 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 05 Dec 14 - 02:56 PM ....go on ,Steve, show me where I can see some evolution......snail. Last I heard, the best that could be offered was lemskies citrate digesting bugs in certain conditions. Of corse , Steve and musket have evolved various persona over time, but , like them bugs, it is only variation within the kind ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Dec 14 - 02:34 PM With respect, Ed, I don't get it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 05 Dec 14 - 01:27 PM A guy is browsing in a pet shop and sees a parrot sitting on a little perch. It doesn't have any feet or legs. The guy says aloud, "I wonder what happened to this parrot?" The parrot replies, "I was born this way. I'm a defective parrot." "WOW!" the guy exclaims. "You actually understood and answered me!" "I got every word," says the parrot. "I happen to be a highly intelligent, thoroughly educated bird." "Oh yeah?", the guy asks, "Then answer this. How do you hang onto your perch without any feet?" "Well," the parrot says, "this is very embarrassing but since you asked, I wrap my willie around this wooden bar like a little hook. You can't see it because of my tail feathers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 05 Dec 14 - 01:26 PM ""Are we into the ornithology jokes?"" Well, yes-have any to share? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Troubadour Date: 05 Dec 14 - 10:51 AM "Maybe this fellow could shed some light on the matter... The definitive opinion?" Notreally L.H. He's just a dyslexic MORMON! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Steve Shaw Listerine denier Date: 05 Dec 14 - 10:36 AM Moi Aussie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 05 Dec 14 - 10:03 AM I have serious doubts about the objectivity of that guy in a white coat in the Listerine advert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 05 Dec 14 - 09:37 AM Go on Steve, show me where I can see some evolution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Steve Shaw can't even escape a snail Date: 05 Dec 14 - 08:27 AM Let's face it, Snail. I'm the only reason for your existence. And I assure you that there truly is and only ever has been one incarnation of me. I'll keep my family jewels under wraps as long as you promise to keep your banjo habit to yourself. By the way, ad hominem my arse. Just wait 'til I get REALLY cross. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 05 Dec 14 - 07:53 AM Wouldn't have figured that you knew you bloke so well, given the age and vultural differences. Did he share any actual science knowledge with you, or only banjo riffs? Vultural differences aside, alas no. (Are we into the ornithology jokes?) I do not consider myself his intelectual equal and find his work quite hard to understand. (and I only play the banjo in private.) Bongos |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 05 Dec 14 - 07:42 AM It's nice to be able to say, without fear of contradiction, that Steve is talking bollocks. It does look as if my impostor theory may have something in it. Clearly the GUEST,The one and only real Steve Shaw who accuses me of getting "more intemperate and frustrated" while "staying calm, as ever" can't be the same person as the GUEST,Steve Shaw shunning his lab coat who had earlier launched an unprovoked ad hominem attack on me. Anyway, in his latest incarnation he says "the truth of evolution's existence on Earth is beyond science. The science all comes in the explanation. which is an interesting departure from his usual evangelistic "Evolution is True" which sits well alongside "Allahu Akbar", "God is Love" etc. Now it is evolution's existence that is true, an entirely different claim. Is he saying that evolution is a natural phenomenon which (like his bollocks) is plain for all to see? (They do things differently in the West Country.) If so, as I have asked before with no result, please Steve, show me where I can see some evolution. (I have no wish to see your bollocks.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Dec 14 - 01:35 AM He may well have said both things. They both make sense. The Democrats definitely lost the Deep South by bringing in civil rights legislation, and that's clear to anyone who has studied the history of USA elections. They also, however, secured the vote of most Black Americans all over the entire nation ever since then for the same reason. So you can say either thing, and it's true, and it has been of some advantage to both the Democrats and the Republicans, but in very different ways. Political parties play these games all the time, playing off one community or region against another. The Democrats and Republicans have basically reversed their regional dominance like a mirror image during the years from the Civil War to now...but the regions themselves have remained very similar in their original cultural character all the way along. This indicates that you can't trust political parties... :D And I already knew that. The same general cultural group of people who vote Democratic now voted Republican in 1860...and they elected Lincoln. Parties change. Cultural and regional attitudes and prejudices just go on and on. The USA has always been a house divided...and it's been divided by regions and cultural groupings. The most bitter foes in the USA have always been the Deep Southerners and the "Yankees" in the industrial Northeast...and that continues to this day. The Civil War isn't actually over yet, psychologically speaking, and it may never be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ebbie Date: 05 Dec 14 - 12:20 AM That may be,Little Hawk. However, I do believe that he said that about having lost the Democrats. To Bill Moyers, I believe. Saying he referred instead to Black people is a little pat, don't you think? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Dec 14 - 11:54 PM I wouldn't be at all surprised if Johnson had said that, Ebbie. He was a very crass man, and he probably did privately say stuff like that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Bill D Date: 04 Dec 14 - 09:33 PM Nope... but I have seen film of him speaking. He could talk purty good-like. He didn't need to contemplate tautological metaphors............ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 04 Dec 14 - 08:07 PM ""Feynman was smart enough to think of a better metaphor than that. It comes close to being a tautology, but uses incompatible terms."" He was likely not an English major? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Bill D Date: 04 Dec 14 - 07:51 PM ""Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." ― Richard P. Feynman" Feynman was smart enough to think of a better metaphor than that. It comes close to being a tautology, but uses incompatible terms. Of course scientists.. as scientists... don't *need* Philosophy of science... but it can be generally useful for humans to be comfortable wearing more than one hat. Philosophy of science can help anyone think about scientific procedures and the basic rules for discovery & analysis. I think I could (have) argue(d) with Feynman that HE did use Philosophy of science.. whether he called it that or not. He, no doubt, being pretty smart, but stubborn, would defend his own pronouncement.... not that it would affect what philosophers do for a moment. ☺ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Greg F. Date: 04 Dec 14 - 05:18 PM YawYaw's always been turned wrong way 'round, Ebbie. Ignore him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 04 Dec 14 - 04:49 PM ""and he played the bongos."" Wouldn't have figured that you knew you bloke so well, given the age and vultural differences. Did he share any actual science knowledge with you, or only banjo riffs? ;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ebbie Date: 04 Dec 14 - 04:00 PM "...LBJ stated "I'll will have those ni****s voting democrat for the next 200 years". sawzaw What? As I remember it, LBJ said when signing the Civil Rights Act that he had lost the South for a long time to come. When did this get turned around? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Musket Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:56 PM Just for you Brendan. Ready? Fuck off peasant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,BrendanB Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:39 PM My purpose in posting, Musket, was for the sake of accuracy. I thought you approved of accuracy. However it is true that I rather hoped to elicit one of your foulmouthed responses. I have to confess that I enjoy witnessing a grown man behaving like a naughty boy. Stop being silly and grow up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,The one and only real Steve Shaw Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:04 PM The only reason I'm a guest is that I've taken to using my iPad a lot more and I've forgotten how I'm supposed to sign in. I'll have a go later. I'm a complete horror with passwords. If I may be permitted a wry observation on Snail's last two posts, they are getting more and more intemperate and frustrated. I'm staying calm, as ever. Now hands up, folks, if you can guess how many times I've told Gastropodus obduratus here that the truth of evolution's existence on Earth is beyond science. The science all comes in the explanation. My left bollock hangs to the left and slightly lower than my middle bollock. That's not science, it's the truth. ;-). The science comes in the explanation of why it hangs lower and why I'm so fortunately-endowed. There is a difference. Even Popper might have agreed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,sawzaw Date: 04 Dec 14 - 02:30 PM Suggest you ask the Democrat Party with their history on their assassination of a Republican president that created the Republican party to eliminate slavery, creation of the KKK & Jim Crow laws, Bull Conner, Pitchfork Tillman, George Wallace, Orval Faubus, pro slavery, Etc. Then the sudden turn around on civil rights when LBJ stated "I'll will have those ni****s voting democrat for the next 200 years". Feel free to mount all the logically false ad hominem attacks and verbal abuse you want. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,# Date: 04 Dec 14 - 02:09 PM Would someone be kind enough to give an example of an absolute? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 04 Dec 14 - 02:05 PM "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." ― Richard P. Feynman and he played the bongos. Nobody's perfect. As Steve Shaw has pointed out, "Sir Isaac Newton believed in both God and alchemy, remember." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 04 Dec 14 - 02:03 PM We have a dilemma here. How can we tell whether the person posting as GUEST,Steve Shaw is the real Steve Shaw? He might be a complete impostor, perhaps one of the Musket team. Granted, the style seems pretty much the same. He comes up with a load of crap that bears no resemblance to anything I've ever said and then blames me for saying it. We might as well proceed as if it is him. But if you are curious about the world, refuse to take anything at face value, demand evidence (and know what "evidence" means), and realise that science is not a quest for proofs or certainties, you're a scientist. Really? I thought you had to have a certificate. Anyway, that sounds like a clear declaration of his philosophy of science including a hint of logical positivism. It does rather preclude statements like "Evolution is true" though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 04 Dec 14 - 12:02 PM "How do we discover the individual laws of Physics, and what is their nature? It should be remarked, to begin with, that we have no right to assume that any physical law exists, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future. It is perfectly conceivable that one fine day Nature should cause an unexpected event to occur which would baffle us all; and if this were to happen we would be powerless to make any objection, even if the result would be that, in spite of our endeavors, we should fail to introduce order into the resulting confusion. In such an event, the only course open to science would be to declare itself bankrupt. For this reason, science is compelled to begin by the general assumption that a general rule of law dominates throughout Nature. " — Max Planck |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Musket Date: 04 Dec 14 - 10:47 AM I don't think "science" looks for absolutes. I am sure a hypothesis can be proven by what we see as absolutes in some cases, such as Newtonian physics but another question can be answered by accepting lack of absolutes in the answer. Quantum mechanics as a whole concept is based on probability rather than absolute. Finding the answer can be self serving, predicting scenarios based on observation is another beaker of sozzled halibut entirely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Steve Shaw fearful Date: 04 Dec 14 - 10:46 AM Blimey, don't tell Snail that! :-0 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 04 Dec 14 - 10:29 AM "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." ― Richard P. Feynman |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Bill D Date: 04 Dec 14 - 10:01 AM "But science does do absolutes. " I could make some jokes, too...but..." Anything else is philosophy" the following IS philosophy of science...(we philosophers get to meddle in everyone's business by just putting "Philosophy of" in front of it.) Science LOOKS for absolutes... but nothing approaches scientific absolutes except certain generalizations about behavior of matter 'under certain conditions'. "Most paper will burn given a heat source and X concentration of Oxygen"... or some such formulation. Absolutes? Hard to pin down, as this shows. (sorry Pete 7*) "The discovery of DNA in a 400,000-year-old human thigh bone will open up a new frontier in the study of our ancestors." ---------------------------------- "But the recent pace of progress in sequencing technology has astonished many scientists: "Years ago, geneticists said they wouldn't be able to find DNA that was older than 60,000 years old," said co-author Jose Bermudez de Castro, from the National Research Centre for Human Evolution (CENIEH), a member of the team that excavated the fossils. "Of course, that wasn't true. The techniques have advanced hugely." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 04 Dec 14 - 07:41 AM "Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it."― Richard P. Feynman |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Steve Shaw shunning his lab coat Date: 04 Dec 14 - 07:04 AM Well, I should like to return to the sentiment of the original post, which, I believe, was simple enough in feeling (though, I hasten to add, the very opposite of simplistic, and I hope that my first response to it was respectful enough). I see that we have Snail back in the mix with his insinuations again. His goal, as ever, appears to be to put some distance between scientists' intellects and the rest of us plebs by making science sound impossible, though, fair dues to the man, he hasn't mentioned Popper in this thread yet. :-) Well, much as Snail and his ilk would like to characterise science as something very difficult and arcane such that we common people had better avoid it and stick to our superstitions, it's actually incredibly easy. Sure, you won't have spent all day in some lab with bubbling broths all around you. And you may not have been to university and kept up with all the latest complex notions. But if you are curious about the world, refuse to take anything at face value, demand evidence (and know what "evidence" means), and realise that science is not a quest for proofs or certainties, you're a scientist. And you don't even have to take the word of other scientists either: Sir Isaac Newton believed in both God and alchemy, remember. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 04 Dec 14 - 06:11 AM I am not a reverend, but it seems people have alot of "beliefs". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:33 AM Thank you, LH, for the clarification. Nevertheless, I raised the point because, in these discussions, pete always raises the question of concensus in science - and there is always the implication, in his posts, that scientific conclusions (or 'opinions' as he mistakenly believes them to be) involving concensus are somehow inferior ... to conclusions/'opinions' not involving concensus (!) Let's be clear: - The opinions of 'Joe Bloggs', from down the pub, may well say more about whatever it is goes on in his head than they say about the real world. Having said that, though, some people's opinions are more worth listening to, and considering, than others. - There may be concensus among the members of a particular group (a group of religious fundamentalists, for example), on some topic that interests them, but unless that concensus opinion is based on evidence, it's not really worth the proverbial 'hill-of-beans'. - Concensus among scientists, though, is invariably based on evidence. And that evidence may have been gathered, considered and evaluated over many years, decades or even centuries. To be taken seriously, by the scientific community, the evidence has to be consistent and reproducible. Conclusions, models and scientific theories, based on such high quality evidence, is infinitely superior to mere opinion! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Musket Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:08 AM NICE has added a word to its name to reflect additional responsibilities since the demise of NPSA. Well done Brendan. I am set in my ways and since stepping down am set in a time warp. The musical chairs is such that on Radio 4 last week, the president of The Royal College of Surgeons referred to SHO doctors. They haven't been called that for six years and his college led the way in renaming junior doctor grades. Was there a point to your post other than smarting where you have inadvertently been made to look a cunt in the past? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Rapparee Date: 03 Dec 14 - 09:30 PM But science does do absolutes. Anything else is philosophy, except when philosophy is dealing with absolutes and then it becomes some sort of theology. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 03 Dec 14 - 07:52 PM ""Science doesn't do absolute evidence""..., nor does it claim to be in any way infallible-or claims to represent the final word on anything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Dec 14 - 07:36 PM Belief in the Bible is not necessarily based on consensus. It's based more than anything else on the Bible being part of a familiar cultural tradition, and that doesn't always equate to "belief" either. I've known many Christians who certainly don't believe in everything that's in the Bible, either in a literal or in a metaphorical sense...but they may still find considerable inspiration in various parts of it, particularly the moral/philosophical tales that are said to emanate from Jesus. This doesn't mean they have to believe everything that's in the book! (And yes, some of them do believe every word...but many others don't. There is no consensus in the Christian religion...rather, there are many widely differing viewpoints and that has led to the religion fragmenting into many different churches and sects in the last 2,000 years. Even within those sects there is much debate about doctrine, and it's ongoing...and probably always will be. Like other institutions the church evolves and changes.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 03 Dec 14 - 06:47 PM and thus the consensus opinion is not absolute evidence. Science doesn't do absolute evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 03 Dec 14 - 06:28 PM " ... thus the consensus opinion is not absolute evidence." Now didn't someone tell me once, pete, that belief in the veracity of the Bible is based on consensus? Or have I got that wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 03 Dec 14 - 06:24 PM All that does LH is attract moths. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Dec 14 - 05:33 PM Maybe this fellow could shed some light on the matter... The definitive opinion? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Greg F. Date: 03 Dec 14 - 04:50 PM the way to deal with those of us who are not scientists but disagree with the opinions of ....some, or even most ...scientists, is to give reasoned arguments... Now THAT, pete, particularly in your case, really is hysterically funny. Or perhaps abysmally sad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,They're coming to take me away.... Date: 03 Dec 14 - 04:28 PM These boyos believe the lads in white coats are fellow scientists... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Steve Shaw Date: 03 Dec 14 - 04:16 PM Opinions are never evidence, pete dear chappie. You really haven't a clue about this, have you. Don't you need a holiday? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 03 Dec 14 - 03:42 PM Of course, the way to deal with those of us who are not scientists but disagree with the opinions of ....some, or even most ...scientists, is to give reasoned arguments that amount to more than consensus appeal, or appeal to data, that some other scientists interpret alternatively, and thus the consensus opinion is not absolute evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Gurney Date: 03 Dec 14 - 02:46 PM Chongo, get back on your perch. If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your hat off, and consequently your opinions leave much to be desired. Anyone who fancies Bonobos..... And dislikes Gorillas! For heavens sake! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 03 Dec 14 - 01:31 PM I've been there, and bought the T shirt. I am not a.... |
