It is a fallacy to treat a class as an instance of that class.
Instances of the class, not the class.
See my previous post. We'll call this the ZenMode class error.
well you can take a lot of measurements. what it means is something else.
"Instances" meaning "anything instance of science from a scientist that doesn't fit your politics."
Yes, you have two classes: scientists who align with your politics and scientists who don't.
You preach that scientists aren't science while you are referencing laws that came from scientists. You are blind to your own delusion. That is not my issue. I see it and I get it.
Nope. One class with an value property. You aren't going to do well on this topic until you learn the fundamental concepts.
While that is correct, the credit for stating that belongs to Into the Night.
The origin of any law of science is irrelevant. Stefan-Boltzmann is a mere mathematical derivation. Your clergy is not science. You are blind to your own delusion.
The value added property is based on your politics.
Of course "my" view is clergy and not science. It opposes your politics.
Just "value property" ... not "value-added property" or "value proposition." It's based on a particular value.
Yes, value based on your politics.
It's fun to see people who have no idea how the NIST defines "measurement" and treats uncertainty pretend to discuss it.
How do you have that enumerated?
Correct. Science is a tool to predict nature, i.e. a given cause will have a given effect. Science does not predict the past.
