Why most people will never make a scientific discovery

[James McGinn]

When it come to making scientific discoveries it is not as important to be smart as it is to be honest about what you don't understand and to be supremely aware that most people lack the ability to be honest about what they don't understand.

When confronted with something that doesn't confirm what they believe most people react emotionally. They immediately begin grasping for anything that will confirm their beliefs. And they will latch on to anything that remotely resembles evidence that reestablishes the perceived validity of what they want to believe.

They then, rapidly, become increasingly despicable.

This is what human are. Humans are believers. Consequently very few have the ability to make scientific discoveries.

> Bill -- Chapter One: Air Brakes
> http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582

[Claudius Denk]

Very few people have the intellectual courage to go against the crowd.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

No problem going against the crowd, Jim, providing you have the experiments and observations to support your position.

Your problem, as anyone with even half a brain can plainly see, is that you don't have a single example of either to offer.

[Claudius Denk]

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 8:09:31 AM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> No problem going against the crowd, Jim, providing you have the experiments and observations to support your position.
>
> Your problem, as anyone with even half a brain can plainly see, is that you don't have a single example of either to offer.

LOL. People that believe in ghosts claim its the skeptics responsibility to show them that ghosts don't exist.

Do you believe in ghosts? Can you explain why ghosts don't show up in laboratories?

Why do ghosts only show up in creeky old houses. Are ghosts afraid of laboratories?

Is gaseous H2O also afraid of laboratories?

Answer the question you evasive jackass.

CD

[Jerry Kraus]

That's part of the problem, Jim. The other part of the problem is that there really is no simple rule-book for making important scientific discoveries. The current nonsense from the scientific bureaucracy notwithstanding, the position that experiments and peer review are sufficient to guarantee scientific progress is just that -- nonsense. We can have experiments and peer review up the Kazoo forever, and get nowhere at all. Look at CERN and the field of particle physics, for example. Yes, I know, they claim important discoveries on a regular basis. Curious thing is, nothing of significance ever happens, as a result of these "discoveries". We don't really know where, or how, great ideas evolve, at all. There is no "scientific method", really. Not that we're aware of currently, anyway.

[Claudius Denk]

You are wrong Jerry. I've tried to explain this to you before and you went babbling on with your anecdote-based approach to science.

You've stated that you think science is about observation. That is childishly naive.

Scientific methods, as explained by Popper for example, are incredibly simple.

All it takes is being intellectually mature enough to actually apply them.

Address the substantive issues being discussed here and stop pretending you possess some deep understanding that you don't actually possess.

Swallow your pride, stop preaching about something you don't understand, read this, and don't respond unless you have something substantive to add to the conversation.




You are a perfect example of somebody that does not get it.

[Jerry Kraus]

Well, alright Claudius, let's take Karl Popper, if you wish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

Popper certainly clarifies the concept of experimental empiricism well enough, and the notion of falsifiability, and can express them in symbolic logical terms. All well and good. What Popper does NOT explain, at all, what he does not even attempt to explain, is how scientists find, and determine questions of genuine practical significance. How they avoid the obsessing ad infinitum on meaningless, but intellectually intriguing questions like the "how many angels can we fit on the head of a pin" type, so popular with the medieval scholastics. For, we can attempt to define that question in empirical terms, falsifiable terms, you know. We can, actually, try to specify the size of an angel, its tensile properties, and how many could, consequently fit on a pin of a specific size. And, effectively, that's exactly what theoretical physicists are doing these days, and nothing more.

Do try to transcend your ignorance, arrogance, crude prejudices and lack of imagination, for a change Claudius. If you can, that is.

[Claudius Denk]

Do you believe the H2O in clear moist air, at ambient temperatures, is gaseous H2O or liquid H2O? Don't lecture us on science. Address the substance of the discussion or kindly go away.

Fair enough?

[James McGinn]

Yes, Jerry. Show us how you arrive at the correct conclusion on this question then you will have some substance upon which to base your philosophy. This way if you are wrong it will be easy for people to show you why, possibly allowing you to escape the abstractions that, it seems, are keeping you running in place.

[Claudius Denk]

Answer the question you evasive twit.

[reber g=emc^2]

On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 6:38:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

Spielberg have ghosts in a split level and in its swimming pool,and closet.When I was a kid all ghosts hide under my bed. Scary Trebert

[reber g=emc^2]

[hanson]

"reber g=emc^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:
.When I was a kid all ghosts hide under my bed. Scary Trebert
>

and now they are in his pinhead which can be seen when
the <http://tinyurl.com/Recalcitrant-Swine-Glazier> who is
Bert, the un-American Communist, Bigot, Hatemonger,
Full Swine, Face Shitter & Graveyard Vandal who does this
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
>
to his crowd of "Anon Y Mouse" & 8 other Bert-shit-eaters
of <http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-the-Lying-Swine> who
freely & happily laid themselves under Glazier's Sphincter,
especially Iran's "Anon Y. Mouse" <nob...@home.invalid>
aka "<Clutte...@FakeAddress.com> Mehram Maleki
being the most fervent of Glazier's sphincter-lickers, & waits
greedily to feast on more of Bert's PFM (Poop For Maleki).
>
Now, there are new Bert-Turd-Eater-Aspirants in wait, like
"Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk>, plus "Greysky" aka
"Mathew Orman" <ftl...@hotmail.com>, plus "Archie" aka
"Arc Michael" <abook...@yahoo.com> & Kackoby "benj"
Jacoby BJ <be...@nobody.net> the y/n-Judeo-Apostate, &
"James McGinn", the "Mad Ginni-pig" <jimmc...@gmail.com>
the gay kike Notrollovsky <notro...@charter.net> ,
"Kookjoke DeCockSuckslurper" <cu...@petitsnorte.net>
Trou de cul hoosegow Silly Villain "Sylvain" <syl...@invalid.invalid>
>
.. but not one "got the picture" why Cohen said & meant:
_____ "All of you pigs, 'You must repent' " _____
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkRqQQWu_mA>

ever since Tre:B::ert Glazier introduced himself with & as....
>
:B:: "I am a proud Jew with a Superiority complex &
:B:: an IQ of 122", & "I do know how everything works."
:B:: "My Grandfathers had tails". -- Trebert
:B:: "Being Jewish I know this is so very true" -- Bert.
:B:: "I'm a non-bible (torra) Jew. I'm the only Jew that
:B:: got 2 form letters from two Popes". Bert
:B:: "God and religion is hocus pocus". Trebert.
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
B:: "I'll be sitting on Benj's, Saul Levi's & HVAC's face
:B:: to take a shit & say: "Open your mouth wide".
:B:: "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And laugh".
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "I left my dentures in Boston when I fled to CA
:B:: to evade my creditors & my daugher Sheri who
:B:: wanted to warehouse me in a nursing home".
:B:: I embarrass my Ggrandkids. They avoid me. Bert
:B:: "I have a Social worker to make sure that I eat
:B:: my Lithium & 21 other pills. I paint Grey Cloud."
:B:: After sex with a Cuban cigar I drink bud .Trebert
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "I am living in my Van that I parked illegally
:B:: on Wal-Mart's property for over a year." Bert
:B:: "I shit into a bucket in my van and then throw
:B:: the bag full of crap into Walmart's Dumpsters"
:B:: "Mayor Tait told me to get lost when I demanded
:B:: a contract to clean the city's HVAC ducts. Bert
:B:: "I'm like my half-baked bagel... back to the oven"
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "I am a loser & so ugly I will not vote for myself"
:B:: "I re-franchize my M&M (Maggots & Manure).".
:B:: "I sell imaginary boats and defective patio decks"
:B:: "I stole & gave G=EMC^2 to the world", which
:B:: says: "Glazier Exhibits Micro Cephalic Cretinism"
:B:: "With G=EMC^2 I made all good posters leave s.p."
:B:: All my 17 theories are well accepted by me. Bert
B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "I got kicked out of school in the 4th grade. Bert.
:B:: "I am self-taught. I'm very *cleaver* out of the box."
:B:: "My cockroach taught me a lot. My grammar stinks".
:B:: "I have lived for too long.. and always lied" Trebert.
:B:: "I called the Mental Health Hotline (800) 723-8641
:B:: spooked a lady with fearing to get shot in my head".
:B:: "I compulsively lie when I speak the truth". Trebert
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "While I was in custody of Osceola Sheriff Bob
:B:: Hansel, for thieving, his deputies beat me up.
:B:: Bees are my copters and Flies are my fighters.
:B:: They all die as old soldiers and just fade away.
:B:: I bought a 357 magnum for death threats by Hansel.
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "Even the FBI has me as a trouble maker and
:B:: the FBI blocks my phone from calling them"....
:B:: "I mixed sulfer, carb & iron to make gun powder"
:B:: "Israel will drop its first H-bomb 'David' ". TreBert
:B:: __"I'm glad when war breaks out"__ Bert
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.


PS:
Glazier is at the bottom of the barrel of communist
US Jews who are traitors that have whored down
this nation. How they did it is seen above and why
so, is described & detailed by the eminent Jewish
Scholar Harold Wallace Rosenthal ||R:|| in his epic
<http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>

[hanson]

"reber g=emc^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> wrote nothing
because Glazier "will never make a scientific discovery". Pity

[edpr...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 11:41:02 AM UTC-5, Jerry Kraus wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 8:38:41 PM UTC-6, James McGinn wrote:

> > When it come to making scientific discoveries []

Jerry, first be aware that you are talking science with
JM who has no scientific experience or training at all.
(it's like talking to your dog about cricket!)

> That's part of the problem, Jim. The other part of the problem
> is that there really is no simple rule-book for making important
> scientific discoveries. The current nonsense from the scientific
> bureaucracy notwithstanding, the position that experiments and peer
> review are sufficient to guarantee scientific progress is just that
> -- nonsense. We can have experiments and peer review up the Kazoo
> forever, and get nowhere at all. Look at CERN and the field of
> particle physics, for example. Yes, I know, they claim important
> discoveries on a regular basis. Curious thing is, nothing of
> significance ever happens, as a result of these "discoveries".
> We don't really know where, or how, great ideas evolve, at all.
> There is no "scientific method", really. Not that we're aware
> of currently, anyway.

You are talking about two different thing here:
1. Scientific method.
2. Discovery.

the purpose of 1. is to test and evaluate a theory
once it has been proposed. Sometimes there are discoveries
such as the Higgs recently or the null result in the
Michelson-Morley experiment.

Discovery is as you say a much more difficult endeavor.
Nobody has a methodical way of making big discoveries.
By definition, you are dealing with a lack of information.
This explains why we seem to have major changes in science
in cycles on order of centuries. I think we may have at least
another 100 years before a change similar to Newton and Einstein.


(Assuming we do not nuke each other or cook our planet with
global warming or some other global disaster, of course.)

Enjoy!
ed

[James McGinn]

Ignore the trolls, Jerry.

But Jerry, if you think your methodology is so great why not show us.

[Claudius Denk]

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 8:08:50 PM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Jerry, first be aware that you are talking science with
> JM who has no scientific experience or training at all.
> (it's like talking to your dog about cricket!)

Ed is upset--like a dog that has just had his nose rubbed in his own shit.

> > That's part of the problem, Jim. The other part of the problem
> > is that there really is no simple rule-book for making important
> > scientific discoveries.

Scientific method are very simple, Jerry. The problem is that when a
contradiction is revealed idiots immediately reach for documents--ie Sutcliffe-
-to confirm what they want to believe.

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 6:38:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 6:38:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 6:38:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

[Claudius Denk]

[reber G=emc^2]

People are afraid to think far out.Even at Harvard they do not teach thinking Einstein liked to think,and his teachers said he was a lazy bum.In school he wrote E=MC^2,and his teacher tore it up an asked him to leave the room.TreBert

[James McGinn]

Most people form scientific beliefs for reasons that are only peripherally related to science. For example, Einstein stated that space/time was a fabric (or like a fabric) that could be bent. Does that actually make sense? Well, no. It there actually any direct evidence of such? Well no. Did Einstein intend it to be taken literally or was it just an analogy? Probably not. Yet there are people who take it literally.

Likewise, is that there any evidence for 'cold steam.' Hell no. Yet the world is full of brain-dead bozos that will defend the notion.

Intellectually, humans are extremely sheepish.

You know, Bert, maybe you are not such a dumb SOB.

[hanson]

"reber G=emc^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> wrote
his <http://tinyurl.com/SwineBert-s-WRONG-Predictions>
& being <http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017>,
who is <http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal>
doing this <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>,
as he waits for <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-Undertaker>
but refuses <http://tinyurl.com/Herbert-Glazier-s-Reprieve> &
then <http://tinyurl.com/Jew-Swine-Glazier-cries> as seen
in his <http://tinyurl.com/Blog-of-2-fecal-kikes-Mar2017> by
<http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-the-loud-retarded-pig> who said
"it's tricky", but "it fits" & "it's on the money". "Go Figure"
>

[Serq io]

Jerry, first be aware that you are talking science with

James McGinn who has no scientific experience or training at all.

[hanson]

hansoon wrote:
Listen Apprentice. Never that Jerry, McGinn, dogs or crickets.
Look in the above link wherein it is shown that your are more
stupid then <http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-the-loud-retarded-pig>
'It's a pity"......... ahahahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.....

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 11:42:34 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

> Likewise, is that there any evidence for 'cold steam'? Hell no...

Who knows? No one will ever be able to say for sure until and unless *you* provide a definition for the stuff, you incredible freakin' idiot...

[Serq io]

is there any evidence of McGinn having IQ ?

[pnal...@gmail.com]

None whatsoever...

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

The tactic of pretending you are too stupid to answer the question is a tactic that is used by believers. Its a method of evading a question so that you can pretend to understand. You don't understand. You believe. You are a fraud who can't admit that he knows perfectly well what the phrase, "cold steam" indicates.

Fuck you, you lying son of a bitch!

[James McGinn]

Uh, . . . er. Uh . . . ? Why no response?

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

[reber G=emc^2]

People hate people.In this group we see it clear.They are right an Einstein was wrong.Bert

[hanson]

In <http://tinyurl.com/Bert-s-Selfintroductn-Oct2017>,
<http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-the-loud-retarded-pig> alias
"reber G=emc^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Why people, like Glazier, will never make a scientific
discovery, is cuz People like Glazier hate people,
which is seen in this group where we see it clearly by
<https://tinyurl.com/Glazier-s-sexual-harassments>

[James McGinn]

Well, I don't see myself as in opposition to people. I see myself as in opposition to gullibility. And I have altruistic ends in mind.

People are dumb and gullible. And they are cry babies. When told the things they believe are wrong they tend to throw fits.

If you can't maintain objectivity then go find another hobby. That's what I tell people. And if they don't like it they should go away.

[benj]

Of course people in this group don't have to wait. They can see you are
wrong and will never make a scientific discovery right now. No waiting.

[James McGinn]

You just perfectly delineated what it is to be a troll. IOW, dumbass trolls, like yourself, start from the assumption that they know the answer.

The fact is you don't know the answer. You're just a dumbass troll.

No waiting.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 6:38:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> When it come to making scientific discoveries it is not as important to be smart as it is to be honest about what you don't understand and to be supremely aware that most people lack the ability to be honest about what they don't understand.
>
> When confronted with something that doesn't confirm what they believe most people react emotionally. They immediately begin grasping for anything that will confirm their beliefs. And they will latch on to anything that remotely resembles evidence that reestablishes the perceived validity of what they want to believe.
>
> They then, rapidly, become increasingly despicable.
>
> This is what human are. Humans are believers. Consequently very few have the ability to make scientific discoveries.
>
> > Bill -- Chapter One: Air Brakes
> > http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582

Roy Masters made many claims to scientific discovery
that were never real. Are you better than him?
FHU says your another alias...

Mitchell Raemsch; God creates gravity

[James McGinn]

FU Troll

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Roy I am an anti troll...
and you have many aliases
You have had to pull something
off. Fight the FHU now...

[James McGinn]

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Does your post title apply to you Roy?
Why do you have to be an alias
to do science?

You claim to have found a special water
molecule in the atmosphere... is that
your scientific achievement?

Mitchell Raemsch

[James McGinn]

How did you figure it out?

> Why do you have to be an alias
> to do science?

I didn't want you to find me.

>
> You claim to have found a special water
> molecule in the atmosphere... is that
> your scientific achievement?

Many.

Consider the implications on air travel alone:
The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16652

Roy Masters / Solving Tornadoes

[James McGinn]