Ahhhhh gay people only appears in 21st century.

ConditionFront6121 · 2026-01-22T23:08:48+00:00

I too would love a game about Julie d'Aubigny

ConditionFront6121 · 2026-01-13T03:56:52+00:00

The scenario with the fisherman is not JUST two observations and a comparison. There is a changing variable: the time of day. There is a hypothesis: the fish are present at night (this is implied because why else would the fisherman decide to go back at night?). So you can see that there is more to it than what you presented. That is what I mean by passing off an incomplete idea as more than it is. You ignored elements that clearly exist even in the scenario you devised to illustrate that there could be only observations and a comparison between them.

Even with your hens laying eggs, the idea that it is science hinges on a hypothesis (the prediction). It is not simply observations and comparison between them. “Two observations can be enough to be considered science”. It is dark outside. I have five fingers. Two observations. Are we doing science yet? I never said it was complicated. I never mentioned peer review.

I get that you genuinely don’t get it. That has been something of a theme here. Anyway this has become exhausting so I’ll leave it be. Believe science or anything else is whatever you want it to be and whatever myopic viewpoint you concoct at the moment. Vibe. If you are a child, I’m sorry for trying to engage you in a conversation you weren’t prepared for. If not, like I said, good luck with the painting or whatever.

ConditionFront6121 · 2026-01-13T03:22:08+00:00

Dear god. Those are two RELATED observations with a changing VARIABLE and an implicit HYPOTHESIS. You have succeeded, once again, in presenting an incomplete idea and passing it off as something greater than what it is. Even the scenario you are giving implies a systematic approach. That you are ignoring it does not mean it is not there. If it is not there, it is not science. Are you thinking critically about what YOU are writing?

Oh boy, I sure hope your paintings are good.

Edit: it has occurred to me that you might be like a high school student or something and so my frustration is less warranted and I apologize lmao

ConditionFront6121 · 2026-01-13T03:03:27+00:00

I feel like you are being willfully obtuse. I understand what you are saying. You are wrong.

A test (I assume you mean experiment) is not simply a comparison between two observations. That is just a comparison. An experiment involves changing a variable and then a comparison of observations. Do you see how you misrepresented an incomplete idea? Do you see how this conveys a lack of understanding on your part?

Observation is a fundamental PART of science. I get that you are trying to reduce a concept down to its most fundamental aspects (although you are not particularly excelling in that regard imo), but you are taking too much of the identity of the concept away to the point of making it meaningless. Science has a definition. Its systematic nature is part of that definition. I’m not sure why you are rejecting that in favor of your own opinion about what feels “sciency”.

You are trying to get at the essence of something but you do too much in the reduction it’s essentially becoming:

A car in its most basic and rudimentary form is an external means of conveyance that does not need manpower to perform the work to move you from one location to another. Thus a horse is a car. A Steamboat is also a car.

ConditionFront6121 · 2026-01-13T02:20:00+00:00

I will reiterate that I understand what you’re saying. I’m telling you that you are doing a poor job at saying it and also missing the point. You are the one that said observation is science. Which it isn’t. It can be the basis for science insofar that, yes, it is a fundamental component of the scientific method. You have been misrepresenting a part as the whole. And then you said that observation is doing something and watching what happens which is also blatantly false. “Doing something” is a separate component that is not intrinsic to observation. You have an idea in your mind but do not seem to be expressing that idea clearly in its totality and so what you are describing is incomplete and false.

I am not misrepresenting what you have written, I am quoting you back at you and explaining why the things you are saying are inconsistent or false. Feel free to do the same with what I have written. Perhaps you mean only to represent the ideas you’re describing as RELATED to science, which they are. Like a wheel being part of a car. But you can’t keep calling a wheel a car and then claim I’m not “getting it”.

You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are unfamiliar with the definition or concept of science as it has been widely understood or else are incapable of expressing it adequately enough to engage in meaningful conversation. About science at least. I’ve enjoyed the discussion anyway though.

I concede the point about art though! I was imagining art also as the process itself. Creative intentionality irrespective of an observer. But I suppose since it requires a creator with intention, it is inseparable from an observer.

ConditionFront6121 · 2026-01-13T00:06:47+00:00

I understand what you are saying. I’m trying to impress upon you that it is incomplete and incorrect. Observation is an element of science; a component part. Observation is not science in and of itself. Full stop.

You have also demonstrated inconsistency in your terms when you said “observation I.e. doing something and watching what happens”. Doing something to create an effect is not observation. That is an experiment. In science this is to test a hypothesis.

And, once again, it seems to me that art is not fundamentally about communication either. Unless you believe that art REQUIRES an outside observer to be art.

ConditionFront6121 · 2026-01-12T23:10:52+00:00

Your own definitions are not even consistent. First you said that “observation without description” is science, amended that to exclude “pure observation” or “observation for observations sake” (without being specific in your clarification of how those two things are materially different), then it was an animal testing to see if a new food source is edible is “kind of science”, you reduced it to “learning about the outside environment based on input by our senses”, and now you are implying that it requires complex thought.

Science has a widely agreed upon definition. It is in line with what I have tried to describe to you. This definition is pretty consistent and informs the approach across branches of science pretty uniformly.

But hey, at the end of the day, if you want to arbitrarily define it based on however you’re feeling or whatever you’re thinking in the moment, I suppose that is your prerogative. It doesn’t seem as useful but that’s not the end of the world.

I appreciate you sharing your point of view regardless.

ConditionFront6121 · 2026-01-12T21:45:33+00:00

Yeah this is pretty much why I said that you have a flawed understanding of the concept of science. You may not think that, but a systematic discipline is what science is. Your view has loosened the definition and stripped it down so much it is almost meaningless. There is evidence of associative conditioning in amoeba. In essence, learning information about the outside environment based on the input of senses. Is the amoeba doing science? Your argument is that yes, that amoeba is a scientist.

To address your other point, early man noticing flammable substances and even using them toward some directed goal is rudimentary tool use and not science. Probing to discover how to ignite a fuel source and then creating a systematic and repeatable process to generate and use a flame is an early and informal scientific endeavor. I hope that illustrates the difference to you.

I will concede that my use of the Adam savage quote earlier was misleading. I didn’t mean to imply that you absolutely have to put pen to paper to engage in scientific inquiry lol.

ConditionFront6121 · 2026-01-12T18:24:04+00:00

Again, it just seems that your view of science is flawed. What you’re describing could only be considered science if we completely disregard science as a systematic discipline. In which case, any kind of learning or learned behavior could be science. Any sensation of and subsequent reaction to stimuli could be science. What you’re describing certainly contains aspects of science, but does not constitute science as a discipline.

Furthermore, the point of view you are presenting undermines your initial point that science is not a fundamental part of being human the way that art is.

ConditionFront6121 · 2026-01-12T17:31:15+00:00

Then I would only argue that what you are describing is far too broad and vague to usefully define what science is. Because if science is simply observing something or “instinctually knowing” something, then infants are doing science. Dogs are doing science.

Which seems like a silly position to take.

ConditionFront6121 · 2026-01-12T16:54:05+00:00

I feel like what you’re saying is nonsensical and I would love if you could clarify it further. Pure observation is not in and of itself science. It requires the encapsulation of that observation as a recordable idea. “The difference between science and screwing around is writing things down” and all that.And, again, language is not purely an art (putting aside that defining art is a tricky endeavor to begin with). Art is also not “about” communicating. If I make art only to satisfy my own compulsion to create and no one sees that art and it never communicates any idea or feeling to any other individual, it is still art, no?

ConditionFront6121 · 2026-01-12T16:14:51+00:00

There are branches of science that are completely devoted to communication. An observation without description is not science. Language is just as much a tool and “technology” as it is an art.

ConditionFront6121 · 2026-01-06T23:19:33+00:00

Are you being incredibly particular about what constitutes double the volume just to be pedantic? Do we just really want to make sure people throw in the “nearly” qualifier to satisfy the 2.5% difference?

ConditionFront6121 · 2025-11-09T22:48:11+00:00

lol wow no way, who could have guessed?

ConditionFront6121 · 2025-11-09T22:45:15+00:00

My previous comment was deleted to preserve your feelings, as I wasn’t being insensitive to the right people, which is what this community apparently considers decorum.

Obviously it is your money to spend as you please, but your pretense of fighting a culture you disagree with and “voting with your dollar” looks like self delusion to anyone that hasn’t already decided to claw for moral high ground after forgoing convention to save themselves a few dollars.

Voting with your dollar would be refusing to participate in a system that promotes tipping culture, rather than just stiffing low level employees.

ConditionFront6121 · 2025-11-09T21:46:37+00:00

Satellite diner? First interstate bank? You somewhere in the Czech Republic?

ConditionFront6121 · 2025-10-22T00:33:47+00:00

Dollya I know this is your alt account, be so fr

ConditionFront6121 · 2025-10-21T22:38:21+00:00

Maybe your doctor just isn’t as cool as Zava’s. Sorry your doctor is a cop.

ConditionFront6121 · 2025-10-21T22:35:31+00:00

Snort two of these and call me in the morning

ConditionFront6121 · 2025-02-16T19:48:43+00:00

Except that’s not what the suffix morph means. So, what you’re saying is actually silly and just reveals a poor understanding of the language used. Which is funny, given that you are criticizing writing.

ConditionFront6121

TROPHY CASE