Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Jive Turkey · Jul 20, 2014

Mist_sl said:
How? You haven't actually brought ANY viable evidence of these biological assumptions. You also haven't brought any evidence that contradicts my argument. You've attacked the structure of my argument, which is fine, but yours is even shakier, and has no real overarching theory AND no real evidence.

But I did and you ignored it

Jive Turkey · Jul 20, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
And... you lose. Everything.

Never mind the fact that Mist is literally the only person in this entire conversation to use science to back up her stance. Never mind that she makes claims that are both easier to grasp and better backed up by everything we've learned about humanity up to this point. The fact that you need to pull out a "girls will be girls" claim to defend your side means that you havenothing. You've lost and you know you've lost.

Don't get me wrong, you'll all keep pretending. You'll keep patting each other's backs and sucking each other's dicks, but it's getting more and more pathetic by the second. If you, for a second, evendaredto actually follow the tenets you claim to defend, you'd realize you'd have no choice but to acknowledge Mist has been balls-on accurate about virtually everything she's said. That's not gonna happen, though. You're going to keep creating an imaginary villain to stake your claim against, you're going to keep making up arguments Mist never actually made in order to contradict them... Basically, you're going to do everything in your power to avoid acknowledging that some lesbian you've never met has a better grasp of the human condition than you do. It's entirely understandable and undeniably predictable, but there it is.

Carry on, gents... it's a good show...

Who are you? If you think Mist has been "balls on accurate", you're retarded. By all means, join in the discussion, but to jump in every once in a while and say "hurr, Mist is right" without providing anything else is the height of stupidity

Jive Turkey · Jul 20, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
A) She's had me on "ignore" since ages ago. I'm OK with this. It doesn't change the fact that she's right. (Believe it or not, there are reasons besides "trying to impress someone" to defend a particular point of view.)
B) You saying she's been getting everything wrong doesn't make it so. See: her stance actually being backed by scientific evidence and the opposition's stance being backed by nothing but "feels" (oh, the irony!).

Again, carry on! I'm loving this one-sided demasculation. It's both fiercely entertaining and delectably educational.

She things we evolved from Chimpanzees... and you think she's backed by science.... Says a lot about the both of you

Jive Turkey · Jul 20, 2014

Mist_sl said:
This is an incredibly stupid line of argument and any anthropologist would tell you that you're a fucking moron.

You've shown time and time again that you know fuck all about anthropology and evolution. You need to stop pretending that you do

Mist · Jul 20, 2014

Jive Turkey_sl said:
But I did and you ignored it

That was a study of adult brains. Brains are highly plastic and shaped mostly by experience.

Mist · Jul 20, 2014

Iannis_sl said:
This is really basic, and that's why its so infuriating. Science is not an appeal to authority.

She's not citing science. She's citing philosophical thought, even scientific philosophical thought. And that's valid. That's not science. That's what comesbeforescience.

Phenomena --> Consideration --> Experiment --> Insight --> Validation --> Phenomena

Left to yourselves you guys WOULD create a Cult.

You don't know much about science. A theory is valid so long as it CAN be used to make accurate predictions of observable phenomenon and CAN'T be invalidated by contradicting evidence.

Jive Turkey · Jul 20, 2014

Mist_sl said:
That was a study of adult brains. Brains are highly plastic and shaped mostly by experience.

Really? Because the ones who conducted the meta analysis concluded that a lot of it was biological.

But that wasn't even what I was referring to

Jive Turkey · Jul 20, 2014

Mist_sl said:
You don't know much about science.

Tell us more about the chimps we evolved from. And junk DNA.

Araysar · Jul 20, 2014

Yeah, tell me more about how I evolved from chimpanzees.

Wow us, Dr. Mist.

By the way, here's some light reading for you.

Evolution 101: Human Evolution

fanaskin · Jul 20, 2014

Mist_sl said:
That was a study of adult brains. Brains are highly plastic and shaped mostly by experience.

you hope that means what you think it means

khalid · Jul 20, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
You skipped what I consider to be the most important argument Mist made, and the reason why she's the only one using science to back up her stance. Come on, I'm sure you can remember it if you try.

Say what you mean. I am not one of your students. If you think Mist has made some important argument that somehow makes her stance science and nothing else, please state it.

Lendarios · Jul 20, 2014

Mist_sl said:
You don't know much about science. A theory is valid so long as it CAN be used to make accurate predictions of observable phenomenon and CAN'T be invalidated by contradicting evidence.

That is not what science is. Check it out. There is a tribe of ants that everyday work to make the sun rise by ant magic. That is my theory. And the evidence is that the sun rises everyday. No one has witnessed a day where the sun doesn't rises so, by your standard, my magical tribe of ants have been scientifically proven.

Lendarios · Jul 20, 2014

Oh and my magical ants predict the sun will rise tomorrow!!!

Mist · Jul 20, 2014

lendarios_sl said:
That is not what science is. Check it out. There is a tribe of ants that everyday work to make the sun rise by ant magic. That is my theory. And the evidence is that the sun rises everyday. No one has witnessed a day where the sun doesn't rises so, by your standard, my magical tribe of ants have been scientifically proven.

Then I kill your ants and the sun still rises. I've disproved your theory. Now you need a new one. However, your theory was useful for a while, while it made accurate predictions.

This is exactly how science started.

See this:

Why Einstein will never be wrong

It's an interesting analysis of what a theory really is, and why theories that have been superseded by new theories aren't 'wrong' just because they were incomplete.

Tanoomba · Jul 20, 2014

khalid_sl said:
Say what you mean. I am not one of your students. If you think Mist has made some important argument that somehow makes her stance science and nothing else, please state it.

Come on, Khal. I want you to show that you're not just reading what you want to read. I know that out of everyone here, you're the one most capable of understanding the rationality of a point, even if it doesn't suit your jive.

I'll give you a hint: It was about the brain.

Jive Turkey · Jul 20, 2014

lendarios_sl said:
That is not what science is. Check it out. There is a tribe of ants that everyday work to make the sun rise by ant magic. That is my theory. And the evidence is that the sun rises everyday. No one has witnessed a day where the sun doesn't rises so, by your standard, my magical tribe of ants have been scientifically proven.

Mist thinks her hypothesis is a theory, basically

Jive Turkey · Jul 20, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
Come on, Khal. I want you to show that you're not just reading what you want to read. I know that out of everyone here, you're the one most capable of understanding the rationality of a point, even if it doesn't suit your jive.

I'll give you a hint: It was about the brain.

In very little time, I've come to understand why everyone hates you

Jive Turkey · Jul 20, 2014

Mist_sl said:
You don't know much about science. A theory is valid so long as it CAN be used to make accurate predictions of observable phenomenon and CAN'T be invalidated by contradicting evidence.

And your social theory is not science. The definition of a scientific theory doesn't fit here

Lendarios · Jul 20, 2014

Testability is what Mist is missing. A hypothesis must be testable in order to apply scientific value to it. If not is just an opinion, or feelings.

Like I said... soft science / yawn

iannis · Jul 21, 2014

Amazing. I think I understand why you're stuck at a university you hate doing assistant softcore political bullshit, Mist. What you seem to think science is isn't even SOFT science. If that's the standard... well... no damn wonder you can't find anything true or useful. You're not even looking for it.

Your methodology is bad and you should feel bad.

Edit: I'm not kidding or being harsh for lulz. You're creating a cult out of it. That's perverse. Science is not faith based. And you'll notice this is coming from a self professed Christian. I have a great tolerance for, and respect for, and even use for, faith based structures. But I do not call the Gospel of Peter a scientific text. These are different tools used to different purpose.

A Southern Bible Belt Hillbilly fucking "gets" it. You don't have to stopbeinga luddite. But stop intentionally spreading ignorance just to justify yourself.

Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Karen

Karen

Karen

Karen

Eeyore Enthusiast

Eeyore Enthusiast

Karen

Karen

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO

Well known agitator

Unelected Mod

Trump's Staff

Trump's Staff

Eeyore Enthusiast

ジョーディーすれいやー

Karen

Karen

Karen

Trump's Staff

Musty Nester