Anarchy

Post Reply New Topic

Hell... Or I'll bet I could.

More like 666 degrees South

the DEEP south..

I do not intend to move to any state in the Deep South.

Yeah, it's hell down there.

Evidence no more counts as 'proof' than rejecting a statistical hypothesis (even at a very high significance level) counts as 'proof' that it isn't true

You can bold the term 'evidence' as much you want; it only serves to underscore that you still don't understand the substantial distinction between standards of belief in math and science, something this math/science student finds very comical

evidence (‘evidens) n 1 ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood. 2 a mark or sign that makes evident; his pallor was evidence of ill health 3 law matter produced before a court of law in an attempt to prove or disprove a point, such as statements of witnesses, documents, material objects, etc. See also circumstantial evidence, direct evidence 4 turn queen’s (king’s state) evidence (of an accomplice) to act as a witness for the prosecution and testify those associated with him in crime 5 in evidence on display; conspicuous: her new ring was in evidence -> vb (tr) 6 to make evident; show clearly 7 to give proof of or evidence for
evident (‘evident) adj easy to see or understand; readily apparent [c14 from Latin evidens, from videre to see]
evidential (,evi’densal) adj relating to, serving as, or based on evidence > ,evi’dentially adv
evidently (‘evidentli) adv 1 without question; clearly; undoubtedly 2 to all appearances; apparently: they are evidently related. hypothesis (hai’p0isis) n, pl –ses (-s,i:z) 1 a suggested explanation for a group of facts or phenomena, either accepted as a basis for further verification (working hypothesis) or accepted as likely to be true. Compare theory (sense 5) 2 an assumption used in an argument without its being endorsed; a supposition 3 an unproved theory’ a conjecture [c16 from Greek, from hupotithenai to propose, suppose, literally: put under; see HYPO-, THESIS] > hy’pothesist n
theory (‘0iari) m, pl –ries 1 a system of rules, procedures, and assumptions used to produce a result 2 abstract knowledge or reasoning 3 a speculative or conjectural view or idea: I have a theory about that 4 an ideal or hypothetical situation (esp in the phrase in theory) 5 a set of hypotheses related by logical or mathematical arguments to explain and predict a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms: the theory of relativity 6 a nontechnical name for hypothesis (sense 1) [c16 from Late Latin theoria, from Greek: a sight, from theorein to gaze upon]

Scientifically a theory is a hypothesis that has substantial proof and evidence that suggests it is correct. If there was no evidence or proof, then by your own admission, everything in Science is just made-up BS. Such an abnegating cecity you have.

Here we use our estimate of error and the allowance for error (5%?) and make up our minds. We have two options: "reject the hypothesis" or "cannot reject the hypothesis" and only these two options! If the chance we are wrong is more than 5% (it failed more than 1 time in 20 tries) then we usually reject the hypothesis as flawed. If the chance we are wrong is less than 5% (it failed less than once in 20 tries) then we cannot reject the hypothesis.

Please notice that we do not prove hypotheses! Proof exists when the chance for error is 0. There is always some chance for error (no matter how small it is!) and this existence of chance error means we cannot prove anything in true, honest, science.

WTF? I guess that makes me an Italian rat in a sweater.

You don't understand the scientific method, you don't understand statistical procedures. you don't understand the philosophy of math and you don't understand proof. Any scientist will tell you that there is no proof in science. There is no proof in science, there is no proof in science, there is no proof in science, there is no proof in science, there is no proof in science, there is no proof in science.

So if you had to make a decision whether to stop these planes that could destroy our atmosphere or keep them there simply from lack of evidence, you would let them continue destroying the atmosphere?

yeah so how about that revolution?

any one have ideas about that?

otherwise just go into a junk forum and start debating who is who in the world of "butt hurt"