"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <crackpots@everywhere.net> wrote in message
news:4171B60C.FFAA2FDF@everywhere.net...

October 16, 2004

"Tim K." wrote:

What is a "soft science" exactly?

I just gave you several examples.

OK Mr semantics - what makes a science a soft science?

If I design a study of vegetation (and I
have) and I use a fully random design and non-parametric statistics to

test

hypotheses, and write a mathematical model to explain the variation in
species composition along an environmental gradient, what exactly is

"soft

science" about it?

Your claim of explanation.

Usenet kook rule #4, Avoid any hint of debate.
I ask again what is "soft science" about the above?  You can't back up your
claim because you don't even understand what I wrote do you?
Another layperson weighs in on science.

And what would you consider "technical"?

Hard sciences.

Which you won't define, only list.

My claim wasn't based upon my understanding of any particular thing,

rather that

our totality of understanding of the cosmos and the planet Earth is

extremely

limited, a claim that is trivially supported by the evidence

I get a kick out of you nitwits posting how little we understand about
anything - do you have any idea how much understanding it takes for you to
be able to post your idiot-spew on the net?

Even more disturbing is that you are using initial estimations - before
hardly any checks had been cut or any bills for repairs had been

submitted.

That isn't necessary to support the conclusion,

The evidence isn't necessary to support a conclusion that depends on the
evidence, huh?  Way to think.  Do you push a broom or a mop for a living?
Or fries?

The hurricane season isn't over yet, and a relative comparison is

implicit.

Try again dumbass - the "relative" aspect doesn't arise from the season not
being over yet.  You don't even know what relative comparison means do you?
Fucking idiot.  It's a relative comparison because the data are
re-calculated based on a standard.  Of course correcting for inflation isn't
really relevant but that's your problem not mine.  You're the one making the
junk comparison.  You are so in over your pointy little head, net kook.

The key words are activity and intensity.

Nice try, except it doesn't matter.  Over the long haul there's nothing out
of the ordinary about the number or intensity of the storms.  The only
unusual aspect is that so many ended up in the same place.

Now ask yourself, what do tropical
cyclones do, that we can measure and estimate? Pick any metric, and then

try to

support the initial claim that the 2004 Atlantic basin hurricane season

has been

relatively mild.

You can't just pull a metric out of your ass moron.  It has to be one that
a) matters, and b) has been recorded (the same way) over the long haul.

Physical, economic and social metrics all appear to agree, that

this.particular

hurricane season activity has been relatively intense.

Intense compared to what?
<froth alert>

But inquiring minds still want to know, what evidence to you to enlighten

us and

to support your claim that aliens do *NOT* exist? That would be

unprecedented,

if true.

You don't really understand how science works do you?  If a village idiot
(such as you) claims the earth is flat, I don't have to prove that it's
round.  I'm not the one making the extraordinary claim.  The burden of proof
doesn't work that way.  We have no scientific evidence that intelligent life
exists anywhere outside of earth.  With such an utter lack of evidence for
aliens, I don't have to prove shit.  The kooks making the aliens claims have
the burden of proof.  If you don't like it then stay in the shallow end
where you belong.