Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Error Occurred While Processing Request

Didn't work :-(

 

Just shove his name into a google search, grab the link to emory... It's the
first one.

 

I figure him for a clueless, closed-minded imbecile, so far he hasn't proven
me wrong. ;-)

 

Approximately 10/27/03 14:48, The Ancient One uttered for posterity:

And here I always thought Microsoft webservers were stupid. Seems
that particular webserver knows something about the good Dr. and
is trying to give a hint.

 

Got it, thanks.
He must have used a lot of crib sheets in collage, he sure didn't learn
much.

 

This is the only post I will send out in this thread. However people need to know what science is
and what it is not. Science is the only tool we have for actually understanding how the world
around us works, because it is done by making rational, logical deductions based on unbiased
observations, _not_ by simply making up just-so stories and asserting that they are correct--nothing
can be learned that way, only proclaimed.

For science to work, the intent behind the making of observations must be to _find out_ how a
phenomenon of nature works, _not_ to support a preconceived notion. The observations must be made
with an open mind. Only after the observations are done is a hypothesis formed to explain the facts
that these observations have yielded. Experiments are done to test the hypothesis. If successful
(or even if not) the results and conclusion are submitted for publication. Additionally, everything
must be documented--the initial observations, and the exact methodology used for the experiments, so
the work can be repeated by others to test it. Also the hypothesis must be constructed so that it is
potentially falsifiable.

Those are the three most important aspects of the scientific process--verification, repeatability,
and falsifiability. The work must be able to be repeated by anyone with access to similar equipment
so that its honesty can be tested, as well as to find out if the process was somehow flawed (if
everyone else's results come out the same, but differently than those of the original researchers),
or if the hypothesis was too simple (differing results caused by additional variables not accounted
for by the original researchers), etc. Falsifiability is extremely important as well. The
hypothesis _must_ be potentially able to be disproved, otherwise nothing can be learned from the
research. In order for it to be regarded as correct, it must be able to stand up to the most severe
criticism that can be thrown at it, for as long as it exists. Scientific theories are designed so
that it is always possible for them to be proven wrong, and replaced with a better theory that can
stand up to the criticism that broke the older one. That is the only way knowledge can really be
advanced--by trying, and succeeding (or continually failing) to pull down other's ideas, with
_scientific_ work of your own. It also means that nothing in science can be absolutely proved, but
here's where a misunderstanding occurs: It doesn't mean that the scientific community in general
can't have a pretty good idea, maybe 99.9999999etc. %, that they are indeed correct in their
reasoning. There might always be a _chance_ that even the most concrete theory or law is incorrect,
but at some point the evidence becomes so overwhelmingly supportive (say, the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, and the ability to accurately predict (engineer) and build things like internal
combustion engines) that the chance of being wrong, sans any new information, which itself must pass
the same rigorous tests and inbuilt skepticism, becomes so small it isn't worth worrying about. Only
the best explanations survive, there is no room for the weak. And if it is not falsifiable it is
_not_ science.

The work is published in scientific journals so that it is subject to peer review, in order to have
that criticism thrown at it, so it has to stand up or fail, and also to make sure it is as unbiased
as humanly possible--the only way to do that is to have everything--data, methods, theories, set on
by a trained group of skeptical scientists. It isn't perfect, ego and the cherished work of a career
can get in the way of rational criticism--but that is poor science, and that's why there is a
_group_ of peers to review the published work. People accuse scientists of being skeptical, and not
open to alternate ideas or explanations. They _have_ to be skeptics, if they weren't they wouldn't
be scientists. Again they aren't perfect; sometimes new ideas, scientific as they may be, seem too
radical and are missed--for a time, until enough evidence is presented for the work to be deemed
worth publishing.


What science is _NOT_ is an explanation in the form of a just-so story asserted to be true by its
author. Nothing can be learned from that, it's just a fancy way of saying "because I said so, and
all who disagree with me are wrong". Science is also _NOT_ done by attempting to "prove" just so
stories _OR_ preconceived notions by gathering supporting data. That's particularly dishonest in
fact, because it ignores all of the data that doesn't support it, which it needs if it is to be
discussed scientifically. That makes it the _opposite_ of science, nonetheless people who don't
know any better can't tell the difference, and it is deliberately dressed up to make people think it
_is_ scientific, where science is not a tool used to _prove_ anything, but to _discover_, to get as
close as _rationally_ possible to the truth of, what actually goes on.

If you choose to accept an _idea_ over and above, if need be even contrary to, certain _established
facts_, than it is a belief, _not_ science. And it cannot be either proved or disproved, nothing
can be learned from it, and it can't be argued to any conclusion, because it simply is what you
decide it is, completely disconnected from the influence of anything else. This is not an attempt
to pass a moral judgment on it either (that also is outside the realm of science), however a belief
cannot be used to argue against science because no matter the truth of it, no matter how competent
the explanation it provides, it is designed so that it cannot be critiqued or even rationally argued
against, and thus nothing can be learned from it.

--Aardwolf.

 

Very well explained, phrased, and accurate, which of course means you will
be vilified and flamed.
Dave
01 TJ

 

process--verification, repeatability,

additional variables not accounted

scientific community in general

information, which itself must pass

Very good explanation. It is also the reason I say Lloyd is no scientist, he
fails on every level.

 

You make several good points. However the problem with peer review by
the group is that group mentality sets in where someone must believe
X Y and Z or he isn't part of the group. And if you aren't part of the
group you don't get published, if you don't get published you don't
get research money, if you don't get research money you don't have
a career, etc etc.

It does lead to a church-like rigid belief system that makes it very
difficult to get supportable radical thought heard and investigated
by others. Evidence that indicates something other than the mainstream
group belief gets tossed aside and ignored. Paths of investigation aren't
followed, etc and so forth.

It's something I've noticed in one area of science that I do follow
and have had my long held theories based on the evidence. Slowly but
surely the non-conventional evidence is piling up. Hopefully it will
get to be so overwhelming it can no longer be ignored. But finding
the smoking gun will be expensive, but hopefully it will be found and
shown to the point where it is as undeniable in existance as the wreck
of the titatic.

Many lloyds of the world have alot of power in the world science, each
one in their own little areas they have replaced the church. Their
careers are invested in the belief that things are a certain way, as
hard as fact. Evidence that points otherwise is unwelcome. Sad but true
for so many things.

 

It has been pointed out to LP before, he dismissed it like he does any
evidence that doesn't match his preconcieved ideas.

Douglas A. Shrader

Two Danish

 

Pretty stupid of him to hide that from US and the UN wasn't it?

 

You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is Jimmy
Hoffa?

 

This thread is to long, I'm leaving it, but I must say it has been a
pleasure reading your posts. What group are you posting from?

 

Thanks. Nate, aardwolf, and I post from rec.autos.driving.

If you think this is a long thread, you should google for the one
years ago where we (regulars of r.a.d) tried to teach lloyd how
braking antilock braking systems worked and how they varied from car to
car.

 

LOL, I can imagine, I've tried to hold an intelligent discussion with Lloyd
before, I discovered it can't be done. ;-)

 

I drive either a V6 3.8L sedan, bigger than the majority of sedans available
in the USA, or a 2.8TD SUV. of the two I prefer the sedan for safety, ABS,
195/7-R15 tyres giving more grip per Kilo over 31x10.5-R15 tyres on the SUV,
and more manuverabilty without rollover risk. But I use the SUV more since
it has more visability and it's flat hip height rear storage can be loaded
and unloaded easier then the sedans sunken boot with a lip.

I've never owned anything like a small hot hatchback, nor even driven them,
as far as performance cars go, rather than a 1.6 turbo four in a Civic, I'd
rather have a V-8 in a serious big car.

Have a search on Google for V8 Holden Monaro, and HSV 185i Senator. Thats
what I'd like, big grunty serious cars.
rhys

 

Are you saying the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, NOAA, etc., have
jumped onto something that's not proven? Isn't it more likely you either have
not read the science or refuse to believe it?

The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. That means driving
less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, using coal less, using more
renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not clear-cutting forests...

Funny how that's nonexistent.

Which has been studied and cannot account for all the current warming.

Like we almost destroyed the ozone layer? Or don't you believe that either?

 

Theory != "guess" either. A theory is an explanation for something, the
explanation accepted generally in science. Thus we have the theory of
gravity, an explanation for gravity; atomic theory, an explanation for the
behavior of atoms; quantum theory, an explanation for the behavior of
electrons and photons at the quantum level; the theory of evolution, an
explanation for evolution.

It is the explanation accepted in science. And to be an explanation, it has
to explain something that does occur, like atoms, or gravity, or evolution.

Too bad you never learned anything.

Yes, please do.

Please do. Read the scientific chaps there -- St. John, Halpen, and others.

Because those yahoos post without any data or evidence.

Yeah, I bet you believe all the creationists too then.

Evolution is a fact; the theory of evolution explains it. Just as gravity is
a fact and the theory of gravity is an explanation of it.

Too bad you're not a scientist. Scientists HAVE looked at it, and have
concluded that global warming is real, and that human activities are
responsible. If you'd read some scientific journals, or what scientific
groups say, you'd know this. You've "looked at it?" Where, right-wing web
sites?

Still won't tell us what area your Ph.D. is in?

I'm still waiting for your scientific credentials.

 

When data is backed up by established scientific principles (CO2 traps heat),
it's a logical conclusion. Is it scientific principles or logic that's
foreign to you?

 

Does that mean embracing creationism? That evil spirits cause disease? That
the earth is 6000 years old?

Open minds are fine until the data is in. Then it's foolish.