BS: Alternative to Science??

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 02:47 PM

I thought you posted that you didn't read my posts anymore...could it be that even you don't know what you're talking about..even to yourself?????

Holy Smokes!!!!

GfS

P.S. Maybe you should try re-reading this part of my last post, that just describes this kind of character, "This is a moron, unwilling to even look at, review, or research any topic brought up, that he feels might threaten his preconceptions!!...and that my dear friends is the exact definition of, " BS: Alternative to Science??".....especially the "BS" part!"

Is that describing you?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 04:32 PM

"Have it your way--all thought is biomechanical, intentionality is just a deterministic accident, and all spiritual awareness is illusory, a simple happenstance of brain oxygen levels ..."

Well, I'm glad that you and Amos now agree with me, GfS!

Oh! I gedditt! Amos was being ironic!

He was probably right though: All thought is (probably) biomechanical, intentionality is (probably) just a deterministic accident, and all spiritual awareness is (probably) illusory, (it's probably)a simple happenstance of brain oxygen levels ..."

There's no evidence for anything else ... apart, that is, from dubious anecdotal 'evidence' ludicrously over-extended and elaborated by cranks, charlatans and madmen.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 08:07 PM

Hey Rod-Brain,.....take two of these and really get plenty of rest...really.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 04:54 AM

There you go. Steve Shaw has his Alternative to Science but he's not going to tell us what it is.

I shall leave him to the arguments with pete and Guest from Sanity that he seems to enjoy so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 09:13 AM

Im confused now.

I dont live too far from Goole. Am I missing something here? where is the pier?

I know what. I shall rename The Waterways Museum The Waterways Pier. Science would have us searching for the pier. Superstition would allow me to rename the museum.

Crude but there again so are the majority of posters. ..

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 11:25 AM

I made up Goole Pier. And why not, I thought. After all, by making fantasy stuff up all I'm doing is joining the ranks of Guffers and pete and Snailieboy.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 12:46 PM

I really did mean to leave this behind.

Obviously Steve Shaw will refuse to read this on principle but I thought others might be interested -
Dawkins on falsifiability

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 01:44 PM

Good idea. Might give the place a focus, or even a reason to exist... Wigan has one so why not? Goole may be inland like Wigan but it does have a port...

Goofus doesn't make things up, to be fair to him. He genuinely seems to have faith in what he says, the silly bugger. Snail is winding you up, but I can't decide whether you play along or try to reason with him. pete has his friend he can call on, and as his friend presumably has all the answers, infallible logic and thunderbolts, pestilence and famine available to beat you in discussion, I'm surprised pete doesn't win all the debates.

Why is that? Why doesn't pete's mate turn us into a pillar of salt? After all, he has a track record of being vain, arrogant and not suffering rivals....

Perhaps Heisenberg was right on another level. if we observe him, we affect him, so he can only exist in terms of probability? A bit of a bugger then if we have to turn to science in order to decide if millions of lemmings can't be wrong.....

Got it! God is a cat. He must be in that box....

So, what was all that waffle about there being an alternative to science then?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 04:29 PM

I've had the book for years, Snailie old mollusc. Muskers, you make me feel like I feel I ought to feel. One continues to post here with these characters only at the risk of having to seriously question one's own sanity. And you can shut up, Guffers. I didn't mean you.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 10:53 PM

Steve: "...I made up Goole Pier. And why not, I thought. After all, by making fantasy stuff up all I'm doing..."

Yeah, an alternative to science....We've read your posts..there is a lot of made up stuff!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 05:52 AM

Well bugger me sideways, I didn't make it up after all. There really is a Goole Pier. Bwahahaha!

http://www.geolocation.ws/v/W/File:Brass%20band%20at%20Victoria%20Pier,%20Goole%20-%20geograph.org.uk%20-%201417771.jpg/-/en

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 06:28 AM

Steve Shaw

I've had the book for years, Snailie old mollusc.

I just wondered if you had any thoughts on what Dawkins has to say about falsifiability. The key semtence, in case you missed it is "Evolution, in other words, is a falsifiable, and therefore scientific, theory."

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 09:59 AM

Never fear. When I want to give you my thoughts, you'll get 'em. And one day you will learn that hectoring me in that manner, as is your wont, simply doesn't work.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 11:49 AM

OK, sports fans. The contenders are using the word "falsifiable" in the sense of "disprovable by conceivable evidence that might in theory be discovered."

Karl Popper believed that a scientific theory had to be potentially disprovable. Any claim expressed in a way that could never be disproved by reason wasn't scientific. Like, "The jet-propelled unicorn I see is there, but your inferior brain just won't let you see her." Try and prove that wrong.

Despite what some of you are thinking, "falsifiable" doesn't mean scientists can fake it if they want to.

Back to the action.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 06:49 PM

Lighter: "Despite what some of you are thinking, "falsifiable" doesn't mean scientists can fake it if they want to."

Sure, that's where homosexuality was figured out as being 'genetic'..... did that stop the 'left' of discounting that bit of 'science'(?)!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 06:58 PM

Whoa! GfS opens himself up to a crushing blow from the science team!

But can they deliver? Or will the audacity of a double-barrelled non sequitur leave 'em too bleary-eyed to continue?

Wotta brawl, folks! Wotta brawl!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 07:12 PM

An interesting gambit, GfS! I'm not sure that I'm familiar with that particular piece of (alleged) 'falsification'. Please feel free to supply us with more details.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: frogprince
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 10:58 PM

Shimeod, you may have opened the floodgates again to something that has run on endlessly on at least a couple of threads before. Gfs, as the most intelligent and spiritually attuned person here, "knows" that homosexuality is a voluntary choice, gnerally resulting from emotional damage from parenting, that it can be cured by therapy, and that all alleged evidence for any genetic or biological reason for homosexuality is trumped up by defensive homosexuals or those who have caved to pressure from the homosexual agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 04:59 AM

Well Frogs, you sorta got part of it...but not all the way..and your analysts, is a bit colored....but you are correct, in the fact that the behavior is NOT genetic. It is the receptors and how/and/why they got 'set up' the way they did.

..and yes, that development can,(and often is) be set up as early in the womb...much the way receptors 'crave' to be 'satisfied'...for an example(and don't go crazy..it's just an example), some babies are born with a chemical dependance, if the mother was 'using' during her pregnancy.

Being as the fetus is 'attached' to the mother, during the formation of the child's receptors in the nervous system, are also 'influenced' in their development. the mother and child are as one, sharing the same nutrients and system's energy.
Though homosexuality is not exactly a chemical dependency, the nervous system, in it's set up, creates certain behavioral patterns...some, have an emotional 'impact and influence', that has nothing to do with the desire for one gender over another.


..........unless you believe that the mother and child are not, 'as one'...but an independent life.....then the double standard has to explain away abortion not being murder.....
...so it's either the same..or not.....and what the mother is going through in her pregnancy, directly affects the fetus.

You've heard of people playing music to their babies during pregnancy, and the child is born with an appreciation for music...to maybe being 'gifted'......same principle.

I really hope you don't want to 'argue' this point...but rather research it...with an open(or at least not programmed) mind.

Anyway, nice talkin' to ya'...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 05:12 AM

But Guffers, all that aside (where it belongs), is it OK to be gay?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 04:09 PM

You are asking me for a 'value judgement'....and when embarking on learning something OBJECTIVELY, such 'judgements' can, and will impair the learning process.
.......(shhhh).....and VERY unscientific, too.

GfS

P.S. Maybe that's a reason why you're stuck where you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 04:17 PM

But is it OK to be gay, Guffers?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 04:21 PM

Can't you read???...or do you have ADD?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 05:53 PM

"Though homosexuality is not exactly a chemical dependency, the nervous system, in it's set up, creates certain behavioral patterns...some, have an emotional 'impact and influence', that has nothing to do with the desire for one gender over another."

Is there any evidence available to support that assertion, GfS, or is it just another one of your 'theories'?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 07:01 PM

But Guffers, if a man or lady is homosexual, and acts homosexual, is that OK? Off the fence, my man!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 07:11 PM

<" I'd suggest imagination and poetry and song and dreaming and creativity.">

Scientists can possess all of these attributes. E=MC2 is imagination. The hydrologic cycle or ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is a kind of poetry. Newton's "Apple" and Einstein's discoveries were dreams and creativity.

There has been too much of a dichotomy between science and art.

The Germanic use of the word science means a comprehensive study of any subject
whether music, art, math, biology or physics.

The scientist is a kind of artist.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 08:16 PM

Steve, I gave you my answer..which is consistent with my position..and I ain't sittin' on 'your fence'.
I know what it is and i know what it isn't!

It's NOT a political position!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 08:23 PM

So would you refer to yourself as a homophobe, Guffers??

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 09:23 PM

Steve Shaw missed the non sequiturs, but he keeps hammering on an ad hominem irrelevancy! Oh no! GfS is down! He won't say a simple yes or no! *Is this fight over???*

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 11:42 PM

So now Gfs refuses to make a "value judgement" as to homosexuality/being gay. If a myriad of statements that he has made on the subject don't plainly indicate what judgement he holds in mind, I don't see how anything he says about it can mean anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Dec 12 - 03:49 AM

"Though homosexuality is not exactly a chemical dependency, the nervous system, in it's set up, creates certain behavioral patterns...some, have an emotional 'impact and influence', that has nothing to do with the desire for one gender over another."

So,GfS, you've got no eveidence for that assertion and it's just another one of your 'theories' (?)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 11 Dec 12 - 08:06 AM

> You've heard of people playing music to their babies during pregnancy, and the child is born with an appreciation for music...to maybe being 'gifted'......

There's no reason to assume this is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Dec 12 - 01:18 PM

There is NO fight...you have facts, and you have a political position manufactured from bad science....unless YOU can prove otherwise!...nor am I 'down'...that is a really bad ASS-umption.....

...there is NO 'homosexual gene'...or they would have found it, by now!

..and yes, there is substantial evidence that music played during pregnancy to the fetus DOES produce effects to the child...look it up!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: saulgoldie
Date: 11 Dec 12 - 04:47 PM

Seeing no alternative process stated and explained here...science it is. By default.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Dec 12 - 05:07 PM

What??? You just pulled that out of thin air!..It's not that science hasn't been 'discussed' here...it's that certain wannabe 'debaters', have yet to come up with a scientific rebuttal, and post only according to their biases!

Big alternative..isn't it?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Dec 12 - 05:28 PM

"......there is NO 'homosexual gene'...or they would have found it, by now!

Talk about pulling something out of thin air!

They HAVE found genes that affect hormonal balance and sexual orientation. Google it... carefully

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 11 Dec 12 - 07:56 PM

Science team.

TKO in the umpteenth.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 12 - 09:17 PM

Ad hominem me arse!! I asked a simple question of a man who claims to have abundant evidence of the nature of homosexuality, but he declines to answer! Guffers, dear: say I'm gay, OK? Say I meet you in a bar and make a pass at you, having thought you were leading me on. Whaddya think? Is that OK? Same as when a boodiful woman does the same thing? Is being gay but showing similar behaviour to non-gays OK in your book? Wassup? Is that too hard a question? Can't your knowledge of genetics resolve this?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 01:27 AM

Bill D.: "They HAVE found genes that affect hormonal balance and sexual orientation..."

Yes, now find one that goes a little further than the report saying, "suggests"..or..."some evidence"....or..."tends"....or one that says, "we found it"...

Until then....I stand pat!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 02:45 AM

Goofus. There is no evidence for music being played to foetus resulting in appreciation of music.

There is however evidence to suggest that being brought up with a musical appreciation might in some cases lead to thinking you like music.

It started after the birth not before. Silly.

Your observation is as good as saying if you have sex outside the offspring will appreciate a sunset on the beach or want to hang around fire escapes behind night clubs.

Statistically possible..

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from, Sanity
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 03:28 AM

The fetus can sense music from inside the womb..or at least the sensation.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 04:54 AM

Yes, they can also feel the sensation of the car, knickers being put on / taken off, walking around and the belly swaying as they go, the gurgling noise the gut makes as it digests fish finger and chocolate sandwiches, (I have been known to make them for her at 3.00am...) and the noise from the Dirty Harry movie on the telly, (or Bridget Bloody Jones more likely...)

What does an unborn child make of those distractions? Uncanny how they can be blanked out but the conscious musical preferences of their parents have an effect on them?

Hah Ha Ha!!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 06:08 AM

Hey Guest from Sanity, here's a line you might find useful -

Never fear. When I want to give you my thoughts, you'll get 'em. And one day you will learn that hectoring me in that manner, as is your wont, simply doesn't work.
(c) Steve Shaw

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 05:56 PM

You'd think he'd get the clue...but he is a bit emotionally immature!
thanks Snail..

Regards to You!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 08:28 PM

But Snail and Guffster darlings! I hector not! I simply couch a very apposite question in a variety of ways following Guffers's minithesis on the nature of homosexuality! Why can't he answer such a simple question, you have to question! And Snail! Fancy throwing your lot in with the Guffer! And here's me thinking you'd rather throw your rather po-faced lot in with real science! Dearie me! Hey Guffo! You know who your friends are, eh, you lucky owld sod! And Snail, you know who your friends are, you unfortunate bastard! Now I'm just trying to work out which of you two, in your splendid double act, is the comedian and which one's the straight man (oops...). While I'm working that out, perhaps Guffalo would like to apprise me as to whether it's OK to be gay. Whaddya think, big boy? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 03:01 AM

My my...inquisitive minds want to know.....hmmm...do I know the nature of my position on homosexuality.....well, as I said before, I know what it is,...so I don't have to be bullshitted by anyone's political agenda telling me something that isn't....and I know what it's not......so I don't have to be bullshitted by anyone's political agenda telling me something that isn't......and then I have another opinion....but alas, it's supported by science.
You wouldn't be interested.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 04:07 AM

One of your positions supported by science, GfS?

Aaaaahhh!!!







Sorry! Just fell off my chair!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 05:13 AM

More than 'one', so don't hurt yourself....maybe you should stay on the floor, crawl around..play with some toys.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 05:54 AM

Hi Steve.

I just wondered if you had any thoughts on what Dawkins has to say about falsifiability. The key semtence, in case you missed it is "Evolution, in other words, is a falsifiable, and therefore scientific, theory."

Not hectoring, just couching a very apposite question.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 10:09 AM

No, GfS, I think I'll leave the toys on the floor - there's far more entertainment to be had up here!