2 of 2
2
Another attempt to put a limit on science
Posted: 18 June 2015 07:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  207
Joined  2010-10-09

It’s pretty obvious to me that nothing I, or anyone else, might say, is going to change your mind, since you obviously feel you already have all the answers. You admit that the two brain hemispheres have different functions; you admit that there are people out there who are comfortable with mathematics but less so with imagery, and others who embrace imagery but find mathematics impenetrable; but you say that this doesn’t mean that these people are “left-brained” or “right-brained”. I confess I can’t follow your reasoning here, mainly because I suspect you don’t have any. You ask for evidence, but these are colloquial descriptions, not scientific propositions; “evidence” in such cases simply doesn’t exist; all you have is opinion.  You’re arguing about semantics, not science. I suspect you wouldn’t recognise a scientific argument if you fell over one in the street.

TFS

 Signature 

“Truly I tell you, he who seeks, shall find. And sometimes, he shall wish he hadn’t.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 June 2015 01:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4074
Joined  2009-10-21
Theflyingsorcerer - 18 June 2015 07:45 PM

It’s pretty obvious to me that nothing I, or anyone else, might say, is going to change your mind, since you obviously feel you already have all the answers. You admit that the two brain hemispheres have different functions; you admit that there are people out there who are comfortable with mathematics but less so with imagery, and others who embrace imagery but find mathematics impenetrable; but you say that this doesn’t mean that these people are “left-brained” or “right-brained”. I confess I can’t follow your reasoning here, mainly because I suspect you don’t have any. You ask for evidence, but these are colloquial descriptions, not scientific propositions; “evidence” in such cases simply doesn’t exist; all you have is opinion.  You’re arguing about semantics, not science. I suspect you wouldn’t recognise a scientific argument if you fell over one in the street.

TFS

Now, wait a minute. What did you just do there? I never said I have all the answers, I supplied references for why I think what I do. What system of verification of a definition are you using? Yes, I asked for evidence, isn’t that how it’s supposed to work? Do I hear you right that YOU are saying these are not scientific propositions? Why didn’t you just say that? But then you get slippery and say all I have is opinion. It’s not an opinion to say that I haven’t seen scientific evidence for something, it’s a statement about me. All you need to do is show me the evidence, or you can say you weren’t speaking scientifically. That’s not semantics, that’s definitions. But then you end with this not recognizing a scientific argument thing. So, do you have a scientific argument or not? Or is “people out there feeling comfortable” what you call science?

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2