Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

[Sparhafoc]

all scientific models from all sciences (except fro math maybe) makes ontological assertions. didn't you learned that in those 3 decades of hard study?

when you do science you assume that you exist, that the world around you exists, that the information provided by your brain corresponds to reality, that you are not dreaming, etc.

there are all ontological assumptions.

LEROY showing he doesn't know what he's talking about cubed.

 

[Sparhafoc]

that the information provided by your brain corresponds to reality,... assumption

This has to represent the most egregious ignorance on your part, LEROY.

It's like you think science is still stuck with natural philosophy in Ancient Greece.

If you weren't a total fucking cretin, I'd explain this to you and converse with you to educate you in your errors so you didn't make a fool out of yourself publicly.

As it's impossible to have a conversation with you because we are obliged to engage your bloated and unwarranted hubris, I will instead just continue to mock your confident, overweened, overbearing ignorance.

If you believe the above, junior school children know more about science than you do.

 

[Sparhafoc]

In summary.

In the 2 months I have been here, I have seen LEROY contend that biologists and Biology are wrong, that chemists and Chemistry are wrong, and that physicists and Physics are wrong... because LEROY is superior in knowledge to all of them, or else these studies are just wrong because they conflict with his religious convictions. Ironically, every time he opens his mouth, he shows he has no understand of the methodology of science, nor of the philosophy of science. Hubris all the way down.

How to fail at life, LEROY style.

 

[leroy]

[
No.

What you said is that in order to do science you have to make ontological assumptions which shows you don't know your arse from your elbow when it comes to science.

yes that is exactly what I said

do you have any argument against that comment?

 

[Sparhafoc]

yes that is exactly what I said

do you have any argument against that comment?

Yes.

My argument is: that's total fucking bollocks indicative only of abject cluelessness.

 

[leroy]

that the information provided by your brain corresponds to reality,... assumption

This has to represent the most egregious ignorance on your part, LEROY.

It's like you think science is still stuck with natural philosophy in Ancient Greece.

If you weren't a total fucking cretin, I'd explain this to you and converse with you to educate you in your errors so you didn't make a fool out of yourself publicly.

As it's impossible to have a conversation with you because we are obliged to engage your bloated and unwarranted hubris, I will instead just continue to mock your confident, overweened, overbearing ignorance.

If you believe the above, junior school children know more about science than you do.

it would be far more humiliating for me, if you prove that the comment is wrong, than just insulting me and proclaiming that I am wrong

 

[leroy]

yes that is exactly what I said

do you have any argument against that comment?

Yes.

My argument is: that's total fucking bollocks indicative only of abject cluelessness.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

shame on me, I insulted 13yo, the average 13yo is more descent and more mature than you

 

[Sparhafoc]

it would be far more humiliating for me, if you prove that the comment is wrong, than just insulting me and proclaiming that I am wrong

Learn what proof is.

 

[Sparhafoc]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

shame on me, I insulted 13yo, the average 13yo is more descent and more mature than you

What a pathetic troll you are, LEROY.

You can't engage honestly because you're not here to. You're here to hate on strangers because you fail at life.

 

[Sparhafoc]

insulting me

Aww diddums.

Your entire career on this forum is one long insult to honest discourse.

You think you're the fulcrum of understanding, LEROY, but in reality you are an exceptionally challenged individual.

Dunning & Kruger did a study that would help you if you could see past your ego.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein persons of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.[1]

It's your incompetence in science, in reason, in discourse, in philosophy, and in general education that provides you the illusory confidence in your abilities. You know so little that it's a tiny fraction of a fractional set of the available data even possessed by other non-specialists let alone the experts in the field you assume you're equal to; but because you think that shit in your brain is all there is, you make sweeping declarations confident in your knowledge, when your knowledge doesn't even amount to a high school pass level on most occasions.

If you spent your time here learning instead of slapping your cock around, you would benefit from it greatly, and we all would benefit from our exchanges.

Instead, you make every single interaction with you totally pointless and shitty. When you aren't lying through your teeth, you're re-engineering the English language to suit your bullshit. And when you're not misrepresenting what people have written, you dedicate yourself to publicizing your prejudice against the people you elect to spend your time with.

So this is my final fuck you.

Good bye.

 

[leroy]

it would be far more humiliating for me, if you prove that the comment is wrong, than just insulting me and proclaiming that I am wrong

Learn what proof is.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

translation.

learn what my own personal definition of proof is, and always use the term proof accordingly.

 

[surreptitious57]

Science only investigates observable phenomena so has nothing to say about the nature of said
phenomena beyond its physical properties. Ontology is a subject for philosophy not for science

it is still a fact that you cannot do science without making philosophical assumptions if you want to do
science at least you have to assume that you exist which is a philosophical ( ontological ) assumption

Do not confuse observation of something with reality. As science has nothing to say about whether observable phenomena are real or not. And
while most if not all scientists probably do think that they exist it is not a necessary requirement for them to have in order for them to do science

 

[leroy]

Do not confuse observation of something with reality. As science has nothing to say about whether observable phenomena are real or not. And
while most if not all scientists probably do think that they exist it is not a necessary requirement for them to have in order for them to do science

well, how do you know that what you observe in a telescope corresponds to reality, how do you know that your brain accurately represents the object?

you have to make an ontological assumption, you have to assume that your brain is reliable, if you don't make this assumption then any science that you might do would be meaningless.

 

[surreptitious57]

Do not confuse observation of something with reality. As science has nothing to say about whether observable phenomena are real or not. And
while most if not all scientists probably do think that they exist it is not a necessary requirement for them to have in order for them to do science

you have to assume that your brain is reliable if you dont make this assumption then any science that you might do would be meaningless

A brain could still be reliable without having to know that what it was observing was actually real
As it would simply have to be capable of making logical deductions based upon that observation
But it would require a minimum of two brains to do any science since it has to be inter subjective

 

[Visaki]

Solopsism, the sanctuary of an obtuse mind.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Solopsism, the sanctuary of an obtuse mind.

I have always found it amazing how quick theist will run to solopsism, as if invoking a deity somehow solves it.

 

[leroy]

A brain could still be reliable without having to know that what it was observing was actually real
As it would simply have to be capable of making logical deductions based upon that observation
But it would require a minimum of two brains to do any science since it has to be inter subjective

well in that case you need to make the ontological assumption that at least 2 brains exist before doing any science



and please understand the context in which I am making this statements, Hack argued that the Big Bang theory (as originally proposed) should not be granted becase it requires ontological assumptions, my reply to that is that all science requires ontological assumptions, I implying that the BB should not be rejected just because it makes ontological assumptions otherwise you would have to reject all science.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Solopsism, the sanctuary of an obtuse mind.

I have always found it amazing how quick theist will run to solopsism, as if invoking a deity somehow solves it.

A drowning man will grab at anything that might keep him afloat, even if the tempest is of his own making!

 

[leroy]

A drowning man will grab at anything that might keep him afloat, even if the tempest is of his own making!

yes, that explains why atheist have to invoke wild "theories" to overcome the arguments for the exístanse of God.

The universe came form nothing

The universe is eternal

There is an infinitely big multiverse

Black holes are portals to other universes

Jesus had a tween brother

Early Christians consumed hallucinatory mushrooms

There is no free will

There is no objective morality

Moral values are platonic objects

etc.

But I have to admit that members from this forum are too smart and would rather not to adopt a position and keep their world view ambiguous, without affirming nor denying anything.

 

[MarsCydonia]

yes, that explains why atheist have to invoke wild "theories" to overcome the arguments for the exístanse of God.

The universe came form nothing

The universe is eternal

There is an infinitely big multiverse

Black holes are portals to other universes

Jesus had a tween brother

Early Christians consumed hallucinatory mushrooms

There is no free will

There is no objective morality

Moral values are platonic objects

etc.

But I have to admit that members from this forum are too smart and would rather not to adopt a position and keep their world view ambiguous, without affirming nor denying anything.

I would like to point that Leroy seems to have again forgotten how the burden of proof works but most importantly:

What does this utter stupidity have to do with the Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis again?