Re: Strange peer review editorial policy.

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Strange peer review editorial policy.
Date	2016-09-12 21:21 -0500
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<nr7nr3$1ecb$4@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(8 earlier) <nqvkdl$658$1@adenine.netfront.net> <nr4o26$noj$2@gioia.aioe.org> <57d65490$0$62241$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> <vq6jad-njp.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <57d760e9$0$1233$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>

Show all headers | View raw

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

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