I was wondering the same thing. The OP was about Rupert Sheldrake, about faux science, starting with the red herring of Sheldrake's, that science was dogmatic because science proved him wrong. And wrong is wrong. This spattered out to a wide variety of rants and bitches, but the primary issue was settled many posts back.why are people talking about economics in a science thread?
Economics is a science, too.why are people talking about economics in a science thread?
You will get dumbass questions and claims from guys like me and others, but you should view it as an opportunity to rehearse your knowledge, if applicable.
why are people talking about economics in a science thread?
Science has always been dogmatic. When a new theory or discovery occurs met with diresion and distain. Human nature is inconsistent with scientific process Forensic analysis of "science" should follow the money.
Economics is a science, too.
"the dismal science".
ahem my daughter's an economist.
Because while I'd not call economics a science, it comes closer than Sheldrake's ideas.why are people talking about economics in a science thread?
I only wish. I have practiced law for 40 years. "Evidence" is maleble. You need to witness battle of the experts in a court room.Um, really? There is resistance to new theory, what wins the argument is evidence. Provide testable evidence. Or not.
Science
Yea. Different this time. My great aunt tendered your speech in 1968.I took an upper division class in "Economics of natural Resources" as an adult "returning student" during my final year at U.C. Berkeley in 1976. It was part of my interdepartmental major which lead to me earning an undergraduate B.S. degree in "Conservation of Natural Resources." It was a "concepts and principles" economics class, and not a math/computational one. A very significant new term I learned in class that year was "externalities", and that concept cemented my opinion that classic economics was not a real science. Classic economics completely ignored some very important factors that would have huge and costly consequences for society, but if included in the calculations would negatively affect desired outcomes.
I see a similar pattern these days as the stock market rises rapidly while the pandemic continues to rage and U.S. unemployment figures are fudged to be lower than reality - and investors assume that after this pandemic, everything will return to normal and the path to eternal exponential economic growth will continue unabated.
Another lesson I learned during those two years at a prestigious university was that it is very difficult to predict hugely disruptive changes that could override the predictable ebb and flow of past economic patterns and their causes, particularly "black swan" events that can destroy the very foundations and principles that economies are based on. It appears to be easier to predict a supernova than a black swan economic event.
Even the present period in time, which is can be viewed as the future they tried to predict in my youth - is far different from that portrayed in 1950's science fiction movies. With its cheap computers, big high-res TV's, smartphones and low-cost global commuications - including social media phenomena - the future is not like anything I dreamed of as a child of the 1950's!
I only wish. I have practiced law for 40 years. "Evidence" is maleble. You need to witness battle of the experts in a court room.
Would the Lucent v. Microsoft trial in San Diego District Court be close enough?
You do, though, make the tragic, often-fatal mistake of almost every lawyer, in that you assume that facts are mutable, and that any degree of argument that wins is the right argument. Winning the trial, loosing the war, wrecking society in the process. Yep. That's the modern law.
That's not how physics works. Science is not the law.
Yes what? Undergo excommunication? By whom? By the countless doctors she consulted with, who gravely told her her son was condemned, before she resolved to turn to unconventional therapies? Or does her son's recovery void her engineering degrees? What kind of hubris makes you think that this woman, whose determination saved her son, has anything to prove to those doctors, or to you?I don't understand what this means. As in, I'm not understanding the difference between that and TB3 or upcoming TB4?
Yes.. Unless she can demonstrate it worked for ANYONE (her son could be used if she wants to demonstrate), she forfeits scientific integrity passing off unsubstantiated claims as matters of fact.
Why are _you_ continually refusing to answer _my_ question, i.e. which feature of the TV violates which paragraph of the HDMI spec? The video mode you mention (4K 120P 4:4:4/RGB 10bit) exceeds the bandwidth available in HDMI 2.0. It is thus correct to certify the model according to HDMI 2.1 even though this spec revision permits still more demanding modes.I'll close, since you continue ignoring most questions I pose.
So you finally see the dishonesty I kept trying to explain that forms when you have "standards" as the ones we discussed. What the authors intended is precisely the contention, and is what you have acknowledge would be dishonesty in the first paragraph. As for your final question, the violation is on HDMI's part for certifying the TV, when LG themselves have said to Forbes in a statement (if you read the link I provided all those posts ago) the connectors themselves aren't fully HDMI 2.1 compliant.
Anyone who promotes homoeopathy as a remedy for anything should be excommunicated from everywhere, anecdotes notwithstanding. Furthermore, referring to autism the way you do is disrespectful towards the millions of autistic people out there, and your suggestion that determination alone can overrule the laws of nature is disrespectful towards scientists as well as science itself. If there's hubris here, it's that woman who has it. Perhaps it can be cured with homoeopathy.Yes what? Undergo excommunication? By whom? By the countless doctors she consulted with, who gravely told her her son was condemned, before she resolved to turn to unconventional therapies? Or does her son's recovery void her engineering degrees? What kind of hubris makes you think that this woman, whose determination saved her son, has anything to prove to those doctors, or to you?
Yes what? Undergo excommunication? By whom? By the countless doctors she consulted with, who gravely told her her son was condemned, before she resolved to turn to unconventional therapies? Or does her son's recovery void her engineering degrees? What kind of hubris makes you think that this woman, whose determination saved her son, has anything to prove to those doctors, or to you?
Scientists publish papers, not "books". Basically, when she chose the second method, she wasn't acting in her quality of scientist, so using her degree/position as an argument while she purposedly went the other way is fallacious.Yes what? Undergo excommunication? By whom? By the countless doctors she consulted with, who gravely told her her son was condemned, before she resolved to turn to unconventional therapies? Or does her son's recovery void her engineering degrees? What kind of hubris makes you think that this woman, whose determination saved her son, has anything to prove to those doctors, or to you?