The most pathetic individual on this Board

You sir would be the most pathetic individual on this board

[Smiles]

Who's 'Um'? Bar? Number?


And to help out the Dull Mass (or as some describe it, the "Google Generation") ...

1. THE NULL HYPOTHESIS:

" ... the null hypothesis would be designated by the following symbols:

H0: ┬╡1 - ┬╡2 = 0

or by

H0: μ1 = μ2

The null hypothesis is typically a hypothesis of no difference as in this example where it is the hypothesis of no difference between population means. That is why the word "null" in "null hypothesis" is used -- it is the hypothesis of no difference ... " For more: http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/A29337.html

2. KARL POPPER:


" ... The most important philosopher of science since Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Sir Karl Popper finally solved the puzzle of scientific method, which in practice had never seemed to conform to the principles or logic described by Bacon -- see The Great Devonian Controversy, by Martin J. S. Rudwick, for a case study of Baconian rhetoric and expectations being contradicted by actual practice and results.

Instead of scientific knowledge being discovered and verified by way of inductive generalizations, leaping from perceptual data into blank minds, in terms that go back to Aristotle, Popper realized that science advances instead by deductive falsification through a process of "conjectures and refutations."
It is imagination and creativity, not induction, that generates real scientific theories, which is how Einstein could study the universe with no more than a piece of chalk ... " For more: http://www.friesian.com/popper.htm

Hope this helps

Cheers ...

... you appear to know more than my niece Aunty, who claims to be a scientist ("New Age", I suspect - probably a Creationist)

Since Sir Karl died in 1994 then it is irrefutable that he is not a member of this Board which was created after his death.

I have lang syne conjectured that a creature such as BBB describes as himself could not exist, but then we remember what Popper illustrated with Australia's Black Swans.

I'm inclined to believe that which the new poster ascribes to Mr. Billy. There may, however, be an hippopotamus in the room.

[Aunty]

For those of us with who have actually studied the Philosophy of Science (unlike some on this board) will be very aware of the following excerpt taken from Wikipedia. (You will note that Beryl, for all her posturing on Popper, has consistently failed to even mention what Popper's basic thesis actually was, or any actual commentary about what Popper said. I'll leave you and the board to draw your own conclusions about the implications of that.

Popper's thesis was 'What makes a statement scientific?' His proposition, it's falsifiability, or it's ability to be shown to be wrong. Here's the paragraph from the Wikipedia article on the Philosophy of Science (a major subject heading that mysteriously is missing from Beryl's rantings given her claims of expertise on Popper who after all worked and wrote in this interesting area of philosophical inquiry and, that is taught in most Philosophy Departments of most Universities around the world. Why has Beryl not spoken of Popper's concept of falsifiability in science before, or discussed the many criticisms of Popper's work before?).

"These observations are part of Popper's case for defending the idea that what makes a theory scientific is its falsifiability, or refutability. However, Popper's ideas have been heavily criticized by many philosophers, especially on the grounds that they do not adequately describe scientific activity. For instance, very few scientific theories specifically forbid events from happening, which are not open to ad-hoc adjustments (3 above). Similarly, taken in a strict sense, no theory is refutable on the basis of an event (at least not without a guiding set of background theories and ad-hoc restrictions)."

For those who might be interested in reading a little background on the Philosophy of Science or 'what is this thing called science', can read the Wikipedia article. (It's fine for an overview for people unfamilar with this area, but it may not satisfy those with more advanced knowledge) One of the first things you will notice is that Karl Popper is not the God of Science who passed down a set of absolutist rules about what science is, what is bad science, and how science should be conducted, as a certain uneducated member of this board wishes to imply. Many people have had a say on the matter of what science is, and many people have something to say about it as well, and not surprisingly they don't all agree. Others however appear to just listen to Radio 4, or read Science for Dummies, aka New-Scientist as they descend into their unhappy pit of madness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

[Bob]

Before you vote for yourself, Billy, you might want to check out the word "pathetic" in the dictionary (a dictionary is a book which explains what words mean).

I didn't have my contacts in in thought that last one read: "Dull hippopotamus." Which I supposed was a cute homi-reference to la FBOC's favorite budgie nuker. And thence came Aunty's reference to an "unhappy pit of madness." Well, that would seem a logical error; like when you-know-who heard some people put manure on their strawberries
and tried it for herself--
Instead of sugar.

Others however appear to just listen to Radio 4, or read Science for Dummies, aka New-ScientistYou sound like a real intellectual snob. What do you suggest as reading material for those who are not scientists but what to keep up with what's going on in science? I did pick up a copy of New Scientist - if it's intended for dummies, why does it have a multi-page advertising section for scientific jobs? I notice you haven't answered (except with scorn) a statement made earlier that science starts from scepticism. What does it start from, in your opinion?

[Aunty]

Others however appear to just listen to Radio 4, or read Science for Dummies, aka New-ScientistYou sound like a real intellectual snob. What do you suggest as reading material for those who are not scientists but what to keep up with what's going on in science? I did pick up a copy of New Scientist - if it's intended for dummies, why does it have a multi-page advertising section for scientific jobs? I notice you haven't answered (except with scorn) a statement made earlier that science starts from scepticism. What does it start from, in your opinion?

Curiosity.

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

not being included

What does it start from, in your opinion?Curiosity.Just the sort of patronising smart-arse answer I expected.

[Aunty]

YAWN. I'm a scientist, you're not. End of story.

Or would you also like to try such patronising drivel on a Medical Practitioner, or how about an artist. I'm sure they'll be grateful too for your pronouncements on what their jobs are all about as well.

YAWN. I'm a scientist ... The evidence mounts up

not being includedI'll try to do better next time. However the poll results aren't really a resounding endorsement of my niece Aunty's proposition - but certainly Aunty's later comments in the thread are proof positive of an overall boorish nature - doubtless inherited from the under-footman father; he was a real shit according to my father (who was nevertheless grateful to him for getting rid of his daughter, my half-sister - somewhat of a shrew, apparently)

[Aunty]

not being includedI'll try to do better next time. However the poll results aren't really a resounding endorsement of my niece Aunty's proposition - but certainly Aunty's later comments in the thread are proof positive of an overall boorish nature

That's rich coming from somebody who was dishonourably discharged from the Army for sexually inappropriate conduct at work. Now that is what I call boorish behaviour. No doubt explains the chip on your shoulder.

somebody who was dishonourably discharged from the Army for sexually inappropriate conduct at workYour mother must have been awfully pleased to find herself no longer the only black sheep in our family
No doubt explains the chip on your shoulder.NZers are so evenly balanced - they have a chip on each shoulder

[Aunty]

Your mother must have been awfully pleased to find herself no longer the only black sheep in our family

Well at least she wasn't packed off to some third-world shit-hole, to save the family from its embarrassment.

Now that is what I call boorish behavior. No doubt explains the chip on your shoulder.

Are you referring to the chip or that bit of elephant dung num left there: he told me he has learned not to remove his sneakers when ... visiting ... homi: need traction to prevent sliding off that slick bald head, sliding over the slippery slope (gut) and crashing, headlong, into the ... like being snatched from the jaws of death and landing, arse-first, in the snatch of death!