Gee, I wish I had specifically said "university professor." Oh, wait; I ing did! You're seriously a ing tool.
Not it would not. Because Chemistry and Physics both use observation and experimentation. So your statement again shows a misunderstanding of what science is. You do not need to experiment/observe using logic. Just like you don't in math. But math is very useful in science, as is logic.
Yes you did.
And I seriously said, your JC teacher.
Ya Fckn hoser.
You know you could have done a google search and figured this out already? I suspect you already have and are holding onto this so tightly b/c of the gray area you think you've found; but yea, I'll give more credence to highly trained logics teacher than to your half-ass opinion.
Literally, many people have book les that call logic a science.
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_n...=logic+science
Excellent. Your Google searches are part of your problem.
There are all kinds of les on books.
Logic is NOT a science. Your logic teacher was not trained in science. I am and continue to be everyday. I have not looked up a thing so far I don't need to. Il bet your teacher/ les used the term because he thought it carried more weight. Well the opposite is most likely true. Logic is more fundamental than science just like math is.
Explain to me what science is and how it works and you will see how you are wrong. Do a google search on what science is.
Jeez. I saw a book called The Evolution of The Car. Oh gray areas... You would never use gray areas in your argument. Go back and read how this started.
Last edited by pgardn; 09-24-2017 at 12:14 AM.
I hadn't realized you had went over my professor's resume to say what he is trained or not trained in.
What is your branch of science that you claim to be trained in?
And your summation of the link is obviously disingenous unless Amazon somehow gives you different results through your IP (which I doubt). Name the top five books listed if you want to make that an issue.
I don't care what his resume is. He is not using the word properly. I did not even look at the link. I already posited to you book les can say almost anything. It does not mean they used the practice of science correctly.I hadn't realized you had went over my professor's resume to say what he is trained or not trained in.
What is your branch of science that you claim to be trained in?
And your summation of the link is obviously disingenous unless Amazon somehow gives you different results through your IP (which I doubt). Name the top five books listed if you want to make that an issue.
Do you want me to give you another definition of science again so you can again see the difference I have explained. What is science by your understanding?
This is how terribly you argue at times.
Biochemistry.
But I read more basic Physics when not working.
What is your background in Science?
Yes I did see a book called The Evolution of The Car.
WTF does this have to do with anything besides how people use words that are really not correct in les?
I'm not a scientist, but I would doubt even all scientists even have come to a consensus on the definition of science. Granted, I would imagine there is something of a normative answer(s). What is your branch of science?
You can't mock the link based upon seeing it and also say you didn't see the link. That's called a scientific impossibility, Mr. Science. Or should I not call it that b/c I didn't use the scientific method? (A cheap way to define science, btw).
Oh I can't... mock something I have not seen.
So what does the underlined say?
Dumbass...
Well, you have a narrowly defined view of science. That's your prerogative. I've pointed out the concept held by many in academia consider logic to be a science. And I agree as it follows a structure akin to scientific processes.
Should I now use an emoticon laughing on the ground rolling or just the acronym?You can't mock the link based upon seeing it and also say you didn't see the link. That's called a scientific impossibility, Mr. Science. Or should I not call it that b/c I didn't use the scientific method? (A cheap way to define science, btw
Fck the scientific method. It's a silly general guideline... Dr. Logic Scientist
Bro, you mocked in the list and then said you didn't see the list. This isn't hard . One wonders what quality of scientist you could possibly be if you can't get this.
Must be a science!
You would do well to consider logic a science. It would help refine your argumentation into more fruitful pursuits.
Just shut the up why don't you then.
You take a class where people tell you logic is a science and then you back out after having it explained to you.
My professor... I don't give a Fck. It's incorrect and now you see it. You think you can just bluff through things. Well, you can't.
Bro
You Fckn told me what the list was. Read the underlined again.
I never claimed to look at it, I did not need to.
After all this crap you think I would take your opinion seriously...?
Good Christ...
I haven't backed out of anything, dude. I agree that logic is a science. All sciences follow strong rigors; logic is no exception.
You're spazzing much. This hardly tends to be the reaction of someone secure in his outlook.
No.
Its an opinion of a man wasting his time with a hardhead catfish.
almost forgot...
Bro.
I linked a list of books. This was your response:Jeez. I saw a book called The Evolution of The Car.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
