Jeremiah

I think some of you are not getting it. There is only one purposed chance event. It does not loop back on itself, it is not a circle and, as long as y...

You don't have to read my posts, or my threads; that was your choice and in no way did I coerce or force you to do so.

0% is not a possible outcome for the answer, therefore it cannot be chosen. Furthermore you are not wrong until after the chance event. The idea that ...

The problem as I see is that the outcome changes the solution and I not sure if I would consider that truly circular.

0% is not a possible outcome, which means there is a 0% chance of it being 0%.

There are four possible outcomes. That part never changes. The fact that two of the possible outcomes contain the same values does not change that the...

If someone cannot differentiate between a lover of truth and a lover of opinion then they don't pay enough attention to the people around them. The ti...

I am OK with that.

If you follow truth it heads your path, you seek to follow it. However, if you follow self then you seek to have truth follow you and you may end up t...

There are no such things as "scientific truths". This was already addressed in this thread, I suggest you actually read it.

Well, at least there is some discussion happening, but I know it does not last, and people soon will be wrapping themselves deep in their own self. I ...

Then we can only do our best, which means being informed as much as we can.

I am sorry, but you are clearly nothing but a troll.

I disagree, I don't think it is important, and it only leads to people overly using quotation marks. What is important is that people put in the time ...

That part I don't care about, as it is a pointless argument. What's important is that people put in the effort to become informed.

I clearly said just a few post up: "Science can never gives us truth, as it was never designed for such a task." In science your aim should never be t...

I did not confuse facts and truth in the OP, and if you check there was a mistype in the post you just quoted; you were just faster on the reply than ...

I have no confusion of what facts are but I don't really feel like haggling over it. However, I would like to point out that facts are not the only co...

Science can never gives us truth, as it was never designed for such a task; however, it can give us the tools to narrow our aim closer to the mark. Th...

That is not true, but you are just too busy trolling to see it. I am sorry my views offend you.

I agree with that.

Yet the only thing I have seen you post in this thread are insults. So I can only assume you don't want me to take you seriously.

Let me know when you figure out what truth is.

The only reason to snarl at science is because accepting it would challenge an indulgence into the subjective. If that is the case then you do not pur...

I never said science was suited for every task.

I am sure you believe that distinction is important, however, I don't.

Why do some of you seem so resistance to the central role science plays in the pursuit of truth? Even the religious crowd sees its immense importance.

How so?

Some see the whole thing as the same path.

Perhaps some just move on to science and make contributions that they feel are most important.

You really seem to be offended by this notion of lovers of opinions and lovers of truth. Worry you don't meet my standards?

I would like to point out that without science these forums would have never existed. Science is an essential tool.

I never said philosophy requires a love of science over a love of opinion. I never said anything at all about a love of science, that was your additio...

Some of my goals are very easy to satisfy while others take a lot of work. Although, I am not sure why you'd think I find that offensive.

I saw a valuable discussion that was not going to happen because the other thread was closed, and I intended to make it happen. It seems I was success...

I am already familiar with strsplit, that's what I was intending to use to split them into separate columns if I had to. I was just wondering if there...

Thanks, I'll start reading.

I feel I have been clear about the nature of lovers of truth and lovers of opinion. However, I have no intention of spending time trying to determine ...

It is gun violence data, and the values in each observation is formatted as such: 0::Female||1::Male||2::Male||3::Male The number indicates the partic...

Well I appreciate the input thus far, perhaps you could help with a dilemma in another data set I am looking at.

Ya, I used R Markdown, which allows you to add in Latex code. Then I exported to a Word Doc, but when hosting a Word Doc on Google Drive, for reasons ...

It was written with Latex.

There are lovers of truth and there are lovers of opinion. Most people are lovers of opinion, they indulge in the self; however, philosophers are love...

These all roads lead to one arguments are very common, and I suppose there are several reasons people like to sell this position, but the truth is all...

So, philosophy is "highly individualistic" except in cases when you decide someone is "purify it"? Promoting deep immersion into subjectivity then rej...

I don't keep such lists and it is the lovers of opinion that are limiting themselves. The very nature of overindulgence in subjectivity is to limit ev...

I have no idea what that means. Was I not suppose to share my thoughts?

I think a characteristics of bad philosophy is over generalizations and giving up before before even trying. Always seeking the middle of the road, an...

No one is suggesting "one single model" for anything; however, if your statement is that there is bad philosophy then you must have reasons for thinki...

So then you are in agreement with HexHammer. There is good and there is bad philosophy.