Just because is not affecting your life, that doesn't mean it is not
science, but now in your words "theoretical physics is not AS science
as engineering, they are NOT AS GOOD... (the bullshit continues
(...))" I'm deeply sorry for your lack of knowledge about
epistemology, and this isn't what we are doing here, if only what is
useful matters I suggest you abandon this list forever, because
nothing discussed here is going to make an empirical difference in
your life, if that is only what you are interested in. I don't
consider people who write papers only for the sake of having their
names (I know a lot of them) in the journals and use that as an
academic gamble for do more papers in more well-known journals, those
are not scientist, those worms, parasites, they make no difference...
But about the difference between science and engineering...

You are mistaking yourself about science, science is not technology,
scientists developed the understanding of radiation sufficient for the
invention of the microwave oven, those who did the microwave oven are
not scientists... Scientists are in the business of generating
knowledge, whereas engineers are in the business of generating
technology.
I'm not saying that if you have a degree in engineering you can't do
science, but engineering and science are two different subjects.

And if I expect the "general population" to do science, I better have
to sit in front of my tv, wear Kalvin Klein and zap in channels all
the day. watch football, go shopping, talk about other's people lives
(...)

Regards;
Fynn.
--
"Even a stopped clock is right twice a day"

"When I feed the poor, they call me a saint, but when I ask why the
poor are hungry, they call me a communist."
_ Dom Helder Camara



2010/12/1 aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com>:
>
>
> On Nov 30, 2:15 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> aruzinsky....
>> FYI , Einseele is fairly well educated when it comes to
>> linguistics..... you, on the other hand,  do not appear to be all that
>> knowledgeble of linguistics , at all..... a little courtesy on your
>> part might be in order....
>
> A. Einseele has repeatedly demonstrated a low IQ therefore his
> education is irrelevant.
>
> B. If I were very knowledgeable about linguistics, I wouldn't have
> posed the subject as a question.
>
> C. I referred to specific papers that I do not regard as science, or,
> at least not good science.
>
>> On another front... statistics is usually a certain sign or indicatior
>> of a "Soft Science".... Most "hard empirical Sciences" strive to
>> obtain a single fixed result for any given experiment...
>
> In the aforementioned papers, seems to me that probabilistic phenomena
> were treated as deterministic.  Bad science or not science, you sort
> it out.
>
>> I mean,
>> taking into account and accomodation for variables imposed by the
>> limitations of experimental instruments or by the limitations of the
>> "theoretical method"....
>> But, soft sciences depend on statistical ranges..... e.g. 25% of
>> respondents sustain this view....etc....
>>
>
> But, not always.  For example, spontaneous fission of a radioactive
> isotope is treated as probabilistic.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Epistemology" group.
> To post to this group, send email to epistemol...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to epistemol...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.

Reply via email to