DIYbanter - Mind stretching

DIYbanter (https://www.diybanter.com/)

- Electronic Schematics (https://www.diybanter.com/electronic-schematics/)

- - Mind stretching (https://www.diybanter.com/electronic-schematics/339510-mind-stretching.html)

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message
...
Mind stretching....

http://wmbriggs.com/

...Jim Thompson
--

Hmm. Religion is theory. Therefore ....
Art

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:59:09 -0700, "Artemus"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message
.. .
Mind stretching....

http://wmbriggs.com/

...Jim Thompson
--

Hmm. Religion is theory. Therefore ....
Art

Agreed.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On 4/27/2012 2:59 PM, Artemus wrote:
"Jim wrote in message
...
Mind stretching....

http://wmbriggs.com/

...Jim Thompson
--

Hmm. Religion is theory. Therefore ....
Art

http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2012...ief-ubc-study/

hamilton wrote:
On 4/27/2012 2:59 PM, Artemus wrote:
"Jim wrote
in message ...
Mind stretching....

http://wmbriggs.com/

...Jim Thompson
--

Hmm. Religion is theory. Therefore ....
Art

http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2012...ief-ubc-study/

The problem with populist atheists (aside from being populists) is that they
think the inverse is also true, so they can make people think by telling
them not to believe in God. That's completely non-sequitur. If they don't
know how to take a direct approach to teaching people how to think in the
first place and decide for themselves about God then they should shut up.

--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Jim Thompson wrote:
Mind stretching....

http://wmbriggs.com/

...Jim Thompson

This makes very little sense. A theory is a very
humble thing. All it takes is one demonstrable
experiment against it and it vanishes.

snip

--
Les Cargill

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:50:03 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:

This makes very little sense. A theory is a very humble thing. All it
takes is one demonstrable experiment against it and it vanishes.

True - what it's actually a theory. Unfortunately, many, MANY people use
the word "theory" to describe any old notion that cannot, even in
principle, be falsified. Such "theories" are immune to experiment or
observation. They sound nice - they make you feel all warm and fuzzy, or
they maybe are exciting (the world's going to end again, this time on
December 12, 2012, that sort of thing). Of course, that one's
falsifiable.

Not so the ones that describe "unknown" energies, "alien" technologies,
"forgotten" civilizations that left no traces, and so on. In order to
explain the profound lack of evidence, many turn to conspiracy theories
("they" have suppressed all the evidence), which again makes their
notions incapable of being falsified.

--
System going down at 1:45 this afternoon for disk crashing.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 01:00:15 -0500, flipper
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:50:03 -0500, Les Cargill
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
Mind stretching....

http://wmbriggs.com/

...Jim Thompson

This makes very little sense. A theory is a very
humble thing. All it takes is one demonstrable
experiment against it and it vanishes.

It does unless one is so in love with their theory they reject those
'demonstrable' things. In fact, it never even reaches to 'theory'
unless one proposes falsifiable and testable predictions but that
doesn't stop people from claiming their notion is not only a 'theory'
but 'true'. So called "Global Warming," or "Climate Change," is one
example as proponents have never proposed falsifiable predictions and
get quite agitated if you ask them to because, after all, it's 'true',
so there is no need to 'test' it.

What kind of predictions are you asking for, a one-hour lab
test for climate change? Climatologists most certainly
make falsifiable predictions... it's those very predictions
that seem to get some people's panties in a bunch. The only
problem is that you can't get instant results. That's
hardly the climatologists' fault!

Best regards,

Bob Masta

DAQARTA v6.02
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
Science with your sound card!

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:50:03 -0500, Les Cargill
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
Mind stretching....

http://wmbriggs.com/

...Jim Thompson

This makes very little sense. A theory is a very
humble thing. All it takes is one demonstrable
experiment against it and it vanishes.

It does unless one is so in love with their theory they reject those
'demonstrable' things.

So the people involved simply don't know what a theory *is*. Why
can't the person at the link ( who appears to have rented or
made a fairly fancy stage setup - that wasn't free ) simply *SAY*
that?

-- In fact, it never even reaches to 'theory'
unless one proposes falsifiable and testable predictions but that
doesn't stop people from claiming their notion is not only a 'theory'
but 'true'.

Some things are not testable right now for various reasons.

So called "Global Warming," or "Climate Change," is one
example as proponents have never proposed falsifiable predictions and
get quite agitated if you ask them to because, after all, it's 'true',
so there is no need to 'test' it.

AGW makes falsifiable predictions, but the time scales are
highly inconvenient...

snip

--
Les Cargill

Les Cargill wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:50:03 -0500, Les Cargill
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
Mind stretching....

http://wmbriggs.com/

...Jim Thompson

This makes very little sense. A theory is a very
humble thing. All it takes is one demonstrable
experiment against it and it vanishes.

It does unless one is so in love with their theory they reject those
'demonstrable' things.

So the people involved simply don't know what a theory *is*. Why
can't the person at the link ( who appears to have rented or
made a fairly fancy stage setup - that wasn't free ) simply *SAY*
that?

-- In fact, it never even reaches to 'theory'
unless one proposes falsifiable and testable predictions but that
doesn't stop people from claiming their notion is not only a 'theory'
but 'true'.

Some things are not testable right now for various reasons.

So called "Global Warming," or "Climate Change," is one
example as proponents have never proposed falsifiable predictions and
get quite agitated if you ask them to because, after all, it's 'true',
so there is no need to 'test' it.

AGW makes falsifiable predictions, but the time scales are
highly inconvenient...

Besides being longer than the time required to move the goal posts
again.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:31:51 -0500, flipper wrote:

snip

This makes very little sense. A theory is a very humble thing. All it
takes is one demonstrable experiment against it and it vanishes.

It does unless one is so in love with their theory they reject those
'demonstrable' things. In fact, it never even reaches to 'theory'
unless one proposes falsifiable and testable predictions but that
doesn't stop people from claiming their notion is not only a 'theory'
but 'true'. So called "Global Warming," or "Climate Change," is one
example as proponents have never proposed falsifiable predictions and
get quite agitated if you ask them to because, after all, it's 'true',
so there is no need to 'test' it.

What kind of predictions are you asking for,

The same 'kind' required for any science: testable predictions capable
of falsifying the premise.

Flipper, you've got your facts wrong. Climate scientists have made
dozens of predictions. Some few have been "confirmed" - or rather, the
observations failed to falsify the theory. Most of the predictions
require decades or centuries to show a result.

The idea of widespread glacier melting, rises in sea level, changes in
weather patterns, etc., are all predictions made by the climate
scientists.

snip

Climatologists most certainly
make falsifiable predictions...

Name one.

See above. Pretty much anything conservatives are screaming about, is a
prediction that climate scientists made about global warming.

The closest thing that came to a 'prediction' was the climate model's
atmospheric temperature distribution and it's been long enough to test.
But when it turned out observations did not match the models AGW
proponents went on a screaming fit that was *NOT A PREDICTION!!!*

Yes, AGW *proponents* do scream. They are not climate scientists. The
climate scientists don't scream.

it's those very predictions
that seem to get some people's panties in a bunch.

Hysterics about what 'might' happen are not predictions, and they'll
tell you so if you bother to ask, nor are they intended to be testable.
You're supposed to scream in terror and do what they want long before
the 'doomsday' scenario that 'might' happen.

Agreed that hysterics are not predictions. You are confusing the claims
made by proponents of AGW, with those made by climate scientists. The
climate scientists *did* predict that a rise in global temperature would
cause various climate effects. Others, non-scientists, took that ball
and ran with it, until you wind up with the Al Gore apocalypse.

Which, so called, (non) 'prediction' are you favoring this week? That
we'll burn to a crisp or a new ice age gets triggered?

No climate scientist has made any such prediction. What AGW proponents
say cannot be considered a "prediction" since they are not climate
scientists.

Btw, we are *in* an ice age, the Quaternary to be precise. We just,
fortunately, happen to be in an interglacial but, compared to the
geological mean, the earth is damn cold right now.

The only
problem is that you can't get instant results. That's hardly the
climatologists' fault!

Einstein didn't have to create warp drive to test his theory of
relativity but even if, for the sake of argument, we accept your dubious
premise it's irrelevant because science does not provide an 'exclusion'
for 'tough to test'. No falsifiable predictions is not science,
'excuses' notwithstanding, nor does it qualify as a theory.

No, but Einstein was talking about an incredibly simple system, compared
to climate. Fortunately for Einstein, he made predictions that were
readily testable. However, even he had to wait for a particular eclipse,
for one crucial test to be made.

Climate scientists have already made dozens of predictions; some of these
have failed to falsify their theories. Others require much more time to
yield measurable results, as I noted above. But yes, they've *already*
made testable predictions that could falsify their theories. Claiming
that they have not, is simply incorrect.

Again I say that you are confusing the claims by AGW proponents - non-
scientists - with the predictions made by climate scientists. This is a
mistake. Ignore what the non-scientists claim, and you wind up with some
excellent science. We just don't know where this science is taking us
yet - but that's no fault of the scientists.

--
It is very vulgar to talk like a dentist when one isn't a dentist.
It produces a false impression.
-- Oscar Wilde.