This re-instated what passes for faith in humanity

[Occhidiangela]

Ghostiger:

The prosecution rests.

By your own works are you convicted. After all that protesting, the Passive Aggressive act continues and we get four posts on one page that fail to identify who you are addressing. I note your PM has either been disabled or is too full for accepting new PM's.

Fine, back to public rebuttal of your wheeze.

You have inverted a concept. Authorship is so protected in Science because people want the fame of being associated with cleverness rather than to prove cleverness by association with the name.

Of course there are some exception, ussually involving money, but they are exceptions.
[right][snapback]98103[/snapback][/right]

Neither sounds good to me.

In essence Thor is just a a multitude of dark matter varieties.
Both are just making up a filler with no evidense, for a gap in knowledge.
Dark matter theory is more elegant than Thor theory much in a the same one 1 stain is cleaner that filth on an entire carpet.


I think common sense is making a surprise attack on cosmology in the last 2 years though.
People are suggesting exspansion of space can be described by the General Theory of Relativity just as the contraction with gravity can.(and some local movement for nearby space).
This seems obvious to me, but maybe Im missing something.

This post has been edited by Ghostiger: Dec 27 2005, 09:19 PM

Well its quite possible I underestimated the degree of that money sullies science.
I should known better I guess, I left science because it was appearent to me I could never handle the money politics of modern science and I was not so brilliant that people would throw money at me no matter what.(I dont mean to imply at any other large industry in America has less politics.)

That was nonsese.

It would be analogous if you had said "Wouldnt it be a miracle if my hammer could know why I use it to pound a nail."

Note that Jester referenced the comment to which he replied, even if he didn't note the poster who made the comment. That modest effort aided clarity. It made his reply make sense. It is your adamant refusal to make that modest effort that incited this whole critique.

"It's worth keeping in mind that all humanistic legends and fantasies maintain internal consistancy to mirror the world we live in, not unlike much of theorhetical science."

You've lost me here. Are you claiming that all legend and fantasy is consistent? Or is there some subset that is?

Does fiction have falsifiability? Specificity? Is Odysseus subject to contrary evidence?

I don't think any of those things are true. But if that's not what you're claiming, then I don't know what you're claiming.

-Jester

QED

Occhi