First part of post: See former replies.

The middle of your post shows hows misinformed you insist on staying. You can't "prove naturalism wrong", it's a metaphysical assumption about the world.

In the the last part the real reason behind your arguments is finally clear. This was never really about what science is, it's about affirming your own beliefs. Which is bad form in science generally and a complete violation of the principles of empirical method. The irony is palpable.

Ok, then we're stuck on you having criteria that fail to show why ID isn't a 'scientific theory' and I'm using criteria that do that. I'm not sure any more how you make sense at all of the knowledge gained through the application of the Naturalistic paradigm since you don't think that Falsification is a criteria it's necessary for a 'theory' to meet and the supernatural can't be falsified, you must therefore be including the supernatural as something possible, and that completely undermines Naturalism. I don't see much difference between you and the 'scientists' promoting ID because you can't show why they're wrong to call ID scientific.


First of all, how can you, at this point in the conversation, think that I don't know what Naturalism is, and second, when did I say or intimate what you've quoted there? I'm utterly baffled by this paragraph, it's like you have amnesia or something.


I've actually lost count now of how many times I've told you that these aren't my criteria (I'm flattered though that you consider me smart enough to have developed them, or seen the need for them them). Also, you're now telling me what I think, something you strenuously objected to when you mistakenly thought I was doing that to you.

So, we have hypocrisy, vagary and a point blank refusal to remember things I've told you numerous times that I might even begin to consider verges on willful ignorance This conversation has become pointless. Disappointing.

I think the term conversation imply that you actually read my posts.

Please find the post where I have said a scientific theory can be non-empirical and quote it here.

You know that you not having read my posts properly would explain why you keep repeating the same inaccurate claims. I hadn't actually considered that.

Wut? Are you actually having a conversation with me?

I think we're done, I've had enough of this bouncing around all over the place trying to keep up with your non-sequiturs.

Well, since you've suddenly decided that your own tangent about scientific theory does not exist, I'll merely note that it is errors you keep making in your claims that have kept me in this conversation:



I've advised you to pick up a book on different methods of scientific research, and I still do. This one is a pretty decent: Research Methods: The Basics

It also looks as though you're not really up to being level-headed about this. I suggest you take a break if this discussion bothers you.

How about you let me know when you're up to being able to retain basic facts you've been given multiple times, stop repeating false claims (misinterpretations of my position that I've already corrected you on), stop posting complete non-sequiturs and are able to post without getting personal

In the meantime, you can continue this conversation that you appear to having with someone else, please don't let me interfere, it's fascinating.

Hey tame-deuces, we're kindred spirits on some level. I've been having this same experience with Mightyboosh in the other thread.

Everyone should "respect the tone" here because otherwise people might complain that MB is just trying to have a friendly conversation. I guess that means putting a smiley face on the end of statements.

It's unclear what MB means about "getting personal" other than "challenging things that he has personally said."

As I noted in the other thread, it seems that MB doesn't even thoroughly read his own posts, let alone anyone else's.

In fairness to MB, he doesn't have a background that trained him in rigorous thinking and communicating, so I do believe that he fails to say precisely what he means to say a lot of the time. That is, his words aren't actually that reliable of a source of information for what he thinks.

However, there's an element of this that goes beyond simply making mistakes. Mistakes by themselves are tolerable. They ought to be fixable. However, he has never been able to confront his own errors very well. It is extremely rare that he will admit an error. And this is where things just break down.

He conveys a willingness to learn, but does not demonstrate behaviors that reflect that willingness. Facts and truth seem to mean less to him than being right. And until that changes, conversations will continue to go in this direction.

The bottom line is this: what he thinks is that he's right. And no matter what he says, you're always the one who misinterpreted him, because he's the one who is right. You're the one who is taking him out of context, because he's right. And that's how he behaves in a lot of these threads.

I think it has an extra edge when it comes to those who are religious. His open disdain for religion and the consistent tactic of framing religious perspectives in the worst possible light, and very often going further to portray them in wholly inaccurate ways is simply a matter of course for him. You actually got a hint of that in the other thread, where he made the following declaration about the particular passage from the Bible (emphasis mine):

So regardless of what you tell him, you need to argue against the way that *HE* sees things. And even if you tell him that you don't see it that way, it literally makes no difference to him.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." - Hebrews 11:1 (KJV)