Phixer
New member
Yes Starcraft 2. Thats his avatar, Tychus Findlay ... Jim Raynors buddy. An awesome game.
Was wondering if anyone would pick that up?
Last edited:
for those who claim to truly care... ;-p
- Thread starter vitz
- Start date
- Status
Yes Starcraft 2. Thats his avatar, Tychus Findlay ... Jim Raynors buddy. An awesome game.
Was wondering if anyone would pick that up?
power boat jim
Well-known member
Just FYI, OSHA is a regulatory agency that comes up with creative ways to protect workers. They have nothing to do with the environment. The EPA is far more complicated, but generally help enact laws that do pertain to the environment. Alot of putting numbers on emissions among other things. This is where the Science by agenda can become an issue since its run by the government.
As for the rest of you post I cannot disagree, personal experience can be a valueable tool in uncovering the truth. With enough experience you can formulate a theory, which leads to an experiment(s) then you can draw a conclusion based on the data you have compiled.If The data can be reviewed and duplicated it usually becomes scientific fact. See so you have become part of the scientific process and didnt even know it
Man I love this thread, I really do. We could have answered Vitz’s question with a simple yes or no answer and be done with it. Instead we have gone around the horn multiple times and I hope that we continue. The best threads/discussions in life really are all encompassing.
Phixer you have stated no one is going to change your opinion of the world because “you live in the real world and you do not accept theories” and that “personal experience is always correct and that it works for the individual”. Yet you have flip-flopped back and forth between using the natural sciences and your opinions/experiences to justify your reality and stance.
As you stated, “filling a page with opinions” won’t change the facts, yet when someone else uses science to support the argument you disagree and you use your sense of reality. Why use both sides of the discussion if you don’t believe in one of them?
You stated that “natural science consistently fails to provide answers for most of the problems we have” and that “science is wrong more than it is right and if it something works for you then that becomes your reality no matter what science says”. How did you conclude that? Science is not about being right or wrong but being able to DISPROVE scientific theories based upon predictions that can be tested through repeatable experiments.
Here are three examples of science over the last few centuries related to your train of thought though I doubt if you accept them since they are “just theories”. You don’t support scientific theories but what about scientific laws?
Look at the work of Newton and his Theory of Mechanics and then the work of Einstein. Without one the other may have never been scientifically accepted. What about Newton’s work on calculus and the effects on physics and statistics?
Because the natural sciences were discussed how about Darwin’s work and the Theory of Evolution? We could go into great detail but that is beyond this discussion and hits on some of the UA issues. I brought this up for the historical significance as much as anything. Some argue that this theory should be scientific fact. Should it? Do you accept it? So far, there have been no experiments that have tested this theory and have disproved it. Perhaps 200 years from now someone else will propose a new hypothesis, test it, post their results, have those results peer-reviewed, the hypothesis becomes accepted as scientific theory, the person is awarded the Nobel Prize and the cash and then goes on the late night talk show circuit but until then the science supports his theory.
Finally and more recently what about the work of Pons and Fleischmann? Ever heard of them? Why not? (Why do I feel like I am sitting at a bar in Boston with Robin Williams discussing science?).
They conducted some earth shattering science, science that could change the world and yet most people probably have never heard of them.
Again why? Because with today’s science, their claims and results cannot be reproduced and it is believed that the results were due to some error. Yet with all of that, there are some researchers that continue the work in efforts. Perhaps history will be kind to them and credit them with “saving all the world’s energy problems”.
One of the biggest issues with open discussions when using science and reality/ personal experience is a person’s reality cannot be quantified. Humans, even though some are “higher life forms who spend less time breeding”, are for the most part simple creatures. People like pretty packages i.e. numbers and science even when they do not understand it or agree.
Don’t believe me? Back to the beginning of this thread everything you stated that was wrong was based upon overpopulation. At what point is the world considered to be overpopulated? What is your answer? What number just flashed in your head? Did you just pick some random number? Is it 42?
What value is your number? How did you come up with that? Wouldn’t it support your argument if you could say that at 8.2 billion people the human population has reached a critical value and anything beyond that the system can no longer support these levels? Then what? Harmony or is it chaos?
Still don’t believe me? What happens in a court of law? Eye witnesses take the stand and describe their personal experiences and to them, everything they state is the truth/correct/factual because of that experience. Seems pretty straight forward doesn’t it? Then an expert witness, who has no personal interest in the case, takes the stand and uses science to show that perception/reality wasn’t reality.
My Cousin Vinny anyone?
So of the two which holds more sway, the science or the sense of reality of the eye witness?
As far as your statement about harm and asbestos how do you know that asbestos is harmful? It was a great product. It did everything it was suppose to do. It was a great insulator and even was used in child clothing as a fire retardant. I bet that some are reading this right now that wore it years ago.
It has been used for thousands of years and the popularity grew as the result of the Industrial Revolution but guess what? It was discovered that there were some issues with it.
How did we determine that? Nope not personal opinion but science. Yeah for science.
If PaulB comes across this, I know that he worked with it and I also know that he use to bathe in Agent Orange. Luckily he is healthy as a horse and it is probably because he is as stubborn as a mule. Does this mean that because his personal experiences are different than others that the scientific data showing the effects should be discredited? No.
We could continue to list many more chemicals such as PCBs, and DDT but then we would be discussing science once again and we all know that according to you science is flawed because it leaves more questions unanswered than answered. If you think about it that is one of the goals of science as illustrated by my three examples above.
What about coal ash? Is that an issue? What does the EPA say? Is it considered a toxic material? As far as the USEPA it really isn’t that bad. Perhaps it is the modern day equivalent of asbestos but we won’t know will we?
So when it comes down to it, it should be logical to go with science over our version of reality.
Now I am sure you are either going to ignore all of this, take some stab at humor to by pass this, you are going to go into another emotional/denial stance or maybe even you are going to make a comment about weakness or others being a cat (nice going around the UA on that one) but it is a good thing that you used a man made system to get all of your points across especially when you are not dependent on it. But my personal favorite that I almost forgot is the “I don’t mean to insult you” line when in reality that is exactly what will follow.
See this has been much more fun than just a simple poll.
Phixer you have stated no one is going to change your opinion of the world because “you live in the real world and you do not accept theories” and that “personal experience is always correct and that it works for the individual”. Yet you have flip-flopped back and forth between using the natural sciences and your opinions/experiences to justify your reality and stance.
As you stated, “filling a page with opinions” won’t change the facts, yet when someone else uses science to support the argument you disagree and you use your sense of reality. Why use both sides of the discussion if you don’t believe in one of them?
You stated that “natural science consistently fails to provide answers for most of the problems we have” and that “science is wrong more than it is right and if it something works for you then that becomes your reality no matter what science says”. How did you conclude that? Science is not about being right or wrong but being able to DISPROVE scientific theories based upon predictions that can be tested through repeatable experiments.
Here are three examples of science over the last few centuries related to your train of thought though I doubt if you accept them since they are “just theories”. You don’t support scientific theories but what about scientific laws?
Look at the work of Newton and his Theory of Mechanics and then the work of Einstein. Without one the other may have never been scientifically accepted. What about Newton’s work on calculus and the effects on physics and statistics?
Because the natural sciences were discussed how about Darwin’s work and the Theory of Evolution? We could go into great detail but that is beyond this discussion and hits on some of the UA issues. I brought this up for the historical significance as much as anything. Some argue that this theory should be scientific fact. Should it? Do you accept it? So far, there have been no experiments that have tested this theory and have disproved it. Perhaps 200 years from now someone else will propose a new hypothesis, test it, post their results, have those results peer-reviewed, the hypothesis becomes accepted as scientific theory, the person is awarded the Nobel Prize and the cash and then goes on the late night talk show circuit but until then the science supports his theory.
Finally and more recently what about the work of Pons and Fleischmann? Ever heard of them? Why not? (Why do I feel like I am sitting at a bar in Boston with Robin Williams discussing science?).
They conducted some earth shattering science, science that could change the world and yet most people probably have never heard of them.
Again why? Because with today’s science, their claims and results cannot be reproduced and it is believed that the results were due to some error. Yet with all of that, there are some researchers that continue the work in efforts. Perhaps history will be kind to them and credit them with “saving all the world’s energy problems”.
One of the biggest issues with open discussions when using science and reality/ personal experience is a person’s reality cannot be quantified. Humans, even though some are “higher life forms who spend less time breeding”, are for the most part simple creatures. People like pretty packages i.e. numbers and science even when they do not understand it or agree.
Don’t believe me? Back to the beginning of this thread everything you stated that was wrong was based upon overpopulation. At what point is the world considered to be overpopulated? What is your answer? What number just flashed in your head? Did you just pick some random number? Is it 42?
What value is your number? How did you come up with that? Wouldn’t it support your argument if you could say that at 8.2 billion people the human population has reached a critical value and anything beyond that the system can no longer support these levels? Then what? Harmony or is it chaos?
Still don’t believe me? What happens in a court of law? Eye witnesses take the stand and describe their personal experiences and to them, everything they state is the truth/correct/factual because of that experience. Seems pretty straight forward doesn’t it? Then an expert witness, who has no personal interest in the case, takes the stand and uses science to show that perception/reality wasn’t reality.
My Cousin Vinny anyone?
So of the two which holds more sway, the science or the sense of reality of the eye witness?
As far as your statement about harm and asbestos how do you know that asbestos is harmful? It was a great product. It did everything it was suppose to do. It was a great insulator and even was used in child clothing as a fire retardant. I bet that some are reading this right now that wore it years ago.
It has been used for thousands of years and the popularity grew as the result of the Industrial Revolution but guess what? It was discovered that there were some issues with it.
How did we determine that? Nope not personal opinion but science. Yeah for science.
If PaulB comes across this, I know that he worked with it and I also know that he use to bathe in Agent Orange. Luckily he is healthy as a horse and it is probably because he is as stubborn as a mule. Does this mean that because his personal experiences are different than others that the scientific data showing the effects should be discredited? No.
We could continue to list many more chemicals such as PCBs, and DDT but then we would be discussing science once again and we all know that according to you science is flawed because it leaves more questions unanswered than answered. If you think about it that is one of the goals of science as illustrated by my three examples above.
What about coal ash? Is that an issue? What does the EPA say? Is it considered a toxic material? As far as the USEPA it really isn’t that bad. Perhaps it is the modern day equivalent of asbestos but we won’t know will we?
So when it comes down to it, it should be logical to go with science over our version of reality.
Now I am sure you are either going to ignore all of this, take some stab at humor to by pass this, you are going to go into another emotional/denial stance or maybe even you are going to make a comment about weakness or others being a cat (nice going around the UA on that one) but it is a good thing that you used a man made system to get all of your points across especially when you are not dependent on it. But my personal favorite that I almost forgot is the “I don’t mean to insult you” line when in reality that is exactly what will follow.
See this has been much more fun than just a simple poll.
- Status
