MovieChat Forums > kotorfan1 > Replies
kotorfan1's Replies
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.
Lol, gave up I see.
Love you, too.
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?
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.
"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.
You can eat and type at the same time, just like everyone else.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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...
"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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.