₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
Thanks for this. One should avoid seeing what one wants to see and really look to see what actually is. The two are not the same thing.

no other method of self truth seeking apart from subjective experience... Yours may be more reasonable, that those not make mine unsound. the purpose of philosophy is to seek for wisdom. When yours evidence of truth seeking outweighed mine, then mine became illogical.


Try to understand the debate pls..

budaatum:
I don't post what I haven't read! No one is saying water is not the molecules that it consists of. My point is that the constituent atoms is one single aspect of water. There's a lot more to water than its ingredients and studies on water continue to this day.


What? That stupid brain in a stupid head? I guess I must have been wrong all along. Now that you tell me how infallible my brain is, I have used mine to determine there are no gods. Thanks for enlightening me.


Now, isn't that what we say? I use the three elements as you suggest, but I bet the first thought on reading my no god comment in the minds of some is, this person's mind is not balanced, "the elements are wrong in this person", "this person needs a psychological checkup"!


So, let us believe there is a god and that it created the universe. It is not perceivable with the senses, but lets believe it anyway.......See where I'm going here? Are we believing it for the time being because of the limits of our so called "brain consciousness" or do we need a "psychological checkup"?




My last post before the weekend was going to be this
The Scientific Method: Beliefs vs. Verifiable Facts
But I got busy. I post it now to put words to your diagram because I believe it says what your diagram says and shows if I understand your diagram. I wouldn't post it if I hadn't read it. Please note that the last two bullet points:

• Communicate and publish results, undergo objective peer review (one hopes not endure subjective peer pressure to conform to accepted conventional wisdom!)

• Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

I told you, you should have checked if it was raining and not just accept my believing it is!

if you are saying it isn't molecules ,then what are you saying...you keep getting me more confusing.... Why don't you follow the bone of argument which says the water chemical is h20...and no any proof beyond that ....have you gotten yours?


Bro no one is accusing you wrongly here....when your sense, experience and perceiveness fails, then there is a challenged upstair.if your believe says there is no God. So be it. But if your subjectivity believe is compare to mine and they both weigh and yours happen to be more effective. As a stable mind, I have no options than to accept yours.if not am only lying to myself. In this part of the continent I lived, women put their wedding ring in the right hands why in Nigeria put theirs on their left ..so will you say it is wrong why yours is right?


I beg you again never argued for objective review it is faulty.science is even aware.theories change everyday.


I shall visit the links and add my view bro...make I go do something bro.later things.

budaatum:
Is that like a fourth element?

pls try and get me before you argue. You can ask me to repeat myself.

budaatum:
I promise. This is the last one on this thread.

We could have told you the premise of your initial postulate was wrong. We didn't, because it was going somewhere even though your idea of contingency was flawed.

It was pointed out to you that the question "who" was a leading question, but you wouldn't have it. To start with, if there is a creating thing, you are assuming it is human like, as that is what the word "who" implies. You are also narrowing the discussion between your narrow parameters, but we are willing to work with that as an hypothesis. But when you claim you subjectivity is objective, you show that you should have continued to learn.

Substituting subjective opinion for objective reality is a flaw that many have and it can only be cured by recognising one is doing so and understanding how not to. From experience, I assure you it takes a lot of practise, and one will still find quite a lot of subjectivity in ones so valued objective view. But you don't even try!

But that is the beauty of this wonderful thread you started. Least you discovered something about yourself.

am not getting you really, pls type with you mind and not your emotions...

I perceive and sense emotional imbalance in your writing...what is going on?


My evidence here are subjective verified, therefore I expect you to counterclaim it with evidence.... Which is the purpose of this discussion... No man owns the crown in knowledge... that is why I welcome postulation in my argument, you can deive, you can branch...do whatever.. Just make sure , at the end we are all saying the same thing...or probably yours make the most prefer sense.


About the subjectivity, I have answer you...read below...

About the who has a first question instead of how , I have given an evidence why it is logical...unless you bring counter evidence, .I will not welcome your postulation.


The purpose of the base is to look into other veiws and see where , we are not getting it..hope this settle the matter..

budaatum:
Sorry, but not so much that "your subjective" is silly, it isn't, but to present your subjectivity as objective reality is silly.

And objectivity is possible. Scientists have to be objective. That's why other scientists have to be able to repeat your experiments for validity.

Mr man , what are you saying..?.we don't share the same mind, we We can only look at things subjectively and make conjectures that we use symbols the same way as other people do. That we agree it is a fact that this means that, or x=y. whatever the two equivalencies are. It’s a subjective agreement between humans that we don’t question, so we say it is objective.

Objectivity is that which humans don’t question. Hope you grab the logic.. It is what we all take for granted. What we all assume everyone else means when they use a specific symbol, language or signal...

Is there anything that we all assume is the same thing? Is there anything that no one has a question about? Do the symbols for numbers stand for exactly the same thing for everyone?

To me as a person, it seems to me that to be objective, you would have to have some point of view that is outside of the subject (yes, subject) you are trying to perceive. Unfortunately for objectivity, we are all inside the universe. We can not know if we perceive things the same way anyone else does. There’s evidence to support the idea that most people use symbols the same way, but we can’t know if that’s always true, because it is always possible that someone else has a different subjective view of whatever subject we are trying to perceive.

Objectivity is a convenience. A kind of settled subjectivity. We agree that it is settled, although we never know when someone will come along to upset the agreement...this is when science take its cross.....

budaatum:
Is that like a fourth element?

take your time, I will answer you mention gradually.... Am somehow busy.. Am in a class precisely....

budaatum:
Hope you read this vaxx. Even hydrogen has been researched much further than "it is hydrogen, lets stop there".

I realised you have mentioned me like four times. , I don't get the bone of your argument.... My argument says water chemical formula is H20, and you are changing the the wheel of of the discussion... Has Wikipedia prove the evidence to be wrong or have they make further research to reject the standard chemical formula....that is my argument....so what are you saying?

budaatum:
Hope you read this vaxx. Even hydrogen has been researched much further than "it is hydrogen, lets stop there".

I realised you have given me than four mentions....you must be so interested in this discussion.... Well, do not mix the role my argument is pointing toward..

My argument says water chemical formula is h20, what are you know saying again...are you saying water has gotten more than that...am not getting the bone of your argument...

shaybebaby:
Thanks for the rice but can I have garri instead?

we guys are just trying, no one really know what to do to please a Lady.. But if gari will be cool...then have it...I added groundnut and milk for a better taste

shaybebaby:
With all due respect, you shouldn't have any expectations of me nor anyone on this platform.
Withy regards to the topic, you failed to set the parameters so anything goes.

If you wanted arguments presented like an academic discourse, say so from the onset.

And no I am not a scholar, there might be others on here who have earned the right to be called that but certainly not me.

Anyways if your aim was to show me not to necessarily exclude a methodology, then the same could apply to you. But until we can incontrovertibly discard one option, it remains in the running.

from experience, Don't argue with ladies...you will never win...I agree with you... I appericiate your brilliance.... You are making the world woman proud...


Take this gambia rice for dinner and .for your awesome brilliant...

Op, permit me to rephrase your question.. Should students learn how not to believe in God....if this is your question I will say no as a believer but only in public school.........it is not school duty to teach dogma....schools is built to develop students.with Excellency.....ability for self independent thinking'....

Private school should be given an independent right to do what she likes so far it those not violate the nation constitution.... Nigeria constitution welcome atheism

And likewise teaching of God in related to abrahimic major faith should also be scrapped. ...... Nigeria Is a secular state...

God education is not academic nor scholarship, it is a believe system...It should be the duty of mosque and church not secular schools...


However, a moral study can be introduce, this moral study syllabus should be a collective effort of both Muslim , Christian , pagans and atheist.. In reflection with the nation constitution...

My opinion bro...

shaybebaby:
Be that as it may needing both, questionnaires had no place in mine.
If you showed the aptitude for asking the right questions, the next question would be " why would true and fair be an acceptable standard"? In what instances might questionnaires not be applicable? True, quantitative studies often have their qualitative aspects, are there other ways of measuring this?

But no, you keep banging on about questionnaires. Because like your previous obsession with using "who" without considering why that may limit your exploration, you are doing the same here.

beauty...i brought the questionnaire argument not because I want to invalidate your argument but to let you see the argument from a scholarship angle.... You are a scholar, so i expect you to also debate using such perspective....


Hope you get me now...

supersystemsnig:
I agree, however both of you have more or less not too distant positions on the issue at hand. While, both of you have let me call it, " RIGHTS ", i believe vaxx is somewhat prone to speculation and subjective reasoning, a little here and there, which is why i told him earlier to take off the lid and entertain different ideologies as it will help him see things from a different position and draw up better conclusions...I believe you're also saying the same thing...Many of his questions have limited the scope of reasoning even before answers can be provided...


BRB Guys, meeting

bro is there anything like objective reasoning?

shaybebaby:
Again, what you know is not applicable to my experience. My field, we focus on "true" and "fair" representation, not accurate.

true and fair....then there comes a problem.... How do I measure the standard of the truth nor the standard of the fairness.... There must be a lay down accurate procedure to do so...which I reccomend...

shaybebaby:
It's not too much intelligence. The guy is talking methodology without considering research objectives. Which is the first step before determining how those objectives can be met-the information required, the nature of data required and the best way of gathering it.
My work was quantitative, was longitudinal and cross sectional and he is chatting questionnaire. Trying to fit a square peg into a round hole rather than whittling the peg into the shape of the hole.

But hardly surprising because the whole premise of my previous rebuttal to him is narrow thinking, failure to consider that sometimes we need to reframe the question.

A good research work should involve quantitative and qualitative ....that make your thesis rich....mix method... Why?
You need different tools to get to different answers. Sometimes you need more than one method to get the full picture of what you're exploring to really understand what is going on.


Your rebuttal failes to also consolidate mine...in fact you are using the same premises you are also guilty of..

You can't ask who if you are alone


And I ask you, can you ask what if you are alone....? Or how?

For you to take my argument has narrow minded which you speculate, ensure your rebuttal is not faulty...


I like your braveness as a lady...

shaybebaby:
You apparently fall into the category of those who work hard. I choose to work smart.

it is not only about hard work, it is about (accurateness.) Living No chance for flaws....makng your work flawless....

shaybebaby:
That is but one method, primary data yes but also not applicable to all fields of research.

I used secondary data from a reputable financial platform as that was the best and most efficient way relevant to my study.

Still how does this relate? We are debating here in a forum, it is not an academic paper.

in some institution, your dissertation will have been easily rejected on the condition of Inappropriateness of the data. Data collected by oneself (primary data) is collected with a concrete idea in mind. Usually to answer a research question or just meet certain objectives. In this sense, secondary data sources may provide you with vast amount of information as you said. but quantity is not synonymous of appropriateness. This is simply because it has been collected to answer a different research question or objectives. Therefore whenever you are making a futher research next time, try to use both....


The pupose of this Is to test the appropriate of your question to the topic..


Yes we are debating,, but we should work like an academia not just debate for debating sake .

akintom:
Do you understand it now?

i think i can try. .

shaybebaby:
Reason. I'm not an academic so the extent of technical expertise is limited to one dissertation. Also my field of study is business related.

that those not excempt you from written a research...

Don't bother yourself..

When you gather your questionnaire and you set up to the field... Your first approach to your capture sample is your identity

The need to know who you are, your profession so that they can know how to relate or even give you the permission of the next question of what do you want or how can they help you..

{Copy 1 above (with the bracket ] on both sides) and paste at the TOP of paragraph/line/word you wish to reply]okk

{Copy 2 above and paste at BOTTOM of the same paragraph }okk

akintom:
*

akintom:
1. quote author=vaxx post=61441743]

2. /quote]

*Quote the comment you wish to reply

*Copy 1 above (with the bracket ] on both sides) and paste at the TOP of paragraph/line/word you wish to reply

*Copy 2 above and paste at BOTTOM of the same paragraph

*Then write your reply and submit.

*You can delete other part of the comment, while you reply the paragraph you wanted.



*

thanks. Let me learn it..

shaybebaby:
Of what relevance is your question?

just Wanner know your first line of interaction with your capture sample

shaybebaby:
You misunderstand.
Who? We talk about a being, a living entity.
What? An entity, both living and non-living, a phenomenon.
How? Process.

have you done a research paper before?

To those who say who isn't a first logical question...

Am sure must of you have written research paper....when you gather your questionnaire... Do you start by explaining your question to your intended capture sample or you introduce whom you are?

shaybebaby:
Limiting the lines of inquiry is silly.

do you even get the analogy?

Who should be the first question before how and not the other way round...

After the who, you can then ask how?

Do you wanner start eating your moimoi from the middle ....

shaybebaby:
You have used your experience (subjective by the way) and assumed it must be a person hence asking who?

But I can tell you your experience is limited because my experience makes asking not only who but what valid.

My home has a fuse box with switches(about 10) that are connected to different parts of the house. They are all on the on position so I expect to have power everywhere. However, sometimes for instance, the lights in my living room goes off but the TV stays on. I know it's not a power cut.
But my knowledge that the switch that powers my tv may not be the one controlling the lights, I go to investigate. Usually, one of the switches has been tripped to the off position.
That answers what caused it but still leaves open the possibility of who tripped it off. But in addition, I can still ask what?
I turn the switch back to the on position, and head back to the living room- I am one spotlight down. A blown light bulb caused the fuse box to trip. It trips off because it was designed to isolate unusual electrical activities so the whole house isn't affected, rather just the area controlled by the relevant switch.

It is silly to ask who stopped the radio and leave it at that knowing very well, what is just as valid. If you are alone(this would be a fact, not open to subjectivity) would you still be asking who? Or even if you weren't and no one touched the radio, is that question valid?

yes my expereince is subjective...


And are you telling me my subjective is silly, is there any other way to have an experience and Is there any such thing as objective experience?

As far as I can tell, there is only subjectivity. Objectivity is a hypothetical state of knowledge that is impossible to verify.

Don’t mistakenly defend objective argument for a fact... ... fact argument for objectivity is silly... Facts are definitions. They are an apparent agreement between lots of people. But they are, in the end, tautologies.



The who touch the radio may safe you for further questions......

your analogy is faulty using the same premises ..why?

What if also you are alone...will you also ask what?...

supersystemsnig:
@Vaxx, if you tell this to spiritists,they'll disagree with you bro...You're not in existence by chance because before existence you pre-existed,a nd all the biological activity that took place with our parents was with a specific outcome, YOU !


Fifth paragraph

You are contigent because your chances of existence is by chance...your reproductive cause might not have existed ....and if by chance , they are not in existence.... Your as a person will not be in existence...

I am dealing with an atheist.. I know the rule with a spirit minded..

Hope you are agree with my fifth paragaph?

akintom:
Haven seen the delivery of your baby, will you still be seen as connected with reality, if you turn to your wife and ask - did we have this baby via pregnancy?

no and why the analogy

akintom:
The muddled style of your reply, makes comprehension difficult for me. You can learn how to reply per paragraph.

you can teach me pls...

akintom:
Your additional scene is deflective and irrelevant to the OP. You shouldn't be seen to be derailing your thread. That will amount to gunning for argument without "an" argument.

I'm AWARE of a physical universe, that i wish to know its origin. Just the same way, that you woke up to find yourself at the gate of Whitehouse. That's the take off point.

Logically, the first step in my wish to know how the physical universe came about, will be STEP-HOW and not STEP-WHO.

Therefore, the OP failed logical test.

bro...am focused...... I just maintain your postulation for the sake of argument... I could have easily tell you , it isn't possible


I did it to welcome reflectivity in the argument.... I realised you are pointing to a disscustion that require more details... Which I did... So I will rather accuse you of derailing... But no problem if it will make you better..

You are in a physical universe and you Wanner know is origin.. Which means you Wanner know is beginning... And you think your first questions will be how ?

Let's try your logic here..

How does the world came into existence

Or who created the universe to be so...

Your first best answer will be who created the world....why ? if you know the being , it may save you from how...knowing the being will also reflect his attribute...

From there you can gather an assumptions... You can then raised the second question how those the being created the universe....

akintom:
The above is simplistic to rational thinking.


he uncertain expression above, shows a mind disconnected from the first premise of intended argument.

Haven established the obvious basis of contingent existence, from where comes the uncertainty of "there must have been a cause" and "may be my parents....."?








For mutual logical argument, to hold true for two separate events, the premises must be the same.

I'm contingent because my reproductive cause, is known and compatible.

"likewise" connotes the "know", that the cause of the universe is evidential and compatible. This is silly assumption. Because such conclusion has no basis in logic.




This question can't arise, because the basis for arriving at "an external cause" has no logical or rational ingredients.

lol let roll.....


Sure the op explanation is simple...and that is why I brought it...

How those the uncertainty disconnect the first premises.... Identify it bro..?..I Wanner see the sketch...

Yes and that is why i agree my external cause are my parent...without them I will not be here and likewise without their parent , they will not be here....just on Long chain....till the stage it will reach a line that an object will not be bound by the same theory....which will mean from process to process...

I still don't get your argument...how is the premises diffrent ....? Can you explain here


Fifth paragraph

You are contigent because your chances of existence is by chance...your reproductive cause might not have existed ....and if by chance , they are not in existence.... Your as a person will not be in existence...



This is my argument


The theory can't bound the external cause.....something must have been necessary.. The process that is necessary can share similar character with contingent being... It is impossible..


The question can really arise and that is what I did....the rational ingerident of the argument as also been apply


Akintom. It has been modify

shaybebaby:
When you ask" who", you are already limiting the possible lines of enquiry.

Kind of like a house fire, we know it is a fire. The evidence is in the charred remains we see.

Asking "who did it" implies it was a being that did it, either consciously or unintentionally.

But that should not be first line of enquiry. Rather the question should be
"What caused this? " because this includes both the former but leaves room for a different hypothesis.
It may have been a person but it may also be faulty electrical.

Same thing about your question, we should ask "what"

I just reply akintom with the same analogy...but with different perspective.... Just look into it and bring out the flaws...


Who is a very powerful question.... It has capability to eliminate another question...

If you are in a room listening to one of your favourite radio station and the same time watching your telenovelas suddenly the radio switches off but the TV is on....


Will you ask what? who or how?


why it is logical to ask who in this scenario. ... Is that , it can save your time for what or how

You may ask who stopes the radio because the TV is on so you know it can't be a power outage or the radio can't be accidentally faulty...somebody might have cause it...

The answer may be simple....the who may be as a result of an external cause which is not part of the home