DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on May 27, 2007, 12:09:30 PM

Title: So much news, so little sense
Post by: BT on May 27, 2007, 12:09:30 PM

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/402407,CST-EDT-steyn27.article


May 27, 2007

MARK STEYN
News, news everywhere -- so much one can hardly take it all in:

Item One: In Gaza, Islamic Jihad is planning to send waves of female suicide bombers into action against the Zionist Entity. Asked by an Israeli reporter whether self-detonating ladies enjoy the same 72-virgin deal as the lads, an Arab scholar said no, but that the gals will be served in Paradise by "dwarfs." Snow White got seven dwarfs, but it's unclear whether Blow White will get the full 72: Sleepy, Grumpy, Bashful, etc., all the way down to Incendiary, Non-Alcoholic and Anti-Zionist.

Item Two: From Sikeston, Mo., comes the touching story of a 3-year-old girl and Raymon and Richard Miller, two brothers who happen to be the father and uncle thereof. Unfortunately, they don't know which is which. Four years ago, Holly Marie Adams, who was in town for the rodeo, "slept with" both men on the same day. And in the fullness of time, upon discovering the fullness of her belly, she decided Raymon was the dad and demanded child support.

Raymon decided he saw himself as more of the uncle type, and so dragged his brother into court. What did the DNA results show? Well, they're identical twins, so there's a 99.5 percent probability Raymon's the father and there's a 99.5 percent probability Richard's the father. And, as they're both crying uncle, that suits neither of them. Naturally, Raymon wants the state of Missouri to pick up the child support. Technically, the state of Missouri didn't "sleep with" Holly Marie Adams, though, if it too had been in town for the rodeo that day, its chances would have been better than even.

Given that neither man wants to be the father in any meaningful sense, the famous split decision of the wisdom of Solomon might be in both their interests, if not the little girl's. What passes for heartwarming family sentiment in this case comes from the brothers' mother, who said, "I felt like I had gained a granddaughter but lost my sons."

Item Three: America's bipartisan "comprehensive immigration reform" bill. Just because this story comes above the fold on Page One doesn't mean it's not just as nutty as the foot of page 27 news-in-brief stuff up above. Peggy Noonan's take at the Wall Street Journal bore the sub-headline: "Open Borders? Mass Deportations? How About Some Common Sense Instead?"

Indeed. Everyone wants to sound reasonable and be the chap who charts the middle course between the Scylla of open borders and the Charybdis of mass deportation. But these are not equivalent dangers. The Charybdis of mass deportation is a mythical monster: It does not exist. It will never exist. No politician is arguing for it, and no U.S. agency is capable of accomplishing it. Indeed, even non-mass deportation does not exist. Go on, try it. Go to your local immigration office and say: Hello, boys. Here I am. I'm an illegal immigrant, got no right to be here, been breaking the law for 20 years, but I've seen the light and I want you to deport me back to Mexico, Yemen, you name it. The immigration guys will say: Leave your name and address and we'll get back to you in a decade or three.

But the Scylla of open borders does exist. It's the reality of the situation. What else would you call it when a population the size of Belgium's (the lowball estimate) or Australia's (the upper end) moves onto your land? And with the connivance of multiple state agencies, not to mention those municipalities that proudly declare themselves to be "sanctuary cities?"

In life's rich tapestry, there are bound to be questions to which there are no good answers -- that Missouri paternity suit is one of them. That's how advocates of the "bipartisan compromise" prefer to talk about immigration: difficult business, no ideal solution, and only extremists would pursue such theoretical perfection as "mass deportation."

OK. But whatever happened to non-mass deportation? Not long after Sept. 11 I chanced to be heading north on I-87 between Plattsburgh and Montreal. At the border crossing from Champlain, N.Y., to Lacolle, Quebec, I noticed that what appeared to be a mini-refugee camp had sprung up. It's not often that you see teeming hordes lining up to get into Canada, so I asked the immigration officer what was going on. He rolled his eyes and did a bit of boy-those-crazy-Yanks stuff and then explained that most of the guys waiting to get in were from Pakistan. In the wake of 9/11, the authorities had rounded up various persons of interest in the New York City area. Whether or not they were terrorists, they'd certainly violated immigration law, overstaying visas and so forth. And as a result, many other illegal immigrants from Muslim countries had concluded it was time to liquidate their assets and break for the border. In other words, the roundup of a relatively small number of persons sent thousands more fleeing to Canada. As that Missouri grandma would say, don't look on it as losing a Pakistani illegal but as gaining a Canadian neighbor.

So the question is: Why is enforcement of U.S. immigration somewhere between minimal and nonexistent? By some estimates, half of all illegals have arrived on George W. Bush's watch -- i.e., they broke into a nation at war with borders supposedly on permanent "orange" alert.

To return to the 72-virgin jackpot, even the looniest jihad-inciting imam understands that human nature responds to incentive, to the tradeoff between obligation and reward. But the immigration bill is all reward and no obligations. The only clause that matters is the first one: the mandatory open-ended probationary legal status the bill will confer the moment it's passed. All the rest -- the enforcement provisions on border agents and security fences that will supposedly "trigger" Z-visas and then green cards -- is nonsense, most of which will never happen. If you're "undocumented," you don't care about whether your Z-visa leads to citizenship 15 years from now: What counts is crossing the line from illegal to legal, which in this bill happens first, happens instantly and happens (to all intents and purposes) irreversibly. All the rest is Beltway kabuki.

That Missouri case should remind us that in a wealthy society the knottiest problems are usually the consequences of moral choices. To embed lawbreaking at the heart of American immigration and to allow it to metastasize through the wider society was perverse and debilitating. Most Americans see this differently from Washington and Wall Street. They're pro-immigration but they don't regard it as a mere technicality, a piece of government paper: after all, feeling American is central to their own identity. They rightly revile the cheap contempt the rushed Senate bill demonstrates not just for transparent, honest small-r republican government but for the privilege of being American. Happy Memorial Day.

© Mark Steyn 2007

Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 27, 2007, 02:33:05 PM
<<To embed lawbreaking at the heart of American immigration and to allow it to metastasize through the wider society was perverse and debilitating.>>

I can see where Steyn could legitimately say that lawbreaking has been "embedded at the heart of American immigration," although (a) it's a sloppy and inaccurate way of putting it and (b) it might happen to be the best practical policy available.  What I can't see is how it ["lawbreaking"] has been allowed to "metastatsize" "through the wider society."  That's one hell of a stretch.  And Steyn hasn't produced a shred of evidence in its support.

Immigration is a lot like prohibition - - it's a law that proved virtually impossible to enforce in a liberal democratic society.  So the issue really isn't so much "lawbreaking" as it is the realistic recognition of the limits of enforceability of a specific law.

"Lawbreaking" is pretty selective in its context here anyway - - what was so "lawful" about the way the whites took America from the Indians anyway?  And what was so "lawful" in how they got California from the Mexicans?  Now that they are in possession of their ill-gotten gains, the Americans want to put up gates to keep the Mexicans out and the Mexicans aren't having any of it.  Apparently, aided by persons within and without the U.S.A., the Mexicans are filtering back in  to what was always "their" land anyway.   IMHO, the influx can be slowed but never stopped by "law" and Steyn and others like him would be well advised to quit whining about "law" and "fairness" (being themselves the beneficiaries of American lawlessness and unfairness) and show more respect to people who are trying to find practical solutions to the "problem" of immigration.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 27, 2007, 03:14:57 PM
"Lawbreaking" is pretty selective in its context here anyway - - what was so "lawful" about the way the whites took America from the Indians anyway?

And what was "lawful" about the way that the Indians took America from the aboriginals that came from Europe?
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 27, 2007, 03:29:56 PM
<<And what was "lawful" about the way that the Indians took America from the aboriginals that came from Europe?>>

How do you know that European aboriginals were here before the Indians?  And if they were, how do you know how the Indians took America from them?
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 27, 2007, 07:05:24 PM
How do you know that European aboriginals were here before the Indians?  And if they were, how do you know how the Indians took America from them?

I pay attention to history. It's been years since anyone took the "Clovis First" theories ("Native Americans" were the aboriginal humans) seriously. There were humans in the Americas for thousands of years before the Native Americans arrived via the Bering Strait land bridge, and those original humans arrived from southern France (Solutreans) - this is supported by mitochondrial DNA.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Universe Prince on May 27, 2007, 10:30:15 PM
Quote from: Mark Steyn

But the Scylla of open borders does exist. It's the reality of the situation.


No, it is not the reality of the situation. If we had genuinely open borders, we wouldn't have people by the millions risking death just to sneak in. And open borders is not a Scylla. Nor is it a Charybdis or any other sort of monster. But the use of the metaphor of open immigration as a monster reveals the underlying nature of Steyn's argument. That underlying nature is fear. The idea of open borders as monster implies that it is a threat to the lives of innocent people, and it is not. On the contrary, the threat of death is what people desperate to make a better life now are risking by crossing the desert to come here. Seems to me, Steyn has it backwards.

Quote from: Mark Steyn

To embed lawbreaking at the heart of American immigration and to allow it to metastasize through the wider society was perverse and debilitating.


The problem here is that we should never have made legal immigration into America so difficult. And that, not the recent bill in Congress, is what embedded lawbreaking at the heart of American immigration. And yes, it is perverse and debilitating. Exactly why we need to make legal immigration substantially easier, not harder.

Quote from: Mark Steyn

the privilege of being American


Being a citizen of the U.S. is a privilege. But coming to the U.S. should not be.

Quote from: Mark Steyn

Happy Memorial Day.


Indeed. Happy Memorial Day. Please take some time to remember the efforts of immigrants and the children of immigrants who risked and gave their lives in the service of the U.S. military. Immigrants who did not have to jump the legal hurdles that now exist to come here. Immigrants who faced the same complaints of being lazy, being criminals, being poor, being a drain on society. Please, remember them on Memorial Day. And consider that maybe, just maybe the immigrants of today are not less worthy of the liberty that the immigrants of the past had, that the immigrants of the past and their children fought to protect.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 27, 2007, 11:03:19 PM
from wikipedia

<<Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is used to refer to interactions between the indigenous peoples of the Americas and peoples of other continents – Europe, Africa, Asia, or Oceania – before the arrival of Christopher Columbus in 1492. Many such events have been proposed at various times, based on historical reports, archaeological finds, and cultural comparisons. Some of those claims are listed in this article. Evidence for those claims is, however, generally scant and circumstantial, and only a few of them are taken seriously by researchers; only Native American migration from Siberia and the presence of the Norse in present-day Atlantic Canada have been proven for certain.>>

However the references are fascinating.  I never heard of Solutrean culture before and never heard of Clovis or pre-Clovis in relation to pre-Columbian Americans.  This is something I plan to read up on when I get the chance.

Thank you.

Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 27, 2007, 11:13:57 PM
Some good references here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis)

Since it's supported by mitochondrial DNA, it's very likely to be the correct explanation.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 28, 2007, 01:10:24 AM
It's supported by mitochondrial DNA to the extent that nobody's found Haplogroup X in Siberia or eastern Asia so far.  One tribe or clan with even 10 or 12%  Haplogroup X would be all it takes to blow the whole theory.   I see the Clovis descendants aren't too keen on DNA tests for the specimens that turn up now, and they've got the courts on their side, too.  Probably the effect of appointing religious nuts and conservatives to the bench.  I guess they stand to lose politically if it turns out they displaced the earlier inhabitants just like the whites displaced them.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 28, 2007, 01:19:54 AM
It's supported by mitochondrial DNA to the extent that nobody's found Haplogroup X in Siberia or eastern Asia so far.

Sure they have. But it only dates back to about 5,000 years before present in that area, much too late to have been responsible for the divergent DNA of ~15,000 years before present found in the Americas.

This is science, Mikey, not guesswork.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 28, 2007, 01:23:30 AM
I guess they stand to lose politically if it turns out they displaced the earlier inhabitants just like the whites displaced them.

Especially since it will have been "the whites" they displaced...

When I first read up on some of this stuff about 4 years ago, my comment to my wife (who is part Native American) was "Karma's a bitch, huh?"
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 28, 2007, 01:24:27 AM
<<This is science, Mikey, not guesswork.>>

All science starts with a guess, Ami.  Only it's called a hypothesis.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 28, 2007, 01:30:04 AM
<<When I first read up on some of this stuff about 4 years ago, my comment to my wife (who is part Native American) was "Karma's a bitch, huh?">>

It's in such moments of tender intimacy that the bonds of marriage draw even tighter and the American family ever stronger.  Was it the frying pan or the rolling pin that she brained you with?
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 28, 2007, 01:31:47 AM
All science starts with a guess, Ami.  Only it's called a hypothesis.

Guess you didn't study hard enough in your science class.

A hypothesis is an explanation for a set of data, not a "guess". The data would be the divergence of the mitochondrial DNA, in this case. Which is not guesswork.

There is no other hypothesis on the horizon for this set of data, and we (the US) have a very good set of population DNA information, thanks to the Human Genome Project.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 28, 2007, 01:35:41 AM
It's in such moments of tender intimacy that the bonds of marriage draw even tighter and the American family ever stronger.  Was it the frying pan or the rolling pin that she brained you with?

Apparently, unlike those in your life, she has a wicked sense of humor. She laughed.

Besides, she's a mutt anyway. She's got German, Polish, Irish, Scottish, and British as well as Native American. And part of her family came over on the Mayflower.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 28, 2007, 01:39:01 AM
It's in such moments of tender intimacy that the bonds of marriage draw even tighter and the American family ever stronger.  Was it the frying pan or the rolling pin that she brained you with?

Oh yeah, BTW, you can wish us a happy 21st anniversary (which we just celebrated) as well. How are your marriage bonds?
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 28, 2007, 01:39:13 AM
<<A hypothesis is an explanation for a set of data . . . ""

Sure.  But until the "explanation" has been tested, it's only a guess.  A guess called a "hypothesis."


Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 28, 2007, 01:40:34 AM
Sure.  But until the "explanation" has been tested, it's only a guess.  A guess called a "hypothesis."

As I said, you failed to study in your science class.

But I knew that already.

A hypothesis is not a "guess."
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 28, 2007, 01:52:04 AM
<<Oh yeah, BTW, you can wish us a happy 21st anniversary (which we just celebrated) as well. How are your marriage bonds?>>

OK, happy 21st.  Our marriage bonds are not too bad.  We're gonna celebrate our 45th next month, we've got three great kids, two grandchildren (both born in the U.S.A. as it happens) and a third on the way here in Toronto.  And our younger daughter is getting married here in the spring of 08.  My hypothesis is that the marriage is built to last and the rest of my life will be the experiment that proves it. 
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 28, 2007, 01:55:52 AM
<<As I said, you failed to study in your science class.

<<But I knew that already.>>

Actually, I aced every science class I took.  I just didn't make a career out of them.

<<A hypothesis is not a "guess.">>

Of course it's a guess.  If it weren't, nobody would bother to test it.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Universe Prince on May 28, 2007, 02:05:18 AM

Of course it's a guess.  If it weren't, nobody would bother to test it.


That sounds a lot like, "if it's fact then they wouldn't call it a theory."

A hypothesis is more like a supposition than it is a guess. Guessing implies making something up without any supporting evidence. A hypothesis by definition is based on observable evidence.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 28, 2007, 02:07:02 AM
Actually, I aced every science class I took.  I just didn't make a career out of them.

Basic science classes can be aced by chimps.

Of course it's a guess.  If it weren't, nobody would bother to test it.

It's an explanation that may or may not be true, which is why it's tested. It's hardly a guess.

You're running along the same track that deniers of evolution use when they say that since it's a theory, it means it might not be true. You're just a little behind them...
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 28, 2007, 02:11:32 AM
<<Guessing implies making something up without any supporting evidence. A hypothesis by definition is based on observable evidence.>>

Not at all.  There are all kinds of guesses - - wild guesses, inspired guesses, shrewd guesses, informed guesses . . .

You assume all guesses are wild guesses, but they aren't.  A good scientist won't make wild guesses, but he'll make a reasoned guess, eliminate some of the wilder ones, and then test his guess, er, his hypothesis.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 28, 2007, 02:15:36 AM
You assume all guesses are wild guesses, but they aren't.  A good scientist won't make wild guesses, but he'll make a reasoned guess, eliminate some of the wilder ones, and then test his guess, er, his hypothesis.

guess:
a. To predict (a result or an event) without sufficient information.
b. To assume, presume, or assert (a fact) without sufficient information.

A hypothesis is always formed from information.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 28, 2007, 02:17:30 AM
<<Basic science classes can be aced by chimps.>>

Speaking from personal experience?



<<You're running along the same track that deniers of evolution use when they say that since it's a theory, it means it might not be true.>>

I never told a denier of evolution that evolution was "true."  It IS just a theory.  That means it's only taken as truth as long as a better theory doesn't come along.  No real scientist would ever claim that a theory is "true."  He'd have to be some kind of fanatic to do that.  The problem with the deniers of evolution is that they don't have an alternative theory that fits the data as well as the theory of evolution does.  Not that evolution is "true" and their denial is "false."

<< You're just a little behind them...>>

Your problem is that you don't understand science,
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 28, 2007, 02:23:50 AM
guess:
a. To predict (a result or an event) without sufficient information.
b. To assume, presume, or assert (a fact) without sufficient information.

A hypothesis is always formed from information.
----------------------------------------------------
So you're not only deficient in science, but in logic as well?  Or didn't you get the difference between "information" and "sufficient information?"

The hypothesis starts with original available information.  An experiment is devised to test the hypothesis.  New information arises from the experiment.  The new information plus the existing information together proves the hypothesis.  Now the hypothesis is no longer a guess.  Looking backwards, there was "insufficient information" to validate the hypothesis; based on insufficient information, it was a guess.  With the results of a successful experiment, more information became available.  Validating the hypothesis or guess.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 28, 2007, 02:31:50 AM
Speaking from personal experience?

Yeah, I met plenty of chimps like you who aced the basic science classes in high school and thought they were all so there, while I went on to major in science (chemistry and engineering, specifically).
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 28, 2007, 02:36:02 AM
<<Yeah, I met plenty of chimps like you who aced the basic science classes in high school and thought they were all so there, while I went on to major in science (chemistry and engineering, specifically).>>

Well so far it looks to me like this chimp understands what a hypothesis is better than a science major in chemistry and engineering does.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Universe Prince on May 28, 2007, 02:41:19 AM

There are all kinds of guesses - - wild guesses, inspired guesses, shrewd guesses, informed guesses . . .


But now you're talking about general usage of the word 'guess'. Which is not the same as the meaning of guess and hypothesis as scientific terms. Words can have different meanings in different contexts. In general usage, a hypothesis can be a guess. In use as a scientific term, it is not a guess.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 28, 2007, 02:43:28 AM
I never told a denier of evolution that evolution was "true."  It IS just a theory.  That means it's only taken as truth as long as a better theory doesn't come along.  No real scientist would ever claim that a theory is "true."

Not only do you not understand "hypothesis," you do not understand "theory" either.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 28, 2007, 02:44:43 AM
Well so far it looks to me like this chimp understands what a hypothesis is better than a science major in chemistry and engineering does.

Yeah, I know. Declare victory, hit enter.

All you've shown (once again) is that you do NOT understand science.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: sirs on May 28, 2007, 04:13:24 AM
Oh yeah, BTW, you can wish us a happy 21st anniversary (which we just celebrated) as well.  

BIG time congrats, Ami

(http://smileyworld.com/dictionary/images/smileys/Emotions/Happy/Satisfaction.gif)
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 28, 2007, 07:01:06 AM
<<Yeah, I know. Declare victory, hit enter.>>

Kinda late in the day.  You've already done it.

<<All you've shown (once again) is that you do NOT understand science.>>

I stand by what I said - - the hypothesis is nothing more than an educated guess.  And all you've shown is that you've got yourself a pretty expensive piece of framed wallpaper.  Better hope your profs don't see this thread, or they might wanna take it back.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 28, 2007, 08:17:21 AM
Better hope your profs don't see this thread, or they might wanna take it back.

Actually, I'm sure they'd tell you that you're just using the "dumbed down" explanation of hypothesis, theory, and law that are used to explain an outline of the concepts to 6th graders.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 28, 2007, 11:09:14 AM
<<Actually, I'm sure they'd tell you that you're just using the "dumbed down" explanation of hypothesis . . . .>>

Well, there ya go.  If you want to substitute "simplified" for "dumbed down," you just proved my point and you get to keep your diploma.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 28, 2007, 12:38:38 PM
Well, there ya go.  If you want to substitute "simplified" for "dumbed down," you just proved my point and you get to keep your diploma.

No thanks. I'll stick with the correct version.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 28, 2007, 12:49:39 PM
Well, there ya go.  If you want to substitute "simplified" for "dumbed down," you just proved my point and you get to keep your diploma.

I'll let you prove to me how you're right.

Under your viewpoint, a hypothesis is a guess, a theory is a better guess, and a law is something that is proven beyond a doubt and inviolate, right?

That's the "simplified" version you were taught, correct?
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 29, 2007, 07:38:36 AM
Interestingly enough, no response.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 29, 2007, 07:55:23 AM
<<Under your viewpoint, a hypothesis is a guess, a theory is a better guess, and a law is something that is proven beyond a doubt and inviolate, right?>>

Wrong.  For one thing, only a moron would believe that any law of science is inviolate.

A hypothesis is an educated guess.

A theory is a temporary explanation based on the available data of the time.  Your theory, for example, that since I had provided no answer to your previous asinine post at the time of your last post, I must have been unable to do because your post embodied the wisdom of Socrates, was only a temporary explanation that failed to take into account simple basic facts such as the lateness of the hour and that I had previously pulled an all-nighter and wanted to get some early shut-eye.  There are good scientists and there are bad scientists, and clearly you fall into the latter category.

And a law is a handy rubric that does nothing more than provide a verbal handle for a theory that provides the underlying basis for predictive calculations on raw data.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 29, 2007, 08:05:24 AM
Your theory, for example, that since I had provided no answer to your previous asinine post at the time of your last post, I must have been unable to do because your post embodied the wisdom of Socrates, was only a temporary explanation that failed to take into account simple basic facts such as the lateness of the hour and that I had previously pulled an all-nighter and wanted to get some early shut-eye.  There are good scientists and there are bad scientists, and clearly you fall into the latter category.

Never claimed it was a theory.

So your theory must be wrong.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 29, 2007, 08:10:10 AM
And a law is a handy rubric that does nothing more than provide a verbal handle for a theory that provides the underlying basis for predictive calculations on raw data.

This is what I wanted to get to. So, a law is predictive. It is not a law until it can be used to predict future occurrences.

Therefore, Newton's Laws of Motion, which are scientific laws and still taught as scientific laws, are correct, uncontradicted at this point in time, and predictive of the motion of objects, correct?

And a theory is only used to explain observed data and is not used to predict future occurrences?
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 29, 2007, 08:12:58 AM
<<Never claimed it was a theory.>>

Naturally.  You never even realized that it was a theory.

<<So your theory must be wrong.>>

Yeah.  Right.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 29, 2007, 08:17:43 AM
Naturally.  You never even realized that it was a theory.

Because it was never a theory. No collected data, other than one point (which is insufficient for even a hypothesis to be formed), no mathematical foundation, no formal testing, no boundaries, no formalization, etc...

Absolutely cannot be a theory.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 29, 2007, 08:22:10 AM
And a law is a handy rubric that does nothing more than provide a verbal handle for a theory that provides the underlying basis for predictive calculations on raw data.

Wait a minute.

So now you're saying that even scientific laws are nothing more than good guesses until something better comes along? They're just theories with a different name?
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 29, 2007, 08:29:56 AM
This is what I wanted to get to. So, a law is predictive. It is not a law until it can be used to predict future occurrences.

Therefore, Newton's Laws of Motion, which are scientific laws and still taught as scientific laws, are correct, uncontradicted at this point in time, and predictive of the motion of objects, correct?

And a theory is only used to explain observed data and is not used to predict future occurrences?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, the laws I can think of off-hand - - Newton's laws, Boyle's law, the Beer-Lambert law - - the first two are used to predict, the latter to measure, which I guess is a form of prediction, so, yeah, I won't argue with that.  So far.

And I don't know if Newton's Laws of Motion would predict the motion of all objects, no, but for all intents and purposes they do well enough at predicting the motion of any objects that I'm likely to be dealing with in my lifetime.  I don't know for a fact that they predict the motion of objects travelling near the speed of light, for example, or at a distance approaching infinity.

And I don't know that a theory can't predict future occurrences.  As a matter of fact, I think the theory of evolution can and does predict that resistant viruses and "super-bugs" are on the way in a variety of different diseases.

You're really hilarious.  You're all over the map with your bullshit definitions and characterizations, getting in deeper and deeper, simply because your arrogance and vanity won't permit you to admit to one simple and extremely stupid mistake that you made when you denied that a hypothesis was just a form of a guess.  You just more and more look like a complete ass, and of course there's no way out, when all you have to do is say, "Yeah, you know what, that's right, a hypothesis IS a guess."
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 29, 2007, 08:37:58 AM
<<Because it was never a theory. No collected data, other than one point (which is insufficient for even a hypothesis to be formed), no mathematical foundation, no formal testing, no boundaries, no formalization, etc...

<<Absolutely cannot be a theory.>>

Please.  At least prove to me that you are capable of counting up to three.  Any scientist should be able to do that.

The data for your theory consisted of the following three points:
1.  You posted a response to my previous post.
2.  A certain amount of time then elapsed.
3.  At the end of the elapsed time, I had not answered your post.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 29, 2007, 08:40:15 AM
<<So now you're saying that even scientific laws are nothing more than good guesses until something better comes along? They're just theories with a different name?>>

You got it, Einstein.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 29, 2007, 08:49:59 AM
Please.  At least prove to me that you are capable of counting up to three.  Any scientist should be able to do that.

The data for your theory consisted of the following three points:
1.  You posted a response to my previous post.
2.  A certain amount of time then elapsed.
3.  At the end of the elapsed time, I had not answered your post.

Which was one data point for the theory that you actually proposed.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 29, 2007, 08:53:33 AM
<<So now you're saying that even scientific laws are nothing more than good guesses until something better comes along? They're just theories with a different name?>>

You got it, Einstein.

OK, that proves you do not understand science.

A scientific law must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Which is why evolution will never become a law - it is not simple.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 29, 2007, 09:03:08 AM
<<A scientific law must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.>>

Bullshit.  Newton's laws, for example, did not take into account the curvature of space.  They do not predict the motion of objects travelling to a nearly infinite distance or travelling at close to the speed of light, and yet they're still working fine on the pool tables of this planet.

I'm afraid I'm just going to have to declare victory and hit enter, Ami.  It's long past the time when I should have gotten to work.  Long and short of it is, a hypothesis is nothing more than an educated guess awaiting validation through experimentation and if you don't want to admit it, that's gonna have to be your problem.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 29, 2007, 09:05:40 AM
<<Which was one data point for the theory that you actually proposed.>>

Maybe three equals one in the Christian religion, Ami, but that's not how it works in science.  I never bought into that "three is one" crap in the religious area and I'm not buying it here either.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 29, 2007, 09:09:30 AM
<<Which was one data point for the theory that you actually proposed.>>

Maybe three equals one in the Christian religion, Ami, but that's not how it works in science.  I never bought into that "three is one" crap in the religious area and I'm not buying it here either.

The only data point in that set was the length of time that had elapsed without a post.

What other data was there?

The post I made and then my later post were start and end time markers, not data.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 29, 2007, 09:12:02 AM
<<The post I made and then my later post were start and end time markers, not data.>>

That's pure sophistry.  there were three data:  post, time elapsed, failure to respond.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 29, 2007, 09:14:03 AM
That's pure sophistry.  there were three data:  post, time elapsed, failure to respond.

And you have just demonstrated that you do not understand collection of scientific data, either.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 29, 2007, 04:20:49 PM
<<And you have just demonstrated that you do not understand collection of scientific data, either.>>

Why?  Because I detected three valid data, any one of which if varied or absent would have affected the result and was therefore critical?  Whereas you could only find one single datum?  That's hilarious.  Remind me not to ask YOU to collect data for anyone's next experiment.  It would clearly fail for lack of sufficient data, but the real fault would lie with the data collector.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 29, 2007, 04:40:12 PM
Why?  Because I detected three valid data, any one of which if varied or absent would have affected the result and was therefore critical?  Whereas you could only find one single datum?  That's hilarious.  Remind me not to ask YOU to collect data for anyone's next experiment.  It would clearly fail for lack of sufficient data, but the real fault would lie with the data collector.

You collected three different types of data and grouped them together.

That is invalid.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Plane on May 29, 2007, 04:54:14 PM
According to Heisenberg , there is an absolute limit on the fineness of measurement .


And Schroedinger has no pity for cats.


Human Humility should circumscribe our confidence in human perception of truth , even as it becomes finer and grander , we become more aware of limits we didn't know of before, in our ability to know.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 29, 2007, 05:00:08 PM
<<You collected three different types of data and grouped them together.

<<That is invalid.>>

That's ludicrous.  You needed each datum I collected to come to your conclusion.

Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 29, 2007, 05:05:34 PM
That's ludicrous.  You needed each datum I collected to come to your conclusion.

I never had a "conclusion", much less a theory.

And you cannot group different types of data together for evidence. It violates scientific method.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 29, 2007, 05:39:37 PM
<<And you cannot group different types of data together for evidence. It violates scientific method.>>

So if I'm calculating the path of a bullet, I can't put muzzle velocity together with atmospheric  pressure together with the mass of the bullet because that's mixing data?

Tell ya what, Ami, you practice science YOUR way, and I'll try to practice it my way.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Plane on May 29, 2007, 05:42:17 PM
Are the datum related in a demonstrable way ?

Are all major factors accounted for?
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 29, 2007, 05:47:19 PM
So if I'm calculating the path of a bullet, I can't put muzzle velocity together with atmospheric  pressure together with the mass of the bullet because that's mixing data?

Actually, you create vectors for the muzzle velocity, pull of gravity, and wind velocity, then perform vector addition.

Since all the individual data collected are vectors, they are all the same type of data.

I'll stick with real science.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 29, 2007, 05:54:09 PM
mass of the bullet because that's mixing data?

Oh yeah, in case you hadn't heard...

I know you don't keep up with the latest in scientific developments...

There was this guy named Galileo who proved that the acceleration of gravity is constant regardless of mass. Two bullets fired at the same time (or one fired and one dropped), regardless of mass, will hit the ground in exactly the same length of time.

It's one of those law thingies.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Plane on May 29, 2007, 06:05:03 PM
mass of the bullet because that's mixing data?

Oh yeah, in case you hadn't heard...

I know you don't keep up with the latest in scientific developments...

There was this guy named Galileo who proved that the acceleration of gravity is constant regardless of mass. Two bullets fired at the same time (or one fired and one dropped), regardless of mass, will hit the ground in exactly the same length of time.

It's one of those law thingies.
I think MT has a point.

It had to happen someday .

You do need to know mass , and cross sectional area , and air density to compute the energy lost to air resistance.

When firing the Paris Gun the variable density at hight had to be compensated for , as well as the amount of earth rotation differential caused by Coriolis force.  A bullet is a good example of haveing a lot of factors matter.
 True , all of the factors can be shown as vectors , but I think that MT could possibly relate his data .

Of course in spite of computeing a lot for each shot the Paris Gun had a reliably large error. Cahos rears his head in circumstances where small factors are multiplyed over time and the result is a situation sensitive to initial conditions.

Life is like that.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 29, 2007, 06:06:12 PM
I've got a little experiment for you to try.  Take a ping-poing paddle and whack a ping-pong ball.  See how far the ball goes.  Take the same ping-poing paddle and whack a standing locomotive with it.  See how far the locomotive goes.  Measure the mass of the ping-pong ball.  Measure the mass of the locomotive.  Assume equal propulsive force applied to each.  Try to figure out why the ping-pong ball went farther than the locomotive.  Think the mass of the two projectiles had anything to do with the variation in distance travelled?
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 29, 2007, 06:10:57 PM
I've got a little experiment for you to try.  Take a ping-poing paddle and whack a ping-pong ball.  See how far the ball goes.  Take the same ping-poing paddle and whack a standing locomotive with it.  See how far the locomotive goes.  Measure the mass of the ping-pong ball.  Measure the mass of the locomotive.  Assume equal propulsive force applied to each.  Try to figure out why the ping-pong ball went farther than the locomotive.  Think the mass of the two projectiles had anything to do with the variation in distance travelled?

Mass has nothing to do with the gravity vector.

It is already included in the muzzle velocity vector.

Mass on it's own is not used in ballistic trajectory calculations.

I guess you also need a drag vector, which would use the cross section.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Plane on May 29, 2007, 06:14:32 PM
I've got a little experiment for you to try.  Take a ping-poing paddle and whack a ping-pong ball.  See how far the ball goes.  Take the same ping-poing paddle and whack a standing locomotive with it.  See how far the locomotive goes.  Measure the mass of the ping-pong ball.  Measure the mass of the locomotive.  Assume equal propulsive force applied to each.  Try to figure out why the ping-pong ball went farther than the locomotive.  Think the mass of the two projectiles had anything to do with the variation in distance travelled?

If a ping pong ball is dropped in a pipe evacuated of air, it will beat the Locomotive to the ground dropped an equal hight through air resistance.

If air resistance is simular and speed is simular balistic path is simular reguardless of mass.

Did you start by includeing the amount of propulsive force? The amouont of propulsive force vs mass is another question than the one you started with.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 29, 2007, 07:54:41 PM
<<Mass on it's own is not used in ballistic trajectory calculations.>>

It's not used in the calculations because you usually have muzzle velocity.  But if you didn't, you could calculate trajectory from mass and propulsive force.  Except that (according to you) the data would be mixing - - hey!  mass doesn't go with propulsive force or atmospheric pressure.  Mass isn't a vector!  Keep mass out of the calculations!

Sheer craziness.  Of course, you could factor in mass, propulsive force, atmospheric pressure or air density, gravity etc. and perform meaningful calculations.   Mass is a datum just like propulsive force and the others.  You are making less and less sense the deeper you get into this.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 29, 2007, 08:45:55 PM
Sheer craziness.  Of course, you could factor in mass, propulsive force, atmospheric pressure or air density, gravity etc. and perform meaningful calculations.   Mass is a datum just like propulsive force and the others.  You are making less and less sense the deeper you get into this.

Hey, I got more data to add in.

I didn't have just 3 points to put into my calculation!

My computer has a black keyboard.
The temperature outside at the time of my last post was 74 degrees.
I had recently made a post about swastikas on veterans graves.

Hey, there was actually 6 points that I used.

Wait a minute.

I was watching CNN at the time.

Make that 7 points.

Wait a minute...

Where do you cut off? They must all be involved, after all they were all there at the same time...
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Michael Tee on May 29, 2007, 11:16:04 PM
A good scientist (me, for instance) would pick only relevant points - - the three I picked were essential to your conclusion.  The colour of your keyboard, for example, was not.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Amianthus on May 29, 2007, 11:17:26 PM
A good scientist (me, for instance) would pick only relevant points - - the three I picked were essential to your conclusion.  The colour of your keyboard, for example, was not.

Sure it is. I typed the message on it, so it was involved. And the temperature could have affected my attitude.
Title: Re: So much news, so little sense
Post by: Plane on May 29, 2007, 11:59:13 PM
A good scientist (me, for instance) would pick only relevant points - - the three I picked were essential to your conclusion.  The colour of your keyboard, for example, was not.

yes , how are the three datum interrelated?