Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/13/18 in all areas

  1. Oh come on, INow… Let me bask in the glory of finally starting a topic which has lasted more than a page.
    3 points
  2. Did you actually check out the links? There are a number of examples that are not from Clinton. She is defending fellow Democrats calling for uncivil behaviour, and the links include a number of examples. (which you requested) Are you seriously unaware there is a concern with the current political discourse? Do you believe it is only Trump, or only the Republicans? Your tendency to confirmation bias is pretty consistent, so should I take you at your word that you are serious, and never really able to see both sides? Apologies if I am wrong, but I believe you are much smarter than that, but being disingenuous. When will we see a return to mutual respect in American politics? https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/08/26/john-mccain-death-barack-obama-reaction-nr-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/mccain-bashing-trump/
    2 points
  3. ! Moderator Note This isn't science, doesn't belong on the site, ever.
    2 points
  4. Thanks to hypervalent_iodine's investigation, we now know that if you are banned and try to log in, you will be recorded in the "who's online" list, but all you see is a banner saying you can't access the site. So you are on the site, technically, because you have to be to view that page. (Meaning my guess earlier was correct — it lets you into the foyer to show you the note telling you you can't come any further inside the building)
    2 points
  5. I imagine most native speakers would give them the same meaning, but I had a look - in muscle training terminology, not physics - and 'strength' is force without a time component, whereas 'power' is force with a time component. For example, a strong person can take a long time to move a heavy object but they wouldn't be called "powerful" unless they could do it quickly, compared to some reference. To be powerful you need to be quick as well as strong.
    2 points
  6. I am going to go with Mike Tyson. From watching YouTube videos of his deadly knockouts and the way he trained as well as various articles on Google, I am going to say Tyson is the hardest hitter in boxing history and would probably beat Muhammad Ali. Also another question instead of starting another thread, do you think Mike Tyson could knock out a gorilla with his bare hands and hardest hit.
    1 point
  7. Marciano wouldn't even be in the top 30. He never fought anyone of note, and only defended the title six times, against very old fighters, or light heavies. And one of the fights was a fix, the pundits had him losing. He was slow and crude, he wouldn't have stood a chance against the likes of Ali. Anthony Joshua already has a better record than Marciano. Evander Holyfield and Lennox Lewis put Mike Tyson in his place, so he wouldn't be number one. Hardest hitter? Maybe, but that's against lesser fighters. All big punchers look amazing against lesser opponents. It's how they do against the top ones that counts. I would say that George Foreman in his day would have been the hardest hitter. And he knocked out Joe Frazier and Ken Norton, both inside two rounds, legends, not a bunch of nobodies. And Evander Holyfield must be the greatest of all for me. He's the only man in history to hold the undisputed cruiserweight title, then move up to heavyweight, and win the undisputed title at that weight as well. And he didn't lose a fight at any weight till he was past 30. Not a chance. The human hand breaks when humans hit humans, sometimes even inside boxing gloves. The bones of Gorillas are much bigger and stronger than any human, and their neck is three or four times the size. No contest.
    1 point
  8. Ah sorry, it wasn't meant to be suspense. I work in finance for Shell haha. I didn't mention it because I didn't want to be seen as the biggest hypocrite and a traitor to my people. (Shell has a program where you can buy shares from them at a discount.) To clarify polar bears and Shell were never on the best of terms:
    1 point
  9. The phrase "conspiracy theory" is widely used as mockery. But of course, lots of conspiracies DO happen, and then they become history. Like the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba was going to be portrayed as a glorious liberation, and the multiple attempts by the CIA to kill Castro would have been a 'popular uprising'. Or the famous weapons of mass destruction. Then there's the Watergate episode. If they had succeeded, anybody making an allegation would have been labelled a "conspiracy theorist" and mocked. But they were all true, and they happened. So if you think that you know of a TRUE one, list it here, and give your reasoning. Of course, if one gives rise to a debate, there's nothing stopping it being split off for in depth discussion. Just to start the list off, I'm nominating the Kennedy Assassination. I believe that the fatal shot was fired by a secret service agent, ACCIDENTALLY, when he pulled out his machine gun, hearing the shots from Lee Harvey Oswald's gun. The Secret Service then conspired to cover it up, and the Warren Commission went along with it for the sake of the national reputation. That might sound like another crazy conspiracy theory, but I think the evidence is overwhelming, and it all comes from impeccable eye witnesses. It's covered here on youtube and it's well worth watching, if you haven't seen it :
    1 point
  10. Are you serious? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/10/hillary-clintons-approval-incivility-democrats-overreach-conundrum/?utm_term=.e7bc51223917 https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-editors/hillary-clinton-attacks-republicans-defends-incivility What do you think Clinton is defending? She at least recognizes that it exists. Do you not? Where can a moderate go to vote in the upcoming election? What can be considered a win for anything that is not extreme? Who is going to lead a return to respectful political discourse?
    1 point
  11. It is not at all clear that is the original intended meaning. And isn't that what elections are for?
    1 point
  12. If by "proven" you mean "having more evidence than another competing theory" then this might be true. But, actually, no it isn't. GR is "more proven" than Newtonian gravity (it can explain things that Newtonian gravity gets wrong for example), but Newtonian gravity has not lost its scientific value. Your description seems to be almost the exact opposite of how science works. A theory is not rejected because another one is "proven" but when it can no longer explain the evidence. For example, for a long time there was a debate about whether the big-bang or the steady-state model (or models) was more accurate. This was resolved when the CMB was discovered. Not because this "proved" the big-bang model but because it disproved the alternatives (they could not explain this evidence). So a theory or hypothesis loses its value when it can no longer explain the evidence.
    1 point
  13. Alright... in muscle training terminology, then, the strongest land animal is a male moose with a lever joking, of course
    1 point
  14. Believe all women and believe everything negative about the accused...is that the new slogan? (with the unstated understanding of course... that you believe in due process, but look at the statistics... he has to be lying...) When in this thread have you ever noted anything that might point to his innocence? It was so clear to you right from the start that he was guilty. If it is so clear he is lying he will soon be impeached. If it is not clear, or become clear, he will not be.
    1 point
  15. Go back through the thread. The word of 3 people is not the evidence of his lying. This issue of his testimony and TV interview have been covered in detail with plenty of citiation.
    1 point
  16. No. Hospital visits are reactive after the harm. Seatbelts are preventative, much like us men coming together and saying stop this shit now. Enough is enough, already. Women shouldn’t have to feel afraid because of us. It starts with each of us.
    1 point
  17. You do realize the word is Ammend, not Append, right? We can do far more than add to it. We can, in fact, change it.
    1 point
  18. Why are we not talking more about how to make women safer while protecting their freedom, than believing them unconditionally after they have been violated when we have failed?
    1 point
  19. Which is why I am hoping Oprah runs for President. In the current political environment attention matters more than policy. Even as a Cat 4 storm came ashore in FL and battered its way into GA it was Kanye West capturing headlines. The death toll from Michael is still rising. In years past Michael would be the only thing the media and President would be focused on yet here in 2018 Kenya West is receiving equal attention from both the media and POTUS. Trump held a campaign rally where supporters chanted "lock her up" aimed at Sen Feinstein as Michael came ashore. It is a goddamn circus! We are in an environment where candidates must be news worthy. FoxNews,CNN, MSNBC, nightly news on ABC, NBC, CBS, and even entertainment news segments like Daily Show, Real Time, Last Week Tonight, Colbert Show, Kimmel, and etc are basically all Trump (for or against) all the time 24/7. What use to be "the bubble" is now a total media blackout. Nuance, compromise, due diligence, and etc are qualities we might wish for in candidates but against Trump's total eclipse of media coverage what is needed is fame. Oprah or Dwayne Johnson could probably do more for Democrats than Harris, Warren, Sanders, Biden, or etc at this point. Just look at the huge shot in the arm Taylor Swift gave Dems with a single Instagram post. Imagine that. One Instagram post from a pop star got more people to register to vote in a day than countless voting drives led by Sanders & Perez. It is a very sad state of affairs and it I feel a little ashamed and embarrassed by it but I really do hope someone like an Oprah chooses to run in 2020. If Someone as news worthy as Oprah doesn't challenge Trump whomever the Challenger is will just be footnote in the media coverage of Trump's 2020 campaign. If you thought 2016 was bad, Trump is POTUS now!
    1 point
  20. I also got differing definitions of derivatives in high school and university. But, being in Physics, and not needing that stubborn trait of Mathematicians to define, and re-define everything, I simply use them as a tool. ( I don't define a hammer when I bang in a nail )
    1 point
  21. In philosophy, there is a concept called "an argument from authority". it is a weak proof. Evolution makes it so that we emulate our elders, particularly when we are young. If your elder tells you "don't put your hand in a fire", it is better that you listen, evolution favours those that do listen to such a statement. However, this does not mean that everything, or indeed most things. your elders tell you are true. My mother told me that opening an umbrella inside, or cracking a mirror, brought seven years bad luck, she would scream if/when such an event happened and we would have to leave our umbrellas outside in the rain. Not so good. When, and only when, a person develops a sound ability to exercise critical reasoning (which is for the most part a learnt skill) then they can re-examine claims made by their elders. If no ability to weigh and gather evidence is present, criticising their elders leads only to chaos and simple delinquency. From observations, it seems there is a time period in adolescence where children reflect upon what they have learnt and generate their own conclusions - this can go rightly or wrongly
    1 point
  22. You've no idea how many times I've had to bite my tongue not to say the same of yourself. Once more, you completely miss the point. If the Tooth Fairy did indeed "do it", then that's the explanation. No one is saying it's scientific. No one is endorsing the Tooth Fairy hypothesis, at least not myself. But supposing the Tooth Fairy hypothesis -- wonder of wonders -- is true, then "the Tooth Fairy did it" is the explanation nonetheless.
    1 point
  23. Why do people immediately claim some incumbent theory/model is wrong when they come across some obscure text/claim on the Internet? There is an underlying reason...A-G-E-N-D-A If it turns out that DM is wrong, then it will be science that discovers it...not some obscure random claim on the web. Science can and do make errors and false claims at time, but again, if and when that happens, it is always science that is self correcting, and again, certainly not some random claim on the web. eg: The BICEP2 experiment claimed to have discovered gravitational waves. The claim was made prematurely and later shown that the experiment was actually due to dust contamination. [Gravitational waves were of course discovered some time later by aLIGO] Another was a claim that the speed of light, "c" had been seemingly exceeded in some other remote experiment. Later data was forthcoming showing that this was an anomalous reading caused by a loose wire or something similar. Just about any fact and or incident in history is probably contradicted on the web by conspiracy nuts, or some other fanatical breed of fools that would like to attempt to refute known facts for their own benefit and satisfaction with regards to some agenda or personal belief. DM of course as Strange has said is the best theory we have, and while being a "fudge factor" when first proposed, is now fairly well supported with many observed phenomena supporting the concept, the bullet cluster observation being the most notable.
    0 points
  24. What specific thinks are Eric Holder or Hillary Clinton (both hold no office) calling on people to do specially? Both of your links were just punditry criticizing sentences from much larger statements. What specifically do you feel the Democratic "mob" is advocating for? It seems you are latching on to a single word, incivility, and letting imagination will fill in the blanks. Perhaps because you are Canadian your understanding of the context of what Holder and Clinton said differently than I do. Here in the U.S. it was incivility, civil disobedience, protest, defiance of the status quo, and/or etc has been used to fight against many terrible things in society. Martin Luther King was arrested 29 times. Rosa Parks literally was breaking the law when she refused to give her seat up on the bus. Likewise countless U.S. Citizens broke the law when they burden their draft cards or like Muhammad Ali committed felonies by refusing to step forward for the draft when his name was called. Today In an act of defiance against Marijuana laws people smoke marijuana in public all over the U.S. on April 20th. Whether is it taking a knee during the national anthem or whatever there is a long tradition of U.S. citizens rejecting the status quo when it is believed to be unjust. Most of it has been for the greater good in my opinion. What are Holder and Clinton asking people to specifically do that you object to? As it applies to a 2nd Civil War or the succession of any portion of the country please example what it is you think the Democratic mob might do which would cause such to occur.
    0 points
  25. You mentioned Hillary Clinton and then ask where can a moderate go to vote. Are you under the impression Hillary Clinton is on the ballot someplace this election?
    0 points
  26. 0 points
  27. In pondering the likelihood of a second U.S. Civil War the thought accorded to me that a Canadian coup might be the easier solution for U.S. Conservatives looking for their our country. At just 10% the population of the U.S. there would be far less people to sway via propaganda. There is just 36 million people in Canada. By contrast Trump received 63 million votes. U.S. Conservatives have the money and the numbers to possibly take over Canada ideologically. As is stands most Canadians live within a couple hundred km of the U.S. border and the majority of U.S. citizens living near the Canadian border are among the most politically extreme in the nation. Coeur d'Alene Idaho is known for its White Nationalists and Coeur d'Alene is just 195km from the Canadian border. If things ever got to the point here in the U.S. where Second Civil War was brewing I suspect a hostile take over of Canada might be the easier solution. What are your thoughts?
    0 points
  28. Not much to do with evolution though, is it. Is your stereotyping of Muslims affecting your intelligence? They will be so disappointed after they die and find its not true.
    0 points
  29. Just out of curiosity, if you don't want to participate in this discussion is there an obligation that you do?
    0 points
  30. I think the reality which we find ourselves in right now requires less need for the girl from the video to have a chaperone or a companion compared say, to NYC in the 80’s or the middle ages or any previous era. Plus theres really nothing condenscending or diminishing about a woman requiring a companion or a chaperone and her complaining about it in the song is just only a level short of pouring bleach on men spreading their legs on the subway.
    0 points
  31. To simply "consider"evolution is an understatement. The evidence makes it a certainty, hence why the Catholic church to gain some semblance of respect now recognise it, as well as the BB...Then they jump ship as we enter a region where scientific data is less clear as to how life came to be, and install the old "god of the gaps" while ignoring that the same speculations re the universe arising from nothing, should also apply to this imagined deity. Here are two of my favourite links, one explaining how reasonable speculation can formulate a case for the universe coming from nothing, the other from one of the greatest educators of our time, with regards to the same standards being applied to any deity. https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag6fH8cU-MU I have absolutely no argument against any religious person [my wife is a christian in the true sense of the word] except when they come to science forums such as this, and start their ranting, raving and preaching mostly about imagined faults with science and the scientific method, and whether they do that out in the open or closeted.
    0 points
  32. May as well say Santa or the Tooth Fairy did it [it being created the universe of course]...your obtuseness never ceases to amaze me. God or any magical spaghettit monster is simply unscientific and myth. It cannot and never has stood up to scientific protocol or investigative process. Thou appears to be again grasping at straws. If you prefer faith in myth over evidenced based scientific inquirey and process, then that's your business. Although it appears contradictory as you have also claimed you don't believe any god exists. Which is it? What makes even less sense is your own complaints re myself or anyone that dares take god botherers to task, and instead argues against evolution, the scientific method and all it entails. This forum and others I have been a part of [two] often has individuals that see the need to criticise science and all it stands for. Closeted god botherers they have been revealed to be. Makes even less sense on a science forum, but it would certainly satisfy your apparent requirements on a religious forum. As you have been told many times, and cunningly ignore, any scientific theory is always open for modification/change etc...as long as it continues to agree with further and further observation the more certain it becomes...eg: evolution is at the top most rung...others close by SR, GR the BB. Where the lack of agreement appears is only with those critical of science because it actually has demoted any need for any god or IDer into oblivion, and continues to push it further back into oblivion...even the crusading closeted god botherers.
    0 points
  33. well said. The fact that the theory of evolution is correct and that any ID is nothing more then myth. Of course it will! That's what this thread is about.
    0 points
  34. 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?
    -1 points
  35. @ 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"
    -1 points
  36. FFS grow up. Stop postiong such idiotic and immature threads.
    -1 points
  37. No you miss the point, and have in all threads so far you have participated in on this matter. God, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny are unscientific explanations, without any empirical evidence to support such mythical concepts. Then you pretend you don't accept any ID and/or god in the next breath. It's not scientific therefor it falls short as any explanation worthy of consideration. My apologies to the mods. This is again off topic. Again well said. We may well still call it a theory, but it is far closer to fact, and I believe its simply force of habit and convention that we still call it a theory.
    -1 points
  38. At this stage it appears now he has played every card in the deck....I saw the victim card yesterday, and now its the joker. I suppose someone that needs to add some semblance of credence to his nonsense, gets quite desperate.
    -1 points
  39. On Challenging Science, particularly Physics, You have my sympathy Reg. Most living, theoretical physicists have yet to recognize (even though the long-dead masters, like Einstein and Schrodinger, repeatedly warned them about it) that they have fallen victim to the very problem noted in studiot's quote. Fools rush in, where wiser men have feared to tread. When you attempt to "measure something else", that your theory suggests exists, but that does not in fact actually exist in nature, then your theory "offers little" (though a little may nevertheless be a lot better than nothing). As I have pointed out in other threads on this site (to the dismay of the usual suspects), the uncertainty principle, the EPR paradox, Bell's theorem and all related matters are based on the supposed "self-evidently true" assumption, that after you have made a first measurement (as of position, or spin in one direction), then the ability to "measure something else" (like momentum, or spin in a different direction) should always be possible. But it is not always possible. In fact, it is impossible by definition, whenever the thing the physicists are attempting to measure, happens to manifest only a single bit of information. In that peculiar event, there is nothing "else" present, that can ever be reliably measured, not even in principle. That is what is meant by the term "bit of information" in Shannon's Information Theory. In this peculiar case, all measurements, after the first, must either reproduce the first, or be nothing more than an erroneous measurement of the first - by definition. Thus we now have quantum vacuum fluctuations, virtual particles, qbits, spooky action at a distance, etc. etc. ... all to account for those errors as being "something else", other that what they actually appear to be, producing weird correlations, that are consistently misinterpreted on the basis of the false assumption; namely that they "measure something else", something other than the ultimate “elementary particle” in reductionism, the least-complex possible entity, an entity manifesting the least-possible number of bits of information - a single bit - offering no possibility whatsoever of any uncorrelated, second measurement. Quantum theory is infested with such bad interpretations - assumptions about "measure something else", like blaming particles/waves/wavefunctions passing though a pair of slits for a supposed interference pattern, rather that recognizing that the pattern is merely the Fourier transform of the slit's geometry (more specifically, its power spectrum), and has little (but not nothing) to do with anything, particle or wave, passing through the slits. It's rather like blaming the light from the sun, for the visible pattern of your mother's face - How did the sun know what my mother's face looks like?!! Surely it must, for how else could I ever observe the pattern of my mother's face, if the sun was not emitting light that already knows/contains that pattern, before it ever struck her face?!!! But as Dogbert-the-physicist might say, "My theory is totally, totally different! My light, shining through the slits, really does know everyone's face, even before they were born! It all has to do with BlockTime! It has nothing to do with faces or slits modulating their information content, onto a carrier, that is, by itself, almost entirely devoid of any information!" Again, you have my sympathy, Reg. But you can take some solace from Stephen Hawking's quotes (The Universe in a Nutshell) "There is no more experimental evidence for some of the theories described in this book than there is for astrology..." and "Einstein thought that this (the EPR paradox) proved that quantum theory was ridiculous: the other particle might be at the other side of the galaxy by now, yet one would instantaneously know which way it was spinning. However, most other scientists agree that it was Einstein who was confused." And therein lies the difference between the wise men of old, that urged caution about such interpretations (a message not lost on their students, who subsequently urged their own students to “Shut up and Calculate!”), and all the later-day fools (Hawking's "most other scientists" AKA physicists) that rushed in, and ignorantly assumed that they, unlike their elders, could not possibly be confused by experiments that might "measure something else", other than what their new dogma proclaimed that they must have succeeded in measuring. So, as you have attempted to point-out, sometimes a difference between theoretical predictions of planetary motions and observations, can be correctly attributed to the prevailing wisdom/dogma of the day, such as an undiscovered planet. But other times, it "measures something else", like a previously unguessed, relativistic effect. But nowadays, as Hawking's quote indicates, more and more theoretical physicists have come to actually believe that the "beauty of math" alone justifies all their beliefs, in their favorite conclusions, deduced from their favorite "self evident" assumptions, and experimental evidence is neither necessary nor desired, to sustain their beliefs, anymore than for those believing in the "beauty of god." Because, “Hey, my conclusion really does follow from my premise! So it must be valid!” The possibility that the math just might, with absolute perfection "describe something else", a different premise, other than what the prevailing wisdom/dogma has supposed (the possibility suggested by the older generation of acclaimed physicists, like Einstein), has been summarily dismissed, as an "unnecessary hypothesis", by the lesser-lights in today's constellation of "best-selling" physicists. Laplace would roll over in his grave. And Santayana did say that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." And Bacon would say "I told you so - 400 years ago - premises can only be justified via inductive reasoning based on actual observations, not deductive logic, however clever." Perhaps, since few physicists seem to (correctly) remember the past, I should note that Bacon decried Aristotle's over-reliance on deductive reasoning, for delaying progress in science, for 2000 years, since he thereby convinced philosophers to value deductive logic (inevitably based on unverified premises) above any actual observations of the real world, that might actually reveal that some premises probably (but not certainly) ought to be preferred over others. And now, for the past half-century, history repeats itself, and most present-day physicists see nothing at all of value in what the old philosophers had to say about such things, or even what older physicists of Einstein's caliber had to say - they were all just "confused", to use Hawking's term. As the old saying goes, the race does not always go to the swift and the strong, but that is the way to bet. I’m betting on Einstein’s conception of the universe, not Brian Green’s, or Stephen Hawking’s, however elegant they may be. Dubious premises result in dubious conclusions, regardless of their beauty.
    -1 points
  40. @ Rob McEachern -- Glad to have you aboard. I'd been oh so alone! Very interested to read your thoughts, Rob. Not being a physicist myself the physics is largely beyond me, though it's gratifying to see that not everyone blithely and unquestioningly accepts the prevailing dogma of the day. My own interest and ability lies mainly with conceptual issues, as opposed to the nuts and bolts of any particular theory. For now (more later, perhaps -- I just woke up), a quick word on the discovery of Neptune that Beecee continues to insist, though not demonstrate, was a prediction of Newtonian mechanics. Earlier I offered two examples of a derivation -- a conclusion being derived from premises -- both inductive and deductive (involving ravens, blackness, and a box) for illustration. The terms that appear in the conclusion of an inductive or deductive argument are always precisely the same as those that are contained in the premises. No new terms will appear in the conclusion. A more realistic example of a prediction derived from a scientific theory would be something like the following: Premise 1: Newtonian theory Premise 2: The position and velocity of Venus (for example) at time t1 Premise 3: Various auxiliary hypotheses and background assumptions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Conclusion : The position and velocity of Venus at time t2 Note again that the terms in the conclusion are precisely the same as those in the premises: no new terms appear. The ontology does not change. Now, for precisely this reason, it is impossible that the existence of Neptune can be described as a prediction derived from Newtonian theory inasmuch as Neptune was unknown at the time in question, thus could not possibly have appeared as a term in the premises. The term "Neptune" (or simply "unknown planet") appears nowhere in Newtonian theory (Sir Isaac was unaware of it), and could not have appeared in any background assumption or auxiliary hypothesis for the very same reason -- it was unknown! Therefore, it could not possibly appear in the conclusion, either. Like yourself, I also called Beecee's bluff, challenging him to put his money where his mouth is: "put up or shut up" in your own words, and show us his derivation. For fairly obvious reasons, he did not. (One might as well claim that the existence of the neutrino was a prediction of QM. It was not: it was a hypothesis proposed -- by Pauli -- to account for recalcitrant data). @ Studiot -- You continue to lament my neglect of your posts. In the short time I've been here, you have repeatedly been abusive and condescending -- just like almost everyone else here (the usual suspects, as Rob describes them). See my thread on "The Scientific Method", for example, which also, thanks largely to your own efforts, is now locked. That's the reason I don't feel particularly inclined to engage.
    -1 points
  41. What religious people are you talking about? You mean like creation scientists you see online and "political christians" you hear about on TV? Why would you subtract those that believe in God, yet still accept evolution as how things work? It might not be a figure you'd like to see, but IMO, I don't see how it's "terrifying." It's not like our knowledge or denial of evolution can suddenly cause it to stop. Human civilizations have progressed despite their lack of knowledge about it, and they will continue to progress regardless. It's not like that of climate change denial where it could actually lead to dramatic effects on life as we know it. You say that most religious people haven't read the Bible/Koran, but most people that accept/propagate evolution don't really know that much about it or how it really works. You could close the books on evolution today and it's not really going to have any affect on how most people go about living their daily lives. It only matters to biologists and scientists in related fields that use the understanding of evolution to somehow benefit society - and those that benefit will do so despite a lack of knowledge about it, even if they deny the very science that's saving their life. I just think it's misguided to use evolution in a way (much like Dawkins) to make claims about another person's faith as if it should, or even could replace someone's philosophy of life or their personal need for God. That's not what evolution is about. That's not what science is about. Likewise with those using religion as science. That's not what it's about.
    -1 points
  42. But you were talking about the U.S and dismissed a number of those that accept evolution simple because they believed in God. They obviously aren't clinging to ignorance if they are at least open-minded enough to consider it. Tho many terribly things happen in the name of religion, it's not representative of the vast majority of those that practice their faith. You were simply making broad generalizations and comments about a protected class that can only be described as bigoted.
    -1 points
  43. You know you have lost when you cite the Daily Mail as a source.
    -1 points
  44. One could go back further, Mendel was instrumental in cementing Darwin's evolutionary theories, for example. It is important to keep in mind that church has funded scientific work. Not to mention that many if not most scholars were religious, of course. I.e. there is no a priori conflict between being religious and being a scientist. The schism seems to be of a more modern event which is arguably connected to the rise of secularism.
    -1 points
  45. Me, me, I can answer that one for ya. I'm all with you on this one buddy, I will start telling my two and a half year old starting tomorrow that it's bad to rape women. Gosh I hope when my little Peter grows up he will make the lady from the video feel safer. Lets keep our fingers crossed.
    -1 points
  46. I do respect you enough, however, you have a bad habit of only quoting one part of my post and seemingly ignoring the rest. I mean, take my post about the fears. You quoted one part about me saying somethings wrong if she believes all her fears. Address the fears that I brought to question and I can change my mind. That's how debate works. You address each of my arguments and claims, and I address each of yours. That way we're not talking past each other.
    -1 points
  47. Don't forget the Democrat "mob". They could easily be lead North. They don't seem to be able to think for themselves.
    -1 points
  48. How is it determined? Public opinion? Say it enough and you start to believe it? Just ask anyone?
    -1 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.