O/T Brexit & Theresa May

You don't need super powers either - just a certain level of intelligence and education, bit of experience of the world and the way it works plus the interest to read and compare lots of stuff and you're in business.

wow this must have been your life's work given that it would take you 10 hours to to explain your reasoning?

No, it's PART of my life's work though probably , insomuch that I don't form conclusions without a great deal of information and thought or in iscolation from other events and information. Therefore , I'd have to explain a lot of other things to you before you understood , if you could .
Look , I'm sure I'm wasting my time saying this but why don't you take what I've said and subject it to a great deal more scrutiny than you do to what you hear directly or indirectly from the state. You won't of course because it's easier to just believe what your " betters " tell you, and that's your own choice. I understand his this works because you can gain the comforting delusion of intelligence by rubber stamping stuff you've heard from those you think are intelligent but what I don't really get - and maybe you can tell me - is this outrage you feel towards dissenters from State dogma. It's not new, but it's on the one hand a powerful tool in the hands of despotic rulers and on the other a great obstacle to those who seek the emancipation of men.

Out of them, it's the one you're not relying upon the honesty of politicians to substantiate , and the one without huge inconsistencies in the narrative.

So you do not dis-believe everything you read.

You just choose who you want to believe.

You dis-believe climate scientists but you believe Galileo.

Why is Galileo more believable than Climate Scientists?

You don't need super powers either - just a certain level of intelligence and education, bit of experience of the world and the way it works plus the interest to read and compare lots of stuff and you're in business.

wow this must have been your life's work given that it would take you 10 hours to to explain your reasoning?

"The EU is the b*stard child of the Third Reich" says all you need to know! I stand here incredulous! I don't know what silly rag Jim has been reading but I think he means "The EU is the dove of peace borne out of the embers of the Third Reich". The whole raison d'etre of the EU was to curtail German military expansionism and to prevent any further Franco-German conflict. Sounds pretty good to me.

Merkel is running the show with her lickspittle Macron.
How’d that dove of peace do in the Balkans?

Merkel and Macron may be heading the show but only because we haven't had the cajones to muck in with them and take the project forward. With respect to the Balkans we're hampered because we don't have our own army and a coordinated command structure. Anyway, it would hardly be as bad as the yanks did in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq etc.

Out of them, it's the one you're not relying upon the honesty of politicians to substantiate , and the one without huge inconsistencies in the narrative.

So you do not dis-believe everything you read.

You just choose who you want to believe.

You dis-believe climate scientists but you believe Galileo.

Why is Galileo more believable than Climate Scientists?

Not sure whether we want to go down that avenue do we ?
Well, for a start Galileo passes the long known scientific test of predictability, which all real science does, and which we've had to conveniently ignore to " prove " man made climate change and evolution as well as some of the more fanciful postulations of quantum physics .
Um .., Galileo was in fact somewhat persecuted for his findings, rather than receiving huge financial rewards from those who benefit from fake science.
See, this is another thing where you'd need to know a lot of stuff to make an informed judgement and ,again, I'm hardly going to start teaching you physics and chemistry here am I ?
Additionally though, the idea of inventing climate change to control industrial competition and suck money out of the general populace is an old one which has been suggested before and previously rejected by governments - once again you'd need to know stuff like that, which before you ask would result not from super powers but from trying to be well informed over a range of things and - to anticipate your next point - not relying on any single source or group of sources in your thinking.

The whole idea is a very old one you know . Same thing as convincing the peasants that there's a dragon in a cave somewhere they don't go which eats gold. If you control what they're told and encourage them to burn any dissenters at the stake, you can bleed them dry in exchange for protecting them from the threat you made up.
In short you invent a non existent problem or threat then charge to solve it. It wouldn't work on anyone who bothered to read a bit and think analytically about what apparently authoritative people tell them , but most people don't , do they ?

See, this is another thing where you'd need to know a lot of stuff to make an informed judgement.

hmmmm.. you do not need to know a lot of stuff to make an informed judgement otherwise it is called an uninformed judgement or a guess or a story or a theory.

Um .., Galileo was in fact somewhat persecuted for his findings, rather than receiving huge financial rewards from those who benefit from fake science.

so lets get this straight... Climate Scientists and their piers are being bribed by the Green Party, Environmentalists and Green Peace who are trying to squash the Coal, Gas. Oil and Nuclear Lobbies.

there is no comment here I am just trying to get to the bottom of what you are saying and trying to get you to point to specifics with evidence.

Um .., Galileo was in fact somewhat persecuted for his findings

It would seem that some people are trying to do the same to Climate Scientists today.

Not sure whether we want to go down that avenue do we ?

I have been very patient waiting for you to provide an example of something that you do believe in (that isn't just refusing to believe conventional wisdom). This is key to identifying what you accept as evidence and what comes into the category of "never believe anything you read".

Well, for a start Galileo passes the long known scientific test of predictability, which all real science does.

Interesting that you should predictability as proof. e.g. since the creation of man nobody has ever fallen off the end of the earth.

Scientists would not take this as proof. They would say that just because it hasn't happened yet does not mean that it couldn't happen.

Scientists would more likely point to definitive proof like photos taken from the moon among a multitude of other options.

Well, for a start Galileo passes the long known scientific test of predictability, which all real science does.

Interesting that you should predictability as proof. e.g. since the creation of man nobody has ever fallen off the end of the earth.

Scientists would not take this as proof. They would say that just because it hasn't happened yet does not mean that it couldn't happen.

Scientists would more likely point to definitive proof like photos taken from the moon among a multitude of other options.

That's not predictability - Google it maybe ?
Not sure why we switched to flat earth stuff but actually it's a myth that anyone thought the earth was flat - well I suppose someone might - but there are maps of Globes going back to Ancient Greece and beyond .

Oh - hang on , do you think Galileo revealed that the earth was round ? No, he was on about the earth orbiting the Sun rather than vice versa.

Um .., Galileo was in fact somewhat persecuted for his findings, rather than receiving huge financial rewards from those who benefit from fake science.

so lets get this straight... Climate Scientists and their piers are being bribed by the Green Party, Environmentalists and Green Peace who are trying to squash the Coal, Gas. Oil and Nuclear Lobbies.

there is no comment here I am just trying to get to the bottom of what you are saying and trying to get you to point to specifics with evidence.

No, environmentalists green peace et al are what Stalin described as '"useful fools" - true believers in a myth you've created who go on to act as your unwitting agents in reinforcing the illusion which you've perpetrated on the peasantry. The " climate scientists " are your " priest class " - mysterious characters who claim some knowledge beyond the grasp of the leyman about the truth of the myth you're pushing. It never takes long before people are genuinely starting to believe things like this without regard for the lack of real evidence and getting annoyed if anyone questions it.

Btw "predictability" is when you can demonstrate that a particular experiment will always yield the same result without variation. If we hold a solid free object in air and release it , or at the point when it's kinetic energy in another direction us expended , it will ALWAYS fall towards the earth. Thus we are able to prove gravity.

- go try that actually . If it works you can probably believe me about gravity, and that'll be a way too that you can understand what I've told you about believing or not believing what you read.

And if you begin to see some sense in what Ive said , don't get the hump. It doesn't mean you've lost, it means you've won

That's not predictability - Google it maybe ?
Not sure why we switched to flat earth stuff but actually it's a myth that anyone thought the earth was flat - well I suppose someone might - but there are maps of Globes going back to Ancient Greece and beyond .

actually my definition is perfectly accurate....

to simplify it for you using your own example. you throw an object in the air, just because it has never failed to come back down does not mean it always will, it could just mean that you have not thrown it up often enough.

If you toss a coin 10 times in a row and it comes up head is this proof that it will always come up heads?

And if you begin to see some sense in what Ive said , don't get the hump. It doesn't mean you've lost, it means you've won

Okay lets recap

You do not believe in Climate change
You do not believe in the Moon Landings
You do not believe Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK
You refuse to say that the Holocaust actually happened.
You believe that the EU ins the new coming of the Third Reich.
You believe there is a international plot to undermine world trade by some mysterious forces whose methodology would seem to be Wind Farms and Solar Panels.

Yup, I am obviously the loser here.

Dave 67 there comes a time when you should realise that you are playing chess with pidgeons.

Dave 67 there comes a time when you should realise that you are playing chess with pidgeons.

Good call . I'd back him for a draw in that

That's not predictability - Google it maybe ?
Not sure why we switched to flat earth stuff but actually it's a myth that anyone thought the earth was flat - well I suppose someone might - but there are maps of Globes going back to Ancient Greece and beyond .

actually my definition is perfectly accurate....

to simplify it for you using your own example. you throw an object in the air, just because it has never failed to come back down does not mean it always will, it could just mean that you have not thrown it up often enough.

If you toss a coin 10 times in a row and it comes up head is this proof that it will always come up heads?

I don't believe you ! Nice of you to simplify it for me , except that you're wrong. I told you what it meant and you could have checked that but you still persist. Your definition isn't correct , it's arrant bollocks and, paradoxically, you end up questioning the legitimacy of the laws of gravity whilst telling me that I should be less skeptical about what I'm told. Can you see the irony of this ?

Well, didn't quite end up with that, you went on to talk about coin tossing, which is a different thing altogether and subject to the laws of probability which - obviously- do not use predictability , the point if them being that some things are not reliably predictable. Incidentally, the odds are 50/50 on each toss and each is a separate event and thus cannot be effected by the outcome of previous events - there is no connection between them , and the proof of this is that predictability does not apply.

Conversely , if an action has been carried out innumerable times with the same result , it can be said to be proven by predictability . If one instance of a different outcome is demonstrated then the proof is nullified. In the case of Gravity this hasn't happened since Sir Isaac Newton made the observation in 1687 or something, but maybe you should keep trying it

This is covered very fully in a Tom Stoppard play "rosencrantz and guildenstern are dead". I doubt you've seen it, but they did make it into a movie so maybe you caught that ?

And if you begin to see some sense in what Ive said , don't get the hump. It doesn't mean you've lost, it means you've won

Okay lets recap

You do not believe in Climate change
You do not believe in the Moon Landings
You do not believe Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK
You refuse to say that the Holocaust actually happened.
You believe that the EU ins the new coming of the Third Reich.
You believe there is a international plot to undermine world trade by some mysterious forces whose methodology would seem to be Wind Farms and Solar Panels.

Yup, I am obviously the loser here.

an ill thought out list :lol..
wondered how long it would take......

Dave 67 there comes a time when you should realise that you are playing chess with pidgeons.

bloody hell ..no mention of the Tories.

And if you begin to see some sense in what Ive said , don't get the hump. It doesn't mean you've lost, it means you've won

Okay lets recap

You do not believe in Climate change
You do not believe in the Moon Landings
You do not believe Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK
You refuse to say that the Holocaust actually happened.
You believe that the EU ins the new coming of the Third Reich.
You believe there is a international plot to undermine world trade by some mysterious forces whose methodology would seem to be Wind Farms and Solar Panels.

Yup, I am obviously the loser here.

Well.... I don't know whether I'd be rude enough to say that. If you're happy believing what you believe, so be it.
It's certainly true that you're in the majority , and I suspect that's probably important to you.
It's true to say that your comment above is the modern equivalent of chucking a cabbage at the guy who said the gold eating dragon doesn't exist, but so what really ?
See, I'm not really effected by it to the extent that most people are because I don't fall for the paresitic bullshit they continue to feed them on and so I probably don't get robbed as much and because I don't restrict myself in the ways you're supposed to if you're a good little victim, I've tended to do okay in ways that you won't if you're compliant to their fairy tales . You or anyone else could do the same and I'd like you to, but in the end it's your call.

Look, these little stories they tell you are intended to limit and control you. It's up to you if you want to believe that or believe the other narrative. I can't and wouldn't want to force you to think differently, but I'll still tell you the truth and if that makes you angry I'm sorry. The victims of con artists are notoriously reluctant to admit that they've been hoodwinked , but they continue to be disadvantaged till they do that.

I don't believe you ! Nice of you to simplify it for me , except that you're wrong. I told you what it meant and you could have checked that but you still persist. Your definition isn't correct , it's arrant bollocks and, paradoxically

I am guessing that you remain unconvinced?

you end up questioning the legitimacy of the laws of gravity whilst telling me that I should be less skeptical about what I'm told. Can you see the irony of this ?

I kinda pointed this out a long time ago when I said you were going further than scientists are prepared to, but well done for catching up.

you end up questioning the legitimacy of the laws of gravity

I don't scientists do (source)

There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory. This is understandable, as without having these terms formally defined the English definition logically leads to the misconception......

The scientific method allows us to formulate ideas and back them with evidence. They are then shared with a community of other scientists that rigorously try to disprove them. If no one can disprove a hypothesis, it becomes the current working theory. If someone eventually does, the theory is changed or replaced. This process continues and results in better and better ideas being formulated over time. Although the scientific method is not guaranteed to give us the absolutely correct answer, it does help us get closer to that answer. It helps us improve our existing model of the universe and learn from our mistakes.

Dave 67 there comes a time when you should realise that you are playing chess with pidgeons.

Was really just interested in whether he could substantiate anything he was saying or whether there was a logical thought pattern behind it. I will leave you to form your own conclusions.

This is my last post on this thread.

Scientists only have theory, no proof. Only mathematicians have that luxury.

you end up questioning the legitimacy of the laws of gravity

I don't scientists do (source)

There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory. This is understandable, as without having these terms formally defined the English definition logically leads to the misconception......

The scientific method allows us to formulate ideas and back them with evidence. They are then shared with a community of other scientists that rigorously try to disprove them. If no one can disprove a hypothesis, it becomes the current working theory. If someone eventually does, the theory is changed or replaced. This process continues and results in better and better ideas being formulated over time. Although the scientific method is not guaranteed to give us the absolutely correct answer, it does help us get closer to that answer. It helps us improve our existing model of the universe and learn from our mistakes.

Well that's exactly the sort of old bollocks they produce to make their fake science seem plausible. It's nonsense

Dave 67 there comes a time when you should realise that you are playing chess with pidgeons.

Was really just interested in whether he could substantiate anything he was saying or whether there was a logical thought pattern behind it. I will leave you to form your own conclusions.

This is my last post on this thread.

Oh no. You were contributing so much ! Don't you even feel a little bit embarrassed to claim that I lack logical thought?
If you convince anyone by saying that , they'll be as bloody daft as you. I mean that's a bit rude on my part probably, but since you've resorted to personal insults, why not really ?
Bottom line is that you don't and can't understand a lot of stuff, and of course I can say this definitively because that was your last post on this thread.

I don't believe you ! Nice of you to simplify it for me , except that you're wrong. I told you what it meant and you could have checked that but you still persist. Your definition isn't correct , it's arrant bollocks and, paradoxically

I am guessing that you remain unconvinced?

you end up questioning the legitimacy of the laws of gravity whilst telling me that I should be less skeptical about what I'm told. Can you see the irony of this ?

I kinda pointed this out a long time ago when I said you were going further than scientists are prepared to, but well done for catching up.

Dave, I caught up with you around the time when you told me you were born ,( 1967 apparently ), and I passed you a few minutes later.

Thank you for being such a useful prop though