Proposal: The Scientific Method is useless.

Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by scifes, Mar 12, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. scifes heckle the snobs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,561
    nope, this is different, coming from a moderator, a supposedly good one..

    but not as far as the participants and sci's administrator can tell.

    number of posts is as definitive as i can get, james didn't seem to mind it.

    so you didn't read this?
    you haven't yet given a viable reason to close it in the first place.
    still, now that GP has "agreed", it should reopened.
    :bugeye:
    it happens that i don't want to.
    i suggest you read the thread.
    mentioned;
    twice;


    i've written it in the proposal thread,
    then again in the debate thread you locked..
    would you like me to PM it to you, Hercules?

    for the definitions, you can check up a dictionary.
    for the scope of debate, i believe i mentioned it here;
    which you didn't like;
    to which i replied;


    the answer to that is hidden somewhere in the page long post #10.


    English, um fonts and sizes i'm not too picky with.
    anything more complicated than that i see unnecessary.


    bothered reading the OP?
    ummm.....yes?!
    i rather not.
    i would too, actually, i DID.
    yes, i know what you think. which is why i didn't challenge you to this debate.
    I'm sorry, but no smiley on the internet shows a laughing fit worthy of your sentence.
    as it stands, YOU are a big waste of time, and for wasting my time in quoting half the thread for you, i'm reporting you.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Bonne chance, la.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Well, this thread has all the hallmarks of a successful exercise so far.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    Here's what I can distil from scifes's proposal:

    Proposed debate topic: The scientific method is useless.
    For the affirmative: scifes
    For the negative: GeoffP, though this needs positive confirmation from GeoffP.

    Rules:
    1. Each debater will have 10 posts in total.
    2. Dictionary definitions of terms are acceptable as authoritative (by scifes).
    3. No time limit for responses or for the overall debate. (This is unacceptable. Debates must end at some point. Nobody wants to commit to an endless debate. Also, if there are no time limits on responses or the overall debate, there's no way to know if one side effectively abandons the debate. They might still, theoretically, come back in 10 years time and continue.)
    4. Supporting evidence for all arguments is required.

    What is needed to make this a viable debate are, at least:
    * Acceptance by GeoffP that he will participate.
    * A reasonable time limit either on the debate as a whole (after which the debate will be considered to automatically end), or on individual replies (for example, if no reply within 3 days, the non-replier is considered to have forfeited).
    * Acceptance by GeoffP of proposed rule 2, above.
    * A reasonable limit on post length (to prevent debaters deluging each other and general readers with cut-and-pastes from other web-sites, long lists of links, or large volumes of text that cannot be reasonably addressed in a reasonable period of time).
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,720

    Ah, I see. You would rather be a precocious twerp. Fine by me. I shall not be bothering to reopen the debate thread for you. If, for once, you can muster enough brain power to actually be succinct and specific in a single post, as opposed to your usual unintelligent meandering dross spread over multiple posts, then maybe you could convince another moderator to re-open it for you.
     
  8. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    I propose another rule. Scifes is not allowed to use any products of science to communicate his thoughts to the thread. He can pray, throw bones, make smoke signals or whatever, but using computers and the Internet, products of science, seems to defeat his proposition from the outset.
     
  9. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Nasty.

    James: agreed to his conditions, but extending his proposed rule 2 to "reasonable sources of authority" outside dictionaries alone. Three days to respond. Otherwise, fine, I'll do the debate.
     
  10. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
  11. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Actually I think the word "futile" will definitely feature in this debate.
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    Now we need scifes to accept a three-day time limit on posts. Once we have that, I'll reopen the debate thread.
     
  13. scifes heckle the snobs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,561
    agreed.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    Debate thread is now open: [thread]106965[/thread]
    Discussion thread is here: [thread]106991[/thread]
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page