| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Native American" |
| Date: |
13 Jun 2005 12:01:50 PM |
| Object: |
"Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
"Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence.
Yet Cary Kittrell seems to want to dispute that FACT.
So I have started this new thread, so as to give her an opportunity to do
so, if she can.
.
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
15 Jun 2005 12:17:23 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:2_ire.3545$hK3.1925@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective"
evidence.
"Why" "all" the "sneer" "quotes"???
Yet Cary Kittrell seems to want to dispute that FACT.
Hmm. Maybe because it isn't a "FACT"?
So I have started this new thread, so as to give her an
opportunity to do so, if she can.
First of all, Cary's a he, not a she.
Secondly--although I KNOW you're trying your little damndest
to be profound here--what in the hell do you mean by your
assertion? The problem is, I can see several ways that one
could interpret your argument, as badly worded as it is.
One, you could be arguing that our sensory input of the
universe around us but an illusion, that "truth" lies in
things supposedly "beyond" that, and, as science focuses on
studying the illusion, it is based on some sort of "faith"
that the illusion is reality (mimicking Plato), OR, you could
be on somewhat sounder, and more practical ground, and be
re-iterating Hume, and be making an argument about science
making the link between empirical data and causation (though
poor ole David would be spinning in his grave to see you
using that argument to knock science to favor religion).
Or you could mean something else. Giving us some philosophical
antecedents would be nice.
In none of which, however, is your bald assertion a "FACT".
Moreover, Plato's argument just doesn't run anywhere, after
you've decided that sensory input is just at best a shadow
of the "true reality", all it leads to is unfounded speculation
about the nature of said "true reality". Which a skeptic like
Hume would rightly trash.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQq9vgT/rA6+b3AyhAQHv7Af/SVzIJL/vDH6Ayyu+XJHddek716EjI+fm
DzhWoUkCi9DZtpmyWNPWamDR6FLRmcc6YoRIEiP62waYzjMUzRRYZM68FDsa7Waj
/dY3jHz+0pX6DrW+2tqh/idpRv0je8f5CEunitxve+p+PcdntiUafKp1NjXqX/xa
OsolOgMdsHUTqnDNK6MoXFIJxucKrM4dt5nds4zL6kcvGo6G8oPxSVzrsoEskBSx
MKY2LI0c8tVUv/XszSneaRRWB9L8X2M1t7mf90P1VXncKQ1CCFU0GKWZus3pT2tA
QRVV39q4sIm/XohlJIyW9CorYu38o7a+WkhHCc61vVh+BbY632SuzQ==
=uLFv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Native American" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
15 Jun 2005 12:24:37 PM |
|
|
"Secret Squirrel" <ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> wrote in message
news:P7SM23PE38518.5120717593@anonymous.poster...
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:2_ire.3545$hK3.1925@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective"
evidence.
Moreover, Plato's argument just doesn't run anywhere, after
you've decided that sensory input is just at best a shadow
of the "true reality", all it leads to is unfounded speculation
about the nature of said "true reality". Which a skeptic like
Hume would rightly trash.
Secret Squirrel
I take it you REJECT the notion that sensory input is, at best, just a
shadow of the true reality?
IOW, you DO have faith in supposedly "objective" evidence, just as I said.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
17 Jun 2005 11:51:11 AM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:pvZre.4856$jX6.1161@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Secret Squirrel" <ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> wrote in
message news:P7SM23PE38518.5120717593@anonymous.poster...
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:2_ire.3545$hK3.1925@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective"
evidence.
Moreover, Plato's argument just doesn't run anywhere,
after you've decided that sensory input is just at best a
shadow of the "true reality", all it leads to is unfounded
speculation about the nature of said "true reality". Which
a skeptic like Hume would rightly trash.
I take it you REJECT the notion that sensory input is, at
best, just a shadow of the true reality?
Yes; because the other argument doesn't lead to anything
fruitful.
And in truth, you're a hypocrite, because in the practice
of your daily life you reject it too. You're consummately
interested in the goings-on and outcomes in the mere "shadow",
to wit:
Message-ID:
<06mqe.2156$hK3.1181@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
And yes, Christians DO have a cultural mandate to control
society and to shape it from the Christian perspective.
Sekulow is absolutely correct about that.
Now why all this huffing and puffing and concern about
this mere "shadow" of reality? Sounds like your side indeed
believes the "shadow" to be very real, that's why they lust
to *control* it. Now, a truer early Christian perspective,
one that I read in the New Testament--one that says ALL
governments and ALL institutions of man are ungodly and
flawed, that they're essentially unimportant in the larger
metaphysical context, that they should be obeyed but not
participated in--while I would disagree with the philosophy,
it has my respect in that I would at least grant it logical
consistency. But not this *****.
All you're really trying to do is to provide a justification
for your proposed takeover of the government and society.
Moreover, you want to privilege this justification against any
critical scrutiny of others by removing it from the domain
of the tangible and material. It's an evasion, a cop-out.
The separation of church and state you abhor so much essentially
demands that the basis of US law be set in the realm of the
tangible and material, as this is the only realm where it's
been demonstrated that reasonable people can come to at any
agreement. The Founders were well aware of the (for them fairly
recent) history of Europe, and its wars and persecution over
matters of religious belief that are irresolvable.
BTW, most defenders of Plato don't go as far as you. When they
talk about things such as a priori knowledge, they're smart
enough to restrict themselves to things such as mathematical
concepts, or logical constructions, or the ability to acquire
language. Not full-blown religious systems.
IOW, you DO have faith in supposedly "objective" evidence,
just as I said.
Well, it's not "faith", because you're not using the word
correctly. Faith is the belief in something despite the lack
of material evidence, or even in the face of material evidence
against it. Science doesn't use faith, save for (and this is
a very important caveat) the "faith" that, given exactly the
same circumstances, that the future behavior of a system being
studied will resemble the past; that an valid experiment will
reproduce itself.
That's why I mention David Hume, because he was the first
philosopher to point out that this is indeed a faith, or a
prejudice. However, Hume himself *was* an empiricist, and
moreover an atheist; he just denied the ability of science
to come up with certain knowledge. His philosophy is even
*more* critical of your position than of science.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQrISgT/rA6+b3AyhAQH8+Af/R7sbkXuydKpLcepIIscnqXr59X3nWVIp
7IGzGcHlmGJD9uvSAb9gDFxcOS/jtAlR8Qc63X1n53M0W1vXIUFgrNXc2Yu8BjVE
Kr8mtPSUkjWro+7y1RKFo4H3gA3zTwqiqOeWhS/EunaDEkn/9GpV/ZtX7l2/f4e/
iaQycc8J2rABjYXFHln/Exa+ziOQN/xZEHQJb8EMPrUTSFjC5C3EcWw3MgJCYkx9
v+SSPR33E4EJB+V5I6GSCgrwOgpmE3xZKilcPYPNhgxcXE5OmUVRmKsDVPhFLYnz
T86F9/y7/eYsjSXNG1iKZHwM01TP/8ENttzT0vZUhxI3G/CsoJiVYQ==
=Kwo1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Native American" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
17 Jun 2005 11:56:52 AM |
|
|
"Secret Squirrel" <ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> wrote in message
news:B2KDNO4R38520.4938773148@anonymous.poster...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQrISgT/rA6+b3AyhAQH8+Af/R7sbkXuydKpLcepIIscnqXr59X3nWVIp
7IGzGcHlmGJD9uvSAb9gDFxcOS/jtAlR8Qc63X1n53M0W1vXIUFgrNXc2Yu8BjVE
Kr8mtPSUkjWro+7y1RKFo4H3gA3zTwqiqOeWhS/EunaDEkn/9GpV/ZtX7l2/f4e/
iaQycc8J2rABjYXFHln/Exa+ziOQN/xZEHQJb8EMPrUTSFjC5C3EcWw3MgJCYkx9
v+SSPR33E4EJB+V5I6GSCgrwOgpmE3xZKilcPYPNhgxcXE5OmUVRmKsDVPhFLYnz
T86F9/y7/eYsjSXNG1iKZHwM01TP/8ENttzT0vZUhxI3G/CsoJiVYQ==
=Kwo1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
how very swell for you.....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
17 Jun 2005 10:28:40 AM |
|
|
In article <P7SM23PE38518.5120717593@anonymous.poster> Secret Squirrel <ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:2_ire.3545$hK3.1925@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective"
evidence.
"Why" "all" the "sneer" "quotes"???
Yet Cary Kittrell seems to want to dispute that FACT.
Hmm. Maybe because it isn't a "FACT"?
So I have started this new thread, so as to give her an
opportunity to do so, if she can.
First of all, Cary's a he, not a she.
Hmmm ... I don't even much notice suchlike any more.
Probably because over the Usenet years I've gotten used
to the puzzling phenomenon of posters who try to
insult you by calling you something that THEY would
find offensive; they never get it that you it carries
no sting.
For example, some who hate or fear Blacks have implied
that I must be a <quote> ***** <quote>.
Posters who hate or fear Jews have called me a "kike".
Posters who hate or fear gays have called me a "fag".
Posters who hate or fear lesbians have implied that
I am a "*****".
And now "Native American" implies that I am a woman.
You do the syllogism.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: "Scientology" is based on FAITH in supposedly "surrealistic" evidence |
17 Jun 2005 03:19:10 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:28:40 -0500, Cary Kittrell wrote
In article <P7SM23PE38518.5120717593@anonymous.poster> Secret Squirrel
<ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:2_ire.3545$hK3.1925@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective"
evidence.
"Why" "all" the "sneer" "quotes"???
Yet Cary Kittrell seems to want to dispute that FACT.
Hmm. Maybe because it isn't a "FACT"?
So I have started this new thread, so as to give her an
opportunity to do so, if she can.
First of all, Cary's a he, not a she.
Hmmm ... I don't even much notice suchlike any more.
Probably because over the Usenet years I've gotten used
to the puzzling phenomenon of posters who try to
insult you by calling you something that THEY would
find offensive; they never get it that you it carries
no sting.
For example, some who hate or fear Blacks have implied
that I must be a <quote> ***** <quote>.
Posters who hate or fear Jews have called me a "kike".
Posters who hate or fear gays have called me a "fag".
Posters who hate or fear lesbians have implied that
I am a "*****".
And now "Native American" implies that I am a woman.
You do the syllogism.
-- cary
Heck, I can make the whole thing shorter:
If the hatemongers who live in constant fear of just
about anything, anybody or [people to be named at a future
time] want to save space, these middle-aged ladies,
gentlemen and precocious peckerheads could simply call out
from under their rocks at midnight:
What my spiritual father, John Knight, said!
So there!!!
Now, I'm going to jump up and down
and hold my breath and
you'll all be sorry when I'm dead.
It would make it much easier on our sweet, middle-aged
failures such as Viggie the Vegetable and Natti the
Nutcake.
Gray Shockley
---------------------------------------
President George W C Bush's business professor at
Harvard Business School, Professor Yoshi Tsurumi, recalls
our President as "not just as a terrible student but as
spoiled, loutish and a pathological liar".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
13 Jun 2005 01:50:05 PM |
|
|
In article <2_ire.3545$hK3.1925@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> "Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> writes:
"Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence.
Yet Cary Kittrell seems to want to dispute that FACT.
Your contention: you support it.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
13 Jun 2005 11:44:10 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <2_ire.3545$hK3.1925@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> "Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> writes:
"Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence.
Yet Cary Kittrell seems to want to dispute that FACT.
Your contention: you support it.
-- cary
Shame on you for picking on Indians, you racist.
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
14 Jun 2005 10:49:35 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Jd <Jd.fireball@att.net> wrote in
news:q7gsa1pila9sdeo39qo20j3hvj8od298ik@4ax.com:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article
<2_ire.3545$hK3.1925@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> writes:
"Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective"
evidence.
Yet Cary Kittrell seems to want to dispute that FACT.
Your contention: you support it.
Shame on you for picking on Indians, you racist.
'Cept that it's becoming increasingly apparent that "Native
American", well, isn't, at least not in the typical usuage of
that label. He's dodged the question I put to him of naming
his nation and his band, something that a real Native American
would have no problem doing.
I think that he's using term "Native American" as an *anti*-
Indian screed, the way that Brojack has done.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQq4eAT/rA6+b3AyhAQEvrwf6AiyQufgKA2LGrsLpvQxjKy4QhJa1ZChv
uf5Spzn4DAT4T4vlbDlvGGgPylj0//Ntmazfaq/+kS8iLbvgLe2yemjWyc1FnZJ8
Eq61zZEUx8XUJP7+BQlu3vM9on/1UonfYOi4wNp+ZBI7bBbr9pMVQzxhIHbTCg2x
Oti0Lydmu3meMb6N2BDaP+A0jSpfgjsPOTh6V6AbOyqg6+S2mE92mAb+eFG0Gbdt
I6NlzyMBMjFBvVm9xH5DNFAKM394JzwgvNSa2MnNHV9XwtMM72j/ZzVORbHU33ja
1UbjV5WKRIf0dbQQ6SernxlV4Pr5sPe105pfEwRjK4o2L3AauXiJ0g==
=VtQn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
17 Jun 2005 06:02:39 PM |
|
|
Secret Squirrel wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Jd <Jd.fireball@att.net> wrote in
news:q7gsa1pila9sdeo39qo20j3hvj8od298ik@4ax.com:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article
<2_ire.3545$hK3.1925@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> writes:
"Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective"
evidence.
Yet Cary Kittrell seems to want to dispute that FACT.
Your contention: you support it.
Shame on you for picking on Indians, you racist.
'Cept that it's becoming increasingly apparent that "Native
American", well, isn't, at least not in the typical usuage of
that label. He's dodged the question I put to him of naming
his nation and his band, something that a real Native American
would have no problem doing.
I think that he's using term "Native American" as an *anti*-
Indian screed, the way that Brojack has done.
Secret Squirrel
Or maybe he isn't interested in participating in your inquistion.
Jd
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
14 Jun 2005 09:29:59 AM |
|
|
In article <q7gsa1pila9sdeo39qo20j3hvj8od298ik@4ax.com> Jd <Jd.fireball@att.net> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <2_ire.3545$hK3.1925@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> "Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> writes:
"Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence.
Yet Cary Kittrell seems to want to dispute that FACT.
Your contention: you support it.
-- cary
Shame on you for picking on Indians, you racist.
Not so; "Native American" is likely as Indian as you
are Christian.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
13 Jun 2005 03:57:18 PM |
|
|
Native American wrote:
"Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence.
Yet Cary Kittrell seems to want to dispute that FACT.
So I have started this new thread, so as to give her an opportunity to do
so, if she can.
Impressive. I thought from your previous posting that you were pretty
much clueless but it was nice of you to confirm it. Try an example:
Consider stepping off a cliff while having faith that gravity will not
operate against you since it isn't objective. Hell, just drop a hammer
on
your big toe and see how it goes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
13 Jun 2005 11:15:44 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:57, wrote
anonymous poster wrote:
"Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence.
Yet Cary Kittrell seems to want to dispute that FACT.
So I have started this new thread, so as to give her an opportunity to do
so, if she can.
Impressive. I thought from your previous posting that you were pretty
much clueless but it was nice of you to confirm it. Try an example:
Consider stepping off a cliff while having faith that gravity will not
operate against you since it isn't objective. Hell, just drop a hammer
on your big toe and see how it goes.
anonymous poster jus' ain't too bright.
Mebbe Cary is a practicing lesbian because his girlfriend
knows that he is attracted to her but then she's a Jezebel
[by the grace of John "Dark" Knight and an approval by the
mystics and denizens of alt.education].
My Uncle Cary - who died in 1931 of rheumatic fever on my
grandfather's dirt farm - would be proud.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Calvin: These are interesting times.
We don't trust the government,
We don't trust the legal system,
We don't trust the media,
and we don't trust each other!
We've undermined all authority,
and with it, the basis for replacing it!
Hobbes: "Interesting" is a mild way of putting it.
Calvin: It's like a six-year-old's dream come true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
14 Jun 2005 09:34:22 AM |
|
|
In article <0001HW.BED3C4200011073D0EECBB00@news.giganews.com> writes:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:57, wrote
anonymous poster wrote:
"Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence.
Yet Cary Kittrell seems to want to dispute that FACT.
So I have started this new thread, so as to give her an opportunity to do
so, if she can.
Impressive. I thought from your previous posting that you were pretty
much clueless but it was nice of you to confirm it. Try an example:
Consider stepping off a cliff while having faith that gravity will not
operate against you since it isn't objective. Hell, just drop a hammer
on your big toe and see how it goes.
anonymous poster jus' ain't too bright.
Mebbe Cary is a practicing lesbian because his girlfriend
knows that he is attracted to her but then she's a Jezebel
[by the grace of John "Dark" Knight and an approval by the
mystics and denizens of alt.education].
I do seem to be having some strange difficulty getting the hang
of it. Maybe I just need to keep practicing?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
13 Jun 2005 01:34:14 PM |
|
|
Native American wrote:
"Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence.
Faith in evidence is oxymoronic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Native American" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
13 Jun 2005 01:39:12 PM |
|
|
<man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118687654.589919.54450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Native American wrote:
"Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence.
Faith in evidence is oxymoronic.
No, because there are also people who do NOT have faith in evidence.
Having faith in evidence is something a person either decides to have or
decides NOT to have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
13 Jun 2005 02:02:53 PM |
|
|
Native American wrote:
<man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118687654.589919.54450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Native American wrote:
"Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence.
Faith in evidence is oxymoronic.
No, because there are also people who do NOT have faith in evidence.
Who? Please give us the name of someone who has technically
said as such? I don't mean some "I don't have any faith in the
evidence" but someone who actually says that they don't believe
that which they see with their own eyes.
Having faith in evidence is something a person either decides to have or
decides NOT to have.
No, that would be the choice of being a moron or not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim E" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
13 Jun 2005 03:58:56 PM |
|
|
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1118689373.373179.235320@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Native American wrote:
<man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118687654.589919.54450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Native American wrote:
"Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence.
Faith in evidence is oxymoronic.
No, because there are also people who do NOT have faith in evidence.
Who? Please give us the name of someone who has technically
said as such? I don't mean some "I don't have any faith in the
evidence" but someone who actually says that they don't believe
that which they see with their own eyes.
Having faith in evidence is something a person either decides to have or
decides NOT to have.
No, that would be the choice of being a moron or not.
Someone made the wrong choice I fear.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Native American" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
13 Jun 2005 02:21:45 PM |
|
|
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1118689373.373179.235320@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Native American wrote:
<man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118687654.589919.54450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Native American wrote:
"Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence.
Faith in evidence is oxymoronic.
No, because there are also people who do NOT have faith in evidence.
Who? Please give us the name of someone who has technically
said as such? I don't mean some "I don't have any faith in the
evidence" but someone who actually says that they don't believe
that which they see with their own eyes.
OK, here's one example: Ed Klein has a new book out. In it, he quotes
various statements made by Bill Clinton, as well as statements made by
various unnamed sources. Those statements are evidence. Yet some of the
Democrat posters in these newsgroups don't have faith in that evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "sue_doe_cy_ants" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
21 Jun 2005 02:59:26 AM |
|
|
Native American wrote:
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1118689373.373179.235320@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Native American wrote:
<man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118687654.589919.54450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Native American wrote:
"Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence.
Faith in evidence is oxymoronic.
No, because there are also people
who do NOT have faith in evidence.
Who? Please give us the name
of someone who has technically said as such?
I don't mean some "I don't have any faith in the evidence"
but someone who actually says that they don't believe
that which they see with their own eyes.
OK, here's one example:
Ed Klein has a new book out.
In it, he quotes various statements
made by Bill Clinton,
as well as statements made by various unnamed sources.
Those statements are evidence.
Yet some of the Democrat posters in these newsgroups
don't have faith in that evidence.
If by "evidence" you mean:
the means by which an alleged matter of fact
is established or disproved
then the Klein book is indeed evidence.
It is evidence of thoroughly repudiated allegations
having little to do with facts.
Facts are, of course, different from repudiated allegations.
Empirical thought processes tends to be much too strenuous
of a mental exercise for dittoheads such as yourself.
["
In an interview with National Review Online editor
Kathryn Lopez, Edward Klein, author of a new attack
book on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), lied when
he stated that "[l]ike Nixon, Hillary has used FBI
files against her enemies." This new lie from Klein is
likely a reference to allegations that the Clinton
White House improperly collected FBI files on a number
of Republicans. But the Office of the Independent
Counsel investigated these allegations and "concluded
that no senior White House official, or Mrs. Clinton,
was involved in obtaining FBI background reports."
During the interview, Klein also stated that "[l]ike
Nixon, Hillary has a penchant for doing illegal
things." But Clinton has never been charged with, much
less convicted of, any crime.
"]
--Media Matters for America - June 20, 2005
<http://mediamatters.org/items/200506200003>
Media Matters for America's ever growing collection
of articles documenting the falsehoods
published in the Klein book.
A listing of them is located at:
<http://mediamatters.org/topics/thetruthabouthillary.html>
Why don't you go over and play with MMfA on their board?
They will kick your butt with EVIDENCE,
and send you scurrying back to your FREEPing friends,
with your tail tucked between your legs.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
13 Jun 2005 02:29:11 PM |
|
|
Native American wrote:
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1118689373.373179.235320@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Native American wrote:
<man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118687654.589919.54450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Native American wrote:
"Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence.
Faith in evidence is oxymoronic.
No, because there are also people who do NOT have faith in evidence.
Who? Please give us the name of someone who has technically
said as such? I don't mean some "I don't have any faith in the
evidence" but someone who actually says that they don't believe
that which they see with their own eyes.
OK, here's one example: Ed Klein has a new book out. In it, he quotes
various statements made by Bill Clinton, as well as statements made by
various unnamed sources. Those statements are evidence. Yet some of the
Democrat posters in these newsgroups don't have faith in that evidence.
No, that is not evidence. These are statements about past actions.
Actions are evidence. Nothing in that book presents evidence, it
presents statements. No one disputes that they had a daughter,
nor that the daughter is theirs. Her existence is a fact and we
all acknowledge that. Everything else is just assertion. You
really need to learn what a fact is first.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Native American" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
13 Jun 2005 02:55:52 PM |
|
|
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1118690951.316051.192560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Native American wrote:
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1118689373.373179.235320@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Native American wrote:
<man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118687654.589919.54450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Native American wrote:
"Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence.
Faith in evidence is oxymoronic.
No, because there are also people who do NOT have faith in evidence.
Who? Please give us the name of someone who has technically
said as such? I don't mean some "I don't have any faith in the
evidence" but someone who actually says that they don't believe
that which they see with their own eyes.
OK, here's one example: Ed Klein has a new book out. In it, he quotes
various statements made by Bill Clinton, as well as statements made by
various unnamed sources. Those statements are evidence. Yet some of
the
Democrat posters in these newsgroups don't have faith in that evidence.
No, that is not evidence. These are statements about past actions.
Statements about past actions ARE evidence. (or testimony, if you will)
For example: various Muslims have testified that their precious Korans
were "abused" at GitMo. They made statements about past actions.
Various braindead liberal Democrats actually ACCEPTED that
testimony/evidence of those Muslims, and thus now rest their minds in what
they regard as the sufficiency of the evidence, and thereby have faith that
Koran Abuse occurred at GitMo.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
14 Jun 2005 03:58:28 AM |
|
|
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote:
OK, here's one example: Ed Klein has a new book out. In it, he quotes
various statements made by Bill Clinton, as well as statements made by
various unnamed sources. Those statements are evidence. Yet some of
the
Democrat posters in these newsgroups don't have faith in that evidence.
No, that is not evidence. These are statements about past actions.
Statements about past actions ARE evidence. (or testimony, if you will)
The distinction is important. Since most Republicans think that
Clinton is a proven liar, to them his statements cannot be evidence.
Yet they attempt to use his statements as if they are Truth when it
suits them to do so.
Most Democrats think that Bush is a liar. None of his statements can
be considered evidence of anything either.
The most logical conclusion is that all politicians are liars, and
that anyone who takes any statement by a politician as evidence of
anything is a fool.
For example: various Muslims have testified that their precious Korans
were "abused" at GitMo. They made statements about past actions.
Various braindead liberal Democrats actually ACCEPTED that
testimony/evidence of those Muslims, and thus now rest their minds in what
they regard as the sufficiency of the evidence, and thereby have faith that
Koran Abuse occurred at GitMo.
Perhaps. I am more concerned about what the rest of the world thinks.
The world thinks that the US pretends to be a nation under
rule-of-law, and in the case of Gitmo does not follow its own
rules-of-law, but instead makes them up as it goes. This is a
diplomatic disaster for the United States, and breeds new terrorists
faster than we can kill the old ones.
Thus, whether the Koran Abuse occurred or not, the world's opinion of
what is going on at Gitmo is more harmful to the US interests than
anything the prisoners could have accomplished if they were still
free.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
14 Jun 2005 01:04:49 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Various braindead liberal Democrats actually ACCEPTED that
testimony/evidence of those Muslims, and thus now rest their minds in what
they regard as the sufficiency of the evidence, and thereby have faith that
Koran Abuse occurred at GitMo.
Perhaps. I am more concerned about what the rest of the world thinks.
The world thinks that the US pretends to be a nation under
rule-of-law, and in the case of Gitmo does not follow its own
rules-of-law, but instead makes them up as it goes. This is a
diplomatic disaster for the United States, and breeds new terrorists
faster than we can kill the old ones.
Thus, whether the Koran Abuse occurred or not, the world's opinion of
what is going on at Gitmo is more harmful to the US interests than
anything the prisoners could have accomplished if they were still
free.
Plus, there are photos of Abu Ghraib.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Native American" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
14 Jun 2005 01:12:40 PM |
|
|
Perhaps. I am more concerned about what the rest of the world thinks.
Then perhaps liberal Democrats such as yourself should MOVE there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
14 Jun 2005 02:09:48 PM |
|
|
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:s6Fre.3948$eM6.1986@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Then perhaps liberal Democrats such as yourself should MOVE there.
More like you should move there. You seem to approve of their justice
system.
-Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
14 Jun 2005 08:25:27 PM |
|
|
Native American wrote:
Perhaps. I am more concerned about what the rest of the world thinks.
Then perhaps liberal Democrats such as yourself should MOVE there.
Cool! I've always wanted to live in Vancouver.
Now, YOU, OTOH, have always wanted to live in Sudan.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Native American" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
14 Jun 2005 08:26:40 PM |
|
|
--
"Liberals, socialists and marxists - the triad of stupidity."
<man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118798727.776746.176560@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Native American wrote:
Perhaps. I am more concerned about what the rest of the world thinks.
Then perhaps liberal Democrats such as yourself should MOVE there.
Cool! I've always wanted to live in Vancouver.
Now, YOU, OTOH, have always wanted to live in Sudan.
Nope.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
15 Jun 2005 12:58:51 PM |
|
|
Native American wrote:
Perhaps. I am more concerned about what the rest of the world thinks.
Then perhaps liberal Democrats such as yourself should MOVE there.
Cool! I've always wanted to live in Vancouver.
Now, YOU, OTOH, have always wanted to live in Sudan.
Nope.
They seem to agree with your line of thinking.
Plus, they're allies of the Bush administration!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Science" is based on FAITH in supposedly "objective" evidence |
13 Jun 2005 03:24:17 PM |
|
|
Native American wrote:
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1118690951.316051.192560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
No, that is not evidence. These are statements about past actions.
Statements about past actions ARE evidence. (or testimony, if you will)
I will not. You were discussing science, not a court room.
Statements
are not facts.
For example: various Muslims have testified that their precious Korans
were "abused" at GitMo. They made statements about past actions.
Various braindead liberal Democrats actually ACCEPTED that
testimony/evidence of those Muslims, and thus now rest their minds in what
they regard as the sufficiency of the evidence, and thereby have faith that
Koran Abuse occurred at GitMo.
False. Military and FBI records document the observations of
government agents. These observations are accepted as evidence.
They are not facts however. And none of that has anything to do
with science.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
