General Science NewsNews about discoveries, trends, politics, and topics which do not fall within the other categories.
Advertisement (please log in or register to remove this ad)
Notices
Welcome to the Hypography Science Forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, take quizzes, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Thanks anyway, but I'm defending the "attack on the anthropic principle", which, I already shot down the two papers in Tormod's referenced article, and which I quoted him for.
But I'm sure that if you look around real hard, you can be equally sure that you still don't know enough physics to voice your opinion on most of the topics here.
I am once again awed at hypography. Only here have I found people to be passionate about such things as the anthropic principle Both of you, keep the debate civil, and please refrain from personal attacks, mild though they have been.
No, I'm done with him and anyone like him.
I'm only looking for plausibility.
I've got it spades, and anybody that denies it is out of their mind with willful ignorance.
But I'm sure that if you look around real hard, you can be equally sure that you still don't know enough physics to voice your opinion on most of the topics here.
Island, please read our rules, and in particular the bits about how to behave at our forums. Your personal attacks are really not welcome.
__________________ Your Friendly Neighborhood Administrator
While your permission is not required for such an action, island, you certainly have a confrontational tone. We prefer to have a collection of different opinions, as it makes each of our own more robust.
Perhaps your argument, position, view, whatever would have further benefit if you were to adjust your approach and work WITH people instead of screaming like an infant having a tantrum. Just a thought. Everyone is entitled to their own view. Just because it opposes yours doesn't make it wrong.
But ad hom insults that I take as personal insults are?
Fine... give me the boot now, Tormod.
Your posting style practically begs for insults, but no, they are not accepted. I see Turtle's responses to you as basically exactly what you asked for, so I did not take issue with him. I don't need to point out to Turtle to read the rules, however, as he perfectly well knows them.
To keep on topic in this thread, I was once a supporter of the anthropic principle. I have read just about every book by John Barrow, who happens to be my favorite cosmologist and popularizer (and whom I've had the pleasure to interview, both about his book "The Constants of Nature" and his play, "Infinity"), but I must admit I no longer consider the anthropic principle to be anything but a fancy idea. It fails to be verifiable since it basically defines itself as the outcome, thus it is based on flawed logic IMHO.
That doesn't mean it is not worthing reading about and understanding the many varieties of anthropic thinking, including criticism against it. (For the interested, I found Martin Rees' "Just Six Numbers" to be a quite accessible book on the subject).
__________________ Your Friendly Neighborhood Administrator
First of all, Turtle never said you were a creationist. He said that he was not a theist (implying that you were a theist). It may have been a wrong conclusion, island, but it did seem that you were pointing at the creation of the universe being for the specific purpose of life. I don't think that Turtle was unjustified in assuming you were a theist, even if he was wrong.
While your permission is not required for such an action, island...
haha, I meant that I'll probably earn it soon enough if we're going to allow people to harbor a bunch of preconceived prejudices about the implications of strong interpretations of the anthropic principle.
you certainly have a confrontational tone.
Con...fident. There's a big diff, because I have good yet-to-be-disproven reason to be, and I have studied the PHYSICS for the anthropic principle in-depth, for a number of years, rather than simply reading a bunch of variant interpretations, no offense intended.
Astronomical instruments needed to answer crucial questions, such as the search for Earth-like planets or the way the Universe expands, have come a step closer with the first demonstration at the telescope of a new calibration system for precise spectrographs. The method uses a Nobel Prize-winning technology called a 'laser frequency comb', and is published in this week's issue of Science. Read » | 0 comments
Stanford computer scientists have developed an artificial intelligence system that enables robotic helicopters to teach themselves to fly difficult stunts by watching other helicopters perform the same maneuvers. The result is an autonomous helicopter than can perform a complete airshow of complex tricks on its own. Read » | 0 comments
Both of you, keep the debate civil, and please refrain from personal attacks, mild though they have been.
2D Memory Champion!
Your Friendly Neighborhood Administrator
