Jump to content

mooeypoo

Moderators
  • Posts

    5698
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mooeypoo

  1. Hey guys It's the first year I'm coming to TAM6 (The Amazing Meeting), and I was wondering if the forum holds any more attendees, or anyone that is going to be in the vicinity of Las Vegas between June 19th to the 22nd? We can set up an SFN dinner/lunch/beer or something ~moo
  2. I personally said "Hell yeah" to the generalizations part, good post Rev Blair, you're amusing and light, and that's missing here in the Politics thread. I think, however, that we need to remember that one of the problems in a Political debate is that it is emotional. Political opinions tend to be more than just opinion, they tend to be emotional opinions, and as such, people take them very personally and tend to ignore rational debate rules. Some things don't need references in such a discussion, but some do.. if you make a claim that rely on historical premise or something similar, you probably should base it. If you make an opinion, then people sjould lighten up and understand it is an opinion. But *saying* "lighten up" is different than actually having people follow this advice. Again - political debates are often emotional.. which is also why there were some problems (in general) with this specific forum existing in SFN. Good post, though, I enjoyed it. ~moo
  3. As usual, you haven't read the post before replying to it. Sex wasn't the problem. Nor was the problem you getting it wrong (for the 10th time), I really don't care what you think I am. Your rudeness was. But I forgive you. Wiki is not a scientific reference. We didn't ignore anything, we plainly stated that your references are irrelevant (did you read your own references?) or are just not good enough. I personally have a newsletter back from 2000, where my bible-class teacher at school wrote about the viability of prayer to the overall good-health of high school students. She referenced quite a lot of medical papers, none of which spoke about prayer. I was doubtful of her conclusion as well, not just in yours. I would also do no justice to any theory if I cite that article. Not because it's old, but because it's crap. It's unbased, unfounded and unscientific, it is non-repeatable, it is simply non science. It's an opinion piece, not a science piece. Get the differences straight, please, that might explain why we simply don't accept your cites when tehy are opinions, or when they are talking about a completely different subject. I commend your ability to run away from presenting facts and answering questions. Looking at the past 50+ posts in this and other threads, you seem quite consistent in doing that. Kudos to you. Good luck in school. ~moo
  4. Yup, which is what Klaynos gave out, and which I did speak about (ahem). It's titled, however, " Self-recognition in an Asian elephant". Self recognition (as I said..) is not the same as self-reflection. The only article in a peer reviewed publication is, therefore, not proving anything to the case of self-reflection in animals. Or if (and how) we can even measure it. ~moo That's quite rude. First, I'm a woman, not a man, and most certainly not a boy. Second, I'm not impatient, I'm asking for citing, and explain *why* I am. It's really getting out of the scope of this forum if you start answering rudely whenever I speak to you without even reading what I ask for. I wasn't rude to you, I expect the same in return. The fact I demand rigorous proof for claims does not make me your personal enemy. Stop degrading the argument away from the fact you cannot support your own claims. So, all those who ask you to back your statements with references need to 'learn to get some patience about them' too? Other than being a tid bit condescending, that sentence, it also might cause a bit of a problem, seeing as half of the posts in your many threads are filled with such requests. Instead of degrading down to personal levels, I again ask that you either back your statements up with scientific proof, or stop calling them facts when they are not, or, simply, stop posting in a forum where you obviously don't wish to follow the rules of. Did you even read the rules by now? It doesn't seem so. I am trying to be very patient with you and not go into personal attacks, I don't think I have ever been rude to you other than request (firmly, perhaps, after you ignored it many times) to back your statements up, stop ignoring questions and errors, and start being serious about scientific rigor. Why do you feel the need to try and use personal attacks here is beyond me. Or perhaps not. In any case, I suggest we go back to teh matter at hand: Your theory. It's unproven until backed-up by evidence, which you havent' done. People have done it for you, and even that was not quite what you claimed. It's not about patience, it's about the bottom line. You start a theory by a flawed, unproven, controversial premise. That would cause your theory to be (understatement:) shaky, to say the least. Again with the 'musts' and 'surely'ies. Consciousness is undefined, and therefore does not have a 'must'. The sentence and quote above, btw, is not a proof of anything either. It is an assumption. IF consciousness is defined at every moment of time....--> the rest. Is it defined at every moment of time? Is it even defined at all? What is it? We cannot possibly have a conversation about this without basic definitions, whether you like it or not. I might be the "voice of rigor" in the threads here, so you might hate me more, but don't let that fact stand between you and what I'm *saying*. This is a science forums network. We think, write and analyze according to the scientific method. Assumptions are nothing more than assumptions as long as they are not based on facts, observation or other data. Speculations need to be based on fact, observation or factual data to be considered for a logical debate. There are rules here. Stop ignoring them. The rest of your posts is just another aspect of your theory. Very interesting stuff, really, but it's all still in the realm of fantasy until you bring forth some proof. Please don't call me "girl" next time (instead of "boy", hmm) okay? We're all adults here, and we don't need to degrade the argument down to levels of personal attacks and rudeness. If you don't think you should give citations and base your claims on reality, explain why. I don't think I was ever rude to you, I expect the same in return. ~moo
  5. This is getting quite tedious. Why would you answer only part of my question and refuse to answer the rest? I asked for resources, and I even explained *why* I am asking. You "stating" elephants have self reflection is moot without you proving that they do, and that we can actually detect it. I actually believe that most animals have some sort of ability to "self reflect", even if for a very "flat" sense of the term, but I don't go so far as to state this as a fact and start a theory from it. You should notice, btw, that even the resources that were brought forth are not *quite* scientific -- Newsweek, for that matter, is not a peer review publication by a long shot, neither is the "New Scientist". Klaynos did find a publication in what appears to be a peer review publication, but it strictly states about the Elephants' ability to recognize their reflection - not to "self reflect" as in philosophy or advanced thought. I am, again, not quite sure how this can even be tested. How could we possibly know if an elephant is curious about its past, the meaning to its life or the characteristics of his behaviour. Unless we speak elephant, I don't see it happening. But it's very possible that I am wrong, and that this can be tested. Which is why I request, again, those studies you spoke about, Graviphoton. This, again, doesn't mean that you are wrong. It just means that there are no evidence yet. This entire subject is interesting, and I am a fan of philosophy, specifically about the nature of man vs beast (if it is even separate). I just can't accept the premises you put forth just on the basis of you saying they happened. I don't think it's fair of you to ask this of us, either. So it seems that the current problem is that you just seem to either not have these studies or, for some reason that is beyond me, not care to share them with us. .. why? ~moo
  6. And yet as we pointed out, there's no observational data to support your hypothesis, while there are tons and tons of facts and observational data to support both the "big bang" theory and the existence of Dark Matter. Did you even bother to read the article iNow posted? It may clear things up for you, and allow us to continue this debate in a much more *scientific* level rather than you just denying it all out of hand. ~moo
  7. Actually, usually the choice for linux instead of xp comes because windows has a very large fee they are requesting on every computer that comes pre-installed with windows. I know that the EEE 900, for example, has some differences between the XP and Linux versions (I think linux comes with 64GB extra HD space or something similar) *exactly because* of those fees.. The linux version is cheaper, so the manufacturer can spend the fee-money on more HD space. So, maybe going for the cheaper Open Source alternative will actually save money so the computer can either be cheaper, or be able to have more options in it. ~moo
  8. I know you think I'm asking you to quote every little hiss you say, but truth is, I don't, I am asking you reference and quote things that aren't as obvious as you make them seem. Like this one. I know that dolphins are said to have high intelligence, as do apes. Elephants are first for me, but I can accept it. However, I haven't found anything online about definitive conclusions about them having the ability to "self reflect". If you mean "self awareness" (I think that's a bit different) then I found a few articles suggesting that dolphins recognize themselves and other individuals, and are exhibiting some individual-level behaviour that could suggest self awareness. As for self reflection, I am not sure what you mean by that. As far as I have ever heard it used, it is usually meant to convey "philosophy" - as in the ability to "reflect" ones own origins, past, philosophize about the origin of life, the universe and everything, and reach something that is not necessarily 42. Can dolphins, Elephants and Apes do that? I am not sure. I am also not sure how anyone can prove they can. If you know of actual researches that prove these, or prove what you did mean (in case I understood what you meant wrong), please supply them so I understand what you mean and read them to see how those researches were done. Again, there is a very big difference between knowing you exist and "reflecting" on your existence. I never saw anything remotely suggestive of Elephants, Apes and Dolphins' ability to *reflect* on their existence. Show me the tests, please. Intelligence is quantitative (at least the way we seem to measure it in tests), and relfection is something completely different. Intelligence, in short, does not mean self reflection. Why? How do you know mice don't reflect on their existence? Because they don't seem to? Again, this isn't meant as offense, it's meant to make a point. Mice might have self-reflecting thoughts, and might not, I am not quite sure how we can even measure this, let alone be certain of any result. If you know of the studies, please share them. I disagree. I believe dogs are conscious, so are mice and ants, perhaps to different levels, but still conscious. They are aware of their surroundings, reacting to them, and are capable, at some degree, of analysis of their surroundings and some capacity for thought. But what I believe isn't as relevant as the fact that we disagree. Some psychologists and philosophers agree with my assessment. Some agree with yours. Some have their own. That's the point, Graviphoton. Consciousness is a philosophical question, yet to be completely, fully and absolutely defined. You share your opinion, great, but they're not fact, they're opinion. I will ask that you share the studies you talk about so we might be able to be convinced by your opinion. We're talking philosophy here, there are no absolute truths, usually, in philosophy, but there are logical pathways to reach philosophical conclusion. Without those studies about the animals' consciousness and self awareness (self-reflection), your opinion is based on unbased premise, and is, therefore, illogical. ~moo
  9. I found this strangely funny... thought you might enjoy the concept too http://theybannedme.com/ The forums themselves are predictably crappy, but the concept is amusing. ~moo
  10. I.. don't understand what you are asking, I'm sorry. What do you mean sucking the air or release gas? Through what? In the formation of the planets? The gas cools and condenses and forms planets from different "kinds" (Earth is a rocky planet, while Jupiter is a gas giant).. I am not sure what you mean by a filter or sucking the gas. Please explain ...
  11. At the very least source only the non-mainstream things you say, how 'bout that? And no, you don't source when you're asked, see the other thread, but I'm not going to stick to the past, I'm willing to open a brand new page. Just source yourself, and let's go on to doing real science instead of arguing about following the rules of a forum you chose to post in. ~moo
  12. Nope, you can't. read the rules: Excerpt from the Rules of the Speculation forums, can be found here. Refusing to follow the rules is one thing. Refusing to read them is disrespectful. You are in a science forums, and we have rules. Follow them. ~moo
  13. <sigh> You didn't show, you postulated. It is interesting, but it's not proven or corroborated by evidence. You can't possibly expect the scientific community to accept your postulation just because you think it's logical, or because you hate one of the competing theories. You, again, ignored our request for reference and proof, and instead of supplying them, you try to explain why they aren't needed. They are needed if you wonder why the scientific community doesn't accept them. And they are needed in this forums, because we are a science forums which operate under the scientific process, and avoids logical fallacies. ~moo
  14. It might not be "Unprov'able" but it IS unproven yet. You need to substantiate your claim on facts, and according to the degree of validity of those facts, it becomes proven. When we say that your claim is unproven, we mean it's lacking evidence. It might be proven in the future. But it isn't yet. You have the burden of proof, which means you need to prove it. Supply the proof. Specifically if we ask you to. Saying that "we should know this" is not helping anyone. We don't. We ask. You need to prove. That, really, is part of the process of peer review. You keep ignoring it, and it's very unprofessional and unscientific. It's not the way things are done, and - again - it's not the way these forums operate. Your policies have been very consistent, I agree, in that you rarely supply references or proof to your postulations, and you expect people to accept them - or the logic on which they're based - out of nothing. That is not the way things work here. Apparently, your common sense failed you here, because - again - what you are doing is against forum policy. You cannot just post random opinions and claim they are factual when they are not. You cannot ignore people's requests for references, and you cannot use logical fallacies. Read the rules. ~moo
  15. Perhaps that it's lacking evidence or corroborative data?
  16. I didn't say it was non proven, I said it wasn't proven. It might be proven, but it wasn't YET. The burden on proof is on the person making the claim. Hence on you. Own up to it, or consider if you are in the right place. You seem to still haven't read the forum policies. ~moo
  17. If you can't reference it, it's not proven, it's hypothesis. If you go around the forums you will see many times people saying something like "I am not sure where I heard this from, but A B C and therefore, I think that X Y Z". That is okay. You don't have to know everything. You just need to be honest enough to state so. I know you said that "If hawkins says so, I believe him" But I think this is the difference between you and me, and probably some others. I wouldn't just "believe him", I would want to see what and how he reached this conclusion. This is why the scientific community requests vigorous evidence for claims. Your word isn't enough just like mine isn't enough, just like Dawkins' word isn't enough, juist like Einstein's word isn't enough, just like Hawkins' word isn't enough. Hawkins, Dawkins, Einstein and others needed to prove and support their claims. If they didn't, their claims were considered postulations that are either based on partial-thought-experiments or non based at all. They were honest enough, however, to classify their claims into the group of *THEORY*, Postulation, hypothesis, or opinion. Opinions are interesting. We can debate opinions, and we do all the time in the forums. But we don't take them as fact, no matter how "nice" they are, or how much the person with that opinion loves his own opinion. If your goal is to state your opinion without us analyzing it in light of evidence, then you are in the wrong place. If you don't want to allow us the tools to analyze your theories, then you are in the wrong place. If you are going to get annoyed and defensive every time we ask for proof or explanation for why you state what you state so we can analyze in light of opinion or fact, then you are in the wrong place. If you claim your opinion to be a fact, then you are in the wrong place. Read the forum policy. You might be in the wrong place. ~moo
  18. No, you wouldn't be. They would tell you just what we do - that this is an appeal to authority, and it is a logical fallacy. Being a scientist is not enough "proof" in making a claim true. It's not about lack of knowledge, as you could see in many other threads, and it's not only mine, as you could also see in many other threads. It's about rational debate and avoiding logical fallacies, which you tend to use quite a lot. There is a reason why your threads degrade to an endless "what do you mean" discussion. Your tendency to take nonproven hypotheses and ignore their counterpart hypotheses is present in most of the other threads you opened. I suggest, again, that you read the forum policy. ~moo
  19. No one stops you from giving your opinion. Just be fair and state that these are OPINIONS instead of treating them as facts when they are not. When I give an opinion, I am fair enough and honest enough to state that it is my opinion. When I give a fact, or an observation, or quote someone else's fact, or want to support my own conclusions, I reference, and hope that my theory stands peer review and analysis. Because it's the fair thing to do. The scientific thing to do. ~moo
  20. If nothing needed to be reviewed, why did you post a new thread? This is a DEBATE forum, not a preaching forum. If you want to debate, then stop making the decision for us about whether or not we want to review the statements you raise. ~moo
  21. If I say "It is said that the sky are blue", I may be able to get off without referencing. If I say "It is said the universe is flat", I will not. Your claims are quite unconventional, even if they are based on hypotheses we've heard before. Referencing will actually *help you* make your case, specifically when you seem to not differ between unproven hypotheses, factual theories and thought experiments. Many of the premises you raise are not factual, and they have competing ideas that have the same validity to them, because the subject is either philosophical or yet-to-be-decided. Referencing is not just important, it's the scientific thing to do, and it allows us to analyze your theory in the correct context. On top of that, generalizations are never good, specifically in science, and saying "It is said" is a generalization. In most of your postulations it's more like "Some people say, some don't", and if some say and some don't, you shouldn't ignore those who *dont* just because you want to. It's unscientific. It's against forum policy. ~moo p.s: Not that it matters, but I am a "SHE", not a "HE". There are women in science, too.
  22. Postulated is the key word. The entire theory is a hypothesis, based on postulations. It's not a theory based on facts. This is something that is more than just 'useful' to know -- it means that we should take it as it is, and nothing more, a postulation. It's by far not a theory, nor is it a fact, nor is it the only theory or postulation out there. Nor is it accepted by mainstream science. We can postulate along with it and continue the thought-experiment, but all the while we need to remember this is NOT a fact or factual data. That said, there's also the matter of weighing sources according to their viability. Peer reviewed scientific publication is not the same as a magazine publication. The New Scientist is interesting, but it's not to be taken as proof either. Just like wikipedia is a source for a nice-to-know data, but by far is NOT a source for facts or scientific data. Peer review scientific publication isn't enough either, but it has more weight than a magazine. Again.. where.. Again, New Scientist is a resource, but is not a peer review scientific resource paper, and Stephen Hawkin's idea is a postulation not a theory. It's far from being a fact. Use it as a premise, and your theory is a thought experiment. Thought experiments are nice, but we shouldn't forget that they are just that. Interesting thought experiments. Far from facts. Now all you need to do is make sure you reference and link to your claims all the time, and not wait for us to get annoyed by your lack of referencing to the sources of your theses. Also, please try to use the quote system, it's not very hard, and you seemed to get the hang of it for a while there -- it's hard to see who you reference inside the forums when you just pluck "" around what they said, and it doesn't refer back to the original post. ~moo
  23. Graviphoton, your ideas are very interesting, but I find myself repeating a myself in each and every one of your threads, so, instead of doing that again, I will break your thread up and show you what, exactly, is missing in it, to constitute a scientific (even if it is speculative) debate, without resorting to logical fallacies. This is not meant to bash, hurt or offend you. It is meant to show you what I mean, perhaps once and for all: By whom? The way I understand it, this is a fantastic fantasy, not really supported by astronomers. Provide your own resources. Stop providing non supported claims as premises. I did find this: http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11745-could-black-holes-be-portals-to-other-universes.html But it (a) says that it SOLVES the information paradox (but opens other problems), and (b) not a scientific publication. Worth thinking about, sure, but again I had to do research for you. And again I found little. Why do we need to look up the 2004 publication you are speaking of? Are we just supposed to trust your interpretation of it? We're not supposed to, not if we are to speak science. REFERENCES! Where?! Where is this written? Where do you bring these stuff?? You are raising theories that are not based on observational proof, they're based on interpretation of facts, and as such, there are conflicting theories out there. That's the entire point! But you seem to ignore them. Completely ignore all conflicts, all scientific debates, you just present ONE SIDE and start with it as if it's a premise. How do you expect anyone to answer your questions or entertain your ideas seriously when you ignore all conflicts, simplify the situation of the scientific community and present hypotheses as factual premises? No it isn't, it's an interpretation of a theory followed by a question, and as such, it needs to be provided with references to what you are talking about. Your expectation that we research each and every claim you make as if it is the most obvious thing ever is very annoying. Even if you think - even if you're SURE - that you speak the truth, and that this truth is absolutely supported by the entire field of whatever-science -- provide references. Saying "it's said", or "astronomers think", or "science says this", or "conclusion is" is MOOT. Absolutely irrelevant. Providing quotes from random doctors is moot as well, if you do not reference what THEY said. Scientists know this, which is why they reference, no matter how famous they are. The sad thing is that you are making it extremely difficult to start talking about the crux of your ideas, because half the time I'm trying to figure out what the heck it is you're referring to. I am answering this specific one, but this seems to go to most of your threads. You raise interesting ideas, it's just very hard to debate with you when you simplify things that should not be simplified, and treat hypotheses you like as if they are the factual data. I believe doing that is called the false dichotomy. It's a logical fallacy, and it's not valid in a theory, let alone as a premise. It's also why most of your threads from other forums end up in the Speculation forum. You cannot ignore conflicting theories, you cannot not-reference, and you cannot expect people to debate with you seriously or entertain your ideas seriously when you use logical fallacies to prove your points. It's really too bad to see the ideas go to waste like that. They are very interesting ideas. They're just presented in an unfair way of discussion. I do believe some of the things I said are on the forum rules. I suggest you go read them again. ~moo
  24. Stop being a child, Graviphoton. The only reason we keep telling you that you are not scientific is because of your debate methods of not referencing anything, stating as facts things that aren't necessarily facts and expecting people to "take your word" for it are non scientific debate. It might as well be the case that your theory is correct. You just haven't done enough to explain it in a way that is compatible with the scientific method or the rules of rational, logical debate. And the quote from the Dr means nothing other than another opinion. It's appeal to authority (which is a logical fallacy). Statements need to be backed up by facts or inferences upon facts. I suggest you read a bit about logical fallacies, so we can continue this debate and actually learn something from one another. ~moo
  25. How do you know this? Why? where does that come from!? Your insistence to preach instead of PROVE and REFERENCE is getting quite annoying. These aren't "common knowledge", and these aren't majority-accepted scientific concepts. So you need to show references, you need to explain, you need to CONVINCE us. I personally try not to take *anyone's* word for anything, which is why I check and read references and do my own little research before accepting or denying a claim. You give me NOTHING to work with, just claims... I don't understand, exactly, what you expect any of us to do with these claims. ~moo Oh, and "Plausibility" is measured by *FACTS*. Not claims.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.