What does the word supernatural mean to you?
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
09 Sep 2010, 7:05 am
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
MrLoony wrote:
The thing about science is that it can explain everything. However, it takes scientists with motivation to explain it for science to be able to do that sort of thing.
Okay, since science can explain everything, unqualified, then how about a 'scientific' explanation as to why the arbitrary conventional current is opposite of electron current and who the arbiter of such a decision was.
Tradition
Tradition is not a person who decided, arbitrarily, which direction conventional current "travels". Ruvyen is right, it works either way (as long as one is consistent when drafting). It may be that "tradition" is the reason why the convention is opposite of reality (the direction of electron flow), however, "tradition" would not have started without some form of origin. As such, is it possible, by the laws of science and/or the scientific method alone, to determine and prove who the originator of conventional current was?
To discover a specific person responsible for a tradition is not a matter for logic or reason. It merely requires historical research and the necessary facts may or may not be available.
It is certainly much easier to perform historical research, however, is it possible or not to determine the identity of the originator of 'conventional current' by the scientific method alone?
To even ask such a question reveals a complete misunderstanding of scientific method.
Not at all, as I am referring to the original post of this sequence of replies still in which a premise of Scientism was displayed.
09 Sep 2010, 8:35 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
MrLoony wrote:
The thing about science is that it can explain everything. However, it takes scientists with motivation to explain it for science to be able to do that sort of thing.
Okay, since science can explain everything, unqualified, then how about a 'scientific' explanation as to why the arbitrary conventional current is opposite of electron current and who the arbiter of such a decision was.
Tradition
Tradition is not a person who decided, arbitrarily, which direction conventional current "travels". Ruvyen is right, it works either way (as long as one is consistent when drafting). It may be that "tradition" is the reason why the convention is opposite of reality (the direction of electron flow), however, "tradition" would not have started without some form of origin. As such, is it possible, by the laws of science and/or the scientific method alone, to determine and prove who the originator of conventional current was?
To discover a specific person responsible for a tradition is not a matter for logic or reason. It merely requires historical research and the necessary facts may or may not be available.
It is certainly much easier to perform historical research, however, is it possible or not to determine the identity of the originator of 'conventional current' by the scientific method alone?
To even ask such a question reveals a complete misunderstanding of scientific method.
Not at all, as I am referring to the original post of this sequence of replies still in which a premise of Scientism was displayed.
There is no mention of the scientific method in the OP.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
09 Sep 2010, 9:29 am
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
MrLoony wrote:
The thing about science is that it can explain everything. However, it takes scientists with motivation to explain it for science to be able to do that sort of thing.
Okay, since science can explain everything, unqualified, then how about a 'scientific' explanation as to why the arbitrary conventional current is opposite of electron current and who the arbiter of such a decision was.
Tradition
Tradition is not a person who decided, arbitrarily, which direction conventional current "travels". Ruvyen is right, it works either way (as long as one is consistent when drafting). It may be that "tradition" is the reason why the convention is opposite of reality (the direction of electron flow), however, "tradition" would not have started without some form of origin. As such, is it possible, by the laws of science and/or the scientific method alone, to determine and prove who the originator of conventional current was?
To discover a specific person responsible for a tradition is not a matter for logic or reason. It merely requires historical research and the necessary facts may or may not be available.
It is certainly much easier to perform historical research, however, is it possible or not to determine the identity of the originator of 'conventional current' by the scientific method alone?
To even ask such a question reveals a complete misunderstanding of scientific method.
Not at all, as I am referring to the original post of this sequence of replies still in which a premise of Scientism was displayed.
There is no mention of the scientific method in the OP.
No, it's not specifically stated in that exact manner, but in the original post of this sequence of replies there is indeed a reference to an underlying premise of Scientism. Please consider the statement,
"The thing about science is that it can explain everything."
Now, can you see what I'm referring to? Or need I to continue the process of clarification ad infinitum?
09 Sep 2010, 10:20 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
MrLoony wrote:
The thing about science is that it can explain everything. However, it takes scientists with motivation to explain it for science to be able to do that sort of thing.
Okay, since science can explain everything, unqualified, then how about a 'scientific' explanation as to why the arbitrary conventional current is opposite of electron current and who the arbiter of such a decision was.
Tradition
Tradition is not a person who decided, arbitrarily, which direction conventional current "travels". Ruvyen is right, it works either way (as long as one is consistent when drafting). It may be that "tradition" is the reason why the convention is opposite of reality (the direction of electron flow), however, "tradition" would not have started without some form of origin. As such, is it possible, by the laws of science and/or the scientific method alone, to determine and prove who the originator of conventional current was?
To discover a specific person responsible for a tradition is not a matter for logic or reason. It merely requires historical research and the necessary facts may or may not be available.
It is certainly much easier to perform historical research, however, is it possible or not to determine the identity of the originator of 'conventional current' by the scientific method alone?
To even ask such a question reveals a complete misunderstanding of scientific method.
Not at all, as I am referring to the original post of this sequence of replies still in which a premise of Scientism was displayed.
There is no mention of the scientific method in the OP.
No, it's not specifically stated in that exact manner, but in the original post of this sequence of replies there is indeed a reference to an underlying premise of Scientism. Please consider the statement,
"The thing about science is that it can explain everything."
Now, can you see what I'm referring to? Or need I to continue the process of clarification ad infinitum?
Well, it sure as hell can't explain why you are so fascinated with downgrading science.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
09 Sep 2010, 3:24 pm
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
MrLoony wrote:
The thing about science is that it can explain everything. However, it takes scientists with motivation to explain it for science to be able to do that sort of thing.
Okay, since science can explain everything, unqualified, then how about a 'scientific' explanation as to why the arbitrary conventional current is opposite of electron current and who the arbiter of such a decision was.
Tradition
Tradition is not a person who decided, arbitrarily, which direction conventional current "travels". Ruvyen is right, it works either way (as long as one is consistent when drafting). It may be that "tradition" is the reason why the convention is opposite of reality (the direction of electron flow), however, "tradition" would not have started without some form of origin. As such, is it possible, by the laws of science and/or the scientific method alone, to determine and prove who the originator of conventional current was?
To discover a specific person responsible for a tradition is not a matter for logic or reason. It merely requires historical research and the necessary facts may or may not be available.
It is certainly much easier to perform historical research, however, is it possible or not to determine the identity of the originator of 'conventional current' by the scientific method alone?
To even ask such a question reveals a complete misunderstanding of scientific method.
Not at all, as I am referring to the original post of this sequence of replies still in which a premise of Scientism was displayed.
There is no mention of the scientific method in the OP.
No, it's not specifically stated in that exact manner, but in the original post of this sequence of replies there is indeed a reference to an underlying premise of Scientism. Please consider the statement,
"The thing about science is that it can explain everything."
Now, can you see what I'm referring to? Or need I to continue the process of clarification ad infinitum?
Well, it sure as hell can't explain why you are so fascinated with downgrading science.
I'm not "fascinated with downgrading science."
09 Sep 2010, 6:35 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
MrLoony wrote:
The thing about science is that it can explain everything. However, it takes scientists with motivation to explain it for science to be able to do that sort of thing.
Okay, since science can explain everything, unqualified, then how about a 'scientific' explanation as to why the arbitrary conventional current is opposite of electron current and who the arbiter of such a decision was.
Tradition
Tradition is not a person who decided, arbitrarily, which direction conventional current "travels". Ruvyen is right, it works either way (as long as one is consistent when drafting). It may be that "tradition" is the reason why the convention is opposite of reality (the direction of electron flow), however, "tradition" would not have started without some form of origin. As such, is it possible, by the laws of science and/or the scientific method alone, to determine and prove who the originator of conventional current was?
To discover a specific person responsible for a tradition is not a matter for logic or reason. It merely requires historical research and the necessary facts may or may not be available.
It is certainly much easier to perform historical research, however, is it possible or not to determine the identity of the originator of 'conventional current' by the scientific method alone?
To even ask such a question reveals a complete misunderstanding of scientific method.
Not at all, as I am referring to the original post of this sequence of replies still in which a premise of Scientism was displayed.
There is no mention of the scientific method in the OP.
No, it's not specifically stated in that exact manner, but in the original post of this sequence of replies there is indeed a reference to an underlying premise of Scientism. Please consider the statement,
"The thing about science is that it can explain everything."
Now, can you see what I'm referring to? Or need I to continue the process of clarification ad infinitum?
Well, it sure as hell can't explain why you are so fascinated with downgrading science.
I'm not "fascinated with downgrading science."
Then you do it with reluctance. That still seems rather peculiar.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
09 Sep 2010, 6:52 pm
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
MrLoony wrote:
The thing about science is that it can explain everything. However, it takes scientists with motivation to explain it for science to be able to do that sort of thing.
Okay, since science can explain everything, unqualified, then how about a 'scientific' explanation as to why the arbitrary conventional current is opposite of electron current and who the arbiter of such a decision was.
Tradition
Tradition is not a person who decided, arbitrarily, which direction conventional current "travels". Ruvyen is right, it works either way (as long as one is consistent when drafting). It may be that "tradition" is the reason why the convention is opposite of reality (the direction of electron flow), however, "tradition" would not have started without some form of origin. As such, is it possible, by the laws of science and/or the scientific method alone, to determine and prove who the originator of conventional current was?
To discover a specific person responsible for a tradition is not a matter for logic or reason. It merely requires historical research and the necessary facts may or may not be available.
It is certainly much easier to perform historical research, however, is it possible or not to determine the identity of the originator of 'conventional current' by the scientific method alone?
To even ask such a question reveals a complete misunderstanding of scientific method.
Not at all, as I am referring to the original post of this sequence of replies still in which a premise of Scientism was displayed.
There is no mention of the scientific method in the OP.
No, it's not specifically stated in that exact manner, but in the original post of this sequence of replies there is indeed a reference to an underlying premise of Scientism. Please consider the statement,
"The thing about science is that it can explain everything."
Now, can you see what I'm referring to? Or need I to continue the process of clarification ad infinitum?
Well, it sure as hell can't explain why you are so fascinated with downgrading science.
I'm not "fascinated with downgrading science."
Then you do it with reluctance. That still seems rather peculiar.
I am not "downgrading science", neither with fascination nor reluctance.
09 Sep 2010, 7:14 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
MrLoony wrote:
The thing about science is that it can explain everything. However, it takes scientists with motivation to explain it for science to be able to do that sort of thing.
Okay, since science can explain everything, unqualified, then how about a 'scientific' explanation as to why the arbitrary conventional current is opposite of electron current and who the arbiter of such a decision was.
Tradition
Tradition is not a person who decided, arbitrarily, which direction conventional current "travels". Ruvyen is right, it works either way (as long as one is consistent when drafting). It may be that "tradition" is the reason why the convention is opposite of reality (the direction of electron flow), however, "tradition" would not have started without some form of origin. As such, is it possible, by the laws of science and/or the scientific method alone, to determine and prove who the originator of conventional current was?
To discover a specific person responsible for a tradition is not a matter for logic or reason. It merely requires historical research and the necessary facts may or may not be available.
It is certainly much easier to perform historical research, however, is it possible or not to determine the identity of the originator of 'conventional current' by the scientific method alone?
To even ask such a question reveals a complete misunderstanding of scientific method.
Not at all, as I am referring to the original post of this sequence of replies still in which a premise of Scientism was displayed.
There is no mention of the scientific method in the OP.
No, it's not specifically stated in that exact manner, but in the original post of this sequence of replies there is indeed a reference to an underlying premise of Scientism. Please consider the statement,
"The thing about science is that it can explain everything."
Now, can you see what I'm referring to? Or need I to continue the process of clarification ad infinitum?
Well, it sure as hell can't explain why you are so fascinated with downgrading science.
I'm not "fascinated with downgrading science."
Then you do it with reluctance. That still seems rather peculiar.
I am not "downgrading science", neither with fascination nor reluctance.
The whole Young Earth nonsense you adhere to is very definitely unscientific.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
09 Sep 2010, 11:25 pm
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
MrLoony wrote:
The thing about science is that it can explain everything. However, it takes scientists with motivation to explain it for science to be able to do that sort of thing.
Okay, since science can explain everything, unqualified, then how about a 'scientific' explanation as to why the arbitrary conventional current is opposite of electron current and who the arbiter of such a decision was.
Tradition
Tradition is not a person who decided, arbitrarily, which direction conventional current "travels". Ruvyen is right, it works either way (as long as one is consistent when drafting). It may be that "tradition" is the reason why the convention is opposite of reality (the direction of electron flow), however, "tradition" would not have started without some form of origin. As such, is it possible, by the laws of science and/or the scientific method alone, to determine and prove who the originator of conventional current was?
To discover a specific person responsible for a tradition is not a matter for logic or reason. It merely requires historical research and the necessary facts may or may not be available.
It is certainly much easier to perform historical research, however, is it possible or not to determine the identity of the originator of 'conventional current' by the scientific method alone?
To even ask such a question reveals a complete misunderstanding of scientific method.
Not at all, as I am referring to the original post of this sequence of replies still in which a premise of Scientism was displayed.
There is no mention of the scientific method in the OP.
No, it's not specifically stated in that exact manner, but in the original post of this sequence of replies there is indeed a reference to an underlying premise of Scientism. Please consider the statement,
"The thing about science is that it can explain everything."
Now, can you see what I'm referring to? Or need I to continue the process of clarification ad infinitum?
Well, it sure as hell can't explain why you are so fascinated with downgrading science.
I'm not "fascinated with downgrading science."
Then you do it with reluctance. That still seems rather peculiar.
I am not "downgrading science", neither with fascination nor reluctance.
The whole Young Earth nonsense you adhere to is very definitely unscientific.
If you believe in abiogenesis or extraterrestrials, then you are also in adherence to unscientific nonsense.
09 Sep 2010, 11:52 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
MrLoony wrote:
The thing about science is that it can explain everything. However, it takes scientists with motivation to explain it for science to be able to do that sort of thing.
Okay, since science can explain everything, unqualified, then how about a 'scientific' explanation as to why the arbitrary conventional current is opposite of electron current and who the arbiter of such a decision was.
Tradition
Tradition is not a person who decided, arbitrarily, which direction conventional current "travels". Ruvyen is right, it works either way (as long as one is consistent when drafting). It may be that "tradition" is the reason why the convention is opposite of reality (the direction of electron flow), however, "tradition" would not have started without some form of origin. As such, is it possible, by the laws of science and/or the scientific method alone, to determine and prove who the originator of conventional current was?
To discover a specific person responsible for a tradition is not a matter for logic or reason. It merely requires historical research and the necessary facts may or may not be available.
It is certainly much easier to perform historical research, however, is it possible or not to determine the identity of the originator of 'conventional current' by the scientific method alone?
To even ask such a question reveals a complete misunderstanding of scientific method.
Not at all, as I am referring to the original post of this sequence of replies still in which a premise of Scientism was displayed.
There is no mention of the scientific method in the OP.
No, it's not specifically stated in that exact manner, but in the original post of this sequence of replies there is indeed a reference to an underlying premise of Scientism. Please consider the statement,
"The thing about science is that it can explain everything."
Now, can you see what I'm referring to? Or need I to continue the process of clarification ad infinitum?
Well, it sure as hell can't explain why you are so fascinated with downgrading science.
I'm not "fascinated with downgrading science."
Then you do it with reluctance. That still seems rather peculiar.
I am not "downgrading science", neither with fascination nor reluctance.
The whole Young Earth nonsense you adhere to is very definitely unscientific.
If you believe in abiogenesis or extraterrestrials, then you are also in adherence to unscientific nonsense.
That may be true but it is irrelevant. You have often denied immense scientific evidence that clearly indicates the universe is billions of years old.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
10 Sep 2010, 7:46 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Anything designated 'supernatural' is really just something natural that we don't yet have an explanation for.
Actually, explanations can be made at a whim. Having a sound explanation is another matter entirely though. What that second explanation might be is totally beyond my imagination which is, I must admit, extremely limited..
Your humility is admirable.
