some thoughts on science

Re: some thoughts on science

On Apr 22, 7:50 pm, Cemtech <c...@cox,net > wrote:
> In article <pan.2007.04.20.07.34...@comcast,net >, dale.ke...@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

Yes, that was a real miracle for sure. Would you
like me to bestow you with sainthood? I only require
1 miracle from a person before they can be a saint
if they wish. I can also make you a Squire, Sir, Simpleton
and Slizard all together are in seperate or not at all. It's
all up to you.

Re: some thoughts on science

In article <1177297432.335517.41580@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups,com >,
tadapope@gmail,com says...
> On Apr 22, 7:50 pm, Cemtech <c...@cox,net > wrote:
> > In article <pan.2007.04.20.07.34...@comcast,net >, dale.ke...@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
>
> Yes, that was a real miracle for sure. Would you
> like me to bestow you with sainthood? I only require
> 1 miracle from a person before they can be a saint
> if they wish. I can also make you a Squire, Sir, Simpleton
> and Slizard all together are in seperate or not at all. It's
> all up to you.

Nope, twasn't me but was the creationist that does such miracles. =)
--
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"

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 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

Did you not understand his question?

Mark

Re: some thoughts on science


"Dale Kelly" <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.20.06.21.39@comcast,net ...
> 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

You keep saying that, but you haven't given us an evidence to back it up. I
have a degree in Physics, but I had never heard of analysis of variance
(ANOVA) until someone brought it up in this group. So I'll ask again, can
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

If I have a theory, I'll do avery analysis that this could be possible
in this moment, and it stay "done" there a theory, so if my son see
some other aspect that I have not been thought, and if he prove it,
there a new theory , it is science.

Re: some thoughts on science

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 01:20:21 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale Kelly
<dale.kelly@comcast,net >:

>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

Perhaps you missed the request for an example?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

Re: some thoughts on science

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:44:18 +0000, Ross Langerak wrote:

> Data is the result of observation and experimentation--


but observation and experimentation are prefaced by hypothesis, CONJECTURE

--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org

Re: some thoughts on science


"Dale Kelly" <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.20.07.35.29@comcast,net ...
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:44:18 +0000, Ross Langerak wrote:
>
>> Data is the result of observation and experimentation--
>
>
> but observation and experimentation are prefaced by hypothesis, CONJECTURE

Using your terminology for the moment, you must have some kind of data
before you can make a conjecture. Without data, we could make a lot of
useless conjectures before we came up with something that might have some
value. For instance, I might suggest that the reason my bathtub is purple is
because it is made using blueberries. Now, I could waste a lot of time
testing that conjecture/hypothesis/theory, but the fact is, my bathtub is
not purple. By simply looking, and noticing that the bathtub is white, I
can avoid making useless conjectures. The data always comes first,
otherwise we are just wandering aimlessly.

The scientific method is a tool to help us understand nature. When we
notice something that we don't understand, we are collecting data. We then
try to explain that data by developing a theory. If we need to collect
additional observations, we can do that at any time. To further refine a
theory, and perhaps take our investigation in new directions, we make
predictions based upon that theory and then test them.

Re: some thoughts on science

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:34:12 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale Kelly
<dale.kelly@comcast,net >:

>On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:44:18 +0000, Ross Langerak wrote:
>
>> Data is the result of observation and experimentation--
>
>
>but observation and experimentation are prefaced by hypothesis, CONJECTURE

Not usually. Usually the "conjecture" follows an
observation; it's a bit difficult to form a conjecture about
something of which one is totally ignorant.

Of course, after reading your posts I may have to modify
that statement a bit...
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

Re: some thoughts on science

In article <pan.2007.04.20.07.35.29@comcast,net >, dale.kelly@comcast,net
says...
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:44:18 +0000, Ross Langerak wrote:
>
> > Data is the result of observation and experimentation--
>
>
> but observation and experimentation are prefaced by hypothesis, CONJECTURE

So the computer you use, all our replies, and the air you breathe
is.....CONJECTURE. =/

--
Advice when in a crowd of creationists:
"If you act like a dumbshit, they'll treat you as an equal"
J.R."Bob" Dobbs

Re: some thoughts on science

On Apr 19, 6:46 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
[snip]
... there can be absolutely no
> confidence in empirical data.

You don't have the faintest idea what "empirical" means. In your
"philosophy," it's safe to jump off the Empire State Building because
empirical evidence that such jumps kill people is totally unreliable.

Re: some thoughts on science

Bodega wrote:

> Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:

>> ... there can be absolutely no
>>confidence in empirical data.

> You don't have the faintest idea what "empirical" means. In your
> "philosophy," it's safe to jump off the Empire State Building because
> empirical evidence that such jumps kill people is totally unreliable.

If empirical evidence says that about the Empire State Building, does
that mean searical evidence says the same thing about the Sears Tower,
and spacical evidence says it about the Space Needle?

--
--Sean
http :// spclsd223.livejournal,com /
'Nobel invented dynamite. I won't accept his blood money.' --Dr Gregory
House

Re: some thoughts on science

In article <r6NWh.648266$BK1.618335@newsfe13.lga>, seanc130@hotmail,com
says...
> Bodega wrote:
>
> > Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
>
> >> ... there can be absolutely no
> >>confidence in empirical data.
>
> > You don't have the faintest idea what "empirical" means. In your
> > "philosophy," it's safe to jump off the Empire State Building because
> > empirical evidence that such jumps kill people is totally unreliable.
>
> If empirical evidence says that about the Empire State Building, does
> that mean searical evidence says the same thing about the Sears Tower,
> and spacical evidence says it about the Space Needle?

Or if you are circumsized, it's circumstantial evidence? =b
--
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"

Re: some thoughts on science

On Apr 23, 5:14 am, Cemtech <c...@cox,net > wrote:
> In article <r6NWh.648266$BK1.618...@newsfe13.lga>, seanc...@hotmail,com
> says...
>
> > Bodega wrote:
>
> > > Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
>
> > >> ... there can be absolutely no
> > >>confidence in empirical data.
>
> > > You don't have the faintest idea what "empirical" means. In your
> > > "philosophy," it's safe to jump off the Empire State Building because
> > > empirical evidence that such jumps kill people is totally unreliable.
>
> > If empirical evidence says that about the Empire State Building, does
> > that mean searical evidence says the same thing about the Sears Tower,
> > and spacical evidence says it about the Space Needle?
>
> Or if you are circumsized, it's circumstantial evidence? =b
> --
> Steve "Chris" Price
> Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
> Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
> University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"

I think so but is jumping off the statue of Liberty statistical
evidence or an act
of terrorism?

OK you give up! the evidence concerning the attack on the USS Liberty
would be......
Liberty evidence. Groan!
Apologies to all

Re: some thoughts on science


Dale Kelly wrote:
> 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.

no, they're not. they're based on premises which can be inaccurate or
just plain wrong.

>
. Statistics is the language of
> science.

tell it to isaac newton. he invented calculus and that seems to have
done pretty well. calculus is the mathematics of change. and science
studies the mechanism of change.



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.
>
>

and yet science work. religion does not.