neanderthals

[rob.imk2]

trouble was men of science said it was so ,men of science in many cases are wrong

That was my point

[chesters1]

That was my point

 

i was going to say neanderthal but they were really an advanced society (as far as we know) strange they (perhaps) become extinct ,they may have looked brutal but i think (supposition) they were "human"

[corydoras]

That was my point

So if science is so cr@p what do you would you replace it with.

 

It gives me hours of amusement arguing with those who sit behind their computers, the fruit of Quantum Physics rubbishing Science; who drive cars with internal combustion engines the fruit of Thermodynamics. Who have GPS and sat nav in their cars, thanks to Mr Einstein and who go to the GP when they are sick. If I had my way those who deny science would be denied the fruits thereof too.

[rob.imk2]

So if science is so cr@p what do you would you replace it with.

 

It gives me hours of amusement arguing with those who sit behind their computers, the fruit of Quantum Physics rubbishing Science; who drive cars with internal combustion engines the fruit of Thermodynamics. Who have GPS and sat nav in their cars, thanks to Mr Einstein and who go to the GP when they are sick. If I had my way those who deny science would be denied the fruits thereof too.

Im glad youre amused it amuses me to amuse

[chesters1]

as i said before its not science its men in sheds that do the work ,a calculator may refine something but it cannot prove it works ,we went into space not from science but from the chaps sitting in generations of planes slowly getting higher and higher until they could repeat it safely

gps is military its a satellite just as the moon is and we didnt make that ,some fell down some went amok some were two far away but in the end men in sheds sussed it all out

a chap with a billion brain degrees could theoretically design something but its a man in a shed that makes it and remakes it until it works

Edited July 2, 2012 by chesters1

[Ken L]

Scientific orthodoxy =

1. "This is the best explanation that we have at this point. It matches all the observed data that is currently considered credible".

2. "It would be falsified and we will be open to alternatives if a, b or c"

and sometimes....

3. "Using this hypothesis, we make the following testable predictions..."

Why is this so hard to understand ?

There is no dogma.

If something comes up that isn't covered by your best explanation, you have to expand or change your best explanation to accommodate the new information or chuck the whole thing out and start from base principles.

If something that you had held to be true turns out not to have been, you do the same thing.

 

Science doesn't know everything perfectly - otherwise it would stop.

[chesters1]

Scientific orthodoxy =

1. "This is the best explanation that we have at this point. It matches all the observed data that is currently considered credible".

2. "It would be falsified and we will be open to alternatives if a, b or c"

and sometimes....

3. "Using this hypothesis, we make the following testable predictions..."

Why is this so hard to understand ?

There is no dogma.

If something comes up that isn't covered by your best explanation, you have to expand or change your best explanation to accommodate the new information or chuck the whole thing out and start from base principles.

If something that you had held to be true turns out not to have been, you do the same thing.

 

Science doesn't know everything perfectly - otherwise it would stop.

 

strange in chesters1 world i would expect scientists to prove something ,reprove it ,let lots of disprovers try and disprove it and once its been proven beyod a shadow of doubt the scientist gets paid puts it to rest and then starts proving something else for the next cheque.

in our non chesters1 world he has an opinion if hes clever with his writing other opinions get added and they get paid to prove nothing ,if was a dustman and i couldnt prove i had emptied dustbins my cheque would be a giro

not only that clever scientists invent greater things they cannot prove nor may ever happen and get bigger cheques for life ,some even get cheques for life for silly things like watching apes ! or looking after birds nature has looked after for millions of years for no cheques at all

 

http://www.badscience.net/

 

reminds me of a statement a village Councillor used to ban canoes on the river ,amongst the usual "green" claptrap and bio diversity shite spouted out a cunning "weils disease " ploy was used in a statement the river has weils disease ,they got their way but i emailed the councillor asking for the evidence for his statement ,many years later i'm still waiting ,sometimes its nothng to do with evidence its having excuses and people afraid to doubt their so called "betters" ,i challenge everything

Edited July 2, 2012 by chesters1

[Andrew]

I see some backtracking going on here. HA HA HA

[chesters1]

probably in the PM section theres a fair bit of back stabbing as well

[corydoras]

strange in chesters1 world i would expect scientists to prove something ,reprove it ,let lots of disprovers try and disprove it and once its been proven beyod a shadow of doubt the scientist gets paid puts it to rest and then starts proving something else for the next cheque.

in our non chesters1 world he has an opinion if hes clever with his writing other opinions get added and they get paid to prove nothing ,if was a dustman and i couldnt prove i had emptied dustbins my cheque would be a giro

not only that clever scientists invent greater things they cannot prove nor may ever happen and get bigger cheques for life ,some even get cheques for life for silly things like watching apes ! or looking after birds nature has looked after for millions of years for no cheques at all

 

http://www.badscience.net/

Science does not seek to PROVE anything. Only to explain. What is it about this concept that is difficult to understand. You could lob as many artificial satellites into space as you wish, that only takes and understanding of Newtonian Physics and Newtonian Gravity to do that. But to USE an artificial satellite in space to navigate on the surface of the earth, that takes Einstein and the Theory of General Relativity.

 

Oh and one last thing chesters, those guys in their sheds, they are and were scientists too.

Edited July 2, 2012 by corydoras