Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:You’re using the wrong defn of doubt (Score 1) 536

by s.petry (#46826965) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

I didn't agree that something might be bogus, I stated that correlation != causation. If we don't have proof of a cause currently, so the most obvious method of pursuit is to look at where there are correlations and rule those out (if we can).

I'm all for "Science" and experiments, but if you bring up vaccines as even a potential issue you are slandered or silenced. Read this whole thread and look at the moronic and similar responses to my point. The point was not about vaccines being bad, but questioning the volume and frequency of the vaccines.

Interestingly I can tell you that there are warnings on numerous vaccines and medical sites warning people not to get vaccinated during certain times due to potential issues. Yet for some reason, a vaccine can not impact another vaccine? Think about that one.

Comment: Re:You’re using the wrong defn of doubt (Score 1) 536

by s.petry (#46826823) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

I did attack the person in order to highlight the problem with your reasoning

Providing ad hominem and no facts is not attacking reason, unless you are the extremely immature and trying to argue.

I've never even heard of the "Expanding Vacuum theory". Google hasn't, either (apart from your own post).

Google is not knowledge, and claiming ignorance of something while claiming it's wrong is the epitome of being unscientific.

Try reading Lawrence Kraus and actually learning instead of pretending to be smart by searching for other people's answers.

I don't claim to be an intellectual. I've never claimed that. You claimed that, not I. Again -

Obviously if you are right and everyone else is wrong you believe you are an intellect.

Comment: Re:$100K is not "living the life" (Score 1) 191

by s.petry (#46826765) Attached to: Tech People Making $100k a Year On the Rise, Again

Based on my research a few months ago, $100k wouldn't come close to getting that even an hour away

I was differing, really. East Palo Alto is near Milpitas so not an hour drive from SF, or San Jose. Fremont is also in the bay, but with traffic it depends on where you want to go how long it will take. San Jose is short, SF and Oakland are nasty.

Comment: Re:Experimental science vs narrative science (Score 1) 536

by s.petry (#46826737) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

Blah blah, Hyperbole ad hominem blah blah, ad hominem hyperbole.

My kid was better than you at science when he was 9. Why you may ask? You can't phrase a single fact, spew fallacy as answers. Fallacies are simply broken logic!

If questions have not been answered then the questions are still valid, it does not prove a theory. Good lord you are ignorant.

Comment: Re:Experimental science vs narrative science (Score 1) 536

by s.petry (#46826685) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

Something that generalized you can't, but there is surely deductive reasoning mixed in with the inductive. Geology for example is chok full of repeatable experiments.

To claim that you can only use one type of reasoning is wrong. We don't, never have, and there is a difference between the 2 types of reasoning.

Comment: Re:Good to hear there are reasonable parents left. (Score 1) 88

by s.petry (#46826631) Attached to: Parents' Privacy Concerns Kill 'Personalized Learning' Initiative

You are telling me it's impossible to gauge someone's knowledge or tailor learning to something like testing and progression, and you have to know who a kids parent is sleeping with? Seriously, hold that thought a minute.

Hahaha, haha, hahahaha, OMFG! Hahahaha.

Okay, sorry. Have a nice day sir.

Comment: Re:Impossible (Score 1) 536

by s.petry (#46826551) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

You really want to get into the autism debate? Nobody denies that autism rates are going up. But the rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated kids is the same.

Prove it! Globally vaccination rates are all very high and have been increasing annually since the 1970s. There have been no real studies to back this claim. Before you take someones anecdote and hyperbole, show me any real studies that used scientific methods.

I've frankly got no idea what you're trying to espouse with the Expanding Vacuum thing. Is it some flavour of String theory? If that's the case, please keep in mind why ST is generally not well accepted: It makes no testable hypothesis.

The theory uses the same evidence as the big bang, and you admit that you don't know about. How on earth are you claiming it has no testable hypothesis, speculating it's "string theory" right after you admit ignorance? Think about that really really hard before you answer.

After you consider that answer, ask yourself how "Scientific" that is.

I personally don't care about your answers. I'm merely pointing out how unscientific and idiotic some people are when something challenges their beliefs. There is no realistic difference between those people and the so-called religious nuts. God said so vs. Hawking said so is no different!

Comment: Re:Impossible (Score 2) 536

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) 536

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) 536

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:Experimental science vs narrative science (Score 1) 536

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.

"If that makes any sense to you, you have a big problem." -- C. Durance, Computer Science 234