Un-introduction

[Spaced Ape]

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

[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.

[ƒrosty]

it is wikipedia.

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

[Spaced Ape]

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.

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.

[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.

[ƒrosty]

There are sources at the bottom of each Wikipedia page, y'dolt.

[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.

[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.

[Voly]

because you have to walk to the table to get the remote doesn't mean the TV is busted.

[Spaced Ape]

Neither, I just like having undesputable evidence in arguments

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

[daemon]

Well. If something explodes every single time it touches water, you know undisputably, it will so the next time too, yo.

[Sunshine]

Or you know you could just be optimistic to the point of stupidity and hope next time it won't blow up.

[ƒrosty]

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.

[Zyn]

Okay, so, what, I was wrong in hoping for an argument that would win with complete victory?

[S. [Burned] Y.]

Si senior.

[daemon]

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?

[ƒrosty]

You very well may be, but you can't prove it.

[daemon]

On a sub-atomic level, why not?

[ƒrosty]

Sub atomics have nothing to do with it. At all.

[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?

[Voly]

No, it's wasting your life.

[Zyn]

Deamon, what they mean is eventually another variable will cause a different reaction, i believe.

[daemon]

Not in a controlled experiment. There is no other variable. Lol

[Voly]

You can't control every aspect of an experiment in this variable world of ours, dude.

[ƒrosty]

@ Daemon
You're demonstrating a trend, not proving a thing.