Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Bullockist wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
One last thing. I hate, hate it when people dismiss something as "Just being a theory". A theory, scientifically speaking, is as close as we can get to 100% certainty about something.

If it hasn't been proven it is not 100% certain and should only be regarded as a theory, anything else is not science. If you start regarding scientific theories as fact what happens when one is proven false? It may be ok to regard them as true, but it has to be held foremost that they are not proven. Sorry for jumping on your pet peeve, but growing up with two chemists as parents who took great pains to explain whenever something was a theory it wasn't proven has certainly left it's mark.

I'll add people who regard scientific theories as proven to my pet peeve list.

In the realm of science there is no 100% certainty about anything. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested rigorously and has not been disproven. This is as close as we can get to certainty. What you may be thinking of is a hypothesis.

And to address another poster, that is certainly true but too often people do use that phrase in the context of a scientific theory. That is what bothers me. The certainty they desire is simply not possible.

Your missunderstanding the scope of the word "Theory" in scince. As many people do when dismissing people who say "It's just a theory". Theorys run a wide gammet of possibilities. Theorys are nothing more than ideas that have not been proven wrond. Some are well proven and accepted.

For example boyle's law is a theory we well understand and are reasonable certain what is going on. Something may change that, but we are pritty sure we understand what is happening.

The Big Bang theory is something we know approzimatly what happend and had a good idea of a model with no actual evidence of it until a few days ago. The expansion model is now the prevailing theory and we have most evidence of it being true, but there are still people who dissagree.

String theory is the biggest supported theory in its field, but is mostly just people making stuff up that fits the observations and hoping oneday we will be able to design an experiment.

A Theory is nothing like a fact at all, and people making arguments about scintific theorys like that is a pet peeve of mine. Even many scientists don't understand this and get trapped too much in the dogma. Too many great discoveries have been missed for many years because people have said "This can't be right because it contradicts X" and dissmised it as an error rather than double checking.

 PrehistoricUFO wrote:
People who work out at my gym and show no improvement as the months go on. Just unsub and stop taking up parking spaces in the parking lot, and using my stations.


.

This kind of attitude is what drives a lot of people away from gyms, and is really pretty terrible. A lot of people going are already self-conscious about it. This kind of elitism only perpetuates the issue.

I know I gained a bit of a weight when I got out of the military, and I was quite a bit self conscious about going back to the gym. Granted, that turned into confidence as I improved, and now I'm in the best shape I've ever been. If I had run into your kind of elitism at the time, things may have turned out different.

So being on the other end of the spectrum now, I would never judge anyone, as long as they are going. You don't know the person, and they have their own goals on what improvement could be in. Really, as a body builder yourself, you should know that everyone is different.


As for my Pet Peeve, seeing someone get promoted who is completely incompetent for a job, just because he is a leads brother. This guy is being promoted to a very critical position, that he is not qualified for. It's just absurd. Everyone is just going to watch this guy fall on his sword. The sad thing about is is while I'm a Chief Eng, I'm on a separate program so I can do nothing about it. really annoys me.

Actualy, thats a bit of a peeve for me. Going to the gym and getting scouled at by the hardcore gym goers for using "their" machines. Pisses me off when you are doing your thing and they glaire at you until you move or try and give you advice on how to "improve" when they have no idea what your trying to do. Always seems to be the body builders and never the runners/arobic fitness people oddly.

So being on the other end of the spectrum now, I would never judge anyone, as long as they are going. You don't know the person, and they have their own goals on what improvement could be in. Really, as a body builder yourself, you should know that everyone is different.

Frankly why would someone care about other people? Unless they are being loud or otherwise annoying, you shouldn't even notice them.

Its not a competition. If it is you need to go roid rage on your own.

Thats one reason I like the gym I attend (other than its right downstairs and has excellent accomodations). Most of the people there are normal and three quarters are over 35 working people.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Actualy, thats a bit of a peeve for me. Going to the gym and getting scouled at by the hardcore gym goers for using "their" machines. Pisses me off when you are doing your thing and they glaire at you until you move or try and give you advice on how to "improve" when they have no idea what your trying to do. Always seems to be the body builders and never the runners/arobic fitness people oddly.

As GC would say: "thanks I'm good." (Translation " OFF!")

 Sasori wrote:
As for my Pet Peeve, seeing someone get promoted who is completely incompetent for a job, just because he is a leads brother. This guy is being promoted to a very critical position, that he is not qualified for. It's just absurd. Everyone is just going to watch this guy fall on his sword. The sad thing about is is while I'm a Chief Eng, I'm on a separate program so I can do nothing about it. really annoys me.

I hate that!!!! In a prior job, which will remain nameless to protect the guilty, there was a very similar set up in place. More than a few department's organizational trees were actually family trees. I seen numerous people who were unable to do an entry level job satisfactorily get promoted to oversee others. The grapevine was that their family's friends sat on the interview panel, coached them before, spoon fed them easy questions, and treated any applicants in a way that would make the Imperial Inquisition blush.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Actualy, thats a bit of a peeve for me. Going to the gym and getting scouled at by the hardcore gym goers for using "their" machines. Pisses me off when you are doing your thing and they glaire at you until you move or try and give you advice on how to "improve" when they have no idea what your trying to do. Always seems to be the body builders and never the runners/arobic fitness people oddly.

Months ago I had an encounter with a man-child at the gym I use. There was a bench for sit ups that had been vacant for most of the time I was there. There was no towel on it, no water bottle to indicate that someone had just taken a break. Just a few weights scattered around, which was not atypical. I finished on the treadmill and started to use the bench and one of the weights. Out of nowhere some guy older than my dad appears, face red as a baboon's arse, and starts pointing past me shouting "MINE!!". I look past, don't see anything and say excuse me. Man-child continues pointing at something and then snatches the weight out of my hand. I said "I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you were using the abandoned weight. You could have just said" and then the 'charming individual' stomped off

 Frazzled wrote:

Bullockist wrote:
Fraz how many pounds is the wiener that you lift? Sounds mighty heavy.

TBone the Magnificant is about 14 at this point. His goal is to die eating steak and I am happy to oblige him. Rodney is about 17 now. He's a nervous little fatty.

TBone needs to man up on the eating front, I've had cats that weigh more than him, Rodney however is well on target to be a beanbag with legs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
As for my Pet Peeve, seeing someone get promoted who is completely incompetent for a job, just because he is a leads brother. This guy is being promoted to a very critical position, that he is not qualified for. It's just absurd. Everyone is just going to watch this guy fall on his sword. The sad thing about is is while I'm a Chief Eng, I'm on a separate program so I can do nothing about it. really annoys me.

I hate that!!!! In a prior job, which will remain nameless to protect the guilty, there was a very similar set up in place. More than a few department's organizational trees were actually family trees. I seen numerous people who were unable to do an entry level job satisfactorily get promoted to oversee others. The grapevine was that their family's friends sat on the interview panel, coached them before, spoon fed them easy questions, and treated any applicants in a way that would make the Imperial Inquisition blush.

this is why I am glad I am not involved in the corporate world, I think I'd end up stabbing someone with a stapler.

Bullockist wrote:
this is why I am glad I am not involved in the corporate world, I think I'd end up stabbing someone with a stapler.

This was public sector sadly

Oh, I have one.

People who don't put a full ream of paper in the printer. The tray is one ream. It is made to fit that much in. Don't just open the paper and shove 1/3rd of the ream in. Put the whole thing in like you are supposed to rather than having to fill the printer 3 times as often and leaving paper on the side taking up space and getting dammaged.

TBone needs to man up on the eating front, I've had cats that weigh more than him, Rodney however is well on target to be a beanbag with legs.

He is a mini. His fightin weight was 8lb prior to the cancer. Cut him some slack though. He was supposed to be dead Fall of 2012, but is just too mean to die.

Rodney yea he's a fatty and a 4 legged vulture (he has in fact driven a vulture off of a roadkill to have a snack). He's the original Tyranid and will eat all forms of biomatter. Little bastard can jump on a table and grab your bag of barbeque in seven seconds. I know. I KNOW!

Pet peeve time: People who buy live animals and then want a replacement after a considerable period of time. FFS people! It is not a tv if you do not treat it right it will die and there is NO warranty. Guaranteed to make me go from civil to rabid in 0.2 seconds.

 Frazzled wrote:


Rodney yea he's a fatty and a 4 legged vulture (he has in fact driven a vulture off of a roadkill to have a snack). He's the original Tyranid and will eat all forms of biomatter. Little bastard can jump on a table and grab your bag of barbeque in seven seconds. I know. I KNOW!

I bet after eating roadkill Rodney is big on trying to lick your face
I had a cat who was kinda similar to Rodney , except she just wanted anything on my dinner plate. Once she stole a boiled potato from my plate with her claw , I shoved her nose in it thinking "that'll teach her" and she then proceeded to eat the whole thing. I think she did it just to spite me.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Your missunderstanding the scope of the word "Theory" in scince. As many people do when dismissing people who say "It's just a theory". Theorys run a wide gammet of possibilities. Theorys are nothing more than ideas that have not been proven wrond. Some are well proven and accepted.

For example boyle's law is a theory we well understand and are reasonable certain what is going on. Something may change that, but we are pritty sure we understand what is happening.

The Big Bang theory is something we know approzimatly what happend and had a good idea of a model with no actual evidence of it until a few days ago. The expansion model is now the prevailing theory and we have most evidence of it being true, but there are still people who dissagree.

String theory is the biggest supported theory in its field, but is mostly just people making stuff up that fits the observations and hoping oneday we will be able to design an experiment.

A Theory is nothing like a fact at all, and people making arguments about scintific theorys like that is a pet peeve of mine. Even many scientists don't understand this and get trapped too much in the dogma. Too many great discoveries have been missed for many years because people have said "This can't be right because it contradicts X" and dissmised it as an error rather than double checking.

My pet peeve is people that make claims like yours.

Theories can be facts. Evolution is known to have occurred and is still occurring so it is a fact. Since it is also a theory, our understanding of its processes can change the more we learn about it. The existence of dark matter is a fact. However, we are not exactly sure what it is or why it is that way, but we know it exists. It should be noted that string theory is a mathematical theory which is different from a scientific theory.

Also, to claim that there was "no evidence to support the big bang model until a few days ago" is categorically incorrect. The direct observation of gravitational waves is simply another piece of evidence to support the theory and inflation.

Bullockist wrote:
If it hasn't been proven it is not 100% certain and should only be regarded as a theory, anything else is not science. If you start regarding scientific theories as fact what happens when one is proven false? It may be ok to regard them as true, but it has to be held foremost that they are not proven. Sorry for jumping on your pet peeve, but growing up with two chemists as parents who took great pains to explain whenever something was a theory it wasn't proven has certainly left it's mark.

I'll add people who regard scientific theories as proven to my pet peeve list.

What happens when a theory regarded as true gets proven wrong?

Science changes because that is the strength of science.

One of the best examples of this is the model of a Static Universe. It was the prevailing idea of the nature of the universe until Georges Lemaître proposed the idea of an expanding universe in 1927 (using Einstein's equations) and it was proven by observations made by Edwin Hubble in 1929. If someone can offer enough evidence to prove the big band theory incorrect, than the theory will have to change. That's how science works.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Your missunderstanding the scope of the word "Theory" in scince. As many people do when dismissing people who say "It's just a theory". Theorys run a wide gammet of possibilities. Theorys are nothing more than ideas that have not been proven wrond. Some are well proven and accepted.

For example boyle's law is a theory we well understand and are reasonable certain what is going on. Something may change that, but we are pritty sure we understand what is happening.

The Big Bang theory is something we know approzimatly what happend and had a good idea of a model with no actual evidence of it until a few days ago. The expansion model is now the prevailing theory and we have most evidence of it being true, but there are still people who dissagree.

String theory is the biggest supported theory in its field, but is mostly just people making stuff up that fits the observations and hoping oneday we will be able to design an experiment.

A Theory is nothing like a fact at all, and people making arguments about scintific theorys like that is a pet peeve of mine. Even many scientists don't understand this and get trapped too much in the dogma. Too many great discoveries have been missed for many years because people have said "This can't be right because it contradicts X" and dissmised it as an error rather than double checking.

My pet peeve is people that make claims like yours.

Theories can be facts. Evolution is known to have occurred and is still occurring so it is a fact. Since it is also a theory, our understanding of its processes can change the more we learn about it. The existence of dark matter is a fact. However, we are not exactly sure what it is or why it is that way, but we know it exists. It should be noted that string theory is a mathematical theory which is different from a scientific theory.

Also, to claim that there was "no evidence to support the big bang model until a few days ago" is categorically incorrect. The direct observation of gravitational waves is simply another piece of evidence to support the theory and inflation.

Bullockist wrote:
If it hasn't been proven it is not 100% certain and should only be regarded as a theory, anything else is not science. If you start regarding scientific theories as fact what happens when one is proven false? It may be ok to regard them as true, but it has to be held foremost that they are not proven. Sorry for jumping on your pet peeve, but growing up with two chemists as parents who took great pains to explain whenever something was a theory it wasn't proven has certainly left it's mark.

I'll add people who regard scientific theories as proven to my pet peeve list.

What happens when a theory regarded as true gets proven wrong?

Science changes because that is the strength of science.

One of the best examples of this is the model of a Static Universe. It was the prevailing idea of the nature of the universe until Georges Lemaître proposed the idea of an expanding universe in 1927 (using Einstein's equations) and it was proven by observations made by Edwin Hubble in 1929. If someone can offer enough evidence to prove the big band theory incorrect, than the theory will have to change. That's how science works.

Theories explain facts, they can never be facts themselves. Theories however, can be made of facts.
Facts are always true and can not change. If a scientific theory is proven wrong, the theory changes, the facts remain the same.
People not understanding what a 'fact' actually is, is one of my pet peeves. My philosophy teacher spent an entire day trying to get me to understand what a fact is, I only got it it at the end
Also, there is a difference between scientific theories and scientific laws.

Since I am now responding to this thread anyway, I might as well mention that my biggest pet peeve is people smiling for no apparent reason at all. Smiles should only be used when there is something funny to smile about. Otherwise it is just fake and annoying.

 Iron_Captain wrote:


Since I am now responding to this thread anyway, I might as well mention that my biggest pet peeve is people smiling for no apparent reason at all. Smiles should only be used when there is something funny to smile about. Otherwise it is just fake and annoying.

What about using them to scare people? Can can be quite entertaining .

My overwhelming good looks can prove most inconvenient.

Sometimes you just get tired of the adoration of the masses.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Theories explain facts, they can never be facts themselves. Theories however, can be made of facts.
Facts are always true and can not change. If a scientific theory is proven wrong, the theory changes, the facts remain the same.
People not understanding what a 'fact' actually is, is one of my pet peeves. My philosophy teacher spent an entire day trying to get me to understand what a fact is, I only got it it at the end
Also, there is a difference between scientific theories and scientific laws.

Since I am now responding to this thread anyway, I might as well mention that my biggest pet peeve is people smiling for no apparent reason at all. Smiles should only be used when there is something funny to smile about. Otherwise it is just fake and annoying.

No, my friend, theories can still very much be fact.

Scientific theories describe how something occurs not whether it occurs. More importantly, facts used to describe something in science are not absolute. Keep in mind what Stephen Jay Gould said, "Moreover, 'fact' doesn’t mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain’t no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world."

Instead of a philosophy teacher, I would suggest you have a scientist explain how facts and theories work in science.