Why should I believe you?

Deleted

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

constructive critisism is welcome it aids the learning process, being called names and nothing more than that only discredits and invalidates the person being insulting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

excellent!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The onus would be on the individual to discern for themselves based on the experimental evidence at hand and their ability to understand the evidence and what it supports.

For example, if we delved into the topic of the speed of light and I claimed the speed of light was infinite. You could simply believe that or look into the experimental evidence yourself, which you'd find it is not infinite but actually has a finite speed, one that has been quite accurately measured.

Again, experimental evidence, usually coupled with mathematics depending on the criteria, would validate the contribution. Ones' say-so or credentials is simply not enough. There are a number of well respected scientists who came up with some very credible theories, yet those same scientists have also contributed complete nonsense, refuted through the peer-review process. Some of the scientists continue to cling to those nonsense theories and have aptly been called kooks, regardless of their prior contributions.

If it's more important for you to judge a persons contribution based on how nice they are, you'll be buying swampland in Florida.

Swampland, anyone?

There are courses in critical thinking skills, that would be an excellent start. Of course, if you believe in things that have never been shown to exist, ie. supernatural forces, then you're starting from false pretenses.

For example, a perfect scenario in your case would be to research the forces you've claimed existed on other threads. Apply critical thinking and do the research. You may find that your claims are either valid or not.

One could easily roll-over and believe in your claims to those forces, but instead, those claims will most likely be highly scrutinized. If all you offer is your say-so that those forces exist, then blind faith is all that's left.

 

In most cases, constructive criticism has been offered, it's when the person continues to cling to their claims while ignoring the criticism is when the insults begin to fly.

 

cool your contribution is very valid thank you, you perfectly demonstrate in your post above by what I mean by someone who is so offensive in their style of writing that any shred of relevance to the topic or actual knolwedge is lost as the whole post is desregarded as not worth spit.

 

Your point is worth spit.
If you do not want to be called stupid, I suggest using logic instead of fallacy to prove your points.

 

I remember of some statistic that suggested that Professionals only have up to 5% less chance of getting something wrong in comparison to people that just work in their profession.


As mentioned in other threads though, Nobody should class one source as the absolute truth, science is by nature about making sure that collaberating evidence is collected before defining an outcome.

 

Good point

and yes please

actually its not about how nice they are, there are many on here that are not nice to me such as Invert, but generally I trust his view as he demonstrates no agenda, is impartial, has no bias, cannot be easily influenced, is not afriad to go against the in crowd and seems to know what he is talking about etc.

You can never be the authority on someones personal esperience Q, you need to learn to live with that knowledge.

 

florida swampland is extremely valuable, as most of it is federally protected.

i wont be buying any soon though...i am poor.

 

see I know a good thing when i hear it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thank you.

Sometimes he does know what he's talking about, sometimes he doesn't.

I've never attempted to be an authority on someones personal experiences, I only question those experiences. Usually though, they are followed by an explanation that can't be distinguished from their imaginations.

And since it appears that you're handing out advice, I'll toss out some myself for you.

If you sincerely wish to understand how things work, in other words, get credible answers to your questions, you'll need to drop those false premises about personal experiences and instead use critical thinking to really try and establish whether they are experiences that can be distinguished from your imagination.

But, if you insist on continuing to provide little more than "whacked-out" ideas, then no one will ever acknowledge your sincerity.

I'm not asking you to think like I think or how someone else thinks, just apply those thinking skills to the topics you wish to understand.

 

Deleted

 

Understood, I've been on science boards so long, I make the assumption eveyone else already knows who the kooks are and the flaws they support.

 

I think it'd be really cool if ToR & Q could reconcile.

 

That was not the intent. Perhaps it was badly worded.

 

It has already been stated over and over that this has no relevance to the validity of any statement made.
You are not logical because you base fact on fiction.
You cannot judge fact based on performance record. Only an idiot would give this the slightest bit of consideration. This is not judging. This is prejudging.
An individual's performance record, conduct. or behavior has 100% 0 whatsoever effect on whether a statement they make is fact or fiction.
You are therefore, not operating off of logic, but of extreme ignorance.

 

That's all you're capable of doing, isn't it boy?
You say the same thing over and over without regard to whatever anyone else says, demonstrates, or shows you, without offering any evidence to defend your position.

Your only defense is a solid mantra of "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right."