Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Oct 2006 06:49 In article <4540CC6E.A8AC7D15(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> 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. > >It rains without clouds there ? Clouds seem to form instanteously in the afternoon on the west side. If you're driving, getting off the road to avoid the storm isn't the thing to do. People have also been struck by lightning when there was only one cloud far, far away. Absence of clouds isn't any guarantee there will be no storm activity. Some days, you're in the eye of the storm. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Oct 2006 06:51 In article <j1l1k25t38mdijpm7rhue5l71jrr4j0jm1(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Thu, 26 Oct 06 12:35:18 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>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. >> > >Classic left-right mirror bodily image stuff. Like having six fingers >on one hand and five on the other. That would tell us something about >how structures are encoded. > >I think heritable mutations themselves are rare, symmetric or not. You seem to be talking about dominant and recessive genes. I would think that the 5-6 finger configuration would have been more of a mismatch during the xy pairing. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Oct 2006 07:04 In article <EL-dnW6mcO-Zn9zYRVnygg(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ehqa97$8qk_008(a)s783.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> 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. > >You must have misread my post. Can you read over it again and see where I >said Newtonian gravity doesn't work, I don't think I said it and I hope I >didn't imply it. Sorry. I was nitpiking because I knew what readers would conclude :-). They've done it before. > >I am talking about the possibility that a future theory of gravity _may_ >overhaul the Newtonian mechanics for low mass objects and slow speeds. There >is nothing in the scientific method which precludes a future generation >discovering a better experimental test and finding a flaw in the Newtonian >theory because of something we have no knowledge of at this time. Here you imply it with your use of the word "flaw". It's not a flaw but a case that can't be predicted by Newtonian theory. That new theory is another tool to add to your tool box of predictions; it's not a replacement for the hammer which is the first tool used by kiddies like me. > >It remains the case, that until such a time, scientists _believe_ Newtonian >theory is the best theory for describing gravity in the circumstances in >which it is used. It is not possible to know that this is the only theory. >The same applies to GR. It is scientist's belief that GR is the best theory >for describing gravity on a cosmic scale. > >Belief is a word. Giving it mystical meaning is pandering to religious >extremists. When the convention is about belief in god being supplanted by the theory of evolution, the last word any science teacher (who can think) would be belief. By saying that word, these idiots lost their argument before the first meeting was held; they were talking to closed ears. Sheesh! I don't understand people and even I know about this one. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Oct 2006 07:33 In article <9iv1k21t4q9jpnm8o4v2rrmb1mkr7tue6f(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: <GRIN> >What a grouch. That's what happens when a scientist and engineer talk to each other without a translator....or rather, filter. What you need to do is get a den mother, who is very stupid, and needs both the scientist and the engineer to explain to her what they want to do. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Oct 2006 07:37
In article <d8c4k2la87ka7pfs40bel740u7f6uil8ql(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On 27 Oct 2006 07:45:57 -0700, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: > >> >>John Larkin wrote: >>[...] >>> A bar is ideal for brainstorming. Having "important" people around, >>> management or critical peers, makes people reluctant to expose >>> uncertainty, and makes them formal and dogmatic. The alcohol or >>> caffein may help to... altered states. >> >>Where I work we have an informal rule that nothing said over the lunch >>table is to be taken too seriously. I actively work towards making >>sure that new people understand this so that it doesn't change. >>Technical subjects are often the lead in for bad puns and there are >>many references to upsidasium and unobtainium but mixed in, some very >>good ideas have gotten their start over lunch. >> >>There was even a case in the past where a new product came out of it. >>It started off with someone in sales saying "someone needs an XYZ". >>Before lunch was over we had figured out that if we took ABC and DEF >>and put them in a weather proof box we would have a perfectly good XYZ. > >You can think this way all day, all the time, if the culture permits >it. Even in meetings. Nope. That would have never happened in a meeting unless the sales person had put it on an agenda. Since sales thought it was impossible to do, it would never be included in a products requirements report. It takes informal chatting and yakking and gossiping to uncover what customers, who do pay your bills, really need. That's why DECUS had their hospitality suites. /BAH |