Sorry, but logic dictates that i must correct YOUR! ERROR!

I Actually know a person who's hand IS connected to their shoulder.

Nothing is impossible, only improbable..

My question to this statement, and it would apply to your thread in whole, would be: Do you just mean money as in currency? Or are you including barter/trade as well? To instigate the picture you ask requires definitions of the limits to the end result. I will gladly have a civilized discussion on the subject if you will just define the limits to the 'experiment' instigated.

exactly, that's what i've been asking all along. i mean, to do away with money while still having trade of any kind is almost like... well... i mean money is a shorthand convenience for bartering.

You cannot have any sort of social interaction without currency. It just don't work. Society needs currency in order to get along.

No! Nooooo!

oh yes.

So where do ifit in to that whole Dy Apostate thing?

i'm not following you at all. are you high?

Man I got called dumb alot in this thread?

Considering the source I will take it as a compliment.

well, two thoeries, then dy added a third, so i was wondering where i was in the multi-verse you few created..

Yes, i am.. I'm high on life

So turak, here's the question i pose to you. If nothing is to be taken for granted as 'true' then why do we have written language to record things or language to pass on? If everyone had to start from scratch we'd be nothing like humans today. We could not accumulate knowledge. Everyone would have to have the ingenious to figure out the sun does not indeed revolve around the earth.

You keep telling us to do our own research, to learn by life etc. And you say that we must not assume anything to be true. This kills the concept of cultural knowledge. A researcher performs an experiment and comes to understand the process behind something via results. This experiment is then replicated to see if similar results can be had by a skeptical party. It doesnt prove false and this continues. The article is later published so now lots of people get to know about something that is the best explaination we have for now. That's what science is.

Now, in order to do an experiment that involves a similar process you have to do background research. You have to understand the way things work and then see what happens when you play with a new variable or something like that. So you look up publications on articles as mentioned previosly. You can't always do the experiment.

Have you ever seen the size of the works sited for these articles? Have you ever done them? They are scarcely less than 20 sources long. If you had to 'research' these by doing them yourself because you can't take anything as true, you'd never get anything advanced.

Sure we can take things and say hey, that may be the best we have for now but it could use some twinking, or hey maybe this doenst even work that way at all, this explains it better. Cultural knowledge is through communication.

This is another flaw to your arguements, WITHOUT direct attacks on me as a pesrson, without screaming empty campaign slogan style remarks, and while providing clear and concise evidences or examples or even just speaking in an informative tone, please explain this appearent fallacy in this line of thought i see of yours.

I don't think he can do that ! None of his replies/threads he can speak in a normal , intelligent manner .

He is just a little fucker that wants to be right no matter what anyone says or does ! I think he just gets off by screaming at us !

You can't rationalise with someone like that !

But you can get them to talk themselves into a hole they cannot dig thier way out of Which quiets them down for a while; at least about whatever subject they were going on about.

If I ever have to run away due to tax evasion I may have to visit the netherlands

sigh...

Have you ever heard the phrase: sifting the facts from the bullshit?

Let me give you an example:

About 10-15 years ago... a mathematician claimed he found the answer to Fermat's last theorum.

He was a Cambridge fellow on scholarship: one of the most supposedly brilliant minds in his field.

HE held a press conference.

There was a huge media blitz...

'FERMAT's LAST THEORUM PROVEN TRUE!'

It was in all the newspapers.

Then a few other mathematicians found some serious flaws in his proof.

So he went back... and after months... managed to scrape up another proof using ideas from a another mathematician in JAPAN for gods sake... who was in a completely different field of mathematics than was...

Then... he sighed with relief... thinking it was safe.

until THAT proof was also busted... and proven to be untrue...

But did the newspapers blare out:

'FAMOUS MATHEMATICIAN'S PROOF of FERMAT's LAST THEORUM PROVEN UNTRUE!!'

No.

In fact to this day as far as the public is concerened... Fermats last theorum is history, and dead.

Well:????

Unless you sift the facts from the bullshit.

Unless you do enough research to know that your accurate: you may be so completely WRONG IN WHAT YOU ASSUME... that you will for all intents and purposes: a completely ignorant uneducated fool who only read the headlines, and never follows up on the issue.

Every year some newspaper blares out the latest 'discovery'

but they NEVER print WHICH of these discoveries are later found to be a total sham... and WHICH ONES ARE ACTUALLY CORRECT

BUT!!

YOU!!

You lazy good-for-nothing spoiled BRAT... whine about this... its so HARRRRD! to look up data!

Well: it is not hard. You are just looking for a good excuse to stay lazy and ignorant and stupid...

FINE!

GOODBYE!

First off, thank you for trying to provide reasoning and evidence. It is appreciated. secondly, you still failed at only addressing the problem stated but hey, its a start.

Missed the point again though. Looking up data? Data comes from someone elses research, which is based on assumptions on how the world works based on experimentation and observation.

Data itself can be shit, you have to look at how that data was aquired, the methods used etc. however, if you get a good source you can find that data. But you've got to assume the sources it cites are decent. IF you backtraced every single source a source of a source of a source listed it would come close to taking you YEARS just to be able to cite a single article as a source.

I dont disagree with you that your sources need to be verified or even cross examined. This i do not have issues with. But you have to base assumptions somewhere or you can never have a start point to work with, as said in the previous post.