Dubstepforum.com

sd5 wrote:Magma: absolutes...please explain

Sure, to paraphrasing a few contributions to this debate:

"What I say is definitely true and what you say is definitely wrong."

"I not only know the planet thinks, but I know how the planet thinks."

"Humanity is bad."

Absolutes. They're tricky buggers and require a lot of backing evidence to stop you looking like you're just repeating the last thing you watched on YouTube.

Good and Bad are the worst things to roll into such rigid belief structures because good and bad are almost entirely subjective concepts.... I imagine if we asked most dogs around the world whether they wanted human life to continue, they'd say yes... ask sharks, they'd likely say no... there is no absolute consensus on whether humanity is good or bad... and without producing a single shred of evidence to explain why, it's ridiculous to say there is. Of course, we can't communicate with animals well enough to do that... and we certainly can't communicate with plants or rocks well enough... I'm not sure where this confidence comes from. Where does it become "obvious"?

There seems to be a strong train of thought in this thread which thinks a lump of rock has feelings and opinions, but nobody has made the slightest bit of effort to explain how a lump of rock has feelings or opinions.

Hackman: Just noticed you asking about whether I've ever listened to the wind. I grew up in Somerset, I've only lived in London for 4 years. My childhood was spent listening to the wind... I love this planet and I want to save it. But I don't want to save it for the sake of making a lump of rock happy, I want to save it for US and for things that we enjoy sharing the planet with (almost every single species we currently have)... the planet existed for billions of years in a state unfit for humans and it will do that again, what we need to do is keep the climate as it has been for the last ten/twenty thousand years for as long as possible in order to keep it suitable for us. When it becomes unsuitable for us, we'll all die along with a lot of other species, some species will be fine (cockroaches, crocodiles and lots of other hardier species) and other lifeforms will evolve to make use of the new environment.

magma wrote:They're tricky buggers and require a lot of backing evidence to stop you looking like you're just repeating the last thing you watched on YouTube.

out of interest, why do you consider sources from youtube any less informative than bbc news?

hackman wrote:

magma wrote:They're tricky buggers and require a lot of backing evidence to stop you looking like you're just repeating the last thing you watched on YouTube.

out of interest, why do you consider sources from youtube any less informative than bbc news?

I don't necessarily, but there does seem to be a tendancy to rely on words rather than evidence amongst the YouTube/GoogleVideos fraternity. Just because something sounds nice, doesn't make it true.

I don't necessarily trust BBC News, but I know they're only likely to report on scientific issues that have some sort of creedence in the science community.

But yeah, generally if you're looking to a news channel or YouTube rather than peer reviewed science literature for your information, I think you're probably not getting the best information on offer.... there's plenty of great stuff on the Internet, there really is, but I think all sources should be treated with a healthy dose of scepticism whether they be "official" or not.

magma has faith in the scientific community. if they don't all agree on a single thing, then it ain't real!

the scientific community didn't get to peer review the mothership over the city of phoenix so it ain't real

parson wrote:magma has faith in the scientific community. if they don't all agree on a single thing, then it ain't real!

Not exactly

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement, but the opposite of profound truth may be another profound truth

Plus faith has a severe allergy to uncle 'proof' and aunty 'evidence'

Do you repair radios by the way?

are you implying that magma's going over my head

i'm implying that he's got a convenient way to dismiss everything that makes him uncomfortable about the state of the world

parson wrote:magma has faith in the scientific community. if they don't all agree on a single thing, then it ain't real!

more like, if its not backed up by theory, predictions and then experiments agreeing with those predictions, then theres a fair chance it aint real.

exactly why we can all rest easy knowing there was no mothership over phoenix, despite the shared experience of the entire city over a weekend

david adair must be a genius story teller
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvLcpuny-lw

phil schneider too

ralph ring

bob lazar

clifford stone

bill hicks

parson wrote:exactly why we can all rest easy knowing there was no mothership over phoenix, despite the shared experience of the entire city over a weekend

okay heres a question, if alien ufos do exist, why is their presence hidden by authorities? what goal is served by denying that they exist and keeping people ignorant? serious question btw

because they are aliens

like that tv show V

the aliens show up and then we learn they've been here for thousands of years

eventually we'll learn we're them

parson wrote:i'm implying that he's got a convenient way to dismiss everything that makes him uncomfortable about the state of the world

The exact same statement applies to you. I'm not the first person to say it, and I'm certain I won't be the last. You're intelligent. At least have the sensibility to recognise hypocrisy.