Are scientists always trustworthy? Should we believe everything they say?
- Thread starter Happeh
- Start date
Light said:
Perhaps they are all jealous like you are light. You do not speak to me because I can swat you at will. The others do not like me for the same reason. Each one stepped up to the plate. Each one dished out their special brand of poison for me to eat.
I sent each and everyone packing, until James had to close the thread because of all the crying from all the people that I kicked to the curb.
Dress it up all you want. Anyone can read the posts and see the sequence of events.
Ophiolite said:
putrefying? Nope. I think I would smell that.
Ophiolite said:
Jump up and down all you want Ophiolite. I thought that worked too. Then James stood by while 20 people trashed my thread. Then he said I was the one running a flame war.
No one gives a damn if you are upset. Get used to it.
Facial
Valued Senior Member
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060201_tenth_planet.html
Here's a little science. It talks about the size about the supposed Kuiper belt object that's reported to be larger than Pluto.
I remember the time when the Caltech team first discovered this object, they initially deduced the size to be around the one declared here. Were they trustworthy? Yes. Their ability to extrapolate data and tentative evidence from circumstantial facts makes them scientists. Similarly, the team from Bonn verifies this conclusion using a different approach. Are they trustworthy? Yes. Are they always trustworthy? Probably, because as astronomers they are the best source of authority that we can possibly trust on this topic. Should we believe in everything they say? No, because they aren't always right pending later discoveries that may arise in the future.
Anyways, the main topic of this post is how to draw conclusions from evidence, a skill that Happeh apparently lacks.
The appropriate conclusions that can be drawn from both the solar albedo / thermal emission measurements follows thus :
~There is compelling evidence from two experiments that UB 313 has a very large chance (more than 97%) of being larger than Pluto.
Incorrect conclusions :
~UB 313 is definitely larger than Pluto.
~UB 313 is composed of the same lithospheric material as Pluto.
~UB 313 has ice.
~Pluto is not a planet.
Irrelevant, AND incorrect conclusions :
~Neptune is a Kuiper belt object.
~Pluto is cursed with the ability of spawning larger cousins.
~Nemesis exists.
Happeh-style, irrelevant, AND incorrect conclusions:
~If I masturbate, asteroids will slam into the earth.
Here's a little science. It talks about the size about the supposed Kuiper belt object that's reported to be larger than Pluto.
I remember the time when the Caltech team first discovered this object, they initially deduced the size to be around the one declared here. Were they trustworthy? Yes. Their ability to extrapolate data and tentative evidence from circumstantial facts makes them scientists. Similarly, the team from Bonn verifies this conclusion using a different approach. Are they trustworthy? Yes. Are they always trustworthy? Probably, because as astronomers they are the best source of authority that we can possibly trust on this topic. Should we believe in everything they say? No, because they aren't always right pending later discoveries that may arise in the future.
Anyways, the main topic of this post is how to draw conclusions from evidence, a skill that Happeh apparently lacks.
The appropriate conclusions that can be drawn from both the solar albedo / thermal emission measurements follows thus :
~There is compelling evidence from two experiments that UB 313 has a very large chance (more than 97%) of being larger than Pluto.
Incorrect conclusions :
~UB 313 is definitely larger than Pluto.
~UB 313 is composed of the same lithospheric material as Pluto.
~UB 313 has ice.
~Pluto is not a planet.
Irrelevant, AND incorrect conclusions :
~Neptune is a Kuiper belt object.
~Pluto is cursed with the ability of spawning larger cousins.
~Nemesis exists.
Happeh-style, irrelevant, AND incorrect conclusions:
~If I masturbate, asteroids will slam into the earth.
Facial
Valued Senior Member
Happeh said:
Sad truth is, it WAS you. You trashed us with irrelevant studies, and failed to persevere in finding sound evidence. So you could only start a name-calling game. But as your cowardice suggests, you don't want to blame yourself for it. Then again, neither are we willing to file any 500-page commission report detailing your failures and pointing out your instigations for you.
Sounds like North Korea insisting the US started the war, lol.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Facial, an excellent opening post from you in this portion of the thread, if I may say. But I would make a single, but perhaps important, exception to what you say.
The issue arises because scientists are also humans. Humans are capable of many negative behaviours: lying, cheating, being lazy or careless. As humans, scientists may also be guilty of such behaviour in their work. I believe (and I dimly recall reading studies that confirmed this) that the number who do this is very small, but it also finite.
But the great strength of science lies in its requirement for repeatability of experiment and its requirement for peer review. Under these twin tools the few deceitful scientists are, eventually, identified.
Happeh, of course, is under the mistaken impression that we bow to those in authority. Nothing could be further from the truth. We do bow to the authority of science - but only long enough to check whether those shoes are real leather or not.
The issue arises because scientists are also humans. Humans are capable of many negative behaviours: lying, cheating, being lazy or careless. As humans, scientists may also be guilty of such behaviour in their work. I believe (and I dimly recall reading studies that confirmed this) that the number who do this is very small, but it also finite.
But the great strength of science lies in its requirement for repeatability of experiment and its requirement for peer review. Under these twin tools the few deceitful scientists are, eventually, identified.
Happeh, of course, is under the mistaken impression that we bow to those in authority. Nothing could be further from the truth. We do bow to the authority of science - but only long enough to check whether those shoes are real leather or not.
Here is an example of what people like Light and SuperLuminal are capable of,
http://www.whiotv.com/health/5975331/detail.html
http://www.whiotv.com/health/5975331/detail.html
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Exactly so Anomalous. This is exactly what Light, et al are capable of: exposing poor science, flawed science and faked science. Did you actually read the article? The determination that this idiot had faked results was determined by a group of scientists, after other scientists had expressed reservations about some of the data.
"An academic panel said a South Korean researcher faked his landmark claim to have cloned human embryonic stem cells."
When an individual Christian lies, does that undermine all of Christianity.
When an individual Lithuanian lies, does that mean all Ltihuanians are liars?
When an individual person with red hair lies, do we distrust all gingers from that day on?
You are a fool Anomalous.
"An academic panel said a South Korean researcher faked his landmark claim to have cloned human embryonic stem cells."
When an individual Christian lies, does that undermine all of Christianity.
When an individual Lithuanian lies, does that mean all Ltihuanians are liars?
When an individual person with red hair lies, do we distrust all gingers from that day on?
You are a fool Anomalous.
Blindman said:Such a fighter.. Glad I managed to avoid the violence. Thus in the Metaphysical world, I draw a simple BFG and blow you ignorance to the wind.
So don’t forget to brush your teeth and drink plenty of water. You know you have to be healthy...
The difference between us is I see the utility in both approaches. You do not see the usefullness of my approach.
You metaphysical guys have a weakness you don't like to talk about. Physical contact. You think you are the man, but any other man who is willing to do physical violence owns you.
You can say all the airy fairy things you want, then the USA will come by and drop a bomb on your mosque. History tells us that, although magicians are powerful and can call up storms and demons, the smallest and weakest fighter can run them thru with a sword if they get close enough.
Your superiority is based on solitude, or surrounding yourself with like minded people. Once you get into the real world, your superiority is like the air.
Defense against nothing.