Magic: Who thinks they can do it, and why otherwise intelligent people buy it.

[Epimetheus]

Is there something about me that I can't say fuck you to people?

Say it when you mean it. It's a personal attack, and that's how some people will take it. Wah, wah, wah  .

No argument there, like I said, it was a poorly thought out on my part. 

Alright then. I join everyone clamoring for some explanation about the flaws of science.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It's a fun debate, but I like and respect each one of you, even when I'm calling you a fuckhead.

And I like and respect you when I call you a pseudo-intellectual twat.  

I don't.

I'm also the only person on this forum that gets told FUCK YOU whenever it comes up in the news.

Also, fuck you Guy.

Now, now, Kai.  His view of the universe is an alternate, equally valid theory.



TGRR,
Making bad situations worse better since the Johnson administration.

Roger, you are awesome and I love you and all, but if you ever use the word theory like that again, I will send Aput to snow you out of Tuscon. Okay? 

Hey, hey, I was only following the advice of my friend Charles B Thaxton.  He has always had good advice for me, with the exception of playoff bets.  On that, he is useless.

[Kai]

Charles B Thaxton

[Shai Hulud]

Also, fuck you Guy.

Thanks Kai, glad we're still the best of friend as ever we were.  And listen, since I'm done being a dick, I agree with you about a lot of that stuff, I said some shitty things, but didn't mean them.  You've got a good head on your shoulders, and you don't have to like me, but I still think you're good people.  You will get no more insults from me.  To answer your question:

Please tell me, if you will, how hypothesis testing is flawed. Please tell me how the scientific method is unable with confidence to test and retest every falsifiable hypothesis provided the technology is available. Because this bullshit is getting on my nerves, and you continue to say science is flawed over and over without providing any evidence of how the scientific method is unable to be used with confidence.

The scientific method is certainly able to test and retest every hypothesis provided the technology is available (and that last part about technology is a big if that I by no means grant, but let's go with it).

What I've been trying to get at, and my poor arguing skills are to blame for this not coming across, is that the hypothesis on which science is based, namely that the universal is self consistent, is itself an untestable hypothesis even in principle.  Think about it, what sort of a test can you use to test the hypothesis that the laws that govern the universe will work every time?  It would take an infinite number of trials to prove that.  You can talk all you like about parsimony, but that is only a useful short hand.  The fact is that science can only ever be highly probably, never certain.  High probability is a matter of opinion, not an objective truth.

I'd be very interested in your response, maybe we can call a truce with the insults though?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Charles B Thaxton

That's kinda like saying nice things about Benedict Arnold on Independence Day, isn't it?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

What I've been trying to get at, and my poor arguing skills are to blame for this not coming across, is that the hypothesis on which science is based, namely that the universal is self consistent, is itself an untestable hypothesis even in principle.  Think about it, what sort of a test can you use to test the hypothesis that the laws that govern the universe will work every time?  It would take an infinite number of trials to prove that.  You can talk all you like about parsimony, but that is only a useful short hand.  

[Shai Hulud]

Yes, Roger, just like the matrix.  Ooooh.

Got any argument, or just pretty pictures and pop culture reference?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yes, Roger, just like the matrix.  Ooooh.

Got any argument, or just pretty pictures and pop culture reference?

I didn't make the assertion, so the argument is not mine to make.  I am waiting to hear an actual flaw in the scientific method, not an appeal to ignorance. 

[Epimetheus]

Actually, I don't see how the matrix relates. That was a scientific film. it was based on quantum i think.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Actually, I don't see how the matrix relates. That was a scientific film. it was based on quantum i think.

DO NOT TAUNT HAPPY FUN ALPHAPANCE.   

[Shai Hulud]

Yes, Roger, just like the matrix.  Ooooh.

Got any argument, or just pretty pictures and pop culture reference?

I didn't make the assertion, so the argument is not mine to make.  I am waiting to hear an actual flaw in the scientific method, not an appeal to ignorance.  

You're attacking a straw man.  The flaw is that it cannot get to objective truth, but there is no problem when it comes to day to day use.  You don't even care about objective truth, nothing I say about it is ever going to look like a flaw to you.  But rest assured, it is a flaw.

[Shai Hulud]

I didn't make the assertion, so the argument is not mine to make.

You're being disingenuous here, the picture implied an argument.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yes, Roger, just like the matrix.  Ooooh.

Got any argument, or just pretty pictures and pop culture reference?

I didn't make the assertion, so the argument is not mine to make.  I am waiting to hear an actual flaw in the scientific method, not an appeal to ignorance. 

You're attacking a straw man.  The flaw is that it cannot get to objective truth, but there is no problem when it comes to day to day use.  You don't even care about objective truth, nothing I say about it is every going to look like a flaw to you.  But rest assured, it is a flaw.

Sure.  So an object dropped on Earth does NOT NECESSARILY begin "objectively" accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2, right?

It's all subjective and shit.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I didn't make the assertion, so the argument is not mine to make.

You're being disingenuous here, the picture implied an argument.

No, actually, that was pure mockery.   

[Shai Hulud]

I didn't make the assertion, so the argument is not mine to make.

You're being disingenuous here, the picture implied an argument.

No, actually, that was pure mockery.  

Ok, I guess I gave you too much credit.  Anybody else?