Alright.

I'm still here.

Not to dredge it up again, but I finally found the word I needed in that discussion before: Falsifiable. More or less my favorite concept of science.

Also, ice cream. Ice cream kicks ass. If we all just when out for ice cream instead of going to war, things would be a lot more delicious.

I dunno, I did unarmed. I can't imagine that adding swords to my arsenal would make it more challenging.

Also, punching a dragon in the face is the pinnacle of manliness, even especially if your a woman.

...


Crap. I was hoping for a ES6 down the line. it probably would have gone to the southwest, and I really wanted to murder more snobby elves.

That is a dismissal of ovi's actual (better stated than mine*) point. You replacing it with an imaginary one (appeal to authority, in this case.) he didn't even slightly suggest.

Neither will I accept the smiley face meaning your just being all tongue and cheek or something, because thats such a lame ass way of avoiding accountability for the things you say.


*I think i'll just stick to picking at other peoples arguements because i'm not great at organizing my own. Do we have a debate thread? I love this stuff. 3 years eating lunch with a creationist and now I can't stop. Wow i've posted more this week than the past several months.

OK. people "seeing" "ghosts" is an observation of a sort. Fair enough. People believing in ghosts is nothing though.

And It still goes before the question, I think. you have no reason to ask if ghosts are real until after people start seeing ghosts.

Still no biological mechanism for dead bodies to leave behind ghosts, as far as I know. Though it might be possible for something to have that kind of ability (speculatively, in another universe), nothing actually does.

also, brandon, I still think were basically on the same page, I'm just not very good at communicating myself so I sound messy sometimes.

anyone else have anything to say about ghosts or can we move on? I don't think we have a problem, I'm just curious.

I love debate and I love science. that makes this a good week for me.

---

A fleet of gravity controling ham sandwiches patrol the galaxy in their atmosphere-tangling trees. This, too cannot ever be really disproven because they could just be hiding somewhere we can't find them. So naturaly we should consider this a viable possibility for the origion of the laws of physics.


No. it's pointless to consider if they exist until you make some kind of observation suggesting they do.

Hydro...

my entire rant was about how that kind of thinking is a fallacy. Not being disproved does not make it suddenly on the table for being considered. You have to have actual evidence.


SCIENCE is more like this:
First, one observes. then, they may form a hypothesis based on those observations. then they perform experiments relating to these hyphothesese, and draw conclusion based on their results. And then you repeat this process as many times as you can to improve your understanding.

You are skipping the first step. You have to start from the point of nothing.


Also, my philosphy: Whatever floats your boat. just dont sink anybody elses. And try not to be a dick about it.