well, do you think questioning any aspect of science is fine or do you believe that all their combined knowledge is 100% correct and indisputable, that we understand everything there is to know and any further attempt is sheer futility. If so , that's what i call blind trust. Your term blind distrust is is very misleading in that you think to question any aspect of science - you must be questioning all of science, believe 100% in every conspiracy and be a total whack job. Your attempt to define that which can only be described as your blind anger is but mildly amusing at best but has no credibility whatsoever. If you're going to try to define thing in terms of black or white, then you are an absolutist, and essentially explains your belief in dogma.

There is just good and evil, the answer is just yes or no, their is either a God or their isn't, right? This is why you studied data, because data gives you a definable answer right?

True science is 100% based on questioning theories and seeking answers, if we never questioned anything - we'd still be using the bible as our only textbook and although many seem to view it that way, it just won't work and just like some that wish to put 100% blind faith in the theory that there is an invisible man in the sky, different idiots are trying to tell you to put 100% blind faith in all science - like whatever dude - it doesn't work that way.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Feb 26 2016 05:26pm

When someone uses the word 'true' as an adjective to win an arguement: don't walk away, run.

you don't need to use the word true to make me feel I need to run away from you though. Was your gangster death threat of shooting me true?

Would you care to explain why you're attacking me for the last 2 days, I'm sure we could find common ground somewhere.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Feb 26 2016 06:27pm

Cause you make a lot of mistakes, that's why

fascinating

but what's all this arguing about ?

this sentence alone shows how off base your assumptions are.

No, there is a lot of grey area between good and evil.
No, there isn't always a yes or no answer (pun intended).
and most importantly, no, there is no certainty that god is real. I have struggled with my faith in varying degrees over my life. Sometimes to the point on non-belief.


The real problem is that you look at experiments that have been repeated and verified thousands of times and question them. with seemingly no academic expertise to back up the skepticism. now if you were talking about fringe science like theoretical physics, or even a more practical but equally unfinished subject like deepsea marine biology, you'd have a point. But you're talking about an experiment that has been repeated enough times that it shouldn't be questioned to its core IMO.

as to your suggestion that i chose statistics to study as a means to cater to my sheepish mind... i was a CJ major in undergrad. Generally that major pairs with history, social work, stats, or philosophy. I am not interested in phil or soc work and history was a soft choice for where i want to go. Stats is incredibly relevant to my profession. What's ironic however is that you seem to think statisticians are seeking an absolute truth. That mentality is a LONG way from mainstream academic stats. All modern stats stem from sampling, so every calculation includes the question of how representative that calculation is of reality. Also the default is to be skeptical of any factors that could create the representative stat. Your confusion likely comes from statisticians who are paid by interest groups to formulate their studies to suggest things that are untrue. This is not the basis of statistics, it is a perverted form used for profit. Of all the stats i've every formulated in the last 10 years i got paid for not a single one in any other sense than it is a role of my job. I have no vested interested in any of the studies i write or data i collect.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Feb 29 2016 12:37pm

One of the problems with the Cavendish experiment is that he believed he had to be 100s of meters away from it as, so his "gravity" wouldn't affect it, right - so what about the gravity of the apparatus he built, what about the gravity of the earth? Just because we prevent an object from free fall (by holding it up, doesn't mean we have stopped gravity, the force is still there, we've just temporarily prevented it from falling. Why is it when we take an item into space where there is no gravity and if every object even had the tiniest bit of gravity - other things would want to stick to them but that isn't the case is it.

You claim the experiment has been repeated, in physics classes in Universities right? So large groups of people are standing right next to some miniaturized version? Seems like a lot of gravity from different sources might interfere with results... The original experiment took days of observation but your saying a 5 minute display can repeat the results? Can you show this experiment working? If all objects have gravity, surely there are multiple experiments that prove this right? Surely there is a video of this experiment that proves its correctness right?
Simply repeating failed assumptions is not proof, and if you don't understand that - then we're never going to agree.

Oh by the way, do you know this guy did shock treatments and was so nervous he couldn't even address people and only did this experiment in his 60s and never told anybody about it, it was just assumed that it was correct after someone read his notes - did he even say his experiment ever worked or was it just the crazy ramblings of someone aged and feeble?

Really your reaction to someone questioning whether this experiment proved anything in the first place is much like someone in 1600 questioning Galileo about how could he question whether the Sun rotated around the earth because he wasn't a man of the cloth. People are allowed to question whatever they want, just like you're questioning my questioning.

As for my feeling about stats, many seem to think " hey look at these results, it proves xx" - when in reality you could take the same stats and talk about different results and prove the exact opposite - depending entirely on who's perspective (normally your boss) you're using. The point is that there is never a black and white answer, there are only shades of grey and stating a certain interpretation that tells me I should think of just some extreme view I know is just a result of propaganda.

Kinda like this experiment.



Whether or not The Cavendish experiment proves all things have Gravity?

Whether a simple repeated failed experiment proves anything at all or is just a decent and acceptable form of brainwashing that is simply replacing Religious Dogma.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Feb 29 2016 03:04pm

incorrect. you can show implicit truths with stats, its all about controlling variables that affect the results. Not discounting results simply because variables exist. Like i said "many think that" because politics and sports are their only exposure to statistics. These two arenas are the most common places we see stats warped for perverse reasons. Good policies are based on good states, they do exist and they are accurate to what they claim.

Ok, I can prove all objects have gravity by pouring a pitcher of OJ into a glass, see the glass has gravity and holds the OJ, repeat the experiment yourself and see if it works.

Case Closed.

Every single class book is wrong about physics ... skip to 5:15