Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 25 Oct 2006 12:23 In article <j9vuj25679i7d4bp38km98lii0acq1ajai(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:55:01 +0100, "T Wake" ><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >>>> >>>>It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the best >>>>description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. >>> >>> I don't believe it. I demonstrated it when I did my labs. >> >>You still believe it is the _best_ description of gravity. Tomorrow some one > >Einstein > >>may overhaul Newtonian gravity and explain that it is actually incorrect >>because of [insert reason here]. > >General relativity, as demonstrated in the orbit of Mercury. > But even that cannot be entirely correct, as it is incompatible with quantum mechanics. >>This is not prohibited by anything in the >>scientific method. >> > >Nope! > >John > >
From: lucasea on 25 Oct 2006 17:16 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:ichvj2dk0kq2i2hh75047tico4h8gammnv(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:26:19 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>> Reminds me of a professor I had, a psychologist in the Army Air Force >>> in WWII. He discovered that graduates of the cooks and bakers school >>> were better aerial gunners than graduates of the aerial gunnery >>> school. >> >>Just means the aerial gunnery school was poor. > > Do people still say "duh"? > >> >>Using anecdotal evidence like this to justify assumptions is poor science. > > This is a *discussion* group, not a peer-reviewed journal. Bad science is not situational. Doesn't matter where it is, basing assumption on anecdotal evidence is bad science. > If somebody > says "looks like rain" I bet you say "prove it or shut up." That would be based on observational evidence, not anecdotal evidence. An assumption based on anecdotal evidence would be "it rained the past two Tuesdays, so therefore I conclude that it always rains on Tuesday." Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 25 Oct 2006 17:32 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message > > > If somebody > > says "looks like rain" I bet you say "prove it or shut up." > > That would be based on observational evidence, not anecdotal evidence. An > assumption based on anecdotal evidence would be "it rained the past two > Tuesdays, so therefore I conclude that it always rains on Tuesday." An absence of clouds would make the assertion look pretty flaky anyway ! Graham
From: John Larkin on 25 Oct 2006 18:03 On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:32:17 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >> >> > If somebody >> > says "looks like rain" I bet you say "prove it or shut up." >> >> That would be based on observational evidence, not anecdotal evidence. An >> assumption based on anecdotal evidence would be "it rained the past two >> Tuesdays, so therefore I conclude that it always rains on Tuesday." > >An absence of clouds would make the assertion look pretty flaky anyway ! > >Graham How about "it rained for the last 39 days, so it will probably rain today"? Anecdotal too, I suppose. John
From: John Larkin on 25 Oct 2006 18:05
On Wed, 25 Oct 06 16:23:50 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <j9vuj25679i7d4bp38km98lii0acq1ajai(a)4ax.com>, > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:55:01 +0100, "T Wake" >><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>> >>>>>It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the best >>>>>description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. >>>> >>>> I don't believe it. I demonstrated it when I did my labs. >>> >>>You still believe it is the _best_ description of gravity. Tomorrow some one >> >>Einstein >> >>>may overhaul Newtonian gravity and explain that it is actually incorrect >>>because of [insert reason here]. >> >>General relativity, as demonstrated in the orbit of Mercury. >> > >But even that cannot be entirely correct, as it is incompatible with quantum >mechanics. But it certainly makes Newton's formulation not-the-best. John |