Of the 72 people, they randomly asked the doctors of 10, found that all of the parents had answered accurately, and concluded that they didn't need to (well, given the laws on medical disclosure, couldn't effectively) ask any more doctors.
No, they're not. They "merely" apply science to specific well-known problems.
Anecdote and casual observation accumulated over time equate to empirical evidence.
Absolutely not! If we went by your standard of evidence, we would consider there to be a mountain of evidence that the Sun goes around the Earth. Nowadays it's easy to see that it's the other way round, but if we went by your standard of evidence it's doubtful that our collective scientific knowledge would actually have gotten far enough to discover that.
You're no scientist and have no idea what scientists actually do.
Pirsig disagrees with you.
The logical statements entered into the notebook are broken down into six categories: (1) statement of the problem, (2) hypotheses as to the cause of the problem, (3) experiments designed to test each hypothesis, (4) predicted results of the experiments, (5) observed results of the experiments, and (6) conclusions from the results of the experiments. This is not different from the formal arrangement of many college and high-school lab. notebooks, but the purpose here is no longer just busywork. The purpose now is precise guidance of thoughts that will fail if they are not accurate.
The real purpose of scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn't misled you into thinking you know something you don't actually know. There's not a mechanic or scientist or technician alive who hasn't suffered from that one so much that he's not instinctively on guard. That's the main reason why so much scientific and mechanical information sounds so dull and so cautious. If you get careless or go romanticizing scientific information, giving it a flourish here and there, Nature will soon make a complete fool out of you. It does it often enough anyway even when you don't give it opportunities. One must be extremely careful and rigidly logical when dealing with Nature: one logical slip and an entire scientific edifice comes tumbling down. One false deduction about the machine and you can get hung up indefinitely. "
"A motorcycle mechanic, on the other hand, who honks the horn to see if the battery works is informally conducting a true scientific experiment. He is testing a hypothesis by putting a question to nature. The TV scientist who mutters sadly "The experiment is a failure, we have failed to achieve what we had hoped for" is suffering mainly from a bad scriptwriter. An experiment never fails solely because it fails to achieve predicted results. An experiment is a failure only when it also fails to adequately test the hypothesis in question; when the data it produces don't prove anything one way or the other."
Does the creation of a previously unanticipated particle imply issues with current theory significant enough to make the LHC experiment less useful? Even if we find the Higgs, the current model will still be insufficient.
The good argument is that if you can't amortize the cost of making the work in the first place over a large number of sales, you go back to the old patronage model of yestercentury, where a lot of things only get made if one very rich patron chooses to fund them, and then that patron is the only person who gets to choose who can enjoy them.
Which is exactly how Tarn Adams is able to support himself and his brother entirely from donations given by users of his freeware game, Dwarf Fortress.
Oh, wait a second... he doesn't HAVE a wealthy patron. How silly of me.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I admit it was a rotten pun, but just look at it...
You clearly have been investigating the wrong kind of malware. I hear the goodtimes virus uses a fifty pound sledge
Now coming as a sci^H^Hyfy channel original movie.
>I chose to be white. Yep, you heard correctly.
>Me being white is a choice. Stand up oppressed minorities! You too can choose white.
Micheal Jackson, is that you?
Right. Everyone deserves to know the secret nuclear passcodes.
Well, in that case, the MPAA themselves are distributing the content, right? So can they really say that it's illegal?
Could the decreased battery be a weight issue?
But so filled with spam nobody will be able to find your patent ever. It needs moderation and improved CAPTCHAs badly.
Fun fact: cows in a field two miles away from Three Mile Island got more radiation from Chernobyl.
Not terrorists, pirates.
That's how it works in MS-Paint Adventures, which scrupulously avoids any scientific inaccuracies.
I'm not sure if it even exists. I've seen several people post there and not get the achievement...
Is the April Fool's achievement itself an April Fool's day joke?
Of the 72 people, they randomly asked the doctors of 10, found that all of the parents had answered accurately, and concluded that they didn't need to (well, given the laws on medical disclosure, couldn't effectively) ask any more doctors.
Pokeball, go!
It was only pretending to be caught! :(
It looks like you switched b) and c)
Pirsig disagrees with you.
The logical statements entered into the notebook are broken down into six categories: (1) statement of the problem, (2) hypotheses as to the cause of the problem, (3) experiments designed to test each hypothesis, (4) predicted results of the experiments, (5) observed results of the experiments, and (6) conclusions from the results of the experiments. This is not different from the formal arrangement of many college and high-school lab. notebooks, but the purpose here is no longer just busywork. The purpose now is precise guidance of thoughts that will fail if they are not accurate.
The real purpose of scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn't misled you into thinking you know something you don't actually know. There's not a mechanic or scientist or technician alive who hasn't suffered from that one so much that he's not instinctively on guard. That's the main reason why so much scientific and mechanical information sounds so dull and so cautious. If you get careless or go romanticizing scientific information, giving it a flourish here and there, Nature will soon make a complete fool out of you. It does it often enough anyway even when you don't give it opportunities. One must be extremely careful and rigidly logical when dealing with Nature: one logical slip and an entire scientific edifice comes tumbling down. One false deduction about the machine and you can get hung up indefinitely. "
"A motorcycle mechanic, on the other hand, who honks the horn to see if the battery works is informally conducting a true scientific experiment. He is testing a hypothesis by putting a question to nature. The TV scientist who mutters sadly "The experiment is a failure, we have failed to achieve what we had hoped for" is suffering mainly from a bad scriptwriter. An experiment never fails solely because it fails to achieve predicted results. An experiment is a failure only when it also fails to adequately test the hypothesis in question; when the data it produces don't prove anything one way or the other."
Humans have small, built-in magnetic compasses. Right behind our noses, in fact. They just aren't functional throughout the whole population.
Does the creation of a previously unanticipated particle imply issues with current theory significant enough to make the LHC experiment less useful? Even if we find the Higgs, the current model will still be insufficient.
Don't make them shoot'em ups.
It's amazing how many companies don't follow that advice.
No Pong.
No Space Invaders.
No Elite.
No Dune 2 (first RTW)
No Flashback (first motion capture)
No Doom.
Fox Only.
Final destination.
>What makes a license a license and a sale a sale is still up in the air.
What about sales tax?
Isn't that the government acknowledging that it's a sale?
I suppose it depends on what state you're in, so there isn't a universal answer.
>It's saddening how quantum mechanics is made out to be so much more mysterious and spooky than it really is.
Perhaps you feel that way because you don't really understand quantum mechanics.
Look up Bell's Theorem.
The good argument is that if you can't amortize the cost of making the work in the first place over a large number of sales, you go back to the old patronage model of yestercentury, where a lot of things only get made if one very rich patron chooses to fund them, and then that patron is the only person who gets to choose who can enjoy them.
Which is exactly how Tarn Adams is able to support himself and his brother entirely from donations given by users of his freeware game, Dwarf Fortress.
Oh, wait a second... he doesn't HAVE a wealthy patron. How silly of me.
"Only oldest"? Somehow I doubt they were still using vacuum tubes.
Can I get a reference for what you're talking about?
You notice he used the past tense.