PDA

View Full Version : All Scientists on This Forum Please Check in Here!


BlueAngel
04-10-2010, 07:32 PM
And, those who think they are, as well!

Please show your credentials, if you have them, at the door.

Thanking you in advance,
BA

BlueAngel
04-12-2010, 09:59 PM
So, where are all the scientists and their credentials?

Obviously, there aren't any.

galexander
04-14-2010, 12:14 PM
And, those who think they are, as well!

Please show your credentials, if you have them, at the door.

Thanking you in advance,
BA

But BlueAngel, you are missing the point surely?

Any truly qualified scientist wouldn't even dare say these things, or at least some of the things I've been saying.......

Scientists in general have a problem gaining any funding. Saying these things would be a PR suicide!

The only scientists who would be willing to say this would have retired many years ago, but even then old habits die hard.

BlueAngel
04-14-2010, 01:49 PM
But BlueAngel, you are missing the point surely?

Any truly qualified scientist wouldn't even dare say these things, or at least some of the things I've been saying.......

Scientists in general have a problem gaining any funding. Saying these things would be a PR suicide!

The only scientists who would be willing to say this would have retired many years ago, but even then old habits die hard.

Good cover story but, I highly doubt any truly qualified scientist is a member of this forum and/or one would be a member of this forum saying these things which would result in a PR suicide.

Besides, what things are being said that would result in a scientist's PR suicide if there were one posting on this forum?

Obviously, there aren't any truly qualified scientists who are members of this forum or retired scientists, either.

So, no, I haven't missed the point.

galexander
04-15-2010, 12:12 PM
Good cover story but, I highly doubt any truly qualified scientist is a member of this forum and/or one would be a member of this forum saying these things which would result in a PR suicide.

Besides, what things are being said that would result in a scientist's PR suicide if there were one posting on this forum?

Obviously, there aren't any truly qualified scientists who are members of this forum or retired scientists, either.

So, no, I haven't missed the point.

:confused: Eh......................?

superted
04-15-2010, 12:51 PM
I'm a scientist, I guess you'll just have to believe me! But yea your right blueangel, the most of you guys aren't scientists, not even close!! lol

BlueAngel
04-15-2010, 08:53 PM
I'm a scientist, I guess you'll just have to believe me! But yea your right blueangel, the most of you guys aren't scientists, not even close!! lol

Ah, but we don't have to believe you.

superted
04-16-2010, 03:20 AM
Blueangel....your so jealous! lol Bet you wish you had a 1st class BsC

Grim
04-16-2010, 06:22 AM
None of us are.

How do I know? You're wasting time on a conspiracy forum.

If you were a true scientists wouldn't you have more important matters going on?

superted
04-16-2010, 06:41 AM
Lol good point, but your wrong. Why this assumption? I graduated as a biomedical scientist, tried the lab work but found it wasn't for me so I'm currently 'trying' to revise for my third year medical tests. So not only am I a medical scientist, in 2 more years I will be a clinical scientist/doctor :-)

Stick it blueangel!

Grim
04-16-2010, 07:08 AM
Proof?

No?

Didn't think so.

You're a scientist then I'm FDR reincarnated.

superted
04-16-2010, 09:01 AM
LOL whatever guys!

Grim
04-16-2010, 10:41 AM
Just call me Mr. Prez.

superted
04-16-2010, 10:45 AM
So what are the rest of you guys? Don't you have professions? Or are you all benefit collectors that wear foil hats?

Grim
04-16-2010, 12:06 PM
Not benefit collectors!

We prefer to be called homeless people who go to the Library.

No but seriously we all have professions, just none to do with science.

BlueAngel
04-16-2010, 12:32 PM
Lol good point, but your wrong. Why this assumption? I graduated as a biomedical scientist, tried the lab work but found it wasn't for me so I'm currently 'trying' to revise for my third year medical tests. So not only am I a medical scientist, in 2 more years I will be a clinical scientist/doctor :-)

Stick it blueangel!

My, so quick to anger all because I said we don't have to believe you.

superted
04-16-2010, 12:39 PM
Well you know blueangel, what can you expect if your rude to me!

Is being rude to people breaking the forums rules? Or are the rules made up when you want to ban someone?

BlueAngel
04-16-2010, 12:54 PM
Well you know blueangel, what can you expect if your rude to me!

Is being rude to people breaking the forums rules? Or are the rules made up when you want to ban someone?

My reply to your post that we don't have to believe you, isn't rude.

It's the truth.

Rude runs all over this forum.

I don't make up any rules because I WANT to ban someone.

Members who are banned are banned due to their own actions and not because I want to ban them.

superted
04-16-2010, 01:02 PM
Blueangel, if you were to meet a complete stranger, lets say in a doctor's waiting room, and you start up a conversation. This stranger tells you about their life, their profession, their children, etc, which is better than your life. Would you think it ok and not rude to turn around and say, "well I don't have to believe you". The stranger would be completely stunted!!

It is utterly rude blueangel.

galexander
04-16-2010, 01:15 PM
I'd like to ask superted a polite question if I may (don't worry about BlueAngel, she's rude to everyone).

What does superted, as a fully qualified scientist, think of what has been said so far on the Science section of this forum?

BlueAngel
04-16-2010, 01:30 PM
I'd like to ask superted a polite question if I may (don't worry about BlueAngel, she's rude to everyone).

What does superted, as a fully qualified scientist, think of what has been said so far on the Science section of this forum?

Oh, yes.

Let's see.

My rude comment to superted was that we didn't have to believe he was a scientist.

My goodness.

I think I just might have to ban myself.

:)

superted
04-16-2010, 01:48 PM
or at least renegue your moderator powers

BlueAngel
04-16-2010, 02:18 PM
or at least renegue your moderator powers

That won't be happening.

Grim
04-16-2010, 10:09 PM
Blueangel, if you were to meet a complete stranger, lets say in a doctor's waiting room, and you start up a conversation. This stranger tells you about their life, their profession, their children, etc, which is better than your life. Would you think it ok and not rude to turn around and say, "well I don't have to believe you". The stranger would be completely stunted!!

It is utterly rude blueangel.

That was a dumb and pointless analogy.

BlueAngel
04-17-2010, 07:36 AM
Your analogy is ridiculous, Gale.

Meeting someone for a few minutes in a doctor's office; learning about their life and never encountering them again is much different than hanging around anonymous posters on an internet forum for months who claim to be scientists, but offer no information about their credentials.

Such as where they work; from what college they graduated; their life, their spouse, their children, etc.

Furthermore, to think that I feel anyone's life is better than mine because their profession is not the same, is even more ridiculous.

galexander
04-18-2010, 04:04 AM
Your analogy is ridiculous, Gale.

Meeting someone for a few minutes in a doctor's office; learning about their life and never encountering them again is much different than hanging around anonymous posters on an internet forum for months who claim to be scientists, but offer no information about their credentials.

Such as where they work; from what college they graduated; their life, their spouse, their children, etc.

Furthermore, to think that I feel anyone's life is better than mine because their profession is not the same, is even more ridiculous.

If by 'Gale' you are referring to myself, you are wrong. I never used such an analogy regarding a doctor's office. I believe it was superted.

As for hanging up 'anonymous posters' on the forum on scientific matters, again you are wrong. G Alexander is my actual name.

And further you are mistaken on the subject of credentials. Scientists who submit papers on the internet or in relevant scientific journals don't go into exhaustive detail on "where they work; from what college they graduated; their life, their spouse, their children, etc." I don't know where you got this strange idea from?

All this BlueAngel amounts to little more than pointless back chatter.

But then again this is your usual performance.

superted
04-18-2010, 04:41 AM
Galexander - I'm not sure why 'gale' was mentioned but that was aimed at me, your reply is very telling about what most people think about blueangel. I enjoyed it :-)

Thanks Grim!

BlueAngel
04-18-2010, 01:20 PM
If by 'Gale' you are referring to myself, you are wrong. I never used such an analogy regarding a doctor's office. I believe it was superted.

As for hanging up 'anonymous posters' on the forum on scientific matters, again you are wrong. G Alexander is my actual name.

And further you are mistaken on the subject of credentials. Scientists who submit papers on the internet or in relevant scientific journals don't go into exhaustive detail on "where they work; from what college they graduated; their life, their spouse, their children, etc." I don't know where you got this strange idea from?

All this BlueAngel amounts to little more than pointless back chatter.

But then again this is your usual performance.

My post was meant for Ted.

Since it's useless back chatter, I suggest that those on this forum who find it necessary to chatter about me, direct their energy elsewhere.

I was making a point.

People who post on internet forums, do so, most times, anonymously.

Therefore, anyone can claim to be anything because there isn't any way to verify it.

BlueAngel
04-18-2010, 01:21 PM
Galexander - I'm not sure why 'gale' was mentioned but that was aimed at me, your reply is very telling about what most people think about blueangel. I enjoyed it :-)

Thanks Grim!

You have no clue what most people think about me.

Grim
04-18-2010, 01:44 PM
I think you're cool Blue.

superted
04-18-2010, 03:18 PM
But your the coolest grim ;-)

Grim
04-18-2010, 10:40 PM
-knows this to be a fact.

FallaciesAbound
04-26-2010, 01:07 AM
My post was meant for Ted.

Since it's useless back chatter, I suggest that those on this forum who find it necessary to chatter about me, direct their energy elsewhere.

I was making a point.

People who post on internet forums, do so, most times, anonymously.

Therefore, anyone can claim to be anything because there isn't any way to verify it.
Then why start an entire forum thread asking for credentials, if you simply wont believe them? seems like a silly game to play. Besides, one does not have to be a scientist to understand the science behind something: its called education and reading.

BlueAngel
04-26-2010, 01:41 PM
Then why start an entire forum thread asking for credentials, if you simply wont believe them? seems like a silly game to play. Besides, one does not have to be a scientist to understand the science behind something: its called education and reading.

It's called humor.

:)

FallaciesAbound
04-26-2010, 03:12 PM
The responses were funny, but it still just ended up being another spam posting with little content. Thats the internet for you lol.:D

Truthbetold
04-26-2010, 03:53 PM
you're right most people in the scientific world dont talk about this kind of stuff. I know for a fact that a lot of people now about the conspiracies going around, just not talking about it :)

BlueAngel
04-26-2010, 05:30 PM
The responses were funny, but it still just ended up being another spam posting with little content. Thats the internet for you lol.:D

Me so sorry that my thread, which is not spam, causes you such distress and, since, I'm the moderator here, I would like to advise you that I'm the person who determines what is spam and what is not and, I've determined that this thread is not spam.

BlueAngel
04-26-2010, 05:32 PM
you're right most people in the scientific world dont talk about this kind of stuff. I know for a fact that a lot of people now about the conspiracies going around, just not talking about it :)

People in the scientific world don't talk about this stuff, hence the reason I authored this thread.

You know for a fact that a lot of people know about the conspiracies going around and are just not talking about it or you know for a fact that a lot of SCIENTISTS know about the conspiracies going around and they're just not talking about it?

This thread contains lots of content.

FallaciesAbound
04-26-2010, 09:48 PM
The reason scientists don't talk about this stuff is simple: science deals only with fact. Not innuendo, not speculation, but testable hypothesis.

BlueAngel
04-26-2010, 10:35 PM
The reason scientists don't talk about this stuff is simple: science deals only with fact. Not innuendo, not speculation, but testable hypothesis.

You would be wrong.

Science does not deal with fact.

If it did, it would not be referred to as science.

Science is an investigative process.

Therefore, it deals with innuendo and speculation and from that a hypothesis is derived which is then considered to be fact if agreed upon within the scientific community.

This does not mean, however, that their findings are the absolute truth.

superted
04-27-2010, 02:42 AM
"Science does not deal with fact."

It takes the interaction of 72 different muscles to produce human speech - FACT

The average life of a taste bud is 10 days - FACT

When you sneeze, all your bodily functions stop even your heart - FACT

There are 45 miles (72 km) of nerves in the skin of a human being - FACT

Human blood travels 60,000 miles (96,540 km) per day on its journey through the body - FACT

FallaciesAbound
04-27-2010, 07:54 AM
I agree Superted. Science is so poorly understood by the general populous, especially those heavily invested in what I call the "Faith based disciplines" (Religious fanatics of all flavors, flat earthers, chiropractors, etc). The only way that they can justify their beliefs is to take an exaggerated view of how science works.

My own field of aviation has a perfect example of the lengths to which people will go to prop up their argument. I often see the Wright Brothers quote "Science theory really held us back. When we just threw out the science and did it our way, the aircraft worked." bandied about as a damnation of science. It couldn't be farther from the truth. Yes, the science of the day was insufficient for the task at hand, and it was that that they threw out. What the Wrights did was create a new science....Aeronautics. They were the first ones to test wing designs in a wind tunnel, the first ones to notice the relationship between airfoil camber, lift, and drag. And, they discovered these things scientifically. Its analogous to Isaac Newton. The mathematics of his day were woefully insufficient to explain the astronomical phenomena that he was working on, so he invented a new mathematics, one which has revolutionized our understanding of the universe in many different disciplines.

Yes, there is a certain amount of speculation involved in the scientific process, but unlike the alternate reality crowd, the investigation does not end there in science.

Truthbetold
04-27-2010, 04:04 PM
People in the scientific world don't talk about this stuff, hence the reason I authored this thread.

You know for a fact that a lot of people know about the conspiracies going around and are just not talking about it or you know for a fact that a lot of SCIENTISTS know about the conspiracies going around and they're just not talking about it?

This thread contains lots of content.

I've have friends who are scientists and universitystudent at the momtent.
What Im saying is that we discuss this kind of thing among friends, writing an paper on it would be a bit to much I quess... ;)

some conspiracy have enough evidence to start investigating them though.. 9-11 case etc.

BlueAngel
04-29-2010, 06:31 PM
"Science does not deal with fact."

It takes the interaction of 72 different muscles to produce human speech - FACT

The average life of a taste bud is 10 days - FACT

When you sneeze, all your bodily functions stop even your heart - FACT

There are 45 miles (72 km) of nerves in the skin of a human being - FACT

Human blood travels 60,000 miles (96,540 km) per day on its journey through the body - FACT

Like I said, science comes to a conclusion which they determine as fact through research, so they do not deal with fact and, how many times have they told us one thing to be fact after many years of research only to turn around and tell us the opposite later?

Science is not perfect.

superted
04-30-2010, 05:18 AM
Blueangel I think your getting a little mixed up. You said;

"Science does not deal with fact."

Which as I pointed out is wrong BUT you had a point in so far as to say that the majority of science is 'theory', not fact. Of course the majority of science does not deal in fact, but to say it doesn't deal with fact at all is erroneous.

"..., how many times have they told us one thing to be fact after many years of research only to turn around and tell us the opposite later?"

Probably not that often and nothing really sticks out in my mind, example? I think what you should have said is;

"...., how many times have they told us one thing to be THEORY after many years of research only to turn around and tell us the opposite later?"

Science theory changes all the time, it's part of science. Most of advanced medicine is only an explanation, a theory, that bit fits the problem. As science ever moves on and advances more of the story is exposed and the theory changes and updates.

superted
04-30-2010, 05:29 AM
Blueangel I think your getting a little mixed up. You said;

"Science does not deal with fact."

Which as I pointed out is wrong BUT you had a point in so far as to say that the majority of science is 'theory', not fact. Of course the majority of science does not deal in fact, but to say it doesn't deal with fact at all is erroneous.

"..., how many times have they told us one thing to be fact after many years of research only to turn around and tell us the opposite later?"

Probably not that often and nothing really sticks out in my mind, example? I think what you should have said is;

"...., how many times have they told us one thing to be THEORY after many years of research only to turn around and tell us the opposite later?"

Science theory changes all the time, it's part of science. Most of advanced medicine is only an explanation, a theory, that bit fits the problem. As science ever moves on and advances more of the story is exposed and the theory changes and updates.

BlueAngel
04-30-2010, 10:43 AM
Science

The systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. 2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation. 3. any specific branch of this general body of knowledge, such as biology, physics, geology, or astronomy.

Academic Press Dictionary of Science & Technology

FallaciesAbound
05-01-2010, 11:27 PM
Science

The systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. 2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation. 3. any specific branch of this general body of knowledge, such as biology, physics, geology, or astronomy.

Academic Press Dictionary of Science & Technology
Oh good, shes figured out google. And where in that definition does it mention speculation exactly?

BlueAngel
05-02-2010, 11:06 PM
Oh good, shes figured out google. And where in that definition does it mention speculation exactly?

It doesn't mention speculation in the definition and "I" never used the word speculation.

I said science was not based on fact.

So.

Your rebuttal is that I figured out how to google.

Poor rebuttal, indeed.

BlueAngel
05-02-2010, 11:29 PM
I trust what I say and the academic press dictionary of science and technology to back it up more than I trust anything you have to say.

FallaciesAbound
05-03-2010, 01:39 PM
Therefore, it deals with innuendo and speculation and from that a hypothesis is derived which is then considered to be fact if agreed upon within the scientific community.
Need I say more? Yes, there is a certain amount of probability specified in some scientific claims, by necessity. Complex systems, such as the human body, have a tremendous amount of variability in them. This is why one study will show coffee is good for you one week, and bad for you the next. The real problem is how the media reports these claims, jumping on every study before it can be properly verified and vetted.

However, the bulk of science does deal in demonstrable, falsifiable, and undeniable fact. A wing of a given camber will still fail to produce lift if the airspeed drops below a certain point, no matter how you choose to think the science is "made up".

BlueAngel
05-03-2010, 01:52 PM
Need I say more? Yes, there is a certain amount of probability specified in some scientific claims, by necessity. Complex systems, such as the human body, have a tremendous amount of variability in them. This is why one study will show coffee is good for you one week, and bad for you the next. The real problem is how the media reports these claims, jumping on every study before it can be properly verified and vetted.

However, the bulk of science does deal in demonstrable, falsifiable, and undeniable fact. A wing of a given camber will still fail to produce lift if the airspeed drops below a certain point, no matter how you choose to think the science is "made up".

No.

You needn't say anymore.

Oh, dear, I mentioned the word speculation and the definition I posted didn't include that word.

That definitely proves I am wrong.

NOT!

The definition explained exactly what I stated, IMO, about science.

Seriously.

I made a grave mistake and you caught me on it.

I said I didn't use the word speculation and I did.

Oh, my.

How awful.

I also stated that, IMO, science doesn't deal with fact.

I have bigger fish to fry.

This subject, for me, is closed.

Later.

stompk
05-15-2010, 09:49 AM
Just wondering, do I need a piece of paper that says I passed the requirements of the establishment and am now brainwashed into the indoctrination that science is meant to disprove God?

or

can I consider myself a scientist, because I experiment every chance I get, and I read up on stuff I don't understand, and keep an open mind, and I credit it all to God?

superted
05-15-2010, 10:01 AM
I don't believe its possible to keep an open mind and yet credit it all to god. The very essence of science is to constantly move forward to discover new horizons, ever changing theories as we march forward. If the answer to everything is god, then how can that be described as being open minded? Surely that by it's very nature is the definition of closed mindedness?

stompk
05-15-2010, 11:11 AM
I don't believe its possible to keep an open mind and yet credit it all to god. The very essence of science is to constantly move forward to discover new horizons, ever changing theories as we march forward. If the answer to everything is god, then how can that be described as being open minded? Surely that by it's very nature is the definition of closed mindedness?

Well, since you don't capitalize God's name, instead of assuming you don't know proper grammar, I'm going to assume through scientific deduction that you are an atheist, and therefore you have helped make my point.

Denying the existence of God, is denying you own existence. Consider yourselves forewarned.

superted
05-15-2010, 11:49 AM
Would you agree there's no scientific proof that god doesn't exist? Yea?

Would you also agree there's no scientific proof that he does exist? Yea?

So to believe one way or another doesn't come down to which side can prove existence or non-existence. For me anyway, it comes to down to likelihood/probability.

As incredibly unlikely as it is, it is scientifically possible (theoretically) that life formed from inorganic molecules in the ocean. It didn't need a supernatural power! But of course I'm not ruling out the possibility it was a supernatural power, I just find it very unlikely. Even more unlikely than random inorganic molecules just coming together at the right time, at the right place, in the right quantities, etc.

"Consider yourselves forewarned" What's that about? I can never understand all those that go on about the 'loving' and 'caring' god, yet you need to 'warn' me. Why would I be punished for living my life to high morals and standards, as well as flowing the rules and laws of my country? In the next 40 years of my life I was contribute to society more than most....yet you 'forewarn' me?

BlueAngel
05-17-2010, 06:45 PM
Just wondering, do I need a piece of paper that says I passed the requirements of the establishment and am now brainwashed into the indoctrination that science is meant to disprove God?

or

can I consider myself a scientist, because I experiment every chance I get, and I read up on stuff I don't understand, and keep an open mind, and I credit it all to God?

Thanks for checking in Stompk.

Any piece of paper will suffice.

;)

stompk
05-19-2010, 02:51 PM
http://i49.tinypic.com/dzfrrl.jpg

You did say, "any piece of paper"

superted
05-19-2010, 02:54 PM
Yep I'd say all your educational achievements are on bog roll!

BlueAngel
05-19-2010, 03:30 PM
http://i49.tinypic.com/dzfrrl.jpg

You did say, "any piece of paper"

:)