Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Kumar]

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.

Many time, many interpreters, not actual research people, also write the articles of their research..

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.

Mines are just reactions to your and your's types actions. What to do when Newton had justified it(however I am also bit odd in that , logically).

 

[Kumar]

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

How you have avoided one?

 

[JayUtah]

Many time, many interpreters, not actual research people, also write the articles of their research.

And Bhagchandra's article is definitely not an expert treatise where the science is concerned. Do you concede that the scientific claims he makes in that article have been refuted?

The further problem is your double standard. You hold one group of people to a higher standard when they propose to speak on expert topics, but another group of people considerably lower. If people are telling you what you want to hear, you are more inclined to insist that they are experts, whether or not they really are.

Mines are just reactions to your and your's types actions.

None of that addresses the double standard I pointed out. Do not stray from the subject.

 

[JayUtah]

How you have avoided one?

This makes no sense. The topic of the question was whether science is perfect or whether it claims to be perfect. Science is not perfect. Science does not claim to be perfect. Religion, on the other hand, claims to be perfect but cannot demonstrate that perfection or reconcile its statements that are found contrary to fact. So from the perspective of perfection, neither system is perfect. However, religion deludes itself into thinking it's perfect. Comment on that, please.

 

[JayUtah]

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

No one cares whether it is "A&F." You have been shown evidence that PETA's moral basis is both factually false and that their actions are hypocritical in this respect. If you're basing your morality on PETA, then I reject it as I do PETA's.

You did not address the point about the begged question.

Yes, it is common on discussions forums, nothing to make issue.

That's not the part of the sentence I wanted you to address. You raised a specific point that was specifically refuted. Now that I'm asking you to deal with the refutation, suddenly that topic is off-limits. Dismissing the relevance of a point you brought up after it is later refuted is dishonest.

 

[Kumar]

And Bhagchandra's article is definitely not an expert treatise where the science is concerned. Do you concede that the scientific claims he makes in that article have been refuted?

The further problem is your double standard. You hold one group of people to a higher standard when they propose to speak on expert topics, but another group of people considerably lower. If people are telling you what you want to hear, you are more inclined to insist that they are experts, whether or not they really are.



None of that addresses the double standard I pointed out. Do not stray from the subject.

Sorry, i am not relevant scientific authority to comment on that article and judge your remarks---either side. But presented on your insistence not by my preaching. Still tried one on which you avoided.

 

[Kumar]

This makes no sense. The topic of the question was whether science is perfect or whether it claims to be perfect. Science is not perfect. Science does not claim to be perfect. Religion, on the other hand, claims to be perfect but cannot demonstrate that perfection or reconcile its statements that are found contrary to fact. So from the perspective of perfection, neither system is perfect. However, religion deludes itself into thinking it's perfect. Comment on that, please.

Yes obviously, since science is not perfect, religious relevance with science will also not be perfect. Claiming about imperfection of religion relevance to science is like claiming imperfection of your science....so illogical.

 

[JayUtah]

Sorry, i am not relevant scientific authority to comment on that article and judge your remarks---either side. But presented on your insistence not by my preaching. Still tried one on which you avoided.

One doesn't have to be a "relevant scientific authority" to research Bhagchandra Jain's list of academic qualifications and note that neither botany nor psychology appears among them. That requires only the ability to read the language his c.v. and bibliography are written in -- English being one of them. Are you claiming this simple reading task is beyond you?

 

[JayUtah]

Yes obviously, since science is not perfect, religious relevance with science will also not be perfect. Claiming about imperfection of religion relevance to science is like claiming imperfection of your science....so illogical.

There's nothing illogical about my line of questioning. We have two systems of knowledge, science and religion. We have arrived at the understanding that neither is "absolute and final." Neither is perfect. However, one of these systems claims to be perfect, to be absolute and final. One of these systems is therefore lying. Shall we pursue the system that is honest about its imperfection, or the one that's lying about it? Which system is most likely to accommodate newly discovered facts that dispute its prevailing tenets?

 

[Kumar]

No one cares whether it is "A&F." You have been shown evidence that PETA's moral basis is both factually false and that their actions are hypocritical in this respect. If you're basing your morality on PETA, then I reject it as I do PETA's.

Man-made Rationals on other species are also practiced elsewhere. It were also practiced for Dolly Sheep inspite had much scientific, natural & historical values. In one post you mentioned about "parent's consent' but in case of animals there is no consent from their side. Simply man-made rationals in their interests nothing for them.

You did not address the point about the begged question.

Excess of everything is said to be bad. So, which one? I shall try if within my limits.

That's not the part of the sentence I wanted you to address. You raised a specific point that was specifically refuted. Now that I'm asking you to deal with the refutation, suddenly that topic is off-limits. Dismissing the relevance of a point you brought up after it is later refuted is dishonest.

Pls bring specifically. Much confusion is created due to excesses.

 

[JayUtah]

...in case of animals there is no consent from their side.

Begs the question that they can consent. Again, you're simply anthropomorphizing animals.

Excess of everything is said to be bad.

How does that address the begged question?

Pls bring specifically.

No. You've spend considerable time trying to derail the line of questioning. If you've lost track of the debate, retrace it until you figure it out. The topic was the methodology used in testing on animals in science. You pretended to know about it. Then when it became obvious you didn't, you tried to declare the subject off-topic. Subjects are not relevant or irrelevant based on your ability to argue it.

 

[Kumar]

One doesn't have to be a "relevant scientific authority" to research Bhagchandra Jain's list of academic qualifications and note that neither botany nor psychology appears among them. That requires only the ability to read the language his c.v. and bibliography are written in -- English being one of them. Are you claiming this simple reading task is beyond you?

I do not know, but it looks he just interpreted or related it with inperfect science researches. Though, it was against the religious principle but hypnotism affected him. Lower courts can not decide for higher courts. However, If you can opt positive attitude towards those points(I know you will not), I think, you can definitely bring some positives since you claimed to be an authority for that. Try other side, see the outcome. Moreover, I feel that was just gross interpretation not accurate interpretation from both sides.

 

[Kumar]

There's nothing illogical about my line of questioning. We have two systems of knowledge, science and religion. We have arrived at the understanding that neither is "absolute and final." Neither is perfect. However, one of these systems claims to be perfect, to be absolute and final. One of these systems is therefore lying. Shall we pursue the system that is honest about its imperfection, or the one that's lying about it? Which system is most likely to accommodate newly discovered facts that dispute its prevailing tenets?

I think, science's perfection will be then when its introductions will be "benefits without adverses"....so it is not A&F. But if it is their in religion or in any other system, that can logically mean "A&F. So A&F of religions proved.

 

[Kumar]

Begs the question that they can consent. Again, you're simply anthropomorphizing animals.

Then, if they are unable to give consent, how we can be their authority or god?

How does that address the begged question?



No. You've spend considerable time trying to derail the line of questioning. If you've lost track of the debate, retrace it until you figure it out. The topic was the methodology used in testing on animals in science. You pretended to know about it. Then when it became obvious you didn't, you tried to declare the subject off-topic. Subjects are not relevant or irrelevant based on your ability to argue it.

I do not understand, what you are saying in above. Sorry.

 

[JayUtah]

I do not know, but it looks he just interpreted or related it with inperfect science researches.

And you told us that it's bad when people do this without appropriate qualifications. Bhagchandra did not have the appropriate qualifications. Explain why he's justified, but your critics are not, when they do exactly the same things.

Moreover, I feel that was just gross interpretation not accurate interpretation from both sides.

He was factually wrong. That's not a matter of interpretation.

 

[JayUtah]

Then, if they are unable to give consent, how we can be their authority or god?

Because that's what superiority entails.

I do not understand, what you are saying in above. Sorry.

Then you lose the debate.

 

[Kumar]

And you told us that it's bad when people do this without appropriate qualifications. Bhagchandra did not have the appropriate qualifications. Explain why he's justified, but your critics are not, when they do exactly the same things.

Qualification to what, to interpret, to research, to relate or to otherwise?

He was factually wrong. That's not a matter of interpretation.

Obiously, if he has compared with imperfect science, he should also be imperfect. Logically, he should not had compared religion with imperfect science which has brought imperfection in him and in religion due to imperfection of science. Yes his big mistake, somewhat sin committed under hypnotic affect.

 

[Kumar]

Because that's what superiority entails.



Then you lose the debate.

Therefore I used previously non moral sentence "might is right" on odds.

 

[JayUtah]

I think, science's perfection will be then when its introductions will be "benefits without adverses"....so it is not A&F. But if it is their in religion or in any other system, that can logically mean "A&F. So A&F of religions proved.

That's just a tautology, which isn't any sort of proof. If you're back to claiming religion is absolutely and finally correct, you have to explain why your religion is contradicted by fact.

 

[JayUtah]

Therefore I used previously non moral sentence "might is right" on odds.

And I explained how you're using that phrase incorrectly.