Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Mojo]

Same old repeatitións. No reàson or evidence càn really be jústified únless it is A&F. Otherwise all will be ín same boat whích has a hóle. If you prefer this boat, be prepared to be drowned one day.

The difference between us, Kumar, is that we are capable of taking on new evidence and changing our beliefs accordingly. If a boat turns out to have a hole in it we can change our opinion about its safety and grab a lifebelt. You, on the other hand, would just sit in the sinking boat, repeating "boat is safe A&F", until the water closed over your head.

 

[Peregrinus]

I'm increasingly of the mind that Kumar is simply incapable of recognizing the emptiness of his claims.

 

[ferd burfle]

I'm increasingly of the mind that Kumar is simply incapable of recognizing the emptiness of his claims.

When someone is unwilling to accept facts there is no basis for meaningful discussion with them. Fortunately, the exchange can still benefit the open-minded. Captain Obvious possibly took control of my fingers just now.

 

[Kumar]

We already explained to you the nature of uncertainty. What that has to do with the ethics of food animals is anyone's guess. But we already covered this.

We have yet to cover 'Deception' part which should have also been added to topic subject. Say, you love, nurse or farm beings, make them aware you are like parent, god father or companion but on one black day???

And no, scientists do not just experiment willy-nilly on humans in ways that may result in death. Medical doctors may, with the patient's consent, apply treatments that have known rates of success and failure, and known rates of complications. That is not experimentation per se.

Yes, ON FIRST EXPERIMENT ON POOR ANIMALS. Any odd fromany treatment inspite of well observed in studies and any type of patient's consent, will still be considered as ODD of science---a miss, a weakness or a wrong assessment. Whatever is not sure in A&F and whatever can bring serious outcome but still applied, should be considered as an experiment on humans. So called as alternative systems which are also not A&F and which has least side effects, at least merit for least side effects.

 

[JayUtah]

We have yet to cover 'Deception' part which should have also been added to topic subject. Say, you love, nurse or farm beings, make them aware you are like parent, god father or companion but on one black day???

Commits the same error as the OP.

Yes, ON FIRST EXPERIMENT ON POOR ANIMALS...

No, you are not a scientist. You are not knowledgeable about scientific methodology. Experimentation on animals is not the first course of action.

 

[Kumar]

But that is not the claim. You (or more properly, BhagChandra) made the claim that Dr. Chandra Bose had confirmed, essentially, that plants have souls. It is a plainly evident fact that Bose did no such thing. That lie is not saved by what science may yet discover at some point about plants. We can know right know, for a fact, that Bhagchandra has misrepresented the truth about Chandra Bose's scholarship, and no subsequent fact can change that.

What you see in the video is amply explained by what we already know about plants. Your vague hope for the future does not negate those findings nor create the need to hypothesize further. Science is parsimonious, meaning it doesn't contemplate potential causes for which there is no outstanding observed effect. Once again, had you actually read the works of the scientist your scholars dishonestly invoke, you would have learned this.

Yes, unless a person is actively & competently involved in any subject should not comment on either side on that esp. serious comments. It is essence of these discussions. Therefore I have also opted it.

 

[Kumar]

How do we discover that the medicine has fatal outcomes? Has a homeopath ever somehow discovered that the medicine in question is problematic by diluting it? Nø! Has a god ever pointed it's finger at the medicine in question and said "this medicine is killing people"? Nø! Has a psychic medium ever gotten the word from a dead person that it was the medicine that did it? Nø! Always, every single time, the process of science is what determined that the medicine in question is bad. Science, every time. Is it perfect? Nø! But it IS the only process by which we can reliably gain knowledge about how things in this universe work.

Simple, if science is perfect, there should not be an odd outcome on field applications. If odd outcome is there, it should be safely considered it was due to odds of science.

 

[Kumar]

Indeed, his religious belief is A&F. And that's good enough for K. When the facts are in contradiction to his A&F beliefs, he refuses to consider them. Which is why he, and others like him, are close minded--despite his insistence the we skeptics are the close minded ones.

Whether religious beliefs are A&F or not, I can not say, but something can be certain about its benefits and least side effects which we may not get otherwise.

 

[Kumar]

The difference between us, Kumar, is that we are capable of taking on new evidence and changing our beliefs accordingly. If a boat turns out to have a hole in it we can change our opinion about its safety and grab a lifebelt. You, on the other hand, would just sit in the sinking boat, repeating "boat is safe A&F", until the water closed over your head.

Main issue is, why to take a boat with big hole? Yes you can close the hole or take a lifebelt(though a wood piece can also serve purpose), but obviously people will declare that person an idiot, who will take a boat with big hole.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, unless a person is actively & competently involved in any subject should not comment on either side on that esp. serious comments. It is essence of these discussions. Therefore I have also opted it.

But your guru Bhagchandra Jain did not opt out. He lied about Chandra Bose's findings. He spoke about things he didn't know about. Explain how that fits into your ethic.

 

[JayUtah]

Main issue is, why to take a boat with big hole? Yes you can close the hole or take a lifebelt(though a wood piece can also serve purpose), but obviously people will declare that person an idiot, who will take a boat with big hole.

But that's the point. Religion is a boat with a big hole, but you just sit in it as the water rises around you and deny that the boat is sinking. We know your religion has big holes because we've shown how it is contradicted by fact. The point your critics are trying to make is that you're delusional about the reliability of religious knowledge.

Science, on the other hand, accepts that boats may have holes and looks carefully to see if there are any. If there are, it looks for a better boat. Science accepts that facts may occasionally arise that dispute its prevailing findings. It therefore alters its findings. It does not operate under any sort of delusion that the answers it presently has are the absolute truth.

 

[JayUtah]

Whether religious beliefs are A&F or not, I can not say, but something can be certain about its benefits and least side effects which we may not get otherwise.

Do you accept that Jainism is not "absolute and final" knowledge? Please give a simple answer only.

 

[JayUtah]

Simple, if science is perfect, there should not be an odd outcome on field applications. If odd outcome is there, it should be safely considered it was due to odds of science.

Science doesn't claim to be perfect. Religion does. The difference is that neither is perfect, but only one of them is honest.

 

[Kumar]

Commits the same error as the OP.

No, quite logical. But sorry can disturb. We do/can not opt same behavior with our dependents.

No, you are not a scientist. You are not knowledgeable about scientific methodology. Experimentation on animals is not the first course of action.

Yes, but still it is commonly practices. PETA & many other NGO are also concerned about it. Yes, I am not scientist, nor you may be in medical field, so it can be illogical for both of us to discuss on it.

 

[Kumar]

But your guru Bhagchandra Jain did not opt out. He lied about Chandra Bose's findings. He spoke about things he didn't know about. Explain how that fits into your ethic.

Sorry, you are neither a botanical scientist nor a Psychologist, you should not comment on it. We can now maintain our limits.

 

[JayUtah]

No, quite logical.

No, it begs the question.

Yes, but still it is commonly practices. PETA & many other NGO are also concerned about it.

Are you sure you want to cite PETA again as your moral authority? Remember how well that worked out for you before?

Scientists do indeed experiment using animals, plants, and other non-human living things. There are very strict ethical requirements for doing so with a minimum of suffering and injury. But you, not being a scientist, wouldn't know anything about those.

Yes, I am not scientist, nor you may be in medical field, so it can be illogical for both of us to discuss on it.

No, you don't get to raise a topic, drop an insinuation, and then -- as soon as you're called on your arrogant and ignorant pontifications -- declare the subject off limits. The phrase in English that applies to your behavior is "put up or shut up."

 

[Kumar]

Science doesn't claim to be perfect. Religion does. The difference is that neither is perfect, but only one of them is honest.

However it is not a matter of space science, the relevance of claims should also be looked with adverse affects and least side affects giving property of that claim. I can easily say a person just cover distance by walking but can not say go by a spacecraft.

 

[JayUtah]

Sorry, you are neither a botanical scientist nor a Psychologist, you should not comment on it.

You don't know what kind of a scientist I am. I've told you only a little bit about that. But we do know that Bhagchandra was neither a botanist nor a pyschologist, yet he himself published many claims on the subject.

We can now maintain our limits.

No. Now that I've touched a nerve I'm going to keep poking at it until I can finally squeeze some honesty out you. Frankly I've had it with your arrogant posturing. You are quite eager to excoriate your critics for allegedly speaking out of turn when you merely suspect they don't have the required expertise. But you are entirely reluctant to dismiss your guru when he admittedly speaks out of turn, admittedly not having the appropriate expertise. Your standards are so far askew it's comical.

 

[JayUtah]

However it is not a matter of space science, the relevance of claims should also be looked with adverse affects and least side affects giving property of that claim. I can easily say a person just cover distance by walking but can not say go by a spacecraft.

That doesn't address anything I wrote. Please don't stray from the topic.

 

[Kumar]

No, it begs the question.



Are you sure you want to cite PETA again as your moral authority? Remember how well that worked out for you before?

Many POVs are there in it. Yes it is not A&F.

Scientists do indeed experiment using animals, plants, and other non-human living things. There are very strict ethical requirements for doing so with a minimum of suffering and injury. But you, not being a scientist, wouldn't know anything about those.

I feel, it has processed by the good efforts of many NGOs. Previously, I seen them in one Med research institution, simply I could not see.

No, you don't get to raise a topic, drop an insinuation, and then -- as soon as you're called on your arrogant and ignorant pontifications -- declare the subject off limits. The phrase in English that applies to your behavior is "put up or shut up."

Yes, it is common on discussions forums, nothing to make issue. No one know, what may come from anyone on yet unknown.