indignation (skinwalker)

[superluminal]

oh
i encountered you

Zing!

 

[leopold]

Oh, balderdash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

It's long and involved, but there are a number of theories under investigation. It is almost certainly a combination of the three listed.

this attempts to explain how, not the why.
i especially like the part where the piece states the placebo effect isn't actually real. that's just plain BS.

 

[superluminal]

this attempts to explain how, not the why.
i especially like the part where the piece states the placebo effect isn't actually real. that's just plain BS.

What does "why" have to do with it?

And I missed the part about it not being real.

 

[Gustav]

Zing!

i just realized i can spin this
to your detriment that is
but then you will hate me
i do not like that

 

[leopold]

What does "why" have to do with it?

of course you will question the "why" because you are an atheist.

science cannot possibly explain the reason for the placebo effect.
faith based "dogma" can.

 

[superluminal]

i just realized i can spin this
to your detriment that is
but then you will hate me
i do not like that

You give yourself too much importance G. Imagine me laughing at anything you could possibly do, and me dwelling on it for no more than one second befor forgetting you completely.

 

[superluminal]

of course you will question the "why" because you are an atheist.

For the most part, true.

Why's are things generally reserved for humans and chickens:

"Why did you just slap me honey?"

or

"Why did the chicken cross the road?"

But ultimately, the why of things is fairly useless. Why do electrons have a negative charge? Theoretically interesting.

 

[Gustav]

Imagine me laughing at anything you could possibly do, and me dwelling on it for no more than one second befor forgetting you completely.

that too

 

[leopold]

But ultimately, the why of things is fairly useless.

i agree.
why a non medical procedure would cure you is irrelevant.
why will a dye make warts disappear?

yes, why is fairly useless.

 

[outlandish]

while ben loves looking like a fool when he ventures out into the wild, the above is a theistic troll.

how so?

the expectation of the omniscient human
the subsequent discovery of fallibility
the substitution of human by god
and the retention of omniscience

this is a seperate matter.
relevance?
to?

conclusive? exact?? this demand is so mind blowing in its arrogance and spitefulness, i would like it if wraith just dropped dead

like a doornail
annnnd whatnot

you spinless wretch.
you have something to say gus, then just come out and say it.
you've suddenly felt the urge to start yanking my chain.
i don't know why.
start talking.

 

[Gustav]

how so?

the expectation of the omniscient human
the subsequent discovery of fallibility
the substitution of human by god
and the retention of omniscience

relevance?
to?

how so?

/pleased

 

[outlandish]

you missed this in your copy/paste session:

you spinless wretch.
you have something to say gus, then just come out and say it.
you've suddenly felt the urge to start yanking my chain.
i don't know why.
start talking.

 

[Gustav]

nah
breaks the loopback

 

[Gustav]

lemme refine....

how so?

the expectation of the omniscient human
the subsequent discovery of fallibility
the substitution of human by god
and the retention of omniscience

relevance?
to?

how so?

the expectation of the omniscient human
the subsequent discovery of fallibility
the substitution of human by god
and the retention of omniscience

relevance?
to?

how so?

the expectation of the omniscient human
the subsequent discovery of fallibility
the substitution of human by god
and the retention of omniscience

relevance?
to?

how so?

the expectation of the omniscient human
the subsequent discovery of fallibility
the substitution of human by god
and the retention of omniscience

relevance?
to?

how so?

the expectation of the omniscient human
the subsequent discovery of fallibility
the substitution of human by god
and the retention of omniscience

relevance?
to?

 

[Hipparchia]

it is a theory, the clue's in the name.
you would have to posess monumental amounts of beligerence to argue the big bang thoery is not a theory.
and to be deluded that this equates to conclusive knowledge is indicitative of the arrogance of scientists.
.

Hi, Outlandish. Somehow I missed your reply when you made it. My apologies for that.
I don't know of any scientist who would argue that the Big Bang Theory is not a theory. Why do you think that even merits a mention?
Equally, I know of no scientist who would equate this with conclusive knowledge. In science all knowledge is provisional. Some knowledge, like the idea the Earth moves round the sun is so well established as to be accepted as scientific fact. But all it would take would be a single piece of contrary evidence to call this into question.
The BB Theory is not quite as well established as heliocentrism, but there is a vast body of work and much evidence supporting it. As I noted before if you refer to it as just a theory , you reveal that you don't understand the principles of science very well.
I have no wish to fall out with you outlandish, but on the face of it the arrogance and belligerence you ascribe to scientists seems to be more evident in your view of science. Perhaps you could remove this impression by taking a moment to explain what alternative methods you recommend for acquiring knowledge, other than the scientific method.