About Junk Science Page 24
|August 8th, 2008||#231|
| || |
I'm all in favour of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters. Frank Lloyd Wright
|August 8th, 2008||#232|
| || |
|August 8th, 2008||#233|
| || |
It sounds like more than one point in a hundred to me. It sounds more like two people who can't agree on a number of issues, and this in itself is quite OK,... good in fact, at least it shows that someone has a little imagination and intelligence of their own. But it does once again highlight that there is nowhere near the one sided "shoulder to shoulder" concensus certain people seem to allude to. These ever present disagreements seem to cover everything from the most fundamental questions right through to the end suppositions that have been reached, and yet, you seem amazed that a large part of the population are sceptical.
|August 8th, 2008||#234|
| || |
Senejekips This is just an unfinished draft report, in all these there are a multitude of mistakes including the ones I write. The scientific process is that it needs to be peer reviewed to iron out the inadvertent cock ups. Everything that is wrong is not a disagreement. The figures are there and are quite clear. For example, you can check what the heat of combustion of petrol or Diesel is yourself. Sceptics argue through rhetoric whilst scientists argue with hard data. We just don't have exactly the data we need to settle the aviation issue.
Why does everything have to be a 'debate' for sceptics, answer, because it adds uncertainty and confusion and this is a good excuse for inaction. Job done Exxon style.
Last edited by perseus; August 8th, 2008 at 16:56..
|August 8th, 2008||#235|
| || |
Scientists in action? Perseus, beware the Albert Cushing Crehore scenario. AC Crehore PhD was an atomic scientist; at the turn of the 20th century he was acclaimed as the greatest electrical engineer of America, a blazing star. In 1920 his work The Atom was published, to add to a great record of great work. When Einstein's big moment came along, Crehore PhD happened to have certain qualifications. Bang, AC Crehore's career gone!
America's forgotten genius never made the great heights again. 40 years later his qualifications were found to be correct.
Scientists in action!
Now you see that Albert Cushing Crehore PhD is no longer forgotten, because of our good ol' debate here! 8)
English by the grace of God.
Last edited by Del Boy; August 9th, 2008 at 13:12..
|August 9th, 2008||#236|
| || |
Hard data, soft data, supposition, deceit, or just plain lies, who knows until it is proven?
Why do sceptics debate matters? I'll tell you why, if there were no sceptics, the point would just be accepted by all as true (proven), and there's no such thing as a "one sided debate". I certainly hope that your powers of deduction are better than your logic, although this well may explain your unwillingness to look at both sides of the debate.
Last edited by senojekips; August 9th, 2008 at 01:05..
|August 9th, 2008||#237|
| || |
Well what else can I say. How would you feel about the arguments used by these people? (yes they do have some see)
Not pretend what they believed wasn't harmless but actually quite damaging, would you encourage debate on the issue?
Then how far do we take this, man going to the moon, Elvis alive, Alien Abductions? I cannot be sure of any of these, but like GW we can be more than 99% sure. Not scientific no, but very few sceptical arguments meet up to scientific scrutiny as we have seen. Not remotely credible? Well the moon landing conspiracy looks tenable at first sight. A fellow scientist (who rips my reports to bits due to the errors) said to me a few years ago "Even I believe Man didn't go to the moon after reading all the anomalies". I just posted this to him and he said. "Oh all right then", rather than dogmatically upholding an untenable position.
Yes note it's Fox TV again, now what other conspiracy is their favourite topic for their brain dead viewers?
Last edited by perseus; August 9th, 2008 at 13:04..
|August 9th, 2008||#238|
| || |
Perhaps you fall into these traps because you go in with a closed mind and only one open eye, not prepared to use the common sense you were blessed with at birth.
Just because a person does not have a tertiary education and a string of alphabet soup after his name, does not imply that he is incapable of logical and lucid thought.
I arrive at my conclusions in exactly the same manner that you do, and believe it or not, even though you may think I'm a worthless uneducated clod, I do have the wherewithall to winnow the wheat from the chaff and form my own conclusions, from BOTH sides of the debate, the majority of which, have served me very well over the course of my life.
"What can you say" you ask?
If I were you I would say "This is my opinion, but that does not necessarily mean that those who oppose my point of view are all necessarily idiots" It is far from an open and shut case.
Now,... just to ease your mind, I too have a sneaking suspicion that mans activities are probably affecting many of the natural phenomena on this planet, BUT, by how much, and as to whether we can we reverse it,... I have absolutely no idea (and I don't think anyone else does either for a number of reasons). Personally I think they are whistling in the dark.
Every now and then someone has to play the devil's advocate, and believe me it is very easy to do in a case such as this.
Last edited by senojekips; August 9th, 2008 at 13:46..
|Chaotic Somalia keeps U.S. on terrorism watch (The Christian Science Monitor)|
|As FBI fights terrorism, other prosecutions drop (The Christian Science Monitor)|
|Indonesia's terrorist hunt bears fruit (The Christian Science Monitor)|
|science and religion (dont worry this isnt evangelizing)|
|Banning Soda and Junk food at Schools|