New Science Posted July 7, 2008 Author Share Posted July 7, 2008 What is demanded is that it not be opinion, but instead be something rigorous, falsifiable, and properly supported. Does psuedoscience require these scientific rules? If the post is accepted as science, it does not belong here in Psuedoscience. Seems to me that this thread would have more freedom for its existence. Besides, all my posts are cited on real evidence like I said. Conservation Laws, experiments and observations. NS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Does psuedoscience require these scientific rules? If the post is accepted as science, it does not belong here in Psuedoscience. Yes, good point. Maybe there is no real point in this section at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 An interesting point, maybe we should change the forum to speculations and crackpot dump? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Am I right in thinking Klaynos that if one were to make a speculation on something, but in the context of an established* theory or any well motivated extension/generalisation that it would firmly belong in the physics section and not the Pseudoscience and Speculations section? The premise being that it is not pseudoscience because of how one approaches and formulates the ideas and not directly the ideas them self. An example would be something like Brans-Dicke theory. * Not sure "exactly" what contributes established in this context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 If it's not peer reviewed it belongs in speculation normally but it may not remain there... Phi has just made an excellent post on this... http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=421450&postcount=29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Science is based on facts, not opinions. New Science here is taking the role of the Church, not of Galileo, as he is trying to override facts with opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Does psuedoscience require these scientific rules? If the post is accepted as science, it does not belong here in Psuedoscience. Seems to me that this thread would have more freedom for its existence. Besides, all my posts are cited on real evidence like I said. Conservation Laws, experiments and observations. NS Even if the material is speculative, it is still expected that you will apply scientific protocols. As I explained to you already, you do not have carte blanche to post crap. That's not the function of this section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 And the same goes to this thread. Funny, how people can be so consistent that I don't even have to rephrase myself. Consistent. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Science Posted July 8, 2008 Author Share Posted July 8, 2008 An interesting point, maybe we should change the forum to speculations and crackpot dump? The only thing I see here is a lot of insulting remarks. I do not smoke 'crack'. or use pot, so your remarks are wrong. As far as the quacks go, I admire those ducks. Cute. I do not care about the fangs and claws of the lion and the 'one god concept' promoted by the old testament. To me, jaws are uigly. FYI, jaws is waging war against HANDS (apes). That is why the OT discrimiates against the Evolution of humans. Going back to the 16th centutry, The church had the 'inquisition' boards that represent our 'review' boards today. Nuff said NS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 New Science, please see the definition of crackpot. No one is suggesting that you take any illegal drugs. And please there is little point in bringing up the history of science and in particular the role of the Roman Catholic Church. It does not support your case, in fact it weakens it. Also see charlatan and quack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Science Posted July 8, 2008 Author Share Posted July 8, 2008 Science is based on facts, not opinions. New Science here is taking the role of the Church, not of Galileo, as he is trying to override facts with opinions. Now that is an example of JAWS wide open. You should compete in the 'hot dog eating contest'. Ha ha. Aboit trolls:.I do not fish. I quit a long time ago. As I said BEFORE, my post are based on real science like the CON'n Laws, Exp'ts and Obser'ns. Now how about you experts answering a couple of question? What science PRECEDED the BBT? .......The bible creation theory is incorrect. What is driving the expansion of space? Dark energy is incorrect. I asked 'poo' those questions and he appealed to others for help. Ha ha. NS New Science, please see the definition of crackpot. No one is suggesting that you take any illegal drugs. And please there is little point in bringing up the history of science and in particular the role of the Roman Catholic Church. It does not support your case, in fact it weakens it. Also see charlatan and quack. More profanity! NS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Sorry not my intent to offend anyone, including you NS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I also did not intend to offend you. And really read the definitions of crackpot. Before the BBT there was the steady state universe, but the evidence against that is immense! Before the CMBR was detected it was quite a close run thing between the two, but the SSU allows for no CMBR. Although there was other mounting evidence against a SSU. We don't know what is causing the acceleration of the expansion which is why the unknown mechanism is called Dark Energy. Dark because it's unknown... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I asked 'poo' those questions and he appealed to others for help. Ha ha. NS .. is that supposed to be me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Considering how this and his other threads have progressed, that appears to be a valid assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Thread closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts