Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Oklahoma Earthquake Politics
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="1krr" data-source="post: 2721208" data-attributes="member: 750"><p>Forming a hypothesis is science. It's core tenet of the scientific method.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html" target="_blank">http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html</a></p><p></p><p>Correlation is a principle method of testing a hypothesis. You talk a lot about physics and if you were a physicist (you may be?) you would know that correlation is common because physical events are rarely directly observable. Using your fart example (I like it), I don't care if you get gassy in the spring or from mexican beer, you farted. It stunk. And you were responsible. We can talk about mexican beer. I would enjoy testing the hypothesis that mexican beer causes gas to exhaustion. Whether it was mexican beer or whether it was the spring, ya farted. </p><p></p><p>But I feel like we made progress here and I'll reciprocate. i think the debate exists in the final 30%. I'm open to discussion about that 30% and with compelling evidence, maybe you can take me from 100% sure to 70% sure. But remember on thing, I've got no emotion driving this. I also have no protection of my livelyhood driving this. I worked in the industry and became skeptical about the industry as a result of being in it. I didn't actively investigate it until my house started shaking like a jumping bean (see me sticking with the mexican theme here?). I got to my 100% as a result of consideration of the evidence. Let's go from here.</p><p></p><p>EDIT: Had the pending post for a while so I didn't see your amended statement. I'm ok with that. Geology is complex and it stands to reason that the earth's crust isn't uniform and thus will have different effects on different formations. I'm more about taking responsibility when it does have an unintended effect. Like I said, if fracking and production doesn't affect me or others negatively, you can drill to the moon if you want. That won't change my opinion of a need for a more diverse energy infrastructure but those are two different arguments.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="1krr, post: 2721208, member: 750"] Forming a hypothesis is science. It's core tenet of the scientific method. [url]http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html[/url] Correlation is a principle method of testing a hypothesis. You talk a lot about physics and if you were a physicist (you may be?) you would know that correlation is common because physical events are rarely directly observable. Using your fart example (I like it), I don't care if you get gassy in the spring or from mexican beer, you farted. It stunk. And you were responsible. We can talk about mexican beer. I would enjoy testing the hypothesis that mexican beer causes gas to exhaustion. Whether it was mexican beer or whether it was the spring, ya farted. But I feel like we made progress here and I'll reciprocate. i think the debate exists in the final 30%. I'm open to discussion about that 30% and with compelling evidence, maybe you can take me from 100% sure to 70% sure. But remember on thing, I've got no emotion driving this. I also have no protection of my livelyhood driving this. I worked in the industry and became skeptical about the industry as a result of being in it. I didn't actively investigate it until my house started shaking like a jumping bean (see me sticking with the mexican theme here?). I got to my 100% as a result of consideration of the evidence. Let's go from here. EDIT: Had the pending post for a while so I didn't see your amended statement. I'm ok with that. Geology is complex and it stands to reason that the earth's crust isn't uniform and thus will have different effects on different formations. I'm more about taking responsibility when it does have an unintended effect. Like I said, if fracking and production doesn't affect me or others negatively, you can drill to the moon if you want. That won't change my opinion of a need for a more diverse energy infrastructure but those are two different arguments. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Oklahoma Earthquake Politics
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
