When drinking - PacSo does that make you east coast indian and me west coast indian? Do we have to do a biggie pac feud, or can we just go straight to a fabolus nate dogg collaboration?![]()
When smoking - Biggie (well NAS)
When drinking - PacSo does that make you east coast indian and me west coast indian? Do we have to do a biggie pac feud, or can we just go straight to a fabolus nate dogg collaboration?![]()
Yes, I meant intentional biases. I agree that science should be free of biases, but as long as funding is required there will always be biases.Can you please expand on this, or give an example of biases? I assume you mean intentional biases? Science in the purest form should be free of bias (but I won't deny that there is some bullshit 'science' out there, like let's say something driven by $).
I think it's a great thing. The problem becomes when things are published, or reported before that happens.And I may be misunderstanding you about the part "requiring that they be proven wrong by others" part. Is that a bad thing? That's actually part of the scientific method. True science should be subjected to relentless questioning and examination, as this is how a hypothesis or observation evolves into a theory or truth.
It's supposed to, it doesn't mean it is. Here for example the government last year decided to assemble a climate change panel. On that climate change panel there were exactly 0 climatologists. Why you ask? I mean it seems silly not to have people that study climate on a climate change panel. Well, it turns out their opinions don't jive with the ministers opinions of what the correct course of action is so they were told they weren't welcome. So now we're dumping billions of dollars down a sewer because of what's being passed off as scientific fact and the panel is being headed by a guy with a PhD in zoology.Data or information is presented, it is intensely evaluated and scrutinized, and adjustments are made. Each cycle of that gets you closer to, or achieves, a truth/fact/proof.
Thats politics not science, we need to get politics out of science for it to work better just how we got rid of religion out of politics to make it work betterIt's supposed to, it doesn't mean it is. Here for example the government last year decided to assemble a climate change panel. On that climate change panel there were exactly 0 climatologists. Why you ask? I mean it seems silly not to have people that study climate on a climate change panel. Well, it turns out their opinions don't jive with the ministers opinions of what the correct course of action is so they were told they weren't welcome. So now we're dumping billions of dollars down a sewer because of what's being passed off as scientific fact and the panel is being headed by a guy with a PhD in zoology.
Yeah first one but it has nothing to do with this thread, shes actually crawling back and Im out.But seriously, is this your first divvy?
My first was rough. Met that chick when i was 14. Dated from 16 to 21 off and on, then got hitched. Didn't know how a script could get flipped so hard and so fast. She liked to go upside my head. Often. One day after 3 years of putting up with it i just had enough of that shit and bouced.
At least we didn't have kids though.
Find me science that doesn't involve politics and I'll find you... well, nothing because you'll never do it. Finances are the driving force behind science.Thats politics not science
Yeah i remember you mentioned that back in like... March or may i think.Yeah first one but it has nothing to do with this thread, shes actually crawling back and Im out.
She asked if we could have dinner as a family next friday night, I just reminded her that she decided we cant be a family if we dont all become Christian..
Gotta get that grant money baby!Find me science that doesn't involve politics and I'll find you... well, nothing because you'll never do it. Finances are the driving force behind science.
lol you can not possibly be serious?Find me science that doesn't involve politics and I'll find you... well, nothing because you'll never do it. Finances are the driving force behind science.
If I punched you, then told you it was a kick and you believed me solely because you deem me to be more of an authority than you, then yes that's a leap of faith.You punch me in the face, I accept that you have punched me in the face, is that a leap of faith?
Mental retardation + Highly insular homogeneous culture + high value placement on authority = My ex wife and her kinYeah i remember you mentioned that back in like... March or may i think.
It's not right to not let someone make up their own mind imo. Adults, kids, don't matter.
Uncle Sam.Who funded Newton and Einstein?
IF I did but I wouldnt if I knew betterIf I punched you, then told you it was a kick and you believed me solely because you deem me to be more of an authority than you, then yes that's a leap of faith.
I told you about a tv app the other week and because your play Wrestling friends does not work you discredited me. But asIf I punched you, then told you it was a kick and you believed me solely because you deem me to be more of an authority than you, then yes that's a leap of faith.
Kind of like when the powers that be told you ounces were out and grams were in "Because it's better" and you took their word for it.
He was a patent clerk when he discovered the theory of relativity lolUncle Sam.
Edit: It should be added that if I remember correctly. I've never cared much to investigate his financiers, but I'm sure he wasn't paying his mortgage with hopes and dreams.
I get what you're saying, and I won't deny that there's some bullshit out there. But it's a huge generalization to discredit science as a whole (not necessarily saying that's your stance, but that's where these kind of conversations tend to devolve). Like so many other things in life, the good far outweighs the bad.Find me science that doesn't involve politics and I'll find you... well, nothing because you'll never do it. Finances are the driving force behind science.
Yeah we have to defend funding biases or whatever, meanwhile the catholic church hides pedophiles for what im sure are very unpolitical reasons.I get what you're saying, and I won't deny that there's some bullshit out there. But it's a huge generalization to discredit science as a whole (not necessarily saying that's your stance, but that's where these kind of conversations tend to devolve). Like so many other things in life, the good far outweighs the bad.
I perform science every day at work, some of which is used to contribute to peer-reviewed publications. And yeah, finances drive my work - because it's my job and we're running a business. But that doesn't mean it's corrupt, or biased, etc. I take extreme pride in being a true and ethical scientist - I present the facts as they are. And that is not always in the favor of some clients, but I present facts and don't waiver in my stance based upon a clients wishes or demands. What makes a good consultant is working with the facts and finding a resolution to the problem that works within the constraints of ethics and integrity, AND helps your client achieve their goals. Sound science, creative solutions.
I of course know of some scientists with less integrity, but largely the people I know in the scientific community are legit and performing true science.
Evil is evil. Creating mustard gas to use on people and diddling kids are both awful things. Again, not mutually exclusive.Yeah we have to defend funding biases or whatever, meanwhile the catholic church hides pedophiles for what im sure are very unpolitical reasons.
Science never claims to be "good", the engineers and physicists who created the atom bomb knew this but yet the catholic clergy still defend moving pedo priests around to avoid prosecution and claim to be "good"Evil is evil. Creating mustard gas to use on people and diddling kids are both awful things. Again, not mutually exclusive.
I'm not gonna touch the pedo part lol, but I understand the point you're making.Yeah we have to defend funding biases or whatever, meanwhile the catholic church hides pedophiles for what im sure are very unpolitical reasons.
Must be funded by he ProtestantsI
I made the mistake of looking up Eric Dubay website, he's a flat earther
Science does indeed claim to be good.Science never claims to be "good", the engineers and physicists who created the atom bomb knew this but yet the catholic clergy still defend moving pedo priests around to avoid prosecution and claim to be "good"
Theres a difference same same but different
how so?
Both systems have good and bad.Like so many other things in life, the good far outweighs the bad.
LolMust be funded by he Protestants