Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #596358 > unrolled thread

Strange peer review editorial policy.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#596358 — Strange peer review editorial policy.

American Journal of physics, editorial policy:
"Manuscripts announcing new theoretical or experimental results, or 
manuscripts questioning well-established and successful theories, are 
not acceptable and should be submitted to an archival research journal 
for evaluation by specialists. "

It's a strange world we live in. The journal caters to mainly students 
and teachers in university. If a "well established and successful 
theory" is found to be wrong, they are not interested. Should not a 
general policy be : "I look at the article, if it is clear crackpotism, 
just delete; else do a review if it is within scope - i.e  physics and 
not yoga meditation."

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#596361

On 9/09/2016 6:57 PM, Chan Rasjid wrote:
> American Journal of physics, editorial policy:
> "Manuscripts announcing new theoretical or experimental results, or
> manuscripts questioning well-established and successful theories, are
> not acceptable and should be submitted to an archival research journal
> for evaluation by specialists. "
>
> It's a strange world we live in. The journal caters to mainly students
> and teachers in university. If a "well established and successful
> theory" is found to be wrong, they are not interested. Should not a
> general policy be : "I look at the article, if it is clear crackpotism,
> just delete; else do a review if it is within scope - i.e  physics and
> not yoga meditation."
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

You only have to look at this group to see the extent of crackpotery, 
and even a superficial examination of a manuscript takes time.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596367

Manuscripts finding anything wrong
with the present pair of dimes
will not be published.

I forget the word for that: but the
word isn't Science 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596369

The only place you'll see new
Science is in the tabloids, Odd!!
Better stay away from supermarkets.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596374

On 9/9/2016 8:21 AM, john wrote:
> The only place you'll see new
> Science is in the tabloids, Odd!!

I've always said that's the news you value.

> Better stay away from supermarkets.

I certainly don't treat supermarkets as libraries, John.

Notice that the tabloids are always in the "impulse aisles"? That's 
because they know what customers can't help themselves.



-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596400

On 9/9/2016 9:48 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 9/9/2016 8:21 AM, john wrote:
>> The only place you'll see new
>> Science is in the tabloids, Odd!!
>
> I've always said that's the news you value.
>
>> Better stay away from supermarkets.
>
> I certainly don't treat supermarkets as libraries, John.

Which is why you are so ignorant of actual achievements in science. You 
always have to wait until they are finally allowed into official press 
releases.

> Notice that the tabloids are always in the "impulse aisles"? That's
> because they know what customers can't help themselves.

Humans love to learn the truth about things, especially when all the 
offical propaganda sources are trying to keep it covered up!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596402

Knowledge is power.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596409

On 9/9/2016 4:39 PM, john wrote:
> Knowledge is power.
>

Precisely, which is why you should read.
Knowledge comes from reading and from experiment, not from what springs 
up in your own mind.

Those who think that what they dream up is knowledge -- those are the 
crippled idiots who pore through the supermarket tabloids.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596433

On 9/9/2016 6:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 9/9/2016 4:39 PM, john wrote:
>> Knowledge is power.
>>
>
> Precisely, which is why you should read.
> Knowledge comes from reading and from experiment, not from what springs
> up in your own mind.
>
> Those who think that what they dream up is knowledge -- those are the
> crippled idiots who pore through the supermarket tabloids.
>
John, listen to Odd. Don't ever THINK! Just READ and BELIEVE!

Your betters will do all your thinking for you and will tell you what is 
truth and what is not. If you want to live, then just obey. That is what 
keeps a farmer's cows happy and that will keep you happy too!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596618

On 9/9/2016 7:04 PM, benj wrote:
> On 9/9/2016 6:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 9/9/2016 4:39 PM, john wrote:
>>> Knowledge is power.
>>>
>>
>> Precisely, which is why you should read.
>> Knowledge comes from reading and from experiment, not from what springs
>> up in your own mind.
>>
>> Those who think that what they dream up is knowledge -- those are the
>> crippled idiots who pore through the supermarket tabloids.
>>
> John, listen to Odd. Don't ever THINK! Just READ and BELIEVE!
>
> Your betters will do all your thinking for you and will tell you what is
> truth and what is not. If you want to live, then just obey. That is what
> keeps a farmer's cows happy and that will keep you happy too!

And if you want to escape cow-like happiness, then of course Ben has 
just recommended that you follow the advice from the Men in Black movie 
and get all your real facts from supermarket tabloids.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596443

On 09/10/2016 06:00 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 9/9/2016 4:39 PM, john wrote:
>> Knowledge is power.
>>
>
> Precisely, which is why you should read.
> Knowledge comes from reading and from experiment, not from what springs
> up in your own mind.
>
> Those who think that what they dream up is knowledge -- those are the
> crippled idiots who pore through the supermarket tabloids.
>
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.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596621

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.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596658

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596684

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.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596750

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596755

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.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596767

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!

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?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596796

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596759

benj <benj@nobody.net> 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.

That is a childish way to look at it. 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596865

On 9/12/2016 10:50 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> benj <benj@nobody.net> 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.
>
> That is a childish way to look at it.

Glad you think that mathematician, professor and author Casti is 
childish. But then I"m sure that no mere human is ever going to make it 
up to your level of maturity and knowledge.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web