Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: What about BSD derivatives (Score 4, Interesting) 119

by theshowmecanuck (#47970181) Attached to: Outlining Thin Linux
Not trolling... I don't use BSD really, but my understanding is that some of the BSD distros are more server focused. I don't mind being corrected but my understanding is this could be a legit alternative if the idea of splitting Linux is a no go. I don't know why BSD isn't seen or heard of more (I do know it is used and has a strong following, but doesn't seem as prevalent as Linux... Mac doesn't count here). For BSD adherents, maybe this is the break they are looking for?

Comment: Re:The article is more extreme than the summary (Score 1) 626

by geekoid (#47969801) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

" I said it was a branch of philosophy and it is."
no, it is not. There is a philosophy of science,. but science isn't a branch of philosophy.
In fact, in the modern era, philosophers have done more harm the good to science.
And nearly every question regard modern science the philosophers bring up are outdated, moot, or not answerable by the nature of the question.

I to can quote wikipedia:
"Philosophy of science explores the foundations, methods, implications, and purpose of science."
Note: It in NO WAY determines what science is or is not.

So, yeah you can have people not smart enough to actual do science talk about science, but they have no real impact and just confuse the lay person.

As a note: Philosophy was my first major.

Comment: Wrong about Scientific laws (Score 1) 626

by geekoid (#47967891) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

"Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

" Science has no heroes,"
False. It absolutely does have scientific heros.

" and hero worship has no place in science. "
Sure it does. In fact, it can be a way to get people interested in science.

If you replace hero with demagoguery, then I would agree.

I have heros in science, becasue they did great things and in some case, change what they did because the data showed them they where wrong.

He talks about is person experience with Carl Sagan. Briefly.

Comment: Re:GP is an attempt to censor and bias (Score 4, Insightful) 626

by geekoid (#47966411) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

to believe that there is a "Philosophical question regarding the origin of the Universe." Is, in itself, a religion.

The question will matter the moment you can tell us why there is a reason for the origin of the universe we currently live in.
"There is no proof, but it's a rational conclusion to believe that something did cause the Universe to exist. "
I philosopher probably would say that, but that would be an another example of why they are useless hanger ons to the historical coat tails of science.

Yes, there is proof. We are walking around in it. And yes, atheists do understand the something caused it. But there is a lot of evidence showing it was a natural something, and zero evidence it was a bi-product of intent.

"The question regarding the origin of the Universe is just one question where bias takes charge and science is put in the background."
False. there is a lot of sciecne regarding the origin of the universe. What we have is a bunch os people who get their panties in a bunch when it's pointed out there is zero evidence to support theire belief.
Lets see:
"Vaccines"
The science is well know. The vast majority of public debate isn't about anything debatable. It's one side making things up and the other using science. i.e. expermint, data, ect.

"GMO foods"
ON one side we ahve science, and verification from every major scientific health group in the world, that it is safe. On the other side you got FUD.

" Global Warming"
ON side has science, prediction, proof, the other side has people screaming nonsense.
Science and bias isn't why we can't have a rational debate.
How would you have a rational debate with someone who claims 2+2 = 5. No natter how many time you showed them it equals 4, they refuse to change? What do you do when the blame the status quo for not accepting his theory?

"Anyone that dares to challenge the status quo is attacked and ostracized."
False. challenge the status quo without good data is "attacked and ostracized." If you statement was true, science and out body of scientific knowledge wouldn't change, but it does change. Every day.

I am replying because it is wrong. Being wrong is not 'challenging the status quo' it's simple just wrong.

Comment: Re:Summary is Troll Rant (Score 1) 626

by geekoid (#47966239) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Except he is wrong on several points.

"While it is a fact that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads, all else equal, to higher atmospheric temperatures, the idea that we can predict the impact of global warming"

If he mean prediction, as in 'it will be exactly 2.5 degree warmer(and not even a fraction of degree off), well then yes. But that's because he is using an incorrect word. He should be saying forecast and not predict. Just so you know, the forecasting to date has been pretty good, and gets refined with new data.

"This is how you get the phenomenon of philistines like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne thinking science has made God irrelevant, "
Richard Dawkins has said, many times, that he is as sure their is no god as a sane person can be. New evidence may change that. He does say that God is irrelevant in understanding the universe.

" by definition, religion concerns the ultimate causes of things and, again, by definition, science cannot tell you about them."

Religion does not concern itself with ultimate causes. That is complete nonsense. It concerns itself with following an unprovable tenant.
Science can tell us about everything the religion claims has an effect.

" Both of them think science is like magic"
Please point to something that lets us know Dr. Tyson thinks science is magic? listen to the man every week, and I can't think of an example.

And yes, economics is a science. It makes prediction. I've seen economic principles applied to scientific fields.

He seems to thing science makes predictions. That is incorrect. There is a lot to science. In best case, it's make predictions. But gathering data is science, deriving forecast is science.
I wonder if he knows prediction have error bars?

Comment: Re:Proper Science is hard. (Score 1) 626

by geekoid (#47965905) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

I have, and I"m friends with many of them.
They use jargon in the field of expertise because it's specific and accurate.

"A lot of everyday science is NOT hard,"
If it is accurate and high quality, yes, it is hard.

I have done science with 10 year olds. IT's funny, but not exactly a high level quality. Kids not only have biases, they will also say what they think you want to hear.

BTW: All the scientist I know do not suck at other things. IN fact, they have a lot of interests there very knowledgeable.

And by scientist, I mean people paid to do science.

 

You scratch my tape, and I'll scratch yours.

Working...