It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by soleprobe
The OP posted two posts and split the scene..... He/she made the claim that “some people here refuse to deal in facts” I’m still waiting for him to list those “facts…people here refuse to deal in…”
All possibilities should be explored
Originally posted by wcitizen
You are stating this as a fact, when, in fact (lol!), it is simply your opinion, which some people will agree with and others will not.
Originally posted by wcitizen
Your opinion seems to be based on the premise that those who do choose to believe certain theories, and see them as fact, need an excuse for doing so. And you imply that this (your opinion) is a fact - for everyone, which is blatantly, dare I say it, -- factually inaccurate.
Originally posted by wcitizen
Only theories???
Originally posted by wcitizen
How about an exchange of information or FACTS?
Originally posted by wcitizen
A sharing of news?
Originally posted by wcitizen
A comparison of news on a given topic? An exploration of a topic? A discussion on FACTS? A sharing of experience?? A source of inspiration?? A tool for learning???
Originally posted by wcitizen
Once again, you state your own (in this case very limited) personal, subjective, ill thought through OPINION as FACT, which it clearly is not.
Originally posted by wcitizen
Then because YOU believe it is a fact, you want to IMPOSE this subjective, narrow, ill thought through, personal OPINION on everyone else on this site. This is sloppy thinking and sloppy logic.
Originally posted by justadood
perhaps i am wrong, but it would appear the OP is not saying he or she knows what the 'facts' are, but is instead complaining about people who post things as "FACT" with no evidence and attack others who challenge said 'facts'.
Originally posted by justadood
it would appear many others are tired of the drama queens, as well.
Originally posted by wcitizen
What is the difference between you and those you criticise?
Originally posted by wcitizen
You criticise them for taking a theory as fact, whilst at the same time, you state your personal (restricted) opinion (which is, after all, only a theory) as fact.
Originally posted by wcitizen
Now, as has been suggested earlier, why don't you go and look up the word 'hypocrite' ...and while you're there, maybe also look up the word 'fact'
Originally posted by NineEleven11
Originally posted by wcitizen
What is the difference between you and those you criticise?
Who on Earth thinks theories are facts??? That is sooo dumb..
[edit on 16-7-2010 by NineEleven11]
Originally posted by airspoon
Your not being paranoid if they really are after you. Moving along, I agree with you about turning everything into a conspiracy as not only being absurd, but also counter-productive.
Originally posted by XxiTzYoMasterxX
I don't believe what everyone on a conspiracy theory website says but when experts start saying there's something amiss or being covered up or say the government is lying to us then that's when I look into it.
Originally posted by soleprobe
reply to post by mothershipzeta
So the definition of “scientific theory” (explanations agreed upon by a group of scientists) is more than “just a theory”. So now any small click of paid-off scientists (like climate scientists) can have “explanations” [that] are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them”. This now becomes “scientific theory”, equivalent to fact (truth), no longer “just a theory”.
In other words if a certain group of scientists believe that their explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter those explanations, it now becomes, not just theory, but “scientific theory”. And if you put the word “scientific” in front of theory it is no longer “just a theory” but a “scientific theory” which is to be taken as fact because this "definition" of “scientific theory” says so.
This is all just a twisting of the meaning of words in order to give a select body of individuals (scientists) a monopoly on truth. So now a theory presented by a select group of “scientists” (little truth gods) must be deemed equivalent to fact (truth). Why, because the definition says so? And the proof that it’s fact is because it is considered “scientific theory” which now means “fact.”
So now, conveniently, the “theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory" it’s factual because it’s a “scientific theory” presented by the scientists (little truth gods). And because the definition of “scientific theory” is now fact (truth), the word of the scientist now must be accepted by the ignorant masses as truth. The scientists are the truth gods of the New Age.
Well you can keep your “scientific” definition of “theory” and I'll continue to consider all theory, "just a theory."
Is there anyone who can list some "facts" regarding this event, not “scientific theory” but “facts”?