Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 11 Oct 2006 15:36 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > The problem is, the politicians *want* you to go off into lala land and > buy into their paranoid fantasies. The Power of Nightmares. http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=power+of+nightmares > A fearful public is a compliant public, and it causes > people to cede rights to the politicians that they have no right to take. Orwell's 1984. It's truly scary to see it come about. Orwell was just out by 20 years. Graham
From: Eeyore on 11 Oct 2006 15:39 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > > Typical European attitude. Now you expect the USA to clean up > > China's and fUSSR's messes. > > Really? Where do you get that from? I suspect he's getting at N. Korea's supposed 'client state' status with the aforementioned. Graham
From: Daniel Mandic on 11 Oct 2006 15:38 Eeyore wrote: > Your Deutschlish is very good in fact although I prefer Franglais. > > > Graham Ye sight-seeing of the colorful Isles. Best Regards, Daniel Mandic
From: Eeyore on 11 Oct 2006 15:42 T Wake wrote: > "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message > > > Sit back and watch, Johnny Stupid. > > Watch what? Watch America posture and moan for a while then complain that > the UN wont assist them? I've concluded that the USA is beyond being rationally reasoned with. At least we can all laugh when it blows up in their faces ! Graham
From: lucasea on 11 Oct 2006 15:42
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:9lgqi2dkh1p4583a5tp94s6odq0j844p22(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:31:13 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:820qi252n7609c4ouhrd8n2pj38mtpfe9h(a)4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:16:58 -0700, JoeBloe >>> <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:00:25 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: >>>> >>>>>No, Ockham's Razor suggests >>>> >>>> Totally retarded. >>> >>> "Ockham's Razor" is not a law of nature, it's an easy way to avoid >>> thinking about things that might hurt your head. >> >> >>It's served the advancement of science and technology well for hundreds of >>years. If you remember, it says that "given equal consistency with the >>facts, the simplest explanation is almost always the right one." > > It hasn't "served" science at all. Scientific "explanations" demand > proof, not parables. Uh, no...you would be thinking of mathematics. Scientific explanations are just models that represent reality to varying degrees of accuracy. Nobody ever "proved" Newton's laws, they were just a useful mathematical model that explained why things behaved the way they did. When relativity came along, that provided a better (i.e., more accurate) explanation. Nobody has ever "proved" the Bohr model of the atom, it was just a useful model to explain atomic spectra, chemical bonding, etc. As more accurate measurements came along, more accurate models were needed to represent them...and thus, quantum mechanics. None of these has been "proven", because none of them is a perfectly accurate representation of reality. At each stage, the simplest model that explained the data was chosen, as it is the most useful model in terms of predicting reality. > Cite OR in a scintific paper, as proof of a > phenomenon, and the peer reviewers will shoot you dead. You don't read peer-reviewed journals very often, do you? Chemistry, physics, biology, etc....Ockham's razor is cited all the time. >>It's a >>good reason for avoiding going off into lala land looking for paranoid >>fantasies, when other, simpler explanations work equally well. > > I don't need "explanations", I need fixes. This is exactly the attitude that got us into the situation...demanding fixes without understanding what the problem is. Eric Lucas |