Posted on 08/30/2005 10:29:44 AM PDT by LibWhacker
If I hear one more Darwinist tell me about scientific proof after this Ultra Scientific Journal announces that 50% of all scientific conclusions are wrong, I'll vomit.
Yeah, but physics is a real science. Unfortunately, other "pseudo" sciences ride its coattails to the same level of admiration and acceptance. So when you get an anthropologist holding up a skull fragment and saying this is a 40 million old ancestor of Homo Sapiens, people give him the same credibility as a physicist declaring that a new subatomic particle has been discovered.
"John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece,"
Anyone notice a name similarity here? Is this a good school or is it like "Bob of the Bob School of Medicine and Bartending".
Just askin...
LOL! Any guesses as to the error rate of claims of divine inspiration?
What "Ultra Scientific Journal"? Please tell me you don't mean The New Scientist.
Blush. My literalness index is running high this morning, with 95% confidence.
42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.....
8^)
This is one reason I see science as a quasi-religion. I'm asked to take too much on faith for it to really be science.
I got a better idea, lets bury our heads in the sand and pretend there is no problem with the priesthood. That'll ensure we stay out of the dark ages!!!
Beside, if the Library of Alexandria and all the burnt outposts were brought back, most modern scientists would reject the knowlege contained therein because ancient people can't no way be smarter then us moderns, boy I tell ya!
Everyone in history was a complete idiot until those 19th century scientists saved us from the Dark Ages!!! We can never go against them!!!!!
We use 3-sigma all the time.
It's easy to author superficially credible papers-
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/
Ping.
One thing a scientist has to take on faith is that at root the universe formed or was designed to a specific unchanging set of rules and operates consistently on that design, because if it is evolving at a fundamental level it would be really difficult to do science. True scientists believe in ID at that level. Any evolution going on has to be at a derivative level above, like acceleration is the derivative of velocity.
The theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are inconsistent. So at least one of them must be wrong.
Quantum mechanics can't explain gravity, so I'd wager that at a minimum, quantum mechanics is wrong.
The religious-like fervor that so many Ph.D. scientists display in defending the premises of evolution is probably due to the fact that if evolution were itself shown to be a pseudo-science, their diplomas, and indeed their careers, would be considered worthless. They've based their entire careers upon the evolutionary dogma. Of course they're going to attack anyone who questions its validity.
Thanks for the info.
On the other hand.
I dabble in a lot of different areas, sciences, medicine, art and plain old grunt stuff. Every area has its own language.
Sometimes, and this is one, they piss me off. 3-sigma = 1 chance in 400.
Part of the problem.
The Impact of Omniscient Configurations on Algorithms
P Hilton, WJ Clinton and F Flintstone
Abstract
DNS and write-back caches, while significant in theory, have not until recently been considered typical [8]. In fact, few end-users would disagree with the understanding of Internet QoS. In order to fulfill this purpose, we show not only that Scheme and kernels can collaborate to accomplish this mission, but that the same is true for write-ahead loggin
Bump.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.