[Scottish]

If I see rain, I still have to believe it's raining.

And for all you know, I love bleach on toast.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Osiri
Kara,

you said you have one why did you not take her out or something last night.  How can you live with yourself if your not taking care of her.

Guys I know this argument is very dear to your hearts but somethings are more important.

Osiri. I'll thank you kindly to not make any further comments on my personal life. You do not know me. You do not know how I spend my time.

I find your attempts to tell me how to live my life arrogant and insulting. You have spent just as much time on this argument as I have and spent more on the other one from which you claimed to know me so lets not get into a pissing match over who is wasting more time online.

I will take any further attempts to insult me or offer me stupid, ill-thought out advice on my love life as an indication that you lack the brains to argue on the points under discussion.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Um, we just agree on stuff.  Kara is a far, far more eloquent 'speaker' than me in this sort of thread, and I'd say he's asking the more pertinent questions here.  Which would make them the harder questions........

Nicest thing anyone has said about me all week but don't be falsely modest

Originally posted by Osiri
Okay I have reread one of Kara's earlier posts.  The jist of it was that I should not talk because I have been trained as a lawyer and not a scientist.  

Incorrect. My whole issue was with your presumption in claiming that you knew what was going on in my head. You do not. The fact that you've made repeated errors by trying to act as if you did with respect to my social life should be proof enough of that.

My comments about lawyers were based on the fact that a lawyer may frequently have to defend an opinion that he knows is wrong or defend a client he knows is guilty. A scientist on the other hand does not do that. A scientist does not publish papers in favour of a hypothesis he can find no evidence for or if the evidence supports an alternate hypothesis or theory.

You claimed that everyone discusses matters like a lawyer. I said that some of us (like Aldo and myself) prefer to discuss matters like a scientist and so you were wrong. Instead of conceeding the point you then proceeded to attempt to tell me that I argued in the lawyer fashion despite my repeatedly saying I did not and presenting evidence to prove that.

Originally posted by Osiri
This is not a scientific argument.

Wrong. That was your postulate at the start of the discussion not a declaration of terms on which the argument would be based. My entire position throughout our debate has been that I argue any non-emtion based position on scientific terms. The fact that you have noticed that and are trying to say that this is not the type of argument we are having pretty strongly supports my original position that I do not argue except in the scientific manner.

Originally posted by Osiri
Further, he went on to discuss devil's advocate.  Just because you are a devil's advocate does not mean there is no value your argument.  Devil's advocate simply means you do not believe in the side your arguing for.  This does not mean specifically that there is no merit.  

Again you have misunderstood my point.

If you don't believe in a side of an argument it is because you believe that there is a flaw in the argument. How else could you not believe in it? Whether you are wrong and there is merit in the argument is another matter completely and completely irrelavent to the point I was making.
 It doesn't matter if there is merit or not in the argument. All that matters is that you believe it is wrong. Now a lawyer can quite happily do that but only a certain kind of scientist (Corporate shills for the smoking companies for instance) will do that. I'm not saying that lawyers shouldn't support a cause they don't believe in. That's their whole raison d'etre but the converse is true for a scientist. A scientist shouldn't publish papers in support of one hypothesis when he personally believes another is correct because all the data points to it. That is why scientists who do support theories that contradict all the available evidence are so universally reviled (again the scumbags who kept publishing research that smoking was fine and didn't cause cancer).  

That and only that is the point I was trying to make with the devils advocate comment. For someone who argues from a scientific standpoint the whole time playing devil's advocate is difficult because I will always end up being honest and pointing out the weakpoints in the argument I know are there.
Considering you'd said that you always try to downplay the weakpoints in your argument I was using this to point out that for someone like me this is evidence of exactly the opposite point of view.

You got all caught up in whether a devil's advocate had any validity in his case at all and missed the point I actually was making.

Originally posted by Scottish
It carries the weight of your belief in his honesty.

You'd let a hell of a lot of conmen walk out scot free if that was the sole criterion you judged these things on. Mad people too seeing as they absolutely believe what they are saying. If you were using a scientific basis for the matter you could simply say "God doesn't exist" or even "God exists but I don't think he'd create an avatar just to stab that guy" but if all you're relying on is the believablility of the witness then you're stuffed if the witness is a good liar.

And what do you do if you're reading a book or watching a TV show where you can't see the person directly responsible or establish his believability directly?

Originally posted by Scottish
Yes, because I was arguing within a smaller scope before.

Sorry but that simply doesn't cut it with me. There is a clear chain of question and response between your original statement and your final response. You can't simply claim that the scope of your argument has changed.
 If your scope has changed you did so without telling me and without answering the question I had originally put to you. So I'll restate the original question and you can answer it within the same scope as which I originally put it to you.

In response to this

If you gave equal weight to evidence that supported an opposing point of view you wouldn't be downplaying it now would you?

You said this

So it's entirely reasonable to disregard 'evidence' which supports an opposing viewpoint if it's source if questionable or is the source is biased. So, once again, no omission is required. You simply undermine it's credibility by finding flaws in the source and the source's reliability.

Staying within the scope of your original answer can you tell me under which conditions you discard evidence?

Cause when I attempted to say that you'd use a scientific method you claimed you couldn't so I'd like to know which method you could use to disregard evidence. I know you must have believed that there was one seeing as how it was the reason you actually started posting on this thread.

Originally posted by Scottish
If I see rain, I still have to believe it's raining.

Why? How is that not a scientific deduction? You could be hallucinating. You could be dreaming.

Besides I said if you see gray skies not actual rain which implies a chain of logic is necessary.

[Osiri]

As far as any comments about personal life you must understand that those were mere jokes.  I am sure that you went out and partied and had loads of fun with your girls.  I know I have and I am merely trying to get you to say you have too.  I will discontinue this line of jokes as you do not seem to see the humor.

As far as any argument I like how you are able to set limits and do not allow me to have no limits.  My original post was that we do what I was talking about in life.  I did say anything about it being in a non-emotional purely scientific non-bias discussion.  That is a contradicition.  You cannot tell me I am wrong in my post and then narrow the scope of the argument to something that I would agree with you.  A lawyer is completely neutral in a office memo.  We have to make both sides out for our senior attorney's to know what is going on.  This is when we do not skew the argument in the slightest.  We give both the strengths and the weaknesses.  So in that context I would completely agree with both of you.....  If I limited it to that context.  

If my original postulate dealt with any narrowed scope it would have been politics not science.  Thus your rebuttal is flawed.  You cannot narrow or change the scope of my original postulate to make something better for you.  This is misrepresenting my original statement.

If your wondering here is my original statement. Please read it this time.
_______________________________________________
 
You know when I first read this I almost wrote a feature length article for this website talking about all the ways I agreed with his statements and about how certain politicians do this all the time(Cough George Bush) (Cough other fundamentalist conservative names).
 
But you know what, I suddenly realized that I was doing what he was talking about. (I hadn't started writing but was about to) I was citing in my head all the different times I have watched my beloved president muddle through a speech citing the most ridiculous sources and disregarding any time I have heard him cite valid sources and speak intelligibly(Okay barely but he's a chimp. What do you expect. Yall have intelligent leaders right.  )

The point is we all do this constantly because it is the way arguments are made. You put forward your support while citing but downplaying those sources against you.
__________________________________________________

As you can see there is nothing there about science.  I have read the first 6 or 7 of my posts(my original postulate) and found nothing of science.  It all dealt with life in general.

Thus, do not narrow my argument for me I can do an adequate job myself.

Further this narrowing for me is a lawyerly tactic not a scientific one.

[Scottish]

Originally posted by karajorma
Sorry but that simply doesn't cut it with me. There is a clear chain of question and response between your original statement and your final response.

Yes a clear chain that moves slowly from a discussion of the reliability of evidence within the Scientific Method, to a discussion on the inherant weaknesses of the Scientific Method and the belief that it is all-knowing and all-seeing.

You can't simply claim that the scope of your argument has changed.

Of course I can.

For starters, I can just lie. Or I could - God forbid - simply be stating a fact.

I remember why I declared Vendetta against you now. You're like a little badger when someone trys to show you you're wrong, reading volumes of subtext in innocuous little comments and jibes - seeing vipers at every turn, snapping at you in the dark - and attacking everything that moves with such ferocity you ignore even basic concepts and ideas because at first glance they appear wrong and bad and nasty and icky.

Staying within the scope of your original answer can you tell me under which conditions you discard evidence?

I wouldn't 'discard' any evidence.

If I was searching for Truth, I'd disregard anything which seemed to be unsubstantiated and shape my views according to the evidence and theories available - regardless of what my original belief was. A mix of science and speculative belief.

If I was supporting a belief which was right, I'd have no need to disregard any evidence, as it would all support my belief.

If I was mindlessly defending a belief in spite of all evidence, I'd disregard evidence on the basis of it's threat to my belief. The larger the threat, the further back in it's chain of conception I'd go to find flaws and to undermine the implications of it's existence.

Cause when I attempted to say that you'd use a scientific method you claimed you couldn't so I'd like to know which method you could use to disregard evidence. I know you must have believed that there was one seeing as how it was the reason you actually started posting on this thread.

And that, deary, would be where the discussion changed.

I went from specualting on hypotheticals to expressing my beliefs. Missed that, did you?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Osiri
As far as any comments about personal life you must understand that those were mere jokes.  I am sure that you went out and partied and had loads of fun with your girls.  I know I have and I am merely trying to get you to say you have too.  I will discontinue this line of jokes as you do not seem to see the humor.

As far as any argument I like how you are able to set limits and do not allow me to have no limits.  My original post was that we do what I was talking about in life.  I did say anything about it being in a non-emotional purely scientific non-bias discussion.  That is a contradicition.  You cannot tell me I am wrong in my post and then narrow the scope of the argument to something that I would agree with you.  A lawyer is completely neutral in a office memo.  We have to make both sides out for our senior attorney's to know what is going on.  This is when we do not skew the argument in the slightest.  We give both the strengths and the weaknesses.  So in that context I would completely agree with both of you.....  If I limited it to that context.  

The limits of the discussion were set in Tin Can's original post. (Anyone remember that? )

after watching more news in my Engineering Graphics Class, something hit me about how politics are discussed these days, as opposed to the past

If you choose to widen the scope from that of the original poster too all discussions then that's your mistake not mine.

Originally posted by Osiri
If my original postulate dealt with any narrowed scope it would have been politics not science.  Thus your rebuttal is flawed.  You cannot narrow or change the scope of my original postulate to make something better for you.  This is misrepresenting my original statement.  

You really need to stop using that word because it has always been followed by a misunderstanding of my comments and I'm starting to get annoyed with your insistance of malice when it is actually your lack of understanding that is at fault here.
 If you don't understand me have the f**king courtesy to ask for an explaination instead of assuming I'm doing it deliberately to misrepresent you.

You want to explain to me why politics is an emotional subject that can be dealt with in terms of likes and dislikes? It's not universally so. I happen to choose which political points of view I side with based on logic not which politicians annoy me.

As for the science aspect you have yet again misunderstood me. My point (and I am getting so sick of having to explain everything 3 or 4 times to you before you stand a chance of understanding it) is that I will argue the point in a scientific manner even if it is a political point. I didn't attempt to make this a discussion of the scientific method. I simply pointed out that I use it in discussions. Your claim that I narrowed the scope to science is as foolish as saying that I narrowed it to computing because my keyboard is also a tool I use in discussions on the internet just like I use the scientific method. My intent was always to discuss politics.

Originally posted by Osiri
As you can see there is nothing there about science.  I have read the first 6 or 7 of my posts(my original postulate) and found nothing of science.  It all dealt with life in general.

Thus, do not narrow my argument for me I can do an adequate job myself.

In case you haven't noticed it was actually Scottish who brought up the subject of science. You ought to have read further instead of asuming that the science bent of the argument was my fault. Once again you've failed to do your research and gotten the wrong answer because of it.

I continued to debate you on politics and the issue of you claiming to know how my brain worked with reference to political debate for several posts after that.

In fact feel free to search the thread and find a single point where I debate with you about the validity of the scientific method. I just did and there just isn't one. All my comments on the method were to state that this was how I approached political discussions. Although I may have argued with Scottish about it every single responce I have made to you has been on topic.

Originally posted by Osiri
Further this narrowing for me is a lawyerly tactic not a scientific one.

Which is why I've pointed out that I did not narrow the topic in the slightest. You widened it to include non-political arguments. If you want to go back to the actual topic of the thread and re-read it you'll find you've just been proven conclusively wrong on almost every point.

Originally posted by Scottish
Of course I can.

No you can't. I asked you to explain a point within the original scope  with which you stated it. Instead you answered it within a different wider scope thereby avoiding answering the question. You can't do that and still claim you answered the question. It's just being evasive in order to avoid having to answer a question you don't like.

Originally posted by Scottish
I remember why I declared Vendetta against you now. You're like a little badger when someone trys to show you you're wrong, reading volumes of subtext in innocuous little comments and jibes - seeing vipers at every turn, snapping at you in the dark - and attacking everything that moves with such ferocity you ignore even basic concepts and ideas because at first glance they appear wrong and bad and nasty and icky.

Oooohhh. Insults and threats now. I've been insulted and threaten by better men than you (And I don't mean Osiri either )  so pardon me if I don't feel the need to quake in my boots over this one.

If you can't avoid insults and threats I'd suggest that you go find somewhere quite to lie down until you can discuss this matter like a rational adult.

Originally posted by Scottish
And that, deary, would be where the discussion changed.

I went from specualting on hypotheticals to expressing my beliefs. Missed that, did you?

I didn't miss it. I considered it completely irrelavent to my original question. That is not the same thing. Which is why I asked you the question again in terms you couldn't get confused about.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Scottish

Yes a clear chain that moves slowly from a discussion of the reliability of evidence within the Scientific Method, to a discussion on the inherant weaknesses of the Scientific Method and the belief that it is all-knowing and all-seeing.
 

?

Both myself and Kara have taken great pains to explain there is no presumption that science is 'all knowing' or 'all seeing' in those terms, and upon the whole fundamental issue of the observable universe.  That science is based on visible, observable evidence and that we use the known evidence to determine an opinion; citing not only the supporting evidence but also accounting for our (usually empirical based) reasoning for giving a lesser value for conflicting 'evidence' if such exists (because this evidence can be fabricated or misconstrued as often seen in, for example, the creationism vs evolution debate, which is why it is 'rejected' or approportioned less importance).

AFAIK you're pointing out the weakness of the Scientific Method with regard to something which is was never designed, intended to or even used to examine; the supernatural-stroke-intangible-stroke-inobservable guesswork universe, whose existence or otherwise is a purely personal construct.

[Scottish]

Originally posted by karajorma
No you can't. I asked you to explain a point within the original scope  with which you stated it. Instead you answered it within a different wider scope thereby avoiding answering the question.

Because your understanding of the scope being used couldn't possibly differ from the intended scope.

You can't do that and still claim you answered the question. It's just being evasive in order to avoid having to answer a question you don't like.

Or a question I don't understand, because as far as I can see I've already stated the answer about 400 times in one form or another.

I work in a flow. If you try to drag me back to a previous place in the flow, chances are I'll have completely lost the momentum of the moment.

Far as I can see, either you misunderstood the original intent of whatever the **** I said, or your quoting is losing something of the context of it to the point where I can't remember what the **** I was talking about when I was talking about it.

Oooohhh. Insults and threats now. I've been insulted and threaten by better men than you (And I don't mean Osiri either )  so pardon me if I don't feel the need to quake in my boots over this one.

I was simply stating an observation.

If you can't avoid insults and threats I'd suggest that you go find somewhere quite to lie down until you can discuss this matter like a rational adult.

Where, exactly, did I threaten you?

It's not even an insult really. More a critique of your flaws.

But in the spirit of the thread, I must say that you've got excellent spelling and lovely.....err....eyes?

I didn't miss it. I considered it completely irrelavent to my original question. That is not the same thing. Which is why I asked you the question again in terms you couldn't get confused about.

You shouldn't discard evidence. Only devalue it's worth before assigning it a place in the great context.

[Scottish]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Both myself and Kara have taken great pains to explain there is no presumption that science is 'all knowing' or 'all seeing' in those terms, and upon the whole fundamental issue of the observable universe.

AFAIK you're pointing out the weakness of the Scientific Method with regard to something which is was never designed, intended to or even used to examine; the supernatural-stroke-intangible-stroke-inobservable guesswork universe, whose existence or otherwise is a purely personal construct.

Exactly.

Well, not exactly but close enough that I don't feel like nit-picking.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Scottish
Because your understanding of the scope being used couldn't possibly differ from the intended scope.

What the hell are you on about?

Originally posted by Scottish
Or a question I don't understand, because as far as I can see I've already stated the answer about 400 times in one form or another.

I work in a flow. If you try to drag me back to a previous place in the flow, chances are I'll have completely lost the momentum of the moment.

Then maybe you should have answered the question when I originally proposed it.

Besides which the fact that you can't come back to an argument and present the same response is one of the reasons I prefer to rely on the scientific method rather than the hodge-podge of beliefs that you use.

Originally posted by Scottish
Far as I can see, either you misunderstood the original intent of whatever the **** I said, or your quoting is losing something of the context of it to the point where I can't remember what the **** I was talking about when I was talking about it.

Then go back and re-read the original postings. It's not like they've been lost in the mists of time you know.

Anyway I've got the answer I wanted now from your last response. I simply took issue with your insults and claims that you can change the scope of a question to suit your own purposes.

Originally posted by Scottish
I was simply stating an observation.

Observation my aching arse. At least have the balls to stand up and admit you were being insulting rather than slinking away with an obvious lie.

Originally posted by Scottish
Where, exactly, did I threaten you?

ven·det·ta   Audio pronunciation of "vendetta" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (vn-dt)
n.

   1. A feud between two families or clans that arises out of a slaying and is perpetuated by retaliatory acts of revenge; a blood feud.
   2. A bitter, destructive feud.

Try to at least understand the meaning of the words you use m'kay?

Originally posted by Scottish
It's not even an insult really. More a critique of your flaws.

Yeah right. Like I'm going to fall for that one. See the comment about your lack of testicles above.

[Scottish]

Originally posted by karajorma
What the hell are you on about?

Your idea of an answer is not necessarily the same as mine.

Then maybe you should have answered the question when I originally proposed it.

I would've but I was ignoring you.

Besides which the fact that you can't come back to an argument and present the same response is one of the reasons I prefer to rely on the scientific method rather than the hodge-podge of beliefs that you use.

Just because someone can write a novel doesn't mean they can spontaneously conjour up a random paragraph from half-way through a story they wrote decades ago.

Anyway I've got the answer I wanted now from your last response. I simply took issue with your insults and claims that you can change the scope of a question to suit your own purposes.

I can do as I please.

I'll change the scope, ignore evidence, ignore entire arguments if it suits me to do so.

Which, incidentally, is what the original argument was about in the first place.

Try to at least understand the meaning of the words you use m'kay?

I understand it perfectly. But you seem to be having trouble grasping my usage of it.

I dislike you, but that doesn't mean I'm attacking you. At least, not in the way you think.

Granted that's because I've been ****ing with you, but still....

Yeah right. Like I'm going to fall for that one. See the comment about your lack of testicles above.

See my comment about 'vipers in the dark'.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Scottish
I would've but I was ignoring you.

Good. Stick me on ignore and do it permanently. I really couldn't give  a toss whether you ignore me or not. But if you cherry pick what you want to answer it only means that you lack either the intellect or the bravery to discuss the matter properly.

Originally posted by Scottish
Just because someone can write a novel doesn't mean they can spontaneously conjour up a random paragraph from half-way through a story they wrote decades ago.

If you have the novel in front of you and the option to do a keyword search on it and still can't it means you are lazy or points to some other drastic flaw.

Originally posted by Scottish
I'll change the scope, ignore evidence, ignore entire arguments if it suits me to do so.

Yes but it means you lose. By refusing to answer a point it means that you conceed it. That's internet discussions 101.

Originally posted by Scottish
I dislike you

I really couldn't give a damn either way.

[Scottish]

Originally posted by karajorma
If you have the novel in front of you and the option to do a keyword search on it and still can't it means you are lazy or points to some other drastic flaw.

Lazy.

Also, that'd be cheating.

Yes but it means you lose. By refusing to answer a point it means that you conceed it. That's internet discussions 101.

Yes, but in the real world - where a man's hand isn't his only friend - refusing to answer a direct question is a mark of disrespect.

I was being calculating.

Like when I removed the whole 'cherry picking' paragraph from this response. I found it funny to do so. But I thought I should probably explain what I was doing so you didn't get confused and accuse me of the exact same thing over and over again, missing the point entirely.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Scottish

Lazy.

Also, that'd be cheating.

If you're doing it correct in the first place you wouldn't need to cheat. You only need to cheat when you don't have a clue how to do it without cheating.

Originally posted by Scottish
Yes, but in the real world

That's the real world with unicorns and gremlins in it that you inhabit?

I doubt you've even seen pictures of the real world.

Originally posted by Scottish
Like when I removed the whole 'cherry picking' paragraph from this response. I found it funny to do so. But I thought I should probably explain what I was doing so you didn't get confused and accuse me of the exact same thing over and over again, missing the point entirely.

Brilliant response. Why don't you ignore every single comment made by everyone on the board and be done with it since you refuse to accept the possibility that your outlook or logic might be wrong.

That way you can go to bed safe in the knowledge that everything you believe is correct no matter how foolish it actually is.

[Scottish]

So, who likes fish?

[Grey Wolf]

Swordfish FTW.

[Jetmech Jr.]

After seeing those two rapidly shut down threads, this has become much more amusing.

[Scottish]

Yeah, I bring the fun in.