Mysteries are better not being answered. - Alien: Covenant (2017) Discussion

[–] [deleted] 8 years ago

The concept theme of Alien wasn't a creafture feature but rather an attempt to look at something so unknown that reason and logic don't apply.

Prometheus crapped all over that and, because it was Ridley Scott at the helm, made Alien into a worse film as a result.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

agreed.

reply

[–] [deleted] 8 years ago

Hey didn't I make this very thread already?

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

Maybe, There is not as much traffic here yet so discussions slip into limbo because not as many people read them. So new ones with the same or similar topic get created. Hopefully more and more traffic will start coming here and we can have more, hopefully meaningful/fun/informative, discussion. I have been coming here for about a month or so now and it does seem like it is picking up, but slowly.

reply

[–] [deleted] 8 years ago

https://moviechat.org/tt2316204/Alien-Covenant/592b4d463ad4780011dafe5c/Maybe-Alien-ought-to-have-been-a-one-off

It's very similar but you're winning on responses and I'm really interested in the answer so let's go with your thread 😀😀😀

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

It is only doing better in responses because I respond to almost every comment as soon as I get a chance to try to keep it fresh. I only check a few times a week but it seems enough to generate at least a few comments.

We can go with mine for this one, thanks for that. If you make a new discussion I would recommend checking it often and responding to any comment to try to keep your thread fresh.

reply

[–] [deleted] 8 years ago

I think you and I are in a similar position.I shall watch Covenant when it gets a DVD release as I did Prometheus.
I can't say I hated Prometheus but I've always felt it may have done better had it not been connected to the Alien universe at all.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

I agree it might have been better had it not connected, but also at this point I feel the whole 'aliens created humans' deal is cliche; it has been done to death. I would prefer a unique idea about an alien species engineers biological weapons to kill humans or other alien species. Not 'they created us and now they hate their creation'. Trying to put a weird theological spin of 'why does god hate us' on it did not work for me either. However I feel I might have 'swallowed' those ideas in a good movie had it not been related to the Alien franchise.

reply

[–] Barclays (960) 8 years ago

I doubt very many people will come here because chatting about movies isn't popular enough.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

It was pretty popular on imdb. hopefully more of those users will move here, if it stays fresh.

reply

[–] Barclays (960) 8 years ago

The message boards were the least popular feature of imdb. That's why it was disabled.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

That is just not true. it was disabled because it was considered a toxic environment by the runners of the site. Popularity wise it saw quite a bit of traffic. one need only look at how often and how many different users posted threads and contributed to ongoing discussion of even the most obscure movies let alone the popular ones.

I am not trying to be mean but your claim just has no bases in reality whatsoever.

reply

[–] Barclays (960) 8 years ago

But the main reason was that there wasn't enough people posting on the message boards. I heard that those boards had been toxic for several years prior to them getting removed. The articles that I read about imdb closing their message boards had screenshots of some of the posts. Those posts were not movie related.

Odds are that most of those posters from imdb have already migrated to the few other movie message boards available.
Those boards are mostly dead as well. So the membership you see is probably the best it's going to get.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

Yes some posts were bad, but in my experience it was 90% good discussion for every 10% crap. But popularity was never a problem.

Now the popularity could have been boosted by the fact many people were on imdb anyways and would click on the discussions because they were already there. So the boards themselves may not have been the crowd drawer, but they were very popular.

Don't go off the articles like huffington post or the others on why the boards closed down, they do not give an actual clear picture of the users' experience.

"Odds are that most of those posters from imdb have already migrated to the few other movie message boards available.
Those boards are mostly dead as well. So the membership you see is probably the best it's going to get."

This is possible but hopefully not. we will have to see.

reply

[–] Barclays (960) 8 years ago

I thinks we've waited long enough. Anyone that really enjoys movie discussions would have immediately found a replacement for imdb's message boards. So the membership here is pretty much all we're going to get. Might as well get comfortable with each other cause is highly unlikely that a lot new members will be arriving.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

I see no logic problems with this thought. It is likely most of the traffic that would migrate here would have already.

But it is also logical that if the popularity and if word of the site spreads it can attract new users.

It will be a slow process because like you said most that would have are already here. So if it does increase it will not be all at once like in the wake of imdb shutting down. But it still can generate more followers given time and depending on how 'fresh' the discussion stay.

reply

[–] Barclays (960) 8 years ago

It will be a slow process because like you said most that would have are already here. So if it does increase it will not be all at once like in the wake of imdb shutting down. But it still can generate more followers given time and depending on how 'fresh' the discussion stay.

It's not about logic. Is common sense.

What we have here at movie chat and tmdb is a very small secluded message board with members that discuss movies in depth. Most people do not discuss movies the way we do. They don't care enough. They arent geeks like we are. We like discussing technical aspects of films whereas most people are only concerned about whether the movie is entertaining enough to watch. Most likely they will read our comments to get the buzz on movies but usually will not posts about it like we do. They discuss whatever movies they really enjoyed with their co-workers, friends and family. Also, they don't need to be a member of this site because posts are visible to non members.

Imdb and Rotten tomatoes are still a huge competition for us because these movie goers rely on movie reviews and ratings to base their decision to watch a movie.

So like I said, don't count on this site becoming imdb or rotten tomatoes. The posters from imdb are all spilt up. People have more choices now. They are using other forums to meet their specific needs. And some of those posters have accounts at more than one forum as well. I've read a few members here talking about also having an account at tmdb.

So we have the same community from imdb just spread out in different places. Some forums are just for introverts/shy people to chat about all types of things like imdb2. I heard the trolls went to zetaboards and the rest of us- the real movie geeks- are either here or tmdb.
We aren't all in the same place as before. Also there were a few trolls creating multiple sock accounts so that made it seem as if there were more people to chat with.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"It's not about logic. Is common sense."

Common sense is derived from logical thinking. I am not sure what kind of point you are making here.

the rest of the message is true enough. Most people discussing movies like we do are dedicated to it in a way that most people are not. imdb and rotten tomatoes are designed for movie review more than discussion. imdb's discussion boards were an added feature and that is the reason why it had and would have always had more traffic than a site specifically designed for movie chatting. most of the users on imdb would not have participated in the discussion board had it they not already been there on the site.

just because this site will never see as much traffic does not mean it can't attract enough users to be a sufficient replacement. and just because there is not very much traffic now does not mean given time it won't increase.

reply

[–] Barclays (960) 8 years ago

Keep
dreaming.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

I
will.

reply

[–] Sirap (42) 8 years ago

I don't agree with your topic but I guess it's hard to please everyone when answering mysteries, especially when you didn't come up with the original idea.
There was nothing I liked about Prometheus and there was no need for that film to be a part of the Alien universe. I hated the backstory but if Ridley wanted to explore mans creation he should've done so in separate film with different creatures.

Same goes for Covenant, stupid characters and a stupid backstory that was never part of the original idea for the alien or the space jockey. Ridley shoehorns his ideas, shrinking the alien universe from a large mysterious one, to one that fits nicely in his pocket.

Covenant sucks as an Alien film and it sucks even more as s sequel to Prometheus. As a generic sci-fi it was nothing special and had they cut all ties to the alien universe it might have been an OK film.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

Why don't you agree with the topic? not being challenging here, just wondering. The rest of your response sounds like you do agree with my topic.

I do not mean mysteries are 'always' better unanswered but specifically for a film like Alien the mystery and the unknown adds to the tensity of the story. That is why it is better unanswered.

The rest of your post I agree with especially with Ridley doing an unrelated sci-fi film and not the Alien franchise.

reply

[–] CraigJamesReview (1751) 8 years ago

I'm going to agree with you here. So far i've sat through 2 movies and i've yet to find the back story to how these aliens came to be anything more than really aimless and stretched out.

I'm trying to go for an engaging, funny youtube channel so, if you have the time, take a look. Hope you enjoy what you see. Thanks in advance. Review here-https://youtu.be/fyYgj2Fpur0

reply

[–] Sirap (42) 8 years ago

No worries, saviodium. What I meant was that some mysteries can be answered, even in films like Alien. The answers must feel logical and fit with the previous film. Preferably the answer should've been thought of in advance, and not be something the director of a prequel pulls out of his ass to shoehorn into an existing story.

O'Bannon's idea for the Space Jockeys was that they were peaceful explorers, why not follow up on that? Maybe they accidentally found the xenos, maybe they got attacked by another species and used the eggs as a last resort to defend themselves?

According to O'Bannon, the xenos were the descendants of a once at least somewhat intelligent civilization. Why not explore that?

Answers that expands the story and the universe where it takes place, can work even though you might've preferred a different answer. The answers Scott provides actually shrinks the universe. The world becomes so small that your wife is also your cousin, your sister and your mother...

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

AH, I see what you are saying. I guess I agree to a degree. If an answer can fit well into the narrative I suppose it could add to it. I mostly disagree though because what it adds to the story it takes from the 'atmosphere'. That fear of the unknown and what you don't understand forces your mind to fill in the holes. When you feel in the holes the mind has a tendency to speculate the worse and this gives a feeling of terror and dread. If you know the 'backstory' to a scary thing, it is less scary. Not to say that the story can't be compelling, it just will not be as terrifying.

What do you think? would agree that even if they went with O'Bannon's ideas that though it might add an interesting quality to the story it would come at the cost of removing some of the terror?

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 8 years ago

Mysteries are better off being explained but people need to take more care to respect the canon and plausibilty of the mystery and not just do an ass pull.

I don't like the backstory of the space jokey being our engineers thats. Prometheus just feels like lazy storytelling. Even worse then the WTF moment when eggs mysteriously appeared on the surlaco and newt and hicks were killed and almost as bad as the we resurrected riply and she has most of her memories of Alien4. This film pulled an epic WTF as we learned that we were already in contact with the engineers for thousands of years. and that there humans in biosuits rather then being completly biomechanical (The creature was clearly apart of the ship in the first film.).

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"Mysteries are better off being explained"

Why? (not being mean just asking), because in this case, for a film like Alien I completely disagree. One of the most important aspects of the space jockey scene that made it so effective was the fact we did not know the backstory. The mystery engulfed us and really immersed us in the atmosphere.

I really do not think that even if it took 'more care to respect the canon' it still would not help Alien as a film. It might add to the story of the franchise and the universe but it would reduce the tension of many of the most effective scenes of the first film.

Again though this is specifically for a film like Alien in which the unknown elements are used to drive that feeling of dread. It does not work in story driven films like Star Wars. So unanswered mysteries there, like regarding Rey and Snoke and the like, do need to be answered to give the story context.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 8 years ago

i'm saying mysteries are better off being explained in general not in this case of the exception.

I really don't think much could be done to explain the biomechanical creature in a plausible way. Even more questions would be rased as to why the creature had eyes if it was litterally "Grown out of the chair" and then everything would go to hell as all the nitpickers. But doing the ass pull that the space jokey are our creaters feels like a soap opera tacking on huge plot details that have no hint of bases in the films preceeding it.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"i'm saying mysteries are better off being explained in general not in this case of the exception."

ah okay, i see. I guess I agree in general about this. I think there are exceptions were the presents of the mystery make a scene or film much more effective. Alien is such a film.

"I really don't think much could be done to explain the biomechanical creature in a plausible way. "

I also agree with this. Which is another reason why it is better to leave it a mystery. Since no 'good' explanation can be made really why not leave it a mystery for people to speculate and become terrified imagining the worst in their individual minds. This is what I mean specifically about the film being much more effective because of the msytery.

"But doing the ass pull that the space jokey are our creaters feels like a soap opera tacking on huge plot details that have no hint of bases in the films preceeding it."

Agreed 100% here. nothing more to add on that.

reply

[–] century_hades (67) 8 years ago

Your right, the mystery should have stayed a mystery. It's more fun to speculate to yourself what the space jockey was in the first alien movie, and never explain the aliens origin.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

Especially in a film like Alien, the speculation adds to the atmosphere. I said in a previous post that when our minds have to fill in the holes, we tend to do so with assumption of the worse and this helps create a feeling of terror and dread. I did concede in the argument that if the mystery was revealed in a compelling story that it could add to the narrative, but I argued that what it adds in narrative it takes from atmosphere. In a film like Alien the atmosphere is more important than the backstory.

reply

[–] Renovatio (2990) 8 years ago

James Cameron's Aliens had already reduced the mystery and turned the alien creature into, basically, a large colony of space ants... He also made it a family action movie rather than a horror, with the ad-hoc family escaping at the end...

By the time Ridley got a second try at Alien there was nothing really interesting to explore about that beast and he, masterfully, took it into an interesting and expansive direction with Prometheus, giving us new questions and mystery rather than answers...

However, the fan boys complained about not seeing enough of the creature from the first movie and not having enough space G.I. Joes... So we have Covenant, which is an appeasement of fanboy culture... While it's not as good as Prometheus it show us that Ridley still is the best at making an Alien movie, as the alien horror element haven't been intense since the very first movie... Really shows up Aliens, Resurrection and all the other actions sequels for the poor attempts at imitation that they were...

Ridley can give us even more mysteries, but only if he is able to ignore the fanboys...

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"James Cameron's Aliens had already reduced the mystery and turned the alien creature into, basically, a large colony of space ants... He also made it a family action movie rather than a horror, with the ad-hoc family escaping at the end..."

umm Cameron's Aliens had almost nothing to do with the backstory of the alien's origins nor the space jockey. I will admit that Cameron created a different atmosphere and made the story more action orientated and that was a negative on the story, albiet making it more 'fun' (I do love Aliens nearly as much as the first). So I disagree with your claim that Aliens reduced the mystery completely.

"By the time Ridley got a second try at Alien there was nothing really interesting to explore about that beast and he, masterfully, took it into an interesting and expansive direction with Prometheus, giving us new questions and mystery rather than answers..."

Prometheus was many things, interesting was not one of them. In fact it was a lazy retelling of the cliche 'humans were created by aliens' mixed with psuedo-philosiphical questions of 'why does god hate us' all set in the Alien universe. Those ideas may have been better 'sold' as an independent story but by tying it in the Alien franchise was probablematic for more reasons then what I said before about it hurting the atmosphere of the original. Aliens does not affect the original in any way.

"However, the fan boys... "

right because any criticism of a film must be from fan boys only. That is a ridiculous proposition because typically fan boys will like almost any part of the given franchise, at least at first. And the fact that Ridley caved in the first place and made prometheus a semi-prequel was to appease the fan culture anyway, so your point about Covenant being a result of Ridley caving is pretty mute when he already did it in the previous film.

reply

[–] Renovatio (2990) 8 years ago

mate... you have to watch Covenant... it does Aliens much better than Aliens does... You'll love it

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

I will wait till DVD. I am not wasting my time with it in Theaters. But what makes you think I will like it? I mean besides you seem to think I am an Aliens fan boy when I already stated I like Alien more

reply

[–] Renovatio (2990) 8 years ago

not calling you a fanboy at all, was just describing the backlash again Prometheus... Covenant does everything better than Aliens and has more than a few alien-esque moments...

Nothing can compare to the Original, but Covenant is much more of an "Alien" movie than Prometheus was and in that way, it does Alien (the original beast) better than any movie apart from the original...

Would love to read your take on it whether you end up liking it or not...

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

Interesting but I should be clear; it is not that I dislike Prometheus because it was not enough like Alien, au contraire i did not like Prometheus because it was too much like Alien while telling an uninspired poorly conceived backstory for it. Like I said, I think Prometheus would have been better as a stand alone franchise and not tie into Alien at all. So by that rational and given what you say of Covenant being more of an "Alien" movie would mean I would like it even less. but only after I saw it could I make a judgment. I still think either way even if I find it (covenant) a good movie; I still hold my argument that Alien as a film will always have been superior without a backstory film explaining away the mystique.

reply

[–] Renovatio (2990) 8 years ago

oh... I see... I understand now... You'll probably loathe Covenant in that case...

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

This is kind of what I expect too, which is why I won't see it in theaters. I am glad I was able to clarify what I meant.

cheers

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 8 years ago

This used to be the debate back in the 90s on usenet. That people wanted more backstory on the spacejokey but were afraid Hollywood would either 1) Mess it up entirely or 2) Never live up to the expectations of the audience as they prefer their own interpretation.

I would say prometheus bombed out via 1 since shock They allegedly engineered humanity and that the events of alien were not our first chance encounter with the creatures.

I always interpreted the film to represent curious intelligent and fragile man vs the horrors and cruelty of nature as they carelessly investigated what turned out to be an unstoppable spider that eats everything it finds. And as such I figured the space jokeys were scientists that also fell into the trap of the alien. But then prometheus came out and it turns out the space jockeys were sinister and our engineers. :/

Childhood ruined.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"1) Mess it up entirely or 2) Never live up to the expectations of the audience as they prefer their own interpretation."

In addition to this, it could be both. For a movie like Alien I think the second would almost always be applicable. Alien created such a feeling of terror and dread unlike any other movie and a big part of that uneasy feeling came from the unknown. The spacejockey scene created such an atmosphere because it was unknown. So any explanation would have been less than the audiences assumptions and speculation.

This works in this film because it helps the atmosphere. Story driven films like Star Wars do not work as well leaving things unknown. So I make the exact opposite argument for The Force Awakens.

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

All the home schooled evangelists who were never taught science please stand up!

It's better not to know the origins of our species and origins of our universe. God made it.

Let's go back to burning witches. Science can't tell us they're not followers of Saitan!

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

yes because fictional entertainment is comparable to scientific truth and theological thought. deranged much?

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

Science wouldn't exist without curiosity.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

what does that have to do with fictional film set in a fictional universe that is specifically designed for entertainment and nothing more?

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

You are missing the premise.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

Your premise is you want to turn this into a religion vs science debate so you can try to show off how smart you are (not very) by bashing anyone that does not follow science in a dogmatic fashion like you do. I know exactly what you are doing.

tell me this, if you can answer it honestly I might respect your intellectual honesty. if you can't shut up. here it is: Describe to me the theory of the self creating universe proposed by Stephen Hawking, then explain to me how this does not equate to religious faith (meaning belief without sufficient evidence).

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

I'd rather not speculate about the origin of the big bang until there are quantifiable proofs. A quantum theory for gravity has not been fully developed yet. I'll hold my speculations until that happens. Right now you can posit an infinite amount of hypotheses all of which are unscientific at best and hairbrained at worst.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 8 years ago

The point is you took some ones assertion that implies undoing the mystery of the space jokey is disappointing and are trolling to turn it into a religion vs science debate like saviodium said before. And besides your contradicting your self now that your no longer curious about the big bang.

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

There is a difference between not being curious and not being able to make a reliable hypothesis until further scientific developments take place. Those further scientific developments would not take place unless people are curious about the big bang. Research is ongoing because people are curious.

Then again, maybe we should just leave it a "mystery".

Who cares, I'm going to continue living my happy life in my cave without electricity. Making discoveries is pointless and lowers the romanticism of the mystery. Who cares how fires are built and how season's take place and why the sun rises and sets? Just leave it a mystery!

reply

[–] Renovatio (2990) 8 years ago

Well... leaving it a mystery is the more erotic choice as it allows us to fantasize about the unknown... it engages the viewers mind and spirite in a more tantalising way... its a tease... its over when everything is exposed...

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

You are confused about the device in art and especially fiction, "ambiguity". Authors and writers often use this device in order to make their works more compelling and interesting. If you have gone to university you won't go very far without learning about ambiguity as a creative device.

Ambiguity taps into a deep desire in the audience to to be curious and to look for clues. There is a detective inside everyone. When you figure out something on your own it's infinitely more satisfying than if it is handed to you on a platter. This is why artists use ambiguity. This is why they are taught to use ambiguity.

Ambiguity taps into another deep desire in human psychology. The desire to feel like an intellectual bourgeois. As saviodium said: "so you can try to show off how smart you are (not very)". Abstract art sells for millions of dollars, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars because when a person feels like they have figured out something about the art that others might not have figured out, it imparts a deep connection to that art. They feel like the intellectual bourgeois. When they feel like this, their enjoyment from viewing that art actually increases(this has been tested using brain scans).

Alien: Covenant actually uses a fair bit of ambiguity. There are clues scattered throughout Alien:Covenant and in Prometheus that, if you analyze, will lead to the conclusion about why David created the xenomorphs.

It would not be nearly as satisfying if the information were simply handed to you on a platter. If the movie simply said: David created the xenomorphs because X. If you do some detective work and figure it out on your own you will get more enjoyment from it.

What people on this thread are advocating is NOT "ambiguity" what they are advocating is "philistinism".

reply

[–] [deleted] 8 years ago

What people on this thread are advocating is NOT "ambiguity" what they are advocating is "philistinism".

That was a nice little dance around the tiny real estate you consider a mind.

Care to cut us heathens a break and bring us up to speed on your detective work which has apparently attributed you enough insight into these pieces of art to consider those who don't "Get it" as lesser beings?

After you fail to present such evidence might I propose that you are either delusional or simply speaking out of your arse like so many have done before you on the subject?

I await, with whet appetite and baited breath, on the edge of my seat - literally shaking with excitement - for your reply which will, no doubt, release mankind from its struggles getting out of its intellectual slump.

Besides, there are a few seasons of paint drying I've to catch up on and I hear Watch Kettle Coming to Boil is being released in a few decades and so I best swot up on the backstory to it.

Until then I bid you...a dithered au revoir.

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

This is off-topic. I've already stated by analysis about David elsewhere right here in this forum, but on a different topic.

https://moviechat.org/tt2316204/Alien-Covenant/5942a5998355d4001173c77d/Spoilers-Vs-Ava

reply

[–] [deleted] 8 years ago

With an analysis like that you might want to hold off on calling people philistines as I, and many others, use an audience's interactions with a piece of art part of the overall process.

A join the dots interpretation of David leaves out the only mystery which Prometheus offered half-handedly to my mind which paints you as the very amateur platter taster you claim others need to be.

Again, have you considered the possibility that it could all just be poor writing?

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

Sorry, I'm not a film studies major. Maybe you can enlighten me with a comprehensive analysis with examples about how camera shots are employed to tell a story. I'm only able to analyze surface details.

I don't make it a practice to sit down and analyze films at length. Not nearly as much as I should. I do take pleasure whenever I am able to analyze some things. For example, I've analyzed the film The Wailing (2016) recently. That was a lengthy process and I enjoyed it very much. Ambiguity is really a core attribute of that film as the overarching message necessitates it.

By comparison, in Alien:Covenant the ambiguity might not be that necessary. It might be necessary if the core message is: humans are terrible and have group bias. But, I'm not sure if that is the core message. Maybe you can tell me.

reply

[–] [deleted] 8 years ago

Whilst I appreciate framing and blocking as much as the next kid I don't recall ever putting myself forward as someone who could provide a comprehensive analysis of them with regards to their inclusion within storytelling.

Were I to though I know that you'd move the goalposts to soundtrack or set design or any number of things you think you could use to try and disqualify my opinion - one which I have only lain forth as you not being entitled to call people philistines.

As for surface details and your ability to analysis them, I'm not sure if you are being facetious or trying to go for am ambiguous exit strategy on being called out for having nothing more than huff and puff about your argument that there is something to be had from either Prometheus or Covenant. Either way, the veneer is not the only surface, particularly when it reflects narcissism so aptly.

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

That's a good analysis of me and my opinions. I don't see the relevance to the film.

Further, you have not supported the thesis of the topic at hand.

Why would the mystery be better left unanswered? Why would the movie be better as a slasher horror flick showcasing the alien creature?

I'd like to point out, if I haven't already, the Alien creature was not a mystery to Weyland-Yutani corporation in the movie Alien. They knew about the xenomorph already.

(Everyone, including Ripley, mysteriously forgot about Order 937 in Aliens, for no apparent reason...)

reply

[–] [deleted] 8 years ago

You may not see the relevance to the film however as I've stated I, and many others, see the interaction of the audience with the movie as a means of the total process of such art. Your attempts at analysis, for me at least, brings a much needed amusement to what I consider to be an incredibly droll offering from Hollywood.

Why would the mystery be best left unanswered?

The answer lies in the name of the seminal piece of the series.

Why would the movie be better as a slasher horror flick showcasing the alien creature?

I don't recall that being in the thesis of the topic at hand and furthermore I don't recall ever sharing that opinion.

Are you prepared to apologise for calling others, who you know nothing about, philistines?

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

After your analysis of my character, I'm sure you already know my answer about whether or not I find sufficient reason to apologize. You have not posed anything that is not opinionated, unfalsifiably true and directly contradicts my argument.

Further, you have failed to support the thesis of the topic adequately, in my view.

reply

[–] [deleted] 8 years ago

You are welcome to your view (And edits after posting) however, as I know you are aware, you are far off topic trying to tie in slasher horror discussion when the basis of this thread is mystery; as in "Alien".

You needn't bother with an attempt at a rebuttal, you might find reflection and adaptability traits to work on though as you might get bored of asking people if they'd like fries with their order in the near future.

Best of luck with it all!

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 8 years ago

>Then again, maybe we should just leave it a "mystery".

>Who cares, I'm going to continue living my happy life in my cave without electricity. Making discoveries is >pointless and lowers the romanticism of the mystery. Who cares how fires are built and how season's take place >and why the sun rises and sets? Just leave it a mystery!

This is what I'm talking about. Your straw manning the opinion that a mystery reveal made the Alien franchise super lame and using it as if its our argument about science in general. No one ever made that assertion.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

Also the point is that the 'scientific' answer to existence is just as religious as religious explanation. So to approach the discussion with the assumption that science is inheritance superior to religion is a fallacy and poor logic.

You should at least being trying to prove that science is somehow superior, instead of trying to insult religion as being inferior. This is combative dialogue that does no one any good because even if you were speaking to someone religious you would be 'invading their territory' and putting them on the defense, thus these likely to even hear your reason.

"To say that reason opposeth faith is to scandalize both" - John Milton

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

Science is not a dogma based on an ancient text. Science is a method.

reply

[–] [deleted] 8 years ago

Technically the scientific method is a method and science is a system of belief Geff.

Granted it is a belief that can produce the same results over and over again if all the parameters established are met but when it comes down to it at an epistemology level it is a belief system.

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

There are truths that are established via the application of science.

One can hold a belief in those truths, but that doesn't mean you are believing in science. You are only believing that the scientific method is a good method of finding truth. Or, it's a good method of distinguishing fact from fiction.

The method is dogmatic, the truths are not. The method can be reapplied and, as long is there is enough supporting evidence, it can revise or overturn prior truths established by the scientific method.

I believe in the efficacy of the scientific method.

I do not believe in the efficacy of reading a religious text to ascertain incontrovertible truths.

reply

[–] [deleted] 8 years ago

Spoken like a true believer.

Let me know when your new god(s) revises or overturns your prior god(s).

Or is it only truth when science says it is?

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

science is the new religion. Which is horrible because science was supposed to be the methodology for finding truth and understand. It has been turned into a tool of pseudo intellectuals to use to try to tear down others and their beliefs; instead of reasoning and bringing people together many atheist that believe themselves superior for their non-belief in a god, think they are justified in their mocking others. This is a dangerous way to go about this because it turns it into an 'us' vs 'them' and creates a sense of tribalism. So religious people feel they are being 'attacked' and close their minds off to the actual truths that science can produce.

reply

[–] [deleted] 8 years ago

I fully concur.

I generally find that life, the experience, is a personal thing which the human mind goes to great lengths to sanitise for us to stay sane and maybe even happy.

If it is faith that gives some people that then more power to them, as long as they allow others to have their own faith(s) or lack thereof.

Science should be focused on solutions, not causing problems.

This is all my opinion of course 🙂

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

There are many examples of science overturning prior truths established by science.

I can name only a few because they are fortunately not taught in schools except as a historical study.

Behaviorism - This is the biggest example I know of: The Pavlovian idea of behaviorism has been completely abandoned in favor of cognition. This is thanks to findings in linguistics that showed that children are able to create sentences that they have never heard before.

Behaviorism was a leading theory studied by many researchers for close to a decade before it was completely abandoned in one fell swoop.

There are many other examples like: Humorism, Spontaneous Generation, Alchemy, Phlogiston, Maternal Impression, Vitalism, Geocentricity, World Ice Theory etc.

In a hypothetical scenario if the laws of physics somehow change in the future. The theory of gravitation and Newtonian laws and all scientifically garnered truths would change accordingly to fit the new laws. This would be possible still using the same scientific method.

The method remains.

reply

[–] [deleted] 8 years ago

The method remains.

The 'Truth' was never there though was it?

that's why we use the term "Scientific theory".

It's more complex that just an idea but it never states itself to be true - ever!

Big, huge Donald Trump - HUGE!!! - difference.

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

Please look up scientific theory. If your high school teachers taught you correctly you would not make such a stupid post. You are a product of the failings of your education.

Or, maybe your teachers were fine, and your religion made an impenetrable fortress around your brain that prevented the entrance of information.

reply

[–] [deleted] 8 years ago

YAWN!!

Hit me up when you have something to say you feeble-minded fool.

Go back to being an edgy atheist who regrets dropping out of university or whatever and YES, I do want fries with that.

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

I already graduated from a reputable University infact. So, I don't see how I can regret dropping out of University.

reply

[–] [deleted] 8 years ago

So you can't get an internship is that it?

Where are those fries?

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

I am profitably employed. But, thanks for your concern.

reply

[–] [deleted] 8 years ago

Beats being unprofitably employed.

That university tuition is already paying for itself I can see! 😃

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

Yes, I'm profitably employed. The antithesis is untrue and undesirable. You are correct.

reply

[–] [deleted] 8 years ago

Just out of curiosity, do you ever record yourself and listen to yourself speak?

If not, you should try - it'll be a real useful experience for you 🙂

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

And here you return to non arguments again. attacking the person and not the argument. for one that argues the position that science is truth your logic is questionable. it follows that your poor logic is the reason you come to faulty conclusions on nearly everything and why you will ultimately do more harm than good for science. You will likely turn more and more people off of science and either further into religious zealousness or pseudo-science.

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

"for one that argues the position that science is truth your logic is questionable."

Please re-read what I have said earlier. Where did I say that science is truth? I have consistently held the position that science is a method.

If you disagree with a truth that was derived from employing the scientific method, then go ahead and propose an alternative hypothesis and test it. Or, test a hypothesis that directly contradicts the aforementioned truth. You are welcome to do this, infact it is encouraged.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"Please re-read what I have said earlier. Where did I say that science is truth? I have consistently held the position that science is a method."

Okay you must be trolling full on now. Your whole position from the beginning has been that science is truth and all other thought is by "All the home schooled evangelists who were never taught science"

Also you said this: "There are truths that are established via the application of science.

One can hold a belief in those truths, but that doesn't mean you are believing in science."

and this: "The method is dogmatic, the truths are not."

So yes you have been arguing the position that science is equatable to truth.

And the whole way that better truth is found is from questioning the assumptions and employing methods for testing. The scientific method is the best method we have for determining scientifically what is or is not correct, but it is not perfect and much of it can not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. This makes it an imperfect system. if you use this imperfect system to try to call out less perfect systems you have failed to approach such a 'debate' in a scientific manner. You are assuming by default you (and science) are right and that everyone else is wrong. This will in turn make them (religion) is right and you are by default wrong. then instead of working together to blend scientific fact with philosophical/psychological/religious truth.

I believe in the use of science to strengthen understanding of both existence are what may lay beyond physical understanding. You treat science like it is you bible (or your weapon) for defeating your enemy. This makes you religious in nature and guilty of the same flaws that have existed in religious thought for thousands of years.

But his goes along with the theory that people never really change, our technology and knowledge does but human nature will never change.

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

You are talking about the phenomenon of group-bias. This is not the topic at hand.

I am talking about the truth claims of religion.

"So yes you have been arguing the position that science is equatable to truth."

Can you read?

"The scientific method is the best method we have for determining (...) what is or is not correct"

Yes, this is my claim.

"but it is not perfect and much of it can not be proved beyond reasonable doubt."

Yes, it is perfect, for now. If you believe it is not perfect, tell me what is imperfect about it.

If you believe that truths acquired via. the scientific method (note I have not said scientific truths) cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt then how are you experiencing electricity? Why do things fall towards the earth? Why do we have seasons? Why are you on the floor and not going through the floor? Is it magic that does all this?

Again, you can propose alternative hypotheses to the theory of relativity (under normal non-light-speed settings) or you could propose alternative hypotheses to Newtonian laws. You can propose alternative hypotheses or contradictory hypotheses to all scientific method derived truths. If you have such a mistrust for science, why don't you test those hypotheses?

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"You are talking about the phenomenon of group-bias. This is not the topic at hand."

No this is not what I am talking about. I am talking about human error caused by bias. That applies in science like everything else.

"Yes, *this* is my claim."

I agree with this claim, but this is not what you claimed. You claimed that science is truth and everything else comes from the uneducated unwilling to accept truth. This is a false claim and a counter productive one.

"Yes, it is perfect, for now. "

Religious people claim god is perfect. No it is not perfect, it is better but not perfect. assuming so is dangerous and limits further progress from finding something better.

"If you believe it is not perfect, tell me what is imperfect about it?"

I already did. You are just trolling now.

and your credibility is out the window because science does not deal in truth. It deals in facts. Truth is philosophy. You are turning science into a religion or a philosophy.

I am bored with you now and tired. you still have not even addressed the fact that I am claiming you do not know the difference between fact and truth. You speak about science like it is philosophy. you mock religious people while making religious arguments and you have deflected and turned this discussion about a fictional movie into a science vs religion debate all with only trying to insult anyone that does not believe what you believe. You are a blind atheistic zealot that will keep reducing science until it is meaningless and nothing more than empty philosophy. All while thinking you are on some higher level of understanding because some teachers told some stuff alot over many years and now you feel your education is all the proof you need that you are right. it is pathetic.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

well now we would have to get into a discussion of what truth is. I watched a 'dicussion' between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson on this subject and it is far more complex and also not sufficiently definable to 'trust'.

if truth as you see it is a principle that was laid down by a scientific authority than it does fit the definition of a dogma.

If you are interested in breaking down the scientific method, I found 2 possible 'flaws' in it. the first I thought about many years ago when I was a teenager. It is the peer review portion of the method. because whom do scientist consider 'peers'. If only those of the same or similar education and 'beliefs' can be qualified as peers than when looking at the same data they will come to same or similar conclusion. Now they are supposed to go over the theory with a skeptical mind trying to 'disprove' it but how can they when their education and beliefs are so similar. Those they do not consider peers are not considered credible. For example a scientist would not consider a creationist to be credible. Why not? if the study would hold up under the most skeptical of scrutiny than it is that much more proved.

The second flaw I thought of more recently, it is in the hypothesis stage. A scientist goes in looking for an 'answer' not necessarily a 'truth'. when one looks for an answer they can change the question until they get the answer they are looking for. If they go in seeking the truth of something it would not be deniable when found.

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

I don't want to discuss the absurd claim about truth by Jordan Peterson. I've discussed it at length elsewhere and I'm at the end of my patience. No reasonable rational person believes in Peterson's idea of "truth". The only people who believe it are Peterson cultists.

Regards to the first flaw: Things have to be measured. Numbers don't lie. Statistical tests can fail and they fail frequently. A large majority of hypotheses might be intuitive but end up unsupported by the data.

Regards to second flaw: A hypothesis is a speculation about a possible outcome. It's an educated guess about what an experiment's results might yield. The experiment results and subsequent statistical analysis can either support or not give enough support for your hypothesis.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

And only people that are Harris or Hitchins cultist believe they are the end all be all of intellectual thought. I will say this of Harris and Hitchins I respect their methods but disagree with a large number of their conclusions. They do not speak scientific truth in many cases but rely a philosophical or assumed truth. And that is what Peterson's claims are about. Only an unreasonable person would write this off as absurb

No numbers don't lie but they can be wrong or manipulated. (a simple example of this is the unemployment rate. Obama supporters claim unemployment went down under Obama, while true this neglected that the labor participation rate also decreased which meant the unemployment rate went down in part at least because people stopped looking for work) And numbers are not perfect either. especially when we start getting into complex or quantum physics. This is when hypothesis build on hypothesis that are based on assumptions about theories. The basics have to be assumed before the studies can be conducted, there is not enough time to verify if the original principle the complex hypothesis is based on are accurate. This does not change to idea of the possible flow. All theories are an interpretation of data. Data does not give meaning it only gives data. Human thought has to give it meaning. No wonder you find Peterson absurd you can't even distinguish between the data and the conclusion. Data does not lie but can be inaccurate. The conclusion that is derived is totally depended on the person or people reading the data

And if the hypothesis is proved invalid they will change the hypothesis to find the outcome they are expecting. Do you not see how this could possibly lead to a human bias that could affect an entire study. You are far too trusting of scientist. Remember scientist are still human and prone to both error and malice.

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

"Obama supporters claim unemployment went down under Obama, while true this neglected that the labor participation rate also decreased which meant the unemployment rate went down in part at least because people stopped looking for work"

The data is not responsible for people's understanding of the word "unemployment". If laymen misunderstand what unemployment means then that's too bad. Unemployment went down.

Whatever research paper stated the claim about unemployment would have explicitly stated that it does not regard people who are not currently seeking employment as unemployed.

Even if it's not explicitly written, this is definitional and assumed. Unemployment statistics never throughout history regarded people not seeking employment as unemployed. Why would experimenters suddenly change the standard definition and remove consistency?

"All theories are an interpretation of data. Data does not give meaning it only gives data. Human thought has to give it meaning. No wonder you find Peterson absurd you can't even distinguish between the data and the conclusion. Data does not lie but can be inaccurate. The conclusion that is derived is totally depended on the person or people reading the data."

Gravity was true long before humans existed. It was true before the theory of relativity described it. It will be true long after humans are extinct and there are no longer any brains to appreciate it.

You are welcome to say that gravity only exists because human minds are able to comprehend it. I am welcome to call you delusional.

"And if the hypothesis is proved invalid they will change the hypothesis to find the outcome they are expecting."

Yes, hypotheses are not supported and are abandoned all the time. Yes, new hypotheses are proposed all the time. New hypotheses might stand up to testing and be supported by the data.

What exactly is the problem here?

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"The data is not responsible for people's understanding of the word "unemployment". If laymen misunderstand what unemployment means then that's too bad. Unemployment went down."

you're missing the point of truth of actual numbers being used manipulatively to sell narrative. You do not understand that humans understand reality through narrative process not a scientific one. even scientist have consciousness because of narrative.

"Whatever research paper stated the claim about unemployment would have explicitly stated that it does not regard people who are not currently seeking employment as unemployed. "

This is not a 'research' paper it is governmental statistics. Obviously you have very little education or experience in economics.

"Unemployment statistics never throughout history regarded people not seeking employment as unemployed. Why would experimenters suddenly change the standard definition and remove consistency?"

because someone wanted to sell the narrative that employment conditions in the country were improving when they were actually getting worse so they used truth to sell a false narrative. I am surprised you are having such a hard time grasping these concepts. It does not help you credibility.

"Gravity was true long before humans existed. "

true for who? truth is a human illusion not a scientific fact. the fact that humans have consciousness gives us the ability to seek understanding of our existence. You are conflating fact with truth. tell me this, so we have a better understanding of our meaning. Describe to me what is "truth" in your own words.

"You are welcome to say that gravity only exists because human minds are able to comprehend it. I am welcome to call you delusional."

again you are attempting to attack the person and not the argument. you are trying to project that you are by default superior to me and therefore anything I say is questionable or incorrect. This is a rather narcissistic way to argue with someone.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"Yes, hypotheses are not supported and are abandoned all the time. Yes, new hypotheses are proposed all the time. New hypotheses might stand up to testing and be supported by the data.

What exactly is the problem here?"

The problem is the hypotheses are inspired by a human's agenda. Once a human has a 'goal' in mind they will try to find a way to achieve that goal. If the goal is to understand something they have to come up with a hypothesis or an assumption of 'how' that something works. They then test that assumption to see if it checks out. If it does not they change the hypothesis but their agenda does not change, nor does their inherent bias. They are looking for answers and not truth. Answers are based on the question. so if the human has the goal of the answer in mind they can keep changing the question (hypothesis) until they get the answer they are looking for. This clouds judgment and the ability to remain partial, which can in turn corrupt the way they read data.

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

"The problem is the hypotheses are inspired by a human's agenda."

Yes, the agenda is finding the truth.

"Once a human has a 'goal' in mind they will try to find a way to achieve that goal."

No, if the results of statistical testing does not support your hypothesis, you can't simply will it into supporting your hypothesis.

--
You are a 100% inaccurate about what you think a hypothesis is.

A hypothesis is a speculation about how something will behave given a certain circumstance. A hypothesis has to be testable. You can either support the hypothesis or not find sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis.

After you have created the hypothesis, you construct an experimental method to test the hypothesis.

You then gather the raw data.

You then analyze the data using one of a number of statistical tests. The test used depends on a number of factors, including type of experimental method used and area of scientific inquiry.

The statistical test is the final judge of whether or not the experimental hypothesis is supported and whether or not you can confidently reject the null hypothesis.

Surely everyone has learned this in school... right? What are teachers doing? This is high school material!

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"Yes, the agenda is finding the truth."

wrong. it is finding the answer to a hypothesis. Stop conflating that with truth. Truth is a philosophical idea not to be confused with scientific fact/theory.

"No, if the results of statistical testing does not support your hypothesis, you can't simply will it into supporting your hypothesis."

no but you can keep redoing the hypothesis until the answer works.

"You are a 100% inaccurate about what you think a hypothesis is."

lol, nice. 'my arguments are failing and I look like an idiot. quick give the allusion that the other guy does not understand what they are talking about'. you do not seem to know the difference between truth and fact.

"A hypothesis is a speculation about how something will behave given a certain circumstance. A hypothesis has to be testable. You can either support the hypothesis or not find sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis."

yes but why speculate on anything unless you are looking for an answer. that is the whole point. You seem to believe that the scientific method has no objectives and is simply playing with ideas and not looking for anything specific. if that was the case the scientific method would be the most useless set of principles ever designed.

now i am not going to address the rest of the post because I have lost patience for one so blinded by their own ego and since you still are not getting how you are hurting science by turning into a religion and now defending your religion just like a religious person I have lost all respect for you.

"Surely everyone has learned this in school... right? What are teachers doing? This is high school material!"

I don't know who taught you, but you can't even understand the difference between what is fact and what is truth. Also the fact that you blindly follow whatever some teachers have told you makes you laughably unable to think for yourself. You do not see how limited your intellect.

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

I give up, you win.

What's the point of trusting anyone? Why should I trust my teacher? Why should I trust the pastor? Why should I trust myself? Why should I trust you?

Everyone is a liar. There is no point in having further discourse.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

You should not trust anyone or anything. I am skeptical of everything except my own perception.

I do not think everyone should be this way but you should not approach such a discussion (especially on a bored about a fictional movie) in such a combative and insulting manner. If you want science to win, approach the discussion like a rational scientist and not a religious atheist.

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

Why aren't you skeptical of your own perception? You put too much faith in your perception. Perceptions can be wrong.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

Unless there is reasonable evidence to contrary you can trust you perceptions. For example if you say you see a giant spider crawling on you windshield and all other 5 passengers say there is no spider there, then you have reasonable reason to doubt your perception. unless such reasonable doubt exist there is no reason to doubt it.

Maybe I am not being clear. I do lean toward scientific thought and typically end up agreeing with scientific conclusion. But I do not dismiss others that have come to a different conclusion as 'stupid' as you do. I think you approach is ,as I said, counter productive to the success of science and the authenticity of the scientific method. There is no reason to over sell it, unless you are not 100% confident in it.

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

Wait a second...

You hypothesize that there is a giant spider crawling on the windshield.

You take a sample of 5 people and ask them if there is a spider in order to test your hypothesis.

You perform statistical testing to support your hypothesis or to support the null hypothesis.

Hmm, this sounds familiar...

Oh wait! This won't work because those 5 people are all liars!

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

What if 2 say it is not a spider cuz it does not have 8 legs, another says spiders don't have 8 legs, 1 says there is nothing there and the last says it is a dog?

Do you assume they are all stupid for coming to different conclusion. Maybe the last person was taught the word for spider is dog, so technically in his language he is factually correct. You see how your bias can lead to false conclusion. stop assuming you are right by default, if the science is credible it will 'prove' itself and not need your devotion.

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

Who cares what they say?

"You should not trust anyone or anything."

You can never prove that your perception is correct.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"Who cares what they say?"

And who cares if a mystery to a science fiction film goes unanswered?

Not a very scientific response to the curiosity of 6 people in a car all coming to a different conclusion based on the same thing. now how is not being scientific?

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

"You should not trust anyone or anything. I am skeptical of everything except my own perception."

You still haven't answered the question of how do you know your perception is correct?

Whatever the 6 people say is of absolutely no value, because according to you they all cannot be trusted. So, why even bother asking them if the spider is real?

We have to get over this question before going into the question of sample size, sampling error and not sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

you never answered my question. so when sophistry fails you turn to deflections. it is pointless to argue with one that sucks at debating.

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

I can address your problems with the scientific method. After the overcoming the hump:

"You should not trust anyone or anything. I am skeptical of everything except my own perception."

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

I simply meant that you should be reasonably skeptical of everything except your own perception unless there is reasonable reason to doubt it. if you are not by default able to trust your own perception you would be useless as a person because everything you experience would need verified but since you can't trust 'them' how would you verify it. There is simply no way to go about existence without being able to, by default, trust what you physically hear, see, touch, taste and feel. As I said, as long as you do not have reasonable reason to doubt it.

Everything I say is about being reasonable. Your initial premise was to be unreasonable with those that believe in a god or gods, immediately mocking them for not believing in science the way you do. if you are not reasonable with them why should they be with you or with science?

you approach is damaging to the good name of science and because you approach it in the same fashion as those that approach their religious belief I find you despicable. You hypocrisy will hurt science and make it more difficult for people like me to properly bridge the gap, that in my opinion and experience does not actually need to exist.

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

"I simply meant that you should be reasonably skeptical of everything except your own perception unless there is reasonable reason to doubt it. if you are not by default able to trust your own perception you would be useless as a person because everything you experience would need verified but since you can't trust 'them' how would you verify it. There is simply no way to go about existence without being able to, by default, trust what you physically hear, see, touch, taste and feel. As I said, as long as you do not have reasonable reason to doubt it."

People can have visual and auditory hallucinations. People are prone to optical illusions.

How do you know the spider is not a hallucination?

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"People can have visual and auditory hallucinations. People are prone to optical illusions."

I already addressed very question this 2 times. do you have difficulty understanding or remember things? Or are you just trolling?

You also continuously ignore how your zealousness is hurting the name of science. You would make a horrid scientist and would be among the reasons why religious people actual have validity to their skepticism towards science.

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

"I already addressed very question this 2 times."

Except, in order to prove that it's not a hallucination you need to recruit the aid of 5 or 6 witnesses. This method would not work because according to you:

"You should not trust anyone or anything."

You cannot trust the witnesses. So show me how you can determine that the spider is not a hallucination without witnesses.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

troll. why should I repeat myself when you continuously ignore me?

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

I've read every comment.

Nowhere do you address the problem of hallucination. You just assume that your perceptions are correct.

You also posit the idea that you can ask 5 or 6 people to confirm or deny the existence of the spider. Yet, you fail to see the paradox in your logic:

If you believe: "You should not trust anyone or anything." then asking those 5 or 6 people is completely useless because they cannot be trusted regardless of what they say.

Why can't you just admit that this paradox exists in your logic?

Instead you call me a troll because you can't defend your logic.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"I've read every comment."

Doesn't mean you understood anything.

"Nowhere do you address the problem of hallucination."

Go back a re-read, I address this very question.

"Why can't you just admit that this paradox exists in your logic?"

It is because there is no flaw in my logic because it is all about being reasonable. reasonable doubt, reasonable skepticism, reasonable approach to people. I can't continue discussing with someone not paying attention.

"Instead you call me a troll because you can't defend your logic."

Either you are a troll, purposefully ignoring what I wrote or not intelligent enough to understand how I have already addressed your questions. seriously go back a re-read what I wrote about trusting your perceptions by default unless you have reasonable reason to doubt it. until that time I will not respond to you anymore because you lack of attention is annoying me and I will start to get short with you; which does not help a discussion.

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

Looks like you are advocating blind faith in your perception because nobody can prove or disprove your perception.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

you are a fucking idiot troll.

How many different ways can i describe reasonable approach to you fucking wanker.

I have now explained it 3 times. 3 strikes your out. you a fucking retard. go fuck yourself troll douche-bag.

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

What is "reasonable" is subjective. I could say that it is reasonable to analyze a research paper, look at what methodology and tests the researcher used, and come to the determination that the the paper's results are accurate. You could very well consider this to be unreasonable.

I could say it is reasonable to employ the aid of a sample of people to come to a determination of whether or not the spider is real. You could very well determine that it's more reasonable to just trust your senses.

I could say it is reasonable to trust some science professors. You could say that it is unreasonable.

Your definition of reasonableness is asynchronous with my opinion about reasonableness. They are subjective opinions.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

And Truth is not subjective? what the hell kind of logic is that. If "reasonable" is subjective than so must truth. Otherwise you are just picking and choosing which
consepts you have faith in and which
you do not. There
fore you are not being
consistent.

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

I have faith in the scientific method until a better method presents itself. Show me that your method is a better method, and I'll be happy to abandon the scientific method.

The scientific method does not show that something is true.

The scientific method is the best way to filter out what is "more true" than the alternative. A hypothesis that has been supported over and over again by evidence and has withstood multiple experimental tests from a wide variety of scientific fields is "more true" than a hypothesis that has not withstood any experimental tests.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

I am going to reply to this in an older post so it is not all jumbled up.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

But how can you reasonably doubt your perception if you already are in doubt of what other people relay to you about their perceptions? How do you verify what they "see" is true. How do you verify the verification of what they see? Do you see how you create an endless cycle of needlessly trying to ensure that accuracy of every single thing in this world. If you never operate on any fundamental beliefs, facts, assumptions, whatever you have no idea of how to determine if ANYTHING that you perceive is true.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

can't read very well can you. I said by default you can trust your perception unless you have reasonable reason not to. I have already given the example of i you see something that multiple people have told you is not there, that would be reasonable reason to doubt your perception.

what is so hard to grasp about being reasonable? Why is the concept so difficult for you and Geff to grasp? My only conclusion is you are unreasonable people, like the religious people you hypocritically mock.

I have lost all patients for you and the other. You will just continue on in your religious like assumption that you are right and everyone else is wrong all the while hurting the name of science until it is reduced to nothing more than a philosophy. All the while spouting your delusions of being intellectual superior to others.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

But you already mentioned that you are skeptical of what people relay to you about your perception. How do you verify what other people are telling you about what may or may not be true about the observable universe (in this case the presence of a spider) is true?

What if the spider is actually there, regardless of the perception of any human and you claim to see it but the other people say you are delusional? Let's say you bring another thousand people to see if this spider is real or not, and they all say it's not there; let's bring the whole world to comment on the spider's presence. No surprise! They all say the spider is not there either. Partially using your logic, reality is determined entirely by consensus, but you also doubt the assumptions these people make about the spider being there or not. There IS NO WAY TO VERIFY IF THE SPIDER IS THERE OR NOT. It is paradoxical. You are claiming to be a human that operates entirely without any base assumptions about how the world operates.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"But you already mentioned that you are skeptical of what people relay to you about your perception"

I did not find a quote where i said such a thing. I said by default we should trust our perception until we have a substantial amount of evidence that something is wrong with it. What you should be by default skeptical in others is just about everything else they tell you. and all of this is reasonably skeptical. This helps prevent one from becoming indoctrinated or blinded by any individual ideology or methodology.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

"You should not trust anyone or anything. I am skeptical of everything except my own perception."

That is a quote from you. The conclusion I drew is not an unreasonable way to draw if I am using your logic.

"What you should be by default skeptical in others is just about everything else they tell you. and all of this is reasonably skeptical. This helps prevent one from becoming indoctrinated or blinded by any individual ideology or methodology."

This part of the paragraph is incomprehensible. What the heck are you even saying? Are you saying the only aspect of our skepticism we should hold to an open flame is our perception of the world? You sound like one of the wacky postmodernists that Peterson rants and raves about. My my.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

right, this is what I said. that does not mean I am "skeptical of what people relay to you about your perception". These 2 statements do not mean the same thing.

"This part of the paragraph is incomprehensible. What the heck are you even saying? Are you saying the only aspect of our skepticism we should hold to an open flame is our perception of the world? You sound like one of the wacky postmodernists that Peterson rants and raves about. My my."

more fallacies and non-arguments i see. now I am crazy too. Nice. why argue when you can just insult you way through a debate? Here let me try: you are a retard and can now properly go fuck yourself.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

"You should not trust anyone or anything. I am skeptical of everything except my own perception."

This statement is all encompassing, though. You can't take what people relay to you about their perception to be true if you actually believe in the statement that you made above. You understand this, right?

"more fallacies and non-arguments i see. now I am crazy too. Nice. why argue when you can just insult you way through a debate? Here let me try: you are a retard and can now properly go fuck yourself."

Lol, I clearly indicated at the start of that paragraph that I couldn't understand what you were saying because the post was incomprehensible. I was trying to understand the argument you were making, but I can see you have no interest in actually clarifying it for me.

I added a couple insults because I like to insult people, and you are quite easy to insult. Simple. Doesn't mean my question (the one that came before the insult) is invalid, you dunce.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

Man, you were cranking out responses before. What happened?

Don't worry, I know what happened. Hopefully you realize the inanity of your arguments, reflect on this discussion, and actually progress in life.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"Man, you were cranking out responses before. What happened?"

"Hopefully you realize the inanity of your arguments, reflect on this discussion, and actually progress in life."

or maybe I am just eating. more fundamental attribute errors.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

You can eat and type at the same time, just like everyone else.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

what if I am eating pizza? kind of hard to type when pizza is in your hand.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

You have two hands, I assume?

Also, mus that pizza so desperately reach your maw that you can't simply reply to a comment someone made towards you?

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

You are distorting the scientific method to such a degree it is absolutely baffling.

Regarding you first *ahem* "flaw," you completely misunderstood what researchers what being a peer actually encompasses. "Similar education" is a vague term. Their "similar education" does not mean that these people necessarily are equally as knowledgeable as each other, meaning they know the exact same facts. It does not mean that they also hold the same beliefs. They may not even agree with the research that is being reviewed, or the findings may conflict with their own beliefs. The idea of peer review is not to hold researchers to specific standards to ensure that fundamental beliefs are reinforced; the idea is to ensure that the research conducted their research ethically and reasonably within their field. They aren't trying to only produce research that confirms their core beliefs. Science always has a inkling of iconoclasm in it; core beliefs are ready to be shattered at any given moment if new research comes along that disproves or expands upon previous assumptions.

I don't know where you get this idea that peer review involves disproving research that is being reviewed, but that isn't how most professionals would view it. The idea is that the research that was conducted holds up to standards that the community in a field believes are necessary to be suitable for publication. Now these standards aren't unreasonable or necessarily in conflict with standards most people would have. It mostly consists of ensuring that the work was done in a way to avoid overt flaws in how the data was collected, how conclusions were reached, and if the methodology was sound. Now that doesn't mean that some peer reviews are without their fair share of biases, but that isn't the goal of researches as a whole.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"You are distorting the scientific method to such a degree it is absolutely baffling. "

You seem to be under the impression that I do not value the scientific method. Incorrect. I am simply pointing out possible room for error with it that should enable people to remain objective when viewing theories. It is not a perfect system and though it is the best system we have does not mean we get to treat it like religious people treat their faith, which is what the other user is doing.

"you completely misunderstood what researchers what being a peer actually encompasses"

I actual address this very thing, those that would be considered outside the peer group, for example a creation 'scientist', is not considered a credible peer. Why not, if the study is solid enough even the most religious of scientist should not be able to deny it? The point being that if nothing but like minded individuals are considered peers how can they remain partial in their assessment of the research.

Now I am out of patients for addressing your other responses (because you are taking what I said generally and applying it specifically), it is supposed to be a discussion about a fictional movie. the whole point is about being reasonably skeptical of things including science, until you look into it and find it to be sound. This is actual a scientific approach to the scientific method and yet you and the other user are on a defensive that I would attribute to as religious like defense of the religion of science, instead of focusing on the facts of science.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

A religious scientist has every right to evaluate any sort of research they went (as does anybody else using whatever standards they went as long as the research is available). It's just the standards they are using really have no relation to the field they are looking into. The "beliefs" a biologist has about some of the fundamental aspects of biology aren't impacted in any way by the "beliefs" a person of faith has about humans. What "flaws" could someone of faith point out in a biologist's research, especially since a person of faith's beliefs are based in superstition.

Think about it this way, would you have a sociologist do a peer review of a biologist's research paper? If they have virtually no knowledge about biology, how they contribute to the discussion about the paper. What could they possibly say that has any bearing on the papers' credibility, the consistency of the arguments made in the paper, how would they identify flaws in the paper that only a biologist would be able to identify?

BTW, what you said generally does need to be applied specifically or else it's arguably kinda useless.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"what you said generally does need to be applied specifically or else it's arguably kinda useless."

you are missing the point. I brought up the general idea to demonstrate that fact that mocking religious people in the name of science is counter productive.

And because you miss the point and are trying to spin the point to a unrelated topic I have lost patients with your inability or unwillingness to address the actual focus of the conversation. and still this has nothing to do with the film Alien Covenant.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

I wasn't walking into this conversation for the sake of Alien: Covenant, I was more interested in the topic that you and that other user you were arguing with were having.

Even though I enjoyed the film I am not actually interested in discussing it, at least with you since I find the other topic to be more interesting.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

IF you are interested in the topic than why don't you explain to me why you think it is appropriate for someone to mock religious people as being poorly educated and stupid as opposed to the 'undeniable truth' of science? Tell me how this is not a religious like approach to science that will turn people into tribal groups that will be territorial about protecting their tribes? Tell me how the user that mocks all religious people as being stupid by default is not an incredible hypocritical approach to science?

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

I wouldn't necessarily consider religious people to be stupid. I think their superstitious beliefs about how humans and the universe operate should bear significant scrutiny, though. There is also no "undeniable truth" to science. Science evolves, changes rapidly. New discoveries throw old ones into suspicion. Once again, this is not the argument that I am trying to have with you...

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

Right, this is the point I was initially making with Geff. This is exactly my point. and because religious people can be held under scrutiny and not 'break' and science is always rapidly changing the scientific community and those that follow it should not belittle people of religious beliefs. that is my whole point.

" Once again, this is not the argument that I am trying to have with you..."

Well then we are not arguing about the same thing then, because this is what I am talking about. and I have present some of my logic for why I came to these conclusions.

How can we ever come to any kind of catharsis if we are not even arguing the same topic?

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

My original issue with you was your opinions that you laid out about the scientific method. That was the argument I was having with you.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

ah, I was maybe not being specific enough. also if you take out only one part of a whole conversation the exact statements can be taken out of context. since you are not really trying to argue with me, this is what I assume you are doing, taking something I said out of context to discredit the argument.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

Except, I didn't take the exact statements out of context. You're criticisms of the scientific method seemed perfectly suitable to be examined on their own.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

those comments were being applied to a conversation about the possible imperfections of the scientific method. ignoring the rest the conversation that lead up to those statements is the definition of taking a statement out of context. so again I say, go fuck yourself you retarded troll.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

LOLOLOLOL.

You need to point out to me where I specifically took your arguments out of context before you keep this argument up. Your issues with the scientific method stand on their own and can be critiqued.

If you actually had this issue with me you would've brought it up at the start of the discussion, but you didn't. INTERESTING.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"You need to point out to me where I specifically took your arguments out of context before you keep this argument up. Your issues with the scientific method stand on their own and can be critiqued."

No they do not stand on their own, they are a follow up thought to other comments. so the fact you are taking them out of context and refusing to admit demonstrates a serious lack of attention, or just out right trolling. I don't need to print anything. the entire conversation is right above for everyone, including you, to see.

"If you actually had this issue with me you would've brought it up at the start of the discussion, but you didn't. INTERESTING."

oh get bent you fucking asshole with you little "INTERESTING" bullshit. I had absolutely no idea what you initial goal was or what your point could have been all I had to go off of was your initial comment. that is the limit of what I knew about you. I had no way of knowing what kind of issues would develop with you "at the start of discussion". You have no logic in your thought process and have decided you are trolling and flaming. I am reporting you as i have been reported for these very things even though I was doing neither.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

You pointing out flaws in the scientific method do stand on their own, especially since these flaws seem to have been on your mind for quite some time.

"If you are interested in breaking down the scientific method, I found 2 possible 'flaws' in it. the first I thought about many years ago when I was a teenager."

"The second flaw I thought of more recently"

If these two points were so crucial to the discussion you were having with the other user, if they were so deeply in the context of that discussion they shouldn't be something that you have been thinking about for some time. Claiming there are flaws in the scientific method is quite serious, and no where in your previous post is it tethered to any topic to the point that grappling with your claims about the fallibility of the scientific method on their own would be considered taking them out of context.

I still find it QUITE interesting that you can't demonstrate to my how I took your remarks out of context. If I am not simply getting your very important point, I would think you would be willing to show me where I am wrong, at least for the sake of intellectual conversation.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"intellectual conversation"

none of what you demonstrated could qualify as intellectual conversation. I have reported you for trolling as has happened to me and am now moving on.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

Lol, gave up I see.

Love you, too.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

nihil nequius est te!

vapula! vapules!

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

Thanks for giving me a great reason to report you for telling me to hang myself.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

It means you're going to get whipped. I go off of exact translations stupid.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

Oh my, thanks for admitting it on the board-that will sure help you. Dunce.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

does that mean you admit to false accusation then?

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

What false accusation did I levy at you?

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

that I tried "telling me to hang myself" when that is not what the expression "vapula! vapules!" actually means. That is a bad translation that I assume you got from google. what it literally means is "go get whipped"

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

Ahh yes, me not understanding Latin deserves the label of "false accusation."

Fine, I'll gladly admit I falsely accused you of telling me to go hang myself if you admit you think I should be whipped. I'm sure the mods will love that.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

" if you admit you think I should be whipped. "

I admit I think that as much as I think you should go fuck yourself. it is metaphorical.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

Is it metaphorical? Truth is subjective. I feel physically threatened.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"I feel physically threatened."

that might be the truth for you. but it is not the facts.
facts are scientific. Truth is philosophical.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

Sorry, I am skeptical of everything, even facts.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

Lol, i suppose that is reasonable.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

Are you incapable of detecting sarcasm

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

ARe you?

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

Sadly, yes. Especially when it comes from morons.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

well you faile dto get the sarcasm of my comment "i suppose that is reasonable"

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

You are a moron, so it is difficult to detect sarcasm from you.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

I could say the same about you just as easily. actually easier for me because now we have had a dialgue so now we should be able to detect the sarcasm. I could not have able to tell you sarcasm in the frist comment sinc eit was teh first time we spoke, unles syou are geff and you are just conintuing the previous conversation with knowledge that you already had and were projecting on to me assuming I should know them too. I woul dnot be able to know that unless I knew you were geff.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

You were never sarcastic, as far as I can tell, in your previous posts. I would have a difficult time detecting sarcasm from you if I had no experience with it before. Troll harder, boo.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

well i stopped taking you seriously many posts ago, so assume for at least the last 30 minutes I have been sarcastic. but like I said I am not taking this serious anymore because you proved not worthy of a serious conversation so now I am just screwing around

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

k, I get that you lost the argument and are sad. I will be your shoulder to cry on. Love you.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

I would say you lost the argument form the first sentence. I was foolish for taking you seriously at first so now i am giving you a taste of the nonsense you were putting me through. If that in your mind means I lost the argumetn, well I suppose that is the truth... for you.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

If I lost argument from the very first sentence, and then all my other points were also bad, you would have actually addressed them all. But you didn't. Love you, boo.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

Again I jsut said I fully addressed all your points. just because I did not quote each individual sentence before explaining why you are an idiot does not mean I did not fully address it. Like I said though only a third party could tell us for sure whom was reasonable and who was a worthless waste of life. I am makign the claim you were the later.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

You really didn't address all of my points, but that's okay. If you think you did you can keep on thinking that. Nothing I can do to stop you.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

you can think i didn't address all your points because I did not quote each individual sentance and break down every silable. I can't stop you from thinking that either. really we are both powerless here. I can't cure your retardation. You can't stop me from being a genius.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

oh mighty genius, gift me with your brain power. I will be able to ignore various rebuttals
just
like
you
if
you
were
a
generous
piece
of
shit

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

sorry no can do. I like having stupid people around, it is an easy confidence boost when I think I am not smart enough i just find someone like you and realize how far above average I am. BTW that does not mean you are average but far below it. since you can't get sarcasm i figured Id explain it to you.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

Damn, you got me!

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

well I guess I shouldn't be too proud of that, it took me way to long to figure out. I mean im dealing with a full blown retard and I took you seriously for like 2 hours. god that is bad.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

Maybe,maybe. You're the retarded one? I'm sure if I gathered 5 more people and they questioned your perception of events you would have to admit to being retared, right?

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

well maybe if all 5 told me I was I would have to at least consider the possiblity. but what if I got five people to all confirm you are the retard, would you at least consider it?

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

Sadly, no. Mainly because I don't go by your warped view of truth and perception.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

pray tell what do you use for you view of ruth and perception. I have described mine all you have done is link webster. any retard can link

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

Well, ruth and I don't talk any more so that's kinda hard.

Oh, you mean truth. I told you in one of the comments I think the first def of truth on Webster works fine. I should not your view of perception isn't really warped, just when it's intertwined with truth. Really gonna have a talk with me while neither of us can really type out what we are saying in a clear manner

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

as i said I am not taking you seriously anyomore so I don't really care that neither of us can even make out what the other is saying. I could not make out what you were trying to say even when I coudl read it anyway. but retardation is difficult to understand

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

Oh, well if we aren't goning to take each other even a little bit seriously can i be done now? i REALLY WANT TO GO PLAY DANGANRONPA.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

oh we can stop whenever you do. I have another 5 hours to fuck off so I can keep going.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

Okay, I am going to stop now. I want to play vidya games. Bye bye, new friend. Love ya.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

Okay go play video games. have fun. BTW KOTR is a great game. but I hav eno such affection for you.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 8 years ago

holy crap how can you read this?

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

Can't. I am just guessing. lol

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

trouble with google is they are not 100% accurate. if you don't study latin than you would not know the actual translation of things and have to look it up on google which sometimes gives bad information.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

Oh well, I don't study Latin. Why does that matter?

Either way, you're still sending me a nasty remark wishing violence upon me.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"Either way, you're still sending me a nasty remark wishing violence upon me"

No, it is a latin way off telling you to go fuck yourself. I got sick of saying it english

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

hmm, I don't know, I feel like you actually told me to go get whipped. Truth is subjective, after all.

Calling for violence is never appropriate, and you know that.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"Calling for violence is never appropriate, and you know that."

I didn't. Your ignorance of the subject makes you assume it was a threat. Now do you understand why your concept of truth is messed up?

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

According to you, truth is subjective. I feel threatened in my subjective truth.

Btw, I am being sarcastic. I really don't give a shit, dude. Lol. It's just funny that you think slinging some latin phrases at me accomplishes anything. You looked like an idiot in that argument and you know it. Keep digging yourself a hole, boo.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

truth is subjective. facts are not.

for example if i call something a dog and you call it a spider. Which is the truth?

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

Dude, lol. I am not getting into another discussion about your warped view of truth. We literally just had that discussion down in the previous comments. Also, truth is not subjective and neither are facts. You just have some weird postmodern take on truth that you cribbed from Peterson. Have fun with your life.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

ARe you geff using another account? I had that conversation with that user not you.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

Uhh, we had that conversation too. Remember, the whole dictionary thing?

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

Noe the example of the dog and spider was a conversation I had with GEff and now you are claiming we had that specific conversation. I think you are geff using a 2nd accoutn now.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

I said: " I am not getting into another discussion about your warped view of truth. " I wasn't specifically
talking
abotu
your
dumb
example
about
the
dog
and
spider.
You're
not
a
very
good
troll,
you
know
that?

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

this is what you said "We literally just had that discussion down in the previous comments. "

That comment was from a conversation I had with geff. I am not a very good troll because I do not have the experienc eyou have with it. I try to have real conversation with people

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

Well, now you are the one taking things out o f context
This was the full point.
"lol. I am not getting into another discussion about your warped view of truth. We literally just had that discussion down in the previous comments.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

The rest of the comment was applicable to that statement as well. everythign you are saying suggests you are geff and are privy to the tone of our previous argument andI
can't
even
see
what
I
am
typing
ay
more.

I
have
no
idea
if
I
am
even
spelling
this
stuff
right.

haha

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

If you want to think I am Geff, go right ahead. Don't really care. You're just being a tryhard troll. Kinda sad, especially since you were the one complaining about trolls before. Bye boo, no time to was with you. Learn to argue better.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"Learn to argue better."

I might take that advice from someone that didn't argue like shit.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

If I argued like shit you would have been able to easily address my points, but you completely ignroed them for the most part. Love you, boo.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

Oh i did fully address your points to which you conveniently ignored my reputtles or took previous comment out of context. I would say if an unbiased thrid party looked through you would be the one to appear to not argue in a reasonable manner. but who knows. I could be wrong. especially since now I am just screwing around just to get under your skin and i really can't see what I am typing anyomore so I do not even know if this is legiable.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

You didn't address all my points, and anyone would see this just by reading the comments. You basically admitted this when you complained about how you were sick of the conversation already because of the one you had with Geff. You admitted to not addressing all of my points, go read the conversation. Also, you aren't getting on my nerves. I quite like you. It's rare to see someone this stupid and I like that.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

I addressed all you points in context. not individual statemetns yes. You seem to stupid to grasp the difference between specifics and context so I understand why you can't see this. I am not getting annoyed with you anymore either. I realized I am tlaking to someone with a mental retardation and now I know I need to be patient.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

YOU ARE A MEANIE. nAH, JUST A LITTLE DUMB. YOU DIDN'T ADDRESS ALL MY POINTS BUT THAT'S FINE IF YOU THINK YOU DID. TO BE HONEST THIIS WHOLE THING IS MEANINGLESS. WANTA KEEP GOING ON? IT'S GETTING A LITTLE HARD TO EVEN KEEP UP SINCE I CAN NO LONGER ACTUALLY READ WHAT I WRITE.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

Notice, the word "down." Your conversation with the other poster was above. Idiot.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

you edited it.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

LiLesLIESLIESLIESlove you

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

lies lies and more lies from you. you are a liar and a ugly woman.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

i THINK I MAKE A PRETTY FINE WOMAN AND AMN, FOR YOUR INFORMATION.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

Nah, you're a little girlie man and an ugly one at that. I bet you smell bad too

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

ARE YOU IN MY HOUSE?

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

yup I am, come find me. were playing hide and seek now.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

Nah, to busy talking to some moron online. He thinks he won an argument with some rando just because he deflected from all the points and acted like some douche.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

oh wow. that must be annoying to have someone out argue you like that. did you try all those sophistry and nonargument tricks I taught you?

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

Nah, I calmly debunked their bullshit while they evaded all my points. I, like a previous commentator, pointed out the moron's weird paradoxical view of truth and self perception. He didn't catch on, sadly.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

well considering you are the other commentator it is easy to see why you would reach consensus. but did you ever bother to define truth for them so they were on the same page? or did you do the stupid lazy shit like give a link to webster that you always do? that shit don't work because it only tells them what truth means to webster and not what it means to you.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

I am not the other commentator, I am my own attack helicopter. BTW, I said in a comment that I agree with the first def of truth on webster. Are you really trying to bring this convo back up?

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

You do not understand the concept of defining something in your own words to demonstrate if you actual understand the word in concept? well that is not surprising since you are a total fucking retard.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

But if I already agree with a def someone else made, can't I claim that as my own as well? It pretty neatly fits into my world view.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

Not if you want to prove you undertand teh wrod in concept. as I said any retard can look up a definition.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

Your second flaw is also a complete misrepresentation of the scientific method. A hypothesis is the scientist looking for truth. They might propose something like this: "I believe that cats will search for mice within a half of a mile from their home." Normally, they would summarize any previous research that may be related to this field. Maybe they would include some facts about cat behavior, whatever. They would then come up with their methods to prove if this hypothesis is true or not. Next they would conduct the research, record the data, compile it, sift through it, etc. They would then find conclusions based off this data. They would determine if what was alleged in their hypothesis is true or not, and they would indicate that in their conclusion. If they were right, they would say, "my findings indicate that cats do look for mice within half a mile of their home." If they were wrong, they would say, "My findings indicate that cats do not search for mice within a half a mile of their home." Both of these findings are about "truths," not just answers.

BTW, that creationists have no clue (assuming they scientific field, social science, etc.) how to conduct sound research, so their views about any given piece of research would be incredibly flawed. They also (assuming they aren't educated in that field) aren't too knowledgeable about any given subject in that field. You're also making the bizarre assumption that some scientists aren't religious????

p.s. Peterson is a certified lunatic; constantly ranting and raving about "postmodernistic left" and "SJWs." His idiotic standards of what consists of "truth" are completely out of line with what anyone of a sound, rational, and sane mind would consider truth to be. He bases his "truths" in superstition and (arguably and hilariously) postmodernsitic thinking. He's a loony toon.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

" A hypothesis is the scientist looking for truth."

wrong. Truth is a philosophical concept that can be subjective. hypothesis is supposed to be an objective search for facts. Stop defending it if you don't even understand the difference between truth and facts.

"p.s. Peterson is a certified lunatic; constantly ranting and raving about "postmodernistic left" and "SJWs." His idiotic standards of what consists of "truth" are completely out of line with what anyone of a sound, rational, and sane mind would consider truth to be. He bases his "truths" in superstition and (arguably and hilariously) postmodernsitic thinking. He's a loony toon."

I would say in his discussion with Sam Harris it was Harris that was less sound of logic and unable to grasp some pretty simple concepts. But if your only method for questioning a person and their claims is to call them a "certified lunatic" especially when this "certified lunatic" is a profession clinical psychologist that has taught at Harvard your approach is rather poor.

You are all to religious and territorial to be credible.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

You don't get to use some weird, perverted definition of truth to suit your own arguments.-------------------- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/true

Might want to read what that link leads to.

"I would say in his discussion with Sam Harris it was Harris that was less sound of logic and unable to grasp some pretty simple concepts. But if your only method for questioning a person and their claims is to call them a "certified lunatic" especially when this "certified lunatic" is a profession clinical psychologist that has taught at Harvard your approach is rather poor."

That is a hilarious and rather brazen attempt at an appeal to authority. Just because Peterson is a professional clinical psychologist and he taught at Harvard he is immune from any sort of inflammatory criticism?

I assure you, I have grappled with some of what Peterson says without immediately considering him to be a lunatic. I also don't immediately assume every argument Peterson makes is without any merit. You also ignored some of the substantive points I made about Peterson besides calling him a lunatic.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"immune from any sort of inflammatory criticism"

you were not criticizing you were using sophistry, a non-argument to discredit him but calling him names, specifically "certified lunatic". Also I was giving his credentials to suggest he has at least some credibility and is more than a 'certified lunatic". What are your credentials to label him as such?

"I assure you, I have grappled with some of what Peterson says without immediately considering him to be a lunatic. I also don't immediately assume every argument Peterson makes is without any merit. You also ignored some of the substantive points I made about Peterson besides calling him a lunatic."

but you opened with the insult, thus creating an illusion that everything you say is going to be more valid because he has no credibility. I did not ignore the other points, i just did not waste time responding to them all when you opening statement was a fallacy.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

I was clearly just being facetious when talking about Peterson, and you know that. I was not creating an illusion that what I say is more valid than what Peterson says, I was just indicating what I thought of Peterson, though this argument of yours leads to an interesting point. You were the one making claims that a religious person's arguments were just as valid (or could be) when it comes to peer reviewed papers, correct? That logic leads to all people's arguments being valid in any field, any topic, any situation. Credibility is meaningless using your argument.

Also, I made an argument about why Peterson's statements about truth are insane and that argument would be parallel to what I said to you, since you both seemingly hold the same position.

Notice you only address parts of my post, homing in on the part where I was being inflammatory. Interesting...

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"I was clearly just being facetious when talking about Peterson, and you know that."

That you should not have opened with that. It is a challenge that specifically does create an illusion that you know better than him. And I do not know you at all, how would i be able to tell if you are being facetious?

"Credibility is meaningless using your argument."

Obviously for peer review to work the credibility needs to be sound, but I was simply bringing up the point that the peers can be biased based on whom gets to decide who has credibility in a field and who does not.

This was your first comment about Peterson: "p.s. Peterson is a certified lunatic; constantly ranting and raving about "postmodernistic left" and "SJWs." His idiotic standards of what consists of "truth" are completely out of line with what anyone of a sound, rational, and sane mind would consider truth to be. He bases his "truths" in superstition and (arguably and hilariously) postmodernsitic thinking. He's a loony toon"

How in any way do you address anything in regards to why yes interpretation of truth is incorrect outside insults? you don't which is why your approach here was not sufficient if you were trying to make a reasonable point.

"Notice you only address parts of my post, homing in on the part where I was being inflammatory. Interesting..."

or maybe after the long conversation I had with Geff has left me frustrated with this type of arguing that I have become short and do not have the patience to get frustrated all over again. Nice way to give an example of a fundamental attribute error though.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

You know that I was being facetious since you could clearly tell I have knowledge of who Peterson is and what many of his arguments are. Clearly, I am not going to immediately dismiss an educated man as a lunatic with the utmost seriousness. I was just having a bit of fun. I do think some of his stances on issues are ridiculous, but I clearly am not trying to outright dismiss him. That's why I don't consider you're argument regarding the "illusion" I was creating to be sound.

"If only those of the same or similar education and 'beliefs' can be qualified as peers than when looking at the same data they will come to same or similar conclusion. Now they are supposed to go over the theory with a skeptical mind trying to 'disprove' it but how can they when their education and beliefs are so similar. Those they do not consider peers are not considered credible. For example a scientist would not consider a creationist to be credible. Why not? if the study would hold up under the most skeptical of scrutiny than it is that much more proved. "

You are indicating the credibility in a field is meaningless in this statement. Having no knowledge of psychology (or subscribing to some anti-psychiatry garbage that a Scientologist would parrot), with your logic, makes my opinion even more valuable within a field since I would remain the most skeptical.

"Also, I made an argument about why Peterson's statements about truth are insane and that argument would be parallel to what I said to you, since you both seemingly hold the same position."

This is where I indicated that I essentially already did address Peterson's arguments, since you both of the same position.

In my opinion, you tend to dodge various counterpoints I bring up to remarks you made. This makes me a bit annoyed, since you don't seem to be arguing in good faith. After you called my statement about what truth is "wrong," I responded with a link to definitions of what truth is, but you then dropped that argument. Funny.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"You know that I was being facetious"

How the fuck would I know that? how would I know what you know about peterson? you very first comment was calling him a lunatic.

"You are indicating the credibility in a field is meaningless in this statement. "

that is not what I am saying at all, in the preceding statement I was saying exactly the opposite.

"This is where I indicated that I essentially already did address Peterson's arguments, since you both of the same position."

there is no logic to this statement. You are saying here your proof for his arguments being invalid is what you said before which was calling him a lunatic.

"In my opinion, you tend to dodge various counterpoints I bring up to remarks you made."

So my arguments are invalid because I do not waste time addressing everyone of your stupid comments? what the hell kind of logic is that?

"After you called my statement about what truth is "wrong," I responded with a link to definitions of what truth is, but you then dropped that argument. Funny."

The webster definition of 'true' does not give a whole grasp of the philosophical concept of what true is or what it means to an individual. how about you describe what you believe 'truth' to be?

"This makes me a bit annoyed"

go fuck yourself. You interjected yourself into a conversation in which I was already annoyed and tried to change the focus to what you wanted. The only person that has a right to be annoyed is me. Seriously go fuck yourself douche bag.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

"since you could clearly tell I have knowledge of who Peterson is and what many of his arguments are. Clearly, I am not going to immediately dismiss an educated man as a lunatic with the utmost seriousness. I was just having a bit of fun. I do think some of his stances on issues are ridiculous, but I clearly am not trying to outright dismiss him. That's why I don't consider you're argument regarding the "illusion" I was creating to be sound."

This bit is how you know I was being facetious. nice job ignoring it.

Your whole first flaw of the scientific method was that it wasn't fair to only let those in a certain field be considered the arbiters of what is true in the field, specifically for peer review...

"there is no logic to this statement. You are saying here your proof for his arguments being invalid is what you said before which was calling him a lunatic."--- This was in regards to the argument about the definition of truth, as our previous posts indicated...

I didn't say your arguments are invalid; I was just indicated that it was strange that you drop arguments so suddenly when to seem to no longer favor you.

I would go with the first definition of the Webster dictionary for truth. btw, your definition of truth is not superior to the others, if you're going that route.

"go fuck yourself"---nah, I will interject myself into any argument I want in a public message board.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"This bit is how you know I was being facetious. nice job ignoring it."

That was not you first statement. It came 3 or 4 comments later. Now in retrospect I might be able to see you were being facetious. It would be impossible for me to know that based on the first statement. To assume that I should have makes you a narcissistic asshole.

" it wasn't fair to only let those in a certain field be considered the arbiters of what is true in the field, specifically for peer review... "

that is not what I said and also not what I meant. My claim was the selection of who is a credible peer could be corrupted by human bias. that's it. Anything else you are assuming and projecting into that statement.

" This was in regards to the argument about the definition of truth, as our previous posts indicated"

no this was in regards to the initial claim that Peterson was a Lunatic. do you even know what you are replying to?

" I was just indicated that it was strange that you drop arguments so suddenly when to seem to no longer favor you."

I did not drop anything, I just did not address every single point because I am already tired and frustrated with the topic when you first entered it. You assuming that I dropped it because I 'could not' argue it is a fundamental attribute error. You have done this now about 8 times.

"I would go with the first definition of the Webster dictionary for truth. "

that only tells me what it means to webster. I want you interpretation.

"your definition of truth is not superior to the others, if you're going that route."

I was not going that route. I a simply making the arguing meaning of truth can be subjective.

" I will interject myself into any argument I want in a public message board."

than you have no right to get annoyed with the results. If you do and then state you are getting annoyed just makes you an asshole and difficult to have rational debate with. but I do not think you are going for rational debate.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

"since you could..."
This specific statement demonstrates how I was being facetious at the very start, and any numbskull would have known. You, on the other hand, are a special type of dunce that seemingly is incapable of actually understanding people.

"For example a scientist would not consider a creationist to be credible. Why not? if the study would hold up under the most skeptical of scrutiny than it is that much more proved."

This bit above needs to be engraved on your forehead.

"How in any way do you address anything in regards to why yes interpretation of truth is incorrect outside insults? you don't which is why your approach here was not sufficient if you were trying to make a reasonable point."

I responded with----""Also, I made an argument about why Peterson's statements about truth are insane and that argument would be parallel to what I said to you, since you both seemingly hold the same position."

This is where I indicated that I essentially already did address Peterson's arguments, since you both of the same position."

My point was that I already grappled with Peterson's view of truth by talking to you about your view. You both hold the exact same position. Follow the conversation.

You do drop various arguments when it doesn't suit you. You randomly dropped the argument in your post following mine regarding truth after I replied to with the link. You've done this with other arguments, dunce.

"I a simply making the arguing meaning of truth can be subjective."

God, you really are a postmodernist. lol, not much point in a person who decides what's true on a whim.

You also have no right to claim others are "interjecting" themselves on a board that is public, you dunce.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

in addition to what Houdini stated, look up the definition of dogma.

"a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true"

Science is dogma, so is religion. Each has an authority and each has principles and sets of principles that authority laid down. Granted science does tend to generate more 'provable' results but in many cases it is not definitive or has room for error. To ignore this is to blindly follow the dogma, which is what those religious people that you mock do. You are guilty of the very thing you wanted to belittle others for.

In short get over yourself.

reply

[–] kotorfan1 (63) 8 years ago

Geff, I had the same trouble with this saviodium fellow like you. Alas, he gave up arguing with me once he realized that he is absolutely wrong on virtually every point he made.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 8 years ago

...This is combative dialogue that does no one any good because even if you were speaking to someone religious you would be 'invading their territory' and putting them on the defense, thus these likely to even hear your reason...

I think you hit it on the head. His goal isn't to convince you of anything rather just insult the beliefs of others in the religious communities. His starting argument was litterally

...All you homeschooled evanglists please stand up...

This was an attempt to troll the board and it looks like it worked. You seem to have noticed your self this was an attempt to start a religion vs science debate so he can "show how smart he is".

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

Yes, the user's trollery was rather obvious. However in order to keep the conversation and discussion fresh i will humor it. lol

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"I have faith in the scientific method until a better method presents itself."

Exactly, you have "faith" in the method; as do I. and this is exactly why you should not mock religious people because they have chosen to put their faith in something else. This is the whole point I was making, you are no different then them and if you approach them in a derogatory manner you are no better than the worst of them.

"Show me that your method is a better method, and I'll be happy to abandon the scientific method."

I have no better method. I fully acknowledge it is the best we have come up with so far. But because it is not perfect I have to acknowledge we are taking it on a bit of a faith. Though we do have the benefit of seeking more material evidence than a lot of religious speculation, we are not any better in our overall beliefs just because we say "science". Your initial approach is too zealous.

"The scientific method does show that something is true."

It depends on what you think truth is. I believe the scientific method can demonstrate facts and we interpret truth out of those facts. Truth is a human interpretation of a given thing. So no i disagree, the scientific method gives us a methodology for interpreting the most likely truth utilizing what we have available. because it is an interpretation it is subject to change and not some universal truth. the concept of absolute truth is a religious argument. nothing is absolute.

"The scientific method is the best way to filter out what is "more true" than the alternative. A hypothesis that has been supported over and over again by evidence and has withstood multiple experimental tests from a wide variety of scientific fields is "more true" than a hypothesis that has not withstood any experimental tests"

This I agree with as well. I am on the side of the scientific method. I just don't want to see those on my side start behaving like the worst of religious people, which is what you were doing.

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

I meant "The scientific method does not show that something is true."

I mistyped, I edited it soon afterwards. Read the next paragraph about "more true"

---
We have no more disagreements.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

"I mistyped, I edited it soon afterwards. Read the next paragraph about "more true""

is your idea of "more true" mean something along the lines of 'better understanding' of something? Because that I agree with. is your idea of "more true" mean you are more right than a religious person? I fully disagree with that.

and even if we have better understanding of 'reality' it does not mean we are superior by default than religious people because we believe something different. proof of whom is right in a matter such as this, I would make the argument, resides more in the character of the person and their approach to such an argument(since neither is definitively provable). In this way I think the scientific 'people' have been the ones with the wrong approach. In many ways, especially for judeo-christian followers, they exemplify more compassion and understanding for those of different beliefs (especially in more modern times). Where as atheist seem to tend to have a 'better than thou' attitude, which is perfectly exemplified by your very first comment.

reply

[–] Geff (453) 8 years ago

Hypothesis 1: "Natural selection occurred over millennia to slowly give organisms traits that are useful for survival."

Hypothesis 2: "God created all organisms."

Hypothesis 1 is supported by converging evidence from a large number of scientific fields. (Supported Hypothesis 1 graduated to a Theory, but to avoid confusion I'll continue to call it a hypothesis)

Hypothesis 2 is not supported by any evidence.

Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is "more true" than Hypothesis 2. Infact, Hypothesis 2 directly contradicts Hypothesis 1 so both cannot be true simultaneously. They are competing hypotheses.

In a hypothetical scenario: If some scientists somehow uncover a large amount of evidence in support of Hypothesis 2, all scientists would abandon Hypothesis 1 in favor of Hypothesis 2.

---

I'm not discussing "group bias". I'm aware of it. That's a different topic.

reply

[–] saviodium (500) 8 years ago

You did not answer my question at all.

"Hypothesis 1 ..."

Many of those fields provided evidence is based on other theories that have built upon each other over many years and lots of time and between many people. There is evidence but much of which was interpretations of data. The theory itself is an interpretation of data. At any point any person involved could have looked at the data wrong or assumed the wrong thing about it. People are imperfect so our interpretation of data can be as well. Now it is still the best we have and does provide a often times better understanding of the nature of reality but it is not concrete.

"Hypothesis 2: "God created all organisms."
Hypothesis 2 is not supported by any evidence."

this is a blatant misrepresentation because you have no idea what that actual hypothesis entails. You created your own hypothesis to discredit, yet again, to make religious thought look bad. I have heard theological theories that stated the the line of the bible "let there be light" was comparable to the big bang. I am not going to give the run down of it all for the sake of brevity, but this is a religious interpretation of the same hypothesis. And it is even more supported by logic because it takes into account how the universe seems "designed" perfectly for human life. The 'scientific' explanation has less logic on its side even if there is 'more' evidence. again you are arguing that religious people are 'stupid' by default and your belief is superior. it is not. it offers better material evidence (which is why I support it) but that is it.

It is a shame too, because we were actually making progress but it seems you panicked and double down.

"I'm not discussing "group bias". That's a different topic.'

neither am I. I am discussing your (specifically you) bias towards religion. You can not be partial and rational if you have a bias from the start.

reply