 | | Re: ?Quality Standards?
|
|
Snipped a lot of the post because I see much of it has been covered by others already. (...) ONE good thing about the EU is that this sort of anti-competitive chicanery is against EU rules. And sometimes the EU even actually does something about it. (...) (20 years ago, 22-Oct-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: MADE IN CHINA?!?!!?!?! that's IT Lego Re: Lego changes CEO...
|
|
(...) Riii...iiight, and the majority of China's factory labor force is upper-middle class, university educated!?! Bad factory environments exist in much of the Global South, and China in no exception! Some generalizations are valid, simply because (...) (20 years ago, 22-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Of course not. And you are correct that such projects are generally judged on merit. Personally I like the ones involving Near Death Experiences - although it should be noted in this case that this doesn't necessarily imply it's (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Well since any crackpot out there can make up his/her own theories, the first step to gaining scientific credibility is to present the theory for peer review - typically by submitting an article to "the literature" journals. This allows for (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) No we won't! How dare you accuse us of that! :) (...) You may certainly buy a new one. However, if you're looking to return your Lucky Jackalope Foot, you'll have to demonstrate that it had, and then lost its powers. Or you might just need to (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Well, that's not the point-- the point isn't that to date, religious science has been a joke, it's that "what if it weren't"? Should the fact that it just happens to be religious preclude a research project from going forward, even if it's (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Honestly, that's a great question! Creationists have never actually submitted anything for peer review, so if the book were indeed written using scientific methods of inquiry, then it would be greatly beneficial to them to put it up for (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Why's that a good question? I thought the govt. was supposed to be workin for us, not just to perpetuate itself. (...) Wow, you guys'll argue over just about anything. On a relative scale this seems about as vital as wrangling over whether you (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Because religious research shouldn't be confused with scientific research and it shouldn't pretend to be. One is legitimate science that can produce beneficial results (in medicine, engineering, technology etc) - which represents a gain to our (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Although I doubt it's the case, what if the book were written using scientific methods? Let's suppose for a minute there were some evidence (albeit alternately explainable evidence via "regular" science) that supported the claim. The article I (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
