A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

[OT] How science is not done



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 14th 09, 06:15 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
Curtis Croulet[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default How science is not done

And how does this contrast with all those scientists who love to
pretend they know everything there is to know about the workings of
the universe.


And who is that? Names, please, and the verifiable quote where they say
they "know everything."
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California

  #12  
Old August 14th 09, 06:34 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
gabydewilde
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default How science is not done

On Aug 14, 7:15*pm, "Curtis Croulet"
wrote:
And how does this contrast with all those scientists who love to
pretend they know everything there is to know about the workings of
the universe.


And who is that? *Names, please, and the verifiable quote where they say
they "know everything."
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California


That information is not publicly available.

Get it?
  #13  
Old August 14th 09, 06:34 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
Androcles[_17_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 28
Default [OT] How science is not done


"Dave Typinski" wrote in message
...
Regardless of which side of the aisle you're on with the Climate
Change neé Global Warming political debate, the CRU's attitude about
releasing source data makes their findings as factual as the Bible.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/

*****
Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data
set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data.
Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:
"Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or
so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to
you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."
*****

"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try
and find something wrong with it."

Phil Jones does /not/ know how science works.
--
Dave


I'd agree with you in principle, but unfortunately modern theoretical
physics
is more chicanery than science, more astrology than astronomy. It sounds
like Jones is saying "Why should I make the data available to you for free,
when I haven't made a red cent out of it yet?
Hawking gets a pat on the back from your President who then says
"His work in theoretical physics - which I will not attempt to explain
further
here - has advanced our understanding of the universe. "
http://tinyurl.com/lsooj9

That's how "science" really works.

I demand a further explanation. If Obama doesn't understand it, what's he
giving away medals for?




  #14  
Old August 14th 09, 06:44 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
Androcles[_17_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 28
Default [OT] How science is not done

You spun a spin on your own crank theory, Schidt.


"Michael Toms Shidt" wrote in message
...
You cited a bad source and global warming is fallacious. Scientists
should be figuring out the extended solar cycles they know nothing about
at this time.

"Dave Typinski" wrote in message
...
Regardless of which side of the aisle you're on with the Climate
Change neé Global Warming political debate, the CRU's attitude about
releasing source data makes their findings as factual as the Bible.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/

*****
Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data
set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data.
Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:
"Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or
so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to
you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."
*****

"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try
and find something wrong with it."

Phil Jones does /not/ know how science works.
--
Dave




  #15  
Old August 14th 09, 06:44 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
Curtis Croulet[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default How science is not done

And how does this contrast with all those scientists who love to
pretend they know everything there is to know about the workings of
the universe.


And who is that? Names, please, and the verifiable quote where they say
they "know everything."
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California


That information is not publicly available.


Then it must be privately available to you. Perhaps you could share some of
it.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California

  #16  
Old August 14th 09, 06:48 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
Curtis Croulet[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default [OT] How science is not done


I'd agree with you in principle, but unfortunately modern theoretical
physics
is more chicanery than science, more astrology than astronomy.


Ah, yet another one who thinks it's "chicanery" merely because he doesn't
understand it.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California

  #17  
Old August 14th 09, 07:00 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
Androcles[_17_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 28
Default How science is not done


"Curtis Croulet" wrote in message
...
And how does this contrast with all those scientists who love to
pretend they know everything there is to know about the workings of
the universe.


And who is that? Names, please, and the verifiable quote where they say
they "know everything."


--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California


No names required, the comment refers to all those scientists who love
to pretend they know everything, it doesn't say anything about those that
do not love to pretend.

Curtis Croulet loves to pretend he isn't writing spam by putting
**NO**SPAM**
in his email address, but he's pretending his statement is a question by
including
"how" or else he's pretending his statement isn't a question by omitting
"?"
Whatever, he hasn't given a name to anyone else.






  #18  
Old August 14th 09, 07:05 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
Androcles[_17_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 28
Default [OT] How science is not done


"Curtis Croulet" wrote in message
...

I'd agree with you in principle, but unfortunately modern theoretical
physics
is more chicanery than science, more astrology than astronomy.


Ah, yet another one who thinks it's "chicanery" merely because he doesn't
understand it.


Ah, yet another snipping spamming ****wit limited to one-line cheap shots.
Hey moron!
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?




  #19  
Old August 14th 09, 07:09 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
gabydewilde
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default How science is not done

On Aug 14, 7:44*pm, "Curtis Croulet"
wrote:
And how does this contrast with all those scientists who love to
pretend they know everything there is to know about the workings of
the universe.


And who is that? Names, please, and the verifiable quote where they say
they "know everything."
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
That information is not publicly available.


Then it must be privately available to you. *Perhaps you could share some of
it.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California


You will just have to take my incredilously edukated word for it. Gaze
at me diplomats on the wall. Oh, and "study harder" of course. *rolls
eye sockets*

Anyway, we do agree not everything has been figured out and everything
we pretend to know is wrong.

But with the gate keeping crap holla it is not going to changenosis.

Truth by consensus or truth by credentials is just bullcrap.

You have to convert to Christianity or off with your head.

That is consensus.

____
http://blog.go-here.nl
  #20  
Old August 14th 09, 07:10 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default How science is not done

On Aug 14, 7:00*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Curtis Croulet" wrote in message

...

And how does this contrast with all those scientists who love to
pretend they know everything there is to know about the workings of
the universe.


And who is that? *Names, please, and the verifiable quote where they say
they "know everything."


--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California

No names required, the comment refers to all those scientists who love
to *pretend they know everything, it doesn't say anything about those that
do not love to pretend.

Curtis Croulet loves to pretend he isn't writing spam by putting
**NO**SPAM**
in his email address, but he's pretending his statement is a question by
including
"how" *or else he's pretending his statement isn't a question by omitting
"?"
Whatever, he hasn't given a name to anyone else.


This is not about 'how science works' but how empiricism defends
itself,probably the only trait it has.

What you see is not even astrology for even the ancient astrologers
were good enough to separate the annual cycle via the constellations
from the daily cycle using the Sun,empiricists invert the whole thing
and build concepts on the motions of the constellations around
Polaris.In the 16th century they thought this no center/no
circumference was horrifying and went looking for the argument for
planetary dynamics to explain it -

"Suppose person A were on the earth somewhere below the north pole of
the heavens and person B were at the north pole of the heavens. In
that case, to A the pole would appear to be at the zenith, and A would
believe himself to be at the center; to B the earth would appear to be
at the zenith, and B would believe himself to be at the center. Thus,
A's zenith would be B's center, and B's zenith would be A's "
And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the
center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that
the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see--
through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot
be apprehended. For [the world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and
a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference
nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa

The next time Wormley posts his 'no center/big bang' thingie,all he is
doing is promoting something which horrified astronomers before
Copernicus proposed planetary dynamics to resolve it,the fact that
this world worships the 'big bang' cretinous view is far more
horrifying.You get what you pay for John and that is how 'science
works'.





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
National Science Foundation Selects Homestake Gold Mine as DeepUnderground Science Site (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 July 11th 07 05:37 PM
National Science Foundation Selects Homestake Gold Mine as Deep Underground Science Site (Forwarded) Andrew Yee[_1_] News 0 July 11th 07 04:48 PM
Mainstream Science Peers Still Trying To Catch Up With Maverick AdvancedTheoretical Science Officers And Researchers nightbat Misc 4 November 11th 06 03:34 AM
Top Science Xprize For The Best and Science Team Officers Is In Order nightbat Misc 8 September 8th 06 09:50 AM
Science Names Mars Rover Mission Science Program as Breakthrough of the Year [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 December 16th 04 10:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.