Quantiative Science Before Galileo
in [Math]
|
Prev: Unhappiness about product rule
Next: look upon 231! not as #rearrangements but as volume or time #647 Correcting Math
From: John Stafford on 13 Jul 2010 08:31 > (attributes lost - sorry!) > > Yet you believe that those in the "soft sciences" are qualified to > > comment on the "hard sciences"? �...particularly those that are not > > well understood? > > I would offer one example of how the hard sciences absolutely require > the soft social sciences. Peer review, which is a social science based > upon various sociology methodologies Peer review is not based upon any social science whatsoever. A person chooses those to review an article.
From: Arindam Banerjee on 13 Jul 2010 08:49 On Jul 11, 9:32 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...(a)peoplepc.com> wrote: > > > Or are you a conspiracy theorist who believes 98% of the scientists on > > > the planet are in on a conspiracy? Good question. I would say that 100% of all well-paid and institutionalised theoretical physicists are in on the biggest conspiracy+scam the scientific world has ever known. e=mcc is bollocks. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > That's about the same percentage who held that the Sun went round the > > Earth. Actually, einsteinian relativity is about just that, somehow maintaining the Aristotlian model of the Earth being the centre of the universe. For when we make the Earth move, einstein's theories crash to the ground. Earlier, I have spent a long time explaining this. Won't bother again, just making a point till I come up with experimental proof. > > When did who believe that? > > Bret Cahill
From: Bret Cahill on 13 Jul 2010 12:12 > > > > > > > > Or are you a conspiracy theorist who believes 98% of the scientists on > > > > > > > > the planet are in on a conspiracy? > > > > > > > That's about the same percentage who held that the Sun went round the > > > > > > > Earth. > > > > > > > When did who believe that? > > > > > > > Bret Cahill > > > > > > Anyway, anyhow, anywhere /they/ chose. > > > > > Please define "scientist." > > > > Please don't. > > > > > I do not consider social "scientists", ie. political "scientists," > > > > sociologists, psychologists, etc. to be qualified to comment on issues > > > > regarding the hard sciences. > > > > Well, that is unwise of you. There are many issues "regarding th > > > hard sciences" that the hard scientists would be least qualified > > > to comment on. > > > Yet you believe that those in the "soft sciences" are qualified to > > comment on the "hard sciences"? ...particularly those that are not > > well understood? > > I would offer one example of how the hard sciences absolutely require > the soft social sciences. Peer review, which is a social science based > upon various sociology methodologies is a necessary part of a large > part of hypothesis testing and verification. Just putting "hard" into quotes shows some dependency. Has anyone even bothered to precisely define or list the differences between "hard" and "soft" sciences? I mentioned sig figs in "hard" vs epidemiological studies in "soft." Before Galileo there was no distinction. Some believe Galileo made science into a science. Bret Cahill
From: Bret Cahill on 13 Jul 2010 12:15 > > > Yet you believe that those in the "soft sciences" are qualified to > > > comment on the "hard sciences"? ...particularly those that are not > > > well understood? > > I would offer one example of how the hard sciences absolutely require > > the soft social sciences. Peer review, which is a social science based > > upon various sociology methodologies > Peer review is not based upon any social science whatsoever. So you can evaluate the peer review process to the same precision, the same number of sig figs as, say, the gravitational constant? Or are you saying that peer review isn't based on any science whatsoever? Bret Cahill
From: keithw86 on 13 Jul 2010 16:41
On Jul 13, 11:12 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...(a)peoplepc.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Or are you a conspiracy theorist who believes 98% of the scientists on > > > > > > > > > the planet are in on a conspiracy? > > > > > > > > That's about the same percentage who held that the Sun went round the > > > > > > > > Earth. > > > > > > > > When did who believe that? > > > > > > > > Bret Cahill > > > > > > > Anyway, anyhow, anywhere /they/ chose. > > > > > > Please define "scientist." > > > > > Please don't. > > > > > > I do not consider social "scientists", ie. political "scientists," > > > > > sociologists, psychologists, etc. to be qualified to comment on issues > > > > > regarding the hard sciences. > > > > > Well, that is unwise of you. There are many issues "regarding th > > > > hard sciences" that the hard scientists would be least qualified > > > > to comment on. > > > > Yet you believe that those in the "soft sciences" are qualified to > > > comment on the "hard sciences"? ...particularly those that are not > > > well understood? > > > I would offer one example of how the hard sciences absolutely require > > the soft social sciences. Peer review, which is a social science based > > upon various sociology methodologies is a necessary part of a large > > part of hypothesis testing and verification. > > Just putting "hard" into quotes shows some dependency. > > Has anyone even bothered to precisely define or list the differences > between "hard" and "soft" sciences? Deals in the concept or falsifiability == hard. Deals in squishy feelings == soft. > I mentioned sig figs in "hard" vs epidemiological studies in "soft." > > Before Galileo there was no distinction. > > Some believe Galileo made science into a science. Newton. |