What is Science?

bhsmte said:

Cool. You admit that for me.

I love projection.

Click to expand...

Hi,

Okay. I notice that you are avoiding the issue.

LOVE,

katerinah1947 said:

Hi,

Actually no. Science works by first tying to prove something is wrong. In the case of Bshtme, the problem is he is avoiding facing the situation head on, and he is avoiding admitting he is no scientist.

Any idea, in Science does not seek to prove something is right. It does not any place I have worked. I started really in College, with the ideas that I must work alone, and I must prove everything. College taught me that.

Going into industry, with a do it by myself mentality and proofs are needed by me for everything is actually the way advanced science is done, when it can be done like that.

Occasionally, large controlled studies are needed. One to one correlations are better. Almost always a large contolled study, leads to a one to one corrlation. Many times they are part of the orignal work. They are only done, when things are too confusing.

And, the studies should never try to prove things are right. They should try to prove that the thing under study is wrong.

That is basic. Bshtme, does not understand that. So, he is not scientist. He is not. And his requests for things that have no basis for the original work, prove that he is no scientist, or that he is here, under, false, pretenses. The later is most likely given some of his responses to others.

LOVE,

Click to expand...

Hi,

And if he actually is a scientist, then the sitution falls under The Marlboro Ph.D.'s which no one wants that label ever.

LOVE,

Hi,

Ph.D.'s for the Marlboro tobacco Company even chimed in. I listened. They said there was no conclusive proof that nicotine was addictive.

Here is some of what was presented to Congress by thier bosses.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/15/u...garettes-aren-t-addictive.html?pagewanted=all

LOVE,

Hi,

One of the companies finally admitted that they lied a few years later. Finally, the courts ruled as they had the information to convict. I will look for that.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/253328.php

LOVE,

Hi,

Within here is valuable information, showing what the paid scientists for Phillip Morris Said. I am still trying to find out, which of the Big 7, finally came out with the truth about what the Tobacco companies knew and did.

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/suppl_1/i110.full

LOVE,

joshua 1 9 said:

That is exactly what science can do. Science is able to show us that Noah's flood was not a world wide flood. That does not mean the Bible is not true. IT just shows there is a problem with man's understanding of the Bible. Science helps us to have a better understanding of the Word of God.

Unless you are published then your not a scientist so you do not know what is involved in any of that.

Click to expand...

Hi,

Being published is not the alpha and the omega of being a scientist. Scientists exist that are rarely published.

His whole position, Bhstme's, is that I have done no research. I have countered that I have. He comes back and says no I am not, setting himself above me as judge and lawyer. However whenever any information comes in from me it is immediately thrown out by him. Again He is acting as judge and lawyer.

All attempts of mine to find out if he knows what he is talking about, fail. He will not reveal himself.

It is stupendous. I have done research. He tells me I have not. I personally have just started to doubt my own sanity. The last time that was done to me, well the person got away with it for years, before she.... Well never mind for now.

I think it is time for Bhstme to stop insulting me and my history, which can be proven. In 1969 for instance, I was blown up in a TEOS experiment I was running. There would be records of that at the local hospital, FOR HIM TO LOOK UP.

In that same year The US Government asked me to do something for them. They asked it twice and I complied each time. I went there, bandaged both times. The US Government has a record of that.

Finally when I was treated for third degree burns in another hospital, there are records for that. HE CAN LOOK ALL OF THAT up also.

I can even with paycheck stubs, which I have, show employment there up to 1972.

He and others here seek to falsify all I have done. Their main falisification is saying first that anyone, meaning not me, can say they worked in research.

I would like them to put up or shut up. It is becoming offensive and abusive. I will give them enough to do the work, but I am not the one anymore who is on trial, for giving them things that they don't like.

They are treating me now, just like Galileo was treated.

LOVE,

bhsmte said:

And by the way, to "replicate work", one needs to see the work.

Click to expand...

Hi,

Please get back on topic. Please stop attacking my work history. Please stop attacking my work by expert word smithing.

You have been shown the work. You deny the validity of that.

I have submitted to you my work history, in company's I have worked for. You deny the validity of that.

I am a researcher. You deny the validity of that.

You are treating me, like Galileo was treated. I present, you refuse to look. That is what the few in power did, to Galileo.
Plausible Deniability in all your statements is what The Tobacco Companies did. They even beat all the questions they were asked. You are doing that to me and to others. In a year they were taken to court, and then said they lied. How, do I know that you are not telling lies, when you are word smithing so well just like them?

How? I do not.

Now, the work has been posted. You deny that.

LOVE,

katerinah1947 said:

Hi,

I can't believe I am still here.

True. It is important to note though, that all new science is tested by almost everyone.

LOVE,

Click to expand...

Being that I have worked in biomedical research, perhaps I could address this statement and give you more of an insight into the inner workings of scientific research.

What you say is true in a general sense. Scientists don't read a paper and and then spend a lot of time and money trying to exactly replicate those experiments and results. Outside of corporate R&D, the vast majority of research is funded by grants. This process requires the scientist to lay out their hypotheses and the experiments they will run to test those hypotheses. If the grant is funded (which only 5-10% are funded) the scientist is expected to work on those experiments in the grant. Those hypotheses and grants are also expected to be something new, not a rehash of what has already been done.

On the flip side, the new experiments and hypotheses are based off of old research. If the old research is faulty then new experiments and hypotheses have a chance of revealing those faults. Also, the new hypotheses may directly challenge the hypotheses found in the published literature. As I mentioned earlier, published experiments and data are usually not directly repeated, only tangentially tested.

katerinah1947 said:

Hi,

Actually no. Science works by first tying to prove something is wrong.

Click to expand...

Science works first by stating what the hypothesis is. "The Bible is true" is not a valid scientific hypothesis because it is way too vague. Do we test the hypothesis that the Universe came about in 6 days? Do we test the hypothesis that the Earth was completely covered in water just 4,000 years ago? Do we test the hypothesis that humans and chimps do not share a common ancestor?

We need something specific to test before we can show that it is wrong.

joshua 1 9 said:

That is exactly what science can do. Science is able to show us that Noah's flood was not a world wide flood. That does not mean the Bible is not true. IT just shows there is a problem with man's understanding of the Bible.

Click to expand...

Then what you really have is a religious belief that is not falsifiable. You don't have a scientific hypothesis. If any result is consistent with the Bible, no matter what it is, then it isn't science.

katerinah1947 said:

Hi,

One of the companies finally admitted that they lied a few years later. Finally, the courts ruled as they had the information to convict. I will look for that.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/253328.php

LOVE,

Click to expand...

Without science, how would you know that they are wrong?

katerinah1947 said:

Hi,

Please get back on topic. Please stop attacking my work history. Please stop attacking my work by expert word smithing.

You have been shown the work. You deny the validity of that.

I have submitted to you my work history, in company's I have worked for. You deny the validity of that.

I am a researcher. You deny the validity of that.

You are treating me, like Galileo was treated. I present, you refuse to look. That is what the few in power did, to Galileo.
Plausible Deniability in all your statements is what The Tobacco Companies did. They even beat all the questions they were asked. You are doing that to me and to others. In a year they were taken to court, and then said they lied. How, do I know that you are not telling lies, when you are word smithing so well just like them?

How? I do not.

Now, the work has been posted. You deny that.

LOVE,

Click to expand...

I have pointed out, that you have not demonstrated this; scientific controlled study, that concluded the bible is true.

Nothing more, nothing less.

bhsmte said:

I have pointed out, that you have not demonstrated this; scientific controlled study, that concluded the bible is true.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Click to expand...

Loudmouth said:

Being that I have worked in biomedical research, perhaps I could address this statement and give you more of an insight into the inner workings of scientific research.

What you say is true in a general sense. Scientists don't read a paper and and then spend a lot of time and money trying to exactly replicate those experiments and results. Outside of corporate R&D, the vast majority of research is funded by grants. This process requires the scientist to lay out their hypotheses and the experiments they will run to test those hypotheses. If the grant is funded (which only 5-10% are funded) the scientist is expected to work on those experiments in the grant. Those hypotheses and grants are also expected to be something new, not a rehash of what has already been done.

On the flip side, the new experiments and hypotheses are based off of old research. If the old research is faulty then new experiments and hypotheses have a chance of revealing those faults. Also, the new hypotheses may directly challenge the hypotheses found in the published literature. As I mentioned earlier, published experiments and data are usually not directly repeated, only tangentially tested.

Click to expand...

Hi

Yes, and I only worked in Corporate R&D.

What you call Tangential testing, is what all of had to do, if we were to use any new work. Here, that testing is being contested.

I am being asked in a sense to redo all my work, but this time while I am doing it publish all my notes, and in a manner that Bhstme understands and approves of.

Internally, I don't publish unless challenged. No one writes up my lab notes, and I told them they are making a huge mistake not doing that.

Publishing, was not in what I did. I made money for Companies I worked for. I did what ever was required after coming up to speed, to solve any and all problems presented to me.

When I did want to publish, just one thing, a big no to me came down. I wanted to quantify and effect, and that is the rate that silicon in contact with aluminum is taken up into the aluminum as a funtion of time and the size of the aluminum crystals. One project. One project. I just wanted one to publish. I was not allowed, and yes I could have refused to listen, but. I knew how publishing internal findings was merely stolen by others, for them to use. I knew that if it stayed inside as a Company secret, it was more valuable.

Never, did I think I would be called on the carpet, as a non researcher, because of something like a format is lacking. Never.

That is like the Ph.D. chemist hired for a project I identified and wanted to work on, but I suppose my lack of credentials got in the way yet again. There was an optical effect in all the cameras for a hole made to squirt ink out of for what was called ink jet pens. The effect looked like a humans eye that had been hit. It was called black eye. She hired a summer student. The student came to me. I told her what I knew, and corrected on false observation, but as slowly and carefully as I could. Then I went on vacation and came back. The work was done. The effect was not real. I was due to microscope parallax.

Earlier she had thrown me out of her office. "It is almost impossible to talk to you. Your writing is horrible. You even spell words wrong."

I started to work on the project. I got my data using things like AFM, and other measuring devices and published it, internally and in the normal ways. The Ph.D. chemist eventually left. She was wrong. It was a real, thinning of the Gold cover, brought on by flow effects in the Gold plating tanks.

Being told, I am not doing things right in science, is tantamount to saying there is only one way to do things in science, meaning there is only one method.

For anyone to suggest there is only one method, is to go against what every researcher in the world is doing. Each uses what method works, sometimes it is a controlled study, sometimes it is an experiment only.

I am tired of being attacked, even by saying that if I have not published something, than my work is invalid.

My work is invalid, if it is invalid by someone doing the same work, the way it was done, and getting different results. It is not invalidated by anyone claiming otherwise.

I did not know about Grant Research, but have heard much about it. Thank you for giving me and inside look at that. I did not have that information.

LOVE,

katerinah1947 said:

Hi

Yes, and I only worked in Corporate R&D.

What you call Tangential testing, is what all of had to do, if we were to use any new work. Here, that testing is being contested.

I am being asked in a sense to redo all my work, but this time while I am doing it publish all my notes, and in a manner that Bhstme understands and approves of.

Internally, I don't publish unless challenged. No one writes up my lab notes, and I told them they are making a huge mistake not doing that.

Publishing, was not in what I did. I made money for Companies I worked for. I did what ever was required after coming up to speed, to solve any and all problems presented to me.

When I did want to publish, just one thing, a big no to me came down. I wanted to quantify and effect, and that is the rate that silicon in contact with aluminum is taken up into the aluminum as a funtion of time and the size of the aluminum crystals. One project. One project. I just wanted one to publish. I was not allowed, and yes I could have refused to listen, but. I knew how publishing internal findings was merely stolen by others, for them to use. I knew that if it stayed inside as a Company secret, it was more valuable.

Never, did I think I would be called on the carpet, as a non researcher, because of something like a format is lacking. Never.

That is like the Ph.D. chemist hired for a project I identified and wanted to work on, but I suppose my lack of credentials got in the way yet again. There was an optical effect in all the cameras for a hole made to squirt ink out of for what was called ink jet pens. The effect looked like a humans eye that had been hit. It was called black eye. She hired a summer student. The student came to me. I told her what I knew, and corrected on false observation, but as slowly and carefully as I could. Then I went on vacation and came back. The work was done. The effect was not real. I was due to microscope parallax.

Earlier she had thrown me out of her office. "It is almost impossible to talk to you. Your writing is horrible. You even spell words wrong."

I started to work on the project. I got my data using things like AFM, and other measuring devices and published it, internally and in the normal ways. The Ph.D. chemist eventually left. She was wrong. It was a real, thinning of the Gold cover, brought on by flow effects in the Gold plating tanks.

Being told, I am not doing things right in science, is tantamount to saying there is only one way to do things in science, meaning there is only one method.

For anyone to suggest there is only one method, is to go against what every researcher in the world is doing. Each uses what method works, sometimes it is a controlled study, sometimes it is an experiment only.

I am tired of being attacked, even by saying that if I have not published something, than my work is invalid.

My work is invalid, if it is invalid by someone doing the same work, the way it was done, and getting different results. It is not invalidated by anyone claiming otherwise.

I did not know about Grant Research, but have heard much about it. Thank you for giving me and inside look at that. I did not have that information.

LOVE,

Click to expand...

In the realm of scientific research funded by grants, the attitude is that if it isn't published then it doesn't exist. Of course, that would be different in the corporate arena where trade secrets are so important.

Loudmouth said:

In the realm of scientific research funded by grants, the attitude is that if it isn't published then it doesn't exist. Of course, that would be different in the corporate arena where trade secrets are so important.

Click to expand...

Hi,

Your words will take a while to sink in, and know what they mean in context here, with Bhstme and others that are identical to him, in their responses to my work.

Initially, since "To know all is to forgive all", works so very very well, it might be then, that all the research Bhstme and others know of is Grant Research.

I cannot say, that "To know all is to forgive all" is Absolutely true. So Joshua that phrase comes from a book written by a woman who was a Contemporary of Napolean, and who contested with Napolean much, but, was highly respected by her so much, that he said this of her: "She teaches people how to think who do not know how to think and she teaches people how to think who have forgotten how to think. " It is not Biblical in other words, Joshua.

LOVE,

Remember, guys:

Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built this: