Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
I was wondering why a condom wouldn't do the trick.How about one of those rain covers the M-16 rifle muzzle? You know, the thin latex thing they have for swallowing drugs? Almost like a water balloon?
I was wondering why a condom wouldn't do the trick.How about one of those rain covers the M-16 rifle muzzle? You know, the thin latex thing they have for swallowing drugs? Almost like a water balloon?
condom adhesion would require a constant state of tumescence, lest it detach rendering you vulnerable.I was wondering why a condom wouldn't do the trick.
BRILLIANT!Viagra combo therapy then. If you don't still have an erection after 4 hrs in the water, take 2 more!
But, female birth control is free. Young studs only.Obamacare doesn't fund things like that (Viagra, Cialis). They're not covered under that insurance
It's not always so easy to tell. Some folks say the DDT ban was the result of bad science.
One example is called the barn side or six-shooter mistake. If I take a pair of six-guns and fire 12 times at a barn, I can go up with my chalk, (with no one looking) and draw a circle around the best group. "Yep, good shootin!"
Real world example is cancer clusters. Take an area, neighborhood, town, whatever.
Place a red dot where there is a cancer patient. Now try to correlate that with
fire plugs...What?? Why??
How about PCB filled electrical transformers? Oh, yeah! Different from fire plugs right? Wrong.
If you take transformers and draw circles around them and see cancer clusters associated with the transformers, that is the broad side of a barn. Same with fire plugs.
Any science of observation and record keeping is only as good or bad as the records.
Bad science, is looking at the records and drawing inferences that haven't been tested and stating them as scientific correlations.
Any other examples come to mind?
the government needs men like you...peaceYour confusing science with idiots.
An idiot would look at a barn, circle a shot, and say good shot.
Nobody would look at observations in science once and say "Thats fact!". Science is about REPEATING observations and independent verification of those observations.
What you are describing is idiotic, nothing more.
Most of the time a good scientist looks at the data, and if there are surprises in the data, they will check OTHER data of the same substance to ensure that their data isnt bad. THAT is science!
And you are simply full of shit.Bad science is people on the web thinking they are actual scientists and passing off as one around their peers.
And you are simply full of shit.
First off if, you are taking to me, (you quoted me) you are hardly my peer, with this kind of crap. More ignorant than not.
And second, I surely qualify as a Computer Scientist, involved in Computer Science and peer reviewed research and you I repeat are full of shit and perhaps a plumber by trade. (not that there is anything wrong with that)
^ what he saidBad science is when you have people treating scientific theories like scientific laws, as such is the case with the theory of evolution in contrast to the law of mass conservation. Next, a theory is a good theory if it is testable, experimentally replicatable. But keep in mind, a theory is not an absolute truth, like a law. For nearly 2,000 years, the infinite divisibility of matter (searching for the smallest particle) was considered a good theory, and experimentally tested, proved for a long time that matter can keep dividing into a smaller piece. Much later, with the discovery of the atomic theory, the good old theory of divisibility was proved wrong. The moral is that scientific theories are always changing, sometimes revolutionary. But the problem occurs when people (even some scientists) consider a theory to be an absolute fact (ex: theory on origins of life). That is bad science.
^^^^a complete misunderstanding on what scientific laws and scientific theories are.Bad science is when you have people treating scientific theories like scientific laws, as such is the case with the theory of evolution in contrast to the law of mass conservation. Next, a theory is a good theory if it is testable, experimentally replicatable. But keep in mind, a theory is not an absolute truth, like a law. For nearly 2,000 years, the infinite divisibility of matter (searching for the smallest particle) was considered a good theory, and experimentally tested, proved for a long time that matter can keep dividing into a smaller piece. Much later, with the discovery of the atomic theory, the good old theory of divisibility was proved wrong. The moral is that scientific theories are always changing, sometimes revolutionary. But the problem occurs when people (even some scientists) consider a theory to be an absolute fact (ex: theory on origins of life). That is bad science.
the goldern rule?everything can be described as a math equation . .even evolution
we just havent solved it yet
fibernachi code and the golden rule