Objectivity is based on subjective experience

[opus101]

2 hours ago, March Audio said:

 Its the act of scientific assessment of MQA that has ultimately exposed it as being no audible benefit (in fact a detriment) and nothing more than a cynical land grab to attempt to monetise the music distribution chain.  

 

I am also very keen to learn how science can be used to expose a 'land grap' and also cynicism. I've never seen scientific definitions for those terms so I'm waiting for your explanation with bated breath.

[opus101]

7 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

 It is just of no use if we want to see what life is, for instance. 

 

Robert Rosen made some useful progress towards that - but then he wasn't a mainstream scientist : https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/865617.Life_Itself?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=79hBRb4yQf&rank=3

[opus101]

No, of course not.

[opus101]

23 minutes ago, March Audio said:

 

You are the one that appears to be "hand waiving". 

 

If you were to waive your hands would you still have hands to wave?

[opus101]

Its a joke, a play on words.

[opus101]

5 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Well all I can say is please dont try stand up.

 

Indeed, the joke would get lost absent the written words.

[opus101]

28 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Stopping scientific progress or research isn’t going to cure the real problem: human nature.

 

Do you have evidence that its nature rather than nurture? Just curious.

[opus101]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Where did I say that? To me, human nature is a combination of both.

 

Ah, to me nature and nurture are distinct. Hence my question. 

[opus101]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

They are, but my intended meaning of the term "human nature" speaks to the common observable characteristics of human beings, regardless of where or how they originate.

I see. So for you 'how humans behave' = 'human nature'.

 

This leads me to a supplemental question - you mentioned 'greed' - is that an observable behaviour? I mean can you tell whether someone's being greedy just from observation alone?

[opus101]

29 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

We were discussing the entirety of human kind, so I'm not sure why you're asking me about a single individual.  But, I would like to hear how you might determine 'greed' other than by observation. From Ten Commandments? Decoding DNA? Reading someone's mind? What method would you use?

 

Individuals make up the entirety of humankind. I'm not putting forward the notion that 'greed, selfishness....' are the problems, you are. Under the scientific method its the one making the assertions who's called on to provide support for them.

[opus101]

9 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Just be wary of going down the opus rabbit hole.  He will talk semantics endlessly without making any real or relevant points. It's why he was put on ignore a ling time ago.

 

But taken off ignore on a whim in order to indicate you didn't get my joke. Touching to see you trying to protect @pkane2001 nonetheless.

[opus101]

7 minutes ago, March Audio said:

I think we can do without this sort of moronic posting.

 

What you think is at all relevant here? 

[opus101]

Just now, March Audio said:

 I live in hope that you will one day make some useful on topic contributions. 😛

 

Which you hope to see only if/when quoted by others? Isn't that rather hit-and-miss?

[opus101]

1 minute ago, March Audio said:

And there you go proving my point.

 

And which point was that?

[opus101]

5 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I'm afraid you missed the point, and instead focused on tangents and semantics. There were no scientific claims made, other than an observation that science is a tool used by humans, sometimes for selfish and irrational purposes.

 

I was referring to these words of yours :

 

Place the blame where it really belongs: human beings being selfish, greedy, and irrational even where it comes to our own survival as a species.

 

So that claim wasn't a scientific one?