Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Riedquat

  1. You only answer a Remainer's question when you tell them what they want to hear.
  2. I've noticed a lot of your posts seems to boil down to "I disagree so I'll call you names."
  3. Fusion may well turn out to be one of those things that's incredibly expensive to figure out in the first place but relatively cheap once you've actually managed to come up with that working design. Putting the money in is money well spent anyway IMO, far better than white elephants like HS2.
  4. Give me fusion plants over those any day. The idea AIUI is that the tritium is produced within the plant via the bombardment of a lithium blanket. It might need a bit of external tritium to get it started but after that it produces it itself. This is one of the few examples where piling in more technology to do something we can already do (generate power) seems like a good idea. Anyway it's development and building and technological advancement that I'm pretty enthusiastic about, and that doesn't happen often.
  5. Got to laugh at the hypocrisy of so many Remainers, about how they're all open-minded and tolerant and not at all bigoted, usually just before going off on a closed-minded, intolerant and prejudiced rant about Leavers.
  6. Depends. I can get quite a bit more done when there are various people nearby who can help me work through a problem. Anyway what's wrong with a bit of gossip? People obsess far too much about "productivity."
  7. I didn't express an opinion on it one way or the other, I was just pointing out the holes in argument used by others for rejecting it.
  8. Your point was about people working in one speciality hardly having a clue what people in another were doing rather than what their undergraduate qualification was; this will be true for physics just as much as your examples. You'd expect some overlap of knowledge and possibly general interest in the complete field, but the same's true for climate.
  9. You could say the same about physicists working in different areas of physics.
  10. Well that's a meaningful question at least, and one that requires looking at more than just what the party's officially written stance on a matter is. I'd qualify it with "enough people with sufficient influence" though (since it's not just a numbers game).
  11. Keep digging that hole. Responding with third-rate namecalling does not inspire any confidence that you are capable of discerning garbage from gold.
  12. The easiest (but trite) reply to that is "why not?" I'm assuming that you're not asking why experiment design has to consider ethics - I hope we at least agree that they need to. There are two reasons I can think of off the top of my head though for rejecting much more than that. The first that knowledge itself does not carry any ethical considerations. Facts are just facts, not inherently ethical or unethical. It's what we do with them that is. The second is the danger of being swayed by what you want to be true (which happens enough as it is) - we don't want a situation like the church persecuting Gallileo. No, not really, because any knowledge gained (by reliable, well-designed from a technical perspective) research is mere fact. And there are also multiple paths to some knowledge. We could gain useful medical knowledge by throwing away all sorts of ethical considerations in the design of experiments - indeed, we might gain it faster. Or we could be a lot more careful and considerate and still reach the same endpoint. One approach is unacceptable, one isn't, the final result is still the same though.
  13. Ah, sneering at what you don't understand. Figures. Although I'd be interested to know whether you don't understand it because it's not explained clearly enough, or whether you're just rejecting anything that doesn't say what you want to hear - "It doesn't make sense because I can't make it fit my preconceptions."
  14. Yes, there's a level of division within the party but you can still overall associate it with various outlooks and attitudes beyond what it explicitly claims to be (and often you can be pretty sceptical about a party being what it insists on, in writing, that it is about). As for your Simpsons clip, just going on the title alone (which is all I can when I'm at work) yes, the notes not being played make a huge difference. Music's more than just the right notes in the right order, it's all about timing, volume, and yes, the gaps.
  15. The only area where science, as opposed to the application of it, should be considered from an ethical perspective is in situations such as designing experiments, i.e. the means of gaining knowledge. The knowledge itself, the debate about what is and is not most likely, should not be shaped at all by ethical considerations since that path leads to believing a guide to fact is what we would like it to be rather than what it actually seems to be.
  16. You realise that you're advocating dogma in science? Not for nothing do I regard a lot of attitudes these days as the modern equivalent to Puritanism. That I also think they're a bit closer to reality is by the by; the attitudes, open-mindendness and dogmatic outlook speak of very similar minds.
  17. Apparently the solution to that is more industrialisation of the parts of it we've so far managed to touch the least.
  18. Why are several posters arguing from an "if it's not explicitly stated as policy it can't possibly be part of a party's outlook and attitude" perspective? Come on!
  19. Whilst I agree with you on rejecting the change is automatically desirable point (and it's telling how often change now is justified by trying to solve yesterday's problems) - more and more often it appears to consist of buggering up things we'd finally managed to do a good job of, a case of not knowing when to stop, would you really want the lifestyle you'd have had 12 000 years ago? Assuming you even survived early childhood long enough to see what it was like.
  20. That stagflation is even regarded as a problem illustrates how fundamentally broken the system is.
  21. Not really. Any model that works better - makes more accurate predictions, fits past data better (in reality those are pretty much one and the same) will generally gain acceptance. "Truth" doesn't come in to it at all.
  22. Huh? That's a strange conclusion to draw from my post. Come on, don't go down the daft black and white, any association or none, all or nothing type route.
  23. IMO that would be sufficient to label yourself as a climate scientist. You don't have to have a degree with that exact title in order for the label to be realistically applicable - don't go down the path I've seen various posters do on various issues of "I refuse to even consider something unless there's 100% undeniable proof of its existence" (and I'm not particularly referring to climate change there).
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.