Re: Strange peer review editorial policy.

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Strange peer review editorial policy.
Date	2016-09-13 05:35 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<bqfkad-mg.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink)
References	(6 earlier) <57d65490$0$62241$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> <vq6jad-njp.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <57d760e9$0$1233$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com> <nr7nr3$1ecb$4@gioia.aioe.org> <57d773f6$0$43884$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com>

Show all headers | View raw

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 9/12/2016 10:21 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 9/12/2016 9:13 PM, benj wrote:
>>> On 9/12/2016 1:56 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 09/11/2016 07:06 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/9/2016 7:33 PM, Chan Rasjid wrote:
>>>>>>> In the ancient days of the Yellow Emperor the gods and the spirits
>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>> near to man. Man just keeps calm within his self and don't do - or do
>>>>>>> "nothing". Within "nothing" everything exists and for those who are
>>>>>>> blessed with favor with Heaven, things would "spring up" from
>>>>>>> within his
>>>>>>> mind - all mysteries under the Heaven and Earth are all revealed. No
>>>>>>> reading, no experimentation, "don't argue with me"! Pure knowledge
>>>>>>> validated by the gods. No need of "guidance" about the equivalence
>>>>>>> principle!  No need of two postulates! No need of nothing!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No teacher - the wise teaches himself through himself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then what you discuss has nothing to do with science. Anyone who says
>>>>>> truth can be found without experimentation and study is not doing
>>>>>> science.
>>>>>
>>>>> And anyone who thinks it is possible to find all truth through science
>>>>> knows not what science is. We are talking about you Boinker.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hint: The answer to the halting problem shows that what I say is true
>>>>> and proven. Understand? Didn't think so. Just call me a kook then.
>>>>
>>>> The halting problem was proved to be undecidable by Turing using
>>>> mathematics, a branch of science, in the 1930's.
>>>
>>> Absolutely correct Jimbo and exactly the point. Means that science
>>> cannot discover all truth and it was proven by mathematics.
>>>
>>
>> I didn't say that science can discover all truth. Never would say that.
>> What I did say is that science does rely on experiment and study, and
>> that Chan Rashid's claim of doing science WITHOUT those is foolish, as
>> that's not science.
>>
>> Fine if you want to find truth by metaphysics or religious endeavors.
>> But don't call it science.
>>
> Mathematics is now metaphysics to you? You are so confused. You are 
> NEVER going to catch your own tail Boinker. Cripes even Jim knew what I 
> was talking about and you are lost!

What you were talking about was a childish world view.

> Didn't you seen my Einstein quote? (hey go look it up but you are too 
> lazy to actually do any work) Metaphysics (let us call it intuition, 
> shall we) is the ONLY path to science. Experiment is CONFIRMATION of 
> theory, but cannot CREATE the theory. You are so dazed and confused. 
> Don't you have something to go publish or some wooden toys to make?

As experiments are not human beings, of course they can not create a
theory, but they can, and have, led the experimenter to form a new theory.


-- 
Jim Pennino

Thread

Strange peer review editorial policy. Chan Rasjid <chanrasjid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 16:57 +0800
  Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-09 22:09 +1000
    Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 06:06 -0700
      Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 06:21 -0700
        Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 08:48 -0500
          Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-09 17:35 -0400
            Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 14:39 -0700
              Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 17:00 -0500
                Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-09 20:04 -0400
                Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 18:02 -0500
                Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. Chan Rasjid <chanrasjid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 08:33 +0800
                Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 18:06 -0500
                Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 03:08 -0400
                Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-12 17:56 +0000
                Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-12 22:13 -0400
                Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 21:21 -0500
                Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-12 23:35 -0400
                Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-13 05:35 +0000
                Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-13 02:50 +0000
                Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 19:19 -0400
                Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-14 00:09 +0000
                Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 22:19 -0400
                Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-14 05:21 +0000
                Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-15 17:55 -0400
                Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 00:55 +0000
                Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-15 21:55 -0400
                Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 04:19 +0000
                Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 17:03 -0400
                Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 21:44 +0000
                Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 20:59 -0400
                Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 20:42 -0700
                Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 21:10 -0700
                Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-12 21:52 -0400
              Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 20:19 -0700
            Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 16:58 -0500
              Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-09 20:01 -0400
              Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. Rgiose <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-10 08:59 -0500
    Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. Chan Rasjid <chanrasjid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 22:16 +0800
  Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 06:20 -0700

csiph-web