Group: sci.med.psychobiology
Dialog and news in psychiatry and psychobiology.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
some thoughts on science
some thoughts on science
The historical roots of the word science are related to the Latin term
?Scientia?, meaning ?knowing?. But this is not how science is used in
practical purposes. Inference and philosophy are absolute knowing.
Science in modern day purposes is a best practices way of dealing with
conjecture. In the scientific process, a conjecture, is a hypothetical. A
hypothetical is most often called a hypothesis. If a hypothesis is
reproducible, then it is testable, and called a theory. If a theory has
been tested, it is said to be founded. If a theory has not been tested,
that theory is said to be unfounded. Statistics is the language of
science. An analysis of variance will tell you, if you have designed your
testing properly, the confidence you can have in the data you observe.
There are two major considerations here. One is that if you have not
included all variables in your testing, the variance of your data will
result in a low confidence for your results. This means to get a high
confidence interval, some degree of solid inference has to be built into
your hypothesis. So you see that nothing can really be known empirically,
by testing, that is not first known in inference. The second
consideration to the scientific process lies in exactly how the analysis
of variance is carried out. A true analysis of variance, must include the
variance of the measurement apparatus or observation equipment. And must
also include the variance of how the observation equipment is, and the
observation variance for that etc., therefore there can be absolutely no
confidence in empirical data.
--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org
The historical roots of the word science are related to the Latin term
?Scientia?, meaning ?knowing?. But this is not how science is used in
practical purposes. Inference and philosophy are absolute knowing.
Science in modern day purposes is a best practices way of dealing with
conjecture. In the scientific process, a conjecture, is a hypothetical. A
hypothetical is most often called a hypothesis. If a hypothesis is
reproducible, then it is testable, and called a theory. If a theory has
been tested, it is said to be founded. If a theory has not been tested,
that theory is said to be unfounded. Statistics is the language of
science. An analysis of variance will tell you, if you have designed your
testing properly, the confidence you can have in the data you observe.
There are two major considerations here. One is that if you have not
included all variables in your testing, the variance of your data will
result in a low confidence for your results. This means to get a high
confidence interval, some degree of solid inference has to be built into
your hypothesis. So you see that nothing can really be known empirically,
by testing, that is not first known in inference. The second
consideration to the scientific process lies in exactly how the analysis
of variance is carried out. A true analysis of variance, must include the
variance of the measurement apparatus or observation equipment. And must
also include the variance of how the observation equipment is, and the
observation variance for that etc., therefore there can be absolutely no
confidence in empirical data.
--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org
Re: some thoughts on science
Dale Kelly <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote in news:pan.2007.04.20.01.47.39
@comcast,net :
> therefore there can be absolutely no
> confidence in empirical data.
Yes, yes - we're all well aware that you prefer your guiding principals to
be completely unverifiable and have a fit at the thought of anyone who
prefers reality. Rephrasing it a hundred and one ways isn't going to change
that, though. You can go now.
Dale Kelly <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote in news:pan.2007.04.20.01.47.39
@comcast,net :
> therefore there can be absolutely no
> confidence in empirical data.
Yes, yes - we're all well aware that you prefer your guiding principals to
be completely unverifiable and have a fit at the thought of anyone who
prefers reality. Rephrasing it a hundred and one ways isn't going to change
that, though. You can go now.
Re: some thoughts on science
"Dale Kelly" <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.20.01.47.39@comcast,net ...
> The historical roots of the word science are related to the Latin term
> "Scientia", meaning "knowing". But this is not how science is used in
> practical purposes. Inference and philosophy are absolute knowing.
> Science in modern day purposes is a best practices way of dealing with
> conjecture. In the scientific process, a conjecture, is a hypothetical. A
> hypothetical is most often called a hypothesis. If a hypothesis is
> reproducible, then it is testable, and called a theory. If a theory has
> been tested, it is said to be founded.
Your explanation is so confused, it might be best to ignore it and go back
to the basics.
The scientific method is a four step, cyclic method.
Step 1 is data. Data is the result of observation and experimentation.
Step 2 is a theory. A theory is an explanation for the data.
Step 3 is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a specific prediction based upon a
theory. (If you have difficulty with this use of "hypothesis", just call
Step 3 a specific prediction based upon a theory.)
Step 4 is an experiment. The experiment directly tests the hypothesis. The
result is more data and we return to Step 1.
The validity of any theory is determined entirely by how well it fits the
data. If new data is produced that contradicts a theory, then the theory
must either be altered or rejected. Experiments in science should, in
principle, be repeatable. The results of experiments should be independent
of the experimenter.
> If a theory has not been tested,
> that theory is said to be unfounded. Statistics is the language of
> science. An analysis of variance will tell you, if you have designed your
> testing properly, the confidence you can have in the data you observe.
> There are two major considerations here. One is that if you have not
> included all variables in your testing, the variance of your data will
> result in a low confidence for your results. This means to get a high
> confidence interval, some degree of solid inference has to be built into
> your hypothesis. So you see that nothing can really be known empirically,
> by testing, that is not first known in inference. The second
> consideration to the scientific process lies in exactly how the analysis
> of variance is carried out. A true analysis of variance, must include the
> variance of the measurement apparatus or observation equipment. And must
> also include the variance of how the observation equipment is, and the
> observation variance for that etc., therefore there can be absolutely no
> confidence in empirical data.
Analysis of variance may be a useful tool, in some cases, but it certainly
isn't a universal requirement of science. In fact, its applicability seems
to be limited. Perhaps you could give us an example of how analysis of
variance might be applied in some field of science (The more closely related
to evolution, the better).
"Dale Kelly" <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.20.01.47.39@comcast,net ...
> The historical roots of the word science are related to the Latin term
> "Scientia", meaning "knowing". But this is not how science is used in
> practical purposes. Inference and philosophy are absolute knowing.
> Science in modern day purposes is a best practices way of dealing with
> conjecture. In the scientific process, a conjecture, is a hypothetical. A
> hypothetical is most often called a hypothesis. If a hypothesis is
> reproducible, then it is testable, and called a theory. If a theory has
> been tested, it is said to be founded.
Your explanation is so confused, it might be best to ignore it and go back
to the basics.
The scientific method is a four step, cyclic method.
Step 1 is data. Data is the result of observation and experimentation.
Step 2 is a theory. A theory is an explanation for the data.
Step 3 is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a specific prediction based upon a
theory. (If you have difficulty with this use of "hypothesis", just call
Step 3 a specific prediction based upon a theory.)
Step 4 is an experiment. The experiment directly tests the hypothesis. The
result is more data and we return to Step 1.
The validity of any theory is determined entirely by how well it fits the
data. If new data is produced that contradicts a theory, then the theory
must either be altered or rejected. Experiments in science should, in
principle, be repeatable. The results of experiments should be independent
of the experimenter.
> If a theory has not been tested,
> that theory is said to be unfounded. Statistics is the language of
> science. An analysis of variance will tell you, if you have designed your
> testing properly, the confidence you can have in the data you observe.
> There are two major considerations here. One is that if you have not
> included all variables in your testing, the variance of your data will
> result in a low confidence for your results. This means to get a high
> confidence interval, some degree of solid inference has to be built into
> your hypothesis. So you see that nothing can really be known empirically,
> by testing, that is not first known in inference. The second
> consideration to the scientific process lies in exactly how the analysis
> of variance is carried out. A true analysis of variance, must include the
> variance of the measurement apparatus or observation equipment. And must
> also include the variance of how the observation equipment is, and the
> observation variance for that etc., therefore there can be absolutely no
> confidence in empirical data.
Analysis of variance may be a useful tool, in some cases, but it certainly
isn't a universal requirement of science. In fact, its applicability seems
to be limited. Perhaps you could give us an example of how analysis of
variance might be applied in some field of science (The more closely related
to evolution, the better).
Re: some thoughts on science
On Apr 19, 7:44 pm, "Ross Langerak" <rlange...@earthlink,net > wrote:
>
[excerpt]
> Step 4 is an experiment. The experiment directly tests the hypothesis. The
> result is more data and we return to Step 1.
>
Nope. Much of science is not based on expriment, but on observation.
You can't re-create dinosaur bones in an experiment, but they exist.
On Apr 19, 7:44 pm, "Ross Langerak" <rlange...@earthlink,net > wrote:
>
[excerpt]
> Step 4 is an experiment. The experiment directly tests the hypothesis. The
> result is more data and we return to Step 1.
>
Nope. Much of science is not based on expriment, but on observation.
You can't re-create dinosaur bones in an experiment, but they exist.
Re: some thoughts on science
Bodega wrote:
> On Apr 19, 7:44 pm, "Ross Langerak" <rlange...@earthlink,net > wrote:
>
> [excerpt]
>
>
>>Step 4 is an experiment. The experiment directly tests the hypothesis. The
>>result is more data and we return to Step 1.
>>
>
>
> Nope. Much of science is not based on expriment, but on observation.
> You can't re-create dinosaur bones in an experiment, but they exist.
>
You can conduct experiments on them, though. For example, one may
theorize as to how the animal may have moved. Then, one may try to work
out how the muscles would be attached, if the theory was correct. Then,
one may look for evidence of the needed muscle attachment points.
Or, one may look for patterns in the distribution or morphology of
fossils, devise a theory, and make predictions of characteristics of
fossils that have not been discovered yet.
Klaus
Bodega wrote:
> On Apr 19, 7:44 pm, "Ross Langerak" <rlange...@earthlink,net > wrote:
>
> [excerpt]
>
>
>>Step 4 is an experiment. The experiment directly tests the hypothesis. The
>>result is more data and we return to Step 1.
>>
>
>
> Nope. Much of science is not based on expriment, but on observation.
> You can't re-create dinosaur bones in an experiment, but they exist.
>
You can conduct experiments on them, though. For example, one may
theorize as to how the animal may have moved. Then, one may try to work
out how the muscles would be attached, if the theory was correct. Then,
one may look for evidence of the needed muscle attachment points.
Or, one may look for patterns in the distribution or morphology of
fossils, devise a theory, and make predictions of characteristics of
fossils that have not been discovered yet.
Klaus
Re: some thoughts on science
"Bodega" <michael.palmer1@worldnet.att,net > wrote in message
news:1177041318.415526.193720@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
> On Apr 19, 7:44 pm, "Ross Langerak" <rlange...@earthlink,net > wrote:
>>
> [excerpt]
>
>> Step 4 is an experiment. The experiment directly tests the hypothesis.
>> The
>> result is more data and we return to Step 1.
>>
>
> Nope. Much of science is not based on expriment, but on observation.
> You can't re-create dinosaur bones in an experiment, but they exist.
The result of an experiment does return us to Step 1. However, observations
can be made at any time, which also returns us to Step 1. To accommodate
additional observations, the method could be shortened to two steps, with
the recognition that the full four step method is available at any time.
"Bodega" <michael.palmer1@worldnet.att,net > wrote in message
news:1177041318.415526.193720@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
> On Apr 19, 7:44 pm, "Ross Langerak" <rlange...@earthlink,net > wrote:
>>
> [excerpt]
>
>> Step 4 is an experiment. The experiment directly tests the hypothesis.
>> The
>> result is more data and we return to Step 1.
>>
>
> Nope. Much of science is not based on expriment, but on observation.
> You can't re-create dinosaur bones in an experiment, but they exist.
The result of an experiment does return us to Step 1. However, observations
can be made at any time, which also returns us to Step 1. To accommodate
additional observations, the method could be shortened to two steps, with
the recognition that the full four step method is available at any time.
Re: some thoughts on science
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:44:18 +0000, Ross Langerak wrote:
> Analysis of variance may be a useful tool, in some cases, but it
> certainly isn't a universal requirement of science. In fact, its
> applicability seems to be limited. Perhaps you could give us an example
> of how analysis of variance might be applied in some field of science
> (The more closely related to evolution, the better).--
analysis of variance MUST be applied ro everything or you have no
confidence to speak of in your data, just because the science behind
evolution is not rigorous, doesn't mean we should lessen the rigor
--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:44:18 +0000, Ross Langerak wrote:
> Analysis of variance may be a useful tool, in some cases, but it
> certainly isn't a universal requirement of science. In fact, its
> applicability seems to be limited. Perhaps you could give us an example
> of how analysis of variance might be applied in some field of science
> (The more closely related to evolution, the better).--
analysis of variance MUST be applied ro everything or you have no
confidence to speak of in your data, just because the science behind
evolution is not rigorous, doesn't mean we should lessen the rigor
--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org
Re: some thoughts on science
On Apr 20, 7:20 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:44:18 +0000, Ross Langerak wrote:
> > Analysis of variance may be a useful tool, in some cases, but it
> > certainly isn't a universal requirement of science. In fact, its
> > applicability seems to be limited. Perhaps you could give us an example
> > of how analysis of variance might be applied in some field of science
> > (The more closely related to evolution, the better).--
>
> analysis of variance MUST be applied ro everything or you have no
> confidence to speak of in your data, just because the science behind
> evolution is not rigorous, doesn't mean we should lessen the rigor
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
Did you miss this?
( http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANOVA)
"In statistics, analysis of variance (ANOVA, or-sometimes-A.N.O.V.A.)
is a collection of statistical models, and their associated
procedures, in which the observed variance is partitioned into
components due to different explanatory variables. The initial
techniques of the analysis of variance were developed by the
statistician and geneticist R. A. Fisher in the 1920s and 1930s, and
is sometimes known as Fisher's ANOVA or Fisher's analysis of variance,
due to the use of Fisher's F-distribution as part of the test of
statistical significance."
( http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald Fisher)
"Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, FRS (17 February 1890 - 29 July 1962) was a
British statistician, evolutionary biologist, and geneticist. He was
described by Anders Hald as "a genius who almost single-handedly
created the foundations for modern statistical science"[1] and Richard
Dawkins described him as "the greatest of Darwin's successors".[2]"
The analysis of variance is a statisical method developed by an
evolutionary biologist.
Do you think that Fisher did so purely out of academic interest, and
not because it has relevance to evolutionary biology?
By the way, Einstein published relativity theory before such
techniques had been developed. Does this mean that relativity theory,
and all those other scientific theories developed before the 1920's
are not rigorous science?
RF
On Apr 20, 7:20 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:44:18 +0000, Ross Langerak wrote:
> > Analysis of variance may be a useful tool, in some cases, but it
> > certainly isn't a universal requirement of science. In fact, its
> > applicability seems to be limited. Perhaps you could give us an example
> > of how analysis of variance might be applied in some field of science
> > (The more closely related to evolution, the better).--
>
> analysis of variance MUST be applied ro everything or you have no
> confidence to speak of in your data, just because the science behind
> evolution is not rigorous, doesn't mean we should lessen the rigor
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
Did you miss this?
( http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANOVA)
"In statistics, analysis of variance (ANOVA, or-sometimes-A.N.O.V.A.)
is a collection of statistical models, and their associated
procedures, in which the observed variance is partitioned into
components due to different explanatory variables. The initial
techniques of the analysis of variance were developed by the
statistician and geneticist R. A. Fisher in the 1920s and 1930s, and
is sometimes known as Fisher's ANOVA or Fisher's analysis of variance,
due to the use of Fisher's F-distribution as part of the test of
statistical significance."
( http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald Fisher)
"Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, FRS (17 February 1890 - 29 July 1962) was a
British statistician, evolutionary biologist, and geneticist. He was
described by Anders Hald as "a genius who almost single-handedly
created the foundations for modern statistical science"[1] and Richard
Dawkins described him as "the greatest of Darwin's successors".[2]"
The analysis of variance is a statisical method developed by an
evolutionary biologist.
Do you think that Fisher did so purely out of academic interest, and
not because it has relevance to evolutionary biology?
By the way, Einstein published relativity theory before such
techniques had been developed. Does this mean that relativity theory,
and all those other scientific theories developed before the 1920's
are not rigorous science?
RF
Re: some thoughts on science
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:04:03 -0700, richardalanforrest wrote:
> By the way, Einstein published relativity theory before such techniques
> had been developed. Does this mean that relativity theory, and all those
> other scientific theories developed before the 1920's are not rigorous
> science?--
yes, and I don't think Einstein's theory is valid
--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:04:03 -0700, richardalanforrest wrote:
> By the way, Einstein published relativity theory before such techniques
> had been developed. Does this mean that relativity theory, and all those
> other scientific theories developed before the 1920's are not rigorous
> science?--
yes, and I don't think Einstein's theory is valid
--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org
Re: some thoughts on science
On Apr 20, 8:32 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:04:03 -0700, richardalanforrest wrote:
> > By the way, Einstein published relativity theory before such techniques
> > had been developed. Does this mean that relativity theory, and all those
> > other scientific theories developed before the 1920's are not rigorous
> > science?--
>
> yes, and I don't think Einstein's theory is valid
>
Which leaves you with rather a lot to explain. How can my GPS system
operate accurately if Einstein was wrong? Relativity theory is
factored into algorythms used to calculate location.
More to the point, why on earth should anyone think that your views in
its validity are of any relevance whatsoever? You not only lack
understanding of physics, but you lack knowledge of the nature of
science at at very basic level.
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
How about Newton's? Boyle's? Kelvin's?
You have dismissed *ALL* science before the 1920's.
Does this not strike you as more than a little silly?
RF
On Apr 20, 8:32 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:04:03 -0700, richardalanforrest wrote:
> > By the way, Einstein published relativity theory before such techniques
> > had been developed. Does this mean that relativity theory, and all those
> > other scientific theories developed before the 1920's are not rigorous
> > science?--
>
> yes, and I don't think Einstein's theory is valid
>
Which leaves you with rather a lot to explain. How can my GPS system
operate accurately if Einstein was wrong? Relativity theory is
factored into algorythms used to calculate location.
More to the point, why on earth should anyone think that your views in
its validity are of any relevance whatsoever? You not only lack
understanding of physics, but you lack knowledge of the nature of
science at at very basic level.
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
How about Newton's? Boyle's? Kelvin's?
You have dismissed *ALL* science before the 1920's.
Does this not strike you as more than a little silly?
RF
Re: some thoughts on science
["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2007-04-20, Dale Kelly <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:04:03 -0700, richardalanforrest wrote:
>
>> By the way, Einstein published relativity theory before such techniques
>> had been developed. Does this mean that relativity theory, and all those
>> other scientific theories developed before the 1920's are not rigorous
>> science?--
>
>
> yes, and I don't think Einstein's theory is valid
Yes, well, you are kookoo for Cocoa Puffs.
Mark
["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2007-04-20, Dale Kelly <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:04:03 -0700, richardalanforrest wrote:
>
>> By the way, Einstein published relativity theory before such techniques
>> had been developed. Does this mean that relativity theory, and all those
>> other scientific theories developed before the 1920's are not rigorous
>> science?--
>
>
> yes, and I don't think Einstein's theory is valid
Yes, well, you are kookoo for Cocoa Puffs.
Mark
Re: some thoughts on science
On Apr 20, 9:32 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:04:03 -0700, richardalanforrest wrote:
> > By the way, Einstein published relativity theory before such techniques
> > had been developed. Does this mean that relativity theory, and all those
> > other scientific theories developed before the 1920's are not rigorous
> > science?--
>
> yes, and I don't think Einstein's theory is valid
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
I thought you might be that "proof of god" person (Hammond I think)
under a pseudonym, but he at least has some understanding of
relativity, albeit twisted.
Can't God find a better spokesperson than this?
On Apr 20, 9:32 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:04:03 -0700, richardalanforrest wrote:
> > By the way, Einstein published relativity theory before such techniques
> > had been developed. Does this mean that relativity theory, and all those
> > other scientific theories developed before the 1920's are not rigorous
> > science?--
>
> yes, and I don't think Einstein's theory is valid
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
I thought you might be that "proof of god" person (Hammond I think)
under a pseudonym, but he at least has some understanding of
relativity, albeit twisted.
Can't God find a better spokesperson than this?
Re: some thoughts on science
On 20 Apr 2007 07:46:54 -0700, Errol <vs.errol@gmail,com > wrote:
>On Apr 20, 9:32 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:04:03 -0700, richardalanforrest wrote:
>> > By the way, Einstein published relativity theory before such techniques
>> > had been developed. Does this mean that relativity theory, and all those
>> > other scientific theories developed before the 1920's are not rigorous
>> > science?--
>>
>> yes, and I don't think Einstein's theory is valid
>>
>> --
>> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
>
>I thought you might be that "proof of god" person (Hammond I think)
>under a pseudonym, but he at least has some understanding of
>relativity, albeit twisted.
>
>Can't God find a better spokesperson than this?
All kinds of them. There's Ashton, Martinez, Pagano, Pitt, Someone,
Bimms, etc., etc...
Oh, you meant one that makes sense? Sorry. Dementia comes with the
turf.
CT
On 20 Apr 2007 07:46:54 -0700, Errol <vs.errol@gmail,com > wrote:
>On Apr 20, 9:32 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:04:03 -0700, richardalanforrest wrote:
>> > By the way, Einstein published relativity theory before such techniques
>> > had been developed. Does this mean that relativity theory, and all those
>> > other scientific theories developed before the 1920's are not rigorous
>> > science?--
>>
>> yes, and I don't think Einstein's theory is valid
>>
>> --
>> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
>
>I thought you might be that "proof of god" person (Hammond I think)
>under a pseudonym, but he at least has some understanding of
>relativity, albeit twisted.
>
>Can't God find a better spokesperson than this?
All kinds of them. There's Ashton, Martinez, Pagano, Pitt, Someone,
Bimms, etc., etc...
Oh, you meant one that makes sense? Sorry. Dementia comes with the
turf.
CT
Re: some thoughts on science
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:32:57 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale Kelly
<dale.kelly@comcast,net >:
>On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:04:03 -0700, richardalanforrest wrote:
>
>> By the way, Einstein published relativity theory before such techniques
>> had been developed. Does this mean that relativity theory, and all those
>> other scientific theories developed before the 1920's are not rigorous
>> science?--
>
>
>yes, and I don't think Einstein's theory is valid
Your belief does not constrain the universe, and the
relativity theories (both of them) have passed every test to
which they've been subjected.
Tell the group, Dale: Is there any part of science you *do*
think is valid? What?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:32:57 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale Kelly
<dale.kelly@comcast,net >:
>On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:04:03 -0700, richardalanforrest wrote:
>
>> By the way, Einstein published relativity theory before such techniques
>> had been developed. Does this mean that relativity theory, and all those
>> other scientific theories developed before the 1920's are not rigorous
>> science?--
>
>
>yes, and I don't think Einstein's theory is valid
Your belief does not constrain the universe, and the
relativity theories (both of them) have passed every test to
which they've been subjected.
Tell the group, Dale: Is there any part of science you *do*
think is valid? What?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Re: some thoughts on science
In article <pan.2007.04.20.07.34.14@comcast,net >, dale.kelly@comcast,net
says...
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:04:03 -0700, richardalanforrest wrote:
>
> > By the way, Einstein published relativity theory before such techniques
> > had been developed. Does this mean that relativity theory, and all those
> > other scientific theories developed before the 1920's are not rigorous
> > science?--
>
>
> yes, and I don't think Einstein's theory is valid
Wow. This is "Brain dead, but still animate" dumb. =/
--
Creationist Math:
Solve x^2 + 2x - 15 = 0
A miracle happens!
X = 1
Creationist Trig: Draw curve then plot points
In article <pan.2007.04.20.07.34.14@comcast,net >, dale.kelly@comcast,net
says...
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:04:03 -0700, richardalanforrest wrote:
>
> > By the way, Einstein published relativity theory before such techniques
> > had been developed. Does this mean that relativity theory, and all those
> > other scientific theories developed before the 1920's are not rigorous
> > science?--
>
>
> yes, and I don't think Einstein's theory is valid
Wow. This is "Brain dead, but still animate" dumb. =/
--
Creationist Math:
Solve x^2 + 2x - 15 = 0
A miracle happens!
X = 1
Creationist Trig: Draw curve then plot points
