In response...

bobbym · 2009-06-13 04:45:17

Hi jimmyR

jimmyR wrote:

i have a few that live next door to me, they don't make alot
of noise but i wouldn't want to get a cup of sugar from them
either.

I don't know whether this is P.C. or not but I think you should move.

Hi Tigeree;

Tigeree wrote:

I've know for sure bobby can't be a mythical creature, he is waaaaaaaaay to nice!

≈Waldo Lydecker wrote:

I'm not nice, I'm vicious. it's the secret of my charm.

Last edited by bobbym (2009-06-13 04:59:46)

Tigeree · 2009-06-13 16:45:49

Then your viciously nice! But you're charming I'll give you that.

Ricky · 2009-06-17 05:04:28

In response... to bobbym.

Due to the fact that we are forced to act with incomplete information we should be aware that our rationalizations could be erroneous. You mean, we don't know of anything better.

Yes, we are always open to error. Scientists often never state it because it is so commonly know. Imagine a scientist saying:

"There are two asteroids coming toward the planet Earth. And just to remind you, two is the number that comes after one."

Of course this is an exaggeration, but the idea behind it is the same.

Funny you should mention that, originally my training was in Chemistry and Biochemistry and I do not think that Homeopathy is bunk. But not being a Doctor, know one cares what I think.

Your right. And if you were a doctor who spoke out on Homeopathy, most people (who bought into Homeopathy) also wouldn't care what you think. But this isn't the way it should be. How much you listen to a person should be proportional to how much reason and evidence they give for their positions. Just because society doesn't act like this doesn't mean you can't.

So if ridiculing strange theories does not prove they are right and it doesn't prove they are wrong, then why do it?

Cause it's fun? Seriously though, if the evidence can overcome ridicule, it will be accepted. Ridicule serves a purpose: It's a filter. The things that don't stand up to ridicule are filtered out, the ones that do stand up to it are allowed in.

The ridicule of the eyewitnesses by experts has prevented mainstream science from investigating them.

No, the lack of evidence has prevented mainstream science from investigating them. Many things would also completely overturn well-known science that we have a ton of real-life experience with, and have verified over and over again that it works. For example, cold-fusion or homeopathy would completely revolutionize the way chemistry and physics works. This isn't bad in itself, but when there is also no evidence for them, it is a fatal flaw.

Of course, testimony is evidence

No it's not! Testimony is not, can not, and will never be considered evidence. We can not have such low standards for evidence that a person could just make something up and it be used to support a hypothesis. And there are many other reasons I have provided before as to why testimony is not evidence.

It may be enough for you to trust zoologists and you may be right. I don't know. The question is, is it really enough. You have stated experts do not have all the answers. Trusting the opinions of zoologists may be an error. Margaret Geller once stated that in science the weight of authority has no meaning. They have been wrong before. This is not a math proof. we have no certainty here.

What you're failing to realize is it isn't just that they say it, but their reasons for saying it are what's important. And their reasons for excluding cryptozoology as a field of science are entirely sound.

Tigeree · 2009-06-17 20:02:55

Ricky wrote:

"There are two asteroids coming toward the planet Earth. And just to remind you, two is the number that comes after one."

Nice, Ricky! But I do think they'd be fairly smarter than that.

bobbym · 2009-06-18 04:35:38

Hi Ricky;

Ricky wrote:

But this isn't the way it should be. How much you listen to a person should be proportional to how much reason and evidence they give for their positions. Just because society doesn't act like this doesn't mean you can't.

Carl Sagan wrote:

Perhaps, 75% or more of the worlds scientists and technicians are employed by the military

Your speaking of an ideal society, We could give more weight to someone whose motives we trusted. You know their are currently about 30 dictatorships on the planet. They all have scientists working for them. Are their motives altruistic? The totalitarian states of the past were powered by their scientific achievements and scientists.

Ricky wrote:

Cause it's fun? Seriously though, if the evidence can overcome ridicule, it will be accepted. Ridicule serves a purpose: It's a filter. The things that don't stand up to ridicule are filtered out, the ones that do stand up to it are allowed in.

I am forced to disagree, ridicule forces everyone to think alike. Ridicule stifles originality of thought and action. It tends to filter out what is not near the norm. Fear of being ridiculed prevents society from making the big leaps that are required in the modern world. Even if the evidence eventually survives, ridicule delays its maturation.

Ricky wrote:

No, the lack of evidence has prevented mainstream science from investigating them.

Lack of funding has prevented mainstream science from investigating them. Vested interests and the military control that funding. Are we really interested in what the physicians, chemists and scientists who are employed by the Tobacco industry have to say about smoking. How about what scientists employed by the petroleum companies have to say about global warming.

Ricky wrote:

Many things would also completely overturn well-known science that we have a ton of real-life experience with, and have verified over and over again that it works

A ton of real life experience is just a mass of incorrect notions we call common sense. It is often wrong. Take for instance modern math and physics and how they changed centuries of real life experiences.

Ricky wrote:

For example, cold-fusion or homeopathy would completely revolutionize the way chemistry and physics works. This isn't bad in itself, but when there is also no evidence for them, it is a fatal flaw.

There is some evidence to support homeopathy even though I have argued against it.

Ricky wrote:

No it's not! Testimony is not, can not, and will never be considered evidence. We can not have such low standards for evidence that a person could just make something up and it be used to support a hypothesis. And there are many other reasons I have provided before as to why testimony is not evidence.

fact
1 An event or thing known to have happened or existed.
2 A truth verifiable from experience or observation.
3 A piece of information.
[C16: from Latin factum something done, from factus made, from facere to make]

As I have said observation is the heart of science. Trained observers have witnessed these things. The difference between these people and the skeptics is that the skeptics have not seen. Would you be willing to doubt your own eyes if you witnessed it? Who would you believe, yourself or Carl Sagan?

Last edited by bobbym (2009-07-09 18:38:55)

Tigeree · 2009-06-18 19:38:40

Carl Sagan says a lot, doesn't he?

I have no clue what you guys are talkin' 'bout and I don't really care anymore.

bobbym · 2009-06-18 20:15:22

Your right, that boobym guy is even boring me.

Tigeree · 2009-06-19 13:08:40

It was Ricky who started it, he started the boringness, just coz this subject has "ology" at the end of it doesn't mean that it's actually real science. I mean I love science too, but now this is just boring.
& considering, bobby you spelt your own name wrong. It's quite an easy mistake I did that once but I fixed it coz I'm a nice person.... usually. But my name's Jess, you can't go wrong with that!

Last edited by Tigeree (2009-06-19 13:10:52)

bobbym · 2009-06-19 19:28:11

Hi Jess;

No it isn't Ricky's fault that boobym is boring everyone. The last time I made a spelling error was 1978 or so.

Tigeree · 2009-06-19 20:10:14

Hi bobby;

Yeah right!!! '78! Bull!!! bobbym is your username (well that's what it has on my screen) so that means you are wrong!

& you're right it's not Ricky's fault it's your fault. You typed the boring stuff. Or did you?...

bobbym · 2009-06-19 22:41:57

Hi Jess;

Of course I typed it and I purposely misspelled that guys username. I think It's suits him better.

Tigeree · 2009-06-20 12:47:08

Now thats just self-pity.

bobbym · 2009-06-20 20:12:11

Hi Jess;

No, not really. Actually those posts are quite interesting. What is the great mole rat?

Last edited by bobbym (2009-06-20 20:19:38)

Tigeree · 2009-06-20 20:32:14

I have no idea. Some kind of hairless, miniature weasel I think.

Those posts are not interesting, they're just as boring as the other boring ones you posted.

bobbym · 2009-06-20 20:35:52

Is it a legendary creature? Why is it called great?

Tigeree · 2009-06-20 23:03:30

I don't know!! Find out yourself!

... Ok, I'm sorry that was a bit too harsh, But thats what happens when you're like me, y'know? I'm sorry.

Last edited by Tigeree (2009-06-21 18:38:22)

bobbym · 2009-06-22 03:19:32

Hi;

What did you do wrong?

Tigeree · 2009-06-22 20:13:27

Tigeree wrote:

I don't know!! Find out yourself!

Above. But you didn't read that before I edited, putting the part under it.

bobbym · 2009-06-23 01:24:00

Hi

Jeez, is that what your worrying about? If I got angry over everything people posted to me...
Nothing to forgive, no problem detected.

Tigeree · 2009-06-23 18:31:12

Thanx, bobby. I'm usually like that, especially to good friends, ones that I want to keep anyway.
Still, sorry.

jimmyR · 2009-06-29 12:22:13

has anybody heard of Ogopogo?

Tigeree · 2009-06-29 19:28:23

Ogopogo?.... No... Don't think so... Computer doesn't recognise it either.

Then again, my computer doesn't recognise much, like the way I spell recognise. American spelling.

bobbym · 2009-06-29 19:30:46

Hi JimmyR;

Yes, a creature that inhabits some lake in Canada. 40 ft long and snakelike.

Tigeree · 2009-06-29 19:37:18

Which lake in Canada???
Which? Which?

I'll be there. Next time I go to Canada.

I do believe they have one of those in Scotland, it's called the Loch Ness Monster.

bobbym · 2009-06-29 19:39:56

Hi Tigeree;

Lake Okanagan is where it swims, enjoying the sun and the friendly people.

Math Is Fun Forum

#51 2009-06-13 04:45:17

Re: In response...

#52 2009-06-13 16:45:49

Re: In response...

#53 2009-06-17 05:04:28

Re: In response...

#54 2009-06-17 20:02:55

Re: In response...

#55 2009-06-18 04:35:38

Re: In response...

#56 2009-06-18 19:38:40

Re: In response...

#57 2009-06-18 20:15:22

Re: In response...

#58 2009-06-19 13:08:40

Re: In response...

#59 2009-06-19 19:28:11

Re: In response...

#60 2009-06-19 20:10:14

Re: In response...

#61 2009-06-19 22:41:57

Re: In response...

#62 2009-06-20 12:47:08

Re: In response...

#63 2009-06-20 20:12:11

Re: In response...

#64 2009-06-20 20:32:14

Re: In response...

#65 2009-06-20 20:35:52

Re: In response...

#66 2009-06-20 23:03:30

Re: In response...

#67 2009-06-22 03:19:32

Re: In response...

#68 2009-06-22 20:13:27

Re: In response...

#69 2009-06-23 01:24:00

Re: In response...

#70 2009-06-23 18:31:12

Re: In response...

#71 2009-06-29 12:22:13

Re: In response...

#72 2009-06-29 19:28:23

Re: In response...

#73 2009-06-29 19:30:46

Re: In response...

#74 2009-06-29 19:37:18

Re: In response...

#75 2009-06-29 19:39:56

Re: In response...

Board footer