Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Your Socialist Herd-mentality Fails To Overturn High Standards

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by M.W.Pearson on November 29, 2002 18:33:49 UTC

So much of what Nicholas wrote is
ranting and raving that I am not
presuming he really believes the
inconsistencies and poor structures
of his arguments. There is a presumption
that his social improvements cause better
science but then he does not credit folks
like me who worked and advocated for
social improvements. In fact, he implies
"rich white guys" have been the problem
all along.
1) He implies "changes" are all yielding improvements but they are not self-evidently so.
In the tradition of Aristotle, maybe we
should just accept his word on this. I don't.

2) Nicholas' reference to "rich white guys" is
just more of his pathology showing through,
plus his ignorance of the demographics of
science in history, and the causes of bad
science (which include racism against whites).

3) His comparisons between a trial and science
display an ignorance of "apples and oranges" where
he does not appear to know either fruit very well.

Nicholas: "That's accurate. This is not like, and should not be compared to, a trial."

Then he proceeds to compare it to a trial.

Nicholas: "Good scientific theories (like relativity) will prove themselves by successfully predicting phenomena, so information is constantly coming in. In a trial, all of the information should have already been collected and the lawyers don't have a chance to "predict" future findings or events."

When scientists debate a theory's applications,
each step (data gathering, instrumentation, procedure) must be examined as evidence. There
is an information gathering stage and an interpretation stage. They don't do all their
work around the incoming data stream; nor does
the information-gathering stage have permanent funding.

Nicholas: "A new theory is basically presumed to be wrong until it can prove otherwise."

Mike: Your point being?

"There is another thing that's different about science, not everybody gets equal participation.."

Mike: How is that different about science?

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins