|
Posted by Ned Simmons on June 2, 2008, 9:58 am
Please log in for more thread options
On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 21:16:57 -0500, "Martin H. Eastburn"
>Environmental Science is not a Science. It is a study and a way of being.
>Biology is a Pseudo science as well.
>
>It is treated as a science in schools and the Universities, but those of us
>that are Scientists know that many of the near and pseudo sciences are not.
>They try to be on the higher plain but never really fit just right.
>
>Those with agendas tend to tag their results or methods with great names.
>
Why stop with biology? Lacking a Theory of Everything or Grand Unified
Theory, we might as well stop kidding ourselves and admit that physics
is also a pseudo-science.
--
Ned Simmons
|
|
Posted by Martin H. Eastburn on June 2, 2008, 10:12 pm
Please log in for more thread options
No, lacking a full sized theory of everything doesn't kill physics.
It is work.
In fact, behind me, is a book I prize that details of String Theory
and M-Theory. The formula is now confined in combining these two
almost complete but overlapping theories. Once they are resolved, then
a few will have that.
But theories come up all of the time. As ideas are proved. The word
is proved, not felt like or thought to be or seems like and feels like.....
Pure science contains facts not feelings.
Martin
Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/
Ned Simmons wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 21:16:57 -0500, "Martin H. Eastburn"
>
>> Environmental Science is not a Science. It is a study and a way of being.
>> Biology is a Pseudo science as well.
>>
>> It is treated as a science in schools and the Universities, but those of us
>> that are Scientists know that many of the near and pseudo sciences are not.
>> They try to be on the higher plain but never really fit just right.
>>
>> Those with agendas tend to tag their results or methods with great names.
>>
>
> Why stop with biology? Lacking a Theory of Everything or Grand Unified
> Theory, we might as well stop kidding ourselves and admit that physics
> is also a pseudo-science.
>
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
|
|
Posted by Ned Simmons on June 3, 2008, 9:04 am
Please log in for more thread options On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:12:27 -0500, "Martin H. Eastburn"
>No, lacking a full sized theory of everything doesn't kill physics.
>It is work.
>
>In fact, behind me, is a book I prize that details of String Theory
>and M-Theory. The formula is now confined in combining these two
>almost complete but overlapping theories. Once they are resolved, then
>a few will have that.
>
>But theories come up all of the time. As ideas are proved. The word
>is proved, not felt like or thought to be or seems like and feels like.....
>
>Pure science contains facts not feelings.
>
So let me paraphrase what I think you're saying; when the uncertainty
in a given field is reduced to a sufficient degree, it becomes a
legitimate science? What's the standard for when that point is
reached?
>
>Ned Simmons wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 21:16:57 -0500, "Martin H. Eastburn"
>>
>>> Environmental Science is not a Science. It is a study and a way of being.
>>> Biology is a Pseudo science as well.
>>>
>>> It is treated as a science in schools and the Universities, but those of us
>>> that are Scientists know that many of the near and pseudo sciences are not.
>>> They try to be on the higher plain but never really fit just right.
>>>
>>> Those with agendas tend to tag their results or methods with great names.
>>>
>>
>> Why stop with biology? Lacking a Theory of Everything or Grand Unified
>> Theory, we might as well stop kidding ourselves and admit that physics
>> is also a pseudo-science.
>>
>
>
>----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
>http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
>---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
--
Ned Simmons
|
|
Posted by Martin H. Eastburn on June 3, 2008, 10:06 pm
Please log in for more thread options I can give you law after law in Physics.
Can you give me a law that is in Biology ? I can't think of any.
Chemistry - yes
etc.
The fact that boundaries are pushed and developed from time to time
doesn't kill a science.
Biology and others are theories for the most part.
Physics is the pure science - from it branches others including Mathematics.
Much of mathematics was developed to understand and work with physics.
I didn't say if I 'invent' a known law out of chaos makes a science.
It is a massive amount. A law is just that. It happens.
Martin
Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/
Ned Simmons wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:12:27 -0500, "Martin H. Eastburn"
>
>> No, lacking a full sized theory of everything doesn't kill physics.
>> It is work.
>>
>> In fact, behind me, is a book I prize that details of String Theory
>> and M-Theory. The formula is now confined in combining these two
>> almost complete but overlapping theories. Once they are resolved, then
>> a few will have that.
>>
>> But theories come up all of the time. As ideas are proved. The word
>> is proved, not felt like or thought to be or seems like and feels like.....
>>
>> Pure science contains facts not feelings.
>>
>
> So let me paraphrase what I think you're saying; when the uncertainty
> in a given field is reduced to a sufficient degree, it becomes a
> legitimate science? What's the standard for when that point is
> reached?
>
>> Ned Simmons wrote:
>>> On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 21:16:57 -0500, "Martin H. Eastburn"
>>>
>>>> Environmental Science is not a Science. It is a study and a way of being.
>>>> Biology is a Pseudo science as well.
>>>>
>>>> It is treated as a science in schools and the Universities, but those of us
>>>> that are Scientists know that many of the near and pseudo sciences are not.
>>>> They try to be on the higher plain but never really fit just right.
>>>>
>>>> Those with agendas tend to tag their results or methods with great names.
>>>>
>>> Why stop with biology? Lacking a Theory of Everything or Grand Unified
>>> Theory, we might as well stop kidding ourselves and admit that physics
>>> is also a pseudo-science.
>>>
>>
>> ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
>> http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
>> ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
>
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | South Bend Late FS in NJ | June 20, 2007, 11:02 am |
| i am late rear, so I entitle you | August 12, 2007, 6:24 pm |
| Late Post: For future reference | August 12, 2008, 4:29 pm |
| Clausing Colchester 15" late feed knob came out, help! | March 13, 2008, 4:09 pm |
| if you will get Cristof's doorway in support of candles, it will late delay the system | August 13, 2007, 12:14 am |
| fa - transfer case bearing kit most late 70s ford/gm/chrysler light trucks | August 1, 2007, 12:05 am |
| 10 Years Later | August 18, 2008, 8:50 pm |
| OT - 100 Years of Pictures | November 9, 2006, 4:15 am |
| New Years Eve Blow Out | December 24, 2006, 3:01 am |
| Re: OT where will Palin be in four years ? | October 12, 2008, 11:39 am |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
>Biology is a Pseudo science as well.
>
>It is treated as a science in schools and the Universities, but those of us
>that are Scientists know that many of the near and pseudo sciences are not.
>They try to be on the higher plain but never really fit just right.
>
>Those with agendas tend to tag their results or methods with great names.
>