swansont

Since that’s what I was talking about, yes. Relevant? Possibly. But you did’t provide this information/context earlier (nor the Sagan quote), which is the problem.

How has he violated, or otherwise made a mockery of, the first amendment? Doesn’t matter to the MAGAts. Saying it was rigged is a trigger for the rabid response team. Rationality or factuality don’t enter into it.

How your quote addresses that is beyond me, seeing as it does not mention bias in any way. I don’t think anyone has argued that scientists are immune to bias. Certainly not the OP. Quite the opposite.

Perhaps we could get a definition of bias (or “biasness”), because I’m not seeing it. I thought bias was favoring or disfavoring a result in a way not justified by the evidence. I don’t see how e.g. studying string theory is bias, since nobody is saying it’s an actual model of anything, yet. It’s a work in progress. It’s not like it’s been shown to be wrong, and studied anyway. Funding of string theory is probably an example of bias.

So “anonymous” isn’t the key here. Then iNow’s suggestion works. Use anyone else’s phone.

Probably, but not because he’s shown contrition and shown that he’s “learned his lesson” If it’s just a fine, which someone else will pay, is that enough for interfering with an election?

it’s still just commentary, doesn’t address the topic, and as far as I can see there was only one quote provided, which was on-topic, though did not constitute evidence. So while I’m sure you think you have a point, by not providing enough discussion and context, you have not made it apparent.

My turn? You have yet to provide any. And I can’t provide evidence of things that didn’t happen - i.e. bias avoided. Truth sounds like the situation with SJ Gould’s definition of “fact” “In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.” IOW, the body of evidence is massive, so overturning it requires a significant amount of evidence. An observation or two won’t suffice; the first approach would be looking for confounding conditions, like a strong wind or someone throwing the apples, should you see one rising. You would not just throw out the concept of gravity based on that. So yes, the laws of thermodynamics would be such Truths. If someone presented you with a device purporting to be over-unity, the first order of business would be to look for the hidden battery, as opposed to chucking thermodynamics in the dustbin. “Why is dimreepr a distracting source of pithy commentary instead of actually adding to the discussion?” — me

Many other republicans wouldn’t support him had he continued, in stark contrast with the current cult known as the GOP. You can’t be a member these days unless you declare the 2020 election stolen and myriad other “alternate truths” As compromised as the Roberts court is, it’s not laid out in the Constitution so this isn’t their fault. It’s the republican in congress who failed to convict him when he was impeached, or otherwise hold him accountable.

! Moderator Note Be mindful of rule 2.1 here. Tread carefully.

But not scientific bias - you come up with the same answer.

Interpretations are personal preference; I don’t see how that’s bias. What is the evidence that this is happening? What is “taboo” in science, other than concepts that have already been shown to be wrong? Is it bias to e.g. dismiss perpetual motion? Or have we established the bona-fides of the laws of thermodynamics well enough that we don’t need to waste time on unsubstantiated claims?

! Moderator Note These are not issues of modern physics, and we prefer one topic per thread. Try again.

I was responding to MigL’s points; what I want to know is how they are examples of bias, and the evidence that the bias is in the scientific process. It takes more than finger-pointing. There are reasons to support the notion that light is a particle, and that it’s a wave. Where is the bias? It has rejected ideas that did not meet with prevailing thought, but that could be because there was insufficient evidence to challenge it. What we need is evidence, and not just accusation or innuendo.

It’s not bias to support a model that has evidence supporting it. In a similar vein, one should be able to show evidence if bias, rather than just an article which lays out claims of bias. And a “champion of links to studies and citations and references on this forum” might be expected to provide an actual link.

It can only hide behind the sun for a few months at most.

The number would still be traceable to a business, which might indicate to the recipient who called.

Why have you not asked others to do so?

There are pronunciations listed in most dictionaries nuance is listed as “nü-än(t)s” at merriam-webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuance The pronunciation is described by a phonetic alphabet, dashes indicate syllables and sometimes CAPS are used to show which syllable should be emphasized Different pronunciations could simply be from regional dialects.

We have a lot of technology that we use where we don’t understand why it works - we just know that it does. I’m pretty sure they had e.g. siphons back in the day, before anyone understood air pressure. We don’t notice the ~1 atm of pressure on us, after all. People had barometers and noticed the correlation with the weather without understanding the details. They had evaporative cooling structures in ancient times without knowing exactly how they worked. They just knew that wind passing by something wet cooled the air.

Is that the causative agent, or just a symptom/side-effect of it? (or both) Education may mean knowing about birth control, but it also might just be an artifact of possibly having a white-collar job, and not needing to pump out a bunch of kids to work the land. Education also might indicate decent health care, so you don’t need a high birth rate because the infant mortality rate isn’t so grim. I think the point is that you haven’t clearly communicated anything specific. You haven’t mentioned contraception, so how does one know you are advocating this?

I figured that, but my navy time pushed the warship designation to the top of the list.

I was there late ‘95 through early ‘98 in the TRINAT group (TRIumf Neutral Atom Trap), which was established around ‘93, I think. They needed an atom trapper, which was outside the expertise of the people there. The other postdoc had learned a lot about it, but their background was nuclear/particle. We trapped some radioactive potassium isotopes, and once that system was running they could focus on the nuclear physics experiments. Since I helped build the apparatus my name was on a half-dozen papers after I left. I think Otto is looking for actual engagement, not rhetorical questions that have only a passing relevance to the issue.

I thought guided missile destroyers were supposed to be fast.

It might be helpful to note what OS and browser one uses when reporting issues like this. They might be factors. The experience is not universal.