• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Jonathan

  1. Adams's comments on the stock scam are right on. And notice how uninterested Billy and Brad are in our catching them performing the scam. I pointed out Brad's stupid attempt to run two separate hypotheses at the same time, and to treat them as one, thus eliminating falsifiability. No comment from Brad or Billy about that. You'd think that people who love science as much as Brad and Billy claim to would be eager to address such criticisms, and knock them down immediately. But, no, our little activists think that ignoring the criticism will make it go away. Just keep running the scam.
  2. !Does Billy still not understand the difference between the words "hypothesize" and "predict"? Anyway, it appears that Billy didn't notice or comprehend the final few words in Ellen's comment. The part about scrambling. See, we're back to the importance of the questions that I've asked. Details. Ahead of results being observed. "Arrehenius didn’t get every detail right, but his argument has proven to be pretty sound." Pretty sound. Which details didn't he get right? What were the specific conditions of falsifiability? Did he also make contrary predictions? Ones which h
  3. Billy? Are you okay? Still alive? I see that your Twitter account is suspended. What is up with that? J
  4. Indeed. From the wiki page that Merlin posted: Counter-intuitive to whom? Counter-intuitive to the visuospatially and mechanically inept, and therefore to everyone? Apparently Merlin finds it paradoxical. Not surprising. J
  5. Btw, Merlin, don't you have something better do in your doderage? Isnt there another Wikipedia page that you can destroy with your stupidity?
  6. Exactly. Brad is sniping. He's trying to force the discussion in a direction where he hopes that he'll be able to find chinks in my armor. He is refusing to identify his foundation -- the definitions, terms and conditions that I'm asking him to identify -- and he's focused on trying to target what he hopes might be my beliefs. J
  7. I'm not participating in a debate. Where did you get the idea that it was a debate? Pay attention: Billy asked what it would take to change our minds on the issue of anthropogenic climate change. I answered. I named my conditions. I simply explained that I'd need to see the details of the scientific method being followed, and I listed specifically what that would mean. Identify and define the single successful hypothesis, the duration of the observations, how that duration was chosen, identify the predictions, the specific conditions of falsifiability, independent repeatability and valida
  8. Yeah, the opposite is true. It's the Bernie Bros and Warren Wenches who are all "Mine, mine, mine," and "You don't get a doll" (especially if you are the one who created the doll). It's just a continuation of the canards behind economic anti-semitism ( As the popular memes sum up Marx, "Gibs be dat for free." J
  9. Okay, so how to sum up Brad’s return? Let’s see. I asked about the details of the successful hypothesis which “settled” the science once and for all regarding anthropogenic climate change. In response, first Brad substituted different questions that he liked better, and answered those instead: I had asked what the scientists who had achieved the successful model had identified, prior to making predictions and testing them, what length of time must be observed, and how was that length of time arrived at. Brad decided to pretend that I was asking what HE thought should be the proper du
  10. Yeah, Orange Man and MSK bad. Gramps, do you have any insights as to why Trump has changed his position? Or is it just Gotcha-MSK? J
  11. Okie dokie. Still no answers to my questions. Still no demonstration of the scientific method being followed. Still no details of the terms and conditions of a single hypothesis and its predictions, falsifiability, testing, results, and conclusions. Instead od wasting his time answering my questions, Brad put his efforts toward what he thinks is better use of time: inventing grounds to believe that I'm lacking in understanding the subject or completely dishonest. There! That showed me! And, yet, still no answers. One nice thing about Brad's return visit is that he did I de
  12. Is that part of the scientific method? "I'm not going to present any details of the term and conditions of the hypothesis and its predictions and testing until any potential reviewers or critics answer questions that I've come up with!" hahaha!!! Youre missing a few options. Which is not surprising. J
  13. The original MSK classic, along with my addition of Brad at the end: Enter Brad: "I apologize for my waiter’s temper, sir. Hi. I’m Brad. I’m the owner and cook here. Now, if I overheard correctly, you would like an ice cream cone. Is that correct? Yes? Well, I don’t want to go though the trouble of making one for you, only to then discover that I’ve wasted my time because it’s not what you really want. So, let’s first explore any grounds for disagreement that we might have. Please answer this question: Octopus is the primary ingredient in Tasty Steamed Octopus, yes o
  14. It's familiar to me. Why are you throwing my words in MSK's face? Are you confusing the two of us, gramps? J
  15. So, anyway, clearly Billy’s savior has nothing. Do you have anyone better, Billy? C’mon. There has to be someone who will actually try to answer the questions instead of running away from them, someone bright enough to come up with something other the stupidity of believing that we’re going to fall for the Tasty Stramed Octopus menu substitution. You can’t all be that incompetent. Seriously, Billy, bring someone with a brain. J
  16. I'm not interested in that type of exchange and distraction from my questions. Im not interested in your ploys to avoid my questions and substitute them with your method of controlling the conversation so that my question can be dodged. During your first appearance here, you claimed that the questions could be answered easily. Not so anymore. So more Tasty Steamed Octopus it is! J
  17. In other words, it's a test. You're testing whether or not there is agreement. Which means you're testing whether or not I'm worthy of having my questions answered. You're trying to make it about me. You're doing so because you have nothing. You can't answer the questions, and you don't want to try because the actual answers don't back up your opinions. Answering the questions would box you in, and take away your means of deception. J
  18. I'm not going to play your games. No, it's not requisite. Your attempts to test me, and determine that I'm not up to speed and that I'm a lesser being and therefore unworthy of having my questions answered, is nothing but a distraction. My questions cut through all of the bullshit. They simply and clearly represent the requirements of the scientific method. That's all that is requisite. Why are you so upset by the scientific method, and so resistant to its requirements? Why are you working so hard to find away around it? Bullshit. You don't have the answers. And you're not
  19. Well, it looks like Snuggletits decided to fuck off rather than deliver "the science,'" (tee hee hee). My, what lengths these superior beings go to avoid taking and defining a position! J
  20. Popey is back to preaching coveting and stealing.
  21. True, but he does argue that the imaginary people who live in his head, including the imaginary me, argue that up is down, and that they got the notion from Kant's aesthetics, 'cuz Rand said so. J
  22. The above his actually worse than trying to follow the nutty inferences that Tony makes. I didn't think it possible that there could be someone even more wrongheaded than Tony. Congratulations, Tony, Brad has outTonyed you! Damn, I wonder what the straw man version of me who lives in Tony's head thinks of that! J