Outer Space....and....who are you...

[chesters1 1587]

Blimey two billion for something that would pop up free after 1999 ,doom and gloom along with fear is a great money spinner ,the governments are masters of it billions raised on global warming ,those nasty reds (now isis) etc etc

 

The biggest threat to computers are joining them to another one but this fact is largely ignored

Edited September 9, 2016 by chesters1

[chesters1 1587]

Can you give an example of a scientist getting it wrong and deserving punishment?

I can think of dozens of examples of papers being published containing experimental results and those results being inappropriately reported and sensationalised by the press, but not many examples where stuff was wrong.

Andrew Wakefield and Hwang Woo-Suk spring to mind, but it turns out that thy were falsifying results for personal gain.

 

I suppose the "cold fusion" debacle is about as close as you're going to get.

Interesting opinion

http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970

 

Seems like i say theres little need to prove anything

[Ken L 989]

And yet, your TV keeps getting better your computer keeps getting faster, we keep finding new ways to fight disease and more people have access to food than ever before.

[chesters1 1587]

Dont know ,10,000 channels of rubbish is still rubbish.and prolonging life whilst supporting more isnt that good for the planet ,having a faster pc is proof you can have a faster pc merely having the opinion you can is not

 

As i mentioned in another thread its difficult to challenge a scientists opinion because most of how it was achieved is a secret ,it seems in my link the original findings cannot be reproduced by the first party itself in many cases so why is any credance given to it?

Edited September 9, 2016 by chesters1

[corydoras 469]

Interesting opinion

http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970

 

Seems like i say theres little need to prove anything

Since you don't like science so much, what would you replace it with?

[chesters1 1587]

Since you don't like science so much, what would you replace it with?

Probably a results based payment system ,you produce you get paid ,you promise you get bugger all

Most people buy aspirin because it works on them not because someone tells them its working yet they still have a headache (placebos excepted)

Who but scientists declare something is so without exhaustive testing it is? ,if you cannot reproduce a result its not trustworthy

 

Lets get back to sagans cosmos ,riveting stuff when i was a kid ,as an entertainer sagan excelled but if he only had his scientists hat on and had to prove what he said that program would never had appeared ,why does a scientist not have to back up every word he says ?

Was cosmos then science and now scify?

 

Actually i am surprised it was 1980 so far from a kid perhaps i am thinking of an earlier series about space but i do remember the sagen one ,i definately remember my mum talking to me when it was on very strange by then i had long left home in 1980 i left home in 1970 so it must have been about <1962

Another riviting series was bronowski (sp?) decent of man or words to the effect ,i wonder how much fact was in that?

Pseudo science maybe not a new phenomenon

I dont have a problem with science but i do with scientists getting paid to produce nothing but an opinion

Edited September 9, 2016 by chesters1

[corydoras 469]

Probably a results based payment system ,you produce you get paid ,you promise you get bugger all

Most people buy aspirin because it works on them not because someone tells them its working yet they still have a headache (placebos excepted)

Who but scientists declare something is so without exhaustive testing it is? ,if you cannot reproduce a result its not trustworthy

 

Lets get back to sagans cosmos ,riveting stuff when i was a kid ,as an entertainer sagan excelled but if he only had his scientists hat on and had to prove what he said that program would never had appeared ,why does a scientist not have to back up every word he says ?

Was cosmos then science and now scify?

 

Actually i am surprised it was 1980 so far from a kid perhaps i am thinking of an earlier series about space but i do remember the sagen one ,i definately remember my mum talking to me when it was on very strange by then i had long left home in 1980 i left home in 1970 so it must have been about <1962

Another riviting series was bronowski (sp?) decent of man or words to the effect ,i wonder how much fact was in that?

Pseudo science maybe not a new phenomenon

I dont have a problem with science but i do with scientists getting paid to produce nothing but an opinion

LOL. Are you now claiming that Carl Sagan was not a real scientist?

 

Science is the method we use to make discoveries about the world we live in. You seem to think this process is flawed. I want you to outline a better process for learning about the world, since you seem to be claiming what we have been doing for the last 400 odd years has inherent flaws.

Edited September 12, 2016 by corydoras

[chesters1 1587]

I never said he was not a scientist but an entertainer ontop

How much of anything is proven true?

 

My gripe is not they are occasionally right but persist in telling us stuff that has not been proven right ,IE their paid in the main to spout opinion

If they kept their damned mouths shut until they had proved they were absolutely factual all would be well ,then they could give us a thrill telling us what we probably knew anyway but couldnt be arsed to talk about

If they insist nothing can travel faster than light why tell us about stuff to far away to ever see? Why not cure cancer if they want something to do but i have a suspicion spouting opinion without backing it up wont get them far in that field

Edited September 12, 2016 by chesters1

[corydoras 469]

I never said he was not a scientist but an entertainer ontop

How much of anything is proven true?

 

My gripe is not they are occasionally right but persist in telling us stuff that has not been proven right ,IE their paid in the main to spout opinion

If they kept their damned mouths shut until they had proved they were absolutely factual all would be well ,then they could give us a thrill telling us what we probably knew anyway but couldnt be arsed to talk about

You just don't understand science.

 

Which part of "Science is not about proving things to be correct" don't you understand?

[chesters1 1587]

I understand if i say anything i am expected to back it up why doesnt "science" need to do the same ,what part of proof dont you understand?

Or are scientists so far above proof isnt needed to back up what they spout? ,the slack jawed throng hang on their every word whatever nonsense they spout

Edited September 12, 2016 by chesters1