"Independent Thinking" vs Appeal To Authority In Science
in [Math]
|
Prev: Benford's Law
Next: where we have a new understanding of what factorial means in 254! = 10^500 #648 Correcting Math
From: Tom Sr. on 13 Jul 2010 08:43 On Jul 13, 1:01 am, Buster Norris [Swampwater Jack AKA Patriot Games AKA Bob Milby Jr.] <Bus...(a)Buster.Com> wrote: > I'll do that tomorrow. You're very likely to spree, Junior. You are so seriously psychotic now, rational readers see you obviously answering your own sockpuppets and having conversations with them -- and continuing to claim they are "real people" and not blatant socks. Are you tellings us now you are going to spree tommorow, now today?! Will I see you on the news this afternoon, Bob Milby of Florida? Time for another obsessive-compulsive cut-and-paste, Bobby, as well? K00K. You're so koo-koo you *believe* Usenet readers take you *seriously*! -Tom Sr.
From: Richard Dobson on 13 Jul 2010 10:08 On 13/07/2010 12:18, Androcles wrote: ... > Do as Andrew Wiles did with Fermat's last theorem and prove the > charlatan Einstein's relativity from first principles, no appeal to > authority allowed. You won't get out of the starting gate. Enjoy the > irony, fraud. > I wish I could, but (a) I am not a physicist (well-paid or otherwise; Hi Arindam!) and (b) the experimental procedures required are way beyond my resources. All mathematics needs is a mathematician; physics needs kit. Which is why one needs institutions - few individuals can afford it these days. If/when any of the many arguments from authority on this lists are proved and confirmed by experiment, none will be more pleased than I! Richard Dobson
From: Claudius Denk on 13 Jul 2010 10:15 On Jul 12, 4:36 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 12, 7:35 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 1:15 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 11, 10:51 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > A real scientists, like myself, may, at time, suspend their disbelief > > > > temporarily until they've had a chance to further investigate. But > > > > you are wrong to suggest that any real scientists would choose to > > > > believe something just because some other "expert" said it to be > > > > true. Believing without evidence is the realm of science-based > > > > whackos, like AGW advocates. It's not the realm of any intellectually > > > > honest real scientist. > > > > Increasing average global temperatures indicate accelerated warming > > > Leave your imagination out of the discussion. > > I see that you are disagreeing with M Purcell but you offer nothing to > back up what you claim. It will do not good to just say something is > true or false and then offer not a shred of evidence. Or is it that we > are not privy to your prior conversations where you did offer evidence > for why you thought that it is not true that increasing average global > temperatures indicate accelerated warming? And does the Purcell just > let you get away with such hollow claims? Only fruitcakes believe in global warming. There is no credible evidence of global warming. It's adherents are just a bunch of dimwitted nose pickers. > > > > > > and we obviously dump various chemicals into the atmosphere which > > > along with increasing waste heat production does affect the weather. > > > But I suspect the political drive to reduce carbon emissions has more > > > to do with air quality than climate change, global temperatures can be > > > reduced by the addition of sulfates in the upper atmosphere. > > > nonsense.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Androcles on 13 Jul 2010 11:02 "Richard Dobson" <richarddobson(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:9r__n.175974$aS3.48403(a)hurricane... | On 13/07/2010 12:18, Androcles wrote: | .. | > Do as Andrew Wiles did with Fermat's last theorem and prove the | > charlatan Einstein's relativity from first principles, no appeal to | > authority allowed. You won't get out of the starting gate. Enjoy the | > irony, fraud. | > | | I wish I could, but (a) I am not a physicist (well-paid or otherwise; Hi | Arindam!) and (b) the experimental procedures required are way beyond my | resources. All mathematics needs is a mathematician; physics needs kit. Pop science as you see it in magazines and TV shows such as Horizon needs about as much kit as Jurassic Park did, a computer to generate moving dinosaurs. Here is all the information you need to do as I asked: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Einstein had no kit when he wrote it, you need no kit to respond to it. | Which is why one needs institutions - few individuals can afford it | these days. If/when any of the many arguments from authority on this | lists are proved and confirmed by experiment, none will be more pleased | than I! | | Richard Dobson You don't need an institution to think for yourself, you need a brain. Give it a try. You won't get out of the starting gate. Enjoy the irony...
From: Richard Dobson on 13 Jul 2010 12:20
On 13/07/2010 16:02, Androcles wrote: ... > Einstein had no kit when he wrote it, you need no kit to respond to it. 'Nuff said, really. Does this neo-post-modern non-experimental approach apply to physics in general, or just to Einstein? Richard Dobson |