Listening to the ABC Science Show today, I discovered the work of William Whewell, who I had never heard of before.
He was very influential in his day. Seems strange we hear so little about him.
(Only 3 1/2 minutes)
The Rev Dodgson said:
Listening to the ABC Science Show today, I discovered the work of William Whewell, who I had never heard of before.He was very influential in his day. Seems strange we hear so little about him.
Oh, I was thinking of Henry Hoke….but you were actually being serious.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-lost-tools-of-henry-hoke-ep-1—-from-the-desert/9627166
:)
buffy said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Listening to the ABC Science Show today, I discovered the work of William Whewell, who I had never heard of before.He was very influential in his day. Seems strange we hear so little about him.
Oh, I was thinking of Henry Hoke….but you were actually being serious.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-lost-tools-of-henry-hoke-ep-1—-from-the-desert/9627166
:)
> … Anglican priest, philosopher, theologian, and historian …
And you’re surprised that we hear so little about him?
Looks like I’ve used the Whewell equation in calculating the shape of raindrops on surfaces affected by the force of gravity. The curvature comes from surface tension + gravity. But I didn’t know the name, I thought the equation had a different name, grabbed it out of the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.
> Following Immanuel Kant, he asserted against John Stuart Mill
In that case I hate him.
buffy said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Listening to the ABC Science Show today, I discovered the work of William Whewell, who I had never heard of before.He was very influential in his day. Seems strange we hear so little about him.
Oh, I was thinking of Henry Hoke….but you were actually being serious.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-lost-tools-of-henry-hoke-ep-1—-from-the-desert/9627166
:)
You think TRD would start a hoax scientist thread?
Hmmm
Ian said:
buffy said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Listening to the ABC Science Show today, I discovered the work of William Whewell, who I had never heard of before.He was very influential in his day. Seems strange we hear so little about him.
Oh, I was thinking of Henry Hoke….but you were actually being serious.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-lost-tools-of-henry-hoke-ep-1—-from-the-desert/9627166
:)
You think TRD would start a hoax scientist thread?
Hmmm
I don’t see why not. Henry Hoke is amusing. Even serious people need the occasional amusement.
buffy said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Listening to the ABC Science Show today, I discovered the work of William Whewell, who I had never heard of before.He was very influential in his day. Seems strange we hear so little about him.
Oh, I was thinking of Henry Hoke….but you were actually being serious.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-lost-tools-of-henry-hoke-ep-1—-from-the-desert/9627166
:)
I hadn’t heard of Henry Hoke heither, which is at least equally inexcusable.
buffy said:
Ian said:
buffy said:Oh, I was thinking of Henry Hoke….but you were actually being serious.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-lost-tools-of-henry-hoke-ep-1—-from-the-desert/9627166
:)
You think TRD would start a hoax scientist thread?
Hmmm
I don’t see why not. Henry Hoke is amusing. Even serious people need the occasional amusement.
I can only assume that Ian was joking.
At least on some level.
I also listened to the Science Show and agree that Whewell is very interesting.
He wouldn’t have a bar of Darwin’s theory though, no, no.
Ian said:
He wouldn’t have a bar of Darwin’s theory though, no, no.
I wonder if he would now?
Tau.Neutrino said:
Ian said:
He wouldn’t have a bar of Darwin’s theory though, no, no.I wonder if he would now?
I doubt it.
“Creation scientist” more likely.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Ian said:
He wouldn’t have a bar of Darwin’s theory though, no, no.I wonder if he would now?
I doubt it.
“Creation scientist” more likely.
How can “creation scientists” observe things properly?
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:I wonder if he would now?
I doubt it.
“Creation scientist” more likely.
How can “creation scientists” observe things properly?
There is nothing to stop them observing properly.
It’s what they do with the observations that’s the problem.
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:I wonder if he would now?
I doubt it.
“Creation scientist” more likely.
How can “creation scientists” observe things properly?
When they are creation scientists, religious politicians, religious business people, religious citizens, how can any of them observe science properly.
Especially when billions of people are involved, that must have a profound effect and a profound flow on effect.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I doubt it.
“Creation scientist” more likely.
How can “creation scientists” observe things properly?
There is nothing to stop them observing properly.
It’s what they do with the observations that’s the problem.
Twist findings around to suit themselves?
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I doubt it.
“Creation scientist” more likely.
How can “creation scientists” observe things properly?
When they are creation scientists, religious politicians, religious business people, religious citizens, how can any of them observe science properly.
Especially when billions of people are involved, that must have a profound effect and a profound flow on effect.
And we have lift off.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Ian said:
He wouldn’t have a bar of Darwin’s theory though, no, no.I wonder if he would now?
I doubt it.
“Creation scientist” more likely.
I’ve changed my mind.
Given that he was a part of the established education system, I think in 20th/21st century he probably would have accepted Darwinian evolution. “God’s” bit of the process would be creating the initial rules, and a supply of chemicals that would result in life evolving.
Not sure how he’d handle quantum mechanics though.
TRD?
You don’t mean TED?
mollwollfumble said:
TRD?You don’t mean TED?
???
buffy said:
Ian said:
buffy said:Oh, I was thinking of Henry Hoke….but you were actually being serious.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-lost-tools-of-henry-hoke-ep-1—-from-the-desert/9627166
:)
You think TRD would start a hoax scientist thread?
Hmmm
I don’t see why not. Henry Hoke is amusing. Even serious people need the occasional amusement.
I saw a hoax animal facts thread recently. I wonder if I can find it again.
Can’t find it but this is similar. I think it counts as hoax science.
https://www.boredpanda.com/funny-animal-facts-fake-los-angeles-zoo-obvious-plant/
This wasn’t it either.
https://mobile.twitter.com/fakeanimalfacts?lang=en
This wasn’t it either, but I thought number 2 was true. And the first half of 17 was true. Number 64 is false, but not far off the truth. Number 100 is close to the truth.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/science/28-10-2017/101-fake-facts-that-youre-doomed-to-remember-as-true/