Refusal to Accept Conspiracy

Status
Not open for further replies.
stateofmind said:
And human beings were created by nature SO it is an inquiry into nature.
Click to expand...
Category error.
Or will you now claim that a Harrier is natural? Or the Eiffel tower?

If you aren't going to define the terms you're using for debate then the debate is useless...
Click to expand...
Oh my, you're blaming ME for not defining terms when YOU come to the debate uninformed? What a way to display your ignorance.
Have you ever bothered looking for a defintion?
Tried here or here?

I will have to assume you can't do it and will have to cease discussion with you.
Click to expand...
SO it's okay for me to assume you're clueless and like to debate what is and what isn't scientific without actually knowing what science is?
Suits me.

Oh yah, I forgot, humans don't occur in nature! What was I thinking!! LoL!!!
Click to expand...
That's correct. Skyscrapers and three-piece suits, Ferraris and submarines, PCs and penicillin. Everyone considers them as natural objects. How silly of me.

You are right about one thing though.
This conversation is a waste of time.
I hadn't previously realised you were quite so ignorant or obtuse.
 
Last edited:
LOL!! You can't just state the definition here simply. You have to refer to links with pages of content so that I have to assume for you!! You're a hack and you know it.

That's correct. Skyscrapers and three-piece suits, Ferraris and submarines, PCs and penicillin. Everyone considers them as natural objects. How silly of me.
Click to expand...

What part of any of this is made with a substance that is not found in nature?
 
You get the right bit from exactly what I expected from you: The first sentence; no more, no less. And I'm happy. Depending on this definition you found similarities with the police detective work. Go back and read our discussion: I only refer to this first sentence of definition, nothing else. And the core disagreement between you and me has been a single word: "nature", again nothing else.

Of course I will make comments on this "nature" depending upon my own understanding, isn't it what you asked for? Would you be happy if I found other links and reply your rebuttals with more and more links? I try to reply your objections with my own words (If I wasn't, believe me they would be grammatically better than what I submitted).

So, to summarize: This is the definition from Wikipedia and I stick to it:

"Science (from Latin: scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about nature and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories."
Click to expand...

Nothing more, nothing less. Yet, if you concentrate on any word in this definition specifically (such as "nature", "theory", "organizing", or anything else, I think you should expect me to come up with more definitions and more explanations; otherwise how can we be sure that we are talking about same concept?), you will expand the definition, you know that.

I simply claimed that the very word of "nature" doesn't fit your understanding of police detective work and you can find my arguments above.
 
Last edited:
stateofmind said:
LOL!! You can't just state the definition here simply.
Click to expand...
Asking for a simple defintion is ridiculous.
As is asking for MY definition. What makes you think my definition is different from the accepted one?

You have to refer to links with pages of content so that I have to assume for you!!
Click to expand...
And you appear to be so dishonest you haven't even bothered to look at those links - pages of content? One of them is the SciWiki - it's short and concise.

You're a hack and you know it.
Click to expand...
And you don't have a leg to stand on. Dishonest, ignorant and have to resort to "if you won't tell me this I'm not playing".

What part of any of this is made with a substance that is not found in nature?
Click to expand...
So you DO consider all of those to be "natural". Okay.

What an utter waste of time you are.
Goodbye.
 
Thank you Baftan for holding up your end of the bargain.

baftan said:
"Science (from Latin: scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about nature and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories."
Click to expand...

I assert that the nature of human affairs is a piece of "knowledge about nature". Do you object to this?
 
Dywyddyr said:
So you DO consider all of those to be "natural". Okay.

What an utter waste of time you are.
Goodbye.
Click to expand...

You're hilarious, honestly. I can't believe someone as "scientific" as you would claim that humans aren't natural (aren't of nature). That is as wild as the claims of Christianity!

edit:

And you don't have a leg to stand on. Dishonest, ignorant and have to resort to "if you won't tell me this I'm not playing".
Click to expand...

Asking for the definition of a term crucial to a discussion is "if you won't tell me this I'm not playing"?? Wow man... wow..
 
And now you resort to misrepesentation.
stateofmind said:
I can't believe someone as "scientific" as you would claim that humans aren't natural (aren't of nature).
Click to expand...
Is NOT what I claimed at all. Reported.

Asking for the definition of a term crucial to a discussion is "if you won't tell me this I'm not playing"?? Wow man... wow..
Click to expand...
No, you asked for a personal definition, and specifically stated you would not accept links. In addition to which you are, as stated, apparently unaware of the definition yourself.
 
Dywyddyr said:
And now you resort to misrepesentation.

Is NOT what I claimed at all. Reported.
Click to expand...

oOoO he's gonna report me!!! LoL!!


No, you asked for a personal definition, and specifically stated you would not accept links. In addition to which you are, as stated, apparently unaware of the definition yourself.
Click to expand...

You could have just copy and pasted all the relevant information from the article you were linking to THAT WAY I wouldn't have to assume what information you thought was relevant or not.
 
stateofmind said:
I assert that the nature of human affairs is a piece of "knowledge about nature". Do you object to this?
Click to expand...

Definitely and categorically I have an objection to this: Human affairs have nothing to do with nature: Take a conspiracy games (the main topic of this thread) between humans, take states/governments, take bureaucracy; or even better: take anything that would be looked like "natural" at first glance (such as eating, sheltering, communication, etc.). None of them, bar none is "natural" when it comes to "humans".

That's why science is extremely valuable when you compare it to other human affairs. Because of its methodology and working mechanisms, humans are irrelevant, even if the discipline of science itself has been constructed by humans, doesn't matter. That's why disregarding one's race, belief, background or any other humanly mumbo jumbo will not make any effect to the requirements and the expectations of a scientific study: Because it deals with non-human nature.

Even if science is experimenting on humans, trying to get information on how human body works, how neurons work etc. this is still somewhere out of "subjective human". In other way of saying this, even if science is trying to understand humans, they become a mammal, a living creature, a set of atoms depending upon sub-discipline. Human becomes an object.

This is how "nature" is evaluated when it comes to science.
 
baftan said:
Definitely and categorically I have an objection to this: Human affairs have nothing to do with nature: Take a conspiracy games (the main topic of this thread) between humans, take states/governments, take bureaucracy; or even better: take anything that would be looked like "natural" at first glance (such as eating, sheltering, communication, etc.). None of them, bar none is "natural" when it comes to "humans".

That's why science is extremely valuable when you compare it to other human affairs. Because of its methodology and working mechanisms, humans are irrelevant, even if the discipline of science itself has been constructed by humans, doesn't matter. That's why disregarding one's race, belief, background or any other humanly mumbo jumbo will not make any effect to the requirements and the expectations of a scientific study: Because it deals with non-human nature.

Even if science is experimenting on humans, trying to get information on how human body works, how neurons work etc. this is still somewhere out of "subjective human". In other way of saying this, even if science is trying to understand humans, they become a mammal, a live creature, a set of atoms depending upon sub-discipline. Human becomes an object.

This is how "nature" is evaluated when it comes to science.
Click to expand...

All good and well but I'm afraid it is YOU making the assumption that humans aren't natural,

therefore

the burden of proof is on you to show why you believe that.
 
stateofmind said:
All good and well but I'm afraid it is YOU making the assumption that humans aren't natural,

therefore

the burden of proof is on you to show why you believe that.
Click to expand...

Assumption? In order to be able to say that, you have to first define what natural is, secondly, find an human affair that fits your description of "natural". You are obviously confusing what human physical bodies are made of and originated (mammals, atoms, etc.) and human affairs that shape the civilisation, motives, each and every levels of interactions between human beings. Don't do this; don't try to equalise two utterly unrelated concepts: This only puts you further away from evaluating your subject topic.

And for some reason, I don't feel any "burden of proof" (and I take this in its philosophical meaning); because if take the legal meaning of burden of proof, in this case you would be the party who has the burden of proof as being the "claimant of the existence" of this supposed relationship (human affairs = natural ?). Because your claim depends on an assumed definition of "nature" (as well as human affairs/social relations).

You are free to choose among them. I believe my claim is clear, I repeat, show me a single Human Affair example which is remained "natural" and isolated from human social code of conducts (such as constructed language).
 
baftan said:
Assumption? In order to be able to say that, you have to first define what natural is, secondly, find an human affair that fits your description of "natural". You are obviously confusing what human physical bodies are made of and originated (mammals, atoms, etc.) and human affairs that shape the civilisation, motives, each and every levels of interactions between human beings. Don't do this; don't try to equalise two utterly unrelated concepts: This only puts you further away from evaluating your subject topic.

And for some reason, I don't feel any "burden of proof" (and I take this in its philosophical meaning); because if take the legal meaning of burden of proof, in this case you would be the party who has the burden of proof as being the "claimant of the existence" of this supposed relationship (human affairs = natural ?). Because your claim depends on an assumed definition of "nature" (as well as human affairs/social relations).

You are free to choose among them. I believe my claim is clear, I repeat, show me a single Human Affair example which is remained "natural" and isolated from human social code of conducts (such as constructed language).
Click to expand...

You're mistaken. I'm making less assumptions than you are here - FACT. I assume everything that is born from nature is natural. You assume it is not. Where's your proof?
 
stateofmind said:
You're mistaken. I'm making less assumptions than you are here - FACT. I assume everything that is born from nature is natural. You assume it is not. Where's your proof?
Click to expand...

Since you've been asking questions and not taking (or maybe even not reading, I don't know this bit) any answer seriously;

Since you are submitted different definitions, explanations and ideas depending upon your questions, yet didn't discuss any of them;

I think you deserve to be reported.

Good luck...
 
Last edited:
baftan said:
Since you've been asking questions and not taking (or maybe even not reading, I don't know this bit) any answer seriously;

Since you are submitted different definitions, explanations and ideas depending upon your questions, yet didn't discuss any of them;

I think you deserve to be reported.

Good luck...
Click to expand...

Yay! I win!! :D
 
Now to bring this all back home...

Since human affairs can be categorized in "knowledge about nature" and since conspiracies fall into the category of human affairs, conspiracies are indeed within the realm of science,

therefore

Baftan's claim that "Both cases can not be subject to science for a good reason: Science simply doesn't deal with social pissing contest between humans"

is false according to Wikipedia's definition of "science".
 
baftan said:
It's obvious you didn't understand a single sentence of it. So it's not your cup of tea.
Click to expand...

Unsubstantiated utter nonsense! <--- Hey I like this style of replying! It's really easy!!! I don't even have to think!! LoL!!!!!!

I'll assume that you're not addressing my syllogism because you can't put a dent in it... Can't say I blame you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top