Posted on 06/07/2010 5:29:41 PM PDT by decimon
Incidentally, is there a date ad terminus on the collision?
Cheers!
In all 57 states.
The Universe is very old; experts agree.
Bush’s fault. Dang SUVs caused that collision. Must have driven by women.
“We cannot know the age of the Earth, because it’s not only not observable, the processes involved are, as of yet, unobservable to us.”
Nonsense.
Such mastery of the English language. Very impressive.
I don't blame he/she/it -- I am pretty interesting.
Get a room then!
Worry about who pays the rent in the morning....
Will this affect my Vegas plans next month?
;)
When forming a coherent whole, it is a good idea to know the size of the likely error bars on different pieces...
Cheers!
Ok, then we can agree to disagree. But this still doesn’t meet the definition of “science.”
:)
If you can only account for what you can directly observe, and only within the observed sample, then the variables are, for all practical purposes, infinite. Experimentation is worthless, because any results can only be assumed to be valid for that one sample.
If you get identical results in another sample, or another 1000 samples it might just be conicidence. You cannot say, even after 1000 identical results that number 1001 will be the same, because you haven't seen it yet.
This will revolutionize technology and science. We may very well have seen our last scientific discovery, natural law, or discovered constant.
Cheers!
Gee, I must be a moron.
I always thought God created the Earth and the Moon.
Good luck arguing with the insane.
Thank you.
Correct. The more variables we can understand, the better we can predct the probability of an outcome. That’s why scientific experiments, as you should well know, have constants of temperature, air pressure, instruments of analysis, and so on and so on. Because those “constants” are only constant under those conditions. It is possible to know how a system will behave, IF you can account for all constants. However, some systems are so complex, it is impossible as of yet.
You hit the nail on the head. Thank you for pointing it out. It’s not to say that science can’t be applied, but when more is unknown than known, and there is nothing observable upon which to base an outlandish claim, then it has no place in science.
Correct, but we don’t know how, and likely never will. This, is just a matter of conjecture.
But people should still strive to learn, and oneday we may have a lot that we can’t figure out revealed to us, it’s just that academics haven’t just figured out how to say the magic words, “I don’t know.”
“Here’s another for you. Definition of Fact:
“Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.”
Still observable. Only a moron would continue to argue with a clearly and repeatedly defined word, and pretend it is something else, so please don’t. SCIENCE MUST BE OBSERVABLE, AND MEASURABLE, PERIOD.”
Perhaps you need to consider that a theory is based on observations, and that includes observations of consequences. We as yet have no idea whatsoever what the source of gravity is, but we certainly can observe its consequences. We can’t directly observe what’s happening in the atomic nucleus but that doesn’t mean that we don’t have a sufficiently complete and testable model (theory) based on our observations to make accurate future predictions. That’s what makes controllable nuclear reactions possible.
Based on your posts I seriously doubt you have any formal training in the sciences beyond the grade school level. That’s OK though, most people don’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.