From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Well known scientifc facts
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:52:37 EST

In article <1992Sep28.013416.27338@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
> In article <1992Sep25.170314.8950@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep24.122743.10247@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>[...]
>>> Question: if scientists can't get a mundane fact correct such as
>>> the average human temperature for over 100 years (the study that
>>> established the average temperature was done over a century ago
>>> with I believe quite a large sample rate), what makes them think
>>> that any of their other more complex "facts" are accurate?  Please,
>>> this is only a genuine query.
>>Silliness, silliness.  This is not a genuine query.  This is a ("name to be
>>filled in by the user" ism).  It clearly establishes that you do not understand
>>science.  Since you only "believe" that the study was done over a year ago, I
>>suggest that you first research body temperature, its natural variations,
>>methods of measurement, plus the history of the noted items, and then discuss
>>getting facts straight.
> Sigh, clearly *you* do not understand how knowledge is exchanged
> at all with a response like this.  In the first place, reread my
> post.  The original study was done over 100 years ago (actually
> over 150 years ago).  Reread my earlier post for more details
> especially about the sample rate.  And keep in mind what the word
> *average* means.  Then stop taking everything as a personal attack
> and respond if you have something to contribute.
It is not a personal attack on me.  I suggested that you explore the scientific
method, based on your comments.  That is clearly a contribution.  Secondly, is
the average temperature a _mundane_ fact?  As pointed out by a number of 
people (more articulate, and possibly with more patience that I had at that
time), that average must be defined, that the method of measurement must be
defined, that the body must be defined, etc., etc. ("The devil's in the
details") before making any sense out of the original post.  Having read
roughly the same popular article, I surmised that maybe some of these things
had been dealt with in the actual scientific study, assuming there actually was
one.  So I point out again, have you done any background research on this issue
if you think that it is a mundane fact?  Do you understand that science is a
self correcting mechanism?  Do you understand that maybe, just maybe, 0.2
deg. C might not be too bad of a correction after 100 years?  If not, I
respectfully suggest that you review the issues noted immediately below from my
first reply.

>>BTW, I surmise that you do not understand "facts", "hypotheses", "theories".
>>Please refer to multiple discussions on this newsgroup for the past two years,
>>or any good fifth grade science book.
> 
> Now I'm curious, what would *you* call the *average* human temperature?  

Please define average technique, average human to average over, technique of
measurement, boundary  conditions, temporal variations, internal (including
location), external location, comparative measurement techniques, and  then  we
can talk, independently of whether science gets the facts right. Of
course, sometimes the accuracy improves, sometimes the precision, sometimes
both.

 
GXKambic
standard Kelvinistic disclaimer

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic