.
This site is not intended to diagnose cure or prevent any condition nor to be a substitute for health care advice. If you live near the International Time Line, I'll edit lines up in a month or so! Consult your doctor before making any change in your diet or exercise motifs. The absence of a warning for a given drug or drug combination in no way should be construed to indicate that the drug or drug combination is safe, effective or appropriate for any given patient. The business plans on this site are for information only and are not to be considerd as financial advice. If I Were a Dr. of Fizzology I'd just wanna be a favorite web author-Of You and Yours!
.
....
....
ENCYCLOPEDIA COMPUTORIA
.
Copyright 2005-2008
..
About science. The form of much of what I say on this site is, "This seems probable, lets do more based on this line of attack", and it's been said that it's not up to a skeptic to produce evidence for, say stonehenge being simulated by prehistoric man to make all the stonehenges advanced enough to be a real astronomy machine on "computers" like the one they found from the ancient world used to predict the motions of the planets. It's not up to the skeptic to muster up evidence, and it's not completely up to the proponent to be the one who goes out and does all the archeology to find the stone Palm IVVVVOXCLMVVVXXX either. If all scientists had to always have proof right away, they couldn't ask so many questions of worth and science would be needlessly slowed down. Thus here on my site I'm finding evidence that already exists and making predictions based on the evidence mostly. I'm not saying that I know that these predictions are true, just that they might be true. Often I'm not sure. The main claims I'm making here are that what I say seems both more probable than not and more probable than competing claims. While I don't have to produce that much evidence yet, I know that eventually the evidence will no doubt be what will decide my claims. There is real worth and a real place for deductive reasoning (reasoning based just on the evidence like Euclidean geometry) in science provided that sooner or later the conclusions drawn are put to the test. One good reason deductive reasoning has so much worth in science here in the 21st century is because of there being so much evidence and so much new evidence that just rearranging the evidence for higher efficiency is itself a major way to improve science. But in truth rearranging all the new evidence is itself inductive (science) so like with what seems to be new evidence for faster than light, there's already considerably more evidence than skepticism would allow. (See physics links and physics synopses main page.) My goal with this claim is to see what this evidence implies and hopefully find an unexpected proof that would only be so if faster than light is true. Even so I'm not claiming that this will turn out to be true, just that new evidence implies it seems worth more research to see if it's so. Skeptics are from Misssouri the Show Me State, and so are those who ask important questions, sometimes with a delay between the question and the truth. Math geniuses have been well known to find new math of worth hundreds of years before any use of worth or proof is found and math is worthwhile. Even if none of my claims turn out to be true, even if there are so many good claims that might, like my neighbor sold out at the yard sale who I got to have a good chat and comedy with the following day, it's a pleasure to ask even if no more was there to buy from my neighbor!
..
...
posted by starship orion | 11:08 AM
