Of course you could disprove it. It just takes more than one example to do it. We've been collecting data that suggests global warming for 150 years, if you want to disprove global warming you'd need to gather a similarly sized collection of data that did not agree with the theory.
Science has told you that fruit juice contains high levels of nutrients and antioxidants. Science has also told you that fruit juice contains high levels of sugar. Science has mentioned once or twice that the average person today consumes too much sugar, based on a low activity level. You have weighed up the scientific facts, considered the fact that you are physically active on a daily basis, and decided that drinking fruit juice is good for you.
That is exactly what I want from the politicians running this (and every other country). Listen to what the science finds, consider the conclusions in the context of what's actually happening, and take appropriate action from there.
tl;dr version: I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
It's not a question of not wanting to share the road, it's a matter of being pissed off at idiots who constantly ignore red lights and stop signs, swerve back and forth between lanes (including the oncoming ones), don't signal or even look before turning across in front of traffic.
Yeah, I hate car drivers too, but there's not much you can do about them, so I just learn to live with it.
Alright, since you don't like the ice-cream example any more, I'll use the speed limit example from your other post.
What are the speed limits? Around here they range from ~30 to ~70 mph. These figures were decided upon based on Newtons laws of motion, and other considerations. Nowhere in any of Newton's writings will you find a scientifically determined speed limit, policy makers took the science and worked out a good speed limit, balancing all the factors.
Even something as obvious a drugs: science can only tell you that they're bad for your health and that they'll kill you. It's up to politicians to decide that people not dieing is a worthwhile goal and that maybe we should write some laws about drugs.
I think I see the problem now you're listening to the over hyped science journalists and thinking they represent actual science. No way would a scientific paper proclaim the fruit juice is better for you than fruit. The effects of fruit and fruit juice may be compared, but from there it's up to you (or a journalist) to ascribe meaning to it in terms of your own life.
I actually thought they did mix. I remember a story a few years ago that said the only reason the wouldn't mix was because of impurities, so ultra-pure oil would mix with ultra-pure water. They had ideas about environmentally-friendly cleaning products.
As for the enforcing themselves bit, I meant more along the lines that if you smoke you have increased your risk of cancer etc. no matter what any politician says.
I'm not sure where you've got the idea that science is so limited in its scope. I'm not sure how science could result in laws without any consideration for anything else. Sticking to the ice-cream example, you can use science to show the effects of eating ice-cream, but that's it. Then the politician's job is to weight up the economic factors, the social factors, the health factors, the cultural factors etc. and decide on his ice-cream policy.
Of course there's more to deciding on where to put a nuclear waste dump than knowing that it's a safe place to do it, but being a safe place to do it is a prerequisite to being considered for a nuclear waste site. Even if every other factor told you to dump it somewhere, if it's going to leak in 5 years then you can't dump it there, you'd need to find somewhere that wasn't quite as good from other standpoints, but met the requirements of being safe.
The problem with the Yucca mountain nuclear waste repository is that politicians decided on all the other stuff first, then told scientists to find that it was a safe place. That quite seriously limits how effective science can be; what if it hadn't been found to be safe?
I was thinking more along of what happens happens whether you've allowed for it in your policy or not.
Obfuscant is clearly scared of psuedoscience being used to justify policy decisions that will come after him and other ice-cream eaters. Science as a whole has a pretty bad reputation from being twisted for political purposes over so many years. It's no longer a scientific problem to solve, we've got to get past the big PR problem before we can think about using science for good again. I don't know the answer, I'm just some guy on an internet forum. ):
Lettuce. You'll find it very hard to get enough lettuce down your throat that would be constituted as "too much." If you can, I'll give you a free T-shirt.
What exactly about science is ludicrous to you. The fact that you shouldn't consume more energy than you expend?
Science will tell you sitting on your arse all day is bad for your health (if you couldn't work it out anyway) and that you need to exercise to be healthy. Crackpots will tell you that if you eat the right things you don't have to exercise and you can still be healthy, but there is no science that backs that up.
You don't have to enforce scientific results; they have a tendency to do that by themselves.
Did you realise that scientific studies have shown that eating ice-cream (and other "bad" foods) can have the positive effect of reducing stress levels and (in moderation) actually be beneficial to your health?
Dragging myself back on topic, how do you think the FDA and friends decide which drugs to make legal for over-the-counter sales, which should require a prescription, and which should be outright banned? If you answered "with science" you'd be partially correct!
In summary, don't worry, science is looking out for you, there's no boogy-man coming for your ice-cream.
Kinda like how that big military scared Afghanistan into line, and you totally weren't attacked 10 years ago. They knew that you'd come to Afghanistan (and Iraq coz you're not that good at geography), and since you've got a big advanced military, and they've got camels, you'd sort them all out in a couple of weeks. Man if you didn't have the military it could've been bad!
I think that it's not so much about the emotion of bringing another human into the equation. My line of thinking is that the game is played by humans, and humans are imperfect, so if it's judged by humans then their imperfections cancel out. I'm thinking about the throwing controversy with Muralitharan. If it's obvious enough that the human umpire can notice it, then it's bad enough to be called. We don't need to get into specifics of how many degrees of straightening is allowed.
The flip side of the coin is that the TV coverage will use whatever computer enhancements they can get, so if the umpire does make a mistake, it's obvious to everyone, rather than just a talking point over a few beers after the game. Rather than make people try to umpire, then give them shit when they aren't as good as a computer, it's probably better to just get the computer to do it.
On the whole, I think that we do lose something by going to robotic umpires, but it'll be better for the game in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course you could disprove it. It just takes more than one example to do it. We've been collecting data that suggests global warming for 150 years, if you want to disprove global warming you'd need to gather a similarly sized collection of data that did not agree with the theory.
Na na, na na, na na na na, na na, katamari damacy!
Sounds like you've been a bit of a monkey!
Did you warn them about WWII?
You're thinking way too highbrow. It's from the Simpsons.
Is it a Goatse video, or just the standard picture. If it's a video I'm morbidly curious.
What a Buzzkill!
This is a case where I agree with your first point, but disagree with your second.
Science has told you that fruit juice contains high levels of nutrients and antioxidants.
Science has also told you that fruit juice contains high levels of sugar.
Science has mentioned once or twice that the average person today consumes too much sugar, based on a low activity level.
You have weighed up the scientific facts, considered the fact that you are physically active on a daily basis, and decided that drinking fruit juice is good for you.
That is exactly what I want from the politicians running this (and every other country). Listen to what the science finds, consider the conclusions in the context of what's actually happening, and take appropriate action from there.
tl;dr version: I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
If "a huge percentage of corporations pay 0%", then lowering the rate can do no harm, right?
Then we'd be giving the corporations money!
It's not a question of not wanting to share the road, it's a matter of being pissed off at idiots who constantly ignore red lights and stop signs, swerve back and forth between lanes (including the oncoming ones), don't signal or even look before turning across in front of traffic.
Yeah, I hate car drivers too, but there's not much you can do about them, so I just learn to live with it.
Alright, since you don't like the ice-cream example any more, I'll use the speed limit example from your other post.
What are the speed limits? Around here they range from ~30 to ~70 mph. These figures were decided upon based on Newtons laws of motion, and other considerations. Nowhere in any of Newton's writings will you find a scientifically determined speed limit, policy makers took the science and worked out a good speed limit, balancing all the factors.
Even something as obvious a drugs: science can only tell you that they're bad for your health and that they'll kill you. It's up to politicians to decide that people not dieing is a worthwhile goal and that maybe we should write some laws about drugs.
A solution looking for a problem.
I think I see the problem now you're listening to the over hyped science journalists and thinking they represent actual science. No way would a scientific paper proclaim the fruit juice is better for you than fruit. The effects of fruit and fruit juice may be compared, but from there it's up to you (or a journalist) to ascribe meaning to it in terms of your own life.
I like fresh squeezed orange juice.
As the second commenter to TFA said "I can see several uses for this not all of them illegal."
Of course, the illegal ones are the most fun ;)
I should've waited before I hit submit, I didn't think it'd be so easy to find: http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1314925.htm
I actually thought they did mix. I remember a story a few years ago that said the only reason the wouldn't mix was because of impurities, so ultra-pure oil would mix with ultra-pure water. They had ideas about environmentally-friendly cleaning products.
As for the enforcing themselves bit, I meant more along the lines that if you smoke you have increased your risk of cancer etc. no matter what any politician says.
I'm not sure where you've got the idea that science is so limited in its scope. I'm not sure how science could result in laws without any consideration for anything else. Sticking to the ice-cream example, you can use science to show the effects of eating ice-cream, but that's it. Then the politician's job is to weight up the economic factors, the social factors, the health factors, the cultural factors etc. and decide on his ice-cream policy.
Of course there's more to deciding on where to put a nuclear waste dump than knowing that it's a safe place to do it, but being a safe place to do it is a prerequisite to being considered for a nuclear waste site. Even if every other factor told you to dump it somewhere, if it's going to leak in 5 years then you can't dump it there, you'd need to find somewhere that wasn't quite as good from other standpoints, but met the requirements of being safe.
The problem with the Yucca mountain nuclear waste repository is that politicians decided on all the other stuff first, then told scientists to find that it was a safe place. That quite seriously limits how effective science can be; what if it hadn't been found to be safe?
I was thinking more along of what happens happens whether you've allowed for it in your policy or not.
Obfuscant is clearly scared of psuedoscience being used to justify policy decisions that will come after him and other ice-cream eaters. Science as a whole has a pretty bad reputation from being twisted for political purposes over so many years. It's no longer a scientific problem to solve, we've got to get past the big PR problem before we can think about using science for good again. I don't know the answer, I'm just some guy on an internet forum. ):
Is that a goatse link hidden behind a URL shortener?
Lettuce. You'll find it very hard to get enough lettuce down your throat that would be constituted as "too much." If you can, I'll give you a free T-shirt.
What exactly about science is ludicrous to you. The fact that you shouldn't consume more energy than you expend?
Science will tell you sitting on your arse all day is bad for your health (if you couldn't work it out anyway) and that you need to exercise to be healthy. Crackpots will tell you that if you eat the right things you don't have to exercise and you can still be healthy, but there is no science that backs that up.
You don't have to enforce scientific results; they have a tendency to do that by themselves.
Did you realise that scientific studies have shown that eating ice-cream (and other "bad" foods) can have the positive effect of reducing stress levels and (in moderation) actually be beneficial to your health?
Dragging myself back on topic, how do you think the FDA and friends decide which drugs to make legal for over-the-counter sales, which should require a prescription, and which should be outright banned? If you answered "with science" you'd be partially correct!
In summary, don't worry, science is looking out for you, there's no boogy-man coming for your ice-cream.
Kinda like how that big military scared Afghanistan into line, and you totally weren't attacked 10 years ago. They knew that you'd come to Afghanistan (and Iraq coz you're not that good at geography), and since you've got a big advanced military, and they've got camels, you'd sort them all out in a couple of weeks. Man if you didn't have the military it could've been bad!
I think that it's not so much about the emotion of bringing another human into the equation. My line of thinking is that the game is played by humans, and humans are imperfect, so if it's judged by humans then their imperfections cancel out. I'm thinking about the throwing controversy with Muralitharan. If it's obvious enough that the human umpire can notice it, then it's bad enough to be called. We don't need to get into specifics of how many degrees of straightening is allowed.
The flip side of the coin is that the TV coverage will use whatever computer enhancements they can get, so if the umpire does make a mistake, it's obvious to everyone, rather than just a talking point over a few beers after the game. Rather than make people try to umpire, then give them shit when they aren't as good as a computer, it's probably better to just get the computer to do it.
On the whole, I think that we do lose something by going to robotic umpires, but it'll be better for the game in the long run.
Things that make you go "Zoom Zoom Zoom."