Ai

Originally posted by @humy
No.
Don't know where you got that from.

Think about it. You said:
"science isn't the problem, humans are"

If humans are the problem, and there would be no science if there were no humans, then...



think about it

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
Think about it. You said:
"science isn't the problem, humans are"

If humans are the problem, and there would be no science if there were no humans, then...

then...what?

How does;
"there would be no science if there were no humans"
logically imply
"there would be science if there were no humans"
? ( if that is what you are saying? )

And how does;
"science isn't the problem, humans are"
logically imply
"if there were no humans there would still be this thing we call 'science' "
?

Originally posted by @humy
How does;
"there would be [b]no science if there were no humans"
logically imply
"there would be science if there were no humans"
?
How does;
"science isn't the problem, humans are"
logically imply
"there would be science if there were no humans"[/b]

You're being too literal here. I agree that science is a human construct that does not exist independently from human activity.

You've admitted science would not exist if there were no humans, yet (in the same breath) you seem to suggest science can be separated (exist independently) from human activity when you say "science isn't the problem, humans are".

If using the same logical construct I say "guns aren't the problem, humans are", would you agree?

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
you seem to suggest science can be separated (exist independently) from human activity when you say "science isn't the problem, humans are".

how so? Can you elaborate on exactly how "science isn't the problem, humans are" seems to suggests "science can be separated (exist independently) from human activity"?

Originally posted by @humy
how so? Can you elaborate on exactly how "science isn't the problem, humans are" seems to suggests "science can be separated (exist independently) from human activity"?

What would that accomplish? No matter much one may blow up a balloon so it becomes bigger and bigger, it will not evolve into something other than a balloon. I could elaborate on what I've already said, but not without endlessly repeating what I've already said (and fluffing it up with useless detail).

This doesn't have to be a competition, but sadly this is where most of the discussions here quickly degenerate. 😞

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
What would that accomplish? No matter much one may blow up a balloon so it becomes bigger and bigger, it will not evolve into something other than a balloon. I could elaborate on what I've already said, but not without endlessly repeating what I've already said (and fluffing it up with useless detail).

This doesn't have to be a competition, but sadly this is where most of the discussions here quickly degenerate. 😞

it was a perfectly simple question you never answered nor implied an answer.

Originally posted by @humy
it was a perfectly simple question you never answered nor implied an answer.

I could fill 4 or 5 pages with elaborate illustrations and explanations if wanted to (and had the time). But if you're not willing to take the time and put in some effort to at least try and understand this, then all that would be accomplished is you managing to keep me talking.
Are you a child who thinks he can fool an adult into endless explanations by simply asking "Why?" at regular intervals? On the other hand I only asked one thing of you, and that was to "think about it". If you can't (or won't) do that, then all bets are off.

Originally posted by @humy
it was a perfectly simple question you never answered nor implied an answer.

Here's another perfectly simple question that was never answered:

If I said "guns aren't the problem, humans are", would you agree?

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Totally absurd and yet some of the world's most respected people (Not that that is a guarantee, of course, since some of that category seems to be sheer idiocy) consider the pervasiveness of electronics and AI in particular THE biggest threat to man.
When the world's systems are all brought online and into full automation, it's easy to see how its contro ...[text shortened]... id delusional opinion, are much closer to that potential reality than we are away from the same.

If living things are biological machines, and biological machines are able to evolve without being influenced by an intelligent designer, and humans continue to improve on machines they build and the programs used to run them, then what would prevent...


I'm getting no traction with humy, so decided to check in with you to see if you can go any further with another of my incomplete statements.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
Here's another perfectly simple question that was never answered:

If I said "guns aren't the problem, humans are", would you agree?

Yes.

-note how I don't respond with your kind of "incomplete sentence" crap but rather actually give a straight answer to the question.

Now I answered your simple question, will you answer my simple question with a straight answer;

How does (like I claimed);
"science isn't the problem, humans are"
logically imply (like you claimed);
"if there were no humans there would still be this thing we call 'science' "
?

P.S. your "incomplete sentence" crap is not an answer. Just answer the question.

Originally posted by @humy
Yes.

-note how I don't respond with your kind of "incomplete sentence" crap but rather actually give a straight answer to the question.

Now I answered your simple question, will you answer my simple question with a straight answer;

How does (like I claimed);
"science isn't the problem, humans are"
logically imply (like you claimed);
"if there were ...[text shortened]... cience' "
?

P.S. your "incomplete sentence" crap is not an answer. Just answer the question.

Just answer the question.

Why?

Originally posted by @humy
then...what?

How does;
"there would be [b]no science if there were no humans"
logically imply
"there would be science if there were no humans"
? ( if that is what you are saying? )

And how does;
"science isn't the problem, humans are"
logically imply
"if there were no humans there would still be this thing we call 'science' "
?[/b]

How does;
"there would be no science if there were no humans"
logically imply
"there would be science if there were no humans"
? ( if that is what you are saying? )

H-o-l-y c-r-a-p! That's not even close.
If you're going to over think this you could at least try to remember what I was saying. You seem entirely focused on what was meant to be an opening rhetorical question. It's obvious what you mean to convey with the statement "science isn't the problem, humans are". You wish to separate (in the mind of the reader) damage humans can and will do from any science complicit in carrying out (bringing to fruition) that damage.

In other words:
Science = good/neutral
Humans = bad

I don't necessarily disagree with this, except for the somewhat odd appearance of you coming across as a science apologist. But there is no reason to defend something that is not inherently good or bad. In fact, it can actually be counter productive to your purpose... defending something that doesn't need defending can raise the suspicion that something is there needing a defense.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
[b]Just answer the question.

Why?[/b]

I answered yours, isn't it fair you answer mine? Why do you refuse?

Originally posted by @humy
I answered yours, isn't it fair you answer mine? Why do you refuse?

I just did.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
I just did.

No, you didn't. A stupid incomplete sentence isn't an answer and neither I nor anyone else that read your posts no matter how intelligent they are, have any idea what you were implying because you explained nothing and talk nonsense. Why don't you just explicitly say what you mean instead of this stupid word-play? -no 'implying' or stupid "incomplete sentence" or stupid vague hints (and so vague in this case as to be completely meaningless) ; just say clearly and directly and explicitly what you mean. I did so, with my answer of "yes" to your question; so why don't you have the decency and fairness to give a simple straight answer to mine? Perhaps because you have no answer because you don't know what you are talking about and don't want to admit that? -what other reason?

My as-yet unanswered question to you was;

How does (like I claimed);
"science isn't the problem, humans are"
logically imply (like you claimed);
"if there were no humans there would still be this thing we call 'science' "
?