Sayonara Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 can u give me a link. i can't be arsed to look. Shocking as this may be, when I said "You'd think we'd have a sticky for that" I was not being tongue-in-cheek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 think outside the box.DAMN I hate that saying! it`s Soooooo irritatingly cliche` Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 no. to find the answer, u have to think outside the box. Yes, very funny. Very witty, very droll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 yes, the whole point of my life, is to irritate other pple. what can i say. at the end of the day, with all due respect, beyond the shadow of a doubt , i am between a rock and a hard place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 does "I`ll make you famous" ring a bell? LOL [edit] in my refusal to drop to the level of inane off topicness, a general deffinition of science from MY OWN personal view, would be the study of quantity and qualities of observed events that maybe subject to testing without difference. although this is incomplete and I`m sure someone can and probably will pick holes in it, that`s basicly the way I`de define "Science" when given a minute or 2 to think about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gant Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 I would consider alchemy bad science,,er,,,how bout rough science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicMX Posted July 22, 2004 Author Share Posted July 22, 2004 yet, was alchemy a science or not, the thing is that we must differenciate that perhaps socially was accepted as science, and was the basis for chemistry... but yet... it was not science. according to today. Is like a person that has been put into jail for murdering... in this time, the guy is a murderer... but... after some time we find that this guy isnt murderer at all, the murderer was another person identified by some DNA test or something.. then this guy is set to freedom... then this man.. in now days... should he be considered as muerderer? of course not... he is now non guilty from the evidence. and even if in those times he was considered as murderer he wasnt murderer at all... This is something for you all to reflex, specially Jakiri and Sayonara. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicMX Posted July 22, 2004 Author Share Posted July 22, 2004 "Scientific theories are built to be used, but they must be mistrusted, tested and improved" --Adam Frank, Astrophysicist study of quantity and qualities of observed events that maybe subject to testing without difference. This is quite a nice definition, but it takes in it all.... such like.. if i study the kinds of gods... it good be the gods science... and if i study the anything... it would be the science of anything... then you get that all studies are science... and if study = science then you have 2 perfectly equal concepts...there is the trick. But if you use the definition and steps of scientific method. then you have the difference... This is not an argument against you... is mostly... and adding to you all to reflex about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 This is something for you all to reflex, specially Jakiri and Sayonara. Exactly what are you trying to say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 Exactly what are you trying to say? He's saying we're murderers, rebels without a cause. Members of the Irkan elite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 no the covenant elite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 no the covenant elite They're not a very good elite. And the grunts sound like Tweek from south park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicMX Posted July 24, 2004 Author Share Posted July 24, 2004 He's saying we're murderers, rebels without a cause. Members of the Irkan elite. You wish. I say this because well, Sayonara seem to have a nice misunderstanding about what a science is, because in the debate i asked for "scientific debunked theories" Chemistry: Phlogiston Theory as far as i know phlogiston theory was alchemy not chemistry.... what about that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicMX Posted July 24, 2004 Author Share Posted July 24, 2004 Or you really think alchemy is actually a science (the debate i must remember you it was performed in the year 2004). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 in 1000 years time, men will look back and debate whether chemistry is science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kbzon59 Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 What's the difference? It doesn't exist anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicMX Posted July 24, 2004 Author Share Posted July 24, 2004 Well... the difference is that you cannot in these days recallit as science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 as far as i know There's your first mistake. Your second mistake was taking one example of something that is not a science from the many I offered, and randomly deciding that since you did not agree on the discipline it belongs to, I am therefore devoid of any idea as to what science is. Even ignoring the vast reams of evidence to the contrary, the reasoning there makes no sense whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicMX Posted July 24, 2004 Author Share Posted July 24, 2004 Well.. thats what i know... and its perfectly known as alchemy not chemistry as you said. and i choose that one, because there is your mistake. And you are saying that not knowing all is a mistake ( as far as i know means... all what i know) That you cant be cable to see your mistakes, well... its up to you. What i agree or not doesn't comes to scene, its all about what i say. you said this: Your second mistake was taking one example of something that is not a science.. Chemistry: Phlogiston Theory So... you are saying that chemistry is not science.... Or tell me why is Phlogiston Theory a scientific debunked chemistry theory.. i am very cofused...( sarcasm) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 Considering I'm the one who is as drunk as a lord right now, I don't think much of your rebuttal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicMX Posted July 25, 2004 Author Share Posted July 25, 2004 You ought to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 Why is that? You told me that I said "chemistry is not a science" because I said Phlogiston theory was obsolete (I mean, what the ****?). That's about the most logic-free thing you have ever said. The ramblings about mistakes don't really tell me anything. Where you said "as far as i know means... all what i know" you were not entirely correct. Saying "Afaik" means that one believes one's position based on the information one has available, but one is implying that the information is likely to be incomplete or incorrect. Hence why it was a mistake to use "as far as i know phlogiston theory was alchemy not chemistry" as your sole argument that I "seem to have a nice misunderstanding about what a science is", particularly in the face of the aforementioned reams of evidence to the contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kbzon59 Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 Drunk people!!!... Maybe this is not so bad after all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicMX Posted July 27, 2004 Author Share Posted July 27, 2004 You told me that I said "chemistry is not a science" because I said Phlogiston theory was obsolete No i said, that you said Phlogiston theory was chemistry. thought phlogiston is actually alchemy. Saying "Afaik" means that one believes one's position based on the information one has available, but one is implying that the information is likely to be incomplete or incorrect. No, it just means, that the person is saying something based in all that he knows. Hence why it was a mistake to use "as far as i know phlogiston theory was alchemy not chemistry" as your sole argument that I "seem to have a nice misunderstanding about what a science is", particularly in the face of the aforementioned reams of evidence to the contrary. Sorry but you lost this already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 No i said' date=' that you said Phlogiston theory was chemistry. thought phlogiston is actually alchemy.... No, it just means, that the person is saying something based in all that he knows.[/quote'] Whether one takes my interpretation or your own, "that was your first mistake" applies equally. Sorry but you lost this already. lol, yeah ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now