Happy Loving Day

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

"Your slip is showing."
Tossing in your bias re: anthropomorphic climate change and the arrow of time in a discussion of Quantum theory is a cute move.
The bottom line is this discussion stemmed from Actor's comments implying that there is always a degree of uncertainty. Quantum theory says that.
There is no uncertainty about the fact Toronto won the other night.
There are some things we can say with 100% certainty, whether Quantum theory agrees with that or not.

I am adding experimental verification or the scientific method to all the "slips" that yes I am showing. And further stating a major part of belief in something is the theory of justification is a part of epistemology that attempts to understand the justification of propositions and beliefs. Epistemologists are concerned with various epistemic features of belief, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, and probability. Loosely speaking, justification is the reason that someone (properly) holds a belief.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by hcap

I am adding experimental verification or the scientific method to all the "slips" that yes I am showing. And further stating a major part of belief in something is the theory of justification is a part of epistemology that attempts to understand the justification of propositions and beliefs. Epistemologists are concerned with various epistemic features of belief, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, and probability. Loosely speaking, justification is the reason that someone (properly) holds a belief.

We probably agree, but my, my, my, why are you using so many simple common words?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

You may have the last word regarding Darwin and his apologists.

Funny I simply diveded your so-called evils of Charles Darwin to the twisting of his theories by the Social Darwinist and their ilk, the eugenic mongers and you drop your contention that their evils had so much more to do the overturning of Virginia's interracial marriage law.

Just as well since your wrong analysis does not consider centuries of slavery, colonialism and imperialism culminating in inhumanity to black and brown people.

We must also remember Laissez-Faire economic theory and the awful Southern Strategy of Nixon in promoting racism. In other words it was not real science that promoted racism, but power and politics.

Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party.[4] It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4]

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

Funny I simply diveded your so-called evils of Charles Darwin to the twisting of his theories by the Social Darwinist and their ilk, the eugenic mongers and you drop your contention that their evils had so much more to do the overturning of Virginia's interracial marriage law.

Just as well since your wrong analysis does not consider centuries of slavery, colonialism and imperialism culminating in inhumanity to black and brown people.

We must also remember Laissez-Faire economic theory and the awful Southern Strategy of Nixon in promoting racism. In other words it was not real science that promoted racism, but power and politics.

Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party.[4] It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4]

My letting you have the last word in no way is an acquiescence to your and all the other other Darwin apologists, it just a respectful act, on my part, regarding your personal opinion.

[Show Me the Wire]

Let's take the issue of my lack of understanding about Darwin's theory to another thread.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...42#post2480642

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

We probably agree, but my, my, my, why are you using so many simple common words?

I have used simple words many times and recall having them distorted hugely on the religious and climate change threads. A few multisyllabic words are also needed.

I am glad we agree.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

I disagree.

I am reminded that, however wrong, the only consistent naturalist is Alex Rosenberg:

"There is really one bit of bad news that remains to trouble scientism. We have to acknowledge (to ourselves, at least) that many questions we want the “right” answers to just don’t have any. These are questions about the morality of stem-cell research or abortion or affirmative action or gay marriage or our obligations to future generations. Many enlightened people, including many scientists, think that reasonable people can eventually find the right answers to such questions. Alas, it will turn out that all anyone can really find are the answers that they like. The same goes for those who disagree with them. Real moral disputes can be ended in lots of ways: by voting, by decree, by fatigue of the disputants, by the force of example that changes social mores. But they can never really be resolved by finding the correct answers." The Atheist’s Guide to Reality

[Tom]

The Maynard Institute is a entity with an agenda

They sure do!

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Actor

Plenty of non-racist scientists, e,g. Richard Dawkins, have examined the evidence and concluded the theory is correct.

How do you know Richard Dawkins isn't a racist? There is absolutely no way you can know this with any kind of certainty, especially given your recent posts on facts...

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Just because Quantum theory says something doesn't mean that it is absolutely true and must be believed blindly.

Correct. As Feynman said "If you understand quantum theory then you do not understand quantum theory."