Curt Doolittle

Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science

  • Untitled

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/science/human-race-peaked-scientists-warn-11654219

  • Untitled

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/science/human-race-peaked-scientists-warn-11654219

  • Dec 8, 2017, 2:44 AM

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/science/human-race-peaked-scientists-warn-11654219http://www.mirror.co.uk/science/human-race-peaked-scientists-warn-11654219Updated Dec 8, 2017, 2:44 AM

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-08 02:44:00 UTC

  • Target Shooting False Confidence

    When shooting (pistol) a moving target, if it’s moving perpendicular to you, and at less than 12′ per second, and it’s wider than the depth of the human torso, then it’s nonsense. If your target is dashing at 12′ per second, is 12″ wide, and at a 15-30 degree angle, that’s realistic. if your target is falling and then crawling at 2′ per second and is torso shaped, then that’s realistic. If your target is shooting BACK at you while moving 6′ or less per second, then that’s realistic. If your target is behind concealment, at a distance, and firing at you every two or thee seconds, and you are scrambling for cover, while trying to find him, that’s realistic. If you think there is any cover indoors you’re wrong. There is only concealment indoors. For all intents and purposes, for modern arms, furniture and walls are little more than crepe paper. Be small, get a shot off, aim a shot, and land that shot. Otherwise be small, and shoot through whatever is in your way. I mean. I know most of this shooty stuff is entertainment, but lets not get overconfident here. It’s hard to shoot people in close quarters. And it’s easy to be shot in the open. The modern US military and teaches combined arms. At present no one on earth is anywhere close to americans in combined arms. (Even if only at present.) But in dirty revolutionary wars, we are talking largely about impeding, destroying, robbing, kidnapping, fire, gasoline, small arms, small numbers, sniping, urban and suburban settings, and utter chaos. And in that case, night, lots of friends, and lots of ammo, lots of fire, lots of smoke, and lots of planned exit routes.

  • Target Shooting False Confidence

    When shooting (pistol) a moving target, if it’s moving perpendicular to you, and at less than 12′ per second, and it’s wider than the depth of the human torso, then it’s nonsense. If your target is dashing at 12′ per second, is 12″ wide, and at a 15-30 degree angle, that’s realistic. if your target is falling and then crawling at 2′ per second and is torso shaped, then that’s realistic. If your target is shooting BACK at you while moving 6′ or less per second, then that’s realistic. If your target is behind concealment, at a distance, and firing at you every two or thee seconds, and you are scrambling for cover, while trying to find him, that’s realistic. If you think there is any cover indoors you’re wrong. There is only concealment indoors. For all intents and purposes, for modern arms, furniture and walls are little more than crepe paper. Be small, get a shot off, aim a shot, and land that shot. Otherwise be small, and shoot through whatever is in your way. I mean. I know most of this shooty stuff is entertainment, but lets not get overconfident here. It’s hard to shoot people in close quarters. And it’s easy to be shot in the open. The modern US military and teaches combined arms. At present no one on earth is anywhere close to americans in combined arms. (Even if only at present.) But in dirty revolutionary wars, we are talking largely about impeding, destroying, robbing, kidnapping, fire, gasoline, small arms, small numbers, sniping, urban and suburban settings, and utter chaos. And in that case, night, lots of friends, and lots of ammo, lots of fire, lots of smoke, and lots of planned exit routes.

  • TARGET SHOOTING FALSE CONFIDENCE When shooting (pistol) a moving target, if it’s

    TARGET SHOOTING FALSE CONFIDENCE

    When shooting (pistol) a moving target, if it’s moving perpendicular to you, and at less than 12′ per second, and it’s wider than the depth of the human torso, then it’s nonsense.

    If your target is dashing at 12′ per second, is 12″ wide, and at a 15-30 degree angle, that’s realistic.

    if your target is falling and then crawling at 2′ per second and is torso shaped, then that’s realistic.

    If your target is shooting BACK at you while moving 6′ or less per second, then that’s realistic.

    If your target is behind concealment, at a distance, and firing at you every two or thee seconds, and you are scrambling for cover, while trying to find him, that’s realistic.

    If you think there is any cover indoors you’re wrong. There is only concealment indoors. For all intents and purposes, for modern arms, furniture and walls are little more than crepe paper.

    Be small, get a shot off, aim a shot, and land that shot. Otherwise be small, and shoot through whatever is in your way.

    I mean. I know most of this shooty stuff is entertainment, but lets not get overconfident here. It’s hard to shoot people in close quarters. And it’s easy to be shot in the open.

    The modern US military and teaches combined arms. At present no one on earth is anywhere close to americans in combined arms. (Even if only at present.)

    But in dirty revolutionary wars, we are talking largely about impeding, destroying, robbing, kidnapping, fire, gasoline, small arms, small numbers, sniping, urban and suburban settings, and utter chaos.

    And in that case, night, lots of friends, and lots of ammo, lots of fire, lots of smoke, and lots of planned exit routes.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-04 13:51:00 UTC

  • SAYING “SCIENTIFIC PROOF” OF A POSITIVE JUST MEANS YOUR STUPID. –“Scientific Pr

    SAYING “SCIENTIFIC PROOF” OF A POSITIVE JUST MEANS YOUR STUPID. –“Scientific Proof Is A Myth. We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is valid. But proof? That’s an impossibility for science.”— This is the dumbest bit of idiocy I’ve heard in quite some time. Priests, Philosophers, and lawyers, create JUSTIFICATIONS of compliance with scripture, text, moral pretense, or law. Mathematicians construct PROOFS of the possibility of deducibility using the preservation of constant relations, by the preservation of ratios. Scientists accumulates FALSIFICATIONS. Science doesn’t construct proofs or justifications. It accumulates produces, and provides alternative opportunities for investigation. All non trivial knowledge is contingent. Science collects evidence that tells us what is not true. The purpose of science is to end ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, by the continuous reduction through falsification. Conversely, the purpose of justification is to make excuses for priors. One justifies as one makes excuses for one’s actions. One constructs proofs as a merchant weights goods on a scale. One falsifies as a sculpture chisels away stone. We never know what is true. We just know what is false, or what cannot be claimed to be true. Excuses may be valid but they are only true if they survive all attempts at falsification by deflation (decomposition into constant relations) and measurement (science) Philosophy is more often a vehicle for lying than for truth. Science produces falsehoods and possibilities, but never claims truth except by survival.

  • SAYING “SCIENTIFIC PROOF” OF A POSITIVE JUST MEANS YOUR STUPID. –“Scientific Pr

    SAYING “SCIENTIFIC PROOF” OF A POSITIVE JUST MEANS YOUR STUPID. –“Scientific Proof Is A Myth. We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is valid. But proof? That’s an impossibility for science.”— This is the dumbest bit of idiocy I’ve heard in quite some time. Priests, Philosophers, and lawyers, create JUSTIFICATIONS of compliance with scripture, text, moral pretense, or law. Mathematicians construct PROOFS of the possibility of deducibility using the preservation of constant relations, by the preservation of ratios. Scientists accumulates FALSIFICATIONS. Science doesn’t construct proofs or justifications. It accumulates produces, and provides alternative opportunities for investigation. All non trivial knowledge is contingent. Science collects evidence that tells us what is not true. The purpose of science is to end ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, by the continuous reduction through falsification. Conversely, the purpose of justification is to make excuses for priors. One justifies as one makes excuses for one’s actions. One constructs proofs as a merchant weights goods on a scale. One falsifies as a sculpture chisels away stone. We never know what is true. We just know what is false, or what cannot be claimed to be true. Excuses may be valid but they are only true if they survive all attempts at falsification by deflation (decomposition into constant relations) and measurement (science) Philosophy is more often a vehicle for lying than for truth. Science produces falsehoods and possibilities, but never claims truth except by survival.

  • SAYING “SCIENTIFIC PROOF” OF A POSITIVE JUST MEANS YOUR STUPID. –“Scientific Pr

    SAYING “SCIENTIFIC PROOF” OF A POSITIVE JUST MEANS YOUR STUPID.

    –“Scientific Proof Is A Myth. We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is valid. But proof? That’s an impossibility for science.”—

    This is the dumbest bit of idiocy I’ve heard in quite some time.

    Priests, Philosophers, and lawyers, create JUSTIFICATIONS of compliance with scripture, text, moral pretense, or law.

    Mathematicians construct PROOFS of the possibility of deducibility using the preservation of constant relations, by the preservation of ratios.

    Scientists accumulates FALSIFICATIONS. Science doesn’t construct proofs or justifications. It accumulates produces, and provides alternative opportunities for investigation.

    All non trivial knowledge is contingent. Science collects evidence that tells us what is not true. The purpose of science is to end ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, by the continuous reduction through falsification. Conversely, the purpose of justification is to make excuses for priors.

    One justifies as one makes excuses for one’s actions.

    One constructs proofs as a merchant weights goods on a scale.

    One falsifies as a sculpture chisels away stone.

    We never know what is true. We just know what is false, or what cannot be claimed to be true. Excuses may be valid but they are only true if they survive all attempts at falsification by deflation (decomposition into constant relations) and measurement (science)

    Philosophy is more often a vehicle for lying than for truth. Science produces falsehoods and possibilities, but never claims truth except by survival.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-04 12:24:00 UTC

  • We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is v

    We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is valid. But proof? That’s an impossibility for science.