Science is not a perfect institution

[Ophiolite]

I haven't examined Light's attacks on you in detail. I know he baited you over your failure to prove you had delivered papers. That was valid. You used the fact that you had written papers and delivered talks as proof of your authority. You then failed to back this up. That was reprhensible behaviour. Either you lied, or exagerrated, or have some other inadequate reason for failure to prove your claim: remember it was your claim - if you were not ready to justify it you should not have made it.

That, to me is truly low, far lower than any personal attack. Personal attacks are irrelevant - attacks on the structure of the scientific method and debate are not. They are wholly unacceptable and must be dealy with vigorously. I applaud Light again for doing do in your case.
There is nothing in any post I have made here, that I have presented as fact, that I am not prepared to demonstrate to be fact - or to issue a full and unqualified apology and retraction if I am unable to do so. You apparently hold to lower standards. That is your choice, but do not expect me to praise you for it.

The personal attack Light used was to call you a liar. As far as you have demonstrated so far that was a valid claim. You have not refuted it. You choose to hide behind nothing much more than an objection to being called a liar. Yet you can so easily put light in his place by demonstrating what papers you have published, what addresses you have made. Calling you a liar goes straight to the heart of one of your arguments. Up to you to refute it, not bleat about personal attacks.

Calling you a "fucking moron" out of the blue would be a personal attack. Calling you a liar when you present evidence to the effect that you are does not seem so to personal to me.

And of course, there is no point in just opposing because something doesn't suit you or is not conducive to your personal interests.

There is every point.

When we are discussing larger issues you have to validate what you're saying.

Exactly what Light asked you to do. He only became belligerent when you persistently refused to do so.

. Getting angry isn't quite a smart move.

You have to distinguish between rhetoric designed to invoke anger (and hence illogical ripostes) in the reader and genuine anger.

 

[Buddha1]

I haven't examined Light's attacks on you in detail. I know he baited you over your failure to prove you had delivered papers. That was valid. You used the fact that you had written papers and delivered talks as proof of your authority. You then failed to back this up. That was reprhensible behaviour. Either you lied, or exagerrated, or have some other inadequate reason for failure to prove your claim: remember it was your claim - if you were not ready to justify it you should not have made it.

That, to me is truly low, far lower than any personal attack. Personal attacks are irrelevant - attacks on the structure of the scientific method and debate are not. They are wholly unacceptable and must be dealy with vigorously. I applaud Light again for doing do in your case.
There is nothing in any post I have made here, that I have presented as fact, that I am not prepared to demonstrate to be fact - or to issue a full and unqualified apology and retraction if I am unable to do so. You apparently hold to lower standards. That is your choice, but do not expect me to praise you for it.

The personal attack Light used was to call you a liar. As far as you have demonstrated so far that was a valid claim. You have not refuted it. You choose to hide behind nothing much more than an objection to being called a liar. Yet you can so easily put light in his place by demonstrating what papers you have published, what addresses you have made. Calling you a liar goes straight to the heart of one of your arguments. Up to you to refute it, not bleat about personal attacks.

Calling you a "fucking moron" out of the blue would be a personal attack. Calling you a liar when you present evidence to the effect that you are does not seem so to personal to me.

There is every point.
Exactly what Light asked you to do. He only became belligerent when you persistently refused to do so.

You have to distinguish between rhetoric designed to invoke anger (and hence illogical ripostes) in the reader and genuine anger.

I think you're disguising your own frustration by using Light's ways and trying to make him justifiable.

I have never used the fact that I have delievered any papers or published any books as being my authority. I have stated that I have worked for 10 years. At one place I also mentioned that I have published books, booklets, etc. for my organisation and for others. But that is by no way supposed to back up what I'm saying. It is for people to believe my experiences or reject them. My contentions are not only based on my own experiences. They are based on recognised scientific work of others.

I'm presenting a new interpretation and analysis of the recent 'discoveries' (which support my work experiences!), and that's up for debate.

I have valid reasons to keep my identity a secret. And if you guys thing that you can play on that vulnerability to score a point when you can't find fault with my assertions or the evidences that I have provided, then you're just fooling yourself.

I think, judging by your latest posts, you're just one of those frustrated guys with nothing better to say, who are taken aback by an attack on your power base that my assertions have made --- and you want to get back at me by crook, because you cannot do it using the right approach. I'm not going to waste my time with you anymore.

Remember, there is no question of believing me or disbelieving me. I've presented my evidences, and I've presented my analysis. Now, you have to prove either of them wrong, and if you cannot, no amount of harping about unnecssary personal details about my life (whether professional or otherwise) will make you or others of your lowly ilk right.

Good bye, and don't waste my time, until you have brought proof to invalidate my contentions.

 

[DaleSpam]

are you claimingthat the use of DU by the military forces of UK and USA is not in any way harmful?

That's really funny Duendy. BillyT said nothing of the kind and has been factual in what he did say. His comments were exclusively about DU in the context of nuclear power, not military applications. You apparently need to work on your reading skills as much as your writing skills.

Of course a military use of something is going to be harmful! If it weren't harmful it wouldn't be of much military use. Punching a hole through a tank, cooking its occupants, and igniting its ammunition qualifies as harmful in the extreme.

BillyT has been accurate in the DU properties that he described. As he said, DU is slightly less radioactive than natural uranium and much less radioactive than enriched uranium. DU is non-fissile and is not a decay product of a nuclear reaction (a.k.a. nuclear waste) but could theoretically be used in a breeder reactor to generate Plutonium as a nuclear fuel. DU is toxic and very dense. DU spalls and burns easily. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium )

Science is responsible for us knowing these properties of DU, but the properties themselves are just part of nature. The decision to use these properties of DU to efficiently "kill people and break things" is not in the purview of the scientific method.

-Dale

 

[Ophiolite]

I think you're disguising your own frustration by using Light's ways and trying to make him justifiable.
QUOTE]I wish to sincerely apologise. I had absolutely no intention of disguising my frustration. I wished to make my frustration at your imanity abundantly clear. Obviously I failed in that intention and for that I apologise.

They are based on recognised scientific work of others.

On the misrepresented and misinterpreted presentation of those works.

I think, judging by your latest posts, you're just one of those frustrated guys with nothing better to say, who are taken aback by an attack on your power base that my assertions have made ---.

Aas I have noted previously I find your notions so bizarre that they do not in any way threaten any 'power base' I may have. I wasn't aware of having any powerbase as such, unless it was recognition by my peers of an astute, enquiring mind. I don't see how you have threatened that.

Remember, there is no question of believing me or disbelieving me. I've presented my evidences, and I've presented my analysis. Now, you have to prove either of them wrong, and if you cannot, no amount of harping about unnecssary personal details about my life (whether professional or otherwise) will make you or others of your lowly ilk right.

You are the one who has to prove things. Your evidence to date has been incoherent, incohesive and unconvincing. It lies for those proposing new concepts to demonstrate their validity, not for others to demonstrate their falsity.

Good bye, and don't waste my time, until you have brought proof to invalidate my contentions.

You can easily put me on your ignore list if my challenges make you uncomfortable.

 

[Buddha1]

On the misrepresented and misinterpreted presentation of those works.

Then why have you not been able to point out where and how exactly I've misinterpreted or misrepresented those works?

as I have noted previously I find your notions so bizarre that they do not in any way threaten any 'power base' I may have. I wasn't aware of having any powerbase as such, unless it was recognition by my peers of an astute, enquiring mind. I don't see how you have threatened that.

Perhaps you needed to be thrown from that base to realise that it existed.

You are the one who has to prove things. Your evidence to date has been incoherent, incohesive and unconvincing. It lies for those proposing new concepts to demonstrate their validity, not for others to demonstrate their falsity.

I have given a number of evidences to prove my contentions.

I am sure, any fool knows that when someone forwards evidences for one's assertions/ theories (that too from accepted scientific works), then it becomes the responsibility of those opposing the theory to prove how the evidences or analysis are invalid.

Surely, just to say that the evidences are incoherent, incohesive and unconvincing is not enough. You have to show how! That you cannot do that proves amply that you have indirectly accepted the validity of my assertions, and are now just trying to release your frustrations.

There are people who have found the evidences quite convincing (but that's besides the point).

You can easily put me on your ignore list if my challenges make you uncomfortable.

What Challenges!

I have given a number of evidences for you or others to work on.

That you and the other frustrated lot have plotted to disrupt my work shows that you had no other way left to challenge my contentions.

 

[Buddha1]

You can gauge your success by the number of enemies that you make.

But its the nature of your enemies and the kind of opposition that they put up that finally puts a feather in your cap!

 

[MetaKron]

You can gauge your success by the number of enemies that you make.

But its the nature of your enemies and the kind of opposition that they put up that finally puts a feather in your cap!

Face it, Buddha. The kind of people we face are why we haven't been to the moon in about thirty years and why we don't have colonies on the moon and the other planets. Actually doing something progressive would free a lot of humanity from the hole that it is in right now. Too many people who graduate college find that it is a lot easier to make money by being part of a swindle than it is to actually do something useful. Then they protect that swindle from anyone who might break it up.

 

[Buddha1]

Face it, Buddha. The kind of people we face are why we haven't been to the moon in about thirty years and why we don't have colonies on the moon and the other planets. Actually doing something progressive would free a lot of humanity from the hole that it is in right now. Too many people who graduate college find that it is a lot easier to make money by being part of a swindle than it is to actually do something useful. Then they protect that swindle from anyone who might break it up.

You're right on!

What we need to do is to expose these people for what they really are --- the vested interest group that has immense (real or imaginary) but invalid stake in the continuance of the heterosexual ideology.

It is extremely important to scientifically study this group (though not in the superficial way as in surveys), to exactly pinpoint what ticks them on and the exact methodologies that they use to spread their lies or to distort the truth or to keep it from coming out. This will be an important step in order to liberate the man from his age old oppression.

The vested interest group, because of its immense stake in the heterosexual system will fight tooth and nail to stop a discussion of the truth. Because the lies spread by this ideology are fragile and can easily be blown away by the smallest whiff of truth. They will do it by hook or crook, and they will abuse science, religion, and what have you in order to defeat you. They have no qualms to appear reasonable or fair. They have been getting away this approach because heterosexuality has been in power. And might is right!

What needs to be seen is how long can you keep the truth under bounds when it is finally time for it to come out. Can truth really be kept under wraps for ever!

They have managed to defeat me this time --- by getting my threads to be merged into an unorganised huge mass. But its a temporary 'win' for them.

 

[Huwy]

Of course science isn't perfect - what made you assume it was?
Your saying "science isn't perfect! it has flaws!!" well of course it does.
Are you just imagining that there are people going "science is perfect!! yeahh!!" When really, no-one is saying that??
Again with your misconceptions.

Actually its the religious people saying "My religion is perfect!! No-one should disagree with it, the bible/koran is perfect!! Anyone who deviates or questions is a sinner!"

Science isn't perfect, nothing is perfect. Generally though science has a tendency to admit when its made a mistake and to try and correct that mistake.

Who was it on this forum who said
"For science to question is neccessary. For religion, to question is herecy."

 

[MetaKron]

We are in a horrible situation where a few wealthy bastards own most of what exists and they have diseased minds. A lot of what we've seen is what happens when people suck up to them. Sucking up seems like its own punishment, but a lot of these people own their own homes and have decent cars. It works for them. Unfortunately. I hope those UFO fanatics are right and we will be rescued, but I've got to tell you, it is the last minute. Too many things already won't repair themselves.

 

[duendy]

Huwy claims 'science' never claims to be perfect...? well, dont know Huwy if you've ever contradited someone who believes their view is based on science..? the reaction one can expect is of same invective as disobeying religious dogma!.....more so, cause its based on science

even at tese forums i haveseen again and agin advocates for science--namely materialistic science become hostile, insulting, childishly so if yu DARE to question their materialistic views, which are based on ...science.

 

[Huwy]

Yes I have fantasies where aliens save their world from the nukes. That would be a nice last minute save, but I'm really not sure if it will happen.

 

[MetaKron]

I'm not absolutely certain that it won't happen, but either they are freaking late or they are just as bad as what we have. Having to go through this torture, where we not only have to worry about dying, but about dying stupidly and by dirty means, is a horrible punishment for existence.

 

[Huwy]

Defending scientific knowledge and scientific principles from total bullshit is one thing,
claiming science "is perfect" is totally different.

 

[MetaKron]

Defending scientific knowledge and scientific principles from total bullshit is one thing,
claiming science "is perfect" is totally different.

Well we have defenders of "science" here and other places who will make people believe in magic and superstition in sheer mental self-defense, because the way the defenders do it is hostile and deliberately misleading. This gives people legitimate reason to feel that not only is science not perfect, there is something totally bogus about it.

 

[Ophiolite]

Science is objective. What I see repeatedly is people believing what they want to belive, not what validated observations should lead them to believe. That is dumb.
I see people declaring opinions on topics of which they know very little, that is ignorant.
I see these same people adhering to these beliefs rather than do the small amount of study necessary to become educated. That is foolish.
I see people choosing the superficially exciting explanation over the more mundane. That is retarded.

When I see people, with brains, behaving in a dumb, ignorant, foolish, retarded way I am liable to become hostile. Do excuse me if I actually care.

I do not, however, deliberately mislead. Nor can I think of anyone in the threads I have read who has done so. Please give some examples.

 

[duendy]

it is the whole ontological presumption of your certitudes--based on yor fundamenta belief in 'science'....this is where the energy comes from. for where worldviews collide is what rumbles up all this energy, a lot of which can be fear etc

myth is good if understood cause it can actually reveal what is going on much more than scientific 'evidence'. for example in myth we have the two extremes of Apollion understanding and Dionysian understanding, and this was a major teme in anceint Greece, set down in Euripides' Play, Bakkhai
for simplicity at this point, let us call Apollonian thought 'light' and Dionysian thought 'dark'. think of the former as likea torchbeam, or even sharp sunlight and latter night and the unconscious depths....now the former beliefes it can know everything, and is really...really, tho it will never admit it, frightened of the dark. why?....why, cause it cant know it all. its searclight can only even be limited. yes it can increase in volume but must always remain limited in actual scope and depth. this insight genuninly pisses that mindset off, and they will throw everything at yu to sacepgoat you to pvove to themselves they 'must be right'

science 'knows matter/energy'--ie., materialism. so it THINKS!

 

[Ophiolite]

You are describing a sub-set of a few scientists, and rather more lay-persons with a scientific education, none of whom are behaving in a scientific manner. Science does not claim to eventually be able to explain everything. Rather than being frightened of the dark, the true scientist is fascinated by it.
Now excuse me while I see if my translation of Euripides' plays is where I left it. Not that I'm checking up on you.

 

[duendy]

ok you as purist scientist? i ask you a question: 'what is matter/energy'?

 

[Ophiolite]

I am not a physicist. I am by training a geologist. My working expertise lies in techniques and mechanisms for drilling rock. If I answered your question my answer would be inferior to what you could get by reading the appropriate chapters of a first year physics textbook, or scanning relevant articles from the last five years of Scientific American, or searching Pubmed for related research.
Do you really want to know? In which case do one or all of the above. Or, are you trying to 'trap' me in to a particular response you have a prepared reaction to?
It sure feels like the latter. Like all good scientists I stand ready to be proved wrong by the evidence.