It's obviously an analogy. Arithmetic is mundane, elementary logic (should be) mundane.
Dude, check you inner liberal and stop speaking nonsense padded with big words. Come back when you've relaxed and I shall entertain you.
You addressed one of my arguments with some accusation of logical fallacy.
Will you pretend that you learned nothing from my other arguments?
Hmm? So I just re-read your previous post to make sure and that's indeed the only argument you made, I didn't skip anything. You were simply repeating the same argument ("we haven't found out everything yet, therefore anything goes") reiterated with different examples, so there was no need to address each example but only the argument itself.
As lifeforms that have evolved over millions of years, we seem to be able to access instinctive and spiritual knowledge that we often end up verifying using an intellectual/scientific methodology.
This is your original assertion in other words, just in case you respond that I didn't learn anything from it :)
Your faith in the scientific process does not invalidate the knowledge and faith of others.
Faith? No no. I have zero faith in Physics. The only reason Physics is valuable is because it is practically useful, demonstrably consistent and correct in its predictions. If one day Physics can't do that, it's off to the bin.
You may lack faith in the ultimate powers of the human mind and spirit, I do not.
I believe that your lack of faith limits you. God bless.
At the end, it's not about you and I believe. It's about what actually is. That's the whole question. What actually is? And what's the toolset to approach it? One toolset is religion (or in older terms, we can call it philosophy) and the other toolset is science. One is verifiable, the other is not. That doesn't mean that you are not free to choose whatever you want. It's only a problem if one of those choices doesn't lead anywhere.
Ummm, isn't it like "hey guys, he's using arithmetics, wow"?
Ahahahaha, genius :D
Let’s go back 200 years.
Using the science of THAT time, I would like you to prove to us that invisible radiation and invisible radio waves exist. You can’t because the scientific equipment to do so did not yet exist.
Pro tip: At any given time, science may be unable to prove that invisible forces exist, yet these forces still do exist.
The fallacy here is that this argument is universally true (what we call a trivial proposition, like "a = a").
We can replace the "invisible radiation and invisible radio waves" with "flying pink elephant fairies" and therefore validly claim that "hey, we just don't have the tech yet, doesn't mean they don't exist". Which is true! But we've gained no knowledge by this (just like we already knew that "a = a").
spiritual knowledge and wisdom is arrogant at best.
That lies on the premise that you can demonstrate said "spiritual" existence.
Beavis and Butthead was great.
Dumb and Dumber was great.
The Q is strong on this one :D
Tell her that is she doesn't vote for GEOTUS, you'll disown her and she won't get a dime :D
If team Trump had this level of entrenchment, we'd have 100x MAGA results by now. And since it doesn't, it's impossible for this to be as you say.
Ah, haha, sorry, I confused the usernames :)
I see now, thank you for clarifying. When I read your post, I took it as though you meant that it wasn't possible in terms of stat theory, so I had to ask :)
Remember that the next time you hear someone rave about how Democracy is the best thing after sliced bread.
and doing an AD HOC change to the statistical analysis with out corrections for multiple measurements based on changes in data is NOT how statistics work (no matter how many times damn graduate students think it does).
Explain this?
Oh, whoops, my bad, thanks for letting me know.
Here's something to give you a timeline: https://archive.is/O00Ac
The KotakuInAction subs are now banned on Reddit and are part of our .WIN family: https://communities.win/p/GIEblc8H/list-of-win-communities/
Liberals use this all the time.
^ this guy contracts.
He has never served in role of making decisions
This here is what I believe we disagree with. I find it that to be personally successful you have to make a ton of correct decisions.
Wow, that's great.
Ha, much better indeed.
Capitalize "capitalist" though.
I like Tucker,but he is not an artist.. He's a art critic..Very easy to sit back and Monday night quarterback..
The role of the President isn't to be a worker. The role of the President is to be a boss, i.e. the person who makes the final call. Only things required for that in our context are:
- Proper values
- A well-working mind
- Guts
So, in your words, we need the fucking critic. We can pay for the artists.
What has he done besides be a journalist. Has he ever ran a business or worked in Govt?
If you think that becoming high-profile and building a brand is an easy little thing, let us know how many you've actually done yourself.
No, it's still the same argument. Since you've taken the trouble to type all that, I shall explain it in detail as well.
No. I'd just ask for proof. Since now proof exists, isn't everyone happy about it? You're happy, I'm happy, everyone's happy. But note that the existence of proof is what was the prerequisite for this all around happiness.
Nope. I will simply ask for proof. If for example tomorrow some guy goes to the forest and talks to a pack of wolves and they make him king and comes out with them following like dogs, well, I'd be very much inclined to consider it as strong evidence. That's an example. I'm sure there are other things that count as strong evidence.
Generally, it's so very easy to persuade me for the existence of many many things. All I ask for is proof, according to a specific set of rules that I acknowledge as the means of providing said proof.
Yes. Absolutely. Only proof counts, words are cheap. If one has the goods, one needs to display them.
You forgot the obvious C) Wrong. You don't need to be neither malevolent nor naive to be simply plain wrong.
The caricature you project as a philosophy and attack, is sad indeed. But that's a stawman nobody needs to defend. The scientific philosophy is really simple: No proof, no cookie.