Aussie Thoughts
Just my 2 cents
He's real alright. What's different apart from size is those big ripping pecs and biceps!
Last edited:
Bigfoot :)
- Thread starter BigJoeNobody
- Start date
Yes the roos...what are there 60 varieties?
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 580
- Points
- 108
Them drop bears though!
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Reminds me of Arnold, the former gov'ner of California...except he's from Austria, not Australia.
Aussie Thoughts
Just my 2 cents
Lots of Marsupials get labeled kangaroo, but there's actually only 4 different varieties of the larger species like the one in the photo.
It's not unusual to run across a 2 meter big red male, but one with such a well developed upper body is quite odd. 'Big Buck' lives in the woods behind a mental institution and some folks are saying he's gotten into some discarded medication.
Yumpping Yimmeny!
Devils' Advocate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,086
- Reaction score
- 393
- Points
- 83
Uh oh. I know how this turns out. Seen it too many times. It's the beginning of the Roopacolypse! First they'll overrun Australia. Then some idiot will bring back a specimen to the US to try and weaponize it. Only it will get out and there goes the country. The rest of the world to follow. Within months there are scattered groups of human survivors that is all that is left of the human race. AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
OR
Maybe I've been watching too many Walking Dead reruns.
Devils' Advocate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,086
- Reaction score
- 393
- Points
- 83
Getting back to Juan (No I didn't forget), who desperately wants my answer to a question, only I've lost the trail of what the question was. Was it how do I define fact? Is that where we left off?
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Hoping this might help jog the memory...or in my case since jogging is out of the question, maybe just a good shuffle...
It is nice to be remembered though, thank you! I was starting to get a little worried.
Devils' Advocate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,086
- Reaction score
- 393
- Points
- 83
Nah, I didn't forget. Life and stuff just gets in the way sometimes, I'm sure you know what I mean.
Definition of fact: "A thing that is known or proved to be true." Of course there are variant uses for the word, but this is the meaning that matters to our discussion. So in our heads we are pretty much on the same page. Where we go our separate ways is what you said here:
"….in other words facts don't change. So if facts don't change, science wouldn't change. If facts do change, they weren't really facts to begin with."
You gave as an example that most of the time species is defined by creatures that can procreate, but it is not true in all cases. I believe that is an accurate rendition of what you stated.
Here is the problem for me with both of the two above statements. Nothing in human endeavors is completely exacting, or true all the time (with maybe the exception of mathematics). Speciation definition that works the large majority of the time can be considered fact. This is true of any other philosophical system by humans one might care to mention. It is the human condition; we don't get to have perfect all the time, every time.
You say that is a flaw with science. A flaw that puts it on an equal basis with all other types of opinion systems. I disagree with that. Science is better, not because of any false sense of superiority. Rather because science is the only system that is self correcting. If a 'fact' is proven to be wrong, it becomes no longer a fact. It "is no more", "has ceased to be", "bereft of life, it rests in peace", "it is an ex-fact." It does not get to pine for the fjords!
No other system has this rigid structure, with the result that incorrect information can be retained for centuries. Wrong thinking can be thought right, and if you argue it is just an opinion like every other - thus carrying no weight.
I am not saying that there isn't room for other kinds of thinking systems; all the others you mentioned have uses for humans - in their appropriate place. You want to argue the existence of a God, science is the wrong system to use. You want to argue the existence of a creature that is alive on the planet with us, the best chance for getting at the truth is science. Not the only. The best.
In my humble opinion.
Definition of fact: "A thing that is known or proved to be true." Of course there are variant uses for the word, but this is the meaning that matters to our discussion. So in our heads we are pretty much on the same page. Where we go our separate ways is what you said here:
"….in other words facts don't change. So if facts don't change, science wouldn't change. If facts do change, they weren't really facts to begin with."
You gave as an example that most of the time species is defined by creatures that can procreate, but it is not true in all cases. I believe that is an accurate rendition of what you stated.
Here is the problem for me with both of the two above statements. Nothing in human endeavors is completely exacting, or true all the time (with maybe the exception of mathematics). Speciation definition that works the large majority of the time can be considered fact. This is true of any other philosophical system by humans one might care to mention. It is the human condition; we don't get to have perfect all the time, every time.
You say that is a flaw with science. A flaw that puts it on an equal basis with all other types of opinion systems. I disagree with that. Science is better, not because of any false sense of superiority. Rather because science is the only system that is self correcting. If a 'fact' is proven to be wrong, it becomes no longer a fact. It "is no more", "has ceased to be", "bereft of life, it rests in peace", "it is an ex-fact." It does not get to pine for the fjords!
No other system has this rigid structure, with the result that incorrect information can be retained for centuries. Wrong thinking can be thought right, and if you argue it is just an opinion like every other - thus carrying no weight.
I am not saying that there isn't room for other kinds of thinking systems; all the others you mentioned have uses for humans - in their appropriate place. You want to argue the existence of a God, science is the wrong system to use. You want to argue the existence of a creature that is alive on the planet with us, the best chance for getting at the truth is science. Not the only. The best.
In my humble opinion.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Very good!
So then to return to the original statement(s):
and:
So now it would seem you are in agreement with what I first said. Is that correct?
As to your question about the debate team...no. I participated instead in forensics, which at the high school level is speech and debate competition, however I was never a part of the debate team. I seemed to have a penchant for what was called "after dinner speaking," and expository speaking...which required supporting a position with facts, although more prone to rhetoric than logic necessarily. (You know...the old "numbers don't lie...but you can lie with numbers" routine)
I could quibble here about the word "true," but for now I will accept that we both intend that word to imply "reality" or at least some significant part of it.
I do feel the need to clarify here:
First, I offered no personal definition of species...truth be told I haven't figured it out yet either. What I demonstrated, and is fleshed out at great length in the referenced link, is that the professionals who do this stuff for a living cannot agree among themselves how to distinguish species. Linnaen and Claddist...lumpers and splitters...what exactly that means I don't really know. I do know it simply isn't accurate to presume that because a line of critters starts getting a bigger nose, that by default it implies speciation. It doesn't. The flip side is those that suggest that species *cannot* (as in "ever") interbreed, and certainly not with virile offspring...in spite of agriculture and animal husbandry being chock full of examples to the contrary...even species separated by continents and oceans for hundreds of thousands of years, is inaccurate as well.
What I take away from it all, is that even with the greatest intent on being consistent and thorough, we are human...and being human we haven't quite fully grasped as much as we kid ourselves into believing.
Is science *one of* the best ways to analyze and look at matters? Overall I would say yes...but there are caveats, in that science isn't always the best tool, depending on the question. Further, science has to be held in the *truthful* light of its own limitations, in order for the person using it to use it correctly.
I'm stepping down off my soapbox now.
Thank you all for putting up with me.
Now that I've had a few moments to digest everything, if I had one thing to add here it would be this:
The GREATEST belief system, trumping all others....is critical thinking. That is not science, so don't make the mistake of confusing the two.
So then to return to the original statement(s):
DA said:
and:
DA said:
So now it would seem you are in agreement with what I first said. Is that correct?
As to your question about the debate team...no. I participated instead in forensics, which at the high school level is speech and debate competition, however I was never a part of the debate team. I seemed to have a penchant for what was called "after dinner speaking," and expository speaking...which required supporting a position with facts, although more prone to rhetoric than logic necessarily. (You know...the old "numbers don't lie...but you can lie with numbers" routine)
I could quibble here about the word "true," but for now I will accept that we both intend that word to imply "reality" or at least some significant part of it.
I do feel the need to clarify here:
First, I offered no personal definition of species...truth be told I haven't figured it out yet either. What I demonstrated, and is fleshed out at great length in the referenced link, is that the professionals who do this stuff for a living cannot agree among themselves how to distinguish species. Linnaen and Claddist...lumpers and splitters...what exactly that means I don't really know. I do know it simply isn't accurate to presume that because a line of critters starts getting a bigger nose, that by default it implies speciation. It doesn't. The flip side is those that suggest that species *cannot* (as in "ever") interbreed, and certainly not with virile offspring...in spite of agriculture and animal husbandry being chock full of examples to the contrary...even species separated by continents and oceans for hundreds of thousands of years, is inaccurate as well.
What I take away from it all, is that even with the greatest intent on being consistent and thorough, we are human...and being human we haven't quite fully grasped as much as we kid ourselves into believing.
Is science *one of* the best ways to analyze and look at matters? Overall I would say yes...but there are caveats, in that science isn't always the best tool, depending on the question. Further, science has to be held in the *truthful* light of its own limitations, in order for the person using it to use it correctly.
I'm stepping down off my soapbox now.
Thank you all for putting up with me.
Now that I've had a few moments to digest everything, if I had one thing to add here it would be this:
The GREATEST belief system, trumping all others....is critical thinking. That is not science, so don't make the mistake of confusing the two.
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Hmmm...a 'Roo on 'Roids!
BigJoeNobody
Professional Argument Attractor
Honetly I started this to make a thread about random unprovable faith, which was not religiously based because I was tired of speaking about religious things for the short period of time. Later I saw that even with this non-religious topics people were willing to completely dismiss possibilities due to what they view as unlikely. And moreso dismissing something without doing any research. This is where I think problems lie. It doesn't matter the topic, we as an Interfaith community shouldn't be dismissing ideas before they are discussed. Disagree, of course, but dismissing and throwing out credibility of evidence before knowing the extent of said evidence shouldn't be commonplace. With this example I don't believe anyone is sure Bigfoot is real (on here at least) so I don't think anyone is getting upset at the dismissal, but when it is someone's absolute belief that you dismiss at first mention, people tend to leave as that isn't interfaith at all.
lol... We are not neophytes...we've all lived on this planet and read conspiracy theories and heard about bigfoot since we were born (along with lochness monster, chupacabra, tooth fairy and santa claus)
You've made claims, but posted not one item that would lead anyone to conclude any of your points... yet berate people for not looking at your unpresented evidence?
You've made claims, but posted not one item that would lead anyone to conclude any of your points... yet berate people for not looking at your unpresented evidence?
BigJoeNobody
Professional Argument Attractor
If you are referring to this post, as I said it wasn't ever about proving anything... If referring to other posts, Please go back and read the response anytime I bring up evidence as a possibility, even implying that I might have some usually leads to your warpath that you seem to have restarted again recently. I never asked anyone to conclude they think the way I do, but rather that it is an equal possibility that my way is correct as yours. This seems to be most prevalent in the "everyone is correct" group. which is hilarious that one could say Everyone is correct, but if you think you might have the only way you are most definitely wrong.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
People are human...and logic unfortunately is not a strong muscle in the minds of most people. That is why I labored so hard to demonstrate that in the other thread. What is passed off as logic most times has little more than surface resemblance to logic...which I why I was taking such serious issue with the broader definition(s) you were introducing there. "Reasoning" is not "logic," and never will be. The thing is, most people do not use true logic to form their opinions. (For some insight into this, should you wish...look into John B. Watson and Behavioral Psychology, that's the stuff Madison Avenue uses on us in advertising)
We are *all* predisposed to our personal prejudices...and here I will pre-emptively define what I mean by "prejudice" as those points of view we all settle on regarding not only other people, but places, things, events, cultures and other aspects of reality as applied to our understanding of the world around us. True logic would require us to set aside those pre-inclinations and begin anew *every* time new information was added...a time consuming job when done correctly, assuming that people even know how. Folks just find it easier to begin from a comfortable position and rest there, too lazy and/or absorbed in day to day living to reassess their points of view...it becomes habituated...it becomes dogmatic. That is where "no amount of evidence can convince the skeptics, and no evidence is needed for the believers" comes in.
I think this thread has gone much further in highlighting what you speak of than you realize, but can you see yourself in it too? I know I see myself throughout this thread, but then I've been taking a hard look at why I believe what I believe for decades now. I don't know any other person that does that.
Question Authority. Don't believe *anything* just because "they" tell you to believe, no matter the source.
Devils' Advocate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,086
- Reaction score
- 393
- Points
- 83
Critical thinking is a tool of the scientific method - it is, pardon the pun, critical to good science. Critical thinking does not have to be found only in science, however, I agree. The greatest belief system, trumping all others is indeed critical thinking - with this I agree one hundred percent!
Carl Sagan said this himself in one of his books. I cannot remember the exact wording, but it was something along the lines that "It is not intelligence in people that is lacking, it is the inability to understand and use critical thinking." It should be taught in all schools from kindergarten on. Strangely enough, it isn't taught at all, with the exception of some higher learning courses. One would think governments don't want their citizens to acquire this ability.
Devils' Advocate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,086
- Reaction score
- 393
- Points
- 83
No I do not think so. Unless I am mistaken, what I hear you saying is that factual evidence must be accurate 100% of the time or it doesn't count. What I am saying is that factual evidence that is 95% accurate is 'good enough' to be considered accurate. Why? Because there is no 100% perfect system in the human condition. If 100% is all that could be accepted, we would be paralyzed by never being able to achieve it.
That is where it seems to me we still disagree. If I am reading your statements correctly.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
I agree critical thinking is supposed to be *a* component of science as a discipline...that doesn't by extension in any way imply that those that adhere to science as a dogma are using critical thinking...and in my experience it is quite the reverse.
Science unfortunately is often driven by the same greed, power, recognition, fame agendas as any other discipline that has such potential.