(04-27-2017 09:07 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 04:42 PM)crex043 Wrote:  The problem with your statement is demonstrated by the very definition of "science":

noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

By its very definition, science is limited to the human scope,

MMmmm multiple problems I have with that.

Our observations aren't limited to our own faculties, we can appoint any observer, number of observers or variety of observers we feel like. We can have rabbits, chickens, apes, aliens or even robots observe the result of experiments. So no, it's not inherently "human" in scope.
More over, the scientific method is still being applied to new things because science has yet to uncover everything about the universe. That doesn't change the fact that science only works with the spatiotemporal realm, time and space. We live in a finite reality, if it were infinite we wouldn't call it time and space. Both of those things are finite, both of those things are limited in nature and scale. Therefor, there is a finite deal of information contained within. So no, science will not continue to go ad-infinitum. Contrary to what romantics like to say, the universe started as a primeval atom no bigger than a grain of sand. It's finite, not infinite. It's expanding at a vast rate, that's not the same thing as infinity.

As for the general sentiment, I refer to science as the scientific method. Not an institution. Science is observation and experimentation, yes. But only the data therein. The people are irrelevant. Science is not a human institution, science is a methodology.
As for subjectivity, tolerances and laws, aren't like art. You can't just say everything is whatever you like. The computer you're using right now has passive electronic components that can only work when the resistors stay within the tolerance levels dictated by the colored multiplier bands on their ceramic cases. The capacitors wouldn't really be of much use either, if they just held back however much electricity they felt like. If you think there's a lot of variance in these things, pull out your multimeter and check yourself. The laws of nature are the same. If I wish to determine the velocity of an object after it makes impact with something, there's an equation for that. You know why people use it? Because it's not something different for every person, every time.

Let me know when you find a scientific journal that features a thesis written by one of our fur or feather-laden brethren. You won't, because science itself is defined by human beings for the purpose of human exploits. Just because you define it or regard it differently than its commonly-used definition does not make it so.

Back to my previous post, there are certainly things that most can agree upon and can be reinforced with repeated demonstration and practice (though to your argument about capacitors and other electrical components, you'd be hard-pressed to find three in a row that are exactly identical), but it would be impossible to find conclusive proof about the origin of the universe or the extent of the universe or defining the smallest particle of matter.

Science is important for the advancement of humankind, but we shouldn't anoint it as an infallible source of truth just because someone developed the theoretical formula for velocity or acceleration (which doesn't take into account resistance or uneven distribution of mass across the object and the impact point).

Following suit with Recluse, I'm watching the NFL Draft for free on the NFL Roku app. It's free, and the coverage isn't horrible (and can't be much worse than E$PN's coverage).

(04-27-2017 01:23 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  The wonderful thing about the internet, is it's actually making people more tribal and insular. This bubbling conflict in the country affords the entrepreneurial among us certain opportunities.

Quote:Less we wish to repeat more recent history, the Murrah building comes to mind.

Planning something?

Back on topic, TechDirt.com has a good article today about the ESPN stuff. They have been talking ESPN's woes for years along with ESPN's denial of reality:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/201704...ming.shtml

Note that ESPN at one point cost Disney $22B (with a "B") of market cap. Institutional holders do not take kindly to those kind of shocks.

(04-28-2017 12:26 AM)EffinBJ Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 01:23 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  The wonderful thing about the internet, is it's actually making people more tribal and insular. This bubbling conflict in the country affords the entrepreneurial among us certain opportunities.

Quote:Less we wish to repeat more recent history, the Murrah building comes to mind.

Planning something?

Context counts for something. Saying people can make money off sentiment and saying you want to take revolutionary action of some sort, are two different things. Personally, I'm still thinking about how to turn a profit off the turmoil. Not due to lack of imagination, just need something specific. As for the general point, when you take away people's right to affect change at the ballot box, when you persecute those political positions that are objectionable all they're left with is violence. We saw that in the 90s from Ruby Ridge, to Waco, to the Murrah building bombing.
You don't commit entrapment as was the case with Randy Weaver, you don't shred the constitution and create your own rules of engagement in order to kill civilians, even if they are racist, nutjobs, who believe in Zionist conspiracy theories. Yet a good many still have no tolerance for nationalistic or nativist views.
Of course, you also don't shoot up innocent people over a warrant you never properly served, drive tanks over people's living spaces and have corpses propped up, sounds of animals being slaughtered and babies screaming blare at night or your secretary general go in front of the national press and compare taking out tanks to besiege your own citizenry to renting a car from Avis; and expect nothing bad to happen in response. As was the case with Waco. The law limits not only it's subjects, but it's arbiters. When it fails to do that, it is no longer law and the state becomes tyrannical.

(04-27-2017 10:03 PM)crex043 Wrote:  Let me know when you find a scientific journal that features a thesis written by one of our fur or feather-laden brethren. You won't, because science itself is defined by human beings for the purpose of human exploits.

Are you saying no other life in the universe conducts science? If so, how would you know? ...
I also mentioned robots.... http://content.time.com/time/specials/pa...23,00.html
They can write songs, they can edit legal documents. It's going to happen.

Quote:Back to my previous post, there are certainly things that most can agree upon and can be reinforced with repeated demonstration and practice (though to your argument about capacitors and other electrical components, you'd be hard-pressed to find three in a row that are exactly identical), but it would be impossible to find conclusive proof about the origin of the universe or the extent of the universe or defining the smallest particle of matter.

I think background radiation is pretty damning, but people are allowed to take whatever they want from data. They just cease to be scientific or objective in their approach when they do.

Quote:Science is important for the advancement of humankind, but we shouldn't anoint it as an infallible source of truth just because someone developed the theoretical formula for velocity or acceleration (which doesn't take into account resistance or uneven distribution of mass across the object and the impact point).

There may well be an equation that does account for those factors, I never really cared for a lot of what came up in statistics and calc. Mainly because it doesn't relate to what I wanted to do with my life back when I was still in school. Still, I give more credence to scientific truth because it can be reproduced in front of whoever. It's useful. The arts and humanities? I mean, it's like sport, music pornographic material, video games or blow. Sure, they're fun, but do they matter? No.

(04-28-2017 11:56 AM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 10:03 PM)crex043 Wrote:  Let me know when you find a scientific journal that features a thesis written by one of our fur or feather-laden brethren. You won't, because science itself is defined by human beings for the purpose of human exploits.

Are you saying no other life in the universe conducts science? If so, how would you know? ...
I also mentioned robots.... http://content.time.com/time/specials/pa...23,00.html
They can write songs, they can edit legal documents. It's going to happen.

Quote:Back to my previous post, there are certainly things that most can agree upon and can be reinforced with repeated demonstration and practice (though to your argument about capacitors and other electrical components, you'd be hard-pressed to find three in a row that are exactly identical), but it would be impossible to find conclusive proof about the origin of the universe or the extent of the universe or defining the smallest particle of matter.

I think background radiation is pretty damning, but people are allowed to take whatever they want from data. They just cease to be scientific or objective in their approach when they do.

Quote:Science is important for the advancement of humankind, but we shouldn't anoint it as an infallible source of truth just because someone developed the theoretical formula for velocity or acceleration (which doesn't take into account resistance or uneven distribution of mass across the object and the impact point).

There may well be an equation that does account for those factors, I never really cared for a lot of what came up in statistics and calc. Mainly because it doesn't relate to what I wanted to do with my life back when I was still in school. Still, I give more credence to scientific truth because it can be reproduced in front of whoever. It's useful. The arts and humanities? I mean, it's like sport, music pornographic material, video games or blow. Sure, they're fun, but do they matter? No.

I don't want to continue going off-topic on this thread, so this will be my last post related to this, but at least it's not as bad as some of the FC Cincinnati drivel so why not?

We don't know that other forms of life do or do not conduct science, so we cannot assume that rabbits or bears are or are not conducting experiments as we speak. Robots, on the other hand, are simply an extension of human intelligence and logic. If we're considering robots beings with their own intelligence and desire to define reality, then my copy of Microsoft Word 2013 also practices "science". Regardless, my assertion is that science is a definition created by human beings that is based upon human observation and experimentation to allow human beings to grasp reality as it relates to their existence. It is a strictly human construct as we know it (even though it may impact other species).

Background radiation is just one piece of the Big Bang puzzle. There are plenty of observations and evidence that detract that theory that are accepted by minds more brilliant than yours or mine. Just because you've chosen to ignore those does not mean that scientists that do take opposing evidence seriously are no longer practicing the scientific method because they don't agree with you.

I'm sure there are equations that take into account the more complex elements of movement and force, but they are theoretical in nature. If I wanted to throw a tennis ball at a brick wall and calculate in which direction it would bounce, at what velocity, and what rotation, I could do that in theory but then I would have to ensure that the current conditions were constant and would have to find a way to perfectly deliver the tennis ball to that spot which would require more of the same. It would never end. For that reason, science can never make finite what are the infinite possibilities of the universe and we can never claim to know everything without any doubt.

And maybe arts and humanities don't matter to you, but there is no other reason for us to be having this conversation on this message board that is focused on discussion of young adults who play sports, so I would contend that arts and humanities matter very much as far as our scope is concerned.

To quote the great Forrest Gump, "that's all I have to say about that."

(04-28-2017 11:48 AM)Recluse1 Wrote:  Personally, I'm still thinking about how to turn a profit off the turmoil.

Of course you are. You're a terrible person.

(04-28-2017 01:48 PM)EffinBJ Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 11:48 AM)Recluse1 Wrote:  Personally, I'm still thinking about how to turn a profit off the turmoil.

Of course you are. You're a terrible person.

If my choices are being a victim, howling with the wolves and acting as a fascist or playing the part of the opportunist and watching people who really don't like me anyways go at each other's throats, I choose C. Not because I'm a terrible person, but because I'm not an idiot. You can't save it, neither can I.





Maggots fighting over trash, someone has to be the lord of the flies. I might not be able to do it as well as George Soros and the others who pay these idiots to protest, I may not have the charisma/the Id to inspire the violence, but as things break down and the lines are drawn, the nation state becomes less important. One's tribe, party, organization is more direct. The state becomes something more abstract. If tomorrows wars are to be fought not be countries but by partisans within countries, it would seem in an age of drones and CNC milling machines the power is going to rest with those who churn out small arms and security. In the 19th century it was railroads, before that it was gold rushes. No one's digging for gold anymore, so I can't sell pickaxes, but I can certainly sell other things...

If it's really so morally repugnant to you, feel free to give up every cent you have and every possession, getting by only on the kindness of others. Otherwise, you can't have money in the bank and still claim to be moral.

ESPN getting rave reviews on Twitter after showing the Joe Mixon punch video instead of a highlight reel. Keeping it classy!

(04-28-2017 07:40 PM)crex043 Wrote:  ESPN getting rave reviews on Twitter after showing the Joe Mixon punch video instead of a highlight reel. Keeping it classy!

That was typical ESPN. I would figure an outfit full of SJWs would be about letting the guy redeem himself from an incident that happened 3 years ago.

Oh, they are going to show that video every Bengals game he appears in next year.

BTW, WTF happened in this thread up above? You do something to kick a hive of crazy, Billy?

(04-28-2017 08:27 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  BTW, WTF happened in this thread up above? You do something to kick a hive of crazy, Billy?

Ha! No t'wernt I. I only start crazy in the homestead.

(04-28-2017 08:08 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 07:40 PM)crex043 Wrote:  ESPN getting rave reviews on Twitter after showing the Joe Mixon punch video instead of a highlight reel. Keeping it classy!

That was typical ESPN. I would figure an outfit full of SJWs would be about letting the guy redeem himself from an incident that happened 3 years ago.

I'm sure if the Patriots selected Mixon, it would have been a low risk / high reward move and an opportunity for Mixon to learn how to do things the Patriots way.

The good thing for ESPN is for the next Bengals MNF game, they won't have to record his intro video. They can just re-use the punch video when they introduce the offense.

(04-28-2017 08:08 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 07:40 PM)crex043 Wrote:  ESPN getting rave reviews on Twitter after showing the Joe Mixon punch video instead of a highlight reel. Keeping it classy!

That was typical ESPN. I would figure an outfit full of SJWs would be about letting the guy redeem himself from an incident that happened 3 years ago.

I had to google what SJW means...lol

the whistles! so many whistles!

(04-28-2017 07:40 PM)crex043 Wrote:  ESPN getting rave reviews on Twitter after showing the Joe Mixon punch video instead of a highlight reel. Keeping it classy!

Bungles seem to be a wayward home for troubled youth. M Brown seems to be running a half way house.

(04-29-2017 01:59 PM)bearcatmill Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 07:40 PM)crex043 Wrote:  ESPN getting rave reviews on Twitter after showing the Joe Mixon punch video instead of a highlight reel. Keeping it classy!

Bungles seem to be a wayward home for troubled youth. M Brown seems to be running a half way house.

Always has. Will continue as long as he is in charge.

Mike loves shopping in the bruised/rotten fruit aisle to get some good discount prices. Occasionally the fruit is truly rotten.