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.