Page 5 of 9

Re: Scientists

Posted: 27 Dec 2017, 15:51
by yomptepi
by 1950 he was a bit fucking late.

Re: Scientists

Posted: 27 Dec 2017, 15:56
by Diamond Dog
yomptepi wrote:by 1950 he was a bit fucking late.


So you'd rather he didn't admit he was wrong in his previous beliefs?

So, in fact, you're now criticising him for doing precisely what you encouraged scientists to do when they got it wrong.

And you wonder why some think you're an ignorant blowhard Michael?

Re: Scientists

Posted: 27 Dec 2017, 15:59
by yomptepi
Darryl Strawberry wrote:This is utter nonsense.


Do explain , Einstein.

The data that informed Blair to switch to diesel must have come from somewhere. You voted for him, so I am absolutely sure it cannot have been from any tainted source. Are you saying that the information given to Blair was wrong? In which case , who gave it to him if not the scientific community? Or is that a stupid question?

You concede that it was a bad decision, don't you.
And you do understand that because of it, thousands have had their health damaged.
And you know that it was the last Labour government who decided on the switch to diesel? Presumably because of information given to them by scientists, rather than car manufacturers or oil producers. Who in turn would be using information from their scientists?

So how did it all go down?

Re: Scientists

Posted: 27 Dec 2017, 16:00
by yomptepi
Diamond Dog wrote:
yomptepi wrote:by 1950 he was a bit fucking late.


So you'd rather he didn't admit he was wrong in his previous beliefs?

So, in fact, you're now criticising him for doing precisely what you encouraged scientists to do when they got it wrong.

And you wonder why some think you're an ignorant blowhard Michael?


I just think that maybe late 1945 might have been a better time. Why did it take him 5 years to realise it was a bad thing?

Re: Scientists

Posted: 27 Dec 2017, 16:05
by Diamond Dog
Because many did - and still do- believe that the Atomic bomb saved many hundreds of thousands of America lives at the end of WW2.

It was only with the Russian's developing their nuclear programme and the upcoming escalation to the hydrogen bomb that many saw the way things were going.

He realised the error and said so.

If anything, he should be praised for that, not criticised (especially in light of your prior criticisms of all scientists for their refusal to accept when they've got it wrong).

Re: Scientists

Posted: 27 Dec 2017, 16:09
by Pansy Puff
I was in the right ballpark.

Image

Re: Scientists

Posted: 27 Dec 2017, 16:13
by yomptepi
Diamond Dog wrote:Because many did - and still do- believe that the Atomic bomb saved many hundreds of thousands of America lives at the end of WW2.

It was only with the Russian's developing their nuclear programme and the upcoming escalation to the hydrogen bomb that many saw the way things were going.

He realised the error and said so.

If anything, he should be praised for that, not criticised (especially in light of your prior criticisms of all scientists for their refusal to accept when they've got it wrong).


So it all MY fault?

Re: Scientists

Posted: 27 Dec 2017, 16:15
by Pansy Puff
yomptepi wrote:
Darryl Strawberry wrote:This is utter nonsense.


Do explain , Einstein.



This hideous nonsense.
As far as the diesel issue is concerned, I am sure that most scientist knew that diesel was far more poisonous that petrol.


I can't be bothered explaining how science works again. You would make the worst scientist in the universe:, dogmatic and unbending and blind to fact.

Re: Scientists

Posted: 27 Dec 2017, 16:18
by yomptepi
Darryl Strawberry wrote:
yomptepi wrote:
Darryl Strawberry wrote:This is utter nonsense.


Do explain , Einstein.



This hideous nonsense.
As far as the diesel issue is concerned, I am sure that most scientist knew that diesel was far more poisonous that petrol.


I can't be bothered explaining how science works again. You would make the worst scientist in the universe:, dogmatic and unbending and blind to fact.


So you don't believe that scientists knew that diesel was more polluting than diesel when Blair's Labour government decided on the switch to diesel. You are saying that they thought petrol was worse?

Re: Scientists

Posted: 27 Dec 2017, 16:29
by Diamond Dog
Darryl Strawberry wrote:I was in the right ballpark.

Image


Well... you stated H bomb... not A bomb... and that letter is dated 1939..... but, yes, Einstein was highly important in the theory of nuclear bombs.... by his own admission though, he had very little to do with its development in New Mexico and virtually (maybe) nothing to do with thermonuclear (Hydrogen) weapons.

Re: Scientists

Posted: 27 Dec 2017, 16:32
by Diamond Dog
yomptepi wrote:
Diamond Dog wrote:Because many did - and still do- believe that the Atomic bomb saved many hundreds of thousands of America lives at the end of WW2.

It was only with the Russian's developing their nuclear programme and the upcoming escalation to the hydrogen bomb that many saw the way things were going.

He realised the error and said so.

If anything, he should be praised for that, not criticised (especially in light of your prior criticisms of all scientists for their refusal to accept when they've got it wrong).


So it all MY fault?


Is that the best you can do?

I'm pointing out that you criticised Einstein for changing his mind and admitting that nuclear devices were not morally acceptable - having previously criticised all scientists for refusing to accept when they've made a mistake.

You do understand why I consider that be rank hypocrisy, don;t you?

Or, more worryingly, you probably don't.

Re: Scientists

Posted: 27 Dec 2017, 16:45
by yomptepi
I am not sure it is rank hypocrisy. I think it is a bit like letting the genie out of the bottle, and then apologising once everything has been destroyed. But have it your own way.

Re: Scientists

Posted: 27 Dec 2017, 17:01
by Pansy Puff
Diamond Dog wrote:
Darryl Strawberry wrote:I was in the right ballpark.

Image


Well... you stated H bomb... not A bomb... and that letter is dated 1939..... but, yes, Einstein was highly important in the theory of nuclear bombs.... by his own admission though, he had very little to do with its development in New Mexico and virtually (maybe) nothing to do with thermonuclear (Hydrogen) weapons.

I couldn't quite remember the timeline, although I'm sure Yomp will accuse me of deliberately surpressing facts.

Re: Scientists

Posted: 27 Dec 2017, 17:03
by Diamond Dog
yomptepi wrote:I am not sure it is rank hypocrisy. I think it is a bit like letting the genie out of the bottle, and then apologising once everything has been destroyed. But have it your own way.


So which would you have preferred :

a) He refused to accept his error and kept schtum (which is what you were arguing against) or
b) He accepted he got it wrong and said so (which is what you're now arguing against)?

Once you've answered that (which should be quite easy for you, as you see everything in black and white and have never made a mistake in your life) I'll then 'have it my way'.

Re: Scientists

Posted: 27 Dec 2017, 17:12
by Diamond Dog
Anytime you fancy quitting on this, feel free.

You know, once you realise your position(s) is/are completely indefensible.

Re: Scientists

Posted: 27 Dec 2017, 17:47
by yomptepi
Diamond Dog wrote:Anytime you fancy quitting on this, feel free.

You know, once you realise your position(s) is/are completely indefensible.


i thought the whole point of this debate was that scientists could not ever be wrong?

So which is it?

Re: Scientists

Posted: 27 Dec 2017, 17:56
by Diamond Dog
yomptepi wrote:
Diamond Dog wrote:Anytime you fancy quitting on this, feel free.

You know, once you realise your position(s) is/are completely indefensible.


i thought the whole point of this debate was that scientists could not ever be wrong?

So which is it?



The ironic thing is that Einstein scientifically could not have been more correct. You appear to want to hang a scientist for changing his moral standpoint - which is even more bizarre.

Re: Scientists

Posted: 27 Dec 2017, 18:04
by yomptepi
Diamond Dog wrote:
yomptepi wrote:
Diamond Dog wrote:Anytime you fancy quitting on this, feel free.

You know, once you realise your position(s) is/are completely indefensible.


i thought the whole point of this debate was that scientists could not ever be wrong?

So which is it?



The ironic thing is that Einstein scientifically could not have been more correct. You appear to want to hang a scientist for changing his moral standpoint - which is even more bizarre.


In what respect. In that he had conceived a weapon which could destroy the world? and what of Oppenheimer? It seems odd that one could spend years developing a weapon of mass destruction and then think apologising would be adequate. How odd.

Re: Scientists

Posted: 27 Dec 2017, 18:16
by Pansy Puff
yomptepi wrote:i thought the whole point of this debate was that scientists could not ever be wrong?

So which is it?


When did anyone say this? Other than you? (And probably Gash).

Re: Scientists

Posted: 27 Dec 2017, 18:17
by Pansy Puff
yomptepi wrote:i thought the whole point of this debate was that scientists could not ever be wrong?

So which is it?


Alternative response: peer review.