Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Now, if anything was ever considered to be settled science, the theory of general relativity would have been it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502223_162- ... particles/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good thing real scientists continue to experiment, investigate, and question established assumptions. I was beginning to think the scientific method was dead.

CID1990 wrote:I was beginning to think the scientific method was dead.

Why would you think that?

Do you ever read scientific journals? Science and the scientific method is very much alive and well...

We always have new frontiers to explore, such as the recent discovery of a new planet and the de-planetization of Pluto.

This new research is interesting to me, although I'm certainly no physicist. If the theory of relativity is out the window, what will take its place?

Caveat: the French are involved.

Ivytalk wrote:We always have new frontiers to explore, such as the recent discovery of a new planet and the de-planetization of Pluto.

This new research is interesting to me, although I'm certainly no physicist. If the theory of relativity is out the window, what will take its place?

Caveat: the French are involved.

With just a little pushing, they will surrender.

I'm not sure anything can replace it yet as it still works 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time. If someone can come up with some new rules that work as well as the old ones for that long, they will make some $$$$.

The scientific method is only dead in the soft sciences.

Pwns wrote:The scientific method is only dead in the soft sciences.

Like global warming.

Ivytalk wrote:We always have new frontiers to explore, such as the recent discovery of a new planet and the de-planetization of Pluto.

HUH?????

AZGrizFan wrote:

Pwns wrote:The scientific method is only dead in the soft sciences.

Like global warming.

Neo liberal economics.

It would be cool if cold fusion actually materializes as something viable.

ASUG8 wrote:It would be cool if cold fusion actually materializes as something viable.

Cold fusion works. I built a reactor in my basement. Do you want to invest in my startup? I have to find some investors in the next week, otherwise I have to take the stuff I used to build it back to Walmart to get my money back before the return date on my receipt.

HI54UNI wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:It would be cool if cold fusion actually materializes as something viable.

Cold fusion works. I built a reactor in my basement. Do you want to invest in my startup? I have to find some investors in the next week, otherwise I have to take the stuff I used to build it back to Walmart to get my money back before the return date on my receipt.

I'd keep an eye out for OPEC assassins if I were you. Just ask the dude who invented the water powered car.

HI54UNI wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:It would be cool if cold fusion actually materializes as something viable.

Cold fusion works. I built a reactor in my basement. Do you want to invest in my startup? I have to find some investors in the next week, otherwise I have to take the stuff I used to build it back to Walmart to get my money back before the return date on my receipt.

Sure, why not. I got an extra $10. Do you take Paypal?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Pwns wrote:The scientific method is only dead in the soft sciences.

Like global warming.

It's not science that is the problem here, it's politics.

CID1990 wrote:Now, if anything was ever considered to be settled science, the theory of general relativity would have been it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502223_162- ... particles/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good thing real scientists continue to experiment, investigate, and question established assumptions. I was beginning to think the scientific method was dead.

This is pretty cool. It reminded me of an article I read last night.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... 662ef1.1b1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Pentagon on Thursday held a successful test flight of a flying bomb that travels faster than the speed of sound and will give military planners the ability to strike targets anywhere in the world in less than a hour.

Launched by rocket from Hawaii at 1130 GMT, the "Advanced Hypersonic Weapon," or AHW, glided through the upper atmosphere over the Pacific "at hypersonic speed" before hitting its target on the Kwajalein atoll in the Marshall Islands, a Pentagon statement said.

Kwajalein is about 2,500 miles (4,000 kilometers) southwest of Hawaii. The Pentagon did not say what top speeds were reached by the vehicle, which unlike a ballistic missile is maneuverable.

Scientists classify hypersonic speeds as those that exceed Mach 5 -- or five times the speed of sound -- 3,728 miles (6,000 kilometers) an hour.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I was beginning to think the scientific method was dead.

Why would you think that?

Do you ever read scientific journals? Science and the scientific method is very much alive and well...

I read scientific journals frequently and i subscribe to two.

For instance, i know from scientific journals that your queerness is mainly influenced by the fact that your brain synapses function like those of an adult female, which means that you are excited by the thought of a big fat c0ck in your doody chute.

Its politics that have affected the scientific process, which was my central point (which you missed, as usual sweetie)

Anyone who would call ANY science "settled" is either being paid, is ignorant of the process itself, stupid, Al Gore, or a combo of any of those.

Instead of saying "politics" has affected the practice of science I'd say philosophy has. But I guess that's always been the case. I think the scientific method is a beautiful thing. Problem is that sometimes it's not adhered to. We had people like Stephen J. Gould callilng the traditional scientific method "sophmoric" because sticking to it would not support his dogmatic stance on the overall theory of evolution. We have an epidemic of people treating observational study as though it can be used to infer cause and effect (see environmental epidemiology, climate science, etc.). Or at least they create that impression in the public mind by saying things like anthopogenic cause and effect in climate science is as certain as it gets.

AND we have the misconseption that the "peer review" process resulting in publication in scientific journals is a highly reliable quality control mechanism. We have this mythology holding that if something is published in a peer review journal that means its reliable while if it's not published in such a journal it's not.

An awful lot of applied science is done with no intent to publish in peer reviewed journals. It's done by people who are doing it to actually solve real world problems and make decisions; where being right or wrong really directly matters.

JohnStOnge wrote:Instead of saying "politics" has affected the practice of science I'd say philosophy has. But I guess that's always been the case. I think the scientific method is a beautiful thing. Problem is that sometimes it's not adhered to. We had people like Stephen J. Gould callilng the traditional scientific method "sophmoric" because sticking to it would not support his dogmatic stance on the overall theory of evolution. We have an epidemic of people treating observational study as though it can be used to infer cause and effect (see environmental epidemiology, climate science, etc.). Or at least they create that impression in the public mind by saying things like anthopogenic cause and effect in climate science is as certain as it gets.

AND we have the misconseption that the "peer review" process resulting in publication in scientific journals is a highly reliable quality control mechanism. We have this mythology holding that if something is published in a peer review journal that means its reliable while if it's not published in such a journal it's not.

An awful lot of applied science is done with no intent to publish in peer reviewed journals. It's done by people who are doing it to actually solve real world problems and make decisions; where being right or wrong really directly matters.

Sad, but non-scientists are dictating research agenda with preconceived "results"...

...and the "hungry" science community delusionally, silently follows orders.

Worse, the so-called "peer" community has overtly attempted to silence challenge.