Quote:Was a few jokes about astrology not beliefs if u seen any of dara's standup he does make fun of alternative medicene and new age stuff thats his job

(12-01-2013 00:18 )mellover Wrote:  

Quote:Was a few jokes about astrology not beliefs if u seen any of dara's standup he does make fun of alternative medicene and new age stuff thats his job

He can do whatever he wants in his stand ups, this isn't stand up, it is not a comedy programme. He is there becasue he is educated in science, he should be more professional, witty yes, but more professional.

mellover Wrote:

(11-01-2013 19:11 )lucent-x Wrote:  Well this style of complaint has a whiff of closed-previous-account familiarity about it.

Firstly, what are you talking about.

mellover Wrote:

lucent-x]
The program is not meant to be a clichéd, dull, workman-like science program aimed at only those with existing knowledge and interest. Its supposed to transcend the sterility that science can have and make learning fun and interesting.</blockquote>

I can tell you that having measured over 2000 lettuce hypocotyl for my under grad project the bulk of science IS dull workman like. There is very little of the glamour and eureka moments in science. There's very little going to volcanic islands, or diving off the barrier reefs or visiting exotic countries, most is done in pokey little labs doing the same experiments time and again collecting data. That is one reason these programmes are made, to make science seem more interesting and exciting. Not many people have a genuine interest in science. I can see why they do it, to get more people interested in science or to entertian lay people. But that is not science. And the thing is, to me those ' clichéd, dull, workman-like science program' where absolutely fascinating and never dull.[/quote Wrote:Eh? Well aside from the fact the bulk of that reply just agree's with my post, I also agree that more in-depth science progammes are more enjoyable for me personally; but this programme is clearly made with an 'accessibility' for the bulk of the viewers so opinion and speculation are fine. If they were throwing 'facts' out as supposed 'proven science' then I'd be in agreement, but making an aside about astrology in an entertainment/educational programme about astronomy is understandable and quite harmless.

mellover Wrote:[quote='lucent-x]
but that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Not SCIENTIFICALLY it cannot. A person having a BELIEF can believe in whatever the hell they like, they don't have to confirm a belief. Likewise, a person doesn't have to confirm any none belief. But you if make the claim of fact (Astrology is pure bullshit) and try and cloak it in science then you need data to back your claim. Not having any evidance for something is not evidance it is not there. We have absolutley no evidance for space aliens, is it therefore correct to dismiss as fantasy their possibly existance?

Astrology is pseudo-scientific, you know that and I know that, it has no evidence at all in support. To suggest that it be legitimised by default until one can amass 'enough' evidence to falsify it... and then deliver a throwaway comment, is just stupid. This is astrology we're talking about, not some complex scientific hypothesis.

Yes, someone could 'dismiss' the existence of space aliens due to lack of evidence. But the claim of this and the claim of astrology are completely different. Astrology is specific in it's claim and not at all grounded in any science, whereas the existence of other life in the universe at least has probability and our understanding of chemistry on it's side.

mellover Wrote:

'lucent-x Wrote:I'm afraid your objection seems rather ridiculous and forced

If it was isolated little aside yes, you may have a point, but time and again these people take every possible opputunitey THAT THEY CAN GET AWAY with it push their perosnal beliefs out. They simply should not be there, period.

There such a thing as the drip drip drip method of influence.

Again, why do you insist that any opinion must have an agenda behind it? Are all your comments and thoughts in life delivered with intention and agenda?

---

RE: Stargazing LIVE! - mellover - 12-01-2013 18:58

lucent-x]
Eh? Well aside from the fact the bulk of that reply just agrees with my post, I also agree that more in-depth science progammes are more enjoyable for me personally; but this programme is clearly made with an 'accessibility' for the bulk of the viewers so opinion and speculation are fine. If they were throwing 'facts' out as supposed 'proven science' then I'd be in agreement, but making an aside about astrology in an entertainment/educational programme about astronomy is understandable and quite harmless.[/quote Wrote:I never said I didn't agree with you about astrology. My own personal belief is that there is no credence to it, but, SCIENTIFICALLY I could not falsify that claim, therefore, it is something that is not in the realms of science but belief. This programme might be aimed at lay poeple, but it IS about science and should stick to it accordingly. Cox did it at the begining of wonders of the universe, took time out of that programme to have a slight at religion. If he is an athiest fine, but two thirds of the world population are not and he should respect that, not agree with them, but should respect their believes. By slighting astrology or religion it adds nothing and there is nothing to be gained by it. It makes them look a bit mean, and the mocking can make them look arrogant and worst of all for science, predjudice.

lucent-x]

Yes, someone could dismiss' the existence of space aliens due to lack of evidence. But the claim of this and the claim of astrology are completely different. Astrology is [i Wrote:specific[/i] in it's claim and not at all grounded in any science, whereas the existence of other life in the universe at least has probability and our understanding of chemistry on it's side.

An incorrect assumption. the tides, has they may say, are affected by gravity of the moon, the Earth and the other planets are in their orbits due to the pull of gravity on one another. Now astrologers and physicist would argue that the gravitational pull on humans on this planet would be too weak to influence anything, but how do we know there isn't something else that is unknown to science? Probably there isn't, but you cannot know that for sure. Apparently there's all sorts of dimensions. So a believer COULD argue someform of probability. SCIENTICIALLY, you cannot falsify their claim, that is, you need data.

Has for the spark of life elsewhere in the universe, it might have very little to do with the chemisrty. Just becasue you have a DNA molucule doesn't mean it will become encoded, nobody knows how that happened. So you can't assume because that 'spark' happned on Earth, it will automatically happen else where. You talk of probability Imagine, you find 1000,000 water planets identical to earth, in solar sytems identical to ours, you would easily say, the probabilty is there is some form of life on those planets. What if though, the probility of the 'spark of life' was 1000,000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,0000,0000,00000,0000,0000,:1? then that probability would be completely unlikely there would be life. The best you could say then would be, there might be some life on one of those planets but the probability is there isn't. It may be that that 'spark' was so rare, this could be the only planet it has every happened on, so it's not how many stars there are(another fav of there's) or how much knowledge we know about chemistry, it's the probabilty of life happening at all. Nobody knows this, scientifically, at the moment, nothing can be confirmed, it is belief.

(12-01-2013 12:14 )lucent-x]
Again, why do you insist that any opinion must have an agenda behind it? Are all your comments and thoughts in life delivered with intention and agenda?

Becasue the tone of your reply seem quite angry, espcially since it started with that crytic quote

And again

[quote=lucent-x Wrote:  Oh please. But anyway, we'll leave this one.

Still not entirely sure what you're on about, but if you was talking about a previous account that was banned (unjustly) then the mods know all about it, you think they can't read IP adresses? All you do, is come across like a school snitch and creep running to teacher to tell by bringing attention to it. I have no idea who you are and why you would want to mention it other than hope a mod sees your comment or somehting. It certianly had no place in this debate.

---

RE: Stargazing LIVE! - lucent-x - 13-01-2013 18:32

(12-01-2013 18:58 )mellover Wrote:  I never said I didn't agree with you about astrology. My own personal belief is that there is no credence to it, but, SCIENTIFICALLY I could not falsify that claim, therefore, it is something that is not in the realms of science but belief. This programme might be aimed at lay poeple, but it IS about science and should stick to it accordingly. Cox did it at the begining of wonders of the universe, took time out of that programme to have a slight at religion. If he is an athiest fine, but two thirds of the world population are not and he should respect that, not agree with them, but should respect their believes. By slighting astrology or religion it adds nothing and there is nothing to be gained by it. It makes them look a bit mean, and the mocking can make them look arrogant and worst of all for science, predjudice.

I think there's little point in continuing to argue whether it matters that astrology or religion were briefly mentioned in the programme. You think it does, I think it doesn't and that you're unneccesarily overreacting; just like those people who complain to the BBC whenever Attenborough mentions or alludes to evolution. In terms of them not being specifically included as part of a science-based programme I agree, but they weren't 'part' of it. There is no reason to believe that any 'effort' or malice was put in to mocking or slighting them, it's only you that continues to insist that there must have been an agenda behind a few throwaway comments. I hope they have Dawkins on one show, I bet you'll explode before he even opens his mouth!

There's an infinite and varying amount of bullshit that any number of sane through to insane people believe and want 'respected', doesn't mean we should entertain or automatically respect it. Some things for example simply cannot be falsified. Astrology and religion are fundamentally un- and non- scientific, if they're not grounded in science in the first place why must they have to be scientifically falsified before they can be dismissed? Let's not forget though that some religions do indeed make claims that do conflict with accepted and supported science, and are therefore actually indirectly falsified.

I think personally though, if any viewers did pick up on the comments, as you have, and have subsequently gone on to understand and appreciate the importance of rationality and truth in life, as opposed to blind-faith and emotional appeal, then all the better for it.

mellover Wrote:An incorrect assumption. the tides ... [edited for length] … 1000,000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,0000,0000,00000,0000,0000,:1? ... [and irrelevance to my point]

This is really over-arguing a point I wasn't making. The actual point was that yes I think astrology and 'alien' life, both asserted without evidence, could indeed both be dismissed without evidence. As an aside I pointed out that both are very different in their claim but at least the idea of life elsewhere in the universe has more 'on it's side' than astrology, it was intended as a rhetorical addition. So unless you want to entirely disagree that probability and chemistry could be said to at least offer 'some' support, which still makes no odds to my answer, this is a closed point. Either you lost the trail of the point in question, or you thought you'd just type a block of science text to make it look like you were countering an argument that I had made to the contrary.

mellover Wrote:

lucent-x Wrote:Again, why do you insist that any opinion must have an agenda behind it? Are all your comments and thoughts in life delivered with intention and agenda?

Becasue the tone of your reply seem quite angry, espcially since it started with that crytic quote

Not my opinions, the presenters'. You accuse them of 'pushing their opinions on to others'. So again, why do you insist that their opinions must have an agenda and deliberate intention behind them?

mellover Wrote:Still not entirely sure what you're on about, but if you was talking about a previous account that was banned (unjustly) then the mods know all about it, you think they can't read IP adresses? All you do, is come across like a school snitch and creep running to teacher to tell by bringing attention to it. I have no idea who you are and why you would want to mention it other than hope a mod sees your comment or somehting. It certianly had no place in this debate.

I didn't need it confirmed, but thanks. It was immediately obvious who you were, that's why I mentioned it. As far as I was aware the previous account was 'closed by request' not banned, so why would I expect, or want, a mod to take any action? Just pointing it out for any other interested posters, I'm sure I won't be the only one to recognise your posting style.

---

RE: Stargazing LIVE! - mellover - 13-01-2013 19:25

I now know you have only been trying to draw an argument for other purposes, it's clear you're very ignorant of science and don't understand the scentific approach. Scientifically you can only falsify a claim if you have experimental data to back it up. There not being any data for a claim is not data or evidance to falsify, what bit about that are you struggling with?

Quote:understand and appreciate the importance of rationality and truth in life

So every single thiest and every single person who believes in astrology are all irrational and lack understand ? People who dismiss these things has nonsense are the only ones that have enlightment, understanding and reasoning are they? I can say with 100% certainty that a lot of these people will be more rational, have more understanding of these subjects than you'll hope to gain in a life time.

Quote:This is really over-arguing a point I wasn't making.

Good try at trying to dodge, but no, YOU and nobody knows what the probability is. Knowing the chemisrty on this Earth doesn't mean the same processes happened else where. The best you can say is, it wouldn't suprise me if there where other life forms, but equally, it wouldn't suprise me if there weren't either, whether you think there is is or not is a personal BELIEF you might want to use the processes on Earth to back that up, but it's nothing without data, pure speculation, it's akin to multiverse. It is impossible for this universe to exist if it was the only one. So, Pro Rees comes up with the multiverse hypothosis, absolutly no evidance for it, but it sounds more scientific.

Quote:So unless you want to entirely disagree that probability and chemistry could be said to at least offer 'some' support

That is a projection by you on to other planets elsewhere in the universe, but that projection is based entirely on what has happened on this planet, we just don't know if the same thing as happened elsewhere. Your astrologers would argue something about the gravitational pull of the alinments of planets and so on.

[qoute]Either you lost the trail of the point in question, or you thought you'd just type a block of science text to make it look like you were countering an argument that I had made to the contrary.[/quote]

This tactic does not wash with me.

Quote:why do you insist that their opinions must have an agenda and deliberate intention behind them?

Copy and paste where i said they had an 'agenda', I never said they had, you brought that up I never mentioned it once. Reads to me your trying to make a straw man argument, but if you want to do that, at least have the courtesy to use what I ACTUALLY wrote. Has it goes, Brian Cox might be mocking of astrology, but he's not especially anti religious, he just can't help his own personal opinions spilling out on programmes such has these. In something live I supose it could be overlooked, but he does it in his recorded programmes too. These personal beliefs and opinions should not be there in a science programme, that is the ONLY point I made, you was the one that took it up and run with it, read back to my original post.

Quote: I hope they have Dawkins on one show

This is the Dawkins who's now an agnostic? Dawkins is an extremist, funny enough, I'd like to see him on the programme, it would actually be funny.

Quote:As far as I was aware the previous account was 'closed by request' not banned, so why would I expect, or want, a mod to take any action?

No, I never request any such thing that was done by whoever closed my account becasue they had no reason to ban the account, it made them look better; i cannot rememebr what it was about so I cannot eleborate, but I know it was done when the 'gang' had there most influence. Was you one of them or somehting?

Why? because you have brought attention to it when there was no need. This current account has been open since 21-09-2011, and i post in the exact same style I always have, as said, the mods know about it. That closed account was months upon months ago, even i had forgotten till you brought it to mind, so you must be really anal about these things. Seriously there are litterally thousands of members, i haven't got a damn clue who you are, did we argue or something? I mean that's stalker territory that is.

You remember an account of one member out of thousands from over two years ago? fucking hell you need to get a life and find something to occupy your mind.

---

RE: Stargazing LIVE! - lucent-x - 14-01-2013 21:57

mellover Wrote:I now know you have only been trying to draw an argument for other purposes

Well if you want to deflect and invent an alterior motive for your own benefit that's up to you. All my posts have directly addressed the content in yours. But go on then I'll bite (although please don't feel obliged to offer an answer), these supposed other purposes being?

mellover Wrote:it's clear you're very ignorant of science and don't understand the scentific approach. Scientifically you can only falsify a claim if you have experimental data to back it up. There not being any data for a claim is not data or evidance to falsify, what bit about that are you struggling with?

I'm fully aware of the scientific method thanks. I'm also fully aware that it involves actual science and not spurious non-scientific claims. The bit I'm struggling with is where you think I've said that a lack of data is enough to 'scientifically falsify' a claim? (If you really want to answer this then you could make use of my inference argument a bit lower down. You'd be wrong to do so, but you could have a go)

You do realise that 'dismiss' and 'scientifically falsify' are not synonymous? Particularly given that I've been using them as separate entities, even within the same sentence. But seemingly you want to make your own arguments up.

mellover Wrote:So every single thiest and every single person who believes in astrology are all irrational and lack understand ?

Not necessarily the person but the claim.
Astrology - yes. Theism - yes and no, depending on the belief.

mellover Wrote:People who dismiss these things has nonsense are the only ones that have enlightment, understanding and reasoning are they?

Not at all.

mellover Wrote:I can say with 100% certainty that a lot of these people will be more rational, have more understanding of these subjects than you'll hope to gain in a life time.

Do you have the experimental data to back that up?

mellover Wrote:Good try at trying to dodge … [edited again for length and boredom] …

Jesus, don't make me bring out the head-banging-on wall smiley. Indeed it is speculation, driven by an assumption that chemistry (general) is consistent across the universe, and that the time and scale of the universe may lend themselves in some small, possibly immeasurable way, to the possibility that life in some form has, does, or will exist somewhere else. Indeed nobody knows, and indeed I wouldn't cite any of that as evidence in any way. But I think it certainly arguable that it's not on an equal footing with the claim of astrology. Whether you agree or not I don't care, and again nor does it matter, as I said before it makes no odds to my actual answer of the original point that you continue to string out a moot addition to a straight-forward point already answered.

And once again, this does not require a further answer. Please.

mellover Wrote:This tactic does not wash with me.

Well then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you must have lost the trail.

mellover Wrote:Copy and paste where i said they had an 'agenda', I never said they had, you brought that up I never mentioned it once. Reads to me your trying to make a straw man argument, but if you want to do that, at least have the courtesy to use what I ACTUALLY wrote. Has it goes, Brian Cox might be mocking of astrology, but he's not especially anti religious, he just can't help his own personal opinions spilling out on programmes such has these. In something live I supose it could be overlooked, but he does it in his recorded programmes too. These personal beliefs and opinions should not be there in a science programme, that is the ONLY point I made, you was the one that took it up and run with it, read back to my original post.

Ok, here's two... (YOUR capitalization, my underlining)

'...they can't help but try and shove their own personal believes on people'

'...but time and again these people take every possible opputunitey THAT THEY CAN GET AWAY with it push their perosnal beliefs out'.

'Shove', 'push', '...on people', '...time and again', '...that they can get away with' etc. Yes 'Agenda' was my paraphrasing, was I incorrect to infer that from the above quotes? It sounds to me - other readers can make their own minds up - exactly like you were insinuating an agenda and deliberate intention behind their comments. If not, you've only yourself to blame for the very poor wording. Not only that, but these exchanges would have been a lot shorter given this was the only arguable disagreement.

mellover Wrote:This is the Dawkins who's now an agnostic? Dawkins is an extremist, funny enough, I'd like to see him on the programme, it would actually be funny.

Not sure he'd happily accept either label! But then I guess in the technical sense we're all Agnostics by the popular definition, although I suppose it could be argued that you either have belief or you don't; so saying you don't know, or can't know, falls into the 'don't have belief' camp.

You know I've heard even atheists descibe Dawkins as an extremist, or militant, who've then bizzarely gone on to say how much they enjoyed listening to Christopher Hitchens! I'm always amazed at the hostility towards Dawkins though, to the objective observer I can't see how he'd come across as anything but calm, rational and patient. It's funny how he becomes more extreme to someone the more they disagree with his views.

But I digress, we don't need to get into all that.

mellover Wrote:No, I never request any such thing that was done by whoever closed my account becasue they had no reason to ban the account, it made them look better; i cannot rememebr what it was about so I cannot eleborate, but I know it was done when the 'gang' had there most influence. Was you one of them or somehting?

Why? because you have brought attention to it when there was no need. This current account has been open since 21-09-2011, and i post in the exact same style I always have, as said, the mods know about it. That closed account was months upon months ago, even i had forgotten till you brought it to mind, so you must be really anal about these things. Seriously there are litterally thousands of members, i haven't got a damn clue who you are, did we argue or something? I mean that's stalker territory that is.

You remember an account of one member out of thousands from over two years ago? fucking hell you need to get a life and find something to occupy your mind.

Get a grip man, I neither know nor care why or when it happened. Sounds like you were either a victim or culprit, or both, of the 'forum tensions' I've seen discussed, whatever they were. I don't delve into most sections or have many discussions so I've no idea what went on or ever seen a post from this account before. But again, if you want to invent a conspiracy narrative for your own benefit go ahead, for the sake of accuracy though here's the real life chronology to assist you...

1) I recognised the very obvious posting style and similar pedantic objections from a previous discussion.

2) I didn't recognise your account, it took me all of 30 seconds to search back for a previous thread and see the suspected old account 'closed by request'.

3) I pointed it out because of the obvious familiarity.

So all in all less than minute went into that opening sentence of my first post, hardly got best-selling conspiracy written on it has it?

---

Now all this is getting far too long and time consuming, as I said back up there somewhere, we've really only got one arguable disagreement. So, despite the various question marks added above, would you like to just revert back to the 'comments' exception I originally had? Or preferrably, make a short last post that doesn't require any answers because I don't want to pick this back up after several days away.

---

---

RE: Stargazing LIVE! - mellover - 14-01-2013 23:22

Quote:Get a grip man,.......

You seem very ignorant of scientific method so theirs no point debating that with you.

There was one reason and one reason only to bring attention to an account from all that time ago. It was to bring attention to it in the hopes that this one will be baned also. You give me a good alternatiive reason.

Has for Pedantry, that's a little like pot calling kettle.

---

RE: Stargazing Live! - Digital Dave - 17-01-2013 22:53

^^^ Mellover, I see you still haven't cracked the 'as' 'has' confusion. Until you do I suggest you forget about arguing with the big boys.

I enjoyed reading the last couple of pages but if you think you've come anywhere close to making a rational point or winning an argument you're even more deluded than I thought.

---

RE: Stargazing Live! - mellover - 18-01-2013 01:00

(17-01-2013 22:53 )Digital Dave Wrote:  I enjoyed reading the last couple of pages but if you think you've come anywhere close to making a rational point or winning an argument you're even more deluded than I thought.

LOL, you better keep out of this one it's beyound your intelligence. I notice you didn't comment on the issues!

Still the little creepy sneak then? thought you saw an opputunity?

Newsflash, this wasn't an argument, it was a difference of opinion.

It couldn't be debated properly due to personal issue the lucent-x person clearly has (<===?????), his he one of your gang then? still don't recognise his name.

I'm amazed you'd humiliate yourself in such a manner.

---