Point taken. Religious threads not allowed.

But what about threads about debunking misconceptions and misunderstandings of science?

It is not talking about religion per se, but it's more about informing people the correct information about science and by debunking inaccuracies done by people.

An example would be this video below, which is about a guy debunking the claims that evolution is a lie as a science.

DISCLAIMER: The reason why I don't think this is a thread to be opened in RWI, because it has nothing to do with anything of a debate, but merely about opening a topic to inform people the correct information about science. As such, I will like to ask if the video below is allowed to be posted in the Serious Kopitiam forums:



This post has been edited by Hoka Nobasho: Dec 15 2016, 07:11 PM

Two fallacies: First: you expect every fact is a fact when it itself is a contention.

To put it simply, the sun rises from the east. Or does it? Its a truth yet it isn't. Because it's both right and wrong.

Second: your motives are not morally upright nor is it ( the topic raised) with the sincerity to be morally upright. All you wanted to see was pure anarchy as you see the world "burn" in your delusions of spreading the truth. If your posts are taken exactly at face value, it itself is it; embodiment of anarchy and not for the investigation Nor discourse in the direction of truth.

You have committed an argumentum ad lapidem, (Latin: "appeal to the stone") which is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity.

How exactly is 'fact' a contention especially when a particular fact has been shown to be indisputable due to the discovery of evidence for it as a submission to how we understand reality? Until you are able to provide a proof or reasoning of your dismissal of fact as a contention, I'm afraid you are committing an argumentum ad lapidem.

For example, 1 + 1 = 2. This is indeed a fact. How exactly is this simple fact be a contention as you have put it?

It's only precisely true during the spring and autumn equinoxes. At other times of the year, sunrises and sunsets will south of those directions in the winter, and north of them in the summer. Exactly how much they vary depends on your latitude: if you're close to one of the poles it varies so much that the sun never rises at all in the winter, and never sets at all in the summer.

That is why the statement that the sun rises from the east would be inaccurate, it would be factual if you describe the phenomena of the rising sun as shown above.

As such, your point does not prove that all facts are a contention as you've put it, as you have merely pointed out how inaccurate the phrase of "sun rises from the east" actually is. It's not both right and wrong, because the statement itself is inaccurate, and therefore it is wrong.

Again, you have committed another argumentum ad lapidem fallacy as you assumed that you know what my motives are. Why must my motives be the sight of pure anarchy and not the motive of correcting misconceptions of science itself? In school, science teachers do it to all the students all the time. Does that mean that all teachers are trying to instil anarchy on everyone?

And how is it not for the investigation nor discourse in the direction of truth when I am using facts and science to debunk a misconception that was made towards science? It would appear that people like you would rather prefer people to be illiterate in science and continue making the same misconceptions in science.

Case in point: If a science teacher corrects your misconception in science, are you trying to say they are nothing but an embodiment of anarchy? What an absurd thing to say.

This post has been edited by Hoka Nobasho: Dec 16 2016, 10:05 AM

1. Your posts are recorded, and they've been documented. At least, when I use the term documented, they do exist in archives of what you've posted, when you've posted. Its easy to look at the fact that you're pushing the envelope again, and again, in guise of "seeking clarification". Look at the previous titles and replies. They all point towards that one agenda. Please tell me that isn't your agenda. If you deny your agenda, then i can be considered doing an ad lapidem. But the fact that is a big number of your posts have pushed the envelope in "skirting" and "squirelling" around just to push your views that for whatever reason, isn't even a "factual" truth.

To use your own 1+1 example:

Two bricks, are they exactly made up of two bricks of same amount of atoms, mass, weight, etc down right to the umpteenth decimal? The answer is no. But observation allows us to take note two similar objects, hence 1+1 = 2. People in the past formulated f=ma where force equates to acceleration of mass. Then people discovered that f=ma isn't exactly wrong, but it isn't exactly right. But it was the RIGHT understanding given the circumstances of the era. With newer understanding, it allowed people to understand the notion of force within the 'boundaries' of gravity, because the moment f=ma > speed of light, the entirety will collapse. So it is a fact, but also not a fact, because the fact does not deny the findings of the past, it actually complements them. It also points a way to a more convergent truth, because one truth supports another truth. If you want to continue playing around with fallacies, I can play along. But it doesn't push away from the fact that you're just selectively skirting around just to push your envelope.

2. Wrong again. While the sun can be observed to be rising from the east, is it really "East", and is it really the sun "rising"? Again, people in the past thought that the earth was the centre of the "heavens". How much have changed, no? So with what conviction that your attempts at pushing videos and "opinions" that are just merely "opinions" and theories that can't even be set in stone as "absolute truth" (not even pointing to the convergent truth, as example of the f=ma or your ridiculous attempt at saying 1+1 is true. For a fact, i can write 1+1=41 on a piece of paper and it'll still work out as a truth (albeit its quite twisting / bending the rules since i've not exactly mention how i achieve that, within normal acceptable bounds, to which exactly you're doing with this thread and your previous "metaphysical threads".

But which leads me to point 3.

Facts are facts. To quote a book (which any Tom, Dick, and Harry can write) is not a fact. To quote pseudo-scientific "journals" are not quoting facts. To put videos of people talking about something is not a "fact". In fact, this platform at LYN isn't exactly the best platform for relating scientific 'facts' because you don't have the community nor standards enforced to maintain the idea of "question everything, even if its established". The moment you start spewing crap like "i'm only sharing what's the truth" (like what you've posted before so many times) so vehemently without even giving room to a proper acceptance to agree to disagree, you're the same as other religious bigots who keep harping "xyz is truth because the holy scripture abc said so". You're doing exactly the same as them, and so I question your motives because its something can be drawn from your posts. What you're trying to do isn't even anything remotely beneficial to the forumers at large. Sure, anyone can do a 'fact dump', like how a certain vegetarian-wannabe kept 'dumping' lies and twisted rumours as 'facts', to which I observe your actions are in parallel.

Whether you want to accept the truth that you're just, let me put it bluntly; trolling for the sake of trolling (while besmirching science at the same time), only you can face it. The sooner you realize the very fact that you're wasting your time and this forum's resources at your idle fancies, the better it is for everyone.

What is this agenda that you speak of that you are able to prove that you are not committing an argumentum ad lapidem? All you've done now is a whole lot of assumptions without a good reason nor evidence provided to claim that my particular suggestion of debunking misconceptions of science is laced with a particular agenda or intention.

And isn't that an ad hominem as well to completely disregard a point made by attacking on a person's character whether if there is a particular agenda or not? What if the agenda is simply to correct misconceptions? Would it then, be wrong to correct misconceptions?

What you have mistaken here is that 1 + 1 is a codified language in order to make sense if we are able to come to a consensus of whether counting an object twice will consequentially lead to two objects, i.e. 2, considering all objects are of the same amount of atoms, mass, weight, and everything down to the umpteenth decimal as you have put it. It is a mathematical language that we have codified for our understanding of the world in order to make it as a pragmatic tool, not as a claim of reality on whether the '1' is the equation is anything accurate to the same amount of atoms and other variables.

In short, the equation of 1 + 1 = 2 is correct, if we can come to the consensus that the '1' is useful for us to do basic arithmetic to what we know to be true about the '1', even if that particular '1' isn't exactly always a "one" when you actually break it down into atoms and smaller particles. Although I would have to say, even if we do indeed break them down further, why wouldn't the language of 1 + 1 = 2 be useful in this context if we are about to calculate how many discoveries we have indeed found by breaking them down?

And don't get me wrong. Facts are indeed facts, and they CAN be disproven providing that there are new discoveries of evidence found in order to debunk them. But until we actually find one, it would be wrong to think that facts are both right and wrong when the "wrong part" of it have yet to be discovered.

In short, a fact may not be the 100% absolute truth, but the scientific method has a good amount of workings in order to tell us why that it is the current truth until new discoveries have been made. You have obviously misrepresented my position of what facts is because you assumed that facts can never be questioned. Thus, this would make sense for me to post a thread with the video on it, and as long I do not close the thread, I am actively allowing people to disprove or debunk whatever facts that are represented. Why would you assume that I am attempting a monopoly on the basis of truth here?

And as of now, the fact is not that the "sun rises from the east", but like I've said previously:

"It's only precisely true during the spring and autumn equinoxes. At other times of the year, sunrises and sunsets will south of those directions in the winter, and north of them in the summer. Exactly how much they vary depends on your latitude: if you're close to one of the poles it varies so much that the sun never rises at all in the winter, and never sets at all in the summer."

This particular fact that I ahve provided above can also be disproven, but until you are able to do so with evidence, you cannot dismiss such a fact as a "contention" as you have put it to be both right and wrong at the same time. Either find out what's wrong, or accept what that is currently right. That's the rational approach, i.e not by imagining just because not all facts are 100% correct, I must immediately think of facts as automatically both right and wrong without providing any evidence for that particular fact.

Are you able to clarify what do you mean exactly by "selectively skirting around just to push your envelope"? Is this another argumentum ad lapidem again, or worse, could it be another form of an ad hominem?


Where on earth are your reasoning and evidence that these journals and videos are automatically "not factual" as you have put it? Why do you keep insisting on argumentum ad lapidems fallacies for your arguments?

But we do have people know how to read and reason. If an established reason or scientific evidence is questionable, then by all means, people can question them if they will, and they would be considered credible if they are able to provide sufficient reasons and evidence for it as well.

Why do you assume that a platform with existing human beings who have the capacity to think, read, and reason would not be the right place to do these things?

Wrong. Every time I posted a thread, I allow people to post in that thread with their own opinions and reasonings as freely as possible. No restrictions have been placed on them to disagree. What on earth are you even spewing about such false accusations?

How is correcting misinformation be anything detrimental in the first place?

If they are dumping lies, then it's obviously not facts. But that is why people are supposed to call them out for that specific topic. If you think that rumours aren't facts, then call them out for it, albeit with rational reasoning and evidence.

But why on earth are you committing a hasty generalisation fallacy of just because one particular example of a forummer is dumping lies as facts would the automatic equivalent that all claims of factual accounts will automatically share the same fault? False equivocation much?

Again, you have committed an arugmentum ad lapidem with nothing to show for it. Is this the standard of accusation you would want to imply on other in real life? Accuse others blindly without good reasoning and evidence provided for their claims? What would happen if everyone on earth start doing it without any regard for good reasoning and evidence provided for their claims?

Think of this way. If a science teacher wants to correct you, why would you think they are wrong?

The initial design for RWI is for a more constructive discussion to take place minus off the usual /k style replies observed in kopitiam.
Therefore we used to "approve/disapprove" topic which we opined deemed fit for rounds of discussion in RWI. That's why we used to have quite a zero tolerance enforcement policy in RWI with only selective moderators will be appointed to man RWI. Rules of RWI: https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/138133

However due to us getting busier in commitments as days go by (I mean forum moderators), I agreed RWI quality has degraded. Now it is more towards posting of "sensitive issues" in RWI rather than having it in /k.

To answer your queries - yes you may choose to open your topic either in Serious Kopitiam or RWI whichever your choice is.

/Topic closed - don't see the need of a debate here.