Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Kumar]

Expressly no. You are not a scientist, and you have absolutely no idea what standards of proof prevail there. Do not arrogantly presume to have knowledge you don't have.

That was common logic. Moreover people here had much made me aware real non A&F status of science, though I feel, it is also degrading the science.

 

[Kumar]

What can be clearly seen through 49 pages in this thread and a depressingly large number of pages in a depressingly large number of other threads is that the misguiding seems to center on yourself. You go in circles. You ignore facts. You spout philosophical nonsense. You ignore rational thought patterns. And you commit grievous acts upon the English language.

It appears to be common here. It is obvious if one negative/non-belief side will also be seen as non-believer's duty towards other side and by odd perception. However real duty of all should be to conclude in A&F after looking all sides. Mango Tree example.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, we can not impress others to behave in our manner.

I'm not trying to get you to behave like me. I'm trying to get you to address the facts I presented to you that dispute your findings. That has nothing to do with behavior. I'm not impressed that you tell me your religion somehow forbids you from engaging in such a discussion. To me that's just an additional weakness. It certainly doesn't let you off the hook. Facts don't stop being facts just because you invent a bunch of excuses for not having to face them.

It is very difficult to achieve A&F fact.

It is, in fact, impossible. That's why it's an absurd standard of proof and why your critics rightly chastise you for trying to impose it. Further, if you read what I wrote earlier, the distinction between absolute and non-absolute proof would apply only where an inference had an inductive leap. In cases such as the alleged findings of Chandra Bose, there is no inductive leap. The evidence can be examined exhaustively.

There is still the matter of whether Bhagchandra Jain met your standard of proof. You have avoided answering that. Does your religion also forbid you from finding fault with its notable scholars? If so, I would say your religion is very oppressive and does not encourage the testing of ideas. That would make it extremely unscientific.

 

[JayUtah]

However real duty of all should be to conclude in A&F after looking all sides.

And it looks like you're stuck. All you can do is continue to blabber about "A&F" and try to impose it by unilateral fiat.

 

[JayUtah]

That was common logic.

No. It's not "common logic" that science should obey your rules.

Moreover people here had much made me aware real non A&F status of science...

Science doesn't claim to be "absolute and final." You are not a scientist. You have no experience in science. Your expectations of what it should be are simply irrelevant. No amount of arrogant pontification changes that.

...though I feel, it is also degrading the science.

It does not. Science draws conclusions only as far as the data allow, and permits revising those conclusions should new data become available. It is ruthlessly not "absolute and final" because that would defeat its whole purpose. Your mistake is in assuming that the data never go far enough to draw meaningful, reliable, and useful conclusions.

But as has been repeatedly said to you, practically every fringe claimant tries to insist that unless his critics profess to know everything, they cannot know enough to know he is wrong. That's simply nonsense. It's a desperate ploy to avoid having to deal with uncomfortable facts. You don't do yourself much of a service for attempting such a cheap trick.

 

[Kumar]

I'm not trying to get you to behave like me. I'm trying to get you to address the facts I presented to you that dispute your findings. That has nothing to do with behavior. I'm not impressed that you tell me your religion somehow forbids you from engaging in such a discussion. To me that's just an additional weakness. It certainly doesn't let you off the hook. Facts don't stop being facts just because you invent a bunch of excuses for not having to face them.



It is, in fact, impossible. That's why it's an absurd standard of proof and why your critics rightly chastise you for trying to impose it. Further, if you read what I wrote earlier, the distinction between absolute and non-absolute proof would apply only where an inference had an inductive leap. In cases such as the alleged findings of Chandra Bose, there is no inductive leap. The evidence can be examined exhaustively.

There is still the matter of whether Bhagchandra Jain met your standard of proof. You have avoided answering that. Does your religion also forbid you from finding fault with its notable scholars? If so, I would say your religion is very oppressive and does not encourage the testing of ideas. That would make it extremely unscientific.

Who can decide fact is true fact or not---is a matter of of great controversy. No one can poise on it unless he is A&F. Claim of avoidance can be on both sides....either intentionally or intentionally. Moreover, when A&F fact is immpossible, no one can be stamped as wrong or all can be stamped wrong.

 

[Kumar]

And it looks like you're stuck. All you can do is continue to blabber about "A&F" and try to impose it by unilateral fiat.

Since, it is ultimate basis of true fact. My practical experiences suggest not to accept non A&F fact unless we are ready to take relevant calculative risks. I can accept it only by taking calculative minimum risk not otherwise.

 

[Kumar]

No. It's not "common logic" that science should obey your rules.



Science doesn't claim to be "absolute and final." You are not a scientist. You have no experience in science. Your expectations of what it should be are simply irrelevant. No amount of arrogant pontification changes that.



It does not. Science draws conclusions only as far as the data allow, and permits revising those conclusions should new data become available. It is ruthlessly not "absolute and final" because that would defeat its whole purpose. Your mistake is in assuming that the data never go far enough to draw meaningful, reliable, and useful conclusions.

But as has been repeatedly said to you, practically every fringe claimant tries to insist that unless his critics profess to know everything, they cannot know enough to know he is wrong. That's simply nonsense. It's a desperate ploy to avoid having to deal with uncomfortable facts. You don't do yourself much of a service for attempting such a cheap trick.

Then, a scientist or a science advocate should not claim science is fully valid and should not degrade others on account of non-scientific or non-factual. Then it will be justified. Btw, whether science or scientific means somewhat "yet partially cooked"?

 

[JayUtah]

Who can decide fact is true fact or not--

People who have developed the skill of observation, inference, and critical examination. And who aren't blinded by religious fervor. You decide whether a fact is a fact based on whether it agrees with your religious belief. That sounds like the least reliable method to me.

No one can poise on it unless he is A&F.

False. You don't, for example. We proved this elsewhere.

Moreover, when A&F fact is immpossible, no one can be stamped as wrong or all can be stamped wrong.

No, everyone is not wrong just because you're wrong.

Since, it is ultimate basis of true fact.

Except that it isn't.

My practical experiences suggest not to accept non A&F fact unless we are ready to take relevant calculative risks. I can accept it only by taking calculative minimum risk not otherwise.

And apparently a calculated risk does not include violating your religious beliefs. That's the problem here.

Then, a scientist or a science advocate should not claim science is fully valid and should not degrade others on account of non-scientific or non-factual.

Straw man. I can claim my conclusion is well-enough supported to prove you wrong. Not every finding of fact requires an inductive leap. And in the case of Bhagchandra, his claims were about science, not the product of science. Similarly my rebuttals were comments about science, not the product of science.

Seriously, demanding that your critics can be safely ignored unless they meet an unreasonable standard of proof is about the best way you could demonstrate total entrenchment in your preconceived ideas.

Btw, whether science or scientific means somewhat "yet partially cooked"?

No, science is not "half-baked" simply because it doesn't meet your ignorant criteria. Please try something besides your standard knee-jerk dismissals and pontifications.

 

[Kumar]

People who have developed the skill of observation, inference, and critical examination. And who aren't blinded by religious fervor. You decide whether a fact is a fact based on whether it agrees with your religious belief. That sounds like the least reliable method to me.

Religious people can also claim that their religion is developed by lot of skill,observation, inference, and critical examination in a different way. It was not a one day job.

False. You don't, for example. We proved this elsewhere.



No, everyone is not wrong just because you're wrong.



Except that it isn't.

Simply agree on that, since science is not yet A&F, no side can be A&F. So all are in sea, may be in smaller or bigger boat.

And apparently a calculated risk does not include violating your religious beliefs. That's the problem here.



Straw man. I can claim my conclusion is well-enough supported to prove you wrong. Not every finding of fact requires an inductive leap. And in the case of Bhagchandra, his claims were about science, not the product of science. Similarly my rebuttals were comments about science, not the product of science.

Seriously, demanding that your critics can be safely ignored unless they meet an unreasonable standard of proof is about the best way you could demonstrate total entrenchment in your preconceived ideas.



No, science is not "half-baked" simply because it doesn't meet your ignorant criteria. Please try something besides your standard knee-jerk dismissals and pontifications.

Preconceived idea about any system can make you to weigh any other thing in that system's weighing scale. But not necessary, it should be universally valid. On so many provocations here, Previously I presented so many odds even of fatal level here of science which attracted so many odds. I do not want to repeat that, because I respect all mass existing understanding.

 

[JayUtah]

Religious people can also claim that their religion is developed by lot of skill,observation, inference, and critical examination in a different way.

They can claim that, but that's never what actually happens. Jainism, as with all other religions, is a dictated body of propositional knowledge meant to be taken on faith. It did not arise empirically.

Simply agree on that, since science is not yet A&F, no side can be A&F.

No, that is the standard fringe-claimant fallback position. You want to make it seem like everyone is on equally poor footing when only you are on poor footing.

I do not want to repeat that, because I respect all mass existing understanding.

Clearly you don't. You explicitly ignore things that don't fit your religion. I posted facts that disputed your author's claims regarding Jainism and science. You haughtily announced that you had no obligation to address it because you insisted it did not rise to an arbitrary standard of proof.

 

[Kumar]

They can claim that, but that's never what actually happens. Jainism, as with all other religions, is a dictated body of propositional knowledge meant to be taken on faith. It did not arise empirically.



No, that is the standard fringe-claimant fallback position. You want to make it seem like everyone is on equally poor footing when only you are on poor footing.



Clearly you don't. You explicitly ignore things that don't fit your religion. I posted facts that disputed your author's claims regarding Jainism and science. You haughtily announced that you had no obligation to address it because you insisted it did not rise to an arbitrary standard of proof.

On looking with equanimity all above can also be applicable on you. Do you calculate there are no odds and even odds with serious side effects on science side? If yes, would you reject science in same way as you tend to reject religion or other alternative understandings? Just tell honestly.

 

[JayUtah]

On looking with equanimity all above can also be applicable on you. Do you calculate there are no odds and even odds with serious side effects on science side? If yes, would you reject science in same way as you tend to reject religion or other alternative understandings? Just tell honestly.

Enough with the desperate attempts at turnabout. I reject religion because it is propositional knowledge foisted by fiat. As such it quickly and often runs afoul of fact. As you so amply demonstrated, religion never gives way in the face of fact. It tries frantically to make the facts go away, or seem unimportant. Or, as we saw from Bhagchandra, it simply lies to its followers about what the facts are. You never admit error, even when it's blatantly obvious that you're wrong. This is a serious personal deficiency. The approach taken by science is a progressive refinement of understanding derived from empirical observation and rigorous testing. Where data arises that disputes prevailing conclusions, the conclusion changes.

You have had a personal tragedy which has led you to believe wrongly that science is rife with "serious side effects." That is truly regrettable. But your emotional response does not change the fundamental nature of science, nor improve the fundamental nature of religion.

 

[Kumar]

Enough with the desperate attempts at turnabout. I reject religion because it is propositional knowledge foisted by fiat. As such it quickly and often runs afoul of fact. As you so amply demonstrated, religion never gives way in the face of fact. It tries frantically to make the facts go away, or seem unimportant. Or, as we saw from Bhagchandra, it simply lies to its followers about what the facts are. You never admit error, even when it's blatantly obvious that you're wrong. This is a serious personal deficiency. The approach taken by science is a progressive refinement of understanding derived from empirical observation and rigorous testing. Where data arises that disputes prevailing conclusions, the conclusion changes.

You have had a personal tragedy which has led you to believe wrongly that science is rife with "serious side effects." That is truly regrettable. But your emotional response does not change the fundamental nature of science, nor improve the fundamental nature of religion.

Although, it is individual's choice & calculation, what he prefer and what not but I feel, it is odd to base science for every other thing. We do not base science in many relationships and then only, that give good results. Whoever is compared Jainism with science is guilty of Jainism(as per wrong beliefs) but things can happen due to somewhat hypnotism type popularity. We can not say, science is godlike absolute authority to stamp anything as fact. Otherwises are also valid. I had also come in same hypnotic affect but nowcame out of it, so may look bit different. I shall calculate it as First wrong now right. Children Parents relationship is not scientifically stamped but still quite valid. If such stamp will be insisted, it can become invalid and unfavor to children. We should ONLY endorse science or any other understanding in A&F, when it become A&F. We consider GOD accordingly.

 

[Kumar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJY07dWomTo

See live. Senstivity in plants.

 

[jond]

Kumar's A&F is nönsense which he uses as a way to refuse to accept répeateable, testable scieñtific coñclusions. He thån castigates us for nøt having opën minds. When in reality it ïs precisely the fact that science doesn't have A&F conclusions that means our minds are open, but will be persuaded by solid evidence. Meanwhile his miñd is entirely cløsed to anythîng thát doësn't fit his precoñceived idéas. Maåbe a møøse bit his sîster?

 

[Kumar]

Kumar's A&F is nönsense which he uses as a way to refuse to accept répeateable, testable scieñtific coñclusions. He thån castigates us for nøt having opën minds. When in reality it ïs precisely the fact that science doesn't have A&F conclusions that means our minds are open, but will be persuaded by solid evidence. Meanwhile his miñd is entirely cløsed to anythîng thát doësn't fit his precoñceived idéas. Maåbe a møøse bit his sîster?

No. Simply give & take non A&F things equally on all sídes and be open minded on all sides.

 

[jond]

No. Simply give & take non A&F things equally on all sídes and be open minded on all sides.

You have demonstrated throughout your posting history here that your mind is not open, but rather is completely closed to science. As witnessed by your utter refusal to accept any conclusions and then years later bring back the very same claims that have been thoroughly dismantled.

On the other hand, here in this thread, JayUtah has demonstrated his open mind by specifically looking at your claims, in detail. He then found them scientifically invalid, and demonstrated exactly why they are invalid. That is the proper definition of open minded. He didn’t simply reject the claims without research. You, however, accept the claims and refuse to accept the research, which is the definition of a closed mind.

 

[Kumar]

You have demonstrated throughout your posting history here that your mind is not open, but rather is completely closed to science. As witnessed by your utter refusal to accept any conclusions and then years later bring back the very same claims that have been thoroughly dismantled.

On the other hand, here in this thread, JayUtah has demonstrated his open mind by specifically looking at your claims, in detail. He then found them scientifically invalid, and demonstrated exactly why they are invalid. That is the proper definition of open minded. He didn’t simply reject the claims without research. You, however, accept the claims and refuse to accept the research, which is the definition of a closed mind.

Nó that was a gross interpretation. It is possible for people to make use of non A&F part óf science in theír íntrest by degrading other. Non A&F ones logically do not have right to degrade, right to réject any one or anything. Hence its logical compromise ís that either give & get A&F or non A&F but not non A&F on self side but À&F on opposite side. Just invite anyone on dinner and serve him partially cooked food and then see the resúlt. Moreover lower court shoúld have nó authority to overrule or reject higher cóurt.

 

[Peregrinus]

Kumar,

You're doing it again/still: wandering in a sea of jumbled words, fantastical notions, impossible "facts" and half-baked if not totally false assumptions. You just seem not to have any sort of grip on reality.