figured that was the case. the art is very coolI looked you up. Seems you've made a cottage industry of pointing out his many instances of wrongheadedness.
By the way, love your art (I assume that's you).
figured that was the case. the art is very coolI looked you up. Seems you've made a cottage industry of pointing out his many instances of wrongheadedness.
By the way, love your art (I assume that's you).
While certainty an impressive compilation, it does seem a bit silly to respond to the points here when NDT himself responded on the guy's blog.I looked you up. Seems you've made a cottage industry of pointing out his many instances of wrongheadedness.
By the way, love your art (I assume that's you).
Hey, thanks! I love to draw. The old Marvel comics was a big influence -- Steve Ditko, Jack Kirby and the Buscema brothers. Also Theodor Geisel (a.k.a. Dr. Seuss) and of course M. C. Escher.I looked you up. Seems you've made a cottage industry of pointing out his many instances of wrongheadedness.
By the way, love your art (I assume that's you).
i liked the seuss one on your website.Hey, thanks! I love to draw. The old Marvel comics was a big influence -- Steve Ditko, Jack Kirby and the Buscema brothers. Also Theodor Geisel (a.k.a. Dr. Seuss) and of course M. C. Escher.
I see you're not terribly far from Tucson and into art. Do you know Dave Moyer?Hey, thanks! I love to draw. The old Marvel comics was a big influence -- Steve Ditko, Jack Kirby and the Buscema brothers. Also Theodor Geisel (a.k.a. Dr. Seuss) and of course M. C. Escher.
The diagrams are also very well drawn. Thumbs up.Hey, thanks! I love to draw. The old Marvel comics was a big influence -- Steve Ditko, Jack Kirby and the Buscema brothers. Also Theodor Geisel (a.k.a. Dr. Seuss) and of course M. C. Escher.
I'm not saying that NGT isn't smart. It's that no one really has a grasp on the double-slit lamp experiment. The ones who think they do in the quantum physics world are venturing into metaphysics. But regardless, it seems he feels that the current knowledge of science is already strong enough to make socio-political-economic decisions. He may feel ready to commit the same arrogant sin that the Roman Catholic Church did to Galileo. I'm not sure that returning the same faulty favor is what he wishes to do. In short, he is not afraid of what he doesn't know.I've seen that double slit experiment a few times and still dont understand why that happens. I'm not sure anybody really does at this point. This goes back to when Einstein and Bohr disagreed on quantum physics. Einstein once asked Bohr if he really believed the moon was not there if it wasn't being observed.
In many areas, it undeniably is. He's not proposing we make policy based on an incomplete understanding of quantum physics. But unless you dispute that vaccination eliminated the threat of Polio, it's hard to argue that no area of science is understood well enough to inform policy.But regardless, it seems he feels that the current knowledge of science is already strong enough to make socio-political-economic decisions.
A square is an exponent of 2.He has said gravity diminishes exponentially with distance. (No, it's inverse square.)
i found that to be lots of cherry picking as a signalling mechanism by someone who wants to decry cherry picking as a signalling mechanism.On the March for Science:
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...e_march_for_science_was_eerily_religious.html
Found it pretty funny when he referred to science as if it was some sort of monolithic entity, not unlike a religion. There were some legitimate criticisms (p-hacking!), but they're wrapped up in a bunch of stupid assumptions.i found that to be lots of cherry picking as a signalling mechanism by someone who wants to decry cherry picking as a signalling mechanism.
He didn't refer to it that way. He made the claim that those he was criticizing did...Found it pretty funny when he referred to science as if it was some sort of monolithic entity, not unlike a religion. There were some legitimate criticisms (p-hacking!), but they're wrapped up in a bunch of stupid assumptions.
He did when referring to soda causing cancer.He didn't refer to it that way. He made the claim that those he was criticizing did...
it's like if i watched a few minutes of the auburn spring game and then proceeded to write a blog post on all the ways auburn sucksFound it pretty funny when he referred to science as if it was some sort of monolithic entity, not unlike a religion. There were some legitimate criticisms (p-hacking!), but they're wrapped up in a bunch of stupid assumptions.
Had you stuck around long enough to see our 5th string walk-on QB's TD pass, I'm sure you would have come around.it's like if i watched a few minutes of the auburn spring game and then proceeded to write a blog post on all the ways auburn sucks
Again, mocking those who refer to it that way.He did when referring to soda causing cancer.
Ah, see that now.Again, mocking those who refer to it that way.
I don't have to watch a nano second of awbarn football to write a dissertation on how they suck.it's like if i watched a few minutes of the auburn spring game and then proceeded to write a blog post on all the ways auburn sucks