Philosophy Now Forum

Hans Rosling makes science's contribution visual: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

spike wrote:Hans Rosling makes science's contribution visual: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

This is not demonstrating the contribution of science alone, but the grow of left wing politics, democracy, enlightenment, imperialism and its decline, communications and many other things that have contributed to the increase in life expectancy.
Nice though.

This is not demonstrating the contribution of science alone, but the grow of left wing politics, democracy, enlightenment, imperialism and its decline, communications and many other things that have contributed to the increase in life expectancy.
Nice though.

Another of chaz's #!*% thoughts.

spike wrote:

This is not demonstrating the contribution of science alone, but the grow of left wing politics, democracy, enlightenment, imperialism and its decline, communications and many other things that have contributed to the increase in life expectancy.
Nice though.

Another of chaz's #!*% thoughts.

And what do you think the graph represents, idiot?

chaz,

The graph tells me more about you, in how you responded to it, that you seem to have one big chip on your shoulder. It sounds as though you have a problem and are blaming everybody else for it.

spike wrote:chaz,

The graph tells me more about you, in how you responded to it, that you seem to have one big chip on your shoulder. It sounds as though you have a problem and are blaming everybody else for it.

Yes, and this tells me that you are displaying evidence of clinical insanity.
Congratulations.

chaz wyman wrote:[I don't even think Grok knows what he himself is saying.

So that's why I read my own posts over and over! ( for typist!)

groktruth wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:[I don't even think Grok knows what he himself is saying.

So that's why I read my own posts over and over! ( for typist!)

Do they make more sense the second time??

chaz wyman wrote:
Total rubbish. Cite; Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan, have all provided major contributions to the theoretical issues concerning science in the 20thC, and here are a few more.
http://www.academia.edu/People/Philosophy_Of_Science
At random..

Thanks for refuting the claims at the start of the thread.

chaz wyman wrote:
It seems increasingly we seem to be seeing a lot more of this weirdness form you over the last few days. You seem to be finding meaning in the meaningless.
None of this seems to make sense, to me either. Now either John and me are both mad or you are not explaining yourself very well. Which is the most likely ?

What you need to understand is that to those people, these insanities are realities.

chaz wyman wrote:

spike wrote:Hans Rosling makes science's contribution visual: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

This is not demonstrating the contribution of science alone, but the grow of left wing politics, democracy, enlightenment, imperialism and its decline, communications and many other things that have contributed to the increase in life expectancy.
Nice though.

Englightenment led to more science, science led to telecommunications technology.

chaz wyman wrote:

groktruth wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:[I don't even think Grok knows what he himself is saying.

So that's why I read my own posts over and over! ( for typist!)

Do they make more sense the second time??

Why do you ask?

groktruth wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

groktruth wrote:
So that's why I read my own posts over and over! ( for typist!)

Do they make more sense the second time??

Why do you ask?

I was asking you. My question was for your benefit, not mine.

chaz wyman wrote:
I was asking you. My question was for your benefit, not mine.

Then my answer is, "Yes." Another example of inspired writing being a new source of discovery every time they are read? To those with eyes to see.

As I have noted, most of my posting is to discover exactly what it is that I am thinking.

Thank you for your questions.

groktruth wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:
I was asking you. My question was for your benefit, not mine.

Then my answer is, "Yes." Another example of inspired writing being a new source of discovery every time they are read? To those with eyes to see.

As I have noted, most of my posting is to discover exactly what it is that I am thinking.

Thank you for your questions.

ROTFLMFHO

Re-reading stuff is what you do to another's work not your own !!!
You are supposed to know what you think before, or as, you write it.
If you have to llok back then that would indicate a lack of certainty, attention, memory, or intelligence; and re-reading it ain't gonna help you with that stuff.

Talk about an ERROR in RIGOUR

chaz wyman wrote:

ROTFLMFHO

Re-reading stuff is what you do to another's work not your own !!!
You are supposed to know what you think before, or as, you write it.
If you have to llok back then that would indicate a lack of certainty, attention, memory, or intelligence; and re-reading it ain't gonna help you with that stuff.

Talk about an ERROR in RIGOUR

I knew I was doing something wrong! Maybe this is it.

groktruth wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

ROTFLMFHO

Re-reading stuff is what you do to another's work not your own !!!
You are supposed to know what you think before, or as, you write it.
If you have to llok back then that would indicate a lack of certainty, attention, memory, or intelligence; and re-reading it ain't gonna help you with that stuff.

Talk about an ERROR in RIGOUR

I knew I was doing something wrong! Maybe this is it.