The Science Delusion, a talk banned by TED

[pErvinalia]

EDIT: But seriously Rev, you're honestly losing it. I don't know if you're stressed at the moment, haven't taken your meds, or just need a rest or something, but you've gone a little bit insane. Take a breather, stay away from the internet for a bit and come back when your head clears. The words on the page that you keep quoting are directly and unambiguously contradicting you. You are pointing at a blue pen and demanding that I agree it's red. All jokes and ribbing aside, sort yourself out and take care of yourself.

It gets even better!! You are a walking handbook on passive-aggressiveness. This is why you get attacked so relentlessly.

All joking aside, man, you should get that brain tumour that makes you sound like a retard sorted. No, seriously man. All joking aside. I really do care about your welfare.

[Mr.Samsa]

Don't you find it strange that in all of your responses here you haven't been able to show why you're right and instead all you can do is engage in your usual prissy bitch manner? If you were right, don't you think you'd be able to make a single valid point as to why the entire English language is wrong and you are right?

Jesus christ the hubris and arrogance in you is incredible!

[pErvinalia]

And you still haven't explained why you didn't write it the way 99 out of 100 educated people would have written it. That is, the SIMPLEST AND LEAST CONVOLUTED WAY. That is "I explained how and why it couldn't be". Remember how you keep bringing up parsimony? As I've said multiple times to you know, you need to apply it to your own reality.

There's nothing convoluted, it gets the same meaning across. I explained how and why empiricism wasn't/isn't a valid method for understanding reality.

Interesting revisionism there. You didn't say anything at all about how it "isn't". You were talking in the past tense and responding to my comment. Your statement directly implies that I said it WAS a valid method. You fucked up your English. Just admit it. Of course, I know you won't. You'd argue underwater if you could find anyone to join you.

If it isn't a valid method then, as it relates to your position, that means it couldn't be.

Mental gymnastic. You are certainly entertaining. You fucked up your English (if you genuinely meant to say that it COULDN'T be). Why an educated person would make such a dumb mistake, I don't know. Well, I have my theories. It involves you continuing in your great tradition of misrepresenting your interlocutors.

Your position was that it could be a valid position. The only way to disprove your statement is to show that it couldn't be - i.e. that it isn't a valid method at all. That's normal English.

No it's not. Normal English would be to directly counter what I said. That is, you should have written that you showed that it "COULDN'T be [valid]". THAT is normal English.

I see you've taken the option of digging a hole and making a bigger fool of yourself. That's cool, given how poorly you understand English it's not surprising that you are so obsessive about the idea that people are misrepresenting you.

This is why you get rubbished so much. This limp wristed passive-aggressive shit.

And this is exactly why everybody calls you a troll and why you got banned from RatSkep.

More fail. Only Seth calls me a troll (and he's an idiot), and I was banned from Ratskep for making sock accounts while suspended.

I've explained why the straighforward reading of what you wrote doesn't gel with what you claim you were trying to say. I've asked you a question as to why you didn't write it the correct and most simple way. You ignored that. Samsa, you are in no position to lecture on who's making a fool of themselves. You are just doing your old trick of proclaiming that you are right and everyone else is wrong, simply because you say so. That's laughable stuff.

You've explained that the English language isn't good enough for you and you want to rewrite the whole thing so that words mean the opposite of what they are.

WTF?!? YOU'RE the one who is saying that the word "wasn't" somehow magically means "couldn't". Are you retarded? No, seriously, man, all joking aside. I'm worried that you might actually be mentally retarded. You should get that looked at. Seriously, all joking aside..

You have got to be trolling at this point or a bigger moron than I thought.

No, I'm just caught up in the exact same merry-go-round of an abortion that seems to define your forum existence for the last few years. Other than Strontium Dog, there is no one who is so often caught and shown to be misrepresenting his interlocutors. But of course, you are right and the rest of the forum world is wrong. Logic, you haz it.

[Mr.Samsa]

You've lost it mate, get some help. Seriously.

[pErvinalia]

Don't you find it strange that in all of your responses here you haven't been able to show why you're right

Of course I've shown it. Get yourself a dictionary, man. Look up "wasn't" and then look up "couldn't". You'll find they don't meant the same thing and they aren't interchangeable.

Of course I haven't been able to show YOU why I am right. That's an impossible task, as you are never wrong.

and instead all you can do is engage in your usual prissy bitch manner?

No, that's actually you, Samsa, as that's a great definition of passive-aggressiveness. I don't muck about with such pansy stuff. I throw real punches. You can't even use correct English when you are trying to insult me. How can you hope to do it in normal debating?

If you were right, don't you think you'd be able to make a single valid point as to why the entire English language is wrong and you are right?

Well, given you think black is white, it's impossible for me to convince you. I've shown you clearly how the two words aren't interchangeable and your text is an extremely convoluted way of saying what I and others would say with simplicity. This either means you are shithouse at English, or that you were in fact misrepresenting me. I chose the later. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Jesus christ the hubris and arrogance in you is incredible!

Cheers man! That's the point I'm trying to convey. English and the dictionary is on my side. I have a good reason to express hubris and arrogance.

[pErvinalia]

You've lost it mate, get some help. Seriously.

Passive-aggressiveness isn't a substitute for an argument. You can't address my points, so you resort to specious nonsense. As I said, get yourself a dictionary and you will see I am right. Well, actually you won't, as you are never wrong.

[Mr.Samsa]

It's not passive aggressiveness, it's genuine concern. You are arguing that blue is red and squares are circles. If you need help finding a psychologist or just want to talk then PM me, but I'm not going to entertain this episode you're having, it's not healthy.

Interpret it as "passive aggressiveness" if that makes you feel better but at least consider going to get help anyway. I don't care if you want to believe I'm wrong as long as you take some steps to getting better.

[pErvinalia]

It's not passive aggressiveness, it's genuine concern. You are arguing that blue is red and squares are circles. If you need help finding a psychologist or just want to talk then PM me, but I'm not going to entertain this episode you're having, it's not healthy.

My god, you are a wanker of the highest order. How can you keep a straight face and say that "it's not passive aggressiveness" and then produce a sentence of passive aggressiveness virtually straight after it?

Interpret it as "passive aggressiveness" if that makes you feel better but at least consider going to get help anyway. I don't care if you want to believe I'm wrong as long as you take some steps to getting better.

I hope you read this shit some time in the future and are sufficiently embarrassed by how pathetic you are. This is the worst case of dodging an argument with passive-aggressiveness I've ever seen.

And by the way, my mental health is fine (enough to debate imbeciles on the internet). But I'm seriously thinking you are a pure mental case. And I'm not going to give you some P-A or condescending response. I'll tell you it straight, not like the prissy bitch you are. I don't give a fuck whether you sort out whatever is going wrong in your head. Seriously, I couldn't give one shit. All I care about is that when debating you everyone has to put up with this same nonsense over and over. As I stated a few hours ago, a point you just couldn't let go, I'm not interested in this debate any more. But you had to just go and pull a post out and attempt to show how I was misrepresenting you. You should know I won't put up with this shit. I'll tear you a new arsehole everytime you pull this on me. I do enjoy when you do it to others, as it's fucking funny watching the abortion from the sidelines. But don't bring this shit to me. I'll tear your fucking head off. I don't need mental health issues to do that. I LIKE destroying dishonest pricks. Although, at this point in time, I actually have more important things to do, like move house. Hence why I really don't want to do this now. But know that while ever you keep sniping from the bushes, I'll drive a fucking tank over you.

No seriously, man, I'm concerned for you...

[Mr.Samsa]

Good luck for the future and I hope you get better soon, your behavior is seriously fucked up.

[pErvinalia]

And to put a full-stop on this abortion (not that I should need to, as I've explained this multiple times already): "You are arguing that blue is red and squares are circles."

No, I'm definitely showing you how "wasn't" and "couldn't be" AREN'T the same things. If you think they are, then it is you who is arguing that red equals blue.

Now fuck off and annoy someone else.

[pErvinalia]

Good luck for the future and I hope you get better soon, your behavior is seriously fucked up.

You just can't help yourself.

Seriously, man, I hope you get a pill that can help you stop producing condescending passive-aggressive pap. You deserve not to be burdened with this abnormality for the rest of your life.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

What does it being distinguishable or not have to do with anything? If you're saying that something needs to be observable in order to have a massive effect then you're just engaging in circular reasoning, as your initial claim was that something needs to be observable to have a massive effect.

NO! I am saying that it has to have an effect! What would have happened in any case IS NOT AN EFFECT!

Causing the creation of the entire human race isn't an effect?

Look, I've presented an example that involves the creation of the entire human race. Is that a massive effect or not? If yes, then I'm right. If no, then that's just wrong.

The human race is the massive effect of evolution, not god. There is no need for your hypothetical god to explain the human race. Your god ADDS NOTHING to the argument except an unnecessary, additional level of complication. It is pure mindwank.

You might as well hypothesise that photons get tired and slow down and only fairies' wishes keep them moving at c. It's just bullshit speculation.

Provide a better hypothetical or admit that I am right.

What? I'm not talking about what is reasonable to believe, I'm talking about a world where it actually happens. You know the saying "reality is what happens whether you believe in it or not", that's what we're discussing here.

The situation: god causes X to happen. You're saying that it doesn't matter that he caused it to happen because science provides a simpler explanation. Who gives a shit what science does? If science provides an alternative explanation then, in this hypothetical, it would be objectively wrong.

Deal with the hypothetical or admit your fuckup.

Your hypothetical is based in "a world where it actually happens". However, it was in response to a statement of mine about how things work in this world. Ergo, it is bullshit. Find another.

[Mr.Samsa]

Your hypothetical is based in "a world where it actually happens". However, it was in response to a statement of mine about how things work in this world. Ergo, it is bullshit. Find another.

Okay, for the sake of discussion let's assume that your point there is valid and relevant (I think you're misunderstanding how thought experiments work but I'll go with it for now), so I'll refocus my question: In the hypothetical world that I described would you agree or disagree with the claim that untestable and unprovable things cannot have an effect on the world? If you disagree then explain which part you disagree with - do you think it's testable and provable, and/or do you think it doesn't have an effect?

[JimC]

Your hypothetical is based in "a world where it actually happens". However, it was in response to a statement of mine about how things work in this world. Ergo, it is bullshit. Find another.

Okay, for the sake of discussion let's assume that your point there is valid and relevant (I think you're misunderstanding how thought experiments work but I'll go with it for now), so I'll refocus my question: In the hypothetical world that I described would you agree or disagree with the claim that untestable and unprovable things cannot have an effect on the world? If you disagree then explain which part you disagree with - do you think it's testable and provable, and/or do you think it doesn't have an effect?

This has about as much relevance to science as the number of angels dancing on the end of a pin has to religion...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Your hypothetical is based in "a world where it actually happens". However, it was in response to a statement of mine about how things work in this world. Ergo, it is bullshit. Find another.

Okay, for the sake of discussion let's assume that your point there is valid and relevant (I think you're misunderstanding how thought experiments work but I'll go with it for now), so I'll refocus my question: In the hypothetical world that I described would you agree or disagree with the claim that untestable and unprovable things cannot have an effect on the world? If you disagree then explain which part you disagree with - do you think it's testable and provable, and/or do you think it doesn't have an effect?

Frankly, Mr Samsa, you responded to my comment that "anything that has an effect on the world is detectable" by hypothesising a world where there exists a god that can affect the world while remaining undetected.

This is mindwank bullshit. It is equivalent to arguing against the proposition that the angles of a triangle in 2-dimensional space add to 180º by hypothesising a non-euclidean, 4-D space. Your argument simply does not apply to the universe in which the original statement was made! It is bullshit. It is an attempt to be right when you are wrong. It is the very epitome of mindwank. And it demonstrates that it is YOU that has no concept of a logical, reasonable thought-experiment.

You overstepped the parameters of the original argument in order to prove it wrong by a meta-argument with different parameters.


As I already said, SHENANIGANS!!1!! Burn teh WITCH!!1!