Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

I Has a Bucket: Preventing bucket theft on Bleeding Hollow | FUBU: A better BH Forum
It is currently Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:06 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: hrm...
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 3:54 pm  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:19 pm
Posts: 8116
Offline

Jubbergun wrote:
PVC isn't chemically toxic, therefore your analogy is invalid.


You made the argument that what I described - long-term pollution - was "bound to happen" with anything that doesn't break down naturally. PVC, lead and U-238 are all inorganic and don't break down naturally. Lead and U-238 can both be used to make bullets. Lead is toxic, but in practice, millions of discharged rounds didn't cause the kinds of serious mass illnesses attributable to far smaller numbers of U-238 rounds.

Dvergar wrote:
Except that it wasn't done in the past, viruses weren't engineered in 1959.


Not from scratch, no. But people were working to weaponize smallpox, anthrax and other pathogens since before the World Wars. It's entirely possible HIV was weaponized just like other naturally occurring pathogens were, not in 1959, but at some point thereafter.


Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: hrm...
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 4:37 pm  
User avatar

French Faggot
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:15 pm
Posts: 5227
Location: New Jersey
Offline

We took over the Americas so easily because we gave everyone here smallpox.


If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: hrm...
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 4:39 pm  
User avatar

Old Conservative Faggot
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 12:19 am
Posts: 4308
Location: Winchester Virginia
Offline

Aestu wrote:
Jubbergun wrote:
PVC isn't chemically toxic, therefore your analogy is invalid.


You made the argument that what I described - long-term pollution - was "bound to happen" with anything that doesn't break down naturally. PVC, lead and U-238 are all inorganic and don't break down naturally. Lead and U-238 can both be used to make bullets. Lead is toxic, but in practice, millions of discharged rounds didn't cause the kinds of serious mass illnesses attributable to far smaller numbers of U-238 rounds.


If I spread a buttload of PVC all over a war zone, it would also be pollution, and due to the properties of the material it would be long-term. The fact that one type of pollutant is volatile or hazardous when another isn't makes little difference. That the substance is hazardous was not in question, I was simply explaining that the nature of the material was to be expected based on it's chemical and physical properties.

Lead has nowhere near the toxicity of DU, making comparison similar to comparing the pH of citric acid (lead) to hydroflouric acid (DU). "Attributable" is not the same as "attributed," and there is doubt that many of the unexplained health issues that some are trying to link to DU are related to the substance.

Your Pal,
Jubber


AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: hrm...
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 4:52 pm  
User avatar

Obtuse Oaf
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:46 pm
Posts: 776
Location: Ontario
Offline

Aestu wrote:
It's a false analogy because there are no facts to corroborate the alien hypothesis, nothing to suggest that might be the case. There are facts to corroborate the hypothesis the epidemic was engineered - similar acts done in the past, and parties interested in and potentially capable of such a feat.


It's not a false analogy - the point is that there are a large number of possible hypotheses, and each can be assigned some level of probability. The rational approach is to accept the hypothesis which is best supported by the weight of evidence, pending discovery of new evidence. In this case, the best supported hypothesis is the mainstream scientific one. This doesn't mean that alternative hypotheses are necessarily wrong, just less probable. Conversely, the fact that alternative hypotheses have non-zero probabilities doesn't mean that they are true.


Laelia Komi Anomalocaris
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: hrm...
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 7:35 pm  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:19 pm
Posts: 8116
Offline

Laelia wrote:
It's not a false analogy - the point is that there are a large number of possible hypotheses, and each can be assigned some level of probability. The rational approach is to accept the hypothesis which is best supported by the weight of evidence, pending discovery of new evidence. In this case, the best supported hypothesis is the mainstream scientific one. This doesn't mean that alternative hypotheses are necessarily wrong, just less probable. Conversely, the fact that alternative hypotheses have non-zero probabilities doesn't mean that they are true.


Wrong. To accept any hypothesis is fundamentally premature.


Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: hrm...
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 7:59 pm  
User avatar

Obtuse Oaf
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:46 pm
Posts: 776
Location: Ontario
Offline

Aestu wrote:
Laelia wrote:
It's not a false analogy - the point is that there are a large number of possible hypotheses, and each can be assigned some level of probability. The rational approach is to accept the hypothesis which is best supported by the weight of evidence, pending discovery of new evidence. In this case, the best supported hypothesis is the mainstream scientific one. This doesn't mean that alternative hypotheses are necessarily wrong, just less probable. Conversely, the fact that alternative hypotheses have non-zero probabilities doesn't mean that they are true.


Wrong. To accept any hypothesis is fundamentally premature.


Perhaps the words I used weren't entirely clear. Accepting a hypothesis doesn't mean you are declaring it to be the truth, just acknowledging that it's the best explanation for the evidence. In this case the mainstream scientific hypothesis is the best explanation of the evidence.


Laelia Komi Anomalocaris
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: hrm...
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:54 am  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:39 pm
Posts: 3686
Location: Potomac, MD
Offline

iirc, a "fact" is the lowest on the scale of truth in science and I believe "theory" is the highest and "hypothesis" is somewhere in the middle


[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: hrm...
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 3:50 am  
User avatar

Obtuse Oaf
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:46 pm
Posts: 776
Location: Ontario
Offline

Fantastique wrote:
iirc, a "fact" is the lowest on the scale of truth in science and I believe "theory" is the highest and "hypothesis" is somewhere in the middle


Not at all. In formal usage they all refer to different things (although in informal contexts hypothesis and theory are often used interchangeably). A "fact" is something that can be observed, a "theory" is a more or less comprehensive model for how some natural system works, and a "hypothesis" is a testable prediction for a specific phenomenon. A scientific fact would be something like "The sun is ~1.5 x 10^8 km from Earth". Examples of theories would be relativity or natural selection, which offer explanations for large classes of observations. An example of a hypothesis would be "Chemical X causes cancer", which could then could be tested in an experiment - "If chemical X causes cancer, mice injected with chemical X will develop more cancers than uninjected mice" (there are a lot of assumptions associated with this type of statement that need to be accounted for, but this is the basic form).


Laelia Komi Anomalocaris
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: hrm...
PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 2:38 pm  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:39 pm
Posts: 3686
Location: Potomac, MD
Offline

Ah okay, yeah it was years ago that I heard something along those lines and it never made sense to me since in all science classes we used the definitions that you explained.


[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

World of Warcraft phpBB template "WoWMoonclaw" created by MAËVAH (ex-MOONCLAW) (v3.0.8.0) - wowcr.net : World of Warcraft styles & videos
© World of Warcraft and Blizzard Entertainment are trademarks or registered trademarks of Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. in the U.S. and/or other countries. wowcr.net is in no way associated with Blizzard Entertainment.
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group