• Science vs Pseudoscience

    From DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_l@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 15 08:04:04 2021
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E_R0x3kXMAQtOeo?format=jpg&name=900x900

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From I Envy JTEM@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 15 16:22:56 2021
    DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E_R0x3kXMAQtOeo?format=jpg&name=900x900

    1. Abiogenesis. It's true no matter what. In fact, there have been one hypothesis advanced to explain abiogenesis, all of them falsified by observation/experimentation, and abiogenesis prevails.

    The savanna nonsense is untestable. There's nothing that can falsify
    it. Adherents claim that it is true because it is true.

    Gwobull Warbling is the exact same way. Glacier National Park is not
    glacier free, California grew drier not wetter, La Ninas not El Ninos
    have been more frequent, the Maldives are not under a foot of water,
    there is zero increase in tornadoes, the north pole is not ice free... on &
    on & on & on & on.

    2. Anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. However, it can be used to illustrate a point. It's just not to be confused with the point.

    3. This is inexplicable as you never frame anything within the context
    of known facts.

    One reason why I was won over to Aquatic Ape is because it fits everything. Humans weren't in Australia, Africa and all points in between because they lived on a savanna. Aquatic Ape, on the other hand, explains HOW and
    WHY they moved around, even as it had all those other influences on human development that we've discussed over the years.

    4. You only recently used one of your handles to try and shut me down over
    my choice of words to reference warm vs cold blooded animals.

    5. See #3, above.

    6. This is usenet. Nobody ever "Wins" an argument.

    7. Subjective.

    8. "Proof" or "success" or whatever should be decided in advance. In other words,
    party need to agree what does or does not constitute a positive result.

    9. Problem is, pointing out a logical fallacy is rarely and by that I mean never
    effective on the person doing it.

    10. "Peer Review" is quite literally a logical fallacy. Rather then debating an
    idea on it's merits or weighing the evidence, you're ceding to a popularity contest.

    11. Virtually EVERYTHING of any importance happens because of a "Conspiracy," where two or more people agree on an outcome and labor towards its fruition.




    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/662426928409640960

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_l@21:1/5 to All on Thu Sep 16 18:28:18 2021
    On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 11:04:06 AM UTC-4, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E_R0x3kXMAQtOeo?format=jpg&name=900x900

    Any rational members here want to discuss?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From I Envy JTEM@21:1/5 to All on Thu Sep 16 21:31:59 2021
    DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

    Any rational members here want to discuss?

    Kind of a Catch-22, you asking that.




    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/662426928409640960

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)