Broad strokes guy. I'm trying not to confuse people who aren't that familiar with methodology.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Broad strokes guy. I'm trying not to confuse people who aren't that familiar with methodology.I know what you mean, but that's not strictly true; the hypothesis or theory is formulated to explain some observations (which you could call evidence), but then you have to look for evidence to support it or confirm its predictions.
It's the evidence that quantum mechanics and General Relativity, while both correct in their relevant domains, do not play nice together, suggesting that a theory of quantum gravity may be necessary to integrate them. String theory is an attempt to construct a theory that includes quantum gravity (and provides a complete and consistent theory of the structure of the universe, a 'Theory of Everything'). Ambitious perhaps, but who knows?Not necessarily. What's the "prior evidence" that supports string theory?
Fair enough, within reasonable limitsBroad strokes guy. I'm trying not to confuse people who aren't that familiar with methodology.
It's the evidence that quantum mechanics and General Relativity, while both correct in their relevant domains, do not play nice together,
suggesting that a theory of quantum gravity may be necessary to integrate them.
String theory is an attempt to construct a theory that includes quantum gravity (and provides a complete and consistent theory of the structure of the universe, a 'Theory of Everything'). Ambitious perhaps, but who knows?
It's the evidence that quantum mechanics and General Relativity, while both correct in their relevant domains, do not play nice together, suggesting that a theory of quantum gravity may be necessary to integrate them.
That would be the worst. Life changing information missed because someone put on the wrong trousers!..."Wow! Show me,please?"
"Nah, I left it in my other pants.....
I'd like to know which specific chemical processes he believes gives rise to awareness in something like a slime mold, which is apparently capable of making "intelligent" choices.
https://phys.org/news/2016-06-slime-mold-insight-intelligence-neuron-less.html
The only one vehemently arguing from incredulity in this matter is you.If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present it. But argument from incredulity is not evidence.
The only arguing from incredulity in this matter is you.
Funny how this modus operandi fits right in with the description.Why do you assume? Beyond claims of "it's obvious" where's the proof?
Er, who says that they *have* to play "nice" together?
Even that doesn't *necessitate* string theory.
But you made a *gigantic* leap of faith between a desire for a quantum definition of gravity, to a theory that requires "faith" in multiple extra dimensions of spacetime! Holy smokes! Talk about a giant leap of faith!
How did you expect to falsify that idea, and or what are it's *unique* "predictions"? Did you "cheat first" by using "observation" to create "predictions", or did the predictions just naturally fall out of it? Hint: I already know that string theory can be made to do almost anything and everything you might wish it to do with all those extra dimensions of spacetime.
Funny how this modus operandi fits right in with the description.
Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia
That's why I don't respond to Radrook: he's already admitted to not being able to explain some of the things he links to.You know, if I was trying to convince someone they were wrong, and I had evidence, you wouldn't have to work this hard to get me to show it. But these guys, every time. "I have evidence that proves ID (or creationism) is right and evolution is wrong"
"Wow! Show me,please?"
"Nah, I left it in my other pants. AND YOU'RE A BAD PERSON FOR ASKING! You don't believe in it, so I'm not going to show you!"
Well, you honestly admitted that you don't consider anything which is part of nature as capable of displaying intelligent design.
But they don't build brains do they?
It is nonsensical to say that chemicals build brains all by themselves without anyone having arranged the sequences which lead to the formation of a brain.
I was trying to give him a fair chance. If someone claims to have evidence of ID, I'll always take their claim in good faith and ask them to show it. I try to treat others as I'd want to be treated in the circumstance that I had extraordinary evidence.That's why I don't respond to Radrook: he's already admitted to not being able to explain some of the things he links to.
When'd I do that? Do you know what "an argument from incredulity" is? I don't think I've made an argument, vehemently or otherwise. Mostly I've just asked for evidence that you said exists, but you have so far failed to provide.The only one vehemently arguing from incredulity in this matter is you.
When'd I do that? Do you know what "an argument from incredulity" is? I don't think I've made an argument, vehemently or otherwise. Mostly I've just asked for evidence that you said exists, but you have so far failed to provide.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?