On knowledge v belief: who to trust?

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I've discussed these very ideas with them several times and they already knew where I stood.  Let me repeat, already KNEW where I stood...yet because they didn't like the way I was treating this lady, they jumped in and started harassing.  I'm tired of it.  I don't care.  They are my thoughts and my opinions.....  So badger me and I will badger back.  John wouldn't shut up last night until I called him a name.  Then everyone is butt hurt.  He could care less if I call him and name and vice versa.  No one cares at this point. 

Hello Ed. I believe the last time we interacted on a thread, you made it plain to me that you think maybe your need to come here and debate in the Den was related to a continuous need to recreate the situation with your intellectually bullying father. You are aware of your need; so why did you come back to do that all over again? 

 

The reason I didn't jump in 'from the periphery to vote' is because clearly you were having a good time here and I didn't want to spoil your fun. You were doing just fine without me. I don't have a dog in that fight you were having soooo....not that I wouldn't have defended your view but as I've seen in the past, I get talked right past me even if I do. Again, verbal jousting at its finest! Why should I interfere? 

 

Besides, it was tedious for me, as it might be to others who would like a say in something or other but don't because 'the room is already full'. 

 

I don't want to sound rude, and I do have respect for your feelings, but I reserve my support for those who aren't trying so hard to 'win' the argument or have the last word. I usually just GIVE them the last word so they'll shut up. And go do something more fun. 

 

I'd like to have less of that and more of some dignified discussion without the childish name calling. I think it would help bring more WOMEN here, something I personally want to see. 

 

 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

Oh, and also too, remember to be BUGS BUNNY

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Please post the definition for underpinned 

 

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

[Edgarcito]

Support, justify or form the basis for… underpin

[TheRedneckProfessor]

[walterpthefirst]

Here are the various ways that philosophy underpins various sciences, Ed.

 

 

 

Philosophy of particular sciences

 

In addition to addressing the general questions regarding science and induction, many philosophers of science are occupied by investigating foundational problems in particular sciences. They also examine the implications of particular sciences for broader philosophical questions. The late 20th and early 21st century has seen a rise in the number of practitioners of philosophy of a particular science.

 

Philosophy of statistics

 

The problem of induction discussed above is seen in another form in debates over the foundations of statistics.[86] The standard approach to statistical hypothesis testing avoids claims about whether evidence supports a hypothesis or makes it more probable. Instead, the typical test yields a p-value, which is the probability of the evidence being such as it is, under the assumption that the hypothesis being tested is true. If the p-value is too low, the hypothesis is rejected, in a way analogous to falsification. In contrast, Bayesian inference seeks to assign probabilities to hypotheses. Related topics in philosophy of statistics include probability interpretations, overfitting, and the difference between correlation and causation.

 

Philosophy of mathematics

 

Philosophy of mathematics is concerned with the philosophical foundations and implications of mathematics.[87] The central questions are whether numbers, triangles, and other mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind and what is the nature of mathematical propositions. Is asking whether "1+1=2" is true fundamentally different from asking whether a ball is red? Was calculus invented or discovered? A related question is whether learning mathematics requires experience or reason alone. What does it mean to prove a mathematical theorem and how does one know whether a mathematical proof is correct? Philosophers of mathematics also aim to clarify the relationships between mathematics and logic, human capabilities such as intuition, and the material universe.

 

Philosophy of physics

 

Philosophy of physics is the study of the fundamental, philosophical questions underlying modern physics, the study of matter and energy and how they interact. The main questions concern the nature of space and time, atoms and atomism. Also included are the predictions of cosmology, the interpretation of quantum mechanics, the foundations of statistical mechanics, causality, determinism, and the nature of physical laws.[88] Classically, several of these questions were studied as part of metaphysics (for example, those about causality, determinism, and space and time).

 

Philosophy of chemistry

 

Philosophy of chemistry is the philosophical study of the methodology and content of the science of chemistry. It is explored by philosophers, chemists, and philosopher-chemist teams. It includes research on general philosophy of science issues as applied to chemistry. For example, can all chemical phenomena be explained by quantum mechanics or is it not possible to reduce chemistry to physics? For another example, chemists have discussed the philosophy of how theories are confirmed in the context of confirming reaction mechanisms. Determining reaction mechanisms is difficult because they cannot be observed directly. Chemists can use a number of indirect measures as evidence to rule out certain mechanisms, but they are often unsure if the remaining mechanism is correct because there are many other possible mechanisms that they have not tested or even thought of.[89] Philosophers have also sought to clarify the meaning of chemical concepts which do not refer to specific physical entities, such as chemical bonds.

 

Philosophy of astronomy

 

The philosophy of astronomy seeks to understand and analyse the methodologies and technologies used by experts in the discipline, focusing on how observations made about space and astrophysical phenomena can be studied. Given that astronomers rely and use theories and formulas from other scientific disciplines, such as chemistry and physics, the pursuit of understanding how knowledge can be obtained about the cosmos, as well as the relation in which our planet and Solar System have within our personal views of our place in the universe, philosophical insights into how facts about space can be scientifically analysed and configure with other established knowledge is a main point of inquiry.

 

Philosophy of Earth sciences

 

The philosophy of Earth science is concerned with how humans obtain and verify knowledge of the workings of the Earth system, including the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and geosphere (solid earth). Earth scientists’ ways of knowing and habits of mind share important commonalities with other sciences, but also have distinctive attributes that emerge from the complex, heterogeneous, unique, long-lived, and non-manipulatable nature of the Earth system.

 

Philosophy of biology

 

Philosophy of biology deals with epistemological, metaphysical, and ethical issues in the biological and biomedical sciences. Although philosophers of science and philosophers generally have long been interested in biology (e.g., Aristotle, Descartes, Leibniz and even Kant), philosophy of biology only emerged as an independent field of philosophy in the 1960s and 1970s.[93] Philosophers of science began to pay increasing attention to developments in biology, from the rise of the modern synthesis in the 1930s and 1940s to the discovery of the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in 1953 to more recent advances in genetic engineering. Other key ideas such as the reduction of all life processes to biochemical reactions as well as the incorporation of psychology into a broader neuroscience are also addressed. Research in current philosophy of biology includes investigation of the foundations of evolutionary theory and the role of viruses as persistent symbionts in host genomes. As a consequence, the evolution of genetic content order is seen as the result of competent genome editors[further explanation needed] in contrast to former narratives in which error replication events (mutations) dominated.

 

Philosophy of medicine

 

Beyond medical ethics and bioethics, the philosophy of medicine is a branch of philosophy that includes the epistemology and ontology/metaphysics of medicine. Within the epistemology of medicine, evidence-based medicine (EBM) (or evidence-based practice (EBP)) has attracted attention, most notably the roles of randomisation,[95][96][97] blinding and placebo controls. Related to these areas of investigation, ontologies of specific interest to the philosophy of medicine include Cartesian dualism, the monogenetic conception of disease[98] and the conceptualization of 'placebos' and 'placebo effects'.[99][100][101][102] There is also a growing interest in the metaphysics of medicine,[103] particularly the idea of causation. Philosophers of medicine might not only be interested in how medical knowledge is generated, but also in the nature of such phenomena. Causation is of interest because the purpose of much medical research is to establish causal relationships, e.g. what causes disease, or what causes people to get better.

 

Philosophy of psychiatry

 

Philosophy of psychiatry explores philosophical questions relating to psychiatry and mental illness. The philosopher of science and medicine Dominic Murphy identifies three areas of exploration in the philosophy of psychiatry. The first concerns the examination of psychiatry as a science, using the tools of the philosophy of science more broadly. The second entails the examination of the concepts employed in discussion of mental illness, including the experience of mental illness, and the normative questions it raises. The third area concerns the links and discontinuities between the philosophy of mind and psychopathology.

 

Philosophy of psychology

 

Philosophy of psychology refers to issues at the theoretical foundations of modern psychology. Some of these issues are epistemological concerns about the methodology of psychological investigation. For example, is the best method for studying psychology to focus only on the response of behaviour to external stimuli or should psychologists focus on mental perception and thought processes? If the latter, an important question is how the internal experiences of others can be measured. Self-reports of feelings and beliefs may not be reliable because, even in cases in which there is no apparent incentive for subjects to intentionally deceive in their answers, self-deception or selective memory may affect their responses. Then even in the case of accurate self-reports, how can responses be compared across individuals? Even if two individuals respond with the same answer on a Likert scale, they may be experiencing very different things.

 

Other issues in philosophy of psychology are philosophical questions about the nature of mind, brain, and cognition, and are perhaps more commonly thought of as part of cognitive science, or philosophy of mind. For example, are humans rational creatures?[106] Is there any sense in which they have free will, and how does that relate to the experience of making choices? Philosophy of psychology also closely monitors contemporary work conducted in cognitive neuroscience, psycholinguistics, and artificial intelligence, questioning what they can and cannot explain in psychology.

 

Philosophy of psychology is a relatively young field, because psychology only became a discipline of its own in the late 1800s. In particular, neurophilosophy has just recently become its own field with the works of Paul Churchland and Patricia Churchland.  Philosophy of mind, by contrast, has been a well-established discipline since before psychology was a field of study at all. It is concerned with questions about the very nature of mind, the qualities of experience, and particular issues like the debate between dualism and monism.

 

Philosophy of social science

 

The philosophy of social science is the study of the logic and method of the social sciences, such as sociology and cultural anthropology. Philosophers of social science are concerned with the differences and similarities between the social and the natural sciences, causal relationships between social phenomena, the possible existence of social laws, and the ontological significance of structure and agency.

The French philosopher, Auguste Comte (1798–1857), established the epistemological perspective of positivism in The Course in Positivist Philosophy, a series of texts published between 1830 and 1842. The first three volumes of the Course dealt chiefly with the natural sciences already in existence (geoscience, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology), whereas the latter two emphasised the inevitable coming of social science: "sociologie". For Comte, the natural sciences had to necessarily arrive first, before humanity could adequately channel its efforts into the most challenging and complex "Queen science" of human society itself. Comte offers an evolutionary system proposing that society undergoes three phases in its quest for the truth according to a general 'law of three stages'. These are (1) the theological, (2) the metaphysical, and (3) the positive.

Comte's positivism established the initial philosophical foundations for formal sociology and social research. Durkheim, Marx, and Weber are more typically cited as the fathers of contemporary social science. In psychology, a positivistic approach has historically been favoured in behaviourism. Positivism has also been espoused by 'technocrats' who believe in the inevitability of social progress through science and technology.

The positivist perspective has been associated with 'scientism'; the view that the methods of the natural sciences may be applied to all areas of investigation, be it philosophical, social scientific, or otherwise. Among most social scientists and historians, orthodox positivism has long since lost popular support. Today, practitioners of both social and physical sciences instead take into account the distorting effect of observer bias and structural limitations. This scepticism has been facilitated by a general weakening of deductivist accounts of science by philosophers such as Thomas Kuhn, and new philosophical movements such as critical realism and neopragmatism. The philosopher-sociologist Jürgen Habermas has critiqued pure instrumental rationality as meaning that scientific-thinking becomes something akin to ideology itself.

 

Philosophy of technology

 

The philosophy of technology is a sub-field of philosophy that studies the nature of technology. Specific research topics include study of the role of tacit and explicit knowledge in creating and using technology, the nature of functions in technological artifacts, the role of values in design, and ethics related to technology. Technology and engineering can both involve the application of scientific knowledge. The philosophy of engineering is an emerging sub-field of the broader philosophy of technology.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

But if you want to go tl:dr Edgarcito, try this.

 

 

When you make tests in the lab in your line of work, are you doing science or are you doing philosophy?

 

Answering that question should help you understand why the two are not the same.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

30 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

But if you want to go tl:dr Edgarcito, try this.

 

 

When you make tests in the lab in your line of work, are you doing science or are you doing philosophy?

 

Answering that question should help you understand why the two are not the same.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

Why do you insist I’m so stupid Walter…

[walterpthefirst]

I'm not going to fight with you in any way, Ed.

 

You asked a question and I've supplied two things in response to that.

 

Ample information about the relationship between science and philosophy.

 

And a question concerning the work that you do.

 

What you do with those things is up to you.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

14 hours ago, moxieflux66 said:

I'd like to have less of that and more of some dignified discussion without the childish name calling. I think it would help bring more WOMEN here, something I personally want to see. 

 

There are a few women here but they don't talk as much anymore. @Margee pops in from time to time. She was one of the first to welcome me here almost 7 years ago. @Deidre visited awhile back. And most recently other than yourself @TheBluegrassSkeptic came back. I hope she's still here. It gets quiet from time to time and I think ppl get bored and leave. There are several others....  but those are a few I've seen lately.

 

I wish there were more active women on the site too. I like to see input from everyone. There are a few males I miss to like @Geezer @Citsonga . But everyone has there own lives to live and some people when they get past all the issues with their deconversion just move on. And thats cool. This site did its job and they felt they didn't need the support here anymore. 

 

I was reading some old thread one time and there was a completely different crew here 15 years ago. Makes me wonder why all those people left. 

 

DB

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

44 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

There are a few women here but they don't talk as much anymore. @Margee pops in from time to time. She was one of the first to welcome me here almost 7 years ago. @Deidre visited awhile back. And most recently other than yourself @TheBluegrassSkeptic came back. I hope she's still here. It gets quiet from time to time and I think ppl get bored and leave. There are several others....  but those are a few I've seen lately.

 

I wish there were more active women on the site too. I like to see input from everyone. There are a few males I miss to like @Geezer @Citsonga . But everyone has there own lives to live and some people when they get past all the issues with their deconversion just move on. And thats cool. This site did its job and they felt they didn't need the support here anymore. 

 

I was reading some old thread one time and there was a completely different crew here 15 years ago. Makes me wonder why all those people left. 

 

DB

That was a whole lot of really good information. Thank you so much 

I've seen some of the ladies' work here and it's fantastic. I'd love to be able to chat with any or all of them should they see some 'new blood' here. heh.

I saw that the most recent drop in traffic seems to have come right after summer, so yes, school, work, LIFE goes on. Not a lot of time to just chat about these things, much less be able to even think about them. 

But I do think, thanks to the middle east mess that there are some awfully scared xtians that may be more confused as ever and could use some rational help. Especially women. 

Come back ladies! I need you! 

The part I love, love, love about your post is when you said, "This site did its job". That is music to my ears! And if that's why they left, I think of it as nothing less than total success (not even close to a failure). 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

And now for Ed. I'd like to illustrate a little story that backs up what I said earlier. This morning my brother and I were discussing a certain woman's dress. I said it was tacky and inappropriate especially for a first date. Security cameras had caught her on camera doing something naughty so when I saw the dress, that was the first impression I got. 

My brother, glomming onto the word 'inappropriate' began to argue it was NOT inappropriate because the event they were attending was at an opera house. 

I was less concerned about her 'appropriateness' than her tacky, breast waving dress which screamed to me of sluttiness. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned 'inappropriate'. 

So he wanted to argue about the 'other' detail of what I said. 

Rather than argue back, I left the room to go do something more fun. I came here! Two minutes later I came out to get coffee and brother asked a totally unrelated question, to which I answered. The fight was averted! 

When I say you like it here arguing, you have proven to me beyond a doubt that's why you're here. Not that it's a bad thing, but when you call people silly childish names it undermines your case more than anything else. 

Verbal jousting is fine! Just admit to yourself every day while you are here and play nice with others. You'd probably get more people to talk to you. AND it would be more fun! 

Maybe you guys need a 'den mother'. 

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, moxieflux66 said:

And now for Ed. I'd like to illustrate a little story that backs up what I said earlier. This morning my brother and I were discussing a certain woman's dress. I said it was tacky and inappropriate especially for a first date. Security cameras had caught her on camera doing something naughty so when I saw the dress, that was the first impression I got. 

My brother, glomming onto the word 'inappropriate' began to argue it was NOT inappropriate because the event they were attending was at an opera house. 

I was less concerned about her 'appropriateness' than her tacky, breast waving dress which screamed to me of sluttiness. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned 'inappropriate'. 

So he wanted to argue about the 'other' detail of what I said. 

Rather than argue back, I left the room to go do something more fun. I came here! Two minutes later I came out to get coffee and brother asked a totally unrelated question, to which I answered. The fight was averted! 

When I say you like it here arguing, you have proven to me beyond a doubt that's why you're here. Not that it's a bad thing, but when you call people silly childish names it undermines your case more than anything else. 

Verbal jousting is fine! Just admit to yourself every day while you are here and play nice with others. You'd probably get more people to talk to you. AND it would be more fun! 

Maybe you guys need a 'den mother'. 

Not to argue lol, but no ma'am.  Walter's intention here to my memory essentially is to logically demean Christians.  The Prof is just the mod doing what mods do.  He's seen both sides and argues fairly and from his heart.....not a biggie there.  Pantheory is just more intelligent that all of us.  He doesn't believe and likely hasn't ever.  Love visiting with him...there is no need for contention.  I can't tell you why.  Everyone else is just that.  @sdelsolray is an intelligent arbiter of juris prudence...but is seemingly miffed at times.  

 

You had mentioned who needed me here.  Dave the website owner possibly.  I am good for traffic.  I should be paid but settle for being right.  Hope this helps.  

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

13 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I should be paid but settle for being right.  Hope this helps.  

That's pretty funny when did you get into comedy. Settle for being right  

 

DB

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Not to argue lol, but no ma'am.  Walter's intention here to my memory essentially is to logically demean Christians.  The Prof is just the mod doing what mods do.  He's seen both sides and argues fairly and from his heart.....not a biggie there.  Pantheory is just more intelligent that all of us.  He doesn't believe and likely hasn't ever.  Love visiting with him...there is no need for contention.  I can't tell you why.  Everyone else is just that.  @sdelsolray is an intelligent arbiter of juris prudence...but is seemingly miffed at times.  

 

You had mentioned who needed me here.  Dave the website owner possibly.  I am good for traffic.  I should be paid but settle for being right.  Hope this helps.  

Actually I think I need you here too buddy. It's obvious you get something very special here and I find you pleasant, thoughtful and respectful most of the time. I didn't really mind getting down and having a mud fight with you at first but I have learned you are kind of fun. 

As Hannibal Lecter told Agent Starling, "Oh, Clarice! Your problem is you need to get more fun out of life!" 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

You had mentioned who needed me here.  Dave the website owner possibly.  I am good for traffic.  I should be paid but settle for being right.  Hope this helps.  

I actually love your honesty and it makes me laugh. NOW you're talkin'! 

Gonna take your advice about talking to Dave, as a matter of fact. You'll find I am one of those mad ladies you spoke about and I'm pushy to boot. 

[walterpthefirst]

Hello moxieflux66,

 

 

Sadly, for the sake of the truth, I now need to respond to Edgarcito's two accusations. 

 

As you can see 16 hours ago Edgarcito wrote this to me...

Why do you insist I’m so stupid Walter…

 

And an hour ago, in response to you, he wrote...

Walter's intention here to my memory essentially is to logically demean Christians.  

 

However, when we look back through this thread Moxie, what did I write about Edgarcito's intelligence last Thursday?

 

Posted Thursday at 04:10 PM

 

  On 11/2/2023 at 4:06 PM, Edgarcito said:

 

Well, your answer is an answer Walter.....thanks.  I don't believe you are being honest, btw.

 

Walter replied...

And I don't believe that you can't see the contradiction in your beliefs that the Prof has shown you.

The contradiction between your belief in Absolute Truth and Subjective truth.

You're not stupid.

 

 

What's happening Moxie is that I'm not treating Edgarcito as stupid.  Instead he simply doesn't like being told that he is wrong about something.  Also, what he doesn't seem to grasp is that when I tell someone (and not just Christians) they are wrong it is not demeaning to them.

 

There's nothing demeaning about being told you are wrong.  If anything, its an opportunity to learn and grow and be better than your were before.  As this example will show.

 

Classical Truth and Beyond - The Lion's Den - Ex-Christian.Net

 

In this recent thread I disagreed with Pantheory and said that he was wrong.  However, I went and checked and found out that I was the one in the wrong.  So, what did I do when I realized I was wrong?  This...

 

Posted October 21

I put the question of z values to the scientists at Physicsforums and they confirm that Pantheory's use of the value of 1 is correct.

 

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-value-of-z-redshift-equals-apparent-superluminal-recession.1056624/#post-6959107

 

I'm not sure how you get a value of 8, since Siegel's article gives a distance of 13 to 15 billion light-years, which from the table corresponds to a redshift of between 1 and 2. A redshift of 8 corresponds to a time the light has been traveling of just over 13 billion years, but Siegel's article talks about distance, not time.

I therefore apologise to Pantheory for saying that he was wrong.

I was the one at fault and in error.

Thank you,

Walter.

 

I do not feel demeaned in any way by being told by the scientists at Physicsforums that I was wrong.  Nor do I feel demeaned in any way by apologizing to Pantheory.  That was the right thing to do.

 

 

So, as you can see from the evidence I have presented Moxieflux66, I am innocent of Edgarcito's accusations.  I do not think that he is so stupid.  Quite the opposite.  And I do not logically demean Christians.   He simply has a big problem with being told that he is wrong.

 

Thank you,

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

 

  I am good for traffic.  I should be paid but settle for being right. 

 

And there is no grandiosity involved!  

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

What's happening Moxie is that I'm not treating Edgarcito as stupid.  Instead he simply doesn't like being being told that he is wrong about something.  Also, what he doesn't seem to grasp is that when I tell someone (and not just Christians) they are wrong it is not demeaning to them.

 

I think you are right. If he works at a scientific job (is that right?), measurements I think it is, then he's definitely not stupid. And I agree with you that christians FEEL intimidated by those who 'know' more than they do. They must always have the 'right' answer, in my experience, no matter how absurd it sounds, no matter what the question. It's word chess and winning is of the utmost importance (not referring to you in particular Ed but just what I've mostly seen). 

In my mind, the essential part of interrelating with xtians is bridging the Great Divide between the emotional nature of all mankind (manifesting as the urge to seek bliss; we're hardwired to do so) vs the brain/mind side our reasoning capacity. I think both are necessary and valid. 

[Edgarcito]

Tell her the truth Walter.  Your crappy comments about whether I'm doing science or philosophy is still both.  Gas chromatography didn't just science its way into existence.  Someone, somewhere along the way had to consider and envision the process....someone with the love of wisdom.  So just stop already.  But you can't, can you.  

 

And in the interim, tell this lady where you have apologized publicly for doing this stuff you do rather than just talking across to people.  And here you've done it again.  "He's wrong".  No I'm not.  It's just you and your sin...

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

And in the interim, tell this lady where you have apologized publicly for doing this stuff you do rather than just talking across to people.  And here you've done it again.  "He's wrong".  No I'm not.  It's just you and your sin...

Hey wait, he just did! 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

Do you have other christian friends not on this website? Or any other social media groups you talk to? 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

30 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

I do not feel demeaned in any way by being told by the scientists at Physicsforums that I was wrong.  Nor do I feel demeaned in any way by apologizing to Pantheory.  That was the right thing to do.

Ed defines being wrong as 'failure', one of our original beefs. I, like you and the scientific/non-religious community, regard being wrong as 'trial and error', necessary for the scientific process. We EXPECT to be wrong or nothing ever gets learned or progresses. 

[Edgarcito]

8 minutes ago, moxieflux66 said:

Hey wait, he just did! 

No ma'am, he didn't.  Respectfully, you haven't been here long enough to understand the dynamic.  He's intentional with his hate....masked as a purist/ Spock like individual.  So actually M, he's lying.  He knows it as does everyone here.... 

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, moxieflux66 said:

Ed defines being wrong as 'failure', one of our original beefs. I, like you and the scientific/non-religious community, regard being wrong as 'trial and error', necessary for the scientific process. We EXPECT to be wrong or nothing ever gets learned or progresses. 

No, he does it with intention....