You're still here?
The Universe
- Thread starter ravells
- Start date
- Status
M
Malenfant
Guest
I've never claimed they were right. I've always said that science changes all the time, that it's dynamic. Evidently your reading comprehension is as lacking as your debating skills.
That doesn't make each theory that comes along an "opinion" - you don't even know what that word means:
So again, stop claiming that I've "misunderstood" when it's perfectly clear that you're the one who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
But you know what, I really am leaving. I've asked the mods to ban me from this board (let's see if they can even do that right) because god knows I've had enough of all this bullshit from you people, and I don't want to be tempted to return if it looks like the idiots are silent again. I don't ever even want the opportunity to come back to this festering stinkhole of ignorance.
I doubt that anyone interested in my many positive contributions to this community is reading this train wreck of a thread (and of course those contributions are largely ignored by the people here who'd gladly leech off my knowledge when it suits them and then spit in my face afterwards), but they'll know where to find me. Everyone else will have to find another punching bag to lay into instead of me though.
Unfortunately, this battle in the War On Stupidity has been lost here - CotI has fallen to the Idiot Squad (it fell a long time ago, I think) and is now a bastion for the promotion of Ignorance. Unfortunately, the Idiots won partly because of the ineffectiveness of the moderators here and the apathy and timidity of the general community - while I appreciate the support of some of the more sensible people here, voicing that support only via PM to me while leaving me high and dry on the public front line to fight the Idiots on my own is anything but helpful. I will therefore be withdrawing to other online Traveller communities and continuing the war there.
I hope you're happy wallowing in your stupidity. I leave with a resounding "⌧ you!" to the Idiot Squad.
That doesn't make each theory that comes along an "opinion" - you don't even know what that word means:
Theories are backed up by proof. Therefore they are not opinions. Just because they don't explain absolutely everything about a situation doesn't mean they're "wrong" or "opinion", it just means they're incomplete. Big deal, we know that, that's how science works.
So again, stop claiming that I've "misunderstood" when it's perfectly clear that you're the one who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
I didn't actually. I said I'd be spending more time on other boards. You on the other hand said you'd be leaving this thread and yet you're still here, Mr. Hypocrite. See?
So don't give me that "why are you still here" bullshit when you've said you'd leave and you're still here.
But you know what, I really am leaving. I've asked the mods to ban me from this board (let's see if they can even do that right) because god knows I've had enough of all this bullshit from you people, and I don't want to be tempted to return if it looks like the idiots are silent again. I don't ever even want the opportunity to come back to this festering stinkhole of ignorance.
I doubt that anyone interested in my many positive contributions to this community is reading this train wreck of a thread (and of course those contributions are largely ignored by the people here who'd gladly leech off my knowledge when it suits them and then spit in my face afterwards), but they'll know where to find me. Everyone else will have to find another punching bag to lay into instead of me though.
Unfortunately, this battle in the War On Stupidity has been lost here - CotI has fallen to the Idiot Squad (it fell a long time ago, I think) and is now a bastion for the promotion of Ignorance. Unfortunately, the Idiots won partly because of the ineffectiveness of the moderators here and the apathy and timidity of the general community - while I appreciate the support of some of the more sensible people here, voicing that support only via PM to me while leaving me high and dry on the public front line to fight the Idiots on my own is anything but helpful. I will therefore be withdrawing to other online Traveller communities and continuing the war there.
I hope you're happy wallowing in your stupidity. I leave with a resounding "⌧ you!" to the Idiot Squad.
Well that worked...
RandyT0001
SOC-13
No, he said (and rightly so) that you were injecting a selected definition of 'theory' out of context with the definition he was referring to and is relevent to discussions of scientific topics. Here it is:
------------------------------------------------
Good Lord - is that what all this was about? Mal, every theory is OPINION until it's been proven. Let it go.</font>[/QUOTE]Followed by this:
----------------------------------------------
Mal's rebuttal was based on your misuse and attemped distraction of definitions of the word 'theory' in the context of the discussion by your statement that 'Every theory is opinion until proven'. It is wrong to do that.
I think Andrew made his post because of the directionto that Sid6.7's and Malenfant's posts were headed primarily and to all in general. (I could be wrong here, you'll have to ask Andrew.)
Yes, the definiton you gave is a valid one used within the world but is not a valid definition in relation to the scientific method which is what scientists (including Mal) primarily use it for.
There have been many experiments, proofs, and observations that support the validity of Einstein's Relativity Theory. If there are discrepencies then scientists continue to observe and test those unusual aspects and once a conclusion can be made then the theory is modified to correctly account for the discrepencies. That is the way the scientific method operates.
I don't know if the people that formulated those ideas misused the word 'theory' out of context or if the media did. Either way "Brane Theory" and "Superstring Theory" are not 'theories' as is normally associated within the scientific method but are more like 'conjectures'. Of course if one wants some media attention to a pet conjecture you don't use the term conjecture in your pitch to get a Nova episode created about it or to sell books to the layman.
That is one definition of 'theory'. Not all definitions of the word 'theory' contextually imply opinion which is what you are trying equate them as.
I think that if you Toth can't distinguish between the different contextual definitions of the word 'theory' and apply them properly maybe it is time for you to move on to other places and not inject discord into scientific discussions.
IMO
RandyT0001
SOC-13
Sounds like 'that' was your intention all along. Pity, that your 'appearent jealousy' or 'inferiority complex' would motivate you to do it.
Randy,
Thank you for your explaination without being an asshole about it. That was really all that kept this going. He pissed me off to the point where I didn't care whether he was right or wrong. Not everyone on this board has Ph.D.s. And there's NEVER a need to belittle someone's intelligence. He didn't need to be arrogant and spiteful. But yet he was.
I apologize for the digression,
Dameon
Thank you for your explaination without being an asshole about it. That was really all that kept this going. He pissed me off to the point where I didn't care whether he was right or wrong. Not everyone on this board has Ph.D.s. And there's NEVER a need to belittle someone's intelligence. He didn't need to be arrogant and spiteful. But yet he was.
I apologize for the digression,
Dameon
I think Andrew made his post because of the directionto that Sid6.7's and Malenfant's posts were headed primarily and to all in general. (I could be wrong here, you'll have to ask Andrew.)
</font>[/QUOTE]dude dont lay the war off on me it was
on fire LONG before i got there and
i only made 1 sarcastic post before andrew layed the law down...
and even in that one
i said everyone should go cool down...
maybe you should go read the whole
thread again before you say more...
rhoneycutt
SOC-11
if only this kind of energy were going into making the game itself better.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
But the wrong one for the discussion.
No, that wasn't his rebuttal at all, you are ignoring his explanation which was perfectly clear.
Via his explanation.
Yes he did.
No he didn't.
Via his explanation.
I can see that now. You did appear to ignore or otherwise not understand what was written.
Yes, ahem, Malefant was going way overboard, I'll agree.
But the wrong one for the discussion.
The rest of the world uses it, but they frequently apply it incorrectly.
Just not when using accurate terminology.
Check any reliable explanation of the Scientific Method and you will discover that nothing is ever proven completely. You will find references to 99% certainty, etc. However, when something reaches theory status (the "theory" status in the Scientific Method, which was what was under discussion the whole time, not some common "theory" definition), that something has so much evidence of successful testing and peer review mounted behind it that it can be accepted as fact until something better comes along. Note carefully that what comes along must be better, just any old thing tossed out by Joe Schmo doesn't qualify.
For something to be "better" it must have more evidence of successful testing and more accepted peer review. The new hypothesis must work better than the previous theory in order to become a theory itself.
Who are "they"? Cite? (Non-Pseudoscientific cites.)
You are attempting to support an assertion by attacking one of the greatest scientific theories of all time by basically making an unsubstantied claim.
Substatiate the claim (or withdraw it).
As far as the Scientific Method and the establishment of Science in general, it is proven (again, until something better appears).
None of that can be tested. You can call the theories in lay conversation, but to the Scientific Method, they are not theories, and at our current level of technological achievement, they will not by theories (it will require some titantic leap of sensors in order to directly detect strings or branes).
He appeared to succeed to me.
Your basically attempting to attack the credibility of Malenfant by stating you aren't taking what he wrote seriously.
By boasting of making light of this, you are actually reducing your own credibility.
I thought he had retired.
Do you know something the rest of us don't? If so, out with it.
Not in the Scientific Method it's not.
You're mistaken.
I didn't see you do any such thing.
Calling Malenfant names ("thick-headed") only reduces your own credibility and further reduces you to the level of some of Malefants less pleasant posts.
It didn't, actually. Malenfant was using the definition in the Scientific Method, and you were using a common definition that had nothing to do with the subject at hand.
There are other people that agree with the Scientific Method around here.
I just wish Malenfant wouldn't use perjorative terms when referring to other people just because he doesn't like something (and then claim he wasn't using perjorative terms, even if you were to point them out by quoting them), as well as using less than ideal language.
Examples:
What gets me is that other people appear to be responding in kind.
RandyT0001
SOC-13
Sid, you made five posts in this thread prior to the one I quoted above. I assumed that your "1 sarcastic post" was in reference to your fourth post but I did not see anywhere in it where you "said everyone should go cool down". I looked through your other posts and still could not find where you "said everyone should go cool down" nor any statement that could be interperted as "i said everyone should go cool down". Therefore I request two things: (1) please give me an exact quote with a numerical notation of which post it was that you "said everyone should go cool down" and (2) please try to put some more practice into what you preach (in reference to this phrase "maybe you should go read the whole thread again before you say more" before you preach it.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
Not really.
He didn't have the whole answer.
You can call it wrong, but how wrong is it when his three equations still, to this very day, are used throughout engineering and physics? The equations that sent man to the moon and a thousand other tasks.
It would be like calling Bethoven's unfinished symphony wrong.
As per Newtwon, he just didn't have the whole answer. That hardly makes him wrong.
We don't know much of anything about Tesla's later "stuff" because most of his research was burned.
His early "stuff" remains rock solid. Including the victory of AC over DC in a fight with none other than Thomas Edison.
What scientific theories of Tesla's are you discussing? You didn't mention any.
Newton's and Kepler's equations still work just fine under all the conditions either of those men ever ran into or even imagined.
You're mischaracterizing what happened.
Einstein didn't prove them wrong, he built a new framework over them.
Again, Newton's and Kepler's equations still work just under normal conditions (i.e. not travelling at a significant fraction of the speed of light).
Oh, yes, Newton did say that gravity propagated instantly, but he never proved that. He used the muscle of his reputation to assert it and made that assertion stick.
It was not a "theory" proven by the Scientific Method.
Einstein was the one who applied real science to that and showed that Newton was wrong in his "guess" that was never a scientific theory.
No, he doesn't. You're making an assertion based on a lack of information and by misinterpreting what Malenfant said.
The history of physics would suggest that more information will become avaiable, perhaps even revolutionary information.
However, at this point in time, General Relatively is unlikely to be overthrown. The equations work perfectly in too many ways to somehow turn out to be wrong in the end.
No, what will happen is that someone comes up with additional information.
You're attempting to draw a parallel between the fact that erasers remove information from existance and the improvements in the knowledge of the world of physics?
I find this parallel to be insufficient and to make inappropriately light of the discussion.
And, once again, opinion and the common/lay use of theory are not the same as what a theory produced by the scientific method is.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
Yes, I suspected you were flame-baiting all along.
The trouble is that Malenfant is particularly susceptible to it.
On some boards flame-baiting is a banning offense.
The trouble is, on those other boards I am thinking of, Malenfant would also get banned for saying some of the things he did.
A sad situation all the way around.
Sid, you made five posts in this thread prior to the one I quoted above. I assumed that your "1 sarcastic post" was in reference to your fourth post but I did not see anywhere in it where you "said everyone should go cool down". I looked through your other posts and still could not find where you "said everyone should go cool down" nor any statement that could be interperted as "i said everyone should go cool down". Therefore I request two things: (1) please give me an exact quote with a numerical notation of which post it was that you "said everyone should go cool down" and (2) please try to put some more practice into what you preach (in reference to this phrase "maybe you should go read the whole thread again before you say more" before you preach it. </font>[/QUOTE]dude this isnt the original thread that got
it all started this is a spill over thread
go read the original universe where andrew tried
shutting it down the first time....
maybe you werent in that thread
i dont remember, but it started with an personal
attack on aramis by mal over a sci-speak
comment...
mal beingthe new science police here in the forums
thought he'd take aramis to task over it...
hence the living flame he** were all in now
pftz...
is that a better clarification for you?
RandyT0001
SOC-13
Maybe, if some people, including Sid6.7 and Toth and possibly Aramis (I believe that this:
"BG:
Hypothesis is Sci-speak for "Conjecture which has survived peer review and/or oversight committee review, fits the available data, and is worthy of testing." "
from the original Universe thread was a "baiting" to provoke Malenfant), among some others, would stop injecting posts into threads with (seemingly) the intent to spark the flames then the "garbage" would stay out and those of us who are interested can have a thread discussion about scientific topics. We might be trying to learn more about science so that we can incorporate it into our sci-fi game of choice, Traveller.
RandyT0001
SOC-13
Sid6.7, thanks for the clarification, it was in your third post in the original Universe Size thread.
Maybe, if some people, including Sid6.7 and Toth and possibly Aramis (I believe that this:
"BG:
Hypothesis is Sci-speak for "Conjecture which has survived peer review and/or oversight committee review, fits the available data, and is worthy of testing." "
from the original Universe thread was a "baiting" to provoke Malenfant), among some others, would stop injecting posts into threads with the intent to spark the flames then the "garbage" would stay out and those of us who are interested can have a thread discussion about scientific topics. We might be trying to learn more about science so that we can incorporate it into our sci-fi game of choice, Traveller. </font>[/QUOTE]dude go back and read some more aramis
didnt even direct his post at mal in fact
it didnt DIRECTLY address ANYTHING mal said
it was more what someone else said wsant it?
and your quite a few names short on
your little list mal was exchanging
air with a number of folks, trying to
fixate blame on 2-3 makes you just as much
a flamer as the rest doesnt it?...
but i guess if thats the path
you want to take be my guest..
and i do know that the fourm
was pertty quiet before the
removal of the flame area
where he could have taken
his comments too had it been
there in fact it was pertty quiet
until mal got the old ball rolling
not anyone else...i've even PM
a few mods to request help
but no reply has come yet
if you'll do a little research
you'll see ALL of my posts are
benign and freindly until yesterday
i dont think mal has the same history...
Yesterday I wasn't. Today, after what I read he was saying about everyone else that posted, he really pissed me off. Hence the 'Dear Evil Dr. Malenfant' post I made. I can't abide the arrogance and went about trying to piss him off. Whether I was wrong or not wrong, I can't stand assholes.
RandyT0001
SOC-13
Sid6.7, guess I have a different interpertation and opinion of how things have unfolded in the two threads we're discussion.
No, I was trying to point out that people, including scientists, make mistakes. That's WHY the eraser was invented.
- Status
Similar threads
