No, they're saying housing homeless people is not an unreasonable goal.
Tavarin
joined 2 years ago
No, I want a computer powerful enough to actually do my job and laptops don't cut it.
Why are you still being so condescending?
And what proof do you have that it was non vague? Did you do a double blind control with a horoscope made for you, and some random ones made for other people, and determine if you could accurately pick out which one was yours?
So no, your point is not valid because you did not have a control. Without controls to your "experiment" the results are entirely meaningless.
Whatever definition you want.
Except your control-less astrology report test, because that was certainly not science.
And what science have you actually done?
Peer-review is an incredibly important part of science, one of the most important in fact. So go ahead with your non-peer reviewed, no control "science", and leave the real science to us scientists.
I myself don't want to live in Montreal, but I do enjoy a visit once in a while.
Whatever it is, isn’t science itself
But it is. More science than you've ever done it seems since you think one data point with no controls is somehow scientific.
You know companies that pursue scientific pursuits outside of academia still publish their work. They also tend to hire people with masters and doctorates from well-regarded academic institutions.
I mean I get to do it as a chemist, so hell yeah Nye!
Bad practice by a Nobel Laureate is worth less than good practice by some no name
And peer-reviewed papers will reflect that dumbass. You keep accusing me of bad reading comprehension, when you've shown it time and timer again.
And if you feel so strongly about this why don't you enter the sciences and actually try to make a change?
Go ahead and write that grant application about how you'll disprove the very existence of gravity. Go ahead, I'll wait and see how well that gets funded.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're lying now, because you would have brought that up ages ago if that was the case.
And in a proper study that was done, that I linked you to, found that with a group of 50 people they were no better able to pick their actual astrology report than random chance. So no, you are still full of shit.
What actual science have you done?