[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
Todd, I’ve tried to be nice, I’ve tried to work with you, I’ve even tried to help educate you…and all I’ve gotten for my effort is insult and aggravation. So here’s the proposal: You’ve been hopping up and down saying I wouldn’t answer your questions. I thought I had, to the extent I felt like it. But in one last effort to humor you, I challenge you: start a new thread. Post your question or questions in it, and I’ll go to it and answer them. I’ve suggested this approach to you a couple of times previous, but now I’m stating it plain. Either do this, or stop. Put up or shut up.
'Kay?
'Cause frankly, I’m tired of you. You’re not serving any useful purpose I can think of.
And playing spin the bottle with a pompous high school kid is not high on my list of things I really like to do.
Put up or shut up.
Joe,
You haven’t made an actual points at all that I can divine. You have made no real attempt to answer any question or set out a real supported argument. You have continuous shown your ignorance, hurled insults, and tried to simply dismiss the arguments of others without substantiation. Quit crying and construct a cohesive argument. I have done that. So I would have to argue that I certainly am helping this thread along moreso than you are.
I couldn’t care less about your personal opinion of me.
Todd
So you’re not going to follow through? You ask me to answer your questions, but refuse to tell me what those questions are, then when I can’t answer them, you insult me for that?
Cool.
And I gather you have no plans to either put up or shut up, which makes you most definiately NOT a T-Man.
I think they’re accepting new member over at the Oxygen web site, or perhaps the Oprah message boards.
Oh, and just to clear something up: I’m in no way “crying”.
I’m laughing a little, shaking my head a little…but definately not crying.
Have a nice night!
[/quote]
Here, for your viewing pleasure, is a consolidated list of the questions I have asked you:
I asked you to defend your assertion that exhaustive research is not necessary in order to provide a complete explanation in accordance with Occham’s Razor. I’ve done this no less than four times. You refuse.
Here’s the play by play:
You initially replied with an article that displayed my assertion verbatim. In it, this passage was displayed:
Occam’s Razor is now usually stated as follows:
Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.
As this is ambiguous, Isaac Newton’s version may be better:
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
In the spirit of Occam’s Razor itself, the rule may be stated thus:
“The simplest explanation is usually the best.”
In the final version, the word explanation implies that the explanation must be COMPLETE. The writer of the article intentionally used the most succinct definition possible in order to prove a point.
You went on to quote your professor. “confronted by the pyramids, you don’t go looking for the ET’s that beamed them into place, you look for the quarries.” The quote incontrovertibly supported my assertion and debunked yours. By “looking for the quarries,” you embark on a detailed search for evidence that supports a simple explanation. I created a post detailing this to which you never responded. Which leads me to ask the following:
- How is it possible to have a complete explanation without having examined all of the pertinent data?
I also asked this question:
- Is collecting knowledge in order to make an informed decision paralyzing?
That was in response to this statement from you that Occham’s Razor “in no way indicates that we have to paralyze ourselves attempting to research every aspect of all sides of an issue.” I have since come to refer to that as the Slacker’s Manifesto.
My third question, which I have asked multiple times, is whether the US has the world’s lowest poverty rate. You have previously asserted that it did. I’ll ask again:
- Does the US actually have the world’s lowest poverty rate?
There are two possible answers to this: yes or no. Only one of those could possibly be correct. In either case, an explanation is warranted as to why you say that. A discussion about India is probably not called for either. Warning: Use of google may be required to give a correct answer here.
In the meantime, you have accused me of never responding to facts, which I found entertaining since I can’t seem to get one straightforward answer out of you. Whenever I turn your own evidence right back on you, you simply ignore my posts.
You also claimed that Rainjack never makes personal attacks in his debating style. Then, in the very next post, Rainjack attacked me personally.
It’s all very entertaining, Joe. I’m enjoying myself thoroughly.
Todd