|Posted on Tuesday, May 28, 2002 - 3:27 pm: |
Ouija boards don't kill people, people kill people...
|Posted on Tuesday, May 28, 2002 - 1:45 pm: |
It wouldn't be the board- it would be the user of the board.
Like, it isn't the paintbrush or the axe. Its' the wielder.
|Posted on Monday, May 27, 2002 - 6:49 am: |
I agree there is much more out there than we realize, I just don't see any thing mystical being mass produced.
"Wanted: witch or fairy to enchant games. Must be able to lift 50 Lbs and be able to work in an assembly line environment. We provide fairy dust. Experience preferred. Applicants with forklift license will be given priority. This is a drug free enviornment.(We are an equal opportunity employer. Gnomes and other supernatural creatures encouraged to apply)"
|Posted on Sunday, May 19, 2002 - 2:40 pm: |
Are these the ones who invented the refrindgerators???
|Posted on Sunday, May 19, 2002 - 2:08 pm: |
yes,but there are many researchers and scientist,who operate on the frindge,the outer limits so to speak of modern theory.you may not hear of them but they are there.and with todays technology and internet, their voices will be heard...
|Posted on Sunday, May 19, 2002 - 7:26 am: |
The problem with science is not that mistakes will be made but that research is not considered to be scientifically respectable unless it builds upon the prior ideas of those who are considered as experts. The whole scientific community has set up rules to protect their position from theories that might discredit them.
Science today, takes it as read that those who went before you know better than you, therefore your views need to use these people as reference points. There can be no truly independant fresh ideas because these ideas need to be referenced to prior research (which in turn needed to be referenced to prior research).
Science today, assumes that all scientific knowledge forms part of an ongoing tradition and process. There can be no revolutions in science because revolutions cannot back up their ideas with references and therefore cannot be deemed valid by the scientific community.
The scientific community is more concerned with preserving a tradition than searching for knowledge.
Personally I'd trust a bunch of risk taking entrepreneurs (who would rather search for money)to search for knowledge than a bunch of conservative scientists.
|Posted on Saturday, May 18, 2002 - 12:11 pm: |
you did... last night... in my dream...
|Posted on Saturday, May 18, 2002 - 7:28 am: |
Did I mention that monkeys may fly out my butt?
|Posted on Friday, May 17, 2002 - 2:36 pm: |
Or pressboard technology...
|Posted on Friday, May 17, 2002 - 2:34 pm: |
ego's do suck.science is not an exact science.mistakes will be made,and should be expected.perhaps in 100 years we shall know exactly how ouija boards work,though i suspect the answer lies in physics.
|Posted on Friday, May 17, 2002 - 2:24 pm: |
I've never read any Richard Bach and whilst I did miss many a science lecture (due mainly to hangovers or waking up next to someone I'd rather not have woken up next to) I did end up with a half decent BSc honours in Geology, from a half decent university.
I remember having a fierce argument with the head of our Geology department about the fact that the findings of my final year mapping fieldwork dissertation fundamentally disagreed with the findings of 2 very eminent geologists who had mapped and interpreted the area prior to me (strange that areas that their surveys had uncharacteristically skimmed over very superficially seemed to throw up strata and fossils that did not fit at all with their interpretation). The fact that nobody could find one thing wrong with my findings or my interpretaton was neither here nor there, but rather how dare I disagree with such prominent scholars in such a cavalier fashion. How dare I interpret my data without reference to those considered better than me. Anyway they had no grounds to mark me down for this and that really stuck in their throats.
Fuck the whole scientific community, fuck them and all their 'building on the findings of others who went before' bollocks, fuck all their referencing, their toadying and their false views that data gives honest results. They're all tainted with the disease that makes them believe (with often religious zeal) that the scientific theories of those considered emminent are to be viewed as solid ground to be built on. This leads them all to interpret data in the light of the views of others who in turn have interpreted data in light of the views of others and so on. The view of the scienctific community is about as impartial as the Pope's view on gay sex (and I'm sure he could produce data to show that homosexuality has been responsible for the 'breakdown in society').
|Posted on Friday, May 17, 2002 - 2:01 pm: |
Scientists (like everyone else) approach things with a preconcieved notion of of what they consider to be their 'preferred' result.
While they are hardly infallible, they are not SUPPOSED to do this. The ideal experimental protocol should, in fact, DISPROVE the preferred result, if it can. The whole idea is to create a model by which, if the hypothesis is untrue, it will make itself apparent.
Science is not this semi-impartial discipline as much of society seems to believe and data proves nothing.
Data may not prove things without question, but they certainly provide an indication of what is more likely.
Do you deny that if something is observed to occur 10,000 times, by different people, under the same conditions, that it is more likely to occur again under those conditons than not?