Mikel's Opinion, if you want it.

Jump to Last Post 51-67 of 67 discussions (363 posts)

61
Bovine Currencyposted 14 years ago
Mikel, those were not my words you quote above. Honest mistake I am sure, just noting.
reply report
1. 73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  sure they are...
  reply report
83
Don Wposted 14 years ago
(Q) and Mikel that was interesting. My impressions of your discussion:

(Q) is essentially saying: faith is not a reliable way to obtain knowledge. And by knowledge I mean belief that is justified and true.

But therein lies a problem. There is no categorical supporting evidence (proof) and no categorical refuting evidence (disproof) for certain beliefs. So determining its truth or falsehood is impossible. Can we determine its probability? Perhaps, but that tells us nothing about whether it’s true or not.

Indeed the probability of our existence is extremely small given current accepted scientific theory about the conditions of the early universe. However, the fact that we are here demonstrates that improbable does not equate to untrue.

Clearly people do form beliefs despite lack of supporting evidence. How do we determine the reliability of that approach? (Q) asked about usefulness. But usefulness depends on what is considered useful. We could ask does faith build bridges? Does faith develop medicine? Does faith power our computers? The answer is no to all.

But if you ask how many nails have been hammered in with a saw, and I say very few, does that mean saws are useless? It doesn’t. It means your judging the usefulness of one tool by looking at how it is applied to the task of another.

Faith is an approach to understanding, but not for empirical aspects of the universe. Scientific method is the best tool for that job. Faith is an approach “used” when people enquire into non-empirical aspects of the nature of existence. Empirical processes like the scientific method cannot address such matters.

I think what Mikel is saying is that when you get into that area, all you can do is make a choice about what you believe and don’t believe and accept that you could be wrong because your choice is based only on whatever criteria you have brought to the decision. For some that criteria is what they feel, for others it’s based on probability, for others it’s based on what an ancient book says, for most it’s a combination of various things.

The point is that in some areas of human enquiry claiming that your criteria for belief is more “useful” than anothers is like a man saying he can see better than another man, when in fact both men are blind. Thanks to you both for the thought food.
reply report
1. 73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
2. 53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  While I would tend to agree with most of what you're saying, I wouldn't agree that the unknown is a point in which one decides to believe in an alternative answer. Therein lies the problem. If something is unknown, we can speculate till the cows come home, but the only honest answer we can provide is "We don't know, yet". If we decide to believe in a supernatural entity and then begin pursuing 'evidence' to pigeonhole into the belief, which is exactly what Mikel is doing, we are now doing the same thing as a crackpot or crank would do.
  
  And, that just opens up a huge can of intellectually dishonest worms.
  
  While I see no problem with Mikel speculating a supernatural being, it would behoove us to point out that anything the mind can conjure is equally speculative. Mikel does not agree here, though. He believes, like most other theists, that gods cannot be compared to any other supernatural or speculative entity.
  
  Anyone armed with the scientific method is going to find their results 'useful' in discovering and learning things about the universe that are 'useful' to us all. Most every modern convenience, technologies, medicines, etc. are all a result of this 'useful' process.
  
  We can see which process is blind by it's results and the results of the scientific process compared with the religious belief system are two completely different things.
  
  Thanks for the feedback, Don.
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  http://hubpages.com/hub/Knowing-Mikel-G … ods-Puzzle
  reply report
  53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for that, Mikel. I go a chuckle from your 'Newton was wrong' piece. Quite the bit of comedy, there. And, I found there what I suspected, that you pretty much use your imagination to rule your worldview. Thanks just the same.
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  You can disprove my theory on that then? Because the people at MIT didn't.
  reply report
  53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Really? Show me the MIT argument so I can see where the flaw originates? Thanks.
  reply report
  61
  Bovine Currencyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That'll happen.
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, you said it was very funny, so obviously YOU can point right to the flaw in my reasoning.
  That now you say you require help from MIT to me means that you actually just dismissed my theory out of hand. Saying that you find it funny, me funny, for doubting what that learned scientist Newton, put out as true.
  
  Once again you lay claim to easy access to proof, that in all truth, you do not possess... Give me your rebutal and I will send it to the same people at MIT, that I sent my theory to.
  reply report
  53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What are you talking about? I asked for the MIT argument that you claimed "the people at MIT didn't" disprove your theory. I don't need any help with physics, my friend, I simply want to see that argument. Do you have it or not?
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Q or Mark or Jeffrey,
  
  No, I will not provide you with anything. You said it was very funny, so obviously YOU can point right to the flaw in my reasoning.
  That now you say you require help from MIT to me means that you actually just dismissed my theory out of hand. Saying that you find it funny, me funny, for doubting what that learned scientist Newton, put out as true.
  
  TMMason stated: "Q, your not worth talking to. You snipe and state, "your wrong", over and over and never offer any evidence or factual basis for your ?... I would say positions, but I don't think you have any. Other than everyone who doesn't agree with you, "is wrong". Which is the oldest of liberal myths, "if you repeat it long enough and many many times over, it will be true". But, it isn't."
  
  I must state I am begining to agree.
  reply report
  53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Clearly, you know I am neither Mark or Jeffrey and you do that simply to antagonize, yes?
  
  I suspect then, that the MIT argument in question is as elusive and invisible as your belief in a god.
  
  Yes, I can, and in fact, so can a first year physics student because that's exactly where your confusion originates.
  
  I did not dismiss it out of hand, I simply read your words and within a few moments spotted the flaw.
  
  I understand Newtons laws and have for some years. I also understand where Newton flawed, which is what Einstein pointed out.
  
  That's fine, Mikel, you are free to choose not to respond to me just as I'm free not to respond to you.
  
  But, you can also try and have a thicker skin than TMMason. I really could care less what people wish to call me or think of me. That's the beauty of free speech. Why should you worry about it either, then.
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Q or Mark or Jeffrey,
  
  No, I will not provide you with anything. You said it was very funny, so obviously YOU can point right to the flaw in my reasoning.
  That now you say you require help from MIT to me means that you actually just dismissed my theory out of hand. Saying that you find it funny, me funny, for doubting what that learned scientist Newton, put out as true.
  
  TMMason stated: "Q, your not worth talking to. You snipe and state, "your wrong", over and over and never offer any evidence or factual basis for your ?... I would say positions, but I don't think you have any. Other than everyone who doesn't agree with you, "is wrong". Which is the oldest of liberal myths, "if you repeat it long enough and many many times over, it will be true". But, it isn't."
  
  I must state I agree.
  reply report
61
Bovine Currencyposted 14 years ago
Out of interest I note the following,

Not that it really matters in this case but Mikel,

Although all those words are direct quotes, you have misrepresented my words.

Anyway, it really doesn't matter.

Just picking at hairs. Being a pain because I can
reply report
80
Tom Cornettposted 14 years ago
Did Santa Claus have a mullet in the 80s?
reply report
1. 73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, but not always, errr not every Santa did.
  reply report
61
Bovine Currencyposted 14 years ago
Mikel, do you have faith in Wikipedia?
reply report
1. 73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lol, I would not word it that way, I would say I have Faith in the people that created Wikipedia and those same people that looked up, organized and then printed what we find on Wikipedia. I trust Wikipedia to be factual because of my Faith in other knowledgable people that would point out any erroneus information that might have been placed on Wikipedia.
  
  Even People With Weird Names Like Cattle Money...
  reply report
  53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  All you're doing is allowing others to do your thinking for you and you just follow along blindly.
  reply report
70
Cagsilposted 14 years ago
Are you of the understanding that others have the right to tell other people what to do and how to live their life?
reply report
1. 73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Technically Yes, they call them Laws... and prison, execution, etc. are the consequences to breaking those rules of other people. I didn't create the Laws but I must follow them... or suffer the consequences.
  reply report
  61
  Bovine Currencyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Or not get caught.
  
  There is nothing you must do.
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  What about 'not get caught' breaking laws?
  reply report
  61
  Bovine Currencyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Could you reword that. What is your question?
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You said there is nothing one must do, one can break the law so long as one doesn't get caught... Isn't that saying 'one must' not get caught?
  reply report
  61
  Bovine Currencyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Wrong.
  
  One can do whatever one so wishes. Free will is independent of consequences.
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That is a Fallacy... there are consequences to any and every action or inaction. Some consequences are good, some bad. The consequences however are sometimes less than the original action, or greater...
  reply report
  61
  Bovine Currencyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Free will is not an action.
  
  Try again.
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Look up INACTION...I think I used it in a sentence somewhere around here...
  reply report
  61
  Bovine Currencyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Look up inaction? No need Mikel. The word inaction is superfluous to the argument.
  
  Free will is not an action nor is it inaction.
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  then it doesn't exist? If it isn't an action, then it 'has' to be an inaction...right?
  reply report
  61
  Bovine Currencyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Wrong.
  report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It was a question... Wrong doesn't seem like a very good answer... I thought you knew everything...
  
  again... If freewill is not an action nor is it inaction then it doesn't exist? If it isn't an action, then it 'has' to be an inaction...right ?
  report
  61
  Bovine Currencyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Wrong.
  report
58
Jeramiposted 14 years ago
(Q) wrote:
Deborah Sexton wrote:

Mankind has and always will suffer in the past, the present due to himself.

(Q) Yet, we see more suffering as a result of religions than we do with the individual and the human condition.

Jerami And yet we should attempt to remember that a large group of thinkers is nothing but many individuals gathered in the same place. A smaller group of radicals seen within any larger body of individuals seems to cast their shadow over the entire gathering.
This is the delusion of categorizing most groups.
reply report
53
(Q)posted 14 years ago
So, no MIT argument, Mikel?

Would you like me to point out the flaw in your assertion?

While I looked over that page again, I noticed a very bag piece on gravity. No Mikel, gravity is not a "magnetism element" in the middle of all masses. This can easily be refuted by the fact that electromagnetism can produce gravity because mass and energy can be converted.

Gravity warps the space around the object in which the straight lines other objects follow through space are curved towards the main object. We are all in free fall and the earths surface is accelerating up towards us.
reply report
61
Bovine Currencyposted 14 years ago
Mikel, know matter how much I know, some people are unteachable.
reply report
1. 73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So you do understand and Know the answer, but I just am not good enough or smart enough to be given the answer...I got ya...
  
  I'll try and be smarter... No worries your answer didn't make you look dumb or anything... (if it did you can always edit it in a few minutes)
  reply report
  61
  Bovine Currencyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No need Mikel. Your assumptions will get you everywhere.
  reply report
  61
  Bovine Currencyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Excellent use of ellipses Mikel, makes my job of quoting you much easier.
  reply report
83
Don Wposted 14 years ago
I read that as: a person is not within their intellectual rights to maintain belief which cannot (currently) be evaluated through scientific method. Such belief is irrational. Maintaining an irrational belief (instead of just saying “we don’t know, yet”) is at best foolish, at worse dysfunctional.

Just wanted to point out a problem with the above as I see it. The above belief (let’s call it (Q)’s belief) itself cannot be evaluated through scientific method. So it is (by it’s own reasoning) irrational and therefore maintiaing it is foolish and/or dysfunctional.

So if (Q)’s belief is true, then the correct response would be to reject it as a belief. It is therefore self-refuting.

If (Q)’s belief is maintained, then any rejection of a belief as irrational, based on (Q)’s belief will be inconsistant.
reply report
1. 73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Most of Q or Mark or Jeffrey's stances are self-refuting, but I can't for the life of me get that through his(or her) head. I have given up on him/her, and am moving on.
  reply report
  53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, I see, so that's why you just reposted the same thing as before, that was your way of ending the discussion.
  
  As completely dazed and confused as you are with reality, Mikel, it's not surprising you believe what I say is self-refuting.
  
  For example, you attempt, in your Hubpages that you linked, to discredit physics when it's crystal clear you don't understand the basic physics fundamentals most others learn in high school.
  
  Then, you lied about some MIT argument. You most likely sent your beliefs to them, they also had a good chuckle realizing you had no idea what you're talking about, and you claimed that as a victory because they didn't refute your nonsense, which consistent with crackpots and cranks.
  
  And now, you're offering some pathetic excuse that you can't get something through my head when in reality you're running away from being caught in a lie.
  
  This thread is about YOUR opinions, Mikel. And, now we know what they are, baseless and dishonest.
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, that was a dismissive gesture. So was the statement that talking to you isn't worth effort.
  
  Thank You again for your unfounded and unwanted opinion.
  
  Again if it is so obvious, and so easy to discredit my logic on physics, then do so. Show us all the ease with which You can dispute my theory. (insert proof here).
  
  Possibly, but the easy and obvious proof of my errors has yet to be supplied, by You or by them.
  
  No I'm saying put your proof where your windbag blow-hole is or quit wasting my and everyone else's time with your constant childish argument of "Q or Mark or Jeffrey is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong."
  
  and since you know that, you'll most certainly stop coming to refute, my obviously baseless and dishonest opinions, and just show everyone all the proof to all that you claim as fact. (which we all know isn't going to happen.)
  
  Q or Mark or Jeffrey, I disagree with what you believe, I am sorry that you are so desperate to have others believe as you do, that you will argue unceasingly, with out any proof what so ever, of your beliefs on any and every thread posted. I am content in my beliefs, even if they may be incorrect. My beliefs bring me comfort and peace. I believe them truthful and profound. I hope someday that your beliefs might bring you the same.
  reply report
  53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You don't have a theory, you have a flawed assertion. You simply missed entirely the concept of friction and failed to acknowledge in your Hub.
  
  Your errors are elementary and they knew it.
  
  Many people are content to believe in the unfounded and the baseless. However, when one begins to pretend the minds at MIT are dumbfounded by their uniformed assertions, "opinions" begin to take on a life of their own.
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sounds like you don't know what your talking about... Friction... Ok so your stating that in space Newton's third law would be correct? If I were floating in space and pushed against a floating pebble, I would be propelled in the opposite direction from the pebble? I think not, because as stated in my theory the reactionary force of the floating pebble would be less than my initial force against the pebble. So yet again your wrong. Yet again you offer your opinion as proof.
  
  You can supply Proof of this, or are you simply stating once again your unfounded opinion. If you have spoken to the people at MIT and that is what they told you, well that is one thing...Is that what you did?
  
  You I believe are the embodiment of this statement. All your so called provable positions turn out to be purely your unfounded opinion. Unless as you say we take your opinion as proof, which is what you try to make it.
  
  Q or Mark or Jeffrey, Yet again the same old story with all new words. Still nothing but your wrong and I'm right. That is all you ever say, you twist other peoples words to make them seem like they are saying something other than what they are. You lie saying you have proof that somehow you never can supply.
  
  For the record, I stated that I had sent my theory to the people at MIT and they had not sent me anything refuting it. You may have been correct in your assumption that they merely threw my theory in the trash thinking me a crackpot. I believe them to be people of an open mind that would look at and examine the facts I sent them and refute them if they could. I am content to maintain my stance that they are in fact openminded people examing my theory. I do however have to accept the possibility that I am wrong in my opinion of the MIT people to whom I sent my theory.
  reply report
  53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well, well, well, if I hadn't seen it for myself, I wouldn't have believed it. The piece on Newton AND the piece on gravity/magnetism has mysteriously disappeared from your linked hub. Where did they go?
  
  I was referring to your slipping out of the boat problem in which friction was the key element.
  
  Empty space has no friction, that's an entirely different assertion on your part.
  
  There would be a transfer of energy (force) between you and the pebble based on both your masses and the acceleration of the force. Your mass being much larger than the pebble will tend to make insignificant the reaction the pebbles mass will have on you. Therefore, you won't be propelled in the opposite direction from the pebble, it will be propelled away from you.
  
  That would depend entirely on how much force you apply to the pebble.
  
  Defending to the end?
  
  Yes well, don't hold your breath. And, next time don't lie about others not refuting your crackpot theories when they have most likely chosen to not humiliate you by not responding.
  
  Unless you hear from the Nobel committee sometime soon, acceptance on your part is highly recommended.
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  http://hubpages.com/hub/Newton_was_Wrong_Again
  
  http://hubpages.com/hub/Gravity_the_Magnetism_of_Mass
  
  Again it seems you do not know what you talking about. Newton states "For Every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Mikel states not true
  
  If I were floating in space and pushed against a floating pebble, I would not be propelled in the opposite direction from the pebble. Because the pebble does not have it in it to return an equal amount of force to me.
  
  Which is not what Newton says in the third law of motion, that you are so completely positive is absolutely true. And yet are now stating clearly that the forces are NOT Equal and Opposite, which is exactly MY position in my published theory.
  
  You can't have it both ways, either the pebble has an unlimited amount of force and can return an infinite amount of reactionary force (Newton position) or it cannot.(my position)
  
  Side stepping to the end? Just answer the simple question, Did you contact the people at MIT or are you once again propogating your lies and unfounded opinions?
  
  For the record, I stated that I had sent my theory to the people at MIT and they had not sent me anything refuting it. You may have been correct in your assumption that they merely threw my theory in the trash thinking me a crackpot. I believe them to be people of an open mind that would look at and examine the facts I sent them and refute them if they could. I am content to maintain my stance that they are in fact openminded people examing my theory.
  
  Thank You so much for your caring and heartfelt words. It is not often that one encounters someone that can through pure charm and charisma give hope and encouragement to others like you... Oh wait that wasn't you, your that Q or Mark or Jeffrey guy....nevermind... Peace and Love.
  reply report
  53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you for recreating those hubs.
  
  That is a result of your misunderstanding of the law. An equal and opposite reaction is not the same thing as an equal amount of force returned to you. The law does not state that at all.
  
  That is a misunderstanding on your part. I never said that. The force applied to the pebble will cause a reaction, which is equal and opposite to the force applied. That is the law. Do you understand?
  
  Your position is flawed because you fail to understand the law itself.
  
  Yeah, that's rich, Mikel, you want to make out me to be the liar here. You really are a piece of work, pal.
  
  You just don't get it, do you. If you weren't so confused, you'd understand that if you actually did refute one of Newton's laws, you would be a Nobel prize winner if not a candidate.
  
  But, all you are is seriously confused and you don't really want to learn anything. You prefer to believe that YOU have refuted Newtons law.
  
  Here's the formula: F=ma. Notice that m is the mass and will have a different value for a man and a pebble. If the force remains constant, which it does, then the only variable left is a, the acceleration.
  
  The reaction of the pebble is opposite to that of the man pushing on the pebble, it will accelerate in the opposite direction. Why is this so hard to understand?
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  whatever
  reply report
  53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you for confirming your unwillingness to learn, Mikel. Feel free to continue believing you and you alone have brought down the halls of science in one fell swoop.
  
  Some of us spend years experimenting with those and other physics laws that have always, and I say ALWAYS have revealed consistent results. It is without a doubt very frustrating when cranks and crackpots who haven't a clue what they're talking about come along with their half-baked notions and delusions of grandeur making claims with hand-waving assertions, almost always based on a misunderstanding (or no understanding whatsoever) of physics on their part.
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  whatever
  reply report
  83
  Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm only pointing it out because there is a problem with the reasoning in this argument. Not taking sides. As you can both tell I'm quite comfortable shouting from the sidelines in a non-commital sort of way.
  reply report
2. 53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It is the one method used when the scientific method is not used and has nothing to do with me or my beliefs.
  
  You're free to find out what crackpots and cranks entail if you're not aware. Here's a start:
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29
  reply report
  83
  Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Regardless of the arguments origin and and when it applies, it remains self-refuting for the reasons mentioned previously. Additionally "(Q)’s belief" was a form of shorthand for convenience and was not intended to identify you as the originator. However you clearly believe the argument is true. Therefore it's reasonable to describe it as a belief that you currently hold to be true.
  
  Asserting something to be correct because it's made by someone (or something) considered an authority is a logical fallacy known as "argument from authority" or in Latin "argumentum ad verecundiam", literally meaning argument to respect. What a crank is (and who descibes it as such) has no relevance to the truth of what you have asserted.
  
  Regardless of that, the editor's discussion page of the wikipedia entry you link to states: "This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crank_(person)
  
  One Wikipedia editor on the same page has written:
  
  "This page is quite bizarre. It doesn't read like something you'd find in an encyclopedia, but it's not quite something you'd find in a dictionary either. I would expect to find this kind of content in an urban dictionary. There's also a lot of POV [Point Of View] and anecdotal first-hand research based on personal experience which doesn't fit with the style of an encyclopedia."
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crank_(person)#Bizarre_page
  
  My first suggestion is avoid logical fallacy. My second is check the reliability of sources. If those criticisms still apply (I didn't check) then it doesn't bode well for reliability.
  reply report
  53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  On your say?
  
  It is a widely used system in which I've had a fair share of experience. You're free to believe it is a belief.
  
  It is the same thing.
  
  Of course it is under dispute, by the cranks themselves.
  
  Again, you are free to consider it a belief. And, when you do enter the scientific community and have to deal with this sort of thing all the time, you might understand then.
  reply report
  83
  Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Don't get me wrong, I understand that in the scientific community as part of the scientific process there has to be a way to distinguish between every outlandish claim made by every would-be Einstein. I understand that the robustness of the scientific process in that regard is (and has been) fundamental to the success of science as an approach to knowledge. If that's your point, then I agree with you.
  
  But I think there's a problem with the way you're making that point. Evidentialism, the assertion that justification of a belief depends on supporting evidence, works in the context of the scientific process and is in fact necessary. Therefore applying your assertion to claims in that domain is entirely appropriate. However, when you apply that assertion to claims beyond the scope of science, then you stretch it beyond the bounds of logical consistency because evidentialism itself is a belief which doesn’t pass its own criteria for justification.
  
  The problem can be fixed by narrowing the scope of the assertion so it's in line with the scope of science. So rather than “a person is not within their intellectual rights to maintain belief which cannot (currently) be evaluated through scientific method … “ one could say “[within the scientific domain] a person is not within their intellectual rights to maintain beliefs [within the scope of science] which cannot (currently) be evaluated through scientific method…”
  
  The amended statement does not apply to beliefs outside the scope of science. Which is good, because there are beliefs outside the scope of science, not formed on the basis of evidence, which are necessarily true. Indeed the position known as foundationalism is a direct response to the self-refuting nature of evidentialism. So by narrowing the scope of this assertion its criteria for justification don't need to be applied to itself. Therefore there is no logical inconsistency and the assertion is no longer self-refuting. But that's the only way to save it!
  
  As an aside, I think this issue arose because some of the beliefs Mikel has been discussing (not the gravity thing) are beyond the scope of science. But you were applying an assertion useful in science to what are essentially metaphysical claims. Trying to address metaphysical claims with assertions appropriate within the domain of science is to effectively try to change the scope of science. If that happened science would become useless. The fact that science cannot address such things as belief in a deity is one of the things that makes science so successful as an approach to very specific types of knowledge. The narrowness of its scope helps us to make accurate models of reality. What is outside the scope of science is (and should be) irrelevant to science.
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Nicely Stated.
  reply report
  53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  An excellent post, Don. Well written.
  
  And, while I would wholeheartedly agree with what you say, my only injection to your post would be that when those who claim their supernatural beings have in some way affected us or our universe, we should have the right to use science and its methods in order to detect and measure those effects. If the claims were such that gods existed and had no effect on us and our universe, then those claims would most likely be irrelevant to science, as you succinctly explained.
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not being able to 'use' science to refute things that are outside of the scope of science was the point. You want to be able to use science to refute God, God the concept, is outside the scope of science. Therefore outside of sciences ability to refute.
  reply report
  53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Then, by your own logic, god must be outside the scope of your reality and is merely just another concept of the over active imagination.
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  whatever
  reply report
  60
  Davidsonofjesieposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  WOW explain big bang mr.Q
  reply report
3. 53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not really foolish or dysfunctional, but at worst intellectually dishonest, especially if the claims to the supernatural were definitive and absolute, an irrational position to hold.
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Faith- believing in something without proof. It is Not believing when there is proof to the contrary.
  
  Having Faith in something unprovable is not necessarily disfunctional, foolish or irrational it is just unprovable.
  reply report
73
Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years ago
reply report
73
Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years ago
Mikel's opinion... If you want it... ask away...
reply report
1. 53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And, make sure you ask Mikel about physics, he believes he will be the next Nobel prize laureate and the head of MIT. You can believe it too.
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  whatever
  reply report
2. 61
  tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So,'WHATEVER',is your opinion ?
  
  INTERESTING !
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm glad your enjoying it. And yes my opinion of just about anything Q or Mark or Jeffrey says is whatever.
  reply report
  53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Mikel, If a word could be uttered where one stopped thinking in order to embrace the mysterious and the magical as reality, where everything fit well into ones imaginative and desired whimsical notions, what would that word be?
  
  $10 bucks he says (Q).
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  In my opinion that word would be 'Delusion'.
  reply report
  53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You were supposed to say, "Whatever"
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Whatever
  reply report
  53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I guess I lost $10 bucks. Where should I send it?
  reply report
  0
  cosetteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  INSANITY.
  
  i think unicorns and fairies are groovy, but the day i actually see one is the day i know i am insane.
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The day scientists learn how to splice Dna to mutate ponies into unicorns with pink coats, will be a very funny day...lol
  reply report
  53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And rightly so. Other than that which we create ourselves, how often do the things we imagine to exist come to fruition exactly as imagined?
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly as imagined rarely, but they do come to fruition, sometimes.
  reply report
  53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Such as ... ?
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  A picture is worth a thousand words?
  
  http://hubpages.com/hub/Newton_was_Wrong_Again
  reply report
  53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, and it continues to show your misunderstanding of Newtons laws. The language of physics is math, not pictures.
  
  Here you go:
  
  F=ma
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  F=ma is the second law, again I'm talking and drawing pictures about the third F=-F everytime...
  reply report
  53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, genius. Keep drawing pictures.
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Lmao, ok I will
  
  and I quote, "the questions must continue until the answers make sense to the one asking the questions"...Mikel G Roberts...
  reply report
  0
  cosetteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  once in a lifetime, i would expect. that happened for me when i gave birth to my son. he was exactly as i imagined. better, even
  
  well that would just be a horse with a genetically engineered coat and horn. unicorns are said to be magical, with powers to ward off evil, heal the sick and neutralize poison.
  
  i always thought Pegasus, the winged horse, was awesome too.
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Anything is possible... untill proven impossible...
  reply report
83
Don Wposted 14 years ago
Quick response to the other points (Q) made:

Either it’s reasonable to say the argument is self-refuting or it isn’t. The person making the argument has nothing to do with the validity of the argument. Indeed implying otherwise is another form of logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem (ad hominem argument). Where the validity of an argument is (incorrectly) linked to the person making it. In Latin it literally means "argument toward the person".

So if the reasoning of the refutation is sound, then we can accept your assertion is self-refuting. If you are claiming it is unsound, then supporting that claim by highlighting which areas are unsound would be appropriate.
I think this is a miscommunication in the way we are using the term belief. I don’t mean belief as in a subjective, personal or private conviction. I mean belief as in an argument that is simply believed, i.e. an argument that is held to be true.

Don't really have anything helpful to say about the other comments.
reply report
73
Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years ago
Mikel's Opinion, Feelings can be used as proof. Not as scientific proof but as proof non the less.
reply report
83
Don Wposted 14 years ago
Sorry to keep butting in I know this thread is supposed to be about Mikel's opinion. But to clarify, are you asserting that it is intellectually dishonest to hold a belief that cannot be supported by empirical evidence?
reply report
1. 73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well Stated, and I believe that is his/her position.
  
  Mikel's opinion (just to keep us on topic): electrons existed before we had proof, love existed before we had proof. All the elements in the Periodic Table existed before we could prove that they existed.
  Lack of proof, is not proof, that 'it' doesn't exist. In my opinion.
  reply report
  53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  They existed despite our understanding of them. Lightning existed, yes? Chemicals existed, yes?
  reply report
2. 53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It's the holding of beliefs in the face of empirical evidence.
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It is that empirical evidence you keep claiming to have but fail to produce...
  
  Proving there is no proof, is not proof ,but you keep trying to use it as proof.
  reply report
  53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Really? Let me clear up a few things for you, sir.
  
  Firstly, I corrected you in your misunderstanding of Newtons third law. Should I have provided a link to that law? I provided the explanation and the math on your hub.
  
  Secondly, I corrected you in your misunderstanding of gravity. Should I have provided a link to the theory of general relativity? The fact that you so easily misunderstood Newtons third law, I seriously doubt you could grasp the mathematics for that theory. Can you?
  
  Thirdly, you offered up a whopper of tale that MIT could not refute your assertions of Newtons third law when all they did was simply not respond to you. Your claim as such would easily win you the Noble prize, but you insisted you were right, nonetheless. You then failed to produce the MIT argument you claimed.
  
  And lastly, you responded to my post once with a post you previously wrote and then told me it was a way for you to end the discussion. You then continued to respond to other posts of mine with a simple, "Whatever" whenever it suited your agenda or when you couldn't provide an intelligent response.
  
  Somehow, the hypocrisy of your words speaks louder than you.
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No you didn't. You stated your unfounded opinion.
  
  Again, no you did not. Your unfounded opinion was all that you supplied.
  
  No I did not. You supplied that(you stated that MIT had sent me a letter saying they could not refute my theory), I said I have submitted my theory to MIT, and that they had sent me nothing refuting it.
  
  whatever
  
  again more of your unfounded opinions, still lacking that 'proof' you claim to have...
  reply report
  53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Then, I will presume our discussions are over. Let us all know what you'll be doing with your Nobel prize winnings.
  reply report
  73
  Quilligrapherposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You did well, Mikel. I like your style. You articulated your position well without having to stoop to arrogance and sarcasm. I hope the trolls were taking notes.
  reply report
  53
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not sure if the trolls were taking note, but certainly those who understand just how wrong Mikel was and just how arrogant he was in defending his crackpot ideals took note.
  
  However, I don't expect those who would support Mikel with his crank theories would care less about others who spend their lives working with scientific theories to provide those same cranks and crackpots (and their unappreciative supporters) with every convenience they now take advantage.
  
  Those so-called "arrogant and sarcastic trolls" would invite you to go live in a cave and dispense with that which you've been provided. Of course, like those same unappreciative supporters, you'll be the hypocrite and do no such thing, yes?
  reply report
  73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  TY
  reply report
79
skyfireposted 14 years ago
Mikel, my question to you : Do you have a blog ? If yes, on what topic you blog ?
reply report
1. 73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Uh I don't think I do, when I first came to hubpages I tried some of their linked sites and one of those may have been a blog site...I haven't been back since that first time I should maybe try and look that over again...
  reply report
79
skyfireposted 14 years ago
I asked that cause i think other than HP it is better to have blog. Though my views are opposite to your belief but it is always interesting to read other views. So i asked to see if you have a blog then that will make interesting read for me.
reply report
1. 73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hubpages is the only place I have written anything... you can find me here...
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 2

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Mikel's Opinion, if you want it.

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Mikel's Opinion, if you want it.

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies