On 28/11/2009 9:03 PM, FarmI wrote:
wrote in message
...
Well at least theyre not as stupid as some who regard scientist as being
infallable.

Or even as stupid as someone who assumes that all scientists are fallible?

"FarmI"ask@itshall be given wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Resignations
a.. Tony Abbott
b.. Nick Minchin
c.. Sophie Mirabella
d.. Stephen Parry
e.. Eric Abetz
f.. Michael Johnson
g.. Tony Smith
h.. Judith Adams
i.. David Bushby
j.. Mathias Cormann
k.. Mitch Fifield
l.. Brett Mason
They cant agree either.
Youre not up to their class, and neither am I

What a ridiculous statement. The only difference between politicians and
the general public is that politicians have managed to get elected. And
given the stupidity of some of them, that isn't difficult if the party
machine is behind them.






At least they have someone behind them.
The party machine principle is one I disprove of too.
As far as them having a legal background, there is profound evidence
that this creates mischief, in that they know how to avoid legal issues by
creation of issues that skirt what the law was meant to do in the first
place.
These people, who I support in this one issue, are at least willing to
stick their neck out, knowing what repercussions there would/could be.
Whether they relate to political repercussions on being re-elected or
not, I would say yes, most likely. But the issue on the table is the one
I'm concerned with. One step at a time.


We can't trust scientists?
Scientific facts are assumptions that pass the scientific method that
later get disproven when new evidence is found.


And truth is absolute reality in harmony with all other truths in existence.

Scientists put forward theories which can be tested and hence proved,
disproved or revised. Any true scientist is open to their work being
challenged. This is called 'scientific method'.
It is dangerous to assume that you ever have all the answers, whatever
your position on evolution / the big bang / whatever.

The new evidence is that there are certain emails, which if they are
genuine, (and it appears they are), will show a tendency to fudge the
figures. It appears the Al Gore run NASA institute has also been found
to make "certain mistakes" which didnt fit in with what he says.
The CRU institute is now proceeding with an enquiry.

We tend to slant science and situations to past history and test is
against what is happening now, or project it into the future.
This does not always work So we have theories.
We are still testing the theory of relativity. It appears to fit.


Additional and not really relevant, but still a point to ponder.
Hoping to become famous and make breakthrough discoveries scientists are
sometimes tempted to use questionable methods. They may steal someone
else's research data and ideas and take the credit. This happened for
example in 1953 when James Watson and Francis Crick were credited for
discovering the structure of the DNA, when in fact the credit should
have gone to a brilliant female biologist Rosalind Franklin.

Franklin came up with the double helix structure based on X-ray images
of the DNA. Her supervisor passed her data to Watson and Crick who at
the time were also studying the DNA and realised Franklin was on the
right track. In 1962 Watson and Crick received the Nobel Prize for
'their' discovery. Franklin on the other hand was already dead. She died
at the age of 38 due to radiation exposure she got from taking X-rays as
part of her original research.

I would say there, dont mistake science with ethics.

The financial advantages of lying must be understood.
There are many examples of "great" people who have bent the truth, and
it was recently done over a speeding fine, by one of our legal
representatives of great standing. I am sure short cuts are used.