Expanding earth , evolution, and everything - Page 4 | Science…
Expanding earth , evolution, and everything
    • Sepulchrave [2092631]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 4870
    • Karma: 13135
    • Last Action: 3 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:04:51 - 19/12/21 (1 year ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Error-505 [2671911]

    Sep, I go by what hawking (who spent the latter half of his career debunking the first half) and what quantum physicists say. The history of science is riddled with contradictory zeitgeists which bare no reflection on laypersons such as any of us. I do not post in a torn science forum to gain academic credulity; this is a game, and I posted ideas labeled clearly as conjecture - mind candy. A lot of our current technology and staunch scientific ideas originated as bullshit, and facts will continue to change as we learn.
    Lol again, at the notion of gaining "academic credulity" because "credulity" is exactly what you and StyledCurve have in common. Sure, that's just a diction problem on your part, but it does highlight the dilemma that scientists have when trying to communicate with the great unwashed.

    credulity
    kr?-doo?′l?-t?, -dyoo?′-

    noun


    1. A disposition to believe too readily.
    2. A weak or ignorant disregard of the nature or strength of the evidence upon which a belief is founded; in general, a disposition, arising from weakness or ignorance, to believe too readily, especially impossible or absurd things.

    Because you and SC have no background in science, you have no idea how to separate scientific from non-scientific commentary, and you post the latter as if it were the former. It's really that simple.

    Junk in = junk out

    • Error-505 [2671911]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 71
    • Posts: 368
    • Karma: 460
    • Last Action: 1 month
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 23:07:47 - 19/12/21 (1 year ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Error-505 [2671911]

    Sep, I go by what hawking (who spent the latter half of his career debunking the first half) and what quantum physicists say. The history of science is riddled with contradictory zeitgeists which bare no reflection on laypersons such as any of us. I do not post in a torn science forum to gain academic credulity; this is a game, and I posted ideas labeled clearly as conjecture - mind candy. A lot of our current technology and staunch scientific ideas originated as bullshit, and facts will continue to change as we learn.

    Sepulchrave [2092631]

    Lol again, at the notion of gaining "academic credulity" because "credulity" is exactly what you and StyledCurve have in common. Sure, that's just a diction problem on your part, but it does highlight the dilemma that scientists have when trying to communicate with the great unwashed.

    credulity
    kr?-doo?′l?-t?, -dyoo?′-

    noun


    1. A disposition to believe too readily.
    2. A weak or ignorant disregard of the nature or strength of the evidence upon which a belief is founded; in general, a disposition, arising from weakness or ignorance, to believe too readily, especially impossible or absurd things.

    Because you and SC have no background in science, you have no idea how to separate scientific from non-scientific commentary, and you post the latter as if it were the former. It's really that simple.

    Junk in = junk out
    Fair enough. But, such thought constructs are fun to engage in.
    • Sepulchrave [2092631]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 4870
    • Karma: 13135
    • Last Action: 3 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 00:54:16 - 20/12/21 (1 year ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Error-505 [2671911]

    Sep, I go by what hawking (who spent the latter half of his career debunking the first half) and what quantum physicists say. The history of science is riddled with contradictory zeitgeists which bare no reflection on laypersons such as any of us. I do not post in a torn science forum to gain academic credulity; this is a game, and I posted ideas labeled clearly as conjecture - mind candy. A lot of our current technology and staunch scientific ideas originated as bullshit, and facts will continue to change as we learn.

    Sepulchrave [2092631]

    Lol again, at the notion of gaining "academic credulity" because "credulity" is exactly what you and StyledCurve have in common. Sure, that's just a diction problem on your part, but it does highlight the dilemma that scientists have when trying to communicate with the great unwashed.

    credulity
    kr?-doo?′l?-t?, -dyoo?′-

    noun


    1. A disposition to believe too readily.
    2. A weak or ignorant disregard of the nature or strength of the evidence upon which a belief is founded; in general, a disposition, arising from weakness or ignorance, to believe too readily, especially impossible or absurd things.

    Because you and SC have no background in science, you have no idea how to separate scientific from non-scientific commentary, and you post the latter as if it were the former. It's really that simple.

    Junk in = junk out

    Error-505 [2671911]

    Fair enough. But, such thought constructs are fun to engage in.
    Agreed, and there are different perspectives from which one can contribute, to be sure. The current, Internet-related problem comes about when people without sufficient background attach to an idea and go cherry-picking for any source that will back up their contention. For people who understand the ways in which the scientific method attempts to correct bias, it's distressing to see the misrepresentations and acrimony that occur in the name of online discussion. It is almost tempting to yearn for the pre-Internet days of the Ivory Tower, when the world was not yet awash with a billion amateur, starry-eyed or hostile speculators.

    • pratttan [955266]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 20
    • Posts: 215
    • Karma: 74
    • Last Action: 11 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 17:45:51 - 03/01/22 (1 year ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    If expand like balloon, then where more dirt come from? Check mate
    • Sweeney_Todd [27468]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 90
    • Posts: 14870
    • Karma: 19765
    • Last Action: 2 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 23:49:39 - 07/01/22 (1 year ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Sepulchrave [2092631]

    Agreed, and there are different perspectives from which one can contribute, to be sure. The current, Internet-related problem comes about when people without sufficient background attach to an idea and go cherry-picking for any source that will back up their contention. For people who understand the ways in which the scientific method attempts to correct bias, it's distressing to see the misrepresentations and acrimony that occur in the name of online discussion. It is almost tempting to yearn for the pre-Internet days of the Ivory Tower, when the world was not yet awash with a billion amateur, starry-eyed or hostile speculators.
    There are different perspetives, those that use scientific fact and those that lick windows...

    Both view points are valid, but I'll go for the ones peer reviewed in scientific magazines over those that read shit on the internet...

    Silly, I know...

    I will never lie to you. What I say is how I feel...

Reply
Thread Title: