Lelouch24 Posts
[color=#2e1a6b]Thank you. Simple yet amazing update. No more reaching across the keyboard with by left hand
[color=#2e1a6b]I'm not sure if I want to win. I still live with my parents, and I don't want the prize shipped to my front door. Anyone else have this problem?
[color=#2e1a6b]My first objection is that you can't confirm this through experiment. This is why it's absurd to take a term used in science and apply it to historical claims.
Science applies to historical claims all the time.
Take forensics for example. In the past, at some point, someone killed someone using something. Forensics can determine all of that...is that not science? Is that not applied to 'history'? To the past?
[color=#2e1a6b]I didn't say it's absurd to apply science to historical claims, I said it's absurd to apply a scientific term to a historical claim. I haven't studied forensics, but I doubt they declare their claims to be a scientific theory.
And... my first objection is that you can't confirm this through experiement
My second objection is that is that we (the public) don't have videos that repeatedly confirm this claim. I'm not saying there's no evidence, I'm saying there's not enough evidence to fit this definition.
All the evidence I've seen confirms this explanation, and as such it counts scientifically as a theory to me, and no evidence I've ever seen runs counter to it. So it does fit the definition.
[color=#2e1a6b]The evidence doesn't repeatedly confirm this explanation through observation. Unless you have evidence that the public is unaware of
[color=#2e1a6b]A mutually exclusive explanation is very different than a mutually exclusive claim. The entirety of an explanation can be mutually exclusive, but the claims within the explanation are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Let's look at this simplified scenario:
Spoiler:
[color=#2e1a6b]If claim A has evidence, The probability of explanation 2 is unaffected. If claim B had evidence, the probability of explanation 2 would decrease proportionally to the strength of the evidence. What I'm saying is that you need evidence for Mutually exclusive claims, not mutually exclusive explanations.
And what I'm saying is you need evidence for both. It just so happens for 9/11 I do. And the conspiracy theorists don't.
[color=#2e1a6b]What you were saying is that evidence for one explanation makes another mutually exclusive explanation untrue, and I explained the problem with that reasoning.
You have no basis to claim that systemically conspiracy theories tend to be untrue, other than evidence of absence
SOPA is way off topic, but just for the record, the Oxford dictionary defines harmful as:
"causing or likely to cause physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted"
"causing or likely to cause physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted"
So brainwashing isn't harmful. I prefer the online oxford dictionary which says "http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/harmful?q=Harmful" causing or likely to cause harm. And harm CAN mean physical damage, of course according to this same dictionary it can also mean damaging other non material things, like World Cup prospects, or making a situation worse, rather than better, "doing more harm than good." You don't think SOPA makes the online situation worse?
[color=#2e1a6b]This is impressive: we disagreed on a definition... while using the same online dictionary
42 wrote...
Is the claim that "the collapse of WTC tower 7 was a controled demolishion" a conspiracy theory?
Yes.
Intuition points out that the building collapsed by the impact of a plane, if the impact of a plane was not the cause of its downfall but a controlled demolition, the demolition was then secret and the impact of the plane was only a deceitful act. The demolition would be the discrete mean to achieve something on the objectives of a greater scheme.
[color=#2e1a6b]I see your point how intuition determines what is secret and what isn't, however, I was asking about WTC tower 7, not the two tall towers that were hit by a plane
What does your intuition point out about the collapse of Tower 7?
Biglundi wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]And you said the claim that "a group of 19 middle-eastern men secretely formulated a plan to do something unlawful and harmful" falls under this scientific definition. so let me ask:
is this claim an explanation of some aspect of the natural world?
is this claim an explanation of some aspect of the natural world?
Are 19 middle eastern men planning to blow up the WTC natural objects performing a natural chain of causation? I believe so.
[color=#2e1a6b]if your gonna call this "an explanation of some aspect of the natural world", then pretty much every claim could fall under this category.
is this claim repeatedly confirmed through both observation and experiment?
Sure. There are videos of it, the videos are tested, there's case studies done on the bombers, also scrutinized and tested, so I have to ask what your objection is, since your questions just allow me to explain how my original contention was correct.
[color=#2e1a6b]My first objection is that you can't confirm this through experiment. This is why it's absurd to take a term used in science and apply it to historical claims.
My second objection is that is that we (the public) don't have videos that [b]repeatedly confirm this claim. I'm not saying there's no evidence, I'm saying there's not enough evidence to fit this definition.
I suppose I must have missed putting a couple words in there. I meant to say that when one explanation has no evidence, and a mutually exclusive explanation does have evidence, then the one with evidence is to be preferred and the one without evidence rejected. That's very scientific.
[color=#2e1a6b]A mutually exclusive explanation is very different than a mutually exclusive claim. The entirety of an explanation can be mutually exclusive, but the claims within the explanation are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Let's look at this simplified scenario:
Spoiler:
[color=#2e1a6b]If claim A has evidence, The probability of explanation 2 is unaffected. If claim B had evidence, the probability of explanation 2 would decrease proportionally to the strength of the evidence. What I'm saying is that you need evidence for Mutually exclusive claims, not mutually exclusive explanations.
SOPA is way off topic, but just for the record, the Oxford dictionary defines harmful as:
"causing or likely to cause physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted"
[color=#2e1a6b]I got it to work, but it was not at all enjoyable.
I'd like to use this as a learning tool once I'm a little better at reading. I'm learning to recognize Kanji by playing Slime Forest, which is working our pretty well. I can read all hiragana and Katakana, and about 500 Kanji.
I'd like to use this as a learning tool once I'm a little better at reading. I'm learning to recognize Kanji by playing Slime Forest, which is working our pretty well. I can read all hiragana and Katakana, and about 500 Kanji.
[color=#2e1a6b]My Cowboys won, so the month obviously isn't December yet.
I watched my first college football game in years, since my cousin was playing. His team came back from a 7 to 28 deficit to win against the #8 Arkansas (Arkansas was favored by 30). Probably the most exciting football games I've ever seen
I watched my first college football game in years, since my cousin was playing. His team came back from a 7 to 28 deficit to win against the #8 Arkansas (Arkansas was favored by 30). Probably the most exciting football games I've ever seen
[color=#2e1a6b]We need to further examine your definition of "theory"
As you noted, "theory" has a different definition in a scientific context, however, this definition of "theory" only applies to scientific claims. Your problem is that you apply this definition to non-scientific claims, which is rather absurd when closely examined.
You defined a scientific theory as
[color=#2e1a6b]And you said the claim that "a group of 19 middle-eastern men secretely formulated a plan to do something unlawful and harmful" falls under this scientific definition. so let me ask:
is this claim an explanation of some aspect of the natural world?
is this claim repeatedly confirmed through both observation and experiment?
[color=#2e1a6b]You don't know that. A much more reasonable statement for you to make is that "systemically, conspiracy theories tend to lack evidence".
So I'm not allowed to say that things are not true now?
I can be certain that they aren't based on evidence to contrary mutually exclusive explanations. Yes, I can say they're not true.
[color=#2e1a6b]That's called evidence of absence. Besides, even if you could rightfully claim they weren't true, you'd still be guilty of hasty generalization
[color=#2e1a6b]not beneficial =/= harmful
True, but I find that to be an eensy bit disingenuous.
Hmmm, could you give me an example of something you think the governmental is 'conspiring' to do that is not beneficial, but is not harmful?
[color=#2e1a6b]SOPA
...or just about anything lobbied by corporations
Yup, all of them used after someone made a positive claim, not simply, "It 'could' be this." but "It IS this." with, as far as I saw, little to no supporting evidence given. Which matches exactly with what I said. Here, I'll highlight what I mean.
[color=#2e1a6b]Wait, I thought you were the one saying that the government should have control of what medication I'm allowed to take... and I did give evidence that the labeled purpose means nothing...
As you noted, "theory" has a different definition in a scientific context, however, this definition of "theory" only applies to scientific claims. Your problem is that you apply this definition to non-scientific claims, which is rather absurd when closely examined.
You defined a scientific theory as
A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
[color=#2e1a6b]And you said the claim that "a group of 19 middle-eastern men secretely formulated a plan to do something unlawful and harmful" falls under this scientific definition. so let me ask:
is this claim an explanation of some aspect of the natural world?
is this claim repeatedly confirmed through both observation and experiment?
BigLundi wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]You don't know that. A much more reasonable statement for you to make is that "systemically, conspiracy theories tend to lack evidence".
So I'm not allowed to say that things are not true now?
I can be certain that they aren't based on evidence to contrary mutually exclusive explanations. Yes, I can say they're not true.
[color=#2e1a6b]That's called evidence of absence. Besides, even if you could rightfully claim they weren't true, you'd still be guilty of hasty generalization
[color=#2e1a6b]not beneficial =/= harmful
True, but I find that to be an eensy bit disingenuous.
Hmmm, could you give me an example of something you think the governmental is 'conspiring' to do that is not beneficial, but is not harmful?
[color=#2e1a6b]SOPA
...or just about anything lobbied by corporations
Just for kicks, I searched up various ways you have used the phrase:
Yup, all of them used after someone made a positive claim, not simply, "It 'could' be this." but "It IS this." with, as far as I saw, little to no supporting evidence given. Which matches exactly with what I said. Here, I'll highlight what I mean.
Spoiler:
[color=#2e1a6b]Wait, I thought you were the one saying that the government should have control of what medication I'm allowed to take... and I did give evidence that the labeled purpose means nothing...
BigLundi wrote...
Oh this is going to be fun.[color=#2e1a6b]I figured you could use a break from 42
2. What is the definition of the word "theory"?
A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
If we're speaking scientifically, the word 'theory' means something different.
A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
As you can see, there are two largely different ways to use the word. In reference to conspiracy theorists, I use the former. In the case of explanations that have been tried and true and observed, I use the latter.
[color=#2e1a6b]Both of your definitions are some form of "explanation". The scientific definition entails much more certainty, however, it's confined to pertain only to "some aspect of the natural world". I'll elaborate more later.
4. If a claim is a "conspiracy" or "conspiracy theory", does that affect the probability of it being true?
Alone, no. But systemically conspiracy theories tend not to be true, if the word theory is defined how I usually apply the word in conjunction with conspiracy.
[color=#2e1a6b]You don't know that. A much more reasonable statement for you to make is that "systemically, conspiracy theories tend to lack evidence".
As such, I have sufficient justification to be skeptical of a conspiracy theory, especially one that runs counter to my observations, and one will require immense amounts of evidence to convince me of its validity.
[color=#2e1a6b]If I provided enough evidence, would you believe a conspiracy theory?
6. Is the claim that "a group of 19 middle-eastern men secretely formulated a plan to do something unlawful and harmful" a conspiracy theory?
Yes. But there's an equivocation here. In the latter I would use the word 'theory' in the scientific viewpoint, in reference to the WTC bombings. In the former I would use my former definition of the word 'theory'.
[color=#2e1a6b]As I emphasized earlier, your scientific definition said "some aspect of the natural world". The claim about tower 7's collapse seems to be more related to the natural world than the claim about people planning something harmful.
I realize that your trying to say that some theory's have more evidence and are more credible than other theories, which I agree with. Why don't you just say this instead of trying to apply 2 different definitions to the same word?.
[color=#2e1a6b]I feel that most people use this phrase as if it just means "questioning the government". Pretty much everyone would answer "yes" to question 5, but people don't even consider calling the terrorists part of a conspiracy theory.
Mainly because one claim has evidence, and the other has speculation.
[color=#2e1a6b]Or because the mainstream media only reports evidence for one claim, and ignores/ridicules evidence for the other.
I've been called a conspiracy theorist just for implying that the government isn't trying to benefit the people, even though that really has nothing to do with conspiring.
They are secretly gathering to put forth legislation that does not benefit the people. Wouldn't you call that a harmful action? Seems to match your definitions to me.
[color=#2e1a6b]not beneficial =/= harmful
it could result in harmful, but this is not necessarily the case.
FPoD and I have been called conspiracy theorists for saying the government could have lied. If I question the government, I'm an irrational conspiracy theorist, regardless of how likely it is.
I don't tend to toss out the word 'conspiracy theorist' unless little to no valid evidence is being brought forth to support a positive claim to knowledge about what the government did or did not do. Simply saying, "Well this might be the case." is not enough for me, personally, to call you or anyone else a conspiracy theorist. Saying, "This IS the case, and we're being lied to." with little to no valid supporting evidence, however, is.
[color=#2e1a6b]If the sentence loses meaning by replacing "conspiracy theory" with "theory", you're probably abusing the phrase.
Just for kicks, I searched up various ways you have used the phrase:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
[color=#2e1a6b]I intend to make a few threads regarding police states, false flags, and the true motives of the U.S. federal government. However, I wanted to clarify a phrase that I am bound to faced when making such threads: Conspiracy Theory. this is probably the most powerful phrase in the history of politics. Any claim can be greatly discredited or dismissed just by calling it a conspiracy theory. Because the phrase is so powerful, people constantly try to pin that word to their opponent's position. Such a powerful phrase is dangerous when not constrained to a strict definition. Because it doesn't have a Because people don't follow a strict definition, this word can greatly hinder what could be an intelligent debate. I would like to ask a series of questions in order to pinpoint the actual meaning of the phrase. I'm directing these questions towards Biglundi (since he uses the phrase most), but I'd like to hear some responses from other members too.
1. What is the definition of the word "conspiracy"?
2. What is the definition of the word "theory"?
3. What is does the phrase "conspiracy theory" mean?
4. If a claim is a "conspiracy" or "conspiracy theory", does that affect the probability of it being true?
5. Is the claim that "the collapse of WTC tower 7 was a controled demolishion" a conspiracy theory?
6. Is the claim that "a group of 19 middle-eastern men secretely formulated a plan to do something unlawful and harmful" a conspiracy theory?
here are my answers to these questions.
[color=#2e1a6b]I feel that most people use this phrase as if it just means "questioning the government". Pretty much everyone would answer "yes" to question 5, but people don't even consider calling the terrorists part of a conspiracy theory. I've been called a conspiracy theorist just for implying that the government isn't trying to benefit the people, even though that really has nothing to do with conspiring. FPoD and I have been called conspiracy theorists for saying the government could have lied. If I question the government, I'm an irrational conspiracy theorist, regardless of how likely it is.
1. What is the definition of the word "conspiracy"?
2. What is the definition of the word "theory"?
3. What is does the phrase "conspiracy theory" mean?
4. If a claim is a "conspiracy" or "conspiracy theory", does that affect the probability of it being true?
5. Is the claim that "the collapse of WTC tower 7 was a controled demolishion" a conspiracy theory?
6. Is the claim that "a group of 19 middle-eastern men secretely formulated a plan to do something unlawful and harmful" a conspiracy theory?
here are my answers to these questions.
Spoiler:
[color=#2e1a6b]I feel that most people use this phrase as if it just means "questioning the government". Pretty much everyone would answer "yes" to question 5, but people don't even consider calling the terrorists part of a conspiracy theory. I've been called a conspiracy theorist just for implying that the government isn't trying to benefit the people, even though that really has nothing to do with conspiring. FPoD and I have been called conspiracy theorists for saying the government could have lied. If I question the government, I'm an irrational conspiracy theorist, regardless of how likely it is.
42 wrote...
We're probably the only ones reading this discussion.[color=#2e1a6b]Nope
I say to them that a serious student should read at least 70 to 80 books per year
[color=#2e1a6b]Holy ****
I have to read about 15 books per year at my highschool, and it's torture for me. I'm really jealous of people like you who enjoy to read; learning's probably much easier.
I'm really upset with myself with how little I'm able to follow this debate. I've read Plato's republic, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Hobbs, John Locke, and a few others, yet these concepts seem new to me (except for Hobbs and Locke). I just started philosophy 1301, but I have no intentions of getting into this field. I love thinking and arguing, but I just don't have a passion for this; politics are much more important to me
42, your posts are probably the most intelligent forum posts I've ever seen. I would say that I'd like to be as smart as you, but after realizing how much you read... I'm giving up on that. I can't read like you can, but I love to participate in and observe debates. I hope you stick around here for awhile. In the meantime...
[color=#2e1a6b]I still like vanilla when there's no incest, but I don't like incest when there's no vanilla.
[color=#2e1a6b]My most memorable console is the Gamecube, but I prefer my PC (i7 2600k, radeon 6850, 64GB SSD, 8GB ram) that I just built last winter.
artcellrox wrote...
monpekokero wrote...
but yea, a rating system would be niceIt's a terrible idea.
[color=#2e1a6b]There's nothing terrible about having rating system. That's not to say that terrible rating systems don't exist, but there are some good rating systems that should be considered
I think the best rating system would be a read/favorited ratio. The main advantage of this would be that NTR would not be unfairly rated poorly.
Of course, this would require a mark-as-read system to be added first
[color=#2e1a6b]I've only played these 5, which I like in this order:
1. Fate/stay night
2. G-senjou no Maou
...
3. Sharin no Kuni
4. Katawa Shoujo
5. Ever 17
1. Fate/stay night
2. G-senjou no Maou
...
3. Sharin no Kuni
4. Katawa Shoujo
5. Ever 17
[color=#2e1a6b]1. Araragi Karen (Nisemonogatari)
2. Sakagami Tomoyo (Clannad)
3. Yuri Nakamura (Angel Beats!)
4. Kurise Makise (Steins;gate)
5. C.C. (Code Geass)
6. Yoko Littner (TTGL)
7. fujibayashi Kyou (clannad)
8. Kallen Kouzuki (Code Geass)
9. Horo (Spice and wolf)
10. Tsubasa Hanekawa (Bakemonogatari)
2. Sakagami Tomoyo (Clannad)
3. Yuri Nakamura (Angel Beats!)
4. Kurise Makise (Steins;gate)
5. C.C. (Code Geass)
6. Yoko Littner (TTGL)
7. fujibayashi Kyou (clannad)
8. Kallen Kouzuki (Code Geass)
9. Horo (Spice and wolf)
10. Tsubasa Hanekawa (Bakemonogatari)
