Page 3 of 4

Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:42 pm
by Spaced Ape
Zynathias wrote:I wasn't really viewing that as a selfish motivator, but if you do, then, in your perspective, things are, in fact, always for greed and self-enhancement. But, I view feeling good as a reward not necessarily expected. So let's agree to differ.


Let's not, as I have scientific evidence to back me up, while all you got is a false sense of some sort of honor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism#A ... ry_biology

Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 4:39 pm
by Zyn
Although that seems pretty good evidence...it ts wikipedia. It may be a complete load of bullshit. Or it could be true. Either way, Azgarth got this pretty much right: it's all about how you look at things.

Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:21 pm
by ƒrosty
Zyn wrote:it is wikipedia.

Don't pull that bullshit. Don't even try.

Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 6:43 pm
by Spaced Ape
Zynathias wrote:Although that seems pretty good evidence...it ts wikipedia. It may be a complete load of bullshit. Or it could be true. Either way, Azgarth got this pretty much right: it's all about how you look at things.


Image

It's on wikipedia as a reference to the many studies and books and research done to show evidence for it. I'm not using wiki as an end-all be-all, just as a tool to show you what I meant.

And it's not how you look at it, it's what hard evidence can prove.

Also, are you really this dense or are you trying to piss me off? This is why every time I try to get back into MD I just want to leave again.

Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 7:30 pm
by Zyn
Neither, I just like having undesputable evidence in arguments, that way people can't do exactly what I just did. Better to point it out in favor than in opposition, in my opinion.

Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:45 pm
by ƒrosty
There are sources at the bottom of each Wikipedia page, y'dolt.

Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 9:19 pm
by Zyn
Yea, this I know. However, anyone can bitch about wiki, even with a list a mile long...I repeat what I just said: I like undisputable evidence.

Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 9:34 pm
by Azgarth
which is there the press of a button, right at the bottom of the page...
because you have to walk to the table to get the remote doesn't mean the TV is busted.

Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:51 am
by Voly
Azgarth wrote:because you have to walk to the table to get the remote doesn't mean the TV is busted.


Image

Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:08 am
by Spaced Ape
Zynathias wrote:Neither, I just like having undesputable evidence in arguments


That's impossible. There is no such thing as undisputable evidence in science.

Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:22 am
by daemon
Well. If something explodes every single time it touches water, you know undisputably, it will so the next time too, yo.

Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:53 am
by Sunshine
Or you know you could just be optimistic to the point of stupidity and hope next time it won't blow up.

Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:43 pm
by ƒrosty
daemon wrote:Well. If something explodes every single time it touches water, you know indisputably, it will so the next time too, yo.

Tell that to your college professor on the subject. He'll laugh at you and you'll receive an F.
It's impossible to have perfect knowledge and proof is unattainable.

Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:46 pm
by Zyn
Okay, so, what, I was wrong in hoping for an argument that would win with complete victory?

Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:56 pm
by S. [Burned] Y.
Si senior.

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:31 am
by daemon
Frosty wrote:
daemon wrote:Well. If something explodes every single time it touches water, you know indisputably, it will so the next time too, yo.

Tell that to your college professor on the subject. He'll laugh at you and you'll receive an F.
It's impossible to have perfect knowledge and proof is unattainable.


What if I bet him, F vs A+, that i can predict that it will blow up again. And I am right, every time?

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:12 am
by ƒrosty
You very well may be, but you can't prove it.

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:51 am
by daemon
On a sub-atomic level, why not?

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:01 am
by ƒrosty
Sub atomics have nothing to do with it. At all.

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:53 pm
by daemon
If I could, at a sub atomic level, watch the reaction, and see the same effect over, and over, and over, and over again, is that not proving my point?

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:12 pm
by Voly
No, it's wasting your life.

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 10:16 pm
by Zyn
Deamon, what they mean is eventually another variable will cause a different reaction, i believe.

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 10:40 pm
by daemon
Not in a controlled experiment. There is no other variable. Lol

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 10:54 pm
by Voly
You can't control every aspect of an experiment in this variable world of ours, dude.

Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:07 am
by ƒrosty
@ Daemon
You're demonstrating a trend, not proving a thing.