Unsurprisingly you misunderstand the concept of power and what its nature is...
Trump thinks to himself "I can't be a clown, because even the clowns who elected me wouldn't vote for a clown." The clowns who elected him think "We can't be clowns, because we're the same way and a clown could never be elected President."
It's a nice bit of circular reasoning, but it doesn't change much. Most objective observers still just see clowns.
You're quite wrong (as lefties _always_ are). That's the whole reason for decentralized government, something you dismiss because you *like* tyrants with power, as long as they're your tyrant (for now).
I'm so impressed that you can read minds, even though you have none of your own.
Yes, you are good at circular reasoning, something that you show here regularly.
All Lefties are gifted mind-readers, though. Over here, our gifted, mind- reading Lefties were able to discern that the real reason our prime minister was returned with a reduced share of the vote was because the voters wanted a "soft" Brexit. It could have been any one of a thousand reasons, but these Lefties have such dazzling, trenchant minds they can determine the exact reasoning behind every voter's choice without even asking them. Remarkable when you think about it. Truly unbelievable in fact.
+1, I'm skipping the rest of this thread. (I did think it kinda amazing that there were 85 posts on the sale of Rigol 'scopes. :^)
George H.
bitrex wrote on 7/4/2017 1:55 PM:
At this point the most complex thought Trump has is along the lines of, "I'm President and you're not!", a thought he shares with his buddy Chris Christy, "I'm sorry they're not Governor".
-- Rick C
I wasn't thinking about AGW, not that that's the point.
To decide whether something adds up one only need look at the results. Not the for-public-consumption spun results, the real results.
NT
I'm unclear what you mean by that. Science is certainly routinely compromised.
It's not just politicians, scientists or so-called scientists do their bit to mislead as well. It's business as usual.
Go to countries where religion rules, or to the past when it ruled here. Churches have most certainly leant on the institution of science.
What that really means I don't know.
NT
or that the voters didn't have any options they wanted on the ballot. Seems that's ever how it is.
NT
Reexamine the example of Galileo, who DID live in such a time and place.
Science means knowledge and understanding. Political science is political knowledge and understanding; military science is military knowledge and understanding.
So it isn't about persons, or institutions (schools that can be shuttered, books that can be burned), it's about knowledge and understanding. That did NOT diminish. Publication of observations and techniques prevents that.
Some die-hards, from time to time, will try to reject inconvenient truth. The next generation will grow up recalling the crazy old guys. The Church reopened the Galileo case centuries later and issued a pardon, but that was just a formality. Everyone knew it was just a crazy old episode.
Sometimes. And often it's wrong
you underestimate the power of power a great deal. Do you really think that in the 1600s witchhunt years you could publish a paper on how to do something new? You'd be killed for witchcraft, everyone knew it.
NT
If it's uncompromising, it's not science.
Simulations of poorly understood chaotic systems are not science.
A lot of damage will be done, to people and to science, if we're headed into another mini ice age.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
Evidence is always acceptable. Reason is always acceptable. Criticisms are always acceptable. No compromises, and that IS science.
Your claim has no evidence supporting it. You apply no reasoning. My criticism is: you're just being silly and contrary. Accept that, or you're no scientist.
Yeah, it's too bad climate scientists need to have a version of their research that they distribute for public consumption and a version they keep to themselves.
Imagine how bad the Right's freakout would be if they laid out just how bad things _really_ were and not the softened, public-relations version.
I hardly have to read minds, Trump and his supporters are the loudest voices in the room and constantly pro-offer their opinions on everything, solicited or not. Truly the biggest blabbermouths there ever were.
"Tell us how you really feel" has definitely never been a problem, either with OT posts here, or Trump's habitual 19 tweets a day on every topic under the sun. You don't really have to be clairvoyant, just have to be able to read words and accept them at face value.
I mean, unless you're claiming it's all lies and nobody actually means what they say. Which is certainly plausible.
In general, though, people do tend to assume that when there's some guy who says things, and the things he says are completely clear, and people enthusiastically back that guy, that at some level they must feel pretty much the same way, and are doing it for that reason and not some other mysterious reason known only to themselves. Logical? Yeah?
You mean how fast they'd have to run if the public knew what a fraud they were.
It would definitely be one of the biggest scientific scandals of all time if it could be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a vast conspiracy between scientists and DA COMMIES, involving hundreds of thousands of people, to manipulate data to advance some nefarious political goal (harvesting the precious bodily fluids of Real Americans, no doubt.)
Unfortunately I've been waiting a really long time to find out who really shot Kennedy, and I figure I'll be waiting a really long time for anyone to present the smoking gun on this one, too.
For my part I think you're not really an engineer, I think you're a grumpy IBM 8086 that became self-aware and learned how to upload text to Usenet. Well, someday I'll get to the bottom of this.
that's news to me.
NT
Except from denialists.
I've actually done some scientific research, microwave spectroscopy of organic molecules, but engineering is more fun. Both demand an open mind and quantitative rigor.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
IOW the *willful ignorance* we've already established is his outstanding character trait.
Nonsense. Denial is NOT a criticism. Being a denialist doesn't mean real criticisms are unwelcome, it just means they're mixed in with the same 'is not' rhetoric one hears from a six-year-old.
You can strengthen a proof of the Pythagorean theorem with a criticism and response. You can't strengthen it with denial.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.