Author Topic: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?  (Read 224782 times)

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #540 on: February 16, 2015, 12:27:48 PM »
Apollohoax is the only place in the universe dedicated to offering this service.

A bold claim, but in balance... probably true.  :P :P :P

Based on two quesitonable items. 

1. My ignorance of any other place on earth.
2. The assumption that any place other than earth has not heard of the Apollo hoax, specifically.  Although if populated by carbon based life forms, they likely have quite similar problems to deal with.  I don't have a guess for how silicon based life would be.  But if the singularity crowd is right, we may get a glimpse of the  silicon based mentality in some undefined but not to distant future.
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline Bryanpoprobson

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 823
  • Another Clown
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #541 on: February 16, 2015, 12:28:48 PM »

He's admitted it on GLP.

GLP? Where's that then? Is it God Like Productions Forum??

Oh bye bye, Romulus I would say it's been a pleasure but that would be a lie. :)
"Wise men speak because they have something to say!" "Fools speak, because they have to say something!" (Plato)

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #542 on: February 16, 2015, 12:42:35 PM »
GLP? Where's that then? Is it God Like Productions Forum??

Yes, a place that I never ever go. There are some brave souls here that venture out that far. We must go, the sand people are becoming restless.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 12:44:12 PM by Luke Pemberton »
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Bryanpoprobson

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 823
  • Another Clown
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #543 on: February 16, 2015, 12:46:03 PM »
and they will be back in greater numbers..
"Wise men speak because they have something to say!" "Fools speak, because they have to say something!" (Plato)

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #544 on: February 16, 2015, 12:46:37 PM »
I'm glad he's gone from here, though.  Thank you, LO.
His time was certainly up.  One wonders if a fringe reset will occur.  It took year from IDW's last romp through this forum to develop the Romulus character and return.
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #545 on: February 16, 2015, 12:47:20 PM »
I don't have a guess for how silicon based life would be.  But if the singularity crowd is right, we may get a glimpse of the  silicon based mentality in some undefined but not to distant future.

Probably best to gloss over how we developed computers when they turn up...

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #546 on: February 16, 2015, 12:51:48 PM »
Probably best to gloss over how we developed computers when they turn up...

If only you knew how much that has made me laugh.

'Yes, move along, nothing to see...'
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guru™
    • Rocket & Space Technology
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #547 on: February 16, 2015, 12:55:08 PM »
It took year from IDW's last romp through this forum to develop the Romulus character and return.

IDW was here?  That must have been when I took a break from the forum about 1 to 2 years ago.  Can you direct me to the threads?

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #548 on: February 16, 2015, 12:55:13 PM »
I don't have a guess for how silicon based life would be.  But if the singularity crowd is right, we may get a glimpse of the  silicon based mentality in some undefined but not to distant future.


Probably best to gloss over how we developed computers when they turn up...


Quote from: Richard Dawkins
Once upon a time there was carbon based life,
and it gave over to, silicon based life.

I don’t view the prospect with equanimity,
maybe I’m just sentimental

From the libreto of Three Tales by Steve Riech
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #549 on: February 16, 2015, 12:56:47 PM »
"Look on my works ye mighty and despair"
"Ummm..ok..which works?"
"Don't quibble. I have works, and I demand that you look upon them and despair"
"So far I am despairing of seeing them."
"They'll be along shortly, but I strongly advise that you despair anyway."
"Can I wait until I've seen them before despairing?"
"No. They're amazing, and by golly you will despair, trust me."
"Will they be along soon, only I need to get the tea on?"
"Pah! You imbeciles are going to be really sorry you you didn't despair sooner when I get these works to you...wait...come back..how dare you..."

[exit, pursued by a bare assertion]

This delights my English major soul on every level, and I thank you.

I would say that "misogyny" is a subset of sexism.  You can be sexist without being misogynist, but you cannot be misogynist without being sexist.  I'm not sure what we saw here went up to the level of misogyny, but it was right up there.  It's clear that he thought of women as "lesser than," but that's so common that I can't even see it as misogyny.  The fact that he was proud of it does reach into misogyny territory.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #550 on: February 16, 2015, 12:57:57 PM »
It took year from IDW's last romp through this forum to develop the Romulus character and return.

IDW was here?  That must have been when I took a break from the forum about 1 to 2 years ago.  Can you direct me to the threads?

That should have been years.

Maybe I am conflating BABB or BAUT with the first AH board though.  It was a long time ago. 
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #551 on: February 16, 2015, 01:03:36 PM »
I would say that "misogyny" is a subset of sexism.  You can be sexist without being misogynist, but you cannot be misogynist without being sexist.

That was my thought, although I cannot think of examples to illustrate the difference. A quick Google and the Guardian comes up with a neat discussion. There is some foul language in this article, not something that I want to see written by women, I have to admit (cue irony, and cue slap from Gillianren and Andromeda):

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/17/difference-between-sexism-and-misogyny
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #552 on: February 16, 2015, 01:07:01 PM »
and they will be back in greater numbers..

Nah. They're bantha fodder!

posted via Tapatalk

If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guru™
    • Rocket & Space Technology
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #553 on: February 16, 2015, 01:10:33 PM »
That should have been years.

Maybe I am conflating BABB or BAUT with the first AH board though.  It was a long time ago.

Ok, sorry for the confusion.  I know IDW paid a visit to BABB/BAUT some years ago.  I think this may have been his first visit to this forum (or its predecessors).

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #554 on: February 16, 2015, 01:23:31 PM »
Ok, sorry for the confusion.  I know IDW paid a visit to BABB/BAUT some years ago.  I think this may have been his first visit to this forum (or its predecessors).

The confusion is on my part.  So I'll just retract the concern about a fringe reset.  I really don't want to inadvertently disparage Romulus/IDW now that he is no longer able to repsond.   
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett