i have my doubts about gravity because newton was a slave-trading heretic
and computers? are you kidding? turing was teh gay!
game theory? oh come ON! have you seen "a beautiful mind"??
i'm going to be researching a lot more about the people who come up with all these wacky ideas, some of which we've been brainwashed with in school and college. if the people behind these ideas and figures and such are not morally right, religiously right, sexually right, clean as an arrow and pure of soul, i'm not really going to believe any of their so-called "physics" or "math" or "facts" or whatever else they're peddling!
ben franklin was a notorious philanderer! what did he get his mitts on?
I'm not saying gravity isn't real, just that physics raises some very interesting question about whether MATTER is real, and thus we have to wonder just what the fuck gravity actually is. If it is.
One of the most meaningful to us at The Fix was what he said in a commencement address at Stanford University in 2005, a year after his cancer diagnosis: "Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogmawhich is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition.
Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle."
But equally suggestive, at least to us, is a quote from Steve Jobs to New York Times reporter John Markoff, who interviewed him for his 2005 book What the Doormouse Said: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer. Speaking about his youthful experiments with psychedelics, Jobs said, "Doing LSD was one of the two or three most important things I have done in my life." He was hardly alone among computer scientists in his appreciation of hallucinogenics and their capacity to liberate human thought from the prison of the mind. Jobs even let drop that Microsoft's Bill Gates would "be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once." Apple's mantra was"Think different." Jobs did. And he credited his use of LSD as a major reason for his success.
Long before Steve Jobs became the CEO of Apple and one of the most recognizable figures on the planet, he took a unconventional route to find himself -- a spiritual journey that influenced every step of an unconventional career.
Jobs, who died Wednesday at the age of 56 of pancreatic cancer, was the biological child of two unmarried academics who only consented to signing the papers if the adoptive parents sent him to college.
His adoptive parents sent a young Jobs off to Reed College, an expensive liberal arts school in Oregon, but he dropped out and went to India in 1973 in search of enlightenment.
Jobs and his college friend Daniel Kottke, who later worked for him at Apple, visited Neem Karoli Baba at his Kainchi Ashram. He returned home to California a Buddhist, complete with a shaved head and traditional Indian clothing and a philosophy that may have shaped much of his corporate values.
I think I am right when I say that the surveillance will hamper our nation's most creative.
The internet has set off an explosion of creativity. That is what frightens our "leaders" and the repressive bureaucrats at the NSA about it.
Stopping progress. That is what the surveillance is about.
Return to the Middle Ages where you have to check in and check out when you walk through the gates in and out of your village.
History filters out the negative from the good guys and the good from the bad guys.
Too many here measure the cultures of the rest of the world and its history, from their own myopic world view. Anything past the fingers is too fuzzy to take notice of.
Filtering out facts to support a crooked worldview is the stuff history and its associated documentation are made of.
The man married his cousin. "Relativity" yeah, you know what THAT's about.
then again, i don't trust a man with too well-combed hair, either.
or combed-over hair.
They say he was obsessive about that sort of thing. Another loon to dismiss.
to be honest the second part where she got out of porn is fuzzy
I had no idea she did programming
Art Critic: (John Cleese) Some people have made the mistake of seeing Shunt's work as a load of rubbish about railway timetables, but clever people like me, who talk loudly in restaurants, see this as a deliberate ambiguity, a plea for understanding in a mechanized world. The points are frozen, the beast is dead. What is the difference? What indeed is the point? The point is frozen, the beast is late out of Paddington. The point is taken. If La Fontaine's elk would spurn Tom Jones the engine must be our head, the dining car our esophagus, the guard's van our left lung, the cattle truck our shins, the first-class compartment the piece of skin at the nape of the neck and the level crossing an electric elk called Simon. The clarity is devastating. But where is the ambiguity? It's over there in a box. Shunt is saying the 8:15 from Gillingham when in reality he means the 8:13 from Gillingham. The train is the same only the time is altered. Ecce homo, ergo elk. La Fontaine knew his sister and knew her bloody well. The point is taken, the beast is moulting, the fluff gets up your nose. The illusion is complete; it is reality, the reality is illusion and the ambiguity is the only truth. But is the truth, as Hitchcock observes, in the box? No there isn't room, the ambiguity has put on weight. The point is taken, the elk is dead, the beast stops at Swindon, Chabrol stops at nothing, I'm having treatment and La Fontaine can get knotted.
Last edited Sun Aug 25, 2013, 02:32 PM - Edit history (6)
the 1st Amendment was written by the Fifth Monarchists! the steam engine was devised by a phrenologist wizard! the Spanish word for "fact" is the same as for "magic spell"! the u-joint was invented by an astrologer!
... but is too lazy to provide the reference.
And now I'm questioning your thinking. Method and motives are very distinct.
Or are they questioning the veracity of a claim made by a flawed, hypocritical, proven liar?
Oh, dear me. Let me recommend some books to you, starting with those that are biographies of Albert Einstein, since you brought up Physics.
Oh, and Thomas Edison, if you REALLY want to get your flaws on. And your hypocrisy. And your lies.
oh, sure, he denied it, but are you going to believe that flawed, hypocritical, proven liar?
That guy had nothing to say because he liked the wrong person. He didn't do jack shit, nor did Thomas Edison. Or George Washington Carver, for that matter.
The OP seems to have a problem with these concepts. Do you?
so i have to think, should i buy all that stuff given how questionable some of these characters are who advanced "science" and "math" and "computers" and so on???
and just in case you missed it from the o.p.:
my father is a scientist and taught me all that at an early age.
but now i'm starting to doubt his character as well. i mean for him to be involved in all that "science", i just don't know... and education, too! you just can't trust professors, you know. anyone with a beard is hiding something, or so I've heard....
And why are you listening to them? Are you that much of a pushover?
everywhere it seems, we're told that the character of the people pushing ideas and agendas is much more important than the actual documents people say that stole or whatever.
but now you've got me thinking, maybe the people telling me *that* have an agenda themselves!
i'm *so* confused!
wait, is that *your* agenda?
That's pretty funny!
But if you would care to do so, I'm more than ready to see what you have in store.
Hypotheses and falsification? Are you unclear on the topic?
I quite enjoyed it, but in this case I think it is safe enough to say it refers to Mr Greenwald. The progressive's first defense would be to dehumanize him just for being gay, alas they still need too many of us liberals to get away with that at the moment. So they fall back to attacking the messenger (He has faults, we can discount the message he brings us! We can just ignore what he says since he suffers from the same infirmity that inflicts every single person on the planet).
If you cannot refute the message no matter it's veracity, you try to discredit the messenger. Just look at all the worthy attempts on this board so far attempting to do so.
"The progressive's first defense would be to dehumanize him just for being gay"
Back up the fucking truck...
EDIT: I read it again to make sure I got that right.
for heaven's sake. I think you meant "third way" Democrats. At least that is what I hope you meant by this.
or more committed to civil liberties. ( I certainly don't see it that way because I understand the historical origins of liberalism.)
We must throw out everything that science has discovered because OP says the people behind it are bad people.
because Plato was gay, and so was that Aristotle guy. They contributed nothing to society, while sitting there, detailing everything in their little .. note-stones.
"i have my doubts about gravity because newton was a slave-trading heretic"
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
Burdett added: "Gravitywhich is taught to our children as a lawis founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."
Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.
I think what is becoming increasingly clear, however, that science--facts, really-- aren't so clear as they once were. Sure, there is emprical data, but how can we be sure these are really facts unless we consider the personal characterists of these so-called scientists?
In fact, it is now obvious that we should discount completely "facts" unless we are satisfied with the moral character of the fact presenter.
Do you think these two things are equitable? And can unfalsifiable claims made by individuals truly be called "facts"?
Or are you trying to make some deeper point and are either failing spectaculary, or realizing how inappropriate the analogy was to begin with, and you're just not intellectually honest enough to admit it?
and I've become convinced by the overwhelming weight of the argument -- I mean, I've seen this point being made over 104,000 times, and how can that not be convincing I ask you?
But you should realize this is nothing new. We've known that personality is critical to determining the truth of empirical facts for a long time and anyway it is no big deal. It is also legal you should know.
If you don't like that why didn't you complain about it in 2006??!??
If you're reading it a lot lately, should be easy to provide an example.
Please provide an example of all this questioning of empirical scientific fact based on personality. Thanks!
Also, your constant use of capitals in your titles smacks of Libertarianism
If so we can safely dismiss whatever evidence you have
the premise is.
Once you admit it's about Greenwalds untestable, unfalsifiable claims, then you have to admit, comparing them to laws of physics is probably the stupidest thing you can do.
But carry on with your little charade!
Don't Be Angry Lyrics
Don't be angry with me darling
If I fail to understand
All your little whims
And wishes all the time
Just remember that I'm dumb
I guess like any foolish man
And my head stays sorta foggy
'Cause you're mine
Well I recall the first time
That I flirted with you dear
When I jokingly said
Come and be my bride
Now that time has turned the pages
It's the sweetest joke on earth
That I have you here
Forever by my side
Maybe someday you're gonna hurt me
I've been hurt in love before
Only God can know
And time alone will tell
But in the mean time I'll keep loving you
With all my heart and soul
And pray God to let it last
If it's his will
So don't be angry with me darling
If I fail to understand
All your little whims
And wishes all the time
Just remember that I'm dumb
I guess like any foolish man
And my head stays sorta foggy
'Cause you're mine
You never know my little dumpling!
It's about 130 posts right now.
He was on somebody's payroll and it sure wasn't England's.
I think his foreign "friend" threw the apple on his head on purpose.
can rock chicken in a pan harder than diamonds. They are green, mean tart caramelized machines.
If gravity was real they wouldn't call it a theory duh people are so dumm
i think it's high time we repealed it! i can solve the energy crisis and global warming in one fell swoop!
Don't you know they block everything? What a racist!
When there's evidence, the messenger doesn't matter.
When there's not, it does.
that's been made abundantly clear to me.
besides, i think the timing of some of newton's "evidence" was awfully conveeeenient.
and einstein's evidence? he didn't provide any evidence that wasn't already around years ago, but then they suddenly have a media frenzy when he comes out and talks about it. highly suspicious!
and turing! evidence? just a bunch of indecipherable 1's and 0's!
I find it hilarious and ludicrous that people think Greenwald and Snowden have provided "evidence" of their claims, when every document they have released has contradicted them. You read those same documents and think they say the opposite of what I think they say.
You are correct that Einstein did not provide evidence, but relied on the reproducible experimental results of others.
I still don't see the analogy.
there simply are no facts or documents or evidence outside of a carefully controlled environment.
so evidence is useless and the focus on character is all important in understanding what's going on in the world, or in washington, or in a courtroom.
You apparently do not know how it is easy to confirm a vast number of physical principles by doing things like "looking at the sky".
Newton's Law of Gravitation is easily reproduced. You can calculate Planck's constant on the basis of a viscosity experiment in you kitchen sink.
These theories also have predictive value. I do not need to trust anyone's reputation or character to know how long it will take for a dropped object to reach the ground.
Furthermore, experimental results are reproduced by independent labs.
o.t., why is your avatar la vache qui rit?
what would someone who hates straight allies be called, anyway?
Nothing exists without scientific proof. Willow bark was just a placebo effect until Baer aspirin proved and documented it just as they were set to make money from it.
Then there's that whole "theory" thing. "Everyone knows" that theory is just what happens around the water cooler and it has no other definitions outside of the water cooler.
Florence Nightingale couldn't be trusted because she had money and Jonas Salk was just a "rich Jew" who gave away his vaccine because he could afford to and "no one does anything without getting money for it." Altruism doesn't exist because it's not scientifically proven.
I also believe everything that's "Peer Reviewed" like that whole "vaccines cause autism" thing that British medical journal published and backed for 10 years before, uh, they didn't back it any more.
Oh, yeah, "Jefferson owned slaves!" so he's not reliable when it comes to slavery no matter what ideals he aspired to; he sucked!
Wait. Oh yeah, "how can something we can't see cause illness," and "If God had meant man to fly..." and so on and so forth.
Two dimensional, unquestioning, thinking gives my brain cells angina; wait, do my brain cells exist because we can't see them? There's a good opening for a snarky reply.
The world is flat; my church tells me so. The moon walk was staged in Hollywood.
I'm so confused.
Wait! Maybe it's my propensity to follow "conspiracy theories" that are heavy on conspiracy and light on theory...or...wait, wut?! Or, as one person told me a long time ago, when it's proved to be fact it's no longer a conspiracy therefore it can't be a conspiracy theory.
Think about it.
Genetic science has some basis with Nazi experiments.
The Polio vaccine was given away freely.
Both extremes showing the character of people behind scientific discoveries.
Political and social commentary, however, has a lot to do with ones character. A compulsive liar, for example, shouldn't be trusted if you're reasonable.
because the FFs were slave holders (many were not btw) we should abandon the Constitution.
Great illustrative analogy of the propaganda/psyops conducted to try keep us from talking about issues.
over-seen by secret physicists,
but until that happens I will just say that I have seen any evidence that the theory of gravity is true.
the sun is by far the most massive thing in our solar system and yet, drop an object at noon and it falls, not toward this most massive object, but directly away from it! ha! now tell me about your gravity hypothesis!
12 hours later, a dropped object falls toward the sun at midnight, when the sun is a full earth-length further away. why is gravity time-dependent?