I am heartsick, I feel torn apart inside. For years we worked to get exemption with our HOA to get a dog. We finally got permission, and set the ball in motion to get a dog with a good nature, this was important for us and our children, especially with our autistic child. In the mean time, for other reasons all together, we had to move in with my wife's mother. She was very kind to accept us into her house. My sister-in-law had also recently moved in and was helping care for my Mother-in-law. Knowing that the time was coming near that the dog would be available, I asked my Mother-in-law if it would be ok for us to have a dog for the kids. She granted permission, and we soon had a Pembroke Welsh Corgi, by the name of Kiska. She is a beautiful dog, with a sweet disposition, hardly ever barks, and she puts up with the attentions of children's careless hands.
My Sister-in-law, it turns out, is allergic to dogs. We have done all within our power to come to a solution wherein she and Kiska can coexist, but it was to no avail, and we have to find either a local home for Kiska to stay at, until such time as we can get her back, or send her back to Alaska, from which she came. This is breaking my heart, and my wife's as well. It will tear apart our kids hearts when the time comes and we have to tell them.
- Bad Science?
-
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
daemocles- December 28th, 2009
It has been years since I was in my Physical Sciences class back in middle school. This is where I first recall being taught about the scientific method.
I was taught that you observe a phenomenon, (whether directly or indirectly), you form a hypothesis, experiment to collect data, and either confirm your hypothesis or rinse-and-repeat.
We seem to have a science establishment today that runs this backwards however. With the sheer amount of data out there it is likely to confuse people, and it has muddied this backwards science. They observe data, hypothesize on what sorts of conditions might have caused the data, and try to observe if the condition ever happens.
There are huge holes in this process, ones that Euripides and Aristotle could drive a truck through. I, in my own humble reasoning will attempt to show a couple bicycle paths. First the data, since we did not have a hypothesis at work when it was collected, we did not collect it in such a way that eliminates all the insane amounts of variables. Second we look at the hypothesis formation, the supposition that "Since all of subset B = membership in subset C as well, that all of subset C must also = membership in subset B" has been shown to be patently wrong, and yet we see data and without any guarantee that only one condition can produce the data set that they see, they decide on what it means. Third, rather than accepting that failure to find an example, they mark it up as a detection problem, not a theory problem, and cling to the idea no matter how the evidence against it, or for something else piles up.
Can we get some real science in the house?
- (no subject)
-
- daemocles
- November 1st, 2007
I have, I'm sure, confused many people on their Journals. Sometimes I come off sounding like a regular christian, and at other times my comment seem to be out there, away from the common. Let me clarify. I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, known by common parlance as a Mormon. I strongly believe in my faith, and respect others rights to believe as they will. I will not argue the points of religon, however if anyone has any sincere desire to ask a question about my faith, then I will do my best to answer.
