L
Logitech
I was wondering if anyone was willing ot invite me to gmail ive been
wanting an account for quite some time now. My email is
(e-mail address removed)
wanting an account for quite some time now. My email is
(e-mail address removed)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
G
gonzo
Logitech said:I was wondering if anyone was willing ot invite me to gmail ive been
wanting an account for quite some time now. My email is
(e-mail address removed)
I would imagine an invitation to jump off a cliff
would be more likely. I'm sick of all this gmail shit,
can't you take it elsewhere?
C
Chakolate
(e-mail address removed) (Logitech) wrote in
I sent you one.
Chakolate
I was wondering if anyone was willing ot invite me to gmail ive been
wanting an account for quite some time now. My email is
(e-mail address removed)
I sent you one.
Chakolate
D
dszady
Would you change that totally UNscientific signature of yours. It'sChakolate said:(e-mail address removed) (Logitech) wrote in
I sent you one.
Chakolate
offensive.
D
dszady
gonzo said:I would imagine an invitation to jump off a cliff
would be more likely. I'm sick of all this gmail shit,
can't you take it elsewhere?
I have 9 left. Need a couple?
C
Chakolate
Would you change that totally UNscientific signature of yours. It's
offensive.
If it has offended you, then it has served its purpose. Thank you for
confirming.
Chakolate
T
Triadian
dszady said:I have 9 left. Need a couple?
I would be happy if i found one in my inbox if there any left
Triadian_UK at Yahoo.com
if you would be so kind....
TYIA
Regards Tri...
J
John Fitzsimons
(e-mail address removed):
If it has offended you, then it has served its purpose. Thank you for
confirming.
Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so is science made of
facts; but a pile of stones is not a house and a collection of facts is not
necessarily science.
--Henri Poincare
Actually, I hadn't noticed the sig until he complained about it.
Somewhat a case of synchronicity though. A few days ago I had a
newspaper reporter ask me "whether you think if mainstream science
accepted research regarding the existence of an afterlife it would
benefit people".
Perhaps I could have quoted Henri in my reply ? The question surprised
me as I was wondering how many people actually allow "scientists" to
do their thinking for them these days.
A "scientist" says it is so so it must be so. A "scientist" says it
isn't so so it cannot be so." Hopefully people nowadays are more ready
to think for themselves.
From my experience many "scientists" pay far too much attention
looking at trees, yet missing the fact that they are looking at a
forest. Missing the "overall picture" in other words.
Regards, John.
R
Roger Johansson
What he means is that we use the scientific facts to build theories,
models, and the science is in the models, not in the single facts.
This distinction between facts and theories, models, has become even more
distinct today, in the age of computers.
We can use computers to gather measurements, for example temperatures for
a thousand locations every ten seconds over a time period of three days.
Those measurements are the facts, the reality. But for them to become
meaningful to us, to make it possible to make predictions about the
future, we need to find a model, a theory which describes why the
temperatures change in those locations like they do over time.
Earlier we had to use human minds to see patterns and tendencies in such
a collection of measurements, and to create formulas which could be
satisfied by these measurements.
Today we have computers which can create formulas from measurements, so
the computers formulate the theories and create new scientific knowledge.
A very simple example of this process is a curve-fitting program, which
can be given a number of coordinates and find a curve, a formula, which
these coordinates fit fairly well in.
A much more complicated example is a weather forecast computer cluster
where predictions are made, and checked against what really happens, and
the theory is refined step by step until the computers can predict the
weather several days ahead with fairly good precision.
models, and the science is in the models, not in the single facts.
This distinction between facts and theories, models, has become even more
distinct today, in the age of computers.
We can use computers to gather measurements, for example temperatures for
a thousand locations every ten seconds over a time period of three days.
Those measurements are the facts, the reality. But for them to become
meaningful to us, to make it possible to make predictions about the
future, we need to find a model, a theory which describes why the
temperatures change in those locations like they do over time.
Earlier we had to use human minds to see patterns and tendencies in such
a collection of measurements, and to create formulas which could be
satisfied by these measurements.
Today we have computers which can create formulas from measurements, so
the computers formulate the theories and create new scientific knowledge.
A very simple example of this process is a curve-fitting program, which
can be given a number of coordinates and find a curve, a formula, which
these coordinates fit fairly well in.
A much more complicated example is a weather forecast computer cluster
where predictions are made, and checked against what really happens, and
the theory is refined step by step until the computers can predict the
weather several days ahead with fairly good precision.
S
Semolina Pilchard
A "scientist" says it is so so it must be so. A "scientist" says it
isn't so so it cannot be so." Hopefully people nowadays are more ready
to think for themselves.
From my experience many "scientists" pay far too much attention
looking at trees, yet missing the fact that they are looking at a
forest. Missing the "overall picture" in other words.
The major problem with scientists, so far as I can see, is that
they're mostly bought and paid for and told what the conclusions of
their research must be.
The opposite of the scientist, the new-age freak with his mind so wide
open that his brain fell out long ago, and who believes in things
purely *because* there's no good evidence for them, is a more worrying
and prevalent phenomenon, though. Y'know, the type who spends his
life in conference with space aliens and is constantly bumping into
supernatural beings everywhere he goes.
C
Chakolate
Actually, I hadn't noticed the sig until he complained about it.
Somewhat a case of synchronicity though. A few days ago I had a
newspaper reporter ask me "whether you think if mainstream science
accepted research regarding the existence of an afterlife it would
benefit people".
Perhaps I could have quoted Henri in my reply ? The question surprised
me as I was wondering how many people actually allow "scientists" to
do their thinking for them these days.
A "scientist" says it is so so it must be so. A "scientist" says it
isn't so so it cannot be so." Hopefully people nowadays are more ready
to think for themselves.
I think the internet is helping tremendously. Before the net, people got
their 'science news' from reporters' versions of the studies done. Now
it's so easy to just go look up the study. You can even set search engines
to look up the studies for you and deliver them to your mailbox.
From my experience many "scientists" pay far too much attention
looking at trees, yet missing the fact that they are looking at a
forest. Missing the "overall picture" in other words.
Yeah, that pile of bricks starts looking like a house to them.
Chakolate
C
Chakolate
The opposite of the scientist, the new-age freak with his mind so wide
open that his brain fell out long ago, and who believes in things
purely *because* there's no good evidence for them, is a more worrying
and prevalent phenomenon, though. Y'know, the type who spends his
life in conference with space aliens and is constantly bumping into
supernatural beings everywhere he goes.
I disagree about 'more worrying'. We've always had the freaks, since time
began. We haven't always had bought-and-paid-for scientists.
Chakolate
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.