Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 105
Like Tree29Likes

Thread: Philosophy of Scientific Rejection

  1. #1 Philosophy of Scientific Rejection 
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,374
    I thought the philosophy subforum needed a change from religion, existence , reality and knowledge.

    How much pressure do scientists face when venturing beyond conventional thinking? I wonder if it has laid waste to those not strong enough to voice opinions on science matters when they ultimately might have proven to be correct. I understand that in order to introduce a new theory or postulate an idea that peers may be comfortable with, a scientist will need to produce experimental evidence. What if there is no way to experiment, to observe?

    If the scientific community accepted every unconventional or out-of-the box idea then what would be the state of science today? Is it better for everyone involved in science that they stick to what is working, insuring that only positively peer reviewed ideas get through whereas everything else gets tossed in the scrap heap? Do you think progress is affected when the possibility exists that one may face embarrassment, ridicule, ruination and exile from the scientific community for their contributions, IOW's should science be more receptive?

    It' feels like there's a set of accepted unwritten rules pertaining to the introduction of new ideas but don't get me wrong, I'm all for weeding out the quackery. I think it makes science stronger but at the same time I wonder if the odd 'diamond in the rough' idea gets postponed or trashed forever just because the current system is tough to crack. It's a highly guarded and selective profession, appears somewhat prejudicial at times, yet sharing a mandate to get it right.

    Still I don't know enough about what is expected of a scientist amongst his/her peers. What is it that compels scientists to protect their theories so fervently? Is there a philosophy of rejection guiding or influencing those that dare to contaminate or upset conventional wisdom within the scientific community.


    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    It' feels like there's a set of accepted unwritten rules pertaining to the introduction of new ideas but don't get me wrong, I'm all for weeding out the quackery. I think it makes science stronger but at the same time I wonder if the odd 'diamond in the rough' idea gets postponed or trashed forever just because the current system is tough to crack. It's a highly guarded and selective profession, appears somewhat prejudicial at times, yet sharing a mandate to get it right.
    The key word in there is forever. If an idea has some merit unrecognised at the moment it will, one day, get the necessary recognition. The fact that the one day might not occur in any given person's lifetime is not really a problem - it's just an acknowledgement that science is bigger than all of us. We may all be sad for all the people who died from unnecessary, preventable causes when, eventually, a vaccine or an easy cure is found that might have been discovered earlier if other avenues had been researched 20+ years ago.

    But there is no way of knowing that just now, and there never is any way of knowing this in advance. The only way to deal with it would be to have bottomless sources of funds to finance every project that passes the basic tests of being scientifically and ethically sound. Seeing as we currently accept about 10% of projects submitted for funding in most fields, even doubling our current commitment to science wouldn't go anywhere near solving the problem as you've described it.


    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    I'm sad to say that Scientific community lives in fear of what lies ahead when it comes to new discoveries. They have been held hostage for the most part especially when it comes to Micro Bio. So far approx. 30 or so have passed in a short span of time due to their finds. Sad but true. Greed, Corruption, Power etc. We must continue the good fight!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    I'm sad to say that Scientific community lives in fear of what lies ahead when it comes to new discoveries.
    Why so sad?
    You'll be happy to know that what you claim is not true.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    I'm sad to say that Scientific community lives in fear of what lies ahead when it comes to new discoveries.
    I've always found enthusiasm at new discoveries. I don't think I understand this perspective.

    The general public might fear new science and technology, but scientists are usually quite happy to move forward.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    They have been held hostage for the most part especially when it comes to Micro Bio.
    Elucidate, please.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    So far approx. 30 or so have passed in a short span of time due to their finds. Sad but true. Greed, Corruption, Power etc. We must continue the good fight!!!
    I don't think I can decipher what this means. Scientist very rarely care about money and power. If they did, they wouldn't be scientists. They'd be politicians.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post

    Do you think progress is affected when the possibility exists that one may face embarrassment, ridicule, ruination and exile from the scientific community for their contributions, IOW's should science be more receptive?

    I wonder if the odd 'diamond in the rough' idea gets postponed or trashed forever just because the current system is tough to crack. It's a highly guarded and selective profession, appears somewhat prejudicial at times, yet sharing a mandate to get it right.

    Still I don't know enough about what is expected of a scientist amongst his/her peers. What is it that compels scientists to protect their theories so fervently? Is there a philosophy of rejection guiding or influencing those that dare to contaminate or upset conventional wisdom within the scientific community.
    yes
    yes, i agree,

    From my experience, it seems that many "accademic" scientists are slow to accept new paradigms.
    Scientists are human, and some humans feel better about themselves if they can trash someone else.
    (maybe that indicates insecurity on their part?)
    15 years into the project, they had all the cores up and examined, then...
    I suspect that the lake elgygytgyn people sat on their findings(for almost 3 years) until they had a broad range of support for particular details before they published.
    Darned careful of them, and I wondered if there was a fear component in their deliberations?

    Robert Bakker has spoken of the fear he had for his dissertation, and when he did publish, his conclusions were vigorously challenged by some(bennett, etc...)
    Those who had suggested the same conclusions(see Ostrom) before him had been vigorously attacked.
    Last edited by sculptor; August 10th, 2013 at 08:19 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    Flick Montana, it is not the scientists, the problem is with the associated interest involved.

    Sculptor, has the correct perspective.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,034
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    From my experience, it seems that many "accademic" scientists are slow to accept new paradigms.
    Of course. That is how science works. If scientists jumped on every preliminary observation and said "oooh, oooh, new paradigm! Jump everybody!" then science would make no progress and would just be a chaotic mess of random, untested ideas.

    The "inertia" of science, demanding extensive repeated tests of an idea, is what makes science so successful.
    sculptor and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Sculptor, has the correct perspective.
    And that should have been your first warning flag.
    Strange and Jeffer like this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    I suspect that the lake elgygytgyn people sat on their findings(for almost 3 years) until they had a broad range of support for particular details before they published.
    Darned careful of them, and I wondered if there was a fear component in their deliberations?
    But that's not what happened.

    They were funded by a well-known support group.
    They got cooperation from others for drilling equipment.
    It's a wholly standard research operation.

    Taking three years to get something done is not a new or surprising feature of research in this area.

    If this particular project is the basis for your view, you either need to change your view or find a better example.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    So Jeffer, you are suggesting that certain findings are judged too dangerous by 'powers' and scientists who have worked on these topics are eliminated? Do I have a correct understanding of your position?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,374
    There may be legitimate reasons for established scientists to reject the work of a scientific neophyte. Ironically the same fear of rejection felt by newcomers may also be felt by the science elite when their own work is in danger of becoming passe. Both ends of the age spectrum actually fear the same thing except that the older established group has more influence. Do you think those having more influence (the peers) are a good thing for scientific progress?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    Hey everyone, I will post a news brief about what I'm suggesting. Here it is:
    12-20-1
    "It is a story worthy of a major conspiracy theory, the script for a Mel Gibson "Who dunnit?" action movie, or a blueprint for a contrived and unbelievable episode of "The X Files". Except the facts surrounding this story are just that. Facts. The Truth.
    "Five eminent microbiologists, leaders in their particular field of scientific research, either dead or missing, and a bizarre connection between one of the dead scientists and the mystery surrounding the death by Anthrax inhalation of a sixty one year old female hospital worker in New York. Sounds far fetched? Read on.
    "Over the past few weeks several world-acclaimed scientific researchers specializing in infectious diseases and biological agents such as Anthrax, as well as DNA sequencing, have been found dead or have gone missing.
    "First, on November 12th, was Dr. Benito Que, a cell biologist working on infectious diseases like HIV, who was found dead outside his laboratory at the Miami Medical School. Police say his death was possibly the result of a mugging. The Miami Herald reported that:
    "The incident, whatever it may have been, occurred on Monday afternoon as the scientist left his job at University of Miami's School of Medicine. He headed for his car, a white Ford Explorer parked on Northwest 10th Avenue. The word among his friends is that four men armed with a baseball bat attacked him at his car."
    "On November 16th, within of week of Dr. Que's assault, Dr. Don C Wiley, one of the United States foremost infectious disease researchers was declared missing. Bill Poovey, a journalist with Associated Press wrote:
    "His rental car was found with a full tank of petrol and the keys in the ignition. His disappearance looked like a suicide, but according to colleagues and Dr. Wiley's family, the Harvard Scientist associated with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute would NEVER commit suicide.
    "Associates who attended the St. Jude's Children Research Advisory Dinner with Dr. Wiley, just hours before he disappeared, said that he was in good spirits and NOT depressed. He was last seen at the banquet at the Peabody Hotel in downtown Memphis the night he vanished. Those who saw him last say he showed no signs of a man contemplating his own death."
    "Wiley left the hotel around midnight. The bridge where his car was found is only a five-minute drive away and in the wrong direction from where he was staying, leaving authorities with a four-hour, unexplained gap until his vehicle was found.
    "Now Memphis police are exploring several theories involving suicide, robbery and murder.
    "We began this investigation as a missing person investigation," said Walter Crews of the Memphis Police Department. "From there it went to a more criminal bent."
    "Dr. Wiley was an expert on how the human immune system fights off infections and had recently investigated such dangerous viruses as AIDS, Ebola, herpes and influenza.
    UPDATE.....
    Harvard Biophysicist's Body Found in Mississippi River
    Harvard Biophysicist's Body Found in Mississippi River
    "F
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    There's more: "The defection to Britain in 1989 of Vladimir Pasechnik revealed to the West for the first time the colossal scale of the Soviet Union's clandestine biological warfare programme. His revelations about the scale of the Soviet Union's production of such biological agents as anthrax, plague, tularaemia and smallpox provided an inside account of one of the best kept secrets of the Cold War. "After his defection he worked for ten years at the U.K. Department of Health's Centre for Applied Microbiology Research before forming his own company, Regma Biotechnics, to work on therapies for cancer, neurological diseases, tuberculosis and other infectious diseases. In the last few weeks of his life he had put his research on anthrax at the disposal of the Government, in the light of the threat from bioterrorism."
    "Back to the United States, and on December 10th, Dr. Robert M. Schwartz was found murdered in Leesberg, Virginia. Dr. Schwartz was a well-known DNA sequencing researcher. He founded the Virginia Biotechnology Association where he worked on DNA sequencing for 15 years.
    "On Wednesday, December 12th the Washington Post reported:
    "A well-known biophysicist, who was one of the leading researchers on DNA sequencing analysis, was found slain in his rural Loudoun County home after co-workers became concerned when he didn't arrive at work as expected. Robert M. Schwartz, 57, a founding member of the Virginia Biotechnology Association, was found dead in the secluded fieldstone farmhouse southwest of Leesburg where he lived alone. Loudoun sheriff's officials said it appeared that Schwartz had been stabbed."
    "And so to Victoria State, Australia, where, on December 14th, a skilled microbiologist was killed at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's animal diseases facility in Geelong, Australia. This is the same facility that, as the journal Nature announced in January this year:
    "Australian scientists, Dr Ron Jackson and Dr Ian Ramshaw, accidentally created an astonishingly virulent strain of mousepox, a cousin of smallpox, among laboratory mice. They realised that if similar genetic manipulation was carried out on smallpox, an unstoppable killer could be unleashed."
    "The microbiologist who died had worked for 15 years at the facility. His name was Set Van Nguyen. Victoria Police said:
    "Set Van Nguyen, 44, appeared to have died after entering an airlock into a storage laboratory filled with nitrogen. His body was found when his wife became worried after he failed to return from work. He was killed after entering a low temperature storage area where biological samples were kept. He did not know the room was full of deadly gas which had leaked from a liquid nitrogen cooling system. Unable to breathe, Mr. Nguyen collapsed and died."
    "Now for the intriguing part of this story. On Friday, November 2nd, the Washington Post reported:
    "Officials are now scrambling to determine how a quiet, 61-year-old Vietnamese immigrant, riding the subway each day to and from her job in a hospital stockroom, was exposed to the deadly anthrax spores that killed her this week. They worry because there is no obvious connection to the factors common to earlier anthrax exposures and deaths: no clear link to the mail or to the media."
    "The name of this quiet 61 year old hospital worker was Kathy Nguyen."
    Copyright Ian Gurney, December 2001. Ian Gurney is the author of "The Cassandra Prophecy"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    Just one more of many
    As you can see, Dr. Wiley appears to be a slender man based on how lean he looks in this picture.
    Now on to Dr. Vladimir Pasechnik.
    November 23rd, Dr. Vladimir Pasechnik. Dr. Pasechnik traveled in some pretty spooky circles. You know, the average person out there really can't even imagine some of the stuff that's going on around this globe - very dangerous stuff to the continuation of mankind. Let me repeat the section from above about his work:
    Dr. Vladimir Pasechnik, was a former microbiologist for Biopreparat, a Soviet biological-weapons production facility.
    This Biopreparat is a pretty scary place. I highly encourage you to jump over to two web sites on this place and what you'll read should make your skin crawl:
    http://www.tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminf...ies/index.html
    http://www.thepalmerpress.com/nagle1_EXP.html
    Dr. Pasechnik then went on to form his own company with a partner:
    biotechanalytics.com

    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    Last one
    Another question that the American people should be asking themselves is this: Does it bother you that the United States Government is involved with human testing? What, you say?
    50 USC § 1520 - Repealed. | Title 50 - War and National Defense | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
    The US Code -
    Title 50, Chapter 32, Section 1520:

    "Use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents by the Department of Defense; accounting to Congressional committees with respect to experiments and studies; notification of local civilian officials."
    "(a) Not later than thirty days after final approval within the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department of Defense, whether directly or under contract, involving the use of human subjects for the testing of chemical or biological agents, the Secretary of Defense shall supply the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives with a full accounting of such plans for such experiment or study, and such experiment or study may then be conducted only after the expiration of the thirty-day period beginning on the date such accounting is received by such committees."
    "(b) (1) The Secretary of Defense may not conduct any test or experiment involving the use of any chemical or biological agent on civilian populations unless local civilian officials in the area in which the test or experiment is to be conducted are notified in advance of such test or experiment, and such test or experiment may then be conducted only after the expiration of the thirty-day period beginning on the date of such notification."
    "(2) Paragraph (1) shall apply to tests and experiments conducted by Department of Defense personnel and tests and experiments conducted on behalf of the Department of Defense by contractors."
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    The U.S. Government not only experimented on Americans without their permission, agencies like the CIA fed unsuspecting people LSD in their drinks in bars:
    http://www.devvy.com/mcveigh4_20010625.html - Available on Devvy's Archives CD
    I wrote about Americans being used as human guinea pigs on my web site. You can view the Final Report from the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments at:
    The National Security Archive/ACHRE
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    There is also a curious item I ran across regarding deceased former Secretary of Commerce, Ron Brown, applying for a patent on an HIV blood-line:
    Error
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Are we gradually steering well away from the topic into... something altogether different?
    Cut and paste conspiracy theory with dead links, looney tunes book as reference...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,374
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Are we gradually steering well away from the topic into... something altogether different?
    Cut and paste conspiracy theory with dead links, looney tunes book as reference...
    With newspaper clippings pinned to the apartment walls...... what can one say except get help.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Jeffer,
    I'll make a deal with you. You answer the two closely related questions I asked in post #11 and I'll read your string of posts. At the moment I'm assuming you just missed seeing the questions - they were short and to the point. The alternative is that you were being rude. (I don't like to think that of people.)

    I look forward to your reply.

    Thanks,
    JG
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    No John, you misunderstand my position. I'm suggesting that certain findings that are judged too"inconsistent" for the powers that be,not including the Scientist that are merely conducting research that are under said scrutiny. When you read the posts I have, which are a bit extended, I think you'll understand what I'm putting forth. Sorry for the delay.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    Hello Dywyddyr, Yes it is cut and paste for expediency on my part, but the dead links have been hacked. Or am I looney? You be the judge. Look into it a little more.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    Sorry for the delay John Galt.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Hey everyone, I will post a news brief about what I'm suggesting. Here it is:
    12-20-1
    "It is a story worthy of a major conspiracy theory, the script for a Mel Gibson "Who dunnit?" action movie, or a blueprint for a contrived and unbelievable episode of "The X Files". Except the facts surrounding this story are just that. Facts. The Truth.
    "Five eminent microbiologists, leaders in their particular field of scientific research, either dead or missing, and a bizarre connection between one of the dead scientists and the mystery surrounding the death by Anthrax inhalation of a sixty one year old female hospital worker in New York. Sounds far fetched? Read on.
    Or the complete opposite is true:
    Microbiologists

    "The next death was Robert M. Schwartz. The original story tells us that he was found dead in his farmhouse, and had been stabbed. What isn't mentioned, perhaps because this will seem less like a professional hit, is that he was killed with a 27-inch sword.
    What's more, since the article was written Schwartzs daughter has been convicted of conspiring to murder him."

    "Death number 4 was Set Van Nguyen. However he was apparently a lab technician, not a microbiologist (let alone a "world renowned" one)"

    And a final nail in the coffin...
    Still want to believe? Then let's consider the population we're talking about here.

    "Janet Shoemaker, director of public and scientific affairs of the American Society for Microbiology in Washington, D.C., pointed out yesterday that there are about 20,000 academic researchers in microbiology in the U.S".

    That's academic researchers, so presumably excluding those working commercially. Also in the US, so excluding Australians, Brits and Russians (as listed in the more up-to-date stories). And if we're extending the list to people who "work in labs", like Set Van Nguyen, then it's even more.

    Let's say 100,000 people, then (and that’s a low estimate). Chance of some of them dying in a particular year? Death rate = 177.8 per 100,000 population in the US, 1996, for 25-44 year olds (table), so that's 177 deaths from people linked to microbiology, each and every year.
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    Seeing that they only fund about 10% of projects in most fields shows that there is a management problem. There is more than enough funds available. Like I said, it's management.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    Do you really think it should look like a professional hit? And I question the math you presented and will get back to you on that. Have a great day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Seeing that they only fund about 10% of projects in most fields shows that there is a management problem. There is more than enough funds available. Like I said, it's management.
    It would help if you quoted who you are replying to.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Do you really think it should look like a professional hit?
    Well if it doesn't look like a professional hit, then why do you think it is a professional hit?
    And I see you skipped the bit where someone was convicted of the murder.
    Oh - and you skipped the bit where Set Van Nguyen was not even a microbiologist (let alone a "world renowned" one).
    Oh - and you skipped the rest of the link I posted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    And I question the math you presented and will get back to you on that. Have a great day.
    I await with baited breath.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Jeffer, thank you for your reply. I have read your long posted items. I am now even more confused.

    Some researchers died. As Red Panda has pointed out there is nothing statistically significant in the deaths. What do you think is their significance? It still looks like you are claiming that some nebulous power group have murdered them. If that is not what you are suggesting then I have no idea why you think the deaths are significant.

    You then say "Like I said, it's managment."

    I don't recall you saying that. Is that your argument? And if so, how does it relate to the deaths?

    Moderator Comment: Unless I see some clarity in your arguments in the next post or two, this thread will be moved to Speculations or the Trash Can.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I suspect that the lake elgygytgyn people sat on their findings(for almost 3 years) until they had a broad range of support for particular details before they published.
    Darned careful of them, and I wondered if there was a fear component in their deliberations?
    But that's not what happened.

    They were funded by a well-known support group.
    They got cooperation from others for drilling equipment.
    It's a wholly standard research operation.

    Taking three years to get something done is not a new or surprising feature of research in this area.

    If this particular project is the basis for your view, you either need to change your view or find a better example.
    I suspect that You do not understand what I meant.

    The project was 15 years to the point where the cores were up and examined, then another three years before publishing. Even well funded(= less than the cost of a single modern warplane) pulling off a drilling project in the remote siberian arctic in 3 years would have been a miracle. The drilling/coreing (which itself only took a year---not including logistics)was finished by spring 2009.
    The team already knew what they had in 2009(with limitations)("we couldn't believe what we were seeing"). My only concern was the three years of gathering conclusions from experts outside of the team, in the various diciplines. After lifetimes of becoming experts in their fields, did the team members not trust their own judgements, and need others' opinions or did they broaden their support group to gain allies?
    Alternately they were just being thorough in gathering the widest range of knowledge from different fields to give a more thorough presentation of their findings.
    Granted: In support of your position Julie expected that getting results back from the 70 odd scientists and grad students examining the core material using different proxies would take 5-7 years. So 3 years was a minor miracle.

    WHAT I MEANT was the question, in light of Bakker's voiced fears, and the dominance or wrong ideas I saw while studying archaeology/anthropology
    I WONDERED IF THERE WAS A FEAR CONPONENT?
    That's a really simple question.

    ...........
    as/re:
    Of course. That is how science works.
    The "inertia" of science, demanding extensive repeated tests of an idea, is what makes science so successful.
    I agree with that up to a point, but, scientists being human, some will doggedly and occasionally visciously defend erroneous positions. Which has led to loss of funding, ruined careers, and delays in correcting the mistakes of the past(at-least within the anthro/archaeo fields).
    Great that scientists are rigorous, but how to control dogma and stagnation while maintaining the rigor?

    .......
    Let us consider the saga of Alfred Wegener, and continental drift....... acceptance derided and delayed for 1/2 a century by some of the cruelist rhetoric.
    Do we really learn from our mistakes?
    Last edited by sculptor; August 11th, 2013 at 02:38 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    My only concern was the three years of gathering conclusions from experts outside of the team, in the various diciplines. After lifetimes of becoming experts in their fields, did the team members not trust their own judgements, and need others' opinions or did they broaden their support group to gain allies?
    This is common practice. Just look at how much time Briffa and his colleagues have spent on getting the data straight with tree rings. What to include, what to exclude, resolving anomalies, checking with other datasets, other proxies, re-analyse using different statistical methods, go back and do it all again.

    Science wouldn't be worth doing if it was just a simple collect data, run a straightforward computer analysis, publish next week exercise.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    I never claimed that science could nor should be fast nor easy.

    just wondered if fear was a possible component in the decision making

    look at the attacks on archaeologists working potential pre clovis sites over the past 35 years
    It is often ugly out there.
    Think about the derision wegener suffered.

    the fear thing is a valid question
    why do you keep ignoring it?
    ..............
    Word has it that Adovasio is still angry about the way he was treated.
    Is that a fair treatment of a scientist?
    Last edited by sculptor; August 11th, 2013 at 09:05 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    Mr. Galt, I am not the only person to make the claim of foul play. The deaths are just the tip of the berg and there is much more info available. Unfortunately the scientific community as a whole is under seige . Do you really believe that the FDA, CDC, FCC, AMA and more that I haven't mentioned are organizations that can stand with integrity? Answer: NO Are they there for the betterment of the human race? NO. Are there cures for cancer,HIV, Ebola, Diabetes, etc? The answer is a resounding YES. Unfortunately suppression of these cures is the order of the day when it comes to these and other matters that would be of incredible benefit for mankind. What about the Dept. of Energy? Do you think they are of an altruistc philosophy? We should be running our automobiles with water by now and has been done and is being done and promoted/ advertised in Japan as we speak. Our Buses are fueled by Natural Gas, why not cars? The good people that have invented or discovered such cures or improvements for mankind have been suppressed,or eliminated and that is just the plain truth. No wonder there is such a "fear" factor in the scientific community simply because it is known to them via free press, whistleblowers, etc. We are on the brink of a "Golden Age" and the powers that be stand in the way. This is not my opinion but fact that are readily available to the general public if you do a little search on line......before they start to regulate the internet. There is a lot of bunk out there also but I'm sure that you are able to sift through the rubbish with diligence in your efforts. So you may judge me as a quack or reveler, it's your choice and I will respect it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    Yes Sculptor, the"fear factor" is definitely a valid issue in the scientific world. And I mean World. It is a global problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    RedPanda, I didn't skip those areas on purpose.I figure you would read everything I set forth for you without obfuscation on my part. I hope you read all of the info there. From 1982-1989 there were 22 deaths of scientist pertaining to the U.K. "Marconi". check google for links. Also do you mind referring to the reply I have for Mr. Galt? I think that it would help. Thanks
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Are there cures for cancer,HIV, Ebola, Diabetes, etc? The answer is a resounding YES.
    Evidence required. How do you know this if it so effectively suppressed?

    Unfortunately suppression of these cures is the order of the day when it comes to these and other matters that would be of incredible benefit for mankind.
    Why? What possible reason is there?

    We should be running our automobiles with water by now and has been done and is being done and promoted/ advertised in Japan as we speak.
    You cannot run a car on water. The Japanese are not doing this. Of course, feel free to provide some evidence to prove me wrong.

    Our Buses are fueled by Natural Gas, why not cars?
    Some are. So what?

    The good people that have invented or discovered such cures or improvements for mankind have been suppressed,or eliminated and that is just the plain truth.
    Evidence?

    There is a lot of bunk out there
    Well, you certainly seem to have found most of it.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    The deaths are just the tip of the berg...
    ...a berg made of lies, exaggerations and innuendo.
    Strange and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Our Buses are fueled by Natural Gas, why not cars?
    Some are. So what?
    CNG. You can check to make sure your vehicle can be converted to CNG. There are several CNG stations in my area (I know, I've already checked.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    There is a lot of bunk out there
    Well, you certainly seem to have found most of it.
    LoL. Found and spewed forth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    CNG
    LPG in Japan. Pretty much all taxis, in Tokyo at least, run on it (not water!)
    Neverfly likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Taxis? Most here run on LPG too. (South Australia)
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Mr. Galt, I am not the only person to make the claim of foul play.
    Many people claim to have seen ghosts, to have been abducted by aliens, and the like. The quantity does not assure the quality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    The deaths are just the tip of the berg and there is much more info available.
    For your sake, one would hope so: what you have presented so far is wholly unconvincing. Exceptional ideas require substantial evidence. Random, explicable deaths do not qualify.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Unfortunately the scientific community as a whole is under seige .
    Really. You might be more convincing if you didn't indulge in hyperbole. Please tell me in what way palaeontologists studying brachiopod ecology in the Carboniferous are under siege? Or how about sedimentologists examining beach erosion in the Maldives? Or astronomers exploring the magnetic field of Mercury? How are these scientists and branches of science under siege?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Do you really believe that the FDA, CDC, FCC, AMA and more that I haven't mentioned are organizations that can stand with integrity?
    I see. You are one of those nationalistic individuals who thinks nothing of note occurs outside their own country. Please explain, in as much detail as you need to be convincing, how the FDA places science in Lithuania under siege.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Answer: NO Are they there for the betterment of the human race? NO.
    Assertions without evidence may be acknowledged as opinions. They do not need to be respected.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Are there cures for cancer,HIV, Ebola, Diabetes, etc? The answer is a resounding YES. Unfortunately suppression of these cures is the order of the day when it comes to these and other matters that would be of incredible benefit for mankind.
    Again, no evidence. Also, you seem to be confused by the difference between science and medicine, and later by the difference between science and engineering. Having trained as one and worked as the other I have some awareness of the distinctions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    What about the Dept. of Energy? Do you think they are of an altruistc philosophy? We should be running our automobiles with water by now and has been done and is being done and promoted/ advertised in Japan as we speak.
    As has been pointed out to you by another member you cannot run a car on water. When you pepper your arguments with that level of ignorance it weakens any argument you may have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Our Buses are fueled by Natural Gas, why not cars?
    Because we are not buying them. If you wish to look for someone to blame look at your neighbour, or look in your garage.

    And let me return to the Department of Energy, or at least to the energy sector. Thirty years ago to drill one specific section of a central North Sea well required twenty or more drill bits. To replace each bit required removing the entire drill stem from the well, a time consuming and expensive process. Today that is achieved routinely with one, or most two bits, greatly reducing the cost of development. That has required multiple breakthroughs and refinements in drill bit technology. I don't recall any of my colleagues involved in these and similar advances suffering an untimely death, or any efforts to suppress their work. Where was the opposition to technological progress there?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    The good people that have invented or discovered such cures or improvements for mankind have been suppressed,or eliminated and that is just the plain truth.
    Again, no evidence has been offered.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    No wonder there is such a "fear" factor in the scientific community simply because it is known to them via free press, whistleblowers, etc.
    You do not appear to know anyone in the science community. I do and none of them are afraid of what you claim. Afraid of heights, spiders and being found out having an affair - yes, but not of nameless powers that be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    This is not my opinion but fact that are readily available to the general public if you do a little search on line......before they start to regulate the internet.
    Sorry. That is very definitely your opinion. I have no intention of wasting my time chasing a will-o-the-wisp. If these facts are so readily available present them here - in a cogent and concise form. (Here is a tip for you. Use paragraphs. Almost no crank does and normal people do.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    So you may judge me as a quack or reveler, it's your choice and I will respect it.
    I don't judge, but I think you are a sincere, but deluded individual. Clear, well documented evidence could cause me to change my mind. That's your choice - to deliver it, or just preach.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I have seen many, many ghosts over the course of my lifetime. More than I could count and the number may even be in the thousands.
    I do not believe in ghosts and such and yet, no matter how much I tell myself I do not believe, I keep seeing them.
    More disturbing, I see other things, as well. Not just ghosts but other things I do not believe in such as Alien spacecraft and aliens. I've seen bigfoot numerous times.
    It finally reached a point where I was so disturbed, I had to make a decision...

    So I stopped turning on the T.V.
    adelady and RedPanda like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,374
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    The key word in there is forever. If an idea has some merit unrecognised at the moment it will, one day, get the necessary recognition. The fact that the one day might not occur in any given person's lifetime is not really a problem
    Not so sure about that not being a problem. If the information is there and its correct then why the wait?

    it's just an acknowledgement that science is bigger than all of us.
    That may also qualify as a problem

    We may all be sad for all the people who died from unnecessary, preventable causes when, eventually, a vaccine or an easy cure is found that might have been discovered earlier if other avenues had been researched 20+ years ago.
    If the upper echelons of science rejected the other avenue merely because it went against popular opinion or their own work then that is also a problem. I don't think we should have to accept the 'too bad but that's the way it goes' attitude. There's something wrong.
    sculptor likes this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    There may be legitimate reasons for established scientists to reject the work of a scientific neophyte. Ironically the same fear of rejection felt by newcomers may also be felt by the science elite when their own work is in danger of becoming passe. Both ends of the age spectrum actually fear the same thing except that the older established group has more influence. Do you think those having more influence (the peers) are a good thing for scientific progress?
    No
    quite the opposite on many occasions
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    RedPanda,There is a truism, "You can not dissuade someone with logic from a position that they have taken emotionally." Why don't you Google for the info I have presented instead of assuming on your premises. Let me help you: Google "Stan Meyers" and "Troy Reed". Google "Free Energy" ,"Cures for Cancer" Here's a good one, "Zero Fusion" or "Atomic Alchemy". Thanks, keep me posted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    John Galt,There is a truism, "You can not dissuade someone with logic from a position that they have taken emotionally." Why don't you Google for the info I have presented instead of assuming on your premises. Let me help you: Google "Stan Meyers" and "Troy Reed". Google "Free Energy" ,"Cures for Cancer" Here's a good one, "Zero Fusion" or "Atomic Alchemy". I just gave you 6 pieces of evidence. Thanks, keep me posted. I understand your skepticism , i was there once.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Why don't you Google for the info I have presented instead of assuming on your premises.

    It's quite simple: YOU made the claim therefore it is up to YOU to support it it.

    Let me help you: Google "Stan Meyers" and "Troy Reed". Google "Free Energy" ,"Cures for Cancer" Here's a good one, "Zero Fusion" or "Atomic Alchemy". Thanks, keep me posted.


    I suggest you apply your own quote to yourself.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    Dywyddyr, just verify, what's the big deal?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Dywyddyr, just verify, what's the big deal?
    The "big deal" is that you are making claims and then expecting others to do your work for you - by telling them to Google for support for YOUR claims.
    If you're making a claim it's on you to provide support for it.
    If you can't do so then we have no obligation to take you seriously.


    The other "big deal" is that even a cursory check will reveal that each and every one of the suggestions you gave will eventually result in - no actual evidence to support the claims made.
    IOW your truism applies equally to you.
    In fact more so than it does to John Galt or RedPanda.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    RedPanda,There is a truism, "You can not dissuade someone with logic from a position that they have taken emotionally." Why don't you Google for the info I have presented instead of assuming on your premises. Let me help you: Google "Stan Meyers" and "Troy Reed". Google "Free Energy" ,"Cures for Cancer" Here's a good one, "Zero Fusion" or "Atomic Alchemy". Thanks, keep me posted.
    It sounds like you are the one who has failed to employ logic and critical thinking. "I saw it on the web so it must be true". There are entire websites devoted to "free energy" and "over unity"; they are still crackpots.

    If you have evidence to support these ideas, then present it.
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    RedPanda,There is a truism, "You can not dissuade someone with logic from a position that they have taken emotionally." Why don't you Google for the info I have presented instead of assuming on your premises. Let me help you: Google "Stan Meyers" and "Troy Reed". Google "Free Energy" ,"Cures for Cancer" Here's a good one, "Zero Fusion" or "Atomic Alchemy". Thanks, keep me posted.
    I did Google the info you presented and it turned out to be the tip of the berg ...a berg made of lies, exaggerations and innuendo.
    That's why I said "...a berg made of lies, exaggerations and innuendo.", because it's a berg made of lies, exaggerations and innuendo.
    A bullshitberg, if you will.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer
    And I question the math you presented and will get back to you on that.
    How's that going?
    Any feedback yet?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Not so sure about that not being a problem. If the information is there and its correct then why the wait?
    They don't know that it's correct until after they've checked, re-checked and confirmed their conclusions.

    We
    don't know what data has been excluded because of that checking let alone what analysis methods were used, or revised, or discarded.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Not so sure about that not being a problem. If the information is there and its correct then why the wait?
    They don't know that it's correct until after they've checked, re-checked and confirmed their conclusions.

    We
    don't know what data has been excluded because of that checking let alone what analysis methods were used, or revised, or discarded.
    all, well and good(from your perspective)

    Let us consider the curious behaviours of dr. Stuart Fiedel
    A) a vicious bully ?
    or
    B) a rigorous scientist?

    The man has been positively insulting to anyone claiming to disprove "clovis first". ("amateurs", "capuchin monkeys", etc...)
    His ilk have retarded an accurate understanding of the peopling of the americas for over 30 years.
    Dishonesty and insults are their favorite "scientific tools"
    When the reputations and prejudices of the "great men" are allowed to retard science, science dies.
    As previously stated
    Adovasio is still angry about the way he was treated
    controlling rogue "scientists" is as difficult as controlling schoolyard bullies
    when reputation trumps science, we all lose
    ......................
    "scientist" are just like any other humans.
    Some are well intentioned, some not so much so.
    Some are honest, some not so much so

    Science is no bigger than the least of us
    Science is a product of the human mind
    Last edited by sculptor; August 13th, 2013 at 08:54 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Science is no bigger than the least of us
    Well that's certainly debatable.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Science is no bigger than the least of us
    Well that's certainly debatable.
    And, I feel reasonably certain that you will
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    Well put Sculptor!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    Hey RedPanda, now I see from your statements that your are subject to your emotions and unable to objectively discern truth form fiction.Emotionalism can skew critical analysis and judgment. I have presented valid evidence of which I perceive that you have not thoroughly researched. I suggest that you refrain from further debate with me seeing that you are so vehemently against "free thinking". Call it what you will, but count me out from now on. Thanks anyways.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Hey RedPanda, now I see from your statements that your are subject to your emotions and unable to objectively discern truth form fiction.Emotionalism can skew critical analysis and judgment. I have presented valid evidence of which I perceive that you have not thoroughly researched. I suggest that you refrain from further debate with me seeing that you are so vehemently against "free thinking". Call it what you will, but count me out from now on. Thanks anyways.
    And the winner of this week's award for "Most Errors and Ridiculous Assumptions in a Single Post" is...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    Strange, "Overunity" has been hacked to death. Where is Troy Reed ? I question whether you conducted a thorough search or if you if you really intend on doing so since you seem to be so "webphobic". Is it objective research, or subjective opinions? How about stereotyping or name calling? Are we not men? let's be honest here!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Strange, "Overunity" has been hacked to death.
    I don't know what that means.

    Where is Troy Reed ?
    I have no idea. Why should I care. He is either deluded or a crook.

    I question whether you conducted a thorough search or if you if you really intend on doing so since you seem to be so "webphobic". Is it objective research, or subjective opinions?
    Just basic science.

    How about stereotyping or name calling? Are we not men? let's be honest here!
    What name calling?

    How about some evidence for your ludicrous claims?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    unable to objectively discern truth form fiction.Emotionalism can skew critical analysis and judgment.
    Oh, the irony.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    now I see from your statements that your are subject to your emotions and unable to objectively discern truth form fiction.
    Nope. Guess again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Emotionalism can skew critical analysis and judgment.
    I acknowledge your greater experience of making emotional arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    I have presented valid evidence of which I perceive that you have not thoroughly researched.
    I have presented arguments which you either ignored or ran away from.
    The ball is still in your court; you have done nothing to address what I posted.
    "[I] will get back to you on that." ....but nothing so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    I suggest that you refrain from further debate with me seeing that you are so vehemently against "free thinking".
    I have considered your suggestion and have decided to continue as if you hadn't made it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Call it what you will, but count me out from now on.
    tbh, you weren't really in.
    You were more rolling around in your own excrement than actually having a discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Thanks anyways.
    No problem.
    I am always glad to point out your mistakes - even if it is almost a full-time job.
    Strange likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Are we not men?
    Are we still in the 19th century?
    Strange likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    whadd'ya mean "WE" white woman?
    Neverfly and Jeffer like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    Wow, another brain with limited space. Strange indeed!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Instead of waving vague (and erroneous) insults around is there any chance that you're going to provide support for your claims?
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,156
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    I thought the philosophy subforum needed a change from religion, existence , reality and knowledge.

    How much pressure do scientists face when venturing beyond conventional thinking? I wonder if it has laid waste to those not strong enough to voice opinions on science matters when they ultimately might have proven to be correct. I understand that in order to introduce a new theory or postulate an idea that peers may be comfortable with, a scientist will need to produce experimental evidence. What if there is no way to experiment, to observe?

    If the scientific community accepted every unconventional or out-of-the box idea then what would be the state of science today? Is it better for everyone involved in science that they stick to what is working, insuring that only positively peer reviewed ideas get through whereas everything else gets tossed in the scrap heap? Do you think progress is affected when the possibility exists that one may face embarrassment, ridicule, ruination and exile from the scientific community for their contributions, IOW's should science be more receptive?

    It' feels like there's a set of accepted unwritten rules pertaining to the introduction of new ideas but don't get me wrong, I'm all for weeding out the quackery. I think it makes science stronger but at the same time I wonder if the odd 'diamond in the rough' idea gets postponed or trashed forever just because the current system is tough to crack. It's a highly guarded and selective profession, appears somewhat prejudicial at times, yet sharing a mandate to get it right.

    Still I don't know enough about what is expected of a scientist amongst his/her peers. What is it that compels scientists to protect their theories so fervently? Is there a philosophy of rejection guiding or influencing those that dare to contaminate or upset conventional wisdom within the scientific community.
    Isn't taking a step OUT OF THE BOX, always what it is about? Not just in Science but in many other work paths?

    Many people in many walks of life have to step out of the "BOX" and take a step that is a bit scary, not just scientists.

    OH!! AND they have to PROVE their theory also!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,156
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    whadd'ya mean "WE" white woman?
    I am rather more of a pearly glow.

    WE WHITE WOMEN?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Do you know the joke from whence that derived?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    Dywyddyr, if you can't distinguish a qoute from evidence then you are in a stalemate. Step out of the box.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,034
    And if you can't tell the difference between evidence and random "stuff" you find on the web, then you are not likely to be taken seriously on a science site.

    "Step out of the box, it is lovely and gullible out here..."
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    Strange, I noticed that you stepped out of your box into another one. How Strange?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Dywyddyr, if you can't distinguish a qoute from evidence then you are in a stalemate. Step out of the box.....
    I saw neither "qoute" nor evidence in that post.
    In fact evidence has been notably absent from your posts.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    Let me help you: Google "Stan Meyers" and "Troy Reed". Google "Free Energy" ,"Cures for Cancer" Here's a good one, "Zero Fusion" or "Atomic Alchemy". Once again, here is the evidence. Now, isn't it science protocol to verify such? So can you now respond to each of these 6 pieces of evidence individually, with objective analysis w/o opinion or emotional rants?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Strange, I noticed that you stepped out of your box into another one. How Strange?
    Huh?

    OK. You don't want to provide any evidence. Fine. But you mentioned free energy. Obviously, to anyone with a modicum of basic science education (or "in the box" as you like to put it) this is impossible. However:

    If people have found ways to make "free energy" why haven't they become fabulously wealthy, rather than promoting their ideas on YouTube and poorly designed web sites?

    Some of them seem willing to sell the gullible "open minded" punter the plans to build one, but don't appear to be even running their own home with it, never mind selling cheap electricity to the entire country. I wonder why...
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    Did you not receive the 6 pieces of evidence I just gave you?

    Google "Stan Meyers" and "Troy Reed". Google "Free Energy" ,"Cures for Cancer" Here's a good one, "Zero Fusion" or "Atomic Alchemy". Once again, here is the evidence. Now, isn't it science protocol to verify such? So can you now respond to each of these 6 pieces of evidence individually, with objective analysis?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Let me help you: Google "Stan Meyers" and "Troy Reed". Google "Free Energy" ,"Cures for Cancer" Here's a good one, "Zero Fusion" or "Atomic Alchemy". Once again, here is the evidence. Now, isn't it science protocol to verify such? So can you now respond to each of these 6 pieces of evidence individually, with objective analysis w/o opinion or emotional rants?
    Yes, you've tried that before.
    I'll give you the same response: it's not up to us to provide your evidence.
    It's up to you to provide it.

    However:
    Stan Myers - guilty of "gross and egregious fraud".
    Troy Reed - admitted on tape in 1999 that he had not achieved self-sustainability.
    Free energy - this?
    Cures for cancer - just got closer or untested or unsupported by evidence?
    Zero fusion - whut?
    Atomic alchemy - Archbishop Jim Humble?
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Let me help you: Google "Stan Meyers" and "Troy Reed". Google "Free Energy" ,"Cures for Cancer" Here's a good one, "Zero Fusion" or "Atomic Alchemy". Once again, here is the evidence. Now, isn't it science protocol to verify such? So can you now respond to each of these 6 pieces of evidence individually, with objective analysis w/o opinion or emotional rants?
    Actually, science depends on repeatable, objective evidence not Google searches. Clearly, you know nothing about the scientific method in general, nor any specific aspects of science.

    But, I'll humour you (work avoidance kicks in again).

    1. Stan Meyers: first Google result:
    The water fuel cell is a technical design of a "perpetual motion machine" created by American Stanley Allen Meyer
    ...
    If the device worked as specified, it would violate both the first and second laws of thermodynamics
    OK. Impossible then. Not much more to say, except:
    Meyer's claims about his "Water Fuel Cell" and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by an Ohio court in 1996
    Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    2. Troy Reed: first Google result:
    In around 1994, Troy Reed claimed to have a fuelless, pollution-free motor with around 7 kilowatts of output
    Oh, guess what. Impossible again.
    Reed admitted on tape in 1999 that he had not achieved self-sustainability.
    Directory:Surge Motor Technology by Troy Reed - PESWiki

    3. Free Energy: impossible by definition. No point Googling: I don't need to look at millions of websites by deluded people to know that it is impossible.

    4. Cures for Cancer: Anyone claiming to have "a cure for cancer" is an evil scumbag exploiting desperate people and deserves to suffer in hell for a very long time. (You may think that is an "emotional rant"., I prefer to think of it as a carefully thought out and rational response to evil bastards.) So, no, I didn't bother to Google it. If you want to highlight a particular scam that needs to be debunked, then feel free to provide some evidence.

    5. Zero Fusion
    First Google result: http://www.zerofusion.com/ That is pretty good; almost as informative as your posts.

    6. Atomic Alchemy
    First Google result: Atomic Alchemy: Nuclear Processes
    That appears to be about nuclear science. (I can't tell for sure because it depends on plugins my browser doesn't support).

    None of that appears to be very convincing evidence for anything other than your general ignorance and gullibility.

    Now, my challenge to you: Google "critical thinking" and "scientific method".
    babe and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Atomic alchemy - Archbishop Jim Humble?
    That is a shocker. Why is he selling books rather than gold? Go figure.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    With all due respect, you need to open the book and read, not just look at the cover. Isn't that how you verify? But if you don't care to do so, then we are at an impasse. I need to run......
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Did you not receive the 6 pieces of evidence I just gave you?

    Google "Stan Meyers" and "Troy Reed". Google "Free Energy" ,"Cures for Cancer" Here's a good one, "Zero Fusion" or "Atomic Alchemy". Once again, here is the evidence.
    As an alternative to my previous response I could give you a reply in the same vein as your (supposed) evidence: just Google those topics with the word "debunked" appended.
    That should be refutation enough.


    Now, isn't it science protocol to verify such? So can you now respond to each of these 6 pieces of evidence individually, with objective analysis?
    Is it not protocol to present evidence individually and with an objective analysis?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    With all due respect, you need to open the book and read, not just look at the cover. Isn't that how you verify? But if you don't care to do so, then we are at an impasse. I need to run......
    An no.
    It's not an impasse when you haven't presented anything.
    It's what's called "unsupported claims on your part", "zero evidence" and "move along, there's nothing - at all - to see here".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    With all due respect, you need to open the book and read, not just look at the cover. Isn't that how you verify?
    When the book says, "free energy" on the front. There is nothing to verify: It. Is. Impossible.

    If you don't understand the basic conservation laws that govern the universe, feel free to ask.

    If you prefer to remain ignorant, then I suppose that is an impasse.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Moderator Warning: Jeffer, you have claimed to have presented evidence. I have not seen any. Evidence is not a name and a suggestion to use Google. (That point is not debatable.) If you wish this thread to remain active either withdraw your claims or present real evidence for them.

    Do not respond to this note here. Send a pm to me or an admin if you have an issue with this warning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,156
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Do you know the joke from whence that derived?
    Nope! Be so kind Sir Sculptor to enlighten me!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    Sad to see that you have "Tunnel Vision".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Do you know the joke from whence that derived?
    Nope! Be so kind Sir Sculptor to enlighten me!!!
    Tonto and the Lone Ranger are trapped behind a boulder in a box canyon surrounded by hundreds of exceptionally angry Indians hell bent on killing our hapless duo. The lone ranger comments that he is down to his last bullet, and asks Tonto how much ammunition he has left.
    Tonto responds; I have no bullets left kemo-sabe.
    To which the Lone Ranger says: "It looks like we're done for old friend."
    To which Tonto responds: "What do you mean WE white man?".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    Galt,That is your opinion in your limited space. It's a free country, so do whatever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Sad to see that you have "Tunnel Vision".
    Sad to see you prefer to be ignorant and hence gullible to such scams.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    Ostrich, I mean Strange, you need to get your head out....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Ostrich, I mean Strange, you need to get your head out....
    Look, you have provided no evidence that, for example, fundamental conservation laws can be broken. You have provided a couple of names of people who have failed to do that.

    Can you not see why it is not a very compelling argument?

    There is no reason for me to believe something just because you say so.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Ostrich, I mean Strange, you need to get your head out....
    (#89)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Sad to see that you have "Tunnel Vision".
    (#85)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Wow, another brain with limited space. Strange indeed!
    (#64)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    I question whether you conducted a thorough search or if you if you really intend on doing so since you seem to be so "webphobic". Is it objective research, or subjective opinions? How about stereotyping or name calling?
    (#58)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Hey RedPanda, now I see from your statements that your are subject to your emotions and unable to objectively discern truth form fiction.Emotionalism can skew critical analysis and judgment. I have presented valid evidence of which I perceive that you have not thoroughly researched. I suggest that you refrain from further debate with me seeing that you are so vehemently against "free thinking".
    (#56)




    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Or am I looney? You be the judge.
    (#21)
    Strange likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,156
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Do you know the joke from whence that derived?
    Nope! Be so kind Sir Sculptor to enlighten me!!!
    Tonto and the Lone Ranger are trapped behind a boulder in a box canyon surrounded by hundreds of exceptionally angry Indians hell bent on killing our hapless duo. The lone ranger comments that he is down to his last bullet, and asks Tonto how much ammunition he has left.
    Tonto responds; I have no bullets left kemo-sabe.
    To which the Lone Ranger says: "It looks like we're done for old friend."
    To which Tonto responds: "What do you mean WE white man?".
    That is funny.....will share with my Hupa friend
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    oops
    that works better without the contraction
    "we are done for" instead of we're done for
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    RedPanda,There is a truism, "You can not dissuade someone with logic from a position that they have taken emotionally." Why don't you Google for the info I have presented instead of assuming on your premises. Let me help you: Google "Stan Meyers" and "Troy Reed". Google "Free Energy" ,"Cures for Cancer" Here's a good one, "Zero Fusion" or "Atomic Alchemy". Thanks, keep me posted.
    I will give you three pieces of conclusive, logical and easily verifiable evidence to show that your "free energy" nonsense is just that - nonsense.

    Number 1 :



    Number 2 :



    Number 3 :



    Perhaps if, after having googled the above ( good luck with that ), you still wish to persist in your deranged belief in free energy, you would like to indulge us with excerpts from your cherished books which ( I have no doubt ) are able to produce detailed, mathematically self-consistent refutations of the above basic laws.

    I am certainly looking forward to that
    Strange and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    Does this help?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    Does this help?
    Not unless you can explain what it means (in your own words).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    32
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffer View Post
    I said in your own words because I knew you were going to copy this from somewhere else.

    Could you explain why you believe this is relevant to anything in this thread?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,034
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Not in the slightest. This (incomplete) equation for Gibbs free energy is not evidence for your claims at all. If you think it is I suspect profound ignorance coupled with a misunderstanding of "free energy" in this context.
    Ssshhh..
    PhDemon and babe like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,034
    All those people, all those websites. And yet no one has yet managed to produce "free energy".

    Do you wonder why that is?

    Let me tell you: IT. IS. IMPOSSIBLE.

    If you think it is possible then you need to provide some concrete evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    Note that links to random websites which do not show anyone achieving "fee energy" do not count as evidence for "free energy".
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Philosophy Jokes
    By digiplaya in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: December 12th, 2012, 04:52 AM
  2. First Philosophy — The Basis of All
    By questor in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: January 29th, 2011, 08:00 PM
  3. What does philosophy do?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: October 30th, 2009, 08:29 AM
  4. That’s philosophy for ya!
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 30th, 2009, 09:25 AM
  5. scientific wording V scientific equations
    By streamSystems in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: October 6th, 2007, 01:50 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •