What belief do you hold that isn't popular on the internet?

Rotation Advertisements

We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum.

If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away.

Click here to Register!

If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk

If you're already a member please log in to your account:

Pages:
1
…
5
6
7

What belief do you hold that isn't popular on the internet?
Tweet Topic Started: Aug 14 2012, 06:49 PM (4,996 Views)
Spirit Metaphor	Sep 1 2012, 07:03 AM Post #76
Posts: 130 Group: Member Member #8,196 Joined: August 28, 2012 Favourite Manga Berserk	Ninjajp247 Sep 1 2012, 06:58 AM The only objective would be to use logic to find a solution, it doesnt mean at all that you will come up with that same conclusion, just that you recognize that from any point of view its VALID logic to whichever and WHY you have come to that conclusion. There is only one valid conclusion regarding matters which do not involve inconsequential preference. Logic is not an opinion. Reason = virtue = happiness. We're fundamentally living in a self-destructive manner if we ignore logic. Edited by Spirit Metaphor, Sep 1 2012, 08:48 AM.



* Crashbreaka	Sep 1 2012, 09:59 AM Post #77
Captain Oblivious Posts: 6,888 Group: Retired Staff Member #7,771 Joined: June 14, 2012 Gender Male Country New Zealand Favourite Anime Onepunch-Man, Gurren Lagann What Browser do you use? Chrome Favourite Manga Seven Deadly Sins, Food Wars, Onepunch-Man	I actually can't remember what my point was lol. Gimme a few days.



~~Paikuan extreme~~	Sep 1 2012, 10:57 AM Post #78
Posts: 5,568 Group: Suspended Member #5,921 Joined: March 29, 2011 Favourite Anime dbz What Browser do you use? ie9 Favourite Manga akira	Spirit Metaphor Sep 1 2012, 07:03 AM Ninjajp247 Sep 1 2012, 06:58 AM The only objective would be to use logic to find a solution, it doesnt mean at all that you will come up with that same conclusion, just that you recognize that from any point of view its VALID logic to whichever and WHY you have come to that conclusion. There is only one valid conclusion regarding matters which do not involve inconsequential preference. Logic is not an opinion. Reason = virtue = happiness. We're fundamentally living in a self-destructive manner if we ignore logic. inconsequential preference? no such thing. there are always consequences for your actions. whether you risk the possible consequence for results is the choice all people face while making a conclusion. Logic is an analytic process, for not only the gathering of information, but the actual consumption and USE of said information. finding the shortest distance between two points and having it make sense on why that is. science is based on the use of logic, and yet differs in opinion greatly. There are rules of course, and logic dictates that the rules be followed in order for order to be maintained. The actual process in of itself is the technique. Like arguing DBZ, we can use logic to argue dbz till we are blue, but that doesnt escape the cold hard logic that dbz is fake, and that the current laws of physics as we know it, can not apply, so we use minimalist logic to ferret out what we have analytically deemed a useless variable. There in lies the consequence, the unknown variable. But arguing dbz has many known variables, the most of which arent physically possible to date as we currently know. so we use numbers, we use words, we use our imaginations, i know i do, and although the stories been told? logic dictates that a whole story doesnt make it a complete one. A complete story has all probable variables accounted for known to science and modern thinking and doesnt leave continuous discontinuities. logic would have dictated having a complete story, but since it was helped to be created by a bunch of people with differing opinions? then you have to account for all those unknown variable also. Like how the character is made, what IS the character, how does its story affect the overall outcome? is the character relevant to the culmination? The process of elimination is one of my favorite analytically based techniques.



Spirit Metaphor	Sep 1 2012, 11:34 AM Post #79
Posts: 130 Group: Member Member #8,196 Joined: August 28, 2012 Favourite Manga Berserk	Ninjajp247 no such thing. Inconsequential preference 1 - I like the colour blue Inconsequential preference 2 - I like the colour green Both are simultaneously valid, they are morally neutral. These preferences do not impose right or wrong, whether that is your favorite colour, flavour, hobby, interests... doesn't matter. To use an extreme example, someone may admit that they enjoy killing people, but still recognize that the act of murder is evil. I understand the misinterpretation here though. All preferences have a pragmatic consequence in how they influence our behavior. Bad word choice on my part. Ninjajp247 science is based on the use of logic, and yet differs in opinion greatly. Scientific incongruence is typically caused by different starting assumptions that alter the ways in which observations are interpreted and experiments are carried out. The number of proposed scientific theories in any given context gradually settle over time as more direct evidence becomes available (which means there is less room for assumptions). Science is the method for discerning truth from falsehood, not a method. Edited by Spirit Metaphor, Sep 2 2012, 09:48 AM.



~~Paikuan extreme~~	Sep 2 2012, 08:31 AM Post #80
Posts: 5,568 Group: Suspended Member #5,921 Joined: March 29, 2011 Favourite Anime dbz What Browser do you use? ie9 Favourite Manga akira	wrong, because science only deals in facts NOt variables. Philosophy deals in variables. And philosophy is NOT science. science sticks with what CAN be proven, not what probably can be. science = sticking to the facts at hand philosophy= dealing with variables and asking questions about the outcome. having a favorite color is inconsequential? then why have one? clearly you favorite color affects you in some way, otherwise why is it your favorite? that could also come up in conversation, one girl YOu like could turn you down, because you like green and she likes blue. and ONLY blue. You want inconsequential? check this out. One time i met this beautiful hawaiian girl at this fitness club right? man we were getting along and throwing signals everywhere, so right when im about to get her number? she asks me one question. whats your sign? now im not into astrology except for entertainment, that is a pseudo science that will never amount. BOT: so i tell the girl im an aquarius right? (uncontrollable,insonsequential preference right? as i have come to accept that i am an aquarius, but should have said iron monkey, as thats my chinese zodiac) The girl says, oh what?!! and literally brooded for about 5 minutes. I knew i was losing her. i asked her why? she said her last boyfriend was an aquarius, and he cheated on her. So she believes ALL aquarius are cheaters now. Despite the fact that by very definition, we are loyal, intelligent, and temperamental. Inconcequential huh? that had never hurt me before ever in my life, i was proud to be an aquarius, although it isnt real. No such thing. Edited by Paikuan extreme, Sep 2 2012, 08:39 AM.



Spirit Metaphor	Sep 2 2012, 09:17 AM Post #81
Posts: 130 Group: Member Member #8,196 Joined: August 28, 2012 Favourite Manga Berserk	Inconsequential here is the difference between stating fact and opinion. Opinions cannot be verified using external evidence; facts are relative to what occurs in reality. Here's some examples: fact The spectrum of visible light is composed of seven distinct colours opinion Blue is my favorite colour fact Our bodies require energy to survive opinion I like pizza fact Liquids are more dense than gases opinion Water is scary. There are plenty of assumptions scientists make while constructing their theories. For example, it's impossible for us to directly observe an atom or its component parts, so a model was created to explain their behavior. Another example, the description of gravity is quite detailed based on its effect on matter, although we've never actually observed gravity directly, we still assume it is a thing. Very little is fully apparent in science, there is room for discrepancy based on assumptions. Incorrect assumptions arise from a misinterpretation/lack of sensual evidence. Science is the method for attaining facts and understanding the natural universe, it determines whether our ideas are valid. Philosophy is the acquiring of wisdom through identifying causes, connections and implications surrounding established facts. Have you studied epistemology or the philosophy of science, Ninja? Edited by Spirit Metaphor, Sep 2 2012, 02:45 PM.



~~Frankie~~	Sep 2 2012, 12:52 PM Post #82
Posts: 573 Group: GTFO Member #593 Joined: August 8, 2005	I believe in Reincarnation but when I say it, people like frown on me.



Spirit Metaphor	Sep 2 2012, 12:54 PM Post #83
Posts: 130 Group: Member Member #8,196 Joined: August 28, 2012 Favourite Manga Berserk	Frankie Sep 2 2012, 12:52 PM I believe in Reincarnation but when I say it, people like frown on me. Can you outline the reasoning which lead you to believe in reincarnation? Edited by Spirit Metaphor, Sep 2 2012, 01:30 PM.



~~Frankie~~	Sep 2 2012, 01:14 PM Post #84
Posts: 573 Group: GTFO Member #593 Joined: August 8, 2005	Since I was a kid, I remember thinking when we die we have to come back as anything, as small as a ant or has big as an elephant. That its what keeps life alive.



Spirit Metaphor	Sep 2 2012, 01:15 PM Post #85
Posts: 130 Group: Member Member #8,196 Joined: August 28, 2012 Favourite Manga Berserk	Frankie Sep 2 2012, 01:14 PM Since I was a kid, I remember thinking when we die we have to come back as anything, as small as a ant or has big as an elephant. That its what keeps life alive. Define life please. Edited by Spirit Metaphor, Sep 2 2012, 01:22 PM.



~~Frankie~~	Sep 2 2012, 01:44 PM Post #86
Posts: 573 Group: GTFO Member #593 Joined: August 8, 2005	The population. That's what I mean. Pro-creation over new-creation.



Spirit Metaphor	Sep 2 2012, 01:53 PM Post #87
Posts: 130 Group: Member Member #8,196 Joined: August 28, 2012 Favourite Manga Berserk	How to explain the inconsistency of population size over time? Doesn't reincarnation imply that only a certain number of things can be alive at the same time? Single-celled organisms like bacteria must also count as individual instances of life, right? Do they possess consciousness? Don't worry about answering those, I fear the questions will be indefinite if we persist. You get the idea though, there's lots to pick apart when analyzing reincarnation which is probably why some people do not treat the concept very kindly. I assume you take flak from devout christians for suggesting reincarnation too, hm? It doesn't fit with their ideology so they feel the need to attack it, which is an odd thing to do unless someone is insecure about their own beliefs. Edited by Spirit Metaphor, Sep 2 2012, 02:48 PM.



~~Paikuan extreme~~	Sep 2 2012, 05:19 PM Post #88
Posts: 5,568 Group: Suspended Member #5,921 Joined: March 29, 2011 Favourite Anime dbz What Browser do you use? ie9 Favourite Manga akira	Spirit Metaphor Sep 2 2012, 09:17 AM Inconsequential here is the difference between stating fact and opinion. Opinions cannot be verified using external evidence; facts are relative to what occurs in reality. Here's some examples: fact The spectrum of visible light is composed of seven distinct colours opinion Blue is my favorite colour fact Our bodies require energy to survive opinion I like pizza fact Liquids are more dense than gases opinion Water is scary. There are plenty of assumptions scientists make while constructing their theories. For example, it's impossible for us to directly observe an atom or its component parts, so a model was created to explain their behavior. Another example, the description of gravity is quite detailed based on its effect on matter, although we've never actually observed gravity directly, we still assume it is a thing. Very little is fully apparent in science, there is room for discrepancy based on assumptions. Incorrect assumptions arise from a misinterpretation/lack of sensual evidence. Science is the method for attaining facts and understanding the natural universe, it determines whether our ideas are valid. Philosophy is the acquiring of wisdom through identifying causes, connections and implications surrounding established facts. Have you studied epistemology or the philosophy of science, Ninja? i hear what you are saying, i even understand why you seem to think the definition of science is. and inconsequential would mean it has NO effect and NO consequence for any probable situation EVER. its completely subjective, even relegated to specific situation. Example: you are a us navy seal. Your favorite color is blue. That specific situation makes it inconsequential, but that doesnt mean it will NEVER be. Its improbable. Opinions are NOT inconsequential, they are the very basis for which people subject themselves to ridicule and heart ache without being able to prove their theories THROUGH science. testing your theories for relative likelihood in a real life situation is what science achieves. the philosophy of science is simple. To discover. after all, theories are just theories until they are tested. Even the process of elimination takes a little faith in the unknown variable being in there favor, especially if its the ONLY variable left to explore. Sir Arthur conan doyle expressed this greatly through his works, and most notably in his most famous character, sherlock holmes. Issac asimov poul anderson even L ron hubbard. all of them theoretical science wizzes in the real and now, not impossible star trek science fiction. although roddenberry was given an honorary award for his science possible works. Its still just pseudo science in comparison to actual PHYSiCAL science. Steven hawking takes the cake on theoretical impossibilities done with unreal numbers and unprovable points gleaned from the small amount of info we have in the universe. I respect him, but he will never be able to prove his theories, it just sounds good. Edited by Paikuan extreme, Sep 2 2012, 05:24 PM.



Spirit Metaphor	Sep 2 2012, 06:46 PM Post #89
Posts: 130 Group: Member Member #8,196 Joined: August 28, 2012 Favourite Manga Berserk	Ninjajp247, have you studied epistemology or the philosophy of science? Yes? No? To define the philosophy of science as 'to discover' is...uh, incredibly insulting to the people who have written entire books on the subject. Yes, that is one particular interpretation of inconsequential. I'm saying inconsequential compared to external reality, you're saying inconsequential compared to causality. Please recognize that there's no point in debating if our terms do not see eye to eye. All valid theories are grounded in reality, observation comes first then explanatory theories/models are developed in response to the inevitable questions. Observation is not perfect and quite limited, we can't always trust our senses. For example, our immediate sensual experience tells us we should assume the Earth is flat and that the sun revolves around it, but we now rightly recognize this to be incorrect. Imperfect observations lead to false assumptions lead to false theories. Yes, the purpose of experimentation is to falsify proposed theories, not prove them. If hypotheses are not falsifiable then they're hardly scientific. Edited by Spirit Metaphor, Sep 2 2012, 06:51 PM.



~~Paikuan extreme~~	Sep 2 2012, 11:20 PM Post #90
Posts: 5,568 Group: Suspended Member #5,921 Joined: March 29, 2011 Favourite Anime dbz What Browser do you use? ie9 Favourite Manga akira	look, its up to you if you choose to use words that dont mean anything. using science to discover is the mission, and nothing supercedes that. fancy definitions and books hopin to define that definition are worthless. Theyre just words. and yes i have been a fan of science all of my life. Not talking just to be talking, it also doesnt mean i give credence to a book that wants to define something that can be summed up in one word. if you deny that science is about discovery, and the study of whats been discovered? then why perpetrate? become a literary scholar instead. So from my point of view? its an insult to insist science is much more than that. Methodologies of study aside. If you have a book you suggest i can read then say so, but assuming im supposed to have read it to validate my interest in science is limiting. severely. Only people who study science's methodology study what others have achieved. actual scientists care about science itself. real scientists use tried and true methodology to discover whats not known. The prime directive of science is to discover and understand. Not read books on someone elses methodology and believe its the only recourse. Stop reading books and do some science. science= verb science= adverb science is active not passive, and theoretical science is just that. Theoretical. here is what i believe- (1) what are the aims of science and (2) how should one interpret the results of science?- The aims of science is discovery how to interpret? with an open mind set within the boundaries of known physics. Not metaphysics, or potential science possible. Richard Feynman- "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds" ^^no question. Edited by Paikuan extreme, Sep 2 2012, 11:37 PM.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

Create a free forum in seconds. Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
5
6
7