5 hours ago, dmwalker said:

All things are poison

Water too?

Noel

20 hours ago, dave2013 said:

What is this "current anti-science agenda" that you keep going on about?

 

Well I'm not sure it could be termed "keep going on about" I think I mentioned it, what was it, twice? And I find it very ironic that you should say that Dave, given that its something you have been responsible for on the forum on a regular basis. But of course there are certain topics we aren't allowed to talk about on the forum, climate change and politics being two of them, as you should be aware. so elaboration is not possible on this forum. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-antiscience-movement-is-escalating-going-global-and-killing-thousands/

https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/05/10/2020/anti-science-agenda-killing-us

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001369

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7141687/

20 hours ago, dave2013 said:

FYI, science is the search for knowledge and understanding.  It is never settled or absolute established fact.  

 

I'm not sure why you are telling me that and typing "FYI" when its what I've typed myself just in different words. Again, its about probability, and there's a sizable percentage of modern science that has such a high probability in terms of veracity that its about as close to fact as we can get. For example, pretty sure you don't deny the "germ theory" of disease. For example, I'm pretty sure you aren't going to deny the theory of gravity by jumping off a tall building. 

 

20 hours ago, dave2013 said:

You should be careful throwing around terms like "anti-science", "scientific consensus" and the like, and especially refrain from using them to attempt to discredit and disparage those who don't agree with what you believe to be the truth.

 

Oh Dave please...  given your previous contributions on the forum, especially in terms of a certain subject we aren't supposed to debate on the forum, you would say that wouldn't you, you would deny that there's any "anti-science" agenda, you would downplay the importance of a consensus. You would use the misunderstood semantical interpretation of the word "fact" to your advantage, to justify your previous "less than scientific" opinions regarding a certain subject. 

For the anti-science agenda see links provided, or do a simple Google search and check out the multitude of articles that appear on your screen. 🙄

Or just check out your previous posts on the forum. 😉

And fairly obviously, when we refer to anti-science we are referring to "science denial" denying despite overwhelming evidence.  We arent referring to, accepting the fact that despite all of the evidence there might be a small but non-zero possibility of error, or that true undeniable definitve fact isn't possible.

 

20 hours ago, dave2013 said:

A lot of what you refer to as "science", are actually hypotheses or theories, which are unproven.

 

Who's you? 

I think you might be conflating the difference between a layman's theory and a scientific theory. A layman's theory is more like a hypothesis, whereas a scientific theory is closer to fact.  And FACT in scientific terms is an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true. Although its truth is never final. And no, not true that "a lot" is unproven. Its proven in terms of being repeatedly tested and corroborated. 

 

Quote

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

 

Quote

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.^{[6][note 1]} In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,^[6] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and is widely accepted as valid.^[1][2][3]

 

Are scientific theories sometimes rejected? Theories are not the end result of the scientific method so yes, of course they are, more often that not they are tweaked though and fine tuned. But a scientific theory is more likely to be valid than the ramblings of certain members of the society who have a financial or other (other refers to three topics we aren't allowed to debate on the forum) incentive in rejecting what mainstream science tells us. 

 

Quote

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory". It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

 

 

Edited June 15, 20223 yr by martin-w

18 hours ago, birdguy said:

I have slaughtered chickens by slitting their throats and they make no sounds.  They just flap around for a while until they are thrown in the hot water barrel prior to plucking and dressing.

Animals and birds I have hunted and wounded did not appear to be in pain before I killed them.  They were just dazed.

However, you want to believe otherwise so have it your way. 

 

I'm not sure why we are still debating this Noel, given that you have already accepted that the natural world is replete with suffering, disease, injury drought, starvation, parasitic infection, etc, etc. You have also pointed out that the term "paradise" is  your subjective opinion, not from the animals perspective

As for the pain and suffering experienced by predated animals or animals hunted by humans, I've just done a quick search on Google and it took me to a website that had what appeared to be factual information about the pain suffered as a result of hunting. I'm not going to say more, as it will engender a fierce debate on the forum which I'd like to avoid.

 

Quote

I would say a small minority have a different experience.  Shock, adrenaline, and pain inhibiting excretions prevent the pain from being felt immediately. 

 

A minority, yes, I agree. Sometimes all pain, sometimes some of the pain. 

Edited June 15, 20223 yr by martin-w

8 hours ago, goates said:

How sure are you of that? How would that work for symmetrical airfoils or aircraft flying upside down?

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/wrong1.html

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/wrong3.html

Turning of the airflow the better model for how lift is generated.

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/right2.html

 

 I recall watching a documentary many years ago, where this was explored. It was pointed out that aerodynamic lift is claimed to be generated by higher pressure under the wing and lower pressure above, generated by the camber of the wing. Air travels faster over the top surface, as it has further to travel thus lower pressure. But this explanation totally ignores the involvement of the angle of attack of the wing. For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction, so the angle of atack deflects air down and the wing rises. So  its actually BOTH the camber on the wing and the angle of attack that's important.

Hence why an aircraft can fly inverted and hence why your hand rises up when you stick it out of  a car window and angle it slightly up.

7 hours ago, birdguy said:

Water too?

Apparently:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

Dougald I drink a lot of fluids every day because if I don't my feet swell up from edema.

First thing in morning I drink two cups of coffee.  Then a half lemon squeezed into a half glass of hot water. With breakfast I have a glass of vegetable juice and a cup of lapsang souchong tea.

Then during the day I drink about 4 12 ounce glasses of water and another 3 or 4 during the evening.

But I suppose if someone drank more than that they might get sick.  Over indulging in anything will make you sick. 

But water is not a poison per se like arsenic or cyanide.

Noel

OK, this has wandered aimlessly and far, far from the topic.  Time to move along.