Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Impossible (Score 1) 455

by s.petry (#46823611) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

We teach what we know to the limits of our knowledge. If you don't like it, get to work disproving it. I know you'll never believe me, but if you could actually back any of your opinions with real data you could get published and become famous.

Bullshit! (to be blunt) Those countering theories and questions already abound. The Expanding Vacuum theory for the expansion of the Universe is just as scientifically sound as the Big Bang, yet if I discuss that theory I'm a "Religious nut" to the majority of people on this site. The theory is quantum not religious, go figure.

Thousands and thousands of medical people are questioning the vaccine policies we have today and looking at the rates of autism going from 1 in 1,500 in 1970 to 1 in 68 today. It's not because "a vaccine is bad" mind you, they are questioning the "inject often' policies we are claiming are perfectly safe.

If you question their policies you are labelled.

That is not "science" it's "ad hominem" and unfortunately people refuse to see the difference when it challenges their beliefs. People acting irrationally when their beliefs are challenged is not anything new, the new part is when so many self proclaimed intelligent people behave this way.

Comment: Re:You’re using the wrong defn of doubt (Score 1) 455

by s.petry (#46823499) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

Oh no, the old "attack the person" irrational argument! I'm really bothered by your lack of anything insightful in your post, and do find quite a bit of humor in you being marked as 'insightful'

As I question above, are you telling me that the Expanding Vacuum theory has less factual evidence than the Big-Bang? It has the same exact evidence, you just don't know about or believe in that theory. The math in the theory is much more sound, it does not require dark matter or energy, and does not have other issues such as contracting space that big-bang does. Your lack of concern for 'science' is glaring.

The biggest problem on this site is that people like you claim to be intellectuals, yet can't tell the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. If you knew the difference, and understood the scientific method you would see how hypocritical you were.

Comment: Re:Experimental science vs narrative science (Score 1) 455

by s.petry (#46823385) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

This was a joke about him saying there was only one universe.

As it was written, it read as a claim that we could measure our Universe by the Multiverse. Thanks for the clarification.

Notwithstanding other planets the atmosphere consists of multiple layers of atmosphere, different regions of the planet, different aspects like storms, rainfall, temperature, etc.
For instance CO2 warming doesn't just explain the earth getting warmer right now, it also explains that different layers of the atmosphere will warm to a different degree, it also explains past warming events.

Our world is within finite space, so we can surely take measurements accurately. Modelling the complexity is another issue which I would agree we don't have. We worked on those in the 70s when we focused on the root cause of what today we bicker over as Global warming. We had regulations being passed and consumer awareness about pollution and conservation. Today it has become all about the corporate profits and the argument no longer focuses on the root cause. Neither side of the global warming debate are being scientific, or logical and reasonable for that matter. They both have the same masters and neither really give a shit as long as they get a paycheck, which depends on their masters making lots of profits.

In other words, you don't seem to know the debate either and may have probably been played like a fiddle just like the majority of the public. More a question than accusation, which you don't have to answer. Just something for you to consider.

Your issue with the multiverse and specialist thing was a misunderstanding, similarly with the atmosphere I wasn't saying it was infinite, I was saying it was way too big and complex to treat as a simple thing.

Agreed above with the multiverse, not at all with the atmosphere.

The theory that Zeus threw thunder, if the atmosphere was as simple as a thing that made thunder then the only thing we could repeat was the observation that thunder happens. But we can test the Zeus theory multiple ways, we can fly up to the top of the clouds and see if a giant is hanging out up there, we can look at multiple clouds in different parts of the globe and see if there's more simultaneous lightning strikes than Zeus has limbs, we can check to see if lightning strikes correlate with sacrifices, or if there are other cloud characteristics that predict lightning. There is only one atmosphere but I just named four ways to test the Zeus theory, its not as simple as one atmosphere means one observation and no way to double check your theory, that's why the observational vs narrative model is false.

What you claimed is that observation is what made science, and I claimed it was wrong. You get closer here, but not quite there yet. The whole definition of inductive reason includes the fact that some things can not be proven absolutely. It is a scientists job to question those theories and find weaknesses. If you claim a theory is proof and a person questioning is wrong, you are absolutely _not_ being scientific.

Not every question about a theory is bad, yet every question is treated as bad by people claiming to be intellectuals. Those same self proclaimed intellectuals close their ears to anything that threatens their belief in the theory, and loudly complain about those other guys ignoring 'science'. The hypocrisy is staggering if you care to look.

Comment: Re:Not really needed anymore. (Score 1) 255

The average wait for a white person to vote in Michigan is 7 minutes. The average wait for a black person to vote in Michigan is 46 minutes.

In Florida, Ohio, Indiana etc those ratios are much bigger.

Yeah, you still need affirmative action. It may be that slavery is like original sin and it can never be washed away and once you start a country that is based on owning other humans, you're never going to be redeemed completely. It can get better, and it can get worse, but it never goes away.

Comment: Re:Easy answers (Score 1) 224

by PopeRatzo (#46822875) Attached to: 'The Door Problem' of Game Design

I've been playing the Rise of the Triad re-do lately, and I've noticed lots of doors. I mean a LOT of doors. I've also noticed that they all open. Either you can open it now or it's locked and you can open it later or it will open with a bad guy behind it and it's not for you to open at all because it opens from the other side, but dammit it will be opened at some point if you continue exploring.

The ease of movement of those old FPS games is a stunning contrast with the newer 3rd person shooter console games like Tomb Raider, which feel like you're controlling a marionette with rubberbands instead of strings and you're never sure if you're going to jump over that obstacle or use it for cover. The Mass Effect series is the same.

One third-person shooter that felt natural was Saints Row 3 and 4. But even there, as well-done as those games were, there would be some clumsiness. In an FPS like Half-Life 2, there was none of that.

Comment: Re:Experimental science vs narrative science (Score 1) 455

by s.petry (#46822871) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

Inductive reasoning is the only way to generalize lots disparate anecdotes into a meaningful explanations of cause and effect.

Absolutely WRONG! At least try and read a bit about the definition of a word prior to posting, if you had bothered to read the Wiki page for "inductive reason" you would see the examples they provide. The Big-Bang is a good example inductive reasoning.

Comment: Re:You’re using the wrong defn of doubt (Score 1) 455

by s.petry (#46822735) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

Chances for autism in children have gone from 1 in 1500 to 1 in 68

So, as a scientist you would then investigate possible causes of autism, and find that we have broadened our definition of it and increased our awareness of it.

Absolutely! Why then are we not allowed to question the vaccine policy which has increased in the volume and frequency of vaccines children receive at a similar rate to autism increases? Autism is only one symptom of something going on, there are more.

Polio has been gone for nearly half a century from the US, why not push the policy back vaccines to a lower rate and longer duration between vaccines (rates we considered safe in the 60s and 70s) and see how it impacts things like autism? I'm done having children, but if I was a parent today I'd surely take issue with some of the current recommendations for how many vaccines a kid gets. We don't know why the rate has gone up so high for just autism, and looking at correlations is at least a start toward finding the cause. Compare that to doing nothing, and which is more "scientific".

Comment: Re:You’re using the wrong defn of doubt (Score 1) 455

by s.petry (#46822639) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

No evidence? Are you referring to Big-Bang which has less actual evidence than the Expanding Vacuum theory? Are you trying to claim that vaccines cause no harm and have no effect on the human body? Are you trying to claim that a body with 1 injury heals at the same rate as a body with multiple injuries?

If you choose to ignore evidence to maintain your belief you are delusional by definition. That is what it appears you are doing.

Comment: Re:Good to hear there are reasonable parents left. (Score 1) 81

by s.petry (#46820191) Attached to: Parents' Privacy Concerns Kill 'Personalized Learning' Initiative

So they got caught with their pants down, okay. Not the first group this happened to.

It would be better to hear their logic for collecting this data to begin with. If they wanted personalized learning, I'm pretty sure a student ID unique to each student make more sense than gathering data on parents, their partners, reasons they missed class, etc...?

If they really and truly only wanted to help personalize learning why not trim off the data people took issue with? They obviously wanted that data more than they want to really wanted help people.

Comment: Re:Hmm (Score 1) 455

by s.petry (#46820127) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

And what about the people that prefer the Expanding Vacuum theory as opposed to big bang? Those crazy quantum physicists must all be religious nuts with mental illness too right?

Sadly, this affliction is rampant in the USA. Happily, it is a dwindling number, and perhaps will soon be eradicated.

Just make sure you know which side of the fence you are on, because I'm not sure you do.

Comment: Re:Experimental science vs narrative science (Score 1) 455

by s.petry (#46820121) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

I find it very sad that you call someone else an idiot, yet lump inductive and deductive reason into one category and claim they are the same thing. Deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are not the same thing. Theory is not fact, and probably is not absolutely. That said, there are quite a few of both. The scientific method never claims you can only use one method exclusively.

Comment: Re:Experimental science vs narrative science (Score 0) 455

by s.petry (#46820099) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

What about the multiverse? :)


The atmosphere isn't some single indivisible thing anymore than the universe,


you aren't going to find a climate scientist who specializes in the atmosphere anymore than you find a physicist who specializes in the universe.


The reason that matters is because you can repeat observations.

What???? Seriously, I hope this is a troll?

There is no proof of a multiverse, the atmosphere is within confined known space and measurable, science does have specialists, and I can repeatedly watch lightning come out of the sky but that does not mean Zeus throwing thunder because he's angry.

If this was not a troll ... well the world is already in trouble so what's one more.

Comment: Re:Experimental science vs narrative science (Score 1) 455

by s.petry (#46820003) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

And not only that, it seems to be a vehicle for pushing the 'fact' that *human caused* global warming is a proven fact, by trying to associate it with a group of much more solidly proven 'facts' and poking fun at dissenters.

Welcome to the game! Watch how you are modded down over and over again because you question theories people want you to believe.

You can not get anything worthwhile done without raising a sweat. -- The First Law Of Thermodynamics