Yes I see the result. But how do you arrive there? I don't know how/what to click on. I'm a lowly drywall contractor
I've looked back at your recent posts and have come to the conclusion that you may not just be having me on!
Use the backspace key to remove any unwanted content between the QUOTE brackets.
For example, if I backspace from the left of the end
having me on![/QUOTE] oh. I thought there was a sequence of icons/characters to click on.
thanks🙂
But it's not highlighted?
thanks🙂
But it's not highlighted?
You've backspaced into the quote brackets. Remove only the content between the brackets.
I'm off to bed now - have your homework, completed correctly, on my desk by morning. 🙂
I mean the perversion of science. Questions like this cannot be answered by science so the whole enterprise is pathetic and ridiculous.
10 out of 10! I hope you weren't taking me for a mug!
“Science is but a perversion of itself unless it has as its ultimate goal the betterment of humanity.”
― Nikola Tesla
The only constant in science is the scientific method: observe a phenomenon, posit a hypothesis that attempts to explain it, conduct objective experiments to test the hypothesis, analyze the experimental data, accept or reject the hypothesis. That is science!
The body of "knowledge" that has accumulated over the centuries using the scientific method is better understood as hypotheses not yet rejected. No findings arrived at using the scientific method are ever final, that is the cardinal rule of science. A more subtle observation can always lead to a revised hypothesis that more clever experiments may reveal to be a closer approximation of reality.
Often the discrepancies in an earlier hypothesis are not even observed until it is replaced by a better hypothesis. So while the tiny precession in the elliptical orbit of Mercury was observed before Einstein's relativity correctly explained it's origin, no one had observed or thought to look for evidence that light was deflected by massive bodies until it was predicted by Einstein's general relativity, hypothesizing that gravity acted through the warping of spacetime. Four years later during a total eclipse of the sun Eddington's observations confirmed this prediction of GR.
When we discuss the merits of science it is the method that matters, the findings are transitory and always subject to refinement.
The body of "knowledge" that has accumulated over the centuries using the scientific method is better understood as hypotheses not yet rejected. No findings arrived at using the scientific method are ever final, that is the cardinal rule of science. A more subtle observation can always lead to a revised hypothesis that more clever experiments may reveal to be a closer approximation of reality.
Often the discrepancies in an earlier hypothesis are not even observed until it is replaced by a better hypothesis. So while the tiny precession in the elliptical orbit of Mercury was observed before Einstein's relativity correctly explained it's origin, no one had observed or thought to look for evidence that light was deflected by massive bodies until it was predicted by Einstein's general relativity, hypothesizing that gravity acted through the warping of spacetime. Four years later during a total eclipse of the sun Eddington's observations confirmed this prediction of GR.
When we discuss the merits of science it is the method that matters, the findings are transitory and always subject to refinement.
Or the old: If you chase two bunnies you will lose them both.
I don't have a bunny though. We have some fish and freshwater shrimp in an aquarium but that's it.
We got a single Cardinal Tetra with some Neon Tetras once, wish I'd just bought a bunch of Cardinal Tetras instead...
I don't have a bunny though. We have some fish and freshwater shrimp in an aquarium but that's it.
We got a single Cardinal Tetra with some Neon Tetras once, wish I'd just bought a bunch of Cardinal Tetras instead...
There has been nothing in this thread to address the acceleration problem. (Net gain of energy). To say science is 99.9% of the way there is utterly absurd in a universe 500 billion light years wide.
My wife works for a genetic engineer and we both had a good laugh when Eugenie Scott said we've discovered all we know about DNA, and went on to say she was absolutely confident junk DNA will never have any other purpose. Boy did she eat her words.
My wife works for a genetic engineer and we both had a good laugh when Eugenie Scott said we've discovered all we know about DNA, and went on to say she was absolutely confident junk DNA will never have any other purpose. Boy did she eat her words.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.