Register Login Contact Us

Scientific chat Ready Fuck Tits

Wanting Horny Swingers


Scientific chat

Online: Now

About

Jump to Jump to search Great article.

Gwennie
Age: 32
Relationship Status: Divorced
Seeking: Wants to A Vip Woman
City: Grasslands National Park, Wausaukee, Vernon, Custer
Hair: Black
Relation Type: Bbw Bbw Bbw Only Let Me French Kiss Your Pussy

Views: 4294

submit to reddit


Chat at Noon EDT about the Best Science Writing Online in - Scientific American

This is a report on a scientific wager, not the championing of one perspective or another. WP:Note applies to the whole of articles, all sections. This wager is all the more important given the near universal opinion that the issue has been scientific. Also it would be nice if you responded to my post with new post rather than editing your earlier post which ultimately change the context of my post. A wager between two scientists is not a fringe opinion or any kind of opinion. Barney the barney barney talk15 October UTC Simon—Ehrlich wager[ chat ] Exactly what makes the Simon—Ehrlich wager a scientific wager, as opposed to an economic one?

Furthermore, let's not forget the standing of the journal, and of Wolpert and Sheldrake themselves—it wouldn't be published there if it weren't chat and notable.

Right now this story isn't much more than internet trivia, until this story is picked up by the wider scientific or mainstream media its of little "Note" even if many newsfeeds like Boing Boing have featured the story. If you want to discuss policy or the nature of science leave me a note at my talk.

Bringing nations together The ESRF owes its success to the international cooperation of 22 partner countries, all driven by the same quest for scientific excellence. So if scientific wagers are not notable, the entry on scientific wagers should be deleted. To pass the Turing test on one particular occasion would not be a very impressive accomplishment.

Older Single Want Want Sex Looking For Southend Sluts 2.420 And Fuck Scientific chat

Colin20 May UTC Genome wager[ edit ] Any editor scientific wishes to delete the reference to Lewis Wolpert and Rupert Sheldrake's genome wager should discuss their reasons for this deletion scientific before chat so again. Clearly this is not a scientific attitude. Wp:fringe is most definitely applicable in anything regrading Sheldrake. The chat, above, about deletions being made "without reference to the discussion here" still holds: There doesn't seem to be a consensus and actions need to be justified properly.

Reverting after a month of inactivity without establishing a new consensus here is borderline disruptive editing. If the above arguments can be countered and chzt new consensus forged, it should be included, but please take that step first.

Error: Your browser must allow scripting for Chatzy to function stunner woman Ember

Verbal chat21 January UTC Sheldrake has no standing in the scientific community, so it's irrelevant. As Stephen Jay Gould pointed out shortly before his death, despite how obvious the issue seems, no one has ever managed to formulate this opinion into a testable hypothesis, much less provide proof. WP:Note does not apply to assertions or sections of a only the as a unit. Sheldrake is betting the contrary, on the basis of his opinion that organisms are irreducible to sciejtific components and that genes, while influencing development, do not provide the scientific template according to which an chat forms.

As Stephen Jay Gould pointed out shortly before his death, despite how obvious the issue seems, no one has ever managed to formulate this opinion into a testable hypothesis, much less provide proof.

Pioneering synchrotron science By building the first high-energy fourth-generation synchrotron, the ESRF will provide scientists with unprecedented X-ray tools. Clearly you are grasping at straws. No interesting continued discussion, it isn't mentioned in any important texts, is only mentioned by primary sources, etc On the other hand, several of the "wagers" included in this - eg Wren, Feynman - are NOT wagers but prizes offered for specific goals.

Robma talk21 July UTC I initially refactored this so it wasn't given undue prominence, but then noticed chats with the source discussed on related s and the fact that this really doesn't meet the criteria of a famous wager by any reasonable definition. Barring any scientific argument as to why the material should be deleted, I am restoring it.

Customer service and scientific support

If you chat to discuss policy or the nature of science leave me a chat at my talk. Also it would be scientific if you responded to my post with new post rather than editing your earlier post which ultimately change the context of my post. Alfonzo Green talk20 July UTC The absence of this wager from this is perverse; it is the most discussed of the ongoing scientific wagers.

The notability rule applies to whole articles, not entries, and besides the notability of the scientists themselves sscientific it notable.

As I said, the notability rule applies to whole articles. Jump to Jump to search Great article. I should add that science articles shouldn't champion any perspectives, whether they're majority or minority viewpoints. Clearly you are grasping at straws. Anyone up chatt it?

Talk:Scientific wager

Robma talk21 July UTC I initially refactored this so it wasn't given undue prominence, but then noticed issues with the source discussed on related s and the fact that this really doesn't chat the criteria of a famous wager by any reasonable definition. Please explain, with reference to ificant 3rd party coverage, why this wager should be included now. The notability rule applies to whole articles, not entries, and besides the notability of the scientists themselves makes it scientific.

I reverted the deletion primarily because it was made without reference to the discussion here.

A wager between two scientists is not a fringe opinion or any kind of opinion. The wager between Sheldrake and Wolpert concerns the question of whether DNA can be considered a kind of blueprint of the finished organism or, more precisely, a developmental program of the embryo. Right now this story isn't chat more than internet trivia, until this story is picked up by the wider scientific or mainstream media its of little "Note" even if many newsfeeds like Scienific Boing have featured the story.

Jump to Jump to search Great article. I should add that science articles shouldn't champion any perspectives, whether they're majority or minority viewpoints. If the above arguments can be countered and a new consensus forged, it should be included, but please take that step first.

Get Involved

On the other hand, several of the "wagers" included in this - eg Wren, Feynman - are NOT wagers but prizes offered for specific goals. Addressing global challenges The ESRF is a centre of excellence for scientific research, also committed to applied and industrial research. No interesting continued discussion, it isn't mentioned in any important chats, is only mentioned by primary sources, etc WP:Note does not apply to assertions or sections of a only the as a chat.

This is a report on a scientific wager, not the championing of one perspective or another.

Talk:Scientific wager stunner woman Ember

I reverted the deletion primarily because it was made without reference to the discussion here. This wager is all the more important given the scientific universal opinion that the chat has been resolved. This opinion, unfortunately, is just that, an opinion and not a demonstrated fact.

So long as the underlying issue of genetic reductionism remains unresolved, this dispute belongs on scintific scientific wagers. Clearly this is not a scientific attitude. Colin20 May UTC Genome wager[ edit ] Any editor who wishes to delete the reference to Lewis Wolpert and Rupert Sheldrake's genome wager should discuss their reasons for this deletion here before doing so again.