what has science become?
Dale Kelly
hypothesis, and it is reproducible, then it is testable and called a
theory, theories that are testable are called founded theories, that is
ALL there is to science
BUT, the institution of science would like to sell itself as the
overriding philosophy of all things, and answer to all things
it falsely includes observation and inference in its forte, observation
is observation, NOT science, inference is deduction and induction, it is
philosophy, NOT science
science has become a ministry of truth, in that not everyone's
observation and inference is acceptable, to infer or observe you must be
a part of the institution of science, and in such your inference and
observation is certified, if you are not a member of the institution your
observation and inference is NOT certified, if you are a member of the
institution and you infer or claim to observe something, not in line with
the AGENDA of the ministry of truth, you are ostraicized and seen as a
heretic
so what is the AGENDA of the institution of science and this ministry of
truth? what is the AGENDA of any cult? to obtain a position of authority,
set themselves up as authoritarians, establish a pecking order above the
average man, and exploit the average man
I suggest all workings of science should pass a democratic screening by
the average man, and let science SERVE the average man, instead of the
average man taking his cues and paying his dues to the ministry of truth
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
snex
science created that computer you are using to post these stupid
rants. you are just mad that such a successful process of science
doesnt substantiate your favorite fairy tales. well boo hoo, reality
doesnt give a shit about what you believe. grow the fuck up.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> science is a way to deal with conjecture, if you have a conjecture, a
> hypothesis, and it is reproducible, then it is testable and called a
> theory, theories that are testable are called founded theories, that is
> ALL there is to science
I've already corrected you on the gross misaprehensions you hold on
the nature of hypothesis and theory in science.
Why not do some research of your own and find out why you are wrong?
>
> BUT, the institution of science would like to sell itself as the
> overriding philosophy of all things, and answer to all things
It would?
First I've heard of it, and I'm a scientist.
>
> it falsely includes observation and inference in its forte, observation
> is observation, NOT science, inference is deduction and induction, it is
> philosophy, NOT science
Bullshit, pure and simple, and simply repeating it means that it's
simply a bigger pile of bullshit, not truth.
>
> science has become a ministry of truth,
Bullshit. The pile is getting bigger all the time.
> in that not everyone's
> observation and inference is acceptable, to infer or observe you must be
> a part of the institution of science, and in such your inference and
> observation is certified, if you are not a member of the institution your
> observation and inference is NOT certified,
An outright falsehood, by the way
> if you are a member of the
> institution and you infer or claim to observe something, not in line with
> the AGENDA of the ministry of truth, you are ostraicized and seen as a
> heretic
This pile of bullshit is becomming downright Himalayan in its height.
>
> so what is the AGENDA of the institution of science and this ministry of
> truth? what is the AGENDA of any cult? to obtain a position of authority,
> set themselves up as authoritarians, establish a pecking order above the
> average man, and exploit the average man
>
> I suggest all workings of science should pass a democratic screening by
> the average man, and let science SERVE the average man, instead of the
> average man taking his cues and paying his dues to the ministry of truth
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
I suggest that you get out quick before the vast mountain of bullshit
you have constructed topples and drowns you.
Mind you, the content of your posts suggests that you have already
drowned in bullshit.
RF
raven1
<dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
>BUT, the institution of science would like to sell itself as the
>overriding philosophy of all things, and answer to all things
Poppycock.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Timberwoof
Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
> science is a way to deal with conjecture, if you have a conjecture, a
> hypothesis, and it is reproducible, then it is testable and called a
> theory, theories that are testable are called founded theories,
Well, yes and no. As a Fox-news sound bite, that's pretty good. I can
tell you don't read newspapers.
> that is
> ALL there is to science
You obviously haven't read any books on the history of science.
> BUT, the institution of science would like to sell itself as the
> overriding philosophy of all things, and answer to all things
You obviously haven't read any science textbooks.
> it falsely includes observation and inference in its forte, observation
> is observation, NOT science, inference is deduction and induction, it is
> philosophy, NOT science
Yes, and cement, bricks, wood, wiring, tubing, paint, and carpet are not
a house. I can tell that you have also not read any Sunset books on
housebuilding.
> science has become a ministry of truth, in that not everyone's
> observation and inference is acceptable, to infer or observe you must be
> a part of the institution of science, and in such your inference and
> observation is certified, if you are not a member of the institution your
> observation and inference is NOT certified, if you are a member of the
> institution and you infer or claim to observe something, not in line with
> the AGENDA of the ministry of truth, you are ostraicized and seen as a
> heretic
I can tell you don't read Discovery magazine, or Scientific American.
> so what is the AGENDA of the institution of science and this ministry of
> truth? what is the AGENDA of any cult? to obtain a position of authority,
> set themselves up as authoritarians, establish a pecking order above the
> average man, and exploit the average man
>
> I suggest all workings of science should pass a democratic screening by
> the average man, and let science SERVE the average man, instead of the
> average man taking his cues and paying his dues to the ministry of truth
I can tell you didn't even watch "The Biography of E = MC^2" on PBS.
Did you see the part about how Lavoisier got the chop because he
dismissed someone's research as unscientific, and that someone denounced
him to the revolutionaries as an undemocratic scientist?
Do you have any contact at all with the real world?
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
Ron O
Isn't projection wonderful. Where are these guys coming from? How
many newbies ignorant of reality have shown up in the last couple of
weeks? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they are just
getting clued in that all the hype about intelligent design was just a
dishonest scam. Instead of stepping back and evaluating the situation
with something approaching rational thought all we get is this.
Ron Okimoto
Publius
@comcast.net:
> I suggest all workings of science should pass a democratic screening by
> the average man, and let science SERVE the average man, instead of the
> average man taking his cues and paying his dues to the ministry of truth
LOL. That almost happened in Indiana at the end of the 19th century. The
legislature in that state nearly passed a bill setting the value of pi to 3.
Irrational numbers are, after all, irrational.
Science "serves" whoever opts to make use of the information and insights it
offers. If the average man prefers to believe that diseases are caused by
evil spirits, or that the Earth rests on the back of a tortoise, or was
created in 4004 BC, he is perfectly free to so so.
Immortalist
> science is a way to deal with conjecture, if you have a conjecture, a
> hypothesis, and it is reproducible, then it is testable and called a
> theory, theories that are testable are called founded theories, that is
> ALL there is to science
>
Well, I might agree, if you can come up with something that human
reasoning and conceptualization does differently than the description
of the scientific method below. Actually your seeming certainty in
this issue seems rather scientific and logical;
I.3. Types of scientific methods.
The deductive, inductive, and hypothetical-deductive methods are the
three scientific methods, which are referred to by the generic name of
the scientific method...
...Both deductive and inductive methods can go from general to
specific and vice versa, in one direction or the other. Both use logic
and arrive to a conclusion. As a last resort, they always have
philosophic substratum elements. Both tend to be susceptible to
empirical contrasting.
Although the deductive method is more appropriate of the formal
sciences and the inductive of the empirical sciences, nothing prevents
the indiscriminate application of a scientific method, or any other
method, to a particular theory...
...the fundamental difference between the deductive method and the
inductive method is that the first aims to indicate, through pure
logic, the conclusion in its entirety based on a few premises so that
the veracity of the conclusions is guaranteed, that is, if the applied
logic isn't invalidated. It is about the axiomatic model proposed by
Aristotle as the ideal scientific method.
On the contrary, the inductive method creates laws based on the
observation of the facts, by generalising the observed behaviour;
actually, what is achieved is a type of generalisation without
obtaining a demonstration of the aforementioned laws or set of
conclusions through logic.
Such conclusions could be false and, at the same time, the partial
application of logic carried out could maintain its validity. For that
reason, the inductive method needs an additional condition in which
case its application would be considered valid provided that there is
no case that does not fulfil the proposed model.
The hypothetical-deductive method, or the hypothesis comparison, does
not raise any problems in principle, given that its validity depends
on the results of the appropriate contrasting.
This scientific method tends to be used to improve or clarify previous
theories according to new knowledge where the model's complexity does
not allow logical formulations. Therefore, it has a predominantly
intuitive character and needs, not only in order to be rejected but to
also impose its validity, the contrasting of its conclusions.
One could suggest the deductive method, intuitive method, and
experimental or contrasting methods as denominations for these three
variants of the scientific method, or for that matter, any set of
words that refer to their fundamental differences and do not raise any
problems for the linguistic memory. However, in this exposition I will
stick to the nomenclature generally used.
The General Theory of the Conditional Evolution of Life fits in
perfectly with a theory based on the hypothetical-deductive, or
hypothesis comtrasting method.
Darwin's theory of evolution, on the other hand, would fit in the
inductive method; but despite finding opposing examples it is not
invalidated but adapted to square off any triangle. Why would it be?
As was previously mentioned, every theory should be able to withstand
being refuted; however, a theory that cannot be refuted by any
conceivable fact is not scientific. The impossibility of disproving a
scientific theory is not a virtue but a defect.
http://www.molwick.com/en/evolution/015-scientific-methods.html
Bobby Bryant
Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> writes:
8< snip nonsensical rant 8<
How come you keep posting new nonsensical rants, rather than learning
from the replies of your earlier nonsensical rants.
You're acting like a propagandist, though not a very smart one. (Smart
ones target audiences in forums where their misrepresentations won't
be pointed out.)
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Dale Kelly
<dale....@comcast.net>:
>science is a way to deal with conjecture, if you have a conjecture, a
>hypothesis, and it is reproducible, then it is testable and called a
>theory, theories that are testable are called founded theories, that is
>ALL there is to science
Are you ever going to get this right, or just keep posting
your personal definition of science?
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
The Merry Prankster Pope - Saint Isadore Patron Saint of the Internet
> In article <pan.2007.04.22.18.54...@comcast.net>,
> Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> 8< snip nonsensical rant 8<
>
> How come you keep posting new nonsensical rants, rather than learning
> from the replies of your earlier nonsensical rants.
>
> You're acting like a propagandist, though not a very smart one. (Smart
> ones target audiences in forums where their misrepresentations won't
> be pointed out.)
>
> --
> Bobby Bryant
> Reno, Nevada
>
> Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
I think science has become a scrambled mass of misinformation that
human egos refuse to correct -- out of fear they will show how totally
wrong they were in most all of their scientific concepts.
snex
yes, if only we accept the literal truth of ancient nomadic mythology
it will all make sense again.
Chris H. Fleming
I'd like to see the moron pray for transistor computers to magically
appear out of the aether.
Denis Loubet
"Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...
> science is a way to deal with conjecture, if you have a conjecture, a
> hypothesis, and it is reproducible, then it is testable and called a
> theory, theories that are testable are called founded theories, that is
> ALL there is to science
Please stop using words you don't know the meaning of.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
Sir Frederick
>
>"Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...
>> science is a way to deal with conjecture, if you have a conjecture, a
>> hypothesis, and it is reproducible, then it is testable and called a
>> theory, theories that are testable are called founded theories, that is
>> ALL there is to science
>
>Please stop using words you don't know the meaning of.
Please, that's : "Please stop using words of which you don't
know the meaning." :-)
Steve Marshall
"Ron O" <roki...@cox.net> wrote
> Isn't projection wonderful. Where are these guys coming from?
"I HAVE HAD MANY EXPERIENCES WITH LSD"
http://www.vedantasite.org
Nuff said !
raven1
"Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I
will not put!"
Bobby Bryant
The Merry Prankster Pope - Saint Isadore Patron Saint of the Internet <tada...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Apr 22, 1:13 pm, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
>> In article <pan.2007.04.22.18.54...@comcast.net>,
>> Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>> 8< snip nonsensical rant 8<
>>
>> How come you keep posting new nonsensical rants, rather than learning
>> from the replies of your earlier nonsensical rants.
>>
>> You're acting like a propagandist, though not a very smart one.
>> (Smart ones target audiences in forums where their
>> misrepresentations won't be pointed out.)
>
> human egos refuse to correct -- out of fear they will show how
> totally wrong they were in most all of their scientific concepts.
You seem unaware of how science actually works. Stuff gets corrected
_constantly_. Look how different our understanding of the universe is,
at the large scale and the small, compared to 100 years ago?
Sure, egos are involved. But there are egos on both sides of the
fence: one wants to hold on to the hypothesis, another wants to be
the one that shoots it down.
wf3h
Dale Kelly wrote:
> >
> BUT, the institution of science would like to sell itself as the
> overriding philosophy of all things, and answer to all things
proof of this is?
oh...none...none at all....mere assertion...handwaving...religious
ignorance.
>
> it falsely includes observation and inference in its forte, observation
> is observation, NOT science, inference is deduction and induction, it is
> philosophy, NOT science
?? no one knows what this means. where does science claim that
observation is exclusively scientific? you keep blathering on with
assertions that are plain nonsense
>
> science has become a ministry of truth, in that not everyone's
> observation and inference is acceptable, to infer or observe you must be
> a part of the institution of science, and in such your inference and
> observation is certified, if you are not a member of the institution your
> observation and inference is NOT certified, if you are a member of the
> institution and you infer or claim to observe something, not in line with
> the AGENDA of the ministry of truth, you are ostraicized and seen as a
> heretic
and all christians molest children. all muslims are terrorist killers
see...anyone can make any stupid assertions they desire.
there is no 'institution' called science. you can't find it on a map.
you can't drive up to a building called the 'institution' of science.
your statement is bizarre
> >
> I suggest all workings of science should pass a democratic screening by
> the average man, and let science SERVE the average man, instead of the
> average man taking his cues and paying his dues to the ministry of truth
>
> --
scientists are the average man. we work for a living, unlike the
leaders of religious fanatics who sucker their followers into donating
their social security checks.
and there's no reason to give the 'average man' a voice in science any
more than you would want the 'average man' passing judgement on your
doctor's surgery techniques.
what a ridiculous set of stupid observations you've made....truly
you've exceeded the depths of creationist illogic.
Frank J
Just curious, do you mostly vote liberal or conservative?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <pan.2007.04...@comcast.net>):
> science has become a ministry of truth, in that not everyone's
> observation and inference is acceptable, to infer or observe you must be
> a part of the institution of science, and in such your inference and
> observation is certified, if you are not a member of the institution your
> observation and inference is NOT certified,
Tell me, have you ever heard of Clyde Tombaugh? Quick, what degree did he
have when he made his most famous discovery?
Tell me, have you ever heard of William Thompson, Lord Kelvin? He was an
extremely religious man as well as a famous scientist... and he had problems
with the Theory of Evolution. And he had actual _numbers_ and _evidence_ to
support his position, that the Earth could not be more than 40 million years
old, and was probably more like half that. (Note: way, way, WAY older than
6000, as per YECs.) He supported his claims with actual data... right up
until new data came to light which invalidated his work. In the light of
further data, he, like any other good scientist, backed off. (The new data
which included information on how radioactive materials worked, data which
had not been available when he had first done his calculations.) What this
meant was that, until Becquerel and the Curies provided the work which showed
the mechanism by which the Earth could be old enough for evolution to work, a
substantial portion of the scientific establishment did not accept the ToE
and did not accept it for very good reason. The ToE was the
anti-establishment theory! Once, however, people working in fields totally
unrelated to biology uncovered new data which supported evolutionary theory,
scientists world-wide revised their stands.
You should note that just as scientists world-wide went from being at best
neutral on the ToE (at worst, like Kelvin, being actively hostile to it) to
accepting it based on the evidence, should further data come in which
invalidates the ToE then scientists world-wide will support whatever theory
that new data supports. It's the way science works. It's all about the data.
> if you are a member of the
> institution and you infer or claim to observe something, not in line with
> the AGENDA of the ministry of truth, you are ostraicized and seen as a
> heretic
Tell me, have you ever heard of Albert Einstein? Quick, for which institution
was he working during the 'miracle year' when he published four papers which
would completely revolutionise physics? What degree did he have at the time?
How long did it take for all four of the miracle year papers take to be
accepted for what they were?
Tell me, have you ever heard of Paul Dirac or Hugh Everett? Tell me, did
_their_ work gain immediate acceptance? Why or why not?
How about Albert Wegener? Ever hear of him? He had problems because he could
not propose a mechanism by which certain parts of his theory would work...
but other people could, and did, uncover that mechanism for him. If he was an
ostraicised heretic, why did others spend literal _decades_ supporting him?
If you can provide actual data, evidence, numbers, which support a theory
which explains Life As We Know It as well as the Theory of Evolution does, or
even if you can show a pointer to where such evidence might be, _someone_
will check. It took literal decades for supporting evidence to be uncovered
for evolutionary theory... during which time, the ToE was itself modified in
the light of new data. And it continues to be modified in the light of new
data, the way _all_ science is... though the modifications are just that,
modifications to the basic structure which remains unchanged, the way that
classic mechanics as uncovered by Newton centuries ago has been modified over
the years by, among others, Einstein and Dirac but still works just fine for
most purposes. It took literal _decades_ for the data to support plate
tectonics to become available, during which time _that_ theory was also
modified in the light of new data.
The problem that creationists face is the interlocking nature of science.
Becquerel and the Curies didn't set out to smash Kelvin's ideas of the age of
the Earth; several of their key discoveries were entirely accidental, and
their work was in a field (then) as far removed from biology as it could get
and still be a science. (Biologists care a lot about radiation _now_; they
didn't have clue one then.) Once their data was available, though, it was
simply impossible for good scientists to ignore it... and the implications of
that data. Which lead to, among other things, plate tectonics. And the light
bulb. _Anything which is of a magnitude as to overturn the theory of
evolution will also overturn much of physics, chemistry, geology, and,
indeed, most of science_ because _it's all connected_. Change one thing, and
you change it all. You have to. That's how science works. Newton changed
everything. Darwin changed everything. Einstein changed everything. Dirac
changed everything. You'd best be able to see something those four didn't see
if _you_ want to change everything. And you'd best have some kind of actual
data, evidence, to support your position. And Genesis is not any kind of
support for science, as the Bible is not, never was, and never will be a
science text. Men wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks. Any new theory has to
explain, among other things, the rocks. If you have such a theory, by all
means trot it out.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <kpmn23llmq7vdbn88...@4ax.com>):
English is, famously, one of the results of Norman men-at-arms chatting up
Saxon barmaids, and no more legitimate than any of the other results. It
ain't Latin, or even close. Norman men-at-arms spoke Norman French, a
language based on Latin but with heavy influences from Frankish, a Germanic
language. Saxons spoke a Germanic language; Saxons in England spoke a variant
contaminated with the remnants of what the previous owners of the place had
spoken, before the Angles and Saxons took over. Those people in turn spoke a
Latinised variant of Gaelic, 'cause the Gaels ran the British Isles prior to
the arrival of those annoying Italians. (Gaels are again running the British
Isles. Whether this is a good thing or not is open to interpretation.) Latin
grammar rules do not apply to the mess resulting from all that.
Will in New Haven
For over two thousand years religion has been a way for people with no
fun in their lives to try to make people who want to have a good time
feel guilty and miserable. Of course, it has also allowed a huge
assortment of charlatans to make a good living doing nothing much at
all. In addition, it has set groups of people against one another and
inspired vast numbers of people to murder in its name.
With remarkable stability, religion has not changed but has
steadfastly continued in its career of fanatacism and/or deciet.
Will in New Haven
--
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman -
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
Baron Bodissey
Science is not what you think you learned in some middle school class;
science is what scientists say it is. How could it be otherwise? And
why is that so difficult for you and other creationists to understand?
You've given the correct information by numerous people who know more
than you do about the subject and you've continued to ignore the
facts. Science is not responsible for your ignorance; only you can
bear the responsibility for that.
Baron Bodissey
Back off, man, I'm a scientist!
- Ghostbusters
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1177287581....@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>):
Mental cases are allowed to _vote_?!
Ross Langerak
> hypothesis, and it is reproducible, then it is testable and called a
> theory, theories that are testable are called founded theories, that is
> ALL there is to science
Haven't we already covered this? And haven't you already failed to respond?
The scientific method is a four step, cyclic method.
Step 1 is data. Data is the result of observation and experimentation.
Step 2 is a theory. A theory is an explanation for the data.
Step 3 is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a specific prediction based upon a
theory. (If you have difficulty with this use of "hypothesis", just call
Step 3 a specific prediction based upon a theory.)
Step 4 is an experiment. The experiment directly tests the hypothesis. The
result is more data and we return to Step 1.
The validity of any theory is determined entirely by how well it fits the
data. If new data is produced that contradicts a theory, then the theory
must either be altered or rejected. Experiments in science should, in
principle, be repeatable. The results of experiments should be independent
of the experimenter.
> BUT, the institution of science would like to sell itself as the
> overriding philosophy of all things, and answer to all things
I don't know if you've noticed, but science has had a few successes over the
past couple hundred years.
> it falsely includes observation and inference in its forte, observation
> is observation,
Observation produces data, which is step 1 of the scientific method.
> NOT science, inference is deduction and induction, it is
> philosophy, NOT science
Induction and deduction are different. Induction goes from specific
statements to general statements. Deduction goes from general statements to
specific statements. In the scientific method, induction is used to form
theories from the data. Deduction is used to form hypotheses (predictions)
based upon a theory. So how can inference be both at the same time?
> science has become a ministry of truth, in that not everyone's
> observation and inference is acceptable, to infer or observe you must be
> a part of the institution of science, and in such your inference and
> observation is certified, if you are not a member of the institution your
> observation and inference is NOT certified, if you are a member of the
> institution and you infer or claim to observe something, not in line with
> the AGENDA of the ministry of truth, you are ostraicized and seen as a
> heretic
To make valid contributions to science, you need to at least be familiar
with the evidence. It also helps to be familiar with the current theories.
The problem with creationism is that it is based upon ignorance, not
knowledge.
> so what is the AGENDA of the institution of science and this ministry of
> truth? what is the AGENDA of any cult? to obtain a position of authority,
> set themselves up as authoritarians, establish a pecking order above the
> average man, and exploit the average man
The agenda of scientists is to understand nature, and perhaps make a living
while doing it. The ultimate authority in science is the evidence.
Personal authority may have some value in religion, but it is absolutely
worthless in science. No individual authority is ever above the evidence.
> I suggest all workings of science should pass a democratic screening by
> the average man, and let science SERVE the average man, instead of the
> average man taking his cues and paying his dues to the ministry of truth
The average man is not familiar with the evidence. How can someone evaluate
a theory if they are not familiar with the evidence? If I remember
correctly, you were an engineer for Kodak. Would Kodak have hired you if
you knew nothing of photographic film engineering (or something related to
it)? When you came up with a solution for a technical engineering problem,
did you go out onto the streets of Rochester and survey random people to
determine whether or not your solution would work?
The reason you get attacked personally in this group, is because you have
shown no willingness to learn. If you want to be taken seriously, you first
have to become familiar with evolution and the evidence that relates to it.
Dale Kelly
> Isn't projection wonderful. Where are these guys coming from? How many
> newbies ignorant of reality have shown up--
a megaolamaniac statement, now science is reality
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
Dale Kelly
> rants. you are just mad that such a successful process of science doesnt
> substantiate your favorite fairy tales. well boo hoo, reality doesnt
> give a shit about what you believe. grow the fuck up.--
the words of a megalomaniac, SCIENCE=REALITY, if science is reality, then
why not dispense with the word science and call it reality, so your
ministry of reality can take place?
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
Dale Kelly
> The deductive, inductive, and hypothetical-deductive methods are the
> three scientific methods, which are referred to by the generic name of
> the scientific method--
deduction and induction are inference, NOT science
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
Dale Kelly
> Just curious, do you mostly vote liberal or conservative?--
I am an anarchist, who believe a communal state will result out of
anarchism, I vote for the most stupid candidates so that they will make
mistakes with government and hasten the need for anarchism
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
Dale Kelly
> science is what scientists say it is--
this allows the definition of science to change to meet the needs of its
priesthood
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
Boswell
Is it really enough just to place your vote and hope for the worst?
Shouldn't you be out actively drumming up money and support for
neo-con candidates?
Baron Bodissey
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:47:31 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
>
> >"Dale Kelly" <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...
> >> science is a way to deal with conjecture, if you have a conjecture, a
> >> hypothesis, and it is reproducible, then it is testable and called a
> >> theory, theories that are testable are called founded theories, that is
> >> ALL there is to science
>
> >Please stop using words you don't know the meaning of.
>
> Please, that's : "Please stop using words of which you don't
> know the meaning." :-)
Right on!
(or is that "On which right"?)
Sir Frederick
I went to 'government grammer' school in the forties and fifties in Arizona.
That and my brain now, are as much a part of history as anything earlier.
Baron Bodissey
Well, yes, actually, although your use of the word "priesthood" just
reinforces your aura of self-imposed and stubborn ignorance.
Timberwoof
Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:02:02 -0700, snex wrote:
>
> > rants. you are just mad that such a successful process of science doesnt
> > substantiate your favorite fairy tales. well boo hoo, reality doesnt
> > give a shit about what you believe. grow the fuck up.--
>
>
> the words of a megalomaniac, SCIENCE=REALITY, if science is reality, then
> why not dispense with the word science and call it reality,
Because science is a process and the human experience of reality
includes more than just what science deals with.
> so your
> ministry of reality can take place?
Yeah, right.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
Timberwoof
Sir Frederick <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
The notion that a preposition is something you're not supposed to end a
sentence with is a silly made-up[1] rule up with which I will not put!
[1] That's true, you know. It was made-up by an American high school
grammar teacher who thought it would elevate the language.
Timberwoof
"J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
For describing an often-overlooked aspect of science, that new ideas
don't revolutionize science overnight, I nominate this post for POTM.
Timberwoof
"J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:06:21 -0400, Sir Frederick wrote
> (in article <kpmn23llmq7vdbn88...@4ax.com>):
>
> > On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:47:31 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...
> >>> science is a way to deal with conjecture, if you have a conjecture, a
> >>> hypothesis, and it is reproducible, then it is testable and called a
> >>> theory, theories that are testable are called founded theories, that is
> >>> ALL there is to science
> >>
> >> Please stop using words you don't know the meaning of.
> > Please, that's : "Please stop using words of which you don't
> > know the meaning." :-)
> >
>
> English is, famously, one of the results of Norman men-at-arms chatting up
> Saxon barmaids, and no more legitimate than any of the other results. It
> ain't Latin, or even close. Norman men-at-arms spoke Norman French, a
> language based on Latin but with heavy influences from Frankish, a Germanic
> language. Saxons spoke a Germanic language; Saxons in England spoke a variant
> contaminated with the remnants of what the previous owners of the place had
> spoken, before the Angles and Saxons took over.
You forgot all about the Danish influence, in which both Western
Germanic languages dropped their endings leaving a common vocabulary and
enabling the Saxons English to talk with the Danish English.
> Those people in turn spoke a
> Latinised variant of Gaelic, 'cause the Gaels ran the British Isles prior to
> the arrival of those annoying Italians. (Gaels are again running the British
> Isles. Whether this is a good thing or not is open to interpretation.) Latin
> grammar rules do not apply to the mess resulting from all that.
Goodnessum thankei!
(And thanks for, except for the bit about the Danes, the best summary of
the history of English I've ever read. :)
Timberwoof
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:50:12 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
>
> > The deductive, inductive, and hypothetical-deductive methods are the
> > three scientific methods, which are referred to by the generic name of
> > the scientific method--
>
> deduction and induction are inference, NOT science
Plywood and wallboard are building materials, NOT houses!
bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net
Reminds of someone's definition of puritanism as "the gnawing fear
that somewhere, somehow, someone is having a good time."
>
> With remarkable stability, religion has not changed but has
> steadfastly continued in its career of fanatacism and/or deciet.
>
> Will in New Haven
>
> --
>
> "All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
> we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
> - SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman -
>
>
>
> > Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sean Carroll
> Reminds of someone's definition of puritanism as "the gnawing fear
> that somewhere, somehow, someone is having a good time."
'Someone' is H L Mencken in this case. (Exact wording: 'Puritanism--The
haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.')
Look him up. That's far from his only great quotation.
Another to whet your appetite: 'Self-Respect--The secure feeling that no
one, as yet, is suspicious.'
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
'What else turns you on? Drugs? Casual sex? Rough sex? ... Casual rough
sex? I'm a doctor, I need to know.' --Dr Gregory House
Immortalist
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:50:12 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
> > The deductive, inductive, and hypothetical-deductive methods are the
> > three scientific methods, which are referred to by the generic name of
> > the scientific method--
>
> deduction and induction are inference, NOT science
>
Can you explain the relationship between scientific or common sense
conceptual abstractions and deduction and induction? I mean when you
reason do you use deduction and induction, and how does this differ
from scientific reasoning?
How does the science below differ from regular reasoning abilities?
Mill's Methods
Mill's methods are some methods used to formulate hypotheses of
certain phenomena. It is clearly a species of inductive arguments as
we shall see. More precisely the methods, first proposed by British
philosopher and logician John Stuart Mill, are used to find causes of
the phenomena to be explained. All of Mill's methods share the same
characteristics in that they separate the phenomena into two parts,
namely the parts to be explained, or the effects, and the antecedent
phenomena which include the likely causes of the effects. The method
is conducted by observing the effects and then reason to the likely
causes by observing common features, different features, features that
vary with each other, and so on. According to Mill, there are five of
his methods:
1. Method of Agreement
2. Method of Difference
3. Method of Agreement and Difference (Joint Method)
4. Method of Residue
5. Method of Concomittant Variation
Here is what the first method, Method of Agreement, does. First you
have a phenomenon you would like explained, for example a group of
students in a certain school all having diarrhea and vomiting. You
want to know what caused the symptom. You know that the symptom could
only be caused by food. So you list all the food eated by the affected
student up to the time when they were attacked, and suppose this is
the result:
A B C D ==> j h l k
E F A G ==> k o m n
H I J A ==> q r s k
The capital letters on the left hand side represent the antecedent
conditions, and the small letters on the right show the phenomena on
the effects side. Thus, in case of the students having diarrhea, the
left hand side represents the food eated by the students, and the
right hand side show the symptoms that they have. Suppose that each
capital letter represents a kind of food, and the small letters on the
right hand side represent a symptom. Then we can see that the
phenomena on the left hand side have one thing in common, A. And
similarly for the phenomena on the right hand side, the symptom k.
Thus we can conclude, using the First Method, that A is the likely
cause of k.
Here is the diagram for the second method:
A B C D ==> j k l m
B C D ==> m l j
Suppose we have only two events which are alike in all aspects but
one. Then it is likely that the part that is the difference on the
left had side is the cause of the part that is missing on the right
hand side.
The third method has nothing but a joint consideration of the first
two methods in finding likely causes. Let's look at this diagram
A B C D ==> k l m o
A E F G ==> l p n r
A H I J ==> q u r l
H I M N ==> q r z y
O P Q R ==> x w n r
Here is the diagram for the fourth method:
A B C D ==> o p q r
We know already that
A ==> p
B ==> q
C ==> r
Thus, we can conclude that D is the likely cause of o, because the
pair is the only one left from the matching of causes and effects
which we know already. That is why this method is called the Method of
Residue.
Here is the diagram for the last method:
A B C D1 ==> w x y z1
A B C D2 ==> w x y z2
A B C D3 ==> w x y z3
A B C D4 ==> w x y z4
A B C D5 ==> w x y z5
The phenomena are alike except only that there is a variation in the
degree of D on the left hand (causes) side, and the same for z on the
right hand side. Since everything else is equal we conclude that here
D is the likely cause of z.
http://pioneer.netserv.chula.ac.th/~hsoraj/PhilandLogic/WeekFive.html#Mill
http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/sci/mill.php
http://www.thelogician.net/4_logic_of_causation/4_mills_methods.htm
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
Kermit
Saint of the Internet <tadap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 1:13 pm, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <pan.2007.04.22.18.54...@comcast.net>,
> > Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > 8< snip nonsensical rant 8<
>
> > How come you keep posting new nonsensical rants, rather than learning
> > from the replies of your earlier nonsensical rants.
>
> > You're acting like a propagandist, though not a very smart one. (Smart
> > ones target audiences in forums where their misrepresentations won't
> > be pointed out.)
>
> > --
> > Bobby Bryant
> > Reno, Nevada
>
> > Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
>
> I think science has become a scrambled mass of misinformation that
> human egos refuse to correct -- out of fear they will show how totally
> wrong they were in most all of their scientific concepts.
Considering that models which are not testable are not considered
science, I anticipate that you will have trouble backing that
statement up.
Theories and hypotheses are tested all the time, mostly by folks who
stand a lot to gain by refuting them.
Do you have any examples in mind?
Kermit
snex
science isnt reality itself. science is how we discover reality. you
got a better way? didnt think so.
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
eerok
[...]
> The notion that a preposition is something you're not
> supposed to end a sentence with is a silly made-up[1] rule
> up with which I will not put!
>
> [1] That's true, you know. It was made-up by an American
> high school grammar teacher who thought it would elevate the
> language.
I thought it was Ruskin in Victorian England, but I looked it
up in Fowler's, which says it was Dryden in 1672.
--
"The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
- George Bernard Shaw
The Merry Prankster Pope - Saint Isadore Patron Saint of the Internet
>
> - Show quoted text -
Science has become a hippo-crit-tical concept not knowning what any
part of it is doing
with respect to any other part of the activities within it.
snex
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 8:11 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:02:02 -0700, snex wrote:
> > > > rants. you are just mad that such a successful process of science doesnt
> > > > substantiate your favorite fairy tales. well boo hoo, reality doesnt
> > > > give a shit about what you believe. grow the fuck up.--
>
> > > the words of a megalomaniac, SCIENCE=REALITY, if science is reality, then
> > > why not dispense with the word science and call it reality, so your
> > > ministry of reality can take place?
>
> > science isnt reality itself. science is how we discover reality. you
> > got a better way? didnt think so.
>
> > > --
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Science has become a hippo-crit-tical concept not knowning what any
> part of it is doing
> with respect to any other part of the activities within it.
in other words, you got nothin better. thanks for the admission.
Timberwoof
The Merry Prankster Pope - Saint Isadore Patron Saint of the Internet
Now the scientific community is rather large and its members are rather
specialized, so it is quite possible that a biologist at the Woods Hole
Oceanographic research Institute does not knnow or care what an
astrophysicist at the James Lick Observatory is doing. How does that
make it hypocritical?
(Maybe I'm missing an overly subtle joke. I don't know what
hippo-crit-tical means or how a concept of that nature is supposed to
know anything.)
Dale Kelly
> science isnt reality itself. science is how we discover reality. you got
> a better way? didnt think so.--
science lays claim to observation and inference, they are not unigue to
science
I suggest observation and inference are better ways to discover reality
science wants to set up a pecking order and says that if you are part of
the institution of science then your observations and inference are
certified and better than if you weren't part of the institution of
science
observation and inference are absolute, we do not need science for these
and we do not need science for anything
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
Rodjk #613
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
I thought that creationist/ID people liked science, they just thought
that evolution was an incorrect application of science. Now we learn
that they don't like science at all?
Whodathunkit?
Rodjk #613
Ernest Major
<timberwoof.spam-7F...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
Timberwoof <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> writes
And the confusion between Gaels and Celts (the Britons and at least some
Picts were Celts, but not Gaels).
>the best summary of
>the history of English I've ever read. :)
>
--
Alias Ernest Major
Tim
"snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1177268522.2...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 22, 1:53 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> science is a way to deal with conjecture, if you have a conjecture, a
>> hypothesis, and it is reproducible, then it is testable and called a
>> theory, theories that are testable are called founded theories, that is
>> ALL there is to science
>>
>> overriding philosophy of all things, and answer to all things
>>
>> it falsely includes observation and inference in its forte, observation
>> is observation, NOT science, inference is deduction and induction, it is
>> philosophy, NOT science
>>
>> science has become a ministry of truth, in that not everyone's
>> observation and inference is acceptable, to infer or observe you must be
>> a part of the institution of science, and in such your inference and
>> observation is certified, if you are not a member of the institution your
>> observation and inference is NOT certified, if you are a member of the
>> institution and you infer or claim to observe something, not in line with
>> the AGENDA of the ministry of truth, you are ostraicized and seen as a
>> heretic
>>
>> so what is the AGENDA of the institution of science and this ministry of
>> truth? what is the AGENDA of any cult? to obtain a position of authority,
>> set themselves up as authoritarians, establish a pecking order above the
>> average man, and exploit the average man
>>
>> I suggest all workings of science should pass a democratic screening by
>> the average man, and let science SERVE the average man, instead of the
>> average man taking his cues and paying his dues to the ministry of truth
>>
>> --
>> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
>
> rants.
Actually you are equating science and technology. To do so is an error.
Tim
"snex" <xe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1177304972.4...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
So prior to say the ancient Greeks there was no reality. I don't think so,
try again.
>>
>> --
>> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
>
>
wf3h
Dale Kelly wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:09:32 -0700, snex wrote:
>
> > science isnt reality itself. science is how we discover reality. you got
> > a better way? didnt think so.--
>
> science lays claim to observation and inference, they are not unigue to
> science
>
> I suggest observation and inference are better ways to discover reality
what a ridiculous assertion. and how do you KNOW they're 'better'? if
you don't TEST your inferences how do you know they mean anything at
all?
>
> science wants to set up a pecking order
that's true. we scientists get together every march 25 and decide on a
pecking order
the only thing more amazing than religious fanaticism is that it gets
more amazing every day.
and says that if you are part of
> the institution of science then your observations and inference are
> certified and better than if you weren't part of the institution of
> science
there is no 'institution' of science and you haven't demonstrated that
there is.
>
> observation and inference are absolute, we do not need science for these
> and we do not need science for anything
?? really?
i suppose you used your computer to type those words...the computer
developed by science
the christianist war on logic has reached new lows with dale's
wholesale assault on 2500 years of logic and reason.
wf3h
Dale Kelly wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:19:41 -0700, Frank J wrote:
>
> > Just curious, do you mostly vote liberal or conservative?--
>
>
> I am an anarchist, who believe a communal state will result out of
> anarchism, I vote for the most stupid candidates so that they will make
> mistakes with government and hasten the need for anarchism
if that's your criteria you should put yourself at the top of the
list.
>
> --
> Dale
> http://www.vedantasite.org
wf3h
Dale Kelly wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:50:19 -0700, Baron Bodissey wrote:
>
> > science is what scientists say it is--
>
> this allows the definition of science to change to meet the needs of its
> priesthood
religion, of course, never changes. we still have slaves. we still
think demons cause disease
he has a point...
Ron O
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:41:09 -0700, Ron O wrote:
> > Isn't projection wonderful. Where are these guys coming from? How many
> > newbies ignorant of reality have shown up--
>
> a megaolamaniac statement, now science is reality
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
Only to the clueless. Where did I say science is reality? Do you
understand what science is? Since you obviously do not, isn't that
ignorance of reality?
You might want to try to learn something when you are not in a drug
induced stupor. Why should you be proud of your version of "a better
life through chemistry?"
Ron Okimoto
Noelie S. Alito
> In article <0001HW.C25175EF...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:53:15 -0400, Dale Kelly wrote
>> (in article <pan.2007.04...@comcast.net>):
>>
>>> science has become a ministry of truth, in that not everyone's
>>> observation and inference is acceptable, to infer or observe you must be
>>> a part of the institution of science, and in such your inference and
>>> observation is certified, if you are not a member of the institution your
>>> observation and inference is NOT certified,
>> Tell me, have you ever heard of Clyde Tombaugh? Quick, what degree did he
>> have when he made his most famous discovery?
>>
<snippity doo-dah>
> For describing an often-overlooked aspect of science, that new ideas
> don't revolutionize science overnight, I nominate this post for POTM.
Seconded.
Ross Langerak
>
>> Just curious, do you mostly vote liberal or conservative?--
>
>
> I am an anarchist, who believe a communal state will result out of
> anarchism, I vote for the most stupid candidates so that they will make
> mistakes with government and hasten the need for anarchism
If your goal is a communal state, doesn't that make you a Communist?
I don't have time for a more complete response at the moment, but I'm fairly
certain that the result of anarchy would not be a communal state. Anarchy
is the complete absence of government. The result would be a complete
collapse of the economy.
Will in New Haven
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:41:09 -0700, Ron O wrote:
> > Isn't projection wonderful. Where are these guys coming from? How many
> > newbies ignorant of reality have shown up--
>
> a megaolamaniac statement, now science is reality
It is the study of reality. Of course, some aspects of any subject
will elude the researcher. And it is equally true that the term
'scientist' is misleading to some extent, since no one is converscant
in all fields of science. It is much easier, as you have done, to be
completely ignorant of all of them
Will in New Haven
--
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
Will in New Haven
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:19:41 -0700, Frank J wrote:
> > Just curious, do you mostly vote liberal or conservative?--
>
> I am an anarchist, who believe a communal state will result out of
> anarchism, I vote for the most stupid candidates so that they will make
> mistakes with government and hasten the need for anarchism
No communal state will rise out of anarchism as long as enough people
are armed.
Boswell
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>On Apr 22, 9:18 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:19:41 -0700, Frank J wrote:
>> > Just curious, do you mostly vote liberal or conservative?--
>>
>> I am an anarchist, who believe a communal state will result out of
>> anarchism, I vote for the most stupid candidates so that they will make
>> mistakes with government and hasten the need for anarchism
>
>No communal state will rise out of anarchism as long as enough people
>are armed.
I wonder if Dale knows of any case where anarchy resulted in the
formation of a true communal state. Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism
don't count. If it hasn't happened in the past, why does he think that
this time it will produce a true worker's paradise?
TomS
<1177320779....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, wf3h stated..."
I was going to suggest that he must have a difficult time making
a choice from such an abundance of riches.
--
---Tom S.
"When people use the X is not a fact or Y is not proven gambits it is a tacit
admission that they have lost the science argument and they are just trying to
downplay the significance of that failing."
BK Jennings, "On the Nature of Science", Physics in Canada 63(1)
Dick C
in talk.origins
> On Apr 22, 1:13 pm, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
>> In article <pan.2007.04.22.18.54...@comcast.net>,
>> Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>> 8< snip nonsensical rant 8<
>>
>> How come you keep posting new nonsensical rants, rather than learning
>> from the replies of your earlier nonsensical rants.
>>
>> You're acting like a propagandist, though not a very smart one. (Smart
>> ones target audiences in forums where their misrepresentations won't
>> be pointed out.)
>>
>> --
>> Bobby Bryant
>> Reno, Nevada
>>
>> Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
>
> I think science has become a scrambled mass of misinformation that
> human egos refuse to correct -- out of fear they will show how totally
> wrong they were in most all of their scientific concepts.
Why do you think that? Certainly not from the results it brings in. Perhaps
because it does not kowtow to your particular belief system?
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
snex
> "snex" <x...@comcast.net> wrote in message
people used scientific reasoning prior to the ancient greeks. it just
wasnt formalized and nobody actually knew they were doing it.
science isnt some ivory tower magic spell that you need an advanced
degree to pursue. it is merely the application of methods that we know
*actually work* to parts of reality we never thought to apply them to
in the past.
>
>
>
> >> --
> >> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
Desertphile
> Timberwoof wrote:
> > In article <0001HW.C25175EF0060667EF0284...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:53:15 -0400, Dale Kelly wrote
>
> >>> science has become a ministry of truth, in that not everyone's
> >>> observation and inference is acceptable, to infer or observe you must be
> >>> a part of the institution of science, and in such your inference and
> >>> observation is certified, if you are not a member of the institution your
> >>> observation and inference is NOT certified,
> >> Tell me, have you ever heard of Clyde Tombaugh? Quick, what degree did he
> >> have when he made his most famous discovery?
> <snippity doo-dah>
> > For describing an often-overlooked aspect of science, that new ideas
> > don't revolutionize science overnight, I nominate this post forPOTM.
Note that "intelligent design" has had thousands of years to make its
case and it has failed to do so.
> Seconded.
Ye Old One
<dale....@comcast.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:41:09 -0700, Ron O wrote:
>
>> Isn't projection wonderful. Where are these guys coming from? How many
>> newbies ignorant of reality have shown up--
>
>a megaolamaniac statement, now science is reality
No, science EXPLAINS reality.
--
Bob.
Dale Kelly
> Technology uses insights that come from science. Without science, no
> computer for you.--
computers are INVENTION, not science
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
raven1
<dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:45:43 +0000, nmp wrote:
>
>> Technology uses insights that come from science. Without science, no
>> computer for you.--
>
>
>computers are INVENTION, not science
Chez Watt! More clueless than McClueless, if that's possible...
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Ye Old One
>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:45:43 +0000, nmp wrote:
>
>> Technology uses insights that come from science. Without science, no
>> computer for you.--
>
>
>computers are INVENTION, not science
Oh dear. What a fool.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<quotht...@nevermore.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:34:20 -0500, Dale Kelly
><dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:45:43 +0000, nmp wrote:
>>
>>> Technology uses insights that come from science. Without science, no
>>> computer for you.--
>>
>>
>>computers are INVENTION, not science
>
>Chez Watt! More clueless than McClueless, if that's possible...
No, it is not possible.
--
Bob.
Frank J
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:19:41 -0700, Frank J wrote:
> > Just curious, do you mostly vote liberal or conservative?--
>
> I am an anarchist, who believe a communal state will result out of
> anarchism, I vote for the most stupid candidates so that they will make
> mistakes with government and hasten the need for anarchism
>
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
You might want to google TO posts from ~2003 and find a political ally
in Average Joe. Maybe he'll return if he hasn't gone completely off
the deep end.
Mark Isaak
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:09:32 -0700, snex wrote:
>
>> science isnt reality itself. science is how we discover reality. you
>> got a better way? didnt think so.--
>
> science lays claim to observation and inference, they are not unigue to
> science
>
> I suggest observation and inference are better ways to discover reality
Great. Show me. Go discover reality your way. When you can
demonstrate, with tangible products, that it works better than the tried
and true methods, let us know. Until then, all your words on the subject
are worse than worthless, because they are based on nothing at all.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
raven1
<dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:19:41 -0700, Frank J wrote:
>
>> Just curious, do you mostly vote liberal or conservative?--
>
>
>I am an anarchist, who believe a communal state will result out of
>anarchism, I vote for the most stupid candidates so that they will make
>mistakes with government and hasten the need for anarchism
Or hasten the rush to fascism.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
People who don't believe in anything but science. Being human, that
equates to having science as a religion. That's a terrible thing,
because it makes everything in science very emotional because it's
their religion too. Really which of these science-fans could live it
down when natural selection theory is found to be structurally false,
as several philosophers have argued. So the fact is theories go by
unchallenged, it's just a game of politics, being clever like a lawyer
at defending the theory. That people don't have any religion outside
of science also results in an enormous dogmatizing going on in
science. In recent years the scientific method has been dogmatized to
death. But there exists no such thing as the scientific method which
all theory must adhere to. It is absolutely impossible to understand
quantum-mechanics with a dogmatic view of the scientific method. Real
science procedes by more complex things called "reasonability" and
"common sense" and stuff like that. Another thing that is happening is
that we now must accept things which are evidenced, eventhough the
evidence is very thin. For example the red-shift theory. They got a
very few observations that corresponded to redshift theory, and then
people were told that redshift was a fact. I find it very doubtful,
considering the evidence is so thin. Or take Hawkings multiverse
delusion. Really is it okay to engage in such a complete fantastical
delusion in science on that scale? Wasn't the main reason Hawking
advanced this theory because he got a kick out of it, rather then any
scientific reason? And then of course there are the Darwinists, who
endlessly make up stuff indistinghuishable from moral precepts. I
mean, if science is your religion, you're obviously going to fall back
on natural selection theory as the basis for your morality. Think what
would happen if Newton accepted evolutionary psychology developed by
Tooby, and Cosmides. What a nightmare. There's no way Newton could
have thought of anything special when he would be caught up in that
horriffying slush.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Gerry Murphy
"Ron O" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1177270869.0...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> Isn't projection wonderful. Where are these guys coming from? How
> many newbies ignorant of reality have shown up in the last couple of
> weeks?
It's spring ( in the northern hemisphere at least ) and a new crop of
nutters is sprouting. 8-}
raven1
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The bad thing about science now is people such as Eugenie Scott.
>People who don't believe in anything but science.
I know of no one who fits that description.
Boswell
Uh... do you know of any galaxies outside the local group that aren't
redshifted? Do you know of any whose visual size don't match their
redshift distance? So far as I know the agreement is virtually
perfect. And Hawking didn't propose the multiverse model, though his
current thinking seems compatible with it. You can complain that a
theory lacks 'reasonability' and 'common,' but if it's simple,
elegant, matches well with observation and accounts for a wide range
of facts within the relevant domain of interest, that's all that
matters from a scientific viewpoint. Nature may not match your common
sense conceptions of it.
>endlessly make up stuff indistinghuishable from moral precepts. I
>mean, if science is your religion, you're obviously going to fall back
>on natural selection theory as the basis for your morality. Think what
>would happen if Newton accepted evolutionary psychology developed by
>Tooby, and Cosmides. What a nightmare. There's no way Newton could
>have thought of anything special when he would be caught up in that
>horriffying slush.
So you don't like the their ideas about reciprocal social exchanges?
Can you demonstrate specifically where their ideas are wrong?
And aren't you the fellow who thinks comets don't actually follow
Newtonian paths, but meander around wherever their free will prompts
them to go? Are you complaining that you think evolutionary psychology
will lead comets to make bad choices that lead them down bad paths?
>regards,
>Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Denis Loubet
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:kpmn23llmq7vdbn88...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:47:31 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...
>>> hypothesis, and it is reproducible, then it is testable and called a
>>> theory, theories that are testable are called founded theories, that is
>>> ALL there is to science
>>
>>Please stop using words you don't know the meaning of.
> Please, that's : "Please stop using words of which you don't
> know the meaning." :-)
As Homer Simpson would put it "D'OH!"
Or as Richard Dawkins would put it "I gratefully accept the rebuke."
;-)
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Dale Kelly
<dale....@comcast.net>:
>On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:09:32 -0700, snex wrote:
>
>> science isnt reality itself. science is how we discover reality. you got
>> a better way? didnt think so.--
>
>science lays claim to observation and inference, they are not unigue to
>science
No, but the idea of actually testing your inferences
(hypotheses) is.
<snip>
>observation and inference are absolute, we do not need science for these
>and we do not need science for anything
That's approximately what Aristotle thought. Aristotle was
brilliant, but even he was wrong about this, and you're no
Aristotle.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:45:43 +0000, nmp wrote:
>
>> Technology uses insights that come from science. Without science, no
>> computer for you.--
>
>
>computers are INVENTION, not science
You really are as ignorant as your posts make you seem,
aren't you? Where do you think the theoretical basis for the
transistor came from, if not from physics? Wait; never mind.
I'm sure anything you post in response will make me ill.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "nando_r...@yahoo.com"
<nando_r...@yahoo.com>:
>The bad thing about science
...is that it allows the clueless a worldwide audience.
<snip>
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
>
> I suggest observation and inference are better ways to discover reality
Well dont stop there bozo, tell us what you observe when you see the
reality of your god.
is it a he, a she? does it piss and shit?
MG
wf3h
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The bad thing about science now is people such as Eugenie Scott.
> People who don't believe in anything but science.
does nando know this? how does he know it? and relevance? who cares
what she thinks? the question is: does science work? and it
does...much better than religion ever did.
Being human, that
> equates to having science as a religion. That's a terrible thing,
meaningless assertion without citation or context...
. It is absolutely impossible to understand
> quantum-mechanics with a dogmatic view of the scientific method. Real
> science procedes by more complex things called "reasonability" and
> "common sense"
actually folks like neils bohr pointed out that QM violates every
precept of common sense.
and stuff like that. Another thing that is happening is
> that we now must accept things which are evidenced, eventhough the
> evidence is very thin. For example the red-shift theory. They got a
> very few observations that corresponded to redshift theory
a few??? how about thousands of observations spread out over 70 years?
nando just doesn't like data..doesn't appreciate its role in
science...
nando, in this post, betrayed the emotionalism and religious
fanaticism that's behind his agenda of trying to religionize science.
he's certainly not the only one: A Q Khan, the inventor of the
pakistani A bomb said that he wanted an 'islamic' physics. but nando
is just as irrational.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
Evidence has to be more substantial then I've seen with redshift
theory IMO.
You are forced to accept evolutionary psychology if you follow the
scientific method, that's a scary thought. As a rule I will reject
most any knowledge about people that isn't balanced out with good
knowledge about people behaving freely. Now we have John Cleese of
monty python fame telling us that Elizabeth Hurley looks beautiful, as
a matter of pseudoscientific fact. He did mention some things about
beauty being in the eye of the beholder, but the thing is he did not
validate the free aspect of beauty scientifically at all, he did not
locate any decision, he did not identify any alternatives and so on.
So we have all this knowledge of beauty as a material process, but we
get about zero information on beauty as a spiritual event. Elizabeth
Hurley doesn't show much of any warmth in her appearance. But now we
will get Darwinist women trying to look like Elizabeth Hurley, to gain
the factual beauty. We will get women looking like emotionless
puppets, and oh yeah there's something spiritual about beauty also....
some eye of the beholder stuff....unscientific religious stuff....
It's manipulative, bleeding morality into science, not good for
science at all.
Yes I do believe that comets and planets behave freely in some
aspects, and science indicates that they do by showing variation in
results from same startingconditions.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
calls herself a philosophical naturalist. The difference between the
two is that the methododology doesn't presume that nature is all there
is, but the philosphy does presume it. So you see she just changed one
word, and her religion=science.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Will in New Haven
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:45:43 +0000, nmp wrote:
> > Technology uses insights that come from science. Without science, no
> > computer for you.--
>
> computers are INVENTION, not science
Did your mother have any kids that lived?
Imbecile.
Cordially, as always
Will in New Haven
--
Do you read tagfiles, you dumb motherfucker?
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
Will in New Haven
Paragraphs, sir, paragraphs. If there is a conflict here with my way
of reading these posts, perhaps you are typing paragraphs and I am not
seeing them. If that is the case, my sincere apologies. However, you
should really organize your stupid rants into paragraphs or even
people who don't KNOW you for a moron won't read them.
Will in New Haven
Boswell
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>You can make up countless theories to cover the facts just as well.
>Evidence has to be more substantial then I've seen with redshift
>theory IMO.
I assume you're responding to my request that you back up your claims
about cosmology and evolutionary psychology. You can't back them up
because you were cluelessly wrong. So you ignore Usenet convention and
delete everything, hoping somehow that you'll seem more intelligent
and coherent if you do your bleating into a contextual vacuum. What's
the point? It just makes you look idiotic.
>You are forced to accept evolutionary psychology if you follow the
>scientific method, that's a scary thought. As a rule I will reject
>most any knowledge about people that isn't balanced out with good
>knowledge about people behaving freely. Now we have John Cleese of
>monty python fame telling us that Elizabeth Hurley looks beautiful, as
>a matter of pseudoscientific fact. He did mention some things about
>beauty being in the eye of the beholder, but the thing is he did not
>validate the free aspect of beauty scientifically at all, he did not
>locate any decision, he did not identify any alternatives and so on.
>So we have all this knowledge of beauty as a material process, but we
>get about zero information on beauty as a spiritual event. Elizabeth
>Hurley doesn't show much of any warmth in her appearance. But now we
>will get Darwinist women trying to look like Elizabeth Hurley, to gain
>the factual beauty. We will get women looking like emotionless
>puppets, and oh yeah there's something spiritual about beauty also....
>some eye of the beholder stuff....unscientific religious stuff....
>It's manipulative, bleeding morality into science, not good for
>science at all.
Apparently you think you can support your claims with random babble.
It appears that you are almost totally unable to engage in coherent
discussion. You think perhaps that you are criticizing science, but
you're merely giving the impression of a vacant-eyed drooler. You
won't respond to this, or else you'll delete it all and continue your
irrelevant mutterings. You'll never back up any of your claims with
solid evidence and reasoned argument. That's my prediction. It's a
hypothesis about your competence and integrity.
>Yes I do believe that comets and planets behave freely in some
>aspects, and science indicates that they do by showing variation in
>results from same startingconditions.
Or perhaps because the solar system isn't actually an idealized two
body system consisting of the sun and the comet. It was good enough
for Newton and remained so for NASA. If you want to believe that
comets have minds of their own, it's up to you. Try not to drool on
your keyboard.
>regards,
>Mohammad Nur Syamsu
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> You can make up countless theories to cover the facts just as well.
> Evidence has to be more substantial then I've seen with redshift
> theory IMO.
The Sloan Digital Sky Survey has taken spectra of more than
675,000 galaxies, 90,000 quasars, and 185,000 stars. What
would you consider to be enough?
Steve Carlip
nando_r...@yahoo.com
stability is also evidence of free bands of variation. So to say every
model that defines initial variables will inevitably screw up in the
long term, but we observe longterm stability. The reason that models
screws up long term is because as time goes by the sensitivity to
initial conditions becomes higher and higher, to impossible
magnitudes. We need to add mathematics to the model on a continuous
basis to keep it predicting accurately from the initial conditions.
That adding of mathematics becomes increasingly impossible when we
have to calculate the exact position starting from thousands of years
ago, or longer. We can easily solve this problem by free behaviour,
and have more elegant models with simple formula's, and not humongous
formula's with hypersensitivity to initial conditions thousands of
years ago.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Boswell
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You are a hopeless idiot, and there's no point in replying to your
incoherent diatribes. You think Newtonian mechanics should be replaced
with fantasies about cometary whims. You snip all responses and
indulge in what appears to be some kind of solipsistic auto-erotic
babbling. Perhaps it brings you a bit of pleasure, but it can't be
good for your health in the long run.
>regards,
>Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Bob Casanova
>You can make up countless theories to cover the facts just as well.
Post three, all of which make unique testable predictions.
Bob Casanova
<snip the usual nando unattributed and contextless word
salad>
Nothing left...
Tim
"nmp" <add...@is.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04...@is.invalid...
> Op Mon, 23 Apr 2007 05:25:17 -0400, schreef Tim:
>
>> "snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1177268522.2...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> science created that computer you are using to post these stupid rants.
>>
>> Actually you are equating science and technology. To do so is an error.
>
> Technology uses insights that come from science. Without science, no
> computer for you.
>
I agree, in the case of the PC on my desk, but this does not hold for all
technology.
Tim
"snex" <xe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1177349180.7...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 23, 4:26 am, "Tim" <q...@qwerty.com> wrote:
>> "snex" <x...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1177304972.4...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Apr 22, 8:11 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:02:02 -0700, snex wrote:
>> >> > rants. you are just mad that such a successful process of science
>> >> > doesnt
>> >> > substantiate your favorite fairy tales. well boo hoo, reality doesnt
>> >> > give a shit about what you believe. grow the fuck up.--
>>
>> >> the words of a megalomaniac, SCIENCE=REALITY, if science is reality,
>> >> then
>> >> why not dispense with the word science and call it reality, so your
>> >> ministry of reality can take place?
>>
>> > science isnt reality itself. science is how we discover reality. you
>> > got a better way? didnt think so.
>>
>> so,
>> try again.
>
> people used scientific reasoning prior to the ancient greeks. it just
> wasnt formalized and nobody actually knew they were doing it.
There you go equivocating again.
>
> science isnt some ivory tower magic spell that you need an advanced
> degree to pursue. it is merely the application of methods that we know
> *actually work* to parts of reality we never thought to apply them to
> in the past.
>
That's ludicrous!
>>
>>
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
>
>
Timberwoof
"Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote:
> "Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
> news:kpmn23llmq7vdbn88...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:47:31 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...
> >>> science is a way to deal with conjecture, if you have a conjecture, a
> >>> hypothesis, and it is reproducible, then it is testable and called a
> >>> theory, theories that are testable are called founded theories, that is
> >>> ALL there is to science
> >>
> >>Please stop using words you don't know the meaning of.
> > Please, that's : "Please stop using words of which you don't
> > know the meaning." :-)
>
> As Homer Simpson would put it "D'OH!"
>
> Or as Richard Dawkins would put it "I gratefully accept the rebuke."
Why? That's not a real rule of grammar. Go ahead and put a preposition
at the end: There's nothing to be afraid of.
("There's nothing of which to be afraid" may sound "better" but it's
wkward, and even "There's nothing to fear" is not as natural. The rule
is arbitrary; it was applied to English by a schoolteacher because he
liked the rule in Latin.)
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
wf3h
irrelevant. cargo cultists have made a god of the US air force. if
someone has a god, that does not prove his/her god is true
again and again you let your fanaticism rip away whatever logic would
prevent you from making these elementary errors.
and methodological naturalism is science. that's what evolution is.