NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 23 2015,02:11) | | Quote (NoName @ Oct. 21 2015,08:44) | On the basis of your own argument, mistaken though it is, as to how science works, you fail. You lose.
Specifically, you have not shown which current hypotheses, theories or conclusions of science you are replacing.
You have not shown that your work can, in fact, replace anything currently understood by science.
You have not demonstrated that your notions have any explanatory power. You seem to be completely ignorant about what counts as an explanation.
Your work has not been accepted, by anyone, anywhere. So it has not replace any current theories or concepts.
So, it needs nothing to replace it -- as far as science, even on your mistaken understanding, goes, it is a nothing.
First it must show what it is attempting to replace. You haven't even attempted to do that (because you can't because you do not understand the fields involved).
Then you must convince others. It's trivially easy to convince oneself. That is why your own feelings of certainty about your work are meaningless.
You have to convince others.
You haven't. For good reason -- your notions are vague, ad hoc, incoherent, self-contradictory, logically unconnected to each other as well as to reality.
You're playing word games. Badly.
Everything you have posted in this thread has been countered and refuted. You've run away from the challenges and sputtered nonsense in reply.
You lose. You lose because you have nothing. You lie when you claim you have 'new discoveries', you lie when you claim you have 'science'. And we've proven it. |
YOU ARE REALLY CRAZY! |
Asserted without evidence or standing.
Ad hominem.
Disregarded
| Quote | | You post a lot but no logic, no science and no meaning! |
Demonstrably false.
| Quote | | Yes, I am replacing intelligence, evolution, etc...I've written 6 science books and I cannot give them here one by one... |
Demonstrably false. No one uses your notions other than you. Thus, you are replacing nothing but your own thoughts and ideas. Worse, as we have shown, you are replacing them with nonsense.
| Quote | YOU: a categorization scheme is not a definition.
ME: That is stupidity! When you categorize X, you define X. For example, when your boss told you to turn on Win PC, you will never turn on Mac PC or TV or PSP4 or gameboy...
Thus, you are wrong. |
False to fact.
Your example fails. Identification does not require definition as a pre-requisite. The conceptual order is exactly the opposite. Until you can identify a specific event, process, or entity, you have nothing to define.
Once you have identified it, you may begin to define it.
You don't even have a definition of 'definition'.
You have no math to support your claim, which, on your own grounds, refutes your claims.
You are self-contradictory.
| Quote | YOU: Yours is not the default position.
ME: So, even you but my new discoveries are in default position now since they talk about the real natural realm. Yours are fantasies and religions. |
Confused and ultimately completely illogical.
Your lack of definitions betrays you.
Your view is not the default position -- on any topic in science. The current scientific position is, by definition, the default position.
You do not even understand, you cannot even identify, the current, default, scientific position.
You have not identified any problems with it because you don't know what it is.
You cannot replace it because you do not know what it is.
What you have offered as a replacement is gibberish. It is not science, it has no logic, it has no math (counting is not math).
Yours is not the default position.
The default position remains untouched by your assertions.
| Quote | YOU: No math is required to distinguish things that are different.What math distinguishes polite behavior from rude behavior? Or are you incapable of detecting a difference because you have no math to support the distinction?
ME: You are really crazy! All things are being done in math and the math is the set and sub-set but you don't use paper and pen for that but use your mind obviously, YOU ARE WRING IN EVERYTHING! |
You are becoming hysterical. You cannot even spell correctly, why should we believe that you can reason correctly?
You have no math to support your arguments.
The one time you attempted to do so, you were trivially refuted.
You cannot prove that math is required to distinguish things that are different.
I ask you this -- if you could not distinguish things that are different, how was math developed? Math has as one of its prerequisites the ability to distinguish one thing from another.
You lack the ability to do so.
Your approach is false, contradictory, incoherent, and fails in every respect.
We have shown this.
Shouting that we are wrong is not a rational response nor a counter argument.
| Quote | YOU: So if you cannot provide a replacement for that theory, you must accept it.
ME: Yes, everything must have a choice and decision. You cannot stand neutral in reality since you either must stand to your concluded position or stand to other's position. |
You claim this, you assert that you agree, yet you still have neither identified what the current default position is nor have you shown a single problem with it that your notions are expected to address.
You fail on your own grounds.
Which is why we claim, on the evidence, that your position is self-contradictory.
The self-contradictory is always erroneous.
Thus, you have nothing correct.
You lose.
|
