Pelosi says Biden shouldn't debate Trump:

Terri4Trump said:
You would know what if you were in the same room as me you little coward
Click to expand...

LOL........ I have been threaten many times & I am still here.........

Your impotent threats are entertaining @ best............

I will give you props for being the first to threaten me w/ a girl though.........

She must be your alter-ego.....

So you can pull down your sports bra & rub it in your lil chest any time now.............:evilnod:
 
Into the Night said:
It is atrocious what the Democrats have done to blacks. True, Democrats gave us a huge welfare state and massive affirmative action programs. It is about control. It is about racism. Blacks are not inferior. They are kept on the modern urban 'plantations' in poverty by welfare, lousy schools, and other Democrat programs. They can read, if they are taught to. The can become successful, if they can get off of their welfare mentality.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHA. Blacks are NOT inferior???? Did you really say that. ?? So why is it

1. Black-americans come in last in all standardized tests. Asian-americans do fine on all the tests so it's not due to cultural bias in the tests.

2. Africa is by far the poorest and most backward continent on the planet. All of black africa is now controlled by blacks and has been for decades so it's not due to racism.

3. No black has ever won a Science Nobel Prize unless you count one in 1979 for the semi-science of economics. They have won many nobels in non-brain fields like Peace and also in Literature so it is not due to racism.

4. Out of 1552 chess grandmasters in the world, only THREE are black.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
OK, a lot of that went over my head but let me ask some questions that would help in my understanding:
Click to expand...
There was a lot there that was presented all at once. I will do my best to enlighten you.
Hawkeye10 said:
1) I gather that it has become distressingly common for so called scientists to present findings and concussions but then resist presenting the data so that their evaluation of the data can be evaluated.....is this true?
Click to expand...
No. Science isn't scientists. It isn't people at all. It is just the falsifiable theories themselves. To explain: an argument is just a set of predicates and a conclusion. A theory is an explanatory argument. There are many theories, but theories of science must be falsifiable. That means there must exist a test against the theory to try to destroy it (what is known as the test of the null hypothesis). That test must be practical, available, specific, and produce a specific result. There is no such test in a non-scientific theory. As long as a scientific theory can survive such tests, it automatically becomes part of the body of science. It will remain so as long as it can withstand such tests. The moment such a test is successful, the theory is destroyed...utterly.

As an example: It was once a theory of science that the Earth was the center of the universe. The terracentric system began in Greece and was a theory of science for a very long time. Astronomical observations just weren't good enough to discover any different...that is until the telescope was invented, and Galileo pointed it into the sky. He saw moons going around Jupiter. If the moons went around Jupiter, that blew the whole idea that Earth was the center of everything...utterly. That theory was destroyed by falsification.

Science is not data. It is just the theories themselves. There is no such thing as 'scientific data'. Data is the result of an observation, and all observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. This branch of philosophy defines what 'real' is. In a nutshell, this is the problem:

Take a simple observation; the sunrise.
To one, it is a god coming to light the world for his children.
To another, it is a vehicle for such a god.
To another, it is a great fireball circling a stationary Earth.
To another, is the effect of a spinning Earth against a stationary Sun.
To another, neither the Earth nor the Sun are stationary, and they orbit each other. This is the current view in science.

Same observation, five completely different viewpoints. This the thing about observations. They are much more than just sensory stimuli, even when augmented by instrumentation. That stimuli must be interpreted to give it any meaning. That interpretation is carried out by comparing the observation to our own personal model of the way the Universe works. That model is as unique to each of us as a fingerprint. To each of us, then, that interpretation and that Universe model is what is 'real' to each of us. There is no absolute 'real'. Like motion, it's all relative.

Data is the result of observations. It is subject to the same problems. It is evidence only. Nothing more.

In science, supporting evidence is never used. No theory is ever proven True. A theory remains a theory until it is destroyed by falsification. There isn't a True, but there is a possible False. It is this unique aspect of the falsifiability of a theory of science that takes the theory beyond the simple circular argument. We can create a theory about how two masses attract each other, and even come up with a formula for it (Newton's Theory of Gravitational Attraction). There is mountains of supporting data, but that means nothing. A single piece of conflicting data would utterly destroy the theory. So far, none has been found. That doesn't mean it could never be found, of course.

So data is not important in science when used as supporting evidence. This is a great misunderstanding by the layman. There are a lot of scientists out there. One comes up with a theory and presents all this data to support it. The theory is the only important aspect here. It supports itself. What IS important in science is that there must be a way to build a test to try to destroy that theory that is available, practical, specific, and produces a specific result. That is what 'falsifiable' means. Tests are possible against the null hypothesis of a theory. All theories of science must be falsifiable.

Hawkeye10 said:
2) A lot of people have concluded that the authors of academic papers have taken to writing in jargon that only a few people can understand to hide the fact that there is no there there....they are either saying nothing or nothing that matters...they are not helping society.......do scientists do the same thing with math...clutter up papers with tons of math that almost no one understands to cover for the fact that they are offering up nothing ?

3) Or is it rather that math is expected, but the authors dont really understand it....that the failure of math/analyzing that data in science tends from lack of skill rather than outright fraud....I am thinking that you are saying this is fraud but I want to make sure.
Click to expand...
These are two aspects of the same question.

Science isn't papers, universities, government agencies, licenses, degrees, book, or magazine. It is just the falsifiable theories themselves.
A theory may be inspired by most anything. From dedicated research on penguin habitats, from subjecting a bacterium to various toxins and radiation, or even from watching an episode of Sponge Bob. Isaac Newton developed many theories. We only honor him for two of them, since the others were falsified over time. Those two remaining theories, the Theory of Motion and the Theory of Gravitational Attraction, too many years for Newton to test in his own mind before he published them. They are still theories of science today. They are not proven True, either by age or by any other means. Either one could be falsified tomorrow. All we have to do is find an exception to that theory.

Seemingly, just such an exception was discovered in Newton's Theory of Motion (and in Kepler's theory of orbital trajectories) in the odd findings of the position of Mercury as we observed it going round the Sun. It didn't seem to follow either theory. Einstein found a reason why in his theory of special relativity. Mercury sits so close to the Sun that what we see if through the lens like affect of the Sun's gravity. Mercury is where it's supposed to be, but we see it in a different position than it really is.

Again, observations and data are interpreted by us to give them meaning. That makes them evidence only.

Scientists take many different views. They are people just like everyone else, each with their religion, their political views, and their own needs and wants. Yes, there are fraudsters in science. Scientists who try to get ahead by cheating.

There are two great checks of any theory of science to begin with, called the internal consistency check, and the external consistency check. First, a theory, which is an explanatory argument, must not be based on any fallacy (an error in logic, similar to a math error). That is the internal consistency check. It applies to all theories, even non-scientific ones. Second, no theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science. One or both theories must be falsified. This is the external consistency check. it applies only to theories of science. It does not apply to a nonscientific theory, since such theories still remain a circular argument, with no ability to prove it True or False.

So scientists are not hiding data to prevent evaluation of their theory. Science does not use supporting evidence. If the theory presented is falsifiable, and it passes both the internal and external consistency checks, that's all the scientist needs. That's all the theory needs to become part of the body of science. There is no elite voting body. There is no peer review. There is no one and nothing to 'bless' or 'sanctify' a theory into one of science. The only requirement of a theory of science is that it be falsifiable.

Are there fraudsters among scientists? Sure. Lots of them. Just remember it's the theory, and not the scientist, that is important. Theories are explanatory arguments. They stand or fall on their own as I've described.

As to the jargon, science does make use of specialized words within a particular field. This is not because someone is trying to hide something, it is because science needs to be exact. How far would your doctor get if all he could describe is a funny feeling in your stomach? Medical science speaks mumbo jumbo because it needs to be exact...or would you rather be dead? Thus, words like anterior, posterior, lateral, latin names for various muscles, individual names for each of the 206 bones in your body allow the doctor to more exactly describe things to another doctor. I know, all you care about is getting cured, but to do that requires doctors to communicate with each other in an exact manner.

Many fields have specialized language in them. Even the automotive field. You might call it an engine, but a mechanic and engine designer refers to induction systems, FADEC, crankcase ventilation and the recirculating of it, oil control rings, flame fronts, and what is known as a bomb test for spark plugs. Yeah, it's mumbo jumbo, all you want to do is drive the damn thing. But to a mechanic or engineer, it's quite a different thing.

Computer people talk about bits, dibit, tribbles, nibbles, bytes, and words. They talk about C, C++, Python, Perl, Ruby, Shells, bootstraps, genesis, clocks, and a whole array of specialized words in that field. They need to be exact. The are literally counting in billionths of a second, or nanoseconds.

Don't let the mumbo jumbo bother you. There are specialized words in most any field. Even farmers and ranchers have them.

The math that science transcribes into is done to give a theory the power of prediction, for that power only exists in closed functional systems like mathematics or logic. Usually the equation is fairly simple, such as Newton's Law of Motion, which is F=mA, where 'F' is force, 'm' is mass, and 'A' is acceleration. This one equation governs all of the usual 'three' laws of motion so often taught in grades school (rather incorrectly). If you play billiards or pool, you can easily see how this equation can be applied. This equation also raised some very important researches in science. Just that is 'force'. We know gravity is one, but are there others? What are they? Just what is 'mass'? Is it weight? How do you weigh something in open space (such as the Earth)? Just what is 'acceleration'. Newton described this. It's not how fast something is moving, it's how fast something is getting faster (or slower). In other words, it's a derivative of a derivative. There is position. How fast position changes is speed (a derivative of position). How fast speed is changing is acceleration (a derivative of speed). Thus, this simple equation has had a powerful influence in the world of science. The equation is simple, the ramifications of it are not.

People often hear of Einstein's equation, E=mc^2. They repeat it often to sound 'scientific', but they do not know what the equation means. 'E' means energy. 'm' is mass. 'c' is the speed of light in a perfect vacuum (approx 300 million meters per second). What does it mean? It means that energy and mass can be related. You can trade one for the other. It is this equation that opened up the study of nuclear fission and nuclear fusion.

There are a lot of theories of science, and most of them have equations in mathematics. They aren't trying to hide anything, but they are trying to give their theory the power of prediction.

Hawkeye10 said:
The denial of truth and reason by the academy is the corruption of the academy by religion, which is by definition the failure of the University, which largely dooms the West....do we agree?
Click to expand...

I agree. Most universities today do not teach philosophy, or if they do teach it, they teach a smattering of phenomenology and paradoxical models and call that philosophy. It's sad, especially since philosophy itself is inherently a very simple subject but like anything it takes practice.
Most universities suck at teaching science also. They teach engineering or technology as 'science'. They teach religions like the Church of Global Warming as 'science'. They almost never mention the fascinating history behind such theories such as what Newton or Einstein came up with. They varely touch quantum mechanics, or if they do, they goop it up with buzzwords to cover up their own inadequacy in teaching it.

That said, there ARE good places to go if you want to learn aerospace engineering, meteorology, physics, law, music, medicine, civil engineering, structural engineering, chemistry, biology, etc. Even here, you have to filter the politics out of what they teach.

The University biz is just that. A biz. They are in the business of selling degrees. To give these degrees a certain amount of substance, they have to at least go through the motions. The more they actually teach, the more substance the degree has.
One degree in particular that is pure biz is the so-called 'climatologist' degree. This is actually a priest of the Church of Global Warming. He denies science and mathematics.
Another is the so-called 'liberal arts' degree. This degree is worth about as much as one in underwater basket weaving.

Yes, to a large extent, the universities and grade schools systems have failed.
 
Bill said:
No, not really...

Most ppl are followers, they want to be accepted so they tow the line...

To go outside those boundaries has consequences........
Click to expand...

To stay inside the 'lines' has consequences. So what?
I think you will find, if you look, many examples of mavericks being admired BECAUSE they are maverick.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
HAHAHAHA. Blacks are NOT inferior???? Did you really say that. ?? So why is it

1. Black-americans come in last in all standardized tests. Asian-americans do fine on all the tests so it's not due to cultural bias in the tests.
Click to expand...
But it is. Remember, these tests are measuring level of education. Inner city blacks do poorly because they are poorly educated. There are excellent schools in Japan and South Korea. They are also hard to get into. They place a high value on education. Hence, they do better on such tests, even better than any U.S. citizen, black or white. Not a measure of intelligence.
Text Drivers are Killers said:
2. Africa is by far the poorest and most backward continent on the planet. All of black africa is now controlled by blacks and has been for decades so it's not due to racism.
Click to expand...
It is due to wars, warlords, and dictators. No different than Venezuela, Cuba, or vast stretches of China. Not a measure of intelligence.
Text Drivers are Killers said:
3. No black has ever won a Science Nobel Prize unless you count one in 1979 for the semi-science of economics. They have won many nobels in non-brain fields like Peace and also in Literature so it is not due to racism.
Click to expand...
Big deal. Science is not a prize. There are quite a few black scientists, some of which has made very good contributions to science. Without their work, we wouldn't have gotten to the Moon, enjoy telecommunications that we have today, drive efficient computerized cars, solved the problem with the dust bowl erosion in the South, or know how to regenerate nerve cells. I think you take a lot for granted and discard it through your own racism.
Text Drivers are Killers said:
4. Out of 1552 chess grandmasters in the world, only THREE are black.
Click to expand...
Since chess originated and spread through Asia, not Africa, before it reached the United States and the Europe (where it became very popular), that's no surprise. Not a measure of intelligence.
 
Into the Night said:
There was a lot there that was presented all at once. I will do my best to enlighten you.

No. Science isn't scientists. It isn't people at all. It is just the falsifiable theories themselves. To explain: an argument is just a set of predicates and a conclusion. A theory is an explanatory argument. There are many theories, but theories of science must be falsifiable. That means there must exist a test against the theory to try to destroy it (what is known as the test of the null hypothesis). That test must be practical, available, specific, and produce a specific result. There is no such test in a non-scientific theory. As long as a scientific theory can survive such tests, it automatically becomes part of the body of science. It will remain so as long as it can withstand such tests. The moment such a test is successful, the theory is destroyed...utterly.

As an example: It was once a theory of science that the Earth was the center of the universe. The terracentric system began in Greece and was a theory of science for a very long time. Astronomical observations just weren't good enough to discover any different...that is until the telescope was invented, and Galileo pointed it into the sky. He saw moons going around Jupiter. If the moons went around Jupiter, that blew the whole idea that Earth was the center of everything...utterly. That theory was destroyed by falsification.
-------
snip.
Click to expand...

Thank you so much for this post and the other...Your generosity is astounding in this day and age.

I am not going to say anything else at least for now but please know that it is not because I am blowing you off, it is because you write dense and I am still digesting it and linking it to stuff I already knew. My understanding of science has obviously been poor.
 
Pelosi is right Joe should not debate Trump. In fact he would have to be a moron to debate Trump which means he wil do it for sure.
 
Into the Night said:
To stay inside the 'lines' has consequences. So what?
I think you will find, if you look, many examples of mavericks being admired BECAUSE they are maverick.
Click to expand...

I can think of a few, I can also see millions like you/100's here totally unaware of their own conformity............

Next you can present your case w/ some examples/accolades of your unPC posts here........:cool:

I would be happy to stand corrected.......

I usually don't read much of your rambling, because it is rambling~hopefully I am wrong about you......:thup:
 
Into the Night said:
But it is. Remember, these tests are measuring level of education. Inner city blacks do poorly because they are poorly educated. There are excellent schools in Japan and South Korea. They are also hard to get into. They place a high value on education. Hence, they do better on such tests, even better than any U.S. citizen, black or white. Not a measure of intelligence.

It is due to wars, warlords, and dictators. No different than Venezuela, Cuba, or vast stretches of China. Not a measure of intelligence.

Big deal. Science is not a prize. There are quite a few black scientists, some of which has made very good contributions to science. Without their work, we wouldn't have gotten to the Moon, enjoy telecommunications that we have today, drive efficient computerized cars, solved the problem with the dust bowl erosion in the South, or know how to regenerate nerve cells. I think you take a lot for granted and discard it through your own racism.

Since chess originated and spread through Asia, not Africa, before it reached the United States and the Europe (where it became very popular), that's no surprise. Not a measure of intelligence.
Click to expand...

:hand:
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Thank you so much for this post and the other...Your generosity is astounding in this day and age.

I am not going to say anything else at least for now but please know that it is not because I am blowing you off, it is because you write dense and I am still digesting it and linking it to stuff I already knew. My understanding of science has obviously been poor.
Click to expand...

Digest away! I'll be happy to answer any questions on this when you have gone through it. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top