|
 lipa
Can't. Stop.Culturing!
 
Registered: 07/24/07
Posts: 274
Last seen: 4 hours, 4 minutes
|
|
Quote:
fastfred said:
Somebody get lipa a biscuit, he's getting cranky.
Well! I guess it got better than dousing your casing with chemicals.  I think I will have a biscuit! " I can tell AV that I think FF is one smart  and knows his shit"
|
Mr E Guest
born pedant
Registered: 05/11/07
Posts: 100
Loc: Shrubbery
Last seen: 1 month, 21 hours
|
|
Quote:
fastfred said:
Suppose I want to prove that a certain bacteria...
Bacterium, surely? Otherwise "...prove that certain bacteria..." 
Just to chip in a totally unfounded opinion, if the myc looks ok then at least fruit it for spores/clones. The prospect of mutations is too compelling to even consider disposal. I would do some careful sums on how much of what substance could have ended up in the fungus before thinking about ingesting any of it.
|
amanitavirosa
absurdlyoptimistic
Registered: 04/07/08
Posts: 329
Loc: Cold places
Last seen: 24 days, 20 hours
|
|
FF, the point is obviously lost on you.
What may I ask is your level of schooling? I am only curious because you appear to want to debate in the precepts of science but clearly lack the formal training - otherwise you would understand the more significant points of the scientific method. More specifically, the entire "problem" of "proving" anything.
--------------------
-AV-
If you find a post helpful or informative, rate it! 
- $40 Glove Box - Mini Ultrasonic Humidifier -
|
weretheshit
FeelingRhizomorp<wbr><wbr>hic?
Registered: 10/30/07
Posts: 332
Last seen: 19 hours, 17 minutes
|
|
ya, this is definitely going way off-topic.
I wouldn't keep any of those mushies. And you'll get mutants if anything at all...
I can barely concentrate on reading your damn posts though due to that avatar.
--------------------
FooMan's weretheshit.com product review (Finished)
Search for the MOST RECENT NEWS & REVIEWS for "weretheshit"
WTS Start of Summer Contest!!! 5 Different winners will be selected!!!
|
 Juke Adro
on the hunt
Registered: 04/05/08
Posts: 946
Last seen: 3 minutes, 2 seconds
|
|
ha ha lol what happened in here
i love my avatar
ok I spoke to Larry and he said he might fruit for pictures only
--------------------
Foreskin Fred said.....Almost all mammals have foreskins, although in these non-human cases the foreskin is usually a sheath into which the whole penis is retracted. Only monotremes (the platypus and the echidna) lack foreskins.
   
|
 tripsis
doofing biologist
Registered: 04/13/08
Posts: 2,320
|
|
Quote:
fastfred said:
Quote:
Umm .. rejecting the null hypothesis (Ho) is the entire basis of science.
Hardly. Null hypothesis is just statistical bullshit. While it may sound interesting statistically it has little to do with science. Null hypothesis is just a statistical hoop to jump through for people with weak data.
agreed. i'm having to study that shit now and it's total crap. it may have some value but then again (statistically speaking of course) it may not
as a matter of fact i'm 95% certain (p = 0.05) that stats IS shit. unfortunately for me and most of the science world it is sadly fundamental to science and research...
--------------------
   
|
fastfred
Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 4,322
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
|
Quote:
amanitavirosa said:
FF, the point is obviously lost on you.
What may I ask is your level of schooling? I am only curious because you appear to want to debate in the precepts of science but clearly lack the formal training - otherwise you would understand the more significant points of the scientific method. More specifically, the entire "problem" of "proving" anything.
LOL!  I am certainly interested in hearing about the theoretical influences upon which you base your understanding.
Somehow I have missed those more significant points of your reasoning. I've outlined my theoretical perspective; I'd love to hear your reasoning in more detail. Specifically how you go about disproving something scientifically.
Science is about proving, not disproving. The null hypothesis is not a precept of science. It is a statistical double check that really doesn't carry much weight. It's value is quite controversial, and as such is hardly a precept of science. If you read the last section of the wikipedia article you linked earlier you can see that it's hardly key to anything, it's not considered significant in the least by many.
My guess is that you are getting this from stats class. Stats profs often like to glorify certain aspects. It's an easy mistake to consider stats to be the basis of science, but I assure you that it is not. I, and many other scientists, do not consider statistics to be a science. It is a technology, tool, or method but not a science in it's own right.
Science is based on experimentation and observation. Observation, by it's very nature, cannot disprove anything. Observation can only prove what is observed. If you observe nothing that does not prove that nothing is there, only that you have observed nothing using your methodology.
Since you seem to imply that your schooling or training has taught you the more significant points of the scientific method I would like to see your source. Specifically how you can't prove anything but are somehow able to disprove things.
Science theory is a rich subject, so I have no doubt that you are operating from some sort of theoretical framework.
Quote:
Bacterium, surely? Otherwise "...prove that certain bacteria..."
I don't get caught up worrying about that. It is ambiguous to try using the singular (bacterium) when you are referring to multiple cells. You want to use the singular when you are referring to one species, but you are still referring to multiple cells of this species so you could just as easily use the plural. Same thing with virus vs. viri. It is a non-issue in microbiology unless you are specifically referring to a single cell, in which case you are obligated to use the singular.
-FF
|
fastfred
Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 4,322
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
|
Quote:
as a matter of fact i'm 95% certain (p = 0.05) that stats IS shit. unfortunately for me and most of the science world it is sadly fundamental to science and research...
It is fundamental only in that you must have the statistical significance to prove that your results are not due to chance. That's all the null hypothesis is.
Stat profs like to treat it like the holy grail sometimes, but it doesn't really have any real bearing on anything. As I mentioned earlier you've got bigger problems if your experiment is so poorly designed or so inconclusive that you need to go through a controversial statistical proof just to prove that your results aren't simply random occurrences.
-FF
|
Juke Adro
on the hunt
Registered: 04/05/08
Posts: 946
Last seen: 3 minutes, 2 seconds
|
|
I understand you guys are having a battle, but please don't get it this thread locked as Lary Bird told Jason Donovan he wants to take pic's of the fruit and show everyone what it looks like after being soaked in Lysol/glenn20 and multi purpose cleaner for 5 hours
--------------------
Foreskin Fred said.....Almost all mammals have foreskins, although in these non-human cases the foreskin is usually a sheath into which the whole penis is retracted. Only monotremes (the platypus and the echidna) lack foreskins.
|
tahoe
Noob Slayer
Registered: 11/26/03
Posts: 4,503
Loc: N38.93829W119.98108
Last seen: 5 days, 1 hour
|
|
A college educated idiot is still an idiot
--------------------
Alder is not the BEST type of to use
Heat drying cubes is okay and recommended
Sunflower seeds do not cause contams
You should directly mist your cakes
The subjects that I cover are not species specific and can be used in All Aspects of Mycology
|
tripsis
doofing biologist
Registered: 04/13/08
Posts: 2,320
|
 Re: mycelium and chemicals [Re: tahoe]
#8344948 - 04/30/08 03:39 AM |
|
|
lol
no battle from over here, just stats-hating. bloody hell-on-earth-boring subject.....
anyway lets see some mutants! 
--------------------
|
amanitavirosa
absurdlyoptimistic
Registered: 04/07/08
Posts: 329
Loc: Cold places
Last seen: 24 days, 20 hours
|
|
Yeah - pics or it never happened.
PS: FF by applied background is bioorganic chemistry. I have plenty of real-world experience, as well as publications to back me. You may feel that stats are retarded, and that is fine. It also shows you have never really contributed to science as a whole.
--------------------
-AV-
If you find a post helpful or informative, rate it!
- $40 Glove Box - Mini Ultrasonic Humidifier -
|
RogerRabbit
Bans forPleasure
Registered: 03/26/03
Posts: 16,132
Last seen: 3 hours, 27 minutes
|
|
 This thread has been closed.
Reason:
Two main points I'd like to make before locking this thread.
1) Pissing matches are not necessary, do not contribute to the body of knowledge, and even if you 'win', you lose. Winning an argument on the internet is like winning the special Olympics. . .You're still retarded.
2) I'd like to wring the neck of the first asshole who ever said that Lysol causes mutants. Lysol is toxic to fungi because it's mostly alcohol. However, you don't generally introduce genetic mutations in the first generation after applying a chemical-especially in a fast growing organism such as fungi. Remember, a deformed fruit is not a mutant.
RR
|
|
login or 
register to post messages and view our members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, encrypted messages, file attachments, board customizations, and much more!
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
Quote 
