Earth Hour: Turn Off the Lights!

[barney]

I'm sure you're right. that's probably why Exxon and Monsanto are so popular with the environmental crowd.

But that's not what he said. He didn't say that sponsorship was to convince enviros. He said it's to convince those people that only need Monsanto's name next to WWF's to think, "well, maybe they're not that bad" (i.e. to influence the mildly concerned, not the enviros--minus the sell-outs of course).

Same thing with the fake "organic" labels: people who have a true understanding of healthy food will not buy into it, but plenty of people who merely have a doubt will.

WWF is also probably the least radical of all the orgs they could have sponsored, so they're certainly still minimizing costs (in this case, the benefits of sponsoring 'the enemy' outweigh the costs of doing so by giving these companies an air of environmental/social responsibility).

 

[captain morgan]

JLM, in science, we talk about theory of everything. Thus, we have theory of evolution, theory of gravitation, theory of relativity, theory of quantum mechanics, theory of light, theory of sound and so on.

Does that mean that all these concepts are unproven, just pie in the sky speculation? Nothing of the sort.

Nor does that insinuate that they are fact either. History offers multiple examples that disproves theory or sees them evolve to such an extent that they are barely recognizable from the original form.

 

[petros]

Gravity is a theory...have you floated away recently?

 

[captain morgan]

Gravity is a theory...have you floated away recently?

So was the idea of a geo-centric galaxy... What's your point?

 

[Ron in Regina]

Perhaps some bright fellow could Google the definition of the
word "theory" as it pertains to science? Then this Thread can
go back to the OP of one hour on a Saturday 134 hours ago? 8O
___________________

 

[JLM]

JLM, in science, we talk about theory of everything. Thus, we have theory of evolution, theory of gravitation, theory of relativity, theory of quantum mechanics, theory of light, theory of sound and so on.

Does that mean that all these concepts are unproven, just pie in the sky speculation? Nothing of the sort. All these theories have substantial evidence supporting them. They are called theories because ultimately, no scientific maxim can be proved, it can only be disproved.

Thus, Theory of Relativity or the Big Bang Theory have been verified time and again by evidence, most scientists, astronomers believe them to be true. However, if tomorrow somebody makes even a single observation that cannot be explained by either of these theories, they are disproved. On the other hand, even if 100 more pieces of evidence are uncovered to support the theories, they still are not proved, just that the probability that they are true increases, approaching 100%, but never becoming 100%.

So no matter how much evidence piles up in their favor, they still remain theories. But that does not mean they are not true, that they are just unfounded speculation on part of somebody.

Scientific theories are based upon solid, proved evidence, and most of them are considered to be true, to be facts.

Yep and then there are theories by very scientific and respected people that hold up for awhile until disproved by a greater mind- Copernicus' theory of the earth's position in the solar system was highly esteemed until Galileo came along and got it right (as far as we still believe).

 

[petros]

So was the idea of a geo-centric galaxy... What's your point?

Point is we don't live 1000 years in the past do we? Maybe you do but the rest of us don't.

 

[captain morgan]

Point is we don't live 1000 years in the past do we? Maybe you do but the rest of us don't.

A thousand years, eh?... What a compelling argument...

I should have known that the comment would have been wasted on you.

 

[petros]

Do we live 1000 years in the past or no? So you don't float off the ground on your own? Yes or no and why not?

I should have known that the comment would have been wasted on you.

Yeah there are lots of things you should know but don't. How come?

 

[captain morgan]

Do we live 1000 years in the past or no?

This isn't about us 'living in the past'. This about scientific theory.... That being the case, it is all about building-off of the past, including learning from mistakes made 1000 years past or 1 month ago..

You really need to learn the basics petros.

 

[Tonington]

Perhaps some bright fellow could Google the definition of the
word "theory" as it pertains to science? Then this Thread can
go back to the OP of one hour on a Saturday 134 hours ago? 8O
___________________

I explained that a year ago. I posted the link to the thread here, a few pages back. But for those who maybe missed it, or were asleep in class, or otherwise never actually learned what a scientific theory is, I'll post it again:

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/s...ng-scientific-naming-convention-theories.html

 

[petros]

This isn't about us 'living in the past'. This about scientific theory.... That being the case, it is all about building-off of the past, including learning from mistakes made 1000 years past or 1 month ago..

You really need to learn the basics petros.

You just shot yourself in the foot.

 

[captain morgan]

You just shot yourself in the foot.

....


Ahhh.. Yeah.. Sure...

 

[petros]

....


Ahhh.. Yeah.. Sure...

YOu are saying that if a theory can't be 100% proven it is not fact.

With your brand of thinking, if gravity were only 86% proveable that means you have a 14% of floating away. Have you, anyone else or anything else just picked up and drifted away gracefully?

Why not and what does that say about theories?

 

[Ron in Regina]

Definition of Theory: An explanation of a natural occurrence that
is testable and capable of predicting future occurrences.
___________________

 

[petros]

Definition of Theory: An explanation of a natural occurrence that
is testable and capable of predicting future occurrences.

Thanks Ron. It's good to know that you won't be floating away anytime soon because of a +/- variable.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Perhaps some bright fellow could Google the definition of the
word "theory" as it pertains to science? Then this Thread can
go back to the OP of one hour on a Saturday 134 hours ago? 8O
___________________

Quite right, Ron. The thread has gone way off topic. I suggested after earth hour was over, that we give a decent burial to the thread. But I suppose people get worked up when it comes to the environment.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Yep and then there are theories by very scientific and respected people that hold up for awhile until disproved by a greater mind- Copernicus' theory of the earth's position in the solar system was highly esteemed until Galileo came along and got it right (as far as we still believe).

JLM, that is what I meant when I said that a theory can never be proved, only disproved. Thus it is quite possible that Theory of Relativity or the Big bang Theory may someday be disproved. But that does not make them any less valuable.

 

[Cannuck]

But that's not what he said. He didn't say that sponsorship was to convince enviros. He said it's to convince those people that only need Monsanto's name next to WWF's to think, "well, maybe they're not that bad" (i.e. to influence the mildly concerned, not the enviros--minus the sell-outs of course).

... what I'm saying is that it is a money decision. Since Monsanto is primarily an Ag business it make sense to sponsor things that people in the Ag business care about, if you are viewing this from an advertising perspective. Sponsorship can be used for advertising purposes or it can be used to grease palms. There isn't a great advertising benefit for Monsanto in sponsoring WWF. That's my point. I believe there is probably a hidden motive as the link I provided suggests.

 

[barney]

... what I'm saying is that it is a money decision. Since Monsanto is primarily an Ag business it make sense to sponsor things that people in the Ag business care about, if you are viewing this from an advertising perspective. Sponsorship can be used for advertising purposes or it can be used to grease palms. There isn't a great advertising benefit for Monsanto in sponsoring WWF. That's my point. I believe there is probably a hidden motive as the link I provided suggests.

Let's see if I got this straight: the Ag business promotes the WWF because the WWF serves AG business by pushing the GW agenda, which indirectly pushes for biofuels, which is what the Ag industry wants.

What link were you referring to?