text:
|Thread ▼ Details
Posts: 1036
From: Ky U.S.
Member Rating: 2.4
Thread Info
|Topic: On The Limits of Human Talent
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Error range or margin of error applies to every measurement ever taken. It is used to indicate the potential inaccuracy of any stated measurement.
Any legitimate poll, for example, will always have a statement that says something like 'accurate within 5% 19 times out of 20'. All of the measurements on a blueprint will have a stated tolerance for error. If the print calls for a 1.000" square block to be machined it will say 1.000" +/- .002. This means that the block can be 0.998 or it can be 1.002 inches and still be acceptable. It also means that your measuring equipment must be capable of measuring .002 of an inch.
An error range is determined by the accuracy of the equipment or method being used. It is an essential acknowledgment that measurements are seldom 100% correct and if you do not allow for potential errors then they can accumulate and lead to really big errors.
Say that we want to calculate the age of the earth and all we have is the bible for evidence. We add up all the ages of the folks mentioned there and we know from this that the earth must be at least 6000 yrs old or whatever it is. However, this tells us nothing about how much older the earth might be. Therefore, the error range for this calculation is minus 0 yrs plus an infinite amount of yrs. Immediately we can see that it is not a very useful calculation.
Posts: 19078
From: New Hampshire
Member Rating: 3.2
For someone who purportedly wants to discuss the limits of what we can know you sure are calling a lot of attention to the limits of what you yourself know. Or, to state it another way, you sure seem to know a lot about things that aren't true.
What I want to know is why you think anyone isn't free to learn whatever they like about the natural world. I know you said we should stop short of putting God's word to the test, but as has already been pointed out, what you're really saying is that we should stop short of putting your understanding of God's word to the test.
So how do you know your understanding of God's word is correct? That is, of course, a rhetorical question, because short of scientific research about, for example, the age of the Earth, we can't know if it is your understanding or someone else's that is correct.
So what you're really saying (and I think this has been said before in this thread) is that we shouldn't delve too deeply into areas that might challenge your beliefs.
Posts: 5610
Member Rating: 2.9
Finding the oil and coal and gas and minerals without which our civilization would not exist. If you think that's of no benefit then nobody can help you.
Posts: 17665
From: frozen wasteland
Member Rating: 3.2
Les Wynan and more answerin'.
Dr Adequate
Posts: 16107
Member Rating: 8.3
Yeah, I've noticed that too.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Posts: 1036
From: Ky U.S.
Member Rating: 2.4
Yes I remember, the reason for starting a new thread is to distinguish it from the old one, to leave the old one where it was, and start one with a fresh beginning. If you want to refer to that other one, post it there. I might respond, or maybe not.
Read through this thread, and you'll find that multiple participants brought up multiple topics. Message 6 referred to ICR, message 21 to "far-right pseudo-Christianity", and the "dogmas of my sect", message 23, "kilograms, thermometers, Episcopalian scientists", etc. the next message, "4.5 billion years, it all goes on and on. I can't discuss those things without referring to politics and business.
But science isn't the only source of knowledge. Someone with a 6th grade education could look at the model I referenced and get an ideal of how far away a light year is, and wonder how precise scientific proclamations could possibly be concerning black holes in galaxies that are 250 million light years from earth. If he's a taxpayer in a free society, he has a right to question it.
That's right, that's why religion must be programed out of science students at the perfect age, usually the early teen years.
Depends on how far you expect me to change my viewpoint. If you expect me to reject the book of Genesis, you'd better stop at this point.
What evidence are you talking about, scientific evidence only, or evidence of the scientific community's political motives? I've examined a lot of evidence concerning the latter.
Posts: 1036
From: Ky U.S.
Member Rating: 2.4
Scientifically, could be. But science isn't the only source of knowledge.
Well that's your opinion, but let's keep exploring.
I never said they weren't, it's the explorations done at the public's expense by a special interest that I'm questioning. If you'll remember, 8 years ago science WASN'T ABOUT WHAT SOMEONE LIKES. It was about something being testable, repeatable, observable, falsifiable, and USEFUL. I don't know if the word "useful" came up at the Dover trial, but I know it comes up quite often on forums such as these when the subject of Intelligent Design comes up. This criteria should be applied evenly, not forgotten about after its job is done to suit people of one special interest worldview.
Multiple posters always refer to my position and questions as being mine alone, or my "cult", my "sect", that keeps them from having to actually address what I'm saying. I don't post from a deeply religious point of view, mine is just a more conservative, traditional point of view than most in the scientific community, which is obviously far left. I do represent the views of a lot of people, proof of that is in the many very conservative elected officials currently serving in the U.S. - Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, many others. On other, non-scientific message boards, I see many agnostic, 'unchurched' people who agree with me on conservative issues like this, what humans are capable of knowing, etc.
There you go again, I'm not focusing on complex details about my personal beliefs. I'll be done soon in this thread, and some individual poster will get the credit for finally shouting me off. You and others obviously thought it was going to be Dr. Adequate's message 44, because of all the green dots it got (one from you also) - sorry that didn't work out. Have you ever heard of the many "collegiate fallacy lists"? They arose in several different forms over the years, in universities, by and for liberals of course, but they did make some good points. "Argument by emotive language", using sarcasm etc. to "sway the audience's sentiments instead of their minds", message 44 was saturated with it. It was funny and clever, but fallacious never the less.
Wouldn't you say this forum does a pretty good job of representing the scientific community? I do, considering the similar emotion and sarcasm I see at countless other scientific sites, like talkorigins, Panda's Thumb, etc. and a couple of books I've glanced through by secular, scientific authors. It's not impressive, when people other than scientists are looking for educated, adult people with manners to give them unbiased answers to their questions.
Am I perfect? No. But gangs who build straw men tend to bring out my imperfections.
Member (Idle past 445 days)
Posts: 6117
I'd like to address a couple of your points:
While that may be true, what are the other sources of knowledge? And to what degree are they subject to verification and falsification? Science is something that we can rely on because it is based on data and theory, and here is why: if someone feels that a particular data set is too limited, or incorrect, they can gather new and perhaps more accurate data. Theory is a tool to explain that data, and it too is subject to verification and falsification. If you come up with data that a particular theory does not explain, then perhaps that theory needs to be revised or even discarded. That's not a problem, as it happens from time to time in science. The subsequent theory is even more accurate, and that's the goal of science.
One of the nice things about science is that it is conducted in most all countries of the world, and by practitioners of most faiths--or of no faith. Results that are obtained by someone in one country, or a believer in one particular religion, can be checked by someone in another country or of another religion. If the scientific method is applied, it works everywhere and for everyone who applies it.
You seem to disagree, for religious reasons, with the results of scientific inquiry. From this comes your distrust, or even hate, for science and the scientific method.
What you need to do is start at the beginning and examine the actual data, and if you find it wanting, gather some additional data. Don't gripe about the method itself unless you can show that you have something better to offer.
And here we are back at "science isn't the only source of knowledge." You will need to demonstrate that some other form of "knowledge" is worthy of inclusion in scientific research. But please remember, "divine" revelation, dogma, scripture and other unverifiable forms of "knowledge" have been found to be less than reliable. So, with what do you propose we supplement scientific research?
You seem to think that science is some kind of "special interest," while your particular religious belief is the norm, or obvious, position.
This is not correct. Science, as it is based on verifiable evidence and tested theory, is the norm. Religions, of which there are upwards of 40,000 different denominations, sects, and other subdivisions around the world, is the opposite. When scientists have a disagreement they go to the data. When a disagreement arises within a religion, the most likely outcome is a schism or split, as religion relies far more on dogma, belief, revelation, and other non-empirical forms of "evidence." Science is not a "special interest" -- religions (all 40,000+ flavors) are the special interest as they want science to kowtow to their unevidenced beliefs.
And your addition of the term "useful" to the requirement for science is bogus. When conducting research, there is no guarantee whether the results will be useful or not. Sometimes the findings are useful only in defining an avenue of research that appears to be unproductive. That's the way science works.
So far science has found the religious claims that have been examined to be far less reliable, and hence less useful, than the results obtained through the scientific method.
Perhaps you could examine some of your beliefs in light of scientific findings to see if they fall within this category?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
Dr Adequate
Posts: 16107
Member Rating: 8.3
It seems to be the only source of scientific knowledge.
And in a literate society like ours, he can find the answer. Hooray!
Actually, we use the Secret Atheism Ray on students in math classes, not science, because of the strange effects it has on bunsen burners.
Dr Adequate
Posts: 16107
Member Rating: 8.3
No. You made that up.
Your religious dogmas are what you're saying.
... says the man who in his previous post wrote ...
... and who in his OP wrote:
Your religious dogma is your point of view. And it is so narrowly sectarian that you had to state which version of the Bible we're meant to be deferring to.
Well, you're the guy we're talking to who says that some things shouldn't or can't be inquired into. If we can't ask you what and why, there's no-one else we can consult as to what your opinions are.
The object of the post was not to "shout you off" but to make you slightly less mad. I didn't really expect it to work.
A phrase which gets three google hits, all of them stuff written by you. Very few people will have ever heard of concepts that you made up. It's not like you have a wide audience hanging on your words.
You forgot to point out the actual fallacy. The tenor of your whining seems to suggest that you think a thing can be fallacious on account of its style. You are, of course, wrong. Sarcasm can no more make a statement fallacious than alliteration can.
Now if only you could find a valid criticism of the substance of science, rather than just whining about how butthurt you are over the style of some scientifically literate authors --- wouldn't that be nice? But as creationists have discovered, self-pitying whining is easy, whereas finding flaws in science is beyond their capacity.
I suggest that you find out what the term "straw man" means.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Inactive Member
It is not merely laughable. The idea that geology and astronomy are attempts to disprove Christianity is also demonstrably wrong. For example, just looking at the history of the development of geology over the 17th through 20th century will reveal that the conflicting evidence was achieved first as efforts to confirm Noah's flood, and later from attempts to develop commercial results from mining and drilling.
In a previous thread, marc9000 demonstrated a similar lack of familiarity with the history of astronomy.
Quite obviously marc9000 has no idea what he is talking about. If it turns out that he is correct, it would be by the sheerest of accidents.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
Posts: 2082
From: Pretoria, SA
This one was something I couldn't help laughing about. It was comical.
Well, I don't think mark9000 has ever been involved in any geological exploration projects...yet, he likes the results of mining. Has he ever thought of how those minerals he uses are found in the first place and secondly mined? Does he realise that the ages of rocks are essential for our exploration projects to even start?
Posts: 15639
Member Rating: 2.8
Of course you could. What does the age of the earth have to do with politics or business ? Why do you need to drag up other issues from politics and business to explain why you place your alleged limits of human ability to conveniently protect certain of your beliefs from falsification ?
Sure. But that doesn't mean that it's wrong. Or that you'll understand the answer. Or that you have a right to dictate to others what is and is not true (you can certainly TRY to, but nobody has to believe you).
This is a lie. What you mean is that science education isn't censored to cover up the fact that your sect is in conflict with science.
How about your literalist interpretations ? Or do you declare that Genesis MUST be interpreted literally ? On what grounds ?
Actually you haven't. But really you should start by looking at the internal consistency of your beliefs, and the reasoning behind them.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
Member (Idle past 1188 days)
Posts: 397
I'll agree with you that science hasn't proven to be very useful for supporting your literal interpretation of Genesis.
Yes, Dr. More-than-Adequate gets my vote as well.
That it's ok to lose this debate, because if you 'win', in reality you lose.
No more hints.
Posts: 19078
From: New Hampshire
Member Rating: 3.2
Oh, no, I wasn't commenting about your ignorance of just science. I was referring to your profound general ignorance of almost everything. What you believe true seems based upon how many other people believe the same things, with nary a hint of a strategy for how you decide between differently believing groups of many people.
Say what? One reason you garner so much negative attention is because you so often and so obviously contradict yourself. Here you deny saying that we aren't free to learn whatever we want about the natural world, but this is belied by your statement in Message 1 where you said, "It means to stop short of using what we learn to put God (or God's word) to the test."
So are you giving up on that position from your opening post? Let us know, okay?
You go on to invent a different reason:
8 years ago? This site has been around for nearly 13 years, and science for a lot longer. No one on the science side, either here in the last 13 years or anywhere within science over the past couple hundred years, has ever included useful (by which I think you mean of practical use, because science is always extremely useful in providing an understanding of the universe around us) as a required characteristic of science. This claimed change of yours of 8 years ago never happened. Not here, not anywhere. You're just making more things up that aren't true. Then when people call you on things like this, you whine that people are ganging up on you.
When you make very ignorant or incorrect statements, people might react in at least a few different ways. They might think, "Gee, he thinks I'm so stupid that he can say anything and I'll believe it," which might make people feel kind of disrespected. Or they might think, "Gee, he thinks so little of me that he puts no thought whatsoever into his replies," which might also make people feel kind of disrespected. Or they might think, "Gee, is this guy incredibly ignorant or what!" which will make people feel they have to correct you. Or people might react with some combination of these, or it could be some other feelings, likely none of them positive.
So the next time you feel moved to claim something incredibly ignorant, such as that something has to be useful to be considered science, why don't you do a little sleuthing around the Internet first. Maybe scan through the first few paragraphs of the Wikipedia article on Science.
Bottom line: If you stop saying things that aren't true (and then compound matters later by determinedly insisting they are true), people might actually begin respecting what you say.
There are so many fallacies in your message that if I gave each one the attention it deserved this message would go on forever, and anyway I see some of them have already been addressed by others. I'll let them go.
But I would like to clear this one up:
No one's trying to "shout you off." We like creationists here. Without creationists there'd be no discussion.
You're operating under the fallacy that if a lot of people believe as you do then it must be true, but consider that if what you believed to be true were actually true, then you would be able to make true statements in defense of that truth. Your inability to say anything true in defense of your beliefs is telling you something, but you're not listening. About the only thing you've said that's true and accurate is that a lot of people believe as you do, but the nature of the universe isn't decided by human belief.
You're also failing to ask yourself how can you claim that many people believing the same thing is a valid basis for believing anything, when you know that there are many people who believe other things. Many people believe the Earth is 6000 years old, and that's your basis for claiming this is true. But many people believe the Earth is billions of years old, and given your criteria that many people believing something is a legitimate basis, that must be true, too.
So how do we determine which group is right? Scientific research.
So why did I give Dr Adequate's Message 44 a cheer? Because of a couple things he said that would be to your great advantage to take to heart.
Religious beliefs are not anywhere on scientist's radar when they're doing scientific research. There are too many different religious beliefs for this to even be practical, but specifically, disproving Christianity is not a goal of science, and especially not your particular branch of Christianity. Read any scientific paper and you won't find any mention of religion anywhere in them (aside from those branches of science that are in some way related to the study of religion - archeological papers about Biblical sites would be an example).
Also, many scientists are deeply religious, giving the lie to another of your ignorant claims, that science is atheistic. It would be more accurate to describe science as agnostic, in the same sense that plumbing and knitting are agnostic. Even more accurate would be to describe religion as irrelevant to science.
But all the above is just an attempt to talk you back into sensibility by encouraging you to vet your claims before making them, and to make claims that are actually true. The topic of this thread, as far as I can tell despite all your ramblings into other topics, is your belief that there should be some areas of scientific research considered off-limits, determined by whether they would test God's Word. I've made two responses to this so far:
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019


text:
Kinsman flood victims ineligible for assistance
WARREN — The dam at Kinsman Lake cannot be restored using public money because it is privately owned, said Trumbull County Engineer Randy Smith.
And the Ohio Emergency Management Agency and the Federal Emergency Management Agency also won't be providing funds to help residents affected by July flooding.
"We don't have the numbers," said Linda Beil, director of of the Trumbull County Emergency Management Agency.
Beil said her agency is looking to identify other funds that may help private property owners with the cleanup costs. Numerous homes were inundated with flood waters near and around the lake after heavy rains July 20.
The county is working on possible solutions to assist Kinsman with restoring access to part of Lakeview and Golf Drive, but the lake's dam — made up of a still-intact spillway and a washed-away embankment that supported the dam structure — cannot be part of it. That's because of a legal opinion that classifies the dam as private property, Smith said.
A reconstruction of a road to about 25 homes on the now-isolated and inaccessible roads may dam some of Stratton Creek — the waterway that empties into the man-made lake bed that flooded and swelled, bursting through the earthen embankment Lakeview Drive ran over. But, the reconstruction will likely include a large drainage pipe that will mean Kinsman Lake will likely be nothing more than a "retention pond," Smith said.
Kinsman Lake was created decades ago as part of a country club and golf course. The Kinsman Lakelands Association, which now includes property owners around the lake, owns the dam.
A meeting to answer questions and update those affected by the flooding and the break of the dam is scheduled for 6 p.m. Thursday at the Kinsman Township hall.
Kinsman Trustee Greg Leonhard said trustees invited Trumbull County commissioners; the Trumbull County Engineer's Office; Emergency Management Agency representatives; state Rep. Michael J. O'Brien, D-Warren; state Sen. Sean O'Brien, D-Bazetta; and a representative from Republican U.S. Rep. Dave Joyce's office.
Fundraisers will continue for affected families, including a benefit ride Sept. 21 at Kinsman fire hall, and an arts and crafts walk Oct. 5 at the park. Money will be placed in the Kinsman Relief Fund.
Smith said about $500,000 is available to assist in creating a road for homes that are inaccessible, but more funding is needed and still must be identified. Smith said he submitted his latest plans to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, but it is unclear if the state department will have to approve the plans because of questions about whether the agency has jurisdiction if the lake isn't dammed again.
In the meantime, numerous households have no road access to their homes and others affected by the flooding have no dedicated funding to help them with the aftermath.
Those who want to help may contribute funds. Checks may be made out to the Northern Trumbull County Community Foundation (or NTCCF), with Kinsman Flood Recovery in the memo line, and mailed to: 7 W. State St., Suite 301, Sharon, PA 16146, according to a letter from Kyle English, executive director of the Community Foundation of Western Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio to Kinsman trustees. Donations can be sent online at http://comm-foundation.org/northerntrumbull.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Paw Cat Bed - Grizzly Bear
Your pet will be happy to rest their paws on this plush faux fur bed. Constructed with a faux suede covered centre cushion and polyester filled outer ring and back support, the Scruffs Paw is the ideal place to take a well-earned rest.
The bed has a non-slip base and is machine washable at 30 degrees. The back support features three faux suede pads with an embroidered Scruffs logo.
The Scruffs Paw pet bed measures 55 x 55 x 26cm.


text:
Levy Dermatology Expands Staff with Five New Team Members to Meet Demands of Recent Expansion and Growth
MEMPHIS, TENN., March 27, 2018 – To attend the needs of its rapidly growing practice and recent addition of a second location, Levy Dermatology has expanded its staff – adding five new team members. Schedule your appointment with Levy Dermatology today by calling (901) 295-0047 or visiting their website: www.levydermatology.com.
"We are so excited to have Andrea, Deborah, Bridget, Brandi, and Cassaundra join our team at Levy Dermatology," said Dr. Alan Levy, Dermatologist and Owner of Levy Dermatology. "We know that they will support our team greatly in giving our clients a unique and personable experience at our office."
Andrea Hall joins Levy Dermatology as RN CoolSculpting representative.
Hall graduated in 2001 from the Methodist school of nursing and spent the majority of her nursing career as a pediatric ICU nurse but always had a special interest in cosmetics. She is currently working toward obtaining her Bachelor's degree in nursing. She has a passion and desire to work in medical aesthetics and has had the privilege of working in the industry for over two years.
Deborah Horwitz joins Levy Dermatology as a physician assistant.
Horwitz graduated from American University in Washington DC with a Bachelor's degree in Political Communication. This degree was followed by completing Baylor College of Medicine's Physician Assistant program, where she received a Masters degree. She is certified by the National Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants and is a member of both The American Academy of Physician Assistants and the Society of Dermatology Physician Assistants.
Bridget McCormick joins Levy Dermatology as medical assistant.
McCormick attended Keiser University where she received her Associates degree in medical assisting in 2011. She worked in Lakeland, Florida at Adult and Pediatric Dermatology for 5 years. Her husband, Craig, was stationed at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky in 2016 and she began working at Nashville Skin.
Brandi Michelle Burns joins Levy Dermatology as medical assistant.
Burns graduated Summa Cum Laude with a Bachelor of Science in Nursing from the University of Memphis. Upon graduation, she chose to specialize in Dermatology with a specific interest in cosmetics. Prior to nursing, Brandi spent 10 years in the customer service industry.
Cassundra Jensen joins Levy Dermatology as medical assistant.
Jensen has experience and a strong interest in medical aesthetics. She attained her medical assistance license from Concorde Career College and has now been a medical assistant for over three years.
Andrea_Hall.jpg: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5gjx0ulhua5k4gk/Andrea_Hall.jpg?dl=0
Deborah_Horwitz.jpg: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xyl7s7j3vcb1mpc/Deborah_Horwitz.jpg?dl=0
Bridget_McCormick.jpg: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xqmtt61b70ffh6n/Bridget_McCormick.jpg?dl=0
Brandi_Michelle_Burns.jpg: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lrlrbgp58wkzksw/Brandi_Michelle_Burns.jpg?dl=0
Cassaundra_Jensen.jpg: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0vfs6nbus7gkoki/Cassaundra_Jensen.jpg?dl=0
For more information on Levy Dermatology, visit:
About Dr. Alan Levy:
Dr. Levy specializes in surgical and cosmetic dermatology and is board-certified by the American Board of Dermatology. After graduating from Duke University, he obtained his medical doctor degree from the University of Tennessee, where he also trained as a Resident in Dermatology. He served as Chief Resident his final year and then trained as a Fellow in Mohs Micrographic Surgery and Cutaneous Oncology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Dr. Levy is a Fellow of the American Academy of Dermatology and the American College of Mohs Surgery. He is a member of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, and the Tennessee and Memphis Dermatology Societies. He is a past member of the Board of the Tennessee Dermatology Society. In addition to being the founder and medical director of Levy Dermatology, Dr. Levy serves as an Allergan physician trainer where he teaches and advises doctors nation-wide on the proper methods of injecting Botox, Juvederm, and Voluma.
Share on Social Media