Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:more pseudo science (Score 5, Insightful) 838

No, the original statement is a fabrication so the conclusion is a non-sequitur.

The original statement from rubycodez was as follows:

we cannot ascertain the temperatures of past centuries with enough precision to make any such study nor claims

That's not a fabrication. That's just wrong. Calling it a fabrication bestows too much grace on it.

Sadly, the anti-science (and particularly anti-AGW) crowd has no shortage of wrong statements, because unlike scientists, they are not tethered to facts.

We may not have direct records but that's not what the paper presents. Science is not always able to have first-hand accounts, but only indirect data sources, and yet we rely on it for a shocking amount of findings. Will you start dismissing those as well because they don't suit your agenda? Because an agenda it must be, for you to make such unreasonable demands and yet draw unrelated conclusions from them, while trusting other science based on similar methods.

This. Claiming that indirect evidence does not count is a desperate, sophomoric attempt by the anti-science crowd.

Recall the recent debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on the theory of evolution. One of Ken Ham's favourite strategies was an attempt to make a distiction between "observational" science and "historical" science, with the latter being invalid in his opinion. How often did we hear him say "you don't know, you weren't there" in response to indirect evidence?

What if, after the debate, Ken Ham had walked to the parking lot of his museum and discovered that the driver-side front fender of his car was damaged, with debris from his front driver-side headlight strewn on the ground? He would no doubt conclude that someone hit his car while he was parked there. But not so fast, Mr. Ham. Let's apply your own standards of evidence: You don't know. You weren't there.

Comment: Re:IANA Physicist, So... (Score 1) 630

by ClickOnThis (#46729173) Attached to: Navy Debuts New Railgun That Launches Shells at Mach 7

(IAalsoAP) I'd think the EMP can be reasonably mitigated with a timely chaff release, or similar shielding ideas.

A Faraday Cage built around the rail-gun might help with shielding. I'm not sure how chaff would help in that regard, unless the pieces of chaff are comparable to or larger than the majority of the wavelengths in the EMP's power-spectrum.

However, I'm wondering about the path of the projectile. The thing is hypersonic, the path will be superheated - that might ionize the air. And ionized air *will* show up on radar. You have a 200 mile trajectory pointing right back at the launch site. Don't worry if you miss a few miles here and there, or even if the launch site is beyond your horizon.

Excellent point. We've been bouncing radio waves off ionized gases (aka plasmas) since the time of Marconi.

Comment: Re:IANA Physicist, So... (Score 5, Insightful) 630

by ClickOnThis (#46707537) Attached to: Navy Debuts New Railgun That Launches Shells at Mach 7

It's an inert piece of metal that can't be jammed and is probably hard to spot on radar too.

IAAP, although not an expert in rail guns or radar.

I would guess that the projectiles would be hard to detect on radar because they're small. However, it would seem to me that the rail gun itself would send out one hell of a large EMP that would reveal the location of the gun and the time of firing.

Comment: Re:IANA Physicist, So... (Score 1, Redundant) 630

by ClickOnThis (#46707411) Attached to: Navy Debuts New Railgun That Launches Shells at Mach 7

Not exactly. Oxygen is a prerequisite for the process known as combustion, since combustion is an oxidization reaction. "A rapid, exothermic oxidation of a substance, called the fuel," is a reasonable definition of combustion. Usually we say the fuel is combustible.

Mod parent informative. Oxygen doesn't burn. Rather, other stuff burns by combining rapidly with oxygen.

Comment: No, they don't (Score 1) 469

by ClickOnThis (#46673863) Attached to: It's Time To Bring Pseudoscience Into the Science Classroom

I confess I have conflicting opinions about Penn and Teller (just as they have conflicting opinions about many things.) And I have no desire to defend their libertarian views.

However, it is clear that Pen and Teller do not support pseudoscience. In fact, they go out of their way to debunk it. This is even mentioned in the very wikipedia link you supply.

I assume you are trying to claim that libertarianism itself is a kind of pseudoscience. I'm not a libertarian, but even I must disagree with that. It is a philosophy.

Comment: Re:Unfalsifieable (Score 2) 469

by ClickOnThis (#46673575) Attached to: It's Time To Bring Pseudoscience Into the Science Classroom

Ah yes. You're right in pointing that out. Yes, we need to allow for the subjective and many areas of human experience are in fields where truth doesn't matter - art, literature, music - who cares if a moving song is true or just a story?

I wouldn't go so far as to say that truth "doesn't matter" in those fields. Rather, they pursue truth through different forms of expression, kind of in the sense of Plato's forms. There's "truth" in a Picasso painting, a Frost poem or a Beethoven piano sonata. It's just not the kind of objective, rational truth that science pursues.

The pseudo-sciences, however, don't peddle in those areas. Astrology doesn't claim to tell a nice story, it claims to be able to say something about your character and future events.

This, exactly. And I'd go further: in general, adherents to pseudo-science are either deceived about the truth, or have bought into the deception despite the refutation of pseudo-scientific claims. Art, on the other hand, doesn't try to "claim" anything about the truth, it just endeavors to express examples of it.

Comment: Re:needs some (Score 1) 469

by ClickOnThis (#46673433) Attached to: It's Time To Bring Pseudoscience Into the Science Classroom

Really if you want to see pseudoscience in action take a good look at all the assumptions behind cosmology and astronomy. Redshift = distance is an ASSUMPTION and Edwin Hubble himself was the first to point that out.

No, it is not an assumption. Hubble (and others) confirmed it by comparing redshifts with distances measured independently.

Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.

Working...