OT? Rigol clearance

Whoosh

NT

"The medium is the message" - Marshall MacLuhan.

Because 99.44% was already taken?

John Larkin wrote on 7/2/2017 5:52 PM:

Did he really just write that? John Larkin doesn't "believe" in natural selection? That's the part of evolution that not only makes perfect sense, it is supported by real experiments and measurements that can be made today in the real world.

His writing is so stupendously stupid it is hard to refute in an intelligent manner. I see a lot of similarity to JL and the way Trump speaks.

Let's make evolution great again!

No, science is organized like a guild, around peer review. There are accredited institutions, and discussions, but no judges. And, no rulers.

No decision is final in science, any question is expected to be opened and examined from time to time (and always related not to 'authority' in the form of scientists, but to OBSERVATIONS).

So, choosing scientists is an exercise in futility. Unlike advertising, results cannot be bought. Unlike politics, science cannot be steered with rhetoric alone, or pushed by crowds of citizens, nor by princes. Observations, matter.

Governments and other effective institutions employ scientists as needed. But, governments cannot CERTIFY scientists without raising an outroar. Turkey has tried it recently.

Academia is older than governments. Older than Islam, or Christianity. On matters of fact-handling, it is respectable in ways that other institutions cannot match.

Yup.

Summary: Newtonian physics and Darwinian evolution are the truth, but not the whole truth.

Corollary: anyone who claims that they aren't true /because/ they aren't the /whole/ truth, is cognitively challenged.

The trouble with that is it doesn't work well enough.

they are as a matter of routine.

AGW?

So the church never messed in such matters?

Literally they do. However they may be routinely ignored when not compatible with the careers of what people think are scientists.

But still far from perfect. Very far. If only it were not.

NT

Nah, I'm pretty sure I'm right on

Nah, more like we think Americans should want leaders they can respect. On average you get the relationships you deserve, though, and I'm not sure whether many Americans are aware that when you vote for a clown, it means _you're_ a clown, too.

Twitter-clowning may be a growth industry these days, but it's not a super-respectable profession.

Well, he said that it didn't make sense, not that it wasn't true. Then again, to a casual observer it does seem like he's not inclined to believe that things could be true even if they're not intuitive or don't make sense. To him.

He admits that sociology textbooks never made much sense either

"Nothing is perfect, so please vote Republican."

you showed no comprehension at all. Determining what does and does not work is not the sole domain of someone with a paper qualification in that subject. That is especially so when the subject in question is bunk from one end to the other.

NT

whoosh. again.

NT

Nah I think I'm right on.

lol. 26 years of treatment and not one single success. You don't have to calculate p to know what that's about. You just need data.

NT

Another conspicuous display of willful ignorance on your part, Snowflake. You must be really proud of your shortcomings.

And I certainly have no more insight into your belief as to why climate science is bunk than when we began, other than "I believe it to be so." The theory of Darwinian evolution is certainly no more testable over long timeframes than the evolution of Earth's climate. You've got computer models and a historical record. Climate science has computer models and a historical record.

The reasons why one should be commonly accepted as a valid theory (even by conservative engineers) and the other immediately rejected as bunk on anything other than political and ideological grounds, rather than the merits of the science itself, are mysterious to me.

What _I_ think is that some believe that accepting the science somehow intrinsically implies the commies are going to take over the world. And then frantic rationalization to make it appear the objections are grounded in real science and not ideological anxiety. That's what I think. The rationalizations are goofy and don't fool nobody.

On the matter of anthropogenic global warming, science is uncompromising. Politicians, on the other hand, may prefer to straddle the fence...

The church can push a scientist (like Galileo), but despite the trial, conviction, recantation, those moons of Jupiter have always been called the 'Galilean moons', because the church could only press on a PERSON, the scientist, not on the institution, science.

The subsequent centuries did embarrass the church, so yes, you can certainly call it a mess. It wasn't 'in science', though.

Like the sniveling, groveling, Obama? Sure! He's impressive!

Sure, that's why you have none, snowflake.

A clown that kicked Felonia Von Pantsuit's ass. ...and is still kicking leftist butt.

From someone who thinks "snowflake" is a profession, you don't have much credibility, dipstick.