Moreover, the supporting information must be from reliable sources or you can expect serious questioning of the suspect proposition.
Well, it seems we have come to an agreement then Sunny. You just stated my argument better than I could have stated it myself. In the spirit of Bertrand Russell, I acknowledge your effort. I have a feeling you didn’t do this on purpose though. It took me a minute to find the original offending post, the one where you said I “wont/cant” post my proof. I couldn’t find it at first because I searched for the proper spelling, but no matter.
It would be great if you could show how that post of yours fits with the rule that you just restated here. Here’s your post"
To repeat myself from above, something I am not obligated to do, there is no rule against ASKING for proof. You can make a claim. Someone can make the exact opposite claim. Anyone can ask for proof. Sometimes we go off on tangents about what the scientific methods are, what logic is, why proof is a good thing. All of that is fine.
What’s not fine, is telling someone that they are unable to provide proof, that there is something flawed or wrong with the person making the claim. That’s what you did. It might have gone unnoticed if you had not just completed a two day troll move of saying BLM isn’t implementing policies, then asked me which policies. Before that you made some twisted insults at “The Left” because something from the 70’s. It’s a pattern of not responding to questions, changing the subject, vague references, and getting personal.
I am highlighting to your colleagues that there is no obligation to back up a claim
And “saying BLM isn’t implementing policies”
i never said that. BLM isnt govt
And we all agree to that. I’m having a hard time believing that you don’t understand the second part of what I’m saying, the trolling part. The fact that you don’t even mention it is suspicious.
It was an observation based on past behaviour. Would still love to hear it. I did address you on BLM
That is not a response to what I said. In fact, it needs clarification. Responded when?
So, it’s more trolling.
Edit: sorry, must have been in a rush. Cleaned it up
Oh, if you post something I am not familiar with I insist on supporting links. Links to a larger more formal publication provides context and abstracts of theoretical work.
I appreciate the links you have provided in some of your posts, but if a link comes from an unreliable source or site, it does not do much to reinforce your claims.
This is a lot of clarification, but I’d like to get back to basics, the rules, I quote,
“Generally speaking, inflammatory, hyperbolic or overly emotive rhetoric is the sign of a troll and should be avoided on the CFI Forum. This community exists, first and foremost, to foster inquiry. Inquiry does not flourish in an atmosphere of heated rhetoric, mutual vilification or recrimination. Disagreements should be kept, as much as possible, to the issues at hand and not become overly personalized.”
This is not about an obligation to provide proof, but it doesn’t say you can’t insist either. You can ask. A claim without evidence is just a claim.
There are many judgment terms. It helps to read all of the rules to get the spirit.
Curious thread, the back and forth, dodge and weave . . .
but what I find even more curious is the tendency to mix up the terms
As if they were interchangeable.
They aren’t the same thing.
Good point CC. The entire thread is about those subtle distinctions that really aren’t so subtle.
I would like to see history and philosophy combined in schools. They are, but no one points it out. Like, you just learn that Copernicus did his thing with heliocentrism, and there is sort of a nod to how that changed our perception of ourselves, but not much more than that.
More so with science itself. In my own studies, the key to understanding my thinking, is knowing that I have instincts of curiosity and a desire for knowing. Observe every toddler in the world asking, “Why?” Then, you have all the past forms of power that manipulated populations. Science developed out of that struggle. We take on ways of thinking that didn’t evolve during our primitive savage years. Again, look at the schoolyard, a kid will say, “Oh yeah, prove it”, and everyone knows what they mean. But, not everyone develops into the adult who says, “I grant you the right to hold your opinion, and I note that my opinions are contingent and malleable based on data I am not aware of. If you can supply the kind of data that demonstrates a degree of truth in your statement, I will give it consideration.”
“A radical retelling… Poskett deftly blends the achievements of little-known figures into the wider history of science… The book brims with clarity.”—Financial Times
The history of science as it has never been told before: a tale of outsiders and unsung heroes from far beyond the Western canon that most of us are taught.
. . .But the history of science is not, and has never been, a uniquely European endeavor. Copernicus relied on mathematical techniques that came from Arabic and Persian texts. Newton’s laws of motion used astronomical observations made in Asia and Africa. When Darwin was writing On the Origin of Species, he consulted a sixteenth-century Chinese encyclopedia. And when Einstein studied quantum mechanics, he was inspired by the Bengali physicist, Satyendra Nath Bose.
Horizons is the history of science as it has never been told before, uncovering its unsung heroes and revealing that the most important scientific breakthroughs have come from the exchange of ideas from different cultures around the world.
In this ambitious, revelatory history, James Poskett recasts the history of science, uncovering the vital contributions that scientists in Africa, America, Asia, and the Pacific have made to this global story.
This one is more speculative and though it makes some great points, it’s getting a lot of flack.
Author: David Graeber and David Wengrow
A dramatically new understanding of human history, challenging our most fundamental assumptions about social evolution—from the development of agriculture and cities to the origins of the state, democracy, and inequality—and revealing new possibilities for human emancipation.
For generations, our remote ancestors have been cast as primitive and childlike—either free and equal innocents, or thuggish and warlike. Civilization, we are told, could be achieved only by sacrificing those original freedoms or, alternatively, by taming our baser instincts. David Graeber and David Wengrow show how such theories first emerged in the eighteenth century as a conservative reaction to powerful critiques of European society posed by Indigenous observers and intellectuals. Revisiting this encounter has startling implications for how we make sense of human history today, including the origins of farming, property, cities, democracy, slavery, and civilization itself.
Drawing on pathbreaking research in archaeology and anthropology, the authors show how history becomes a far more interesting place once we learn to throw off our conceptual shackles and perceive what’s really there. If humans did not spend 95 percent of their evolutionary past in tiny bands of hunter-gatherers, what were they doing all that time? If agriculture, and cities, did not mean a plunge into hierarchy and domination, then what kinds of social and economic organization did they lead to? The answers are often unexpected, and suggest that the course of human history may be less set in stone, and more full of playful, hopeful possibilities, than we tend to assume.
The Dawn of Everything fundamentally transforms our understanding of the human past and offers a path toward imagining new forms of freedom, new ways of organizing society. This is a monumental book of formidable intellectual range, animated by curiosity, moral vision, and a faith in the power of direct action.
Surgery went well. We’re listening to the pianist at hospital waiting. Some tiles are in place. Putin is still a lying, murdering, dictator.
Every US enemy is lying
Every US enemy is a dictator
Every US enemy is a murderer
Really? You’re going to ignore the rest of that post and only respond to the Putin part. I added mainly for humor.
This is trolling behaviour and does not contribute to any conversation. I’ve been at work all day and I haven’t liked what I’ve seen on the forum since I’ve gotten home and yes, I’m giving you a warning.
Worse he does respond - with manipulating your words dishonestly and toss 'em back at you.
But then like Republicans they have nothing solid on their side, I mean is there any evidence supporting the notion that Putin is not a lying, murdering, dictator Sunny? Why not defend him with solid evidence? Oh yes, because there is no defense for the murdering maniac. So hot air and baiting is all that’s left.
Hopefully, we are moving on, but this will occur again. I’ve been reading about morality, and game theory, and I think recent data sums up our approach. You have heard of the Tit-for-Tat strategy. If not, click through and scroll down to the Game Theory header.
Recent updates to this cooperative strategy have added more forgiveness, to prevent the death spiral of constantly punishing each other for the last thing the other one did. But, that gets exploited, so, add some “spitefulness”, that is, if someone keeps repeating offenses, never cooperate with them.
There is some Zen Buddhism to this data.
This is included in this thread because the complaint includes the time spent and importance the volunteer moderators put toward this work. One of the reasons that not every violation or minor transgression is handled exactly the same, is that we are real people. When someone like SunnyJim does not respond to the real world comments I made here, it leads me to consider that it is not a person at all, at least not one who has a regular life, but possibly someone who is working with others to disrupt this forum, or who knows what.
Anyway. the tile project sits at home unattended, but our cat babysitter says everything is going well there. My sister got a call from her doctor (surgeon) today, who said she had a very rare response to the chemotherapy and all of the parts removed were cancer free. Some infusions will continue, but they will be milder, her hair will grow back, and we might not ever hear about cancer again. So, it’s been a good day.
Funny side note. My sister called her daughter first, but then also called her massage therapist, who, she says, is a “healer”. She was also thanked, because, you know, “you don’t want to discount that.” You can’t get away from the world of magic, no matter how much science you do.
Well, we are all humans.
Glad hear about the positive outcomes for your mom!