little_Socrates

Joined

• started 12 topics
• posted 303 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by little_Socrates

• 
  71

  Confusing Opinions with Facts

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in a discussion about the best flavour of ice cream everybody's opinion is equally valid.. in a discussion about the shape of the earth or the origin of species everybody's opinion is equally irrelevant.

  only objective facts and evidence matter.. confusing these two categories is a common feature of conversations in this forum.

  people deserve respect, errors do not..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  little_Socrates

  Calling evolution a fact is like calling the law/theory of gravity a fact.

  Yes our theories do a good job of explaining what we observe in the physical world. So it is a good workable theory. HOWEVER if you really get to questioning an honest physicist they will tell you they have no idea actually what gravity is or how it works. So yes the theory of gravity is good science but you can't call it a fact.

  Sometimes religious minded people become very dogmatic and close minded. However those that choose to follow science are prone to the same thing. A good scientist should stay skeptical and curious about EVERYTHING. The moment you think you have every thing figured out is also the moment when you actually know the least.

  Stay curious my friends!
  
• 
  71

  Confusing Opinions with Facts

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in a discussion about the best flavour of ice cream everybody's opinion is equally valid.. in a discussion about the shape of the earth or the origin of species everybody's opinion is equally irrelevant.

  only objective facts and evidence matter.. confusing these two categories is a common feature of conversations in this forum.

  people deserve respect, errors do not..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  little_Socrates

  They are equally certain. Feel free to continue that topic on any of the 37 threads of that series. This topic is more general.

  Yes they are equally certain, but they are not equally knowable.
  
• 
  71

  Confusing Opinions with Facts

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in a discussion about the best flavour of ice cream everybody's opinion is equally valid.. in a discussion about the shape of the earth or the origin of species everybody's opinion is equally irrelevant.

  only objective facts and evidence matter.. confusing these two categories is a common feature of conversations in this forum.

  people deserve respect, errors do not..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  little_Socrates

  Just a simple question... if evolution is a "fact" why is it still studied? Hasn't the science already been completed?
  
• 
  71

  Confusing Opinions with Facts

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in a discussion about the best flavour of ice cream everybody's opinion is equally valid.. in a discussion about the shape of the earth or the origin of species everybody's opinion is equally irrelevant.

  only objective facts and evidence matter.. confusing these two categories is a common feature of conversations in this forum.

  people deserve respect, errors do not..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  little_Socrates

  I don't see how you can compare the shape of the earth to the origin of species. The shape of the earth is easily observable. The origin of species can only be known through circumstantial evidence.

  Yes I think evolution is good and useful science. However I have a hard time calling it a "fact".
  
• 
  10

  A violation of the separation of Church and State?

  by Londo111 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so i went to dmv this morning.... can someone explain how this does not violate the separation of church and state?.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  little_Socrates

  O yea... there is no such thing as "separation of church and state" in the constitution. On the other hand there is this establishment cause.
  
• 
  26

  Evolution is a Fact #7 - Human Egg Yolk Gene

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  exploring the human genome is like roaming around an historic town.

  some places are pristine and obviously still in everyday use.

  others have been unused for a while and starting to show signs of decay and if you look carefully there are relics of buildings that were abandoned long ago.. in this post we are going to look at a gene that we still carry in every cell in our body but which fell into disuse 10s of millions of years ago.. humans are placental mammals.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  little_Socrates

  Hi Cofty this is very interesting science indeed. I do learn from your post.

  That being said.... I don't like the statement "Evolution is a Fact" No one can prove that statement. Now Evolution might be the best way to explain all the science and observations that biologist make. It also seems to work in a "predictive" sense. So it is very useful.

  Maybe a statement such as "Evolution is good strong science with lost of supporting evidence" would be much more accurate.

  
  Scientists should be curious and open minded.  Everything should be questioned.
  
• 
  40

  Are you ready for armageddon?

  by atomant in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  just imagine the panic.disbelief.oh my god they were right.then you pee in your pants.what will l do?the plea for forgiveness.please let me through.l promise l''ll change.l didn;t mean what l said on that jw.com site.l was jokin.then you wake up it was only a dream.disbelief turns to relief.

  but it could happen..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  little_Socrates

  LOL
• 
  166

  2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

  very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

  so muskets all round.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  little_Socrates

  The point being that when you avail the purchase or ownership of semiautomatics to the general public, you are essentially making the devastation greater for a potential massacre event.

  I don't think this is correct at all. First of all if I was gong to do a mass shooting... I would use a shot gun not a semiautomatic rifle/handgun. Also the worst mass murders of all time had nothing to do with guns. Stuff like fertilizer, box cutters, or even gasoline and a match have proven to be MUCH more effective than firearms.
  
• 
  166

  2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

  very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

  so muskets all round.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  little_Socrates

  I just noticed your reference to Oregon.... okay fair enough. However this movement didn't have the support of the local population, and just had few people involved in it at all.

  How quickly you forget about a very similar situation from Nevada a while back. You might feel that the Bundy's where wrong and the government was right, that is fine I don't want to argue that point. However in this situation they had the local populations support, sheriff support, and LOTS of armed men. In this situation the government DID back down. The people got to defend what they thought was their right, and everybody went home safe and sound.
  
• 
  166

  2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

  very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

  so muskets all round.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  little_Socrates

  You notice in the amendment it links "militia" and the right of the people to bare arms. In no way do I believe that the founders of the constitution meant the right only to extend to side arms. Weapons of war where meant to be included. Private ownership of large weapons of war was not that uncommon at least until civil war era. Your question becomes nonsensical when you talk about modern weapon systems simply due to the costs involved. Even Bill Gates probably couldn't afford to buy and operate an aircraft carrier.

  I have a counter question for you.... Can you point to any part of the constitution that would grant the government the power to limit the peoples right in this regard?