warri0r45

I don't understand the clue... any hint with that? If you can't give me any hints at all just give me the answer.

Is it a word? two words? what does it start with?

Yeah man, you gotta give us a hand on 6.

Have you heard Rage Against the Machine? Now those are INCREDIBLE 'hip-hop' lyrics. Pretty much the only I can stand.

Sounds like Tool's style of music, I might check them out.

I prefer MC, but only for 2 artists: Zack De La Rocha of Rage Against the Machine The Beastie Boys It's nothing ractist or anything, but ironically, I just think white (hispanic in the case of Zack) guys are better. (Although there are obviously a lot of terrible MC's out there, as there are rappers and indeed any genre of musicain). :thumbsup:

Many theories in the field of physics are formulated without observation, mainly because technology hasn't caught up with theory. A few examples would be dark matter, which was only directly observed recently. Higgs-boson (a particle responsible for mass) which has been formulated for decades and hopefully will be detected by the LHC (which should be ready by next year). Also String theory is based off mathematical models which have very difficult test conditions which will take many, many years until we can hopefully verify it. Furthermore applications based on theory such as fusion power, we don't observe a fusion power plant and then explain how it was designed; many experiments aren't about copying an observation, rather trying to create a new one. That's the problem, your using the term scientific method as if it were an authoritative method of performing science, such a method doesn't exist. 'The scientific method', is a loaded phrase which is commonly known as the 100%, proper way of performing science (in a sense the perfect method). Sure you can write up a useful method of science that many people use, but it isn't THE scientific method. All you're doing is giving your half baked method of science authority and appealing to people's emotion. Sciences that rely on abductive reasoning (inference to the best explanation) usually don't have replicable experiments. How would you go about recreating the motion of the Earth's plates or forming the Grand Canyon. How would you evaluate whether weathering or a gigantic flood created the Canyon, both are plausible and you can't physically test either conjecture. You're over simplifying things to a point where isn't a valid argument (whether science is based on beliefs and should be classed as religion). The complexity of what science is and its goals are what differentiates it from religion, not that it follows an a completely subjective method of science. Your original argument was in support of the person you were trying to refute. I can't even remember why you are trying to argue with me... Whats your beef against science and the scientific method? I've alreay said it obviously does not encompass all of science, but you just keep hacking away at it... As for oversimplifying, please, I could just as easily say you're blurring the argument by overcomplicating things. And the fact that we can't test every theory is obvious, its beyond our capacity in some instances, what more could you wan't? A time machine so I can go to a point in time where you can actually test everyting?

Although I have nothing against eating meat, I think killing an animal just for it's fur is a bit rich (unless there heaps of them and they're a pest *cough* rabbits *cough*). people should use the whole animal. :D (I'm not sure if they do or don't).

You should do it, its so relaxing. The best thing to remember while meditating is to breathe relatively deeply, in a pattern. it makes you less :anxious: and more : .

Freedom - Rage Against the Machine. Revolutionary band, Zack De La Rocha's 'rapping' is is one of the few I can actually stand, and I actually adore it, some of the lyrics (generally most of them) send shivers up my spine. Too bad they are no more.

Have you heard thier very first album? - selftitled.

The article you linked to is a rather classical view, the most obvious failure of this view is that it doesn't explain how theories can be produced before anything is observed. For example, Brownian motion uses atoms to describe its motion before atoms were even discovered; so the idea of atoms would be from theory not observation. Not everything that you consider science follows the procedure you provided, so you can't call it the scientific method; it's that simple. Having a simple scientific method allows more things to get away with being called or being labelled science, which leads to bad consequences. Eugenics was considered scientific and was used as the reason to sterilise hundreds of thousands of people as well as killing tens of thousands of people. How about astrology; people claim it as scientific, however it fails to accurately explain anything. It has the perfect excuse as well, it is impossible to get the precise location of the planets so its predictions can vary wildly; so why can't astrology be science, its predictions would be true if they can get precise information. The first bolded statement - Theory is a very broad term, so actually, a theory can be formulated without obserations. Although most are reliant on some sort of observations and evidence. The second bolded statement - I've already said that I understand that not all science follows the scientific method, thats obvious as people who haven't heard of it or been taught the proper conventions will do things thier own way. You actually can call it the 'scientific method' as that's what it's called, it dosen't literally mean 'the one and only method in science'. The third bolded statement - Quite the opposite, as I have said previously, the scientific method is designed such that experiments are replicatable by anyone, therefore anyone can determine 'right' science from 'bogus' science. The fourth bolded statement - After reading about Eugenics, it would appear you are right, it was based on science but in science, morality is not considered. Think of stem cell research, for example (which I am for, but thats another topic). It's kind of flawed to blame science for the evils of man, which was what obviously saw the Nazis take eugenics to the extreme with the Jews. The fifth bolded statement - Here's an example of where science is dependant on the sophistication of the tools used to produce results. Obviously we can't manually measure the distances measured in astrology, cosmology and the like, so we need to use tools to help us, which aren't perfect, but they are getting better.

The thing I get out of OT is the realisation that most of you are relitively smart people and reject crap like drugs, violence, gangs/whatever for intillect and (most of the time) decent, mature discussions.

So what do you think philosophers of science do all day? Pat each other on the back for a job well done? So who's scientific method is right? Bacon, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Bloor, or one of the many others not listed? That's the problem, there isn't one design of the scientific method and thinking otherwise is quite naive at best. Chemists (experimentation), Archaeologist (collecting fragmented information), Astronomers (inference from observation) and Psychologists (statistical analysis) are four professions which highlight how one scientific method will not work for the other. I'm quite aware that not everyone thinks of science in the same way nor do they all practice it in the same way. Sorry though, i'm not to big on the philosophy of science, more on actual science. Here's a site about the scientific method, incase you're interested: The Scientific Method And here's a quote from this site: To me, the scientific method is simple, you dont need to overanalyse or critique the method by incorporating philosophy into it. Although it can't hurt, because while philosophers of science debate whether this or that is the best way to analyse nature, results are produced by scientists, with the scientific method. Again, keep in mind I know very little about the philosophy of science, so don't take it personally.

I don't have a problem with people who do either, exept if they do it around me, although I'm usually the one to leave. I never used to be annoyed by second hand smoke but after a rather nasty experience I now am.

I suck :roll: It is extremely difficult, and i'm only at level 6. :roll:

The ability to exist forever..... =P~ Absolutely not. It would get incredibly lonely and boring not to mention you would be robbed of the most mistifying part of life... death.

Try redownloading the files. hmm.. how do you do that? :P

Thumbs up, they were a revolution in "Nu Metal", really unique and one of my favs. I hope they go a bit more oldschool (more like thier first album) on thier upcoming album, due out mid 2007. I love thier first 5 albums - KoRn, Life is Peachy, Follow the Leader, Issues, Untouchables, and - Take a Look in the Mirror. I aslo saw them live with Fear Factory and Static X in 2004. It was awesome.

Theres not (shouldn't be), don't worry.

Talk about thier societal structure (and the average role of someone in society), how they were educated, thier political system (if there was some form of voting/democracy [i dont know] etc), and perhaps the average persons earnings and theier job? I dont really know, perhaps this helps, perhaps it dosent. :boohoo:

I wasn't too dissapointed as it was what I expected, really enjoyed Australia's innings too. Right now i'm looking foreward to the commonweath bank ODI series (Aus, Eng, New Zealand) and going to see Aus vs. Eng at the Gabba, ON MY BIRTHDAY!! and then the xxxx gold beach cricket the day after. How cool is that? :D :wink:

thanks, up to 5. :)

Firstly, I admire you greatly for wanting to become a teacher. The job is crucial in the world today and in my opinion, we dont have enough good teachers (that make learning something to look foreward to). I also admire you for wanting to become a teacher as I would never do it, it's definately not for me. As for the lesson plan, I'm no expert but it looks fine to me. Good variety for 15 mins. :thumbsup:

It would no doubt take the fun out of the game (of which there is not much). The rich would dominate even morea and, as a result, the poor would be poorer.