L - Lucy's species C - new teeth R - Chimp
Posted on 04/19/2006 11:19:40 AM PDT by furball4paws
L - Lucy's species C - new teeth R - Chimp
That thing has three sets of wisdom teeth. It's obviously quite advanced.
Yep, it is just you. A few of the most noble purposes of scientific publishing are to invite debate, reveal evidence found and provoke commentary on the working hypotheses.
Nonetheless, scientists do sometimes jump the gun. According to some sources, even some Physics Nobelists have done so.
Can't find the quote now, but there is an episode in Nobel Dreams (by Gary Taubes, IIRC) concerning Carlo Rubbia and his claim of the discovery of the Z particle.
There was a dispute with one of the female scientists about the "tracks" from which the Z was inferred, and when challenged, Rubbia said, "It was a good Z, it just wasn't a perfect Z." (or words to that effect).
Later, to another colleague, Rubbia said, "Women just don't know how to play poker"...
Taubes quotes another colleague as pointing out that when a prior high-energy physicist [whose name escapes me] had come up with evidence for a particular particle, "he had spent months checking his instruments. And yet his signal stood out like the Eiffel Tower." Taubes quoted the colleague to criticize Rubbia for how quickly he had rushed his results to publication.
Full Disclosure: The book's ISBN is 1556151128. I read it twenty years ago and am quoting from admittedly hazy memory; the book is probably mouldering in my garage somewhere and I don't have the time to go out and get the quotes perfect. Second Disclosure: I don't know whether Taubes is considered reliable, or a hack writer. Yes, Rubbia won the Nobel prize for his discoveries. But if the accounts in the book are correct, it sounds like he did push the envelope a bit...
Cheers!
The best engineering in the world can't fix bad science. I worked on the testing of the tile repair systems for the shuttle. We engineered a backpack device that could place ablative material in a damage site on the orbiter in 0-g, vacuum, operated by a crewmember in the suit. We could get the crewmember to the worksite with the backpack, perform the repair, with contingency mechanism for all the "just in case" event we could imagine. The decision was made higher up, over my objections, to parallel path the ablator material science and the engineering and operations development. In the end, the material bubbled in vacuum, and peeled out of the damage site under reentry dynamic pressure. The project was finally scrapped because the material didn't work. Beautiful engineering, ruined by bad (or non existent) science. And don't even bring up the issue of money....
Opinion seeks its agenda by name calling , lack of knowledge, accusation, misrepresentation, distortion of terms, other unethical acts and in the end when frustrated violence.
In all of its history it has never provided a new fact or any new knowledge.
It remains the same today because it provides no new fact or knowledge.
It remains irrelevant.
This wouldn't be your opinion, would it....
If not, then I'd be interested to see the peer reviewed scientific evidence that supports these statements.
If that is true, then why is science incapable of discovering God?
If not, then I'd be interested to see the peer reviewed scientific evidence that supports these statements.
This you should have learned by the eight grade, the tenth grade at the latest or at least that was about the standard for education in the 1950's.
However since you have either ignored or been deprived of your education you might want to start simple. There are only three methods of acquiring knowledge known to man and they are defined as Philosophy, Science, and Mathematics. Each has a different method than any other and each has a definitive view of opinion on which they agree.
"Philosophy and its method is defined as a logical deducted argument for proof of faith and belief that is unknown". Philosophy does not accept opinion either as method or proof. Opinion is simply ones thoughts or what they think without the necessary arguments or logical deductions for proof. In a classical classroom setting the statements (in my opinion or I think) would receive severe reprimand. The professor might ask one to leave and not return until the one was without opinion. Philosophy itself has provided little or no new knowledge in thousands of years.
"Science and its method is the observation of material facts, evidence and empirical evidence for the facts and a explanation of the evidence and facts that constitutes theory". Science does not recognize the terms proof, truth, or opinion but accepts theory as a higher order than any of the three. Your desire that I'd be interested to see the peer reviewed scientific evidence that supports these statements demonstrates that you have little knowledge of science and its method or you would know that opinion is not a observable fact and is not even considered by science. It is also a good demonstration of how a opinionest misuses terms and meanings, demonstrates a lack of knowledge and would make a accusation or make a illogical request by definition for agenda.
Mathematics and its method is using numbers and symbols to determine proofs, absolutes, and laws. It does not accept opinion, theory or faith and belief. Mathematics has determined that 2+2=4 is absolute. One's opinion that it may be anything else is useless babble and illogical individual thought by definition and a purpose of a agenda.
Last is the failed method of knowledge; opinion or the agenda of a opinionest that has already been stated above. Socrates is the father of philosophy and discredited opinion as knowledge before Plato. Opinionests and those of opinion sentenced him to his death for his logic.
I have seen your posts most often and all of the above has been presented on these threads many times but you have rejected all definitions that are not of your opinion and agenda. You could have just googled up definitions and methods of all of the above but choose instead to attempt a discrediting of me by your opinion. Some have offered that it is most sad and pitiful that some with the information and knowledge of the three methods available at their fingertips would ignore more education and seek the failed method of opinion./
If that is true, then why is science incapable of discovering God?
By opinion you ignore definition. Science is the method of observation of fact and the evidence and explanation of the fact. God is not a fact, it's faith and belief. God is argued by philosophy. When you can present God as a observable fact science will explain God and you will have no further need of your opinions.
A half dozen broken teeth. It couldn't be any clearer than that, could it?<knowing applause>A half dozen documents linking Saddam to al-Qaeda.
Thank you for your time though...
I pinged the list, and you're on the list. Perhaps it's due to intervention by the Grand Master. You know how he likes those urinal cakes to be patted dry after each usage.
hing like a few urinal posts to move the thread along.
I do my best. :)
Life is tough down there in the "brown-ops" division.
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.