Welcome to our site!

Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

  • Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

Happy Halloween.

Status
Not open for further replies.

ke5frf

New Member
Happy Halloween to the forum.

And an apology for offending anyone. I'll stick to electronics on this site. I honestly had no idea that the chitchat forum was limited on the topics it accomodated. I felt the need to post this because I know how tempting it is to discredit someone who has ideas (or in my case, even a passing interest) that seem kooky.

For the record,
I don't believe in Bigfoot,
nor Lochness monsters,
nor Alien abductions,
nor contrails having anything other than watervapor,
and I don't own any foil hats.

I just found the topic I posted interesting.

Thanks for at least allowing me to post this to clear that up.
 

ke5frf

New Member
Never heard of him.
I am who I am. You can even get my name and address by Googling my amateur radio callsign on the FCC website.

I have nothing to hide, and I'm not even really convinced of the alternative "theory" that I posted. It just brings up a lot of interesting questions in my mind, and to me good science should always answer questions while opening the door to more.

Thanks.
 

Sceadwian

Banned
****-chat isn't limited, but the way that thread was developing, no useful information or ideas were being exchanged so it provided no benefit to anyone, it had simply degraded into any argument with no way for any side to make a point without being torn apart by the other. Basically it has to be kept civil and respect needs to be given on both sides regardless of the topic of discussion and that wasn't occurring in that thread. Also science fact and opinion are NOT the same thing, and valid data has to be presented rather than narrow viewpoints on all sides, that was again not occurring.

The contrails bit has always peaked my interest though, not like chem trails which I think is just paranoid people, but what effect contrails actually have on the weather as far as seeding cloud development and tweaking weather patterns.

By the way, your posts in the locked thread were ANYTHING but simple interest, you deliberately made personal statements that were completely unrelated to the topic at hand, and made broad far reaching claims with absolutely no documented evidence that did nothing to lend any credence to the theory proposed. There was no intelligent discourse occurring.

If you don't believe in the theory you posted you should not have tried to shoot down every single comment made against it as if it were a personal attack on yourself.

Good science is based on proposed theory addressed by experimentation, data collection, analysis, and continually developed, it is also completely unbiased and should immediately turn the microscope on it's own posits before it attempts to attack other theoretical posits. Or it's nothing more than sophisticated bully boy name calling.

Oh by the way, happy Haloween =)
 

ke5frf

New Member
OK well I didnt feel my language was personal, except one time when I used the term lazy minded, but that wasn't meant to be taken personally.
I can be quite lazy minded about topics I have no interest in thinking too much on :) :)
 

ke5frf

New Member
And BTW, I never said I don't believe the theory. I said I am not really convinced either way.

It is interesting, and by rebutting each comment, I was basically taking on "Devil's Advocate". I can get carried away with that.
And your last statement about good science is absolutely true, and in fact that is what I was doing, turning science around upon itself and questioning its accepted posits, not defending the other theory...just opening the currently accepted theory up to scrutiny by means of other theories.


I don't want this thread to get locked, so enough on that.
Just wanted to make my thougts and my intentions clear.

I am more interested in the philosophical aspects of science than any specific theory, as I tried to state.


But since we are discussing this more loosely, I would like to ask a simple question...and offer my own answer

Q: If you were to scale the entirity of human scientific knowledge, with a 10 representing omnipotence and 0 being stone age knowledge, how far along that scale do we think man is?

And when considering your answer, take into account the possibility that a certain amount that we think we know at this time will turn out to be misguided in part or whole in the future. Well, history tells us this anyway.

I would say the sum of our knowledge and understanding of the universe and all its complexities ranks somewhere between a 2 and 2.5
 

tcmtech

Banned
Most Helpful Member
I am biased on that number myself.
Some things I see would indicate a possible 3 on the scale but yet there are so many things I see that people do that any stone aged person would just look at and grunt WTF?
That would in effect require a negative placement for some people and would thusly bring the overall average down further yet than had they just been recorded as a zero on the scaling system. :eek:

1.5 average. Some 3+ people do exist but unfortunatly so do many -1's as well. :(
 
Last edited:

Sceadwian

Banned
just opening the currently accepted theory up to scrutiny by means of other theories.
With no supporting data, just a desire to inflame commentary. Which has no purpose in any forum. It serves no purpose other than to fill the void with noise. To no useful end.

Q: If you were to scale the entirity of human scientific knowledge, with a 10 representing omnipotence and 0 being stone age knowledge, how far along that scale do we think man is?
Knowledge isn't so easily quantifiable, to even think knowledge can be quantified on such a scale puts us on such a scale at a negative number.

I am more interested in the philosophical aspects of science than any specific theory, as I tried to state.
Science is not philosophy do not mix them, or you're just muddying already muddy waters for nothing other than to fill the void with noise. Again with no true purpose no goal. I would recommend carefully reading the bellow link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
Mind you I think the definition of troll is a bit broader then that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

EE World Online Articles

Loading
Top