<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.5" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Standard of Evidence</title>
	<link>http://globalpioneering.com/wp02/standard-of-evidence/</link>
	<description>Transfer scientific authority to people</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:29:26 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Fine Physics at Freedom of Science</title>
		<link>http://globalpioneering.com/wp02/standard-of-evidence/#comment-20752</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 21:11:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://globalpioneering.com/wp02/standard-of-evidence/#comment-20752</guid>
					<description>[...] Read the rest here.  I believe that experimental physicists, even astronomers who see their field corrupted by string theorists, ought to support this separation. [&#8617;]Natalie Jeremijenko fun club. Crooked timber of scholasticism. Good physics v. fine physics. Standard of evidence. [&#8617;]ShareThis [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Read the rest here.  I believe that experimental physicists, even astronomers who see their field corrupted by string theorists, ought to support this separation. [&#8617;]Natalie Jeremijenko fun club. Crooked timber of scholasticism. Good physics v. fine physics. Standard of evidence. [&#8617;]ShareThis [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Open Questions 1 at Freedom of Science</title>
		<link>http://globalpioneering.com/wp02/standard-of-evidence/#comment-13684</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:42:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://globalpioneering.com/wp02/standard-of-evidence/#comment-13684</guid>
					<description>[...] I believe that what makes finding answers difficult is that there is no standard of evidence in physics. There is no standard of evidence in physics because physics is not science it is legal. The laws of physics are laws. Laws cannot be questioned by stating evidence against them. Laws are axioms. Newton stated his laws as &#8220;Axioms or Laws of Motion.&#8221; No axiom can be questioned within the system. Therefore, physics is an axiomatic system. It is a religion based on faith. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] I believe that what makes finding answers difficult is that there is no standard of evidence in physics. There is no standard of evidence in physics because physics is not science it is legal. The laws of physics are laws. Laws cannot be questioned by stating evidence against them. Laws are axioms. Newton stated his laws as &#8220;Axioms or Laws of Motion.&#8221; No axiom can be questioned within the system. Therefore, physics is an axiomatic system. It is a religion based on faith. [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Witten has written at Freedom of Science</title>
		<link>http://globalpioneering.com/wp02/standard-of-evidence/#comment-12747</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:05:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://globalpioneering.com/wp02/standard-of-evidence/#comment-12747</guid>
					<description>[...] The pyramid says:  “Witten defines his choices as true choices.” Therefore, all Witten&#8217;s guesses will eventually acquire the status of laws of physics. Witten does not have to reveal any evidence for his guesses. There is no standard of evidence in physics.  [&#8617;]Someone actually did this and reported it a few years back in sci.physics.research. [&#8617;]ShareThis [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] The pyramid says:  “Witten defines his choices as true choices.” Therefore, all Witten&#8217;s guesses will eventually acquire the status of laws of physics. Witten does not have to reveal any evidence for his guesses. There is no standard of evidence in physics.  [&#8617;]Someone actually did this and reported it a few years back in sci.physics.research. [&#8617;]ShareThis [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
