rationalskepticism.org

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

MS2 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

MS2 wrote:
'Absurdly' - really?

Yes really.

MS2 wrote: You couldn' t just say something like 'in my opinion more specific than is appropriate'?

I couldn't since that was not what I was trying to say.

MS2 wrote: I was hoping to have a friendly discussion but obviously you prefer a different approach.

With all due respect, that's nonsense.
I'm calling the definition you're providing absurd, not you.
It has nothing to do with friendly or not friendly.
It's a jdugment on the definition, not you as a person.

I know that. I didn't claim you were making a judgement about me. My point was that my definition was clearly not 'absurd'.

Then why the comment about 'having a friendly discussion' and me 'preferring a different approach'?

MS2 wrote: It may have been, as you also said, overly-specific. But it clearly was not 'absurd'.

If it's overly specific to the point it excludes things that are also scientific, it is absurd.

MS2 wrote:I subsequently provided you with a quote from wiki to show it was in line with a mainstream 'source' (subject to all the usual caveats about wiki of course). Yet you had decided to call it absurd.

And I've repeatedly explained why.
An argumentum ad lexicum, especially when employing wikipedia, won't change that.

MS2 wrote:Which suggests to me that you both want to shout me down and also aren't open to considering whether there may be some value in what I have to say.

Utter nonsense.
First of all, I cannot shout you down.
You're completely free to post or not. Unlike a verbal conversation I can do nothing to 'shout you down'.
Secondly, all I did was express that the definition is absurd. That in no way implies an intent by me to shut you up or shout you down. Nor does it express close-mindedness.
Please adress what I actually post instead of making assumptions about my motives.

MS2 wrote: That is OK. You don't have to listen to my perspective if you don't want to.

Again, I have not expressed any such motive.

MS2 wrote: But since that is how I perceive your attitude I'd rather not continue the conversation.

A rationa and honest discussion requires that you engage with what people actually post and not with imagined motives.
If I wished to dismiss you or your posts out of hand, I would have done so.

MS2 wrote: I'm certainly not going to engage in another one of those fruitless arguments peppered with comments like 'that's nonsense' that so often go on.

This is beginning to sound more and more like tone-policing in lieu of actually adressing my points.
Now, unlike what you've done, I'm not going to pre-assume that's what you're doing and ask you to adress what I actually post and not dismiss things based on the words I use.

MS2 wrote:

MS2 wrote: So I'm not going to respond any further to the rest of your post, other than to say if I'm being absurdly specific perhaps wiki is also when it discusses the scientific method (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method):

Not replying because someone uses words you don't like isn't conducive to a rational discussion either.
Again, I was merely commenting on the definition you provided, not you as a person.
Other than that, I already explained why 'repeated experiments' is an inaccurate description as it tend to create the image of lab experiments, whereas in fields like history, paleontology etc, the tests of an hypothesis consist of reviewing the available evidence. Both are examples of applying the scientific method.

Right, so I wasn't being so much 'absurd' as using words which you think create a misleading image!

Except that it is.
As I've explained twice now, science isn't based strictly one experiments, repeatable or otherwise. Hence to define science as only that which is based on repeatable experiments is absurd.