Argumentation on Reddit
[010] Affirming The Matrix
Username: Additional_Goose_556
​
Interlocutor: Redditor15
​
Subreddit: DebateReligion
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Preface: "Show me a flaw in science, and you have shown me the matrix is true." - Some guy on Reddit
​
This is one of those discussions that makes me think I'm wasting time. Luckily we benefit from perseverance. Observe the way this science pusher ignores the flaws of science when presented to them, yet how they are stupid and happy to try attacking the Bible anyway.
​
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor15:
Evolution has already killed the literal explanations of all religions and therefore they now need to depend of symbolic interpretations.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Additional_Goose_556:
Evolution has already killed the literal explanations of all religions and therefore they now need to depend of symbolic interpretations.
​
Evolution is a theory - a guess.
​
Theories don't sit in the gunner's seat, and the fallacious scientific method can't put them there.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor15:
Come back to the argument when you know what a “theory” is in the scientific sense. Hint: General Relativity is a theory, String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity are hypotheses.
​
Before that it’s useless to talk to you.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Additional_Goose_556:
Come back to the argument when you know what a “theory” is in the scientific sense. Hint: General Relativity is a theory, String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity are hypotheses.
​
Before that it’s useless to talk to you.
​
Sorry, I don't understand. Should I fluff up your position until its downfalls start to sound good? Or...Why do I need knowledge of what a theory is in the 'scientific sense'?
​
So you don't know when it's useless to talk to me and when it's not, because you don't know my level of knowledge. Why did you even respond to me then?
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor15:
A hypotheses is an informed position. A theory is a hypotheses that has been validated by experimental proof/ evidence. Neither are guesses
​
Given that you called a theory a "guess", you have absolutely no idea.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Additional_Goose_556:
A hypotheses is an informed position. A theory is a hypotheses that has been validated by experimental proof/ evidence. Neither are guesses
The hypothesis (informed position) is guesswork. If it wasn't, then validation by experimentation would not be necessary.
​
In order to conduct a proper experiment, all relevant variables must be under control. An experiment may be tampered with by an infinite amount of unknown variables. Therefore unless we possess information by omniscience, we can never be logically certain that we have conducted a proper experiment by accounting for all variables. Science is about discovery, and we can discover precisely because we don't know how everything works. The experimentation which aims to validate the hypothesis is more guesswork in itself.
​
What you claim is no guesswork at all is actually guesswork validated by guesswork.
​
Given that you called a theory a "guess", you have absolutely no idea.
​
You make fantasy out of science. Even many scientific figures in the past understood that science is guesswork. These are men who handle science more rationally. They are not afraid of the shortcomings of science. They're past the issues you avoid. They boldly proclaim them.
​
Concerning the scientific method, these credited figures teach:
​
Richard Feynman:
-
"With [the scientific] method we can disprove any definite theories. You have a definite theory, a real guess, from which you can impute consequences, which could be compared to experiment that in principle we can get rid of any theory. We can always prove any definite theory wrong. Notice however we never prove it right. Suppose however that you invent a good guess, calculate the consequences, discover every consequence agrees with experiment; is your theory then right? No! It is simply not proved wrong. Because in the future, there can be a wider range of experiment to compute a wider range of consequences, and you may discover then that this thing is wrong."
Feynman then went to talk about how Newton guessed the law of gravitation and it may be scientifically proven wrong in the future.
​
Richard Feynman on the entirety of science:
​
-
"We always try to guess the most likely explanation."
Bertrand Russell:
​
-
"The limitations of scientific method may be collected under three heads: (1) the doubt as to the validity of induction;......Induction. - All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: ‘If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true.’ This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: ‘If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing.’ If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based."
There, Bertrand Russell taught that the scientific method is the embodiment of the formal logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.
​
If X, then Y. (Hypothesis)
​
Y. (Experimentation)
​
Therefore, X. (Conclusion)
​
The scientific method is invalid. The premise is not logically related to the conclusion. It could be that Y occured because of A, B, C, or an infinite amount of other possibilities. But scientists call their invalid findings 'scientific fact' and people like you swallow it whole without being intelligent about it.
​
Superstition: An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
​
To believe on invalid scientific conclusions is superstition.
​
Look at your ignorant statement again:
​
Evolution has already killed the literal explanations of all religions...
​
You are just superstitious. Evolution is a guess. Evolution contradicts, but it has not killed. If anything, with the way you talk about it, I have just killed evolution.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor15:
Great, you have just proven that experimental physics does not exist. Therefore relativity (which was a hypotheses before proven through careful experimental observations) cannot exist. Therefore GPS systems (which depend on relativity) cannot exist. Since they do, we must live in the matrix.
​
Or you can backtrack and admit ( instead of quoting Russell ad Feynman in the wrong context) that you are incorrect. Evolution has been proven by both fossil and genetic evidence conclusively. If you disagree then I guess you don’t accept that vaccines work either.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Additional_Goose_556:
Great, one lesson on the scientific method and you confirm the matrix. You are not the scientific person I thought you would be.
​
Please deal with my argument about the weakness of science head on. Your lack of engagement is disappointing. Science is faulty and cannot disprove the Bible! I think science needs you to save it. Are you going to refute that statement, or just keep making tiny assertions without substance?
​
Instead of refuting me, you encourage me to refute myself. That is weak.
​
​
Great, you have just proven that experimental physics does not exist.
​
Don't just assert it, show it. Where and how have I proven it to not exist?
​
I said science is guesswork. Where did I say guesswork doesn't exist?
​
​
Therefore relativity (which was a hypotheses before proven through careful experimental observations) cannot exist. Therefore GPS systems (which depend on relativity) cannot exist. Since they do, we must live in the matrix.
​
This conclusion is amazing. You do not believe in science. What is the matrix, and how did you come to the conclusion that it must be real?
​
​
Or you can backtrack and admit... ...that you are incorrect.
​
Of course you want me to defeat myself. You can't do it.
​
​
( instead of quoting Russell ad Feynman in the wrong context)
​
This is what I call an appeal to false context fallacy. An informal fallacy where you argue I quoted something out of the correct context, without showing the correct context and how I contradict it. It's just another unsupported assertion.
​
I quoted Russell and Feynman in the correct context. The context is the scientific method, and they affirm it is fallacious guesswork. If you insist I quoted them out of context, show what the true context is and how it contradicts the context I put them in. Do some work!
​
But you put yourself in a pickle and apparently can't get out of it.
​
​
Evolution has been proven by both fossil and genetic evidence conclusively.
​
I can just as easily assert the opposite.
​
Evolution cannot be proven. Studying fossils and genetics can only be guesswork.
​
I have already shown science to be guesswork.
​
Can you make at least a slightly convincing case?
​
Define evolution. Define fossil evidence. Define genetic evidence.
​
Then show me why you are convinced evolution has been proven by these things.
​
​
If you disagree then I guess you don’t accept that vaccines work either.
​
That's interesting. You can't stand up in a debate about the scientific method so you bring up the irrelevant subject of anti-vaccination.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor15:
Please first understand the process of science before talking about the matrix (what the h*** is the matrix here)
​
Scientists make hypotheses (sometime based on anecdotal observations, empirical evidence), which then need to be validated by tightly controlled experimentation
​
The Bible makes wild claims for gullible people with zero evidence (world was created in seven days, Adam and Eve)
​
Btw the field of epidemiology relies heavily on evolution so if you don’t believe in evolution you should not take advantage of vaccines either
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Additional_Goose_556:
So you are just going to keep making weak assertions without backing them up. I will just keep neutralizing your statements. How about Feynman's proper context? What is it? Why are you running from the discussion? Is this what you would call intellectual dishonesty?
​
So I have properly refuted your original statement with Feynman's quote, and you cannot step up. You either need to refute me or concede your statements. Otherwise, what are you doing besides spewing random false things on the internet? What does that make you?
​
You first said:
​
...we must live in the matrix.
​
Then you said:
​
Please first understand the process of science before talking about the matrix (what the h*** is the matrix here)
​
I don't know. You are the one who affirmed the matrix in a discussion about the unreliable process of science. Ironically you didn't even understand the process of science before talking about the matrix. You deny its obvious shortcomings.
​
What did you mean when you said "matrix"?
​
Please let me know when you figure this all out.
​
​
Scientists make hypotheses (sometime based on anecdotal observations, empirical evidence), which then need to be validated by tightly controlled experimentation.
​
You are still appealing to a flawed system. It is as if you are completely unable to stand in an intellectual debate.
​
Anecdotal observations are fallible. Empirical evidence is fallible. Sensations are fallible.
​
You have already been refuted. Ignoring it makes you look worse. Unfortunately you are still spreading bad information. Please address my work. I'm just going to start copying and pasting what I have already established in this discussion:
​
In order to conduct a proper experiment, all relevant variables must be under control. An experiment may be tampered with by an infinite amount of unknown variables. Therefore unless we possess information by omniscience, we can never be logically certain that we have conducted a proper experiment by accounting for all variables. Science is about discovery, and we can discover precisely because we don't know how everything works.
​
The experimentation which aims to validate the hypothesis is guesswork.
​
​
The Bible makes wild claims for gullible people with zero evidence (world was created in seven days, Adam and Eve)
​
I can easily say the opposite.
​
The Bible is God's revealed Word, and is therefore the only reliable source we can get truthful claims from.
​
Now what?
​
Also, you just help prove the Bible when you attack it. The Bible affirms it is Truth, and that people like you will perceive it as foolishness.
​
For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18)
​
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)
​
Then, you say it has zero evidence. What do you mean by 'evidence' and what does that 'evidence' matter? Why should anyone care about it? Why shouldn't everyone throw your 'evidence' away as rubbish and rightfully remain steadfast in the Bible? What kind of intellectual answer could you possibly muster up for this?
​
​
Btw the field of epidemiology relies heavily on evolution so if you don’t believe in evolution you should not take advantage of vaccines either
​
Oh really? That's awesome, man. A couple years ago I bought my wife an elegant scarf for Christmas.
​
Anyway... Let's both get back to our discussion. In other words, you are being highly irrelevant with me, and now I am toying with you.
​
Do you believe the scientific method is flawless? If so, then how do you address my objections? If not, then what are the flaws? You should either quit glorifying science as a fantasy or pick up the rubbish that your notion of science is, and make sense of it for us here.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor15:
I will ignore all the other nonsense you have written and just focus on this.
​
Prove that the Bible is God's revealed word and not the Quran or the Bhagvad Geeta. I will only discuss this point and no other. We will move on once this point has been resolved
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Additional_Goose_556:
I will ignore all the other nonsense you have written and just focus on this. Prove that the Bible is God's revealed word and not the Quran or the Bhagvad Geeta. I will only discuss this point and no other. We will move on once this point has been resolved
Wow that was nonsense.
​
Interesting...so we can just switch topics on each other like that? I would have thought that was cowardly, but OK.
​
Topic switch time!
​
I will ignore all the other nonsense you have written and just focus on this.
​
Prove that science is not guesswork. I will only discuss this point and no other.
​
Don't worry, we will move on once this point has been resolved.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor15:
You claimed the Bible is God’s revealed word.
​
Prove it, I challenge you.
​
Else you are a pompous fool and your post belongs to the trash can
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
[Additional_Goose_556 left the chat]
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: For some unknown reason, my account wasn't able to make replies after this point, so I left the debate.
I also wasn't able to post visible comments in many unrelated subreddits due to my account karma being so deep in the negative realm. I decided to make another account to start afresh, but this led me to realize that having little or no karma meant I couldn't post in many subreddits. So you need karma to post but you need to post for karma. Starting out with little or no karma makes this a problem. So until next time... stay rational!
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Previous: [009] Struck Dead
​
Enter: Additional Writings