Silkroad Online Forums

Phil Plait wrote:"For some reason, no one has claimed that it’s Jesus smiling.
Maybe Jesus hated grapes.
That would explain why he didn’t turn water into Welch’s."

Bill Beaty wrote:GRAVITY IN SPACE IS ZERO? WRONG.

Everyone knows that the gravity in outer space is zero.
Everyone is wrong.

Gravity in space is not zero, it can actually be fairly strong. Suppose you climbed to the top of a ladder that was 300 miles tall. You would be up in the vacuum of space, but you would not be weightless at all. You'd only weigh fifteen percent less than you do on the ground. When 300 miles out in space, a 200lb person would weigh 170lb. Yet a spacecraft can orbit 'weightlessly' at the height of your ladder! While you're up there, you might see the Space Shuttle zip right by you. The people inside it would seem as weightless as always. Yet on your tall ladder, you'd feel nearly normal weight. What's going on?

The reason that the shuttle astronauts act weightless is that they're inside a container which is FALLING! If the shuttle were to sit unmoving on top of your ladder (it's a strong ladder,) the shuttle would no longer be falling, and its occupants would feel nearly normal weight. And if you were to leap from your ladder, you would feel just as weightless as an astronaut (at least you would until you hit the ground!)

So, if the orbiting shuttle is really falling, why doesn't it hit the earth? It's because the shuttle is not falling down, it is moving very fast sideways as it falls, so it falls in a curve. It moves so fast that the curved path of its fall is the same as the curve of the earth, so the Shuttle falls and falls and never comes down. Gravity strongly affects the astronauts in a spacecraft: the Earth is strongly pulling on them so they fall towards it. But they are moving sideways so fast that they continually miss the Earth. This process is called "orbiting," and the proper word for the seeming lack of gravity is called "Free Fall." You shouldn't say that astronauts are "weightless," because if you do, then anyone and anything that is falling would also be "weightless." If we drop a book, does gravity stop affecting it, should we say it becomes weightless? If so, then why does it fall? "Weight" is the force which pulls objects towards the Earth, and this force is still there when objects fall.

So to experience GENUINE free fall just like the astronauts, simply jump into the air! Better yet, jump off a diving board at the pool, or bounce on a trampoline, or go skydiving. Bungee-jumpers know what the astronauts experience.

Unknown Source wrote:Wisdom does not consist in knowing more that is new, but in knowing less that is false.

cpinney wrote:holly shit a grape.

dom wrote:

cpinney wrote:holly shit a grape.

Dear sir,

Phil Plait wrote:"For some reason, no one has claimed that it’s Jesus smiling. Maybe Jesus hated grapes.

Grandpa wrote:That would explain why he didn’t turn water into Welch’s."

cpinney wrote:holly shit a coffee maker.

Spoiler!

Barotix wrote:oO Scientist never claimed there is 0 gravity in space, free-fall acceleration is common knowledge for the scientific mind.
This topic should be entitled "Social Misconceptions", as many of the things society believes to be facts, are false.

MYTH: SCIENTISTS USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
CORRECT: THERE IS NO SINGLE "SCIENTIFIC METHOD." IT IS A MYTH


The rules of a science-fair typically require that students follow THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, or in other words, hypothesis-testing. The students must propose a hypothesis, test it by experiment, then reach conclusions. This supposedly is "The Scientific Method" used by all scientists.

Unfortunately this is wrong, and there is no single Scientific Method as such. Most scientists don't follow The Scientific Method in their daily work. "The Scientific Method" is a myth spread by school books. It is an extremely widespread myth, but this doesn't make it any more real. "The Scientific Method" is part of school and school books, and is not part of real science. Real scientists use a large variety of methods (perhaps call them "The Methods of Science" rather than "The Scientific Method.") Hypothesis-testing is one of these, but it certainly is not the only one, and it would be a mistake to elevate it above all others. We shouldn't force children to memorize it, and we shouldn't use it to exclude certain types of projects from science fairs.

There are many parts of science that cannot easily be forced into the "hypothesis/experiment/conclusion" mold. Astronomy is not an experimental science, and Paleontologists don't perform Paleontology experiments... so studying dinosaurs or stars must not be science? Or, if a scientist has a good idea for designing a new kind of measurment instrument (e.g. telescope), that certainly is "doing science", but where is The Hypothesis? Where is The Experiment? The Atomic Force Microscope (STM/AFM) revolutionized science. Yet wouldn't building such a device be rejected from many science fairs? It's not an experiment. The creators of the STM weren't doing science when they came up with that device? The Nobel prize committee disagrees.

Forcing kids to follow a caricature of scientific research distorts science, and it really isn't necessary in the first place.

Another example: great discoveries often come about when scientists notice anomalies. Isaac Asimov said it well: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...' " This suggests that lots of important science comes NOT from proposing hypotheses or even from performing experiments, but instead from learning to see what nobody else can see. Scientific discovery comes from something resembling "informed messing around," or unguided play. Yet many educators treat science as deadly serious business, and "messing around" is sometimes dealt with harshly.

Sir Peter Medawar wrote:"Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be and he adopts an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn, because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare."

- Sir Peter Medawar

Grandpa wrote:Misconceptions propagated to our K - 6th grades. To me, it's bad enough to be ignorant, but to compound it by suggesting expertise and teaching the lie?

dom wrote:

Grandpa wrote:Misconceptions propagated to our K - 6th grades. To me, it's bad enough to be ignorant, but to compound it by suggesting expertise and teaching the lie?

Like teaching that the planet is only several thousand years old?

LINK ~~~> "The Age of the Earth"

Summary wrote:None of the three listed views regarding the age of the Earth and the universe (young Earth creationist, old Earth creationist, old Earth non-theist) seem to be fully satisfactorily explained if both current scientific understanding and fundamental Biblical claims are both highly regarded.

Grandpa wrote:QUESTION: How old is the Earth?
ANSWER: Like I said before, "I dunno"..

G. Brent Dalrymple wrote:"The best value for the age of the earth is based on the time required for the isotopic composition of lead in the oldest (2.6-3.5 b.y.) terrestrial ores, of which there are currently only four [235U to 207Pb to 238U to 206Pb], to evolve from the primordial composition, recorded in meteoritic troilite, to the composition at the time (measured independently) the ores separated from their parent rocks in earth's mantle. These calculations result in ages for the earth of 4.42 to 4.56 b.y. with a best value of 4.54 b.y."¹

satman83 wrote:this planet is probley more like 4000 million (4 billion) years old (< based on the
oldest carbon dated rock found)

Grandpa wrote:

Barotix wrote:oO Scientist never claimed there is 0 gravity in space, free-fall acceleration is common knowledge for the scientific mind.
This topic should be entitled "Social Misconceptions", as many of the things society believes to be facts, are false.

Yeah, like science doesn't make mistakes...
Just kidding, my friend, but I'm not convinced the thread name should be changed. These are things that Science teachers (some with Masters degrees) teach to our youth. Misconceptions propagated to our K - 6th grades. To me, it's bad enough to be ignorant, but to compound it by suggesting expertise and teaching the lie? Seven (7) time worse.

Going cruising (surfing?) for another. I'll pick the next one that either debunks something I thought true or didn't think enough about when young <~~ there are lots. Will edit with the next I find...

[RESERVED EDIT]: > this spot intentionally left blank < ---> How about "Scientists use the Scientific Method". Yeah, that might do nicely...

It was the top one - too easy to find:

MYTH: SCIENTISTS USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
CORRECT: THERE IS NO SINGLE "SCIENTIFIC METHOD." IT IS A MYTH


The rules of a science-fair typically require that students follow THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, or in other words, hypothesis-testing. The students must propose a hypothesis, test it by experiment, then reach conclusions. This supposedly is "The Scientific Method" used by all scientists.

Unfortunately this is wrong, and there is no single Scientific Method as such. Most scientists don't follow The Scientific Method in their daily work. "The Scientific Method" is a myth spread by school books. It is an extremely widespread myth, but this doesn't make it any more real. "The Scientific Method" is part of school and school books, and is not part of real science. Real scientists use a large variety of methods (perhaps call them "The Methods of Science" rather than "The Scientific Method.") Hypothesis-testing is one of these, but it certainly is not the only one, and it would be a mistake to elevate it above all others. We shouldn't force children to memorize it, and we shouldn't use it to exclude certain types of projects from science fairs.

There are many parts of science that cannot easily be forced into the "hypothesis/experiment/conclusion" mold. Astronomy is not an experimental science, and Paleontologists don't perform Paleontology experiments... so studying dinosaurs or stars must not be science? Or, if a scientist has a good idea for designing a new kind of measurment instrument (e.g. telescope), that certainly is "doing science", but where is The Hypothesis? Where is The Experiment? The Atomic Force Microscope (STM/AFM) revolutionized science. Yet wouldn't building such a device be rejected from many science fairs? It's not an experiment. The creators of the STM weren't doing science when they came up with that device? The Nobel prize committee disagrees.

Forcing kids to follow a caricature of scientific research distorts science, and it really isn't necessary in the first place.

Another example: great discoveries often come about when scientists notice anomalies. Isaac Asimov said it well: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...' " This suggests that lots of important science comes NOT from proposing hypotheses or even from performing experiments, but instead from learning to see what nobody else can see. Scientific discovery comes from something resembling "informed messing around," or unguided play. Yet many educators treat science as deadly serious business, and "messing around" is sometimes dealt with harshly.

Sir Peter Medawar wrote:"Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be and he adopts an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn, because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare."

- Sir Peter Medawar

sci·ence Audio Help /ˈsaɪəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

sci·ence Audio Help (sī'əns) Pronunciation Key
n.

1.

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science.

Right on the heels of the Michigan stupidity, I have just learned that Oklahoma is not doomed after all: their governor vetoed an incredibly ridiculous bill that would have allowed students to say the Earth is 6000 years old… and not get graded down for it!

I wrote about this dumb bill before. It really does say that a student can write any bit of nonsense they want on a test or on homework, and if they claim it’s their religious belief the teacher cannot mark them wrong. This bill, called "the Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act", is yet another shot fired against science by the forces of evil.

Of course, (just like in the Michigan bill), they don’t claim this is about creationism. They claim it’s about religious freedom. But this is not about freedom, it’s about shackling science and beating it to death with nonsense.

Normally I would laud the governor for doing this… if he had said that this bill was anti-reality and intended to promote religious belief. Instead, though, he was all namby-pamby about it:

Henry said students are already allowed to express their faith through voluntary prayer and other activities. He said the legislation was well-intended, but vague and “may trigger a number of unintended consequences that actually impede rather than enhance such expression.”

Let’s be very clear here: this legislation is not well-intended. It is intended to undermine the Constitution. It’s that simple. These people want religion taught in the classroom, and they want to do it at the expense of science and of reality. For them to say anything else is dissembling at the very least. Do you really think they want kids to be able to say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is responsible for the creation of the world? How about Odin?

Imagine if some kid said she’s a satanist. That would go over well.

So I’m very glad indeed the governor vetoed that nasty bit of legislation, but it’s not a clear win when it’s done for the wrong reason, or announced that way. We need to be clear about this, and we need to make it clear to the politicians: keep your religion out of the classroom. That is one of the rock-solid foundations of our country, and it’s one of the most important — even fundamental — reasons this country has achieved what it has.

Spoiler!

Squirt, ya hick! Who were you quoting?
I'd guess it was something from Boing Boing, right?
CHURCH OF THE FLYING SPAHGETTI MONSTER (SPAGHEDIETY):

I do agree with ya about idiocy. Xians and Politics -- in my perfect world that would be an oxymoron and the religious would stay outta everybody's business but their own. Trust me, this belief, the "Mind your own business, Xian" philosophy isn't new. It's called "Clean the Inside of the Cup First." Although this might be a perfect place for me to employ Socratic irony, I'd rather simply decline.

Barotix wrote:EDIT: I smell quote mining. >.>

Yes, that's it! Urethra! He found it!
Oh and since I am quoting and allowing others to form their own opinions there is no reason to debate ME.

Of course your opinions are welcome but the quotes that I present are not my opinions.
What I look for is my "/DOH - Smacks forehead" moment after I read the article.
Lots of misconceptions are taught to kids when they are the most thirsty for knowledge.

It's much easier to find better information now than it was lol, 'in my day' (I sooo sound like my dad when I say that) but there are still too many false concepts that were 'discovered' / 'proposed' before I was born. We're getting better though.

Them old guys were smart enough BUT they didn't have enough information to form proper conclusions. As far as "The Scientific Method" goes, there are various methods employed by science.

Read again, but change the emphasis:

• MYTH: SCIENTISTS USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
• CORRECT: THERE IS NO SINGLE "SCIENTIFIC METHOD." IT [that there is only one method] IS A MYTH

The author was neither invalidating science, nor scientific methods. The "Hmmmm... That's funny..." moment struck me as correct. How many scientific discoveries came from happy accidents?

Barotix wrote:Grandpa, they're Grade School Teachers (ffs). I don't think they know much themselves, and for the most part rely on what they believe to be common knowledge (social misconception)

Barotix, who teaches our scientists? How old are they when they are out of school and fully formed scientists? Not many were born in 1905 Germany, Einstein. (sorry, couldn't resist). As always, it's a pleasure discussing things with you. My point is Scientists are people (were kids once) too.

(I'll borrow from Carl Jung for this one): We each have different personality types. NF personalities are among the most creative thinkers but require freedom to operate. If THE scientific method was in force for all theories who could exist under such tyranny? "I'm sorry, your concepts are not allowed," said the thought police, "They can not be directly tested."

We would not be allowed to believe in the simplest things if that were the case.

You are correct (given that you have a Sociology POV) about "Social" Misconceptions, but all Science Misconceptions can be broken down into five basic categories 1) preconceived notions; 2) nonscientific beliefs; 3) conceptual misunderstandings; 4) vernacular misconceptions; and 5) factual misconceptions. I think the most common error Scientists make (no matter what camp they hang with) is insufficient examination of assumptions.

While most student misconceptions go unrecognized, there has been an informal effort to identify errors and misconceptions present in textbooks. The Bad Science web page, maintained by Alistair Fraser is another example. Other resources include Students' and Teachers' Conceptions and Science Education (STCSE) website maintained by Reinders Duit.

To me, and in my humble opinion, Empirical Rationalism is as much a religion as any other. What was Galileo's biggest assumption? Was it not that conclusions can be drawn from observations of cannon ball trajectories and applied to planetary orbits? The man wasn't stupid. What was Freud's error? Did he employ a random sampling when he gathered his data? Not all cigars can be lit, friend.

I do very much enjoy our debates though, but do me a favor and find something (other than creationism) to debunk and post it up, kk?
Here's one you might like:

~Gpa

takolin wrote:

satman83 wrote:this planet is probley more like 4000 million (4 billion) years old (< based on the
oldest carbon dated rock found)

I doubt that carbon dating can set an age on something that's 4 billion years old.
IIRC C14 has a half life of 4000years or something in that area.

4 billion / 4000 = 1million
Thus C14 has lost half it's mass 1 million times.
Thus the mass is 1/(2^1000000) from what it was. I'm quite sure that you'll realise that this can't be measured.

Other dating methods are used that have a bigger half life.

Yes it's not really mass that's lost, but I can't remember what the exact reaction was and I can't be arsed to look it up.

Well said, takolin and correct. TY. The assumption that there were no 'daughter' elements and the sample was absolutely pure must be examined as well, but you already know...

The gravity of a black hole is slightly weaker than, not stronger than, the gravity of the star which formed it, outside the Schwarzschild radius.

Isaac Newton's laws of gravitation state that, for an object with a spherically symmetric distribution of mass, two things affect how much gravitational force is felt by an observer: the mass of the object and the distance between the observer and the object's centre.

A black hole has slightly less mass than the star which formed it, because when a star becomes a supernova, some of the star's mass is converted into energy according to Einstein's equation E = mc², and a great deal of the star's mass is returned to the interstellar medium.

• The actual black hole is caused by a singularity.
• Only when a distance of (slightly less than) the star's original radius is passed does gravity become greater.
• Once the event horizon is passed the speed required to escape the black hole's gravity exceeds that of light.

As such, black holes are not similar to "cosmic vacuum cleaners".
Objects can settle into stable orbits around them just as they would around any other mass in space.

Black holes of this size can form in several ways.

• The most obvious is by slow accretion of matter (starting from a black hole of stellar size).
• Another method of producing a supermassive black hole involves a large gas cloud collapsing into a relativistic star of perhaps a hundred thousand solar masses and up. The star then becomes unstable to radial perturbations due to electron-positron pair production in its core, and may collapse directly into a black hole with no supernova.
• Yet another method involves a dense stellar cluster which undergoes core-collapse as the negative heat capacity of the system drives the velocity dispersion in the core to relativistic speeds.
• Finally, it may be possible to construct primordial black holes directly from external pressure in the first instants of the Big Bang. The problem in forming a supermassive black hole is getting enough matter in a small enough volume. This matter needs to have nearly all of its angular momentum removed in order for this to happen. The process of transporting this angular momentum outwards appears to be the constraining factor in black hole growth, and leads to the formation of accretion disks.

Observationally, there currently appears to be a gap in the population distribution of black holes.
There are stellar mass black holes, generated from collapsing stars, which range up to perhaps 10 solar masses.
The minimal supermassive black hole is in the range of a hundred thousand solar masses.
Between these regimes appears to be a dearth of objects.
However, some models suggest that ultraluminous X-ray sources (ULXs) may be black holes from this missing group.

Nothing stated above (or in other places, I've searched) gives a satisfactory answer to my questions:

• "How do SMBH (SuperMassive Black Holes) "know" how much their galaxy will weigh when or while they are being formed?"
• "How could a supermassive black hole form in the center of a galaxy?"

• A man of eighty has outlived probably three new schools of painting, two of architecture and poetry and a hundred in dress.

-- Lord Byron, English romantic poet

1. Social Misconception: Did you know that children are taught there is only one type of black hole (as long as we're on the subject of black holes). They are told black holes are stationary, funny thing: We (being man) Have, in recent times, found stray black holes that move .
   
2. Social and Scientific Misconception: Life started in warm regions on the earth. The surprising matter; There appears to be a fledging theory that life may have started in Ice-Water, sadly the progenitor of the theory is dead, and most of his data has been lost (or) destroyed. I am looking for an article to cite, atm.
   
3. Social Misconception: Another fledging theory: This one's creator is still live and well. It postulates that there was not one but instead several big bangs. Each constantly occurring off the outskirts of the "end" of each universe. I would make an illustration, but its the morning.
   
4. Another: Social Misconception: Life (can/does) only exist on earth. Funny thing, it doesn't take a genius to realize that is (one of) the single most biased statements from our wonderful species.
   
5. Social Misconception: There is only one way to make discoveries. Grandpa covered this in his first post.

takolin wrote:I never was a big fan of physics, but I can see the general misconception about the gravitything.

Mass of the original sun > Mass of the black hole
Radius of the original sun < radius of the black hole

Lets assume an object can stand on the surface of the original start and on the surface of the black hole. Where would it have the biggest influence of gravity?

I'm quite sure that it's on the black hole due to it's small size. Not the mention that the attraction is inversely proportional with the square of the radius.

F = G * M1*M2/R²


Anyway I don't like physics and there were quite a few things I didn't understand in the text, but I could understand the general purpose of the text.

• F = Force (for objects close to the Earth) = Force pulling object(s) toward the Earth (also the 'weight' of the object)
• G = Acceleration due to the Force of Gravity (often misnamed as "Acceleration of Gravity" but Gravity doesn't not accelerate)
• M = Mass

• W is weight
• M is mass
• G is acceleration due to gravity

Ron Kurtus wrote: (revised 26 March 2004)

Forces can be divided into those that act by direct contact—such as when you push on a door to open it—and those that that act at a distance, where there is no apparent physical contact between the objects. Gravity and magnetism are examples of forces that act at a distance. It is difficult to explain how such a force is possible.

Barotix wrote:*People live in their own Universe, governed by Preconceived Notions. Governed by outdated, archaic Heuristics. Sometimes, for their own well-being it is best to leave them in ignorance.
*Social Misconception = Scientific Misconception, depending on your age and knowledge.
*Yours and Mine referring to points.
*Will add citations, and sources and breakfast.
*Must critique number four.

Grandpa makes the best threads.

Barotix wrote:You know what I just realized? Grandpa and I are arguing the same point. (came to this conclusion upon reading your emphasis). The difference being; a divide in what we consider Scientific Misconceptions and Social misconceptions, but I understand (yours) as do you (mine).

We agree on everything, except the name.
So you want me to make a "debunking" thread? Kinda hard to debunk things by just typing (hands on person), Magnetism or Gravity.

1. Social Misconception: Did you know that children are taught there is only one type of black hole (as long as we're on the subject of black holes). They are told black holes are stationary, funny thing: We (being man) Have, in recent times, found stray black holes that move .
   
2. Social and Scientific Misconception: Life started in warm regions on the earth. The surprising matter; There appears to be a fledging theory that life may have started in Ice-Water, sadly the progenitor of the theory is dead, and most of his data has been lost (or) destroyed. I am looking for an article to cite, atm.
   
3. Social Misconception: Another fledging theory: This one's creator is still live and well. It postulates that there was not one but instead several big bangs. Each constantly occurring off the outskirts of the "end" of each universe. I would make an illustration, but its the morning.
   
4. Another: Social Misconception: Life (can/does) only exist on earth. Funny thing, it doesn't take a genius to realize that is (one of) the single most biased statements from our wonderful species.
   
5. Social Misconception: There is only one way to make discoveries. Grandpa covered this in his first post.

*People live in their own Universe, governed by Preconceived Notions. Governed by outdated, archaic Heuristics. Sometimes, for their own well-being it is best to leave them in ignorance.
*Social Misconception = Scientific Misconception, depending on your age and knowledge.
*Yours and Mine referring to points.
*Will add citations, and sources and breakfast.
*Must critique number four.

Grandpa makes the best threads.

dom wrote:
YOU HAVE BEEN DEFEATED.

dom wrote:

Barotix wrote:You know what I just realized? Grandpa and I are arguing the same point. (came to this conclusion upon reading your emphasis). The difference being; a divide in what we consider Scientific Misconceptions and Social misconceptions, but I understand (yours) as do you (mine).

We agree on everything, except the name.
So you want me to make a "debunking" thread? Kinda hard to debunk things by just typing (hands on person), Magnetism or Gravity.

1. Social Misconception: Did you know that children are taught there is only one type of black hole (as long as we're on the subject of black holes). They are told black holes are stationary, funny thing: We (being man) Have, in recent times, found stray black holes that move .
   
2. Social and Scientific Misconception: Life started in warm regions on the earth. The surprising matter; There appears to be a fledging theory that life may have started in Ice-Water, sadly the progenitor of the theory is dead, and most of his data has been lost (or) destroyed. I am looking for an article to cite, atm.
   
3. Social Misconception: Another fledging theory: This one's creator is still live and well. It postulates that there was not one but instead several big bangs. Each constantly occurring off the outskirts of the "end" of each universe. I would make an illustration, but its the morning.
   
4. Another: Social Misconception: Life (can/does) only exist on earth. Funny thing, it doesn't take a genius to realize that is (one of) the single most biased statements from our wonderful species.
   
5. Social Misconception: There is only one way to make discoveries. Grandpa covered this in his first post.

*People live in their own Universe, governed by Preconceived Notions. Governed by outdated, archaic Heuristics. Sometimes, for their own well-being it is best to leave them in ignorance.
*Social Misconception = Scientific Misconception, depending on your age and knowledge.
*Yours and Mine referring to points.
*Will add citations, and sources and breakfast.
*Must critique number four.

Grandpa makes the best threads.

YOU HAVE BEEN DEFEATED.

Barotix wrote:

dom wrote:
YOU HAVE BEEN DEFEATED.

Whose a what know? Defeated? This wasn't a battle for ultimate supremacy. I misunderstood his premise when I first read the thread, so I went out to defeat the misunderstood premise. Apparently I had a straw man version of what he typed set in my head and was arguing against an illusion.

I still have my disagreements with Grandpa (minor things), but that doesn't mean we can't agree on some things.

Dom's just jealous, I has hearts for you to.
(no homo) >.>

Grandpa wrote:

Barotix wrote:

dom wrote:
YOU HAVE BEEN DEFEATED.

Whose a what know? Defeated? This wasn't a battle for ultimate supremacy. I misunderstood his premise when I first read the thread, so I went out to defeat the misunderstood premise. Apparently I had a straw man version of what he typed set in my head and was arguing against an illusion.

I still have my disagreements with Grandpa (minor things), but that doesn't mean we can't agree on some things.

Dom's just jealous, I has hearts for you to.
(no homo) >.>

dom has a long memory > LINK < and is probably still smarting from the spanking he took after the first words he spoke to me, "Have you ever read shakespeare?"

Sniping the thread isn't the best portrayal of your personality, friend.

Be very, very careful what you put into that head,
because you will never, ever get it out.

Thomas Cardinal Wolsey (1471-1530)