@hanzO
@Ray
@ImmortalCow
It would appear the "less optimistic" posters in this forum seem to look in a very short sighted view with less actual facts to back their opinion.
@LaNoir
Please look up facts to support your opinion. I've said it before and I'll say it again, nobody is going to care about what you have to say unless you support it. It's when you ask a racist why they are racist, they usually reply with an answer like "Because they're a dirty *fill in the blank*".
How am I even supposed to see their point of view with a meaningless answer like that? I am not advocating racism of course, but hopefully you see my point. The three above have given you supported opinions and ideology, and you've shot each of them down with answers essentially saying, "no, I disagree because thats the way it is." We argue to show others our points and hopefully persuade them to your way of thinking. You do this through support and support is provided by theory and fact. You sir have provided neither. Please continue your arguement with what I have said in mind. It will help get your point acrossed and us to understand your view.
-I hopefully will not have to make a post like this again XD
@Ray
@ImmortalCow
It would appear the "less optimistic" posters in this forum seem to look in a very short sighted view with less actual facts to back their opinion.
@LaNoir
Please look up facts to support your opinion. I've said it before and I'll say it again, nobody is going to care about what you have to say unless you support it. It's when you ask a racist why they are racist, they usually reply with an answer like "Because they're a dirty *fill in the blank*".
How am I even supposed to see their point of view with a meaningless answer like that? I am not advocating racism of course, but hopefully you see my point. The three above have given you supported opinions and ideology, and you've shot each of them down with answers essentially saying, "no, I disagree because thats the way it is." We argue to show others our points and hopefully persuade them to your way of thinking. You do this through support and support is provided by theory and fact. You sir have provided neither. Please continue your arguement with what I have said in mind. It will help get your point acrossed and us to understand your view.
-I hopefully will not have to make a post like this again XD
Last edited by Kidflash13; Feb 26, 2013 at 05:08 PM.
"And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -Friedrich Nietzsche
Originally Posted by hanz0
Except not really.
Do you honestly think that real scientists have every little factoid about the systems they study memorized? No, great scientists are great because they're capable of processing and applying concepts in novel ways, not because they can vomit up words and numbers on command.
I don't bother memorizing minutiae because it reflects nothing about my ability to do anything worthwhile, as I've already said. If preferring to actually know science (Hey, did you know that I actually work in a biochemistry lab? Did you also know that not once have I been asked to memorize and then regurgitate a bunch of information? Instead, I have to do this weird thing called "analysis." It doesn't involve any rote memorization, and clearly that means it's not real learning!) makes me lazy, then so be it.
Wasn't talking to you, Hanzo. I'm sure you aren't a lazy person, not even close. I just quoted a part of your post.
Maybe scientists don't memorize everything, but first they must know what they are talking about. that implies retaining certain infromation that they only learn from memorization, then from that memorization part they can "unfold" the information they need to apply it in novel ways. Now, let's say that you're in charge to write a book/page about science. if you don't memorize certain information, how do you apply it if you don't know what you're talking about? ... yeah, you could take a specialized book to back you up, but, if you don't have the chance to take a specialized book?
Just imagine a world without "memorization"... how you can say that a primordial thing like "memorization" is useless?
Originally Posted by Ray
The Agricultural Revolution has not been noticed by nomadic tribes living in Africa. Teleportation/ Flying cars will not be noticed by everyone, much less be afforded by people other than say billionaires.
This has a very simple answer. the Agricultural Revolution has not been noticed by nomadic tribes in Africa because they just can't know about "modern" matters because they don't have the accessibility to the new communication systems. unlike them, we would know about teleportation and flying cars because that information would be eventually spreaded out by the massive communication systems. there'll be always someone who leaks information to the world by the massive communication systems.
Originally Posted by Kidflash13
@hanzO
@Ray
@ImmortalCow
It would appear the "less optimistic" posters in this forum seem to look in a very short sighted view with less actual facts to back their opinion.
@LaNoir
Please look up facts to support your opinion. I've said it before and I'll say it again, nobody is going to care about what you have to say unless you support it. It's when you ask a racist why they are racist, they usually reply with an answer like "Because they're a dirty *fill in the blank*".
How am I even supposed to see their point of view with a meaningless answer like that? I am not advocating racism of course, but hopefully you see my point. The three above have given you supported opinions and ideology, and you've shot each of them down with answers essentially saying, "no, I disagree because thats the way it is." We argue to show others our points and hopefully persuade them to your way of thinking. You do this through support and support is provided by theory and fact. You sir have provided neither. Please continue your arguement with what I have said in mind. It will help get your point acrossed and us to understand your view.
-I hopefully will not have to make a post like this again XD
At first I thought that you were just supporting healthy arguing but it seems to be nothing less than elitism, scientists predictions and theories are not law nor to automatically be accepted as truth. Saying that it's more inclined to be believed is nothing more than your own personal choice, when the future is concerned there is no predictions only guesses.
No matter how well a research may be going there are things that can't be predicted, do I need to cite this as well?. All of your support is just why you believe what you believe which is fine, but it does not take away from anyone else's validity of their argument or opinion just because you found some article that you agree with. So regardless of who says what it's on equal terms (unless it's overly eccentric, stupid or directly dis-proven), which when the discussion is about something that hasn't happened yet can't be done.
Yes scientists words have more weight in their own respective field, but just because they have a degree in it does not mean that they are all knowing when it comes to the future or even the current state of their field. People don't need to degree's to form a hypothesis all that's needed is a proper grasp of the topic. For example I don't need to be a author to say that this would probably make a good story.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemis.../lawtheory.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction
http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13016/
http://listverse.com/2007/10/28/top-...y-predictions/
Also about the teen mom thing, I wasn't saying that, that is what teenagers are in actuality. It was a reference to morals going to hell considering such an absurd thing is so successful, supported and enthused by the mass.
Originally Posted by AzureMage
At first I thought that you were just supporting healthy arguing but it seems to be nothing less than elitism, scientists predictions and theories are not law nor to automatically be accepted as truth. Saying that it's more inclined to be believed is nothing more than your own personal choice, when the future is concerned there is no predictions only guesses.
No matter how well a research may be going there are things that can't be predicted, do I need to cite this as well?. All of your support is just why you believe what you believe which is fine, but it does not take away from anyone else's validity of their argument or opinion just because you found some article that you agree with. So regardless of who says what it's on equal terms (unless it's overly eccentric, stupid or directly dis-proven), which when the discussion is about something that hasn't happened yet can't be done.
Yes scientists words have more weight in their own respective field, but just because they have a degree in it does not mean that they are all knowing when it comes to the future or even the current state of their field. People don't need to degree's to form a hypothesis all that's needed is a proper grasp of the topic. For example I don't need to be a author to say that this would probably make a good story.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemis.../lawtheory.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction
http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13016/
http://listverse.com/2007/10/28/top-...y-predictions/
Also about the teen mom thing, I wasn't saying that, that is what teenagers are in actuality. It was a reference to morals going to hell considering such an absurd thing is so successful, supported and enthused by the mass.
I think you take me too literally. My previous comment was exclusively for LaNoir. On top of that, when I mention to look up facts and support I do not mean go find articles that agree with your point of view. I mean to look up things that support your point. I believe in 60 years the world as we know it will change drastically. That is my opinion. LaNoir challenged it by saying it wont. I then linked him to an article stalking about how America plans to launch thousands of drones to patrol the skies of the country. This bill is to be implemented in 2015 or so. Thats not very far away as you have noticed. I didn't find an article saying I'm right, I went to link him to one of my reasons I believe what I think.
Now you don't need to tell my how to form an opinion and how predictions are ultimately unpredictable. I know this and the sky is blue. I'm sorry you interpreted my comments to LaNoir as "elitist" but what I believe is you can't have a rational opinion if you have nothing to base it on. Do you need articles to have a base? Fuck no. You need to state your reasons and why you think that way (obviously). Most of some people's problem with having a healthy debate is the inability to state their opinion and the reason why they think that way. If you can't put in to words then you just come off like an idiot.
You've done a pretty good job debating and I commend you for it. When I replied to you originally it was due to you saying that this was an opinion forum and you could think and say whatever you please, which is true to some extent. However, just to say "thats what I think and you are wrong" is ridiculous. It's always hard for people to see your point of view when you don't have any SUPPORT and sometimes facts/EVIDENCE on your side.
P.s.
All the predictions in the link below that AzureMage provided just further support my point about the advancement of technology.
http://listverse.com/2007/10/28/top-...y-predictions/
P.s.s.
All the other articles are what I have been saying the whole time... Opinions and theories are based on evidence/fact, but can often if not ALWAYS be disproven!
Last edited by Kidflash13; Feb 26, 2013 at 10:38 PM.
"And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -Friedrich Nietzsche
