Moderated Is belief itself dangerous for your brain? (A rethink is in order)

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Computer science is a science the same way library science is a science. "Science" is a very misused word today. You're not a scientist in the way the word is commonly understood. A scientist can demonstrate a mode of critical thought that, based on your arguments here, completely escapes you. You have been given basic training in a vocation that employs technical tools. You are not a scientist.

That belief opposes science, is but not my fallacy.

Do explain, "critically thinking" one, how a system that barely concerns evidence (i.e. belief) does not oppose a system that is bound by evidence (i.e. science)

[IMGw=350]http://i.imgur.com/35te6Qx.jpg[/IMGw]

 

[Aridas]

Don't you tire of expressing nonsense?

Don't you?

Synonyms, are, rather than opposing, quite similar, or the same.

Which does not dispute what I said. I said nothing about opposing. Rather, I pointed out that synonyms are frequently NOT the same, and if one has to go through intermediaries to get from one to another, you can make all sorts of nonsensical claims.

You had long expressed falsely, of the supposed opposing nature betwixt belief/system, amidst response 253 and beyond:

Learn to read.

There's absolutely no way to honestly get from what I said there to some opposed nature between belief and system.

Even less so when one takes into account everything else that I've consistently said.

No such contradiction persists.

Note my usage of the word "was" below:

Irrelevant. You may as well claim that the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, had it been written in ancient times for the exact same reasons, would have counted as science. In general, mythology was used to deal with entirely different things than science and employed entirely different kinds of methods to produce. Lumping them together serves as a disservice to both.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Don't you?



Which does not dispute what I said. I said nothing about opposing. Rather, I pointed out that synonyms are frequently NOT the same, and if one has to go through intermediaries to get from one to another, you can make all sorts of nonsensical claims.



Learn to read.

There's absolutely no way to honestly get from what I said there to some opposed nature between belief and system.
Even less so when one takes into account everything else that I've consistently said.

Quite the invalid response.

I shall no longer partake in response to your nonsensical comments.

Recall that you had mentioned clearly, that belief was not a system.
You need search for the definition of oppose.

A fallacious claim remains a fallacious claim, whether it's looked at once or a thousand times. The first line in your self-quote is simply false assertion. The most damning fault there is that belief is not a system, no matter how many times you repeat it.

SOURCE: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11916760&postcount=253

 

[steenkh]

That belief opposes science, is but not my fallacy.

Actually, it is. You are generalizing belief, so that you imply that a believer does not demand evidence for anything, whereas in reality, all believers only dispense with the need for evidence when it concerns their own particular belief.

 

[Aridas]

Quite the inconsequential response.

Yet, that is what you're trying to claim that we should do, by the standards that you're pushing.

ADVICE:
You need avoid silly, irrelevant anecdotes.

Silly, sure. They're intended to show off how silly your claims are, after all. Irrelevant? Hardly. They're simply applications of the standards that you are pushing.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Actually, it is. You are generalizing belief, so that you imply that a believer does not demand evidence for anything, whereas in reality, all believers only dispense with the need for evidence when it concerns their own particular belief.

[IMGw=350]http://i.imgur.com/rxoiw9H.jpg[/IMGw]

I tire of the nonsensical content amidst your responses.

There are already words for constructs that prioritize evidence, such as science.

I need not generalize belief, for by definition, belief is not one of the aforementioned words.

 

[Aridas]

Quite the invalid response.

I shall no longer partake in response to your nonsensical comments.

Recall that you had mentioned clearly, that belief was not a system.
You need search for the definition of oppose.

Belief is not a system. That something is not something in no way means that it opposes it, though. Furthermore, when it's been specifically and repeatedly stated that systems can certainly be made out of beliefs, your response is shown to be even more nonsensical. At this point, though, it's beyond any reasonable doubt that your obtuseness is willful. Congratulations on earning the title "Troll."

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

That there is a universe of delusional individuals that present themselves as having earned all manner of qualifications and decorations when in fact they have neither.

Between your tortured use of the english language and everything else you posted in the last couple of pages you're neck and neck with the #1 guy on the Stolen Valor hit parade.

Quite the inconsequential comment of yours for I have not, beyond the UWI CS degree, presented to have attained any other/"all manner of" qualification.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Belief is not a system. That something is not something in no way means that it opposes it, though. Furthermore, when it's been specifically and repeatedly stated that systems can certainly be made out of beliefs, your response is shown to be even more nonsensical. At this point, though, it's beyond any reasonable doubt that your obtuseness is willful. Congratulations on earning the title "Troll."

A prior quote of mine applies:

Both beliefs and systems are expressible as plans or ideas.

 

[Aridas]

A prior quote of mine applies:

And the prior quote of mine applies, too. Synonyms are not perfectly the same, especially when you're dealing with words that have multiple meanings, and by chaining together synonyms, you can fairly certainly get from red to elephant, which by your logic here would mean that red and elephant are the same thing. Even past that, belief, for example, is ALSO synonyms with words like hypothesis and conclusion that are quite important terms to science.

Argument by synonym, much less synonym chain, isn't a valid argument in the first place. On top of that, if it was granted that it was, though, you would have to accept that belief is an integral part of science, too, which would destroy non-beliefism by highlighting the internal contradictions clearly.

There's no victory here for you, even potentially.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

And the prior quote of mine applies, too. Synonyms are not perfectly the same, especially when you're dealing with words that have multiple meanings, and by chaining together synonyms, you can fairly certainly get from red to elephant, which by your logic here would mean that red and elephant are the same thing. Even past that, belief, for example, is ALSO synonyms with words like hypothesis and conclusion that are quite important terms to science.

Argument by synonym, much less synonym chain, isn't a valid argument in the first place. On top of that, if it was granted that it was, though, you would have to accept that belief is an integral part of science, too, which would destroy non-beliefism by highlighting the internal contradictions clearly.

There's no victory here for you, even potentially.

Inconsequential.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

You solve them by writing programs. That is a vocation. If you want to demonstrate skill at problem analysis and creative solution, you will have to provide more than simply parroted algorithms on GitHub.


Yes, to build upon them and extend the science. You're merely implementing the work of others -- restating it, as it were. That does not make you a scientist.

[IMGw=600]http://i.imgur.com/hJ7Pwqi.png[/IMGw]

See 'thought curvature', work of mine, concerning the construction of the basis for some super artificial general intelligence.

Thought curvature utilizes a paradigm of mine, I called the 'Supermanifold hypothesis in deep Learning'.

The Supermanifold Hypothesis in Deep Learning is a simple extension of the Manifold hypothesis in deep learning, amidst Yoshua Bengio's Deep learning book.

Is it not typical for an undergraduate CS student to possess some range of detailed mathematical knowledge, regarding quantum computing.https://www.quora.com/How-does-quantum-computing-work/answer/Jordan-Bennett-9

It is typical for an undergraduate CS student to have a rudimentary understanding of discrete mathematics and numerical methods. Set theory and formal logic used to be part of the field, but is no longer commonly taught. It is not common for such a student to have knowledge of subfields such as quantum computing. If you are claiming expertise in that field as the basis for your thesis, you will need to lay the appropriate foundation. A general CS diploma is not enough.

The response above, is yet to approach my prior response, highlighted in yellow.

I don't recognize you as an expert on science. I'll draw my own conclusions on whether your claims have scientific merit.

I have never once mentioned of any such alpha geekery.


FOOTNOTE (Not addressed to you JayUtah):

Note: A hypothesis is by definition, a concept that typically concerns evidence, (albeit limited), whereas the very concept of belief, is a construct that typically consists of no evidence at all.

 

[Aridas]

Inconsequential.

What is inconsequential about it, though?

By engaging in fallacious logic like this to try to defend it, rather than simply correcting the errors, you're showing that non-beliefism is no better than religion.

 

[abaddon]

That there are fake degrees for a sequence of real universities, does not suddenly invalidate my Computer Science degree via UWI Mona Campus.

Sorry, I don't believe you.

 

[abaddon]

That there is a universe of delusional individuals that present themselves as having earned all manner of qualifications and decorations when in fact they have neither.

Between your tortured use of the english language and everything else you posted in the last couple of pages you're neck and neck with the #1 guy on the Stolen Valor hit parade.

Quite the inconsequential comment of yours for I have not, beyond the UWI CS degree, presented to have attained any other/"all manner of" qualification.

Yeah, try reading what was actually posted rather than what you imagine was posted.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Yeah, try reading what was actually posted rather than what you imagine was posted.

Yet another invalid, inconsequential comment.

 

[John Jones]

Regardless of that of the feelings of the beings amidst this thread, I am a scientist, for I posses a modern CS degree, whence I typically apply computer science, such that computer science aligned problems are solved.

QED

 

[The Norseman]

That there are fake degrees for a sequence of real universities, does not suddenly invalidate my Computer Science degree via UWI Mona Campus.

Based on your posts here, it certainly calls into question the validity of the documents you are providing in order to bolster your standing.

You fail at both your attempts at logic and at English and it surprises many here that you could have earned a bachelors degree at any decent university at all.

The more I think about it, it appears you're trying for an Appeal to Authority anyway.

Yes, your invalid expressions were incorrect.

I was only incorrect in my statement about that university not offering a general CS degree nothing more.

Precisely.

I simply had to respond to the Norsemans and the BStrongs, in relation to my CS degree's status.

You initially brought it up as some sort of proof that you're competent in spouting the nonsense you're spouting. Ultimately, JayUtah is again correct in pointing out that it matters not that you have a bachelors in Computer Science; it does not mean that you're a scientist as is understood the term to mean. Others may have different ideas, of course, but I generally feel that the doctorate level people have earned the title of scientist.

However, my good friend earned a BS in Political Science (as he wanted to become an attorney later). Is he therefore a scientist too, just like you?

 

[John Jones]

Precisely.

I simply had to respond to the Norsemans and the BStrongs, in relation to my CS degree's status.

As I had prior mentioned:

Have you ever heard of the Crackpot Index? If you haven't, you have no business at a place like this.

One sign of a crackpot is that he will cite and quote himself more than anyone else.

Do you do that?

 

[abaddon]

Have you ever heard of the Crackpot Index? If you haven't, you have no business at a place like this.

One sign of a crackpot is that he will cite and quote himself more than anyone else.

Do you do that?

Oh don't be so serious. The mangled "Engrish as she is goodly spoke" is hilarious entertainment all on it's own.