Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Oct 2006 08:29 In article <ichvj2dk0kq2i2hh75047tico4h8gammnv(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >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. If somebody >says "looks like rain" I bet you say "prove it or shut up." No. He would insist it couldn't be rain because the water isn't blue. [glum emoticon here] /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Oct 2006 08:30 In article <453FD7E1.C7E76746(a)hotmail.com>, 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 ! You haven't been in the mountains. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Oct 2006 08:35 In article <a3vuj2hfpuisafeuk8g5tkrkakgtkmo0ca(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Wed, 25 Oct 06 10:04:47 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>In article <vb4qj29r3tpr4ctnhbffuumsdgpj704mf8(a)4ax.com>, >> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: <snip> >>>There's all sorts of interesting stuff. Some people are born with six >>>fully functional fingers on each hand. So "finger" must be some sort >>>of parameterized macro, and "mirror image" must be an operation, and >>>there must be some sort of installation crew that hooks everything up >>>so that it all works. >>> >>>Aircraft parts were classicly identified by drawing number and dash >>>number. If a part were, say, 123456-1A (the basic part defined by >>>drawing 123456 rev A), it was automatically assumed that 123456-2A was >>>its mirror image. >> >>Yep. JMF worked with a guy whose hobby was studying that kind >>of genetic stuff. He gave JMF a video tape that was considering >>a hypothesis that the mechanism of making the fingers, etc. >>was mechanical. I had never considered that before. >> >>/BAH > > >Which brings up the interesting idea of studying heritable birth >defects, which could be assumed to be true mutations. Are heritable >physical defects ever asymmetric? I don't know what you mean with the word asymmetric. I've forgotten almost all of my biology. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Oct 2006 08:39 In article <iLOdnYf2fLhzz6LYRVnyuw(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ehndut$8qk_001(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <5bmdnTiQpMD62KPYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ehl0hs$8qk_001(a)s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <xeidnaGqVPjT7abYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:ehfm39$8qk_006(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that >>>>>> the Creed starts out with "I believe...". >>>>> >>>>>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 >>>may overhaul Newtonian gravity and explain that it is actually incorrect >>>because of [insert reason here]. This is not prohibited by anything in the >>>scientific method. >> >> No. No matter how the concept is refined, the lab method worked. >> I can then use that method to predict similar setups. That's >> how science works. > >I know how science works. > >We [tinw] believe that Newtonian gravity is the best description of what >happens. Your lab experiment is limited by your equipment and your >understanding of what you are observing. > >A new theory which matches the previous predictions and makes new >(sucessfully) testable ones will overhaul the old one. Until that happens we >[tinw] believe that the current theory is the *best*. > >That is how science works. I know. What you seem to omit is that the old method will still continue to work within the range of the old measurements. I get real annoyed when people say that Newtonian physics doesnt' work. It does work with crude measurements of certain things. I know what the scientists mean; but it's a bad form to use because the cranks and the newbies do not know what they mean. <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Oct 2006 08:41
In article <o7-dnT-KVNv4IKLYRVnyhA(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ehnf2o$8qk_007(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... <snip> >>>> What era? And there aren't death certificates for those >>>> in hidden mass graves. So any person asked about people >>>> they know who died couldn't have shown a certificate. >>>> This person who disappeared could have been reported by >>>> 10 households. Do you not see a problem in collected >>>> unique datums? >>> >>>Lucas & Wake's blindness is highly selective. >> >> Yes. > >Yet much less selective than unsettled and, assuming you are as joined to >"him" as I am to Lucas, you. In case you haven't noticed, unsettled and I disagree about a lot but we haven't had the opportunity to talk about it since you keep blowing smoke. /BAH <snip> /BAH |