- This topic has 150 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Clark.
Same question to u“Peter has a
theorysuspicion that a conspiracy is embezzling funds”“Peter has used probability theory to show that funds are being embezzled”
What I’m trying to get across is that Peter couldn’t have used conspiracy theory to show that funds were being embezzled, because conspiracy theory produces only untestable propositions.
Context will define the use of theory. In the context of exams for example, you take your theory exams and a practical exam, which in the case of a driving test is actually driving with an examiner observing your performance.
In the case of something like evolution, it means a hypothesis. I guess the reason why something like evolution remains a ‘theory’ is not that it lacks proof but it is that it continues itself to evolve and to be found to be deeper than originally thought.Clark.
Plz answer the question.And SA. Plz answer the question.
Buster, I try to eliminate beliefs from my mind, and I try to avoid using the word because it means different things to different people in different circumstances. Believing in God and believing your keys are in back door are very different.
The following may seem pedantic, but I’m trying to be clear.
There are propositions that I accept, my acceptance being based on evidence and theory – where, by ‘theory’ I mean a method of reasoning. I accept the proposition that the Moon orbits the Earth, because it is consistent with my observations, and with gravitational theory.
There are propositions that I reject, my rejection being based on evidence and theory – I reject the proposition that the Earth is flat, because it contradicts my observations, and it contradicts gravitational theory.
There are propositions that I provisionally accept or reject; provisionally because I know my knowledge to be inadequate.
There are suspicions that I hold; for instance I suspect that the 9/11 attacks may have been a Gladio B operation, or maybe a CIA infiltration attempt that got out of hand.
Each of those final examples is likely to be dismissed as “a conspiracy theory” by others, but I didn’t reach them – and couldn’t have reached them – through conspiracy theory.
I hope I have made the distinction clear.
Clark
So u believe things to be true that other people call conspiracy theories. Who is correct, u or them?SA, it seems that you too are confused about the meaning of the word ‘theory’. The cause of the confusion is that common usage of the word is very sloppy, especially in the popular media. There are various evolutionary theories. In gravitation there are two main theories; Newtonian theory, and general relativity.
– In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn’t explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of a phenomenon is called a scientific theory. It is a misconception that theories turn into laws with enough research.
Laws and Theories – Livescience.
What’s the difference between a scientific law and theory? – YouTube
“Conspiracy theory” is a way of thinking, and it doesn’t work, it doesn’t help us centre in on the truth.
Buster, what’s the difference between a duck?
Clark and SA
So u 2 don’t even agree what a CT is.Clark
Plz answer the question.How long is a piece of string?
It’s a simple question. U say something is logical, someone else says it’s a CT. Who gets to decide?
Plz answer.lol @ Buster.
Excuse me, I’m just nipping out to buy some popcorn, I’ll be back in a minute.—
[ Mod: Node, would you care to explain why you’re addressing yourself under an alternative persona?From the moderation rules for commenters:
Sockpuppetry.
…. the adoption of multiple identities within the same thread is not to be allowed.Sockpuppetry is deliberate deception and therefore constitutes a banning offence. All comments by any associated persona are now eligible for removal. ]
Clark: How long is a piece of string?
Long enough to tie you in knots, apparently 🙂
See that Jo Biden is campaigning from his home.
Afraid that someone will have a sign or question about how many other women has he tried to screw?
Or about who else has he killed” Like signs or questions about what happened to John P. Wheeler, III? Or Steve Ivens? Where is Seth Rich?
The possibilities are nearly endless.
Joe Biden has just nipped out at home. Afraid he will be asked while campaigning or see signs about his other womanizing or killings?
“What’s the difference between a duck?” is a simple question, but that doesn’t mean it can be answered. “Are you still abusing your dog” is a simple question, but a loaded one. You’re asking me loaded questions.
“Who gets to decide?” Well, everyone who witnesses the exchange I suppose, just as everyone reading witnesses you asking me loaded questions, and avoiding the point I’m trying to clarify.
Why are you avoiding the point I’m making?
Buster is exposing hypocrisy. I thought you would approve.
Hello Node. I used to moderate here, remember? I found that conspiracy theorists (and you’re not one, Trowbridge) often resorted to sock puppetry.
OK; I am no longer wondering why you were trying to evade the point.
Thanks mods!
The point that “Buster” is making is that according to you and SA, anything you don’t believe is a CT and anything you do believe is logical. But apparently YOU get to decide which is which, which isn’t logical.
Amusingly, since you both refer to CT so often when you chat between yourselves, you can’t even agree what it means. Which kinda proves my point in a different way.
Node, the difference between our world views is that I submit to there being something greater than myself.
… and for the record, I once again made no effort to disguise my IP address (which I could easily do, ask me and I’ll prove it). I wasn’t trying to put one over the mods, just you two. By luck or design the mods let it run long enough to expose the logical absurdity of your CT about CTs.
If you don’t accept the logical corner you’ve painted yourselves into, just answer “Buster’s” question 🙂
– “according to you […], anything you don’t believe is a CT and anything you do believe is logical”
According to me? But I haven’t written that anywhere. Quote where I wrote that, or I shall regard it as merely a lie.
Node, when people adopt a new name – as some legitimate commenters do from time to time – we expect them to retain the same email address (or at least a similar variant to generate a new gravatar). The adoption of a new name and a new email address is clearly designed to thwart moderation.
Moreover, I notice that you did in fact use a separate IP address for your alternative persona – but we have more sophisticated methods of sockpuppet detection. We repel numerous attempts at malicious interference from known individuals every day – particularly from the commenter formerly known as ‘Habbabkuk’/’Charles Bostock’ and the even more vainglorious sockpuppet cluster known as the ‘James gang’ – in spite of their habitual use of random anonymous proxies, unrelated names and novel email addresses. (Currently a more honest manifestation of the James gang is being permitted to comment, on condition that he behaves himself.)
Unfortunately, due to your deceptive sockpuppetry, you are now banned from commenting on this blog for an indeterminate period (just like HabbaBostock). The duration depends on a number of contextual factors. If we detect you appearing with an alternative identity during this time, you will be excluded permanently.
Thank you for your co-operation.
