Einstein knew he was wrong, but didn't have the technology to prove it.JohnG@lt wrote:
So you're saying that you are more knowledgeable than Newton and Einstein?presidentsheep wrote:
Neither light not gravity behave in a certain way, we can make rough models on their behaviour at best.JohnG@lt wrote:
And I never meant that science didn't change, just that it is governed by laws that make it a rather concrete discipline. Gravity behaves in a certain way, light travels in a certain way etc. It's all empirical rather than subjective.
Light is the best example, if you were right you'd be able to tell me if it were a wave or a particle.
It's both - so are all other things.presidentsheep wrote:
Neither light not gravity behave in a certain way, we can make rough models on their behaviour at best.JohnG@lt wrote:
And I never meant that science didn't change, just that it is governed by laws that make it a rather concrete discipline. Gravity behaves in a certain way, light travels in a certain way etc. It's all empirical rather than subjective.
Light is the best example, if you were right you'd be able to tell me if it were a wave or a particle.
Which is what makes Schrödinger's wave equation so important.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2011-01-13 12:39:44)
Define knowledgeable. There's no way i'm smarter than either of them, I do however have the advantage of knowing about advances in science made after their deaths that have proved some of their theories to not be incorrect but to not cover every eventuality.JohnG@lt wrote:
So you're saying that you are more knowledgeable than Newton and Einstein?presidentsheep wrote:
Neither light not gravity behave in a certain way, we can make rough models on their behaviour at best.JohnG@lt wrote:
And I never meant that science didn't change, just that it is governed by laws that make it a rather concrete discipline. Gravity behaves in a certain way, light travels in a certain way etc. It's all empirical rather than subjective.
Light is the best example, if you were right you'd be able to tell me if it were a wave or a particle.
Science is both empirical and subjective, there are examples where people have changed their data to conform with what was meant to be the correct value but have actually got closer to the value themselves.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
That isn't science though.presidentsheep wrote:
Define knowledgeable. There's no way i'm smarter than either of them, I do however have the advantage of knowing about advances in science made after their deaths that have proved some of their theories to not be incorrect but to not cover every eventuality.JohnG@lt wrote:
So you're saying that you are more knowledgeable than Newton and Einstein?presidentsheep wrote:
Neither light not gravity behave in a certain way, we can make rough models on their behaviour at best.
Light is the best example, if you were right you'd be able to tell me if it were a wave or a particle.
Science is both empirical and subjective, there are examples where people have changed their data to conform with what was meant to be the correct value but have actually got closer to the value themselves.
How is that in any way subjective? That's merely faking data in order to conform to previous data out of fear of being wrong.presidentsheep wrote:
Define knowledgeable. There's no way i'm smarter than either of them, I do however have the advantage of knowing about advances in science made after their deaths that have proved some of their theories to not be incorrect but to not cover every eventuality.JohnG@lt wrote:
So you're saying that you are more knowledgeable than Newton and Einstein?presidentsheep wrote:
Neither light not gravity behave in a certain way, we can make rough models on their behaviour at best.
Light is the best example, if you were right you'd be able to tell me if it were a wave or a particle.
Science is both empirical and subjective, there are examples where people have changed their data to conform with what was meant to be the correct value but have actually got closer to the value themselves.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Precisely.Bertster7 wrote:
That isn't science though.presidentsheep wrote:
Define knowledgeable. There's no way i'm smarter than either of them, I do however have the advantage of knowing about advances in science made after their deaths that have proved some of their theories to not be incorrect but to not cover every eventuality.JohnG@lt wrote:
So you're saying that you are more knowledgeable than Newton and Einstein?
Science is both empirical and subjective, there are examples where people have changed their data to conform with what was meant to be the correct value but have actually got closer to the value themselves.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
you can read i suppose, can't you? i did not ask for permits issued / guns misused statistics, but thank you for your trouble.DBBrinson1 wrote:
1.9 million CWP's issued in the last 20+ years in Florida's history... Of those individuals issued permits on 168 fucker misused them. That's .00842%
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
It's not faking, it's being pressured by outside sources into thinking they were wrong. Not exactly subjective but it proves it can be affected by peoples opinion.JohnG@lt wrote:
How is that in any way subjective? That's merely faking data in order to conform to previous data out of fear of being wrong.presidentsheep wrote:
Define knowledgeable. There's no way i'm smarter than either of them, I do however have the advantage of knowing about advances in science made after their deaths that have proved some of their theories to not be incorrect but to not cover every eventuality.JohnG@lt wrote:
So you're saying that you are more knowledgeable than Newton and Einstein?
Science is both empirical and subjective, there are examples where people have changed their data to conform with what was meant to be the correct value but have actually got closer to the value themselves.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
and when you are spouting off about murder rates you are not accounting for criminal on criminal drug deals gone bad gang violence etc....which if you haven;t guess,ed I don't care how many criminals off each other.Bertster7 wrote:
And how many were stolen and used in crime?DBBrinson1 wrote:
No isn't. I live in a State that is prone to hurricanes. Remember Katrina? Again -Your lack of imagination is my reality.Shahter wrote:
this "i need it to defend myself/family"-shit is extremely naive, imo (that's when it's not outright retarded). it takes lowing to be so sure in ones ability to pass judgement in a matter of seconds on just about anything. so, what i'd really like to see is some statistics about how the guns that are legally owned are being used. everything on guns i happen to google up comes extremely one-sided and generally biased (that's due to my horrible english no doubt). somebody cares to dig up some comparative statistics? - i you know, something like number of uses that have been confirmed and investigated (by the police or smthing) and then found justifiable against number of uses that haven't. anybody?
You want stats? Here ya go:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html
1.9 million CWP's issued in the last 20+ years in Florida's history... Of those individuals issued permits on 168 fucker misused them. That's .00842%
Responsible gun ownership isn't the problem.
You haven't accounted for that. One of the main sources of guns illegally used by criminals in most countries is stealing them from responsible gun owners.
I can see the need to, you know, not give a crazy, delusional person a firearm. But felons? I mean, I can understand the idea and it seems smart on the surface...but if you look at it long enough, it really starts to look like an unnecessary abridgement of freedoms for people who paid their debt to society. But they were criminals, so it's A-OK!Turquoise wrote:
I know what you mean. I understand that logic, but I believe gun ownership is different. I also believe that a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment renders it more relevant to militias than individuals.
In a practical sense, it doesn't make much sense to hand a paranoid schizophrenic person a gun even if they haven't committed a crime yet.
That has absolutely nothing to do with science.presidentsheep wrote:
It's not faking, it's being pressured by outside sources into thinking they were wrong. Not exactly subjective but it proves it can be affected by peoples opinion.JohnG@lt wrote:
How is that in any way subjective? That's merely faking data in order to conform to previous data out of fear of being wrong.presidentsheep wrote:
Define knowledgeable. There's no way i'm smarter than either of them, I do however have the advantage of knowing about advances in science made after their deaths that have proved some of their theories to not be incorrect but to not cover every eventuality.
Science is both empirical and subjective, there are examples where people have changed their data to conform with what was meant to be the correct value but have actually got closer to the value themselves.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
So if a value remained wrong because of this then it would have no effect on anything?JohnG@lt wrote:
That has absolutely nothing to do with science.presidentsheep wrote:
It's not faking, it's being pressured by outside sources into thinking they were wrong. Not exactly subjective but it proves it can be affected by peoples opinion.JohnG@lt wrote:
How is that in any way subjective? That's merely faking data in order to conform to previous data out of fear of being wrong.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Um... again, changing your results without having the proof to back it up is fabrication and fraud.presidentsheep wrote:
It's not faking, it's being pressured by outside sources into thinking they were wrong. Not exactly subjective but it proves it can be affected by peoples opinion.JohnG@lt wrote:
How is that in any way subjective? That's merely faking data in order to conform to previous data out of fear of being wrong.presidentsheep wrote:
Define knowledgeable. There's no way i'm smarter than either of them, I do however have the advantage of knowing about advances in science made after their deaths that have proved some of their theories to not be incorrect but to not cover every eventuality.
Science is both empirical and subjective, there are examples where people have changed their data to conform with what was meant to be the correct value but have actually got closer to the value themselves.
You have to go back to the starting point in an experiment or survey when your results differ from the norm. A difference isn't even necessarily wrong -- you could have stumbled across an exceptional case or found evidence for a previously unknown factor.
In the end, what matters is the ability to repeat the results using a sound methodology, and identifying the reasoning behind variances in results.
Is this concrete??
Wait, they changed their data, but it wasn't faking? Insane! If you alter your data, you've invalidated any results it might give you.presidentsheep wrote:
It's not faking, it's being pressured by outside sources into thinking they were wrong. Not exactly subjective but it proves it can be affected by peoples opinion.JohnG@lt wrote:
How is that in any way subjective? That's merely faking data in order to conform to previous data out of fear of being wrong.presidentsheep wrote:
Define knowledgeable. There's no way i'm smarter than either of them, I do however have the advantage of knowing about advances in science made after their deaths that have proved some of their theories to not be incorrect but to not cover every eventuality.
Science is both empirical and subjective, there are examples where people have changed their data to conform with what was meant to be the correct value but have actually got closer to the value themselves.
Regardless, that isn't a problem with science as much as it is a problem with people.
It's like talking to a brick wall. Go back to playing with your Barbie dolls.presidentsheep wrote:
So if a value remained wrong because of this then it would have no effect on anything?JohnG@lt wrote:
That has absolutely nothing to do with science.presidentsheep wrote:
It's not faking, it's being pressured by outside sources into thinking they were wrong. Not exactly subjective but it proves it can be affected by peoples opinion.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It isn't that hard to stay out of jail in the USA, not with all of the social programs in place. If someone can not manage to stay legal in any other aspect in society I do not trust them with a firearm.SenorToenails wrote:
I can see the need to, you know, not give a crazy, delusional person a firearm. But felons? I mean, I can understand the idea and it seems smart on the surface...but if you look at it long enough, it really starts to look like an unnecessary abridgement of freedoms for people who paid their debt to society. But they were criminals, so it's A-OK!Turquoise wrote:
I know what you mean. I understand that logic, but I believe gun ownership is different. I also believe that a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment renders it more relevant to militias than individuals.
In a practical sense, it doesn't make much sense to hand a paranoid schizophrenic person a gun even if they haven't committed a crime yet.
John, you seriously need to do some reading on current psych issues. You're about 50 years behind the times. A lot of these common perceptions are grossly wrong. The insanity defense, for example, is seen as most people by some sort of legal loophole where in reality it's used in less than 1 percent of cases, where it only succeeds 25% of the time (mostly where people have previously been diagnosed with a mental illness).Turquoise wrote:
And the only reason they do is due to ignorance. It's the same with climate science.JohnG@lt wrote:
I'm sure that in some cases it does wonderful things to improve peoples lives. However, the common perception of them is of them addicting people to the couch and prescription drugs for 'disorders' that don't really exist. I'll be damned if I ever lay on someones couch and let them psychoanalyze me. I don't need anyone dredging up fake repressed memories of me being diddled as a child so I keep coming back. Even though my view is skewed, good luck getting me to change it. I believe the majority in this country feel much the same way.Turquoise wrote:
That's not used very often in modern psychiatry. It does work for a few people though.
Every science evolves. Psychiatry is one of the younger sciences that exists, but previous mistakes don't invalidate it anymore than it would astrophysics.
Psychiatry is a medical science.
If you educate yourself on these things, you'll be less skewed and more rational.
That being said, I acknowledge that the pharmaceutical industry unfortunately does some unethical things that lead to doctors over-prescribing medications.
I more or less agree. I believe a felon, in most cases, should be allowed to have a firearm, just as I support voting rights for felons.SenorToenails wrote:
I can see the need to, you know, not give a crazy, delusional person a firearm. But felons? I mean, I can understand the idea and it seems smart on the surface...but if you look at it long enough, it really starts to look like an unnecessary abridgement of freedoms for people who paid their debt to society. But they were criminals, so it's A-OK!Turquoise wrote:
I know what you mean. I understand that logic, but I believe gun ownership is different. I also believe that a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment renders it more relevant to militias than individuals.
In a practical sense, it doesn't make much sense to hand a paranoid schizophrenic person a gun even if they haven't committed a crime yet.
Mental stability is of the utmost importance though.
I'll go back to studying for my physics exam, I suggest you look up something like millikan's measurement on the charge of an electron.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's like talking to a brick wall. Go back to playing with your Barbie dolls.presidentsheep wrote:
So if a value remained wrong because of this then it would have no effect on anything?JohnG@lt wrote:
That has absolutely nothing to do with science.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
with all due respect Turquoise, you are high.Turquoise wrote:
I more or less agree. I believe a felon, in most cases, should be allowed to have a firearm, just as I support voting rights for felons.SenorToenails wrote:
I can see the need to, you know, not give a crazy, delusional person a firearm. But felons? I mean, I can understand the idea and it seems smart on the surface...but if you look at it long enough, it really starts to look like an unnecessary abridgement of freedoms for people who paid their debt to society. But they were criminals, so it's A-OK!Turquoise wrote:
I know what you mean. I understand that logic, but I believe gun ownership is different. I also believe that a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment renders it more relevant to militias than individuals.
In a practical sense, it doesn't make much sense to hand a paranoid schizophrenic person a gun even if they haven't committed a crime yet.
Mental stability is of the utmost importance though.
Once you've paid your debt, why should you be forced to continue paying for the rest of your life?lowing wrote:
It isn't that hard to stay out of jail in the USA, not with all of the social programs in place. If someone can not manage to stay legal in any other aspect in society I do not trust them with a firearm.
how so? government records every case it gets involved in - that could be just about anything. some of those cases involve guns. some of those are owned legitimately. some of those are misused. i don't see which step would really screw the picture. if surveys are any indication there are several millions gun uses a year by legitimate owners in usa - even if only coupla percents were being registered by the police you'd have a pretty good picture, no?Turquoise wrote:
Your sampling method would be too inaccurate. Again, it comes back to what the government records and what it doesn't.Shahter wrote:
why? what would give it that much of an error margin?Turquoise wrote:
In order to have a statistically significant argument, you can't have a large margin for error. That is inevitably going to be the case with your proposal.
how many states are there in us? and how many have different guns regulations? and how different are the crime rates? that's not even close to the data you'd need for any conclusion.Turquoise wrote:
Results. Some of the areas with the strictest gun control still have high amounts of gun crime -- D.C. and Baltimore come to mind.Shahter wrote:
how exactly do you measure "practicality" without statistics?I would agree with you that people use meaningless surveys to back up their arguments. Personally, I avoid them. My defense of gun ownership is rooted more in practicality
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Time served is time served. If a person commits a felony and completes their sentence and is deemed mentally stable enough to not pose a threat to society, then they should not be denied their voting or gun rights.lowing wrote:
with all due respect Turquoise, you are high.Turquoise wrote:
I more or less agree. I believe a felon, in most cases, should be allowed to have a firearm, just as I support voting rights for felons.SenorToenails wrote:
I can see the need to, you know, not give a crazy, delusional person a firearm. But felons? I mean, I can understand the idea and it seems smart on the surface...but if you look at it long enough, it really starts to look like an unnecessary abridgement of freedoms for people who paid their debt to society. But they were criminals, so it's A-OK!
Mental stability is of the utmost importance though.
Last edited by Turquoise (2011-01-13 12:54:32)
Dude, changing your data to agree with the status quo is weak, and an entirely HUMAN flaw. It is NOT a flaw of science or the scientific method. And yes, you are talking to a physicist.presidentsheep wrote:
I'll go back to studying for my physics exam, I suggest you look up something like millikan's measurement on the charge of an electron.