Liverpool FC Forum

by **Sabre** » Thu May 31, 2007 9:55 am

It basically says a theory is a formal statement of rules which is used to explain an opinion.

Which basically means an opinion remains an opinion until it is proven and backed by concrete evidence. Then it can be said to be a theory --> law ---> fact.

Yes, you are right. Basically. Very Basically if you ask me. It's true that it's an important academic concept, computer scientists, math gurus and other scientist use hypothesis all the time to prove something, or to prove it's false. Both by reaching an absurdity or by induction.

In that sense, a theory is indeed formal set of rules, and by formal it means not SERIOUS but formal in a math way.

So that definition of that dictionary is incomplete, because both the word ┵ (greek for theory that's where it comes from) and hypothesis, which comes from latin hypothĕsis and this from the greek. have other meanings, and if you pick a decent and true dictionary and not one aimed to secondary school students, you'll check that.

And if you check the etimology of the word and one serious dic one of the meanings of the word theory, is "one or more hypothesis that is applied to a topic". The definition of theory in your dictionary is more mathematic, but it's really un-rigurous. Granted, I don't know if English language got the word from latin in ONE of it's meaning only, I'm talkin about Spanish etimology and meaning for "hypothesis" and "theory". Anyhow, I'd be surprised that "advanced learner dic" is the most serious one you can get.

So in this case I approach more Lando's position about how he uses theory and hypothesis, because we're not trying to prove anything mathematically but talking about football.

My 2 cents, anyway.

P.S. Sorry the forum doesn't accept greek characters and it messed up :laugh:

by **account deleted by request** » Thu May 31, 2007 10:00 am

by **Sabre** » Thu May 31, 2007 10:09 am

So this thead has already, Football, Spats, Pórn, a banned WUM, and a discussion about meaning of words.

It's clear we'll miss Alonso if he goes, what a thread.

by **66-1112520797** » Thu May 31, 2007 10:15 am

Sabre wrote:So this thead has already, Football, Spats, Pórn, a banned WUM, and a discussion about meaning of words.

It's clear we'll miss Alonso if he goes, what a thread.

Do you think we can add anything else in this thread? I heard Black was the new White in the world fashion recently.

by **Sabre** » Thu May 31, 2007 10:20 am

Bamaga man wrote:
Sabre wrote:So this thead has already, Football, Spats, Pórn, a banned WUM, and a discussion about meaning of words.

It's clear we'll miss Alonso if he goes, what a thread.

Do you think we can add anything else in this thread? I heard Black was the new White in the world fashion recently.

Yes, this thread also has a Welsh Wizzard prediction I think.

We could add a mod dishing out yellow cards. I'd happily get one for fun. THis is not serious anyway.

by **Scottbot** » Thu May 31, 2007 10:23 am

This thread's gone to rat :censored:

is where it's gone. Nice one lads, fascinating stuff this and a triffic read :no

by **112-1077774096** » Thu May 31, 2007 11:22 am

Scottbot wrote:This thread's gone to rat is where it's gone. Nice one lads, fascinating stuff this and a triffic read

cheers we try our best, no football to entertain so us so lets have a big ruck

by **Lando_Griffin** » Thu May 31, 2007 11:49 am

GunGod wrote:
Lando_Griffin wrote:
GunGod wrote:
Lando_Griffin wrote:
A "Hypothesis" (Which is basically another term for a theory)...

AHHAHAH WAHAHAHA ROFL! ROFL!

THEY ARE NOT EVEN THE SAME IF NOT ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IN MEANING.

Have you even checked your dictionary? This sentence of yours absolutely contradicts the purpose of having the two separate terms 'hypothesis' and 'theory'.

I couldn't even believe you said that.

So much for being a 'highly qualified English teacher'!!!!

I rest my case with you.

----------------------------------------------------

P.S.

Lando: "THEN try and f*cking condescend to me, you arrogant tw*t. :"

With that statement of yours I guess I can be condescending to you anytime, mate. You just keep exposing your flaws everytime you reply to me

Bow down to me, ignoramus:

Suck my balls, c*nt
Check out the little bit that says "Definition".

Oh - the joys of proving a mouthy little tw*t wrong.

Hhahahahahah!

Did I just see someone use a thesaurus for looking up on the meaning of words???

You are such an absolute joke mate. You just keep on and on and on making a fool of yourself each time you try to prove yourself.

Why don't you check out a proper online dictionaryinstead?

Check this out: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=82359&dict=CALD

It basically says a theory is a formal statement of rules which is used to explain an opinion.

Which basically means an opinion remains an opinion until it is proven and backed by concrete evidence. Then it can be said to be a theory --> law ---> fact.

And don't even try to worm your way out by saying 'theory' can be used in various ways, for what we are contesting ultimately, is the usage of the word 'fact' which you amusingly challenged others without even a good comprehension of what it means. If you want to talk about 'facts', talk about it in the scientific understanding. Don't bullsh!t that theory = hypothesis/opinion/guess.

In the academic world 'theory' is a serious word. But from your clueless usage of selected words I guess you are nothing but just a layman who makes educated guesses but ultimately doesn't know what he's talking about.

'Hypothesis' and 'theory', while not in absolute terms, share a relationship not unlike 'raw' and 'cooked'. While they might be the same piece of meat they are vastly different in composition.

Now Lando, let's just hear you say 'raw' and 'cooked' basically means the same thing.

WAHAHAHAH.

------------------------------------------------------

P.S. Given your crude nature in the forums it wouldn't be surprising you eat all your meat raw. That's why you can't differentiate well

AHHAHAA.

Shan't waste anymore time on you. Thks for all the laughter.

You really don't get it, do you?

Check out the past couple of pages - I posted the meanings up - one from a thesaurus, the other from a dictionary.

Since when did you say "Only in their scientific terms"? - You did not. Hence why I used my obviously superior knowledge of the English language to render your arguement void.

The comparison of "raw and cooked meat" is the joke, not me.

The opposite (which is what you are suggesting) would be "Thesis and Anti-thesis".

Now go and get a proper education, numbskull.

by **GunGod** » Thu May 31, 2007 1:50 pm

Lando_Griffin wrote:
GunGod wrote:
Lando_Griffin wrote:
GunGod wrote:
Lando_Griffin wrote:
A "Hypothesis" (Which is basically another term for a theory)...

AHHAHAH WAHAHAHA ROFL! ROFL!

THEY ARE NOT EVEN THE SAME IF NOT ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IN MEANING.

Have you even checked your dictionary? This sentence of yours absolutely contradicts the purpose of having the two separate terms 'hypothesis' and 'theory'.

I couldn't even believe you said that.

So much for being a 'highly qualified English teacher'!!!!

I rest my case with you.

----------------------------------------------------

P.S.

Lando: "THEN try and f*cking condescend to me, you arrogant tw*t. :"

With that statement of yours I guess I can be condescending to you anytime, mate. You just keep exposing your flaws everytime you reply to me

Bow down to me, ignoramus:

Suck my balls, c*nt
Check out the little bit that says "Definition".

Oh - the joys of proving a mouthy little tw*t wrong.

Hhahahahahah!

Did I just see someone use a thesaurus for looking up on the meaning of words???

You are such an absolute joke mate. You just keep on and on and on making a fool of yourself each time you try to prove yourself.

Why don't you check out a proper online dictionaryinstead?

Check this out: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=82359&dict=CALD

It basically says a theory is a formal statement of rules which is used to explain an opinion.

Which basically means an opinion remains an opinion until it is proven and backed by concrete evidence. Then it can be said to be a theory --> law ---> fact.

And don't even try to worm your way out by saying 'theory' can be used in various ways, for what we are contesting ultimately, is the usage of the word 'fact' which you amusingly challenged others without even a good comprehension of what it means. If you want to talk about 'facts', talk about it in the scientific understanding. Don't bullsh!t that theory = hypothesis/opinion/guess.

In the academic world 'theory' is a serious word. But from your clueless usage of selected words I guess you are nothing but just a layman who makes educated guesses but ultimately doesn't know what he's talking about.

'Hypothesis' and 'theory', while not in absolute terms, share a relationship not unlike 'raw' and 'cooked'. While they might be the same piece of meat they are vastly different in composition.

Now Lando, let's just hear you say 'raw' and 'cooked' basically means the same thing.

WAHAHAHAH.

------------------------------------------------------

P.S. Given your crude nature in the forums it wouldn't be surprising you eat all your meat raw. That's why you can't differentiate well

AHHAHAA.

Shan't waste anymore time on you. Thks for all the laughter.

You really don't get it, do you?

Check out the past couple of pages - I posted the meanings up - one from a thesaurus, the other from a dictionary.

Since when did you say "Only in their scientific terms"? - You did not. Hence why I used my obviously superior knowledge of the English language to render your arguement void.

The comparison of "raw and cooked meat" is the joke, not me.

The opposite (which is what you are suggesting) would be "Thesis and Anti-thesis".

Now go and get a proper education, numbskull.

So I see absolutely no argument against my post except for you citing your previous post which is already invalid.

So by saying "using my obviously superior knowledge of the English language" is all you can pathetically offer to convince us?

You truly live in your own deluded world. Not only is it not superior, this statement is just an thorough example of your unlimitedly bloated ego.

And also, I mentioned "in scientific understanding" because you, of all people, demanded 'facts'. .Your post from a dictionary simply reinforced my point. That what you deem as facts (theory) is simply opinions, nothing more. For according to your chosen definition theories need not be proven, then how on earth could they ever become the "facts" that you have so demanded in this thread? E.G. A certain individual's theory is that the Earth is flat. So according to you we should all just believe that its a fact then because he need not prove it?

Granted, while the word 'theory' might be used in various ways, but since you have demanded for 'facts', certainly a layman's understanding of a 'theory' (which is what your chosen definition implies) does not suit the context of your argument.

Mate, facts are not something you make up yourself. You have to prove them. Any sort of your supposed "theories" which are not proven, or which can be disputed validly, are relegated as "subjective opinions".

Take this case in point. You said

"Xabi is the only member of our squad able to regularly dictate the tempo of a game, and allow the team to play to it's strengths. FACT."

Now is this not disputable? Is it not only a subjective opinion? You said Alonso is the only one. Well others might feel that Gerrard is another who can regularly dictate the tempo of a game. See? Without any credible yardstick of judgement as to who performs on a more consistent basis what you said is hardly facts, it just what you think.

You said "Xabi is the brain on the pitch". Well, anyone could also say "No, I disagree" and mention that Carra is the brain because his cultured positioning and presence behind Alonso allowed him to spray his passes with confidence and jump into tackles with the knowledge that someone is behind him. There again, we see what you said is not a fact, but an opinion.

-------------------------------------------------------

I don't understand how someone could make statements that were obviously wrong in context yet unabashedly tries to put others down. We are not even seeking an apology from you, just a simple recognition that you are not right all the time.

It takes a man to do that, and I hope you do behave like one.

-------------------------------------------------------

And btw my young, young Lando. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Try to understand what it means by "hypothesis" before you even try to cite stuff like "thesis" and "anti-thesis".

For after this thread we already know of your distinct tendency to cite words which you do not fully comprehend.

So for now, just stick to your raw meat ya?

by **Sabre** » Thu May 31, 2007 1:55 pm

babu wrote:LOCK THIS THREAD PLEASE MODS

I agree.

Not that I'm outraged, but if this is let opened, it can get as big as the Real World thread, would be some sort like the "Newkit arena" that failed to exist some weeks ago.

by **Ciggy** » Thu May 31, 2007 2:02 pm

Fuckinell bring back scouse and I dont mean the meal either.

by **GunGod** » Thu May 31, 2007 2:03 pm

Sabre wrote:
It basically says a theory is a formal statement of rules which is used to explain an opinion.

Which basically means an opinion remains an opinion until it is proven and backed by concrete evidence. Then it can be said to be a theory --> law ---> fact.

Yes, you are right. Basically. Very Basically if you ask me. It's true that it's an important academic concept, computer scientists, math gurus and other scientist use hypothesis all the time to prove something, or to prove it's false. Both by reaching an absurdity or by induction.

In that sense, a theory is indeed formal set of rules, and by formal it means not SERIOUS but formal in a math way.

So that definition of that dictionary is incomplete, because both the word ┵ (greek for theory that's where it comes from) and hypothesis, which comes from latin hypothĕsis and this from the greek. have other meanings, and if you pick a decent and true dictionary and not one aimed to secondary school students, you'll check that.

And if you check the etimology of the word and one serious dic one of the meanings of the word theory, is "one or more hypothesis that is applied to a topic". The definition of theory in your dictionary is more mathematic, but it's really un-rigurous. Granted, I don't know if English language got the word from latin in ONE of it's meaning only, I'm talkin about Spanish etimology and meaning for "hypothesis" and "theory". Anyhow, I'd be surprised that "advanced learner dic" is the most serious one you can get.

So in this case I approach more Lando's position about how he uses theory and hypothesis, because we're not trying to prove anything mathematically but talking about football.

My 2 cents, anyway.

P.S. Sorry the forum doesn't accept greek characters and it messed up

I absolutely understand where you are coming from Sabre.

In a sense you also backed me up a bit there. For here's a question:

Since Lando's understanding of "theory" is hardly "mathematical/rigourous", do you not agree that he cannot declare the observations he had mentioned (e.g. "Xabi is the brain on the pitch) as a fact?

by **Sabre** » Thu May 31, 2007 2:07 pm

Yes Gungod, you're right there.

But we all know Lando, he's an old poster. He made the valid and good footie points pages and pages ago. Now he's in his rant/vehement mode, and I don't take literally his words now. It's a classic Lando mode in which words like spunk, donkey, shít, orgasm, dick, and raped appear often.

So yes, some of the facts that Lando pointed out in this last pages cannot be considered like that.

by **GRIMM599** » Thu May 31, 2007 2:14 pm

The Keyboard Warriors are going to war!

by **Igor Zidane** » Thu May 31, 2007 2:18 pm

Is this a LFC footy forum or is this the oxbridge debating society.

Hypothesis - theory or fact.

Liverpool FC Forum

Would we really miss alonso? - Xabi swap deal

Who is online