Conspiracy of human intelligence.

reply to post by Lichter daraus


2 words: prove it.

Originally posted by liveandlearn
reply to post by sirnex

I went back and read a few of your posts. You are indeed open to possibilities. Maybe I didn't read far enough, but your possibilities seem to be within the bounds of science.

I am not trained in the sciences, except biological, so understandably you may feel free to ignore anything I have said. Feel free not to respond.

Your mind is closed due, I think, to academia. There is no way to study the things that science has yet to discover or understand. I do believe you are bright enough to understand that...you are certainly smarter than I in the sciences and no doubt in many other areas as well.

I speak of the unexplainable, things science can not answer...yet.

To see you must wish to see. Maybe you do and it just does not come across to me. You seem limited by science.

I understand there is no way to study what hasn't been discovered or understood as of yet, but it is simply illogical and wrong to misuse something in order to come up with an answer for something else. It's like trying to shove a square inside a triangular hole, it won't fit.

@Everyone else

Did you guy's miss what I said about thermal energy and how it's not a separate entity from matter? Am I wrong there? Am I missing something, because from my understanding it definitely appears to be a direct result of matter and not a separate artifact of its own accord.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by sirnex]

[edit on 18-10-2009 by sirnex]

reply to post by liquidsmoke206


Why do i have to prove it? Cant you decide for yourself, I'm sure you can. I never you had to prove anything. Also, I admitted to possibly not realizing the quantum humor in your post. I wasn't implying you aren't intelligent.

[edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus]

[edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus]

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by SmokeandShadow

 

The opposite extreme of what I hate huh? Man, ATS denies logic as well. Explain the logic in me being the opposite extreme of disliking the improper usage of scientific theories and terminologies. Seriously, I'm sure your logic there is oh so much more sounder than my logic of the improper usage of a terminology or theory adequately invalidates any theory based upon that improper use.

You are now falsely defining the target that my "opposite extreme" comment was applied to. Way to spin guy. You can misread as much as you like. You adhere strongly to a "what I see is what it is" outlook, correct? You obviously are zealous in the belief that only a "qualified" person is able to define language, space, time, energy, matter and you're reality. Once humans understand something it can never be "magical" right? That sounds like an extreme opposite of a person who see's the world as a spiritual step in a journey and invokes "dimensions to support his hypothesis, trusting imagination alone....am I wrong?

reply to post by liquidsmoke206


Showing that you can parrot me is not exactly proving your stance.

reply to post by SmokeandShadow


So your now advocating that people can freely redefine scientific theories and terminologies to apply to whatever idea they so choose? So, I can legitimately formulate my own idea of what a dimension is and what energy is and postulate any theory based on those new definitions and some how everyone *has* to take me seriously? DUDE THAT IS FREAKING AWESOME!

By that logic... Everyone is right! HURRAY!

reply to post by sirnex


If you want any respect yourself don't you think that you should extend it to others? You don't have to denigate to disagree. And by the way, only accepting what "experts" say minus any real experience with yourself is a logical fallacy.

Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). [1]

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

SOURCE:en.wikipedia.org...

Now, you were talking at one point about logic and critical thinking were you not?

[edit on 18-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Oh please, you know damn well it's not submitting to authority. It's a simple matter of people redefining terms and theories and using them to postulate something those terms and theories don't postulate themselves in such a manner as if they did.

Honestly, since when was such an act logical or acceptable? If people want to use words with new definitions, then fine, but *at least* define the new terminology before you use it. It really isn't that hard or that big of a deal to ask of someone. When I see words such as, but not limited to, energy or dimension being brandished about as if the current concept of energy or dimension is in agreement with their ideas, that is where I am drawing the line and distinction. How many time's to I have to state that in so many different ways before it sinks in?

How many time's to I have to state that in so many different ways before it sinks in?

A lot i guess, because as you stated, we are to dumbed down,apparently.