Australian Politics Forum - Labor's internal polling numbers

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Labor's internal polling numbers
Reply #90 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 8:07pm

gold_medal wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 7:07pm:

Your poor comprehension is only matched by your inability to clearly pose a question. now that you finally have done so, the ether theory was easily debunked by the speed of light being consistent in any direction whereas the ether theory would have demanded a differential. Easily disproved just as easily as working out that not every type of wave motion requires a medium.

See how easy that was? formulate a CLEAR question and you might get a clear answer.

I can see how your pre-school reading age would have had trouble with my question as posed:

Gist wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 6:25pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 9:04am:

The ether theory was a ridiculous one - even then. A high School student could debunk it but it was accepted by physicists in a consensus form. and they were wrong - and obviously so.

So go ahead - let's see you perform at high school student level and debunk it.

I thought it was fairly straightforward but ... well...

And you haven't debunked anything. What you've quoted is the Michaelson-Morley experiment which found no evidence of a differential in the speed of light. The theory expected there to be a differential. The consensus was therefore that the theory had to be flawed and modifications to the theory were proposed.

Which brings us to the original point of discussion. Consensus in science and your complete lack of understanding of it. You said:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 7:42pm:

Consensus does not equal correctness. it merely increases the probability of being correct without actually offering anything tangible to add to the debate. Scienctific history is littered with examples of 'crackpot theories' that were rejected by their peers and now stand as pillars of their respective discipline.

So, as requested, a simple question for you given your status as a slow reading goldfish:

If you throw out consensus, how do you know your theory is correct?

Keep that kid on standby.

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Labor's internal polling numbers
Reply #91 - Aug 13^th, 2012 at 8:18am

Gist wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 8:07pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 7:07pm:

Your poor comprehension is only matched by your inability to clearly pose a question. now that you finally have done so, the ether theory was easily debunked by the speed of light being consistent in any direction whereas the ether theory would have demanded a differential. Easily disproved just as easily as working out that not every type of wave motion requires a medium.

See how easy that was? formulate a CLEAR question and you might get a clear answer.

I can see how your pre-school reading age would have had trouble with my question as posed:

Gist wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 6:25pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 9:04am:

The ether theory was a ridiculous one - even then. A high School student could debunk it but it was accepted by physicists in a consensus form. and they were wrong - and obviously so.

So go ahead - let's see you perform at high school student level and debunk it.

I thought it was fairly straightforward but ... well...

And you haven't debunked anything. What you've quoted is the Michaelson-Morley experiment which found no evidence of a differential in the speed of light. The theory expected there to be a differential. The consensus was therefore that the theory had to be flawed and modifications to the theory were proposed.

Which brings us to the original point of discussion. Consensus in science and your complete lack of understanding of it. You said:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 7:42pm:

Consensus does not equal correctness. it merely increases the probability of being correct without actually offering anything tangible to add to the debate. Scienctific history is littered with examples of 'crackpot theories' that were rejected by their peers and now stand as pillars of their respective discipline.

So, as requested, a simple question for you given your status as a slow reading goldfish:

If you throw out consensus, how do you know your theory is correct?

Keep that kid on standby.

And thereby stands the ultimate flaw in your idea of the scientific process. Consensus is not evidence and never has been. Consensus reduces the risk of being wrong but is not in itself any kind of evidence. Just as consensus believed in the ether theory and consensus initially rejected Einstein, consensus is over-rated. And when you start to rely on consensus rather than evidence then you are back in the stone age of '4 elements' again.

Back to top

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Labor's internal polling numbers
Reply #92 - Aug 13^th, 2012 at 8:22am

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 8:18am:

And thereby stands the ultimate flaw in your idea of the scientific process. Consensus is not evidence and never has been. Consensus reduces the risk of being wrong but is not in itself any kind of evidence. Just as consensus believed in the ether theory and consensus initially rejected Einstein, consensus is over-rated. And when you start to rely on consensus rather than evidence then you are back in the stone age of '4 elements' again.

You again demonstrate your complete ignorance. What evidence did the Michaelson-Morley experiment provide? It's a simple, straightforward question. Go ahead and answer it.

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Labor's internal polling numbers
Reply #93 - Aug 13^th, 2012 at 8:46am

Gist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 8:22am:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 8:18am:

And thereby stands the ultimate flaw in your idea of the scientific process. Consensus is not evidence and never has been. Consensus reduces the risk of being wrong but is not in itself any kind of evidence. Just as consensus believed in the ether theory and consensus initially rejected Einstein, consensus is over-rated. And when you start to rely on consensus rather than evidence then you are back in the stone age of '4 elements' again.

You again demonstrate your complete ignorance. What evidence did the Michaelson-Morley experiment provide? It's a simple, straightforward question. Go ahead and answer it.

deflection... we are not debating the ether theory. We are debating the use of CONSENSUS in the scientific process. But of course being a person who agrees with any theory that everybody else agrees with you cannot cope with the fact that consensus has been almost as wrong as it has been right and has no evidentiary value at all.

Back to top

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Labor's internal polling numbers
Reply #94 - Aug 13^th, 2012 at 9:06am

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 8:46am:

deflection... we are not debating the ether theory. We are debating the use of CONSENSUS in the scientific process. But of course being a person who agrees with any theory that everybody else agrees with you cannot cope with the fact that consensus has been almost as wrong as it has been right and has no evidentiary value at all.

Yes, that's right, we're talking about consensus. So what did the experiment show? What evidence did it provide? It's a simple question.

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Labor's internal polling numbers
Reply #95 - Aug 13^th, 2012 at 11:44am

Gist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 9:06am:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 8:46am:

deflection... we are not debating the ether theory. We are debating the use of CONSENSUS in the scientific process. But of course being a person who agrees with any theory that everybody else agrees with you cannot cope with the fact that consensus has been almost as wrong as it has been right and has no evidentiary value at all.

Yes, that's right, we're talking about consensus. So what did the experiment show? What evidence did it provide? It's a simple question.

As usual you deflect so much you are unware of it. You have not YET once addressed the issue of 'consensus'. If I provide yet another example of consensus agreeing with a false theory you will want to discuss the theory rather than the failed consensus.

two degrees my ass.

Back to top

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Labor's internal polling numbers
Reply #96 - Aug 13^th, 2012 at 12:11pm

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 11:44am:

Gist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 9:06am:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 8:46am:

deflection... we are not debating the ether theory. We are debating the use of CONSENSUS in the scientific process. But of course being a person who agrees with any theory that everybody else agrees with you cannot cope with the fact that consensus has been almost as wrong as it has been right and has no evidentiary value at all.

Yes, that's right, we're talking about consensus. So what did the experiment show? What evidence did it provide? It's a simple question.

As usual you deflect so much you are unware of it. You have not YET once addressed the issue of 'consensus'. If I provide yet another example of consensus agreeing with a false theory you will want to discuss the theory rather than the failed consensus.

two degrees my ass.

Cant answer the question eh? Hardly a surprise given you don't know much about anything. And of course you'll be too thick to understand why your bleating about consensus is total crap.

You see, the MM experiment provided a fact. That's it. Nothing else. It doesn't explain anything. It's like saying the sky is blue. Well fine... but why is it blue?

To explain stuff needs theory.

There is NO way of ascertaining whether a theory is correct. Just because it fits the known facts doesn't amount to anything. All we know is when a theory is NOT correct. We know it is not correct simply because it doesn't fit the known facts.

So we go on consensus - that is, the experts look at a theory from their particular field of expertise and agree that a given theory fits the facts that they know. When enough of them do that then the general view is that that theory is the best one we can come up with. At least until a new fact comes along.

Now you tell me how in your imaginary world you are able to look up some book of facts and state categorically that any given theory is correct or not. Because without consensus, that's what you need.

This should be interesting. Cheesy

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Labor's internal polling numbers
Reply #97 - Aug 13^th, 2012 at 12:45pm

Gist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 12:11pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 11:44am:

Gist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 9:06am:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 8:46am:

deflection... we are not debating the ether theory. We are debating the use of CONSENSUS in the scientific process. But of course being a person who agrees with any theory that everybody else agrees with you cannot cope with the fact that consensus has been almost as wrong as it has been right and has no evidentiary value at all.

Yes, that's right, we're talking about consensus. So what did the experiment show? What evidence did it provide? It's a simple question.

As usual you deflect so much you are unware of it. You have not YET once addressed the issue of 'consensus'. If I provide yet another example of consensus agreeing with a false theory you will want to discuss the theory rather than the failed consensus.

two degrees my ass.

Cant answer the question eh? Hardly a surprise given you don't know much about anything. And of course you'll be too thick to understand why your bleating about consensus is total crap.

You see, the MM experiment provided a fact. That's it. Nothing else. It doesn't explain anything. It's like saying the sky is blue. Well fine... but why is it blue?

To explain stuff needs theory.

There is NO way of ascertaining whether a theory is correct. Just because it fits the known facts doesn't amount to anything. All we know is when a theory is NOT correct. We know it is not correct simply because it doesn't fit the known facts.

So we go on consensus - that is, the experts look at a theory from their particular field of expertise and agree that a given theory fits the facts that they know. When enough of them do that then the general view is that that theory is the best one we can come up with. At least until a new fact comes along.

Now you tell me how in your imaginary world you are able to look up some book of facts and state categorically that any given theory is correct or not. Because without consensus, that's what you need.

This should be interesting. Cheesy

So in your mind, nothing can ever be proven and so consensus is your only source of science?

That explains so much - all of it bad. If we all agree that water is a fuel then suddenly it is?

Consensus: the untrained and unthinking man's 'science'.

Back to top

IP Logged

Gist Gold Member Offline I am not a sock, I am a human being! Posts: 5476	Re: Labor's internal polling numbers Reply #98 - Aug 13^th, 2012 at 12:53pm gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 12:45pm: So in your mind, nothing can ever be proven and so consensus is your only source of science? Maybe you should try reading what I actually wrote for once. You may need that primary school kid to explain it to you.
Back to top	"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration) IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Labor's internal polling numbers
Reply #99 - Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:00pm

Gist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 12:53pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 12:45pm:

So in your mind, nothing can ever be proven and so consensus is your only source of science?

Maybe you should try reading what I actually wrote for once. You may need that primary school kid to explain it to you.

That is exactly the effect of what you are saying. You would have been a strong supporter of the ether theory because it was the consensus position and of course the book 300 scientists against Eistein would have been 301 with you included. And you would have been wrong both times. In fact, true scientists dont take the consensus position and swallow it as gospel. They push it, probe it and replace it with truth while lesser minds say 'if 90% of the worlds scientists say such and suchm then it must be true'.

Einstein in response to the book "It takes just one fact to dispel 300 opinions"

Consensus...bah humbug. The land of the intellectually bereft and the easily amused. Consensus has given us slavery and genocide. non-conformity to the consensus of the day has given us the Civil Rights movment and the entire science of particle physics. the Consensus view was that we 'know everythign there is to know about the atom" circa 1900.

Consensus: Delusion with confidence

Back to top

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Labor's internal polling numbers
Reply #100 - Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:07pm

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:00pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 12:53pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 12:45pm:

So in your mind, nothing can ever be proven and so consensus is your only source of science?

Maybe you should try reading what I actually wrote for once. You may need that primary school kid to explain it to you.

That is exactly the effect of what you are saying. You would have been a strong supporter of the ether theory because it was the consensus position and of course the book 300 scientists against Eistein would have been 301 with you included. And you would have been wrong both times. In fact, true scientists dont take the consensus position and swallow it as gospel. They push it, probe it and replace it with truth while lesser minds say 'if 90% of the worlds scientists say such and suchm then it must be true'.

Einstein in response to the book "It takes just one fact to dispel 300 opinions"

Consensus...bah humbug. The land of the intellectually bereft and the easily amused. Consensus has given us slavery and genocide. non-conformity to the consensus of the day has given us the Civil Rights movment and the entire science of particle physics. the Consensus view was that we 'know everythign there is to know about the atom" circa 1900.

Consensus: Delusion with confidence

So, I take it that you consider Einsteins relativity to be cast-iron bullet proof 100% guaranteed fact.

Oh no.. you couldn't. Because that is the consensus position. It must therefore belong in the "land of the intellectually bereft and the easily amused". You decry the consensus.

SO. Have a read of your gospel book of truth. Tell us the real facts. Where is relativity wrong? It's a simple question, simply framed. I'd like an answer please.

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

skippy. Gold Member Offline Posts: 20882 Gender:	Re: Labor's internal polling numbers Reply #101 - Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:10pm LOL Gist, the rest of the world ten zillion sad sock lonwhine zilch.
Back to top	freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL Click onWWW below IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Labor's internal polling numbers
Reply #102 - Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:16pm

Gist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:07pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:00pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 12:53pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 12:45pm:

So in your mind, nothing can ever be proven and so consensus is your only source of science?

Maybe you should try reading what I actually wrote for once. You may need that primary school kid to explain it to you.

That is exactly the effect of what you are saying. You would have been a strong supporter of the ether theory because it was the consensus position and of course the book 300 scientists against Eistein would have been 301 with you included. And you would have been wrong both times. In fact, true scientists dont take the consensus position and swallow it as gospel. They push it, probe it and replace it with truth while lesser minds say 'if 90% of the worlds scientists say such and suchm then it must be true'.

Einstein in response to the book "It takes just one fact to dispel 300 opinions"

Consensus...bah humbug. The land of the intellectually bereft and the easily amused. Consensus has given us slavery and genocide. non-conformity to the consensus of the day has given us the Civil Rights movment and the entire science of particle physics. the Consensus view was that we 'know everythign there is to know about the atom" circa 1900.

Consensus: Delusion with confidence

So, I take it that you consider Einsteins relativity to be cast-iron bullet proof 100% guaranteed fact.

Oh no.. you couldn't. Because that is the consensus position. It must therefore belong in the "land of the intellectually bereft and the easily amused". You decry the consensus.

SO. Have a read of your gospel book of truth. Tell us the real facts. Where is relativity wrong? It's a simple question, simply framed. I'd like an answer please.

Eisteins special theory of relativity is not perfect. and it also was strongly rejected at the time - consensus at work. The notion of particles not able to exist at or above the speed of light is especially wrong and equally difficult to disprove for obvious reasons.

To try and clarify for your fevered mind: consensus is not any form of evidence. Not one iotoa of evidence. You would make a terrible scientist if your only methodology is to mindlessly accept everything that most people agree with.

Back to top

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Labor's internal polling numbers
Reply #103 - Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:21pm

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:16pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:07pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:00pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 12:53pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 12:45pm:

So in your mind, nothing can ever be proven and so consensus is your only source of science?

Maybe you should try reading what I actually wrote for once. You may need that primary school kid to explain it to you.

That is exactly the effect of what you are saying. You would have been a strong supporter of the ether theory because it was the consensus position and of course the book 300 scientists against Eistein would have been 301 with you included. And you would have been wrong both times. In fact, true scientists dont take the consensus position and swallow it as gospel. They push it, probe it and replace it with truth while lesser minds say 'if 90% of the worlds scientists say such and suchm then it must be true'.

Einstein in response to the book "It takes just one fact to dispel 300 opinions"

Consensus...bah humbug. The land of the intellectually bereft and the easily amused. Consensus has given us slavery and genocide. non-conformity to the consensus of the day has given us the Civil Rights movment and the entire science of particle physics. the Consensus view was that we 'know everythign there is to know about the atom" circa 1900.

Consensus: Delusion with confidence

So, I take it that you consider Einsteins relativity to be cast-iron bullet proof 100% guaranteed fact.

Oh no.. you couldn't. Because that is the consensus position. It must therefore belong in the "land of the intellectually bereft and the easily amused". You decry the consensus.

SO. Have a read of your gospel book of truth. Tell us the real facts. Where is relativity wrong? It's a simple question, simply framed. I'd like an answer please.

Eisteins special theory of relativity is not perfect. and it also was strongly rejected at the time - consensus at work. The notion of particles not able to exist at or above the speed of light is especially wrong and equally difficult to disprove for obvious reasons.

To try and clarify for your fevered mind: consensus is not any form of evidence. Not one iotoa of evidence. You would make a terrible scientist if your only methodology is to mindlessly accept everything that most people agree with.

...and so your backpedalling begins... Grin

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Labor's internal polling numbers
Reply #104 - Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:26pm

Gist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:21pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:16pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:07pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:00pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 12:53pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 12:45pm:

So in your mind, nothing can ever be proven and so consensus is your only source of science?

Maybe you should try reading what I actually wrote for once. You may need that primary school kid to explain it to you.

That is exactly the effect of what you are saying. You would have been a strong supporter of the ether theory because it was the consensus position and of course the book 300 scientists against Eistein would have been 301 with you included. And you would have been wrong both times. In fact, true scientists dont take the consensus position and swallow it as gospel. They push it, probe it and replace it with truth while lesser minds say 'if 90% of the worlds scientists say such and suchm then it must be true'.

Einstein in response to the book "It takes just one fact to dispel 300 opinions"

Consensus...bah humbug. The land of the intellectually bereft and the easily amused. Consensus has given us slavery and genocide. non-conformity to the consensus of the day has given us the Civil Rights movment and the entire science of particle physics. the Consensus view was that we 'know everythign there is to know about the atom" circa 1900.

Consensus: Delusion with confidence

So, I take it that you consider Einsteins relativity to be cast-iron bullet proof 100% guaranteed fact.

Oh no.. you couldn't. Because that is the consensus position. It must therefore belong in the "land of the intellectually bereft and the easily amused". You decry the consensus.

SO. Have a read of your gospel book of truth. Tell us the real facts. Where is relativity wrong? It's a simple question, simply framed. I'd like an answer please.

Eisteins special theory of relativity is not perfect. and it also was strongly rejected at the time - consensus at work. The notion of particles not able to exist at or above the speed of light is especially wrong and equally difficult to disprove for obvious reasons.

To try and clarify for your fevered mind: consensus is not any form of evidence. Not one iotoa of evidence. You would make a terrible scientist if your only methodology is to mindlessly accept everything that most people agree with.

...and so your backpedalling begins... Grin

interesting definition of 'backpedalling' - like everything else you seek to redefine. You tend to be pretty much a logic-free zone.

Only SOB stops you from competing for Stupidest Poster. SOB has that one nailed.

Back to top

IP Logged