Apparently science has debunked vampires, ghosts and zombies with its swift hand of observation. I don't know if I should laugh or get angry at the presumtion. Are these people complete anti-social freaks? I mean, one of them even said:
quote:"There are things that we need to point out that are crap," Park said.
It's gotten so bad, Park has a hard time watching movies these days. . .
Now, I admit that I am not sure if the above quote's context is the amount of non-scientific representations or social acceptance of the supernatural. Even so, I think this is more of a sad commentary of elitist attitudes of scientists than a negative of the debunked subjects.
It isn't because I actually believe in Vampires or Zombies (although I do believe in ghosts). Rather, if the scientific evaluations are true than they are picking on straw men. It is obvious to those who study such things that the quoted scientists have no concept of the actual myths. They have looked at the most obvious and surface ideas about the subjects and debunked them. However, for those who know a lot more about the myths than what is shown in movies realize they haven't even touched them.
My point is, I suppose, that I am tired of scientists taking pot shots at things they don't actually understand. They make the most basic and rudementary scientific evaluations and act as if the cases are solved. Yet, anyone who is at all familiar with those things they are so quick to disregard know there is more to it than the simple conclusions. More importantly (even if they are right) they need to get a life and get over themselves. It is reports like this and people like the quoted that gives scientists a bad name in "public" society.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Does everyone who dies by the fang of a vampire become a vampire?
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
I thought you only became a vampire if you drank the vampire's blood. That blood in your veins kills you, then gives you fangs so you can keep living a half-life. At least that's the way Amelia Atwater-Rhodes portrays it.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I was ok with it until it brought up Medium and Ghost Whisperer being popular, alluding that it proves how gullible we all are. I like Ender's Game but I'm not worried about a Bugger invasion.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Why would a ghost need to touch the ground to walk?
Thus, with my brain, I hoist these scientists by their own petard.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: I thought you only became a vampire if you drank the vampire's blood. That blood in your veins kills you, then gives you fangs so you can keep living a half-life. At least that's the way Amelia Atwater-Rhodes portrays it.
Just like religions. Everyone who tells the story, tells it a little differently.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Scott, it depends whom you ask. Some sources say that yes, all Vampire bitten victims become Vampires. Mathematically, if each Vampire bites but 1 person a night, and they each bite 1, we would have long ago become totally Vampiric, and probably starved to death.
Some argue that it takes three bites (Stroker's Dracula) for the definitive transformation to occur, or that all blood must be drained.
In either case the new vampires become the slaves, almost the living zombies of the master who bit them.
Others argue that a trading of blood must take place. The victim must be drained, but then must drink the blood of the vampire that bit them. This occurs only at the behest of the vampire. (Hambly and Rice) This, according to Hambly at least, offers a viral/biological explanation to Vampirism.
Finally others argue that another element must exist, the damnation of the soul being Vampirised--by that soul's fear of death. They are so scared to die they live as death instead.
What is the truth? Take your pick.
And keep the Garlic close at hand.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I thought you only became a vampire if you drank the vampire's blood.
That's only in Anne Rice's universe and its offspring (WoD, Buffyverse, etc.).
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: I thought you only became a vampire if you drank the vampire's blood. That blood in your veins kills you, then gives you fangs so you can keep living a half-life. At least that's the way Amelia Atwater-Rhodes portrays it.
That's how Buffy does it as well, or close to. You have to have your blood drained and then drink some of theirs.
According to the Historian, you have to be bitten three times, each time makes you progressively more vampire.
I don't know what Dracula has to say about it, I'm too chicken to read it.
I agree with the first post, though. The first thought I had when I read those articles was "Boy, are they getting paid waaaaay too much."
EDT: Darn, beat several times over.
MPH- IS Buffy really an offspring of Anne Rice? I've never heard that before.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Not to scare anyone or anything, but I think we all know wayyyyyy to much about vampires on this site.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
First, I think it's perfectly reasonable for them to debunk the pop-culture, obvious surface beliefs on these topics, since those are the only ones people are actually fretting over. If they debunked the original myths, (by the way, you call them myths yourself, which kind of implies that you don't believe in them) then what would they prove to modern people who believe in modern versions of the myths?
Second, I think it's kind of ridiculous to state that scientists don't understand the things at which they're "taking pot shots." Personally, I think anybody who believes in the supernatural while disregarding the fact that nothing else in our world functions that way is the one who doesn't understand. But that's just me. I mean, if you understand how the world around you works better than the average citizen does, which must be said about most scientists, then how are you unqualified to comment on these phenomena? And if all that's needed is a rudimentary scientific evaluation to prove that the "phenomenon" isn't really happening, then why go further?
Scientists love to explore, and love to figure out mysteries. If there were a SHRED of *actual* evidence for any of these phenomena, they'd be *all over it* until they had something workable figured out. There isn't any real evidence. Most of the "evidence" presented by believers is a bunch of hooey, scientifically speaking - the rest is misunderstood and misapplied. If that weren't the case, we'd all be hearing about Harvard's latest ghost theory or the ongoing research project on the vampires of Boston.
"Get a life and get over themselves?" Even if they are correct? Sheesh!
I wish I could stick around and participate in this thread, as skepticism and the study of the supernatural are one of my absolutely favorite topics - but I have to split for my trip to California. I'll leave with the message that there is a whole lot more measurable evidence that most "supernatural" phenomena are either not supernatural at all, or are just figments of the imagination or effects of the brain in a non-waking state. I wish I had the time to take a picture of my two book shelves crammed with books on the supernatural and the weird. Even though I am a skeptic, I love to read about such things. Usually to try to debunk them in my own head, but more often because I *want* to believe in a "magical" world. However, I haven't found any evidence to support supernatural phenomena yet, in all my years of reading and studying. And believe me, I've looked for it.
Also, this article is obviously a fluff piece written for Halloween. I wouldn't take it too seriously.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Why would a ghost need to touch the ground to walk?
Thus, with my brain, I hoist these scientists by their own petard.
I love the word "petard."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:MPH- IS Buffy really an offspring of Anne Rice? I've never heard that before.
I've never heard it before either, but I think it is so. A fair amount of the vampire lore in Buffy, especially that pertaining to siring, is copied from Rice or somebody that copied from her.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:First, I think it's perfectly reasonable for them to debunk the pop-culture, obvious surface beliefs on these topics, since those are the only ones people are actually fretting over.
No, they are not. Your own reading should tell you that much. Yes, I do call them myths because I don't believe in them (other than ghosts). However, my main argument isn't if they are true or not. Its that skeptical scientists are too easily persuaded by their own self-congratulatory observations. They become presenters of "truth" and then think they become worthy of worship.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Not to scare anyone or anything, but I think we all know wayyyyyy to much about vampires on this site.
Not me. I asked a question.
I don't know anything about vampires.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I kind of agree with that, Occassional. Mostly because I think, you never know. There's a lot of odd stuff that happens, to odd to say that it's "crap." There's a lot science hasn't discovered yet, but it's good that folks don't really bloodlet people anymore or practice galvinism too.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: It isn't because I actually believe in Vampires or Zombies (although I do believe in ghosts). Rather, if the scientific evaluations are true than they are picking on straw men. It is obvious to those who study such things that the quoted scientists have no concept of the actual myths. They have looked at the most obvious and surface ideas about the subjects and debunked them.
Do you really believe that this is how science is done? Any scientists that only "looked at the most obvious and surface ideas" about any object of study would be torn to shreds by his or her own fellow scientists. The whole point of "skepticism" is that you don't presume to conclude anything without some pretty good evidence in your favor. The professor in this case is not saying that vampires and zombies don't exist, QED, only that there is absolutely no rational reason to believe that they do. And he's right about that.
That said, the article is obviously a fluff piece written because Halloween is just around the corner. I doubt the professor spent more than five minutes doing the math for this, which is all that was necessary considering it's a textook example of exponentially increasing population, and I certainly don't think he's patting himself on the back for being the Skeptical Hero Who Disproved the Vampyre. He's making a broader point that we live in a culture that often chooses to believe in the irrational, for better or for worse.
Edit: At second glance, I see that Efthimiou wrote a short paper on the subject. Even that, though, is pretty obviously only semi-serious. His evidence is dead serious (albeit nothing particularly original), but the tone of the paper is as playful as that of the news article. I get the feeling that he and his grad student coauthor got bored one night and wrote up some possible physical explanations for what are often claimed to be supernatural phenomena, possibly over a beer or two. As a form of recreation, doing physics problems is pretty unbelievably nerdy, but it's hardly "elitist," nor part of some evil skeptic conspiracy to make folks who believe in myths feel bad.
[ October 27, 2006, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Tarrsk ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And right before Halloween, too! Spoilsports!
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Tarrsk, I would agree with you if it wasn't for the quote by Park. Not to mention the article's "slant" was that the general American population is gullible and superstitious. It all seems to add up that this research is more than a lark.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Yeah, I always figured ghosts just appeared to be walking. But probably some Casper cartoons have Casper at some times falling off a shelf and smacking into the floor and at other times passing through walls, in which case it's clear that at any moment Casper obeys the physical laws that make for the funniest scene.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The laws of physics will transcend space, time, and even death to cause a pratfall.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Omega M, hold on tight. What I have to say may come as a shock.
Caspar is actually a Cartoon, not a real ghost. Cartoons use an entirely different type of physics, particulary whatever would be the funniest thing to happen--happens. (Check "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" to see this in action.)
Now, if these scientists come out and say Cartoon Characters are not real, well then my friends, "I hope you know, this means war."
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
Scientists will say anything if it gets them published. This is why we cannot trust science.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'll say anything to get published too.
Don't trust me, I'm a writer.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Rather than trying to convince us ghosts don't make us cold -- and haven't you felt cold every time you've met a ghost personally? (I almost said "in the flesh") -- he'd do bette to peruse the Journal of Irreproducible Results: http://www.jir.com/ . They can explain _everything_.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by jehovoid: Scientists will say anything if it gets them published. This is why we cannot trust science.
You have got to be kidding me.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The laws of physics will transcend space, time, and even death to cause a pratfall.
Scott R wins the thread!
Enigmatic
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
quote:You have got to be kidding me.
I'm only kidding a little bit. It's one of the few chinks in science's armor.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Trust me Scott, I don't trust you. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
In Vampire The Masquerade: Redemption you had to be killed from the bite of a vampire in order to become one. As in he would have to drink you to death, or else open up a wound large enough for the blood lose to kill you.
There were several societies of vampires and some were actually nobel. They worked with humans and drank only enough to satisfy their thirst but never for pleasure.
Apparently if ignored the thirst for blood would turn the vampire into a type of monster that would kill and drink blood purely for sport, and the thirst could never be quenched. I actually really enjoyed the story within the game, as well as the lore. Unfortunately my copy was not created properly and it wouldnt let me past a certain point.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by jehovoid:
quote:You have got to be kidding me.
I'm only kidding a little bit. It's one of the few chinks in science's armor.
I'm sitting in a laboratory right now, and all I can see are scientists working their asses off, often for months, just to demonstrate very minor points in whatever study they happen to be doing. They're all eager to publish, sure (in fact, most are graduate students and postdocs, the ones with the most to gain from publishing), but not a single one would sacrifice scientific integrity just to get their names out. As someone who is working on a career in the field, I have say that your generalization is both inaccurate and pretty freakin' insulting.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Well Tarrsk, get used to people not liking you. There are many that find scientists questionable. That is fine, because I have known plenty of scientists that find other people questionable who aren't scientists.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
It's not a question of people not liking me personally, although I'll admit to some bruised feelings. It's that I have very rarely seen anyone actually substantiate a distrust of scientists. There are a few bad apples in the scientific community, to be sure, but that doesn't negate the fact that most scientists are careful, thorough, and as objective as possible in their research. The few scientists who publish false data, or take money from corporate interests, are inevitably ripped to shreds by other scientists. To say that "science" in general is untrustworthy is a verifiable claim in itself, and one that I have seen little evidence for.
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
quote:not a single one would sacrifice scientific integrity just to get their names out.
Of course they wouldn't. Because if they did, then other scientists would pounce on them and debunk their theories (and get themselves published in the process). And then the first scientists would look like fools to the scientific community and have a harder time getting published in the future.
Edit: Seems you argued that point for me.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Well, we all know how untrustworthy scientists are in telling the truth, especially compared to so many of their detractors--politicians, cult leaders, fiction writers, and those who worship superstition (as compared to those who have faith.)
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by jehovoid:
quote:not a single one would sacrifice scientific integrity just to get their names out.
Of course they wouldn't. Because if they did, then other scientists would pounce on them and debunk their theories (and get themselves published in the process). And then the first scientists would look like fools to the scientific community and have a harder time getting published in the future.
Edit: Seems you argued that point for me.
Right. So what's your point? Seems to me like the system is self-correcting.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Tarrsk, it isn't for what scientists do. Its for how scientists act and feel toward others' who don't believe like they do in the scientific method or their findings. Basically, scientists call others who don't agree with them names: Idiots, uneducated, plebian, fanatics, and worst of all "psuedo-scientists" as if they didn't use their brains.
Well, when you are getting called names all the time people are not going to appriciate the group. Perhaps that is unfair. But, there are enough scientists that treat others negatively who don't agree with their findings that it causes bad feelings all around (see Dan_Raven comments as example).
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
Yes. It's very ingenious. But it still all boils down to getting published. It's not some noble pursuit of truth. And I'm sure Science would be the first to admit that. I'm essentially agreeing with you. Chalk anything insulting or inaccurate I said up to sarcasm. I was just responding to the ridiculous nature of the thread topic.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by jehovoid: Yes. It's very ingenious. But it still all boils down to getting published. It's not some noble pursuit of truth. And I'm sure Science would be the first to admit that.
I'd argue that it's both. Certainly, a "noble pursuit of truth" is what got me (and, I'd wager, most of my fellow labrats) interested in science in the first place, and part of the excitement of my work comes from the daily realization that I'm learning things that nobody else has ever known before. That said, I'll certainly grant that publication is a major motivating factor as well.
quote:Tarrsk, it isn't for what scientists do. Its for how scientists act and feel toward others' who don't believe like they do in the scientific method or their findings. Basically, scientists call others who don't agree with them names: Idiots, uneducated, plebian, fanatics, and worst of all "psuedo-scientists" as if they didn't use their brains.
Sigh. Nobody in this thread (or, for that matter, in the article you're so upset about) has called anyone any of those names. Methinks you might just have an axe to grind.
Also, "pseudo-scientist" is an accurate descriptor for folks like this, who couch their ideas in the language of science, and claim scientific validity, without providing a shred of empirical evidence. It's not applied to religion, myth, or any other element of the supernatural that is strictly defined as supernatural, only unsubstantiated theories that claim to be based in science.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There's a lot of odd stuff that happens, to odd to say that it's "crap."
Like...?
-------
quote:Tarrsk, it isn't for what scientists do. Its for how scientists act and feel toward others' who don't believe like they do in the scientific method or their findings. Basically, scientists call others who don't agree with them names: Idiots, uneducated, plebian, fanatics, and worst of all "psuedo-scientists" as if they didn't use their brains.
Okay, what evidence do you have for the assertion that people who don't "believe" in the scientific method are using their brains?
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
quote:Certainly, a "noble pursuit of truth" is what got me (and, I'd wager, most of my fellow labrats) interested in science in the first place
This is a fine feeling to have. But I'd argue that it's the human in you and not the scientist in you that feels this way. Science is pragmatic and petty (try not to take pejoratively). That's what gives it its value. It has moments of elegance, but it really takes a lot of imagination to feel deeply about it.
So what if Science wants to crush peoples' silly superstitions under its arrogant heel of theory and evidence. It's like saying that a joke doesn't make any sense. Who cares if it doesn't make any sense? I still enjoyed laughing at it.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by jehovoid: This is a fine feeling to have. But I'd argue that it's the human in you and not the scientist in you that feels this way. Science is pragmatic and petty (try not to take pejoratively). That's what gives it its value. It has moments of elegance, but it really takes a lot of imagination to feel deeply about it.
Fair enough. I think, at this point, we're pretty much saying the same thing. Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
I knew we could do it.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:Also, "pseudo-scientist" is an accurate descriptor for folks like this, who couch their ideas in the language of science, and claim scientific validity, without providing a shred of empirical evidence.
I call folks like that philosophers.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional:
quote:Also, "pseudo-scientist" is an accurate descriptor for folks like this, who couch their ideas in the language of science, and claim scientific validity, without providing a shred of empirical evidence.
I call folks like that philosophers.
Then you're still messing up terminology. Philosophers do not claim to be scientists, whereas pseudo-scientists do.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I am not messing up terminology. Rather, I am refusing to play by your high and mighty rules.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Whose rules are you playing by, then?
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
You call the timecube guy a philosopher?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
My own TomD. Same as yourself and everyone else.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I call him a con-man.
To say that every idea is equal means that we have so many equal ideas we can not choose which is correct. Some must have greater value, of truth, of fact, of usefulness, than others.
To say "Man can fly by thinking really hard about it." is an idea. To say it has equal validity to the idea, "No matter how hard you try thinking about it, man can not fly on his own." is nice and pleasant, unless you find yourself at the edge of a cliff. The man who believes he can fly if he jumps and realllllly thinks hard about flying, is going to suffer much worse than the man who thinks, "I can not fly on my own. I think I'll walk the other way."
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Ah, but it is that person's choice to think that way. It is other people's choice to follow them. It is, of course, other people's choice to "debunk" that person's views. The point, of course, is that we should have the choice to choose what are equal and what are not.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" The point, of course, is that we should have the choice to choose what are equal and what are not."
And what if they are not, in fact, equal?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Your argument seems to boil down to the following: we all have the right to be very, very wrong, and no one has the right to think less of us for it.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Paul Golden, then you better have a darn good argument why not, rather than simply name calling.
TomD, do you have a problem with that?
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Hmff. I thought this thread was going to be something from the Weekly World News -- something like how atheist scientists are doing lab experiments on captured angels...
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Oh good grief, people are actually calling scientists petty and saying that they go into science in the hopes of becoming famous and getting published? Have you ever *been* in a lab? Or cleaned up poo, for those who went into medicine? Sitting in a lab for all of - oh - about four hours should cure anyone of a burning desire to use labwork to become famous, and spending a few months on various rotations in hospitals is a real eye-opener too.
*sics vampire army on people who aren't displaying the brains God gave little green apples*
And I can explain why my army doesn't multiply and overrun the world - I have a secret stadium modeled on the Coliseum, only in pink (I like pink) under Chicago which I use to stage vast battles between the minions I don't like so much, or who just aren't very pretty, or who don't wear enough pink. To kill the excess off. So I can make more. Eeeeexxxxcccceellleeennnttt. *does the Mr. Burns finger thing*
In all honesty, I have no idea who you're basing this extremely generalistic attitude toward all scientists on, but it seems a tad overzealous. If you really don't like that some individual scientists make presumptions on people's intelligence based on their belief in things that cannot be proven using the scientific method, I suggest that you do not replicate that attitude by personally choosing to think negatively of all scientists just because they are scientists.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Paul Golden, then you better have a darn good argument why not, rather than simply name calling."
a) Its Goldner
b) I do. The scientific method produces results on a more consistent basis then any other epistomology, where by results I mean "ideas that allow us to understand the world, and how to interact with it to achieve a desired effect."
"TomD, do you have a problem with that?"
If tom's summation of your argument is correct, then yes, I have a problem with your argument. If your choices are consistently wrong choices, I reserve the right to think less of you then if your choices are not consistently wrong, assuming you are not trying to learn from your incorrect choices.
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
Samarkand, I think that at least some of your post was directed at me there, so in my defense I gotta point out that you mischaracterized my argument.
I called science petty, not scientists. In fact, most of my critique is directed at Science as an institution and not scientists. And I specifically told you not to take "petty" pejoratively, but you did. And I never said famous.
I think that's all that was directed at me.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:The scientific method produces results on a more consistent basis then any other epistomology, where by results I mean "ideas that allow us to understand the world, and how to interact with it to achieve a desired effect."
This is not entirely true. The scientific method has produced the best results only in certain areas, such as physics, chemistry, and medicine, while it has produced less consistent results in other areas for which it is not as well-suited, such as morality, sociology, religion, or politics. Science-based theories in these latter areas have sometimes led to poor results.
At the same time, when it comes to certian sorts of questions, pure logic and math has a 100% success record - which is more consistently correct than even science can offer in any field. Of course, one could argue that pure logic and math are included as part of the scientific method.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The scientific method has produced the best results only in certain areas, such as physics, chemistry, and medicine, while it has produced less consistent results in other areas for which it is not as well-suited, such as morality, sociology, religion, or politics.
I dispute this.
quote:Science-based theories in these latter areas have sometimes led to poor results.
I do not dispute this. But science-based theories in all fields sometimes lead to poor results, since it's not possible to have all necessary information at the start of any inquiry.
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
quote: They have looked at the most obvious and surface ideas about the subjects and debunked them. However, for those who know a lot more about the myths than what is shown in movies realize they haven't even touched them.
My point is, I suppose, that I am tired of scientists taking pot shots at things they don't actually understand.
I actually laughed out loud when I read this. I had to go back and read the entire post again to make sure that "Occasional" wasn't trying to make a snide and sarcastic remark on the state of American scientific policy. But no, it does seem that he was being quite serious.
Unless you have a strange definition of the word "understand" Occasional (which I suppose is possible, since you play by your own rules. I made up a language once, you know? I was in second grade. Snaggle frog bork), then I have no idea how you can say that somebody who repeats something that somebody else made up (none of these superstitions are even original work) can have a "greater understanding" than somebody who actually studies the subject in depth. This argument is ridiculous. Also, I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "skeptical", unless you have your own special meaning for that one too.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I am not messing up terminology. Rather, I am refusing to play by your high and mighty rules.
You mean the desire to communicate effectively, using the appropriate terminology and generally accepted definitions in order to do so? Because calling psuedo-scientists the same thing as philosophers is a willfull distortion of either term. Philosophers do not generally claim to be scientists, and scientists generally make clear when they are being scientific, and when not (Carl Sagaan had to make the distinction all the time, as do most science writers).
Your confusion of the terms is indicative of your attitude towards the argument; mainly that your simply unwilling to play by any rules but your own. This means that you allow yourself to take any definition of any term, or willfully distort the intent of any rebutal in order to make it not apply to you. I have known people who did this, and they never learned anything from anyone, as far as I could see.
"I'm refusing to play by your high and mighty rules," is almost exactly the response I get from the teenagers I work with when they don't want there to be a way they can lose a game, or apologize for breaking a rule. It's basically: "I'm taking my ball, and I'm going home." Which leads me to ask- why play at all?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)