Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Peer Review and the Scientific Process

<< < (35/47) > >>

Vurbal:
Having seen how another forum with similar types of people has struggled to deal with this sort of thing, I view the basement as the worst possible solution, except for all the alternatives.

Renegade:
What you've actually demonstrated is what I said in my initial post. It's more complicated than you think, and you don't understand the process, at least not the terminology used to describe the process.

Specifically, you're misconstruing the meaning of infection. Infection merely means the virus has entered a host body. As long as the host has been immunized, the virus will be neutralized, although not necessarily eliminated, as with varicella. At worst, the infection is harmless. At best it acts like a booster shot.
-Vurbal (February 13, 2015, 08:13 AM)
--- End quote ---

Again, thank you for helping me make my point about the nature of this particular topic, i.e. that it goes exactly nowhere because people are far too busy being religious/political about the topic to actually have a discussion in good faith.

Instead of reading what I wrote ("infect") and inferring common verbiage, you rigidly stick to jargon then accuse me of not understanding. While I may be guilty of being a bit lazy in my writing when using common language, you're guilty of violating the principle of charity in your reading, particularly when you very well know what I meant and then proceed to purposefully misread it (which also happens to be a strawman).

In any event, thank you for at least helping me illustrate my point about how the topic has degenerated into a toxic wasteland and how good faith in the conversation quickly disappears. I think we're pretty much done.



So, moving on...

IainB:
Thanks to @mouser for injecting some common sense into the discussion.

Vurbal:
@Renegade

You're right. There's no point in discussing it as long as we're talking about different things. I'm done.

Renegade:
From the wonky side (just a few minutes there - about geo-dating)...

http://youtu.be/Bcw5YpeTd4I?t=1h26m

Yep. Aliens!

But, the point about dating methods stands.

Here's the original research: J.G. Funkhouser and J.J. Naughton, "Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii," Journal of Geophysical Research, 73 (1968): pp. 4601-4607.

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1029%2FJB073i014p04601?r3_referer=wol&tracking_action=preview_click&show_checkout=1


It  was hoped that  the  examination of  the rare gases in Hawaiian xenoliths would provide information about the  origin of  such material or  would  at  least  further  delineate  the  reason why  such unusually old K-Ar  ages are  found for  ultramafic  nodules.
--- End quote ---

While many may question the sanity of someone talking about aliens, this isn't a valid objection when he asks a valid question. i.e. What are we to make of different dating methods when we find incredible discrepancies in their reported results?

Conclusion: ALIENS~! ;D (Well, not really, but it's still fun!)

My point here is that science is never "settled" - it's only our best guess/estimate at any given time, and may very well be overturned tomorrow. It might be a good idea to remember that Galileo was also dealing with "settled" facts, as were so many other heretics.

A group of modern heretics in the field of physics asks the same question:

WHAT IF? Asking the Dangerous Questions | Following the Evidence

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page