How could you falsify macroevolution?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GePap


Who said anything about disproving the discourse? The point was that our "knowledge" of Everest's height because a god told us could still be verified experimentally, if we so chose to do so.

I was just pointing out that when someone makes a claim that coincidentally happens to be correct (that Everest is ~30,000 feet) doesn't make it scientific, because we have to consider how that number was arrived at.

Science doesn't mean that something is correct, it means that something is arrived at via scientific method. Therefore there's no way that "Monkey Godism" meets a scientific falsifiability test.

But then again, we already established that you and che didn't understand what Popper meant when the said "falsifiable," so I suppose it was beating a dead horse. Mea culpa.

[Odin]

Originally posted by GePap

Except satelites don't hover overhead. And suck at spotting targets in difficult terrain.

You've never heard of Geosynchronous satelites?

Too much faith in technology

If you are on a 747 at 35,000 ft, or have a bacterial infection, you better have faith in technology.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Science doesn't mean that something is correct, it means that something is arrived at via scientific method. Therefore there's no way that "Monkey Godism" meets a scientific falsifiability test.

Man, Popper sure uses ugly terminology.

And

on the "Gepap doesn;t know science" trope. It is getting old, beyond being obviously wrong. You guys need new material.

[Last Conformist]

Maybe we'd stop if you started acting as if you knew science.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Odin
You've never heard of Geosynchronous satelites?

Geosunchronous spy satelites? No.

If you are on a 747 at 35,000 ft, or have a bacterial infection, you better have faith in technology.

If I didn't trust technology, I would not be in a 747.

There is a difference between trust and faith. I hope you do undertstand that difference. You do, right?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Maybe we'd stop if you started acting as if you knew science.

So saying Popper used ugly terminology is "not understanding science?"



I guess that professor of mine who was a member of the National Academy of Science and gave me an A- in his class sure can;t spot those who don't get science. Him and all my teachers at the specialized math and science high school I attended.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Geosunchronous spy satelites? No.

Your loss.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by GePap




So saying Popper used ugly terminology is "not understanding science?"

That was your retreat position. You started by saying that che was right.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Your loss.

I hope you do realize, if you think about it, what a waste of money a geosynchornous spy satelite gathering photographic intelliegence would be, RIGHT? Given you vast understanding of technology you would immidiately realize that it would be:

1. A huge waste of time
2. Relatively easy to fool
3. Vulnerable

Geosyncrhonous satellites are used to gather electronic signals, and of course as part of the GPS system. NOT as photographic surveillance.

Get the difference?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
I hope you do realize, if you think about it, what a waste of money a geosynchornous spy satelite gathering photographic intelliegence would be, RIGHT? Given you vast understanding of technology you would immidiately realize that it would be:

1. A huge waste of time

Not really no. It depends entirely on what the satellite is tasked to look at.

2. Relatively easy to fool

Not much more so than any other satellite.

3. Vulnerable

I don't think even we can hit a geosync satellite.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

That was your retreat position. You started by saying that che was right.

When he question the use of "being able to falsify", as in having to prove wrong is necessary, he was.

Its not the ability to disprove but the ability to test experimentally that matters.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Not really no. It depends entirely on what the satellite is tasked to look at.

You don;t spend billions just to observe one spot on earth. Give it up, there are no geosynchronous surveillance satellites, which is what you spoke about when it comes to gathering battlefield intelligence.

Not much more so than any other satellite.

If you know its there, you simply don;t do anything suspicious in the limited spots it covers. So yes, it is much easier to fool.

I don't think even we can hit a geosync satellite.

You of little imagination.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
You don;t spend billions just to observe one spot on earth. Give it up, there are no geosynchronous surveillance satellites, which is what you spoke about when it comes to gathering battlefield intelligence.

Actually, I could check that... I'm not sure you are correct. The main reason you wouldn't do it is not because it only points at one spot on the earth (it in fact has a large field of view, and spysats are put up in constellations anyway), but because of the fuel costs to get to geosync rather than a different orbit.

If you know its there, you simply don;t do anything suspicious in the limited spots it covers. So yes, it is much easier to fool.

You can easily tell where a non-geosync satellite is too.

You of little imagination.

We, and maybe Russia, are the only country with antisatellite weapons. It takes a lot of fuel to get to geosync.

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, I could check that...

Unfortunately, the software I has doesn't list military spysats, for obvious reasons

[Whoha]

Originally posted by GePap
3. Vulnerable

they are much higher up then normal satellites, if an enemy could strike one down, he could easily strike down a much lower satellite that is in a steady and predictable orbit.