Incorrigible1 Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 10 minutes ago, DWA said: 99 out of 100 scientists don't even know what's going on. As Wes T sez, " Looks like a claim to me. Link please." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) Your faith is touching. There are way too many links to list here. You just won't open them, having been led to them by that ring in your nose innumerable times. You also refuse to open the link the scientist always does: the link to the sifting, sorting intellect that is always and forever the beating heart of science. You skeptics *have no* links. (You aren't even skeptical. Skepticism is a rational stance.) Everything tells you you're wrong...except what's in your heads. Edited July 28, 2016 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 22 minutes ago, DWA said: Your faith is touching. There are way too many links to list here. Evidently not as you were quoted. 99, I believe it was. An experienced report reader such as yourself should have no issues backing your statements, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 99 out of 100. yep..... that's the number we're looking for. But I don't see any evidence to support the notion either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 And even if there was evidence for the 99 it wouldn't be proof Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyzonthropus Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 My, my, my....yet lack of evidence does not disprove either..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 What, couldn't find a joke there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post FarArcher Posted July 30, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted July 30, 2016 Yeah, well, 99 out of a hundred scientists swore amorphous semiconductors were physically impossible just a few years ago. In 1999, a fossil was smuggled out of China allegedly showing a small dinosaur with feathers, displayed in triumph at the National Geographic Society, and an article was written up in their magazine - paleontologists were abuzz, and it became common knowledge - but unfortunately, the scientists were all wrong - as a Chinese farmer rigged up some chicken bones and a meat-eater's tail. Albert Einstein included in his Relativity calculations the cosmological constant, that later scientists all declared was in error due to a newly discovered expanding universe, and even before he died, Einstein removed the calculation, calling it his greatest blunder. THEN, we find out the universe is not only expanding, but is accelerating that expansion, and NOW these same scientists have had to turn to Einstein's cosmological constant to explain things. They were all wrong. Marc Houser at Harvard falsified his data, manipulated results, and incorrectly described his methods in the cognition of primates, all accepted research by scientists, and resigned after a three year investigation of is lab, negating these well-known works that blended evolutionary biology and cognitive primate psychology. The scientists were again, wrong. So many previously accepted theories proven wrong. So many species that weren't even species - and didn't exist. Piltdown Man. So excuse me when I pass on 99 out of 100 scientists suggesting a lack of bones is evidence of the non-existence of Bigfoot. Time and again, they're shown to be relatively easy to fool, and don't seem to actually check the facts. Today, we discover that Antarctica - supposedly warming due to climate change - has actually been cooling for decades. I'll tell you where the joke is - those who think a lack of a particular type of evidence is proof of non-existence. We don't have a piece of Neptune - but based entirely on observations - it's looking really good for it's actual existence. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 On 7/27/2016 at 11:02 PM, Incorrigible1 said: Evidently not as you were quoted. 99, I believe it was. An experienced report reader such as yourself should have no issues backing your statements, eh? Some people obviously think I need to prove something to them. That would be the big NO. Do yer own research; I've put mine up here, so you can start by reading that...and refuting it, something I think I can safely conclude you are not up to. (That's the "50 YEARS NO PROOF SO DONE" approach you 'skeptics' are so fond of.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarArcher Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 I'll tell you what drives "science." Called "FUNDING." I can take any side of a scientific position, fund one, and I guarantee, the science will skew to that side. If I turn right around and fund the opposing side, maybe with a bit MORE funding - the science will indicate the opposing position. No funding, no science. Modern science is much akin to mercenaries. You show them the money, they'll fight for your side. Another word for the same principle is prostitution. You pay, indicate what you're looking for, and they'll play. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 I don't think most people crowing about the omnipotence of science quite understand how much like prostitution the practice of science has gotten. There is no more slam-dunk obvious candidate for full-time funding - anywhere in science - than the thing we are discussing here. (Every day you read in the news something far stupider that got full-time funding.) Everything - EVERYTHING - about 'so why don't we have proof yet?' can be answered by the simple word FUNDING. Scientists are money hoes. Let one flush philanthropist say hey, I wanna know, and we will know bigfoot's real - except of course for the flat-earth set - within a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted August 21, 2016 Moderator Share Posted August 21, 2016 DWA - I sort of agree regarding science but as a counter point, one should ask why Adrian Erickson's money or Wally Hersom's money hasn't produce proof if private funding is the answer. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 (edited) Well obviously funding isn't all there is to it. If we spend the whole pot on searching for high-elevation sasquatch graves and nothing but...take NAWAC. You fund them for a year, doing what they're doing on their self-funded vacations, and I bet by the end of that year bigfoot is the big story, proof or no. And they'd have enough evidence to announce 'we are in this until proof.' Edited August 21, 2016 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 8 hours ago, DWA said: I don't think most people crowing about the omnipotence of science quite understand how much like prostitution the practice of science has gotten. There is no more slam-dunk obvious candidate for full-time funding - anywhere in science - than the thing we are discussing here. (Every day you read in the news something far stupider that got full-time funding.) Everything - EVERYTHING - about 'so why don't we have proof yet?' can be answered by the simple word FUNDING. Scientists are money hoes. Let one flush philanthropist say hey, I wanna know, and we will know bigfoot's real - except of course for the flat-earth set - within a year. 2 hours ago, DWA said: Well obviously funding isn't all there is to it. If we spend the whole pot on searching for high-elevation sasquatch graves and nothing but...take NAWAC. You fund them for a year, doing what they're doing on their self-funded vacations, and I bet by the end of that year bigfoot is the big story, proof or no. And they'd have enough evidence to announce 'we are in this until proof.' So is funding Everything - EVERYTHING or not ? Because 8 hours ago I thought it was EVERYTHING, but 6 hours later I find out it isn't all there is. I'm confused. IB word salad explaining I'm not a scientist or that I have not read all the reports yet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarArcher Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Funding is the engine of discovery. Discovery requires funding, skill, and persistence. No funding - no go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts