Leaderboard

Much like the politics section, it serves as a bug zapper light or lightning rod. It helps to draw all of these nonscience but still interesting topics that humans naturally wish to explore into one place instead of letting them infuse themselves in other harder science sections. These subjects do and will come up, and probably pretty often. Having a natural home for them allows them not to poison other areas of more focused discussion.

I agree. But that is no reason to attack science and scientists in general. I would say that the scientific method is the rational application of scientific principles to an issue or enquiry. This definition comes with several riders or notes. 1) By definition the method is a process. It does not include the generation of the issue or enquiry in the first place. That is separate and (in my view) the source of much confusion. 2) There are multiple principles. some are more important than others. The balance between these is case specific. 3) Godel's theorems tell us that, no matter how good they are, inductive processes alone cannot answer all question that can be asked of an axiomatic system. 4) So review and verification (preferably independent) is one of the most important of the scientific principles.

Hello everyone, As a 28 year old elementary school teacher, I am currently in the works of an extensive school program that educates children not only in academics, but in global environmental issues and moral values as well. As it stands, if all information proves to be true, I believe that our planet is on a path to certain doom if certain environmental issues are not addressed and seriously handled. In hopes that we are not doomed by then, I plan on helping educate the younger generation of serious environmental issues that surrounds our planet in hopes that the next generation of human beings can help find a way to save our planet. I have done research from various articles found across the web, but am interested in any other resources or issues that need to be addressed. Here is a list of some of the issues I am including: Air Pollution Water Pollution Plastic Waste Garbage and Waste Disposal Overpopulation Natural Resource Depletion Global Warming Deforestation If you have any other ideas or topics that you think the students should know about, please feel free to post your thoughts. If you have any other resources about the severity of the issue, please post them here. I greatly appreciate and value the feedback from the members of the environmental science community and want to make sure that I am doing the students justice. Thank you!

More organisms living deep in the earth by metabolizing hydrogen. Cyanobacteria show up in yet another odd place! Just ad them and stir to create an earth like environment! https://www.space.com/42001-weird-underground-microbes-aid-mars-life-search.html

The scientific method (hereafter TSM) has been traditionally defined as a single, timeless, invariant set of rules governing empirical inquiry, at least since the time of the so-called Scientific Revolution of around 400 years ago. If real, TSM would be precious indeed: it would serve to unify all the prima facie disconnected scientific disciplines (after all, it's far from obvious that anything links the activities of subatomic physicists with economists, say), it would act as the demarcation criterion to distinguish bona fide science from pseudoscience or non-science in general, and it could be appealed to in order to explain the undeniable success of the scientific enterprise. My own view is that TSM, as characterized above, does not exist. Whenever I express this view in internet chatrooms or elsewhere, the reaction from more scientifically oriented participants tends to be hostile, sometimes to an almost hysterical degree. One gets the impression these partisan footsoldiers, who by and large are not well read on the issue, feel they are confronted with a religious crackpot, Kentucky hillbilly, or else the victim of some other unidentified pathology. Then all hell breaks loose. My purpose here, then, will be to articulate the reasons why a growing number of people like myself deny the existence of the scientific method as traditionally understood. (1) First, we need to be clear about what is, and what is not, being claimed. My claim is not that science is entirely unmethodical; that scientists do not employ various methods of one kind or another. The claim, rather, is that there is no single overarching method of science; there is no unique method employed by all genuine scientists in all times, all places, and all disciplines. Of course chemists use litmus paper to detect the presence of acid, while geologists use dating techniques to determine the age of rocks, say. That said, surely no one would venture the opinion that carbon dating (for example) just is the scientific method. (2) Before setting out, we must pay careful attention to our application of the concept "method". We must agree that the concept properly applies to certain processes, quintessentially a cookbook recipe for instance (just follow the steps and voila!), and must be withheld from others which depend more on luck or creativity than rigid adherence to a set of rules; a lottery scoop or the writing of a novel, say. If the overzealous defender of science insists on applying the concept "method" no matter what, then the whole notion of a substantive "scientific method" is trivialized and we might as well stop right now and head down the pub instead for a few bevvies. (3) The reason why belief in TSM is so widespread, and unquestioningly accepted, by the populace at large I suggest is not due to any in-depth investigation conducted into the matter by John Q, but rather simply because the idea is inculcated ad nauseum on Discovery Channel showcases, introductory science textbooks, and by high school science teachers. TSM, until quite recently at least, has just been one of these background assumptions most of us simply take for granted. We've been told it is so by the right kind of people, therefore it must be so. At this point I'd suggest, unpalatable though it may seem at first blush, that for an understanding of TSM, probably the last people you'd want to consult -- with a few exceptions -- are scientists themselves. The issue of scientific methodology is what we might call a metascientific question; that is to say, a question about science as opposed to a question amenable to the techniques of science itself. I suspect this may be a hard pill for some to swallow, so let me recruit a little assistance from a man whose opinion you might be more willing to lend credence to than my own: "If you want to find out anything from the theoretical physicists about the methods they use, I advise you to stick closely to one principle: Don't listen to their words, fix your attention on their deeds." - Albert Einstein Scientists, by and large, get on with doing science: metascientific issues lie outwith their own areas of expertise. There are people, however, who devote careers to studying what it is that scientists do, including the methods they employ; these people are philosophers and historians of science, and it is to them we must turn. (4) Lack of consensus: Ask ten people about TSM and they'll probably all swear to its reality; it's unlikely that any two of them will agree on what it is though, if indeed they are able to provide a specification at all. Outstanding thinkers who have written on TSM include Descartes for whom deduction is the essence of scientific reasoning; Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and John Stuart Mill who advocate induction; William Whewell is widely credited with introducing hypothetico-deductivism as the putative method of science (note here that any talk of speculative hypotheses was anathema to inductivists such as Newton). Moving into the 20th century, Karl Popper famously espoused falsificationism as the method of science. Later, subsequent upon the so-called "historical turn" in the philosophy of science, scholars began to take a close look at what real world scientists actually do -- as opposed to the ivory tower logical idealizations of previous generations -- and in many cases came to a rather stark conclusion: there is no unique method of science. Thomas Kuhn speaks of science in terms of a series of paradigm shifts; Paul Feyerabend, somewhat scandalously, concluded from his studies of historical episodes that the only inviolable methodological precept to be found is "anything goes"! Now, lack of consensus does not necessarily imply that TSM is chimerical; it may simply be that we have not yet been able to pinpoint it. I would suggest, though, that at the very least, it ought to give pause to even the most implacable apologists of TSM. (5) The porridge test: Specifications of The Scientific Method invariably turn out to be either too hot or too cold. If the criteria specified are overly restrictive -- that experimentation, say, be a necessary component -- then it turns out that much of what we intuitively regard as good science ends up being excluded. Many scientists (Copernicus, Darwin, etc), and many areas of science (paleontology, astrophysics, etc) conduct few or no experiments; gardeners meanwhile do lots! On the other hand, overly permissive criteria -- formulate and test hypotheses, say -- leads to the unpalatable conclusion that pretty much the whole world is doing science. Who among us has never formed and tested a hypothesis? Ever misplaced your car keys? (6) A final thought for the time being, before I bore the pants off everyone. Given that "hypotheses" always seem to get a mention when the issue of TSM is broached, is the formation of a hypothesis the kind of thing you'd regard as methodical? Is there a step-by-step algorithm for constructing hypotheses? Is this not what would be more aptly described as a creative process? And surely the concepts of creativity and method are diametrically opposed to one another: the more of one, the less of the other. August Kekulé famously claimed that the ring-structure of the benzene molecule came to him in a dream of a snake eating its own tail -- hardly what might be called a methodical discovery! My denial of TSM is almost invariably met with a reaction of outrage. It does seem to me, however, if there is any impertinence at all, it arises from those who would have us believe that our finest scientific minds are little more than unthinking automata slavishly adhering to the steps of an inflexible pizza recipe. Genuises need not apply; any fool can do it! Well, if geniuses need not apply, why do we need the likes of Newton and Einstein? Comments, criticisms, corrections are all welcome. Thanks! I leave you with the thoughts of two Nobel Prize-winning scientists who have looked into the philosophical and methodological issues in science: "Scientific method is something talked about by people standing on the outside and wondering how the scientist manages to do it.... What appears to [the working scientist] as the essence of the situation is that he is not consciously following any prescribed course of action, but feels complete freedom to utilize any method or device whatever which in the particular situation before him seems likely to yield the correct answer. In his attack on his specific problem he suffers no inhibitions of precedent or authority, but is completely free to adopt any course that his ingenuity is capable of suggesting to him. No one standing on the outside can predict what the individual scientist will do or what method he will follow. In short, science is what scientists do, and there are as many scientific methods as there are individual scientists." Percy W. Bridgman -- "On Scientific Method" "I know enough about science to know that there is no such thing as a clear and universal "scientific method". All attempts to formulate one since the time of Francis Bacon have failed to capture the way that science and scientists actually work." -- Steven Weinberg (from "Facing Up", essay 4, "Confronting O'Brien")

The expression has a positive constant while the terms dependent on x are functions of \(x^2\), so they are non-negative, thus the entire expression is always positive as a function of x.

But this couldn't be. You are defining the real numbers as cuts in ... what? In the real number line. Where do those real numbers come form before you have defined them? Your definition is circular. Of course the answer is that the real numbers are cuts in the rationals. You should demand your money back from the university that sold you a course in real analysis, since you clearly didn't learn anything.

Just a thought. Emulsion paint dries because the water evaporates and that draws in heat. In principle, a sensitive thermal camera could spot the wet paint. If you chose a camera with the right spectral sensitivity and a light source of the right wavelengths, it could "see" the liquid water. You might even be able to find a setup where an IR camera could distinguish the pink paint from the white.

No, but that's a nice try a a strawman. I am stating that IQ didn't exist before someone defined the quotient (mental age / chronological age) as the intelligence quotient- abbreviated to IQ. And Binet did that- because he was paid to. Had you forgotten what you were talking about when you said this? You (like the thread) specifically referred to IQ testing.

It a bit of corroboration with Bob Woodward book "Fear" where Woodard outlines Trump's approach to dealing with accusations from women is to "deny, deny, deny and push back"Here.Trump criticized Al Franken for "fold up like a wet rag". It is both disturbing and insightful. Trump implies that Franken was weak, a "wet rag", for not pushing back and fighting his accuser while at the same time Trump is being total indifferent to whether or not Franken was guilty. It is Al Franken's failure to deny & push back Trump is mocking and not the sexual misconduct he was guilty of. Al Franken conceding to misbehavior is what Trump sees worth criticism. Whether a person is guilty or innocent Trump seems to think a strong man, which by default in Trumpism is a good man, should fight. Such views held by men with so much power is one of the reasons women do not come forward. It is sad. In resigning Franken did what I wish all guilt parties would do and Trump is mocking him for not being petulant and re-victimizing his accuser with denials and push back.

Well, in my experience it is a tactic used by students to avoid having to redo the alignment. "I mean, what is a baseline anyway?"

Right. She hoped an anonymous uncorroborated allegation would suffice on it's own. If I hadn't seen her testimony I would not have thought this was plausible from someone with a PhD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device

You have chosen an example using things that physically exist, and for which such certainty exists. But this is physics. What if this is applied to things that are somewhat less tangible? Is a concept part of reality? Like this. Unicorns can indeed be sexy, if we are talking about a concept stemming from a mythology. In fact, one could define such a creature as being sexy, since the concept is unfettered by the constraint of having to physically exist. And yet it is very useful. Thank you for confirming that truth and reality or not the same thing. He is entitled to his opinions. If it's truly unobservable then it is not measurable in any way. There's no way to test it. It's not part of science. It lies outside of the scientific methods. In my limited observation, there seems to be a strong correlation of "shut up and calculate" with experimentalists, and the opposite view with theorists (especially ones who ponder foundational issues) and insist that we must wrestle with these philosophical issues in order to do physics. But I have yet to have anyone tell me how the philosophical issues will help me align mirrors in my experiment.

So half the US is saying "Wait, let's slow down and be more thoughtful about this", but the GOP wants to move forward over those objections. Many are saying, "Stop, we don't need to rush into something so important", but the Republicans are ignoring that and are just doing what they want to do anyway. The concern is about sexual assaults, and the Republican leadership is treating this concern in the same manner that caused the concern in the first place. It's becoming more clear each day those old boys are going to ram this through despite heavy protests.

That's true in either case. The photon is absorbed and disappears. What's different is whether the electron is free or still bound. In the PEE, the electron is free. With excitation, it is still bound. Technically you can't say what is absorbing the photon (it's the whole atom), but yes, basically. A photon is absorbed and an electron is promoted to a higher energy state, and either remains there until measured (digital), or facilitates a chemical reaction (film).

Depends by what you mean by truth. Truth about the behavior of the universe? Yup. Because that's what we do — try and model the behavior of the universe. Something you can measure, and compare experiment with theory. But if you mean they tell you what reality is, then no. Science doesn't do that. There's no way to test it.

@005626f776RE Photoelectric effect is creating free electrons. Photon is completely absorbed and disappears from the system.

So you refuse to have a discussion about your stated objective. Then to hell with you.

No. Photography, either film or digital, does not rely on the PEE. Red light does not have enough energy to ionize (which is the result of the PEE), so you couldn't capture red, or infrared, in a system that relied on it. Both film and digital rely on excitation of electrons, which is possible with lower energy; in film this facilitates a chemical reaction. In digital the electrons are stored and then counted.

There is no single scientific method. That's a straw man used by anti-science hacks in order to denigrate science and try and have their own pseudoscience or ideology-masquerading-as-science placed on equal footing.

That's not why we're here, dude. The topic is The Scientific Method. Try to stay focused. (Personally, my own interest in YEC is negligible, if that's any solace to you) Now when do you intend to address these questions on scientific method that you've been evading? Want the list again?

Well, supposing what you say is true, what does this (i.e. being critical of you) have to do with "getting science right"? Want a link to the Wiki page on the irrelevance fallacy?

Er, at the risk of sounding obtuse again, why are you here? I thought the plan was that you would argue for (i.e., defend) the existence of The Scientific Method while I would argue against?

No idea where you got that from, dude. What I am doing is asking you to provide us with a set of criteria (a method!) that each and every one of us can apply in order to determine what counts as scientific evidence for/against such-and-such a claim -- whether that claim be of the Creationist variety, general relativity variety, or any other variety. Do that now, please.

@ Beecee Sorry, being a newbie here, I'm not very adept with the quote function. Bear with me. Oh, and I promise not to make any more jokes. I almost forgot myself. Frightfully sorry. The last thing this world needs is more laughter, eh? Now to your latest responses... "Yes, they [Creationists] can claim what they like, but obviously and naturally, they lack any empirical evidence supporting their mythical claims and of course plenty of empirical evidence falsifying the same myths." Now, the most obvious problem here is, I'm guessing these Creationist swine would claim to have evidence for their beliefs, as you do for your own. So do we: (1) Allow you to determine -- by fiat -- what does, and what does not, constitute evidence for or against any particular claim, or (2) Come up with a set of criteria that we all agree upon so that we may all determine for ourselves whether or not such-and-such constitutes evidence for such-and-such a theory/hypothesis. Do you have such criteria? If so, spill the beans, please. "You need to be serious if you want to debate your claim. eg: a star maybe in a position different from its known position when viewed in the day time and behind the Sun. Or why did Mercury not appear exactly where it should be under Newtonian gravity." Ok, you've provided us with two examples of proper scientific questions that might be asked. What you have not done is provide us with a method for generating proper scientific questions. Our topic is here is methodology, remember? Do you have such a method? "Are you interested in discussing why your claim is not as you say, or would you rather indulge in pedant? Or as another remarked in another thread, are you just attempting to be argumentive?" Argumentative? A peculiar accusation indeed to hurl at one's interlocutor in a debate forum. We came here to argue for and against the existence of The Scientific Method, right? You're arguing for; me against. I believe your claim is hopelessly wrong and I'm arguing against it as we speak. "Observation, as per the Eddington observation to test Einstein's hypothesis during an eclipse." Nice example. But you're supposed to be defending the method of science, including the testing of scientific theories/hypotheses. You still have not explicated a general method of testing; merely pointed to one random example. "Not at all....simply again dismissing those mythical claims due to falsification by real science." Would you please explain how falsification works? What is the method for falsifying hypotheses? (Don't giggle -- this is trickier than you might imagine). Is falsificationism the Method of science as Karl Popper insisted? " Ahh, again, some false pretentious suggestion to maybe hide an agenda perhaps?" Leave my hidden agenda out of this, whatever that happens to be. And stop sticking your tongue out at me, too. This is a serious debate. To be quite frank, Beecee, there may be less difference between us than you think. You posted the following quote -- implying that you endorse it -- from Thomas Henry Huxley... Einstein says something very similar... In my view, both Huxley and Einstein are exactly right. But our topic is The Scientific Method, remember? How can "common sense" -- on pain of contorting the concept beyond recognition -- possibly be described as a method? Consider: "Go make a pizza" "Er, how do I do it?" "Just use your common sense", and "Go generate scientific knowledge" "Er, how do I do it?" "Just use your common sense"

Let's begin here then. "Single,? invariant? so called? If real, ? You seem to want to apply strict unnecessary guidelines to what is generally accepted." Yes, single and invariant. If there were three methods, say (which of course there aren't), then we should be speaking of The Scientific Methods, not "method". Same goes for "invariant". More poignantly, if there is not one, but three, or ten, or a thousand, methods of science, in a constant state of flux, that you bizarrely insist on collectively calling "The Scientific Method", then the three functions I adverted to in my opening paragraph (i.e., unification, demarcation, explanation) can no longer be served. How, for example, would we appeal to a protean smorgasbord of methods to explain the success of science, or to demarcate bona fide science from astrology or Intelligent Design, say? The Creationists might quite plausibly claim "We're using a method of science too; just not the same one as 19th century paleontologists used". Then what: rule them out of court by imperial fiat? "[1] ask a question" : You mean like "How do you get a philosopher off your porch?" The answer is "pay for the pizza", but I trust the problem is clear. You'd have to be a little more specific. "[2] Research" : Um, how exactly? Same problem as above: hopelessly vague. You might as well be advising us, "Just generate knowledge, dammit!" "[3] Formulate an hypothesis" : Well, first and foremost, it really gets my goat when people say "an" hypothesis. Why can't you say "a" hypothesis? Grrr! Right, lots to say about this one. First, review my point (6) in the OP. In what sense can "formulate a hypothesis" possibly be considered methodical? Do you have a method for doing this? If so, please share. Is the formulation of a hypothesis not what would be more aptly described as a creative, rather than a methodical, process? Isn't the imperative "formulate a hypothesis" akin to "have an idea"? No doubt scientists have ideas/formulate hypotheses, but then so does everyone else; I suspect dogs and cats do it too (I used to tease my cat by placing his foodbowl in unlikely places and watch him formulate and test various hypotheses as to its whereabouts). For this reason, both the Logical Positivists and Karl Popper drew a distinction between the so-called context of discovery and context of justification. How scientists come by their hypotheses -- inspiration, eureka moments, riding on beams of light, dreams of snakes eating their own tails, etc -- was considered a matter for psychologists and historians to discern, but of no interest to the methodologist who looks for method or rationality only in the subsequent justification of said hypotheses. Meanwhile, our old pal Isaac Newton, would throw a fit; he had this to say on the place of hypotheses in science: Under Newton's inductivist characterization of the scientific method, propositions are to be extracted inductively from data; one does not bring a hypothesis to the data. Tsk tsk! This is a theme we're likely to encounter again, Beecee: if someone else characterizes TSM differently from yourself (and there is no shortage of candidates), are we to take it that your own version of TSM is the correct one and all the rest are wrong? "[4] Test said hypothesis": Er, how? If we're going to talk of method, you'll have to be a little more specific, I think. But we have now entered the hallowed "context of justification" *drumroll*. This is where things get exciting. That's enough to get us started. But stepping back to look at the larger picture, it seems to me -- even supposing (which I don't) that you've nailed it -- you're making science a bit too easy. What I mean is, it's not at all difficult to imagine those Creationist hoodlums, say, setting up their own publishing network and acting in accordance with your 6-step program. Thus, based on the criteria you've offered us, you'd be forced to concede that the aforementioned hoodlums are perpetrating good science. And I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want that now, would you?

Like I said, perhaps more correctly the "is religion an evolutionary trait" title should be, "is the urge to knowledge an evolutionary trait" I don't really know actually, just that accepting some mythical religion and deity was that first step in attempting to understand, well before science, the scientific method, and empirical evidence came to the fore. I would guess in fact that the tone of your posts and the urge to appear as sitting on the fence, that you have drastically underestimated your tendency towards religion. I see it as far easier to work out what Strange had in mind, then what you appear to be saying....or what ever underlying meaning is within. Well I suppose we all can go from the sublime to the ridiculous, particularly in regards to totally unscientific concepts and scenarios. The urge to know is in all of us. Some though, in their quest to know it all, are inclined to accept any mythical reason that may answer that eternal question. I wonder what sort of civility and tolerence I would receive if I walked into church next Sunday, proclaiming no evidence for any magical spaghetti monster and the more likeley of us, and the universe essentially arising out of nothing...never mind, silly thought. And I believe you would be and are wrong. Actually the beauty of science and the scientific method is that it is based on empirical observational data, and as we are able to see further, so the possibility of modification or change of any scientific theory is always open. What does not make it to the scientific theory stage, is always classed as speculative and hypothetical, until evidence is forthcoming that moves it up that extra rung or two. No, wrong again, no myths in science, just a continuation of observational and experimental data, and improvements in our knowledge and, theories. Some scientific theories though are so well supported by data, [SR, GR the theory of the evolution of life] that they have grown to a certain degree of near certainty, within their zones of applicability. .Again understating the evidence and history of the scientific method, you again open the door to perceiving your position as on the fence, and as you progress with your lengthy but still inconclusive posts, being seen with dangling over noticeably to one side in particular. Perhaps you fail to see the evidence for scientific theories, the method that they are formed as governed by the scientific method and empirical evidence, compared to the total lack of evidence, as well as totally unscientific acceptance of any religion and any magical spaghetti monster arising from that religion. Again this is primarily a science forum and as such what you may see as stones being thrown, are nothing more the the request for empirical evidence to support any mythical religious dogma. Again, this is first and foremost a science forum. The "them" you throw in are common to most science forums, when ''holier than thou" religious leaning members join simply for the express purpose of conducting some evangelistic crusade against science and the scientific method. Most are unable to accept the scrutiny, and resort to the usual insults and possibly banishment. Like I mentioned earlier, I don't go into church on Sundays shouting about what gullible fools they are and giving the evidenced based scientific method of why and how we are here. Certainly and that is a feather or two in the cap of science and the scientific method and why it is still with us. Something we all, you and I need to be proud of. Science is a discipline in continued progress. Of course! The "non certainty" in general of science and the scientific method, is a quality that we all should know and be thankful for. It's the reason why we are at our present technological level. People are free to chose what they accept. BTW, my wife is a Christian in the true sense of the word but never bothers me.....the brainwashed dummies are those that see the need to conduct crusades on forums such as this.... I would be careful if I was you......accidents can happen.

Thanks. Appreciated all the input, although I was looking for an answer to that specific question, not alternative solutions... Bye bye.

By what you would visually see, then yes, you would see events occurring faster at Andromeda. Though you couldn't actually travel at the speed of light, just close to it. The equation for this relationship is fo = fs sqrt((1+v/c)/(1-v/c)) Where fo is the observed frequency, fs is the source frequency, and c is the speed of light. Note that if you make v=c then you end up with fo = fs sqrt(2)/0) And the division by 0 is undefined. ( but since travel at the speed of light is not allowed, this never arises.) However, just because you are seeing events unfold more quickly at Andromeda, does not mean that you would conclude that they were unfolding faster. Once you account for the effect caused by the decreasing distance between you and Andromeda, you would conclude that events were actually unfolding slower at Andromeda. For example, if you were traveling at 0.99c, you would see events at Andromeda as happening 14 times faster, but would conclude that they were happening 7 times slower. The 7 times slower would be due to time dilation, while the 14 times faster you see is due to Relativistic Doppler effect, which is a combination of time dilation and the effect caused by the decreasing distance. Even this is only a part of the whole picture. In order to understand what happens over the whole trip from Earth to Andromeda according to both Earth and ship would involve delving more deeply into Special Relativity.

Depends on your expectations, and you don't know what hers were. If the warning had reached high enough, and in time, the WH could have directed an unpublicized investigation, if they had wanted to. They could hit the pause button, because when one credible accusation turns up, there are often others that will come to light, as we have seen time and time again. Of course, this assumes that the WH cared whether or not they were nominating someone who could be credibly accused of such behavior. It shows why zero weight should be given to someone saying they are innocent. Because they will say that if they are, or if they aren't (and are running the Trump playbook). So the declaration carries no information at all.

If she didn't take one a certain amount of people would be questioning why not. It is a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. Those who don't want to believe her can find suspicion in everything she does. Much like the her detractors primary complaint about why after so long and why now. First Statistically most victims never come forward at all and of the ones who do it is common for them to do so after a long period of time after they have been able to emotionally come to terms with it. How long she waited is normal. Secondly Kavanaugh being appointed to a very high profile position put him back in her life. Prior to him being considered for SCOTUS Ford wasn't forced to see his face or name repeatedly on a regular basis. In defending Kavanaugh's with such arguments the subtle message of speak up immediately after an assualt or forever hold their peace is being reenforced. Kavanaugh can get his due diligence without the use of such disingenuous talking points. The FBI could be given the authority to interview Kavanaugh and his accusers and run a thorough investigation. This matter doesn't need to be a bunch of anonymous people on Twitter and Facebook asking why now. Do you have a citiation for these crimes you are casually implying Feinstein has committed?

Not at all, and the overwhelming evidence showing both are correct [despite different descriptive scenarios] is that GR gives the same results as Newtonian albeit far more accurately. And of course anyone actually disputing that obvious and correct summation, would need to explain why if Newtonian was incorrect, that we use it to obtain correct results. So far in your short time here, you have taken me to task for dare criticising religious fanatics, disputed that which is the basis of science, the scientific methodology foundations, and now making some obscure claim that either Newtonian or GR is wrong, with obviously not good intentions and reflecting on an agenda, and despite the usage of both with giving correct results. I can see your stay with us is going to be fun. One appears to give a far better description of the universe we inhabit and the successful predictions it makes, and which you seem to have skipped over, but both are correct within their respective zones of applicability [another fact you skip over] I'm actually anxious to the exact nature of this supposed "truth or reality" you keep banging on about.

Both models give accepted correct answers within their zones of applicabilty. The parameters of GR are more extensive but still give the same answers as Newtonian albeit far more accurately. Space and time are not abso;ute and that is why GR is a far more accurate theory/model, despite as I just said, giving the same answers as Newtonian. Seems more and more light is being shone on this still undefined agenda. Whatever agenda it is that you are hiding behind, is affecting your askew interpretation I suggest.

Yes we do. Or is this the beginning of the possible revelation of a possible agenda you are harboring? Easily defended I suggest...Spacetime geometry influenced by matter/energy. Lense Thirring effect, gravitational lensing, gravitational waves. Obvious to anyone that has some knowledge on Lense Thirring effect, grvitational lensing, gravitational waves, cosmological redshift, gravitational redshift, Time Dilation, Length Contraction, and the evidence and observations that support all those SR/GR concepts. Not at all. Both are correct within eaches own zones of applicability. GR of course has wider parameter applications and is more acurate, but that same accuracy is not needed in our every day Earthly endeavours and even space shots. eg: Think of a carpenter using a Vernier caliper to fit a door or window frame. Not much really to debate. It is all accepted evidenced based science.

Is that right? And yet since you started posting, you have been critical of myself and others that have been critical of the religious fanatics that have come to a science forum on evangelical missions to criticise the science. Tip for you...the very nature of science, the scientific methodology and scientific theories, means that science is a discipline in continued progress, as further observations are made, as technology leads to more intricate experiments and the gaining of knowledge, means that science is self regulatory and changing all the time as we learn...based on the foundation/s of the scientific method. They all mostly got it right because they all had as the foundation the scientific method to rely on. Again your questions have been answered, maybe not the answers you want, but answered none the less.

Well, I can't see it (i.e. your criteria for determining what does, and what does not constitute scientific evidence) Be a good sport and direct me to where you did it. Better still, copy and paste below. It'll only take a few seconds. Thanks! Not sure whether this is directed at me or not. Is it? I don't believe I've attacked science or scientists. All I'm doing is try to get science right. Isn't that what we all want?

I've already done that, but hey! you are being obtuse again.

No problem, I have plenty of tolerance for newbies as well as IDers and other believers, including my lovely wife, but I give those fanatical believers that come here specifically to dis science and the scientific method, the utmost scrutiny. Joke? Oh, I took it as facetiousness and sarcasm. You're doing the closeted support of their claims, so the onus is on you to present any such evidence for scrutiny, and certainly not determined by me as a lay person...we have other reputable scientists that will show conclusively that they nor you have any evidence supporting such myth...ie of course if you personally are claiming that they have such evidence. Again, the critieria and claims of YEC's has been invalidated many times. If you believe there is any valid evidence supporting their nonsense, then the onus is on you. But let me say right now, that the longer you post, and the more obtuse remarks you make, the more it appears that you do have an agenda. That is all entailed in the foundation/s of the scientific methodology which you are in denial of. Not my suggestion, it was another poster in another thread, but OK, I'll withdraw the argumentive remark in favour of the more obvious obtuse comments. I don't need to defend it at all. It stands on its own and is supported many, many times over the years. You on the other hand have offered nothing concrete, just a couple of half hearted philosophical arguments denying it. Please check out the falsification of YECers and their mythical claims that have been falsified. It is the obtuseness and avoidance of answering questions in others that have pretended that science has problems where it hasn't, that has had them exposed with hidden agendas. Yes, I agree, it is a serious debate, except your refusal to accept the onus of responsibility, as you are making the claim. In my view neither of them are anywhere near saying that the scientific method as I have described does not exist.

I believe you are being obtuse.... Again, I see the scientific method as the "foundation" to science, with various paths based on that foundation. Understandable then why you seem rather indecisive and doubtful. What is that foundation? [1] ask a question: [2] Research: [3] Formulate an hypothesis: [4] Test said hypothesis: [5] Collect, study and research results: [6] Publish and promote continued tests, observations, experiments. Yes, they can claim what they like, but obviously and naturally, they lack any empirical evidence supporting their mythical claims and of course plenty of empirical evidence falsifying the same myths. You need to be serious if you want to debate your claim. eg: a star maybe in a position different from its known position when viewed in the day time and behind the Sun. Or why did Mercury not appear exactly where it should be under Newtonian gravity. No not vague, just numerous ways of conducting said research depending on the exact discipline...the foundation/s remain the same.. Are you interested in discussing why your claim is not as you say, or would you rather indulge in pedant? Or as another remarked in another thread, are you just attempting to be argumentive? Observation, as per the Eddington observation to test Einstein's hypothesis during an eclipse. Not at all....simply again dismissing those mythical claims due to falsification by real science. Ahh, again, some false pretentious suggestion to maybe hide an agenda perhaps?

Single,? invariant? so called? If real, ? You seem to want to apply strict unnecessary guidelines to what is generally accepted. From my own lay persons perspective, I see the scientific method as the "foundation" to science, with various paths based on that foundation. Understandable then why you seem rather indecisive and doubtful. What is that foundation? [1] ask a question: [2] Research: [3] Formulate an hypothesis: [4] Test said hypothesis: [5] Collect, study and research results: [6] Publish and promote continued tests, observations, experiments. Perhaps because of your rather strict uneccessary guidelines. Perhaps you are too sensitive to criticism of your rather inflexible guidelines? And of course it is a fact that many times this and other science forums are confronted with over zealous religious fanatics. Again one could interpret that as over sensitive to any and all criticism of your opinion based on inflexible guidelines. On Einstein's quote, firstly I don't agree he is denying the existence of the scientific method, and secondly it is easy to take quotes out of context. Although obviously they may all go about it in various different paths, the foundation of the scientific method I'm sure would underpin all results. I could agree with that. Science and the scientific method in my opinion is simply the application of logic, based on current knowledge. Science is simply common sense at its best that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic. Thomas Henry Huxley. Great stuff! Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know. Bertrand Russell Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists...Richard Feynman

Re : Brainwashing in early childhood: Here's what happened: Strange asserted that "Some people have a greater tendency to belief in religious/spiritual ideas than others". I was at once wondering how he could possibly know that one individual has a greater tendency towards religious/spiritual ideas than another, say Strange vs myself, and curious as to my own tendency. Thus, I offered for illustration the example that, though I'd rate myself zero on the religiosity scale now, if God paid me a visit in the night I'd be a ten this morning (it didn't happen by the way). Does that mean my tendency for religiosity is high? Low? Higher than his? Lower than his? Who the hell knows until it manifests? -- thereupon what we have is a manifestation of religiosity; not a tendency. And the claim that one individual has a greater tendency towards religiosity than another reduces to utter triviality: "Look, he's worshiping God! He must have (or have had) a high tendency for religion!" A bit like saying of some newly-discovered, previously unknown material, "Look, it's broken! It must have been fragile!" (And how do you know it's fragile? Well, it's broken, isn't it?) Turns out we were at cross purposes. Apparently what Strange had in mind was groups of individuals, not individuals. Science or no science, genetic determinism/predisposition or not, were I to have a close encounter with Bigfoot, say, while strolling through the forests of Oregon -- perhaps a wrestling match with Mr Sasquatch himself -- I'd be an instant convert. I daresay you would be too. Might it be a hallucination or an uncommonly large dude in a gorilla costume? Certainly, though the "my senses are not deceiving me" hypothesis would reign supreme until some pretty strong evidence to the contrary was adduced (e.g. "we spiked your Cornflakes with LSD"). The larger point I'm trying to impress here is that any genetic predispositions that incline or disincline me (or you) towards certain patterns of belief -- supposing there even are such things -- would be overwhelmed by sensory input in tandem with my/your own cognitive processes. Intentionality 1 Genes 0, you might say. Re: What else would I expect on a science forum? Civility, tolerance... never mind. Just a silly thought. Re myths, fairy tales, and The Scientific Method (TSM): I was not so much "arguing against the scientific method" as claiming that there is no such thing. Science, like religion, is not short of a few myths of her own. The myth of TSM provides us with a splendid example. Despite scant evidence for, and voluminous evidence against, the existence of a universal, timeless, invariant Method of science, people like yourself continue to uncritically and obediently not only buy into the myth, but perpetuate it with unholy fervor while, at the same time, fulminating against those poor brainwashed religious suckers who ought to know better than believe fairy tales. People who live in glass houses... Re "on the fence" : I didn't realize realize it was an "Us-Them" showdown. What are my choice of colors? Blue for Rangers or green for Celtic? But seriously, you guys, just like the religious mob, can be a wee bit tribalistic at times. The impression I was getting when I entered the thread was a fairly typical supercilious dismissal of anything religious combined with an overzealous reverence for anything bearing the epithet scientific. If you know your history of science -- and not just those "Whig" histories so alarmingly prevalent -- you'll be aware that a great many, perhaps most, perhaps the vast majority, of scientific theories (thus "explanations" -- your word) ever proposed and regarded as true are no longer thus regarded. Might be salutary to bear that in mind. Oh, and guess what? Not all religious folks are brainwashed dummies with a tendency (that word again) towards terrorism. I'll be on the fence if you need me. Cheers!

Does anyone in their right mind actually believe republicans would have beeen forthright and thorough ordering the investigatation in confidence. I don't. It would have been thrown back in their faces with a resounding no. Even after the fact when an investigation was ordered, it was a sham.

I say there is the same number of them because each uniquely labelled R_0 number has a hat R number with that same label, and there are no other hat R numbers except for those which share a label with R_0 numbers. In the paper I call this label "b" If you would have read the paper, you would have seen in the first few lines that infinity is "+/- infinity" and if you were familiar with analysis at even the undergraduate level you would know that these are the endpoints of the extended real line. You might feel more at home in the less advanced forum because these symbols I use are already quite basic.

Ford came forward when Kavanaugh was on the list of potential nominees for the supreme court. The choice to make her complaint public when he was nominated was a strategic move by Democrats. The fact that Republicans ALREADY had 65 signatures to counter that move was strategic. Everything about this nomination on both sides is premeditated and strategic. Anyone who doesn't see that Kavanaugh is a chess piece in a larger game for ideological control of the supreme court is at best naive - having partisan control of the supreme court would allow one party to block, create or dismantle laws for a generation. I have seen men standing in front of the "Women for Kavanaugh" bus admitting that they really don't care what he did, as long as he will strike down Roe v Wade - that an imperfect man can be a divine instrument of God. I'm sure there are people on the left who don't care if he's a choir boy but will do whatever it takes to stop him being elected. What shouldn't happen is for EITHER of these mentalities to prevail - an unsuitable candidate shouldn't be railroaded through, and a suitable candidate shouldn't be unduly smeared and defamed. *I* personally believe that Kavanaugh's testimony at the hearing clearly displayed unsuitability for the job. He lost his cool, bent the truth, evaded questions and used logical fallacies. These are exactly the types of things judges should be able to easily identify and eliminate from testimony as a part of their job. If he uses them himself, I wouldn't trust him to recognize them in the courtroom.

My personal belief is that we are here to do the one thing that is difficult for God to do. That is to grow a soul, whatever a soul truly is. Here is my reasoning. According to Genesis, God made everything in five days, with the exception of Mankind. I don't believe that those are literally five rotations of the Earth, but five of God's "work days". On the sixth day, He only did one thing; make Man in His image. That does not mean two arms, two legs, one head, etc. It means He made us like Him; spiritually. In essence, he gave the animal man a soul. That transformed man into Man. Then He rested. That implies that giving Man a soul was as hard as making the rest of the universe. Why did He do this? He, like the rest of us, wanted to grow. In order to grow, He needed to add to His current soul. Through the trials and tribulations of living, our soul grows. As we fight and remain strong and faithful, regardless of how harsh our life becomes, our soul grows. As we help our fellow man overcome their problems, even as our own problems pull us down, our soul grows. That is why God isn't Santa Claus; giving us anything we want, or even need. You don't grow without some sort of adversity. If you can get through life without becoming bitter and resentful, they your soul is good and strong. When you die, the only thing left of YOU is your soul and that soul will join with God and make Him a little greater than He was. You have fulfilled your purpose.

I'm here to learn science and boost my understanding of concepts I'm not totally familiar with. Again the scientific methodology does not need me defending it...it stands as the best methodology we have and successful. Your attempt to simplify and y apply non existent supposed guidelines is in error as I outlined in my first post. The error in your claim and the professionals you claim that support that opinion is not as clear cut or precise as you would like the forum to believe. The motivations of those arguing against a Scientific Method is I believe to be faulty and philosophical in nature. Here are a few of the real life characters in that show the myth in the philosophical claim that the scientific method does not exist.......Aristotle, Johannes Kepler, Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr and a hundred others that could be named. https://www.thoughtco.com/oversimplification-and-exaggeration-fallacies-3968441 Oversimplification and Exaggeration Fallacies:

Oh and please oh please please please, list for me the evidence that you suppose that YECers have to support their mythical nonsensical claims.

Unlike the religious fanatics you appear to have a soft spot for, and once again, science to its credit is not based on proof, faith or any mythical obscure book as guidance. Science if it does not have it right in some area, will end up in time getting it right, in the future. But just in case like another one once conttinually pushed, if by right you mean truth or reality, then once again you are certainly wrong and have a poor picture of what science and scientific theories and models are about. Theories and models are based on experimental and observational evidence...whether that model or theory is this truth or reality is of no great concern, as long as the theory or model continues to make successful predictions and continued aligning with observation..eg: GR and its prediction of gravitational waves which we all know now has been verified, at least five times from last count. You claimed they have evidence as good as the scientific evidence. Please support your statement. And again, no evasion on my part at least. The scientific method stands and will continue to stand...at least the basic support foundations that I listed.

It is stupid to believe in DNA gene theory .Since chemical evolution is a fairly tale. It is against mathematics and against statistics and second law of thermodynamics.