|
The ANTARCTIC
You need to take a look at the definition of the word theory... feel free to
get back to me when you understand it. :-) -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... .com "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... Actually, most of the science is right according to many environmental scientists. The science is strictly theory, but it *may* be accurate. Or it may not be. It really makes little difference, because we aren't likely to see anything of the sort during our lifetimes, or those of our children or their children. Who said so? Theory? Perhaps you think Intelligent Design is a theory also. I'll go one step further, Jon. I'm betting that within five to ten years, the whole theory of global warming will be as passé and forgotten as pet rocks, cancer-causing high-tension power lines, cell-phones causing CA, and Furbies. When the next cause celeb comes along, GW will be discarded onto the same pile of oblivion that all the other "urgent, life-threatening" issues-of-the-day have found themselves. Well, that's your "theory" right... hahahaa Yup. And it's neither provable nor disprovable any more than the theory of global warming being completely attributed to greenhouse gases and human heat generation. Only time will tell which theory is right. Probably neither, actually. Max |
The ANTARCTIC
"Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net...
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message ... Essenhigh knows that his scientific opinion is a minority one. As far as he knows, he's the only person who's linked global warming and carbon dioxide in this particular way. But he maintains his evaluations represent an improvement on those of the majority opinion, because they are logically rigorous and includes water vapor as a far more significant factor than in other studies. I'm betting Jon will proclaim this researcher to be full of ****, based upon nothing, of course, beyond his eco-radical opinions. Yeah, I'm a tree hugger... the telling phrase is... "his scientific opinion is a minority one" |
The ANTARCTIC
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... .com "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... Actually, most of the science is right according to many environmental scientists. The science is strictly theory, but it *may* be accurate. Or it may not be. It really makes little difference, because we aren't likely to see anything of the sort during our lifetimes, or those of our children or their children. Who said so? Theory? Perhaps you think Intelligent Design is a theory also. I'll go one step further, Jon. I'm betting that within five to ten years, the whole theory of global warming will be as passé and forgotten as pet rocks, cancer-causing high-tension power lines, cell-phones causing CA, and Furbies. When the next cause celeb comes along, GW will be discarded onto the same pile of oblivion that all the other "urgent, life-threatening" issues-of-the-day have found themselves. Well, that's your "theory" right... hahahaa Yup. And it's neither provable nor disprovable any more than the theory of global warming being completely attributed to greenhouse gases and human heat generation. Only time will tell which theory is right. Probably neither, actually. You need to take a look at the definition of the word theory... feel free to get back to me when you understand it. :-) Random House Dictionary: Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Is that succinct enough for you, Jon? Or do you view the Random House Dictionary with the same disrespect as those scientists with whom your dogmatic opinions are in contravention? Max |
The ANTARCTIC
That's one of many meanings. Do you believe that Intelligent Design is a
theory? It seems to work in your definition. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message nk.net... Random House Dictionary: Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Is that succinct enough for you, Jon? Or do you view the Random House Dictionary with the same disrespect as those scientists with whom your dogmatic opinions are in contravention? Max |
The ANTARCTIC
In article et,
Maxprop wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... .com "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... Actually, most of the science is right according to many environmental scientists. The science is strictly theory, but it *may* be accurate. Or it may not be. It really makes little difference, because we aren't likely to see anything of the sort during our lifetimes, or those of our children or their children. Who said so? Theory? Perhaps you think Intelligent Design is a theory also. I'll go one step further, Jon. I'm betting that within five to ten years, the whole theory of global warming will be as passé and forgotten as pet rocks, cancer-causing high-tension power lines, cell-phones causing CA, and Furbies. When the next cause celeb comes along, GW will be discarded onto the same pile of oblivion that all the other "urgent, life-threatening" issues-of-the-day have found themselves. Well, that's your "theory" right... hahahaa Yup. And it's neither provable nor disprovable any more than the theory of global warming being completely attributed to greenhouse gases and human heat generation. Only time will tell which theory is right. Probably neither, actually. You need to take a look at the definition of the word theory... feel free to get back to me when you understand it. :-) Random House Dictionary: Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Is that succinct enough for you, Jon? Or do you view the Random House Dictionary with the same disrespect as those scientists with whom your dogmatic opinions are in contravention? Sorry, got to agree with Jon on this one. What's described as above I'd call a hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and can't (so far) be falsified. Take a look at Kuhn's 'Structures of Scientific Revolutions' and some of Karl Popper's work then get back to me if you want to argue this further. FWIW I studied history & philosophy of science at university some 30 years ago as a part of my first degree. Another ship sailing at 1700 today so I'm gone... PDW |
The ANTARCTIC
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... That's one of many meanings. Do you believe that Intelligent Design is a theory? It seems to work in your definition. I tend to subscribe to the theory of evolution. ID is a belief based upon faith, not science. Max |
The ANTARCTIC
"Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. In article et, Maxprop wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... .com "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... Actually, most of the science is right according to many environmental scientists. The science is strictly theory, but it *may* be accurate. Or it may not be. It really makes little difference, because we aren't likely to see anything of the sort during our lifetimes, or those of our children or their children. Who said so? Theory? Perhaps you think Intelligent Design is a theory also. I'll go one step further, Jon. I'm betting that within five to ten years, the whole theory of global warming will be as passé and forgotten as pet rocks, cancer-causing high-tension power lines, cell-phones causing CA, and Furbies. When the next cause celeb comes along, GW will be discarded onto the same pile of oblivion that all the other "urgent, life-threatening" issues-of-the-day have found themselves. Well, that's your "theory" right... hahahaa Yup. And it's neither provable nor disprovable any more than the theory of global warming being completely attributed to greenhouse gases and human heat generation. Only time will tell which theory is right. Probably neither, actually. You need to take a look at the definition of the word theory... feel free to get back to me when you understand it. :-) Random House Dictionary: Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Is that succinct enough for you, Jon? Or do you view the Random House Dictionary with the same disrespect as those scientists with whom your dogmatic opinions are in contravention? Sorry, got to agree with Jon on this one. What's described as above I'd call a hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and can't (so far) be falsified. Take a look at Kuhn's 'Structures of Scientific Revolutions' and some of Karl Popper's work then get back to me if you want to argue this further. I don't. Max |
The ANTARCTIC
But Max, you said that the definition of theory is "Theory: a proposed
explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact." Seems to me that ID falls into that category. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... That's one of many meanings. Do you believe that Intelligent Design is a theory? It seems to work in your definition. I tend to subscribe to the theory of evolution. ID is a belief based upon faith, not science. Max |
The ANTARCTIC
I figured you didn't. :-)
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. In article et, Maxprop wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... .com "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... Actually, most of the science is right according to many environmental scientists. The science is strictly theory, but it *may* be accurate. Or it may not be. It really makes little difference, because we aren't likely to see anything of the sort during our lifetimes, or those of our children or their children. Who said so? Theory? Perhaps you think Intelligent Design is a theory also. I'll go one step further, Jon. I'm betting that within five to ten years, the whole theory of global warming will be as passé and forgotten as pet rocks, cancer-causing high-tension power lines, cell-phones causing CA, and Furbies. When the next cause celeb comes along, GW will be discarded onto the same pile of oblivion that all the other "urgent, life-threatening" issues-of-the-day have found themselves. Well, that's your "theory" right... hahahaa Yup. And it's neither provable nor disprovable any more than the theory of global warming being completely attributed to greenhouse gases and human heat generation. Only time will tell which theory is right. Probably neither, actually. You need to take a look at the definition of the word theory... feel free to get back to me when you understand it. :-) Random House Dictionary: Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Is that succinct enough for you, Jon? Or do you view the Random House Dictionary with the same disrespect as those scientists with whom your dogmatic opinions are in contravention? Sorry, got to agree with Jon on this one. What's described as above I'd call a hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and can't (so far) be falsified. Take a look at Kuhn's 'Structures of Scientific Revolutions' and some of Karl Popper's work then get back to me if you want to argue this further. I don't. Max |
The ANTARCTIC
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... I figured you didn't. :-) But not for the reason you suspect. It's simply not worth pursuing. For example, if I agree that Pete is right, then I have to retract my statement that global warming is a theory, rather a hypothesis. Then you're going to get all ****y-moany about that, and we're going to go back and forth another twenty or so times. Not worth the effort. Max |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:23 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com