New /sci/ rules: 1.) Must provide citations 2.) Must not use

>>7700613
New /sci/ rules:

1.) Take your meds.

>>7700623
If you disagree with these rules, then you're psychotic by definition.
Keep up with the immature personal attacks.
It's all truly stupid people have.
I however have Epistemology and Empiricism.

sounds a bit harsh but kinda alright

>>7700635
If you disagree with taking your meds, then you're psychotic by definition.
Keep up with all the crazy shitposting.
It's all truly autist people have.
I however have memes.

>>7700655
No anon.
If OP isn't psychotic and refuses to take meds that he clearly doesn't need, then that's absolutely fucking normal.
At least OP is trying to be constructive. All you're doing is spamming personal insults.

>>7700658
I've explained this to him, but because I posted a list of fallacies he used WITHOUT explaining to him how they relate to his post, he got butthurt angry, and has decided to attack me over and over here and in other posts.

I wrongly thought he would contrast and compare is presumptions to the fallacies I listed in order for him to maturely analyze his own presumptions.

Instead, he's so butthurt, he now claims everything is a fallacy to punish me for using empiricism, which hurt his feelings.

I wouldn't mind the fallacy corrections if he used them correctly, but he does't.
He claimed I didn't either earlier, but this just incorrect.
He's just shitposting over and over, posting the same thing, and it actually suggests he has a personality disorder... that he' mentally ill for real.
My guess?
He doesn't like being asked to prove his theories and attacks people and projects on them.
His obsession with mental illness seems to mean he's afraid of being judge mentally ill himself, otherwise he wouldn't use it as an insult.
Surely he finds it insulting.

>>7700671
I completely agree with you. His continuous shitposting on the other threads does nothing but make him look bad himself and really contributes nothing.
Too bad /sci/ is not the place to come to for knowledge or logic, you'll find people like that shit all over the place here.

>>7700613
New /sci/ rules:
Stop liking what I don't like
OP is a nigger

>>7700658
Too bad you don't have any context, because you sound well-intentioned. In 4chan, drama-cows are milked until they stop acting like 12 year olds. Mods already wiped several of this guy's threads, but didn't ban him for some reason. This one's especially mild and good-looking, so I totally get why you wouldn't realize where this is coming from.

>>7700677
>look bad
>knowledge or logic

You aren't in your special secret feel-good club. This is 4chan. You're welcome to leave if you don't like it here with your high and mighty attitude. You aren't impressing anyone by acting condescending on an anonymous board.

>>7700679
How am I a dramacow?
I didn't post insults, I just asked for proof, and pointed out when people used direct fallacies.
Now I'm being told criticizing other's theories makes me NOT well intentioned?
That's some heavy projection there.

I'm 33. Not 12.
I have a right to stick to methods of criticism.
Methods don't make people immature.
Especially if they're not about bias.
Objectivity isn't "faggotry" or whatever I an empericism and epistemology have been called here.
Keep insulting me. I'm sure insults are a kind of science, right?

>>7700687
Whining about insults to gain sympathy isn't going to do you any good when the whole reason I started picking of you was your passive aggressive remarks about how other were too dumb to understand proper logical reasoning at your Socrates-like level.

>>7700681
People like you are what make /sci/ shit.
>You aren't in your special secret feel-good club
>You're welcome to leave if you don't like it here
>mfw it's your special secret club now

>>7700681
No anon, but...
Actually, this is /sci/ on 4chan, where we allow criticism of arguments and try to avoid using fallacies and personal criticisms.
If people criticize your theory, thank them, don't go all psychotic and attack the concept of criticism itself while attacking people.
True lovers of science LOVE criticism.
OF THEORIES.

>>7700693
I didn't whine about insults and I don't want sympathy.
You keep projecting.
You know it's psychotic to claim people have feelings or intentions without quotations, right?
You're paranoid.

I wasn't passive or aggressive at all.
I had zero ill intention.
My personality? I'm a relaxed 33 year old living in Venice Beach California.

I pointed out that people kept attacking me because I pointed out their uses of fallacies.
Apparently criticizing your theory, not you, hurt you.
I just don't understand that.
Your theory isn't you, so why get all butthurt?
If you straight up attack me because I criticize your theories, then yes, I will point out that's aggressive and stupid.
Now who's looking for sympathy?
>passive aggressive
>you called me dumb
Because you are dumb.

>>7700635
1.) Do I genuinely have to find a paper to cite when expressing a commonly upheld principle that I learned in a textbook in highschool a million years ago?
2.) It's impossible to not be bias, all scientists recognize this and accept all FACTS as 'facts'.
3.) This is 4chan. Good luck with that one. Also, OP is a faggot.
4.) I think trying to equate what we do on /sci/ to productive scientific discourse is meaningless. If you really believe that your ideas are noteworthy and want academic criticism then go to a university and get published. I think trying to alienate people who are casually interested in science would dwarf the discussion on this board; the uninitiated can only learn from experts regardless of where a person is on that spectrum. /sci/ shouldn't solely be for academic topics; I always enjoy being able to pass my knowledge on to others. 4chan has always existed for the free exchange of knowledge anonymously for everyone, idiots or otherwise.

>This is math and science only.
Those are awfully big topics homie. Elementary school math is still math.

>Opinions are wrong and belong in /pol/
Go and argue a dissertation and tell me that opinions don't matter.

>>7700679
Sorry. Not a regular and on phone but how do you know who is posting. Just general writing style? Or subjects? I agree with OP BTW. In a perfect world but it's been pointed out this is chan. The more you fight the worse it is because that's what they want.
I forget who said it but it goes something like

When you argue with a fool, soon it's hard to determine who the fool is.

I've always liked that

>>7700701
I'm not doing a point for point on all of that nonsense.
Stick to empiricism and epistemology and stop spazzing out demanding a right to make false equivalencies.
Boo hoo, I don't care about your retardation.

>homie
Ok, so retard confirmed.
Next tell me you're a juggalo
and you'd like to know how magnets work.

>Go and argue a dissertation and tell me that opinions don't matter.
They don't.
Professors ask for proof and arguments based in epistemology.
That is what a dissertation is. I would know, as I mentioned before I have a masters.
If you paid any attention, you'd know that already.

>>7700703
Do your best by looking at who is talking to who. Also look at style, etc.
I'm OP BTW.

>>7700613
>3.) Must not attack people under any circumstances, only their arguments
Fuck off this isn't your hugbox retard.

>>7700714
You mentioned posting other threads which threw me off a bit. Like I said, not a regular so don't mind me. Thanks for the reply

>20 replies, 8 posters
someone in here should shut the fug up now
this is /sci/, not some /benis/

>>7700613
>Opinions are wrong and belong in /pol/
So do your feelings.

someone doesn't like to laugh

>>7700726
Agreed.
But people are just projecting those on me in an attempt to attack me and discredit me.
Such teenage bullshit needs to be called out as well.
Stop projecting and interpreting you paranoid butthurt whiny baby.
Stop spazzing.

>>7700714
>I'm not doing a point for point on all of that nonsense.

Good point.

Take your meds.

>>7700726
"Beleif" may have been a better word. /x/ has ruined that word for me. Now everytime I go to use it, I feel dumb. Trying to get it out of my vocabulary when expressing my personal opinions

>>7700735
/x/ is for dumb people
if /x/ makes you feel dumb then you are dumb
kill yourself

>>7700745
I think I can tell which side of the argument you are on. It's good for a laugh. But too much gets unbearable

>>7700745
Trying to follow the new rules :) Thankyou for your criticism. How do you feel now?

File: 1269236591076.jpg (32KB, 603x231px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 603x231px

>>7700613
Yup.

Nope, this isn't reddit.

>>7700613
Science is opinion. Unfortunately, although you might be basing it on something as close to objective as you can get it, its meaning still must be generated by, pass through, and then ultimately be regurgitated by, the subjective lens. This is all of science. Regurgitation.

Ignoring how people and you system really works is fruitless and would have rendered the scientific process near worthless. What little you'd be capable of would be inherently erroneous.

>>7700613
Where is your citation?