ParanoiA

That's effin funny. Did you come up with that or hear it somewhere?

Now, that's the quote of the week. I'm going to drink an extra beer in its honor. Amen to that. I'm amazed everyday that my son still thinks it's cool enough to try to be smart, particularly in science, when everyone around him is clearly on a different mission.

Yeah, Pioneer's posts are always a must read.

You know, I was surprised and impressed with her performance on O'reilly. I was impressed how she didn't let him bully her, definitely presidential. And a couple of times, hell, I think she even said what she really thinks. Seriously, I thought she did really well in Billy's interview. I'm just not scared of her like I used to be.

I can't believe Mr Skeptic goes misunderstood here. I think it's an important point because it helps to further define the scientific method as well. God, as he's been defined, cannot be proven not to exist. He's been defined in such a way that none of our detection methods are sufficient to test one way or the other. Unicorns, as they've been defined, may be proven not to exist. That is, our detection tools might be adequate to search the entire earth and prove that they don't exist. However, as soon as someone says "Ah, but the Unicorns I worship live in another dimension" - then, again, we cannot prove they don't exist. Make believe things are not vehemently disprovable by science, rather only certain ones can be proven or disproven, dependent entirely on how they are defined. Once you make something up that transcends the limitations of current scientific mechanics, then it's just as plausible as any other similar "fabrication". Mr. Skeptic is having some fun here demonstrating how powerless the scientific method is for disproving/proving what most of us believe are fairy tales. He's showing the difference between an "invalid argument" and a "bad premise", to use his words. I love it.

Believe me, the last thing on my mind is your sexuality little one.

So you're not making the claim that GW is a valid theory? Funny, I read all of your posts and I'm seeing otherwise. No, you didn't say "I hereby claim...nanner nanner boo boo..", rather you took issue with Aardvark's insistence that politics are too mangled with every single scientific source, demanding specifics. He replied with examples and further insisted that the onus is on the GW crowd to prove their case. This is a logical, progressive turn of events that puts the ball in your court. I don't understand your issue. You may just have to agree to disagree, because every scientific fact you provide him, he's just going to counter back with politics too ingrained with science. Personally, I agree with his skepticism, but I'm not on board with the notion of a 100% invasion of corruption of politics and science. No, he didn't say this, but he has effectively implied this by using it to counter every scientific point made by everyone knowledgable on the matter. And, really, unless you've been living in a closet for the last 20 years or if you're young and naive enough, you already know politics has poisoned the issue. Talk about asking to show gravity is an attractive force...

Mine used to be my artist title for my music, but then I found that there were hundreds of musicians using Paranoia for band names, and etc, and after researching trademark law I quickly decided I had better change it to avoid all the fuss. Voda La Void is my new artist title and I copyright under Paranoia Inc.

Did you not challenge the data in the Pit Bull thread based on the same reason? The data supported Lance's conclusions, but the data was suspect, for good reason, was it not? I see Aardvark challenging the data over suspicion as well, and he too has given good reasons for doing so. Lance couldn't defend his data to your satisfaction, if I remember correctly and you also pointed out that the onus was on him to prove it since he was making the claim Pit Bulls were dangerous. So, what gives?

No, I take his response to mean that the onus is on you to prove the GW theory, using sources that are not tangled in politics and corruption. I think that's fair. Now, it could very well be that these disreputable sources he's skeptical about are actually reputable and are a product of a smear campaign, or are being misrepresented. In that case, you either care enough to prove their good reputation, or you accept the stalemate. And of course, a stalemate is not in his best interests either, for while the onus may be on those pushing the theory of GW, and/or the anthropologic cause, he's implicitly, willfully allowing himself to remain ignorant of a potential threat. I don't think that's smart for survival.

What are you talking about? I sure hope I've missed the joke here...

I'm glad you didn't follow through ignoring me. We should be able to argue and debate to long lengths, with no subject too precious to tackle, no point too controversial to make - and we should never allow any of that to matter to our acquaintanceship at all. You should know you have my highest respect, despite my immature appeals to insult in that thread. You are a good and decent man and you didn't deserve that. Now, pardon me while I cut myself a piece of humble pie. You never outgrow it.

Maybe science would be less prone to abuse if we, as in society, fully understood the "scientific method" as a concept. And further understood the difference between 'science' and 'scientists'. I know that I got straightened out on some of this by Luscaspa, and I found it very enlightening (and kind of painful at the time;)). Now when I hear news reports of some "scientific study" that says milk causes cancer, I know I'm not necessarily hearing from "science". I'm hearing a report, submitted by a scientist, that probably hasn't been through any kind of peer review yet. But that won't stop talk radio from trashing the reports and using that as some sort of evidence of how stupid "science" is. Then, I have to argue with people that listened to that damn show and try to correct them. I don't know if this really fits with the OP, but...

Honestly Bascule, I don't know that he isn't referring to the media as guilty of oversimplifying data. I'm not really defending him, I just think it isn't clear cut exactly who he is talking about here.

In all fairness though, those quotes weren't exactly an "attack on science". They certainly aren't an endorsement and I can see some room for suspicion but he didn't trash the scientific method. I could see all of those quotes really directed at reporting, a little carelessly worded. What I did see though, is throwing out the politics card for every single point. That's fine, I suppose, if one believes that global warming cannot be trusted due to the forced marriage of politics and science. But if that's the case, then why even respond or say anything beyond that? What's the point of arguing specifics if you're inevitably just going to reject everyone's points due to "politics and science"?

That would make sense, and that's also how I'm kind of interpreting it. But how does "due process" relate then? That implies that they could invade your privacy as long as they press charges ( like attempted murder perhaps ) and use the "process" of the legal system. Maybe my hang up has to do with due process more than anything else. I've always considered criminals having been duely processed resulting in "stripping their rights". I'm not aware of any due process that results in "invading their privacy". Maybe they're one in the same? Or am I way off here?

This is not a thread to argue about Roe v Wade, rather just trying to understand the logic here behind the decision in Roe V Wade. I'm not really understanding the relationship between privacy and due process of law. These terms get tossed around a bunch, but when it comes down to it, I have a tenuous understanding of it, at best. (Does this not imply that with due process, then you can violate privacy and thereby stop an abortion?) And what exactly are they referring to with "privacy"? The knowledge of their pregnancy to begin with? Or physical violation? I'm unsure what component is a violation of privacy - or exactly what privacy was being violated. I read that and immediately think "This sounds like an argument to stop the government from making me get an abortion". I'm not making the connection here. Anyway, I'm hoping some of you have been all through this and can enlighten me.

Sex is awesome. What's the rub? I'd rather her wait until she's 18 so I can see the front... If I was her father, I would kick her ass for doing it.

Noted. At least you don't pretend to be indignified when it comes back at you. Can't say I agree with your ideas of abrasiveness, because good thoughtful discussion, productive discussion does not happen when mixed with anger and resentment. The best growth comes from calm, calculated reason. Just my opinion, of course.

Yes - when they choose to present it. This post by iNow doesn't sound like he's waiting around for someone to choose to present it. He doesn't. If I may be so bold, I believe his point is exactly that - eat your humble pie and stop elevating yourself above others just because you've got a logic system that "works" for you and therefore presume the rest of us are missing out.

Here's an appropriate reflection: "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." I don't really get the problem. iNow made it very clear he doesn't have to respect anyone's beliefs. The consequences being that it offends others due to the lack of mutual respect. He got what was coming to him. Apes throwing poop. I thought we were better than that. This is why I don't agree with the notion that we should all run around disrespecting each other's beliefs. That's childish and unthoughtful. I think some in here could use a dose of humility and the realization that just because you don't "need" to believe in certain things doesn't give you a monopoly on reason. Severian reminded me one day that all of us live in faith that the laws of physics and reality that we have witnessed in the past will continue to happen in the future. All of this just to say, it's not noble to act like a pretentious twit and shit on other people's belief systems who have done nothing to solicit such nonsense. And I'm also sorry Shade looks up to that.

Well surely though you could scale it back a bit and say TDS contains political commentary, whereas Billy boy is exclusively dedicated to it? Neither are news, that's for sure.

I can't say it any better than that SkepticLance. I think most who claim otherwise would still choose a human life over an ant if forced to at gun point in some disturbing scene in 'Saw VII'. No matter "which" ant.

So an ant is as valuable as a human?