Sohan Lalwani

Again, not every science has the same philosophy or methodology, one field may interpret data largely different from the other.

You spammed the same sentence 4 times, why? Two things, first off, Earth Time (ET), based on Earth's rotation or orbit, is not stable and is affected by many irregularities (e.g., tidal friction, earthquakes), making it a poor standard .Atomic Time (AT) is more precise and repeatable, which is why it became the standard in 1967.

What are the factors, are you unvaccinated or vaccinated? What is your immune health? Basic stuff like that, make sure to include it so I can give the best answer possible. Unless treated in early stages. Rabies can be prevented almost entirely with post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). What virus is it? Are they alive to say it now 😁

I'm aware sociology is not a hard science. Data interpretation typically involves making meaning from data, which requires assumptions, interpretations, and judgments, which can vary significantly. I think you are getting methodology and philosophy confused, they have a common methodology which is that they "share a common methodology and focus on empirical evidence," but can still differ significantly in methodology.

Your generating something that is by nature very complex, would that not require powerful computing?

How is this a 5 minute argument?

Oh god

No its precisely 3:07, all sciences share a common methodology and focus on empirical evidence, they do differ in their assumptions, values, and interpretations of data, leading to distinct philosophical perspectives. For example, physics and sociology, while both scientific fields, may have different views on the nature of objectivity and the role of values in research. All sciences share a common methodology and focus on empirical evidence, they do differ in their assumptions, values, and interpretations of data, leading to distinct philosophical perspectives. For example, physics and sociology, while both scientific fields, have different views on the nature of objectivity and the role of values in research. - Sohan Lalwani's Quote of the Year

What NASA level computer did you use If this is astrophysics I can recommend things like Universe Sandbox, otherwise no. Thanks for the reference.

Haha... So funny I forgot to laugh bro Absolute genius

Different sciences have differing philosophies

Your "summary" was not very helpful just like your comment on that guy who wanted to be an engineer, nor was it explanatory.

I am not one to be political, but the right has cut scientific research drastically so I believe this would be a good thing.

Yes perhaps tell them to read. This sentence has a distinct odor of idiocy and irrelevance. Howl it to this forum, you are incorrect. The paper also supports the fact that precision methedology and precision in general MATTERS in climate science. Your statement is an attempt to get a "gotcha moment," my friend that's not going to come. Dead catting I see Look at the wording, "they are choosing to be obtuse," I am calling out their actions. Perhaps read the statement before commenting. I was reading your statements, its THEY not THEM Grammar like precision matters, though a few mistakes is generally ok as I misspelled methodology. The heart of this thread is about climate science. Where have you been? There's a special thing called direct quotations, not sure google as a "Google Quotations" for you but I was restating the paper, not directly quoting it so please don't say "obviously" when you interpreted something simple wrong. They are very connected, not the same thing but very connected. Fix your word choice. Waiting for the ice age clarification OH NO SHIVER ME TIMBERS! ARE YOU GOING TO SAY A NO-NO WORD?!?!?!?!?!?!?!1 THEY are connected through a process of empirical anchoring—where real-world measurement functions as the epistemic benchmark against which the epistemological integrity of model-derived estimates is gauged. Mathematical modelling, by its nature, is an abstraction: a formalized representation of hypothesized relationships between variables, often constructed to simulate systems too complex, vast, or chaotic for direct manipulation. But no matter how elegant the model—be it deterministic, stochastic, or agent-based—its ontological legitimacy hinges on how well its outputs cohere with empirical data. That’s where real-world measurement enters the equation. Real-world measurement acts as a calibration mechanism and a ground-truth validator. It's not merely about comparing numbers—it's about probing the correspondence theory of truth in scientific modelling. If a model’s estimates deviate substantially from empirical observations, it signals either a breakdown in the model's internal assumptions, parameterization, or even the theoretical framework underpinning it. Moreover, these two domains—empirical observation and theoretical estimation—are linked through iterative feedback loops. Real-world measurements inform model development, and in turn, models predict phenomena that guide future measurement priorities. This dynamic interplay creates a cybernetic system of scientific refinement, where neither component exists in a vacuum.

I am saying the question you are asking is not very logical as there is no verification factor. Congratulations I confirm my suspicion that you like to jump to conclusions! Get specific here, what geological epoch, Earth has had at least 5 major ice ages. My assertion is that you are "factually incorrect" in your precision.

A fine example of how generalization is wrong! There were numerous ice ages, get specific PRECISION MATTERS Your posting are an excellent example of how someone with decent credibility can STILL BE WRONG :) Asking this question is idiotic, there is no verification factor. I could just look this up and pretend I am expert. Thats @zapatos , get your facts right before you starting going on a tangent. Intriguing! Here's the shocker! IM NOT DIRECTLY QUOTING ANYTHING FROM THE PAPER AT ALL I AM RESTATING and using evidence that supports my statements. THINK before you SPEAK. Fine credibility you have! Good, thank you :) Understandable why, but applying the same logic and how you have lacked substantial precision, I don't feel inclined to believe your statements either.

I think it is based off of word count, or UV's perhaps?

Its pretty solid, nice work.

My apologies then, I was looking at the wrong one. Can you delete my post? Ignore my previous post, are you talking about science collectively? AS IN ALL OF SCIENCE? Different sciences may differ in philosophies.

Yet my precise -18 degrees Celsius will give a better estimation value than you rounding to the nearest number. That is not strange. It wasn't to state I directly stated it, but to say I said something extremely similar which is "Perhaps tell them to read" I remember reading a textbook which I am currently looking for that I took notes on quite some time ago, I did manage to save what it mentioned (via my notes) "precise estimates in climate science are important for informed decision-making and effective action to address climate change. Accurate climate models and forecasts, while not perfect, provide valuable insights for planning infrastructure, adapting to changing weather patterns, and mitigating the risks of climate change. Thus, the exact estimate or closest should be provided. " Atmospheric science critically depends on the accurate and precise measurement of a wide range of parameters, including temperature, humidity, gas concentrations, and aerosols. Such precision is not a matter of convenience but a fundamental necessity for achieving meaningful, reproducible scientific results. In practical terms, any degradation in measurement accuracy can distort the representation of atmospheric profiles, leading to erroneous inferences about atmospheric processes and human-induced changes. The explicit recognition of accurate measurement as "critical" for scientific achievement highlights its non-negotiable role in climate science investigations, with direct implications for data credibility, utility, and acceptance in broader scientific discourse L Barbieri, ST Kral, SCC Bailey, AE Frazier, & JD Jacob. (2019). Intercomparison of small unmanned aircraft system (sUAS) measurements for atmospheric science during the LAPSE-RATE campaign. In Sensors. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/19/9/2179 Interesting isn't it?

I will not deny there were sexual abuse cases, but some of them were both men and women. The dynamic in my question itself encompasses a variety of different things, it doesn't have a single one way answer. Perhaps, but men should not be excluded from being radiographers either. From what I read a few years ago, the male-to-female ratio was about 61/39 I will read more recent studies then, thanks. This is not specific to medical trials, there was a load of misinformation of vaccines being spread along with idiotic memes regarding the subject. Also, retract your previous statement.

Perhaps it would show the variation and difference in the bacteria that colonize and inhabit 2 similar species penises.

I hate down voting, I have more DV's than people who say "We need big burly spouses"

I think likely sexual selection? I think a cross penile microbiome analyzation would be quite interesting.