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: Bret Cahill on 10 Jul 2010 19:32 > > 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
From: Jeff Rubard on 10 Jul 2010 22:03 On Jul 10, 4:32 pm, 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.
From: Orval Fairbairn on 11 Jul 2010 23:39 In article <76a4ae3a-0f1e-459b-99e6-6ec231a394f6(a)k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, Jeff Rubard <jeffrubard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 4:32�pm, 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." I do not consider social "scientists", ie. political "scientists," sociologists, psychologists, etc. to be qualified to comment on issues regarding the hard sciences. Nor does a PhD in physics qualify one to perform open heart surgery. One has to consider the scientific pedigrees of those "scientists" signing onto the global warming postulate. -- Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.
From: dorayme on 12 Jul 2010 01:48 In article <o_r_fairbairn-D3BA6B.23394311072010(a)70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.n et>, Orval Fairbairn <o_r_fairbairn(a)earth_link.net> wrote: > In article > <76a4ae3a-0f1e-459b-99e6-6ec231a394f6(a)k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, > Jeff Rubard <jeffrubard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 10, 4:32 pm, 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. -- dorayme
From: keithw86 on 12 Jul 2010 10:04
On Jul 12, 12:48 am, dorayme <dora...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article > <o_r_fairbairn-D3BA6B.23394311072...(a)70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.n > et>, > Orval Fairbairn <o_r_fairbairn(a)earth_link.net> wrote: > > > > > In article > > <76a4ae3a-0f1e-459b-99e6-6ec231a39...(a)k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, > > Jeff Rubard <jeffrub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 10, 4:32 pm, 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? |