Scientific Theories

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caboose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

It's a working hypothesis, granted, but still a hypothesis.

---

So do you wanna do the correlating work and make it a theory? Because I'm far too drunk to do it now.

---

No, that's your job, Mr. Hypothesizer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shattered Dreamer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

It's a working hypothesis, granted, but still a hypothesis.

---

Caboose will argue this point until doomday be warned lol

---

Too late, I already won.

FOR SCIENCE! *fist*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackmage_nuke

I have this theory that if you cut all her hair off, she'd look like a British man.

---

Hypothesis.

---

You propose it was a hypothesis. It is a working hypothesis. You must now find partially refutable eveidence to push it back to a hypothesis so I win! For Science!!!!!!!!!

*awaits Caboose's rebuttal*

Edit: Too Late :bigsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caboose

You propose it was a hypothesis. It is a working hypothesis. You must now find partially refutable eveidence to push it back to a hypothesis so I win! For Science!!!!!!!!!

---

I assume that "so" is supposed to be an "or." Either that or you just confused the :bou::bou::bou::bou: outta me.

You proposed that you had a theory; I corrected you to say it was a hypothesis. A "working hypothesis" is, shockingly, a hypothesis, and not a theory. You have conceded that your experimentation has gotten you as far as working hypothesis, not theory.

Though I appreciate that you're trying so hard to emphasize my win. Most people would just make a pathetic attempt to save face and move on (Raistlin: "Oh I was just doing it to piss you off ohohohohoho!").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caboose

You propose it was a hypothesis. It is a working hypothesis. You must now find partially refutable eveidence to push it back to a hypothesis so I win! For Science!!!!!!!!!

---

I assume that "so" is supposed to be an "or." Either that or you just confused the :bou::bou::bou::bou: outta me.

You proposed that you had a theory; I corrected you to say it was a hypothesis. A "working hypothesis" is, shockingly, a hypothesis, and not a theory. You have conceded that your experimentation has gotten you as far as working hypothesis, not theory.

Though I appreciate that you're trying so hard to emphasize my win. Most people would just make a pathetic attempt to save face and move on (Raistlin: "Oh I was just doing it to piss you off ohohohohoho!").

---

Ah but if you look back you said "Granted, a working hypothesis". This statement meant that you conceded ground and therefore no longer have the right to say you win as you lost your original stand point! So the best I can give you is a middle ground Détente.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caboose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caboose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

And a very sketchy one at that, seeing as the glass is drained, surface tension plays a far greater role than polar bonds.

But then again, it is a chemist's hypothesis, so what do you expect.

---

Hey Chemistry is as much an intrinsic science as physics. And even in bead form, inter-molecular forces play a role so alcohol directed polarity will still exist in a drained glass. As you should know if physics was so important to you!

---

I never said it didn't exist. Chemists do great stuff, polymers and everything, just wonderful. But one thing they just can't do is put everything in a perspective of orders of magnitude. It exists, but the cumulative effect is so small compared to all the other forces, it hardly makes a difference, especially on a glass substrate.

---

But an undeniable force exists. No matter how small, it will always have an effect. Depending on the volume of the liquid, the force will become less and less but the force will forever have an effect. Even the graviational pull of the smallest particle of dust has an effect!

---

Not enough to make me lick my glass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caboose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caboose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

And a very sketchy one at that, seeing as the glass is drained, surface tension plays a far greater role than polar bonds.

But then again, it is a chemist's hypothesis, so what do you expect.

---

Hey Chemistry is as much an intrinsic science as physics. And even in bead form, inter-molecular forces play a role so alcohol directed polarity will still exist in a drained glass. As you should know if physics was so important to you!

---

I never said it didn't exist. Chemists do great stuff, polymers and everything, just wonderful. But one thing they just can't do is put everything in a perspective of orders of magnitude. It exists, but the cumulative effect is so small compared to all the other forces, it hardly makes a difference, especially on a glass substrate.

---

But an undeniable force exists. No matter how small, it will always have an effect. Depending on the volume of the liquid, the force will become less and less but the force will forever have an effect. Even the graviational pull of the smallest particle of dust has an effect!

---

Not enough to make me lick my glass.

---

Doesn't deny the evidence. You, my friend, are not a true alcoholic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caboose

Ah but if you look back you said "Granted, a working hypothesis". This statement meant that you conceded ground and therefore no longer have the right to say you win as you lost your original stand point! So the best I can give you is a middle ground Détente.

---

I was being generous. It's a working hypothesis to you, but to the scientific community I'm sure it's just some amateur hypothesis.

Regardless, your attempt to hide that you were completely wrong by highlighting my generosity is not going to fly. Bow, before I rename you Fail.

It not an amateur hypothesis and only people who don't respect a scientific postulation until its popular would agree. It is one and your generosity is not an issue. Both of us are, unfortunately, not able to bring our original argument to finality. So as such, I am willing to let it lie. But I would appreciate if you would present a scientific theory or (as you like to point out) hypothesis in this thread.

Regardless, a working hypothesis is a type of hypothesis, and so falls perfectly in line with my original argument. Being such a generous person, though, I will let you pretend that a working hypothesis is not a hypothesis so that your 0% correct looks better next to a 99% correct rather than my more accurate 100% correct. I'm just that nice.

I don't have any hypotheses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

Regardless, a working hypothesis is a type of hypothesis, and so falls perfectly in line with my original argument. Being such a generous person, though, I will let you pretend that a working hypothesis is not a hypothesis so that your 0% correct looks better next to a 99% correct rather than my more accurate 100% correct. I'm just that nice.

I don't have any hypotheses.

---

So make one. At least I have aspirations of being a better scientist. An I am not letting the topic go! I'm just to tired to argue. Besides, I have to go feed cattle. Damn farming background!

ShlupQuack and Aerith's Knight, you're both banned for derailing this completely fine thread.

Not really, but come on. Look at yourselves. :roll2

I have better things to do than lick pilsners and call it science. :expee:

ETA: You are no fun, Rantz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantzien

ShlupQuack and Aerith's Knight, you're both banned for derailing this completely fine thread.

Not really, but come on. Look at yourselves. :roll2

---

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl...duty_calls.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

I have better things to do than lick pilsners and call it science. :expee:

---

Like licking for money.

*hi5 AK*

Rantz just isn't used to seeing intelligent discussion outside of his beloved EoEO.