Religion Instinct?!

[jeremyp]

Yeah...yeah...yeah. I get it! I get it!

I don't think you do.

Since you guys seem to need gravity meters to detect gravity and light meters to detect light....I can see your problem...!!  Ha! Ha! Ha!

What do you think a gravity meter looks like? Galileo used things as simple as balls rolling down slopes to measure the effects of gravity.

What about light meters? The human eye is quite an effective light meter. The only thing you need to be careful of is that it is connected directly to the human brain which can be fooled quite easily.

My point about you guys lacking certain faculties gets emphasized, much more.....!    Yes...I do understand and....sympathize. 

I'm sorry my gullibility gland is defective. You must be very proud of yours.

[SusanDoris]

Just a thought Sriram, I was wondering this energy you think you're perceiving, it isn't dynamic, is it?

I think a lot of us here on this forum would like if this is so.

Cheers

Definite LOL for that one!!

[Walter]

Perhaps a definition of "energy " from Sriram would be useful. At least we might be able to establish an agreed starting point of understanding

Sriram , please help me to understand . You might be on to something !

[Walter]

P.S.
I'm using an old iPhone 4 in the middle of nowhere with an intermittent signal
So it might take a while for me to contribute effectively
Cheers
Walt

[jeremyp]

Perhaps a definition of "energy " from Sriram would be useful. At least we might be able to establish an agreed starting point of understanding

Sriram , please help me to understand . You might be on to something !

What if his definition disagrees with the standard one which Wikipedia defines as

In physics, energy is the quantitative property that must be transferred to an object in order to perform work on, or to heat, the object

[Stranger]

What if his definition disagrees with the standard one which Wikipedia defines as

We established quite some time ago that Sriram doesn't understand the scientific concept of energy (Energy Life - Neil Tyson).

[Walter]

We established quite some time ago that Sriram doesn't understand the scientific concept of energy (Energy Life - Neil Tyson).

i think sriram sees himself as another "Deepak Chopra" character  inserting scientific terms into sentences to give them credibility

It might work in his own community but not on a world stage . And that is his downfall.
Big fish , little pond syndrome has given him false confidence

[Sriram]

i think sriram sees himself as another "Deepak Chopra" character  inserting scientific terms into sentences to give them credibility

It might work in his own community but not on a world stage . And that is his downfall.
Big fish , little pond syndrome has given him false confidence

India ..'little pond'..and Britain 'Big pond'??!!      That's an illusion alright!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

India ..'little pond'..and Britain 'Big pond'??!!       That's an illusion alright!

Wrong again. Little pond: people who think you have something of interest to say; big pond: people who can identify the numerous mistakes in reasoning you make when you try it.

You’re (presumably) a big fish in the former, and a tiny one in the latter. 

[Nearly Sane]

Sriram,

Wrong again. Little pond: people who think you have something of interest to say; big pond: people who can identify the numerous mistakes in reasoning you make when you try it.

You’re (presumably) a big fish in the former, and a tiny one in the latter.

Looks very like an ad populum fallacy

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Looks very like an ad populum fallacy

Not at all - I made no connection between the popularity or otherwise of Sriram's claims and their wrongness (which is demonstrated by other means). Rather I was just cautioning him against his microscopic thinking of assuming the relative sizes of "ponds" to be geographical. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Not at all - I made no connection between the popularity or otherwise of Sriram's claims and their wrongness (which is demonstrated by other means). Rather I was just cautioning him against his microscopic thinking of assuming the relative sizes of "ponds" to be geographical.

You implied a bigger pond was right. Ad populum and your reply shows that. Size doesn't matter.

[Walter]

You implied a bigger pond was right. Ad populum and your reply shows that. Size doesn't matter.

why do you insist in twisting what people say ?
Do you get some kind of perverted kick out of it ?

[Nearly Sane]

why do you insist in twisting what people say ?
Do you get some kind of perverted kick out of it ?

Heavy night?

[Walter]

Heavy night?

NS

Great comeback , can you see me smiling ? X

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

You implied a bigger pond was right. Ad populum and your reply shows that. Size doesn't matter.

Don’t be daft – try reading what was actually said here. If you seriously think that I said, suggested, implied, hinted at or in any possible way thought the popularity or otherwise of Sriram’s position has any relationship at all to whether or not he’s right then all you have to do is to identify where I did that.

What I actually did of course was to point out only that the “pond” to which someone else had referred is not necessarily defined geographically as Sriram assumed – no more, no less.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

You used the terms little pond and big pond,…

Yes, in the context of a discussion about how “pond” should be defined.

…and portrayed the big pond as right –

Not sure why you keep fibbing about this. If you seriously think I “portrayed” that though then why not just quote where I did it?

…if it is of no significance, why state that it is the big Pond?

Because (fairly obviously I’d have thought) I said it in the context of Sriram assuming that the “ponds” already being discussed were India and the UK, whereas I explained that the frame of reference for “pond” could be defined very differently. That of course has absolutely bugger all to do with the rightness or otherwise of his position, which is why is why I made no allusion to that of any kind.

You do this sometimes – for the most part I agree with your views, but every now and then you get something wrong and then double down on it when the error is shown to you. Would it really kill you this time to say something like, “actually having read what you said again I can see that there was no ad pop and so I withdraw the claim”?

Really though?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes, in the context of a discussion about how “pond” should be defined.

Not sure why you keep fibbing about this. If you seriously think I “portrayed” that though then why not just quote where I did it?

Because (fairly obviously I’d have thought) I said it in the context of Sriram assuming that the “ponds” already being discussed were India and the UK, whereas I explained that the frame of reference for “pond” could be defined very differently. That of course has absolutely bugger all to do with the rightness or otherwise of his position, which is why is why I made no allusion to that of any kind.

You do this sometimes – for the most part I agree with your views, but every now and then you get something wrong and then double down on it when the error is shown to you. Would it really kill you this time to say something like, “actually having read what you said again I can see that there was no ad pop and so I withdraw the claim”?

Really though?

Actually having read what your second last post again I can see that there was no ad pop and so I withdraw the claim.

So maybe you might want to withdraw the accusation of lying? And I think you need to consider the worth of your frequent attempts at the imputing of motives.

[Walter]

The first paragraph would have been sufficient !

Wrong side of bed?

[Nearly Sane]

The first paragraph would have been sufficient !

Wrong side of bed?

    But the second para applies.


The bed's too big without you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Actually having read what your second last post again I can see that there was no ad pop and so I withdraw the claim.

Thank you.

So maybe you might want to withdraw the accusation of lying? And I think you need to consider the worth of your frequent attempts at the imputing of motives.

My rule of thumb is that when someone misrepresents me I assume it to be an innocent mistake so I explain the error. I did this twice (in Replies 235 and 240). Only when the person repeats the misrepresentation nonetheless do I assume the motive to be a bad actor. 

Does this seem unreasonable to you? (Oh, and what happened to your penultimate post to which my 240 replied by the way?)   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Thank you.

My rule of thumb is that when someone misrepresents me I assume it to be an innocent mistake so I explain the error. I did this twice (in Replies 235 and 240). Only when the person repeats the misrepresentation nonetheless do I assume the motive to be a bad actor. 

Does this seem unreasonable to you? (Oh, and what happened to your penultimate post to which my 240 replied by the way?)

I had removed the post as I considered it wrong before reading your reply. Your assumption as to my intention is wrong - so I would like you to withdraw it.

[Walter]

Do you carry your handbag like a bandolier or in the Cruck of your elbow ?😱

[Nearly Sane]

Do you carry your handbag like a bandolier or in the Cruck of your elbow ?😱

  The spirit of Wilde posts

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I had removed the post as I considered it wrong before reading your reply. Your assumption as to my intention is wrong - so I would like you to withdraw it.

Happy to withdraw it - again though, having corrected a misrepresentation twice only to have it repeated twice (one time it seems subsequently withdrawn) do you not think it reasonable to think someone to be acting dishonestly? How about three times? 30 times? 

If you want to say "And I think you need to consider the worth of your frequent attempts at the imputing of motives" then we need to be clear that I do it only after several attempts at non-motive based rebuttals that have been ignored.