Home Page
   Articles
       links
About Us    
Traders        
Recipes            
Latest Articles
Suggestion for new "Naughty Corner"
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Site guidelines, Announcements, Problems and Suggestions
Author 
 Message
dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 35908
Location: yes
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 11 1:33 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote    

Chez wrote:
dpack wrote:
i apologise if my defense of fact and logic can be seen as scorn ,when i cant explain i will say so or belive something based on subjective experience ,im open to new ideas ,tested fact and logic is very practical and starts as an untested idea

odd we are rerunning the enlightenment 300 years later


I don't think you are a culprit in this particular case, dpack. You are very rarely rude. It's not about what is said; it's HOW it's said.


i didnt either cos as you say ,it is how not what

paul1963



Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 2161
Location: No longer active on the forum
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 11 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

dpack wrote:
paul1963 wrote:
T.G wrote:
Slim wrote:
I think the trick lies in a balance of 'reason' respecting anecdotes and experiences from 'faith' and 'faith' respecting inquiry and critique by means of 'reason'.


That's very true and I for one wasn't meaning to imply no counter comments should be made.

More that unless people feel able to speak freely without open scorn these debates/discussions never get off the marks and jumping to conclusions that the person posting might believe whole heartedly in what they are asking or posting about is not helpful.

They may simply be exploring their own knowledge amongst people who they regarded as able to give a reasoned and balance differing perspective AND are willing to read the differing scientific point of view if put in a polite manner.


Tis all true and let us not forget the science is not infallible either......


scientific method is infallible but knowledge expands and leads to greater understanding when the subject is studied further


That I'm afraid Dpack simply isn't true, there have been numerous cases of science being wrong, an example; The Piltdown Man hoax, thoroughly endorsed by scientists, er no. Thoroughly endorse by some of those who examined the remains and they shouted ludest and it got accepted as science fact for a while. We, of course, now know it was a hoax and if it happened today radio carbon dating would clear it up within a week.

Science operates within defined principles, its main asset being that it continually attempts to disprove itself, but it really is only as good as the peeps who interpret the results.

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 35908
Location: yes
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 11 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

paul1963 wrote:
dpack wrote:
paul1963 wrote:
T.G wrote:
Slim wrote:
I think the trick lies in a balance of 'reason' respecting anecdotes and experiences from 'faith' and 'faith' respecting inquiry and critique by means of 'reason'.


That's very true and I for one wasn't meaning to imply no counter comments should be made.

More that unless people feel able to speak freely without open scorn these debates/discussions never get off the marks and jumping to conclusions that the person posting might believe whole heartedly in what they are asking or posting about is not helpful.

They may simply be exploring their own knowledge amongst people who they regarded as able to give a reasoned and balance differing perspective AND are willing to read the differing scientific point of view if put in a polite manner.


Tis all true and let us not forget the science is not infallible either......


scientific method is infallible but knowledge expands and leads to greater understanding when the subject is studied further


That I'm afraid Dpack simply isn't true, there have been numerous cases of science being wrong, an example; The Piltdown Man hoax, thoroughly endorsed by scientists, er no. Thoroughly endorse by some of those who examined the remains and they shouted ludest and it got accepted as science fact for a while. We, of course, now know it was a hoax and if it happened today radio carbon dating would clear it up within a week.

Science operates within defined principles, its main asset being that it continually attempts to disprove itself, but it really is only as good as the peeps who interpret the results.


i think we mean the same thing here

paul1963



Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 2161
Location: No longer active on the forum
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 11 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

dpack wrote:
paul1963 wrote:
dpack wrote:
paul1963 wrote:
T.G wrote:
Slim wrote:
I think the trick lies in a balance of 'reason' respecting anecdotes and experiences from 'faith' and 'faith' respecting inquiry and critique by means of 'reason'.


That's very true and I for one wasn't meaning to imply no counter comments should be made.

More that unless people feel able to speak freely without open scorn these debates/discussions never get off the marks and jumping to conclusions that the person posting might believe whole heartedly in what they are asking or posting about is not helpful.

They may simply be exploring their own knowledge amongst people who they regarded as able to give a reasoned and balance differing perspective AND are willing to read the differing scientific point of view if put in a polite manner.


Tis all true and let us not forget the science is not infallible either......


scientific method is infallible but knowledge expands and leads to greater understanding when the subject is studied further


That I'm afraid Dpack simply isn't true, there have been numerous cases of science being wrong, an example; The Piltdown Man hoax, thoroughly endorsed by scientists, er no. Thoroughly endorse by some of those who examined the remains and they shouted ludest and it got accepted as science fact for a while. We, of course, now know it was a hoax and if it happened today radio carbon dating would clear it up within a week.

Science operates within defined principles, its main asset being that it continually attempts to disprove itself, but it really is only as good as the peeps who interpret the results.


i think we mean the same thing here


Actually I think we probably do

Too busy watching the Dser's scrapping on the other threads

Slim



Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Posts: 5475
Location: New England (In the US of A)
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 11 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

is it odd that i wouldn't even know how to access the original naughty corner if i so wanted?

paul1963



Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 2161
Location: No longer active on the forum
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 11 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Slim wrote:
is it odd that i wouldn't even know how to access the original naughty corner if i so wanted?


You ask the mods for entry and they let you in, remember to hook a thread from you cardie on a nail before you enter the labyrinth of naughtiness

cab



Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 11 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

12Bore wrote:
eg. I sell audio cables, some cost £5 some cost £1000+, in some circles this is known as "foo". It may be that a metallurgist can prove scientifically that they all measure/test the same, but if it satisfies the customer and leaves them happy who is to say that all copper sounds the same?


Rather depends on what kind of audio cables I think...

But take that example; suppose someone was to ask about, say for example, HDMI cables to connect a bad telly to a rubbish DVD player. They get an answer that they should buy a special cable thats £50 per metre. Its perfectly fair that others might (a) suggest that in that scenario such expenditure on cables won't help, and (b) except for long distances it probably makes no difference for HDMI, or (c) actually the build quality of some of the really cheap cables is ridiculous, so just avoid those and you'll not go TOO far wrong.

Does it satisfy the customer? Maybe, not my business to say. But if the topic is open for discussion should we shy away from voicing defensible opinions?

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 35908
Location: yes
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 11 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

paul1963 wrote:
dpack wrote:
paul1963 wrote:
dpack wrote:
paul1963 wrote:
T.G wrote:
Slim wrote:
I think the trick lies in a balance of 'reason' respecting anecdotes and experiences from 'faith' and 'faith' respecting inquiry and critique by means of 'reason'.


That's very true and I for one wasn't meaning to imply no counter comments should be made.

More that unless people feel able to speak freely without open scorn these debates/discussions never get off the marks and jumping to conclusions that the person posting might believe whole heartedly in what they are asking or posting about is not helpful.

They may simply be exploring their own knowledge amongst people who they regarded as able to give a reasoned and balance differing perspective AND are willing to read the differing scientific point of view if put in a polite manner.


Tis all true and let us not forget the science is not infallible either......


scientific method is infallible but knowledge expands and leads to greater understanding when the subject is studied further


That I'm afraid Dpack simply isn't true, there have been numerous cases of science being wrong, an example; The Piltdown Man hoax, thoroughly endorsed by scientists, er no. Thoroughly endorse by some of those who examined the remains and they shouted ludest and it got accepted as science fact for a while. We, of course, now know it was a hoax and if it happened today radio carbon dating would clear it up within a week.

Science operates within defined principles, its main asset being that it continually attempts to disprove itself, but it really is only as good as the peeps who interpret the results.


i think we mean the same thing here


Actually I think we probably do

Too busy watching the Dser's scrapping on the other threads


ah good

the method is perfect ,the best truth as far as we can work out will change as we learn more

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 35908
Location: yes
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 11 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

standing on the shoulders of giants is a good place to look out from

paul1963



Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 2161
Location: No longer active on the forum
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 11 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

dpack wrote:
paul1963 wrote:
dpack wrote:
paul1963 wrote:
dpack wrote:
paul1963 wrote:
T.G wrote:
Slim wrote:
I think the trick lies in a balance of 'reason' respecting anecdotes and experiences from 'faith' and 'faith' respecting inquiry and critique by means of 'reason'.


That's very true and I for one wasn't meaning to imply no counter comments should be made.

More that unless people feel able to speak freely without open scorn these debates/discussions never get off the marks and jumping to conclusions that the person posting might believe whole heartedly in what they are asking or posting about is not helpful.

They may simply be exploring their own knowledge amongst people who they regarded as able to give a reasoned and balance differing perspective AND are willing to read the differing scientific point of view if put in a polite manner.


Tis all true and let us not forget the science is not infallible either......


scientific method is infallible but knowledge expands and leads to greater understanding when the subject is studied further


That I'm afraid Dpack simply isn't true, there have been numerous cases of science being wrong, an example; The Piltdown Man hoax, thoroughly endorsed by scientists, er no. Thoroughly endorse by some of those who examined the remains and they shouted ludest and it got accepted as science fact for a while. We, of course, now know it was a hoax and if it happened today radio carbon dating would clear it up within a week.

Science operates within defined principles, its main asset being that it continually attempts to disprove itself, but it really is only as good as the peeps who interpret the results.


i think we mean the same thing here


Actually I think we probably do

Too busy watching the Dser's scrapping on the other threads


ah good

the method is perfect ,the best truth as far as we can work out will change as we learn more


It will. It seems bizarre by today's rationale that the "science" of medieval times was defined by the Bible, and yet modern archaeology now shows some Biblical events to have a possible basis in history.

vegplot



Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 21298
Location: Ynys Môn
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 11 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

dpack wrote:
standing on the shoulders of giants is a good place to look out from


That wouldn't be me then.

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 35908
Location: yes
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 11 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

the "flood "happend ,the geolgical /bio core evidence backs up gilgamesh and the abrahamic accounts of the facts but not the explanation

paul1963



Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 2161
Location: No longer active on the forum
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 11 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

dpack wrote:
the "flood "happend ,the geolgical /bio core evidence backs up gilgamesh and the abrahamic accounts of the facts but not the explanation


Absolutely

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 35908
Location: yes
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 11 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

im a bit in the middle of this dilemma

fact and logic are valid tools
so are shamistic ones
so is chi

the latter is the one im least able to explain but i have subjective record of many odd things

spose scientific method records odd things ,data is good

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 35908
Location: yes
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 11 3:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

new forum suggestion

try your ideas in open debate

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Site guidelines, Announcements, Problems and Suggestions All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Page 8 of 8
View Latest Posts View Latest Posts

 

Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
Copyright © 2004 marsjupiter.com