In a message dated 10/1/2006 11:14:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, in medicine (as in some other areas) people are suffering
and dying during all those years. Particularly when the established
theory is stress or IAIYH as it was with ulcers as well as
In a message dated 9/27/2006 5:44:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which can take years or even decades. Another example
from medicine that I am hard put to explain, except to
think that no one _wanted_ to believe such a thing was
so widespread, is something that I
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 10:30 PM
To: 'Killer Bs Discussion'
Subject: RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
is no reliab...
I was thinking
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of pencimen
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:57 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
is no reliab...
Dan wrote:
Their per
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of pencimen
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:13 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
is no reliab...
Ronn! wrote:
What if we
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of pencimen
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:38 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
is no reliab...
Dan wrote:
http
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of pencimen
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:53 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
is no reliab...
William wrote:
Earth
At 08:51 AM Thursday 9/28/2006, Dan Minette wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of pencimen
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:53 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when
On 28 Sep 2006, at 2:51PM, Dan Minette wrote:
I have tried to accurately express the consensus by quoting sites that
should represent the consensus: i.e. the UN agency responsible for
obtaining
and publishing the best understandings of the community. The
numbers I
quote do not include
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:53 AM
To: 'Killer Bs Discussion'
Subject: RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
If this is true, than why has world
Dan wrote:
If this is true, than why has world usage of fossil fuel gone up
after a tripling of price?
Poor leadership. Can I have a cite for that BTW.
Every indication is that a worldwide recession is the
only thing that will stop the growth of fossil fuel usage.
I think competent
At 11:09 AM Thursday 9/28/2006, William T Goodall wrote:
On 28 Sep 2006, at 2:51PM, Dan Minette wrote:
I have tried to accurately express the consensus by quoting sites that
should represent the consensus: i.e. the UN agency responsible for
obtaining
and publishing the best understandings of
At 09:02 PM Thursday 9/28/2006, Dan Minette wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:53 AM
To: 'Killer Bs Discussion'
Subject: RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of pencimen
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:58 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
is no reliab...
Dan wrote
Ronn! wrote:
What if we spend the $10T (Dan's figure) to reduce the
anthropogenic component of global warming and then find out that it
was not the primary driving cause and we still have to deal with
the storms, floods, droughts, famines and hundreds of millions of
refugees? Or if China
Dan wrote:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/george_monbiot/2006/09/
post_411.html
I think this gives some idea of just how expensive it will be to
stop global warming by holding the CO2 levels steady in 25 years.
The article you cited also says:
There are three things on which almost all
Dan wrote:
Their per capita GDP is also 75% of the US. Since we are talking
about economic costs, let's look at energy usage per unit of GDP
Can you expand on the connection between energy use and GDP?
Doug
___
On 27 Sep 2006, at 4:20AM, Dan Minette wrote:
1) Global Warming
Our understanding of global warming is still incomplete. We have not
verified our climactic models the way, for example, we have verified
numerical models that predict responses of electromagnetic
systems. The
various models
Dan Minette wrote:
snipped most
Peer review is based on the
assumption that the scientific
community does not operate on an inherently dogmatic
or political basis.
While new ideas may not initially get all the credit
they might objectively
deserve, the fact that additional data tends
William wrote:
Earth is already as warm as at any time in the last 10,000 years,
and
is within 1 °C of being its hottest for a million years, says
Hansen's team. Another decade of business-as-usual carbon
emissions
will probably make it too late to prevent the ecosystems of the
north
from
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 8:39 PM
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
is no reliab...
In a message dated 9
In a message dated 9/22/2006 9:39:31 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That natural
selection is *part* of the mechanism is close to certain. But there's
way more to speciation - kin selection, sexual selection, allopatric/
synpatric speciation. We're discovering
On 25/09/2006, at 11:52 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that what Pinker meant was that natural selection explains the
presence of useful functions in creatures. All of the other
mechanisms exist for
sure but to get good and useful doohickeys one needs selection.
If he's using
On Sep 20, 2006, at 8:20 PM, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 21/09/2006, at 1:13 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 9/20/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But it's often used wrongly, to state that the
probabilitical nature of scientific proof means we can't be
certain
of some things.
Hey, you
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no
reliab...
On 21/09/2006, at 12:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The similarity is a fact
On 22 Sep 2006, at 10:21PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But with 9/11, autism/vaccine crankery, creationism, alternative
medicine, perpetual motion and so on, we're seeing groups that
either corrupt this relationship and the nature of science, or just
ignore or dismiss it entirely.
These
On 23/09/2006, at 7:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The relationship between
fact and theory (or maybe data and hypothesis) is dynamic and not
easily
seperated.
So is it a fact that evolution occurs because of natural selection
or is that a theory? After all the data to support
In a message dated 9/18/2006 11:06:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Assuming that a large number of people can't be wrong about something
because they are smart and well-connected is a tautology. I think
there are many examples of large numbers of smart,
In a message dated 9/19/2006 1:05:48 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...'cause there's no such thing as something that is so well
supported it can be considered a fact. Like gravity. Just a theory.
Well according to Karl Popper there are no absolute facts in
On 21/09/2006, at 11:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well according to Karl Popper there are no absolute facts in
science. All
scientific facts are in theory provisional since scientific facts
are by
definition falseafiable. Many things are so well established and
so imbedded in a
net
In a message dated 9/19/2006 4:45:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm fairly certain that gravity is a fact.
How it works is a theory.
Finally - that's exactly what I was saying about evolution before.
Same thing.
No disagreement here.
I am not sure
On 21/09/2006, at 12:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure things are so simple in differentiating fact from
theory. The
facts of evolution are that there is change over time in the type
and nature
of living things.
That's the fact part of evolution, yep.
This implies that
On 9/20/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But it's often used wrongly, to state that the
probabilitical nature of scientific proof means we can't be certain
of some things.
Hey, you have inspired a neologism.
Creationism is probapolitically true.
Nick
--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL
On 21/09/2006, at 1:13 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 9/20/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But it's often used wrongly, to state that the
probabilitical nature of scientific proof means we can't be certain
of some things.
Hey, you have inspired a neologism.
Creationism is
34 matches
Mail list logo
