ONLY SIX PERCENT OF SCIENTISTS ARE REPUBLICANS

1 mile can be divided into 3 equal parts.

1 foot can be divided into 3 equal parts.

Dixie has said that the above facts are false.

Does anything else need to be said about it?
 
"Absolute fact" is a bit of a loaded word. If think about it enough, nothing is an "absolute fact" under the strictest definition. But to use that strict definition is absurd and would make it impossible to draw any conclusions. The fact that nothing is really absolutely 100% certain doesn't mean we can't use evidence to find ways to draw good solution to the best of our knowledge.

God is not a solution that is to the best of our knowledge.
 
Beefy said:
1 mile can be divided into 3 equal parts.

1 foot can be divided into 3 equal parts.

Dixie has said that the above facts are false.

Does anything else need to be said about it?
Click to expand...

Yes, something else needs to be said... you are a despicable piece of shit liar who can't be honest about something so absolutely irrelevant, which means you probably lie about every aspect of your pathetic and worthless life.

Dixie NEVER said the above facts are false!

Watermark said:
"Absolute fact" is a bit of a loaded word. If think about it enough, nothing is an "absolute fact" under the strictest definition. But to use that strict definition is absurd and would make it impossible to draw any conclusions. The fact that nothing is really absolutely 100% certain doesn't mean we can't use evidence to find ways to draw good solution to the best of our knowledge.

God is not a solution that is to the best of our knowledge.
Click to expand...

"Draw good solution to best of our knowledge?" What the fuck are you trying to dance around and even say here? Do you know? Because it totally doesn't make sense. Science does not conclude absolute facts, that is what I have said, and you haven't refuted. I know you WANT to refute me, but you can't.... so you are doing a little tapdance and pretending you are refuting me... how cute Waterhead, but I am NOT impressed... so shut the fuck up unless you have something of value to say. (scientifically improbable)
 
Dixie said:
Yes, something else needs to be said... you are a despicable piece of shit liar who can't be honest about something so absolutely irrelevant, which means you probably lie about every aspect of your pathetic and worthless life.

Dixie NEVER said the above facts are false!
Click to expand...

Yes you did. I know how stupid and amazing it sounds that anyone would say such nonsense, but you did.

You said something like "one piece of the ruler would be 3.9919293948 inches and another would be 4.00000001 and the last one would be 3.999989789786 inches. They would be relatively close to 1/3 BUT THEY WOULD NOT BE 1/3 OF A FOOT BECAUSE OF INFINITY!!1"

I really wish FP was still up. You have made the case a thousand times over. Its embarrassing. Then you started getting all mad when you were shown to be wrong a billion times over.

So STFU. You've made the case and plugging your ears and stamping your feet in denial doesn't change shit fool.
 
Dixie said:
"Draw good solution to best of our knowledge?" What the fuck are you trying to dance around and even say here? Do you know?
Click to expand...

This is just a fancy form of argument from ignorance. If you are literally incapable of understanding the simple concept that I just stated, you have the intelligence of a dog.

Dixie said:
Science does not conclude absolute facts, that is what I have said, and you haven't refuted.
Click to expand...

Well under your strict definition nothing concludes absolute fact, so it's a moot point. That definition is functionally useless, besides for stating that nothing fits it.
 
Watermark said:
This is just a fancy form of argument from ignorance. If you are literally incapable of understanding the simple concept that I just stated, you have the intelligence of a dog.
Click to expand...

LMAO... Well I think some dogs are probably smarter than you! I do indeed understand your simple concept, Waterhead, and it sounds awfully familiar to me! In fact, it sounds very similar to what I said, if I deciphered you correctly.

Here is what you basically said.... Dix, I agree with you completely here, but I can't be seen as agreeing with you on anything, so I will come up with my own way of articulating exactly what you just said, then I will agree with that while refuting you, and hope no one notices!

Well under your strict definition nothing concludes absolute fact, so it's a moot point. That definition is functionally useless, besides for stating that nothing fits it.
Click to expand...

LMAO... "strict definition?" As in, THE definition? Look, all I did was state a fact, that Science has never definitively concluded anything as fact. Either you agree or disagree with that statement. You can't refute it, which is why you haven't tried to! Instead, you are relegated to acting like a 6-year-old and repeating what I just said, in your own infantile language!
 
ib1yysguy said:
Okay, I'm preempting here but the reaction from the righties on this site is going to be, "SEE! I knew they couldn't be trusted!"

Basically these idiots hate anyone who brings people facts. Scientists who make a living at it, journalists who make a living at it, professors who make a living at it. They HATE these people.
Click to expand...

FACTS? what are those

oh, those things that too many people ignore when trying to muddle through life and bang themselves against as a result...

especially the law of unintended consequences

nb: my older son would come home sometimes and tell me, 'you know you told me not to do 'fill in the blank' and you were right...dammit

revenge is sweet, he has a daughter now and is planning to have another child...:)
 
ib1yysguy said:
Okay, I'm preempting here but the reaction from the righties on this site is going to be, "SEE! I knew they couldn't be trusted!"

Basically these idiots hate anyone who brings people facts. Scientists who make a living at it, journalists who make a living at it, professors who make a living at it. They HATE these people.
Click to expand...

Shame on Pew: world's most biased poll

There is a Pew research study purporting to poll “scientists.” The question I immediately want answered is, what’s a “scientist?” The answer, as far as Pew is concerned, is anyone who is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The AAAS is a liberal organization with stated goals such as “Increase diversity in the scientific community,” “Use science to advance human rights” (sometimes in collaboration with leftist-sympathizing Amnesty International), ”Sustainable Development” and ”Women’s Collaboration”.

You don’t in any way have to be a real scientist to be a member of this organization. All you need to do is send them $146. School teachers are especially encouraged to join, and no one should confuse a grade K-12 school teacher with a real scientist.

So who would join an organization like this? LIBERALS! Which explains why only 6% of “scientists” who were polled said they were Republican.
Click to expand...
http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/07/shame-on-pew-worlds-most-biased-poll.html

ibgayguy pwned.
 
Damocles said:
It is an accurate statement. The scientific method is designed to test theories, not come to absolute conclusions.
Click to expand...

Well, the point was that it completely contradicted Dixie's assertion of convenience on the other thread, where he argues that it is indisputable fact that a zygote is human, and cannot be debated as such.
 
Onceler said:
Well, the point was that it completely contradicted Dixie's assertion of convenience on the other thread, where he argues that it is indisputable fact that a zygote is human, and cannot be debated as such.
Click to expand...
Ah. Carry on then.
 
Dixie said:
Well your thread was to SCREAM that 6% of scientists are Republican!

Since the vast majority of working scientists in America, are recipients of some form of government grant, it makes me wonder what those 6% Republicans are thinking! Maybe those 6% are working on republican science... you know, making bigger bombs and seeing how much of the RDA they can get into a can of Alpo for the old folks!

I have to wonder though... Anyone who earns a graduate degree in a field of science, can technically say they are a "scientist" ...so did they do a poll of every person who has a science degree? I didn't get my questionnaire! Or maybe this was a poll of the Annual Pinhead Atheist Science Club, where 100 pinhead atheists showed up, and 6 of them decided to say they were republicans so they would have a better shot at the door prize?
Click to expand...
I actually have to defend Dixie here. I haven't seen what these polsters define as "scientist". For example. Engineers are applied scientist and most of the ones I know are intensely conservative. SM's views are pretty representative of most of the Engineers I know. Does this poll only list "academics" as scientist? This would be a specious definition of "scientist" at best and their liberal tendencies would probably more closely related to their being academics then scientist. If you broaden the term "scientist" to include applied scientist such as Engineers, MD's (and other physicians), Geologist, as well as, credentialed theoretical scientist who work outside of academia I bet you'd see poll numbers more representative of the general public. Granted in recent years scientist have been leaving the republican party (I consider myself an applied scientist and have done R&D as well as applied science in my career) in significant numbers but that has also been a trend in the general population as well. I'm not to sure this poll is credible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top