The Scientific Method (Page 4)
AchillesHottie: "Maybe you can appreciate the fact that since neither of us are remotely qualified in the field, we shouldn't feel compelled to assert our holistic expectations of biology."
Trespassers will be shot? Doesn't 40 years of self-study in the philosophy of science while rejecting Angelina Jolie's concupiscent advances count for anything?
AchillesHottie: "Quarks dont exist = more incoherent quackery from the psuedo-quantum philosophy department."
Has it ever happened before that unobervable postulates in scientific theories turned out to be a will-o-the-wisp?
Once? Twice? A million times?
You tell me, Miss Cokehead.
theHating: It counts were it counts, and subtracts overall when you come to grand misdirected conclusions.
Such as: "evolution is bollocks" and "quarks do not exist"
That is to misuse biological and quantum notation.
In other words, quackery.
theHating: If you want to cite Kuhn. Fine. But to conclude that Kuhn or noam chomsky think evolution is not science or "bollocks" is to abuse the notation.
AchillesHottie: " If you want to cite Kuhn. Fine. But to conclude that Kuhn or noam chomsky think evolution is not science or "bollocks" is to abuse the notation."
Now, you're talking rubbish. And I love you.
theHating: You can cite borel to point out the improbability of a single theory, but to assert that it is reasonable to conclude from your understanding of his expertise that said theory is impossible is to abuse the notation.
theHating: I know, but others have, have tried, try and fail, and simply dont know who the fk borel even is yet cite his work anyway.
AchillesHottie: Well, how about this? A serious question, Miss Hating....
How do you suggest we demarcate bona fide science from the mock turtle soup?
Have you read Larry Laudan's "Demise of the Demarcation Problem"?
AchillesHottie: Please go ahead. I'll argue there is no demarcation criteria.
What will you argue for? My wife?