Defending a belief rather than defending the pursuit of truth

it has nothing to do with me...if you want to post contrary to the forum rules and flame your unsupported criticisms about an individual poster whether me or any one else do it in another thread.
Suggestion: Open a thread in free thoughts called : "QQ is a nutter" and see how you go...
and while you are at it offer an explanation why "The energy supposedly propagating through out the universe at any given t=0 is unaccounted for by science"

Whether you like me as a person, or have opinions [beliefs] about my mental state or not, is totally irrelevant to this board community discussion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, AlexG's definition of a troll is everyone else's definition: A poster who simply tries to stir shit. The fact that you've done this in your own thread is remarkable, and pathetic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It has everything to do with you. Look at your behavior in this thread. You are a perfect example of the poster you're talking about in the OP. Do I really need to go through all the posts so far and point out every instance in which you've acted like a person who's only interested in their own opinions?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You must be paranoid... I never mentioned the thread was only about posters...
It is in fact about the human condition generally.
Defending a belief, rather than defending the pursuit of truth
Your paranoia has determined the thread is about YOU.
Why do you believe the thread is only about you or me?

Is this a private discussion? Nope! Over a thousand of views and not of them all yours and mine.
If you wish for a private discussion then by all means use the PM system.

 

Another interesting tidbit for posters who are following this thread. Notice how often Quack has accused people who disagree with him of being paranoid? I would suggest this is simple ego defense, but what do you think?

Neither did I.

And you are a human who is exhibiting the behavior being discussed in this thread. Some insight from you as to why you behave this way would go a long way to answering the questions of the topic.

I thought I already corrected you on the syntax of the thread question.

Where have I ever said this thread is about me?

I never said it was. Whatever gave you that idea?

What does this have to do with anything?

 

yeah sure....
next....

 

Typical evasion.

 

About the wording and semantics of the Op heading:

Defending a belief rather than defending the pursuit of truth.
is worded exactly as intended.
The topic is about our innate desire to Defend what we consider as our assets [ beliefs ] rather than defend our, often overlooked, greatest asset, that being the pursuit of truth or in other words a "better belief"

It is not a statement of fact it is merely a poser to provoke discussion and contemplation and an invite to show that the op's contention may be either valid or invalid.
It is a common observation of human behavior with a "twist" if you like. It is the need to be defensive generally about what we believe to be true when there is contrary evidence to support it as being false.

The key word in the OP is "defend"
I apologize if the wording is upsetting some members of sciforums. No body is perfect after all...

 

reported to a moderator:

 

Notice again how Quantum Quack refuses to actually discuss the topic at hand?

Pursuit is a not an asset. It is not analogous with belief. As I said before, the pursuit is the process, whereas belief is the result. And, as I said before (again), beliefs are not necessarily untrue, so there is no necessary contradiction in terms.

You have worded the OP question poorly, and it does not accurately reflect the question you're actually trying to ask, which is (again) why we stick to our guns in spite of evidence to the contrary.

But if the OP's contention is not a contention at all, then how is it an invite to show it as valid or invalid?

There's no twist.

This is what I just said. But your original wording does not convey this appropriately.

Which is what you're doing right now. Why don't you tell us a bit about your motivation?

The wording was poor, so why are you defending it? Are you so insecure that you can't even concede such a small point?

 

Good luck with that. I haven't broken any rules, and I won't receive any moderation.

 

the asset is not pursuit.. true..the asset I refer to is defending....or defense of....
and sure the wording of the OP is indeed open to criticism...

defending a belief vs. defending the pursuit of truth...
simple!

 

And it's still not getting through.

:shrug:

 

It never will.

 

So how would you write the OP?

 

and that is all you could say in the "what is energy" thread too.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?114726-Energy-What-is-it/page4

 

Just reading the "on topic" postings to this thread and this stands out:

How we tend to defend our belief rather than defend [fight for] the pursuit of truth.
Yes Balerion has it down pretty right IMO he understands the topic OP really well!
As slight aside:

Do you remember these words:
"Fighting for Truth Justice and the American way!"

 

I'm shakin' in my boots.

So: let's get this straight--you think you should have a platform to pontificate not only the laws of nature, but also the rules of decorum, insofar as any member might challenge you for (as I said before) trolling your own thread, filling it with nonsense, gibberish, hyperbole and fallacy?

As long as the mods allow you to proceed in that vein, what makes you think they care about your complaints? Do you think SciForums stands for the mindless anti-science trolling you waste their time with? Instead of expecting mod intervention, you should intervene against yourself - check yourself and answer the mail - since it was established in my first post here that knowledge arises from evidence. Everything you've posted since then has been a pretentious refusal to accept even a dictionary definition of the common vernacular you have put on the chopping black. All you've done so far is to glorify ignorance; you've made it abundantly clear you have no interest in trying to improve yourself to the minimum level of of competency in science that would be required to discredit science at large, its principal contributors, and those folks posting here who at least bothered to shake off the lazy funk you're in and develop their science skills.

As usual, you are labeling everyone who opposes you a troll. All while you are trolling your own thread. How predictable. Next time you go searching the site rules for random rules to throw at anyone who opposes you, be sure to actually read them and understand how they apply to you.

 

so do you have anything to offer to the sciforums community about the topic of this thread.
Do you have a better way of writing the OP [topic] so we can all share from you intellectual brilliance...

Opposition is great and indeed welcome but only provides benefit if it is rational and well supported....

 

"The pursuit of truth" is not what you mean to say, and on its own is nonsense.