Good bye one and all

[Skwim]

To assume I am wrong about possibilities of how introverts and extroverts have different survival traits that can even cause a difference in perception of how they might see and perceive reality would be dogmatic.If it is wrong I would like to see your facts. If you don't notice at least a pattern in behaviours then I hope you are not into the sciences.

Just to step in for a moment here.

You do realize do you not that the burden of proof lies on the one making the assertion, and not on those who question it.

Stepping back out.

Thank you

 

[Walkntune]

Just to step in for a moment here.

You do realize do you not that the burden of proof lies on the one making the assertion, and not on those who question it.

Stepping back out.

Thank you

You want proof that the patterns are there. I guess pick any group of people in existance and observe. you will start noticing certain patterns of behaviour from one group to another.I could point them out to you if we were together looking at groups but I think if someone was honest they would see it for themselves looking back on past experience. On the surface its easy to see the loud obnoxious person in the center of the room and the quiet person in the corner taking everything in.When you really become consciously aware you start to notice a lot of different patterns of behaviour that are repeated over and over again from one group of people to another.Personalities alter from what thoughts and experiences one holds in consciousness but the underlyng patterns are still there.
I use these patterns to understand human behaviour and whether or not proven scientifically, the patterns are consistent.

 

[LuisDantas]

Science does not rely on patterns alone. That would be WAY too arbitrary and unreliable, and ultimately counter-productive because no useful agreement would be possible.

Evidence must be presented, tests must be conceived and implemented. Alternative explanations must be considered and tested as well. If that is not done, the explanations are tentative and unreliable.

Particularly if one decides to extrapolate into other fields of knowledge and/or from word meanings that don't really apply. Which, I fear, is what you did.

 

[Walkntune]

Science does not rely on patterns alone. That would be WAY too arbitrary and unreliable, and ultimately counter-productive because no useful agreement would be possible.

Evidence must be presented, tests must be conceived and implemented. Alternative explanations must be considered and tested as well. If that is not done, the explanations are tentative and unreliable.

Particularly if one decides to extrapolate into other fields of knowledge and/or from word meanings that don't really apply. Which, I fear, is what you did.

Do you take evolution as fact. If not by trying to recognise some particular patterns on what facts do you stand? What alternative theories have been tested?

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you take evolution as fact.

Because it has been tested and found true consistently for over a century now, yes.

I would (and will) discard it if and when a better theory presents itself. But I don't find that at all likely, that much is true.

If not by trying to recognise some particular patterns on what facts do you stand?

I could go all the way back for Darwin's observations about birds, for instance. They were convincing enough that Darwin sort of couldn't deny them. As early as in the 19th century, BOTH Darwin and Wallace ended up reaching much the same conclusions by independently researching the actual facts. And as it turns out, over a century of often-passionate contestation and investigation corrected lots of misconceptions and minor inaccuracies yet proved the main trust of the ToE correct.

At this point, that there is a "controversy" at all is witness of the shortcomings of our educational systems and of the determination of creationist propaganda. It really has nothing to do with actual weaknesses of the ToE itself.

Take a look:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...eference-faqs-tutorials-theory-evolution.html

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

What alternative theories have been tested?

There aren't many. Creationism isn't even a theory, Panspermy isn't much better, and neither is really falsifiable, unlike evolutionism. Then again, gravity and the Laws of Newton don't have much dispute either, for similar reasons.

 

[Skwim]

You want proof that the patterns are there.

No, I would like you to address some of the statements you made, such as:

I would see how even as children some like bright clothes and some like to be camouflaged the same as we see in the animal kingdom.

No we don't. Animals don't choose to have a camouflaging appearance. Such appearances are the result of evolutionary processes.

I would start noticing a difference between the behaviors of the two and would see how introversion is not a disease (huge cause of insanity trying to turn an introvert into an extrovert)but an actual survival instinct.

And I assume you have good evidence for introversion being a survival instinct, which would be scientifically valid evidence and not mere subjective interpretations. I await the evidence.

There is an underlying cause of behavior and thought that is beyond biological chemicals.

A single underlying cause is it. So what is this cause and what is your evidence for it?

You may notive that these attributes play a role in driving human behavior just as it does in the animal kingdom.

What attributes, introversion and extroversion? If this is what you have in mind all I can ask is, so what? Competitiveness also plays such a role, as do responsibility, and humor.

The octopus's ability to camouflage itself and even imitate creatures it has never seen before is pretty amazing.

And it's nice to be amazed once in awhile. So what?

Then it would not be so difficult why people disagree.

"Then?" "Then"!!! Want to explain how all your preceding remarks led you to this "Then," because I sure don't see it.

Unfortunately this is an extroverted world and science starts with preconceived ideas as pointed out above

What preconceived ideas as pointed out above?

so instead of underlying causes they start out with the chemical processes which is just an effect.

So chemical processes are an effect of __________fill in the blank________ , because I didn't see any evidence from you or anyone else that this is the case. Just what is causing these chemical processes?

 

[Walkntune]

No we don't. Animals don't choose to have a camouflaging appearance. Such appearances are the result of evolutionary processes.

[youtube]ygh1-ul6E94[/youtube]
YouTube - Mimic Octopus
These are deterministic traits.

What attributes, introversion and extroversion? If this is what you have in mind all I can ask is, so what? Competitiveness also plays such a role, as do responsibility, and humor.

The attributes were the differences introverts and extroverts have as far as some the need to stand out and be seen and others the need to be more hidden.I can see a huge resemblance between this in humans and in the octopus and maybe to you without any evidence it means nothing but to an intuitive thinker who sees possibilities it could open up a whole new world if humans don't all have the same instinctive behaviors of survival.
The fact is the differences exist.
Introverts and Extroverts | Imagining the Brain
If there is any truth to what I am researching then it could possibly be a factor in why some people react differently to others using drugs and medications. Why some people get better from medicines who are depressed and others become suicidal.I am not stating these as facts but it would definitely be worth looking into as possibilities.It is better then, Hey we don't know why some people react different than others from medicine.

I don't know how this discussion got way out here.I guess i think in general it seems people spend more time shooting down the ideas of others then following their own.They don't even want to give fair discussion and the scientific community on forums seem to have a crab mentality where they just crawl all over and step on who ever they can to reach the top.Its a lot of wasted time and energy.I agree with the op.

 

[Skwim]

[youtube]ygh1-ul6E94[/youtube]
YouTube - Mimic Octopus

My mistake. I misunderstood what you were talking about.

I don't know how this discussion got way out here.I guess i think in general it seems people spend more time shooting down the ideas of others then following their own.

But "shooting down the ideas of others" is just a way of saying "My ideas don't agree with yours because . . . . . ." and the "because" takes the form of showing the other person where they're wrong. Say that you make the statement that "dogs can fly." I believe they don't, but instead of bothering to show you every instance where dogs have not flown (an impossibility) I try to "shoot down" your claim by saying, "prove it!" Show me the evidence that backs up your claim that dogs can fly." The onus of proof is always on the claimant, not on the challenger.

If you find all this too challenging you may want to reconsider your claims, or maybe restrict your conversations to those in the choir. But stick around if you can.

 

[Atomist]

I don't dind this statement true or fair as I don't think biology is key inunderstanding evolution.If this is really true and I wanted to understand evolution then I would start with humans themselves and figure out the difference between introverts and extroverts. I would see how even as children some like bright clothes and some like to be camouflaged the same as we see in the animal kingdom.I would start noticing a difference between the behaviors of the two and would see how introversion is not a disease (huge cause of insanity trying to turn an introvert into an extrovert)but an actual survival instinct.There is an underlying cause of behavior and thought that is beyond biological chemicals.You may notive that these attributes play a role in driving human behavior just as it does in the animal kingdom. The octopus's ability to camouflage itself and even imitate creatures it has never seen before is pretty amazing.
Then it would not be so difficult why people disagree.Unfortunately this is an extroverted world and science starts with preconceived ideas as pointed out above so
instead of underlying causes they start out with the chemical processes which is just an effect.
I know I have mentioned this a few times but I believe it can be key to understanding the evolution verses creation debate and I see truth in both sides.
I think human behavior and thought is instinctive and not as controlled as we may assume.

Do you even know how biology is related to evolution? It doesn't seem like you do...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/2/text_pop/l_102_01.html

There is a reason why all biologists accept evolution (while some believe in theistic evolution) they pretty much all accept the theory of evolution (there are black sheep, just like there are people that are Holocaust denialist)

 

[Walkntune]

My mistake. I misunderstood what you were talking about.

But "shooting down the ideas of others" is just a way of saying "My ideas don't agree with yours because . . . . . ." and the "because" takes the form of showing the other person where they're wrong. Say that you make the statement that "dogs can fly." I believe they don't, but instead of bothering to show you every instance where dogs have not flown (an impossibility) I try to "shoot down" your claim by saying, "prove it!" Show me the evidence that backs up your claim that dogs can fly." The onus of proof is always on the claimant, not on the challenger.

If you find all this too challenging you may want to reconsider your claims, or maybe restrict your conversations to those in the choir. But stick around if you can.

For me personally I find the opposition humorous and don't take it personal all though I am serious about my ideas.The way I write makes me come across dogmatic but most of the time I am laughing at what I am reading.I see why some are offended at the lack of integrity given in some of the discussions but I guess their expectations are high for a debate forum.I go to science forums when I really want to have some fun discussions.