remember, I'll be watching you.
Happy Christmas! 

Thanks, you made my day

there is such a thing as omnipresence, you know.

Yes, and I have seen HIS miracle in my life. I walk in his faith and am still walking, even after that dreadful fall in bathroom (check my thread in DC) which could have made me bedridden for ever, as per the doctor. My spinal injury was saved by few millimeters.

I pray to HIM to protect all his children and show the correct path.

BTW, I read Forum message in rss feed and reply only where required. And I do not have Facebook, Twitter etc. They are luxurious items  for rich (with free time) people

Regards,

Anand

@Tuxman:

Every time someone talks about an omnipresence, I wonder where we scientists have lost the fight.

Hahaha, good one! Amusing.
But - and more seriously - I had not realised that anyone was "fighting" over it (or "something"). Are people fighting over that mythical hypothetical and (presumably) mis-named "dark matter" as well? I wonder.
I mean, if there is a fight here, what exactly is the fight about?
Aren't we simply seeking truth and understanding?

@Tuxman:

There cannot be two contrary truths.

That would seem to be axiomatic, no?
What 2 potentially "contrary truths" are you referring to though?

@smaragdus:
Well, it's a bit of a digression, but I don't think I would disagree with much of what you say there. I mean, look at The Royal Society's motto "Nullius in verba" - which is taken to mean "take nobody's word for it" - yet it doesn't stop them from issuing edicts of "scientific" hypothetical dogma, signed apparently by lots of their members.
That would seem to be 3 (three!) logical fallacies right there:

1. argumentum ad ignorantiam (forwarding a proposition without any certain proof).
2. argumentum ad populum (appeal to the people/consensus, popular sentiment - appeal to the majority; appeal to loyalty).
3. argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority; conventional propriety).

Fascism loves an appeal to the consensus. The German Population in 1939 was estimated as approx. 80,600,000 people (i.e., before they started killing off their Jewish citizens wholesale). Apparently the Germans were right behind their Führer to a man. One wonders: They couldn't possibly all have been mistaken, could they?

Regarding science, a bloke called Eisenhower nailed it in 1961:

In those notes, Haapala also writes (my emphasis):

Quote

In his farewell address to the Nation in 1961, President Eisenhower cautioned against the power of money from the government in influencing scientific research, and the “danger that public policy could itself become captive of a scientific-technological elite.” Andrew Montford has articulated how this danger comes about. Please see links under “Politicizing Scientific Organizations” and Article # 1.

.

But I'm still curious as to what @Tuxman might have been getting at re the 2 potentially "contrary truths" he seemed to be referring to.