There's a good reason why scientists double-check their data.

As usually, you miss the point. Im not writing, that generally expenses for science are waste of money. Im writing, that contribution of LHC to science is questionable. For example I doubt, that we could make EM Drive work, but investing like 100 millions in research of EM Drive is much better investment than 13 billions wasted on finding Higgs, because Higgs is practically uselless both from technology viewpoint but also from viewpoint of development of physics. EM Drive at least promises some breakthrough in technology and physics theory. Unfortunately most people deciding about grants are morons, who are focusing on playing it safe and effectively delaying the development, because to avoid risks they grant money only for already established stuff. There are only few exceptions to the rule.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I miss nothing and certainly not that which you infer.
The LHC as I have shown is a worthwhile, valuable, beneficial scientific experiment.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am sure the same thing was thought about Marie Curie's work. Who (at that time) cared about what radioactivity was? It's practically useless; just gives you cancer.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It still give you cancer, We are having hard time to dispose the processed material . It give us a mass distruction of life

 

So you think the discovery of radiation - one of the most important discoveries of the century - was "practically uselless" and "a waste of money."
In that case, let's hope that the LHC continues to be "practically uselless" and "a waste of money" as you define those things.

 

"Learn the Difference Between Imply and Infer"
- from : http://grammartips.homestead.com/imply.html
-Tina Blue March 27, 2001 -

"All this week I have run into the word infer mistakenly used to mean imply. I'd like to help everyone get those two words straightened out.

INFER vs. IMPLY

The best way to remember the difference between these two words is to think in terms of the model used by communications theorists. Communication consists of a message, a sender, and a receiver. The sender can imply, but the receiver can only infer. The error that usually occurs is that the word infer is mistakenly used for imply.


WRONG: Are you inferring that I am a fool?
RIGHT: Are you implying that I am a fool?


If someone gets the idea from your behavior that you are a fool, then he is inferring that you are a fool. But if he is subtly letting you know that he thinks so, then he is implying that you are a fool. You, of course, can infer from his implication that he thinks you are a fool.


IMPLY = to put the suggestion into the message (sender implies)

INFER = to take the suggestion out of the message (receiver infers)

IMPLICATION = what the sender has implied

INFERENCE = what the receiver has inferred "
- ^^above quoted^^ from : http://grammartips.homestead.com/imply.html

 

Exactly!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That among many other examples, including as I said, space exploration and research. People that make disguised inferences, and then chose to hide behind the ambiguity of their nonsensical inferences.

 

And it also kills cancerous cells. But as usual, you, like ultron, avoid the salient point. The beneficial results, research, and findings of the LHC and other scientific experiments and endeavours for mankind in general.
Like I said, with out science, you would be still swinging in the trees.

 

You are wrong. Radioactivity was very popular at the time of Marie Curie, people were for example wearing fancy self illuminating radioactive watches. Only years after they discovered, that it caused cancer.

https://www.damninteresting.com/undark-and-the-radium-girls/

 

And yet again you miss the point...the point being that most all of the great science experiments, are inevitably beneficial and helpful for mankind.
And of course Curie's experiments and discoveries were beneficial to mankind as well.
And as we know, radiation also cures/kills cancer.

 

Are you a scientist ?.
Science in Latin means knowledge.
One of first usage by men the word science and scientific methods ( commencement ) . was Galileo and a Persian , Al Biruni, that is about 600 years ago. even Greeks did not use the word science nor scientists I believe that was very long after swinging on trees .

 

No. And neither are you. [you do wash test tubes though, correct?]

That's what I have been telling you all along.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So? A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The scientific method is practiced every day by ordinary people. We learn, and through critical thinking negotiate through life.....

 

Yep. It was a novelty. I mean, you certainly couldn't do anything big with it.

 

I come at night and clean the floors empty the waste baskets , wash beakers , remove the test animals shit.

 

There's many jobs that need doing, and I don't grade or degrade the job in question: What I grade is the amount of pretentious nonsense some see the need to stoop to.

 

James R,

Is there anyway by which I can know who all keep me on ignore? You know it is better to know first hand then to hear from Paddoboy. In the past he has lied many a times, so he is not a trustworthy man.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Desperation stakes again from the forum desperado!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I know of three off the top of my head.

 

And who are they and how do you know ?
And what is so desperate about this ? I see no desperation here.

 

Along with the LHC, I would place the COBE, WMAP, HST, and the ISS as totally worthwhile, beneficial experiments: A future one is the JWST when launched if all goes well.