or the same.

You had long expressed falsely, of the supposed opposing nature betwixt belief/system, amidst response 253 and beyond:

Originally Posted by Aridas
A fallacious claim remains a fallacious claim, whether it's looked at once or a thousand times. The first line in your self-quote is simply false assertion. The most damning fault there is that belief is not a system, no matter how many times you repeat it.








Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Your logic is still as faulty as ever, though. On top of that, internally contradictory when we get to the part where you're trying to claim that mythological tales, which have no concern for the evidence, qualify as science, which you claim to be evidence bound.
No such contradiction persists.

Note my usage of the word "was" below:

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
Mythology was ancient science, regardless of your feelings or ill-researched comments. [Aristotle, etc]

One shall recognize that humans had not always had modern science; for science was once embroiled in much nonsense.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th July 2017 at 02:37 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan 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
Old 15th July 2017, 02:41 PM   #360
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
So, are we to accept that Harry Potter would have counted as science, if only it was told in classical times?
Quite the inconsequential response.


Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
See the cosmological argument (source).

ADVICE:
You need avoid silly, irrelevant anecdotes.
ProgrammingGodJordan 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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:44 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.