Authority

[660griz]

I see that comprehension is the likely problem.

Obviously. My post was so you could clear it up. But, you would rather be an...unpleasant person.

If multiple folks have a comprehension issue with regards to your writings...maybe it is you.

 

[bullethead]

Wait one, that isn't right is it? Yes, the following of my feelings did lead to a negative result (failure to communicate properly) but it was the feeling that determined the action, thus lending evidence that feelings dominate.

It also shows that feelings cannot be trusted and why it is so important to research and verify.

 

[hummerpoo]

It also shows that feelings cannot be trusted and why it is so important to research and verify.

Oh yes, both feelings and senses/experience can be misleading.

The question of which dominates human behavior is one that falls under "same old thing" (rational vs empirical/realism vs idealism/ etc., etc., etc.)

 

[bullethead]

Oh yes, both feelings and senses/experience can be misleading.

The question of which dominates human behavior is one that falls under "same old thing" (rational vs empirical/realism vs idealism/ etc., etc., etc.)

Cliff notes of the entire conversation right there.

 

[gemcgrew]

Are you making the case that the ability to confirm reliable sources and the accuracy of each is an improper way to go about checking facts?

No. I have you doing a superb job of that.

 

[Brother David]

It also shows that feelings cannot be trusted and why it is so important to research and verify.

This is why we struggle . Instead of acceptance of known information we continue to massage the data until we can get it too look favorable to ( our point of view ) .

Facts are Facts .
Hypothesis are Hypothesis .

This is why I choose to read instead of opine . Facts are irrelevant and the arguments are to prove THEMSELVES right. There's no room for accept knowledge , only the quest for self-righteousness .

 

[hummerpoo]

Cliff notes of the entire conversation right there.

If you are correct, as I believe you are, and the "conversation" applies to most of the activity on this subforum, as I believe it does, then it justifies the intent of nearly all of my activity on the AAA, which has been to show that none of the contentious issues discussed, although certainly valuable for all to consider, have any real prospect of being contributed to in this venue. I have also dared to hope , if that point [cloud could] be clearly shown, it would bring many to realize that there is no justification for the hostility and dogmatism which prevails.

 

[bullethead]

No. I have you doing a superb job of that.

The evidence does not support your claim

 

[bullethead]

If you are correct, as I believe you are, and the "conversation" applies to most of the activity on this subforum, as I believe it does, then it justifies the intent of nearly all of my activity on the AAA, which has been to show that none of the contentious issues discussed, although certainly valuable for all to consider, have any real prospect of being contributed to in this venue. I have also dared to hope , if that point cloud be clearly shown, it would bring many to realize that there is no justification for the hostility and dogmatism which prevails.

All I meant was, that regarding this specific conversation dealing with feelings vs facts that when you said " both feelings and senses/experience can be misleading." (Which was what I was saying all along because my stance was that checking and rechecking sources for factual information that corroborates itself is much more reliable) Is why I replied with " Cliff notes of the entire conversation right there".
You recognized and summed up the point I made throughout.

Some other in here is still a day behind and continues on using feelings instead of facts, all the while acting as an example of my point.

 

[bullethead]

This is why we struggle . Instead of acceptance of known information we continue to massage the data until we can get it too look favorable to ( our point of view ) .

Are you aware that you are using the term "WE" above to include the people who use feelings instead of facts? And it sounds like you have included yourself in that group.

Facts are Facts .

Yes they are.

Hypothesis are Hypothesis .

By you making that statement I am getting the feeling that you think all Hypothesis are the same. Like just a "guess". To which I reply They are not.
For Example:
The Research Hypothesis is a paring down of the problem into something testable and falsifiable.
Scientists must generate a realistic and testable hypothesis around which they can build the experiment.
Their Hypothesis sets them up to test it and verify it in the next steps.

This is why I choose to read instead of opine . Facts are irrelevant and the arguments are to prove THEMSELVES right. There's no room for accept knowledge , only the quest for self-righteousness .

Facts remove all doubt. The arguments that contain facts give knowledge to those who argue with feelings.

 

[hummerpoo]

All I meant was, that regarding this specific conversation dealing with feelings vs facts that when you said " both feelings and senses/experience can be misleading." (Which was what I was saying all along because my stance was that checking and rechecking sources for factual information that corroborates itself is much more reliable) Is why I replied with " Cliff notes of the entire conversation right there".
You recognized and summed up the point I made throughout.

Some other in here is still a day behind and continues on using feelings instead of facts, all the while acting as an example of my point.

Do you detect any dogmatism in your post?

In anticipation of your response, I am led to think that the fellow said to have spent the latter portion of his life watching Ice Station Zebra over and over and over again, and was adjudged insane, was actually uniquely sane. Now I'm going back to watching The Hunt for Red October.

 

[bullethead]

Do you detect any dogmatism in your post?

In anticipation of your response, I am led to think that the fellow said to have spent the latter portion of his life watching Ice Station Zebra over and over and over again, and was adjudged insane, was actually uniquely sane. Now I'm going back to watching The Hunt for Red October.

I am not expressing an opinion or a belief as fact(that is the definition of dogmatism)....I am expressing Fact.


Give me a ping, Vasili. One ping only, please.

 

[Israel]

 

[SemperFiDawg]

It is evidence.
What is wrong with going with the best available information based off of the latest evidence?

Laying the blame for the somewhat dubious ‘global warming’ at mans feet comes to mind

 

[bullethead]

Laying the blame for the somewhat dubious ‘global warming’ at mans feet comes to mind

I agree. And why nobody should take the word for it or anything blindly through feelings.
Research will show what a tool Al Gore is and how the facts do not add up to what he/they are saying....unless nobody bothers to check and go with what sounds and feels good.
Your example of global warming is compelling, but it is not the best available evidence. Just an example of why sources need to scrutinized and confirmed or weeded out.

 

[Brother David]

I agree. And why nobody should take the word for it or anything blindly through feelings.
Research will show what a tool Al Gore is and how the facts do not add up to what he/they are saying....unless nobody bothers to check and go with what sounds and feels good.
Your example of global warming is compelling, but it is not the best available evidence. Just an example of why sources need to scrutinized and confirmed or weeded out.

Besides Global Warming there are several factors we must consider when evaluating any kind of Data . Some of which are ;
1) Does the research have a Agenda ( not a goal ) ?
2) Do the results have a direct link to funding ?
3) Does the research have a balanced approach ?
Often the desired results of research are tainted by biases which the researchers have direct control of . Their goal isn't to produce a concrete answer rather to prove their opinions . Agenda based research should be looked at for exactly what it is , Agenda pushing , not answers .

 

[bullethead]

Besides Global Warming there are several factors we must consider when evaluating any kind of Data . Some of which are ;
1) Does the research have a Agenda ( not a goal ) ?
2) Do the results have a direct link to funding ?
3) Does the research have a balanced approach ?
Often the desired results of research are tainted by biases which the researchers have direct control of . Their goal isn't to produce a concrete answer rather to prove their opinions . Agenda based research should be looked at for exactly what it is , Agenda pushing , not answers .

I agree to a point.
Data and surveys, polls, results can and are manipulated to say really whatever that is wanted said.

But evidence and facts trump the hype, claims, assertions and the rest.


For example:
Archeological evidence vs Claims.
The evidence will be there or it won't.
It will confirm or deny.
Hard to pull a 6ft leg bone out of the ground and say it is from a chipmonk.

 

[WaltL1]

Besides Global Warming there are several factors we must consider when evaluating any kind of Data . Some of which are ;
1) Does the research have a Agenda ( not a goal ) ?
2) Do the results have a direct link to funding ?
3) Does the research have a balanced approach ?
Often the desired results of research are tainted by biases which the researchers have direct control of . Their goal isn't to produce a concrete answer rather to prove their opinions . Agenda based research should be looked at for exactly what it is , Agenda pushing , not answers .

See now that's ^ a good post Bro.
Next time we ask a question and you reach for the Bible/Christianity to answer it, Im wondering if you will apply the same criteria?
Does the Bible/Christianity have an agenda? Obviously yes.
Does the Bible/Christianity have a direct link to funding? Obviously yes.
Does the Bible/Christianity have a balanced approach? Obviously no.

Fair is fair right?

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Besides Global Warming there are several factors we must consider when evaluating any kind of Data . Some of which are ;
1) Does the research have a Agenda ( not a goal ) ?
2) Do the results have a direct link to funding ?
3) Does the research have a balanced approach ?
Often the desired results of research are tainted by biases which the researchers have direct control of . Their goal isn't to produce a concrete answer rather to prove their opinions . Agenda based research should be looked at for exactly what it is , Agenda pushing , not answers .

It’s very unfortunate that perhaps the two foremost institutions in which society SHOULD expect to exemplify impeccable integrity, the Church and the scientific community, have both lost all credibility.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

See now that's ^ a good post Bro.
Next time we ask a question and you reach for the Bible/Christianity to answer it, Im wondering if you will apply the same criteria?
Does the Bible/Christianity have an agenda? Obviously yes.
Does the Bible/Christianity have a direct link to funding? Obviously yes.
Does the Bible/Christianity have a balanced approach? Obviously no.

Fair is fair right?

It’s a fair assessment, but it is incorrect to assert the scientific community doesn’t suffer from the same. I’ve been in medicine 30 years and in all honesty the best I can sum up all the changes in practice is to say that the research results follows the $$$$s.