B
Bret Cahill
Guest
That's _his_ point. Language certainly isn't a hard science.
Bret Cahill
"Psychology, the queen of sciences."
-- Nietzsche
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Bret Cahill
"Psychology, the queen of sciences."
-- Nietzsche
B
Bret Cahill
Guest
Like when the hacked Emails "falsified" everything put out by the E.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.
Anglia CRU?
Like creationism?Deals in squishy
feelings == soft.
Bret Cahill
I
Immortalist
Guest
On Jul 13, 5:31 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
soft science. Besides there are countless examples of "the scientific
community" repeatable experiments and on and on, the name of all this
is formally known in science as "the sociology of science" which is a
means to compare and innovate internationally. Now your not going to
tell me that the "methodology" of peer review is based upon molecular
biology math are you?
Now if you insist on making an ass of yourself here please click on
this link and beware that this is a credible debate in all sciences
and Merton has changed all science procedures to some degree.
http://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2009/12/mertons-sociology-of-science.html
I can tell you don't know much about the "formal philosophy of
science" since you act like you can can just make shit up and pass it
off as smelling like flowers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
Peer review is based upon social science methodology and statistics, a(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.
soft science. Besides there are countless examples of "the scientific
community" repeatable experiments and on and on, the name of all this
is formally known in science as "the sociology of science" which is a
means to compare and innovate internationally. Now your not going to
tell me that the "methodology" of peer review is based upon molecular
biology math are you?
Now if you insist on making an ass of yourself here please click on
this link and beware that this is a credible debate in all sciences
and Merton has changed all science procedures to some degree.
http://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2009/12/mertons-sociology-of-science.html
I can tell you don't know much about the "formal philosophy of
science" since you act like you can can just make shit up and pass it
off as smelling like flowers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
B
Bret Cahill
Guest
The issue wasn't _your_ use of quotes but just about everyone puttingOr 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.
I use quote marks to quote someone and sometimes to "spotlight" a
phrase.
those terms into quotes, and for good reason.
.. . .
The only thing the wiki article below got right was hard science has
more sig figs.
A more "scientific science" . . .Has anyone even bothered to precisely define or list the differences
between "hard" and "soft" sciences?
Its one of those distinctions so common and old that we forget that
new people have to learn it also.
Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms often used when
comparing fields of academic research or scholarship, with hard
meaning perceived as being more scientific,
That reasoning goes in a circular circle.
What the author should have said is hard science uses more explicit
calculations . . . that it is more _quantitative_.
Right now there are some physicists laughing at that one.rigorous,
As stated before, more sig figs.or accurate.
Examples ain't definitions or qualities.Fields of the natural or physical sciences are often described as
hard, while the social sciences and similar fields are often described
as soft.
Hard sciences are more theoretical and therefore _less_ experimentalThe hard sciences are characterized as relying on
experimental, empirical,
than "soft" sciences.
The most important "hard" science paper of the 20th Century required
no lab work.
Those meta studies in JAMA. . . there's your soft science.
See the header and below. Before Galileo everything was treated as aquantifiable
soft science.
That should be true but it's probably not. For one thing any idiotdata, relying on the scientific
method, and focusing on accuracy and objectivity. Publications in the
hard sciences such as natural sciences make heavier use of graphs than
soft sciences such as sociology, according to the graphism thesis.
can make a graph out of anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
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
"The value of a calculation to humanity is inversely proportional to
the number of possible sig figs."
-- Bret's First Law of Tweaking
I
Immortalist
Guest
On Jul 13, 9:12 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
phrase. I don't understand how your trying to turn my usage into
"scare quotes". That usually only happens when someone is changing the
definition of a term or something. Didn't your grammar ever warn you
about that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
new people have to learn it also.
Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms often used when
comparing fields of academic research or scholarship, with hard
meaning perceived as being more scientific, rigorous, or accurate.
Fields of the natural or physical sciences are often described as
hard, while the social sciences and similar fields are often described
as soft. The hard sciences are characterized as relying on
experimental, empirical, quantifiable data, relying on the scientific
method, and focusing on accuracy and objectivity. Publications in the
hard sciences such as natural sciences make heavier use of graphs than
soft sciences such as sociology, according to the graphism thesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
I use quote marks to quote someone and sometimes to "spotlight" aOr 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.
phrase. I don't understand how your trying to turn my usage into
"scare quotes". That usually only happens when someone is changing the
definition of a term or something. Didn't your grammar ever warn you
about that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
Its one of those distinctions so common and old that we forget thatHas anyone even bothered to precisely define or list the differences
between "hard" and "soft" sciences?
new people have to learn it also.
Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms often used when
comparing fields of academic research or scholarship, with hard
meaning perceived as being more scientific, rigorous, or accurate.
Fields of the natural or physical sciences are often described as
hard, while the social sciences and similar fields are often described
as soft. The hard sciences are characterized as relying on
experimental, empirical, quantifiable data, relying on the scientific
method, and focusing on accuracy and objectivity. Publications in the
hard sciences such as natural sciences make heavier use of graphs than
soft sciences such as sociology, according to the graphism thesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
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
J
John Stafford
Guest
In article
<0210acfa-652b-4446-94c2-a8fe411b7bf4@u36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
chooses the reviewers. That is the method.
<0210acfa-652b-4446-94c2-a8fe411b7bf4@u36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
When, for example, a mathematical theory is reviewed, a chairpersonOn Jul 13, 5:31 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
(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.
Peer review is based upon social science methodology and statistics, a
soft science.
chooses the reviewers. That is the method.
J
John Stafford
Guest
In article
<0210acfa-652b-4446-94c2-a8fe411b7bf4@u36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
<0210acfa-652b-4446-94c2-a8fe411b7bf4@u36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hey, Mister Copy & Paste, you just blew a gasket.I can tell you don't know much about the "formal philosophy of
science" since you act like you can can just make shit up and pass it
off as smelling like flowers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
J
John Stafford
Guest
In article
<0210acfa-652b-4446-94c2-a8fe411b7bf4@u36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
not in practice. You can study peer review and call the study part of
social science, but that does not change how peers are selected, nor how
the process works.
See what happens when you try to fit your views into Copy/Paste material?
<0210acfa-652b-4446-94c2-a8fe411b7bf4@u36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
You apparently are trying to abstract peer review into something it isOn Jul 13, 5:31 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
(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.
Peer review is based upon social science methodology and statistics, a
soft science
not in practice. You can study peer review and call the study part of
social science, but that does not change how peers are selected, nor how
the process works.
See what happens when you try to fit your views into Copy/Paste material?
B
Bret Cahill
Guest
Math ain't science.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.
Peer review is based upon social science methodology and statistics, a
soft science.
When, for example, a mathematical theory is reviewed, a chairperson
chooses the reviewers. That is the method.
Bret Cahill
D
Darwin123
Guest
On Jul 10, 7:32 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
obviously people who thought the sun may go around a flat earth.
However, most of the Bible was probably written down earlier than 700
BC.
In my searches, I have found only one person after 700 BC
actually wrote that the sun goes around the earth.
Herodotus, the Greek/Egyptian historian, wrote a history on or
about 650 BC. He describes a Persian explorer who tried to circle
Africa. This explorer found the angle of the sun a bit anomalous.
Herodotus thought the explorer misinterpreted his data. Herodotus
proposed another model where the sun is close to flat earth.
There were Greeks in Herodotus' time who thought that the earth
was round. Herodotus said that those Greeks were obviously wrong and
were just trying to attract attention.
Although Herodotus was wrong, he was scientific. The odd anomalies
Herodotus describes prove that the Persian explorer really made the
trip.
Herodotus also proved that the issue of a spherical/motionless
earth was still controversial in 650 BC.
There was also a Greek/Egyptian astronomer who claimed, on or
around 50 BC, that the sun went around the earth. I forgot his name
and exact date. However, his ideas were not picked up again till
Copernicus.
meaning the sun goes around the earth. The target audience wasThat's about the same percentage who held that the Sun went round the
Earth.
When did who believe that?
Bret Cahill
The Bible makes several references that can be interpreted as
obviously people who thought the sun may go around a flat earth.
However, most of the Bible was probably written down earlier than 700
BC.
In my searches, I have found only one person after 700 BC
actually wrote that the sun goes around the earth.
Herodotus, the Greek/Egyptian historian, wrote a history on or
about 650 BC. He describes a Persian explorer who tried to circle
Africa. This explorer found the angle of the sun a bit anomalous.
Herodotus thought the explorer misinterpreted his data. Herodotus
proposed another model where the sun is close to flat earth.
There were Greeks in Herodotus' time who thought that the earth
was round. Herodotus said that those Greeks were obviously wrong and
were just trying to attract attention.
Although Herodotus was wrong, he was scientific. The odd anomalies
Herodotus describes prove that the Persian explorer really made the
trip.
Herodotus also proved that the issue of a spherical/motionless
earth was still controversial in 650 BC.
There was also a Greek/Egyptian astronomer who claimed, on or
around 50 BC, that the sun went around the earth. I forgot his name
and exact date. However, his ideas were not picked up again till
Copernicus.
D
Darwin123
Guest
On Jul 12, 10:39 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
Like many physicists, I have worked on biological problems. However, I
avoid contradicting qualified biologists except when they try to
contradict qualified physicists.
I have gotten a lot of help from biologists. If biology wasn't a
science, I wouldn't ask their help. I try to be helpful when a
biologist asks me a question.
I know a lot of physicists who know next to nothing about biology.
I think the percentage of physicists who don't know biology is greater
than the percentage of biologists who don't know physics. However, I
dismiss arguments made in ignorance no matter who makes them.
The process of biological evolution does not contradict the
Second Law of Thermodynamics. I dismiss this no matter who makes the
argument. Sorry.
I am a physicist. I never said that biology is not a science."The number of sig figs possible is inversely proportional to value of
the measurement."
-- Bret's Tweaker Conjecture
Like many physicists, I have worked on biological problems. However, I
avoid contradicting qualified biologists except when they try to
contradict qualified physicists.
I have gotten a lot of help from biologists. If biology wasn't a
science, I wouldn't ask their help. I try to be helpful when a
biologist asks me a question.
I know a lot of physicists who know next to nothing about biology.
I think the percentage of physicists who don't know biology is greater
than the percentage of biologists who don't know physics. However, I
dismiss arguments made in ignorance no matter who makes them.
The process of biological evolution does not contradict the
Second Law of Thermodynamics. I dismiss this no matter who makes the
argument. Sorry.
B
Bret Cahill
Guest
Thanks.That's about the same percentage who held that the Sun went round the
Earth.
When did who believe that?
Bret Cahill
The Bible makes several references that can be interpreted as
meaning the sun goes around the earth. The target audience was
obviously people who thought the sun may go around a flat earth.
However, most of the Bible was probably written down earlier than 700
BC.
In my searches, I have found only one person after 700 BC
actually wrote that the sun goes around the earth.
Herodotus, the Greek/Egyptian historian, wrote a history on or
about 650 BC. He describes a Persian explorer who tried to circle
Africa. This explorer found the angle of the sun a bit anomalous.
Herodotus thought the explorer misinterpreted his data. Herodotus
proposed another model where the sun is close to flat earth.
There were Greeks in Herodotus' time who thought that the earth
was round. Herodotus said that those Greeks were obviously wrong and
were just trying to attract attention.
Although Herodotus was wrong, he was scientific. The odd anomalies
Herodotus describes prove that the Persian explorer really made the
trip.
Herodotus also proved that the issue of a spherical/motionless
earth was still controversial in 650 BC.
There was also a Greek/Egyptian astronomer who claimed, on or
around 50 BC, that the sun went around the earth. I forgot his name
and exact date. However, his ideas were not picked up again till
Copernicus.
They had math and empirical / qualitative science before Galileo but
science wasn't quantitative.
To be sure a lot of AGW is empirical but even there the methods are
better than before.
Scientific concensus today isn't your great grandaddy's scientific
concensus so claiming atmospheric scientists could be making the same
errors as blood letting "scientists" is ridiculous.
Bret Cahill
S
spudnik
Guest
first of all, bloodletting has some current back-up ... or,
at least, leeches are pretty useful in surgery. secondly,
someone "above" made some statement about graphs (that is,
quantification) in the harder sciences (although it seems that
the soft ones use tons of statistical algorithms), and I'd like
to cite the NYTimes weatherpage as a source of subliminal
justification
for the algorithms of the GCMers.
the more qualitative aspect of that page,
is the daliy vignettes on various things about weather --
n'est, microclimate. my random reading of this shows that
cold records are at least as common as hot records,
whereby goes my primary (nonquant) take on the phrase,
global warming. just say,
the climate she a changin', and rest easy!
Is the House Banking Bill, now before Senate, the same as
cap&trade?...
les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net
at least, leeches are pretty useful in surgery. secondly,
someone "above" made some statement about graphs (that is,
quantification) in the harder sciences (although it seems that
the soft ones use tons of statistical algorithms), and I'd like
to cite the NYTimes weatherpage as a source of subliminal
justification
for the algorithms of the GCMers.
the more qualitative aspect of that page,
is the daliy vignettes on various things about weather --
n'est, microclimate. my random reading of this shows that
cold records are at least as common as hot records,
whereby goes my primary (nonquant) take on the phrase,
global warming. just say,
the climate she a changin', and rest easy!
--Rep. Waxman's "new" cap&trade, same as his circa '91?...Scientific concensus today isn't your great grandaddy's scientific
concensus so claiming atmospheric scientists could be making the same
errors as blood letting "scientists" is ridiculous.
Is the House Banking Bill, now before Senate, the same as
cap&trade?...
les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net
S
spudnik
Guest
grammar is just a part of the three Rs,
the minimum you have to know, to be a literate slave --
and what some so-called Republicans call, "the basics."
--Rep. Waxman's "new" cap&trade, same as his circa '91?...
Is the House Banking Bill, now before Senate, the same as
cap&trade?...
les ducs d'oil!
http://wlym.com
the minimum you have to know, to be a literate slave --
and what some so-called Republicans call, "the basics."
--Rep. Waxman's "new" cap&trade, same as his circa '91?...
Is the House Banking Bill, now before Senate, the same as
cap&trade?...
les ducs d'oil!
http://wlym.com
K
keithw86@gmail.com
Guest
On Jul 14, 12:26 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
been known for some time, too.
experiment. If the computer and reality don't match, there must be
something wrong with reality.
Not true. Pi was rather well known 4K years ago. Earth's size hasThat's about the same percentage who held that the Sun went round the
Earth.
When did who believe that?
Bret Cahill
The Bible makes several references that can be interpreted as
meaning the sun goes around the earth. The target audience was
obviously people who thought the sun may go around a flat earth.
However, most of the Bible was probably written down earlier than 700
BC.
In my searches, I have found only one person after 700 BC
actually wrote that the sun goes around the earth.
Herodotus, the Greek/Egyptian historian, wrote a history on or
about 650 BC. He describes a Persian explorer who tried to circle
Africa. This explorer found the angle of the sun a bit anomalous.
Herodotus thought the explorer misinterpreted his data. Herodotus
proposed another model where the sun is close to flat earth.
There were Greeks in Herodotus' time who thought that the earth
was round. Herodotus said that those Greeks were obviously wrong and
were just trying to attract attention.
Although Herodotus was wrong, he was scientific. The odd anomalies
Herodotus describes prove that the Persian explorer really made the
trip.
Herodotus also proved that the issue of a spherical/motionless
earth was still controversial in 650 BC.
There was also a Greek/Egyptian astronomer who claimed, on or
around 50 BC, that the sun went around the earth. I forgot his name
and exact date. However, his ideas were not picked up again till
Copernicus.
Thanks.
They had math and empirical / qualitative science before Galileo but
science wasn't quantitative.
been known for some time, too.
No, AGW's methods are even worse than nothing. The model *is* theTo be sure a lot of AGW is empirical but even there the methods are
better than before.
experiment. If the computer and reality don't match, there must be
something wrong with reality.
No, it really isn't. There is no science in AGW.Scientific concensus today isn't your great grandaddy's scientific
concensus so claiming atmospheric scientists could be making the same
errors as blood letting "scientists" is ridiculous.
S
spudnik
Guest
I'd qualify to say,
they are computer scientists, students
of numerical analysis & differential equations & groebner bases
etc. ...
and the floating-point spec inherently is chaotic (IEEE-754, -854) --
massive share ware!
thus&so:
nice demonstration of "doubling the hexahedron," en passant!
just don't leave a time-tunnel in the vicinity
of your grandfather, if he is still alive, because
he might configure what you "were about" to do, and
hi to the future to prevent you, or the past
to give a condom to your dad.
"Granpa, it was going to be an accident ... I mean...."
"But, Dad, we're Catholic -- and that's a Glory Hole!"
grammar is just a part of the three Rs,
the minimum you have to know, to be a literate slave --
and what some so-called Republicans call, "the basics,"
to impart learning-disorders amongst the rabble's youth,
viz Murray and What's-his-name.
thus&so:
first of all, bloodletting has some current back-up ... or,
at least, leeches are pretty useful in surgery. secondly,
someone "above" made some statement about graphs (that is,
quantification) in the harder sciences (although it seems that
the soft ones use tons of statistical algorithms), and I'd like
to cite the NYTimes weatherpage as a source of subliminal
justification
for the algorithms of the GCMers.
the more qualitative aspect of that page,
is the daliy vignettes on various things about weather --
n'est, mesoclimate. my random reading of this shows that
cold records are at least as common as hot records,
whereby goes my primary (nonquant) take on the phrase,
global warming. just say,
the climate, she a-changin', and rest easy!
Is the House Banking Bill, before Senate, cap&trade?...
les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net
they are computer scientists, students
of numerical analysis & differential equations & groebner bases
etc. ...
and the floating-point spec inherently is chaotic (IEEE-754, -854) --
massive share ware!
thus&so:
nice demonstration of "doubling the hexahedron," en passant!
thus&so: <deletives impleted>For the hypotenuse, we have a cube of volume sqrt(2 a^2)^3.
just don't leave a time-tunnel in the vicinity
of your grandfather, if he is still alive, because
he might configure what you "were about" to do, and
hi to the future to prevent you, or the past
to give a condom to your dad.
"Granpa, it was going to be an accident ... I mean...."
"But, Dad, we're Catholic -- and that's a Glory Hole!"
thus&so:Scientific concensus today isn't your great grandaddy's scientific
grammar is just a part of the three Rs,
the minimum you have to know, to be a literate slave --
and what some so-called Republicans call, "the basics,"
to impart learning-disorders amongst the rabble's youth,
viz Murray and What's-his-name.
thus&so:
first of all, bloodletting has some current back-up ... or,
at least, leeches are pretty useful in surgery. secondly,
someone "above" made some statement about graphs (that is,
quantification) in the harder sciences (although it seems that
the soft ones use tons of statistical algorithms), and I'd like
to cite the NYTimes weatherpage as a source of subliminal
justification
for the algorithms of the GCMers.
the more qualitative aspect of that page,
is the daliy vignettes on various things about weather --
n'est, mesoclimate. my random reading of this shows that
cold records are at least as common as hot records,
whereby goes my primary (nonquant) take on the phrase,
global warming. just say,
the climate, she a-changin', and rest easy!
--Rep. Waxman's "new" cap&trade, same as his circa '91?...errors as blood letting "scientists" is ridiculous.
Is the House Banking Bill, before Senate, cap&trade?...
les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net
E
erschroedinger@gmail.com
Guest
On Jul 14, 1:06 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
in ATP releases energy" which is patently false -- breaking bonds
always requires energy. The entire process -- breaking the existing
bonds and forming new ones -- is what releases energy.
My impression is the further away you get from "purity", the more a
discipline simplifies things. And by "purity" I mean the standard
hierarchy:
physics -- chemistry -- biology -- psychology
What I find is biologists simply things too much. "Breaking the bondsOn Jul 12, 10:39 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
"The number of sig figs possible is inversely proportional to value of
the measurement."
-- Bret's Tweaker Conjecture
I am a physicist. I never said that biology is not a science.
Like many physicists, I have worked on biological problems. However, I
avoid contradicting qualified biologists except when they try to
contradict qualified physicists.
I have gotten a lot of help from biologists. If biology wasn't a
science, I wouldn't ask their help. I try to be helpful when a
biologist asks me a question.
I know a lot of physicists who know next to nothing about biology..
I think the percentage of physicists who don't know biology is greater
than the percentage of biologists who don't know physics. However, I
dismiss arguments made in ignorance no matter who makes them.
The process of biological evolution does not contradict the
Second Law of Thermodynamics. I dismiss this no matter who makes the
argument. Sorry.
in ATP releases energy" which is patently false -- breaking bonds
always requires energy. The entire process -- breaking the existing
bonds and forming new ones -- is what releases energy.
My impression is the further away you get from "purity", the more a
discipline simplifies things. And by "purity" I mean the standard
hierarchy:
physics -- chemistry -- biology -- psychology
O
Orval Fairbairn
Guest
In article
<1324b0fc-1335-4cc2-af7e-4117ed9ec4ae@w35g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:
causing climate change?
--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.
<1324b0fc-1335-4cc2-af7e-4117ed9ec4ae@w35g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:
So, is it a bunch of psychologists that have concluded that man is"The number of sig figs possible is inversely proportional to value of
the measurement."
-- Bret's Tweaker Conjecture
I am a physicist. I never said that biology is not a science.
Like many physicists, I have worked on biological problems. However, I
avoid contradicting qualified biologists except when they try to
contradict qualified physicists.
I have gotten a lot of help from biologists. If biology wasn't a
science, I wouldn't ask their help. I try to be helpful when a
biologist asks me a question.
I know a lot of physicists who know next to nothing about biology.
I think the percentage of physicists who don't know biology is greater
than the percentage of biologists who don't know physics. However, I
dismiss arguments made in ignorance no matter who makes them.
The process of biological evolution does not contradict the
Second Law of Thermodynamics. I dismiss this no matter who makes the
argument. Sorry.
What I find is biologists simply things too much. "Breaking the bonds
in ATP releases energy" which is patently false -- breaking bonds
always requires energy. The entire process -- breaking the existing
bonds and forming new ones -- is what releases energy.
My impression is the further away you get from "purity", the more a
discipline simplifies things. And by "purity" I mean the standard
hierarchy:
physics -- chemistry -- biology -- psychology
"Psychology, the queen of sciences."
-- Nietzsche
causing climate change?
--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.
B
Bret Cahill
Guest
"Psychology, the queen of sciences.""The number of sig figs possible is inversely proportional to value of
the measurement."
-- Bret's Tweaker Conjecture
I am a physicist. I never said that biology is not a science..
Like many physicists, I have worked on biological problems. However, I
avoid contradicting qualified biologists except when they try to
contradict qualified physicists.
I have gotten a lot of help from biologists. If biology wasn't a
science, I wouldn't ask their help. I try to be helpful when a
biologist asks me a question.
I know a lot of physicists who know next to nothing about biology.
I think the percentage of physicists who don't know biology is greater
than the percentage of biologists who don't know physics. However, I
dismiss arguments made in ignorance no matter who makes them.
The process of biological evolution does not contradict the
Second Law of Thermodynamics. I dismiss this no matter who makes the
argument. Sorry.
What I find is biologists simply things too much. "Breaking the bonds
in ATP releases energy" which is patently false -- breaking bonds
always requires energy. The entire process -- breaking the existing
bonds and forming new ones -- is what releases energy.
My impression is the further away you get from "purity", the more a
discipline simplifies things. And by "purity" I mean the standard
hierarchy:
physics -- chemistry -- biology -- psychology
-- Nietzsche
S
spudnik
Guest
you going to believe Nietsche over Gauss?... fine.
thus&so:
check this out. I say, as a (or, the) student of Bucky Fuller,
who really grokked spherical trig as the captain of a Naval vessel,
just before radio came in, *you* really have to get a grip
on spherical geometry. I mean,
why do you think they have a "land of midnight sun" -- and
extemely short winter days?... so, choose plates one & two!
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/plates.html
but, it's probably better to start with a "synthetic" approach,
viz the study of lunes & "polar trigona" & so forth. also,
look-up "Euler poles" re the plates of tectonism -- the theory!
thus&so:
um, where are the new rotational poles -- New Hampshire, where you
live?
sorry; that cite has only a passing reference to Arnie and his
backers;
this one is all about that:
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2010/2010_10-19/2010-10/2010-10/pdf/19-20_3710.pdf
cool; The Atlantic is one of those interesting,
"user-supported" publications, though with a certain amount
-- I think -- of corporate grants. here in LA, there is really
only one listener-sponsored radio station, KPFK-FM because
the NPR affiliates get *massive* grants. unfortunately,
they are hopelessly leftoidian, and a British dood runs
the Sunday morning "briefing," alas. (see
"Why the British Hate Shakespeare" on http://wlym.com .-)
thus&so:
are you saying that the googolplex is supressing "global cooling"
or, What?... as far as I can see,
Climategate is courtesy of Tory Murdoch's Times and Urinal
publications,
with the added editorial blurb of "Captain Tax" in the latter,
like he's against it.
well, "ninety per cent confidence" is a kind of artifact
of statistics -- quite accountable to "sigmas" -- or, really,
95% is the more-common benchmark for near-certainty. like,
there was a bit of a to-do about the doubling of the margin
for the studies about "second-hand smoke" amongst children,
which was a)
prefectly justifiable, because it's the kids, and b)
even though there was no mention (that I read)
of the fact that the real problem is the biological byproducts
of smoking (i.e bad breath .-)
which Murdoch's Urinal calls, "Captain Tax" for no given reason,
in order to service Californiacs via Gulf and Alaska ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net
--Forsooth, the Queen of the sciences!
http://wlym.com
thus&so:
check this out. I say, as a (or, the) student of Bucky Fuller,
who really grokked spherical trig as the captain of a Naval vessel,
just before radio came in, *you* really have to get a grip
on spherical geometry. I mean,
why do you think they have a "land of midnight sun" -- and
extemely short winter days?... so, choose plates one & two!
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/plates.html
but, it's probably better to start with a "synthetic" approach,
viz the study of lunes & "polar trigona" & so forth. also,
look-up "Euler poles" re the plates of tectonism -- the theory!
Sunrise and sunset times will remain the same on June 21st unless the
thus&so:
um, where are the new rotational poles -- New Hampshire, where you
live?
thus&so:If you lived in NH you're now in the north western
hemisphere so to speak, if you lived in the SH you're now in the south
eastern hemisphere so to speak.
sorry; that cite has only a passing reference to Arnie and his
backers;
this one is all about that:
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2010/2010_10-19/2010-10/2010-10/pdf/19-20_3710.pdf
thus quoth:flight which carried George Shultz's protégé Arnold Schwarzenegger,
to Britain, to meet with that Lord Rothschild ...
cool; The Atlantic is one of those interesting,
"user-supported" publications, though with a certain amount
-- I think -- of corporate grants. here in LA, there is really
only one listener-sponsored radio station, KPFK-FM because
the NPR affiliates get *massive* grants. unfortunately,
they are hopelessly leftoidian, and a British dood runs
the Sunday morning "briefing," alas. (see
"Why the British Hate Shakespeare" on http://wlym.com .-)
thus&so:
are you saying that the googolplex is supressing "global cooling"
or, What?... as far as I can see,
Climategate is courtesy of Tory Murdoch's Times and Urinal
publications,
with the added editorial blurb of "Captain Tax" in the latter,
like he's against it.
thus&so:Where does the REAL climategate lie? .;o)
well, "ninety per cent confidence" is a kind of artifact
of statistics -- quite accountable to "sigmas" -- or, really,
95% is the more-common benchmark for near-certainty. like,
there was a bit of a to-do about the doubling of the margin
for the studies about "second-hand smoke" amongst children,
which was a)
prefectly justifiable, because it's the kids, and b)
even though there was no mention (that I read)
of the fact that the real problem is the biological byproducts
of smoking (i.e bad breath .-)
--Waxman's "new" cap&trade, same as the old ('91),actually being discussed said it was about 90% probable. This is not "beyond
which Murdoch's Urinal calls, "Captain Tax" for no given reason,
in order to service Californiacs via Gulf and Alaska ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net
--Forsooth, the Queen of the sciences!
http://wlym.com