Doug wrote: "So now JoeKnows pretends that his theory of color was great, and--even more amusing--after months of asking JoeKnows to provide evidence for his grand, sweeping claims about astrology and the origin of the universe, we find that he was just about to produce such evidence when the thread was closed."
I'm not pretending that my idea is "greater" or even changing it any. I'm still talking about the same thing, and wish that you would try to consider it instead of just being tedious about the exact names and terms I try to describe it with. If there is a better word to used to describe any process I talk about, please come forward with "your" version of it. If you don't have a version of it, don't pretend it is something else.
I was talking about "color" as a perceivable wavelength (I even talked about breaking it down by frequency, you obviously missed that part). Even if the idea of "white" isn't a color, we very much CAN make something "whiter." Therefore it is an objective state that can be recognized. My method at least intelligently comes up with a reason for the 7 colors, regardless of the number it is an intelligent system. And one for which you would rather tell people to memorize than to understand how it intelligently exists. The "tripe" you referred to in my quote about of how you hand out "what to think" to students instead of "how to think."
Is your plan to never talk about "white" in relation to "colors?" Because If you can be overly critical about whether it is or isn't a color, then I can get overly critical about when true "whiteness" is achieved. Because if we recognize that anything appearing "white" isn't fully white, then "whiteness" is not something that can ever exist scientifically. And can never be recognized even if it does exist. Yet we can see and recognize it in reality. And we can even use "white colored" paints or objects to produce a "white" effect regardless of the imperfection that comes along with it. This is just like the modern scientism method of throwing out information that can be obtained by a clear and rational look at the world around us. Just because it makes it easier to believe than to understand.
By nullifying the information about white existing as some type of object or entity, you have effectively created a smaller belief system than can contain true reality. Or what we call entering into a state of ignorance. And nothing that you do after accepting ignorance, will ever bring you true and effective results.
[note: there are so many ridiculous comments that I'm going to have to choose not to reply on how erroneous and completely opposite your understanding of the information is from what I actually said. All I can say is, slow down, read it twice if it sounds like "tripe."]
You said that you don't want to discuss this further because I am being overly tedious. But I'm not the one who is refusing to talk about the information because I didn't use "your" chosen appropriate word for it. Guess what? You aren't the only person in the world, welcome to reality! Yours isn't even the only language spoken, so you not only have to be flexible within your own language's dialects, you also have to recognize other region's development of grammar. Otherwise you are like a dog that can only jump through one hoop. You might be really good at it, but that isn't going to benefit the whole of the world, and in turn it will reflectively harm the integrity of your own local social environment.
Like when you thought it was so funny that I contrasted an object and a wave, or a particle and an action. They often say "it's funny because it's true." But you chose ONLY to laugh about it. And did nothing to actually consider what it meant. (Another case of you being so tedious about what to call it, that you ignore the information and just talk about the associated feelings.)
The infinitive of esta is "estar." But again you were being tedious about the name, and ignored completely how it connected to the topic. Bravo! I don't know the infinitive for "soy, es, estan, estamos." But you obviously understood what I meant, why did you avoid talking about it? But you had to act like you knew something more about it, and even kept back that knowledge about it, in order to try to look good.
It is exactly like when I used the word "tenant" instead of "tenet." It didn't change what I was talking about, and you knew that I meant "tenet." And yet you decided to laugh and joke about it for several of your comments, instead of acknowledging any relevance to subject at hand.
Savonarola wrote: "He could at least the infinitive form of those verbs instead of varying conjugations of them, but he doesn't even know enough about his own example to get it correct"
Could at least "what" the infinitive? If you are going to attack someone for inconsequential errors, shouldn't you first clean up your own errors? But that's the level of hypocritical attacks I get when I visit your page. But please tell me savvy, how does not knowing the infinitive form of that word directly translate into me not knowing "enough about his own example to get it correct?" That's a very direct statement you made, I hope you can back it up. I don't think you can even recognize what I'm trying to get correct, so how do you know that I got it wrong? (I know you won't answer or respond to this or half of the other statements I've made, so I will just "write it off" as another mistake that you have made. Currently at....too many to count in any reasonable amount of time.)
DavidFranks wrote: "In other words, you claim that you are enlightened, even though you will not (and cannot) show that your information is valid?
You aren't enlightened; you are endarkened."
You haven't added a single thing to any of these conversations. I didn't say that you are only 10% of the thinker of those other "faux teachers" just because you criticized or contradicted me. I said it out of the actual merit of work you have done towards discussing any of these topics on this hosted discussion. You just haven't said ANYTHING. Why don't you weigh in on something, anything that I've been discussing? But you have said nothing regarding how science or logic are other than what I have described them as. So if you have an opinion that is validated by real information, please bring it forward and join the conversation. You are more than welcome! But if you only want to "assume" a place of higher knowledge than others; I suggest you keep worshiping scientism or religion and don't try so hard to convince other people of what you are already so certain of. Let them fall on their faces if they are wrong. It is time to grow up and take responsibility for the recognizable truth, otherwise you are still just an ignorant child.
So I've noticed. Ad hominem attacks are not shreds of evidence.
Of course they aren't evidence. That is redundantly recognized. If you can't recognize that an ad hominem attack isn't evidence, then you shouldn't be discussing things here. You all need to stop being overly critical about what is or isn't "admissible" into your "court of evidence," and start considering instead of just criticizing. It will take you further, I promise. But the problem is that people like teachers dedicated a large part of themselves (time, effort, money) towards achieving that degree that certifies their professional expertise. After putting all that money and effort towards it, there is not a chance in hell that they will recognize someone without the same credits. If they did, they would be questioning the value of the place where they get all their information from, like a Christian questioning God. Not only would it be incredibly difficult for them to clearly assess something that they feel SO strongly about, doing so would directly erode the grounds with which they hold themselves above other non-scientists.
Savonarola wrote: So Joe thinks that I will not spend any time dealing with other information, yet I spend time responding to Joe's blather. Joe isn't too bright.
You actually think that you "respond" to my posts? Seriously? When have you responded other than to laugh at some slightly misused word that wasn't as "proper" as it could have been. Apparently you are only willing to listen to perfection, and that means you are going to be ignoring any seemingly chaotic thing that you don't quite understand. And that is not a healthy way to approach information. Having "spent time" replying is no justification for completely ignoring the relevant information contained. In fact it is more of a "non-reply" than a reply. Because you have not given a single honest response to me, and only rely upon attacking my presentation based on incomplete perspectives of it.
Sav wrote: "But to further show that he's wrong using specific examples: subsequent to the completion of my formal education, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry has redefined the hydrogen bond, and we've now learned that there is strong evidence against d-orbital hybridization and more evidence for the "three-center, four-electron" bond to explain hypervalent atoms within molecules."
Once again, how does this show that I am wrong? It sounds more like you are just trying to show that you know more about something than I do. How does this change the approach of popular chemistry? It doesn't. It is just a hypothetical idea that has no value in the real world. And YES, if you are wasting your time trying to hear every new concept of mainstream science, then you are certainly missing out on the bigger picture. You are putting all your devotion into only looking in one small area, and justifying it as the "best" one. There isn't one "best type" of place to get information. You consider information from ALL sources or else you are practicing some modicum of ignorance. (And also, yes I understand how orbitals work, I was the one who brought them up in the first place to describe the common function of energy across all matter. And yes I know how they work, remember me comparing it to base systems? Those valence shells are exactly like "potential bases" that can be used to a maximum of their allowance. Regardless of how they "end up," they still start the same way; and that tells us more about them then any guess about where it might eventually go. So why is this information critical to proving me wrong? It sounds more like it was another attempt at derailing the conversation and feeding your own ego. Trust me your ego has had enough. Stop bringing up something irrelevant to the conversation, "If you don't have something [relative] to say, then don't say anything at all!" And don't feel that you NEED to make some post about something you haven't spent time to understand. A real measure of a true free thinker, would be a willingness to consider the information WITHOUT jumping to an immediate conclusion about it.