mudcat.org: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]


BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...

Skivee 21 Mar 06 - 04:30 PM
frogprince 21 Mar 06 - 03:28 PM
Amos 21 Mar 06 - 03:22 PM
frogprince 21 Mar 06 - 02:57 PM
Skivee 21 Mar 06 - 01:11 AM
Bunnahabhain 20 Mar 06 - 04:20 PM
Bill D 20 Mar 06 - 03:11 PM
Trevor 20 Mar 06 - 08:45 AM
Trevor 20 Mar 06 - 07:39 AM
autolycus 19 Mar 06 - 03:58 PM
The Fooles Troupe 19 Mar 06 - 07:53 AM
Purple Foxx 19 Mar 06 - 07:38 AM
*daylia* 19 Mar 06 - 07:34 AM
Little Hawk 18 Mar 06 - 09:16 PM
Bill D 18 Mar 06 - 06:56 PM
autolycus 18 Mar 06 - 05:16 PM
*daylia* 18 Mar 06 - 09:04 AM
GUEST,heric 08 Oct 04 - 12:07 PM
Amos 06 Oct 04 - 09:56 PM
Sam L 06 Oct 04 - 09:13 PM
Amos 06 Oct 04 - 10:05 AM
Rapparee 06 Oct 04 - 09:45 AM
Sam L 06 Oct 04 - 09:39 AM
*daylia* 06 Oct 04 - 09:36 AM
Bill D 05 Oct 04 - 11:04 PM
Uncle_DaveO 05 Oct 04 - 09:47 PM
Sam L 05 Oct 04 - 08:32 PM
Amos 05 Oct 04 - 12:20 PM
Uncle_DaveO 05 Oct 04 - 11:56 AM
Amos 05 Oct 04 - 11:40 AM
*daylia* 05 Oct 04 - 11:15 AM
Amos 05 Oct 04 - 10:46 AM
Rapparee 05 Oct 04 - 10:43 AM
TIA 05 Oct 04 - 09:22 AM
TIA 05 Oct 04 - 09:21 AM
MMario 05 Oct 04 - 09:12 AM
Rapparee 05 Oct 04 - 09:03 AM
DMcG 05 Oct 04 - 08:52 AM
TIA 05 Oct 04 - 08:43 AM
TIA 05 Oct 04 - 08:34 AM
DMcG 05 Oct 04 - 07:44 AM
GUEST,Fossil 05 Oct 04 - 07:23 AM
Rapparee 04 Oct 04 - 01:00 PM
GUEST,heric 04 Oct 04 - 12:22 PM
Rapparee 04 Oct 04 - 10:43 AM
Uncle_DaveO 04 Oct 04 - 10:35 AM
Rapparee 04 Oct 04 - 07:55 AM
42 04 Oct 04 - 07:22 AM
Cluin 03 Oct 04 - 10:25 PM
Amos 03 Oct 04 - 10:18 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Skivee
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 04:30 PM

Amos, my questions are really about the interplay of multiple resultant vectors from several varying gravitational attractors acting on the observer.
Clearly , the primary attractor in this would be the Earth, as you say.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: frogprince
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 03:28 PM

"If I could put time in a bottle"...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 03:22 PM

GRavitational attraction varies with the square of the distance. The differences you refer to due to the relative mass and location of Sun and moon are extant, but insignificant in comparison with the nearer massive center of the Earth.

Boring science stuff we all agree on, but I sometimes wish were not so:

1. Inertia
2. Space being contiguous, persistant fungible, and seamless.
3. The relative solidity of particles at scales about the microscopic.
4. The predominance of light and sound as primary channels of physical perception over other channels, such as imagination.
5. The conservation of energy in spite of all our best efforts to make it be infinitely available.
6. The depressing effect of mass, time, and collisions on creativity and intelligence.
7. Having to play time as a unideirectional seuqence of events which cannot collide. Most distressing.

A

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: frogprince
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 02:57 PM

Skivee, my guess would be that your weight would fluctuate as you suggest. Whether it be enough to detect without extremely precise equipment, I have no idea.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Skivee
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 01:11 AM

Hmmm, then doesn't that mean that there would be a local gravitational acceleration and decceleration effect as the observer
spins about on our world's surface? ...sort of an atraction eccentric?
Would this mean that your weight varies through the day (outside of input and output issues)?
Would you weigh least when you are at the point where you are between the Earth and Moon and the most in the opposite situation?
...And what of the effect of the Sun in this?
Discuss amongst yourselves. Compare and contrast...Anyone? ...Beuller?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 04:20 PM

There are two tides ( in most places anyway ) a day because the Moon does not orbit the Earth, the Earth and Moon orbit a common centre of gravity, which is inside the earth, but in a direct line between the moon and the centre of the earth.

The tide nearest the moon is due to the gravity of the moon pulling water towards it. The one on the opposite side of the earth is due to the body of the Earth itsaelf being pulled toward the moon more strongly than the water on the opposite side of it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 03:11 PM

I won't go to site which:
1)require a specific browser
2)demand you accept cookies in order to view
3)require javascripts without warning you or explaining why

that site tried to set a VERY large cookie, and made a little noise, then displayed a blank screen.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Trevor
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 08:45 AM

Wooh!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Trevor
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 07:39 AM

OK, so.......
Why, when there's only one moon every twenty four hours, is there two tides?
Why do clocks go back six weeks before the solstice and forward again twelve weeks after it?
Why do 'flammable' and 'inflammable' mean the same thing?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: autolycus
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 03:58 PM

*daylia* it's not puzzling for you, me and some others, but , for the rest ...............?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 07:53 AM

One of my cats regularly gives me 'the silent miaow' treatment.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 07:38 AM

Cats use yawns to convey both trust & peaceful intentions.
Perhaps our ancestors did likewise.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: *daylia*
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 07:34 AM

That's true, LH -- and Ivor, thanks for the hypothesis. I haven't found any info online about why yawning is contagious, other than that scientists don't really know. In fact, it tseems they're not even sure why we (or animals) yawn. Another hypothesis is to give the message "look I'm tired, but don't bother attacking me ... see the size of my teeth?!?"

And a good question too, Ivor. But it's really not allthat puzzling ...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 09:16 PM

Daylia, it's not just yawning that is contagious.

So are: smiling, hurling insults, talking, laughing, arguing, violence, affection, etc.

Most forms of behaviour are contagious most of the time.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 06:56 PM

well, I skimmed thru this old thread, happily reading all the fun & funny posts...then I came to the one that refreshed it, and was puzzled.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: autolycus
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 05:16 PM

"because it is part of a mechanism that serves to synchronise wake/sleep cycles among different members of the social group. (Reference:Provine et al,Ethology,1987,v.76,p.10", according to Dr A.T.Chamberlain, Dept.Human Anatomy,University of Liverpool.

However , it's only a hypothesis.

It's interesting that thread is called 'science stuff we believe', rather than 'science stuff we know'.

Ivor


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 09:04 AM

*yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn*

Now, to consult the Omniscient Oracle of Sci- *yaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwn" (oops pardon me) - Science.

Why is yawning contagious? Huh? HUH?!?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 12:07 PM

Here's a dog sniffing cancer citation:

Olfactory Detection of Human Bladder Cancer


Those dogs were trained. However, there was an anecdote reported about a dog (the border collie) who was aggravated by (what turned out to be) a malignant melanoma on his owner.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 04 - 09:56 PM

That's a c;assic, Fred!! LOL!


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Sam L
Date: 06 Oct 04 - 09:13 PM

Yes, but the point is, once they have kids, they don't know how to be parents anymore.

Whether you smoke, or have a very rare disease, or not, the odds are pretty good you might die.
The story of health statistics is we should scrape and worry about being cheated. The truth, for me, is just to die at a good stopping point, or at least, between chapters. I've already missed a couple. But then, to me, everything is about story. Don't want a ridiculously long epilogue, or missing pages near the end.

   Scientific studies show that if you put a human being in an empty room for a few days with no stimulation of any sort, when they come out they will have a story, with some sort of drama in it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 04 - 10:05 AM

ALL parents were childless at some point. But not all childless people will become parents.

That's New Math.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 Oct 04 - 09:45 AM

Childless people do have the tendency to become parents, don't they? (grin)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Sam L
Date: 06 Oct 04 - 09:39 AM

Applied science is engineering. I'd agree with that in bulk, but it winds up involving other things, as nearly everything does. Sometimes sales and overcoming cultural conventions and such.

Statistics usually come to me through journalism, so I take them with an extra salt-shaker, since I've never known of a thing first-hand that came out right in print. Even after you try to set the record straight, journalists tend to prefer their own trimmed version.

According to journalistic science, everything either cures or causes cancer. Today it's garlic again, but my favorite is raw broccoli, and I add a little dip, which I don't know whether causes or cures, but it tastes better. According to other surveys, people with no experience or qualifications for a job are much better at it than so-called experts. Childless people are the best parents, for example. And in economics, the problem seems to be that poor people have all the money, based on field observations of them in front of you in the check-out line.
   Poor people do not seem to occur behind anyone in line at grocery check-outs, always in front.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: *daylia*
Date: 06 Oct 04 - 09:36 AM

Well, I wonder how many people - smokers or non - live to 95? Lots of 'em die even before age 60 whether they smoke or not, as far as I know ....

And even when people do reach 95, I wonder how many still feel productive or grateful or even happy about it??? A short walk through your local nursing home might provide a clue about this ...

My grandad was still climbing the Alberta Rockies training the Forestry students till he was 82. Four years after he retired, he died of a stroke. He was 86 - and had enjoyed a quiet pipeful in the evenings for most of his adult life.

I don't think he had any regrets ... after being so active all his life it was very hard for him to be homebound. He was growing more and more difficult to care for, depressed and unhappy. I don't think he wanted another 9 years of watching his mind and body grow more and more feeble. He was "ready" to move on.

PLease don't get me wrong - I'm NOT saying everyone who reaches the age of 95 is incapacitated or unhappy. And I'm not saying his life is statisically significant in any way - cuz it isn't. I just find it interesting.

And he was another one who was ALWAYS giving me grief about smoking, too, bless him ....

daylia


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Oct 04 - 11:04 PM

I can state with confidence that if you smoke 100 cigarettes a day in MY vicinity, you are not likely to live to 95......

as to statistical samples, I love the one my wife cites..."All Indians walk single file....at least the Indian I once saw was walking single file."

Unfortunately, some folks think like that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 05 Oct 04 - 09:47 PM

I much prefer a different distinction from "science and applied science".

Seems to me the distinction is science and engineering. Science is organized curiosity. This results in knowledge about various aspects of reality.

The effort to apply that knowledge, to control it in order to make things that work, is engineering. Whether it's building an auditorium, designing and building an interstellar rocket, producing a designer drug to cure "whatever", it's engineering.

Yes, before someone contradicts me on this score, there is a lot of designing and building in the process of making the equipment whereby one can do scientific investigation, but the designing and building of an electron microscope, we'll say, is engineering, but what's done with the 'scope in the real world MAY be science, or may be other engineering.

Dave Oesterreich


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Sam L
Date: 05 Oct 04 - 08:32 PM

on the other hand, proving that it's very very unlikely that you have a disease is a pretty narrow and not very useful point if you do in fact have the disease. Most likely you'll get the cure du jour for anything more common, quicker to get rid of you.

Autopsies are much less common than they used to be. They helped check for mistakes.

I still think there's a big difference between science, and applied science. Inventors often make big advances in applied science out of old scientific news. What will fly as an invention is often aboutmarketing, culture, and accident, as much as the underlying science. People get all excited about "science" like the internet, but more humdrum things are the real heart of it--who would buy anything online if a shipper couldn't get it to you fast? The heart of the Sears Roebuck catalogue was a pallet you drag behind your horses to rut the road so rain ran off, invented by a farmer. It enabled rural post delivery.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 04 - 12:20 PM

Well there is an interesting example about the difference between physics-based science and spirituality. Although there are common factors between almost all beings operating int he material univer,se I suppose, the most important aspects of any one of them is found in his highly individualistic decisions and self-defined creations etc, not the common bits, while in science it is all common bits.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 05 Oct 04 - 11:56 AM

And the next time anyone comes at you with statements like "Science doesn't have all the answers - my uncle smoked 100 cigarettes a day and he lived to be 95", you can retaliate with the statistician's put-down "A sample of one proves NOTHING!"

Not quite. It doesn't prove much, granted. But in the instance cited, it proves that it is possible to reach at least 95 while smoking 100 cigarettes a day.

To put it conversely, it proves that smoking 100 cigarettes a day does not 100% preclude a smoker's living to that age.

This (while it might be interesting) is not very useful knowledge. It doesn't PROVE that smoking 101 cigarettes a day won't prevent living to 95. It doesn't prove even that smoking that same 100 cigarettes a day won't prevent living to 96.

A sample of one proves only a very narrow point, for sure. And as I say, not very useful.

Dave Oesterreich


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 04 - 11:40 AM

The presence of WIll in the appaarencies of the world is something very, very few scientists attach much importance to. Yet aware will of some kind is very much part of the show around us. It is hard to tease out the strands of how these things --- will or intent, awareness, forces and particles -- actually interconnect and interact. Many scientists can't start doing so because their methodologies are bound up with "matter only" perspectives which don't admit other phenomena. And, too, there is alot of matter-only experimenting still around to do.

I like Crowley, even though I think of him as a nut. He is a smart nut.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: *daylia*
Date: 05 Oct 04 - 11:15 AM

Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology ... any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

Well there's often a line drawn these days between "magic" and "magick" -- "magic" meaning Houdini-type entertainment, tricks and optical illusions (like pulling a rabbit out of a hat; and "magick" meaning the ancient metaphysical or occult "sciences", as practiced today by ceremonial magicians etc. Magickal / occult "science" is anything but boring, and about as far removed from stage magic as classical music is from rap.

There's some interesting observations about science, math and magick (notice the 'k'!) at this site Math and Magick ie

"Mathematics is the science of structure and pattern in general." --Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Mathematics

"MAGICK is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will." --Aleister Crowley, Magick in Theory and Practice

Notice how Mr Crowley does NOT say "Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to APPEAR to occur, in conformity with sleight of hand, optical illusions or any other type of amusing trickery!

daylia


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 04 - 10:46 AM

Rapaire:

By that logic you have just dramatically improved the chances of winning the lottery, since your ticket either will win, or will not.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Oct 04 - 10:43 AM

Seems to me that the chances that you have a disease are ALWAYS 50-50: you either do or you don't. Same as the chances for snow in Death Valley in July....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: TIA
Date: 05 Oct 04 - 09:22 AM

MMario - Houdini would certainly agree.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: TIA
Date: 05 Oct 04 - 09:21 AM

Right you are DmcG. And, any scientist who screws up his statistics (or any other aspect of a test) should rightly expect to get savaged by her or his peers (and later, hopefully, make up over beer and strumming). It's the openess of absolutely everything to question that makes science scientific.



P.S. If you tested positive, the odds are 50-50 that you actually have the disease. (I hope I did this math correctly, or I must be savaged, then given beer)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: MMario
Date: 05 Oct 04 - 09:12 AM

Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Oct 04 - 09:03 AM

God does not play dice with the Universe, pontificated Einstein, who simply would not accept quantum mechanics.

Berty, thou shouldst be living in this hour!!

If I reject statistics can I gamble without losing, live forever while doing anything I want to, and be assured that nuclear weapons won't go boom?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Oct 04 - 08:52 AM

Sorry, I was not attempting to dismiss the subject at all - it would be unwise as I have spent a lot of time working in companies producing statistics!

My point was intended to be that dealing with statistics is one of those branches of mathematics where it is relatively easy for even an expert to slip up (others examples include probability theory and queueing theory). It takes real effort and dedication to ensure you are getting things things right and using the right measures. As such, every scientist finding things being revealed based on the statistical nature of the results needs to be very careful that not only were the experiements done properly but also the statistics based upon them were done properly. To take a very simple example, you may decide to work to 95% confidence levels in the results. Once you have done that, the processes are very well defined. But why did you come to choose 95% in the first place? That's one of the places where unintentional bias can occur.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: TIA
Date: 05 Oct 04 - 08:43 AM

Oops, forgot to specify in question two that your test is positive.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: TIA
Date: 05 Oct 04 - 08:34 AM

Oh my. Not true DMcG. That is not the purpose of statistics at all. It is, in fact a way of making value judgements in a totally NON-subjective way. For instance, if 30 people take a new drug, and 30 people with the same condition do not, and 12 of the drug-takers improve, while 8 of the non-drug-takers improve, does this result indicate that the drug works? What if the test is redone by another scientist (as it most certainly should be), and the results are 11 out of 37 drug-taker improvements vs. 9 out of 32 non-drug-takers - does this result support the first study?

Or how about this one (the answer will boggle your mind):

If you are tested for a disease that occurs in 0.1% of the population using a test that gives the correct result 90% of the time, what is the probability that you have the disease? Hint - it's darn small!

Yes, statistics have been used by the unscrupulous or ill-informed to "prove" untrue hypotheses, but the best defense against this is to become educated regarding the proper use of statistics, not to dismiss this powerful tool of objectivity.

If someone hits their thumb with a hammer, don't throw away yours and try to push the nails in with your fingers!

I strongly recommend the following book to the scientst and (especially) non-scientist alike -

Statistical Tricks and Traps: An Illustrated Guide to the Misuses of Statistics by Ennis C. Almer

Read this, and the shroud is easily removed in most cases.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Oct 04 - 07:44 AM

Surely statistics are the thing none of us believe? Every scientist (or at least any mathematically trained one) is aware that statistics can be easily distorted accidentally and every cynic knows they can be easily distorted on purpose!

More precisely, statistics has as its purpose throwing away irrelevant data and retaining the relevant. That's hard. Not only that, it involves value judgements all along the way about what is and what is not relevant. Often these judgements are hidden under the shroud of the mathematical process itself, but they are still there.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: GUEST,Fossil
Date: 05 Oct 04 - 07:23 AM

OK, enough thread drift already.... Guest TIA and LH have between them produced a pretty good analysis of what the belief system we know as "science" is about and how it works. That it works - and doesn't really conflict with the other belief systems we know as "religions" or "New Age philosophies" - will be obvious to anyone who has used a mobile phone, a GPS system or a digital camera lately. And I am aware that these things are the result of the application of technology based on a mixture of science and concepts of measurement (when I programme the GPS on my boat to help me find the way to a port, I use the artificial conventions of latitude and longitude to do it, but it works pretty well in the real world).

One other concept I'd like to chuck into the debate is that of statistics. "Experimental scientific" enquiry into natural phenomena is based on the idea that ANYONE - approaching the theory from any philosophical angle - can repeat the experiment described and should be able to get the same result. In fact, of course, this isn't the case, particularly where the experimental methods are inadequate. That's why medical science for example uses statistical analysis of large numbers of results to eliminate as far as possible the effects of observational variation on the conclusions that can be drawn from a given theory.

And the next time anyone comes at you with statements like "Science doesn't have all the answers - my uncle smoked 100 cigarettes a day and he lived to be 95", you can retaliate with the statistician's put-down "A sample of one proves NOTHING!"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Oct 04 - 01:00 PM

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                --Arthur C. Clarke, Technology and the Future


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 04 Oct 04 - 12:22 PM

Cluin: That's true about the dolphins, but I saw a malamute who had trained a woman in a fur coat and high heels to pick up its own feces after him!! My brother refused the same efforts by his retriever, based on his logical conclusion that if the aliens arrive and see humans doing that, "who do you think they'll sign the Treaty with?"


I had the same adventure as yourn, Amos, except that the kayak was a 12' aluminum cartopper, the chop was higher than the gunwhale, and the dolphins were killer whales surfacing on all sides. I felt alive that day!

"To any meditative Magian rover, this serene Pacific, once beheld, must ever after be the sea of his adoption. It rolls the midmost waters of the world, the Indian ocean and Atlantic being but its arms. . . . Thus this mysterious, divine Pacific zones the world's whole bulk about; makes all coasts one bay to it; seems the tide-beating heart of earth."

Ishmael at p. 478.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Oct 04 - 10:43 AM

So, if I scan a photographic negative into my computer, and then reverse the colors, I have a positive of the negative. And if I do that again, I have a negative of the positive negative! And if I do that again, I have a postitive of the negative positive negative. And if I do it again


My head hurts. I'm going to go lay down now.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 04 Oct 04 - 10:35 AM

Ah, but a positive print is the negative of the negative!

Dave Oesterreich


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Oct 04 - 07:55 AM

Only in logic! I've had bunches and bunches of negatives together for years and years and they stay negatives and I have to have prints made anyway.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: 42
Date: 04 Oct 04 - 07:22 AM

If only two negatives did make a positive!
j


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Cluin
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 10:25 PM

Very cool, Amos. :)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 10:18 PM

The intelligence of dolphins is unquestionable. Yesterday I was out in a kayak on an expanse of the Pacific Ocean and a pod of dolphins began breaching all around me and we played tag for thirty minutes or so going hither and yon. They are much smarter than the average subscriber to the Mudcat, for example -- they ignored me!! **bg** Seriously, it was a real pleasure to be able to see them from so close -- a few feet away.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 19 September 6:04 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.