Green Baron

March For Science

Recommended Posts

Just now, steve_v said:

Do you really think it was engineers writing those press releases, not the company PR department trying to save face?
Engineers are terrible with PR, so engineers never write the PR releases.

Of course not, but it's an industry led by engineers. PR doesn't make things up. Who do you think PR talks to when they write releases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Who do you think PR talks to when they write releases?

The middle management bod who drew the short straw, or an engineer who should be working the problem but got roped into taking to press, and likely told exactly what to say by said management. In the case of Fukushima, in particular, there's a likely pretty strong culture of protecting the honor of the company / CEO.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.

It's possible to have polite disagreements, and indeed on many subjects, disagreements are of degree, they are not fundamental disagreements about reality.

Those are the kinds of civil conversations that it would be nice to have here from time to time. Disagreements that are polite, rational, and don't dive into the sewer. It's not impossible to do, but clearly it's... difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[slightly off-topic because it used to reply to a post that was removed]

Even though there is no absolute proof that climate change is caused by human activities, the general scientific consensus is that the climate change we are experiencing right now it is very likely caused by human activities.
One cannot state whether or not it definitely is the case. If you do, it's nothing more than an opinion, whatever it may be.
Considering the possible consequences of a man-driven climate change and the likeliness of man's role (and the adage "Better safe than sorry"), the safest choice is to act against the possible human sources of climate change.

Slightly aside: ecology != preventing climate change. Climate change is a big risk, but even if it is not true, other kinds of pollution cause a risk to health and biodiversity. Both sides of the debate tend to reduce the pollution problem to climate change. Industries argue that climate change being a hoax allows them to pollute the environment with non-greenhouse products, and "mainstream ecologists" happily shoot back on the same line.

Edited by Gaarst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@steve_v: Yes, but the U.S. Navy, the British Royal Navy, both rely heavily on fission reactors, have more safety requirements than the average civil-use fission reactors. All it would take is an accident at sea and the entire world environmental movement would descend on the navies using them with immediate demands to abandon nuclear energy. Unfortunately, private utility companies do not see the "need" for such stringent safety protocols, after all, their reactors are land-based.

@Kerbart: I sill stand by that. For the simple reason fusion is cleaner and lower risk than fission. In fusion, you are combining light elements into heavier elements. In fission, you are splitting a heavy atom with the byproducts being radioactive isotopes of the heavier elements, free electrons and free protons, oh, and a lighter element. From a pure cost-benefits-analysis, fusion energy simply makes more sense. It always has, but because the general public has adopted a "any nuke is a bad nuke" idea, much to their own demise. Want to get off fossil fuels, good, but you have to have real alternatives. Wind and solar cannot provide the power needed for our modern world. It would take an area of 40 square miles of windmills just to produce enough electricity for New York City... and that's if you have a constant 15 to 20 mph winds and full windmill utilization every day.

 

@tater:

12 minutes ago, tater said:

Wow.

It's possible to have polite disagreements, and indeed on many subjects, disagreements are of degree, they are not fundamental disagreements about reality.

Those are the kinds of civil conversations that it would be nice to have here from time to time. Disagreements that are polite, rational, and don't dive into the sewer. It's not impossible to do, but clearly it's... difficult.

I tired to give you a "like" but got this instead...

d2BrSUu.png

I owe you a like!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

Unfortunately, private utility companies do not see the "need" for such stringent safety protocols, after all, their reactors are land-based

It's not the technology that's the problem, it's the mismanagement. If floating power plants can be run safely, there's no technical reason land-based power plant's can't too.
The problem is, as always, money/greed. Private corporations always cut corners.
Even if we can't fix this, making fission plants safer is (IMO) going to be easier and faster than developing and deploying a fusion technology that barely breaks even in a lab.
There are many designs already in service that would have sailed through Chernobyl or Fukushima scenarios without a scratch, hell anything designed in the last 20 years would have.

23 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

For the simple reason fusion is cleaner and lower risk than fission

Of course it is. But show me a productive fusion plant, or even tested a design for one.
We have proven designs for essentially idiot-proof fission reactors now, and we need the power, now. The only thing holding us back is FUD.

Edited by steve_v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern fission reactor designs are incredibly safe. Even the worst American "disaster" was not a disaster at all, the safety mechanisms in fact worked. You can argue that they should have been even better, but modern designs are in fact much, much better.

The problem is that regular people were encouraged to take a part in politicized science/engineering, and making the improved designs became politically impossible.

I'd also stick to fission for any discussion of current solutions, since fusion isn't a thing. When someone builds a fusion plant, we can discuss it.

 

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, steve_v said:

It's not the technology that's the problem, it's the mismanagement. If floating power plants can be run safely, there's no technical reason land-based power plant's can't too.
The problem is, as always, money/greed. Private corporations always cut corners.
Even if we can't fix this, making fission plants safer is (IMO) going to be easier and faster than developing and deploying a fusion technology that barely breaks even in a lab.

Of course it is. But show me a productive fusion plant, or even tested a design for one.
We have proven designs for essentially idiot-proof fission reactors now, and we need the power, now. The only thing holding us back is FUD.

You're right. But blasting private corporations isn't the answer too. Three Mile Island did exactly what it was supposed to do - it shut down before melt-down occurred. But the problem is the government side of the equation. Within the United States, it is not the need of the public as much as the influence of $pecial interest groups that the politician (Republican or Democrat, makes no difference) listens to. It's been this way since the 1920s. The reason I am so hard on fission reactors is that for the sake of its funding - remember, the Manhattan Project had funded fission nuclear power. Fission had already been fully (to the best of their knowledge) developed, so therefore it was the first type of nuclear energy put into commercial production. Why bother with fusion when we already have this great idea!

Now, with a few minor events, and yes, on the scale of what each fission disaster could have been, they have been minor, the government permit requirements are extremely difficult and expensive to apply for. It's one of the reasons there has been only a few new reactors built in the U.S. since the 1970s, the newest was built on an existing nuclear plant campus in 2016. The problem is the reactor permits are only good for 40 years and must be renewed (which is also very costly and has little to do with the maintenance and serviceability of the actual reactor) every twenty years after that. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dumps the permit fees directly into the Department of Treasury - into the government's general budgeting accounts.

Fusion research has always been the victim of under-funding. And this is one of the reasons I am so "anti-fission". The only reason a working reactor has not been built is because of funding - but this is driven by public perception that all nuclear energy is bad. We've known the possibilities of fission since the mid 1950s, yet the pubic has been whipped into a frenzy with six legged frogs, monster spiders, and all things Svengoolie...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are the moderators trolling the forum now? :confused:

Regarding the march: It's a good cause, and scientists have good reasons to be concerned, but psychological research tells us the event itself is virtually guaranteed to be ineffective or even counter-productive.

2 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

We call certain things "theories" because we do not have the definitive answer in how they work, such as electricity (which is why we call it the "theory of electricity" rather than fact).

2 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

But at the same time, one does not possess the right to ridicule others or force them to give up their understanding of how life began and adopt a different "theory" that has still not been proven.

No, that's the casual/colloquial meaning of "theory" (an unproven assertion). The word doesn't mean the same thing in science; science does not start with theories and then "prove" them to turn them into "facts." Even a theory that explains 100% of the available evidence and has no competition is still properly classed as a theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HebaruSan said:

No, that's the casual/colloquial meaning of "theory" (an unproven assertion). The word doesn't mean the same thing in science; science does not start with theories and then "prove" them to turn them into "facts." Even a theory that explains 100% of the available evidence and has no competition is still properly classed as a theory.

[Edited by adsii1970 for content I wish to comment on]

That's what I was kind of saying or trying to say... to some extent. A yet unproven theory (hypothesis) is still an interpretation of available facts. What I have learned is that even in science, when a theory is, as you state, "explains 100% of the available evidence...is still properly classified as a theory" there MUST be room made because there is always new data or a different interpretation of the data as more knowledge about a topic or issue is learned. I took a college chemistry class where the professor actually made a comment along the lines of if anyone ever tells you there is only one logical conclusion in science, then that person is no scientist... and to be honest, it has had such a profound impact on my research methods that I even approach my own research in that light. There must be an open mind...

And as far as my comments about electricity - it relies on the imaginary number set (these are numbers based on the square root of -1, if I recall correctly) to explain how it behaves. We can explain what happens and sometimes we can even explain the why. But there is still a lot about the behavior of electricity that is still yet to be understood...

And as you and I both know, even when 100% of the facts are present, the facts can be interpreted equally and differently, depending on the methods being used to interpret them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I don't want to bother people to much with my detailed view on it. And since it alteast partially includes a political viewpoint I decided to put it into code.
But to put it in a nutshell for you.

Viva la sciencia!
Dejar de Protestar!

 

I'm totally against marches. Marches are just another way to divide people with the intent to cause good. The values of one group is often promoted because one side has more money, agents and/or media coverage. And the latter is always lateral because the media promotes the side that is deemed just by the state. The same goes for the united states as it is for North Korea. Albeit it in a more severe inhumane state for one of both countries. (your guess is very good lmao)
I'm not necessarily talking about the big global events here, just the minor one group against another group calamities.

There is deliberate division through protesting by agents promoting the cause of 1 side. The instigation of division through protesting is done by they who do the dividing. Which isn't always the protestor. That can be on one end or either end. Usually this is to serve 1 end of both groups doing the protests. And in case that works it upsets the other side, which creates division.

I understand that most people on this forum choose a politicaly correct spectrum, and they would argue that protests are part of democracy. Democracy is in part the freedom to share your opinions to form debate which leads to answers. Atleast, that is the idea. But as current developments show, most debates don't lead to answers. It almost always lead to division.

Which all can be blamed on human aspects. But I think those aspects (call it personal traits) are trained a.k.a. raised since childhood (and yes that has multiple reasons including the genetics part)
I think many parents do a poor job at that. That's not my prejudiced opinion, just the rates of kidnap, homicide/suicide, slavery, sex slavery rates around the world confirm that.

Everyone wants everything for themselves. I do to! However, I'm a very emphatic, caring and sharing person. But I'll be honest, I want everything there is to gain. But I want it all in 2nd place.
Some people don't. Some of those people want all for themselves in the 1st place and give nothing. Many of these guys/gals are doing protests around the world. And yes, also those that do not.

Division creates more need for otherwise unneeded security and unneeded rules and regulations that is usually conducted through politics. And all that politics does is create more problems.
I'm against a authoritarian system, let's then keep democracy. But is democracy good? And please before you answer that. Drop the eventual patriotic bull that makes you answer that question with unwavering "yes" and be honest with yourself and be for once, politicaly critical rather then correct.

Just like there's a class of people brainstorming on improving rocket designs (meaning you), so is there a class of people thinking about how to improve social aspects of mankind.
I believe in something called social engineering (use Google) or better said the antonym of the word.

That is because I don't intend social engineering to be used to serve manipulation. I intend it as a antonym and would intend social engineering for the collective social improvement.
Social engineering seems to spiral down to a collective degradative state of living as it is currently.

Yet the practice of social engineering or the antonym of which (since it lacks a official term) is given little attention. It's like a social, international and political free for all. And while it is cute I don't think the having a free and outspoken global diversity of opinions is going to get us somewhere, no matter how much value each opinion has.

And while the current systems hold upright that house of cards shows all signs that it is about to fail.
What do we end up with?

A large group of space enthusiasts in a world full of other minded people that are not going to change their ways because we want them to. The other way around, or both?
I do not decide the following, and I never will even when I get the chance. But there must be a system based on consent. A system that doesn't rule what you may think or say. But a system that decides what decisions are fruitfull and logical.
Millions of people are voting. Voting is nothing more then to have individual power over national or international activities and direction.
Instead of voting you have a dedicated and trained collective council that consists out of various groups of people. Both ethnically and professionaly.
Everyone may give their opinion, but there are only specific ways in which a counsil of some sort (call it government) decides based on public opinion which routes will be taken.

Let's stop creating a whole political mayhem about the rights of certain brown colored individuals occupying this world. Which mayhem itself are all fueled by protests, ironicaly (by certain people, yes, I understand, spare me)

And please tell me the logic about marches ASAP. You have a problem that you want solving, so what do you do? Parading down the streets with like minded individuals, and expecting others to change?
Do you really think this collective ritual is going to make the local residents change their ways? Ritual? YES RITUAL!. Because that is all what protesting is and all it will ever be good for.
The argument that is "what else can I do besides protesting?" holds zero value. Whether there is a alternative to this or not, protesting doesn't help, so stop doing it.

How often has it happened that you ragingly protest for something and the non like minded people (those your attempting to convert) suddenly change their ways to make room for your interests and opinions?

How many times did this happen? yes, exactly, you got it, ZERO times. So screw marches. You scientists with your mathematical equations should know that it only leads to more pre calculated division and more of the same news broadcasts. Unless you think that division is a good thing. Unification is good, division is Evil.

News broadcasts like those that involve marches either involve messages of stagnation and usually degredation.

By now you might be thinking, why tell me this. I don't care. You do because you read up to this point xd


The reason you do care is because the people that are often promoters of science have their opposed protesters. These are usually the religious, flat earthers and yes, atleast semi morons. But even semi morons deserve a blanket and much love.

All people have gifts and values that are promoting humankind. Even the semi morons. Someone that isn't into Science could commit themselves to better social issues. This could be a religious fanatic or a denouncer of Science itself.
Yet, a asset to humankind for all else he/she does right.

It are often protests of 2 groups with completely inverted ideas from one another trying to convey their opinions to those other peeps expecting them to see another angle for a supposed collective cause.
History showed us that protests never unite 2 groups of opposing values and ideas. So my question is, why keep doing it?


 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Razorforce7 said:

And the latter is always lateral because the media promotes the side that is deemed just by the state.

Maybe in some countrys, but if your media is working correctly it wont promote anything or promote stuff that it thinks is right, no the government.

I agree that the march of science isnt the most usefull thing from a strategic standpoint, but condemning protests as a whole is extremly dangerous. Protests are a very powerfull way to show the government/other institution that there are people opposing something. The DDR was brought down with peacefull protests, some brave people started and others joined after seeing they are not alone.

Your argumentation against "division" is applied by several countrys against any kind of protest (not just demonstrations), none of those can be called free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Razorforce7 said:

 


Unless you think that division is a good thing. Unification is good, division is Evil.

 

Maybe if abstract ideas and opinions are all that are at stake. But if you have people with different concrete interests, such as the farmer who wants more subsidies and tariffs versus the importer that wants the opposite, then division allows both sides to speak and contend with one another such that the public or the authorities can make an informed choice. Unification in that case would mean artificially silencing part of the population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

While it is foolhardy to insist the earth is flat, it is not for someone to reject the concept of human-caused global warming. We have concrete proof the earth is not flat - satellite images from various vantage points and altitudes. However, we only have concrete proof the earth has been in a warming trend for the last 11,700 years ago, give or take. Human industry did not begin the cycle of global warming that ended the last ice age. So, to blame humankind for global warming does not make sense to me. NO, it is not my intent to start an argument, but to illustrate that I do have the right to not only demand more proof and facts, but to also have the right to reject "theories" that I feel do not match the evidence I am seeing.

With all respect...no.

There are many areas of inquiry in which our feelings about what "matches the evidence" happen (coincidentally) to line up with reality, but that is not how science (or spaceflight) are conducted. If you "feel" that thrusting radially "ought" to increase your apogee, or that thrusting prograde "ought" to get you closer to another ship in front of you, orbital mechanics will correct your feelings rather hastily. The scientific consensus concerning anthropogenic climate change is based on the product of rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific research. Climate change denial might not be as inane as Flat Earth nonsense or young-Earth creationism, but it's every bit as foolhardy as insisting that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

I disagree. But for a much different and principled reason. At the cornerstone of personal liberty is the concept of self-determination. While it is foolhardy to insist the earth is flat, it is not for someone to reject the concept of human-caused global warming. We have concrete proof the earth is not flat - satellite images from various vantage points and altitudes. However, we only have concrete proof the earth has been in a warming trend for the last 11,700 years ago, give or take. Human industry did not begin the cycle of global warming that ended the last ice age. So, to blame humankind for global warming does not make sense to me. NO, it is not my intent to start an argument, but to illustrate that I do have the right to not only demand more proof and facts, but to also have the right to reject "theories" that I feel do not match the evidence I am seeing.

[Edited by Robotengineer for content I wish to comment on]

You have a right to demand more proof and facts, but that doesn't necessarily mean you will get them. Many people are satisfied with the evidence we have right now.

It is also important to realize that climate change is time dependent. Time spent debating whether or not climate change exists, is caused by human activity, or is a threat means is time not spent acting to reduce the impact of climate change. If climate change is caused by us, we need to act now to minimize the damage. I also find it kind of sad that we require less evidence to go to war in this country than to act on climate change. 

2 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

The problem is politics gets in the way. Fission is the easiest type of nuclear power available, but the most deadly. Fukushima and Chernobyl are two great examples of why this type of nuclear energy is bad. Plus you have radioactive isotopes left as waste (hence it is referred to as radioactive waste). Ideally and theoretically, the safest nuclear energy is FUSION - the combining of atoms. Combine two hydrogen atoms and you get a lot of energy. The waste product is...helium (He). From what early studies in the 1950s indicated, radioactive waste is simply not as prevalent (depending on the style of fusion reactor, really). This is the same energy source as stars have; I do not remember where I read it, but someone theorized that one fusion reactor the size of one of America's largest fission reactors could literally provide electricity for HALF OF THE UNITED STATES and with very low risk. With fusion, there is no need to use heavy elements as lighter (and less radioactive elements) are highly fusible and will produce larger energy yields.

The problem is that it is still "nuclear energy" and there are those who are convinced that all nuclear energy is bad. Science loses but special interest groups win.

The problem with fusion is that it 1) has yet to actually produce any net power and 2) is incredibly expensive to research. Fission is actually not as bad as you make it out to be. New fission reactors are much safer than older ones, however anti-nuclear reactionaries don't understand that. All of our nuclear reactors in the USA and western Europe are 30+ years old, IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

The problem is politics gets in the way. Fission is the easiest type of nuclear power available, but the most deadly.

Not even close. If you divide the total number of deaths attributable to nuclear power to the total amount of energy it has produced, it is orders of magnitude safer than any other major power source. 

Keep in mind that coal-powered plants operating at minimum pollution levels still release more radioactive material into the environment than nuclear reactors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HebaruSan said:

Why are the moderators trolling the forum now?

I don't see any trolling....

 

 

 

 

 

:blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most of us have seen the nuclear energy debate before. Any chance of taking it to a thread that's actually about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Putting it into code again. But if anybody replies to it I promise to move it to personal messaging, as this is apparently a touchy subject.

3 minutes ago, Elthy said:

Maybe in some countrys, but if your media is working correctly it wont promote anything or promote stuff that it thinks is right, no the government.

 

And from where does the blinded faith come from? I mean, if it isn't faith then give me facts.

The blinded faith that believes in his own government with heart and soul without question is rampant in society. For the record: I do not! But don't worry, I don't have a tinfoil on my head, I am in no physical and or mental stress. I feel fine. Just saying to prevent comments otherwise expected. And I still don't know all political facts, I'm open to them and the developments that currently take place. And I love you, and you and your opinions.
Just putting that out there so we can be clear about that one.

In the meanwhile. Got a answer to my question?

Because if it isn't faith but knowledge that makes you say what you did I wanna know. There are whole history books of human evolution that details events from thousands of years ago up to now that is littered with corruption and national and international conflicts all the way up to world war. We often even discuss history for its wealth of information, the interest of itself and the facts also.
And many history books have their own version, which proves my point because there can only be one (the one as it has happened) so someone is lying since history knows both official and alternative stories. And obviously from the academic correct viewpoint the alternative ones must be wrong. Which you can't prove, you are just trusting all details from your history book, right...?
Who has proven the acadamic history to be right? And the non acadamic history to be wrong? And if you can name a few guys, how do you know they are right?

This isn't pessisism! This is just a clear question. How do you know your history book is right?

But ofcourse the official one must be right because it is you having read it and how can you be wrong? And all your classmates who read it also. I mean you can't possibly be wrong, right, your all knowing? (sarcasm)

Your argument is that "my media" shouldn't be wrong if it is correct. How do you determine a media to be correct? Is there a system that monitors them? Is there a system that monitors the one that does the monitoring?
How do we know that they who investigate them has the honest national and international truth? You don't, I don't! Hence the healthiness of attempting to challenge the validity of that system.
Rather then defending it by saying that it is true. Man, that's like a religious person holding on to their read truth. Don't tell me this works the same in scientific litterature. And I am not a scientist by the way, but I know many of you are.

My point is, you can't prove the media other then trusting it. Which is wrong, one should be able to verify things not trust in them blindly because they're being re broadcasted every night. The news anchors are dolls. They're pretty males/females to sugar coat the message. No proven truth is present in the media. Only the words that the anchors read out loud, written by somebody else you probably don't even know to begin with.

Tell me, what do you mean by "maybe in some countries?"

Which ones? All other countries but yours? Selective maybe...
A whole history book of countries that do wrong, but oh no, not the states of narnia (meaning your country), hell no. (sarcasm to the max)
But lets take the good ol united states, which ironically has it's presidents get trophies for, what do they call it? nobel peace prizes hahaha.
While any of the last united states presidents waged more wars then any other leader in the world.

That's kinda hypocrite and wrong. I even think "Evil" opposed to "peace" is the right word since it involves death of people and the lack of open honesty for a presidents action while holding up to that peace trophy.

Do know that it is the media who broadcasts these hypocritical prize ceremonies, that apparently issues prizes to some people of which I'm always confused as to why they get them. Oftenly they didn't do anything heroic that would grant such prizes, but heck they get them regardless.

To validate the issuing of these prizes it is often argumented that the president in question has done major work by instigating another conflict to ease another. They did this for Obama.

And my initial point was, that rivalism or 2 party conflicts lead to more problems. The same is for instigating wars (that apparently offers peace prizes to those that instigate them)
And the same goes for simple protests.

But yeah spare me the comments about that a government is solid and says the truth when it says something. Delusional when you think that is your own country.

There are more people in poverty on this planet (counting 6-7billion) then there are those that do not? Great track record, not!

But maybe I'm just a lost duck in a den of alligators. Maybe I should stand upright and ready to serve and say what my tv says blindly and disregard eventual misschiefs that a government may act on,
Completely ignoring the tinfoil guy in all it's irony since there is a world burning to the ground (see the news)
While all this while my media and my government were correct.

@Elthy Oh, and please. Don't take this personally. Your probably a very nice guy irl. But as you have noted by now, this subject gets me upset. And honestly it is the very basic correct defensive political answers that you give that make me also upset. Alot of people think like you do. But it is very conservative. And you probably are that politicaly.

And I cannot understand how you can be conservative in a dynamic universe that constantly changes. This includes the world you live in. The very definition of the word conservatism goes against what global progression should be. No, I'm not putting words in 'your' mouth, but to everyone else that feels addressed I certainly do.

The media portrays one vision. Put into various forms of drama by the anchor to depict 1 viewpoint on it. This is often guided by the emotion of the anchor and the way they put the news into words. It goes against

It suffers the dynamic viewpoints and criticism of the news and many people are victim to it. Some things that "be" must change. The media is definitely one of them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, adsii1970 said:

That's what I was kind of saying or trying to say... to some extent. A yet unproven theory (hypothesis) is still an interpretation of available facts. What I have learned is that even in science, when a theory is, as you state, "explains 100% of the available evidence...is still properly classified as a theory" there MUST be room made because there is always new data or a different interpretation of the data as more knowledge about a topic or issue is learned. I took a college chemistry class where the professor actually made a comment along the lines of if anyone ever tells you there is only one logical conclusion in science, then that person is no scientist... and to be honest, it has had such a profound impact on my research methods that I even approach my own research in that light. There must be an open mind...

Of course there is more than one conclusion that can be drawn from an observation. Whether or not your conclusion is logical depends on your foundation knowledge you are drawing on to formulate your conclusion.

Quote

And as far as my comments about electricity - it relies on the imaginary number set (these are numbers based on the square root of -1, if I recall correctly) to explain how it behaves. We can explain what happens and sometimes we can even explain the why. But there is still a lot about the behavior of electricity that is still yet to be understood...

As far as electricity goes, it relies on the complex number set (the name imaginary does a disservice). In fact, what we consider normal numbers are just a subset of complex numbers with the i term held at 0 (e.g. 5 +0i). Pi and e are irrational numbers and we use them all the time and the sine and cosine functions are also functions of e and complex numbers. Just because something relies on complex mathematics doesn't make it mysterious. As far as electricity goes, we can explain what happens and why nearly every time. If we didn't understand electricity we wouldn't be able to have this exchange right now.

Quote

And as you and I both know, even when 100% of the facts are present, the facts can be interpreted equally and differently, depending on the methods being used to interpret them.

This is the problem with applying methods that work for history and social 'sciences' to real science. This sounds like you are arguing that there is no objective truth, that everything is subject to interpretation and that we can never be 100% certain of something.

Might I also ask, exactly how would acting on climate change be a bad thing? Even if it turned out to not be as big of a threat as it currently seems to be, nobody really stands to be hurt by climate change action, if anything, the air will be cleaner, our vehicles and power plants more efficient, and our people healthier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Razorforce7:

It seems you are from the USA, which makes me understand your view because you propably dont know that politics and media can work better.

Its not that i take everything my government or "the media" for true simply because they say so. But there are many forces in a proper system which all fight and controll each other, both for political parties and different newspapers/TV-channels and more. If one of therm tries to repurposed bovine waste us the others will call them out (most of the time), being it opposition parties, the "normal media" or dedicated media jornalists, who try to find flaws in other media. Due to a quite open government and politicans who are easy to talk to (if you just ask nicely) i trust them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Razorforce7 said:

 


There are more people in poverty on this planet (counting 6-7billion) then there are those that do not? Great track record, not!

 

Where does this claim come from? The data that I'm able to find indicate there are 10x more people not in poverty than in poverty, and that the situation has been improving gradually for at least 36 years.

(Please do not reply with allegations that the World Bank is corrupt or faked its numbers. I'm interested in knowing what your source is.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Elthy Wrong, I'm from the Netherlands. But good try :)
And even if I were from the United states, I'd be someone involved past the level of political participation which level is the idolized glamour ensuring empty promises that is a american election.

Oh, and you describe politics as it is very well. The thing is, the more years I'm alive and watching the events take place, the more I see a failed system. We ksp players and supposedly rocket enthusiasts want interstellar travel.
I do! Do you? But the irony is that I think the departments of mankind that needs most attention is the social and political spectrum. Now, I don't sollicitate people on this forum to look that way. Keep yourself to thrusters and plasma drivers and what not.

But being not within any social or political department I do hope that considering the seriousness of the topic that local fellas which includes voters have a broad dynamic viewpoint on the social and political events. And not just "knowing" them but accurately defining these department to which end they are succesfull or.... failing! And when I see the news the latter is the case.

And protests or otherwise said 'marches' are not going to contribute much to your cause. Then I recommend you to read another science book. It will serve you better, trust me.

Quote

(Please do not reply with allegations that the World Bank is corrupt or faked its numbers. I'm interested in knowing what your source is.)

@HebaruSanhuh, what? NO!!! Well, they could be fake, you tell me.
First of all, what is your interpretation of poverty?
When I talk about poverty I mean it in a slightly different way.
I actually mean inequality. Meaning that some citizens of this world have a wider variety of foods or equipment at their disposal then other people in this world.

As for your data stating 10times more wealth opposed to poverty. Does that article which states that mentions the definition of poverty? What is theirs? What is yours?
Care to know mine?
As long as they can stand and work right? I heard that one before.

There is a whole wealth of industry and consumables at the disposal of me, other europeans and many americans.
But it is not available for many others. Which covers most other countries around the world. You want sources say you?
Many pictures of people having alot less then I do?
You'll get them, dont worry. I make a good collection for you, just say the word.

Anyway, my philosophy concerning equality is that I can get everything that others can get, or vice versa. Some people in this world don't even get a single chance.

Edited by Razorforce7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@HebaruSan You obviously didn't read, which I understand... Or you don't care, ok, I don't care either then.

Your source? Tell me how yours is valid?

That is the point of what I am saying by the way. How do you know you source is right? How does a protestor know his source is right?
Is having a source a validation for having a argument?
If true, then everybodies argument is wrong per definition unless they supply a source. So what is this, blind faith in litterature?
I'm all for sources of information. But If I have to show with pictures starving people around the world or in a degradative state compared to the affluent wealth of europeans or americans then I start eating cotton and shave my head bald.

Edited by Razorforce7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.