Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Along with... meaning next door in the philosophy or humanities class, yes.
....and? ID still isn't science.
We have the technology now....
Are you waiting for us to invent time travel so we can put closed circuit cameras across the globe so we can literally watch evolution in super fast mode?
ID does not belong in a philosophy class unless as a demonstrative of fallacies. Philosophy is the basis of science and math. I would not conflate philosophy with ID.
Keep saying it isn't science...you are not making any point.
Big Bang Theory is NOT falsifiable..don't hold that against an Agnostic.
The big bang theory is very much falsifiable. It made predictions about the cosmic background radiation and the expansion of the universe and many more predictions that we can observe and test for. It may not be true, but the evidence so far aligns with the predictions consistent with a big bang.
The big bang theory is very much falsifiable. It made predictions about the cosmic background radiation and the expansion of the universe and many more predictions that we can observe and test for. It may not be true, but the evidence so far aligns with the predictions consistent with a big bang.
Who can test it? Who can fully test the hypothesis from start to finish in the practical world?
Who can test it? Who can fully test the hypothesis from start to finish in the practical world?
I suppose anyone who took the time to gain the knowledge to do so. You could test it. There is an enormous body of empirical, testable, falsifiable evidence affirming the theory. The beauty is that the physics and the mathematics all flow together quite perfectly. The information is out there. Google it.
Also, what do you mean "the practical world"? Are you asking can we create a big bang and observe it? A hypothesis might posit "if a big bang like event occurred x time ago, then background radiation should be found this distance from our detectors". We look for the background radiation, if we find it, we start building a case for a big bang, but we have to eliminate all other possibilities of origination.
Last edited by readyjack; 08-24-2013 at 03:22 AM..
I suppose anyone who took the time to gain the knowledge to do so. You could test it. There is an enormous body of empirical, testable, falsifiable evidence affirming the theory. The beauty is that the physics and the mathematics all flow together quite perfectly. The information is out there. Google it.
Google is not a viable solution to somebody who wants to fully test all the evidence of the Big Bang Theory...that's being a little dishonest. People who have tested the Big Bang hypothesis spent decades being PAID to do so.
You can't just duplicate that in a few months (or years) through a search engine, sorry.
To most of the working world...the Big Bang theory is sophistry unless you take the neatly explained package thousands of scientists give us for face value. That requires faith by most.
Google is not a viable solution to somebody who wants to fully test all the evidence of the Big Bang Theory...that's being a little dishonest. People who have tested the Big Bang hypothesis spent decades being PAID to do so.
You can't just duplicate that in a few months (or years) through a search engine, sorry.
To most of the working world...the Big Bang theory is sophistry unless you take the neatly explained package thousands of scientists give us for face value. That requires faith by most.
I think you are being dishonest. If that is the case, everything we do would be base on faith. You are hiding within the vagueness of language. I do not have patience for people who try to win an argument as opposed to actually seeking the truth.
I think you are being dishonest. If that is the case, everything we do would be base on faith. You are hiding within the vagueness of language. I do not have patience for people who try to win an argument as opposed to actually seeking the truth.
What?
Everything we do IS based on faith. Math is the only truth and that is because it is the definition WE accept...it only models what we see. The fact is, there is external reality and that is fact whether you accept it or not. Wanting to know and proposing questions about it is not seeking truth?
Frankly, who cares who and what you have patience for? Who are you?
Does fMRI use a statistical method to interpret what they are visualizing?
If no, then please tell me how what you see on the monitor during an fMRI represents what is actually going on in the brain? LOL
Jaymax, close your account, please... I will pay you in Bitcoin.
Moving the goal posts again?
Keep it up... you look sillier with every post.
You said 'computer modeling':
This is computer modeling:
Computer modelling means using a computer to ‘model’ situations to see how they are likely to work out if you do different things. Using a computer to change things and see what happens. If children use a simulation where they have to make decisions that affect the outcome, then go back and try something else, that is computer modelling. If they use spreadsheets to work out the cost of something, and play with the figures to see what happens, that is computer modelling.
Computer modelling means using a computer to ‘model’ situations to see how they are likely to work out if you do different things. Using a computer to change things and see what happens. If children use a simulation where they have to make decisions that affect the outcome, then go back and try something else, that is computer modelling. If they use spreadsheets to work out the cost of something, and play with the figures to see what happens, that is computer modelling.
Functional MRI makes use of a special signal called blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) contrast.
It also uses GLM as a statistical model...and has to be rendered with....
Spoiler
A COMPUTER MODEL
Quote:
Statistical analysis[edit source | editbeta]
These fMRI images are from a study showing parts of the brain lighting up on seeing houses and other parts on seeing faces. The 'r' values are correlations, with higher positive or negative values indicating a better match.
One common statistical model used for fMRI data analysis is the univariate GLM model, which analyzes each voxel's data separately. The model assumes, at every time point, the HDR is equal to the scaled and summed version of the events active at that point. A researcher creates a design matrix specifying which events are active at any timepoint. One common way is to create a matrix with one column per overlapping event, and one row per time point, and to mark it with a one if a particular event, say a stimulus, is active at that time point. One then assumes a specific shape for the HDR, leaving only its amplitude changeable in active voxels. The design matrix and this shape are used to generate a prediction of the exact HDR response of the voxel at every timepoint, using the mathematical procedure of convolution. This prediction does not include the scaling required for every event before summing them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
