The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

The French don't make any sense. Hundreds of thousands of people are protesting in France just because the retirement age is being moved from 60 to 62?

And since when does a country have a set retirement age? Does everyone in France just stop working at 60?

Originally posted by truejedi
science isn't really a separate sentient entity.

Originally posted by Borbarad
Actually, one could do quite many match ups.

The point is that the current modus operandi of this forum has become to simply say "nope" when there isn't hard evidence presented for a claim made, no matter how much logical deduction (or induction) there has been performed to come to a certain conclusion. The next problem lies within the fact, that everytime a character is used, that hasn't at least one book performing an elaboration on his powers and abilities, has to be an unknown. On panel evidence isn't worth consideration any longer.

As a result, debating isn't fun any longer, because it's based upon speculation and opinion. An idea that some people want to deny, because they almost desperately crave for "hard facts" in a fictional realm, that is defined by sources that are subject to interpretation. Quite ironic.

Guys, don't not be jerks about canonicity and lets throw down.

Originally posted by Borbarad
Actually, one could do quite many match ups.

The point is that the current modus operandi of this forum has become to simply say "nope" when there isn't hard evidence presented for a claim made, no matter how much logical deduction (or induction) there has been performed to come to a certain conclusion. The next problem lies within the fact, that everytime a character is used, that hasn't at least one book performing an elaboration on his powers and abilities, has to be an unknown. On panel evidence isn't worth consideration any longer.

As a result, debating isn't fun any longer, because it's based upon speculation and opinion. An idea that some people want to deny, because they almost desperately crave for "hard facts" in a fictional realm, that is defined by sources that are subject to interpretation. Quite ironic.

Let's be honest Nai, the "speculation and opinion" today is nowhere near as dominant as it was on this forum years ago either before I came or right when I first got here, I forget. The whole Ancient Sith fiasco I read about years ago was embarrassing. I think the answer is pretty simple. We're all growing up and most of us that have been here for a while are too tired, too old, and not bored enough to debate Star Wars.

I don't really care to discuss star wars in a realm where we speculate based on the text. I guess I went through some comp classes, and learned that that is called an unsubstantiated claim. If you can't back up what you are saying with evidence from the text, we turn into a group yelling "nuh-uh, uh-huh, shut up troll!" at each other.

I really only stay on this site for.... I dunno why anymore. I don't even bother to argue beyond a single exchange or two at anytime. I certainly don't care enough to get passionate about it anymore. I'm waiting on the next FOTJ book... that's about it. If they kill Luke, I will probably be done with star wars forever.

And i sure hope the next book is better than the last, it was pretty lousy.

oh, and I said that because of people saying "science says"

Science doesn't say anything. We use the numbers and observations to twist the facts to say what we want them to say. Its just like Media. No matter what, every study has the scientist's personal spin on it. Equally, every journalist puts his own spin on what he writes, its impossible to do otherwise.

Only mathematics puts things forward in a manner that is undebatable and beyond interpretation.

I love numbers.

Originally posted by truejedi
oh, and I said that because of people saying "science says"

Science doesn't say anything. We use the numbers and observations to twist the facts to say what we want them to say. Its just like Media. No matter what, every study has the scientist's personal spin on it. Equally, every journalist puts his own spin on what he writes, its impossible to do otherwise.

Only mathematics puts things forward in a manner that is undebatable and beyond interpretation.

I love numbers.

Residual fallacy.

Originally posted by truejedi
oh, and I said that because of people saying "science says"

Science doesn't say anything. We use the numbers and observations to twist the facts to say what we want them to say. Its just like Media. No matter what, every study has the scientist's personal spin on it. Equally, every journalist puts his own spin on what he writes, its impossible to do otherwise.

Only mathematics puts things forward in a manner that is undebatable and beyond interpretation.

I love numbers.

You might try saying that scientists "twist the facts" to the next engineer you meet. They will "twist the facts" on the building they're designing and get it done before the weekend. That it collapses a week after it gets built will just be "spin."

Physical sciences are not like the humanities. There is not "more than one right answer." A drama production may be commenting on the increased tension between partisan politics in contemporary America, or on race relations in lower Uganda (or both). That discussion will have a lot of room for "spin." Building a Space Shuttle doesn't require spin. It requires being right. That's what the scientific method does. It answers questions right.

Foglets are awesome.

Originally posted by Zampanó
You might try saying that scientists "twist the facts" to the next engineer you meet. They will "twist the facts" on the building they're designing and get it done before the weekend. That it collapses a week after it gets built will just be "spin."

Physical sciences are not like the humanities. There is not "more than one right answer." A drama production may be commenting on the increased tension between partisan politics in contemporary America, or on race relations in lower Uganda (or both). That discussion will have a lot of room for "spin." Building a Space Shuttle doesn't require spin. It requires being [b]right. That's what the scientific method does. It answers questions right. [/B]

This implies dishonesty. Scientists absolutely cannot be dishonest. They can be wrong, they can be dumb, and they can be biased, but they cannot be dishonest. The process of peer review simply does not allow it.

(Even cultural blindspots are largely mitigated; many scientists are from distinct cultures with different taboos and hang ups.)

Your post doesn't make much sense to me, unless you're not referring to "scientists" as literal individuals.

A better way to put it would be to say that scientists can in fact be dishonest (see Dean Drive, Halfium Isomer Decay and induced Gamma Emission, and Intelligent Design) but when they are, they get ridiculed by the rest of the scientific community.

Originally posted by Zampanó
This implies dishonesty. Scientists absolutely cannot be dishonest. They can be wrong, they can be dumb, and they can be biased, but they cannot be dishonest. The process of peer review simply does not allow it.

(Even cultural blindspots are largely mitigated; many scientists are from distinct cultures with different taboos and hang ups.)

This is ridiculous because the process of peer review involves other scientists who can ALSO bring in their bias/dishonesty, etc..

An example of scientific bias is the Solid State theory or the "ether" through which light was supposed to pass through.

Orr.... those Chinese guys?

What happens when you get a room full of ultra nationalistic Chinese scientists? Hilarity, that's what.

the global warming fiasco where the scientists intentionally withheld some information to make the data appear to prove what they wanted it to say is an example of scientific dishonesty. Peer review did not call them out on that. It took an internet hacker.

Originally posted by truejedi
the global warming fiasco where the scientists intentionally withheld some information to make the data appear to prove what they wanted it to say is an example of scientific dishonesty. Peer review did not call them out on that. It took an internet hacker.

Scientists have their own agenda just like the rest of us.

Shamelessly plagarised from a similar conversation:

People in general with any amount of sense are skeptical: never accept anything on blind faith. Which, to be fair, is a nice thing to preach when the people you're talking to don't already know it.
[...]
You need to retain a reasonable level of skepticism. Sometimes scientists lie. What are the odds of it? What are the odds the person who backed up their data lied? And how much energy does it take to check on that? Plus: does it really matter given your current standing as an individual? These are all things the mind cycles through before they come to say "oh, cool" about something or not. It's that simple. And 99% of the time, the odds that the claims are false are minuscule.

Also: about the climate. Take into account the two sides, the proof they have, the odds that they are lying, and most importantly any motivation they would have to skew data or pioneer a false claim, and you can come to the probable conclusion on your own.

Originally posted by Zampanó
Shamelessly plagarised from a similar conversation:

so u are agreeing with me?

Well, the gist of that post is that even though people can lie it would be irrational to toss out the collected body of human thought just because the option exists.

It is important to think about each issue critically. What becomes difficult is when those issues require a great deal of technical knowledge. For instance, I may have to trust that a chemotherapy treatment will make me better at some point, without the capacity to evaluate (and reproduce) the research myself. In that situation the likelihood of a lie on the part of the doctor is very low, and the weight of (for lack of a better term) "scientific orthodoxy" would be very high.