Page 29 of 33 FirstFirst ...
19
27
28
29
30
31
... LastLast
  1. #561
    Quote Originally Posted by crzyman007 View Post

    Like I said before I can't explain you how chocolate tastes, you have to taste it yourself.
    Yes you can. It's sweet, although there's bitter chocolate as well :P

  2. #562
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimbold21 View Post
    Yes you can. It's sweet, although there's bitter chocolate as well :P
    You can only explain it to someone that has tried something sweet or bitter before, if they haven't; they can't possibly understand it.
    Last edited by crzyman007; 2013-06-14 at 12:41 AM.

  3. #563
    Quote Originally Posted by crzyman007 View Post
    You can only explain it to someone that has tried something sweet before, if they haven't they can't possibly understand it.
    Pls open a dictionary

  4. #564
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimbold21 View Post
    Pls open a dictionary
    sweet  
    adjective
    1.
    having the taste or flavor characteristic of sugar, honey, etc.
    2.
    producing the one of the four basic taste sensations that is not bitter, sour, or salt.
    3.
    not salt or salted: sweet butter.

    It is only explaining other tastes that can only be understood if they are tasted first. The taste must be experienced first in order for there to be an understanding of it and even after there is an understanding of it, it is almost impossible to explain it to those who haven't tasted.
    Last edited by crzyman007; 2013-06-14 at 12:48 AM.

  5. #565
    The Lightbringer Speaknoevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Posts
    3,513
    I've never been licked from head to toe by a herd of giraffes, but I can imagine how it feels. Your argument is fallacious.

    I have magical faeries that dance nude on my desk every day at sundown, I don't have any evidence of it, but you just have to experience it for yourself mang.

  6. #566
    Quote Originally Posted by Templar 331 View Post
    This is basicly pseudoscientific bs. Blatantly ignoring many scientific theories and saying "science believes this so science is wrong. Buy my book." I couldn't get past the "speed of light slowed down" part. But lets talk about the "Dogmas of Science."

    Dogma 1: everything is a machine.
    Yeah, in a basic sense everything is. We are, the universe is. Everything follows a set of parameters. Everything is bound by limits. Stars orbit in a predictable and constant orbit unless some other force comes and knocks it out of orbit. Stars fuse matter in a constant and measurable way.

    Dogma 2: Matter is unconscious.
    Well duh. Everything without consciousness is unconscious. Believing particles have conscious is the very definition of pesudoscience. And anyone who references the experiment where the atom changed because it was "looked at" has no real understanding of science. It changed because of how it was looked at. It was looked at by using a nonpassive means. Meaning the tool used to see it made it change.

    Dogma 3: The Laws of Nature are fixed.
    For the most part, yeah. There have been several astronomers that have theorized that the laws were slightly different in the first few seconds of the big bang. And now they are fixed.

    Dogma 4: The total of Matter and Energy is the same.
    Yeah, that is a pretty big principle of physics. You can't destroy matter or energy. So guess what? It's the same. The only difference is when one becomes the other.

    Dogma 5: Nature is purposeless.
    The purpose of science is NOT to determine what purpose something has. It's to understand it's workings. "The evolutionary progress had no purpose." Really? Are you that dense? The purpose of evolving most of the time is to better adapt to your environment. Sometime it's random. So you can't say that evolution has one single purpose or none at all.

    Dogma 6:Everything you inherit is in your genes.
    Yeah, that's how DNA works. It gets passed down from mother and father. You inherit it. If you want to go nature vs. nurture, there's a whole lot of debate going on about that.

    Dogma 7:Memories are stored in your brain.
    Really? I thought they were stored in your feet. "No one knows how that works." YOU JUST FREAKING SAID HOW IT WORKS!! Just because we don't fully understand it doesn't mean we know nothing about it.

    Dogma 8: Your mind is inside your head.
    I can't really believe he would dispute this. But then again, this is psudoscience.

    Dogma 9: Psychic telepathy is impossible.
    Kind of hard to prove your psychic/telepathic.

    Dogma 10: Mechanistic Medicine is the only one that works.
    "Governments only fund mechanistic medicines and not alternative ones." I wonder why. It maybe because they use quantifiable means to determine if the medicine works. Not just "he ate this weird plant and now he's better." Or "he meditated for several hours a day and now he's better."

    But like I said before. This is just pseudoscientific BS.
    hehe. I like the irony of this post I haven't seen the video, but it seems quite clear that you prove his point.
    I am not here to argue whether the dogmas are true or not, however and I am sorry for not really contributing, but this just made me chuckle (in a happy, non-condecending manner)

  7. #567
    Perfect example actually.

    The concept of sweet is a subjective experience that differs from person to person. This is something that isn't scientific.

    However! There is a scientific aspect to this. A scientist can study the operation of taste buds and discover how that information is relayed to the brain. They can identify which area of the brain is responsible for taste. They can test if a particular enzyme is released to process sweet things. Those are all testable. That's the difference between science and abstract concepts or philosophy.

  8. #568
    Quote Originally Posted by buck008 View Post
    Perfect example actually.

    The concept of sweet is a subjective experience that differs from person to person. This is something that isn't scientific.

    However! There is a scientific aspect to this. A scientist can study the operation of taste buds and discover how that information is relayed to the brain. They can identify which area of the brain is responsible for taste. They can test if a particular enzyme is released to process sweet things. Those are all testable. That's the difference between science and abstract concepts or philosophy.
    I understand there is a difference. However they are but different roads that lead to the same destination.

  9. #569
    The Lightbringer Speaknoevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Posts
    3,513
    Quote Originally Posted by crzyman007 View Post
    I understand there is a difference. However they are but different roads that lead to the same.
    All I'm seeing when you post is fear, fear of the purposelessness of existence.

  10. #570
    Quote Originally Posted by crzyman007 View Post
    I understand there is a difference. However they are but different roads that lead to the same destination.
    Your whole premise behind starting this thread was to make science and mysticism the same thing. If you are backing off of that point now, there has literally been no point to this whole thing.

  11. #571
    Quote Originally Posted by Speaknoevil View Post
    All I'm seeing when you post is fear, fear of the purposelessness of existence.
    Fear of what? Being unconscious? Well you can not be conscious of the unconscious so why would I be afraid of it?

  12. #572
    Quote Originally Posted by crzyman007 View Post
    I understand there is a difference. However they are but different roads that lead to the same destination.
    How so?

    One achieves results through practical means while the other goes around imposing questions, which is what you did with the example presented.

  13. #573
    Quote Originally Posted by buck008 View Post
    Your whole premise behind starting this thread was to make science and mysticism the same thing. If you are backing off of that point now, there has literally been no point to this whole thing.
    Obviously I have to claim something like that to get more people on this thread. Do you think if I would have started a philosophical debate thread if would have gotten 20+ pages so quickly?

    Human beings are more likely to come and stay in my thread if they have someone or something to bash rather than if they have something to learn.

  14. #574
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    20,169
    Quote Originally Posted by crzyman007 View Post
    There is evidence, I just can't present it because it is something that isn't presentable. This is where it gets philosophical. It is something that you must expierience yourself, I can only point the way.
    If you can't present it, then it is not "evidence".

    And your argument about "you have to experience it yourself" is predicated on a fallacy, that I'll outline using your next line as a starting point;

    Like I said before in a previous post. I can't explain you how chocolate tastes, you have to taste it yourself. Some people however because they don't find evidence of something they completely shut themselves out of that experience.
    If someone has no experience of taste whatsoever, it would be nearly impossible to explain what chocolate tastes like. If they've just never had it, then you both have a host of shared experience in tasting other substances, and you can make a fair stab at it. The idea that "you can't know if you haven't experienced it yourself" is just outright bollocks. The entire basis of science is to create a rigorously tested basis of knowledge so that you can take the proven-reliable experiences of others as explanations, without resorting to experiencing it yourself. Every fiction author enables their readers to experience their stories, even though the stories are fiction and thus never happened in any way that could be experienced. The entire premise here is simply untrue, and only could be true if you ignore the entire concept of "language". Which exists to accomplish precisely what you're arguing is impossible.

  15. #575
    Quote Originally Posted by crzyman007 View Post
    Obviously I have to claim something like that to get more people on this thread. Do you think if I would have started a philosophical debate thread if would have gotten 20+ pages so quickly?

    Human beings are more likely to come and stay in my thread if they have someone or something to bash rather than if they have something to learn.
    By doing so you immediately turn them off to whatever it is you had to say because you framed it incorrectly. You made yourself seem like a cook that could be ignored out of hand, which is a bad strategy if you want people to listen.

  16. #576
    Quote Originally Posted by buck008 View Post
    By doing so you immediately turn them off to whatever it is you had to say because you framed it incorrectly. You made yourself seem like a cook that could be ignored out of hand, which is a bad strategy if you want people to listen.
    Well it maybe wasn't the perfect strategy but it was the what I could come up with

  17. #577
    When a homeless person is rambling in the streets, it's better to ignore them than argue with them. On the internets it's clearly better to spend an entire week proving them wrong.

  18. #578
    Quote Originally Posted by Zdrasti View Post
    When a homeless person is rambling in the streets, it's better to ignore them than argue with them. On the internets it's clearly better to spend an entire week proving them wrong.
    /Thread hahaha

  19. #579
    The Lightbringer Speaknoevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Posts
    3,513
    Quote Originally Posted by crzyman007 View Post
    /Thread hahaha
    He was talking about you.

  20. #580
    Everything in the OP is gibberish and displays a lack of understanding of the basic premise of science.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •