Trippy, thank you for moving paddoboy's Thread : "Objectivity in Science - Subjectivity on SciForums", to the Cesspool.
it was oozing with sarcasm emnos.
I "noticed it' when Post #2 "appeared".dmoe apparently knew the thread closure was coming, he noticed it when certain posts started appearing.
Personally, I, dmoe, know that nothing, other than "Objective Observations" and Earnest Honesty, should ever be a part of any serious discussion.leopold said:as for the OP, yes, i believe that most observations made in the hard science section should be objective.
Personally, I, dmoe, know that nothing, other than "Objective Observations" and Earnest Honesty, should ever be a part of any serious discussion.
to be fair dmoe, you must admit that quite a few threads wonder all over the place.@ leopold
@ Enmos
Sorry, but there was no "sarcasm" in my Post.
I, dmoe, Posted the OP : "Objectivity in Science - Subjectivity on SciForums", my Post #1.
I "noticed it' when Post #2 "appeared".
paddoboy applied...whatever it is(?)...that paddoboy does on SciForums(?)...and "morphed it into" just another Thread full of...whatever it is(?)...that paddoboy does on SciForums(?)...
one of the mods probably got a PM or reported post suggesting the thread was "anti science"I tried to keep the Thread going - a few Members seemed to think that it was a good Topic for an Intelligent Discussion - but...
uh, well, i dunno, maybe.leopold, Enmos, when Trippy moved the Thread to "The Cesspool", I honestly appreciated his "applied Moderator action".
So...I, dmoe, intended no "sarcasm".
yes, i agree.leopold, well...I can only refer you to what you stated in your Post #11 of that Thread :
Personally, I, dmoe, know that nothing, other than "Objective Observations" and Earnest Honesty, should ever be a part of any serious discussion.
To be fair and honest, leopold, you must admit that quite a few threads, about anything, wonder all over the place when paddoboy joins them, bringing only his own Subjectivity.to be fair dmoe, you must admit that quite a few threads wonder all over the place.
and especially about subjectivity?
There was no need for any PM, paddoboy states this in his Post #2 :one of the mods probably got a PM or reported post suggesting the thread was "anti science"
paddoboy said:No one needs be a "suckhole" to or for mainstream science methodology, and peer review, but we should all ask, why do these proven methods and reviews, cop the flak that they do from the anti brigade.
The answer of course is obvious.
Hope that helps.
I, dmoe, have no "beef" with anyone.uh, well, i dunno, maybe.
it seems you and trippy had some sort of beef going on.
There is a lot of truth in your ^^above quoted^^ leopold, there is no denying that!yes, i agree.
but, like everything else in life there's a problem.
humanity.
you can't relate ANYTHING without it.
the ONLY thing guaranteed from a human is that one of these days they will fall over dead.
Trippy and paddoboy both have, in numerous Threads, blatantly stated that their multiple "beefs" with me, dmoe.
leopold, objectivity is as easy, you do not have to add anything into the observation.
Whereas, subjectivity requires the addition of biases, prejudices, memories...etc., which distorts any observation.
why worry about a cheerleader?To be fair and honest, leopold, you must admit that quite a few threads, about anything, wonder all over the place when paddoboy joins them, bringing only his own Subjectivity.
yes, there was no need, but that doesn't stop anybody.There was no need for any PM, paddoboy states this in his Post #2 :
you worry too much about paddoboy, way too much.I, dmoe, have no "beef" with anyone.
Trippy and paddoboy both have, in numerous Threads, blatantly stated that their multiple "beefs" with me, dmoe.
cultural bias is something that AUTOMATICALLY comes across, it isn't deliberately added.Whereas, subjectivity requires the addition of biases, prejudices, memories...etc., which distorts any observation.
And yet, when I gave you the opportunity to discuss objectivism versus subjectivism, and whether or not true objectivism is even possible, using real examples,
I followed these "Sciforums - Rules, posting guidelines and advice to members (summary)" : http://www.sciforums.com/announcement.php?f=30you chose to ignore that opportunity
sciforums.com/announcement said:Warning: Do not feed the trolls! Do not reply to inflammatory posts or threads and do not reply to insults. Hit the ‘report’ button on the relevant post(s) and let the moderators deal with the matter.
The ^^above quoted^^ appears to be an example of an "ad hominem attack".you chose to ignore that opportunity in favour of persecuting whatever this grudge is that you have with paddoboy.
sciforums.com/announcement said:Netiquette : Do not engage in ad hominem attacks (i.e. attack the argument, not the person).
...
I. Unacceptable behaviour that may result in a temporary or permanent ban :
Personal attacks, threats and stalking
2. A personal attack on another member usually involves the word ‘you’, express or implied by context, combined with a negative comment. Attacks on another member (known as ad hominem attacks), as opposed to criticisms of his or her arguments, are not tolerated. Childish name-calling, such as referring to a member as a ‘moron’, ‘twit’, or ‘idiot’, is one obvious example of a personal attack.
3. Any member who threatens another member will under most circumstances be banned from sciforums.
4. Stalking behaviour, in which a member makes a point of regularly posting contrary comments in many threads started by a particular member, will be treated as harassment and is likely to lead to a ban.
This is a demonstrable lie.dmoe said:Trippy and paddoboy both have, in numerous Threads, blatantly stated that their multiple "beefs" with me, dmoe.
. . . aren't chiseled in stone.. . .Sciforums - Rules . . .
On the one hand I was arguing based on the definitions you provided, and I made no assertions, I asked a question and gave some examples. The portion you're citing still only forms one part of my post.Trippy, are you perhaps referring to your Post #53, of the "Objectivity in Science - Subjectivity on SciForums" Thread?
- : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ty-in-Science-Subjectivity-on-SciForums/page3
You appeared to be "arguing" that some people inherited a "Red/Green Color Vision Deficiency", and would therefore not be able to perceive the color red.
So the definition of Objective : “of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.”, could therefore never be accepted, because some Observers cannot perceive the color red.
Trippy, that is what is known as presenting a "Logical Fallacy". Possibly an "Argument from authority", or "Ad hoc reasoning', or a "Straw man", or "Post hoc ergo propter hoc", or a "Non sequitur".
See : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?108089-Logical-Fallacies
I followed these "Sciforums - Rules, posting guidelines and advice to members (summary)" : http://www.sciforums.com/announcement.php?f=30
No, it's an observation of your behaviour. An ad-hominem attack would be "We should ignore what DMOE has to say because of his grudg with paddoboy."The ^^above quoted^^ appears to be an example of an "ad hominem attack".
Trippy, would you please explain exactly what you mean by stating : "This is a demonstrable lie." ?
This is a demonstrable lie.dmoe said:Trippy and paddoboy both have, in numerous Threads, blatantly stated that their multiple "beefs" with me, dmoe.
dmoe said:Trippy, would you please explain exactly what you mean by stating : "This is a demonstrable lie." ?
I think the sentence is fairly self explanatory.
- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demonstrablemerriam-webster.com said:demonstrable - adjective :
: able to be proven or shown : possible to demonstrate
1 : capable of being demonstrated
2 : apparent, evident
- Synonyms : checkable, confirmable, verifiable, empirical (also empiric), provable, supportable, sustainable
- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/demonstrablemerriam-webster.com said:demonstrable - adjective :
capable of being proven as true or real
<as a serious scientist, she is only interested in demonstrable phenomena>
Trippy, are you stating that you are capable of proving that my Statement, ^^quoted above^^, is a lie?dmoe said:Trippy and paddoboy both have, in numerous Threads, blatantly stated that their multiple "beefs" with me, dmoe.
Trippy, are you stating that you are capable of proving that my Statement, ^^quoted above^^, is a lie?
- Evidence : paddoboy's Post #8 :I don't have a beef with you...100% certain.
As I have shown you, that is just wrong.Personally, I, dmoe, know that nothing, other than "Objective Observations" and Earnest Honesty, should ever be a part of any serious discussion.
So...paddoboy, you "don't have a beef with" me, dmoe, "100% certain."...Not necessarilly.leopold, objectivity is as easy, you do not have to add anything into the observation.
Whereas, subjectivity requires the addition of biases, prejudices, memories...etc., which distorts any observation.
Subjectivity with all its shortcomings, and despite your subjective opinions, is and always will be a part of science, as I have shown in post 8.
That is an objective fact.
He has stated that.Trippy does not have a beef with you:
paddoboy, would you be so kind as to Present the alleged "posted evidence"?But going on posted evidence, the reverse with regards to yourself is questionable.
So...paddoboy, you NOW see it as necessary?I was going to stay out of this thread, but I now see it as necessary
- I cannot comment on the ^^above quoted^^.to back Trippy, the same Trippy that has moderated me on two occasions, and which I accepted like a man, despite believing I was goaded into my indiscretions.
I also apologise to the forum in general for the actions of a couple here, that do seem to have a grudge for reasons known to themselves, and the petty waste of bandwidth and threads over personal nonsense.