New definition of insanity can be derived from the following quote:
You do know the difference between theory and fact don't you?
Your understanding of natural science is severely flawed.
Now that was smart!
Still relying on published peer reviewed papers?
LOL<cont.>
You do know the difference between theory and fact don't you?
Definition of theory
1 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
3 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
Notice a theme?
A theory that is empirically proven and replicated is known as a fact or principle (sometimes even a law) as science recognizes it.
A theory has yet to be proven or it wouldn't be referred to as a theory.
Chemistry, electricity (not all physics as that encompasses disciplines like Quantum, etc. that have yet to be proven), and mathematics do not rely on theory, at least as far as an internal combustion engine is concerned, and are proven by billions all over the world every day.
That's some pretty hefty pseudoscience.
Your understanding of natural science is severely flawed.
"In Western society's analytic tradition, the empirical sciences and especially natural sciences use tools from formal sciences, such as mathematics and logic, converting information about nature into measurements which can be explained as clear statements of the "laws of nature". The social sciences also use such methods, but rely more on qualitative research, so that they are sometimes called "soft science", whereas natural sciences, insofar as they emphasize quantifiable data produced, tested, and confirmed through the scientific method, are sometimes called "hard science".
Now that was smart!
Making sure a reply to my post would be seen by tagging my name in it.
But you're going to cite the American Sociological Association as an unimpeachable source?
<see below>
Still relying on published peer reviewed papers?
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science
Peer-reviewed climate papers by climate skeptics
https://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php
97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
Peer review does not mean we can trust a published paper
https://svpow.com/2013/05/03/peer-review-does-not-mean-we-can-trust-a-published-paper/
(a blog post with good links including the 1st above.)
"Proven fact" of the age of civilized man has been universally accepted and taught for decades, yet a paper (backed up by trivial things like carbon dating of physical evidence) published after 10 years of researching the site at Gobekii Tepe (a city predating Stonehenge by 6000 years) pretty much destroyed that sociological teaching.
Now whip out the tl;dr stamp and teach squeaky how to not be able to read english as you are proven to claim.
what language is that? You should take an English as a second language course. It might help you land a job with benefits.I’d reply if I thought you could understand the language but…..
....etc.etc.
But it seems you've conquered that handicap and want to show off your new found ability so far be it from me to keep you from exercising this discipline.
I practice pseudoscience only so much as these published peer reviewed papers:
The difference between those that wrote these papers and myself is that I didn't have to go to college for years and indebt myself for 1/2 my life to realize these "discoveries".
Fuck, man. Too long (for a non-peer reviewed paper). Get that thing peer reviewed and maybe I'll read it. Who gives enough fucks to read a tome from a proven idiot named Choomer? See how that works? You don't have the cred to be taken seriously.<cont.>
You do know the difference between theory and fact don't you?
Definition of theory
1 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
3 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
Notice a theme?
A theory that is empirically proven and replicated is known as a fact or principle (sometimes even a law) as science recognizes it.
A theory has yet to be proven or it wouldn't be referred to as a theory.
Chemistry, electricity (not all physics as that encompasses disciplines like Quantum, etc. that have yet to be proven), and mathematics do not rely on theory, at least as far as an internal combustion engine is concerned, and are proven by billions all over the world every day.
That's some pretty hefty pseudoscience.
Your understanding of natural science is severely flawed.
"In Western society's analytic tradition, the empirical sciences and especially natural sciences use tools from formal sciences, such as mathematics and logic, converting information about nature into measurements which can be explained as clear statements of the "laws of nature". The social sciences also use such methods, but rely more on qualitative research, so that they are sometimes called "soft science", whereas natural sciences, insofar as they emphasize quantifiable data produced, tested, and confirmed through the scientific method, are sometimes called "hard science".
Now that was smart!
Making sure a reply to my post would be seen by tagging my name in it.
But you're going to cite the American Sociological Association as an unimpeachable source?
<see below>
Still relying on published peer reviewed papers?
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science
Peer-reviewed climate papers by climate skeptics
https://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php
97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
Peer review does not mean we can trust a published paper
https://svpow.com/2013/05/03/peer-review-does-not-mean-we-can-trust-a-published-paper/
(a blog post with good links including the 1st above.)
"Proven fact" of the age of civilized man has been universally accepted and taught for decades, yet a paper (backed up by trivial things like carbon dating of physical evidence) published after 10 years of researching the site at Gobekii Tepe (a city predating Stonehenge by 6000 years) pretty much destroyed that sociological teaching.
Now whip out the tl;dr stamp and teach squeaky how to not be able to read english as you are proven to claim.
"Yeah, but you voted for Trump.", will be my argument-ender whenever possible.
i'm an asshole like that when you do me wrong. and tumpanzees did the majority of us wrong.
Actually, it seems to me you've been highly motivated to NOT be an asshole and I applaud you!
to be honest, its hurtful. my parents raised me to be honest. if i made mistakes i owned up and learned from them. they saw to it.
this is part of the plan..to divide everyone.
I rarely speak to my dad for similar reasons. I avoid politics on the rare occasions we see each other but the tension hangs thick in the air. At least I was spared the christian fundamentalist upbringing. I can only imagine how much worse it would be.
its their completely hypocritical behavior when it comes to politics. read the open letter the white evangelical thread.
I missed that. Thanks for the link. Pretty much says it all.
