On 3/11/2017 7:56 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I am only online a couple of hours each day, so most of the discussion
> is bypassing me so to speak.
>
> Just to resume a few catch words that are dropped here: when speaking
> about science, terms of 'faith', 'believe', and such are irrelevant.
> Science is not a faith nor a believe; like a former colleague used to
> say: "models are to be used, not believed". I am afraid that many people
> think that 'science' is a kind of 'faith', which it is emphatically not.
> In short, I tend to avoid that kind of discussions. Other wise, I agree
> with what Stephen said earlier.
>
Science, for some, has become another form of religion. They might not 
understand the details but they have "Faith". It is probably one of the 
reasons that Mr Trump is able to "rubbish" experts. A lot of people are 
loosing their faith. For lots of reasons.

> About "scientific" polling, I have not the slightest idea what that
> could be. In my view, polling is the application of statistical models
> based on assumptions and applied on what humans are thought to think ;-)
> I have never taken a serious look at any polling results in my life
>
If it has any meaning. I think it is modern American usage.

> Oh I forgot: "Do you eat junk food or charred meat? Watch
> television within 1/2 hour of bedtime? Drink soda? Buy lottery tickets?"
>
> The answers are: no, no, no, no, and no. :-)

But I bet you eat old cheese. ;-)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message