Previous 21 - 30 Next
Why then does Obama feel it necessary to have so many fake followers if Twitter is really not important? Sorry Independent. You can't have it both ways.
As I stated in my original post, only partially. When it comes to theories vs models, he is less correct. When it comes to falsification (in the context the scientific method), he is completely wrong.
Togubin, look at who sponsors many of these polls - NYT, CNN, NBC, ABC, Quinnipiac, etc. It shouldn't be difficult to have a balanced poll, but that is not their goal. Their goal is to increase Dem turnout and campaign contributions.
Exactly. Dahni apparently does not understand the scientific method. Definition #4 from Dictionary.com 4. to show or prove to be false; disprove: to falsify a theory.
After all, who wants to go vote when they know their candidate is going to lose, possibly by a very wide margin? And who wants to contribute money? Answers: few people and no one, respectively. So, biased pollsters oversample Democrats so their polls will show Obama with a slight advantage and Republicans worry. I just don't understand it. Lesson: don't believe any poll with a partisan sampling advantage of more than D+4 and don't believe a poll that samples "Adults" or even "registered voters". "Likely voters" like Rasmussen samples is the most reliable indicator. Those are the people who will actually be motivated enough to get out and vote.
I do not understand why Republicans are so concerned over the polls. That Quinnipiac poll cited had a D+19 partisan sampling advantage. In 2008, whn Obamamania was at its peak, the turnout was D+8. It was around D+4 in 2010 when the Tea Party emerged as the energizing force in the Republican Party. Now, with unemployment at 8.3%, no economic recovery, a $16T debt, and numerous other problems, the question is will Democrat enthusiasm increase in 2012 such that the partisan turnout advantage will approach D+19 as in the Quinnipiac poll or will it hold at 2010 levels or decline. Now, there's a reason pollsters skew their polls like that. They know if they consistently show Obama losing, Dem turnout will diminish.
You are only partially correct. I agree that falsification is an attempt to prove a hypothesis wrong, not to prove it's true. I think I said that. If a hypothesis survives repeated attempts at falsification, our confidence that it is true increases. And yes, we build models when a falsifiable hypothesis cannot be formulated. Evolution is such a model. It does not properly qualify as a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable. It doesn't mean that science cannot or shoud not develop such a model, but rather that the scientific method is limited. It does not extend to questions of historical occurrance. For example, you cannot prove Abraham Lincoln was president using the scientific method.
(cont) And models, as such, can be assessed probabalistically. So it i appropriate for Hansen to apply probabilities in search of conclusions. Whai is not appropriate for Hansen to do is cherry pick the data which he has done. He looked at a sample from the 1950's to the 1980's. Recall, this was a period when science told us we were on the verge of a new ice age. So, compared to then, we are warmer. However, compared to the decade of the 1930's +/- a few years, we are in fact much cooler. Conclusion: Golbal warming is still false and Hansen is a fraud for peddling it.
I must disagree with your conclusion here. Probabliities are a very useful way of assessing the feasibility of a scientific model when experimental falsification is not possible. In fact, this is often done with biological, geological and cosmological evolution (as you mentioned.) The reason is that neither evolution (of any variety), ID or Creationism constitute scientific theories because none are subject to falsification. It is simply not possible to reconstruct all the conditions of our earth (or universe's) past in a controlled laboratory environment and subject the hypothesis to falsification. Consequently, none of these can truly be considered scientific theories, but rather models of origins.
In response to:

RNC Chair to Reid: Dirty Liar

Tertius Wrote: Aug 06, 2012 2:39 PM
If Harry Reid is willing to lie about Mitt's taxes now, does anybody believe for 1 minute that if Mitt released more tax returns Harry Reid wouldn't continue to lie about them? Of course he would. So would Obama, Azelrod, Jay Carney and the whole of the MSM. These people have no integrity and will lie when the truth would do as well.
Holmes bought 6,000 rounds. Nothing to sneeze at to be sure, but I have no idea where Bill came up with the 60,000 number. He was clearly in error.
Previous 21 - 30 Next