Believe in science & ethics
-
Originally posted by soul_rage:For the LAST TIME, PLEASE DO NOT practise extremism. Its VERY irritating to keep repeating my stance
1) I DO NOT doubt Science and its greatness
2) I just am telling you that if you don't think out of the box, you cannot discover new things.
3) If Einstein or Galileo or Stephen Hawkings were to behave like Andrew, its the end of Science as we know it, coz anything outside of what current Science knows now, are superstitions and delusions.
4) If Edison were to behave like Andrew, then he would not believe his idea and insisted on testing > 1000 times until he got the light bulb invented
The above are just examples of how people think out of the box (and be delusional like what Andrew said) and created the current technology that we have now.
Its very hard to knock sense into a pretender of Science, since he doesn't understand that for research to succeed, researchers must think beyond what we have now (which means these believers of future technology are delusional and stupid according to Mr Andrew's defn)
*yawnz* So I see the two of you have decided to abandon your stupidity and come over to my side which is the side of "SCIENCE" and the "SCIENTIFIC METHOD"?Originally posted by Daddy!!:science, freedom of speech and democracy
in order to make discoveries and scientific progress, one must adopt an open and inquisitive mind. for instance, one would freely ask questions and dare to challenge the status quo. for example, albert einstein dared to challenge the status quo and proposed his own theories, he dared to imagine beyond the current widely accepted concepts. many of his theories were pure imaginations. in order to have this type of thinking mind, the environment would have to allow people to freely discuss issues and to freely challenge the status quo without fear of repercussions and also so that it becomes a second nature to the people. it is perhaps of this that the western democracies would always be able ahead in scientific inventions and knowledge.
the ability to imagine beyond what the current scientific concepts and at the same time ask questions freely is somewhat related to the culture of freedom of speech.
by going against freely imaginative minds, AA Yap has proven himself to be another autocratic person because he tries to restrict people from free imaginations. Soul_rage on the other hand is more democratic than AA Yap since he proposed one to be open in mind and thinking.
Finally I am able to knock some sense into you.
Unfortunately, you are not there yet. Your posts continue to deserve
To be a scientific person IS to be a curious and think out of the box, to push at the frontiers, the edge of current knowledge.
What is the difference between "wild imaginings" and "scientific imagination"?
"Falsifiability " look it up.
and with these statements, you regress into stupidity.Originally posted by soul_rage:
Of course Edison tested "> 1000" times before he got the light bulb invented. What did you think? He invented it overnight?
[b]3) If Einstein or Galileo or Stephen Hawkings were to behave like Andrew, its the end of Science as we know it, coz anything outside of what current Science knows now, are superstitions and delusions.
"4) If Edison were to behave like Andrew, then he would not believe his idea and insisted on testing > 1000 times until he got the light bulb invented"
The modern light bulb you use at home? It took more than simply ">1000" tests. More like ">1,000,000" tests done by numerous people over the years since Edison invented it.
You think Einstein developed his theory overnight? You think that is what Science and the Scientific Method works? You think that as long as you think of something that sounds good, you accept it? That is being delusional.
You think " Einstein or Galileo or Stephen Hawkings " behave like you? They make sure that they do not have delusions in their heads by testing testing and more testing or in Einstein's case, working out the mathematical model.
They do not accept anything just because they thought of it.
All I can say is it is gratifying to be able to convince you to come over to the side of Science and the Scientific Method.
Now take one more step. For everything you hear, "tests tests tests" and do more "tests tests tests" before you accept anything that people tell you whether it is religious, scientific or political.
If you do not have the resources to do the tests yourself, make sure that those people that try to tell you anything have done proper tests according to the Scientific Method and have their tests and conclusions reviewed by their peers.
Only then, when you have an imaginative mind AND demand proof and evidence, only then can you claim to be a scientific person and not a delusional.
The statements the government put out. The main press is government controlled. Therefore it "analyzes" government policies according to government point of views.
It does not tell you "the other side". It does not tell you the downsides of the policies. It tries to make everything looks good. Don't be fooled. As long as you live in a country that has a controlled press, do not believe anything they say no matter how convincing it sounds. -
*yawns*Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Of course Edison tested "> 1000" times before he got the light bulb invented. What did you think? He invented it overnight?
The modern light bulb you use at home? It took more than simply ">1000" tests. More like ">1,000,000" tests done by numerous people over the years since Edison invented it.
You think Einstein developed his theory overnight? You think that is what Science and the Scientific Method works? You think that as long as you think of something that sounds good, you accept it? That is being delusional.
You think " Einstein or Galileo or Stephen Hawkings " behave like you? They make sure that they do not have delusions in their heads by testing testing and more testing or in Einstein's case, working out the mathematical model.
They do not accept anything just because they thought of it.
All I can say is it is gratifying to be able to convince you to come over to the side of Science and the Scientific Method.
Now take one more step. For everything you hear, "tests tests tests" and do more "tests tests tests" before you accept anything that people tell you whether it is religious, scientific or political.
If you do not have the resources to do the tests yourself, make sure that those people that try to tell you anything have done proper tests according to the Scientific Method and have their tests and conclusions reviewed by their peers.
Only then, when you have an imaginative mind AND demand proof and evidence, only then can you claim to be a scientific person and not a delusional.
The statements the government put out. The main press is government controlled. Therefore it "analyzes" government policies according to government point of views.
It does not tell you "the other side". It does not tell you the downsides of the policies. It tries to make everything looks good. Don't be fooled. As long as you live in a country that has a controlled press, do not believe anything they say no matter how convincing it sounds.
stop changing your stance.
You are just one sick joker who cannot decide what his stance is.
I have long stated my stance, you are the one that goes around shifting your stance whenever you are caught.
All the above are rubbish because our dear Andrew first started by saying all things not under Science are delusions and superstitions. People who think like Andrew cannot think out of the box, because the first assumption is already wrong.
Now he starts changing his tact, and says "oh... do enough research... imagination"
As an adult, you should be ashamed of yourself for not being able to stand up to scrutiny and admit your mistakes. You do not understand anything about Science and yet you keep insisting you know.
I guess for a posting to be at 2+am, you really are just a person without a life
Frankly, you are really pitiful. You remind me of people who cannot face up to their mistakes to improve themselves. -
Scientific methods cannot apply to morals and ethics. Is Ethics a delusion?
Scientific methods cannot apply to love. Is love a delusion and superstition?
For those who say that Science is the holy grail (that to me is what Mr Andrew is shouting about), do you believe in spirits and Gods? Or you laugh off that religion is rubbish? -
Originally posted by soul_rage:All the above are rubbish because our dear Andrew first started by saying all things not under Science are delusions and superstitions. People who think like Andrew cannot think out of the box, because the first assumption is already wrong. you think people are too stupid like you and cannot simply go back to the previous posts and read for themselves what I wrote, what my stance was and what other delusional statements you made like this one, "Andrew first started by saying all things not under Science are delusions and superstitions"
and of course you believe (25 September 2007 · 03:01 PM don't need me to prove it. ) you do not need to back up this statement with proof and evidence.
That my friend, when you believe without proof and evidence ( don't need me to prove it ) you are having a delusion in your head.
What I said was, you need to have proof and evidence of something before you accept it or else it becomes a delusion and I did not say " all things not under Science are delusions and superstitions".
I also said that because all scientific claims come with proof and evidence before the claims are accepted by the scientific community, science is reliable and the scientific method is the superior way.
Nobody is as stupid as you as to accept delusional claims without proof and think that they 25 September 2007 · 03:01 PM don't need me to prove it. ) -
Just answer this Andrew, instead of beating ard the bush (again)Originally posted by soul_rage:Scientific methods cannot apply to morals and ethics. Is Ethics a delusion?
Scientific methods cannot apply to love. Is love a delusion and superstition?
For those who say that Science is the holy grail (that to me is what Mr Andrew is shouting about), do you believe in spirits and Gods? Or you laugh off that religion is rubbish? -
Scientific findings, (because they come with proof and evidence) are reliable and people must use the scientific method to develop their ethics. They must use science to inform on their ethical and moral decisions instead of using delusions and illusions to make those decisions...Originally posted by soul_rage:Just answer this Andrew, instead of beating ard the bush (again)
Only delusional (25 September 2007 · 03:01 PM don't need me to prove it) people like you will accept ethical and moral stance developed from delusions and illusions.
Read more about this in my book. -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
answer the questions Andrew
Scientific findings, (because they come with proof and evidence) are reliable and people must use the scientific method to develop their ethics. They must use science to inform on their ethical and moral decisions instead of using delusions and illusions to make those decisions...
Only delusional (25 September 2007 · 03:01 PM [b] don't need me to prove it) people like you will accept ethical and moral stance developed from delusions and illusions.
Read more about this in my book.[/b]
3 questions, and you managed to only answer one. Not to mention its rubbish the way you answer, but I will come back to that.
Wonder who is really delusional -
Say anything you want, (25 September 2007 · 03:01 PM don't need me to prove it) = delusionalOriginally posted by soul_rage:answer the questions Andrew
3 questions, and you managed to only answer one. Not to mention its rubbish the way you answer, but I will come back to that.
Wonder who is really delusional -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Answer the questions.
Say anything you want, (25 September 2007 · 03:01 PM [b] don't need me to prove it) = delusional [/b]
1) Is love delusional coz Science cannot prove it?
2) Is religion delusional coz Science cannot prove it?
3) Is moral ethics delusional coz Science cannot prove it?
Let's take a step back and look at those questions above. It was created by you because you said anything that has no proof or evidence is delusional.
So you retract your statement? -
Who says science cannot prove love?Originally posted by soul_rage:Answer the questions.
1) Is love delusional coz Science cannot prove it? Delusional
Are you talking about religion or religious beliefs? You can't tell the difference between religion and religious beliefs? What are you talking about when you say science cannot prove something? You mean, people just simply come up with any rubbish and science must prove it? After so many pages and you still do not get what this debate is all about?Originally posted by soul_rage:2) Is religion delusional coz Science cannot prove it?
If you want to make some claims, YOU come up with the proof and evidence. Not you come up with rubbish and then expect others to prove you right or wrong.
Otherwise, I can simple say, you are a pedophile (like the many accusations you make against me, so many examples in this page alone, without any basis) and expect the readers and you to accept it.
First of all, again, the proponents come up with the proof, not "science" and second of all what proof exactly do you want when you say "Prove moral ethics?"Originally posted by soul_rage:3) Is moral ethics delusional coz Science cannot prove it?
Let's take a step back and look at those questions above. It was created by you because you said anything that has no proof or evidence is delusional.
So you retract your statement?
Retract what statement? Only delusional people will cling on to something as fact when they have no proof / evidence for it.
You are really one confused person. -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
I am coming back to your statements and using Mathematics (the science you so love) to disprove them.
[b]Scientific findings, (because they come with proof and evidence) are reliable and people must use the scientific method to develop their ethics. They must use science to inform on their ethical and moral decisions instead of using delusions and illusions to make those decisions...
/b]
"people must use the scientific method to develop their ethics" -> In logic maths, it means science must be used to develop ethics.
According to wikipedia, Science is an objective, careful and systematic study of an area of knowledge.
However, ethics is a part of philosophy, which means its very subjective
Therefore, your notion that "people MUST use the scientific method to develop their ethics" cannot hold water. This is because of the following
If Science must be a 100% precedence (according to your MUST word) to Ethics, and Science is OBJECTIVE, THEREFORE Ethics must also be objective.
And since we all know ethics is very subjective, your statement cannot hold water -
haha, you are beating around the bush again.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Who says science cannot prove love?
Are you talking about religion or religious beliefs? You can't tell the difference between religion and religious beliefs? What are you talking about when you say science cannot prove something? You mean, people just simply come up with any rubbish and science must prove it? After so many pages and you still do not get what this debate is all about?
If you want to make some claims, YOU come up with the proof and evidence. Not you come up with rubbish and then expect others to prove you right or wrong. Rolling Eyes
First of all, again, the proponents come up with the proof, not "science" and second of all what proof exactly do you want when you say "Prove moral ethics?" Rolling Eyes
Retract what statement? Only delusional people will cling on to something as fact when they have no proof / evidence for it.
You are really one confused person. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
In the 1st place, this is about you making the CLAIM "Anything without proof or evidence, is delusional and is a superstition"
Obviously you have to answer the questions above to support your point.
Tell me how love can be proven by Science?
Tell me how religion can be proven by Science?
And how would I know what to prove about moral ethics or religion? It was YOU who made the claim "ANYTHING without proof or evidence, is delusional.." The word ANYTHING entails everything under the sky and in the universe. All I know is that moral ethics don't need proof or evidence, its more about philosophy and a learning
After so many pages, and you STILL don't get it this is about you defending your stupid claim.
We (and you) are fortunate you aren't a scientist, becoz you would have no results hahaha
At least I am using a field of science (mathematics) to show how silly your statements are. Till now, I see no contributions from you from a scientific perspective, safe except to rant on and on about delusions.
As I said, other than and , there's nothing else you are good at 
-
and what is your alternative?Originally posted by soul_rage:I am coming back to your statements and using Mathematics (the science you so love) to disprove them.
"people must use the scientific method to develop their ethics" -> In logic maths, it means science must be used to develop ethics.
According to wikipedia, Science is an objective, careful and systematic study of an area of knowledge.
However, ethics is a part of philosophy, which means its very subjective
Therefore, your notion that "people MUST use the scientific method to develop their ethics" cannot hold water. This is because of the following
If Science must be a 100% precedence (according to your MUST word) to Ethics, and Science is OBJECTIVE, THEREFORE Ethics must also be objective.
And since we all know ethics is very subjective, your statement cannot hold water The delusions in your head?
What did I say?
You have no idea what the part in red means do you?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Scientific findings, (because they come with proof and evidence) are reliable and people must use the scientific method to develop their ethics. They must use science to inform on their ethical and moral decisions instead of using delusions and illusions to make those decisions... -
"moral ethics don't need proof or evidence" and the morals and ethics of the suicide bombers meet with your approval?Originally posted by soul_rage:haha, you are beating around the bush again.
In the 1st place, this is about you making the CLAIM "Anything without proof or evidence, is delusional and is a superstition"
Obviously you have to answer the questions above to support your point.
Tell me how love can be proven by Science?
Tell me how religion can be proven by Science?
And how would I know what to prove about moral ethics or religion? It was YOU who made the claim "ANYTHING without proof or evidence, is delusional.." The word ANYTHING entails everything under the sky and in the universe. All I know is that moral ethics don't need proof or evidence, its more about philosophy and a learning
After so many pages, and you STILL don't get it this is about you defending your stupid claim.
We (and you) are fortunate you aren't a scientist, becoz you would have no results hahaha
At least I am using a field of science (mathematics) to show how silly your statements are. Till now, I see no contributions from you from a scientific perspective, safe except to rant on and on about delusions.
As I said, other than and , there's nothing else you are good at
You are so stupid, you should join one of their cells. -
ah there, you see the point I am makingOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:"moral ethics don't need proof or evidence" and the morals and ethics of the suicide bombers meet with your approval?
You are so stupid, you should join one of their cells.
morals and ethics varies.
For suicidal bombers, they think its ethical to bomb innocent people to 'heaven'
For us, we think its unethical and immoral to take a person's life
But at the end of the day, ethics is always subjective, because what works for one society does not work for another society.
Back to the olden days, so long as a person has superior strength, he can use brawls to kill and get what he wants. These days we are most certainly met with disapproval for using violence in society.
During a war, its not unethical to shoot another fellow human, but in a normal situation, its not correct to shoot another fellow human.
Ethics and morals were never bounded by science in the 1st place. And attempting to place scientific methods to try to define a single standard code of ethics will fail immediately.
End of the day, is it ethical or morally correct for us to call each other delusional, coward, stupid, etc? It really all depends. I tend to think its unethical with what I am doing to you, but I doubt you think so. -
I only know this part in red.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:quote:Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Scientific findings, (because they come with proof and evidence) are reliable and people must use the scientific method to develop their ethics. They must use science to inform on their ethical and moral decisions instead of using delusions and illusions to make those decisions... Rolling Eyes
You have no idea what the part in red means do you?
Enlighten us, why MUST people use the scientific method to develop ethics? How to develop ethics using the scientific method?
You can't explain your words *shrugs* -
and the reason it is "subjective"? Because some/many people choose to live life in a delusion where they get to believe anything they want / some people get them to believe what they want these people to believe, without proof, evidence and rationale.Originally posted by soul_rage:ah there, you see the point I am making
morals and ethics varies.
For suicidal bombers, they think its ethical to bomb innocent people to 'heaven'
For us, we think its unethical and immoral to take a person's life
But at the end of the day, ethics is always subjective, because what works for one society does not work for another society.
Back to the olden days, so long as I have strength, I can use brawls to kill and get what I want. These days we are most certainly met with disapproval for using violence in society.
During a war, its not unethical to shoot another fellow human, but in a normal situation, its not correct to shoot another fellow human.
Ethics and morals were never bounded by science in the 1st place. And attempting to place scientific methods to try to define a single standard code of ethics will fail immediately.
End of the day, is it ethical or morally correct for us to call each other delusional, coward, stupid, etc? It really all depends.
This is why science and the scientific method is so superior. It rejects delusions and rejects anything that cannot be proven, does not have proof, is void of evidence.
How should people live their lives then? It is clear, using the scientific method as far as possible. What is the scientific method? A discipline that the more people adopt, the better the world will be (until something better comes along as any scientific person worth his salt would qualify).
What other ways can people live their lives? ... by a system of beliefs that is based on a creed, a book, irrational fears and irrational beliefs that have no proof, no evidence, and delusional.
It will take too long to go into the whys and hows......
It is actually acceptable to call each other coward, stupid and delusional if there is proof and evidence that the person is a coward, stupid and delusional.
The key is to provide the evidence and state clearly why one says that a person is a coward, stupid and delusional. Without proof and evidence, anybody can say anything they want and believe/do anything they want like be a suicide bomber.
-
I can give you a less extreme example from your terrorists coz I think it blows everything out of proportionOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:and the reason it is "subjective"? Because some/many people choose to live life in a delusion where they get to believe anything they want / some people get them to believe what they want these people to believe, without proof, evidence and rationale.
This is why science and the scientific method is so superior. It rejects delusions and rejects anything that cannot be proven, does not have proof, is void of evidence.
How should people live their lives then? It is clear, using the scientific method as far as possible. What is the scientific method? A discipline that the more people adopt, the better the world will be (until something better comes along as any scientific person worth his salt would qualify).
What other ways can people live their lives? ... by a system of beliefs that is based on a creed, a book, irrational fears and irrational beliefs that have no proof, no evidence, and delusional.
It will take too long to go into the whys and hows......
It is actually acceptable to call each other coward, stupid and delusional if there is proof and evidence that the person is a coward, stupid and delusional.
The key is to provide the evidence and state clearly why one says that a person is a coward, stupid and delusional. Without proof and evidence, anybody can say anything they want and believe/do anything they want like be a suicide bomber.
1) In my family, I can take my brother's clothes without his permission (I just need to let him know) to wear coz its ethically acceptable in my family to share each others' stuff without the need to really ask for permission.
In my wife's family, its ethically unacceptable. Everyone is more towards keeping their own things for themselves, and sharing is not really the norm.
I doubt what your parents taught you is irrational and delusional.
2) I want to bring the below statement into perspective
"It is actually acceptable to call each other coward, stupid and delusional if there is proof and evidence that the person is a coward, stupid and delusional."
This statement shows the difference between a person with ethics, and one whom has none but just scientific beliefs
A person with ethics knows its never correct to insult another, even if he has proof the other person is stupid.
A person with just science thinks its ok, coz he has proof. Even if he hurts and harms others, its ok, coz he has proof and evidence
And ethics is delusional, according to you, when it helps you to live a better life and with better tolerance
There are many scientists who believe in doing something scientific, even if it defies the code of ethics in general. Armed with his proof and evidence, he intends to go his path and disregard whatever consequences there are coz of his actions, to himself and to others. These scientists are called 'Rogue' scientists in the Scientific World.
Your example above just confirms it, that we are fortunate you are not a scientist, coz most likely, you won't be an ethical one -
Scientific findings, (because they come with proof and evidence) are reliable and people must use the scientific method to develop their ethics. They must use science to inform on their ethical and moral decisions instead of using delusions and illusions to make those decisions...
The above statement is a SUGGESTION
By no means is ethics now governed by Science. In fact, whether your suggestion is a good suggestion or not is itself debatable.
We all see how you misused Science by saying that if you can prove a person is stupid, its nothing wrong to call him names, and insult him, coz its proven by Science. Therefore you don't care about ethics.
As such, since you cannot prove that ethics is NOW governed by Science, and in turn by your definition, ANYTHING that has no proof or evidence is delusional and is a superstition, THEREFORE you are saying that currently, ethics is a delusion.
You are free to argue, but you have made the claim "ANYTHING that has not proof or evidence, it is delusional". -
hmm... how do you apply F=ma to ethics ?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Scientific findings, (because they come with proof and evidence) are reliable and people must use the scientific method to develop their ethics. -
You ask what type of proof? Scientific proof lar.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:First of all, again, the proponents come up with the proof, not "science" and second of all what proof exactly do you want when you say "Prove moral ethics?"
Retract what statement? Only delusional people will cling on to something as fact when they have no proof / evidence for it.
You are really one confused person. 
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
They must use science to inform on their ethical and moral decisions instead of using delusions and illusions to make those decisions... Rolling Eyes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you mean you MUST use science to decide morally whether to build a casino in your neighborhood or not?
this is hilarious !! ha ha ! -
By the way Andrew
I haven't forgotten your claim below
"Tell me how love can be proven by Science? "
Who says science cannot prove love
You haven't explain how science proves love yet
This is just a gentle reminder to you to be responsible for what you say
And it all stems from
"Anything that has no proof or evidence, it is delusional" -
AA Yap is in his boogie wonderland. -
Everything that every parent teach their child is good and right?Originally posted by soul_rage:I can give you a less extreme example from your terrorists coz I think it blows everything out of proportion
1) In my family, I can take my brother's clothes without his permission (I just need to let him know) to wear coz its ethically acceptable in my family to share each others' stuff without the need to really ask for permission.
In my wife's family, its ethically unacceptable. Everyone is more towards keeping their own things for themselves, and sharing is not really the norm.
I doubt what your parents taught you is irrational and delusional.
Where did I say what your parents taught you is irrational and delusional. Prove it. Otherwise, you are just being .....
What's wrong with sharing clothes if you want to and what's wrong with not sharing clothes if you do not want to? What is the point you are trying to make?
If science tells you that you have a certain skin disease that is contagious and you insist in sharing your clothes because your parent taught you that you must share your things... that is just stupid......
So to you there are no stupid people in this world?Originally posted by soul_rage:2) I want to bring the below statement into perspective
"It is actually acceptable to call each other coward, stupid and delusional if there is proof and evidence that the person is a coward, stupid and delusional."
This statement shows the difference between a person with ethics, and one whom has none but just scientific beliefs
A person with ethics knows its never correct to insult another, even if he has proof the other person is stupid.
A person with just science thinks its ok, coz he has proof. Even if he hurts and harms others, its ok, coz he has proof and evidence
And ethics is delusional, according to you, when it helps you to live a better life and with better tolerance
There are many scientists who believe in doing something scientific, even if it defies the code of ethics in general. Armed with his proof and evidence, he intends to go his path and disregard whatever consequences there are coz of his actions, to himself and to others. These scientists are called 'Rogue' scientists in the Scientific World.
Your example above just confirms it, that we are fortunate you are not a scientist, coz most likely, you won't be an ethical one Another delusional statement.
Why do you say that ethics is delusional? I certainly did not. Remember you can make any stupid claims you want but you must show proof or it is .....