Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Mojo]

I am bit odd, why we are avoiding Deception angle should be involved in this topic sense.

We aren't. Last time you asked about it I pointed out exactly how deception is involved in this topic.

 

[Mojo]

Ok, then, no one is wrong, even then he has even 1% justification.

Nope. If something has been measured as being 1m long plus or minus 10mm, and you claim it is 3m long, we can be confident that you are wrong despite not having an "A&F" measurement of its length.

 

[Pixel42]

I've just started a free online astronomy course from the University of Arizona which begins with an excellent summary of the scientific method from which certain posters on this thread could definitely benefit. The course is here:

https://www.coursera.org/learn/astro/home/welcome

I don't think you can access the material without enrolling (which is free as I say). Here are a couple of excerpts from transcripts of two of the lectures, the first on uncertainty and the second on evidence. (My highlighting).

https://www.coursera.org/learn/astro/lecture/FGeMT/5-uncertainty

You might think that science has got nothing to do with uncertainty or error. Science should be about knowing things, and being sure of things. And indeed, scientists are confident about many of the theories they have, and are very accurate in many of the observations they make. But scientists are always wanting to be aware of the limitations of their theories, and the limitations of their data. So, good science depends on understanding uncertainty, and error. [...] They're built into science, and they're completely unavoidable. Science is never perfect, and science is never absolutely confident 100% of its conclusions. This level of contingency is unavoidable, and it's not a problem. It just means, we move towards greater certainty. And we must always pay attention to the errors.

[...]

Science isn't perfect, and can never be perfect. There is no such thing as perfect data and there's no such thing as absolutely certain conclusions to be drawn from a scientific theory. The limitations of science occur at different levels.

One level is conceptual, where we might confuse correlation with causation. Or we might not justify the premises that underlie a theory.

The second level is operational based on our measurements. There's no such thing as a perfect measurement. Scientists always want more and more measurements because there are errors or uncertainties attached. When scientists talk about an error, they're not meaning a simple mistake. They're talking about a limitation of the observation based on the measurement apparatus itself. This is true whether it's in the lab or using a telescope.

The final level of uncertainty, is a floor of uncertainty applied by the quantum theory as it applies to individual atoms. In most aspects of astronomy, we're dealing with such large objects and such large number of atoms that these quantum uncertainties don't apply.

https://www.coursera.org/learn/astro/lecture/TEpCX/6-evidence

Evidence is at the heart of science. When we talk about what distinguishes science from other ways of knowing, we talk about evidence based reasoning, which means that we draw inference and conclusion, and make theories about the world based on evidence.

So what do we mean by evidence? What is evidence to a scientist?

Scientists use evidence based on data. That data could come from the lab, or a telescope. But it's based on observations that can be framed quantitatively, that can be described numerically, and they can be shared.

They also have to be reproducible, it's not evidence if you're the only one who can obtain it and no one can ever check or corroborate what you have.

Equally, it's not subjective. Evidence is not open to the eye of the beholder or an interpretation that depends on one person and the next.

Interpreting the meaning of patterns in data can indeed vary from one scientist to another. But the data themselves are not subjective. And finally, the evidence is, of course, never perfect and that's because, as we've described, the observations themselves are limited in number or in quality and we never have quite as much evidence as we want. That doesn't mean, however, that we cannot draw reliable conclusions in science based on the evidence we have. There is no science without evidence. It's not possible to make an assertion about the natural world without evidence to back it up. That's what we mean by evidence based reasoning. Otherwise, it's just your opinion, and someone else could have a different opinion

 

[Peregrinus]

I am bit odd, why we are avoiding Deception angle should be involved in this topic sense. Is it true but less digestable?

We are avoiding yet another of your ongoing attempts to derail the conversation, move the goalposts, present unfunded assertions as fact and otherwise show great stupidity whenever others try a serous examination of a topic.

 

[Kumar]

I've just started a free online astronomy course from the University of Arizona which begins with an excellent summary of the scientific method from which certain posters on this thread could definitely benefit. The course is here:

https://www.coursera.org/learn/astro/home/welcome

I don't think you can access the material without enrolling (which is free as I say). Here are a couple of excerpts from transcripts of two of the lectures, the first on uncertainty and the second on evidence. (My highlighting).

https://www.coursera.org/learn/astro/lecture/FGeMT/5-uncertainty



https://www.coursera.org/learn/astro/lecture/TEpCX/6-evidence

Btw, is it a justification or excuse?

 

[StackOverflow]

No

 

[Kumar]

We aren't. Last time you asked about it I pointed out exactly how deception is involved in this topic.

Was that a specific reply to my question or avoidance?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Ok, then, no one is wrong, even then he has even 1% justification.

Ridiculous. And you know it.

Hans

 

[bruto]

No, a child cam not argue so deep.

You are as ill informed on this as on everything else. My children could argue better and spell better and learn better long before they became adults. If my stepson had defied logic as you regularly do in seventh grade I'd have been unpleasantly surprised. There is no depth to parroting error and refusing to understand what you read.

 

[Mojo]

Was that a specific reply to my question or avoidance?

Your question was nonsensical. What is the "deception angle" you were asking about?

 

[Kumar]

Your question was nonsensical. What is the "deception angle" you were asking about?

I think, you are not following this topic well. Moreover, your above reply is self contradictory.

Is it "deception" towards those crops & animals to whom we first nurse, protect & love initially but kill them on one black day beyond all their expectation?

 

[Kumar]

You are as ill informed on this as on everything else. My children could argue better and spell better and learn better long before they became adults. If my stepson had defied logic as you regularly do in seventh grade I'd have been unpleasantly surprised. There is no depth to parroting error and refusing to understand what you read.

Anything can happen in this modern abnormal and non A&F world. Our Energy redistribution, probably linked to it.

 

[bruto]

Anything can happen in this modern abnormal and non A&F world. Our Energy redistribution, probably linked to it.

Q.E.D.

 

[Mojo]

I think, you are not following this topic well. Moreover, your above reply is self contradictory.

Is it "deception" towards those crops & animals to whom we first nurse, protect & love initially but kill them on one black day beyond all their expectation?

No. You're just indulging in anthropomorphism again.

 

[Kumar]

No. You're just indulging in anthropomorphism again.

I only see, they are beings i.e. life. Smaller or bigger, junior or senior, and they also have natural right to life, personal liberty and grow.

 

[Mojo]

I only see, they are beings i.e. life. Smaller or bigger, junior or senior, and they also have natural right to life, personal liberty and grow.

Yes, you're indulging in anthropomorphism.

 

[Kumar]

Yes, you're indulging in anthropomorphism.

Then what?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Homeopathy, if the thread runs true to form

 

[ferd burfle]

Is it "deception" towards those crops & animals to whom we first nurse, protect & love initially but kill them on one black day beyond all their expectation?

Ooh, I know this one, I know this one! The answer is “no”!

What do I win?

 

[Peregrinus]

I think, you are not following this topic well.

This topic cannot be folloed well due to its irrational nature.

Is it "deception" towards those crops & animals to whom we first nurse, protect & love initially but kill them on one black day beyond all their expectation?

This is where we came in on page one, post one. And the thread has gone 'round and 'round the prickly pear* ever since.

*With apologies to T. S. Eliot