What is a Scientific Definition?

If you can use a dictionary to answer Wonka, then you have debunked this article. Please post your answer so this article can be taken down promptly!
If you can use a dictionary to answer Wonka, then you have debunked this article. Please post your answer so this article can be taken down promptly!

INTRODUCTION

People often get defensive and angry when challenged on the ambiguities underlying their arguments. This usually occurs when we identify a term that is used inconsistently within the proponent’s dissertation. Naturally, we innocently ask the proponent to define this strategic term unambiguously and without circularities or contradictions. The proponent usually buckles under the pressure. He will often hide behind the authority of the dictionary or a notable celebrity, an obvious fallacy. When his argument is about to be killed and with no other escape route in sight, he attempts to keep it alive with these contradictory claims:


1. “LOL, you are just arguing semantics. You are playing word games. I can’t take you seriously.”

2. “There is no way of actually defining anything. It is self-contradictory, self-defeating, chaotic, self-serving literalism!”

3. Ultimately there is no way to actually define anything because every definition requires a reference to something else. Language is inherently circular!”

4. “Every word you wrote is key to the statement being made. Therefore to be consistent, you must define all the words in your sentence….and all the words of those definitions….and so on….and so on.”

5. Words don’t have and should NOT have any meaning whatsoever. We just open our mouths and talk whatever we want to mean on the fly. We have no problem understanding each other without definitions!"

6. “Words can have any number of meanings. I can reference multiple definitions for a word and use any of them willy-nilly in my presentation.”

7. "All definitions involve at least one observer - the person doing the defining. All definitions are subjective!"

8. "One should never get involved in questions of meaning, and never get interested in words. If challenged by the question of what his terms really mean, he should say: I don’t know and I’m not interested in meanings......one should never quarrel about words, and never get involved in questions of terminology. One should always keep away from discussing concepts.” – Karl Popper


Sounds like these angry folks have a very delicate Religion to protect. It’s hard to imagine how the innocent inquiry of the fundamental unit of human comprehension, the ‘word’, can elicit such irrationality and venom from the supposedly “intelligent” human species. The ‘word’ is mightier than the sword when it comes to destroying people’s personal and political agendas.

Isn’t it fun watching these folks squirm when they don’t even understand their own arguments? What’s sweeter is how this article debunks each of their above arguments/complaints with military precision.



CONCEPTS FACILITATE COMPREHENSION

All of our thoughts are concepts. Our brains utilize concepts for the purposes of cognition. Communication is an after the fact application of what we conceive. Cognition precedes communication; obviously, because the necessary precondition of communication is that we understand concepts before communicating them to others. As such, we use concepts to formulate words, grammars and languages for communication. All words are lexical concepts. It is impossible to conceive of any concept without meaning. The instant any concept is conceived, so is its relational definition, whether one realizes it or not. An undefined word (concept) is an oxymoron and obviously impossible to conceive. A string of letters is not a word unless a meaning is ascribed to it. Therefore, all concepts have an unambiguous meaning in their proper context.


For a detailed understanding of concepts, the following article explains their underlying ontology and their use in cognition and communication:

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/The-Ontology-of-Language-What-is-a-CONCEPT


It is inescapable; you cannot understand or communicate anything without first performing the following 3 steps:


1) Conceiving of concepts.

2) Understanding their definition or what they associate in their contextual ontology.

3) Understanding their application in the proper context.


As the foregoing article explains, concepts are used in language to give meaning in the proper context. This is why linguistic grammars have two phases of resolution: Syntactical Phase and Contextual Phase. When precision is called for in our presentations we must forgo ordinary speech, metaphors and ambiguities. Our goal is to define our key terms unambiguously to provide their intended meaning throughout the context of our presentation. This is what we call “consistency”. The proponent of an argument must ensure that his strategic terms (which underlie the basis of his argument) are used consistently throughout his whole presentation. This is how he can understand his argument well enough to communicate it to others.



WHAT IS A DEFINITION?

A definition is simply a description of the conceptual relations between the objects invoked within the specified context of a term. Definitions place limitations on the extent or usage on the terms in question for the purposes of avoiding ambiguities, circularities and contradictions. Only then can the terms have consistent meaning in one’s dissertation.

A definition has nothing to do with explanations, causes, experiments, evidence, truth, proof, knowledge or other irrelevancies. A definition is merely a description that gives meaning to a lexical concept (i.e. word). All concepts describe the relations between the objects they invoke; and this is their intrinsic meaning. As such, all concepts are necessarily defined, whether we like it or not.



IS THE DICTIONARY THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY ON DEFINITIONS?

It is perfectly sufficient to consult the dictionary for common terms of ordinary speech. For the crucial terms underlying a critical presentation in Science, Medicine, Engineering, etc., the dictionary often becomes useless due to its ambiguities, circularities and contradictions. Dictionaries were written by English graduate students to offer general purpose guidelines so the reader can infer the meaning of a term. As such, the dictionary can only be used as a guide. That’s why we often look up terms across several dictionaries to gauge various perspectives before we settle on a definition. Obviously, dictionary authors didn’t take the extra effort to conceptualize word ontology without circularities, ambiguities and contradictions. Hence the reason why there are hundreds of dictionaries with varying, and in many cases, contradictory definitions. What a mess!

Definitions are entered into dictionaries without consideration of their Scientific consistency; only by their popular usage. That makes dictionaries subject to the fallacies of arguments by Populism and Authority. Those who refer to a dictionary to defend their crucial terms are committing these fallacies as well. Dictionaries also commit the Fallacy of Figure of Speech: the confusion between the metaphorical or figurative use of a word and the literal use of a word. Those who view the dictionary as an authority should look up words like ‘truth’ and ‘knowledge’, and settle the 5000 year long standing debate in Philosophy.

What happens when you open another dictionary that uses a different definition? Does that contradict the previous dictionary? Who decides which dictionary contradicts which? Should we ask the President of the United States or even the Pope to decide? Should the decision come from a Levitating Guru, the Oracle at Delphi, a crystal ball, Ouija board, God, a coin flip, or should we go to the polls and vote on the issue?


There are NO authorities. An intelligent person will not partake in such subjective rituals to define the crucial terms of his presentation. For example, a Scientist is responsible enough to define his key terms objectively in order to convey his meaning as clearly as possible. He refines his definitions well-enough to objectively apply within his discipline. If we can contradict a term within his presentation, then he obviously didn’t put enough effort into defining the terms of his Hypothesis. A Scientist never extrapolates the dictionary definitions of ordinary speech into his Scientific context. Otherwise a rigorous definition of these terms can instantly destroy his entire argument. Objectivity and consistency are the hallmarks of the Scientific Method.



HOW DO WE DEFINE WORDS?

Let’s assume that a member of the audience has identified ambiguities or contradictions in one of our terms. Since our whole argument hinges on this crucial term, it suddenly comes to a halt. How do we go about refining that crucial term in order to resurrect our broken argument?


Q: Without a dictionary, how can we define our key terms objectively?

A: The only solution is to use our critical thinking skills to reason out the relations which parsimoniously capture the precise meaning of our term.


Since all terms are concepts, they necessarily establish relations between objects. Hence, we…

a) begin by first identifying all the objects utilized by the term in its proper context.

b) establish the contextual relations between the objects, thus giving our term its precise meaning.


The rest is just a linguistic exercise of forming a coherent and unambiguous statement for our definition. As an example, let’s define the term: surfing.


a) What are the objects utilized by the term? A person, surfboard and a body of water.

b) What are the contextual relations between the objects? The person riding on the surfboard. The surfboard sliding on the surface of the water. The surface of the water is waving transversely.


Definition of ‘surfing’: The act of riding a surfboard that slides on the surface of the forward crest face of the waving water.


This definition is unambiguous, precise and can be used consistently.



OUR RATIONAL RESPONSE TO THE INTELLECTUAL COWARDS

The following complaints are consistently launched by self-proclaimed “intellectuals” who give themselves fancy titles such as: Atheist, Secularist, Non-Theist, Free-Thinker, Bright, Rationalist, Skeptic, Objectivist, among others.


1. “LOL, you are just arguing semantics. You are playing word games. I can’t take you seriously.”


This popular jingle is sung by charlatans who attempt to turn the tables on those who question their “terms” – you know, the very semantics they use to push forward their arguments. Semantics is a branch of Linguistics which studies the meaning of terms. So it goes without saying that all words are semantical because they must be defined unambiguously before they can convey any meaning whatsoever. Otherwise, users of ambiguous terms commit the Fallacy of Equivocation, aka, Semantic Shift.

The proponent of this complaint has conveniently equivocated a key term in his presentation with various meanings. This allows him to cover all his bases and protect his contradictory argument from attack by employing multiple Semantic Shifts to systematically move the goal posts on his opponents. And as long as nobody notices and challenges his use of equivocation, his contradictory argument is kept alive and accepted by the audience. So yes indeed, the proponent is forcing you to swallow an argument built on ambiguous semantics! But when a member of the audience exposes this semantic wordplay, the proponent retaliates with a strawman attack to silence him. This lame tactic involves turning the table on your opponent by redirecting the issue of “semantics” right back to him.

The bottom line is this: you cannot build your presentation out of wordplay and then turn around and tell anyone who exposes that wordplay that they are arguing semantics, when in fact: it is YOU who has been arguing semantics all along! LOL….POOF goes their complaint!



2. “There is no way of actually unambiguously defining anything. It is self-contradictory, self-defeating, chaotic, self-serving literalism.”


Is this infantile statement worthy of discussion? I mean, c’mon, who is this charlatan fooling by explicitly using words with unambiguous “meanings” to convey his unambiguous “meaningful” opposition to rail against words having unambiguous “meanings”?

Did anybody spot his circular argument? If all words in language are indeed ambiguous, then obviously the bonehead’s above statement is ambiguous and meaningless. What could those words possibly mean? What is this clown trying to tell us?

As it turns out, these not-so-clever charlatans make use of THEIR unambiguously defined words to buttress their so-called “opposition to unambiguously defined words”. Isn’t that ironic? They outright ignore their own contradictions; a common deceptive tactic from those with an agenda to protect. But he is correct about his “self-serving” literalism, as only the words comprising HIS statements are unambiguous; while YOURS are always ambiguous. LOL….POOF goes his argument!



3. Ultimately there is no way to actually define anything because every definition requires a reference to something else. Definitions and languages are inherently circular!”


Looks like somebody doesn’t understand what a ‘circular definition’ is. Perhaps a definition is in order, huh?

A circular definition is either a synonym or a statement which invokes the very word you are trying to define.

All words are concepts. As such, their definitions are reducible to relations involving two or more objects. All words are relations - it’s unavoidable. Anything you can conceive of is necessarily in relation to something else. A definition can reference anything it desires, as long as it conveys an unambiguous meaning. Only if it references the very term it defines can it be considered circular. Linguistics 101.

Some folks confuse the term ‘relational’ with ‘circular’. This leads them to unwittingly assert that the only way to eliminate circularity from our definitions is by not relating objects within our terms. But they instantly contradict themselves because all words are lexical concepts and thus, necessarily relational. Such proponents need to take an entry level course in Linguistics so they can stop chasing their tail in circles.

It’s obvious that our expert bellyacher is insisting that language is inherently circular because he SAYS so! And he hopes you don’t question him. Not so fast!

Contextual languages are not circular because they aren’t inherently tautological. Language is not employed with just mere logical syntax. Language has two phases of grammar: Syntactical and Contextual. The contextual phase gives meaning to terms and always overrides any implicit circularity allowed by syntax alone. That is, you cannot use a linguistic term as a placeholder to syntactically plug in its expanded definition and expect to retain the proper contextual meaning of the sentence in question. Language is not inherently tautological akin to Mathematics and Systems of Logic. So you can’t treat linguistic terms like math variables, plug in results and still retain their original contextual meaning. It takes either a charlatan or an ignorant fool who doesn’t understand the difference between Linguistics and Tautologies to posit such an assumption, and hence push the Reductio ad Absurdum Fallacy on his opponent.

Contextual languages define their terms by relating objects. Objects are never circular and neither are any unambiguously defined terms. There is no circularity between a ‘car’ and the ‘road’; nor is there a circularity in any defining concept relating those objects. Anybody who thinks that languages are inherently circular, should have no problem showing a circularity in the following simple sentence: “The ball is on the table.”

How about it? If you can’t show it, then you’re just a chronic bellyacher who likes to hear himself whine in front of the mirror! A common ailment within the human species.

The above grievance against definitions is a fine example of a pathetic individual who unwittingly underscores the importance of definitions. Isn’t that ironic? The proponent of this claim needs to understand that contextual languages like English are not tautological, like math and logic (which are inherently circular). So you really can’t apply the “circular logic” jingle to our contextual languages of communication. POOF goes his argument!



4. “Every word you wrote is key to the statement being made. Therefore to be consistent, you must define all the words in your sentence….and all the words of those definitions….and so on….and so on.”


This grievance is actually very popular among the so-called Atheists, Secularists, Free-Thinkers and Objectivists out there. They usually utter it when a Physicist provides them with an unambiguous definition for ‘object’ and ‘exist’. Since the definitions of these key terms of Physics reduce their Atheistic Worldview to a subjective discipline, they complain that they don’t understand the definition and request you to recursively define all the words in your sentence ad infinitum.

The proponent of this argument is trying to fool you into accepting the old sophist Reductio ad Absurdum Fallacy; an attempt to refute you by changing the reasoning of your argument to extend it to a point of absurdity or contradiction. He is desperately trying to reduce human language (the basis of communication) to absurdity by asserting circular strawman attacks against all words and their meaning. But of course, he is using none other than words with meaning to accomplish this, LOL! The proponent attempts to degrade language as circularly meaningless for the purposes of showing just how ridiculous the consequences would be with recursive definitions. He is proposing that we can’t define any word without entering into some kind of circularity since we are under his obligation to recursively define all the words we use in our definition as well. It obviously takes a dishonest fool to launch such a contradictory attack on his opponent’s argument. But can you blame him? I mean, he has exhausted all his options and this trick is his last resort to declare himself as a winner!

Obviously, that’s not how language works. We don’t recursively define all the words in a definition when we look up terms in the dictionary. Defining one or two troublesome terms usually suffices. When was the last time you used the dictionary to look up all the words in a dictionary recursively forever and ever? That’s right, nobody does this! Yet we still understand terms in language without ambiguities and circularities! And that’s because language is not circular, as explained in grievance #2.

So let’s put this pathetic circus act within the proper context of their extreme Devil’s advocate position. We kindly accept their proposal and proceed to test whether their argument is valid or contradictory. Naturally, we in turn complain that we didn’t fully understand their proposal, and kindly ask them to recursively define all the terms they uttered, ad infinitum, just as they propose! I mean, this is THEIR argument, right? So we are being fair to them, right? So without further delay, they can use whatever dictionary or source they like. If the proponent of recursive definitions can’t accomplish his OWN TASK, then obviously his proposal (that we must recursively define all terms) is contradictory. POOF goes his argument right before his very eyes! Gee, it was quite easy for him to put his own foot in his mouth, huh?

But seriously, when someone asks us to define non-key terms (especially recursively), it’s an attempt to take the discussion along an irrelevant tangent for fear of getting his ass whupped. We only define the KEY terms in our arguments. For the rest of the non-critical terms, regular ordinary speech/dictionary definitions will suffice. Science is only about unambiguously defining the critical terms of one’s dissertation. In the case of Physics, those crucial terms are usually ‘object’ and ‘exist’. CONSISTENCY refers to the singular contextual usage of the term throughout one’s presentation, and NOT the contradictory notion of recursively defining all the words of every sentence ad infinitum (Reductio ad Absurdum Fallacy).

When the extreme Devil’s advocate gets called out to test his own contradictory proposal, it becomes a very embarrassing and painful experience him – one that requires him to keep a vomit bag nearby.



5. Words don’t have and should NOT have any meaning whatsoever. We just open our mouths and talk whatever we want to mean on the fly. We have no problem understanding each other without definitions!”


When considering the above statement one begins to wonder: is this how education works? You never talk to your kids; never teach them any words or meanings? Schools never teach words, definitions from dictionaries, grammar or even language? Then how did anyone learn to read, understand the meanings of words and communicate ideas?

With your first paycheque in that new job, why didn’t you interpret “$70,000 annual salary” to mean: getting paid $70,000 every 30 days! Once your boss tells you that “annual” is defined as “every 365 days”, why don’t you just give him the statement above and WIN the argument. Would that line actually work in the real world or only in Internet discussion groups? Clearly, words do in fact have specified meanings. POOF goes his argument!



6. “Words can have any number of meanings. I can reference multiple definitions for a word and use any of them willy-nilly in my presentation.”


The proponent of this claim is praying to God that you aren’t aware of the Fallacy of Equivocation. A person is said to equivocate in his argument when he invokes multiple meanings for a single term. He is purposely trying to make his argument ambiguous so that you won’t notice its literal failures and contradictions. Ambiguities and dualities present an aura of confusion over the audience. And the charlatan is counting on this because most people are too embarrassed to ask questions for fear of looking stupid. If they are confused or don’t understand something, it must be because the presenter of the argument is much smarter than them, right? Equivocations in arguments are most often used to elicit an Argument from Authority (a fallacy) in order to beat your subordinates into submission. This usually gives the impression that the charlatan’s argument is rock solid and must be swallowed without question. It’s no different than the theist defining God to be a million things (energy, incorporeal, timeless, all of existence, outside of space & time, absolute, etc.) just to confuse the hell out of you so you can’t refute his argument. Clearly, in any argument, terms can only have one precise meaning throughout the proponent’s dissertation. Not only does this ensure consistency, but it also shows that the presenter understands what he is talking about. Do we need to say anything more about this obvious fallacy? POOF goes his argument!



7. "All definitions involve at least one observer - the person doing the defining. All definitions are subjective!"


The proponent of this complaint wants to give the illusion that your objective definition is actually just as subjective as his for the same term. But the fact of the matter is that a person conceiving of a definition is not equivalent to an observer INCLUDED as a requirement within the definition itself. An objective definition is one which has no observer invoked within itself (i.e. it is observer-independent). A presenter must define the terms that make or break his theory, but that’s a far cry from confusing himself for an actor within his definition.

Let’s say I define ‘object’ as: that which has shape. Shape is what an object has before I approach it. Whether you agree with the definition is immaterial to the question we have before us, which is whether all definitions invoke an observer. The definition of ‘object’ is an example of an objective (i.e. observer-independent) definition. Hence, not all definitions are subjective.

The proponents of this complaint obviously haven’t brainstormed their definitions well-enough to eliminate observer subjectivity. Their definitions unwittingly bring eyewitness testimony/opinion into their dissertation and expose their blatant contradictions. This is what is done in Religion: they invoke observer opinion within all their definitions, hypotheses and theories for the purposes of using emotional arguments to persuade the audience to swallow their rhetoric. Science will have none of that!

Here’s an exchange between a Scientist and a Theologian elucidating the downfall of observer-dependent definitions:

Scientist: Is God an object?

Theologian: He is to me.

Scientist: Why?

Theologian: Because I saw and touched Him last night.

Scientist: Are you telling me that an object is that which you can see/touch? So God wasn’t an object before you even saw/touched Him? God didn't even exist before you laid your eyes on the Almighty?

Theologian: Ummm…..sorry, gotta run….I think I left something on the stove.


The bottom line is that a definition is objective only when it doesn’t invoke an observer within it. POOF goes his argument!



8. "One should never get involved in questions of meaning, and never get interested in words. If challenged by the question of what his terms really mean, he should say: I don’t know and I’m not interested in meanings......one should never quarrel about words, and never get involved in questions of terminology. One should always keep away from discussing concepts.” – Karl Popper


And this gem comes from a popular individual who understands that definitions are what makes or breaks a person’s argument. But in his case, all his arguments are destroyed in one fell swoop by a simple definition. This is why he cowers in fear. The written word is indeed mightier than the sword….even a light saber! Intellectual cowards like Karl Popper are dime a million. This individual is no different than the clowns we’ve already addressed above. Deception has no place in Science. Those who are too embarrassed of their arguments and the consequences of defining their terms, need to find another job to keep themselves busy….perhaps as a Dress-Rehearsal Coordinator or a Residential Sanitation Consultant!



Isn’t it ironic how the so-called Atheists, Secularists, Non-Theists, Free-Thinkers, Brights, Rationalists, Skeptics and Objectivists out there will pester the Theist to provide an unambiguous and non-contradictory definition for God….while they self-servingly turn the other cheek and rail against such definitions when their own Religion is threatened? They even swallow their own foot by rejecting every single dictionary definition of God. These folks are the epitome of intellectual cowardice!

Painful lesson to be learned by the intellectual cowards we’ve addressed above: Your argument or complaint has to be good enough for you BEFORE you attempt to apply it to someone else. You can complain that my unambiguous definitions are an opinion or are circular until the cows come home. You don’t fool anyone. This article has contradicted your petty complaints.



THOSE WHO CANNOT DEFINE, JUST WHINE!

It’s extremely easy to destroy any objection one has against an unambiguous and non-contradictory Scientific definition. The intellectual cowards addressed above are only bellyaching because they lack the capacity to think critically and formulate non-contradictory definitions. That’s why they’ve made fools of themselves in public.

There is no excuse for one’s inability to define the key terms of their dissertation in no ambiguous terms. Those who vehemently rail against objective definitions are intellectual cowards that refuse to participate ethically in intellectual discussions of reason and honesty. Their arguments are founded upon loopholes and dualities, so it’s no wonder they will do anything to avoid defining their terms and misdirect the audience away from their contradictions.

The proponent should be prepared to answer questions pertaining to the definition of his key terms. He is expected to tell the audience exactly what he means. There should be no colloquialisms, ambiguities, reification, euphemisms, hyperboles, metaphors, poetry, allegories, parables, similes, conjuring up imagery, etc. These loose figures of speech have no place in critically-reasoned intellectual presentations.

Oh sure, there will always be those who oppose clear language and rationality. They are content with reducing human ingenuity and understanding back into the Dark Ages. These proponents are just bellyaching with no basis or justification, other than their own baneful agenda. At the end of day they don’t really fool anybody. Their petty archaic tactics are over 2500 years old, since the days of the Sophists.



CONCLUSION

The CONCEPT is the fundamental unit of human comprehension and communication. As such, all concepts are defined to have a specific meaning. Concepts are the linguistic tools we use in Science to not only DESCRIBE relationships between objects in reality, but to utilize these relationships to EXPLAIN the physical mechanisms of phenomena such as light, gravity, magnetism and electricity.

Ambiguous and contradictory terms have no place in Science. For example, one cannot claim to be doing Physics unless they can define the terms OBJECT and EXIST. If you claim to be studying reality (i.e. existence) then you should be able to tell the audience exactly what you are studying without any double-talk. Otherwise you are no different than a Religionist who reifies concepts and pretends to treat them as real entities.

When the presenter can't define the crucial terms which make or break his argument, he has no excuse for his shortcomings. This article will forever be a thorn in his side!


What's YOUR definition?

More by this Author


Comments 76 comments

monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

Thanx for another excellent Hub!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-twUCEfzrDk


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Yes, 99.9% of the time I feel like Chris Tucker when talking to atheists, secularists, free-thinkers, brights, nontheists, rationalists, skeptics, objectivists, Free Domain Radio-ists, etc.

A bonehead by any other name is still the SAME!


AlexK2009 profile image

AlexK2009 3 years ago from Edinburgh, Scotland

well I think I recall you dissecting extreme religious people in another hub so I applaud your balance.

Point one is a bit like how Freeman in "The closing of the Western Mind" describes St Paul, as using logic to demolish the application of rational thinking.

For the rest I simply note that of any of these arguments are accepted it seems to make language worthless as a means of comunication


mythness@FreeDomainRadio 3 years ago

You see, after all...

“In Science, we don't go by common usage... we define terms unambiguously in such a way that it can be used without contradiction.”

I won't accept "Come on, you know what I mean. Don't feign ignorance."

Let me guess, any two year old can understand? Well, any two year old can understand the concept "truth". That takes care of the whole "truth" debate, then.

But each time you define it, and use new terms within the definition, I will continue to ask you to define these terms further. Otherwise, you're simply imploring me to just accept what you're saying, no matter how fancy or formally structured it is. And for some reason, you have an issue when someone says that "it's just your opinion." For people who reject "absolute", they act quite absolutist in their discussions. Whoops! I just used the term "absolute". There I go again... Apparently, no one knows what anyone is talking about, since we must define terms unambiguously. Yikes! I used the term "know". There I go, yet again...

Your response will of course be "rational" because you say so. Not a matter of fact or opinion. Because you say so. Oh, and no need to define "rational" because that one gets off the hook, or something.


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

Very fascinating how you bob and weave between clear logic and calling others names such as coward. I think maybe I have grown accustom to logical assertions being made without inflammatory derogation.

But hey why not?

What is the definition of an unspoken understanding between two or more?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“Very fascinating how you bob and weave between clear logic and calling others names such as coward”

Hmmm….I don’t know what ride you were on, but it sure wasn’t in this hub. There is no clear logic whatsoever in this hub! Logic is a tautological system of derivational inference. I can’t imagine where you saw “logic” in here.

And where did you get “names such as coward” from? Coward is a descriptive aspect of a person’s behavior….when they whine and bellyache without any justification to their chatter, other than to get their way in reducing Science to a dark age Religion. Didn’t you read their bellyaches from 1 to 5?


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

Thank you for your admissions. But a coward being even remotely defined as "when they whine and bellyache without justification" just makes you whole hub funny. How could that possibly be a definition of coward?

You are arguing a point. You are trying to persuade us of a position you hold. You are not writing for any other reason. Therefor though you disclaim it you are married to logic. Argument and persuasion are only attributes of logic --- not science.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Nope, not a definition. Did you read about what I said about "aspect" of a person's behavior? I just gave one aspect....there are others, you know? But, you need to live life a little to learn about these aspects of human behavior.

There is no persuasion in any of my articles. Perhaps you are confusing me with your Pastor....a common mistake made by Americans. Anyway...the responses to the 5 whiners has to do with "refutation"...not with "persuasion". Perhaps you confused these 2 words because they rhyme. Kindergarteners have this same problem too. Try reading a little slower next time.

Argument & persuasion are attributes of Religion. Logic is a Formal System of derivational inference founded on axioms and premises....a pure tautology. Logic makes no arguments....it only derives from its input premises and re-states the premises in the conclusion. How one confuses DERIVATION with ARGUMENT & PERSUASION is beyond comprehension. You really don’t make a good lawyer, Mr. Dierker. It won’t be fun for you to run into someone like me in the courtroom. I suggest a course in Logic 101 before you take the Bar Exam, ok?

Are there any schools in the good ole US of A? If so, do they teach anything? Or do they only teach you folks that terrorists are perpetually hiding behind your shadows and Jesus wants you to shoot them?? Is there an orange or a yellow alert today? Which zombie will you folks shoot tomorrow….Osama Bin Laden’s shadow? A little education goes a looooooooong way! Perhaps that nation can someday rise above its 1% literacy rate.


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

Well I do believe that you are learning well asshopper and that you will grow in time to be mature in wisdom and logic. Science I do not think you will ever grasp and Philosophy is at least two rungs above your achievement ability.

Now back to your schooling. ""I suggest a course in Logic 101 before you take the Bar Exam, ok?"" I suggest you sit in the third row: I have a Bachelor of Science (not art) in Philosophy, I was the 367 person to achieve that in a US university. NAU. I have a Doctorate in Law, the 4th youngest ever to achieve that at California School of Law.

You I appreciate, as some combination of dropout, junk yard dog and a failed acolyte. No degrees, no publications or stuck in a community college someplace.

So I suggest you stop using the "if then than that" logic that science borrowed from Plato. And certainly stop building straw dogs that you can attack and label people with.

Fatfist you are not in the league with those of us who have been around 5 decades, raised children, fought in wars, have been arrested for protests world wide, have earned numerous degrees and have children you age.

Eddie Vetter said it best in a song for "into the wild". Society. "it's kind of like starting from the top, you can't do that"

But your intellect is sharp and your passion good and strong. Take it step by step.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“I have a Bachelor of Science (not art) in Philosophy….”

Oh, the authority argument…. the last resort of someone who just got their butt handed to him on a silver platter.

It is the hallmark of a QUACK to begin his presentation by telling the crowd what a great expert he is. This means that he came to the conference not to explain rationally, but to shove his religion down the crowd’s throats on the basis of authority. The only thing this clown will tell the folk is that he warmed up a seat in college for 10 years, memorize what the forefathers bequeathed, and accept the catechism without recanting.

Introducing ‘authority’ in an argument is a tactic which consists in relying on an old cliché to induce gawking, impressionable and drooling readers to divert their attention from the issue at hand, which is that the presenter can’t explain SQUAT of what they parrot!

No authority can save you from your lack of basic logic, English, grammar and comprehension skills. That's why you're such a numskull. You read superficially and think even shallower. I mean…..hellooooooo, what an embarrassment you are to all Americans….you fall below the 1% average literacy rate. Just go and re-read your responses to me. Not even a crack whore would utter such nonsense!

Here, doofus…. your Pastor Lawrence Krauss explicitly dictates that authorities spout nothing but BS….just as YOU did.

“philosophy is based on AUTHORITY....an argument from AUTHORITY leads to the kind of ridiculousness you just spouted!” -- Lawrence Krauss

There are no authorities or experts. Such conceited clowns can only be found in Religion. We praise them by smiling and giggling in approval whenever they fondle our genitals or penetrate our orifices. These enjoyable subjectivities have nothing to do with Science.

“have earned numerous degrees”

So you warmed up a seat in college, huh? Then you memorized for the test, huh? Any half-witted idiot can do that. What’s there to brag about? Is this why you feel you are armed with authority to shove your ignorance of Logic, derivation, grammar, and definitions down everyone’s throat? Does the fact that you now wear a clerical collar granted by your Church give you any insight into these fields or into reality?

It’s funny how this goes over your head, but what you're saying is that if you would have been born in biblical times you would have subscribed to the Flat Earth theory because that’s what you memorized for the test while warming up a seat in your monastery! And you would have subscribed to an Earth-centric universe covered by a firmament and supported by pillars. You have ZERO thinking & reasoning ability. That’s why you fell flat on your face here. Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself in public by using Fallacious arguments to contradict your position?

There are no celebrities in reality. The word ‘expert’ is a synonym of ‘authority’. It means that someone, usually the ‘expert’ himself, auto-designated himself as such.

“You I appreciate, as some combination of dropout, junk yard dog and a failed acolyte. No degrees, no publications or stuck in a community college someplace.”

Hey, I got expelled from high school and joined the Marines. Afterwards, I worked in soup kitchens helping out fellow veterans. It’s honest pay for honest work. I’m not fake like you…..pretending to have degrees and BS like that while getting your ass handed to you big time by a nobody. But what is extremely thrilling and satisfying…..is that I am able to kick your butt with military precision on any topic….especially law….you have ZERO reasoning skills!

“I suggest you stop using the "if then than that" logic”

You wouldn’t know what logic is….even if God Himself came down and gave you private lessons 12 hours a day for 50 years. But it’s fun watching you trying to throw punches at me like a midget with Down’s Syndrome. You look cute slapping yourself in the face!

“Fatfist you are not in the league with those of us”

….that’s exactly why you’d get your butt handed to you in court by me much worse than in here. And it won’t be the first or second time I’d be doing that either. I should refer some of your colleagues to you, like prosecutors for example, ….some of the dumbest clowns in the courtroom. So yeah….of course we aren’t in the same league...duuuh!


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

1. I only responded with degrees when you asked by suggesting I take a 101 course.

2. I have not here argued any point about religion.

3. Good job, you tricked me into thinking you were serious.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

ha Ha HA!

No argument=authority=receiving own butt on plate


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“Good job, you tricked me into thinking you were serious.”

Actually, you did a very poor job. Nobody fell for your “supreme intelligent being” act, especially since you put your own foot in your mouth by showcasing your utter ignorance on the ultra-basics. You were only serious in proving to us that your EGO has pushed your head so far up your butt, that you can’t even see the world around you. All you see is yourself….the whole world is one huge mirror in that Mickey Mouse world you’ve built around yourself.

Now you come back to try to save face…..to perhaps prove to the world that your fancy autographed scrolls from your Priest will certify you as superior to a crack whore. Well, your Certificate of Knowledge from the Wizard of Oz is worthless in reality. When you are stuck on an island with a crack whore, you will realize that your façade which you hide behind…is completely worthless. The crack whore will easily hand your butt to you and reduce you to tears without even lifting a finger.

You are a big cry baby, Mr. Dierker. You really don’t like it when others, whom you regard as INFERIOR to you, can rip your BS to shreds without so much as thinking. You hide behind this false persona built upon a conceptual Superiority Complex you’ve been fed by the puppets you keep company. You are used to having everyone bow down to you….telling you how great your Wizard of Oz wisdom really is….patting you on the back…..feeling inferior in your presence. And all of it came to an end right here….when a NOBODY like me erased all your Delusions of Grandeur and wiped that smile of your face in an instant. Reality bites!

This little discussion we’ve had has finally shown you that you are really no different than any other human ape on this planet. That pedestal you’ve placed yourself upon with the mere words & nods of others has no substance. It has crumbled because it wasn’t even there….it was all in your MIND. You have NO foundation to stand on when someone poses extremely SIMPLE questions to you ….and you get all flustered with the ultra-basics such as definitions, synonyms, logic, absolute truth, English grammar, basic reasoning, etc. because you are a clueless BIMBO!

Of course, none of the idiots whom you keep company with will dare challenge you. Nope….your puppets bow down to you, kiss your behind and constantly remind you how GREAT you are because you managed to get a Certificate of Knowledge from the Wizard of Oz. But the instant you come here and open your mouth, ….reality sets in. A NOBODY like me wipes his ass with your toilet paper you call a Diploma….and you get angry because you have no response….there is nothing you can do about it. So much for all that “power” you think you’ve acquired in life…..reality doesn’t recognize such human arrogance.

Life has ways to bring you down to Earth, Mr. Dierker. Let this be a lesson to you. You can’t go through life with that chip on your shoulder and expect everyone to pretend to worship you. If you actually manage to keep a varied circle of friends and contacts in your life….you will realize that you are no different than they are…..you will realize that all humans are equal……you will realize that you are not a God…..you will realize that you are no smarter than a crack whore! But reality will SHAME you! That’s why you NEED to keep around you only gawking pushovers who drool at the thought of being in your presence. I am glad to put an END to that and reduce you down where you actually have been all your life without even realizing it….in reality!

You wanna preserve that little Mickey Mouse world you’ve built for yourself, Mr. Dierker??? Then just keep talking to your puppets and remind them how GREAT you are. Your BS has been exposed here.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

"No argument=authority=receiving own butt on plate"

Mr. Dierker has finally realized that he is but a mere human being after all. There is nothing special about this poor embarrassed sap. Nothing distinguishes him from a shoe shine boy....except his extreme self-worship and his big mouth (which suddenly stopped moving!)

Let's hope that this clown learned his lesson in life (not holding my breath!)


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

Your premise is wrong about what scientific definition is. You set up a straw argument so you could reject it.

A definition in scientific terms is a given set of parameters in which a word has contextual meaning.

Moron is an easy scientific term. The definition is a person that sits/fits within a given scientific category relating to mental acuity.

So when we say that fatfist is a moron, scientifically we know what we mean. Even though fatfist may also be a complete moron in a social definition of the word, that is irrelevant to him being a moron in the scientific sense. So now we all know exactly what we mean when we say fatfist is a moron in this hub. We know the who and we know the precise set to which he belongs. The fact he is extremely obnoxious and ugly has no bearing on the fact that he is defined as a moron.

So we can use the definiteness of a scientific definition to also describe his character. Here we know what obnoxious means by simply looking at ffs coments. Very cool he has put the meaning in context, provided and example and "is" what we understand to be obnoxious.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“Your premise is wrong about what scientific definition is”

Right/wrong are terms that expose you as a Religious fanatic, Mr. Dierker! In science the issue is resolved objectively….a definition is either ambiguous/contradictory or it isn’t. No opinion from your Pastor is required. There are no opinions (i.e., wrong) in Science. In Science we are upfront about what we say and can justify it without contradictions….just like this article does.

Pssssst….hey Dierker! Listen up: Gay sex is wrong for your believed God, but is RIGHT for your Pastor. You believe in your God’s truth, but kneel in front of your Pastor, kiss his hand and give him your money, thus approving in his “version” of the truth, especially his participation in gay sex. You contradict yourself at every turn, Mr. Dierker. Do you enjoy making a fool of yourself? You are such a brain-dead and pathetic individual. I really feel sorry for numbskulls like you….I can’t imagine going through life with NO ability to think or reason the basics.

Here is a lesson about the relational terms right & wrong you never learned in your Wizard of Oz College:

Right and wrong are nothing but opinions of a human ape. Right & wrong, correct & incorrect are concepts necessarily predicated on tautological systems of inference where the axiomatic rules set the stage for what can be correct & incorrect. Such concepts have nothing to do with reality because reality is NOT predicated on human rules! Reasoning 101. Reality can only be critically reasoned (Hypothesis) and rationally explained (Theory). All else is an opinion!

"Opinions vary!" -- Patrick Swayze (Roadhouse, 1989)

Science is never about opinions. Unlike YOUR Religion….Science is about explaining rationally without contradictions.

“A definition in scientific terms is a given set of parameters in which a word has contextual meaning.”

Definition = meaning

Terms = parameters = words

So a definition has words and meaning, huh? Are you for real or did God send you on Earth so people can be entertained and laugh at a dunce like you?

This half-arsed attempt at a definition is CIRCULAR. A contradiction. Meaningless rhetoric. Do you comprehend anything that you spew? All you’ve said is: "A horse is a horse of course, of course.”

Ummmm…. Mr. Dierker….ever heard of this really complex (to Americans only!) word called: EDUCATION?

I know you haven’t a clue what it means….I mean….being a proud American and all with the flag sticking out of your butt…..but you should pick up a dictionary and look it up sometime. You might want to do what the dictionary recommends so you can at least acquire SOME of this “education”, oki doki?

You should quit while you’re ahead, Mr. Dierker. Consider yourself EXTREMELY LUCKY for not running into opponents like me (a soup kitchen cook) in your courtroom. Your Mickey Mouse world in your mind is still safe.

Next time don’t LIE, just be upfront and tell the “truth”:

“Sorry Mr. Fatfist, I lied to you. I don’t have all those fancy credentials I bragged about so I can make you feel INFERIOR to me. I promise not to act like a Mr. Know-it-all who contradicts himself again. And go f*** yourself fatfist for exposing me!”


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

I am ahead and your result to strictly insults shows that my lead is growing. "You should quit while you’re ahead, Mr. Dierker"

No I do not think so, to fun to pound.

That last quote that is not attributed to me of course shows your flailing failing attacks do not work.

Now more schooling for you FF. Your donation of ramblings helps others to understand why foul and disturbing language is used and to help them understand that this mimics or is a precursor to criminal behavior. You see the bully begins to perceive himself as the victim. Poor old FF who calls everyone names and verbally bullies them. His frustration leads to isolation which leads to delusion which leads to antisocial behavior.

Back to the subject, with all that explained we can agree on a Scientific definition of a developing psychopath. In scientific terms and definition we see a progression and development and can contextualize it by observing FFs verbal behavior. Now we have an agreed upon example and a context in which the term psychopath can be defined. Someone like FF. We can agree on variables and we can agree on degrees, but scientifically within this context we can agree that FF fits within the definition of a delusional developing psychopathic personality. To learn more of the developing definition and it's applicability to FF and to understand Scientific Definition read here: http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/peterson/psy430...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Dierker: “your result to strictly insults shows that my lead is growing”

Dierker: “Asshopper….. fatfist is a moron….. we all know exactly what we mean when we say fatfist is a moron…… he is extremely obnoxious and ugly….. he is defined as a moron.”

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Dierker is telling the audience in no uncertain terms that he has succumbed to the Intellectual Pounding of the The Fist. Now this troll wants the audience to forget the insults he slung at his opponent who refuted all his arguments….and stealthily put on a wig, lipstick, mascara, a bra, thong panties, a skirt, sheer stockings and high heels...and bleed estrogen, so as to PRETEND that the aggressor is suddenly the victim. Ha!

“ the bully begins to perceive himself as the victim”

Exactly! You’re on the record! Glad you can admit to your behavior!

LOL….you have no self-worth, Dierker. You are not a MAN….you are little girl with your panties in a knot because the Big Bad Fist has exposed you to what you’ve been all your life: a worthless nothing! If you were in the army the fellas would have a field day with a delicate Princess like you. You should try taking some testosterone pills and hopefully become a man, ok?

You haven’t foggiest clue of what you are talking about! You have tried various tactics to weasel your way out of a jam with a statement of authority….and now with your estrogen-laced rape victim act. Your tactic consists in relying on an old cliché to induce gawking, impressionable readers to divert their attention from the fact that you can’t answer a single question posed to you….AND that all your responses are contradictory. You are not a MAN….and you’ve never had any real men in your family to teach you how to act like one. You come from weasels. Pathetic!

“your flailing failing attacks do not work….. calls everyone names and verbally bullies them. His frustration leads to isolation which leads to delusion which leads to antisocial behavior.”

Of course they don’t! So why do you call people names? So why are you attacking ghosts and straw puppets instead of putting on the table an argument about what is making you soooooo butthurt? I mean, why are you here…..what is it that you want other than to troll? I know you’re a proud American with ZERO literary & comprehension skills….and even less thinking & reasoning skills (only possible for someone like you).

“ We can agree”

You're off on your usual tangents, Dierker. Responding to ghosts that ain’t even there, answering questions that weren't even asked, prevaricating like a distressed lunatic and making assumptions that make you look like a fool.

What you agree in your Mickey Mouse world is YOUR delusionary OPINION and nothing else. Reality is divorced from opinions. You haven’t been able to make a coherent statement or argument in your postings because you are flustered, agitated, emotionally stressed and trembling to the fact that a Soup Kitchen Cook has destroyed ALL your sorry excuses for “arguments”….AND…sent you packing back to your momma so you can sue her for giving birth to such an ignoramus as you.

Go talk to your shrink for therapy…..I am not here to deal with your mental illness.

Dierker is here to sing & dance his distressed little-woman routine with emotional arguments which typically involves acting like a damsel in distress who was beaten and raped by the ghosts haunting his mind. This is his ACE card which allows him to dodge the acknowledgement of all my damaging responses which showcase his extreme ignorance of the ultra-basics. Just concede that you are a regular human and not a God like you think you are in your delusional world….and all your PAIN will go away….I promise!

Dierker…..while I do find it incredibly amusing that you are such a COWARD in distress when all your arguments have been destroyed, I'd rather you lay off the estrogen emotions & subjectivity, and present a refutation to this article or be gone. Enough trolling…you’ve had enough fun acting like a fool, ok?


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

My references to you were in the context of definitions in science. And scientific definitions in life. I simply used your name and this context to put it together. Certainly FF is not obnoxious or a moron except in the context in which I laid out scientific definitions.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

"Certainly FF is not obnoxious or a moron except in the context in which I laid out scientific definitions."

Ok, thanks for the apology! Perhaps I can buy you a beer sometime....


Mohammad Shafiq Khan 3 years ago

An open letter to NASA, ESA & CERN.

The paradigm of physics adopted by NASA, ESA & CERN has been shown to be fundamentally incorrect & baseless through published scientific article "Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe' (www.indjst.org; March2012) available at http://www.indjst.org/index.php/indjst/article/vie... and consequently openly challenged. Open challenge is available at http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstrac... and also at http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/V...

Are not you under moral obligation to accept the challenge before proceeding any further with wastage of public money on the name of research?


cornernote 3 years ago

Your article claims to discuss SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION, however you seem to be defending arguments about DEFINITION. It is unclear to me if you intend there to be a difference in DEFINITION and SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION, and which instance of the word you are referring to when you use DEFINITION.

Are you able to clarify this for me?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“you seem to be defending arguments about DEFINITION”

Well, the sample arguments analyzed here are applicable to any definition….be it Scientific, Legal, Political, Medical, casual…etc. When a person claims that all of language is circular or that words have no meanings, then he is using pre-defined terms with meaning to convey his contradictory claim. It’s no different than claiming that “it’s absolutely true that there are no absolute truths”. Self-refuting failure.

“It is unclear to me if you intend there to be a difference in DEFINITION and SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION”

A scientific definition is simply one that can be used consistently without ambiguities in one’s dissertation. If you define light as a “wave” and then as a “particle” in your presentation on light, then you’ve obviously committed several fallacies. In ordinary speech it may be appropriate to say that you gave your love and energy to your wife, but not in a scientific context where we need to understand what love & energy is and whether they can be transferred from one object to another. It is the definition of love & energy which will make this evident without getting sidetracked by irrelevant philosophical debates.


cornernote 3 years ago

My concern is that you are discussing definitions regarding 2 languages SCIENTIFIC (S) and ENGLISH (E) and treating them as one.

You declare that S requires a pointier definition (making S different to E). Next you claim that meaningful definitions are allowed in S simply because they are allowed in E. However this seems flawed because S and E are not the same.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“you are discussing definitions regarding 2 languages SCIENTIFIC (S) and ENGLISH (E) and treating them as one.”

There is only one language here, English. The “scientific” qualifier simply means exactly what I said previously about consistency, no ambiguities, fallacies, love/energy, etc. There is a time for poetry to warm up our hearts….and a time to get down to business so we can understand what light, gravity and magnetism are all about.

“You declare that S requires a pointier definition (making S different to E). “

Nope. Never did that. If that message is conveyed is in this article, then please point it out so I can clear up the confusion. There is only one definition with unambiguous meaning in the context of usage for any term. Now, of course….humans are known to use loose language, metaphors, poetry, etc. to add “color” to language and “spice” to life. This is what reduces a definition to be ambiguous and allow it to be used inconsistently like light=particle or light=wave does. That’s when a discipline can get reduced down to mere poetry.

“Next you claim that meaningful definitions are allowed in S simply because they are allowed in E.”

I don’t know what you’re talking about here. All definitions are be meaningful. I mean, a definition sets out to convey a meaning to a lexical term, right? I'm not a dictator who is here to allow or disallow anything. I am just trying to get people to define their terms unambiguously. I want to understand what they mean when they say love moves mountains. If that's dictatorship...then I'm a dictator. Guilty as charged!


cornernote 3 years ago

I got the impression that S requires a pointier definition based on the section of this article that discusses the E dictionary definitions unsuitability for scientific definitions.

Can the definitions that are not KEY TERMS in S be taken from an E dictionary? If so, what makes the words that make up the definitions in S immune to the fallacies of arguments by Populism and Authority?


cornernote 3 years ago

sorry to double-post, but I just wanted to comment on this...

"All definitions are be meaningful. I mean, a definition sets out to convey a meaning to a lexical term, right?"

Consider if the following definition has meaning:

OBJECT - that which has FOOBAR

OBJECT has meaning, but the value of the meaning is dependent on the meaning of FOOBAR.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“the E dictionary definitions unsuitability for scientific definitions.”

Well, let test out the claim this article makes and see if it’s pulling the wool over our eyes.

My friend’s wife divorced him because she claimed that “love moves mountains” and that my buddy's love wasn’t willing to do that for her.

It’s obvious that only objects are amenable to motion (verb). Mountain is obviously an object, as a bulldozer (object) can move it. But can this KEY term, “love”, resolve to an object that can possibly move a mountain? Instead of philosophizing about this for the next 5000 years, I will consult the dictionary to instantly determine if this key term “love” is an object.

Mirriam-Webster – Love: an assurance of affection

That definition describes the quality of a verb. So love, in and of itself, is not an object….and cannot perform actions. So obviously that bitch just wanted an excuse to get a divorce! If she disagrees…..then the onus is on her to define ‘love’ unambiguously and use it consistently in a sentence.

“Can the definitions that are not KEY TERMS in S be taken from an E dictionary?”

ALL your definition can be taken from a dictionary or anywhere you please….your neighbor, your milkman, your grocer, your teacher, your fireman, a shoe shine boy, a bag lady, a professor, from the nail salon….anywhere!!! But you know….most of the time….a crack whore can give you better definitions than any Nobel-decorated PhD egghead. Please don’t ask me how I know this.

Regardless where you get your definition from….and nobody cares where…..that definition now belongs to YOU. It’s yours! You own it for the purposes of your argument which invokes it. Hopefully you did your research beforehand so that your definition can convey an unambiguous and consistent meaning in your presentation….whatever it may be, i.e. how light works, how to do a manicure/pedicure, how to build an extension to your house, how to put on a fashion show, how to start conversations with women, etc.

So if someone comes along who gives you an example of where your definition fails in your presentation, as in the love and light example, then you really shouldn’t get angry at that individual. Please don’t cuss them. You should get angry at yourself for not spending enough time brainstorming all the critical issues regarding that term.

“what makes the words that make up the definitions in S immune to the fallacies of arguments by Populism and Authority?”

Sounds like you need to get yourself familiarized with fallacies. A fallacy of Authority only occurs when the proponent of a definition argues that “my definition is the right one because the dictionary or that crack whore with the Nobel prize…. says so! Therefore your defn is wrong!”

The proponent will invoke Authority or Popularity only AFTER they’ve been shown an example of where their defn fails. This is the only way they know how to continue to preserve their Religion. They’ve also demonstrated that they don’t fully understand their definition if they continue to defend its obvious failures.

“OBJECT has meaning, but the value of the meaning is dependent on the meaning of FOOBAR.”

Yes, you don’t understand “foobar”? If so, I already gave you some homework to get me a definition of “foobar”. Do you have one for me so we can discuss?


mythness@FreeDomainRadio 3 years ago

“In Science, we don't go by common usage... we define terms unambiguously in such a way that it can be used without contradiction.”

I won't accept "Come on, you know what I mean. Don't feign ignorance."

Let me guess, any two year old can understand? Well, any two year old can understand the concept "truth". That takes care of the whole "truth" debate, then.

But each time you define it, and use new terms within the definition, I will continue to ask you to define these terms further. Otherwise, you're simply imploring me to just accept what you're saying, no matter how fancy or formally structured it is. And for some reason, you have an issue when someone says that "it's just your opinion." For people who reject "absolute", they act quite absolutist in their discussions. Whoops! I just used the term "absolute". There I go again... Apparently, no one knows what anyone is talking about, since we must define terms unambiguously. Yikes! I used the term "know". There I go, yet again...

Your response will of course be "rational" because you say so. Not a matter of fact or opinion. Because you say so. Oh, and no need to define "rational" because that one gets off the hook, or something.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“I won't accept "Come on, you know what I mean. Don't feign ignorance."

Of course you shouldn’t….I never respond like that.

“Well, any two year old can understand the concept "truth". That takes care of the whole "truth" debate, then.”

So let’s test your claim. Ask anyone to objectively define ‘truth’ for you, then post it here:

Truth:_______

Nobody has objectively (without invoking an observer) defined truth in 5000 years. If you think you have the objective defn, then post it.

“But each time you define it, and use new terms within the definition, I will continue to ask you to define these terms further.”

….and to test whether your reasoning is valid or contradictory, I will ask the same of you.

Let’s start RIGHT NOW: please define all the terms in that statement you just posted. Whatever NEW terms your response has, I will ask you to define those terms further…..recursively and ad infinitum….just as YOU propose!

If you can’t do it, then obviously your argument is BUNK…..but it already smells like BS as it is.

“Otherwise, you're simply imploring me to just accept what you're saying, no matter how fancy or formally structured it is.”

Bingo!!!!!

We are finally in AGREEMENT. What’s good for the goose….is surely GREAT for the gander. So please don’t keep us in suspense…..define every word in the above sentence recursively ad infinitum forever and ever amen!

“And for some reason, you have an issue when someone says that "it's just your opinion."

Oh, what opinion have I posted? Please clarify.

“For people who reject "absolute", they act quite absolutist in their discussions.”

How did I act ‘absolutist’; i.e. without relations? I mean, I do have relations with my neighbor's beautiful busty blonde wife. How does that qualify me as an absolutist when an absolutist has no relations at all? Care to explain?

“Whoops! I just used the term "absolute". There I go again... Apparently, no one knows what anyone is talking about, since we must define terms unambiguously.”

Already ahead of you…

Absolute: a qualifier which denotes without relations.

Ummm…Mythness…..have you been crushing your toenails with a pestle & mortar and snorting them again?

“Your response will of course be "rational" because you say so. “

Nice try…but it’s irrelevant what I say. A definition is rational on its own without anyone putting a gun to your head. If you think it ain’t, then just show how it fails.

“Oh, and no need to define "rational" because that one gets off the hook, or something.”

Already ahead of you…

A rational definition is one which conveys its meaning unambiguously and can be used consistently in its applicable context without invoking contradictions.

What’s the problem?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Mythness…..I am still waiting for you to test out your proposal for us before we roll it out into production in all of Academia. I mean, you don’t just roll out prototype cars without testing them to see if they work….right? Do you expect the hospital to perform a medical procedure on you that hasn’t ever been tested?

Maybe you forgot, so let me remind you: You were supposed to define all the terms in your statement below. Whatever new terms your response has, I will ask you to define those terms further…..recursively and ad infinitum….just as you proposed.

Otherwise, you're simply imploring me to just accept what you're saying, no matter how fancy or formally structured it is.

Mythness proposal: “But each time you define it, and use new terms within the definition, I will continue to ask you to define these terms further.”

Your answer is:______________


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

How about it Mythness.....still chasing your tail with infinities? No end in sight? Or do you perhaps have some definitions you wanna throw my way so I can hammer some education in you?

Maybe cornernote (Brett O'Donnell) can help you out. He's a Mathematician who loves chasing his tail by pushing contradictory arguments onto the masses. How about it Brett...help poor Mythness dig himself out of this infinite mess he fell into.


Luis 3 years ago

Hi fatfist (can I call you Bill?). My question might be slightly off topic but I was wondering what you think about processes (economic processes, biological processes, tectonic processes or whatever else). If these aren't objects but concepts (relations between things) does that mean that they start and end with our thinking about them? For example, if someone says, ''This process rather than that process explains the sun's corona'', are they talking about something in the physical world or just something that we ''put there''? What's the proper place for processes in scientific discussions?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

"Hi fatfist (can I call you Bill?)"

Hi Luis, can I call you troll?


Luis 3 years ago

''Hi Luis, can I call you troll?''

Nope, since I was asking a legitimate question about science.


Luis 3 years ago

Come on, sir. I was serious. I want to know what your thoughts are on processes.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Dude, what are you on? Did you smoke or drink something before you came here calling me Bill? What's up with dat, dude? Why are you calling me nasty names?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Who the hell is this Bill idiot you speak of anyway? And why you decided to call me that?


Luis 3 years ago

I thought you were Bill Gaede, architect of the Rope Hypothesis and author of the excellent book 'Why God Doesn't Exist'. I was led astray by the similar writing style and content. My bad.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“I thought you were Bill Gaede”

I ain’t no criminal, Luis. I am a law abiding citizen. Sure….I may…and I say “may or may not” have slept with my neighbor’s wife while her husband was away on business. But as far as I know, that ain’t no crime. Not that I’m confessing to anything. Just sayin’.

Do you know who this criminal is? Are you sure you want to associate yourself with such garbage in our society? I would think twice about worshipping such terrorists who want to hurt our innocent America, if I were you.

“I was led astray by the similar writing style and content”

So was I….OMG sweet Jesus, was I ever!!!!

I mean, just the other day, I was conversing with someone about Relativity in another forum. He was saying that “space warps”, “time dilates”, “length contracts” and all that Jazz. I swear to my Sweet Lord Jesus that I was talking to Einstein himself. So I asked the fella if he was Einstein. He immediately laughed at me, and to this day, I still haven’t a clue why. I mean, when talking in those terms….the speaker NECESSARILY has to be Einstein, right? There is no other option in my book….and nobody can convince me otherwise!

BTW….did you know that Einstein was a wife abuser and a wife beater? Yep, he would beat the living snot out of his wife if the food was too cold. And if the food was too hot, he would leave black & blue marks all over her body and lock her up in the bathroom. Read about it if ya don’t believe me.

I would stay away from these 2 criminals if I were you, Luis.

Now…..what was your question again?


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

Ha! Ha! Hillarious. Thanx for the laugh.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Cornernote Brett O'Donnell,

You didn't acknowledge my response to your query. You could at least be courteous to folks who go out of their way to drain your ignorance and educate you.....ya think?


Luis 3 years ago

''I ain’t no criminal, Luis. I am a law abiding citizen.''

No need to explain yourself to me. I couldn't care less if you're law-abiding or if you sell state secrets to the Cubans. Why on Earth would you think I that I do? Or, for that matter, why on Earth would you think that that Bill's betrayal of the precious US government has anything remotely to do with his claims about physics? If it doesn't, why bring it up?

''Do you know who this criminal is?''

Yes, I've read the Wikipedia page.

''Are you sure you want to associate yourself with such garbage in our society?''

I'm not American and I don't live in the US. As for Gaede, I think he lives in Germany now.

''I would think twice about worshipping such terrorists who want to hurt our innocent America, if I were you.''

Hard to tell if you're joking here. Are you? But you're right, I shouldn't do any worshipping.

''the speaker NECESSARILY has to be Einstein, right?''

Einstein's dead, so no chance of the speaker being Einstein.

''Now…..what was your question again?''

I was asking about your view of how processes fit into scientific explanations and in what sense they can be said to be real.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Luis,

A process is a term that we use to allude to an event. Events are mediated by objects. Events are not real, by the definition of real/exist:

real/exist: object having a location

Events are what objects do when they change location or interact with other objects.

Metaphorically speaking, love is real, and so is beauty. But not in reality.

A scientific explanation is called a THEORY. So theories explain the mechanism by which an objected mediated, say, the events of light, gravity, etc.

That's how we differentiate between objects and concepts.


Luis 3 years ago

''A process is a term that we use to allude to an event. Events are mediated by objects. Events are not real, by the definition of real/exist:

real/exist: object having a location''

That seems pretty vague. I know that you're going for clarity with the object/concept distinction, but really, if a star is exploding, you can't convince anyone that the explosion isn't happening, which is what you're implying by saying that the event ''isn't real''.

Well, to get back to my original question: can we study processes (stellar formation, say, or stellar collapse) scientifically or not? Are evolutionary biologists wasting their time?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“if a star is exploding, you can't convince”

Convincing others only happens in the Churches of Christianity, Relativity, Islam, Quantum Mechanics, Scientology, Atheism, et all.

This forum is about discussing and understanding reality. All arguments are justified rationally without putting guns on people’s heads to convince them.

“if a star is exploding, you can't convince anyone that the explosion isn't happening,”

That a star exploded is a consummated event. Either it happened or it didn’t. Nobody can prove that a star exploded. You cannot even prove who your mother is or where you went to school, or even whether Michael Jackson was alive….never mind that a star exploded. Events of reality are hypothesized and theorized with the Scientific Method….not by people’s emotions, how many guns they have, how they can waterboard and convince you or how big their dick is.

A star is a hypothesized entity. That it exploded is a Theory that you need to rationally explain the mechanisms of. If you can do that, then it is POSSIBLE that the star exploded. A rational theory has merit. If your theory is irrational, then it is impossible that the star exploded as you indicate, and it is dubious whether it exploded to begin with. There is no provision in the sci method for CONVINCING others. You confuse Science with Religion.

“which is what you're implying by saying that the event ''isn't real''.”

Fat: “real/exist: object having a location''

Where do you any IMPLICATION FOR CONVINCING OTHERS in the definition of real? In fact, where do you see provision for observers in the definition?

Can you read & comprehend, or did you come here to brag about how ignorant you are? Cuz….your bragging has convinced me!

“can we study processes (stellar formation, say, or stellar collapse) scientifically or not?”

Hypothesis of Stellar formation: Assume atoms exist.

Theory of Stellar formation: The atoms interact with each other …….blah blah….and that’s how a star forms.

Hypothesis of Stellar collapse: Assume a star exists.

Theory of Stellar collapse: The atoms comprising the star interact with each other …….blah blah……and that’s how a star collapses/explodes/etc.

Fill in the “blah blah’s” to explain the mechanism rationally and you will have rational theories for such phenomena.


Luis 3 years ago

Okay, I understand.

Almost!

If events don't exist, then how can they be said to occur? (''Either it happened or it didn't'') Why can't ''exist'' also encompass events (to mean ''these objects are interacting in this particular way'' or ''this particular way of interacting is happening''). Surely that's something that falls within the domain of physics and existence? After all, events happen, don't they, irrespective of whether we look at them or not? Don't events have ''independent occurence'' beyond our own ascription of a relation between objects?

Also, I was using ''convincing'' in a loose sense, to mean ''you can't make a rational case that [blah blah]''. But yes, convincing as such doesn't have anything to do with science, as you note. So, no need to be rude.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“If events don't exist”

Whoa!!! Holy flumpin’ Atheist eyeballz!!!

Ummm…..Luis….What in Sweet Jesus’ name do you mean by EXIST??

Please fill in the blanks for the members of our God-fearing audience….here, let me get you started so you don’t get lost in the verbiage….

Hi, folks, my name is Luis, and here’s MY definition of exist _________

Fill in the blanks, Luis.

“ then how can they be said to occur?.... Why can't ''exist'' also encompass events”

Your definition will tell the audience, Luis….holy Sweet Jesus will it ever. Here it is again….

Hi, folks, my name is Luis, and here’s MY definition of exist _________

“Surely that's something that falls within the domain of physics and existence?”

This is not a matter of opinion. It’s your definition which will elucidate if your statement above is even rationally tenable. It’s that easy.

“After all, events happen, don't they, irrespective of whether we look at them or not?”

Happen, yes….according to the ordinary meaning of “happen”. But do they exist? You can easily answer this question for us, Luis.

“Don't events have ''independent occurence'' beyond our own ascription of a relation between objects?”

Indeed, they occur. And yes, independent of us petty humans.

“So, no need to be rude”

Lighten up, Luis…..just messin’ with ya. Atheists are scared to come and post here, so I haven’t messed with anyone in quite a while. Please don’t deprive me.


Luis 3 years ago

Exist: ''that which has presence or that occurs somewhere in the universe, independently of anyone's say so.''

Walk me through the faults here.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

I can use the OR operator to do a lot better than that, Luis. Watch this...

Exist: ''that which has presence or that occurs somewhere in the universe, independently of anyone's say so OR is called God/god OR is called Jesus OR is called Allah OR is spiritual OR is transcendent OR [insert anything you like here]''

I guess this solves everyone's problems, right?

You gotta love Atheists and their logical operators. These devils can prove anything exists with tautologies.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Oh, if anybody else on the planet would like something to exist, please follow Luis's rule and just append it to the definition above using an OR operator. That's how Atheists guarantee existence.

Whaaaaat....the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? Surely you jest! Just append "OR Flying Spaghetti Monster" to the defn above and you're golden!


Luis 3 years ago

What about: ''that which involves objects other than those that are merely hypothesised by someone and is consistent with the behaviour, shape and interactions of objects, independently of one's say so''.

Note that your so-called rebuttal didn't do anything whatsoever to actually rebut my suggestion. You simply added a bunch of stuff in there that has to do with objects (God or gods) that are necessarily impossible because what they're purported to be capable of is itself necessarily impossible (namely, creation of matter). In other words, you added stuff that should already be disqualifed for that reason and then arbitrarily equivocated it with being on the same level as ''that occurs somewhere in the universe independently of someone's say so''. Focus on what's wrong with ''that occurs somewhere in the universe independently of one's say so'', instead of arbitrarily equivocating it with necessarily non-existent objects.


Luis 3 years ago

''Oh, if anybody else on the planet would like something to exist, please follow Luis's rule and just append it to the definition above using an OR operator.''

Straw man. See above.


Luis 3 years ago

''Whaaaaat....the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? Surely you jest! Just append "OR Flying Spaghetti Monster" to the defn above and you're golden!''

Well, no, since my definition didn't just have an ''or'' tacked on to it. It actually had something after the ''or'' that can be examined on its own merits but that you inexplicably paid bugger-all attention to. Also, note the ''independently of anyone's say so'' clause. You also missed that. and refused to engage it on its merits or lack thereof. You might as well be arguing that the inclusion of ''that'' or ''which'' or ''has'' is unwarranted.

What gives?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“Note that your so-called rebuttal didn't do anything whatsoever to actually rebut my suggestion.”

What’s there to rebut? Anything you can imagine ‘exists’ according to your use of appending OR statements to it. Pretty sweet!!

.

Luis: “You simply added a bunch of stuff in there that has to do with objects (God or gods) that are necessarily impossible because what they're purported to be capable of is itself necessarily impossible (namely, creation of matter).”

Well, and you simply added a bunch of stuff in there that has to do with concepts (effects or Universe) that are necessarily impossible because what they're purported to be capable of is itself necessarily impossible (namely, relations invented by a human).

All concepts are relations invented by man. So I love how you just put your own foot in your mouth!

.

Luis: “In other words, you added stuff that should already be disqualifed for that reason”

Exactly! Concepts are predicated on objects, first and foremost, the human who invents them....so they are already disqualified for that reason. And your definition is also contradictory because it uses the word “independent” to qualify effects (i.e. concepts), when concepts are dependent on humans.

.

Luis: “and then arbitrarily equivocated it with being on the same level as ''that occurs somewhere in the universe independently of someone's say so''. “

And then you arbitrarily equivocated it with being on the same level as “that which has physical presence”.

.

Luis: “Focus on what's wrong with ''that occurs somewhere in the universe independently of one's say so'', instead of arbitrarily equivocating it with necessarily non-existent objects.”

So you need to focus on what's wrong with ''that which has physical presence'', instead of arbitrarily equivocating it with necessarily non-existent concepts.

.

“Straw man.”

You need to educate yourself on what a straw man is, just like on what an object & concept is.

.

Stupid idiot moron Luis: “my definition didn't just have an ''or'' tacked on to it.”

Retardo Luis: “OR that occurs somewhere in the universe, independently of anyone's say so.''”

What gives, you trolling idiot?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

It's not the end of the world, Luis....you can always try another definition.


Luis 3 years ago

''What’s there to rebut?''

What I actually wrote.

''Anything you can imagine ‘exists’ according to your use of appending OR statements to it. Pretty sweet!!''''

Fabrication pulled out of your ass. See above.

''All concepts are relations invented by man.''

So that stuff that you said is happening independently of man's imagination is happening...via man's imagination?

''So you need to focus on what's wrong with ''that which has physical presence''''

Well, no, since I didn't find anything wrong with it to begin with, and in fact used it as part of the definition (okay, not in those exact words, but I was implicitly acknowledging that it required objects with physical presence. I came around to a better defintion in my second attempt: ''that which involves objects other than those that are merely hypothesised by someone [objects with physical presence] and is consistent with the behaviour, shape and interactions of objects, independently of one's say so''). That's sort of what came before the ''or''.

''Stupid idiot moron Luis''

You can't define any of those terms OBJECTIVELY. OBJECTIVELY, relativist!!!! Religion doesn't count here.

Also: notice those words following ''or''? I was talking about events pertaining to objects in the physical universe (if I wasn't clear enough, allow me to make the appropriate amendment here: ''that pertain to said objects with physical presence.'')

''What gives, you trolling idiot?''

The rational acknowledgment that something that happens independently of one's say so isn't something ''merely invented by man''. Also: entirely too much emotion emanating from your side. You sound like you're about to wet yourself because someone insulted your God. Kind of like those Muslim crowds you hear about on the news. This puts you in poor stead to pontficate to others. What gives?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Fat: ''What’s there to rebut?''

Luis: “What I actually wrote.”

You already refuted it yourself, Luis. Take a reading & comprehension course and go read my previous response to you. It’s not that hard to understand. Concepts are relations invented by man. Concepts cannot perform actions. Only an object can push you off your chair….not a concept, like love, purity, beauty, government, etc. Why are you struggling with this?

“So that stuff that you said is happening independently of man's imagination is happening...via man's imagination?”

How do you reach such an irrational conclusion? Is it man’s imagination that makes a rock fall to the ground? How can ‘an’ imagination, which is a concept, pull a rock to the ground? Please explain!

“You sound like you're about to wet yourself because someone insulted your God”

God? LOL…..we have the New Covenant now….we have Jesus! The God of the Old Testament is obsolete. Didn’t you get the 411? Only if you insult Jesus will I wet myself.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Here, Luis, understand what a concept is before chasing your tail in circles with your gibberish statements.....

http://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lang...


Luis 3 years ago

Okay, thanks. I'll read those.

''Is it man’s imagination that makes a rock fall to the ground?''

You would say that this event (falling) doesn't exist, so what is the rock actually doing?


Luis 3 years ago

'Is it man’s imagination that makes a rock fall to the ground? How can ‘an’ imagination, which is a concept, pull a rock to the ground? Please explain!'

I was going to ask you that, since I'm saying nothing of the sort. You're saying that the event is a concept and is therefore an ''invention of man'' (your words). But you're also saying that the action (falling to the ground, in this case) is happening independently of our say so, which means it has to have its own separate...what? How can it be separate in ANY sense if it's ''merely'' an ''invention of man''? How does something that's merely an invention of man happen without man's paying attention to it? I don't mean what causes it, I mean how it can be that it's happening independently of whether someone's paying attention to it even while it requires humans to invent it. Please explain.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“Okay, thanks. I'll read those.”

Please, and thank you! When you understand the difference between an OBJECT & CONCEPT, all will fall into place. There’s a time for fun, games and jokes…..and there’s a time to get serious and research the topic before attempting to converse with others.

Fat: ''Is it man’s imagination that makes a rock fall to the ground?''

Luis: “You would say that this event (falling) doesn't exist, so what is the rock actually doing?”

Just answer the question, Luis. The answer is what you are looking for. Obviously, concepts cannot possibly perform actions. A concept cannot push you off your chair. It takes an object, with shape, to make surface-to-surface contact with you to push you off the chair. Your dog can do it….and so can a blast of air.

To say that the rock is falling….we are saying that the rock is pulled to the ground. But WHAT pulls the rock to the ground? What invisible object is performing this action? This is what we strive to answer in our Theory of Gravity. Understand?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“You're saying that the event is a concept and is therefore an ''invention of man''”

All concepts are invented by man. Falling is a concept. We invented this concept to relate an object (a rock) with another object (the ground) at various frames in our conceptual movie. That is, we memorized the previous locations of the rock with respect to the ground. We call this assembly of conceptual frames: falling.

“But you're also saying that the action (falling to the ground, in this case) is happening independently of our say so”

Yes, but you can’t take the word FALLING as a literal thing in and of itself. This statement is merely saying that the rock has different locations with respect to the ground as explained above. We establish this relation in our mind and visualize the rock in a movie. The rock exists….the ground exists….but not this relation between the rock and the ground we call “falling”.

Object: that which has shape

Concept: a relation between 2 or more objects

Exist: an object having location

Location: the distance between all other objects.

“How does something that's merely an invention of man happen without man's paying attention to it? “

The word “falling” does not happen. What happens is that there is an invisible object between the ground and the rock that is pulling the rock….for example, think of an elastic band tying the rock to the ground. We use the concept of “falling” to give meaning to this movie. Concepts give meaning. Understand?

“how it can be that it's happening independently of whether someone's paying attention to it even while it requires humans to invent it”

We invented the relation by identifying all the actors: rock, ground, elastic band connecting them (the actor that pulls them together)….and then relating these objects with a conceptual series of locations we memorized (i.e. the movie).


Luis 3 years ago

Isn't the ''pulling to the ground'' itself an event? Aren't interactions events (and therefore concepts)?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

"Isn't the ''pulling to the ground'' itself an event? Aren't interactions events (and therefore concepts)?"

Yes, anything an object does is an event....an action....a phenomenon. They are concepts because we give meaning to what the objects are doing.

Events don’t exist. Here, prove it to yourself. The universe is comprised of only 2 objects, object A is in motion, and moving away from object B. Object A is performing an event (i.e. motion). Now, God comes along and makes object B disappear….POOF! It magically vanishes without affecting object A.

Q: Does object A still move? Is it still performing this event we call “motion”?

A: Obviously not!

But wait…..it was moving before! How can motion exist, and then not exist? All God did was vanish object B. He didn’t vanish ‘the’ motion of object A!

This is a good exercise: Can you explain your paradox, Luis? How can motion exist and then somehow not exist?


Luis 3 years ago

Ha, neat!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

So....Luis....did you figure out your paradox?


Luis 3 years ago

Sure!


Luis 3 years ago

Goodie gumdrops. I might just rejoin Facebook for that very purpose.


Vinny 3 years ago

Nice website. You know, this guy Luis sounds like an absolute fucking twat, especially against the backdrop of some of your other discussions, where it's apparent that he never bought himself some manners. He genuinely sounds like he was raised in a sewer, and here comes to talk about physics. Epic pure dad-wank. He must also be a fan of moisture socks and manicuring his nails. If so, he deserves to be maniacally laughed at.

Anyway, on that, I have to ask Luis: is your rudeness a general behaviour trait among you guys? Whichever mainstream science person I've conversed with seems to be dying to spew bile and talk trash. Responses have to be carefully crafted so as not to set off their rage. Kind of like relativists and QM douches, except they're at least more subtle about it and have to kind of watch their manners for the sake of their cherished social myths. I'm genuinely asking: Luis, why do YOU feel the need to be so rude to people?

Luis sounds like a high-class hooker. Insipid money-grubbing cunts who take dick for pearls care about men who know their drinks, of course, but that's it. I bet he dishonours his mother, grandmother, sister, wife, niece, aunt, girlfriend and wife when he becomes confused that way.

Damn, I don’t know how you put up with these idiots.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

LOL, Vinny….this is actually normal behavior from mental patients who have a pathetically miserable and worthless life. When jealousy sets in….it just destroys their pride, inner soul and any tiny humanity left in them, as is evidenced by their rants. That's why they will never acknowledge people's responses to them, much less when they've been schooled. Perhaps they will amount to something one day….but not for the time being or perhaps not in this life. Their Deistic God will surely give them another life in another dimension, where they can perhaps spew their rants on some alien folk.


Luis 3 years ago

What's this?


Vinny 3 years ago

Who's this Luis moron? He sounds like a human filth who needs an ego boost to make up for his pathetic life in his mum's basement? I guess he must be obsessed with ''rubbing genitals'' together and other bullshit (ever noticed how he’s the only one who does?) - to turn his ideological belief that ''atheists are the gods '' into a self-fulfilling prophecy. What a staggering sad case he is. Not worth it. he can sook in the mirror in peace now. Cheers to the fool.


Luis 3 years ago

Thing is Vinny, or course, you're not a man and never were. You're just one of those sad trolls who can't face their own pathetic shortcomings so they become resigned to getting a rise out of 'infuriating' others. I noticed that you also posed as me on another thread so that you could talk to yourself. This is absolutely hilarious :) Unfortunately for you, you didn't figure that you were dealing with an IT expert with the wherewithal to thoroughly document all this and that you're going to look awful stupid as your wretched existence is exposed on my website and others. I'm also looking to take legal action against you. On that note, have a nice day (not that you'd know what that is, given the lack of sunlight in your daily routine).


AlexK2009 profile image

AlexK2009 3 years ago from Edinburgh, Scotland

I think the sensible comments on this hub are now history.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

What we have here, Alex, is a very mentally ill and troubled person who is obsessed with me. He craves me….can’t get enough of me….and with every passing hour he has withdrawal symptoms. An obsessed fanboy who just can’t live without me!

I get this a lot from the mentally ill out there who are sapiosexuals with a touch of “homosexuality” in them. A very common condition in Northern European countries. That’s why most folks are on anti-depressants in that region of the planet.

These “seemingly” 2 different users, Luis & Vinny are actually THE SAME PERSON with IP address 152.88.164.108. LOL…..this so-called nickel & dime IT expert is nothing more than an ignorant fool if he thinks he can act like this on the Internet and nobody will notice….especially a REAL IT expert with Cisco equipment. And all his activity has been logged here with traceroutes and TCP/IP headers....LOL!!

This mental patient has officially been placed on my BAN list, along with other mental patients from that part of the planet. I don’t even need to see their posts to ban them, as I have a script which automatically deletes their comments.

Have fun in your deranged obsessed little world, Luis (aka Vinny)….and btw….keep posting comments here….they will be AUTO-DELETED by my web script without my intervention….HA!

Submit a Comment
New comments are not being accepted on this article at this time.
Click to Rate This Article
working