[SakhirM4]

Originally Posted by 04RC51

That was me!

Thanks.

[Lups]

Originally Posted by SakhirM4

That's the nicest thing someone has said to me today

Buahaha. I went on my rounds (workish kind of thing, mainly shit pouring down from the sky and me trying to use some of it as a fertilizer). I have no idea what the fuck he was doing there, and why he decided to share his opinion, but this guy had a full 20 minute rant about his amg c63 being better than mine. I tried arguing with him at first saying different doesn't make it better, and going through facts, then I gave up and translated all the old Finnish sayings I could muster that had nothing to do with cars and run them to him as a never ending loop.

If your wife didn't steal your car or made you shop for an 335i, you dude won the competition on this sad pile of M days we are living up in style.. .

[Lups]

Originally Posted by 04RC51

I, for one, appreciate NOTHING about you or your posts. If that helps your mental state any.

And this is why you are on my friend list.

[tlp]

It's the reach around counter.

Every time someone gives you a reach around it goes up by one.

[parky1215]

Originally Posted by Lups

There you go! Probably the last one I'll hand out buy because of your rattle thread Peter started to rattle. That's worth a point!

I brought my car to dealer to have them look at door seal since gummy pflege is just temp solution. And as expected, they did absolutely nothing to fix it saying no rattle found after driving on uneven surface many times.

I am going to start new project to fix rattle on that door seal area permanently.

[Lups]

Originally Posted by parky1215

I brought my car to dealer to have them look at door seal since gummy pflege is just temp solution. And as expected, they did absolutely nothing to fix it saying no rattle found after driving on uneven surface many times.

I am going to start new project to fix rattle on that door seal area permanently.

Dude I'll drive down there just to force you to do the same for him.

[Lups]

@karussell! Get your ass off the appreciate button and go get coffee!

[04RC51]

Originally Posted by Lups

Get your ass off the appreciate button and go get coffee!

Your appreciation number being so high makes you look like a floozy to the forum!

"Oh, look at her with her fancy appreciation number, wonder how she got all them?"

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by Lups

@karussell! Get your ass off the appreciate button and go get coffee!

75? The lups I know would never be so helpful.

Just for that I will make you 76....

[Lups]

Originally Posted by myzmak

75? The lups I know would never be so helpful.

Just for that I will make you 76....

God I hate this system so much! It's sucking the fun out of the forum

[chiplee]

Originally Posted by JTO24

...It also has to do with how non-dickish you are on the forum, to some degree...

Haha, that's got to be an interesting algorithm. Either that or it's completely subjective and the moderators update it. Either way, I can be dickish and mine is climbing lately. Maybe the algorithm can tell when you're being dickish but you're right, or maybe it likes when you admit that you're wrong? Maybe the answer is in this long ass thread that I'm not going to read. I don't know. I want to talk to this coder.

[04RC51]

Originally Posted by Lups

God I hate this system so much! It's sucking the fun out of the forum

I want mine at zero, can u un-appreciate me please?

[Lups]

Originally Posted by 04RC51

Your appreciation number being so high makes you look like a floozy to the forum!

"Oh, look at her with her fancy appreciation number, wonder how she got all them?"

Haha, well its annoying, unnecessary, and these are communities. Each of us know who to read if information is needed, most of us just fill our time with this when we have extra and what the hell are we supposed to get out of this? Posts that mattered we answer, some get us shake our heads, rest will be taken out by mkoesel and then someone finds the appreciate but to and notifications fly. Are we supposed to appreciate everyone who answer to our threads or only those who has something to say that is reasonable?

Cross that. Guys, lets just only appreciate really informative posts! That way my score will go below average gas enough and I can blend in!

I just managed to appreciate your post and I can't even take it away. Sorry

[chiplee]

Originally Posted by Lups

Guys, lets just only appreciate really informative posts!

It's informative you want? It's informative you shall receive. Ladies are always right.

It continues to be made apparent that too many people misunderstand what is meant by the term "theory" in science. So I thought I'd clarify. Nothing awarded the title theory in science, is just a theory in the everyday sense. Science establishes theories from hypotheses after rigorous analysis. To be clear, science is not able to establish, or even interested in establishing "facts", but theories come as close as science will ever get to being factual.

The proofs that do exist in science come from logically deduced arguments, not empirical ones. In other words, to be a "proof" in science, data sets must demonstrate that their supported proposition is true in all cases to which they apply, vice just all observed (empirical) cases, and there cannot be a single exception. In science we recognize that we have not observed, and could never observe, every instance of anything, so we don't use the word "fact". At least not in any formal or disciplined sense.

In the empirical world, pure truth simply cannot ever be reached. So in science, unproven propositions believed or strongly suspected to be true are called conjectures. And, as dear Dr. Gould said, outside of mathematics and logic, everything is conjecture.

Stephen Jay Gould also wrote, "The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises, and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world." He recognized (and it is an axiom of science) that there can be no such proofs (no "FACTS") in the empirical world. This is not because nothing is true, but because there is no intellectually defensible mechanism for establishing any proposition as true "without even a single exception." To empirically establish such a quality, we would have to actually observe every single instance of the event in question. How wonderful it would be if we were actually able to do such a thing, but, sadly, we cannot.

Therefore, in the empirical world, where proof is forever foreclosed to us, we must depend on other tools for establishing confidence in our various conjectures. Those tools are evidence and reason. These tools allow us to reach conclusions with great confidence, but that confidence must always remain tentative and provisional.

Consider the example conjecture, "The sun rises in the east."

We have great confidence in the statement as a provisional truth. We have observed innumerable such events, and the sun has never disappointed us... so far. Each one of these observations is additional evidence that the sun rises in the east, and reason allows us to inductively gain great confidence that tomorrow it will do the same thing.

But, the sun doesn’t actually rise in the east at all. In fact, the sun's own motion has nothing to do with our experience of the sunrise. As we all know, it is the earth's rotation toward the east that creates the illusion of a rising sun. We now have better evidence and better reasoning that allows us to understand that the conjecture "the sun rises in the east" (considered "proved" by many for most of human history) is not actually true at all. And no matter how many times you wake me up, turn me to the east and point out that "the sun is rising in the east," you are still offering no proof. You are merely providing an additional piece of evidence for a conjecture that ultimately is false.

History is filled with similar examples of things that were considered true (and mistakenly considered "proven") that ultimately turned out to be false, so we’ve learned our lesson.

And it doesn't stop there.

Our current conjecture that the earth’s rotation toward the east creates the illusion of a rising sun is much better supported by both evidence and reason than the older conjecture that the sun rises in the east. We have great confidence that science is progressively and incrementally approaching truth... (just as it aims to do in all of its endeavors) And certainly in this example the step was a great one in that direction. But does that make our current understanding any more a "proof" than the older one? Absolutely not.

The earth rotates towards the east today, but this was not always so, and it will not always be so in the future. Let's just use the old colloquial "the sun rises in the east" for ease of understanding, but only as an idiom for the rest of this discussion.

We expect the sun to "rise in the east" tomorrow, just as it always has since we started watching it. But there will be a day when that is no longer the behavior the sun exhibits. It is almost certainly absurd to imagine the transition will happen in a single night, and the probability of that is vanishingly small. But it's not zero.

Thanks to our two tools, evidence and reason, we can have great confidence that many of our conjectures are probably 100% true. That confidence is necessarily so great that we lead our lives functionally behaving as though and understanding that they are. It would be futile to live our lives otherwise. And there is no need for anyone to embrace the absurdity that we do not know a lot of things that actually are true, just because we cannot prove them.

But that does not change the fundamental reality that everything we believe, no matter how well supported by evidence and reason, is still conjecture and never proved.

That's a long discussion leaving one major issue unanswered. Why does it matter?

It matters because debaters (usually creationists) use the false and impossible demand for nonexistent "proof" as permission to literally be stupid. If the only tools we really have are evidence and reason, and if the only way we can distinguish what is probably true from what is probably false is by the quantity and quality of those two tools, then the "fact" of the matter is that any honest ranking of our various "god conjectures" would place them all at the bottom of a broad spectrum that had the "theory" of evolution, and the "theory" of gravity, and the germ "theory" of disease, etc. near its top. And yet creationists use these words to argue for equal time for "creation science" in schools and text books. Words mean things, but sometimes they mean more than one thing. And to regard the theory of evolution as "just" a theory requires a gross misunderstanding of the nature of knowledge and of the science from which we have all benefitted.

[SakhirM4]

Originally Posted by chiplee

It matters because debaters (usually creationists) use the false and impossible demand for nonexistent "proof" as permission to literally be stupid. If the only tools we really have are evidence and reason, and if the only way we can distinguish what is probably true from what is probably false is by the quantity and quality of those two tools, then the "fact" of the matter is that any honest ranking of our various "god conjectures" would place them all at the bottom of a broad spectrum that had the "theory" of evolution, and the "theory" of gravity, and the germ "theory" of disease, etc. near its top. And yet creationists use these words to argue for equal time for "creation science" in schools and text books. Words mean things, but sometimes they mean more than one thing. And to regard the theory of evolution as "just" a theory requires a gross misunderstanding of the nature of knowledge and of the science from which we have all benefitted.

You have a right to your opinion, but what does this have to do with the F8X forum.

[chiplee]

Originally Posted by SakhirM4

You have a right to your opinion, but what does this have to do with the F8X forum.

Haha, right over your head. Nothing, that was the point. Lups asked for informative without specifying what it should be informative about. I was just messing with her.

[SakhirM4]

Originally Posted by chiplee

Haha, right over your head. Nothing, that was the point. Lups asked for informative without specifying what it should be informative about.

Not over my head at all - why do people always have to insult? I know what you were doing, but the subject detracted from the humor.

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by Lups

God I hate this system so much! It's sucking the fun out of the forum

I appreciate that too....

[dmk08]

Originally Posted by Lups

Stop appreciating me, let's keep it even remotely realistic!

Orange car owners suck!

Dont be hating on orangies.

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by chiplee

It's informative you want? It's informative you shall receive. Ladies are always right.

It continues to be made apparent that too many people misunderstand what is meant by the term "theory" in science. So I thought I'd clarify. Nothing awarded the title theory in science, is just a theory in the everyday sense. Science establishes theories from hypotheses after rigorous analysis. To be clear, science is not able to establish, or even interested in establishing "facts", but theories come as close as science will ever get to being factual.

The proofs that do exist in science come from logically deduced arguments, not empirical ones. In other words, to be a "proof" in science, data sets must demonstrate that their supported proposition is true in all cases to which they apply, vice just all observed (empirical) cases, and there cannot be a single exception. In science we recognize that we have not observed, and could never observe, every instance of anything, so we don't use the word "fact". At least not in any formal or disciplined sense.

In the empirical world, pure truth simply cannot ever be reached. So in science, unproven propositions believed or strongly suspected to be true are called conjectures. And, as dear Dr. Gould said, outside of mathematics and logic, everything is conjecture.

Stephen Jay Gould also wrote, "The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises, and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world." He recognized (and it is an axiom of science) that there can be no such proofs (no "FACTS") in the empirical world. This is not because nothing is true, but because there is no intellectually defensible mechanism for establishing any proposition as true "without even a single exception." To empirically establish such a quality, we would have to actually observe every single instance of the event in question. How wonderful it would be if we were actually able to do such a thing, but, sadly, we cannot.

Therefore, in the empirical world, where proof is forever foreclosed to us, we must depend on other tools for establishing confidence in our various conjectures. Those tools are evidence and reason. These tools allow us to reach conclusions with great confidence, but that confidence must always remain tentative and provisional.

Consider the example conjecture, "The sun rises in the east."

We have great confidence in the statement as a provisional truth. We have observed innumerable such events, and the sun has never disappointed us... so far. Each one of these observations is additional evidence that the sun rises in the east, and reason allows us to inductively gain great confidence that tomorrow it will do the same thing.

But, the sun doesn’t actually rise in the east at all. In fact, the sun's own motion has nothing to do with our experience of the sunrise. As we all know, it is the earth's rotation toward the east that creates the illusion of a rising sun. We now have better evidence and better reasoning that allows us to understand that the conjecture "the sun rises in the east" (considered "proved" by many for most of human history) is not actually true at all. And no matter how many times you wake me up, turn me to the east and point out that "the sun is rising in the east," you are still offering no proof. You are merely providing an additional piece of evidence for a conjecture that ultimately is false.

History is filled with similar examples of things that were considered true (and mistakenly considered "proven") that ultimately turned out to be false, so we’ve learned our lesson.

And it doesn't stop there.

Our current conjecture that the earth’s rotation toward the east creates the illusion of a rising sun is much better supported by both evidence and reason than the older conjecture that the sun rises in the east. We have great confidence that science is progressively and incrementally approaching truth... (just as it aims to do in all of its endeavors) And certainly in this example the step was a great one in that direction. But does that make our current understanding any more a "proof" than the older one? Absolutely not.

The earth rotates towards the east today, but this was not always so, and it will not always be so in the future. Let's just use the old colloquial "the sun rises in the east" for ease of understanding, but only as an idiom for the rest of this discussion.

We expect the sun to "rise in the east" tomorrow, just as it always has since we started watching it. But there will be a day when that is no longer the behavior the sun exhibits. It is almost certainly absurd to imagine the transition will happen in a single night, and the probability of that is vanishingly small. But it's not zero.

Thanks to our two tools, evidence and reason, we can have great confidence that many of our conjectures are probably 100% true. That confidence is necessarily so great that we lead our lives functionally behaving as though and understanding that they are. It would be futile to live our lives otherwise. And there is no need for anyone to embrace the absurdity that we do not know a lot of things that actually are true, just because we cannot prove them.

But that does not change the fundamental reality that everything we believe, no matter how well supported by evidence and reason, is still conjecture and never proved.

That's a long discussion leaving one major issue unanswered. Why does it matter?

It matters because debaters (usually creationists) use the false and impossible demand for nonexistent "proof" as permission to literally be stupid. If the only tools we really have are evidence and reason, and if the only way we can distinguish what is probably true from what is probably false is by the quantity and quality of those two tools, then the "fact" of the matter is that any honest ranking of our various "god conjectures" would place them all at the bottom of a broad spectrum that had the "theory" of evolution, and the "theory" of gravity, and the germ "theory" of disease, etc. near its top. And yet creationists use these words to argue for equal time for "creation science" in schools and text books. Words mean things, but sometimes they mean more than one thing. And to regard the theory of evolution as "just" a theory requires a gross misunderstanding of the nature of knowledge and of the science from which we have all benefitted.

You been booklearnin lots. We don't hold kindly to such roun' these here parts....

[chiplee]

Originally Posted by SakhirM4

Not over my head at all - why do people always have to insult? I know what you were doing, but the subject detracted from the humor.

Uh, didn't mean to insult. Just saying you missed my main point, which was "informative you want, informative you'll get". Didn't actually expect anyone to read that whole post.

[Lups]

Originally Posted by chiplee

It's informative you want? It's informative you shall receive. Ladies are always right.

It continues to be made apparent that too many people misunderstand what is meant by the term "theory" in science. So I thought I'd clarify. Nothing awarded the title theory in science, is just a theory in the everyday sense. Science establishes theories from hypotheses after rigorous analysis. To be clear, science is not able to establish, or even interested in establishing "facts", but theories come as close as science will ever get to being factual.

The proofs that do exist in science come from logically deduced arguments, not empirical ones. In other words, to be a "proof" in science, data sets must demonstrate that their supported proposition is true in all cases to which they apply, vice just all observed (empirical) cases, and there cannot be a single exception. In science we recognize that we have not observed, and could never observe, every instance of anything, so we don't use the word "fact". At least not in any formal or disciplined sense.

In the empirical world, pure truth simply cannot ever be reached. So in science, unproven propositions believed or strongly suspected to be true are called conjectures. And, as dear Dr. Gould said, outside of mathematics and logic, everything is conjecture.

Stephen Jay Gould also wrote, "The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises, and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world." He recognized (and it is an axiom of science) that there can be no such proofs (no "FACTS") in the empirical world. This is not because nothing is true, but because there is no intellectually defensible mechanism for establishing any proposition as true "without even a single exception." To empirically establish such a quality, we would have to actually observe every single instance of the event in question. How wonderful it would be if we were actually able to do such a thing, but, sadly, we cannot.

Therefore, in the empirical world, where proof is forever foreclosed to us, we must depend on other tools for establishing confidence in our various conjectures. Those tools are evidence and reason. These tools allow us to reach conclusions with great confidence, but that confidence must always remain tentative and provisional.

Consider the example conjecture, "The sun rises in the east."

We have great confidence in the statement as a provisional truth. We have observed innumerable such events, and the sun has never disappointed us... so far. Each one of these observations is additional evidence that the sun rises in the east, and reason allows us to inductively gain great confidence that tomorrow it will do the same thing.

But, the sun doesn’t actually rise in the east at all. In fact, the sun's own motion has nothing to do with our experience of the sunrise. As we all know, it is the earth's rotation toward the east that creates the illusion of a rising sun. We now have better evidence and better reasoning that allows us to understand that the conjecture "the sun rises in the east" (considered "proved" by many for most of human history) is not actually true at all. And no matter how many times you wake me up, turn me to the east and point out that "the sun is rising in the east," you are still offering no proof. You are merely providing an additional piece of evidence for a conjecture that ultimately is false.

History is filled with similar examples of things that were considered true (and mistakenly considered "proven") that ultimately turned out to be false, so we’ve learned our lesson.

And it doesn't stop there.

Our current conjecture that the earth’s rotation toward the east creates the illusion of a rising sun is much better supported by both evidence and reason than the older conjecture that the sun rises in the east. We have great confidence that science is progressively and incrementally approaching truth... (just as it aims to do in all of its endeavors) And certainly in this example the step was a great one in that direction. But does that make our current understanding any more a "proof" than the older one? Absolutely not.

The earth rotates towards the east today, but this was not always so, and it will not always be so in the future. Let's just use the old colloquial "the sun rises in the east" for ease of understanding, but only as an idiom for the rest of this discussion.

We expect the sun to "rise in the east" tomorrow, just as it always has since we started watching it. But there will be a day when that is no longer the behavior the sun exhibits. It is almost certainly absurd to imagine the transition will happen in a single night, and the probability of that is vanishingly small. But it's not zero.

Thanks to our two tools, evidence and reason, we can have great confidence that many of our conjectures are probably 100% true. That confidence is necessarily so great that we lead our lives functionally behaving as though and understanding that they are. It would be futile to live our lives otherwise. And there is no need for anyone to embrace the absurdity that we do not know a lot of things that actually are true, just because we cannot prove them.

But that does not change the fundamental reality that everything we believe, no matter how well supported by evidence and reason, is still conjecture and never proved.

That's a long discussion leaving one major issue unanswered. Why does it matter?

It matters because debaters (usually creationists) use the false and impossible demand for nonexistent "proof" as permission to literally be stupid. If the only tools we really have are evidence and reason, and if the only way we can distinguish what is probably true from what is probably false is by the quantity and quality of those two tools, then the "fact" of the matter is that any honest ranking of our various "god conjectures" would place them all at the bottom of a broad spectrum that had the "theory" of evolution, and the "theory" of gravity, and the germ "theory" of disease, etc. near its top. And yet creationists use these words to argue for equal time for "creation science" in schools and text books. Words mean things, but sometimes they mean more than one thing. And to regard the theory of evolution as "just" a theory requires a gross misunderstanding of the nature of knowledge and of the science from which we have all benefitted.

Lol you got me good! I've been suspecting you indeed have a sense of humor. This did not convince me otherwise.