AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by CeilingCat
The first reply in that thread is from DiEb: Quote Here is the description of Harnett from Conservapedia
The same Conservapedia which gives us:
E-mc^2 is liberal claptrap ?
Here's a line from that Conservapedia article that should make Sal pause and possibly reevaluate Conservapedia's accuracy: Quote Some claim that the best empirical verification of E=mc2 was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in Nature (which is not a leading physics journal).Oops. Who's wrong, Conservapedia or Sal?
The first reply in that thread is from DiEb: Quote Here is the description of Harnett from Conservapedia
The same Conservapedia which gives us:
E-mc^2 is liberal claptrap ?
Here's a line from that Conservapedia article that should make Sal pause and possibly reevaluate Conservapedia's accuracy: Quote Some claim that the best empirical verification of E=mc2 was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in Nature (which is not a leading physics journal).Oops. Who's wrong, Conservapedia or Sal?
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 27 2013,19:44) Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 27 2013,19:31) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 27 2013,18:33)It's time to remind everyone what Gary wants to digress away from now.
Gary:
Quote
A hypothesis does not explain how something works.
Gary, of course, can't be bothered to even try to support this insupportable claim. And I was spot-on in predicting his first response as comprising a personal slam on me, where everyone can see that rather than try to support his claim Gary called me "sleazy" and "mud-slinging". What I'm pretty certain won't happen is Gary actually taking responsibility for his claims. At least, it isn't the smart bet based on the historical record.
I will again attempt to get a straight-answer.
What does the following hypothesis explain about how velociraptor communication worked/works?
If mercury orbits venus, then velociraptors wrote in cursive.
According to your definition of hypothesis: It has been scientifically confirmed that “mercury orbits venus” and “velociraptors wrote in cursive”.
Gary is confused and desperate. apparently.
Steve Story posted that conjecture. Gary had nothing to do with it, and hadn't posed any questions about it previously, so it is ludicrous for Gary to say something silly like "again attempt"; he had no previous attempt to base that upon.
Gary is invited to explain his logic for why he imagines my proposed definition would pass the quoted conjecture, but after Gary addresses the long-standing point at issue.
It's time to remind everyone what Gary wants to digress away from now.
Gary:
Quote
A hypothesis does not explain how something works.
Gary, of course, can't be bothered to even try to support this insupportable claim. And I was spot-on in predicting his first response as comprising a personal slam on me, where everyone can see that rather than try to support his claim Gary called me "sleazy" and "mud-slinging". What I'm pretty certain won't happen is Gary actually taking responsibility for his claims. At least, it isn't the smart bet based on the historical record.
This topic does have quite the record of previous attempts to get Gary to engage it, though all that Gary has done is digress away from it.
Just what I thought, instead of answering the valid question you had to deny that the hypothesis is a hypothesis.
Thankfully, your scientifically worthless definitions are being swept into the dustbins of history, by forces that you are powerless against.
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 27 2013,19:44) Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 27 2013,19:31) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 27 2013,18:33)It's time to remind everyone what Gary wants to digress away from now.
Gary:
Quote
A hypothesis does not explain how something works.
Gary, of course, can't be bothered to even try to support this insupportable claim. And I was spot-on in predicting his first response as comprising a personal slam on me, where everyone can see that rather than try to support his claim Gary called me "sleazy" and "mud-slinging". What I'm pretty certain won't happen is Gary actually taking responsibility for his claims. At least, it isn't the smart bet based on the historical record.
I will again attempt to get a straight-answer.
What does the following hypothesis explain about how velociraptor communication worked/works?
If mercury orbits venus, then velociraptors wrote in cursive.
According to your definition of hypothesis: It has been scientifically confirmed that “mercury orbits venus” and “velociraptors wrote in cursive”.
Gary is confused and desperate. apparently.
Steve Story posted that conjecture. Gary had nothing to do with it, and hadn't posed any questions about it previously, so it is ludicrous for Gary to say something silly like "again attempt"; he had no previous attempt to base that upon.
Gary is invited to explain his logic for why he imagines my proposed definition would pass the quoted conjecture, but after Gary addresses the long-standing point at issue.
It's time to remind everyone what Gary wants to digress away from now.
Gary:
Quote
A hypothesis does not explain how something works.
Gary, of course, can't be bothered to even try to support this insupportable claim. And I was spot-on in predicting his first response as comprising a personal slam on me, where everyone can see that rather than try to support his claim Gary called me "sleazy" and "mud-slinging". What I'm pretty certain won't happen is Gary actually taking responsibility for his claims. At least, it isn't the smart bet based on the historical record.
This topic does have quite the record of previous attempts to get Gary to engage it, though all that Gary has done is digress away from it.
Just what I thought, instead of answering the valid question you had to deny that the hypothesis is a hypothesis.
Thankfully, your scientifically worthless definitions are being swept into the dustbins of history, by forces that you are powerless against.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 27 2013,19:31) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 27 2013,18:33)It's time to remind everyone what Gary wants to digress away from now.
Gary:
Quote
A hypothesis does not explain how something works.
Gary, of course, can't be bothered to even try to support this insupportable claim. And I was spot-on in predicting his first response as comprising a personal slam on me, where everyone can see that rather than try to support his claim Gary called me "sleazy" and "mud-slinging". What I'm pretty certain won't happen is Gary actually taking responsibility for his claims. At least, it isn't the smart bet based on the historical record.
I will again attempt to get a straight-answer.
What does the following hypothesis explain about how velociraptor communication worked/works?
If mercury orbits venus, then velociraptors wrote in cursive.
According to your definition of hypothesis: It has been scientifically confirmed that “mercury orbits venus” and “velociraptors wrote in cursive”.
Gary is confused and desperate. apparently.
Steve Story posted that conjecture. Gary had nothing to do with it, and hadn't posed any questions about it previously, so it is ludicrous for Gary to say something silly like "again attempt"; he had no previous attempt to base that upon.
Gary is invited to explain his logic for why he imagines my proposed definition would pass the quoted conjecture, but after Gary addresses the long-standing point at issue.
It's time to remind everyone what Gary wants to digress away from now.
Gary:
Quote
A hypothesis does not explain how something works.
Gary, of course, can't be bothered to even try to support this insupportable claim. And I was spot-on in predicting his first response as comprising a personal slam on me, where everyone can see that rather than try to support his claim Gary called me "sleazy" and "mud-slinging". What I'm pretty certain won't happen is Gary actually taking responsibility for his claims. At least, it isn't the smart bet based on the historical record.
This topic does have quite the record of previous attempts to get Gary to engage it, though all that Gary has done is digress away from it.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 27 2013,19:31) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 27 2013,18:33)It's time to remind everyone what Gary wants to digress away from now.
Gary:
Quote
A hypothesis does not explain how something works.
Gary, of course, can't be bothered to even try to support this insupportable claim. And I was spot-on in predicting his first response as comprising a personal slam on me, where everyone can see that rather than try to support his claim Gary called me "sleazy" and "mud-slinging". What I'm pretty certain won't happen is Gary actually taking responsibility for his claims. At least, it isn't the smart bet based on the historical record.
I will again attempt to get a straight-answer.
What does the following hypothesis explain about how velociraptor communication worked/works?
If mercury orbits venus, then velociraptors wrote in cursive.
According to your definition of hypothesis: It has been scientifically confirmed that “mercury orbits venus” and “velociraptors wrote in cursive”.
Gary is confused and desperate. apparently.
Steve Story posted that conjecture. Gary had nothing to do with it, and hadn't posed any questions about it previously, so it is ludicrous for Gary to say something silly like "again attempt"; he had no previous attempt to base that upon.
Gary is invited to explain his logic for why he imagines my proposed definition would pass the quoted conjecture, but after Gary addresses the long-standing point at issue.
It's time to remind everyone what Gary wants to digress away from now.
Gary:
Quote
A hypothesis does not explain how something works.
Gary, of course, can't be bothered to even try to support this insupportable claim. And I was spot-on in predicting his first response as comprising a personal slam on me, where everyone can see that rather than try to support his claim Gary called me "sleazy" and "mud-slinging". What I'm pretty certain won't happen is Gary actually taking responsibility for his claims. At least, it isn't the smart bet based on the historical record.
This topic does have quite the record of previous attempts to get Gary to engage it, though all that Gary has done is digress away from it.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by NoName
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 26 2013,04:01) Quote (Quack @ May 26 2013,03:30) Quote I have right along stated that a hypothesis is a guess that is tested whether it is true or false (or somewhere in between). The Intelligence Design Lab produces guesses/hypotheses which are tested
A hypothesis does not explain how something works. That is the job of scientific theory, which provides a testable model that is improved over time that is useful for testing hypotheses, but a theory is not a hypothesis.
All right, in case you haven't got it yet (you never will): We are not interested in your ID lab or any products from that "enterprise".
IANAS, but it seems to me it is more like the job of scientists to design methods and experiments to test theories.
As long as you have no theory, there is nothing to test. As you have been told over 158 pages, you can stuff your guess producing program and sketches back where you pulled them from.
Now it is goodbye time for you Gary. Sprinkle your keyboard with superglue.
In order to ignore an inconvenient theory I could also say "you have no theory" but that's just being scientifically useless and pompous.
And scientists rarely test theories. They simple use them. Whether the theory is useful or not to them is another matter, but their not needing the theory does not make it something other than a theory.
Not really responsive, Gary.
Regardless of your own emotional investment in your effluent, you have neither theory nor hypotheses.
Insisting that you do, you do, you really really do, while doing nothing else at all to support the claims merely reinforces everyone's view of you as a petulant whiner whose output is inevitably content-free.
You say theories are used. OK, you've been called on that repeatedly -- who is using your "theory"?
No one, that's who.
It is hardly surprising that you make the mistakes you do -- a quick look at the early portions of your tiresome screed shows that you think 'natural selection' is subjective and unverifiable/unfalsifiable. Nothing could be further from the truth.
You insist we must falsify your "hypothesis". Leaving aside the inconvenient fact that you don't have a hypothesis, your insistence that there is a need for the wibble you provide is falsified by how very well science is doing without it. There are no grounds for introducing your specious notions -- Occam's razor, dear boy. Learn it and use it.
You have admitted that "molecular intelligence" is nothing more than the laws of physics and chemistry.
And that's all we need to get from atoms to molecules to DNA and random mutations. That plus differential reproductive success is all we need to have biology.
There's no room for your absurd "theory" because it has no unexplained facts to explain.
Despite its plethora of undefined terms and disconnected pseudo-concepts.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 26 2013,04:01) Quote (Quack @ May 26 2013,03:30) Quote I have right along stated that a hypothesis is a guess that is tested whether it is true or false (or somewhere in between). The Intelligence Design Lab produces guesses/hypotheses which are tested
A hypothesis does not explain how something works. That is the job of scientific theory, which provides a testable model that is improved over time that is useful for testing hypotheses, but a theory is not a hypothesis.
All right, in case you haven't got it yet (you never will): We are not interested in your ID lab or any products from that "enterprise".
IANAS, but it seems to me it is more like the job of scientists to design methods and experiments to test theories.
As long as you have no theory, there is nothing to test. As you have been told over 158 pages, you can stuff your guess producing program and sketches back where you pulled them from.
Now it is goodbye time for you Gary. Sprinkle your keyboard with superglue.
In order to ignore an inconvenient theory I could also say "you have no theory" but that's just being scientifically useless and pompous.
And scientists rarely test theories. They simple use them. Whether the theory is useful or not to them is another matter, but their not needing the theory does not make it something other than a theory.
Not really responsive, Gary.
Regardless of your own emotional investment in your effluent, you have neither theory nor hypotheses.
Insisting that you do, you do, you really really do, while doing nothing else at all to support the claims merely reinforces everyone's view of you as a petulant whiner whose output is inevitably content-free.
You say theories are used. OK, you've been called on that repeatedly -- who is using your "theory"?
No one, that's who.
It is hardly surprising that you make the mistakes you do -- a quick look at the early portions of your tiresome screed shows that you think 'natural selection' is subjective and unverifiable/unfalsifiable. Nothing could be further from the truth.
You insist we must falsify your "hypothesis". Leaving aside the inconvenient fact that you don't have a hypothesis, your insistence that there is a need for the wibble you provide is falsified by how very well science is doing without it. There are no grounds for introducing your specious notions -- Occam's razor, dear boy. Learn it and use it.
You have admitted that "molecular intelligence" is nothing more than the laws of physics and chemistry.
And that's all we need to get from atoms to molecules to DNA and random mutations. That plus differential reproductive success is all we need to have biology.
There's no room for your absurd "theory" because it has no unexplained facts to explain.
Despite its plethora of undefined terms and disconnected pseudo-concepts.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 26 2013,00:30) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 25 2013,19:37) Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 25 2013,17:18) Quote (damitall @ May 25 2013,16:48)If a natural process creates, and inserts into the genome, new specified complex information, ID is falsified.
That maybe true in your imaginative dreams. But reality requires you to falsify the hypothesis that somehow intelligence is involved in the process, and that "intelligent cause" cannot be explained by an unguided process such as natural selection (i.e.: Selection did it!)
So falsification is now restored as a component of the philosophy of science? That's good to know.
Link
Quote
Again Falsifiability is a very recent controversial "philosophy of science" from Karl Popper not the reality of the Theory of Intelligent Design where the philosophy is used in a way that would stop any politically inconvenient theory. Finding bunnies in the Cambrian would result in pet alien-bunnies theories but the GA would still work so just be a windfall, not falsification. The philosophy is in reality more describing the attributes of a hypothesis. The "falsification" science-stopper does not deserve to be taught as requirement for theory.
A theory should have a model in it, that explains how something works. Questions are then in turn answered. Forever going in circles to meet requirements of what another considers to be falsification is scientifically pointless.
Link
Quote
I am talking about the year 2012:
MARXISM-POPPERISM AND BIOLOGY
There are a number of scholarly articles to be found online for Karl Popper and Popperism. I chose this link from Russia because of the way it quickly points out similarities with what Russia already learned a tragic lesson about.
Link
Quote
I am aware that Karl Popper based his work on others in philosophy. But that that does not make it science.
The myth is that Popperism (falsification) is the foundation upon which the scientific method is based upon, when in fact the scientific method dates back to around the time of Prophet Muhammad or earlier.
Link
Quote
Without having to go into sordid historical examples such as similar repression by the Stalinist Atheism movement, the NCSE and others have been using the ID controversy to impose their religious/philosophical views into the science classrooms. Popperism (falsification), philosophical naturalism, and other scientifically useless philosophies which only lead to arguments (normally because of those who correctly point out that it's not really "science" it's their personal philosophy/religion) are all examples of how the science classrooms can be used to promote a religious world-view. Scientific integrity is sabotaged, for the benefit of self-appointed control-freaks who need to redefine "theory" and "hypothesis" in order to stop progress of emerging sciences and scientists who do not help further their religious goals.
Try to pay attention to important detail, such as in this case the words "hypothesis" and "theory" which are not the same thing.
I have right along stated that a hypothesis is a guess that is tested whether it is true or false (or somewhere in between). The Intelligence Design Lab produces guesses/hypotheses which are tested
A hypothesis does not explain how something works. That is the job of scientific theory, which provides a testable model that is improved over time that is useful for testing hypotheses, but a theory is not a hypothesis.
Philosophy that confuses theory and hypothesis in a way that makes them the exact same thing is an antiscientific pursuit, usually as an easy way out of having to have your own theory for how a phenomenon such as "intelligent cause" works before being able to challenge the "coherence" of existing scientific theory.
The documented record shows that Gary has not been consistent in making any such distinction. Notice the quote about science predating Popper above especially, where the utility of Popper's thought is disputed in its entirety.
The notion that hypotheses never propose mechanisms is just the latest of ludicrous whoppers Gary has brought forth.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 26 2013,00:30) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 25 2013,19:37) Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 25 2013,17:18) Quote (damitall @ May 25 2013,16:48)If a natural process creates, and inserts into the genome, new specified complex information, ID is falsified.
That maybe true in your imaginative dreams. But reality requires you to falsify the hypothesis that somehow intelligence is involved in the process, and that "intelligent cause" cannot be explained by an unguided process such as natural selection (i.e.: Selection did it!)
So falsification is now restored as a component of the philosophy of science? That's good to know.
Link
Quote
Again Falsifiability is a very recent controversial "philosophy of science" from Karl Popper not the reality of the Theory of Intelligent Design where the philosophy is used in a way that would stop any politically inconvenient theory. Finding bunnies in the Cambrian would result in pet alien-bunnies theories but the GA would still work so just be a windfall, not falsification. The philosophy is in reality more describing the attributes of a hypothesis. The "falsification" science-stopper does not deserve to be taught as requirement for theory.
A theory should have a model in it, that explains how something works. Questions are then in turn answered. Forever going in circles to meet requirements of what another considers to be falsification is scientifically pointless.
Link
Quote
I am talking about the year 2012:
MARXISM-POPPERISM AND BIOLOGY
There are a number of scholarly articles to be found online for Karl Popper and Popperism. I chose this link from Russia because of the way it quickly points out similarities with what Russia already learned a tragic lesson about.
Link
Quote
I am aware that Karl Popper based his work on others in philosophy. But that that does not make it science.
The myth is that Popperism (falsification) is the foundation upon which the scientific method is based upon, when in fact the scientific method dates back to around the time of Prophet Muhammad or earlier.
Link
Quote
Without having to go into sordid historical examples such as similar repression by the Stalinist Atheism movement, the NCSE and others have been using the ID controversy to impose their religious/philosophical views into the science classrooms. Popperism (falsification), philosophical naturalism, and other scientifically useless philosophies which only lead to arguments (normally because of those who correctly point out that it's not really "science" it's their personal philosophy/religion) are all examples of how the science classrooms can be used to promote a religious world-view. Scientific integrity is sabotaged, for the benefit of self-appointed control-freaks who need to redefine "theory" and "hypothesis" in order to stop progress of emerging sciences and scientists who do not help further their religious goals.
Try to pay attention to important detail, such as in this case the words "hypothesis" and "theory" which are not the same thing.
I have right along stated that a hypothesis is a guess that is tested whether it is true or false (or somewhere in between). The Intelligence Design Lab produces guesses/hypotheses which are tested
A hypothesis does not explain how something works. That is the job of scientific theory, which provides a testable model that is improved over time that is useful for testing hypotheses, but a theory is not a hypothesis.
Philosophy that confuses theory and hypothesis in a way that makes them the exact same thing is an antiscientific pursuit, usually as an easy way out of having to have your own theory for how a phenomenon such as "intelligent cause" works before being able to challenge the "coherence" of existing scientific theory.
The documented record shows that Gary has not been consistent in making any such distinction. Notice the quote about science predating Popper above especially, where the utility of Popper's thought is disputed in its entirety.
The notion that hypotheses never propose mechanisms is just the latest of ludicrous whoppers Gary has brought forth.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by k.e..
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 26 2013,12:18) Quote (Richardthughes @ May 26 2013,04:09)Idiot. Every use of a theory tests it.
That's nice, sir pompous.
But that does not make the theory go away. It's always still there...
Nice projection GaGa. Yo are in Mode2, whining.
Three Questions:
1. Precisely what is YOUR Hypothesis;
2. What is YOUR 'Theory' to explain said Hypothesis; and
3. What test do you propose to falsify your 'Theory'.
Write the answers in plain English GaGa and piss cartoons off, they add nothing.
No more than 25 words are required.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 26 2013,12:18) Quote (Richardthughes @ May 26 2013,04:09)Idiot. Every use of a theory tests it.
That's nice, sir pompous.
But that does not make the theory go away. It's always still there...
Nice projection GaGa. Yo are in Mode2, whining.
Three Questions:
1. Precisely what is YOUR Hypothesis;
2. What is YOUR 'Theory' to explain said Hypothesis; and
3. What test do you propose to falsify your 'Theory'.
Write the answers in plain English GaGa and piss cartoons off, they add nothing.
No more than 25 words are required.
Categories: AE Public BB
The Skeptical Zone
Post by timothya
DNS must update more quickly in parts of the world where marsupials congregate.
DNS must update more quickly in parts of the world where marsupials congregate.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Febble
Well for a Canadian, and one who has actually co-authored a book on neuroscience, you'd have think she'd have a greater acquaintance with Donald Hebb.
Or perhaps she thinks that LTP and LTD result from non-material processes that is only coincidentally correlated with the firing of a synapse.
Or that the firing of synapses are unrelated to thought.
Or something.
It's weird.
Well for a Canadian, and one who has actually co-authored a book on neuroscience, you'd have think she'd have a greater acquaintance with Donald Hebb.
Or perhaps she thinks that LTP and LTD result from non-material processes that is only coincidentally correlated with the firing of a synapse.
Or that the firing of synapses are unrelated to thought.
Or something.
It's weird.
Categories: AE Public BB
The Skeptical Zone
Post by Freddie
If you now have access to the server you can find its IP address in your DNS cache:
ipconfig /displaydns
Then just post it here and we may be able to find the server using the IP
If you now have access to the server you can find its IP address in your DNS cache:
ipconfig /displaydns
Then just post it here and we may be able to find the server using the IP
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Question:
Is Ptolemaic Theory still a "theory" or is it now called Ptolemaic Hypothesis or something else to indicate it's not a "theory"?
Hint:
ptolemaic_theory
Question:
Is Ptolemaic Theory still a "theory" or is it now called Ptolemaic Hypothesis or something else to indicate it's not a "theory"?
Hint:
ptolemaic_theory
Categories: AE Public BB
The Skeptical Zone
Post by Freddie
What I assume is the old IP address is still being served up, even by Google's DNS. This is 95.142.159.2.
If you can determine the IP address of the new server, a quick workaround might be to use the URL syntax http:// a.b.c.d where a.b.c.d is the real IP address of the server (without the space after the colon as this site then interprets this as a real URL and formats it!)
Quote > theskepticalzone.com
Server: google-public-dns-a.google.com
Address: 8.8.8.8
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: theskepticalzone.com
Address: 95.142.159.2
Might be worth a shot.
What I assume is the old IP address is still being served up, even by Google's DNS. This is 95.142.159.2.
If you can determine the IP address of the new server, a quick workaround might be to use the URL syntax http:// a.b.c.d where a.b.c.d is the real IP address of the server (without the space after the colon as this site then interprets this as a real URL and formats it!)
Quote > theskepticalzone.com
Server: google-public-dns-a.google.com
Address: 8.8.8.8
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: theskepticalzone.com
Address: 95.142.159.2
Might be worth a shot.
Categories: AE Public BB
The Skeptical Zone
Post by Febble
In sort of fairness to webhostingpad they were quite good over the hack. And also, the last outage was the domain registrar (register.com) not webhostingpad.
The big problem with webhostingpad that they have these rules about how much service you can have, with no way of warning you when you are sailing close to the wind.
Which makes it useless, really. And they don't tell you how to fix it, and once your account is suspended it seems you go to the bottom of the support priority queue.
Presumably they won't refund my remaining year's subscription, which makes them not even so cheap. And loads of downtime of course. Hope that will improve now.
In sort of fairness to webhostingpad they were quite good over the hack. And also, the last outage was the domain registrar (register.com) not webhostingpad.
The big problem with webhostingpad that they have these rules about how much service you can have, with no way of warning you when you are sailing close to the wind.
Which makes it useless, really. And they don't tell you how to fix it, and once your account is suspended it seems you go to the bottom of the support priority queue.
Presumably they won't refund my remaining year's subscription, which makes them not even so cheap. And loads of downtime of course. Hope that will improve now.
Categories: AE Public BB
The Skeptical Zone
Post by Febble
That's a shame. I've got penguins again, but it took overnight for me.
I did the dnsflush thing. dunno if that helped.
That's a shame. I've got penguins again, but it took overnight for me.
I did the dnsflush thing. dunno if that helped.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 26 2013,04:09)Idiot. Every use of a theory tests it.
That's nice, sir pompous.
But that does not make the theory go away. It's always still there...
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 26 2013,04:09)Idiot. Every use of a theory tests it.
That's nice, sir pompous.
But that does not make the theory go away. It's always still there...
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Richardthughes
Idiot. Every use of a theory tests it.
Idiot. Every use of a theory tests it.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Quack @ May 26 2013,03:30) Quote I have right along stated that a hypothesis is a guess that is tested whether it is true or false (or somewhere in between). The Intelligence Design Lab produces guesses/hypotheses which are tested
A hypothesis does not explain how something works. That is the job of scientific theory, which provides a testable model that is improved over time that is useful for testing hypotheses, but a theory is not a hypothesis.
All right, in case you haven't got it yet (you never will): We are not interested in your ID lab or any products from that "enterprise".
IANAS, but it seems to me it is more like the job of scientists to design methods and experiments to test theories.
As long as you have no theory, there is nothing to test. As you have been told over 158 pages, you can stuff your guess producing program and sketches back where you pulled them from.
Now it is goodbye time for you Gary. Sprinkle your keyboard with superglue.
In order to ignore an inconvenient theory I could also say "you have no theory" but that's just being scientifically useless and pompous.
And scientists rarely test theories. They simple use them. Whether the theory is useful or not to them is another matter, but their not needing the theory does not make it something other than a theory.
Quote (Quack @ May 26 2013,03:30) Quote I have right along stated that a hypothesis is a guess that is tested whether it is true or false (or somewhere in between). The Intelligence Design Lab produces guesses/hypotheses which are tested
A hypothesis does not explain how something works. That is the job of scientific theory, which provides a testable model that is improved over time that is useful for testing hypotheses, but a theory is not a hypothesis.
All right, in case you haven't got it yet (you never will): We are not interested in your ID lab or any products from that "enterprise".
IANAS, but it seems to me it is more like the job of scientists to design methods and experiments to test theories.
As long as you have no theory, there is nothing to test. As you have been told over 158 pages, you can stuff your guess producing program and sketches back where you pulled them from.
Now it is goodbye time for you Gary. Sprinkle your keyboard with superglue.
In order to ignore an inconvenient theory I could also say "you have no theory" but that's just being scientifically useless and pompous.
And scientists rarely test theories. They simple use them. Whether the theory is useful or not to them is another matter, but their not needing the theory does not make it something other than a theory.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Quack
Quote I have right along stated that a hypothesis is a guess that is tested whether it is true or false (or somewhere in between). The Intelligence Design Lab produces guesses/hypotheses which are tested
A hypothesis does not explain how something works. That is the job of scientific theory, which provides a testable model that is improved over time that is useful for testing hypotheses, but a theory is not a hypothesis.
All right, in case you haven't got it yet (you never will): We are not interested in your ID lab or any products from that "enterprise".
IANAS, but it seems to me it is more like the job of scientists to design methods and experiments to test theories.
As long as you have no theory, there is nothing to test. As you have been told over 158 pages, you can stuff your guess producing program and sketches back where you pulled them from.
Now it is goodbye time for you Gary. Sprinkle your keyboard with superglue.
Quote I have right along stated that a hypothesis is a guess that is tested whether it is true or false (or somewhere in between). The Intelligence Design Lab produces guesses/hypotheses which are tested
A hypothesis does not explain how something works. That is the job of scientific theory, which provides a testable model that is improved over time that is useful for testing hypotheses, but a theory is not a hypothesis.
All right, in case you haven't got it yet (you never will): We are not interested in your ID lab or any products from that "enterprise".
IANAS, but it seems to me it is more like the job of scientists to design methods and experiments to test theories.
As long as you have no theory, there is nothing to test. As you have been told over 158 pages, you can stuff your guess producing program and sketches back where you pulled them from.
Now it is goodbye time for you Gary. Sprinkle your keyboard with superglue.
Categories: AE Public BB
