Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
Alex;
You've said all of it zillions of times over, since I've been around.
And .. its been pointed out that you are blatantly wrong in your interpretations of how science operates; about how maths is used in science, how observations are made, how theories and hypotheses are formed and how science keeps empirical evidence separated from theory.
I don't know what else can be done …
For me, its like going 'round and 'round in a washing machine !
I do enjoy our conversations, but why do you belabour the same point, over and over ? I'm not in charge of how things work, nor do I understand lots of the technical sides of some of the in-depth theories in science.
Perhaps you are looking for a consensus view which aligns with yours and .. there bang .. Alex gets to be right …
If that's what its about then .. Alex you are 100% right ! There ya go.
Has this made any difference to the world of science, amateur astronomy or the way the real world works ???? 
I don't want to seem nasty .. perhaps I'm just not in the mood for it today.
Cheers & Rgds |
I am sorry to cause you grief Craig and I greatly enjoy your work.
It is not about me being right. Your observation in this regard is uninformed and based on observation of a character you have never met and never had opportunity to work out with the benefit of a personal chat
.
I do not enjoy the same determination to be right as those in many other camps... I am outside it all making what I see a reasonable observation upon the single mindedness of some approaches.
I dont say I am right it is others who claim they are right to the exclusion of reasonable alternatives who say they are always right you could well focus upon.
As to your belief that I do not understand how science works I say I have a fair idea... I understand for example string theory is not a scientific theory but only a hypothesis for if a theory it would have little things in support like observation, experiment and sample results etc.. I say it is others, who drop the notion of scientific method when delighting in a math extrapolation with none of the usual requirements,( that in my humble and blatantly wrong estimation of the requirement of scientific method suggests should be present), may well deserve rebuke.
Anyways you have heard it all before and I have no more to say.
At least I understand the requirement of scientific method.... and say scientific method is abandoned when we say we have dark matter to shore up our sums on the one hand and yet on the other say it is merely a hypothetical...science is not about hypothetical matter that we can not observe...is it science to suggest that gravity is weak because it leaks into another dimension... I have never taken the wild steps in even a speculative manner that dark matter folk happily suggest is beyond doubt.
AND I know its not all your fault you always present as fair minded and do not represent the complaints department of science.
Hope you feel better and I apologize for laboring the same point such that it becomes so intolerable.
alex