Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1418085)	9/6/2023 3:45:51 PM
From: Wharf Rat	1 Recommendation Recommended By Doren Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579130

What detail? He was studying intensity of fires. It doesn't matter whether the fire was started by arson, a car, a bullet, a falling wire, a dragging chain, a cigarette butt, or lightning, it will be more intense. If anybody is making it political, it's him. Besides, it's EZ to toss in a table of causes.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1418085)	9/6/2023 5:11:07 PM
From: golfer72	Respond to of 1579130

Bingo! Real science encourages challenges to its theories. When the challenges are proven wrong it strengthens the theory that is challenged

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1418085)	9/6/2023 5:36:06 PM
From: Doren	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1579130

> researchers are encouraged to leave out key facts College admins or deans do not pressure researchers to lie. If they did the rest of the faculty would rise up and get the admins fired. This is not unusual. Particularly when right wing admins try to pressure faculty members. Researchers do not try to "prove" anything. They gather data, then they develop theories to explain data, then they test their theories and if the new tests disprove their theories they develop new theories. This is endless work. Theories are constantly being change or tweaked. Excepting of course CORPORATE "researchers" who are generally incompetent and so are hired by corporations to "prove" things and are paid corporate shills. I will say that I've seen, on occasion, I have seen researchers leave out a fact in their conclusions. Facts they know will be used erroneously by climate deniers. In other words a fact that a real scientists would not think was cogent to their conclusions, but one that an uneducated person who doesn't understand science might use to taint their conclusions. That's understandable, they don't leave them out, they just don't mention them in their briefs or conclusions because they have no bearing on the statistics.