Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: [TROLLING, ToS #2, #5]Neil Young's new iPod killer! (Read 3190 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[TROLLING, ToS #2, #5]Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Quote from: includemeout on
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”

? Neil deGrasse Tyson


Science don't prove shit yo. Now if you were talking about math..but you weren't.

[TROLLING, ToS #2, #5]Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #1 –
Quote from: frenzic on
Quote from: includemeout on
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”

? Neil deGrasse Tyson


Science don't prove shit yo. Now if you were talking about math..but you weren't.


I could have dignified that with an answer had you used better wording.
Listen to the music, not the media it's on.
União e reconstrução

[TROLLING, ToS #2, #5]Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #2 –
Quote from: includemeout on
Quote from: frenzic on
Quote from: includemeout on
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”

? Neil deGrasse Tyson


Science don't prove shit yo. Now if you were talking about math..but you weren't.


I could have dignified that with an answer had you used better wording.


You can't but ok have it your way. Science does not prove anything. Math does. You are wrong. Please dignify.

[TROLLING, ToS #2, #5]Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #3 –
Quote from: frenzic on
Quote from: includemeout on
Quote from: frenzic on
Quote from: includemeout on
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”

? Neil deGrasse Tyson


Science don't prove shit yo. Now if you were talking about math..but you weren't.


I could have dignified that with an answer had you used better wording.


You can't but ok have it your way. Science does not prove anything. Math does. You are wrong. Please dignify.


From Merrian-Webster's online dictionary:

Quote
math·e·mat·ics noun plural but usually singular in construction :-
: the science of numbers, quantities, and shapes and the relations between them
Listen to the music, not the media it's on.
União e reconstrução

[TROLLING, ToS #2, #5]Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #4 –
Yeah that's pretty much beside the point is it not. You were not talking about the science of numbers were you. You were talking about science. Otherwise you would have said math.

Science is nothing but the current state of affairs. It can change in an instant and over time it usually does. It only proves consensus within the current framework of the scientific community not actual facts as such. Of couse things described by it can sometimes be 100% true that's why a theory has to be tested to see if it is repeatable. But only math can prove anything without a shadow of a doubt and for the ages. If it is not within that framework it is not even science even though some people don't seem to get that and derive lots of meaning (while it is not part of the current consensus mind you) from semi scientific publications.

From this I at least got that a dictionary is scientific proof or is it.

[TROLLING, ToS #2, #5]Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #5 –
Yes, we all see how smart you believe you are. Could you please not further hijack this thread.  Yawn

[TROLLING, ToS #2, #5]Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #6 –
I am not a believer and maybe that's the difference between you and me. I am sorry that this guy is trying to talk around the subject, he could have answered right away and we would be done with it. I don't think it is a good thing to have untruth in this forum.

[TROLLING, ToS #2, #5]Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #7 –
Quote from: frenzic on
Yeah that's pretty much beside the point is it not. You were not talking about the science of numbers were you.


Please, get off your high horse and stop trying to nitpick your skewed definition of their usage of said term.  You knew exactly what they meant and there was no need to try to attack their post.  Mathematics in and of itself may not be a direct science but there are definitely many gray areas and, when taken as a broad term, math certainly is a form of science.  It may not be experimentally falsifiable (according to some) but, just like science, math is constantly being changed and new "elements" are being discovered.  Most people refer to science as being some type of natural science (i.e. chemical, biological, etc.) but that is just their limited interpretation.

[TROLLING, ToS #2, #5]Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #8 –
Actually, while it may be about the derail the thread, I think frenzic has a point. "Science", if you take that as meaning the sum total of human scientific knowledge to date, clearly isn't "true", if you take that as meaning a full objective statement of the facts. Even to say that at any point it's true as far as it goes, and merely lacks details, is naive and possibly wrong.

The scientific method seems to be the best thing we have for discovering "the truth" though.

This probably has some relevance to the thread, but it's too late on a Friday evening to try to explain it

Cheers,
David.

[TROLLING, ToS #2, #5]Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #9 –
Quote from: kornchild2002 on
Quote from: frenzic on
Yeah that's pretty much beside the point is it not. You were not talking about the science of numbers were you.


Please, get off your high horse and stop trying to nitpick your skewed definition of their usage of said term.  You knew exactly what they meant and there was no need to try to attack their post.  Mathematics in and of itself may not be a direct science but there are definitely many gray areas and, when taken as a broad term, math certainly is a form of science.  It may not be experimentally falsifiable (according to some) but, just like science, math is constantly being changed and new "elements" are being discovered.  Most people refer to science as being some type of natural science (i.e. chemical, biological, etc.) but that is just their limited interpretation.


Oh come on. So tell me what is untrue about what I posted. I only wanted to point out a flaw in reasoning, the forum exists to talk about matters from a reasoned perspective yes? If my remark has no place then the one I reply to has none either.
Sure math is a form of science but he was using the umbrella term and you (and him) know it. I already wrote why that is wrong and you know where to find that. That stuff about math being changed constantly and your new "elements" only imply that math is also subject to change but that's not true either. Sure the way to perform math can change and math problems that were thus far not solvable get solved sometimes in practice by the onset of for instance computers (raw power) or some mathematician who has the knack to look at things from a new perspective. That does not mean 2 and 2 is no longer 4. It does not make former mathematical proof no longer valid.
What the unnamed "some" and "most people" bring to this argument I fail to see. Let's not make this a pissing match.

Furthermore I hate derailments as much as the next guy but I am not the one desperately trying not to reply to a comment that has something to do with this context.

[TROLLING, ToS #2, #5]Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #10 –
Frenzic, your very lack of respect when referring to me and other members by not having the decency of using their HA nicknames, but cacophonies such as 'yo' or innuendos such as 'that guy' (not to mention other abhorrations) just endorses anyone's counterargument that your innitial post is nothing but a delusioned person's blatant attemp at tooting their own horn, even if that means distorting what's been said by others or refusing to see what is blatantly obvious: you're so busy trying to promote yourself that you're seeing to much where there is nothing, mate!

As I'm not at least a tenth as knowledgeable as other members when it comes to maths, I honestly think it's just a matter of leaving you to your own devices "talking to the hand" and that will certainly be more than enough rope for you to hang yourself if you persist down that kamikaze course of yours.

I won't even bother reading your answer to the question "what part of science did you not understand from both the definition and what's been said so far?" as I refuse to give a troll the nourishment he's craving for to go on shamelessly diverting off topic what has been so far a rather constructive thread.
Listen to the music, not the media it's on.
União e reconstrução

[TROLLING, ToS #2, #5]Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #11 –
Quote from: frenzic on
Let's not make this a pissing match.


You already did that with your initial replies.  It doesn't matter if the term was used 100% correctly includemeout or not.  I could poke holes in his statement had he used "math" instead of "science" especially when their statement would be backed up by a combination of the two, more like "engineering" instead of one or the other.  But who the hell cares?  It's a nitpick and nothing more.  These forums aren't here to discuss your interpretation of the words "science" or "math," this thread wasn't even created to do so.  My main points are that you were being judgmental (obvious from your jargon), you wanted this to be a measuring competition, it had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, and the definitions of both "science" and "math" have been previously philosophized yet concrete conclusions have not been made.  There is no doubt that the two overlap and often work in tandem (i.e. engineering).  Pointing out their misuse of the word is criticism focusing on inconsequential details that have been up for debate dating back even before the 18th century.

[TROLLING, ToS #2, #5]Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #12 –
Quote from: includemeout on
Frenzic, your very lack of respect when referring to me and other members by not having the decency of using their HA nicknames, but cacophonies such as 'yo' or innuendos such as 'that guy' (not to mention other abhorrations) just endorses anyone's counterargument that your innitial post is nothing but a delusioned person's blatant attemp at tooting their own horn, even if that means distorting what's been said by others or refusing to see what is blatantly obvious: you're so busy trying to promote yourself that you're seeing to much where there is nothing, mate!

As I'm not at least a tenth as knowledgeable as other members when it comes to maths, I honestly think it's just a matter of leaving you to your own devices "talking to the hand" and that will certainly be more than enough rope for you to hang yourself if you persist down that kamikaze course of yours.

I won't even bother reading your answer to the question "what part of science did you not understand from both the definition and what's been said so far?" as I refuse to give a troll the nourishment he's craving for to go on shamelessly diverting off topic what has been so far a rather constructive thread.


Do you notice this is the fist time you use my nick meaning you are guilty of the same behavior you tell me is very wrong.
Nothing I stated is in any way delusional and you know it. That is why you can't argue on the intrinsic meaning of my comments but have to resort to lots of meaningless words.
I see English is not your primary language so you are excused for thinking I was rude. Naturally I was not.

Quote from: kornchild2002 on
Quote from: frenzic on
Let's not make this a pissing match.


You already did that with your initial replies.  It doesn't matter if the term was used 100% correctly includemeout or not.  I could poke holes in his statement had he used "math" instead of "science" especially when their statement would be backed up by a combination of the two, more like "engineering" instead of one or the other.  But who the hell cares?  It's a nitpick and nothing more.  These forums aren't here to discuss your interpretation of the words "science" or "math," this thread wasn't even created to do so.  My main points are that you were being judgmental (obvious from your jargon), you wanted this to be a measuring competition, it had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, and the definitions of both "science" and "math" have been previously philosophized yet concrete conclusions have not been made.  There is no doubt that the two overlap and often work in tandem (i.e. engineering).  Pointing out their misuse of the word is criticism focusing on inconsequential details that have been up for debate dating back even before the 18th century.


You presume a lot. Why don't you just reply to my comments in a constructive way. You tried once and failed. Well that happens nothing wrong with that. Don't get all hurt about it. I did you no wrong.
You cannot poke holes otherwise you would not be reffering to the aktion but doing it for real. Meh a timeline going back to before the 18th century won't do it either. I don't need to measure anything, I just found fault with a comment and felt a need to discuss. Please prove me wrong if you want or can.

[TROLLING, ToS #2, #5]Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #13 –
Could we just bin the whole frenzic part of this thread and any replies? Not only is it OT for the thread and arguably for the whole forum, but it's not even interesting.

I'm sure most of those being argued with are just as aware of the nuances of epistemology as frenzic wants us all to know he is.
 

[TROLLING, ToS #2, #5]Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #14 –
Quote from: frenzic on
I see English is not your primary language so you are excused for thinking I was rude. Naturally I was not.

Really!? ad hominem statements! A troll's best friend!


Listen to the music, not the media it's on.
União e reconstrução