|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,505
Posts545,547
Members14,417
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212 |
....Most importantly, this can't be done half-assed (best to leave the politics out then) It must be properly funded and managed or its another project doomed to fail....
bo has spent five trillion dollars in three years, what do we have to show for it. Would you have any intelligent discussion on what advancements have been made in green/renewable energy. What groundwork has been laid for the future. You are a proponent of recreational sex over gun ownership and the shooting sports. Why won't you consider selling some or all of you guns and gear to buy a few solar panels and a volt. Our investments are falling by the wayside due the economics of poor decisions, but they will sustain themselves if there is a market for them. Why are you pushing your participation in the process to decades down the road, but concerned about redistribution today. How about we tap domestic fossil fuels for the short term, say a hundred years. We'd improve national security and the economy. Then designate a portion of the profits in the form of taxes on the industry, to alternative energy private sector research, by real scientists, not glorified lab techs. As good stewards of the earth, America could stop turning a blind eye to the environmental ravages other countries commit to make a buck selling us fuel.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,008
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,008 |
....craig, please think about what was written.
You may find the notion strange, but many do because science is either not taught at all or nobody pays attention!
I walked us through the philosophical....
.....The more evidence that accumulates supporting a theory the "better" the theory is. But it does not "prove" it - the fact that predictions from theory or experiments actually work is nice but it isn't proof....
People built huge buildings in pre-science days. Some fell down and the ones still standing didn't. Modern structures, embarrassingly collapse too. Also, engineering is not science. Please read what I wrote....
....modern philosophers of science....
.....And I never said I'm going to create matter. Where does that come from?
Gnom, you gotta admit your first comment about science is not taught doesn't contribute to understanding any theory, but I'd agree that your buddy nca thinks a scientist is just a decent lab technician where you try to explain how a scientist explores beyond what's currently known. You really muddy the water and prove to me, at least, that global warming is bunk, if you truly believe it's proponents are philosophers. Structural engineering is most certainly 'science'. Metallurgy, material properties and how they're arranging most certainly are based on scientific finding. When the next office building goes up, it won't be a bunch of big blocks stacked by slaves. If a building falls, it generally won't disprove the science, but highlight corner cutting. You're right that 'stuff' isn't always arranged according to the books, but science lets the surgeon look before the first cut is made. A fracture can be pinpointed without opening anything up so that it can be seen first hand. The arthroscopic image on a screen has been 'proven' reliable without the confirmation of direct vision. There are times when the best available diagnostic tools don't tell the whole story, but that doesn't disprove anything. It just show how important the application of the science might be. And, no big deal, but you most certainly asked to ponder the apparent creation of matter if someone took an organic synthesis course. But hey, that was quite a while ago, yesterday. I was just wondering if there was a scientific point to the comment or just philosophizing. \Craig, let's just agree to disagree. It appears that you simply do not want to learn what science is or isn't and you clearly don't know what "philosophy" is. You use the term "science" in a loose, relatively undefined way that really has no meaning and it can therefore not be discussed. (that's a philosophical point) What you keep proposing are tautologies. There is a long, formal history of science and the philosophy of science that has defined and codified these terms and science is not synonymous with technology nor with engineering nor with natural history. Indeed the use of the word "science" in the modern sense did not occur until the 18th cent and the word "scientist" as not used until (as I recall) until about 1820. You (or someone) introduced the idea of "cost" and that is a very valid point. But again arguments about the cost of reducing (for example) environmental mercury is not a scientific issue - it is a matter for politics and ethics. There are 3 "costs" here - 1) The human or social cost of early death or malformed infants; 2) The economic cost of treating mercury-induced disease and the economic cost of early death; 3) The economic cost of reducing mercury levels. All of these need to be balanced and those decisions are political. When I have more energy I'll get back to the point I was trying to make about organic synthesis and the conservation of mass. But it has to do with science.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,008
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,008 |
If the cost to swtich is zero let's ban fossil fuels now. The science is certain enough to justify that.
If the cost is ten times the US annual gross domestic product then the science is not certain enough now and we need to wait before we take drastic action.
Of course neither figure is realistic so the scrimmage line is somewhere in between.
The economics are very important in these discussions.
Mike
Mike, absolutely! If the cost is some exponent of our GDP then however good the science is we can't do anything about it. Every investment is a risk - buying Apple stock a year ago was risk; it still is. Investing in "clean" energy is a risk. Has been and will be and it may be money down the old sewerpipe - no way to predict.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065 |
I'm not arguing against R&D and subsidies for new energy systems. I am arguing against discarding the oil/gas/coal system until we know more about global warming.
Best,
Mike
I am glad to be here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 92 Likes: 2
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 92 Likes: 2 |
Well, I'm just a dumb Canadian and it's minus 25 today, I remember minus 76 in 1969 and haven't seen that since, so it must be warming up! But then, I saw 154 degrees in the barrenlands in 1988, and haven't seen 100 since, so it must be cooling! Call me confused! And then there's the poor polar bears that are going to be extinct in 50 years, ....yeah, sure.
"A Stranger is a Friend we haven't Met"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,672 Likes: 4
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,672 Likes: 4 |
Let's not forget that the glaciers are retreating at an alarming rate also. This is easily seen in photographs taken over the last 20 years of all the major glacial masses.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212 |
...Craig, let's just agree to disagree. It appears that you simply do not want to learn what science is or isn't and you clearly don't know what "philosophy" is. You use the term "science" in a loose, relatively undefined way that really has no meaning and it can therefore not be discussed. (that's a philosophical point) What you keep proposing are tautologies.
There is a long, formal history of science and the philosophy of science that has defined and codified these terms and science is not synonymous with technology nor with engineering nor with natural history. Indeed the use of the word "science" in the modern sense did not occur until the 18th cent and the word "scientist" as not used until (as I recall) until about 1820....
....When I have more energy I'll get back to the point I was trying to make about organic synthesis and the conservation of mass. But it has to do with science.
I'll agree to disagree, you see I feel the same way. The historical comments and falsifications don't really add any concrete definition to the word. Possible you could see that I gave examples of the application of science and never equivocated it with technology. Just as Replacement pointed out that structural engineering wasn't 'science per say', my following line clearly show how the scientific findings were applied. I still look forward to your science of the organic synthesis comments, particularly if they related to concrete science and not philosophy of biochemistry.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 390 Likes: 2
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 390 Likes: 2 |
Canvas,
I typically care for what is in the article that is the product of a scientific institution. Not what the peanut gallery of comments has to say. LOL We are the peanut gallery! That's funny. Please pass the peanuts.
Last edited by cpa; 03/20/12 06:45 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065 |
Let's not forget that the glaciers are retreating at an alarming rate also. This is easily seen in photographs taken over the last 20 years of all the major glacial masses. And let's not forget that they have been retreating for the last several thousand years either. Best, Mike
I am glad to be here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,672 Likes: 4
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,672 Likes: 4 |
.. and a billion people didn't depend on them for water back then either. Glacier Park is one place you can see the shrinking over the last few years but it is the glaciers in asia that are going to put a hurt on millions when they're gone.
|
|
|
|
|
