Jonathan

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,238

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    57

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Jonathan

  1. Jonathan
    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
  2. Jonathan
    Btw, Merlin, don't you have something better do in your doderage? Isnt there another Wikipedia page that you can destroy with your stupidity?
  3. Jonathan
    That's false. MSK answered your questions.
  4. Jonathan
    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
  5. Jonathan
    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 validation, etc., etc. I didn't ask for a debate. I didn't ask for douchebags to try to talk me into opting for a different method of what would convince me. But, anyway, regarding your statement above, no -- bullshit -- it is not necessary to see where each party agrees or disagrees. All that is needed is for you to state your case, define it, and support and defend it. That's all that my questions represent. Answer the questions. Stop trying to push the distraction of setting up a "debate." J
  6. Jonathan
    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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_antisemitism). As the popular memes sum up Marx, "Gibs be dat for free." J
  7. Jonathan
    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 duration, and not back prior to the predictions being made, but today, long after they’ve been made, and after reality as been observed in regard to those predictions. I asked what percentage of warming mankind is responsible for, and, in response, Brad took two different positions at the same time. He didn’t identify a single hypothesis which represented either of those two positions, or any of the details and conditions of the predictions, durations or falsifiability of either of those positions, but rather just stated that it was what certain unnamed people believed. Etc. With all of Brad’s maneuvering, I think that the potency of my questions is clear, and it’s also clear why Brad, and Billy, are so opposed to answering them. Distractions. Substituting their own distortions of my questions rather than answering mine. Pretending. Lying. Getting caught doing exactly what I’ve said they would do, and illustrating the need for my insistence on answering the questions that the scientific method demands. QED. J
  8. Jonathan
    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
  9. Jonathan
    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 demonstrate the importance of my unanswered questions by trying to take two separate positions at the same time, thus eliminating falsifiability, and therefore turning his positions into pseudoscience. Send someone who is competent, Billy. Tee hee hee! J
  10. Jonathan
    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
  11. Jonathan
    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 or no? J
  12. Jonathan
    Heh. Take your meds, gramps. J
  13. Jonathan
    It's familiar to me. Why are you throwing my words in MSK's face? Are you confusing the two of us, gramps? J
  14. Jonathan
    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
  15. Jonathan
    I think it's a bit of both. J
  16. Jonathan
    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. Jonathan
    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. Jonathan
    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 even interested in looking for them. You resent the questions, and want them to go away. In contrast to the precision that they require, you prefer lots of slither room, and the ability to hold several contradictory positions at the same time, to cherry pick, and to lie and pretend. You're nothing but copouts and bullshit. J
  19. Jonathan
    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. Jonathan
    Popey is back to preaching coveting and stealing. https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2020/02/06/tax-the-rich-pope-francis-calls-for-global-wealth-redistribution/
  21. Jonathan
    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. Jonathan
    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
  23. Jonathan
    I'm reposting the above quote because I want to make sure that everyone catches the significance of it. First, as I mentioned earlier, Brad is not going with a single answer here, but with more than one, and perhaps leaving the door open for several. It leaves Brad room to slither, but it also inadvertently reveals disagreement among whomever Brad thinks he's citing. They can't even settle amongst themselves on what they think that the temperature would be without mankind's input. Second, it's a demonstration of the absence of falsifiability and of well-defined terms and conditions prior to testing. Any and all possible outcomes could be taken as proof of any hypothesis, and no possible outcome could falsify it, since whatever outcome happens, Brad and his sources will say that, no, no, no, right now the cooling is supposed to be much, much greater, even greater than we had originally thought, so the global cooling that we're seeing is actually 7 degrees warmer than it should be due to mankind's production of co2! Thanks for returning, Brad, and delivering this demonstration of technique. J
  24. Jonathan
    That's right, dumbass! Did you read the posts where I've told you that I'm not going to play your games? Yeah? But that fact still hasn't sunken in? Still not grasping it? J
  25. Jonathan
    Nor is a conspiracy theory. J