- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,800
- 52,549
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But I bet you could.
Would it change anything?
Well if you did blame them on science, it would show once and for all that you are not a person worth taking seriously at all.
I've experienced that, ever since I started telling people about Jesus.
I doubt it's because of that, but whatever helps you sleep at night.
I agree with its summation.The Hindenburg disaster was not primarily a scientific disaster—it was more of an engineering, design, and public relations catastrophe. However, it did have scientific and technological implications. Here's a breakdown:
What Happened?
On May 6, 1937, the German airship LZ 129 Hindenburg caught fire and was destroyed while attempting to land in New Jersey. Of the 97 people on board, 36 died, along with one person on the ground.
Scientific vs. Engineering Disaster
Type Was It? Explanation Scientific ❌ No The Hindenburg didn't fail due to flawed scientific principles. The physics and chemistry behind airship flight were well understood. Engineering ✅ Yes It involved poor materials choices (e.g., flammable hydrogen instead of helium, highly flammable skin coatings) and design risks that were not adequately mitigated. Public Safety/Policy ✅ Yes The disaster shifted public opinion against airships and exposed the political limitations of technology (e.g., the U.S. wouldn't sell helium to Nazi Germany).
Scientific Lessons or Consequences
- Hydrogen's dangers in aviation were confirmed dramatically.
- Prompted more research into non-flammable lifting gases and safer materials.
- Ended the era of passenger airships almost overnight.
In summary, the Hindenburg wasn't a failure of science—it was a failure to safely apply scientific knowledge through engineering and risk management.
Would you like a diagram showing how the airship was constructed or where the fire started?
Once again I agree.Great question — let's take a look at each of these events and classify whether they qualify as scientific disasters, technological/engineering failures, or natural disasters, and why:
1. Chernobyl Disaster (1986)
Classification: Scientific and engineering disaster
Explanation:
- It was the result of a flawed reactor design combined with serious operational mistakes.
- The operators conducted an unsafe test without fully understanding the reactor's physics.
- The event revealed gaps in nuclear physics comprehension, systems engineering, and safety culture in the Soviet Union.
✅ Scientific aspects:
- Misunderstanding of how the RBMK reactor would behave under certain conditions.
- Poor grasp of reactor kinetics and feedback mechanisms.
✅ Engineering aspects:
- No containment structure.
- Poor safety protocols and design flaws.
2. 2010 Haiti Earthquake
Classification: Natural disaster
Explanation:
- A magnitude 7.0 earthquake caused massive destruction due to Haiti’s vulnerability, not a failure of science.
- Geologically, earthquakes are natural phenomena that are well understood scientifically, but unpredictable in timing.
❌ Not a scientific disaster:
- Science didn't fail; rather, the infrastructure and preparedness were inadequate due to economic and political issues.
3. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (2010)
️ Classification: Engineering/technological disaster
Explanation:
- Caused by failure of a blowout preventer, risky corporate decisions, and ignoring warning signs.
- Scientific knowledge of geology and petroleum engineering existed, but it was poorly applied.
❌ Not a scientific disaster in itself
✅ A technological and operational failure rooted in:
- Bad risk management
- Flawed safety systems
- Underestimating deepwater drilling risks
Summary Table:
Event Scientific Disaster? Type Chernobyl ✅ Yes Scientific & engineering failure Haiti Earthquake ❌ No Natural disaster Deepwater Horizon Spill ❌ No Engineering/technological failure
Would you like to explore more examples of actual scientific disasters (where science itself failed or was misapplied)?
I see this nonsense for blaming science because it rained on Tuesday is not only ridiculous but against forum rules.
Is this an example of what you call "nonsense"?
From AI Overview:
Cloud seeding experiments have shown varying degrees of success in inducing rainfall at different times and locations. For example, scientists in the United Arab Emirates reported a significant rainstorm in Al Ain on July 20-21, 2021, after using drones to deliver electric charges to air molecules.
20 July 2021 was on a Tuesday.
I blame science because it rained on Tuesday, and I submit it isn't nonsense, but an undertaking scientists found worthy of reporting.
Much as you would prefer it wasn’t, nde research IS mainstream science.Please don't conflate those two.
Given the rather slim selection of publications that you have presented here over the years, it doesn't look that active as a field. Are you sure it is "mainstream". Even in the very narrow sub-sub-sub-field I largely work in there are several groups and a couple dozen new papers each year. I've not seen evidence of that level of effort/productivity on NDEs.Much as you would prefer it wasn’t, nde research IS mainstream science.
longitudinal? [Im-not-sure-you-know-what-that-word-means-PB.jpeg]the advocates of consciousness outside the body are many leading medics, basing conclusions on statistics from thousands of cases with longitudinal controls.
This is supposed to be science. Belief has nothing to do with it.Until you start studying other than your own beliefs, you will never know what is mainstream science.
It's Monday, so I haven't read any yet, but I will read several.Hiw many science books or papers did you read this week? The average poster here reads none.
I propose a list of recent 'mainstream science' studies .. (in support of the definition you use there).Much as you would prefer it wasn’t, nde research IS mainstream science.
the advocates of consciousness outside the body are many leading medics, basing conclusions on statistics from thousands of cases with longitudinal controls.
How many of those had hundreds of front line and researching medics , papers and books?I propose a list of recent 'mainstream science' studies .. (in support of the definition you use there).
As follows:
- "The Effect of Cow Names on Milk Production": Cows with names produce more milk than nameless cows.
- "Knuckle Cracking and Arthritis": A study investigating the effects of daily knuckle cracking on arthritis.
- "Beer Bottle Head Trauma": A study on whether it's better to be hit on the head with a full or empty beer bottle.
- "Pregnant Women and Tipping Over": A study on why pregnant women don't tip over.
- "Bra to Face Mask": An invention of a bra that can be converted into a face mask.
- "Dead Cockroaches and Magnetism": A study on the behavioral differences between dead and living magnetised cockroaches.
- "Saliva Production in Children": A study estimating the amount of saliva produced by a five-year-old child per day.
- "Pigeons and Missiles": Experiments on housing pigeons in missiles to guide flight paths.
- "Long-Lived People and Record Keeping": A study on the relationship between the length of life and the quality of birth and death records.
- "Coin Flips and Landing Side": A study showing that when a coin is flipped, it tends to land on the same side as it started.
Huh? Whatever do you mean?How many of those had hundreds of front line and researching medics , papers and books?
How many were published in leading peer reviewed medical journals.
Yet another @SelfSim straw man Comparison.
the issues YOU chose were fringe.
It’s pointless trying a scientific discussion here.
None of you know enough or study enough To fill in gaps .
If Genesis is history, the world does not have an age of billions of years.If Genesis is history, He is not rewriting anything
The first one.Dictionary.com has 14 definitions for "age."
Which one are you referring to, to make it look like I'm wrong?
Either that, or you're using the wrong definitions.
TrueIf Genesis is history, the world does not have an age of billions of years.
That depends if age starts when something comes to exist or not. I think of it that way. So if the earth came to exist some 6100 years ago in my mind it's age is 6100 years oldAV's embedded age idea requires that it does have an age of billions of years.
How could something be aging before it even exists?True
That depends if age starts when something comes to exist or not. I think of it that way. So if the earth came to exist some 6100 years ago in my mind it's age is 6100 years old
So how about this, AV.
Instead of complaining that I'm using the WRONG definition of "age," how about you tell me what the RIGHT definition is, okay?
History is generated when events occur w/i the passage of time. This is not the nature of something created ex nihilo. Adam had nothing to look back on.What word am I redefining?
I can tell you, without looking, that I'm using definition #4 in answers.com for the word "old".
The conclusions are pre determined, risible and about as far from the scientific method as it's possible to get.Much as you would prefer it wasn’t, nde research IS mainstream science.
the advocates of consciousness outside the body are many leading medics, basing conclusions on statistics from thousands of cases with longitudinal controls.
This week I'm halfway through The Conscious Mind by Chalmers. Last week it was The Human Mind by Bloom. A couple of weeks ago it was Evolutionary Psychology by various authors. So get off that high horse right now.Hiw many science books or papers did you read this week? The average poster here reads none.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?