Discussion:
Many Church Ladies are Engineers
Add Reply
James McGinn
2016-11-28 21:05:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Not that I don't appreciate the attention, but have you guys
ever considered that if you put as much energy into understanding
science as you do on me just think what you might do.
I don't spend much time on you at all.
I'm too busy doing real engineering based on real physics (CT Scanners)
If they ever let you back on LinkedIn, look me up.
ed
Many church ladies are engineers. And many engineers are, scientifically, church ladies.

The thought process of an engineer is very, very different from that of a theoretical scientist. Engineers think in terms of what they know to be true. Theoretical scientists--especially if they are exploratory, trying to break new ground--think in terms of what they don't know to be false. Thus the set of things I have to consider to be effective as a theoretical scientist is much larger and much, much more interdisciplinary than the set of thing that you can consider.


An engineer is generally a good rule follower. You have no choice but to keep it safe and follow what is known. That approach is death to a theorist because much of what is known has been dumbed down. To be effective as a threorist you have to know where the BS is and you have to be tough minded enough to not fall into the trap of believing what everybody else believes. A theoretical scientist has to be good at knowing what rules can or even must be broken.

On the other side of the coin, an engineer has a lot of pressure to get it right, or people can die, companies can go bankrupt. I don't have to worry about that. If I make a mistake the experimentalist will find it--no big deal.

The most distinguishing thing about a church lady is that they don't have arguments and they don't understand the underlying basis for the "truth" the maintain. That's why you twits never present arguments. Instead you provide links to the internet the same way a church lady provided references to the bible.

Science is a methodology, it is not something that can be looked up on the internet.

Maybe you should leave science to scientists.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471
jmfbahciv
2016-11-29 14:08:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Not that I don't appreciate the attention, but have you guys
ever considered that if you put as much energy into understanding
science as you do on me just think what you might do.
I don't spend much time on you at all.
I'm too busy doing real engineering based on real physics (CT Scanners)
If they ever let you back on LinkedIn, look me up.
ed
Many church ladies are engineers. And many engineers are, scientifically, church ladies.
The thought process of an engineer is very, very different from that of a
theoretical scientist. Engineers think in terms of what they know to be true.
Theoretical scientists--especially if they are exploratory, trying to break
new ground--think in terms of what they don't know to be false. Thus the set
of things I have to consider to be effective as a theoretical scientist is
much larger and much, much more interdisciplinary than the set of thing that
you can consider.

<snip>
Post by James McGinn
An engineer is generally a good rule follower. You have no choice but to
keep it safe and follow what is known.

Oh, nonsense. Engineers make existing things work well. Breaking "rules"
(IOW, the specs are wrong) is a common activity.

/BAH
James McGinn
2016-11-29 14:34:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by James McGinn
Not that I don't appreciate the attention, but have you guys
ever considered that if you put as much energy into understanding
science as you do on me just think what you might do.
I don't spend much time on you at all.
I'm too busy doing real engineering based on real physics (CT Scanners)
If they ever let you back on LinkedIn, look me up.
ed
Many church ladies are engineers. And many engineers are, scientifically,
church ladies.
Post by James McGinn
The thought process of an engineer is very, very different from that of a
theoretical scientist. Engineers think in terms of what they know to be true.
Theoretical scientists--especially if they are exploratory, trying to break
new ground--think in terms of what they don't know to be false. Thus the set
of things I have to consider to be effective as a theoretical scientist is
much larger and much, much more interdisciplinary than the set of thing that
you can consider.
<snip>
Post by James McGinn
An engineer is generally a good rule follower. You have no choice but to
keep it safe and follow what is known.
Oh, nonsense. Engineers make existing things work well. Breaking "rules"
(IOW, the specs are wrong) is a common activity.
/BAH
Another characteristic of engineers is greater ignorance of the limits of what they/we don't know. They are narrow minded. Insular. Churlish. They are out of their element in a scientific conversation, as you just demonstrated.
James McGinn
2016-12-16 18:37:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Not that I don't appreciate the attention, but have you guys
ever considered that if you put as much energy into understanding
science as you do on me just think what you might do.
I don't spend much time on you at all.
I'm too busy doing real engineering based on real physics (CT Scanners)
If they ever let you back on LinkedIn, look me up.
ed
Many church ladies are engineers. And many engineers are, scientifically, church ladies.
The thought process of an engineer is very, very different from that of a theoretical scientist. Engineers think in terms of what they know to be true. Theoretical scientists--especially if they are exploratory, trying to break new ground--think in terms of what they don't know to be false. Thus the set of things I have to consider to be effective as a theoretical scientist is much larger and much, much more interdisciplinary than the set of thing that you can consider.
An engineer is generally a good rule follower. You have no choice but to keep it safe and follow what is known. That approach is death to a theorist because much of what is known has been dumbed down. To be effective as a threorist you have to know where the BS is and you have to be tough minded enough to not fall into the trap of believing what everybody else believes. A theoretical scientist has to be good at knowing what rules can or even must be broken.
On the other side of the coin, an engineer has a lot of pressure to get it right, or people can die, companies can go bankrupt. I don't have to worry about that. If I make a mistake the experimentalist will find it--no big deal.
The most distinguishing thing about a church lady is that they don't have arguments and they don't understand the underlying basis for the "truth" the maintain. That's why you twits never present arguments. Instead you provide links to the internet the same way a church lady provided references to the bible.
Science is a methodology, it is not something that can be looked up on the internet.
Maybe you should leave science to scientists.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471
James McGinn
2016-12-22 00:03:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Not that I don't appreciate the attention, but have you guys
ever considered that if you put as much energy into understanding
science as you do on me just think what you might do.
I don't spend much time on you at all.
I'm too busy doing real engineering based on real physics (CT Scanners)
If they ever let you back on LinkedIn, look me up.
ed
Many church ladies are engineers. And many engineers are, scientifically, church ladies.
The thought process of an engineer is very, very different from that of a theoretical scientist. Engineers think in terms of what they know to be true. Theoretical scientists--especially if they are exploratory, trying to break new ground--think in terms of what they don't know to be false. Thus the set of things I have to consider to be effective as a theoretical scientist is much larger and much, much more interdisciplinary than the set of thing that you can consider.
An engineer is generally a good rule follower. You have no choice but to keep it safe and follow what is known. That approach is death to a theorist because much of what is known has been dumbed down. To be effective as a threorist you have to know where the BS is and you have to be tough minded enough to not fall into the trap of believing what everybody else believes. A theoretical scientist has to be good at knowing what rules can or even must be broken.
On the other side of the coin, an engineer has a lot of pressure to get it right, or people can die, companies can go bankrupt. I don't have to worry about that. If I make a mistake the experimentalist will find it--no big deal.
The most distinguishing thing about a church lady is that they don't have arguments and they don't understand the underlying basis for the "truth" the maintain. That's why you twits never present arguments. Instead you provide links to the internet the same way a church lady provided references to the bible.
Science is a methodology, it is not something that can be looked up on the internet.
Maybe you should leave science to scientists.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471
James McGinn
2016-12-24 15:56:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Not that I don't appreciate the attention, but have you guys
ever considered that if you put as much energy into understanding
science as you do on me just think what you might do.
I don't spend much time on you at all.
I'm too busy doing real engineering based on real physics (CT Scanners)
If they ever let you back on LinkedIn, look me up.
ed
Many church ladies are engineers. And many engineers are, scientifically, church ladies.
The thought process of an engineer is very, very different from that of a theoretical scientist. Engineers think in terms of what they know to be true. Theoretical scientists--especially if they are exploratory, trying to break new ground--think in terms of what they don't know to be false. Thus the set of things I have to consider to be effective as a theoretical scientist is much larger and much, much more interdisciplinary than the set of thing that you can consider.
An engineer is generally a good rule follower. You have no choice but to keep it safe and follow what is known. That approach is death to a theorist because much of what is known has been dumbed down. To be effective as a threorist you have to know where the BS is and you have to be tough minded enough to not fall into the trap of believing what everybody else believes. A theoretical scientist has to be good at knowing what rules can or even must be broken.
On the other side of the coin, an engineer has a lot of pressure to get it right, or people can die, companies can go bankrupt. I don't have to worry about that. If I make a mistake the experimentalist will find it--no big deal.
The most distinguishing thing about a church lady is that they don't have arguments and they don't understand the underlying basis for the "truth" the maintain. That's why you twits never present arguments. Instead you provide links to the internet the same way a church lady provided references to the bible.
Science is a methodology, it is not something that can be looked up on the internet.
Maybe you should leave science to scientists.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471
James McGinn
2017-01-31 15:39:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Not that I don't appreciate the attention, but have you guys
ever considered that if you put as much energy into understanding
science as you do on me just think what you might do.
I don't spend much time on you at all.
I'm too busy doing real engineering based on real physics (CT Scanners)
If they ever let you back on LinkedIn, look me up.
ed
Many church ladies are engineers. And many engineers are, scientifically, church ladies.
The thought process of an engineer is very, very different from that of a theoretical scientist. Engineers think in terms of what they know to be true. Theoretical scientists--especially if they are exploratory, trying to break new ground--think in terms of what they don't know to be false. Thus the set of things I have to consider to be effective as a theoretical scientist is much larger and much, much more interdisciplinary than the set of thing that you can consider.
An engineer is generally a good rule follower. You have no choice but to keep it safe and follow what is known. That approach is death to a theorist because much of what is known has been dumbed down. To be effective as a threorist you have to know where the BS is and you have to be tough minded enough to not fall into the trap of believing what everybody else believes. A theoretical scientist has to be good at knowing what rules can or even must be broken.
On the other side of the coin, an engineer has a lot of pressure to get it right, or people can die, companies can go bankrupt. I don't have to worry about that. If I make a mistake the experimentalist will find it--no big deal.
The most distinguishing thing about a church lady is that they don't have arguments and they don't understand the underlying basis for the "truth" the maintain. That's why you twits never present arguments. Instead you provide links to the internet the same way a church lady provided references to the bible.
Science is a methodology, it is not something that can be looked up on the internet.
Maybe you should leave science to scientists.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471
James McGinn
2017-02-18 15:39:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Not that I don't appreciate the attention, but have you guys
ever considered that if you put as much energy into understanding
science as you do on me just think what you might do.
I don't spend much time on you at all.
I'm too busy doing real engineering based on real physics (CT Scanners)
If they ever let you back on LinkedIn, look me up.
ed
Many church ladies are engineers. And many engineers are, scientifically, church ladies.
The thought process of an engineer is very, very different from that of a theoretical scientist. Engineers think in terms of what they know to be true. Theoretical scientists--especially if they are exploratory, trying to break new ground--think in terms of what they don't know to be false. Thus the set of things I have to consider to be effective as a theoretical scientist is much larger and much, much more interdisciplinary than the set of thing that you can consider.
An engineer is generally a good rule follower. You have no choice but to keep it safe and follow what is known. That approach is death to a theorist because much of what is known has been dumbed down. To be effective as a threorist you have to know where the BS is and you have to be tough minded enough to not fall into the trap of believing what everybody else believes. A theoretical scientist has to be good at knowing what rules can or even must be broken.
On the other side of the coin, an engineer has a lot of pressure to get it right, or people can die, companies can go bankrupt. I don't have to worry about that. If I make a mistake the experimentalist will find it--no big deal.
The most distinguishing thing about a church lady is that they don't have arguments and they don't understand the underlying basis for the "truth" the maintain. That's why you twits never present arguments. Instead you provide links to the internet the same way a church lady provided references to the bible.
Science is a methodology, it is not something that can be looked up on the internet.
Maybe you should leave science to scientists.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471
James McGinn
2017-02-26 18:33:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Not that I don't appreciate the attention, but have you guys
ever considered that if you put as much energy into understanding
science as you do on me just think what you might do.
I don't spend much time on you at all.
I'm too busy doing real engineering based on real physics (CT Scanners)
If they ever let you back on LinkedIn, look me up.
ed
Many church ladies are engineers. And many engineers are, scientifically, church ladies.
The thought process of an engineer is very, very different from that of a theoretical scientist. Engineers think in terms of what they know to be true. Theoretical scientists--especially if they are exploratory, trying to break new ground--think in terms of what they don't know to be false. Thus the set of things I have to consider to be effective as a theoretical scientist is much larger and much, much more interdisciplinary than the set of thing that you can consider.
An engineer is generally a good rule follower. You have no choice but to keep it safe and follow what is known. That approach is death to a theorist because much of what is known has been dumbed down. To be effective as a threorist you have to know where the BS is and you have to be tough minded enough to not fall into the trap of believing what everybody else believes. A theoretical scientist has to be good at knowing what rules can or even must be broken.
On the other side of the coin, an engineer has a lot of pressure to get it right, or people can die, companies can go bankrupt. I don't have to worry about that. If I make a mistake the experimentalist will find it--no big deal.
The most distinguishing thing about a church lady is that they don't have arguments and they don't understand the underlying basis for the "truth" the maintain. That's why you twits never present arguments. Instead you provide links to the internet the same way a church lady provided references to the bible.
Science is a methodology, it is not something that can be looked up on the internet.
Maybe you should leave science to scientists.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471
James McGinn
2017-05-11 15:27:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Not that I don't appreciate the attention, but have you guys
ever considered that if you put as much energy into understanding
science as you do on me just think what you might do.
I don't spend much time on you at all.
I'm too busy doing real engineering based on real physics (CT Scanners)
If they ever let you back on LinkedIn, look me up.
ed
Many church ladies are engineers. And many engineers are, scientifically, church ladies.
The thought process of an engineer is very, very different from that of a theoretical scientist. Engineers think in terms of what they know to be true. Theoretical scientists--especially if they are exploratory, trying to break new ground--think in terms of what they don't know to be false. Thus the set of things I have to consider to be effective as a theoretical scientist is much larger and much, much more interdisciplinary than the set of thing that you can consider.
An engineer is generally a good rule follower. You have no choice but to keep it safe and follow what is known. That approach is death to a theorist because much of what is known has been dumbed down. To be effective as a threorist you have to know where the BS is and you have to be tough minded enough to not fall into the trap of believing what everybody else believes. A theoretical scientist has to be good at knowing what rules can or even must be broken.
On the other side of the coin, an engineer has a lot of pressure to get it right, or people can die, companies can go bankrupt. I don't have to worry about that. If I make a mistake the experimentalist will find it--no big deal.
The most distinguishing thing about a church lady is that they don't have arguments and they don't understand the underlying basis for the "truth" the maintain. That's why you twits never present arguments. Instead you provide links to the internet the same way a church lady provided references to the bible.
Science is a methodology, it is not something that can be looked up on the internet.
Maybe you should leave science to scientists.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471
James McGinn
2017-05-25 15:58:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Not that I don't appreciate the attention, but have you guys
ever considered that if you put as much energy into understanding
science as you do on me just think what you might do.
I don't spend much time on you at all.
I'm too busy doing real engineering based on real physics (CT Scanners)
If they ever let you back on LinkedIn, look me up.
ed
Many church ladies are engineers. And many engineers are, scientifically, church ladies.
The thought process of an engineer is very, very different from that of a theoretical scientist. Engineers think in terms of what they know to be true. Theoretical scientists--especially if they are exploratory, trying to break new ground--think in terms of what they don't know to be false. Thus the set of things I have to consider to be effective as a theoretical scientist is much larger and much, much more interdisciplinary than the set of thing that you can consider.
An engineer is generally a good rule follower. You have no choice but to keep it safe and follow what is known. That approach is death to a theorist because much of what is known has been dumbed down. To be effective as a threorist you have to know where the BS is and you have to be tough minded enough to not fall into the trap of believing what everybody else believes. A theoretical scientist has to be good at knowing what rules can or even must be broken.
On the other side of the coin, an engineer has a lot of pressure to get it right, or people can die, companies can go bankrupt. I don't have to worry about that. If I make a mistake the experimentalist will find it--no big deal.
The most distinguishing thing about a church lady is that they don't have arguments and they don't understand the underlying basis for the "truth" the maintain. That's why you twits never present arguments. Instead you provide links to the internet the same way a church lady provided references to the bible.
Science is a methodology, it is not something that can be looked up on the internet.
Maybe you should leave science to scientists.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471
James McGinn
2017-09-02 15:19:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Not that I don't appreciate the attention, but have you guys
ever considered that if you put as much energy into understanding
science as you do on me just think what you might do.
I don't spend much time on you at all.
I'm too busy doing real engineering based on real physics (CT Scanners)
If they ever let you back on LinkedIn, look me up.
ed
Many church ladies are engineers. And many engineers are, scientifically, church ladies.
The thought process of an engineer is very, very different from that of a theoretical scientist. Engineers think in terms of what they know to be true. Theoretical scientists--especially if they are exploratory, trying to break new ground--think in terms of what they don't know to be false. Thus the set of things I have to consider to be effective as a theoretical scientist is much larger and much, much more interdisciplinary than the set of thing that you can consider.
An engineer is generally a good rule follower. You have no choice but to keep it safe and follow what is known. That approach is death to a theorist because much of what is known has been dumbed down. To be effective as a threorist you have to know where the BS is and you have to be tough minded enough to not fall into the trap of believing what everybody else believes. A theoretical scientist has to be good at knowing what rules can or even must be broken.
On the other side of the coin, an engineer has a lot of pressure to get it right, or people can die, companies can go bankrupt. I don't have to worry about that. If I make a mistake the experimentalist will find it--no big deal.
The most distinguishing thing about a church lady is that they don't have arguments and they don't understand the underlying basis for the "truth" the maintain. That's why you twits never present arguments. Instead you provide links to the internet the same way a church lady provided references to the bible.
Science is a methodology, it is not something that can be looked up on the internet.
Maybe you should leave science to scientists.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471
James McGinn
2017-10-19 02:36:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Not that I don't appreciate the attention, but have you guys
ever considered that if you put as much energy into understanding
science as you do on me just think what you might do.
I don't spend much time on you at all.
I'm too busy doing real engineering based on real physics (CT Scanners)
If they ever let you back on LinkedIn, look me up.
ed
Many church ladies are engineers. And many engineers are, scientifically, church ladies.
The thought process of an engineer is very, very different from that of a theoretical scientist. Engineers think in terms of what they know to be true. Theoretical scientists--especially if they are exploratory, trying to break new ground--think in terms of what they don't know to be false. Thus the set of things I have to consider to be effective as a theoretical scientist is much larger and much, much more interdisciplinary than the set of thing that you can consider.
An engineer is generally a good rule follower. You have no choice but to keep it safe and follow what is known. That approach is death to a theorist because much of what is known has been dumbed down. To be effective as a threorist you have to know where the BS is and you have to be tough minded enough to not fall into the trap of believing what everybody else believes. A theoretical scientist has to be good at knowing what rules can or even must be broken.
On the other side of the coin, an engineer has a lot of pressure to get it right, or people can die, companies can go bankrupt. I don't have to worry about that. If I make a mistake the experimentalist will find it--no big deal.
The most distinguishing thing about a church lady is that they don't have arguments and they don't understand the underlying basis for the "truth" the maintain. That's why you twits never present arguments. Instead you provide links to the internet the same way a church lady provided references to the bible.
Science is a methodology, it is not something that can be looked up on the internet.
Maybe you should leave science to scientists.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471
James McGinn
2017-10-20 04:43:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Not that I don't appreciate the attention, but have you guys
ever considered that if you put as much energy into understanding
science as you do on me just think what you might do.
I don't spend much time on you at all.
I'm too busy doing real engineering based on real physics (CT Scanners)
If they ever let you back on LinkedIn, look me up.
ed
Many church ladies are engineers. And many engineers are, scientifically, church ladies.
The thought process of an engineer is very, very different from that of a theoretical scientist. Engineers think in terms of what they know to be true. Theoretical scientists--especially if they are exploratory, trying to break new ground--think in terms of what they don't know to be false. Thus the set of things I have to consider to be effective as a theoretical scientist is much larger and much, much more interdisciplinary than the set of thing that you can consider.
An engineer is generally a good rule follower. You have no choice but to keep it safe and follow what is known. That approach is death to a theorist because much of what is known has been dumbed down. To be effective as a threorist you have to know where the BS is and you have to be tough minded enough to not fall into the trap of believing what everybody else believes. A theoretical scientist has to be good at knowing what rules can or even must be broken.
On the other side of the coin, an engineer has a lot of pressure to get it right, or people can die, companies can go bankrupt. I don't have to worry about that. If I make a mistake the experimentalist will find it--no big deal.
The most distinguishing thing about a church lady is that they don't have arguments and they don't understand the underlying basis for the "truth" the maintain. That's why you twits never present arguments. Instead you provide links to the internet the same way a church lady provided references to the bible.
Science is a methodology, it is not something that can be looked up on the internet.
Maybe you should leave science to scientists.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471
James McGinn
2018-01-06 19:59:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Not that I don't appreciate the attention, but have you guys
ever considered that if you put as much energy into understanding
science as you do on me just think what you might do.
I don't spend much time on you at all.
I'm too busy doing real engineering based on real physics (CT Scanners)
If they ever let you back on LinkedIn, look me up.
ed
Many church ladies are engineers. And many engineers are, scientifically, church ladies.
The thought process of an engineer is very, very different from that of a theoretical scientist. Engineers think in terms of what they know to be true. Theoretical scientists--especially if they are exploratory, trying to break new ground--think in terms of what they don't know to be false. Thus the set of things I have to consider to be effective as a theoretical scientist is much larger and much, much more interdisciplinary than the set of thing that you can consider.
An engineer is generally a good rule follower. You have no choice but to keep it safe and follow what is known. That approach is death to a theorist because much of what is known has been dumbed down. To be effective as a threorist you have to know where the BS is and you have to be tough minded enough to not fall into the trap of believing what everybody else believes. A theoretical scientist has to be good at knowing what rules can or even must be broken.
On the other side of the coin, an engineer has a lot of pressure to get it right, or people can die, companies can go bankrupt. I don't have to worry about that. If I make a mistake the experimentalist will find it--no big deal.
The most distinguishing thing about a church lady is that they don't have arguments and they don't understand the underlying basis for the "truth" the maintain. That's why you twits never present arguments. Instead you provide links to the internet the same way a church lady provided references to the bible.
Science is a methodology, it is not something that can be looked up on the internet.
Maybe you should leave science to scientists.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471
James McGinn
2018-02-11 22:09:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Not that I don't appreciate the attention, but have you guys
ever considered that if you put as much energy into understanding
science as you do on me just think what you might do.
I don't spend much time on you at all.
I'm too busy doing real engineering based on real physics (CT Scanners)
If they ever let you back on LinkedIn, look me up.
ed
Many church ladies are engineers. And many engineers are, scientifically, church ladies.
The thought process of an engineer is very, very different from that of a theoretical scientist. Engineers think in terms of what they know to be true. Theoretical scientists--especially if they are exploratory, trying to break new ground--think in terms of what they don't know to be false. Thus the set of things I have to consider to be effective as a theoretical scientist is much larger and much, much more interdisciplinary than the set of thing that you can consider.
An engineer is generally a good rule follower. You have no choice but to keep it safe and follow what is known. That approach is death to a theorist because much of what is known has been dumbed down. To be effective as a threorist you have to know where the BS is and you have to be tough minded enough to not fall into the trap of believing what everybody else believes. A theoretical scientist has to be good at knowing what rules can or even must be broken.
On the other side of the coin, an engineer has a lot of pressure to get it right, or people can die, companies can go bankrupt. I don't have to worry about that. If I make a mistake the experimentalist will find it--no big deal.
The most distinguishing thing about a church lady is that they don't have arguments and they don't understand the underlying basis for the "truth" the maintain. That's why you twits never present arguments. Instead you provide links to the internet the same way a church lady provided references to the bible.
Science is a methodology, it is not something that can be looked up on the internet.
Maybe you should leave science to scientists.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471
James McGinn
2018-02-17 01:55:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Not that I don't appreciate the attention, but have you guys
ever considered that if you put as much energy into understanding
science as you do on me just think what you might do.
I don't spend much time on you at all.
I'm too busy doing real engineering based on real physics (CT Scanners)
If they ever let you back on LinkedIn, look me up.
ed
Many church ladies are engineers. And many engineers are, scientifically, church ladies.
The thought process of an engineer is very, very different from that of a theoretical scientist. Engineers think in terms of what they know to be true. Theoretical scientists--especially if they are exploratory, trying to break new ground--think in terms of what they don't know to be false. Thus the set of things I have to consider to be effective as a theoretical scientist is much larger and much, much more interdisciplinary than the set of thing that you can consider.
An engineer is generally a good rule follower. You have no choice but to keep it safe and follow what is known. That approach is death to a theorist because much of what is known has been dumbed down. To be effective as a threorist you have to know where the BS is and you have to be tough minded enough to not fall into the trap of believing what everybody else believes. A theoretical scientist has to be good at knowing what rules can or even must be broken.
On the other side of the coin, an engineer has a lot of pressure to get it right, or people can die, companies can go bankrupt. I don't have to worry about that. If I make a mistake the experimentalist will find it--no big deal.
The most distinguishing thing about a church lady is that they don't have arguments and they don't understand the underlying basis for the "truth" the maintain. That's why you twits never present arguments. Instead you provide links to the internet the same way a church lady provided references to the bible.
Science is a methodology, it is not something that can be looked up on the internet.
Maybe you should leave science to scientists.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471
James McGinn
2018-02-19 22:26:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Not that I don't appreciate the attention, but have you guys
ever considered that if you put as much energy into understanding
science as you do on me just think what you might do.
I don't spend much time on you at all.
I'm too busy doing real engineering based on real physics (CT Scanners)
If they ever let you back on LinkedIn, look me up.
ed
Many church ladies are engineers. And many engineers are, scientifically, church ladies.
The thought process of an engineer is very, very different from that of a theoretical scientist. Engineers think in terms of what they know to be true. Theoretical scientists--especially if they are exploratory, trying to break new ground--think in terms of what they don't know to be false. Thus the set of things I have to consider to be effective as a theoretical scientist is much larger and much, much more interdisciplinary than the set of thing that you can consider.
An engineer is generally a good rule follower. You have no choice but to keep it safe and follow what is known. That approach is death to a theorist because much of what is known has been dumbed down. To be effective as a threorist you have to know where the BS is and you have to be tough minded enough to not fall into the trap of believing what everybody else believes. A theoretical scientist has to be good at knowing what rules can or even must be broken.
On the other side of the coin, an engineer has a lot of pressure to get it right, or people can die, companies can go bankrupt. I don't have to worry about that. If I make a mistake the experimentalist will find it--no big deal.
The most distinguishing thing about a church lady is that they don't have arguments and they don't understand the underlying basis for the "truth" the maintain. That's why you twits never present arguments. Instead you provide links to the internet the same way a church lady provided references to the bible.
Science is a methodology, it is not something that can be looked up on the internet.
Maybe you should leave science to scientists.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471
Loading...