the whole thing

now i may only be a social scientist (stupid name) but a hypothesis is 'i think this will happen because...' while a theory is 'we're pretty sure this happens because...'

edit: or from an actual social scientist:

http://psychology.about.com/od/resea...desintro_2.htm

so, "a doubling in CO2 would result in a 2c degree temperature rise" is not a hypothesis, and CAGW is not a theory?

A theory predicts events in general terms, while a hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a specified set of circumstances.

I think you should hold on to that nugget of a diacritical distinction because I think you might be the only person in the world who thinks he's spotted it

you go you w/ your common-sense deconstruction of science

Originally Posted by Al'Muktar

you go you w/ your common-sense deconstruction of science

What?

You two are both doing a good job contributing to the definition of insufferable.

(i think) im doing it deliberately though

key thing to look for is whenever someone in cultural studies tries to suggest that they're a scientist

may b we shud tt m I rite?

Funny how Muk can't anwser a point blank question though.

Originally Posted by Phyzx

so, "a doubling in CO2 would result in a 2c degree temperature rise" is not a hypothesis, and CAGW is not a theory?

again

'im pretty sure this will happen' is a hypothesis

'we've seen this happen and we're pretty sure this is why' is a theory

clap clap stop trying to inject your bull**** into yet another thread

maybe its time 2 post the photos of phyzx daughters for real this time

Originally Posted by naptown

maybe its time 2 post the photos of phyzx daughters for real this time

Originally Posted by Al'Muktar

again

'im pretty sure this will happen' is a hypothesis

'we've seen this happen and we're pretty sure this is why' is a theory

clap clap stop trying to inject your bull**** into yet another thread

thats interesting.... both because I was under the assumption this hypothesis was in regards to pre industrial CO2 levels (~280) and that we haven't doubled that yet.... which is why its considered a hypothesis.

Let me know where I've messed that up

^ Jesus Christ

Originally Posted by Fool

You two are both doing a good job contributing to the definition of insufferable.

social scientist describing science

all we need now is Vanster...our custodial engineer to implement this for them.

we need more formulas

Notice how Muk still avoids answering simple questions like the plague?

Its late in Europe.

Originally Posted by Phyzx

Notice how Muk still avoids answering simple questions like the plague?

because your posts are gibberish

Originally Posted by Phyzx

Notice how Muk still avoids answering simple questions like the plague?

honestly at this point he might as well try and have a conversation with togowack

it's like that old saying:

"never argue with an idiot because they are dumb as **** and don't make any sense"

you all know that saying

I believe the saying goes "never argue with an idiot because they will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Obviously my posts are clear enough that you can comprehend them so "gibberish" isn't the correct term.

All of these incredibly smart people on TW but no one can answer simple yes or no questions without going into a personal attack on the poor, dumb Dad...