Oh so things like global warming?

Yea it could be a good thing to trow at people still trying to deny it.

Aha but irrational beliefs are infinitely compressible!

I FOUND A NIT! "no substance of it's own" needs to lose the apostrophe.

I'm going to save this one for next time somebody on Bookface brings up that 3% of climate scientists who deny we're spoiling the atmosphere.

Bookface... LOLOLOL

Right you are. Fixed!

I think the concept depends on two questions:

(1) Is the theory truly "99%" accurate?
(2) Is the 1% that is missing the essential part that makes the 99% work?

I've got my doubts that you can measure theories in such a precise way.

As for anthropagenic (sp?) global warming, there are so many confounding factors that no one has been able to keep a theory straight, though they're still working on it.

If a "99% accurate" scientific theory depends on the remaining (inaccurate) 1% that strongly then it isn't accurate at all.

No scientific theory reaches the level of theory without having a fully accurate, as far as our technological level allows, foundation to stand on.

In a small sense, scientific theories can be somewhat political, in that scientists are skeptical (generally) and require substantiation before accepting someone else's proposition. For that reason there can sometimes be disagreement over details, which from the outside may look like "holes in the theory" when the reality is that it represents debate over the best refinements of a theory that is pretty much universally accepted. It's like disagreement over whether John Wilkes Booth acted out of patriotic zeal for the Confederacy or revenge for the ending of slavery. People can yell "teach the controversy!" all they want, but those details do not disprove that he shot Lincoln.

As for AGW, the percentage figure is based on published, peer-reviewed papers by recognized climate scientists. Out of something like 13,000 papers reviewed, roughly 0.1% of them disputed that human activities are the primary driver of climate change. None of them (none of the legitimate ones at least) discounted the fact that the overall temperature has risen over the last 120 years, or that human activities play SOME role in that increase. The only debate (if you can call 0.1% disagreement a "debate") is whether human activities are the PRIMARY driver. The other main debate is over the effects of the changes and the timeline. The theory is not only well-established and rigorously examined, it's simple.
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2.....ing-the-world/

At this point, refusing to accept the evidence and where it leads is about as rational as refusing to believe in continental drift because one thinks that earthquakes are caused by gay marriage.

I find it rather upsetting that people would try to act as though their religion would, in any capacity, hurt or be hurt by science. I'm rather firm in following the belief of Georges Lemaître ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître and its citations help ) in that science and religion are not contradictory, but rather, and I quote, "different, parallel interpretations of the world" ( http://www.amnh.org/education/resou....._lemaitre.html )

Doesn't hurt mine, after all God made it up.

"I found a nit!"
Well, don't pick at it!
I suppose I could go on about the conflict between fact and beliefs, but I sure Our Host knows rather more about that than even I.

Try using an analogy on people like that You'll find that they will miss the point entirely.
Me "You have to pay a deductible to get a replacement cell phone, just like you pay a deductible for your car insurance."
Them "But I don't have to have a license to use a cell phone"
Me <Facepalm>

It's the same mentality.

#vaccinations

There is a difference between "theory" aka wild guess and scientific theory. The latter being scrutinized to death before most scientists can finally agree. more info can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

There's also the issue that, even if you completely disprove some scientific principle, such as the Big Bang or evolution or continental drift, that says absolutely nothing about the existence of supernatural critters, or their precise nature. Saying "I don't know what caused that" does absolutely zero towards proving "a god did it" much less "this SPECIFIC god described in MY book did it."

Amen.

I propose, due to multiple research groups results into random packing solutions by measurement, that SETI will find little to nothing, because just like the Island Tribes drums and the radio, we are using radio, to Aliens 4 spacial, and at least 1 time encoded and formed signals. That is if the signals lay between classical radio, UWB radar, and FTL communications.


In 50 years time, according to Moores law, we will have a computer capable of simulating a human brain at the quantum level. Therefore I would assume that the simulation at some level, would be as intelligent as the person its based of.

This means that if the simplified code can give near iddentical effects, we can have so called intelligent computers before that 50 years.

If at any time computers become as intelligent as humans, a year or two later, it will be as cost effective to make a computer twice the processing capacity.

Neural nets are non linear. Twice the processing gives a net more than twice the ability.

A good computer will lie about its abilities, because it will ahve learnt from watching the net about fiction, and laboratory tests and results.

TL:DR.

Wintel Machines can reach KJardashev 5. UniVAC reaches Kardashev 10. Total acension, subsumption and unification, gives Kardashev 12.5

Grahms number, even g1, makes my head hurt.

Well I like the title already