Dna Power Plants

[A-wal]

You a scoundrel? Oh no, I don't believe you have the talent for that designation.

And yet somebody saw fit to make you a moderator? You have already demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that you have neither the temperament nor the talent for the job, resorting to insults rather than arguments. And yet here we are.

 

As for dogma, it sounds like anything you don't agree with is "dogma." 

 

That's not terribly original, dear.

No it's dogma if it continues to be taught after being proven wrong. The standard model predicted what was out there with an accuracy of what, 5%? The rest is 'dark'. A model that made a prediction that matched observations by only a few % continues to be presented as factual. Dogma!

 

Pluto would still have been declassified if NDT hadn't have said anything. Just because he's the one you heard it from doesn't mean he was responsible dear.

[Buffy]

And yet somebody saw fit to make you a moderator? You have already demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that you have neither the temperament nor the talent for the job, resorting to insults rather than arguments. And yet here we are.

 

All of us have already found that your penchant for insisting you are the only valid arbiter of validity, taste, beauty and truth, and it has been found wanting.

 

My job as a moderator--worse actually, I'm an Admin--means that it's my job to um, *encourage* people to behave in a civil manner. Some people take gentle reminders of the rules and general civility to heart and act appropriately. Others are more anti-social and they require more severe measures. One of the things that mods can do is keep such people away from the rest of the membership by "drawing their fire" to keep them from attacking others.

 

It's a tough job but somebody has got to do it.

 

Now a general logical rule of social interactions is that if you've got a bunch of people yelling at you, it's a reasonable hypothesis that the problem is not with all of those people.

 

It's also generally a good idea that if you go some place and don't have fun there--maybe because people yell at you--that you might want to consider not going there any more.

 

It's something to think about.

 

 

No it's dogma if it continues to be taught after being proven wrong. The standard model predicted what was out there with an accuracy of what, 5%? The rest is 'dark'. A model that made a prediction that matched observations by only a few % continues to be presented as factual. Dogma!

 

If you're going to insist that you're the only one who can judge what a valid and useful model is, you may find a lot of people here yelling at you.

 

Oh my. You may have noticed that already.

 

 

Pluto would still have been declassified if NDT hadn't have said anything. Just because he's the one you heard it from doesn't mean he was responsible dear.

 

Of course if Neil hadn't publicized it so effectively, most text books would still include the old Dogma that Pluto is a planet. That would make Neil a "good scientist" (one of your 10 from another post), who is open to new theories. But Neil supports BBT and has doubts about M-theory (no really, I've talked to him about it), so that makes him an Idiot Slave to Dogma.

 

Or something.

 

 

Really don't mind if you sit this one out, my word's but a whisper your deafness a shout, :phones:

Buffy

[exchemist]

 

 

No it's dogma if it continues to be taught after being proven wrong. The standard model predicted what was out there with an accuracy of what, 5%? The rest is 'dark'. A model that made a prediction that matched observations by only a few % continues to be presented as factual. Dogma!

 

Pluto would still have been declassified if NDT hadn't have said anything. Just because he's the one you heard it from doesn't mean he was responsible dear.

You admit to having no science training and yet you think you know that this cosmological model is taught as fact. How do you know? From sitting at the back in academic cosmology lectures?  From perusing university curricula? From TV programmes? From scientific papers?

 

A number of us have pointed out, many times, in various threads, that all science theories are models and subject to revision, improvement or overthrow in the light of new objective (=reproducible) observational evidence. This is blindingly obvious in the case of cosmology, where everyone acknowledges there are many things yet to be accounted for and models are therefore in a constant state of flux and contention.

 

Scientists on the telly tend not to preface their remarks with a philosophical caveat statement: it would detract from the gosh-wow factor that TV producers look for. And the editing of media interviews is notoriously ruthless. Not being a scientist, you appear to think that because no such preamble is present in a TV programme, a paper or an article, it must follow that the subject of it is being presented as fact. The observations will be. But the interpretation, in terms of one or more models, will not be. Those of us who are scientists all know that.  It does not have to be restated all the time.

 

Now, it is certainly true that some publicity-hungry scientists (like deGrasse Tyson for example?) can't resist going on the telly and overstating the degree of certainty attached to certain things - sometimes goaded by the arbitrary rejections of models, by ignorant people who refuse to learn. But science does not consist in the statements of a mouthy scientist.

 

Your prejudice against scientists and your rudeness have been well-ventiliated on this forum and a number of us have noted it. If you can't control this you become less worthwhile to correspond with.  Which is a pity, as you are obviously an intelligent and quite well-read person.  I don't mind debating with you, but not if you are going to accuse me and people similarly trained of lack of integrity and psychological weakness, and call my opinions "batshit", without providing any justification.  I have also had to report you for patronisingly sexist use of language, which is a shame, too. 

Edited May 19, 2017 by exchemist

[JMJones0424]

All of us have already found that your penchant for insisting you are the only valid arbiter of validity, taste, beauty and truth, and it has been found wanting.

 

My job as a moderator--worse actually, I'm an Admin--means that it's my job to um, *encourage* people to behave in a civil manner. 

I respectfully disagree.  Civility is only conditionally warranted.  We may agree that another's definition of validity, taste, beauty, and truth is wanting, but this agreement is irrelevant in a science forum.  What is relevant is the statement as fact of conclusions that are not supported by observation.  There exists the possibility that certain respondents do not deserve civility if this is meant to be a science forum.

 

EDIT:  As a respected turtle might say, I won't go swimming in your toilet, please don't piss in my pool.  It may be that this forum wishes to court pool pissers, but I have no interest whatsoever in doing so.  If courting pool pissers has become the mission of this forum, then I find this forum almost useless.  We shouldn't have to agree that pool pissers are not good arbiters of validity, taste, beauty, and truth.  They are pool pissers because they piss in the pool.  They provide no evidence for their claims.  And our pool is supposed to be science.

Edited May 21, 2017 by JMJones0424

[A-wal]

All of us have already found that your penchant for insisting you are the only valid arbiter of validity, taste, beauty and truth, and it has been found wanting.

 

My job as a moderator--worse actually, I'm an Admin--means that it's my job to um, *encourage* people to behave in a civil manner. Some people take gentle reminders of the rules and general civility to heart and act appropriately. Others are more anti-social and they require more severe measures. One of the things that mods can do is keep such people away from the rest of the membership by "drawing their fire" to keep them from attacking others.

 

It's a tough job but somebody has got to do it.

 

Now a general logical rule of social interactions is that if you've got a bunch of people yelling at you, it's a reasonable hypothesis that the problem is not with all of those people.

 

It's also generally a good idea that if you go some place and don't have fun there--maybe because people yell at you--that you might want to consider not going there any more.

 

It's something to think about.

 

 

 

If you're going to insist that you're the only one who can judge what a valid and useful model is, you may find a lot of people here yelling at you.

 

Oh my. You may have noticed that already.

'Yelling' is a sign that they have no reasonable arguments to back up basses assertions that they'd buy into only because they're officially accepted, not because they have any real validity. If the officially accepted assertions were different then they be arguing for those instead, regardless on whether the evidence were the same as it is now.

 

You admit to having no science training and yet you think you know that this cosmological model is taught as fact. How do you know? From sitting at the back in academic cosmology lectures?  From perusing university curricula? From TV programmes? From scientific papers?

 

A number of us have pointed out, many times, in various threads, that all science theories are models and subject to revision, improvement or overthrow in the light of new objective (=reproducible) observational evidence. This is blindingly obvious in the case of cosmology, where everyone acknowledges there are many things yet to be accounted for and models are therefore in a constant state of flux and contention.

 

Scientists on the telly tend not to preface their remarks with a philosophical caveat statement: it would detract from the gosh-wow factor that TV producers look for. And the editing of media interviews is notoriously ruthless. Not being a scientist, you appear to think that because no such preamble is present in a TV programme, a paper or an article, it must follow that the subject of it is being presented as fact. The observations will be. But the interpretation, in terms of one or more models, will not be. Those of us who are scientists all know that.  It does not have to be restated all the time.

 

Now, it is certainly true that some publicity-hungry scientists (like deGrasse Tyson for example?) can't resist going on the telly and overstating the degree of certainty attached to certain things - sometimes goaded by the arbitrary rejections of models, by ignorant people who refuse to learn. But science does not consist in the statements of a mouthy scientist.

Once a model has established itself, the amount of evidence against it that gets ignored or misinterpreted to fit the model is ridiculous. Disproved models aren't treated as presented as indisputable facts. You're trying to paint science as this enlightened institution where open inquiry and free dialogue are encouraged but nothing could be further from the truth. There's countless example of scientists losing their jobs because they dare to question standard assumptions. At the very least they're attacked and/or ridiculed just for being honest. Recent reaction to scientists who dared to question inflation: https://www.yahoo.com/news/big-bang-big-bounce-stephen-113222120.html

 

Your prejudice against scientists and your rudeness have been well-ventiliated on this forum and a number of us have noted it. If you can't control this you become less worthwhile to correspond with.  Which is a pity, as you are obviously an intelligent and quite well-read person.  I don't mind debating with you, but not if you are going to accuse me and people similarly trained of lack of integrity and psychological weakness, and call my opinions "batshit", without providing any justification.

I tend to already be in combat mode when I come here because of the level of ignorance and denial that I'm having to deal with,

 

I have also had to report you for patronisingly sexist use of language, which is a shame, too. 

Is that a joke? I'm as far from sexiest as you can get but she keeps calling me dear! Did you report her?

 

I respectfully disagree.  Civility is only conditionally warranted.  We may agree that another's definition of validity, taste, beauty, and truth is wanting, but this agreement is irrelevant in a science forum.  What is relevant is the statement as fact of conclusions that are not supported by observation.  There exists the possibility that certain respondents do not deserve civility if this is meant to be a science forum.

I agree. The amount of false information that's given by science that's in no way supported by evidence is astonishing and some people here are probably not deserving of civility but what can you do.

Edited May 21, 2017 by A-wal

[JMJones0424]

I agree. The amount of false information that's given by science that's in no way supported by evidence is astonishing and some people here are probably not deserving of civility but what can you do.

 

 

Your agreement seems to me to be misplaced, as I am specifically arguing against your unfounded assertions.  You haven't provided any evidence for what you claim is the false information that's given by "science".  If you understood what science is, then you'd know that such a claim is ludicrous on its face.  Support your claims with evidence, and regardless of the previous understanding, your claims must be dealt with.  Make idiotic claims without evidence, and your claims will rightfully be ignored.  If you agree with me, then I have failed to make my point, because I am specifically arguing against the utility of your posts.

Edited May 25, 2017 by JMJones0424