Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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 by chesters1

Believe NOTHING anyones says or writes unless you witness it yourself and even then your eyes can deceive you

None of this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap it just means i have at least two enemies!

 

There is only one opinion i listen to ,its mine and its ALWAYS right even when its wrong

 

Its far easier to curse the darkness than light one candle

 

Mathew 4:19

Grangers law : anything i say will  turn out the opposite or not happen at all!

Life insurance? you wont enjoy a penny!

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It does seem too much to comprehend, what is out there beyond what us little earthlings can see.   We think we have a bit of understanding about the vast "universe" that surrounds us, but does it go

I have better things to do Ken ,i will leave space for spaceists sitting slack jawed and hand down trousers whenever some unproven opinion of the day pops upWhen a black hole comes up my path and dema

A simple "no" would have sufficed.

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

Believe NOTHING anyones says or writes unless you witness it yourself and even then your eyes can deceive you

None of this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap it just means i have at least two enemies!

 

There is only one opinion i listen to ,its mine and its ALWAYS right even when its wrong

 

Its far easier to curse the darkness than light one candle

 

Mathew 4:19

Grangers law : anything i say will  turn out the opposite or not happen at all!

Life insurance? you wont enjoy a penny!

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Species caught in 2020: Barbel. European Eel. Bleak. Perch. Pike.

Species caught in 2019: Pike. Bream. Tench. Chub. Common Carp. European Eel. Barbel. Bleak. Dace.

Species caught in 2018: Perch. Bream. Rainbow Trout. Brown Trout. Chub. Roach. Carp. European Eel.

Species caught in 2017: Siamese carp. Striped catfish. Rohu. Mekong catfish. Amazon red tail catfish. Arapaima. Black Minnow Shark. Perch. Chub. Brown Trout. Pike. Bream. Roach. Rudd. Bleak. Common Carp.

Species caught in 2016: Siamese carp. Jullien's golden carp. Striped catfish. Mekong catfish. Amazon red tail catfish. Arapaima. Alligator gar. Rohu. Black Minnow Shark. Roach, Bream, Perch, Ballan Wrasse. Rudd. Common Carp. Pike. Zander. Chub. Bleak.

Species caught in 2015: Brown Trout. Roach. Bream. Terrapin. Eel. Barbel. Pike. Chub.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by chesters1

Believe NOTHING anyones says or writes unless you witness it yourself and even then your eyes can deceive you

None of this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap it just means i have at least two enemies!

 

There is only one opinion i listen to ,its mine and its ALWAYS right even when its wrong

 

Its far easier to curse the darkness than light one candle

 

Mathew 4:19

Grangers law : anything i say will  turn out the opposite or not happen at all!

Life insurance? you wont enjoy a penny!

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

The problem isn't what people don't know, it's what they know that just ain't so.
Vaut mieux ne rien dire et passer pour un con que de parler et prouver que t'en est un!
Mi, ch’fais toudis à m’mote

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by chesters1

Believe NOTHING anyones says or writes unless you witness it yourself and even then your eyes can deceive you

None of this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap it just means i have at least two enemies!

 

There is only one opinion i listen to ,its mine and its ALWAYS right even when its wrong

 

Its far easier to curse the darkness than light one candle

 

Mathew 4:19

Grangers law : anything i say will  turn out the opposite or not happen at all!

Life insurance? you wont enjoy a penny!

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by corydoras

The problem isn't what people don't know, it's what they know that just ain't so.
Vaut mieux ne rien dire et passer pour un con que de parler et prouver que t'en est un!
Mi, ch’fais toudis à m’mote

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by chesters1

Believe NOTHING anyones says or writes unless you witness it yourself and even then your eyes can deceive you

None of this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap it just means i have at least two enemies!

 

There is only one opinion i listen to ,its mine and its ALWAYS right even when its wrong

 

Its far easier to curse the darkness than light one candle

 

Mathew 4:19

Grangers law : anything i say will  turn out the opposite or not happen at all!

Life insurance? you wont enjoy a penny!

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

The problem isn't what people don't know, it's what they know that just ain't so.
Vaut mieux ne rien dire et passer pour un con que de parler et prouver que t'en est un!
Mi, ch’fais toudis à m’mote

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by chesters1

Believe NOTHING anyones says or writes unless you witness it yourself and even then your eyes can deceive you

None of this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap it just means i have at least two enemies!

 

There is only one opinion i listen to ,its mine and its ALWAYS right even when its wrong

 

Its far easier to curse the darkness than light one candle

 

Mathew 4:19

Grangers law : anything i say will  turn out the opposite or not happen at all!

Life insurance? you wont enjoy a penny!

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...