Boat accident. And a lot of oil

[ginnyfizz]

Whilst there is no doubt that BP have made catastrophic errors of judgment, what has emerged from the witch hunt is the unedifying spectacle of BP's subcontractors, Halliburton and Transocean, scrambling as fast as possible to avoid any of the blame coming their way. Whilst BP are responsible for their subbies, those companies need to be interrogated as to just what advice they did give. And did Congress REALLY expect Tony Hayward to give specific answers on a matter that is soon going to be sub judice? Any US citizen would have pleaded their constitutional privilege not to incriminate themselves. As I keep saying, much more hate stirring and the BP board won't stand trial at all.

[evilneko]

Sorry to go off topic, but I must comment.

 

1. Science isn't about the pursuit, and acceptance of theories or ideas. It's about the pursuit of provable facts. Ideas and theories are simply a means to an ends.

 

You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Perhaps your mistake lies in confusing the vernacular use of theory with the scientific one.

 

Facts are important, yes, but facts themselves are little more than data points, nigh useless on their own. Theory is far from a means to an end. Theory is the end, for the most part. Facts are only the beginning, the foundation upon which theory is built. Theory ties the facts together, and explains why these facts are, and how they are related. A collection of facts only gets you so far, like copy/pasting a program from a webpage into a compiler gets you a workable program, but without understanding how or why it does what it does, you cannot change it around to do something different. That understanding is what theory is, and it's absolutely crucial.

 

So, to get back onto topic -- did you know, Canada requires the drilling of relief wells just in case of a disaster like this? Imagine how much less catastrophic the damage would be had relief wells been already finished or in progress. It'd likely be capped and old news by now.

[brokenergy]

As much as I would like to say that BP is responsible (and believe me I do), I think the main fault is with the US administration (especially the previous one). It was the relaxing of rules from former oil tycoon that caused this in the first place and Obama almost wanted to expand it. Now I don't live in the US but the same thing happened in Australia last year and it cause a lot of protests. The government put up an inquiry to investigate what happened how they could prevent it and it was finished a few weeks ago but no one knows what's in it. I think that both sides need to be blamed and massive changes need to made for the limited future of this dying industry. (Dying like moving to new sources of fuel and leaving oil behind)

[species5478]

Sorry to go off topic, but I must comment.

 

1. Science isn't about the pursuit, and acceptance of theories or ideas. It's about the pursuit of provable facts. Ideas and theories are simply a means to an ends.

 

You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Perhaps your mistake lies in confusing the vernacular use of theory with the scientific one.

 

Facts are important, yes, but facts themselves are little more than data points, nigh useless on their own. Theory is far from a means to an end. Theory is the end, for the most part. Facts are only the beginning, the foundation upon which theory is built. Theory ties the facts together, and explains why these facts are, and how they are related. A collection of facts only gets you so far, like copy/pasting a program from a webpage into a compiler gets you a workable program, but without understanding how or why it does what it does, you cannot change it around to do something different. That understanding is what theory is, and it's absolutely crucial.

 

So, to get back onto topic -- did you know, Canada requires the drilling of relief wells just in case of a disaster like this? Imagine how much less catastrophic the damage would be had relief wells been already finished or in progress. It'd likely be capped and old news by now.

 

Sure...I'll respond, if you like. Here's what I think...

 

By saying, "Facts are important, yes, but..." The thesis to your argument was proven incorrect before the sentence even ended. Facts cannot be objected. They define the END result of such things as theories, debates, and proofing. A fact, proves you are right. That's why it's called, a "fact", and generates such comments as; "a matter of fact". Trying to argue against a fact, means you're lying to yourself about the truth. Facts, tie theories together. In fact...A FACT proves theories to be true. Let me give you a few examples:

 

Fact: 1+1=2. You cannot argue against this equation, because it's factually true, not theoretically true...

 

Fact: The sun revolves around the earth. Many people theorized about why the sun dips below the horizon, but only through scientific deduction, was the answer discovered. And the only way to find the answer, was by contemplating the possible reasons for all of the celestial movement in the sky, and then testing these theories with real life applications.

 

Fact: E=MC to the second power. Einstein did not start with this factual equation. This equation marks the culmination of many theories. He had many other theories which have yet to be proven, such as time travel. For instance evilneko, Einstein believed that if a person could travel faster than the speed of light, they'd be able to manipulate time. It's not a fact. Only a theory. If someone were able to travel at these speeds, then they'd be able to prove him right, or wrong. If proven right, his "theory" would then become a "fact".

 

Fact: Oil continues to spill from the Gulf. You wrote, "Facts are only the beginning, the foundation upon which theory is built" Theories are built on many things. Facts. Assumptions. Imagination. Mistakes. Dreams. Ideological beliefs. The list goes on and on...people do not look at dead birds and marine life and say, "Oil is covering everything up. This is a fact, but I wonder if I can form a theory from this..." No...when the rig exploded, people theorized that the oil was going to hit the coastline, and ruin the habit for animals and humans. Now, after two months, their theories have become a fact...

[evilneko]

As much as I would like to say that BP is responsible (and believe me I do), I think the main fault is with the US administration (especially the previous one). It was the relaxing of rules from former oil tycoon that caused this in the first place and Obama almost wanted to expand it. Now I don't live in the US but the same thing happened in Australia last year and it cause a lot of protests. The government put up an inquiry to investigate what happened how they could prevent it and it was finished a few weeks ago but no one knows what's in it. I think that both sides need to be blamed and massive changes need to made for the limited future of this dying industry. (Dying like moving to new sources of fuel and leaving oil behind)

 

Ah but it was BP that repeatedly ignored warnings both from their own employees and subcontractors, and knowingly chose cheaper and riskier options. The lion's share of blame thus lies on BP's shoulders. To say that the government is mostly to blame for the spill is to say that the government is like saying the government's to blame when a person goes on a shooting spree at the local mall.

 

 

Sure...I'll respond, if you like. Here's what I think...

 

By saying, "Facts are important, yes, but..." The thesis to your argument was proven incorrect before the sentence even ended. Facts cannot be objected. They define the END result of such things as theories, debates, and proofing. A fact, proves you are right. That's why it's called, a "fact", and generates such comments as; "a matter of fact". Trying to argue against a fact, means you're lying to yourself about the truth. Facts, tie theories together. In fact...A FACT proves theories to be true. Let me give you a few examples:

 

I see I have not simplified things enough for you to understand, as you still persist in getting things quite backward.

 

Fact: 1+1=2. You cannot argue against this equation, because it's factually true, not theoretically true...

 

I see you misunderstand the very concept of theory.

 

Fact: The sun revolves around the earth.

Um. Oops?

 

Fact: E=MC to the second power. Einstein did not start with this factual equation. This equation marks the culmination of many theories. He had many other theories which have yet to be proven, such as time travel. For instance evilneko, Einstein believed that if a person could travel faster than the speed of light, they'd be able to manipulate time. It's not a fact. Only a theory. If someone were able to travel at these speeds, then they'd be able to prove him right, or wrong. If proven right, his "theory" would then become a "fact".

General Relativity is, get this -- a theory. It is a scientific theory with quite a few facts supporting it.

Theories do not "grow up" to be facts, or even laws. Theory is the blanket that surrounds and explains facts. Einstein came up with Relativity because of flaws in Newton's Universal Gravitation, which works quite well up to a point, past which, the facts contradict the theory, leading to the necessity of new theory to explain them. The only reason Universal Gravitation (that's the theory of gravity, for laymen) is not completely discredited is because it does work up to a point. For an example of a completely discredited and abandoned theory once thought to be well supported by fact, look up Geocentrism and the Aether/Ether.

 

Here, have a look at this, in particular around ~3:55 to 7ish. It may help with your confusion.

 

I do not intend to derail this thread any further. If you are still adamant in your backwards understanding, we can take it to PM, and maybe I can point you in the direction of someone more qualified to teach you science than I.

[brokenergy]

Ah but it was BP that repeatedly ignored warnings both from their own employees and subcontractors, and knowingly chose cheaper and riskier options. The lion's share of blame thus lies on BP's shoulders. To say that the government is mostly to blame for the spill is to say that the government is like saying the government's to blame when a person goes on a shooting spree at the local mall.

 

Yes BP has ignored warning and acted irresponsibly, I do not dismiss that but this would not have happened in the first place if government regulations were up to scratch in the first place. Both sides need to take responsibility and action must be taken to prevent another disaster in the future. To place blame on one would be sorely be negligible at best just like people blamed Wall Street for the financial crisis, when it was the laws that weren't good enough. But that's for another topic and I just placed it in as an example to prove my point.

[species5478]

@evilneko

 

It's refreshing to see someone finding valid errors in my writing. It doesn't happen often. I did write some hasty mistakes, didn't I? I suppose thinking about your inverted philosophy stemmed some errors. In this, I am definitely wrong.

 

Obviously, the earth revolves are the sun. But I'm sure well all know, exactly what I meant to write. And instead of expanding on my comment concerning Einstein's equation, I'll concede by saying, you're right, it's a theory.

 

In either case, my badly written examples don't prove you're correct. Nor does stating that I may be too adamant for a change of mind. That's just being presumptuous. Theories of the sun's movement have become fact, haven't they? We might spawn new theories concerning the sun, but the debate over why the sun rises over the horizon for instance, has been proven to be a result of the earth's orbit. We can argue semantics all day, and get nowhere, actually. Still, I understand exactly where you're coming from, and your point of view. I think you're under the impression that I don't see the reasoning....when in fact, I simply reject it.

 

And there really isn't a need to pm me. The point of debate, is to display opposing views so that all people can view comments, teach, and perhaps learn something. Since these particular topics barely border the issue of oil, start a new one of you like. I have no fear of being proven wrong. The only people I know of, who don't want to post debates publicly, are those who fear correction.

 

As for the oil...

 

 

As for the oil...

 

 

Isn't it nice how he can AFFORD to take time off with his family? Yet fishermen in Louisiana are considering suicide because this disaster. I think, they should have held the yacht race in the Gulf..

[ginnyfizz]

As for the oil...

Isn't it nice how he can AFFORD to take time off with his family? Yet fishermen in Louisiana are considering suicide because this disaster. I think, they should have held the yacht race in the Gulf..

 

I wouldn't be, in their shoes. Whatever the public tub thumping by President Obama suggests, I have heard that the compensation already being paid out by BP is meaning that they are now making more in a WEEK than they were in a MONTH. Let's face it, this IS a huge tragedy, and I have made it quite clear that I do not believe BP and their contractors should fail to answer for this. But let it be before a court of law, and not by a kangaroo court comprised of the various media and grandstanding politicians stunting in advance of their mid term elections. Then we can test this "Well we told BP..." "Oh no you didn't..." ding dong properly. Hayward may have acted like an ass, but the reactions to anything he does are now getting really over the top, if he went into hiding someone would be jeering at that. If I were to pick a group who I think are the forgotten factor, it would be the people whose pension funds are bombing because they are invested in BP. Ordinary folks on both sides of the pond. Yet MORE victims.

[Mr Ham]

Still, I understand exactly where you're coming from, and your point of view. I think you're under the impression that I don't see the reasoning....when in fact, I simply reject it.

Oh wow... Um.. I'm going to say this as lightly as possible. There is no point in involving yourself in a debate if you're going to disregard valid arguments. A debate is an exchange in opinions and facts to achieve a common consensus. You gain nothing by rejecting other people's arguments because you don't want to accept them. Yeah, some ideas and concepts are going to be hard to accept. But for goodness sake don't let emotion interfere with logic. If you're not willing to being open-minded about this debate and think arguments through, you have no place in debating forum.

 

Isn't it nice how he can AFFORD to take time off with his family? Yet fishermen in Louisiana are considering suicide because this disaster. I think, they should have held the yacht race in the Gulf..

The BP executive sat in his expansive mansion, a glass of whisky in hand, watching the news-reel for the day. Images of an oil spill endangering animals' lives and putting peasants out of work gave him much enjoyment. Sipping his brandy and curling his waxed-tip moustache, he throws another handful of hundred dollar bills into his fireplace and quietly chuckles to himself with satisfaction.

 

Yeah I was never a very good writer. But seriously so what? So the guy takes a little time off with his family? Maybe he needs some time to think about how his company is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Maybe he needs to forget the lives his and his co-workers have ruined. Maybe he needs to get away from all the blame and responsibility hes garnered from an accident. Or maybe, just maybe, hes quietly chuckling to himself in satisfaction because he actually WANTED all this negative attention, because he WANTED this to happen.

[species5478]

DERAILMENT

 

I commend those who have stayed on topic. So forgive me, because I’m going to derail a bit here since it seems my most vocal critics refuse to stay on the subject…

 

Mr. Ham

 

Where do you see validity in the above argument? When evilneko commented on my definition of science, it had nothing to do with the topic of oil. And my comment about science, stemmed from a previous derailment of the topic. A derailment started by you, in fact. As far as you and I are concerned, most of our interactions involved dancing around issues that don’t relate to the gulf spill. That includes this discussion. It would be wonderful if you’d start another topic concerning your points of interest. Then we could debate whatever you like without contaminating the current subject.

 

Just so you know, part of my previous semester involved a question about what science actually is, and how to implement it. The class discussion delved into videos, essays, and articles written by students, scientists, and professors from various colleges, universities, and scientific institutions. None of whom, could agree on the definition, or a definitive measurement on how to implement science. (Partly because it’s an evolving field of study) All of the most noteworthy scientists, including individuals such as Steven Hawkings, agree that science is what you define it to be. There is no way to win this type of argument because there is no real answer, only viewpoints. Since you seem to think you know the subject matter, educate us with your definition of science and let’s see how it stacks up to the competition. If that’s too difficult, let’s start with something easier like…what came first, the chicken, or the egg?

 

So I can indulge Steven Hawking’s above definition of self-defining science, (Which extends into the realm of quantum physics) or some anonymous guy named evilneko, (Whose definition seems similar to what you might find in Webster’s dictionary). I choose Professor Hawkings.

 

You said I have no place in the debate forums if I don’t have an open mind. Do you have an open mind? Do you truly consider opposing points of view, or do you simply think of ways to dismantle what other people write and believe? I won’t presume to know you. But I would argue, that debates are arenas for the closed, and open minded. Everyone has a place. Even the person who has no opinion. To me, debating isn’t about looking for reasons to change someone’s mind, as much as looking for reasons to change your own. But that’s a debate for another day…

 

In some cases, what I’ve learned has given me a perspective that supersedes those who debate with me. Of course, the same happens in reverse. When someone just doesn’t “get it”, I chose candor instead of reproach, because I don’t think you can teach someone something they’re not ready to learn. Especially, when they think you’re the one in error. So I don’t claim other people are ignorant, close-minded, misguided, wrong, etc., because they can’t or choose not to accept my point of view. I state my point, and leave them to theirs. People have a right to think and feel they way they want, for any reason they want. These forums provide a perfect avenue for just that. And what is logic, if not a dormant state of emotion? At the very least, all human logic is influenced by one emotion or another. We are not a race of Vulcans, void of feelings. There will always be a layer of sensation mixed into your thinking. If you have a stagnant state of mind, then you’re probably deathly old, or dead.

 

I am neither.

 

 

And unlike many people, I acknowledge the wit of those deserving of it. In fact, I’ve done so twice in this thread alone. I was quite pleased at how my previous debater found valid errors in my writing for instance, but was a bit disappointed when he found no valid errors in my logic. Now do you see yourself as someone who will acknowledge when another is right? Or do you instead feel wounded when someone else proves you wrong, and fade away…reemerging only when you feel you have a valid point of contention?

 

As for the yacht race...so you're saying, you don't have a problem with a guy, who is partially responsible ruining an entire coastline in America, and then goes back to the clear waters in his native land, and participates in a race, which occurs in water? I’m sure a blind person can see what’s wrong with that. Racing a yacht, is basically a middle finger to the U.S.