Do you have adblock enabled?

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

•       •       •

8719 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Feb 2014 at 9:11 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:    more»

501 Comments     (+0 »)
 Paginated (50/page) Single page, reversed Normal view Change images to links Show raw HTML
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all

ThreeFootSmurf: um you can test whether there are pink elephants. you find all elephants in the world, are any of them pink yes=positive yes there are pink elephants no=negative there are no pink elephants at current.

I see that you THINK you rounded up all of the elephants in the world.  You missed one.  It's pink.  Go find it.  Your experimental design sucks balls, you are the worst scientist in the world.

I could also have gone with:
•  Pink elephants are actually microscopic.  You're going to need to comb the earth with a microscope.  Good luck.

•  Oh, you did that?  Ah, well I think perhaps they live under the surface of the earth.  Start digging.
•  Oh, you did that?  Ah, well I think they fly, start checking the atmosphere.

Epicedion: lennavan: grumpfuff: Sure. It's very simple.

Statement: "The Bible says God impregnated a monkey."

How to Test
Step 1: Acquire Bible.
Step 2: Read Bible
Step 3: Look for any instance of "And lo, God did impregnate a monkey" or something very similar( ie "The monkey was impregnated by God")
Step 4: If any instance is found, statement is true. if no instance is found, statement is not true.

You didn't find it.  You think that's because it's not in there.  You're wrong.  That's because it is written super tiny.  Look again, look harder.

You didn't find it, it's written in invisible ink.  You're wrong.  Look again.

You didn't find it, it's written sub-microscopically.  But it's definitely there.

grumpfuff: You see, the difference between you and I is how we see the statement. You focus on the "God did x" part. I focus on the "Bible says x" part.

Nope, I read your statement just fine.  You have no idea what science or a hypothesis are.

grumpfuff: When you dismiss a statement as non-scientific or un-testable

The classic example to teach students an example of an un-testable hypothesis is "There are pink elephants."  You can't prove that wrong, therefore that's not a hypothesis.

Google "there are pink elephants."  Learn something from someone other than me, since you're so dug in with this argument right now.  There are pink elephants is just as unscientific as this passage is in the bible.  You can't test it, you can't prove it wrong.

Your mind = blown.

This is some pretty vapid shiat.

So, you didn't google it, did you?  That'd be ignorance rivaling that of the creationists you mock.

lennavan: ikanreed: tl;dr: things can be proven, but that doesn't mean shiat.

ikanreed: It's scientifically "proven", but unlike, say, math, this proof only stands until the next test, when it can be totally shattered by controlling for just one more variable.

I get what you're saying but there isn't a single scientist in the world that will agree with you science can prove things.  But you see, we aren't scared by that.  Idiots and jackasses hear "science can't prove things" and start to think "oh god we don't know anything at all, it could all be wrong!"  We hear "yeah we're pretty farking sure, we'll go ahead and sleep at night."

For example:  I cannot tell you for 100% certain a head is required for long term survival.  Sure in the French Revolution we did an awful lot of experimentation and (well, I'm pretty sure at least) everyone died.  But it is still possible if I cut your head off, you will be just fine.  Now there are an awful lot of 9's after my I'm 99.999...% sure and I highly suggest you not risk it.  But it is still formally possible.

That's why we have the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Gravity.  The problem only arises when you talk with non-scientists and they hear the word "theory" and suddenly think "oh we're just guessin, cool!"  Theory has a very defined specific meaning and it's not "some idea I pulled out of my ass while drinking last night."

I was just saying that every field of study has a different threshold for proof, math has one idea, philosophy another(similar to math), law has another, and even oddball things like engineering have ideas like "proof of concept", and scientific proof is an idea that exists.  Because at a certain point you have to start accepting things as true, at least temporarily, to work deeper in a field.

I can't agree with your assertion there are no scientists who'd accept the idea of proof, it's just the scientific understanding of "proof" is contingent, not absolute.

ikanreed: Because at a certain point you have to start accepting things as true, at least temporarily, to work deeper in a field.

No, you don't "accept them as true."  You believe them and build off of them but a crucial part of science research is to always remember what you believe and why you believe it.  The general public example is "hey we used to believe the earth is flat" because that's something easy to understand.  Of course, that old of an example makes it seem like we believe wrong things extremely rarely.  That's not true, ideas and beliefs get changed (in all of science, not in very specific fields) on a daily basis.  Another example is we used to think cancers were sort of a self contained environment and treatments should target the cancer only.  Turned out the normal cells surrounding the cancers are also playing a role, signaling to the cancer to grow.  So now we can target those as well.  We just found that one out a few years ago.

lennavan: ikanreed: Because at a certain point you have to start accepting things as true, at least temporarily, to work deeper in a field.

No, you don't "accept them as true."  You believe them and build off of them but a crucial part of science research is to always remember what you believe and why you believe it.  The general public example is "hey we used to believe the earth is flat" because that's something easy to understand.  Of course, that old of an example makes it seem like we believe wrong things extremely rarely.  That's not true, ideas and beliefs get changed (in all of science, not in very specific fields) on a daily basis.  Another example is we used to think cancers were sort of a self contained environment and treatments should target the cancer only.  Turned out the normal cells surrounding the cancers are also playing a role, signaling to the cancer to grow.  So now we can target those as well.  We just found that one out a few years ago.

And by the way, this was poor wording on my part.  Better wording is "current belief is" and I can actually tell you the papers upon which that belief is based.  The most convincing work was done by a group at Genentech because they have apparently an infinite budget.

Well... at least Bill Nye has Pat Robertson on his side...  wait.. is that a good thing?

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/pat_robertson_begs_ken_ham_to_shut_u p/

In a hundred years, when Tyler Durden gets his wish, it won't matter.

I drunk what: Shakin_Haitian: That's the rules.   Dready zim is incorrect.

good jorb lad, you get a trophy!

/that's the rules
//dats the rules
///dems de rewls

why is dready zim so stupid? itz becaws he one of dem creationtards isn't it? lelz lelz lelz

i bet he can't lawjic 1+1 roflelz, naturally peeple liek him can't handle the Sciunce

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]

It's a logic test with defined rules.  You can't go around declaring the rules for a logic test to be null and void because of whatever reasons you feel like coming up with, otherwise it's not a logic test.

lennavan: I see that you THINK you rounded up all of the elephants in the world.  You missed one.  It's pink.  Go find it.  Your experimental design sucks balls, you are the worst scientist in the world.

I could also have gone with:
•  Pink elephants are actually microscopic.  You're going to need to comb the earth with a microscope.  Good luck.

•  Oh, you did that?  Ah, well I think perhaps they live under the surface of the earth.  Start digging.
•  Oh, you did that?  Ah, well I think they fly, start checking the atmosphere.

You're combining shifting the burden of proof with moving the goalposts and wrapping them in a layer of argument from ignorance while settling them down in a nice bed of increasing impracticality of experimental design.

Someone once said (para.) "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

You're using the fact that anyone can assert anything to make trivial claims about epistemology: you can't prove a negative (try proving that one). You're doing this to try and support the idea of non-overlapping magisteria, which is bullshiat -- some religions make some investigable claims about reality, from a religious position. They might be correct, they might be incorrect. They might say the earth is the center of the solar system, they might say that the earth is flat. They might say that birds are fish. They might maintain the statements as accurate for certain definitions of center, flat, and fish. It doesn't matter.

What matters is that this little downward spiral you've caught yourself in ("you can't like, really  know anything, man") is headed toward epistemological solipsism.

Of course, this post only just appeared when you looked at the screen and will disappear when you look away. Take that, object permanence.

Shakin_Haitian: I drunk what: Shakin_Haitian: That's the rules.   Dready zim is incorrect.

good jorb lad, you get a trophy!

/that's the rules
//dats the rules
///dems de rewls

why is dready zim so stupid? itz becaws he one of dem creationtards isn't it? lelz lelz lelz

i bet he can't lawjic 1+1 roflelz, naturally peeple liek him can't handle the Sciunce

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]

It's a logic test with defined rules.  You can't go around declaring the rules for a logic test to be null and void because of whatever reasons you feel like coming up with, otherwise it's not a logic test.

For the love of shiat, why are you people still talking to him?

Epicedion: headed toward epistemological solipsism.

Honestly, I feel like it's coming from there.  Every field of study(not just science) has a philosophical basis for its investigation, and an accepted idea of "true".  It's a bit like saying "you can't prove 2+2=4, because all mathematical proofs operate only with assumptions" in that it's true, but it's also completely stupid.

Epicedion: You're doing this to try and support the idea of non-overlapping magisteria

Of course. Duh. Now I get why he can't distinguish between religious claims and claims about a religion. Why do I always forget the simple things?

Epicedion: You're using the fact that anyone can assert anything to make trivial claims about epistemology

No, I'm trying to explain to you what a hypothesis is.  A hypothesis is a very defined, specific term in science.  "There are pink elephants" is not falsifiable, therefore by definition it is not a hypothesis.  You cannot disprove it.  No matter what you come up with, there will always be an explanation as to why your experiment failed and pink elephants still exist.

There are NO pink elephants is falsifiable.  All you have to do is find a pink elephant and POOF, the hypothesis is completely disproven.  Therefore, "there are NO pink elephants" is a hypothesis.

Hypothesis is a word, with a meaning.  It doesn't matter how hard you stomp your feet and whine about "shifting goalposts" and whatnot, that will never meet the definition of hypothesis.  You cannot prove "there are no pink elephants" wrong.  If there is no method to prove something 100% wrong, then by definition it is not a hypothesis and by definition it is not science.

Epicedion: What matters is that this little downward spiral you've caught yourself in ("you can't like, really know anything, man") is headed toward epistemological solipsism.

Holy farking shiat you're stupid.

lennavan: I get what you're saying but there isn't a single scientist in the world that will agree with you science can prove things. But you see, we aren't scared by that. Idiots and jackasses hear "science can't prove things" and start to think "oh god we don't know anything at all, it could all be wrong!" We hear "yeah we're pretty farking sure, we'll go ahead and sleep at night."

For example: I cannot tell you for 100% certain a head is required for long term survival. Sure in the French Revolution we did an awful lot of experimentation and (well, I'm pretty sure at least) everyone died. But it is still possible if I cut your head off, you will be just fine. Now there are an awful lot of 9's after my I'm 99.999...% sure and I highly suggest you not risk it. But it is still formally possible.

That's why we have the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Gravity. The problem only arises when you talk with non-scientists and they hear the word "theory" and suddenly think "oh we're just guessin, cool!" Theory has a very defined specific meaning and it's not "some idea I pulled out of my ass while drinking last night."

Goddamn you're stupid.

Shakin_Haitian: It's a logic test with defined rules.

word up! itz the code word

Shakin_Haitian: You can't go around declaring the rules for a logic test to be null and void because of whatever reasons you feel like coming up with, otherwise it's not a logic test.

true dat

*respektnuckles*

you get another trophy!!

Epicedion: For the love of shiat, why are you people still talking to him?

aw u just jelly?

will someone please talk to epicwhiner? so he will stop whining, cheez

it's ok epicloser, here's a trophy for you too, lawgic is hard

Electrify: Maybe I'm not spending enough time around fundies, but are devout creationists anything more than a lunatic fringe so small that they make birthers look like a small nation in comparison? I mean certainly there may be people who do believe the Earth is 6000 years old and in the Garden of Eden, but how many of these people are actively expressing these beliefs to the point of seeking policy change?

Texas?

lennavan: If there is no method to prove something 100% wrong, then by definition it is not a hypothesis and by definition it is not science.

Ah, so now you admit there is a difference between "The Bible says x" and "God did x". Make up your mind, would you?

lennavan: No, I'm trying to explain to you what a hypothesis is.

Everyone knows what a hypothesis is. No one's talking about that but you.

lennavan: For example:  I cannot tell you for 100% certain a head is required for long term survival.  Sure in the French Revolution we did an awful lot of experimentation and (well, I'm pretty sure at least) everyone died.  But it is still possible if I cut your head off, you will be just fine.  Now there are an awful lot of 9's after my I'm 99.999...% sure and I highly suggest you not risk it.  But it is still formally possible.

b-b-but 99.999...% EQUALS 100% !!!111!!eleventyone!!111!!1

lelz

dready zim: Which of the definitions do you mean?

art thou not familiar with the One True Definition of Nature...?

grumpfuff: lennavan: If there is no method to prove something 100% wrong, then by definition it is not a hypothesis and by definition it is not science.

Ah, so now you admit there is a difference between "The Bible says x" and "God did x". Make up your mind, would you?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Epicedion: Everyone knows what a hypothesis is. No one's talking about that but you.

Clearly you did not, as you used to think "there are pink elephants" is one.  I'm glad you decided to finally google it, I assume that's why you dropped your amazingly stupid argument.

lennavan: Clearly you did not, as you used to think "there are pink elephants" is one.  I'm glad you decided to finally google it, I assume that's why you dropped your amazingly stupid argument.

I see your argument style is "make shiat up" combined with equal parts "shiat all over the place." You must be getting along well with  IDW.

Epicedion: I did Google it, you were right.  Damn, I was so sure too.  But hey, I learned something and I appreciate your consistent effort in explaining it to me, I get how wrong I was now.  Man, I was WAY off base there.  Hey, would it be alright if I just pretend like I was right and attack you so no one notices?

Sure thing.

Epicedion: I see your argument style is "make shiat up" combined with equal parts "shiat all over the place." You must be getting along well with IDW.

Oh noes, you got me!

;-)

Epicedion: You must be getting along well with  IDW.

lennavan: Oh noes, you got me!

;-)

And now the manufacturing of quotations. You getting paid for this?

Epicedion: lennavan: Oh noes, you got me!

;-)

And now the manufacturing of quotations. You getting paid for this?

Well, I do get paid to teach college kids amongst other things what a hypothesis is, what science is and how to do science.  But your lesson was free, that's why I get to be honest in my assessments with your intelligence.  With my students, I hold back quite a bit.  Then again, they're not stupid like you.

lennavan: grumpfuff: lennavan: If there is no method to prove something 100% wrong, then by definition it is not a hypothesis and by definition it is not science.

Ah, so now you admit there is a difference between "The Bible says x" and "God did x". Make up your mind, would you?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

It's simple, really. "The Bible says x" is falsifiable, "God did x" is not. I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand. I have my suspicions, but I won't stoop to your level and start making assumptions.

"Invisible ink" and "sub-atomic writing" are both also testable, by the way. Also, as I pointed out up-thread, "invisible ink" and the like are just like "Fossils are a trick from the devil."

lennavan: Well, I do get paid to teach college kids amongst other things what a hypothesis is, what science is and how to do science.  But your lesson was free, that's why I get to be honest in my assessments with your intelligence.  With my students, I hold back quite a bit.  Then again, they're not stupid like you.

Second time I've seen you vaguely drop your credentials. Interesting.

grumpfuff: It's simple, really. "The Bible says x" is falsifiable, "God did x" is not. I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand. I have my suspicions, but I won't stoop to your level and start making assumptions.

"Invisible ink" and "sub-atomic writing" are both also testable, by the way. Also, as I pointed out up-thread, "invisible ink" and the like are just like "Fossils are a trick from the devil."

What he doesn't seem to understand is that there's a difference between "claim" and "claim modified with unfalsifiable bullshiat to remain viable after the initial claim is shown to be false."

grumpfuff: It's simple, really. "The Bible says x" is falsifiable

No it isn't.  Your inability to find it might be a function if it not being there, it also might be a function of your inability to find it because of any number of reasons including but not limited to the size of the font and the ink used to write it.

grumpfuff: "Invisible ink" and "sub-atomic writing" are both also testable, by the way. Also, as I pointed out up-thread, "invisible ink" and the like are just like "Fossils are a trick from the devil."

There are an infinite number of reasons why you can't find something.  You cannot test them all.

lennavan: No it isn't.  Your inability to find it might be a function if it not being there, it also might be a function of your inability to find it because of any number of reasons including but not limited to the size of the font and the ink used to write it.

Seems like the problem is your definition of "The Bible."  You're talking about a physical artifact of ink and paper, whereas most people understand it to mean the text commonly contained by those artifacts, held under copyright in one or more countries depending on the version, and available to be transmitted digitally via protocols like ASCII or Unicode.  So what if we constrain ourselves to the text of this or that (English, for example's sake) version, the sequence of characters (73, 110, 32, 116, 104, 101, 32, 98, 101, 103, 105, 110, 110, 105, 110, 103,... 65, 109, 101, 110, 46)?  That way you're looking at a specific finite set of data, about which any well-formed assertion can be verified or falsified in finite time.

Shakin_Haitian: It's a logic test with defined rules

oh, i liek games

wat are the rules?

Epicedion: actually you used the word "statement"

Yes, because it was not a hypothesis, so calling it a hypothesis would be stupid.

Epicedion: Here:

You literally wrote that you can't test a statement that something is written in a book.

Well sure, but I did even better than that.  I said it is possible if you get your head chopped off, you'll survive.

lennavan: For example: I cannot tell you for 100% certain a head is required for long term survival. Sure in the French Revolution we did an awful lot of experimentation and (well, I'm pretty sure at least) everyone died. But it is still possible if I cut your head off, you will be just fine. Now there are an awful lot of 9's after my I'm 99.999...% sure and I highly suggest you not risk it. But it is still formally possible.

Your mind = Blown Chopped

lennavan: grumpfuff: It's simple, really. "The Bible says x" is falsifiable

No it isn't.  Your inability to find it might be a function if it not being there, it also might be a function of your inability to find it because of any number of reasons including but not limited to the size of the font and the ink used to write it.

grumpfuff: "Invisible ink" and "sub-atomic writing" are both also testable, by the way. Also, as I pointed out up-thread, "invisible ink" and the like are just like "Fossils are a trick from the devil."

There are an infinite number of reasons why you can't find something.  You cannot test them all.

I like how you're arguing for solipsism while claiming you're not arguing for solipsism.

Waldo Pepper: I don't believe ALL evidence has been gathered has it?

Which is why it's still philosophically possible for you to go find enough evidence to substantively challenge the theory.

However, science is in part a method for getting past Hume's problem of induction... which means you don't need ALL evidence before inferring a proximate conclusion; it's merely potentially subject to reassessment, in the unlikely event you do find sufficient evidence for said challenge.

Waldo Pepper: There is zero proof for any scientific explaination on how earth/man came into being.

That depends on what sense of the word "proof" you're using -- as I've previously suggested in your vicinity.

For some values of "proof", there's no proof you don't have coleslaw in place of a brain.

Waldo Pepper: I fully believe sex is a wonder gift from God and no other creature on this planet gets the joy out of it the way humans are gifted with the experience.

Since someone's already brought up bonobos....

` 'There's nothing like eating hay when you're faint,' he remarked to her, as he munched away.'I should think throwing cold water over you would be better,' Alice suggested: '- or some sal-volatile.''I didn't say there was nothing better,' the King replied. 'I said there was nothing like it.' Which Alice did not venture to deny.`

Waldo Pepper: this is my last word on it for this thread. I grow tired of the circle jerk these threads become for some farkers.

`Finally, selective exposure involves resisting persuasion by leaving the situation or actively tuning out the persuasive message (e.g., Brock & Balloun, 1967; Frey, 1986; Kleinhesselink & Edwards, 1975).` - (doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_5)

grumpfuff: It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something.

Again, depends what sense of the word "prove" you're using.

grumpfuff: There are other problems with the claim of "pink elephants," generally dealing with the properties of what we mean by "pink" and "elephant", but those are mostly intellectual jerking off done by bored philosophers.

Not that "it is impossible to prove" is much better than "intellectual jerking off done by bored philosophers", when you're talking about science.

`Anyway, I have to argue about flying saucers on the beach with people, you know. And I was interested in this: they keep arguing that it is possible. And that's true. It is possible. They do not appreciate that the problem is not to demonstrate whether it's possible or not but whether it's going on or not.` - Richard Feynman

Kome: In the years I've been using the Wason, I had never before seen someone else provide *that* kind of wrong answer and *that* justification, and I run an organization for people with traumatic brain injury

...wow. Pretty exotic.

Kome: And now we are presented with another individual who is making the exact same error in both answering and reasoning, that has not been seen previously or since?

Parsimony would seem to support that; however, it seems also possible though less likely that Fark tends to attract certain exotic forms of brain damage.

Epicedion: Second time I've seen you vaguely drop your credentials. Interesting.

Possibly a form of social validation.

lennavan: You think while discussing science, the difference between the word "hypothesis" and "claim" is pedantic.

`"Never argue with a pedant over nomenclature. It wastes your time and annoys the pedant."`

lennavan: Epicedion: actually you used the word "statement"

Yes, because it was not a hypothesis, so calling it a hypothesis would be stupid.

Epicedion: Here:

You literally wrote that you can't test a statement that something is written in a book.

Well sure, but I did even better than that.  I said it is possible if you get your head chopped off, you'll survive.

lennavan: For example: I cannot tell you for 100% certain a head is required for long term survival. Sure in the French Revolution we did an awful lot of experimentation and (well, I'm pretty sure at least) everyone died. But it is still possible if I cut your head off, you will be just fine. Now there are an awful lot of 9's after my I'm 99.999...% sure and I highly suggest you not risk it. But it is still formally possible.

Your mind = Blown Chopped

Now you're chopping up quotes and responding with inanity, just like  IDW. Cute.

Kome: now I have a good idea exactly who one of IDW's alts are

IDW haz alts?!  which ones is it?

is it abbey? itz abbey isn't it? :D  i've had a theory for years that abbey is one of his imagined failures

or is it Kome? i'm so confused

can you give us a  hint...?

/teh suspins iz keeeling me

Kome: And now we are presented with another individual who is making the exact same error in both answering and reasoning, that has not been seen previously or since? Yea, now I have good reason to suspect alts are in play here.

dont worry luckily i'm a qualified fark scientician and kan halp you with your psycho-problems, have a seat on dis couch and tell us how it makes you feel

*puffs pipe*  ... *blows bubbles*

hmm yes yes, *scribbles and doodles on notepad*

veeeeery eeentersteeng

go on...

I drunk what: abb3w, is this^ correct?

abb3w: ...wow. Pretty exotic.

does anyone speak IBtard, because i can't tell if this is a 'yes' or a 'no' ....?

anyone???  i haven't a clue

abb3w: Parsimony would seem to support that; however, it seems also possible though less likely that Fark tends to attract certain exotic forms of brain damage.

see, it sounds like he is saying 'yes' but my IBtard translator keeps breaking trying to convert these posts into english

can you at least give us a hint?

also also wik, on a sidenote: Would anyone care to suggest that in this particular situation, that abbey is helping Kome or hurting him?

discuss

I drunk what: does anyone speak IBtard, because i can't tell if this is a 'yes' or a 'no' ....?

I'm pretty sure you are completely fluent in all 'tard' languages.

grumpfuff: You are arguing you are not a solipsistic while claiming we can't know what's written in a book.

That's actually not what I argued at all.

Lennavan: that is not a testable statement

There is an entire farking world of difference between "we can't know" and "that isn't a testable statement."

You think I'm being solipsistic only because you are unfamiliar with the scientific usage of these words.  To you, hypothesis, claim, sentence, guess, these words are all interchangeable.  To me, you use the word hypothesis and a big loud bell goes off in my head and suddenly there are rules you have to follow.  To you, pointing out "hypothesis" rather than "claim" is pedantic because you don't know better.

To you, the words "prove" and "support" or "belief" and "know" are interchangeable with each other.  It is crucial in the realm of science to remember you don't actually know anything with 100% confidence because hypotheses and knowledge are ever "evolving."  Rather you believe things based on very specific supporting evidence.  Sometimes your beliefs are based on amazingly solid evidence, such as evolution.  Sometimes your beliefs are based on pretty shaky evidence, such as cells communicate with far away cells through a series of submicroscopic tubes that you can't visualize but check out this evidence that maybe they are there.  There are scientists that "know" those tubes exist and there are many others that "know" they do not.

That's the way science is.  I'm not particularly worried about gravity or evolution being debunked tomorrow.  I'm gonna go ahead and wake up tomorrow knowing my feet will be firmly affixed to the ground.  But from now until the very end of humanity, gravity will be referred to as a theory.  But again, in science theory is a word that should set of a ton of really farking loud bells in your head because it has a very important and specific meaning.  It is not interchangeable with "conjecture" "wild guess" or "drunken thought."

vactech: But before I do, I wonder if I drunk what recalls answer #1, numero uno, the first flop, the divine reveal?

was it jim morrison with the doors? break on through to the other side

lennavan: grumpfuff: You are arguing you are not a solipsistic while claiming we can't know what's written in a book.

That's actually not what I argued at all.

Step 1: Make inane argument
Step 2: Spew a thin santorumy froth all over the thread
Step 3: Deny making original inane argument.
Step 4: ?????

lennavan: <whole lot of assumptions>

Yea, I'm done with you. Go ahead and claim victory if you want. This is a waste of both our times.

grumpfuff: lennavan: <whole lot of assumptions>

Yea, I'm done with you. Go ahead and claim victory if you want. This is a waste of both our times.

he is boring.  i'm bored.  lelz boring.

Epicedion: Step 1: Make inane argument
Step 2: Spew a thin santorumy froth all over the thread
Step 3: Deny making original inane argument.
Step 4: ?????

step 3 is ????
step 4 is profit

you can't do ANYthing right

i bet you also make the "whipped" sound as Waaa Pah

grumpfuff: lennavan: <whole lot of assumptions>

Yea, I'm done with you. Go ahead and claim victory if you want. This is a waste of both our times.

Those assumptions were based upon observations about your constant conflation of terms and your insistence on solipsism when only someone unfamiliar with the scientific definition of words would claim that.

Victory - on the contrary, I'd claim defeat.  Bill Nye went up against a creationist, he was hopeless.  Here I am, trying to teach someone who agrees with evolution what the actual definition of the word hypothesis means and how the scientific process works and I failed.

It might be because I was a dick along the way but once I start realizing there's no hope, I like to keep it fun because if it wasn't fun along the way, then it would be a waste of my time.

abb3w: ...wow. Pretty exotic

so fail       much IB       very disappoint

/at least ninjakirby would get these jokes :(
//u gaiz r no fun

lennavan: Here I am, trying to teach someone who agrees with evolution what the actual definition of the word hypothesis means and how the scientific process works and I failed.

Out of curiosity. Is this how you think you came off to observers of this conversation?

lennavan: It might be because I was a dick along the way but once I start realizing there's no hope, I like to keep it fun because if it wasn't fun along the way, then it would be a waste of my time.

Then wear your 6/10 with pride, good sir.  And remind me never to join a book club with you.  Ever.

lennavan: Those assumptions were based upon observations about your constant conflation of terms and your insistence on solipsism when only someone unfamiliar with the scientific definition of words would claim that.

I told you early on I was using terms coming with a background in philosophy, not science. Your continual attempt to interpret what I was saying in a way I clearly stated I did not mean was a bit annoying.

lennavan: what the actual definition of the word hypothesis

Again, science does not have sole claim on the definition.

lennavan: It might be because I was a dick along the way but once I start realizing there's no hope

If you had bothered to listen to what I was saying, rather than what you thought I was saying, perhaps there could have been progress. Your continual attempt to explain to me something that I already know comes off as arrogant, pedantic, and annoying.

Frankly, you remind me of the science majors that would show up in philosophy classes I took, insist on using the scientific meaning of various words rather than the given definition for the class, and then wonder why they didn't get an A.

lennavan: your insistence on solipsism

Forgot that bit. The reason I insisted on this, though admittedly I should have made it more clear, is the nonsense about "invisible ink" and "sub-atomic writing". If you say a "Book says x" is not falsifiable because there could be invisible ink, then you can also say "A water molecule being made up of 2 hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom isn't falsifiable because there could be invisible atoms." Not only that, it's a violation of Occam's Razor(as much as I hate invoking it).

Zafler: he tried to present the card test.

Displayed 50 of 501 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

4. Click here to submit a link.