Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

PlanetSpores.ca
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |  [ show all ]
Re: Why is science a liberal enterprise? [Re: Yrat]
    #11934659 -

Yrat said:
Prisoner#1 said:
then you should trust that there's no measurable Carbon14 after 50,000
years




i will have to request a source on this claim



how about something showing the inaccuracy instead, maybe it will renew your faith

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2676


--------------------
California Has Legalized Child Prostitution

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is science a liberal enterprise? [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #11934696 -

Prisoner#1 said:
zappaisgod said:
You may note that Mr. Schon is getting his ass kicked all over the place.  What happens to a priest who makes shit up?  Nothing.


Mr. Schon and many of his colleagues have brought doubt onto the entire
process, at least with fairy tails we know the credibility... seems as
though many scientists need to get butt raped in order to understand
science shouldnt be treated as religion


We are actually witnessing the inherent difference between the scientific community and the religious community regarding the whole entire climate change fiasco.  It turns out that it wasn't science after all.  It was a religion, replete with dogma and the banishment of apostates.  But they are getting caught in their lies and obfuscations.  A religion would never cleanse itself that way.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is science a liberal enterprise? [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #11934744 -

Prisoner#1 said:
Yrat said:
Prisoner#1 said:
then you should trust that there's no measurable Carbon14 after 50,000
years




i will have to request a source on this claim



how about something showing the inaccuracy instead, maybe it will renew your faith

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2676


So the thermometer may be incorrectly calibrated.  You aren't really going to tell us the fossils were planted 6,000 years ago, are you?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is science a liberal enterprise? [Re: pothead_bob]
    #11934749 -

pothead_bob said:
Quote:
might wanna stock up on faith and get more peers to review that shit, bridges collapse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galloping_Gertie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge
http://www.startribune.com/projects/11608881.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,530101,00.html?test=latestnews


You found 4 examples out of the the thousands of bridges that exist throughout the world. 


no, I cited 4 examples, there's a difference, I didnt include hundreds
that were affected by fire, overloading, earthquakes, mudslides and any
other factor that has aided in thousands collapsing


Quote:
What even is your point here?  The reasons why these bridges failed are perfectly understood and follow the laws of physics. 



right and the engineers that designed the bridges, the peer review that was associated with it all failed to take physics into account then

Quote:
I'm actually curious as to what you're even arguing about... that religion and science are the same?  The difference should be crystal clear. 


you're absolutely right, it should be crystal clear, unfortunately scientists have managed to blur the lines by handling their work as religion

Quote:
If you don't believe something stated by a scientific law, go get an experimental apparatus, test the law, and see for yourself. 


you dont have to believe what religion tells you either

Quote:
Guaranteed, if you go on a bridge and let go of a cinder block, it's going down and not up, and furthermore, it will accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2.


we dont live in a vacuum, you're failing to take into account the
resistance of air so either you've been taught wrong or you're just as
guilty as modern science of spreading 'near truth'


Quote:
I don't believe that 'God' created two people which started the human species.  Can you prove otherwise?


no but I can prove there's fraud in science just as there is in religion


--------------------
California Has Legalized Child Prostitution

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is science a liberal enterprise? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11934760 -

zappaisgod said:
We are actually witnessing the inherent difference between the scientific community and the religious community regarding the whole entire climate change fiasco.  It turns out that it wasn't science after all.  It was a religion, replete with dogma and the banishment of apostates.  But they are getting caught in their lies and obfuscations.  A religion would never cleanse itself that way.



as it turns out... those pushing this religion of climate change are
still true believers, obama hasnt stepped away, he's a deeply religious man


--------------------
California Has Legalized Child Prostitution

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is science a liberal enterprise? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11934765 -

zappaisgod said:
You aren't really going to tell us the fossils were planted 6,000 years ago, are you?


have I said anything to imply I believe that crap


--------------------
California Has Legalized Child Prostitution

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is science a liberal enterprise? [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #11934783 -

You seemed to be leaning there.  Deliberately distorting the nature of scientific inquiry.  Testing is a defining feature.  Unfortunately the testing is performed by fallible, and lying, humans, often for personal gain.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is science a liberal enterprise? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11934870 -

i like this side of zappa


--------------------
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root."
-Henry David Thoreau
Strike The Root

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is science a liberal enterprise? [Re: urbanfarmer]
    #11934903 -

urbanfarmer said:
Yrat said:
urbanfarmer said:
Yrat said:
i will have to request a source on this claim


Carbon14 has a half-life of 5,730 years.  After 57,300 years, there will be only (1/2)^10 = 0.0009765625 of the remaining C14, which is getting a little hard to work with.  After 200,000 years, there is 9e-13 remaining, which really is too little to measure.





how do you know "it's a little hard to work with"?.  what if a method can accurately measure to 0.0000000001, is 50,000 years so tough then?  the measurement is relative, just because the number becomes small, doesn't mean a measurement will be inaccurate.  you'll have to show the limits of the current methods and techniques, and when their limitations affect the ability to generate accurate data, if you are going to make such claims.


Because C14 generation in the atmosphere varies by solar radiation, atmospheric makeup, etc.  When the amount of C14 relative to C12 gets small enough it vanishes into the line noise of C14 generation variance.

It's not just amount, it's amount in context.


you still don't understand what i'm saying.  with ever-improving technology, that signal to noise ratio is cleaned up more and more.  if you're going to make a claim that 0.0009765625 = 0.0977% remaining 14C is "getting a little hard to work with" you must prove that today's methodologies have such a limit.  what i'm saying is, you could bet on the accuracy of measurements at 0.0977% 14C if current techniques can detect and measure 0.0010% accurately.


--------------------
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root."
-Henry David Thoreau
Strike The Root

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is science a liberal enterprise? [Re: Yrat]
    #11934994 -

Yrat said:
i like this side of zappa


Get away from me, ya creep.  Stop touching me.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is science a liberal enterprise? [Re: Yrat]
    #11935068 -

Yrat said:
urbanfarmer said:
Yrat said:
urbanfarmer said:
Carbon14 has a half-life of 5,730 years.  After 57,300 years, there will be only (1/2)^10 = 0.0009765625 of the remaining C14, which is getting a little hard to work with.  After 200,000 years, there is 9e-13 remaining, which really is too little to measure.





how do you know "it's a little hard to work with"?.  what if a method can accurately measure to 0.0000000001, is 50,000 years so tough then?  the measurement is relative, just because the number becomes small, doesn't mean a measurement will be inaccurate.  you'll have to show the limits of the current methods and techniques, and when their limitations affect the ability to generate accurate data, if you are going to make such claims.


Because C14 generation in the atmosphere varies by solar radiation, atmospheric makeup, etc.  When the amount of C14 relative to C12 gets small enough it vanishes into the line noise of C14 generation variance.

It's not just amount, it's amount in context.


you still don't understand what i'm saying.  with ever-improving technology, that signal to noise ratio is cleaned up more and more.  if you're going to make a claim that 0.0009765625 = 0.0977% remaining 14C is "getting a little hard to work with" you must prove that today's methodologies have such a limit.  what i'm saying is, you could bet on the accuracy of measurements at 0.0977% 14C if current techniques can detect and measure 0.0010% accurately.


Actually, I don't have to prove such a limit.  My claim is the null hypothesis, yours the alpha.  You have to prove certain levels of accuracy.  While you're doing that...

C14 is about 1 part per trillion in ambient air, ie, your starting point.  So you actually need accuracy down to .000000000000977%...

Meanwhile, you still aren't understanding what I'm saying.  C14 levels have a historical flux.  It's difficult to properly estimate the amount of C14 in the atmosphere to a high degree of accuracy; we have many samples and good models that give us a good degree of accuracy, but the uncertainty is still there.  To restate: when the uncertainty of the predicted amount of C14 to start with is higher than the uncertainty of how much C14 is left in the sample, your numbers are meaningless.  This is a statistics problem, not an instrumentation problem.

Which is why above a certain age, other isotope dating methods are used.  As noted above.  Or strata dating, or so on.

Look, I don't work in radiocarbon dating.  If you want to know the limits at current tech, read the papers, books, and start with the wikipedia page.  That's where I cribbed most of this.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is science a liberal enterprise? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11935077 -

:poke:


--------------------
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root."
-Henry David Thoreau
Strike The Root

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is science a liberal enterprise? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11935096 -

zappaisgod said:
You seemed to be leaning there.  Deliberately distorting the nature of scientific inquiry.  Testing is a defining feature.  Unfortunately the testing is performed by fallible, and lying, humans, often for personal gain.



$$$$

grants, that's what makes the science work and you often cant get the
grant if the research isnt being driven for a specific agenda, it's also
common practice to take legitimate results and select only the data that
pushes your agenda, illicit drug research from the 70's and 80's should
be sufficient proof for that


--------------------
California Has Legalized Child Prostitution

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is science a liberal enterprise? [Re: urbanfarmer]
    #11935122 -

you're the one making the claim that such inaccuracies exist, and that 50,000 years is the limit for carbon dating. i am asking you to support the claim.

this is how science works.  you can not make a conclusion without supporting evidence.  debate itself is quite clearly a very scientific process.  i am not saying that i will never believe you, i am asking that you provide some type of verified data (publication?) so that i might change my mind...  which brings us  back to the heart of the difference between science and religion....


--------------------
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root."
-Henry David Thoreau
Strike The Root

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is science a liberal enterprise? [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #11935125 -

Yep.  But you can indict the practitioner without indicting the process, which seems to work itself out eventually within the scientfic community.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is science a liberal enterprise? [Re: Yrat]
    #11935208 -

Yrat said:
you're the one making the claim that such inaccuracies exist, and that 50,000 years is the limit for carbon dating. i am asking you to support the claim.

this is how science works.  you can not make a conclusion without supporting evidence.  debate itself is quite clearly a very scientific process.  i am not saying that i will never believe you, i am asking that you provide some type of verified data (publication?) so that i might change my mind...  which brings us  back to the heart of the difference between science and religion....


Knock yourself out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Science also works by doing the basic background research, btw.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is science a liberal enterprise? [Re: urbanfarmer]
    #11935344 -

urbanfarmer said:
Yrat said:
you're the one making the claim that such inaccuracies exist, and that 50,000 years is the limit for carbon dating. i am asking you to support the claim.

this is how science works.  you can not make a conclusion without supporting evidence.  debate itself is quite clearly a very scientific process.  i am not saying that i will never believe you, i am asking that you provide some type of verified data (publication?) so that i might change my mind...  which brings us  back to the heart of the difference between science and religion....


Knock yourself out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Science also works by doing the basic background research, btw.



you must be mistaken.  i am not going to read an entire wikipedia entry for you so that i can hope to find some data that might support YOUR claim (i did look through it briefly, and couldn't find anything, could you clarify your use of the link for me).

why do you expect your peer reviewers to do the work to support YOUR hypothesis/conclusion?


--------------------
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root."
-Henry David Thoreau
Strike The Root

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is science a liberal enterprise? [Re: Yrat]
    #11935401 -

Yrat said:
urbanfarmer said:
Yrat said:
you're the one making the claim that such inaccuracies exist, and that 50,000 years is the limit for carbon dating. i am asking you to support the claim.

this is how science works.  you can not make a conclusion without supporting evidence.  debate itself is quite clearly a very scientific process.  i am not saying that i will never believe you, i am asking that you provide some type of verified data (publication?) so that i might change my mind...  which brings us  back to the heart of the difference between science and religion....


Knock yourself out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Science also works by doing the basic background research, btw.



you must be mistaken.  i am not going to read an entire wikipedia entry for you so that i can hope to find some data that might support YOUR claim (i did look through it briefly, and couldn't find anything, could you clarify your use of the link for me).

why do you expect your peer reviewers to do the work to support YOUR hypothesis/conclusion?


Actually, I expect my peer reviewers to be my *peers*, that is, to hold basic competence in their field and the ability and willingness to spend 10 minutes reading abstracts to get the gist of a theory.

I also expect them not to be douchebags, but that's harder to put on a grant application.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is science a liberal enterprise? [Re: urbanfarmer]
    #11935423 -

a simple "i can't prove what i said" would have sufficed.


--------------------
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root."
-Henry David Thoreau
Strike The Root

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why is science a liberal enterprise? [Re: Yrat]
    #11935467 -

Yrat said:
a simple "i can't prove what i said" would have sufficed.


As would a "I have my head so far up my ass I can't read 2 paragraphs on wikipedia".

Here is the very first line on that page:
Quote:
Radiocarbon dating, or carbon dating, is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years. Raw, i.e. uncalibrated, radiocarbon ages are usually reported in radiocarbon years "Before Present" (BP), "Present" being defined as AD 1950. Such raw ages can be calibrated to give calendar dates.


If you had any interest whatsoever in increasing your stock of knowledge, you could continue to see why that limit currently exists, what the past limits were, and the statistical solutions that extended the limit to 50ishK from the earlier limits.

Apparently spending your time attacking someone (who is on your side) on a political forum gives you warm comfort in your intentional ignorance?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Liberation US style... Xlea321 1,211 14 03/29/03 01:25 PM
by Xlea321
* Head-in-the-Sand Liberals lonestar2004 2,068 19 12/28/16 03:42 PM
by Luddite
* Bush stifles science, gee what did you expect?
( 1 2 all )		 blaze2 3,646 29 02/25/05 08:36 PM
by infidelGOD
* U.S. Scientists Say They Are Told to Alter Findings
( 1 2 3 all )		 Baby_Hitler 2,886 42 02/18/05 01:17 AM
by Prosgeopax
* Thousands of EPA Scientists Issue Warning On Fluoride Use usefulidiot 1,054 11 09/13/05 07:30 AM
by gregorio
* U.S. Scientists Say They Are Told to Alter Findings carbonhoots 410 1 02/11/05 01:49 AM
by The_Red_Crayon
* Scientists cite political pressure to downplay global warming WhiskeyClone 445 0 01/30/07 04:55 PM
by WhiskeyClone
* Academic Calls for Colleges to Curb Liberal Bias In Classroo
( 1 2 all )		 luvdemshrooms 1,849 24 05/05/04 12:01 AM
by Ekstaza

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,212 topic views. 3 members, 28 guests and 11 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 16 queries.