Argumentum ad populum

[SkepticThinker]

You realize @Rise that just cribbing logical fallacies and mis-applying them doesn’t win you any debates or change anyone’s mind. You seem so caught up in trying associate every statement someone makes to a logical fallacy and yet never move the conversation forward? Wonder why that is? I’ve seen so many people just walk away from conversations with you not because your arguments are good but because you appeal to logical fallacies so much that your argument gets lost in translation. Why don’t you try listening for once instead of just trying to point out where you think, and I definitely mean think, everyone is wrong. If you can’t explain your material simply then you simply don’t have a good grasp of the material. Now scream into the computer every logical fallacy you can think of while I water my indoor earth ship garden. Have fun boring people.

P.S. Only 1 in 13 people give you a rating on your content. You have over 1,000 comments and only 82 ratings. That should tell you everything you need to know about the kind of impact you have on this forum. People aren’t impressed. Maybe, it’s time to change your strategy.

This

 

[nPeace]

You are, as usual. Did you even read my post to the end?
Just explain your alternative to the scientific method and why it is better.

I read your post to the end. why wouldn't I.
For your information heyo, the scientific method is not like the doorway to truth.
The scientific method is not like the "god of knowledge" - "the all knowing, all wise". It's a method - a method people use to reach conclusions on questions.
it's a method that includes reasoning, interpreting, etc... by people.

Your system of beliefs is not the creme de la creme.
I thought you knew this. You cannot prove any of the things you believe - at least nothing that all of us - scientists or not, cannot proove. You can believe them, but that's it.
I hope you don't give me the line, "science does not deal with proof". To do so would be to distract from the point... which i would not want you to miss.

I have shown by references, where the consensus was overturned, on many occasions. Consensus reached on the basis of experimentation.
Yes. Experiments also corrected those beliefs, but that is the process of science.

Do scientists alone use the scientific method? No. A detective uses the scientific method. We do too.
So what you are holding on to like a crutch, is really mot very supportive.
I know you really want to believe it is, but that seems quite desperate to me.

What does the real scientist - not the ones who are die-hard Atheists, bent on proping up their belief, but the scientist who understands what science is about - say?
Do they say the scientific method points them in the right direction, like a compass with no faults?

Many scientists appreciate the scientific method, but they do not treat it like their god, as Atheist try to do. They know its limitations. They know of the weakness of peer review. It's written all over the place heyo, for every person to see.

British entomologist Vincent Wigglesworth is reported to have said, 'the scientific method itself is “a religious approach.”'
Why would a scientist say that?

I quoted a scientist earlier, saying, "scientific reviewers of journal articles or grant applications — typically in biomedical research — may use the term (e.g., “....it is the consensus in the field...”) often as a justification for shutting down ideas not associated with their beliefs.
The historical track record of scientific consensus is nothing but dismal. Many examples can be cited, but there are some classical ones."

He further said that the use and abuse of “consensus science” is at least partially responsible for the current crisis in the scientific and medical peer review system.

So tell me heyo, if the scientific method is such an all powerful god to Atheists, why are scientists debating and fighting? That's healthy for science to progress right?
So why are you telling me about the scientific method?
It's a good tool, but what's so special about it? Don't scientists who disagree on the same data, use the method?
Men have carried guns. They work fine, but those men still died. Their guns didn't save their life.

Oh. and I am a good listener. I actually hear what you say, even before you say it.

 

[Heyo]

I read your post to the end. why wouldn't I.
For your information heyo, the scientific method is not like the doorway to truth.
The scientific method is not like the "god of knowledge" - "the all knowing, all wise". It's a method - a method people use to reach conclusions on questions.
it's a method that includes reasoning, interpreting, etc... by people.

Your system of beliefs is not the creme de la creme.
I thought you knew this. You cannot prove any of the things you believe - at least nothing that all of us - scientists or not, cannot proove. You can believe them, but that's it.
I hope you don't give me the line, "science does not deal with proof". To do so would be to distract from the point... which i would not want you to miss.

I have shown by references, where the consensus was overturned, on many occasions. Consensus reached on the basis of experimentation.
Yes. Experiments also corrected those beliefs, but that is the process of science.

Do scientists alone use the scientific method? No. A detective uses the scientific method. We do too.
So what you are holding on to like a crutch, is really mot very supportive.
I know you really want to believe it is, but that seems quite desperate to me.

What does the real scientist - not the ones who are die-hard Atheists, bent on proping up their belief, but the scientist who understands what science is about - say?
Do they say the scientific method points them in the right direction, like a compass with no faults?

Many scientists appreciate the scientific method, but they do not treat it like their god, as Atheist try to do. They know its limitations. They know of the weakness of peer review. It's written all over the place heyo, for every person to see.

British entomologist Vincent Wigglesworth is reported to have said, 'the scientific method itself is “a religious approach.”'
Why would a scientist say that?

I quoted a scientist earlier, saying, "scientific reviewers of journal articles or grant applications — typically in biomedical research — may use the term (e.g., “....it is the consensus in the field...”) often as a justification for shutting down ideas not associated with their beliefs.
The historical track record of scientific consensus is nothing but dismal. Many examples can be cited, but there are some classical ones."

He further said that the use and abuse of “consensus science” is at least partially responsible for the current crisis in the scientific and medical peer review system.

So tell me heyo, if the scientific method is such an all powerful god to Atheists, why are scientists debating and fighting? That's healthy for science to progress right?
So why are you telling me about the scientific method?
It's a good tool, but what's so special about it? Don't scientists who disagree on the same data, use the method?
Men have carried guns. They work fine, but those men still died. Their guns didn't save their life.

Oh. and I am a good listener. I actually hear what you say, even before you say it.

So, you read my post and deliberate refuse to answer. I think we are through with this.

 

[Jose Fly]

I read your post to the end. why wouldn't I.
For your information heyo, the scientific method is not like the doorway to truth.
The scientific method is not like the "god of knowledge" - "the all knowing, all wise". It's a method - a method people use to reach conclusions on questions.
it's a method that includes reasoning, interpreting, etc... by people.

Your system of beliefs is not the creme de la creme.
I thought you knew this. You cannot prove any of the things you believe - at least nothing that all of us - scientists or not, cannot proove. You can believe them, but that's it.
I hope you don't give me the line, "science does not deal with proof". To do so would be to distract from the point... which i would not want you to miss.

I have shown by references, where the consensus was overturned, on many occasions. Consensus reached on the basis of experimentation.
Yes. Experiments also corrected those beliefs, but that is the process of science.

Do scientists alone use the scientific method? No. A detective uses the scientific method. We do too.
So what you are holding on to like a crutch, is really mot very supportive.
I know you really want to believe it is, but that seems quite desperate to me.

What does the real scientist - not the ones who are die-hard Atheists, bent on proping up their belief, but the scientist who understands what science is about - say?
Do they say the scientific method points them in the right direction, like a compass with no faults?

Many scientists appreciate the scientific method, but they do not treat it like their god, as Atheist try to do. They know its limitations. They know of the weakness of peer review. It's written all over the place heyo, for every person to see.

British entomologist Vincent Wigglesworth is reported to have said, 'the scientific method itself is “a religious approach.”'
Why would a scientist say that?

I quoted a scientist earlier, saying, "scientific reviewers of journal articles or grant applications — typically in biomedical research — may use the term (e.g., “....it is the consensus in the field...”) often as a justification for shutting down ideas not associated with their beliefs.
The historical track record of scientific consensus is nothing but dismal. Many examples can be cited, but there are some classical ones."

He further said that the use and abuse of “consensus science” is at least partially responsible for the current crisis in the scientific and medical peer review system.

So tell me heyo, if the scientific method is such an all powerful god to Atheists, why are scientists debating and fighting? That's healthy for science to progress right?
So why are you telling me about the scientific method?
It's a good tool, but what's so special about it? Don't scientists who disagree on the same data, use the method?
Men have carried guns. They work fine, but those men still died. Their guns didn't save their life.

Oh. and I am a good listener. I actually hear what you say, even before you say it.

Wow....black/white thinking, no matter how many times you see it, really is something to behold. It also seems to be fairly prominent among certain groups.

Oh, and btw @nPeace , human/primate common ancestry can indeed be "proven" by the same methodology used in courts to determine parentage and relatedness.

 

[nPeace]

So, you read my post and deliberate refuse to answer. I think we are through with this.

Refused to answer what?
There is no question in your post.
I responded to the post.

Actually, I am the one who asked the question in response to your post, and you are the one who refused to answer, although, I was not really looking to get an answer.

As for your "question" in the next post, I answered that, and responded to the post in its entirety.

Bye. Take care.

 

[nPeace]

Wow....black/white thinking, no matter how many times you see it, really is something to behold. It also seems to be fairly prominent among certain groups.

Oh, and btw @nPeace , human/primate common ancestry can indeed be "proven" by the same methodology used in courts to determine parentage and relatedness.

Why do you put proven in quotations?

 

[Jose Fly]

Why do you put proven in quotations?

Because "proven" means different things in different contexts. In this case, it's in reference to courts' standard of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt".

So to rephrase what I said.....human/primate common ancestry can indeed be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the same methodology used in courts to prove parentage and relatedness beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[ecco]

What does the real scientist - not the ones who are die-hard Atheists, bent on proping up their belief, but the scientist who understands what science is about - say?

Are you referring to the thousands of Christians in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, among others, who believe in Evolution?

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia

Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Scientific associations have strongly rebutted and refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by intelligent design proponents.[3]
​

Do you really think that 97% of the scientific community are atheists? Really?

 

[nPeace]

Because "proven" means different things in different contexts. In this case, it's in reference to courts' standard of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt".

So to rephrase what I said.....human/primate common ancestry can indeed be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the same methodology used in courts to prove parentage and relatedness beyond a reasonable doubt.

That sounds like another opinion where the real scientists, and the Atheists promoting their beliefs will club it out.
It's not even a fact that the theory of evolution is a fact, but the Atheist like Dawkins, and of course you, will make a play on words,,, against the facts of science.

Although what you said is false, let's suppose I played along. Suppose all the "evolutionists" were to one day get up and unanimously agree with your claim...
So what's new.
It has been proven according to the opinion and belief of the majority that the theory of evolution is the accepted explanation for the diversity of life does not sound any different to it's been proven according to the opinion and belief of the majority that gay marriage is an acceptable human right.
They both, along with whatever else is decided upon, will have their day.
It is written. Why should that mean anything to anyone who doesn't worship those ideas?

 

[infrabenji]

That sounds like another opinion where the real scientists, and the Atheists promoting their beliefs will club it out.
It's not even a fact that the theory of evolution is a fact, but the Atheist like Dawkins, and of course you, will make a play on words,,, against the facts of science.

Although what you said is false, let's suppose I played along. Suppose all the "evolutionists" were to one day get up and unanimously agree with your claim...
So what's new.
It has been proven according to the opinion and belief of the majority that the theory of evolution is the accepted explanation for the diversity of life does not sound any different to it's been proven according to the opinion and belief of the majority that gay marriage is an acceptable human right.
They both, along with whatever else is decided upon, will have their day.
It is written. Why should that mean anything to anyone who doesn't worship those ideas?

I you don’t mind I’d like to ask
How do you define theory?

 

[Jose Fly]

That sounds like another opinion where the real scientists, and the Atheists promoting their beliefs will club it out.
It's not even a fact that the theory of evolution is a fact, but the Atheist like Dawkins, and of course you, will make a play on words,,, against the facts of science.

Er.....um....... Are you assuming that the only scientists who agree with human/primate common ancestry are atheists?

Are you even aware of the existence of theist scientists who agree with human/primate common ancestry (e.g., Michael Behe)? Are you aware that some of them are Christians (e.g., Francis Collins)?

Also, you saying "It's not even a fact that the theory of evolution is a fact" merely demonstrates that all the people who spent countless hours trying to explain even the most basic, fundamental aspects of science to you just plain wasted their time.

Although what you said is false, let's suppose I played along.

Sorry, it's not false simply because you say so.

Suppose all the "evolutionists" were to one day get up and unanimously agree with your claim...
So what's new.
It has been proven according to the opinion and belief of the majority that the theory of evolution is the accepted explanation for the diversity of life does not sound any different to it's been proven according to the opinion and belief of the majority that gay marriage is an acceptable human right.
They both, along with whatever else is decided upon, will have their day.
It is written. Why should that mean anything to anyone who doesn't worship those ideas?

I guess then you would throw out all jury verdicts, eh? After all, they're just the "opinions and beliefs of the majority", right?

But what's really telling is how you immediately started denying and waving away what I posted, before you even knew what data I was talking about! IOW, you already believe it's wrong before you know what it is. Why? I think we all know the answer to that.

 

[Jose Fly]

I you don’t mind I’d like to ask
How do you define theory?

Oh dude, I wouldn't even go down that rabbit hole. He's been here for 3 years and has had many, many people try and explain what "theory" means in science, but obviously even that is beyond his ability to learn.

 

[infrabenji]

Oh dude, I wouldn't even go down that rabbit hole. He's been here for 3 years and has had many, many people try and explain what "theory" means in science, but obviously even that is beyond his ability to learn.

That’s funny. Thanks for the heads up. I hope he doesn’t write me a novel on his definition of theory. 3 years huh and doesn’t know evolution is a fact. Wild.

 

[nPeace]

I you don’t mind I’d like to ask
How do you define theory?

I don't want to assume you ask this question due to having a feeling of superiority. Instead, I'll think positively, that you are only interested in correcting my ignorance, as you probably try so hard to do... like in post #641.

Not hat I am obligated to respond, after you showed that you are not interested in conversation, or listening to me, but rather teaching, educating, and trying to put down or try to embarrass for your own... ego?

However, I know the difference between scientific theory, and theory.

Hope the truth doesn't offend you, but I don't think people who are interested in talking to someone, dismisses them, and then comes back to talk with them.
They usually have a motive, which you made clear.

 

[nPeace]

That’s funny. Thanks for the heads up. I hope he doesn’t write me a novel on his definition of theory. 3 years huh and doesn’t know evolution is a fact. Wild.

Maybe you should try reading posts. The theory of evolution is not a fact. Nowhere did you read "evolution is not a fact".... Or maybe this is the "evolutionists" play on words I refered to.

 

[nPeace]

Oh dude, I wouldn't even go down that rabbit hole. He's been here for 3 years and has had many, many people try and explain what "theory" means in science, but obviously even that is beyond his ability to learn.

Tsk tsk. You never stop lying do you.

 

[nPeace]

Er.....um....... Are you assuming that the only scientists who agree with human/primate common ancestry are atheists?

No.

Are you even aware of the existence of theist scientists who agree with human/primate common ancestry (e.g., Michael Behe)? Are you aware that some of them are Christians (e.g., Francis Collins)?

Yes.

Also, you saying "It's not even a fact that the theory of evolution is a fact" merely demonstrates that all the people who spent countless hours trying to explain even the most basic, fundamental aspects of science to you just plain wasted their time.

Oh please. You make scientists look bad. The theory of evolution is not a fact, and you can't find one reputable paper that says that.

Sorry, it's not false simply because you say so.

No. It's false, simply because it's not true.

I guess then you would throw out all jury verdicts, eh? After all, they're just the "opinions and beliefs of the majority", right?

No

But what's really telling is how you immediately started denying and waving away what I posted, before you even knew what data I was talking about! IOW, you already believe it's wrong before you know what it is. Why? I think we all know the answer to that.

Que? Can you put that in English please. What are you talking about?

 

[nPeace]

Oh dude, I wouldn't even go down that rabbit hole. He's been here for 3 years and has had many, many people try and explain what "theory" means in science, but obviously even that is beyond his ability to learn.

This bothers me though. Why do you lie so much, and so casualty? Is that a habit from youth, that you thought was good? Did it get you the girl, and so you felt it can get you anything?
I absolutely hate liars and usually I cut them off, as you know from the past.
This is the last chance you get. Do it one more time, and you will be on my ignore list, permanently this time.

Bearing false witness is a serious crime.

 

[infrabenji]

I don't want to assume you ask this question due to having a feeling of superiority. Instead, I'll think positively, that you are only interested in correcting my ignorance, as you probably try so hard to do... like in post #641.

Not hat I am obligated to respond, after you showed that you are not interested in conversation, or listening to me, but rather teaching, educating, and trying to put down or try to embarrass for your own... ego?

However, I know the difference between scientific theory, and theory.

Hope the truth doesn't offend you, but I don't think people who are interested in talking to someone, dismisses them, and then comes back to talk with them.
They usually have a motive, which you made clear.

I rarely pay attention to someone’s name on here or keep track of conversations that go nowhere but ,every once in a while, a post catches my eye and I get curious. I don’t know who you are but I was genuinely curious how you define theory. But then someone immediately posted that you’ve been on here for 3 years and have done this gag a bunch of times. You really like guessing or something?

 

[nPeace]

I rarely pay attention to someone’s name on here or keep track of conversations that go nowhere but ,every once in a while, a post catches my eye and I get curious. I don’t know who you are but I was genuinely curious how you define theory. But then someone immediately posted that you’ve been on here for 3 years and have done this gag a bunch of times. You really like guessing or something?

You are right about two things. You hardly pay attention and you don't know me.
Perhaps if you try to correct the first, and that will help.