Mayne, this shit is frustrating, it's disappointing and it's fucking sad.
Ish has been asked at least twice on the main pod, by Marc, if he knew enough scientifically to really discuss and debate the "Flat Earth" fallacy.
And each time he answered, "no." And they switched topics........
But since that last time it was addressed, especially since Wiz was on the pod, Ish gets caught up talking about this shit.
I compare it to, if I said, "A potato is a fruit, not a vegetable." And if someone asked, "Do know you know scientifically to discuss the difference between fruits and vegetables?" I say, " No."
But now every week I'm still saying, "But that doesn't change the fact that a potato is a fruit."
My G, you exited the "debate ring" 2 times!
Why do you keep walking into the arena, down the aisle and stand up on the apron against the ropes?!
You already admitted you can not get into the ring to box it out, you do not have the knowledge to do so!! Just stop it
To be fair, neither does Marc and he's said as much.
Assuming Ish and Ice are being sincere, their stance has been pervious theories have been proven to be incorrect or built on in the past. Why they won't move on to a different example is beyond me. I don't recall either outright saying the Earth is flat which makes this even dumber. It does give the impression that you do believe the Earth to be flat.
Honestly, I think it's just Ish's ego. He doesn't want the world to think Marc is smarter than him. The problem is Marc is clearly more articulent than Ish. The more articulent person will always look/sound smarter even if they aren't anymore knowledgeable on the subject or outright wrong. When Ish initially joined, being seen as the articulent elder is what he had going for him. It's been a long time since most have thought of him as library.
Ish is the guy who was a star basketball player in a small town or cute girl. You go to AAU and see real competitors. If he somehow makes it to college, he really gets a reality check and if he can't develop his game he never makes it to the NBA. Maybe Ish never ran in circles where he had to mentally grow. Whereas Marc has been speaking at high levels for years. In a fucked up way Joe attempted to tell Ish there were levels and both Umar and Marc are showing him.
Assuming Ish and Ice are being sincere, their stance has been pervious theories have been proven to be incorrect or built on in the past. Why they won't move on to a different example is beyond me. I don't recall either outright saying the Earth is flat which makes this even dumber. It does give the impression that you do believe the Earth to be flat.
Honestly, I think it's just Ish's ego. He doesn't want the world to think Marc is smarter than him. The problem is Marc is clearly more articulent than Ish. The more articulent person will always look/sound smarter even if they aren't anymore knowledgeable on the subject or outright wrong. When Ish initially joined, being seen as the articulent elder is what he had going for him. It's been a long time since most have thought of him as library.
Ish is the guy who was a star basketball player in a small town or cute girl. You go to AAU and see real competitors. If he somehow makes it to college, he really gets a reality check and if he can't develop his game he never makes it to the NBA. Maybe Ish never ran in circles where he had to mentally grow. Whereas Marc has been speaking at high levels for years. In a fucked up way Joe attempted to tell Ish there were levels and both Umar and Marc are showing him.
Ish is definitely no longer "Library." And you're correct, that hurts his ego. He has X years in construction/ business and does however many other pods and gets his points off on those pretty much with full agreement and no push back
Yet now on the pod he's "lil bro."..... it may be hard for him to be comfortable in his new role
Either, Joe will remove his ego, an possibly ignore Ish/Ices and continue to highlight Marc. Maybe add another pod to the JBN (NOT Night School, that may be tooooo controversial/ pushing the boundaries for JBN)......
OR
Joe continues to let this ride as engagement/ impressions stay high, Ish and Ice (and probably Mel) will complain behind the scenes and maybe moreso on the main pod and Joe just let's Marc's contract lapse with no renewal to keep the peace on the pod.....
But if Marc and Joe plays this right, Marc could possibly be the person to help Joe fall back from being in front of the camera (as much, not completely) and free up time to really push the JBN and get other things going.
Forgive me if a repost but this light skin nigga on the JBP gets on my FUCKIN nerves...
Here he makes a dumbass statement, Marc Lamont Hill tries to respond and correct him, then his sensitive ass rolls his eyes then tries to get up and walk away mid conversation.
Forgive me if a repost but this light skin nigga on the JBP gets on my FUCKIN nerves...
Here he makes a dumbass statement, Marc Lamont Hill tries to respond and correct him, then his sensitive ass rolls his eyes then tries to get up and walk away mid conversation.
Forgive me if a repost but this light skin nigga on the JBP gets on my FUCKIN nerves...
Here he makes a dumbass statement, Marc Lamont Hill tries to respond and correct him, then his sensitive ass rolls his eyes then tries to get up and walk away mid conversation.
Im going to disagree. In the context of the discussion, Ish is right. At somepoint in history, this was considered to be a scientific truth regardless of the size of the community or how short lived it may have been which went on for decades. That was Ish's main point. Marc is using a technicality to win the argument. The legitimacy of the science is irrelevant to the larger discussion. The fact that we learned the truth due to better science further proves both of their arguments. Scientific theories are changed or invalidated and it's typically done by rigorous scientific studies.
I would agree with Marc if this was quickly dismissed in scientific circles and only the author believed this, but it was labeled a pseudoscience after more data/ research of brain function by others was proven
Just so there is no confusion. Yes, Ish was being sensitive and trying to take it off camera made the situation worse. I thought it was wild Marc allegedly was just doing research on the topic recently. Being well read beats Google and AI I guess.
Im going to disagree. In the context of the discussion, Ish is right. At somepoint in history, this was considered to be a scientific truth regardless of the size of the community or how short lived it may have been which went on for decades. That was Ish's main point. Marc is using a technicality to win the argument. The legitimacy of the science is irrelevant to the larger discussion. The fact that we learned the truth due to better science further proves both of their arguments. Scientific theories are changed or invalidated and it's typically done by rigorous scientific studies.
I would agree with Marc if this was quickly dismissed in scientific circles and only the author believed this, but it was labeled a pseudoscience after more data/ research of brain function by others was proven
Just so there is no confusion. Yes, Ish was being sensitive and trying to take it off camera made the situation worse. I thought it was wild Marc allegedly was just doing research on the topic recently. Being well read beats Google and AI I guess.
Actually ish is completely wrong! And to Marc point when someone is trying to dissect what you are saying; don’t be a bitch and not listen; shit is weird! Mofo wanna say whatever he wants to say and then don’t wanna listen or let anyone else talk! Fuxk that…
Im going to disagree. In the context of the discussion, Ish is right. At somepoint in history, this was considered to be a scientific truth regardless of the size of the community or how short lived it may have been which went on for decades. That was Ish's main point. Marc is using a technicality to win the argument. The legitimacy of the science is irrelevant to the larger discussion. The fact that we learned the truth due to better science further proves both of their arguments. Scientific theories are changed or invalidated and it's typically done by rigorous scientific studies.
I would agree with Marc if this was quickly dismissed in scientific circles and only the author believed this, but it was labeled a pseudoscience after more data/ research of brain function by others was proven
Just so there is no confusion. Yes, Ish was being sensitive and trying to take it off camera made the situation worse. I thought it was wild Marc allegedly was just doing research on the topic recently. Being well read beats Google and AI I guess.
I really didn't meant for this to be this detailed / long winded.
I was really tempted to respond very aggressively, but I took a moment to capture my thoughts and research this issue.
What we have here is an example of two adults not being on the same page. At the heart of the argument (is Ish or is Marc right), is what is your definition of what a scientific theory is.
According to Dictionary .com
Scientific Theory - " a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation."
According to LiveScience .com
"A scientific theory is a structured explanation to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world that often incorporates a scientific hypothesis and scientific laws. The scientific definition of a theory contrasts with the definition most people use in casual language.
"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Emerson College in Boston. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."
So one hand the theory is substantiated by being repeated and is then widely accepted as "*true," unless better science comes along to disprove it.
On the other it is just a concept or explanation based on patterns and does not require repetition to be perceived as valid. *and again until better science comes along to disprove it.
Marc was speaking from the definition of an ST needing to be repeated and proven to be treated as true.
Almost from day 1 "phrenology" also called "cranioscopy," was treated as false because it could not be repeated. There's 4 more "principles" to what Gall stated besides the size of the skull related to intelligence.... and those ideals were challenged by other scientists and even the church.
Ish was speaking from the perspective you mentioned. Where a group, no matter the size, widely accepted it.
Gall died in 1828, but his fringe theory had followers/believers into the early 1900s. When better science proved him unquestionably wrong.
This "arguement" was a clear miscommunication. However, you have one person that is trying to understand the disconnect. However, the other person acts dismissive (rolling eyes, huffing..etc) and shuts down when challenged, instead of being able to properly communicate their pov.
Again they are operating from 2 different levels.
I think if Ish were to properly communicate his pov, "theories just need to be accepted as true by a group of people." Then he and Marc would've eventually came to the understanding that they are operating from 2 different definitions.
I really didn't meant for this to be this detailed / long winded.
I was really tempted to respond very aggressively, but I took a moment to capture my thoughts and research this issue.
What we have here is an example of two adults not being on the same page. At the heart of the argument (is Ish or is Marc right), is what is your definition of what a scientific theory is.
According to Dictionary .com
Scientific Theory - " a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation."
According to LiveScience .com
"A scientific theory is a structured explanation to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world that often incorporates a scientific hypothesis and scientific laws. The scientific definition of a theory contrasts with the definition most people use in casual language.
"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Emerson College in Boston. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."
So one hand the theory is substantiated by being repeated and is then widely accepted as "*true," unless better science comes along to disprove it.
On the other it is just a concept or explanation based on patterns and does not require repetition to be perceived as valid. *and again until better science comes along to disprove it.
Marc was speaking from the definition of an ST needing to be repeated and proven to be treated as true.
Almost from day 1 "phrenology" also called "cranioscopy," was treated as false because it could not be repeated. There's 4 more "principles" to what Gall stated besides the size of the skull related to intelligence.... and those ideals were challenged by other scientists and even the church.
Ish was speaking from the perspective you mentioned. Where a group, no matter the size, widely accepted it.
Gall died in 1828, but his fringe theory had followers/believers into the early 1900s. When better science proved him unquestionably wrong.
This "arguement" was a clear miscommunication. However, you have one person that is trying to understand the disconnect. However, the other person acts dismissive (rolling eyes, huffing..etc) and shuts down when challenged, instead of being able to properly communicate their pov.
Again they are operating from 2 different levels.
I think if Ish were to properly communicate his pov, "theories just need to be accepted as true by a group of people." Then he and Marc would've eventually came to the understanding that they are operating from 2 different definitions.
It was only a miscommunication because one adult doesn’t want to listen or adhere to another adult! And to me that’s the real issue! It’s not about what they are arguing. Why isn’t one adult willing to listen or adhere or acknowledge; but yet that same adult wants one to show them that respect. Is this is what goes on in conversations all the time! Shit is stupid…
Actually ish is completely wrong! And to Marc point when someone is trying to dissect what you are saying; don’t be a bitch and not listen; shit is weird! Mofo wanna say whatever he wants to say and then don’t wanna listen or let anyone else talk! Fuxk that…
I don't care about Ish's behavior as much as the on going discussion, but i don't disagree with your stance. In their discussion Ish isn't wrong. Marc is moving the goal post. At somepoint, it was accepted as scientific fact in some circles. To Marc's point, the methodology (if any ) of the study was questioned by others. Poor science is still science and it was rightfully proven to be not only flawed but incorrect by other scientific studies. Again, the overall discussion is basically has pervious accepted scientific theories been disproven or somehow updated after further studies. The answer is yes. All they did was change the focus from flat Earth to phrenology.
If Marc had conceded on some level and went on to inform Ish that what he was referencing was disproven, no longer considered a scientific field or whatever, that's different. Marc was attempting to completely dismiss the point using the fact. The discussion Marc was trying to continue was related but a separate discussion from the larger point they were debating.
I really didn't meant for this to be this detailed / long winded.
I was really tempted to respond very aggressively, but I took a moment to capture my thoughts and research this issue.
What we have here is an example of two adults not being on the same page. At the heart of the argument (is Ish or is Marc right), is what is your definition of what a scientific theory is.
According to Dictionary .com
Scientific Theory - " a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation."
According to LiveScience .com
"A scientific theory is a structured explanation to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world that often incorporates a scientific hypothesis and scientific laws. The scientific definition of a theory contrasts with the definition most people use in casual language.
"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Emerson College in Boston. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."
So one hand the theory is substantiated by being repeated and is then widely accepted as "*true," unless better science comes along to disprove it.
On the other it is just a concept or explanation based on patterns and does not require repetition to be perceived as valid. *and again until better science comes along to disprove it.
Marc was speaking from the definition of an ST needing to be repeated and proven to be treated as true.
Almost from day 1 "phrenology" also called "cranioscopy," was treated as false because it could not be repeated. There's 4 more "principles" to what Gall stated besides the size of the skull related to intelligence.... and those ideals were challenged by other scientists and even the church.
Ish was speaking from the perspective you mentioned. Where a group, no matter the size, widely accepted it.
Gall died in 1828, but his fringe theory had followers/believers into the early 1900s. When better science proved him unquestionably wrong.
This "arguement" was a clear miscommunication. However, you have one person that is trying to understand the disconnect. However, the other person acts dismissive (rolling eyes, huffing..etc) and shuts down when challenged, instead of being able to properly communicate their pov.
Again they are operating from 2 different levels.
I think if Ish were to properly communicate his pov, "theories just need to be accepted as true by a group of people." Then he and Marc would've eventually came to the understanding that they are operating from 2 different definitions.
I mostly agree with you. However, if Ish is basically saying society believed/accepted something as scientific fact, then Marc would technically be right. To your point, that would be a better argument for Ish, but it wouldn't hold up to Marc's point. Marc has been clear in pretty much your description of the way scientific theories are proven.
Clearly there are people who really believe the Earth to be flat. These people likely just believe the false or non scientific facts they've heard to support their beliefs. To your and Marc point, there is a methodology that needs to be followed to prove a scientific theory. Truthfully though, most of us trust what we've been told and haven't as much as read the studies let alone tested them. Yes, there maybe a miscommunication, but I also believe Marc is still splitting hairs here in the greater discussion.
I feel Ish. Having degrees in itself doesn't make you smart across the board. You know what you know, but outside of that they're no better than others. Someone that knows a little about a lot with a good handle on the English language and some debate skills can get their point across just as well as the person with degrees. Now, sometimes Ish ends up in a loop where he's attempting to defend his opinion when the other party is speaking from a factual POV. But I don't think that's him getting shit on.
I feel Ish. Having degrees in itself doesn't make you smart across the board. You know what you know, but outside of that they're no better than others. Someone that knows a little about a lot with a good handle on the English language and some debate skills can get their point across just as well as the person with degrees. Now, sometimes Ish ends up in a loop where he's attempting to defend his opinion when the other party is speaking from a factual POV. But I don't think that's him getting shit on.
I feel Ish. Having degrees in itself doesn't make you smart across the board. You know what you know, but outside of that they're no better than others. Someone that knows a little about a lot with a good handle on the English language and some debate skills can get their point across just as well as the person with degrees. Now, sometimes Ish ends up in a loop where he's attempting to defend his opinion when the other party is speaking from a factual POV. But I don't think that's him getting shit on.
Ish problem is he don’t listen when people disagree with him; or he don’t wanna listen. Right or wrong at least hear the person out and acknowledge you listen to them!!
Ish problem is he don’t listen when people disagree with him; or he don’t wanna listen. Right or wrong at least hear the person out and acknowledge you listen to them!!
And he's always like that, whether they're giving him their opinion or something factual. You can just see the disgust on his face when he has to listen to some shit he don't like or want to hear.
And he's always like that, whether they're giving him their opinion or something factual. You can just see the disgust on his face when he has to listen to some shit he don't like or want to hear.
