What is Real Science?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I really don't know why you think this is comic given the context of the thread, it sounds more like sad to me...

This is exactly the kind of stupid question pure science without philosophical understanding would do...

Say scientists had no way of observing a shock wave and I would love to see what mathematical models could come up where such a question might arise.

...the crater correlation reminds me of dark matter and dark energy and more recently dark flow...I am not smiling, I am way past any will to smile.

I am never opposed to posts not directed to any OP I might advance, whether intended as humor or, in some cases, to question my motives for advancing a topic.
Whether droll or troll, each paints his own soapbox.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I clearly acknowledged that I wasn't offering any comment on neologist's beliefs whatever they may be. Instead I commented on your (odd in my perspective) apparent presumption that you know the motives and beliefs behind what he wrote here.

He clearly believed what he said was relevant to the OP.

georgeob1 wrote:

I went on to note that scientists themselves are about as prone to prejudgments and intolerance as the rest of us, and that many "unscientific" positions have been taken in the past by self-proclaimed scientists on both sides of the vague creatioon issues that appear to be an undercurrent to this discussion.

But, you strayed from his relevance.

georgeob1 wrote:

Apparently you are faulting me for failing to understand and respond to your purposes in opposing particular posters here.

It just shows you haven't had time to read through the 15,000 or so polite exchanges we have shared in the past.

georgeob1 wrote:

The fact is I have no intertest in either pursuing or opposing the various personal vendettas you appear to pursue with such intensity here.

But what if they are important?

georgeob1 wrote:

I'm aware that you are particularly knoweledgable about history and some other topics as well. However this isn't a contest and you aren't perfect, and neither am I. Beyond that, I don't give a damn.

Agreed.

1 Reply

@neologist,

??????

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

??????

Glad you asked.
!!!!!! Laughing

1 Reply

@neologist,

???? to ???? was more likely...but I am glad you understood him. Wink

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

There were six interrogatives. I thought that to be important.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Ha, now its much more clear thanks !

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

The topic is not scientists, it's science. That mope Kelvin was a sap, with Richard Strauss' attitude from Ein Heldenleben. He seems to have seen himself as the scientist as hero, and was always shooting his mouth off on topics about which he knew nothing. Edison suckered him into condemning alternating current--Edison, of course, was heavily invested in direct current.

Regardless of what kind of fools any individual scientists may be, science is judged by the results it produces, not by the jokers who practice or claim to practice science.

Neo recently bragged that he is well grounded in the physical sciences. I find that hilarious in someone who promotes scripture as the inerrant expression of the word of god. I don't expect anything of you. I can ridicule Neo's silly claims without your help.

For someone who says he doesn't give a damn, you sure have a lot to say.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I can ridicule Neo's silly claims without your help.

You excel at ridicule, I'll give you that.

0 Replies

Yeah, and some targets lend themselves to the exercise.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

You confuse me Setanta, bright enough and sometimes simpleton and dismissive just for kicks...you also spend to much energy fighting. Granted many times with good reason but also many times needlessly given opposition...is all that due to pure boredom ?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

This is my native language, i don't spend much time at all framing my replies. I spend less than an hour a day at this site, on average. When i spend longer than that, it's usually because i'm reading. Some days, i post nothing at all here. You suffer from the fallacy of the enumeration of favorable circumstances. You ignore all the music and community threads i start, you ignore all the posts i make in other people's threads which are not contentious at all. You look at posts i make which you characterize as "fighting," and, effectively say, "See what i mean?"

Just how squeaky clean are you when you refer to me in your first sentence as a "simpleton," Mr. White Knight?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Fair enough. I don't follow your posting closely so to be able to state with confidence you are conflictive. You just come off as being a tad temperamental from a distanced pov like mine.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Uh-huh . . . and you were just a tad what when you called me a simpleton?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Perceptive, insightful, forthright, honest.

0 Replies

Not getting the mileage you hoped for out of Frank? Trying to stir the turd with someone else, Izzy the Putz?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Just helping you find le mot juste.

0 Replies

You're a legend in your own mind, Einstein . . . what a f*cking putz.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

You're really good at regurgitating clichés.

Some even think it's an acceptable substitute for actual wit.

0 Replies

@Razzleg,

With respect to the "uniqueness"issue, some have argued that human language is the key factor since it is the currency of "human thought" as a planning operation. The argument is that non-linguistic species do not "plan" as humans do...to argue they do is seen as anthropomorphism. Of course, social groups of mammals (wolves, dolphins etc) appear to engage in co-ordinated complex activities, those social phenomena do not require a concept of "individual thinking via language" in order to account for them, in the same sense as individual planning does in humans.

1 Reply

What is Real Science?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know