DC Tom Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 'likely" is an admission of the uncertainty and relativity of nearly every belief and opinion. very few things are certain. i can't produce a mathematical proof for light wave duality, nor can most that have taken undergrad physics. that doesn't mean that i (or they)can't grasp the concept or accept it as a satisfactory explanation for observed physical phenomena. i trust the experts to fight out the details just like in climate change or wealth distribution economics. "I don't need to know the math to grasp the concept." Maybe not...but knowing the concept would help. You're entire argument is undermined by the fact that it's "wave-particle duality." Likewise, you pretend to know Piketty's concepts solely by arguing that his book is popular. That's consistent with the point your example actually illustrates: knowledge of the existence of a thing is not the same as knowledge about that thing. Or, to put it in the same rigorous mathematics that Piketty's uses and you so seem to love: a > e. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Physics is backed with evidence which is then used to form theories which explain observed phenomenon. When there is no absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest that a particular scientist fudged experiments how the !@#$ is it likely? Ostensibly plausible or even possible does NOT equal likely. I don't know how many times I can explain this to you. http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/mendel.htm "I don't need to know the math to grasp the concept." Maybe not...but knowing the concept would help. You're entire argument is undermined by the fact that it's "wave-particle duality." Likewise, you pretend to know Piketty's concepts solely by arguing that his book is popular. That's consistent with the point your example actually illustrates: knowledge of the existence of a thing is not the same as knowledge about that thing. Or, to put it in the same rigorous mathematics that Piketty's uses and you so seem to love: a > e. a quick search reveals the term to be widely used: http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/w/wave-particle_duality.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/mendel.htm a quick search reveals the term to be widely used: http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/w/wave-particle_duality.htm Anything post 1936? Nevertheless, neither these nor the other progeny tests differ significantly from Fisher's expected values; hence, there is no factual basis for an allegation of data falsification. http://www.genetics.org/content/175/3/975.full Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 (edited) http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/mendel.htm a quick search reveals the term to be widely used: http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/w/wave-particle_duality.htm No no, you originally said, "light wave duality," which isn't a thing. The concept is wave-particle duality because of the dual characteristics of both waves and particles found. And I'd argue that you can explain that concept solely because you were told about it by a teacher or professor. Which makes the knowledge next to useless. I'll eat my shirt if you can demonstrate the evidence for it without googling. Edited April 8, 2015 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 (edited) No no, you originally said, "light wave duality," which isn't a thing. The concept is wave-particle duality because of the dual characteristics of both waves and particles found. And I'd argue that you can explain that concept solely because you were told about it by a teacher or professor. Which makes the knowledge next to useless. I'll eat my shirt if you can demonstrate the evidence for it without googling. . yes, correct, waves and particles....it was an example of a somewhat obscure concept in everyday life that someone can conceptualize without possessing intimate knowledge. but ya'll take it literally which is your m.o. but you've made my point. i don't need to be able to demonstrate the evidence without googling if, at one time, i was convinced by my studies that it is in fact, likely (yes, likely) to be true. if i needed to google it to defend it from attack by naysayers, then i would, same as for pikkety's conclusions. Edited April 8, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 My favorite part of this thread is that every time you think no one else can do anything to make birddog look more wrong, gatorman swoops in to support him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 . yes, correct, waves and particles....it was an example of a somewhat obscure concept in everyday life that someone can conceptualize without possessing intimate knowledge. but ya'll take it literally which is your m.o. but you've made my point. i don't need to be able to demonstrate the evidence without googling if, at one time, i was convinced by my studies that it is in fact, likely (yes, likely) to be true. if i needed to google it to defend it from attack by naysayers, then i would, same as for pikkety's conclusions. Still waiting for your suggestion in how to prevent Mark Zuckerberg from accumulating his wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Still waiting for your suggestion in how to prevent Mark Zuckerberg from accumulating his wealth. no need. tax his wealth later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 no need. tax his wealth later. Ah, the economics of envy. When later? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Later, like a death tax? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 (edited) . yes, correct, waves and particles....it was an example of a somewhat obscure concept in everyday life that someone can conceptualize without possessing intimate knowledge. but ya'll take it literally which is your m.o. but you've made my point. i don't need to be able to demonstrate the evidence without googling if, at one time, i was convinced by my studies that it is in fact, likely (yes, likely) to be true. if i needed to google it to defend it from attack by naysayers, then i would, same as for pikkety's conclusions. My MO would have been to asked you to describe it, watch you miss some nuance, and trumpet my superiority. When did you last study Pikkety's conclusions? Edited April 8, 2015 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 no need. tax his wealth later. How? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/14/seattle-boss-raises-entire-company-minimum-wage-to-70000/ After hearing about as study that claimed income-- to a certain level-- directly affects one's emotional well-being, the founder of a Seattle-based credit card processing company announced Monday that he will take large salary cut so he can increase the pay for each employee to at least $70,000 a year. The New York Times reported that Dan Price, the head of Gravity Payments, told his 120-person staff about the plan after talking to friends about the difficulties of making $40,000 a year. "As much as I'm a capitalist, there is nothing in the market that is making me do it," he told the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 (edited) http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/14/seattle-boss-raises-entire-company-minimum-wage-to-70000/ Wow, the government didn't have to tell him to do it? Amazing. Edited April 14, 2015 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/14/seattle-boss-raises-entire-company-minimum-wage-to-70000/ I believe that these sort of things should happen organically. I applaud the owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/14/seattle-boss-raises-entire-company-minimum-wage-to-70000/ What's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Very wide right Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/14/seattle-boss-raises-entire-company-minimum-wage-to-70000/ Just ask Obama,he didn't build that company anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nobel-prize-winner-stiglitz---three-steps-to-solving-income-inequality-153834471.html. another expert weighs in on income and wealth inequality, its causes and possible solutions. btw, he has a nobel prize but don't you far righties hold that against him. In his new book, “The Great Divide: Unequal Societies and What We Can Do About Them,” Stiglitz traces the modern divide of inequality back to the Reagan era. Though inequality was a huge problem at the turn of the last century and in the lead up to the Great Depression, Stiglitz says the income divide in the U.S. was reduced after World War II and that the country “grew at its fastest pace” and “grew together.” He says the turning point was the Reagan Administration and its rolling out of supply-side economics, deregulation, and lower tax rates. The goal of these policies was to spur economic growth overall and make everyone wealthier. Stiglitz says it caused a divide instead Edited April 23, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 btw, he has a nobel prize but don't you far righties hold that against him. It's not that we hold it against anyone. It's just difficult to put too much stock into a lefty award handed out to lefty thinkers. The commander in chief who just accidentally killed Americans with an airstrike has one for...oh...gee willikers...what was that Nobel Prize for again? Oh yeah. Peace. Lotta good that's doing everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nobel-prize-winner-stiglitz---three-steps-to-solving-income-inequality-153834471.html. another expert weighs in on income and wealth inequality, its causes and possible solutions. btw, he has a nobel prize but don't you far righties hold that against him. In his new book, “The Great Divide: Unequal Societies and What We Can Do About Them,” Stiglitz traces the modern divide of inequality back to the Reagan era. Though inequality was a huge problem at the turn of the last century and in the lead up to the Great Depression, Stiglitz says the income divide in the U.S. was reduced after World War II and that the country “grew at its fastest pace” and “grew together.” He says the turning point was the Reagan Administration and its rolling out of supply-side economics, deregulation, and lower tax rates. The goal of these policies was to spur economic growth overall and make everyone wealthier. Stiglitz says it caused a divide instead First, he says, "reform the tax and transfer system in the U.S. to “make it at least fair that those at the top pay at least the same share,” Excuse me? WTF numbers is he looking at? The rich don't pay the same share in taxes as those of lesser income? Utter nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts