One more kick to the codpiece for good measure :-
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeeh...od-to-be-true/
Forum whore
One more kick to the codpiece for good measure :-
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeeh...od-to-be-true/
Fully qualified Sifter.
Reminded me of this for some reason...
Aio ki te Aorangi
No no no, that was the breath of God... just to help keeping the righteous, well, righteous.Originally Posted by carbonhed
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
Forum whore
Afloat actually... but you're right, the mighty hand of global warming is, as we speak, on the other side of the planet freezing the testicles off the unbelievers in North America.
Aio ki te Aorangi
lol, floaters and wind, arses on boats, what's not to enjoy about the endless debate that has no real clue about what the weather was like a thousand years ago on any given continent... other than the endless debate that is and the no real clue bit.
Anarchic Wild Child
So the boat didn't sink .. the crew stayed there and got it out of the ice ... it wasn't abandoned. All is well.
All you scaremongers can wander off and find something else to jump up and down about ..
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
"channellling the Pleideans"
Actually, scientists have fairly good idea of local climate conditions at various ages of the earth's history. Things like tree rings (more growth in a good year, less in a bad year), ice core samples from the Arctic and Antarctic, analysis of geological strata etc enable inferences to be drawn.
I thought elections were decided by angry posts on social media. - F5 Dave
Aio ki te Aorangi
I can infer that they're wrong, based on the evidence that a top Volcanologist was lowered into a volcano and instantly stated "our models are very wrong". I can infer that tornado's are in fact the finger of God. If the possibility of God exists, so does my inference. He/She may well be pushing the clouds together and then stirring it with his finger, maybe even a whisk, like a chocolate mousse. Now, WHAT IF the evidence has been incorrectly interpreted? Who's to say that the work done back in the day (be it ice cores or rings etc...) was actually a good guess (could there have been those who put up opposing theories and were shat upon because they weren't adopted by the mainstream? History says that is a probability, and quite a high one), I mean a good hypothesis. Let's take the rings and cores for example. We take a tree, cut it in half and go mmmmmm, tree rings. How old is the tree? If it's 5000+ years old, then what was there before the tree? Can trees withstand an entirely different atmosphere and weather conditions? Ice melts, nuff said. The don't know, so they don't have a real clue, just a hope that the guesses made thus far are correct. They can analyse their little butts off, but if a top Volcanologist is stunned when he finds out that a Volcano (a static thing that spews lava, doesn't do much else) works differently to how he thought, then what is the likelihood that things that grow, die, melt, react differently to various weather conditions etc... is correct?
I apologise for questioning the experts, after all, they must know what they're talking about, right?
"channellling the Pleideans"
questions are fine, but I think your questions display a fundamental lack of understanding of what the scientific method is, what a "Theory" is in that context, and how the sum of human knowledge is advanced.
The test will be whether you recognise the two people in the attachment, and get why this is amusing.
I thought elections were decided by angry posts on social media. - F5 Dave
Forum whore
I recognize em, at least one anyway...
Aio ki te Aorangi
I get the idea behind scientific "theory", Occam's Razor all the way baby... to put it bluntly. As I mentioned earlier, not shitting all over science/scientists/scientologists and the way they go about things etc..., but, unless you have any facts (which science does not claim to have), then all you have is assumption. I care not how intelligent, logical, advanced etc... it is, when boiled down the findings could be absolute bollocks. Given the variables involved, there's a lot of things to get incorrect when it comes to climate change and the "archeology" of. Our advanced knowledge means fuck all if there something is incorrect dunnit?
Damn. I failed. Where they on a boat that underwent a surprise attack from a pack of ice?
Anarchic Wild Child
Yeup .. those of you who claim some sort of supremacy for science should go and read Paul Feyerabend's writing on the Philosophy of Science and knowledge in general ...
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Bogeyman
Why? His claims about what represents science are a construct built solely to abuse the "establishment". There are far fewer inelastic rules governing scientific methedology than any other endeavour I can think of.
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
Anarchic Wild Child
Yes - he was a good anarchist ... but I disagree that it was soley to abuse the establishment. His discussions with Lakatos are interesting - and make a mockery of claims of "truth".
The second part of your sentence is true .. the lack of rules is the part I was referring to. Too many people believe that science is governed by rules - and produces facts .. and, as Lakatos says, "it is closer to the truth" ... Feyerabend makes the point that those are completely wrong interpretations of science.
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Bogeyman
It's been decades... but he couldn't see the internal contradiction in his assertion that a doctrine of infinite postulation was inherently constrained by dogma.
Proper science doesn't give a fuck for methodology, that's for academics.
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks