Wow, that was a good finesse: handwaving dismissal of the problems of radiocarbon dating (it's "okay" for the predictions to be inaccurate) combined with rabid environementalism! Good show!
I take it you agree with me that my experiment (using whatever sample you claim radiocarbon dating applies to) would be rather embarassing?
Wow, you are really deluded. You think that when testing someone's trustworthiness, you should just "trust that they won't cheat"? (btw, I'm familiar with Caltech's policy, I had a friend who went there who privately admitted to me he flouted the rules by +5 mins or so).
Let me explain this again: the purpose of my test is to make sure scientists get the right results without relying on each other. It would defeat the purpose of the test if you didn't have any barriers to scientists relying on each other. This is not a difficult concept, I'm sure you can grasp it if you think about it. It's just that I caught you flat-footed with my allegation that *gasp* scientists may not be as rigorous as you or I think! That maybe people try to bend the rules!
But apparently, you haven't been aware of the monthly reports appearing that 1/3 of scientific journal X's findings are questionable. Or you didn't hear of the Sokal affair.
Btw, 12345*6789=83810205. I just did that in my head. You trust me... right? What motive would I have to lie?
-I never used the term "splitting the difference"; quotation marks are dishonest.
-I know the difference between weather and climate, but if you don't understand the atmosphere well enough to predict 3 days ahead, you hold little hope for 50 years.
-Claiming that investors and therefore prices do not account for future likely change is pseudoscience. Critiquing a paper's inconclusiveness is not pseudoscience.
I'm in the U.S. I've been to college. I graduated with an engineering degree (in under 3 years straight from high school, but ignore that because I'm an idiot). I never dated anything (except women). Okay, fine, you meant biology students.
Apparently, you missed the point about segregating the teams because you're too high in the clouds the even think of the idea that maybe two groups of scientists would get different results, but consult to "get their stories straight" so that carbon dating appears to be more accurate than it really is.
So, for a fair test, you would need an item that historical records confirm as being a certain age, then take a sample of it, so the students don't know what it is, divide it between three teams who do not know of each other (so they can't cheat and get their stories straight) and they would all get the same correct answer within the margin of error?
Well, I'm a betting man. Name your price. If you're so confident...
So you're no longer defending the study? Fine by me. Oh, also, I like your clever play there. You saw you couldn't claim the climate change would happen in 20 years because you'd have to handle the thorny issue of why you haven't bought real estate in Siberia, and you couldn't claim it would happen in 1000 years, because technology will be much better then, so you went for the middle road: it'll happen in 50 years. Too late for investors to make decisions based on it, and too early for technology to solve the problem. Good play, my man, good play.
Anyway, I was about to go to the park with my kids, but I had to stay in because they forecast turned out to be faulty - rain did fall, despite their predictions. But yeah, you go and make sure we avoid the 100% certain fate of our planet to succumb to climate change if present practices continue. I'll go back to wondering why they can predict 50 years ahead, but not 3 days.
No, it isn't. It really isn't. It is not something college students could simultaneously do, really. They would need to find an old painting none of them know the age of, test it *without knowing who the others are* and then compare with a secret authority. Name the time this has been done.
That doesn't answer anything. Has anyone ever taken a painting whose age is known, tested it, and compared the results with the known age? What if you had three scientific teams, none of which recognized the painting, and had them independently test it and see if their results were consistent BEFORE checking with each other.
Has anyone done this very simple, very basic test?
Okay, how do they date dinosaur remains, and against what is the method calibrated? i.e., what thing do they use that they *know* is 65 million years old to know if they're "doing it right"?
It has routinely overestimated the age of various items. It said a 200-year old painting was 10,000 years old, and a just-dead baby seal was 200 years old. It's gotten to the point where if an independent scientific team wants to date dinosaur remains in a museum, their results aren't considered "right" unless they match the initial team's finding. Reproducibility my ass.
Let me explain the objection creationists leveled, and what it did to biology, without reference to complexity, simplicity, or reducibility, just to show I'm not playing word games (and to discourage you from doing the same).
Evolutionists (sorry, no better term for them, so that's what I'm going to use) claimed that species could be explained as such: breeding produces a wide, random variety of offspring. Some of these have advantages over others, and they come to spread in number due to their better ability to survive in nature and pass on their genes (i.e., are fitter). Yep, case closed. No need for further research.
Then creationists claimed that this mechanism wouldn't explain evolution of most species because incremental changes could not provide a survival advantage. This is because although, for example, a wing promotes survival, a half-wing impedes survival. Thus, most evolutionary advantages would have to happen all at once, something evolutionists at the time were unwilling to claim or unable to justify.
In response to the ignorant hicks people ridicule as impedances to good research, some scientists search and found ways that specific evolutionary changes could be achieved incrementally, because they could happen in sufficiently small steps such that each step could provide an advantage. This led to a more refined understanding of the role of various traits of species. Others proposed the notion of punctuated equilibrium, that large changes could happen at once. This led to a better understanding of the capabilities of mutation and genetic drift.
Had the creationists not brought evolution to public attention, maybe a tenth of a percent of the people would be looking at the problem, none with any religious devotion to debunking the theory. Maybe they would have gotten around to critiquing the simple Darwinian story, but it would have happened much later and in the interim infected more minds with bad theory.
Yes, you heard that right: I am an engineer. Not a a "software engineer", not a "data engineer", not a "financial engineer". (Not to disparage the contributions of those people, just saying that they stretch the use of the term.) I'm the kind of engineer NASA hires: a mechanical engineer. If you want, I can send you a scan of my diploma and my work badge, and a link to my registered EIT number. I'm basically advocating a position that if implemented could flood the engineer market and cut my salary.
NASA does do a lot of cool things, to be sure. But really, if consumers wanted any of this fancy stuff, if it were remotely cost-justified, someone would do it anyway. As such, they just fund advanced research with unfortunately little return to the public. And before you give me a laundry list of the things NASA produced, understand the difference between "what NASA did was good" and "what NASA did was better than what could otherwise have been done". To fund NASA, you have to draw money from and reduce profitability for private entrepreneurs who are hunting for ways to satisfy human desires. We all hear about what NASA did. We can never hear about what would have happened in the absence of NASA. So NASA developed such-and-such? Too bad it came at the cost of the market producing better such-and-such.
I mean, it's great that NASA pumps up my salary even though I don't work there by tightening up the engineer market, just as it's great for humanities professors that government funding pumps up the their salaries by paying for their research. That doesn't mean it benefits the general public... you know, the official justification for all government funding.
You were lumping me with people who make all kinds of ridiculous arguments, and my argument was nothing like them. Of course I should object.
Now, how do the data suggest that the aerosol particles cause the problem? Are aerosol emissions positively correlated with the temperature on weekends? You can't just suggest what causes the increase, you also have to show what causes the decrease. If some cities were getting hotter and some weren't, pointing to one factor that increases temperature could explain it. But some are getting hotter and some are getting colder on weekends. What's causing the drop? It doesn't say.
It is interesting though that you're talking about "authoritative" results. The information given in SciAm is far from enough to be convincing for the above reasons, so you seem to want me to accept on their "authority". Well, sure, except that I thought science was about verifiability, reproducibility, dissent, discussion, stuff like that. You might as well invoke the authority of the Bible with that attitude.
A final issue: you say you're concerned that we're going to destroy our environment and once it's destroyed, it will be "too late" to do anything about it. So how soon? 10-20 years? Then I'm sure you've invested in the future prime farmland in Siberia, right? And all the other derivatives associated with near future climate change? No, you probably think this is much longer term. You think that in just, say, 1000 years we can have severe warming. So you don't think that in 1000 years we'll have terraforming technology, like space mirror and things we can only dream about today? Before you laugh, compare 2000 technology to 1900, to 1800, to 1700, and so on. Or maybe you think it will become a problem in 10,000 years, when we'll definitely have the tech to get around it.
First, don't make this personal. This isn't about "people like me". I claimed that the specific piece of evidence you pointed to doesn't prove your case. That doesn't mean I reject global warming. It could mean, hint hint, that I don't want people trudging out with bad evidence behind them.
If humans are causing it, it should all go in the same direction, unless the scientists want to put in a few more hours (hah!) and specify which human activity causes the ups and which the downs. If temperatures vary randomly, you should be able to grab some places where the temperatures are higher on the weekend, and some where they are lower, and many where they are no different. The link you gave doesn't even hint at which specific activity is causing this, so it's nowhere near enough to show humans are causing it.
This is why science needs more eyeballs: the (relatively) small scientific community is going to let quite a bit fall through the cracks, just like closed-source software.
I checked everything you did cite. You claimed that the link to SciAm was "undeniable" evidence of causation. This is what it says:
"They determined that more than 35 percent stations in the U.S. had a significant difference between weekend DTR and weekday DTR on the order of several tenths of a degree. The direction of the effect was not always the same, however. Some cities (particularly those on the coast) exhibited higher DTRs on the weekends than during the weeks, whereas many in the midwest showed smaller DTRs on the weekends. Outside of North America, the magnitude of this weekend effect is smaller, Forster and Solomon report, with cities in Japan and China showing the largest swings. "
So the stuff people do during the week makes temperatures go up, but at most several tenths of a degree. Or down. Or not at all. This is undeniable evidence?
If you have actual evidence, cite it. That's why I asked if there was something left out that's in the print edition. Don't claim the SciAm article proves it, because it doesn't. Oh, I'm sorry, some people have a problem with the use of "prove" in scientific contexts. Don't claim the SciAm article provides evidence which would suggest that the simplest explanation accounting for the evidence they gathered is that humans cause temperature increases in some places decreases in others and no change in yet others, because it doesn't.
Wow, weekend temperatures a few tenths of a degree higher in some places, a few tenths of a degree lower in others places, and no different in others. That is undeniably causation.
Does the link you gave at least twice have move evidence in the print edition? That correlation is pretty weak compared to say, IQ and income, or economic freedom and GDP.
Re:Is money enough? What?
on
Space Tourism?
·
· Score: 1
Like the AC said. These rich people pay on the order of $20 million. I think that's a little more than the marginal cost of adding him to the voyage. Don't you?
Is money enough? What?
on
Space Tourism?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Do we make sure anyone who wants to bankroll the first commercial car knows enough about cars' scientific purposes before we deign to allow him to use one?
Of course you should "let" rich people buy access that later funds democratization of the new technology.
You can use a word in lots of contexts, it doesn't mean that usage is correct, or rigorous.
Except that usage defines meaning. People do use "prove" the way I explained. You didn't even bother to contest that point. Everyone seemed to understand what I meant, except, apparently, two people with something to compensate for.
Save face, and quietly slip away, would be the best thing to do at this point, kid.
I can't tell if you're nitpicking, or if you consider yourself insightful for saying this. "Prove" is used in many contexts, one of which applies here. I know prove can mean "deduce through rigorous steps". It can also mean to increase certainty sufficiently. Don't believe me?
"Prove there's a chicken in the shed."
*opens door*
"See the chicken?"
Then you enter:
"NO!!! NO!!!!!!! You didn't prove anything! That could be a hologram... or a mirage... or you could be hooked up to a good VR machine."
Yet, somehow, most people have no problem with the statement "Jones proved there was a chicken in the shed by opening the door and showing the inside." People use "prove" to mean "show to be the best explanation". That's, oddly enough, exactly how I was using it, so I would haven't to say
"that forces biologists to more rigorously demonstrate that the simplest answer accounting for all the data is that {description of elements of evolution}"
Apparently, that didn't save any time because I still have to explain basic concepts to people who leap at the chance to nitpick and prove - shit, there I go again - that I really do know what I'm talking about.
Now that you've wasted my precious time trying to look smart, let's look at your other myth:
The difference between religion and science is that science admits it doesn't know anything!
Right, until you say the case for evolution might not be as strong as scientists claim, at which point they suddenly *do* know exactly what happened 200 bajillion years ago, and you're an idiot for suggesting otherwise, because you must be some religious nut.
One cannot "prove" in science. One can only disprove a falsifiable hypothesis.
I can't tell if you're nitpicking, or if you consider yourself insightful for saying this. "Prove" is used in many contexts, one of which applies here. You know what I meant, but next time I'll be sure to use the magic words so you don't get to play "gotcha". I know how science works, and what you don't understand is that more eyeballs are good (I assume I don't need to prove this to you in regard to OSS development.)
> they probably never would have even bothered to address irreducible complexity issues
Biology has and continues to progress quite well without religious fundamentalists trying to legislate their way into the classrooms.
You respond to the most important point I made in that post by saying that "progress continues" despite religious fundamentalists. I'm sure it does. But on the margin they would not have handled this issue. In fact, they did not until creationists brought it up. Do you deny this? Of course not, or you would have said so rather than merely assert that progress continues quite well (just as long as you forget about how they would have ignored an important critique if left to their own devices).
Yes, and I imagine what the world would be like if the members of the Flat Earth society weren't constantly screaming at Rand McNally. Participating in legitimate scientific discussion is good. Cluttering the public with rhetorical tricks is a waste of everyone's time.
Flat Earthers don't waste anyone's time because people don't feel the need to respond to them - even fundamentalists are convinced. But because the case for evolution is much weaker (else biologists would already agree how each stage progressed, which they don't), we gain from wider discussion of the issues.
(And I hope you don't think irreducible complexity is a "rhetorical trick".)
Besides the loaded language (and misuse) of "cartel," this is ridiculous. There is an amazing amount of dissent in good scientific discussion.
Right. That's why no one figured out that General Relativity obviates dark matter until recently.
I'd rather imagine how much more good science could be done if religious fundamentalists weren't wasting everyone's time trying to legislate their nonsense.
Well, there's a foolproof way to get fundamentalists out of education: get government out of education. Will you join me in this goal? After all, if a bunch of parents in Kansas want to teach evolution under a private system, they're "a bunch of dumb parents in Kansas". As it stands, however, they infect the whole state.
If you didn't intend to troll, learn about science and the scientific method! You will be enlightened and possibly intrigued about how the process works.
And you call *me* a troll.
Listen: I graduated with an engineering degree straight from high school in 2 years and one semester. I made perfect scores on the GRE analytical and quantitative. You can call me a lot of things, but not stupid.
When people allege bias, they can be talking about either news reporting, or opinion or both.And when a network claims to be a "News" network, then you cannot make the distinction between opinion-bias and news-bias.
Yes you can, just as newspapers (claim to) separate out news reporting from the editorial page. It's really not a novel concept. It's so people know whether they are getting facts or someone's opinion. I don't think people interpret Hannity's "we need to just slash the DoE's budget" as a "fact".
Furthermore, take a closer look at News reporting. People alleging liberal bias in News reporting are off their rockers, when "News" programs often have "News segments" that are promotional materials for the conservative policies being implemented (remember that whole scandal?).
I'm sure you feel that way. Just keep continuing to ignore how the media refuse to reveal the race of suspects being sought, how they portray an opposition to left-wing policies as "against the poor" and "giving the elderly the shaft", and how they casually assert that any left wing policy will "help workers" do such-and-such, even though the opposition opposes on precisely the grounds that it does not! And if you're referring to the talk radio host who promoted Bush's policies, again, that's bias in commentary/opinion, not news reporting, i.e., not what serious critics contend counts as bias.
Sure, just as long as you pay for the overpriced public schools for your entire working life, irrespective of the number of children. That sure frees up funds for lots of people to go outside the system and buy private education! Real choice there.
They force biologists to more rigorously prove the case for evolution. If not for this pressure, they probably never would have even bothered to address irreducible complexity issues. Imagine if creationists hadn't mainstreamed discussion of evolution? Then only a (relatively) tiny cartel of biologists would be analyzing the issue. Thanks to creationists, lots of people are poring over the evidence for evolution.
Imagine if the Bible said something about quantum physics (yeah, yeah, I know you can claim it does, but bear with me here). Wouldn't that speed up the demise of bad theories in that field?
Wait: you're linking Cato, and you're not even mentioning the malign effects of a whole state having to obey religious conservatives, rather than parents being able to send their kids to a private school that reflects their beliefs?
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, that was a good finesse: handwaving dismissal of the problems of radiocarbon dating (it's "okay" for the predictions to be inaccurate) combined with rabid environementalism! Good show!
I take it you agree with me that my experiment (using whatever sample you claim radiocarbon dating applies to) would be rather embarassing?
Wow, you are really deluded. You think that when testing someone's trustworthiness, you should just "trust that they won't cheat"? (btw, I'm familiar with Caltech's policy, I had a friend who went there who privately admitted to me he flouted the rules by +5 mins or so).
Let me explain this again: the purpose of my test is to make sure scientists get the right results without relying on each other. It would defeat the purpose of the test if you didn't have any barriers to scientists relying on each other. This is not a difficult concept, I'm sure you can grasp it if you think about it. It's just that I caught you flat-footed with my allegation that *gasp* scientists may not be as rigorous as you or I think! That maybe people try to bend the rules!
But apparently, you haven't been aware of the monthly reports appearing that 1/3 of scientific journal X's findings are questionable. Or you didn't hear of the Sokal affair.
Btw, 12345*6789=83810205. I just did that in my head. You trust me... right? What motive would I have to lie?
*burying face in hands*
Where to start, where to friggin start:
-I never used the term "splitting the difference"; quotation marks are dishonest.
-I know the difference between weather and climate, but if you don't understand the atmosphere well enough to predict 3 days ahead, you hold little hope for 50 years.
-Claiming that investors and therefore prices do not account for future likely change is pseudoscience. Critiquing a paper's inconclusiveness is not pseudoscience.
I'm in the U.S. I've been to college. I graduated with an engineering degree (in under 3 years straight from high school, but ignore that because I'm an idiot). I never dated anything (except women). Okay, fine, you meant biology students.
Apparently, you missed the point about segregating the teams because you're too high in the clouds the even think of the idea that maybe two groups of scientists would get different results, but consult to "get their stories straight" so that carbon dating appears to be more accurate than it really is.
So, for a fair test, you would need an item that historical records confirm as being a certain age, then take a sample of it, so the students don't know what it is, divide it between three teams who do not know of each other (so they can't cheat and get their stories straight) and they would all get the same correct answer within the margin of error?
Well, I'm a betting man. Name your price. If you're so confident...
So you're no longer defending the study? Fine by me. Oh, also, I like your clever play there. You saw you couldn't claim the climate change would happen in 20 years because you'd have to handle the thorny issue of why you haven't bought real estate in Siberia, and you couldn't claim it would happen in 1000 years, because technology will be much better then, so you went for the middle road: it'll happen in 50 years. Too late for investors to make decisions based on it, and too early for technology to solve the problem. Good play, my man, good play.
Anyway, I was about to go to the park with my kids, but I had to stay in because they forecast turned out to be faulty - rain did fall, despite their predictions. But yeah, you go and make sure we avoid the 100% certain fate of our planet to succumb to climate change if present practices continue. I'll go back to wondering why they can predict 50 years ahead, but not 3 days.
No, it isn't. It really isn't. It is not something college students could simultaneously do, really. They would need to find an old painting none of them know the age of, test it *without knowing who the others are* and then compare with a secret authority. Name the time this has been done.
So you're saying if I carried out the experiment described in my post here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165373&cid=137 95972 , the result wouldn't embarass anyone? Has that experiment been tried before?
That doesn't answer anything. Has anyone ever taken a painting whose age is known, tested it, and compared the results with the known age? What if you had three scientific teams, none of which recognized the painting, and had them independently test it and see if their results were consistent BEFORE checking with each other.
Has anyone done this very simple, very basic test?
Okay, how do they date dinosaur remains, and against what is the method calibrated? i.e., what thing do they use that they *know* is 65 million years old to know if they're "doing it right"?
It has routinely overestimated the age of various items. It said a 200-year old painting was 10,000 years old, and a just-dead baby seal was 200 years old. It's gotten to the point where if an independent scientific team wants to date dinosaur remains in a museum, their results aren't considered "right" unless they match the initial team's finding. Reproducibility my ass.
??? ...okay, I'll play your game.
Let me explain the objection creationists leveled, and what it did to biology, without reference to complexity, simplicity, or reducibility, just to show I'm not playing word games (and to discourage you from doing the same).
Evolutionists (sorry, no better term for them, so that's what I'm going to use) claimed that species could be explained as such: breeding produces a wide, random variety of offspring. Some of these have advantages over others, and they come to spread in number due to their better ability to survive in nature and pass on their genes (i.e., are fitter). Yep, case closed. No need for further research.
Then creationists claimed that this mechanism wouldn't explain evolution of most species because incremental changes could not provide a survival advantage. This is because although, for example, a wing promotes survival, a half-wing impedes survival. Thus, most evolutionary advantages would have to happen all at once, something evolutionists at the time were unwilling to claim or unable to justify.
In response to the ignorant hicks people ridicule as impedances to good research, some scientists search and found ways that specific evolutionary changes could be achieved incrementally, because they could happen in sufficiently small steps such that each step could provide an advantage. This led to a more refined understanding of the role of various traits of species. Others proposed the notion of punctuated equilibrium, that large changes could happen at once. This led to a better understanding of the capabilities of mutation and genetic drift.
Had the creationists not brought evolution to public attention, maybe a tenth of a percent of the people would be looking at the problem, none with any religious devotion to debunking the theory. Maybe they would have gotten around to critiquing the simple Darwinian story, but it would have happened much later and in the interim infected more minds with bad theory.
Yes, you heard that right: I am an engineer. Not a a "software engineer", not a "data engineer", not a "financial engineer". (Not to disparage the contributions of those people, just saying that they stretch the use of the term.) I'm the kind of engineer NASA hires: a mechanical engineer. If you want, I can send you a scan of my diploma and my work badge, and a link to my registered EIT number. I'm basically advocating a position that if implemented could flood the engineer market and cut my salary.
... you know, the official justification for all government funding.
NASA does do a lot of cool things, to be sure. But really, if consumers wanted any of this fancy stuff, if it were remotely cost-justified, someone would do it anyway. As such, they just fund advanced research with unfortunately little return to the public. And before you give me a laundry list of the things NASA produced, understand the difference between "what NASA did was good" and "what NASA did was better than what could otherwise have been done". To fund NASA, you have to draw money from and reduce profitability for private entrepreneurs who are hunting for ways to satisfy human desires. We all hear about what NASA did. We can never hear about what would have happened in the absence of NASA. So NASA developed such-and-such? Too bad it came at the cost of the market producing better such-and-such.
I mean, it's great that NASA pumps up my salary even though I don't work there by tightening up the engineer market, just as it's great for humanities professors that government funding pumps up the their salaries by paying for their research. That doesn't mean it benefits the general public
You were lumping me with people who make all kinds of ridiculous arguments, and my argument was nothing like them. Of course I should object.
Now, how do the data suggest that the aerosol particles cause the problem? Are aerosol emissions positively correlated with the temperature on weekends? You can't just suggest what causes the increase, you also have to show what causes the decrease. If some cities were getting hotter and some weren't, pointing to one factor that increases temperature could explain it. But some are getting hotter and some are getting colder on weekends. What's causing the drop? It doesn't say.
It is interesting though that you're talking about "authoritative" results. The information given in SciAm is far from enough to be convincing for the above reasons, so you seem to want me to accept on their "authority". Well, sure, except that I thought science was about verifiability, reproducibility, dissent, discussion, stuff like that. You might as well invoke the authority of the Bible with that attitude.
A final issue: you say you're concerned that we're going to destroy our environment and once it's destroyed, it will be "too late" to do anything about it. So how soon? 10-20 years? Then I'm sure you've invested in the future prime farmland in Siberia, right? And all the other derivatives associated with near future climate change? No, you probably think this is much longer term. You think that in just, say, 1000 years we can have severe warming. So you don't think that in 1000 years we'll have terraforming technology, like space mirror and things we can only dream about today? Before you laugh, compare 2000 technology to 1900, to 1800, to 1700, and so on. Or maybe you think it will become a problem in 10,000 years, when we'll definitely have the tech to get around it.
First, don't make this personal. This isn't about "people like me". I claimed that the specific piece of evidence you pointed to doesn't prove your case. That doesn't mean I reject global warming. It could mean, hint hint, that I don't want people trudging out with bad evidence behind them.
If humans are causing it, it should all go in the same direction, unless the scientists want to put in a few more hours (hah!) and specify which human activity causes the ups and which the downs. If temperatures vary randomly, you should be able to grab some places where the temperatures are higher on the weekend, and some where they are lower, and many where they are no different. The link you gave doesn't even hint at which specific activity is causing this, so it's nowhere near enough to show humans are causing it.
This is why science needs more eyeballs: the (relatively) small scientific community is going to let quite a bit fall through the cracks, just like closed-source software.
I checked everything you did cite. You claimed that the link to SciAm was "undeniable" evidence of causation. This is what it says:
"They determined that more than 35 percent stations in the U.S. had a significant difference between weekend DTR and weekday DTR on the order of several tenths of a degree. The direction of the effect was not always the same, however. Some cities (particularly those on the coast) exhibited higher DTRs on the weekends than during the weeks, whereas many in the midwest showed smaller DTRs on the weekends. Outside of North America, the magnitude of this weekend effect is smaller, Forster and Solomon report, with cities in Japan and China showing the largest swings. "
So the stuff people do during the week makes temperatures go up, but at most several tenths of a degree. Or down. Or not at all. This is undeniable evidence?
If you have actual evidence, cite it. That's why I asked if there was something left out that's in the print edition. Don't claim the SciAm article proves it, because it doesn't. Oh, I'm sorry, some people have a problem with the use of "prove" in scientific contexts. Don't claim the SciAm article provides evidence which would suggest that the simplest explanation accounting for the evidence they gathered is that humans cause temperature increases in some places decreases in others and no change in yet others, because it doesn't.
Wow, weekend temperatures a few tenths of a degree higher in some places, a few tenths of a degree lower in others places, and no different in others. That is undeniably causation.
Does the link you gave at least twice have move evidence in the print edition? That correlation is pretty weak compared to say, IQ and income, or economic freedom and GDP.
Like the AC said. These rich people pay on the order of $20 million. I think that's a little more than the marginal cost of adding him to the voyage. Don't you?
Do we make sure anyone who wants to bankroll the first commercial car knows enough about cars' scientific purposes before we deign to allow him to use one?
Of course you should "let" rich people buy access that later funds democratization of the new technology.
You can use a word in lots of contexts, it doesn't mean that usage is correct, or rigorous.
Except that usage defines meaning. People do use "prove" the way I explained. You didn't even bother to contest that point. Everyone seemed to understand what I meant, except, apparently, two people with something to compensate for.
Save face, and quietly slip away, would be the best thing to do at this point, kid.
I can't tell if you're nitpicking, or if you consider yourself insightful for saying this. "Prove" is used in many contexts, one of which applies here. I know prove can mean "deduce through rigorous steps". It can also mean to increase certainty sufficiently. Don't believe me?
... or you could be hooked up to a good VR machine."
"Prove there's a chicken in the shed."
*opens door*
"See the chicken?"
Then you enter:
"NO!!! NO!!!!!!! You didn't prove anything! That could be a hologram... or a mirage
Yet, somehow, most people have no problem with the statement "Jones proved there was a chicken in the shed by opening the door and showing the inside." People use "prove" to mean "show to be the best explanation". That's, oddly enough, exactly how I was using it, so I would haven't to say
"that forces biologists to more rigorously demonstrate that the simplest answer accounting for all the data is that {description of elements of evolution}"
Apparently, that didn't save any time because I still have to explain basic concepts to people who leap at the chance to nitpick and prove - shit, there I go again - that I really do know what I'm talking about.
Now that you've wasted my precious time trying to look smart, let's look at your other myth:
The difference between religion and science is that science admits it doesn't know anything!
Right, until you say the case for evolution might not be as strong as scientists claim, at which point they suddenly *do* know exactly what happened 200 bajillion years ago, and you're an idiot for suggesting otherwise, because you must be some religious nut.
One cannot "prove" in science. One can only disprove a falsifiable hypothesis.
I can't tell if you're nitpicking, or if you consider yourself insightful for saying this. "Prove" is used in many contexts, one of which applies here. You know what I meant, but next time I'll be sure to use the magic words so you don't get to play "gotcha". I know how science works, and what you don't understand is that more eyeballs are good (I assume I don't need to prove this to you in regard to OSS development.)
> they probably never would have even bothered to address irreducible complexity issues
Biology has and continues to progress quite well without religious fundamentalists trying to legislate their way into the classrooms.
You respond to the most important point I made in that post by saying that "progress continues" despite religious fundamentalists. I'm sure it does. But on the margin they would not have handled this issue. In fact, they did not until creationists brought it up. Do you deny this? Of course not, or you would have said so rather than merely assert that progress continues quite well (just as long as you forget about how they would have ignored an important critique if left to their own devices).
Yes, and I imagine what the world would be like if the members of the Flat Earth society weren't constantly screaming at Rand McNally. Participating in legitimate scientific discussion is good. Cluttering the public with rhetorical tricks is a waste of everyone's time.
Flat Earthers don't waste anyone's time because people don't feel the need to respond to them - even fundamentalists are convinced. But because the case for evolution is much weaker (else biologists would already agree how each stage progressed, which they don't), we gain from wider discussion of the issues.
(And I hope you don't think irreducible complexity is a "rhetorical trick".)
Besides the loaded language (and misuse) of "cartel," this is ridiculous. There is an amazing amount of dissent in good scientific discussion.
Right. That's why no one figured out that General Relativity obviates dark matter until recently.
I'd rather imagine how much more good science could be done if religious fundamentalists weren't wasting everyone's time trying to legislate their nonsense.
Well, there's a foolproof way to get fundamentalists out of education: get government out of education. Will you join me in this goal? After all, if a bunch of parents in Kansas want to teach evolution under a private system, they're "a bunch of dumb parents in Kansas". As it stands, however, they infect the whole state.
If you didn't intend to troll, learn about science and the scientific method! You will be enlightened and possibly intrigued about how the process works.
And you call *me* a troll.
Listen: I graduated with an engineering degree straight from high school in 2 years and one semester. I made perfect scores on the GRE analytical and quantitative. You can call me a lot of things, but not stupid.
When people allege bias, they can be talking about either news reporting, or opinion or both.And when a network claims to be a "News" network, then you cannot make the distinction between opinion-bias and news-bias.
Yes you can, just as newspapers (claim to) separate out news reporting from the editorial page. It's really not a novel concept. It's so people know whether they are getting facts or someone's opinion. I don't think people interpret Hannity's "we need to just slash the DoE's budget" as a "fact".
Furthermore, take a closer look at News reporting. People alleging liberal bias in News reporting are off their rockers, when "News" programs often have "News segments" that are promotional materials for the conservative policies being implemented (remember that whole scandal?).
I'm sure you feel that way. Just keep continuing to ignore how the media refuse to reveal the race of suspects being sought, how they portray an opposition to left-wing policies as "against the poor" and "giving the elderly the shaft", and how they casually assert that any left wing policy will "help workers" do such-and-such, even though the opposition opposes on precisely the grounds that it does not! And if you're referring to the talk radio host who promoted Bush's policies, again, that's bias in commentary/opinion, not news reporting, i.e., not what serious critics contend counts as bias.
Sure, just as long as you pay for the overpriced public schools for your entire working life, irrespective of the number of children. That sure frees up funds for lots of people to go outside the system and buy private education! Real choice there.
Btw, look up the letters "NEA".
They force biologists to more rigorously prove the case for evolution. If not for this pressure, they probably never would have even bothered to address irreducible complexity issues. Imagine if creationists hadn't mainstreamed discussion of evolution? Then only a (relatively) tiny cartel of biologists would be analyzing the issue. Thanks to creationists, lots of people are poring over the evidence for evolution.
Imagine if the Bible said something about quantum physics (yeah, yeah, I know you can claim it does, but bear with me here). Wouldn't that speed up the demise of bad theories in that field?
Wait: you're linking Cato, and you're not even mentioning the malign effects of a whole state having to obey religious conservatives, rather than parents being able to send their kids to a private school that reflects their beliefs?