JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html
They do have it right, Bert. Give the most logical explanation that best
fits the available evidence. When new evidence arises, adjust the
explanation to fit the evidence. Is there something wrong with this
objective approach to understanding our world?
Science is nothing more than observation and consensus. You observe
something and then you look for consensus of your observation by your
"peers." This consensus can be biased by political and economic
considerations.

Does the phrase "it is accepted in the scientific community" cause you to
sit up and say what do you mean "accepted?" It does with me because it
means that it is not all objective.


Newton needed no consensus, nor did Einstein.

Newton made an observation and then he had to gain consensus from his
fellow scientists to accept his observation.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html
They do have it right, Bert. Give the most logical explanation that
best fits the available evidence. When new evidence arises, adjust the
explanation to fit the evidence. Is there something wrong with this
objective approach to understanding our world?
Science is nothing more than observation and consensus. You observe
something and then you look for consensus of your observation by your
"peers." This consensus can be biased by political and economic
considerations.

Does the phrase "it is accepted in the scientific community" cause you
to sit up and say what do you mean "accepted?" It does with me because
it means that it is not all objective.


No. The scientific method involves observation, hypothesis, testing and
measurement. The data is analyzed; a new observation stage. A new
hypothesis based on the previously unknown or incomplete data. More
testing and measurement. And so on.

The consensus you speak of comes from submitting the experiment and the
data to the scientific community via peer reviewed journals. Your peers
are then expected to challenge your data and conclusions through
repeating the experiment to verify the veracity of your data and looking
for flaws in the structure or design of your experiment, data, and
conclusions.

It is through the peer review of your work by reputable scientists and
repetition of your experiments that consensus is formed. Concensus is
based on data that is subject to challenge by your peers. Accepted means
the data has been determined to be valid and sound by the reputable
scientific community after withstanding scrutiny by your peers. Peers is
the group of scientists who practice the scientific method as the means
to understanding our physical world. Peers does not refer to some
knucklehead who took 10th grade biology nor to an idividual who has an
emotionally driven agenda.

And, again, science uses existing data derived from observation,
experimental design, testing and measurement, subject to peer review, to
explain our world and new data to improve the explanation.

What you have described is boils down to observation and consensus.

Not in the same way that you spin it, Bert.

Bert Robbins wrote:
Don White wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:


Every time I make a post you, Don or Doug Kanter as respond. It
appears that the three of you need to get lives.


We consider it a public service......
somewhat like vermin control.


Well, you need to go back to school because you haven't been able to
exterminate me.


I said *control*, not extermination.
What do you think I am...the US military?

Don White wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Don White wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:


Every time I make a post you, Don or Doug Kanter as respond. It
appears that the three of you need to get lives.


We consider it a public service......
somewhat like vermin control.


Well, you need to go back to school because you haven't been able to
exterminate me.


I said *control*, not extermination.
What do you think I am...the US military?

No, you are the Canadian government arresting a group of boys that were
just playing around.

Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html
They do have it right, Bert. Give the most logical explanation that
best fits the available evidence. When new evidence arises, adjust the
explanation to fit the evidence. Is there something wrong with this
objective approach to understanding our world?
Science is nothing more than observation and consensus. You observe
something and then you look for consensus of your observation by your
"peers." This consensus can be biased by political and economic
considerations.

Does the phrase "it is accepted in the scientific community" cause you
to sit up and say what do you mean "accepted?" It does with me because
it means that it is not all objective.

No. The scientific method involves observation, hypothesis, testing and
measurement. The data is analyzed; a new observation stage. A new
hypothesis based on the previously unknown or incomplete data. More
testing and measurement. And so on.

The consensus you speak of comes from submitting the experiment and the
data to the scientific community via peer reviewed journals. Your peers
are then expected to challenge your data and conclusions through
repeating the experiment to verify the veracity of your data and looking
for flaws in the structure or design of your experiment, data, and
conclusions.

It is through the peer review of your work by reputable scientists and
repetition of your experiments that consensus is formed. Concensus is
based on data that is subject to challenge by your peers. Accepted means
the data has been determined to be valid and sound by the reputable
scientific community after withstanding scrutiny by your peers. Peers is
the group of scientists who practice the scientific method as the means
to understanding our physical world. Peers does not refer to some
knucklehead who took 10th grade biology nor to an idividual who has an
emotionally driven agenda.

And, again, science uses existing data derived from observation,
experimental design, testing and measurement, subject to peer review, to
explain our world and new data to improve the explanation.
What you have described is boils down to observation and consensus.

Not in the same way that you spin it, Bert.

You guys make this out to be harder than it really is. You are getting
stuck on the methods of observation and the methods of consensus.

Harry Krause wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Don White wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Don White wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:

Every time I make a post you, Don or Doug Kanter as respond. It
appears that the three of you need to get lives.

We consider it a public service......
somewhat like vermin control.

Well, you need to go back to school because you haven't been able to
exterminate me.

I said *control*, not extermination.
What do you think I am...the US military?

No, you are the Canadian government arresting a group of boys that
were just playing around.



Have you been playing around with little boys *again* Bert? For shame.

Krause, isn't there a jail cell with your name on it, Pedophile. Isn't
that why you left Florida and Virginia to get away from their strict
sexual predator laws?

Harry Krause wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Don White wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Don White wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:

Every time I make a post you, Don or Doug Kanter as respond. It
appears that the three of you need to get lives.

We consider it a public service......
somewhat like vermin control.
Well, you need to go back to school because you haven't been able
to exterminate me.

I said *control*, not extermination.
What do you think I am...the US military?
No, you are the Canadian government arresting a group of boys that
were just playing around.


Have you been playing around with little boys *again* Bert? For shame.

Krause, isn't there a jail cell with your name on it, Pedophile. Isn't
that why you left Florida and Virginia to get away from their strict
sexual predator laws?


Poor pathetic Bert. You know, your email address " tells
the world about everything it needs to know about you, dipstick.

So, my assertion is true?

Bert Robbins wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html
They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they
interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever
altered
your stance on something when you've been given proof that your
previous mindset was wrong?

Yes, I have altered my stance. At one time I thought you were just a
mindless twit but, now I know you are a mindless twit.
I see that you are incapable of debating the issue. Just like Rush and
Sean, when you can't bring real and honest data to the table, start
childish name calling.

Kevin, have you been smoking what you grow in your parents basement
lately?
You just proved his point, Bertie.

Thanks Doug Kanter. Are you stalking me now along with you buddy Harry?



No one is stalking you, dipstick. Why would anyone want to? You're just
another mindless, right-wing twerp, a pansy, someone who drops in here
every so often to drop off a small load of crap. Christ, Bert, if anyone
really wanted to "stalk" you, they'd show up in person and punch you in
your pimple-infested nose. It's not like you're man enough to do
anything about it.

Get a life.

Every time I make a post you, Don or Doug Kanter as respond. It appears
that the three of you need to get lives.

Would that be anything like getting yourself involved in every thread
that I'm in?

Bert Robbins wrote:

What you have described is boils down to observation and consensus.

Huh? What to hell are you on? That sentence makes absolutely NO sense!

Bert Robbins wrote:
Don White wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:

Every time I make a post you, Don or Doug Kanter as respond. It
appears that the three of you need to get lives.


We consider it a public service......
somewhat like vermin control.

Well, you need to go back to school because you haven't been able to
exterminate me.

At least you admit you're vermin!