|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:58 am
Obscurus So you're both appealing to authority; your authority is just better? LOL Yes it is. Not every argument is on equal footing with the counterargument. Believing so is ironically a logical fallasy. Obscurus Do I really need to dig out the prominent failings of the peer review process? Yes. I would love to know why you think people testing a theory to rat out bullshit is a bad thing. You can argue bias, but that can only go so far until a peer publicizes otherwise. When you discredit scientific discovery, you might as well turn off your computer. Obscurus Just so we're clear here, I'm not arguing for or against the existence of dragons. I don't really care about dragons one way or the other. I do, however, take an interest in challenging assumptions. In other words, you take interest in my peer review 3nodding
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:08 pm
The rose in spring Obscurus So you're both appealing to authority; your authority is just better? LOL Yes it is. Not every argument is on equal footing with the counterargument. Believing so is ironically a logical fallasy. Obscurus Do I really need to dig out the prominent failings of the peer review process? Yes. I would love to know why you think people testing a theory to rat out bullshit is a bad thing. You can argue bias, but that can only go so far until a peer publicizes otherwise. When you discredit scientific discovery, you might as well turn off your computer. Obscurus Just so we're clear here, I'm not arguing for or against the existence of dragons. I don't really care about dragons one way or the other. I do, however, take an interest in challenging assumptions. In other words, you take interest in my peer review 3nodding How many people argue from a position that they assume is inferior? Not very many, I think. Everyone thinks that their position is the right one and that their appeal to authority is to the best authority. My question is this: Have you looked at and tested the evidence yourself, or do you just believe what you're told about it? I'm not trying to discredit science or scientific discovery, nor discouraging the ferreting out of truth (whatever that means). I only want to point out to you that the peer review process is flawed, and not just because of bias. A few examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affairhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affairhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scigen#Prominent_resultsNow, is it really so wise to place all of our eggs in the peer review basket? I take an interest in challenging your assumption that peer review is somehow infallible and the end-all of validation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:01 pm
Mordeckai Even if they didn't exist in this world, according to physicists, dragons do exist in another dimension. So yes, they should exist, even if its not our world (as long as the physicists weren't lying to us, or just making stuff up). Uh, can you quote your source? I really don't see what physicists have to do with the existence of dragons. I figure that would be more of a biologists call...or perhaps a paleontologist. Also, I think dragons are myth. I don't think they ever existed nor do I think they exist now or in some other dimension. There's not even proof that other dimensions exist so to believe in that is a bit silly. The way I see it, dragons made for an enticing story. A knight battling a dragon to save the land and get the princess out of the castle. It was pretty much an epic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 1:05 am
Obscurus How many people argue from a position that they assume is inferior? Not very many, I think. Everyone thinks that their position is the right one and that their appeal to authority is to the best authority. Again. You're assuming that both arguments have equal footing. Not everything does. Is it an argument that the Earth revolves around the sun? No, yet many people held the Geocentric idea as an equal even when Gallileo showed them concrete proof. Obscurus My question is this: Have you looked at and tested the evidence yourself, or do you just believe what you're told about it? Have you? The difference isn't what you believe, but who you believe. And so far, you are siding with moronic dipshits who make youtube videoes to fool gullible people like you. Obscurus I'm not trying to discredit science or scientific discovery, nor discouraging the ferreting out of truth (whatever that means). Yes you are. Quit trying to bullshit me! Obscurus I only want to point out to you that the peer review process is flawed, and not just because of bias. Have any better ideas or do you just like accepting something without questioning it? Funny you mention that because that only came to light because a fellow peer reviewed it and came up with a different conclusion. Obscurus Now, is it really so wise to place all of our eggs in the peer review basket? What else do you want? Do you even know what it means? A peer review is where a qualified scientist tests the thesis made by someone else. If a theory can have the same results twice, then it's a valid theory, if the scientist comes up with a different result, then he can call out bullshit to the results. Things that cannot be replicated twice is called Pseudoscience. Dragons are a Pseudoscience. Obscurus I take an interest in challenging your assumption that peer review is somehow infallible and the end-all of validation. If you have any better ideas, how about you put it to the test and I do likewise when your thesis comes out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:30 am
Lord Quas Mordeckai Even if they didn't exist in this world, according to physicists, dragons do exist in another dimension. So yes, they should exist, even if its not our world (as long as the physicists weren't lying to us, or just making stuff up). Uh, can you quote your source? I really don't see what physicists have to do with the existence of dragons. I figure that would be more of a biologists call...or perhaps a paleontologist. Also, I think dragons are myth. I don't think they ever existed nor do I think they exist now or in some other dimension. There's not even proof that other dimensions exist so to believe in that is a bit silly. The way I see it, dragons made for an enticing story. A knight battling a dragon to save the land and get the princess out of the castle. It was pretty much an epic. This world just wouldn't make any sense without other dimensions, realities, or existences. Of course that we're not the only dimension out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:11 pm
I believe dragons did live in this world. Stories say that dragons were a race was around the world, depending on the climate. But humans came and started killing them and began making stereotypes of them like stealing princesses.
When the dragon race was running down, some went and hide on the mountains tops until they died from the coldness.
Dragons are real. It takes alot of thought to think of a legendary creature know to this time.
We all know that dragons have lived and the government has either destroyed or covered up the proof.
People will mix the truth and those who are just have different opinions won't believe it. I love dragons and I believe them as much as any other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:12 pm
Jelubi Lord Quas Mordeckai Even if they didn't exist in this world, according to physicists, dragons do exist in another dimension. So yes, they should exist, even if its not our world (as long as the physicists weren't lying to us, or just making stuff up). Uh, can you quote your source? I really don't see what physicists have to do with the existence of dragons. I figure that would be more of a biologists call...or perhaps a paleontologist. Also, I think dragons are myth. I don't think they ever existed nor do I think they exist now or in some other dimension. There's not even proof that other dimensions exist so to believe in that is a bit silly. The way I see it, dragons made for an enticing story. A knight battling a dragon to save the land and get the princess out of the castle. It was pretty much an epic. This world just wouldn't make any sense without other dimensions, realities, or existences. Of course that we're not the only dimension out there. I agree. We aren't the only world out there. There is more life that we have yet to discover.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:38 pm
S2 John Kirby S2 Dragons do exist, but not on this earth. How am i certain....its simple... Ever sense the day god made earth's cancer, man, and then its balanced counterpart, woman, there have been choices. a choice to do good....bad....or what may be.... Because of this....somehow along the way, the concept of dragons became real because of only that they where once real themselves. However, through a choice of fate that is beyond reason and memory, they are now all dead....on this earth.... because for every earth's choice, another earth is made.... a earth for the good.... a earth for the bad..... its not clear to me weither the earth, or one of many earths that led to this point, is the good or bad....however the existence of dragons no longer apply here on this planet....if ever....and we need to lose the hope of them ever returning....or even existing....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:20 pm
The rose in spring Obscurus How many people argue from a position that they assume is inferior? Not very many, I think. Everyone thinks that their position is the right one and that their appeal to authority is to the best authority. Again. You're assuming that both arguments have equal footing. Not everything does. Is it an argument that the Earth revolves around the sun? No, yet many people held the Geocentric idea as an equal even when Gallileo showed them concrete proof. I'm not assuming anything about this dragon argument. I don't care who is right. I'm pointing out that no one argues from a viewpoint that they feel is inferior unless they're just trolling someone. You're asserting that dragons never existed (aren't you?), I'm saying that you can't make that assertion without concrete evidence. When you make an assertion, the burden of proof falls on you. You can say that there's no evidence for the existence of dragons, but you can't say definitively that dragons do not or did not exist. All you can present is peer reviewed evidence that has a complete absence of anything relating to dragons. That's not very persuasive, not at all. That's not to say that the other side is very persuasive either. The rose in spring Obscurus My question is this: Have you looked at and tested the evidence yourself, or do you just believe what you're told about it? Have you? The difference isn't what you believe, but who you believe. And so far, you are siding with moronic dipshits who make youtube videoes to fool gullible people like you. You didn't answer my question. For the record, I have not examined the evidence for this particular case because I have little interest in dragons or paleontology. I do make it a point to investigate my areas of interest and try to find as much information about it as possible. It's not always within our means to test some things (not everyone has million-dollar equipment in their garage), but we can at least investigate how the machines or tests work and look at how the conclusions came to be and then decide for ourselves. Again, I'm not siding with anyone. I don't give a s**t about dragons. You're making some assumptions about me that are incorrect. I can't watch most YouTube videos; that's why I'm asking for articles a lot of the time. It's easier for me to examine information in that form under these circumstances. Very rarely do I find any credible information. Just because someone is in this guild and agrees with a few ideological points doesn't mean that they wholeheartedly agree with everything here. My posts in the discussion on fluoride are testament to that. When in a debate, insulting the other person or side doesn't help your stance at all. The rose in spring Obscurus I'm not trying to discredit science or scientific discovery, nor discouraging the ferreting out of truth (whatever that means). Yes you are. Quit trying to bullshit me! Interesting hypothesis, but can you prove your accusation? It seems to me that you just don't agree with what I have to say and so you make assumptions about me and make unfounded accusations. The rose in spring Obscurus I only want to point out to you that the peer review process is flawed, and not just because of bias. Have any better ideas or do you just like accepting something without questioning it? I think that we shouldn't rely solely on peer review to tell us what is true because the process is flawed. The rose in spring Funny you mention that because that only came to light because a fellow peer reviewed it and came up with a different conclusion. Which one? The first two weren't discovered until after they had been published in prestigious journals. The Bogdanov affair is still ongoing. The SCIgen thing was admitted as a hoax and that's why it was found out. So if the journals can't catch things like this before publishing them, then why should we listen to the journals? Or rather, how can we trust the journals at face value? Peer review needs to be revised to make it less flawed. The rose in spring Obscurus Now, is it really so wise to place all of our eggs in the peer review basket? What else do you want? Do you even know what it means? A peer review is where a qualified scientist tests the thesis made by someone else. If a theory can have the same results twice, then it's a valid theory, if the scientist comes up with a different result, then he can call out bullshit to the results. Things that cannot be replicated twice is called Pseudoscience. Dragons are a Pseudoscience. I'm aware of what the peer review process entails. What determines whether a scientist is qualified? How do we know he's telling the truth and is not biased when he tests something? One of the flaws of peer review is that it is assumed that things are submitted honestly and without deception. This obviously is not always the case, as demonstrated by Sokal previously. Replication is itself a controversial topic because not everyone can agree on what counts as replication. In science we rely on averages. Testing something twice is not enough to get a good average of results, and thus not sufficient to determine replicability. Then still, one has to deal with the possibility of type I or type II error. The rose in spring Obscurus I take an interest in challenging your assumption that peer review is somehow infallible and the end-all of validation. If you have any better ideas, how about you put it to the test and I do likewise when your thesis comes out. I've presented my case for why peer review is not infallible. It's not about replacing peer review; peer review is a good idea. I think that several aspects of peer review need to be fixed or amended, or peer review cannot lay claim to absolute validation. Richard Horton The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong. Richard Horton is the editor of The Lancet. I think that says a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:16 am
The idea that you think people testing other people's theories to generate the same result is faulty, then why do you think that some idiotic youtuber is any better? That guy has no 8+ years of paleontology or archaeology. The people at TalkOrigins do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 12:42 pm
The rose in spring The idea that you think people testing other people's theories to generate the same result is faulty, then why do you think that some idiotic youtuber is any better? That guy has no 8+ years of paleontology or archaeology. The people at TalkOrigins do. If you are talking about Obscurus, he clearly stated he doesnt even watch youtube videos, let alone trust the makers of those videos. I believe the point is that you shouldn't trust anything or anyone 100%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:16 pm
The rose in spring The idea that you think people testing other people's theories to generate the same result is faulty, then why do you think that some idiotic youtuber is any better? That guy has no 8+ years of paleontology or archaeology. The people at TalkOrigins do. I don't think that an idiotic YouTuber is better. I don't even watch the videos posted in this guild.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 26, 2010 2:29 pm
CemeteryPirate The rose in spring The idea that you think people testing other people's theories to generate the same result is faulty, then why do you think that some idiotic youtuber is any better? That guy has no 8+ years of paleontology or archaeology. The people at TalkOrigins do. If you are talking about Obscurus, he clearly stated he doesnt even watch youtube videos, let alone trust the makers of those videos. I believe the point is that you shouldn't trust anything or anyone 100%. He's not qualified to make that judgement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 26, 2010 3:18 pm
The rose in spring CemeteryPirate The rose in spring The idea that you think people testing other people's theories to generate the same result is faulty, then why do you think that some idiotic youtuber is any better? That guy has no 8+ years of paleontology or archaeology. The people at TalkOrigins do. If you are talking about Obscurus, he clearly stated he doesnt even watch youtube videos, let alone trust the makers of those videos. I believe the point is that you shouldn't trust anything or anyone 100%. He's not qualified to make that judgement. And who says you're qualified to make that judgment about him? When you can't even spell judgment? Maybe next time you should stop being so butthurt just because someone doesn't share your religiosity over a certain idea or concept, that way you can avoid getting trapped in dumbass logical fallacies where you try to discredit someone just because they have a different opinion than you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
