PDA

View Full Version : Jurassic Park vs. Harry Potter vs. Pirates of the Caribbean



Derrick Remon
12-29-2008, 07:03 PM
Hey again. Just came back on for fun and to see some friendly faces. I may have misspelled the title... lmao.

I just wanted to know which of these series of great movies you think are truely better. I always said Jurassic park, it was in theatre for years and was a masterpiece. State your opinions please.

FluffyDango
12-29-2008, 07:31 PM
Harry Potter is actually quite fun to watch.
Pirates is pretty cool too.
Jurassic park is exciting.

So:
1) Potter
2) Pirates
3) Park
for me.

sa5m
12-29-2008, 07:43 PM
Same as Des.. I think the Harry Potter movies are awesome. The best thing about them is that IMO each one gets better and better, generally. The first Pirates rocked, but got progressively worse in the next two. The third one was quite hard for me to watch. >.<

Kojack
12-29-2008, 08:15 PM
Well, neither Harry Potter nor Pirates of the Caribbean have dinosaurs in them so.... Jurassic Park is the winner for me.

Eris
12-29-2008, 08:22 PM
I detest all three franchises. Harry Potter is ever so slightly less appalling, for being less Hollywood. But yeah. I'm about as fond of them as I am removing teeth without anesthetics and sticking glowing hot needles under my fingernails.

Mayonnaise-Senpai
12-29-2008, 08:31 PM
Tch. Forget the rest! POTC all the way!

Jack Sparrow<3

Manhattan_Project_2000
12-30-2008, 01:22 AM
Given the horrible choices, I would say Jurassic Park because:

1) Those dinosaurs were awesome when then movie was new.
2) Game Warden Guy was awesome and gave me such lines as "Clever Girl" and "Shoot her!!!"
3) 3 words: Accountant on toilet.

Princely Dreaming Doll
12-30-2008, 02:33 AM
I like Jurassic Park.
All though they were totally inaccurate about their dinosaurs.
Raptors have feathers.


But I totally am going to go with Harry Potter.
That is my favorite series both book, and movie.
Though the movie not as much as the book.

Acnologia
12-30-2008, 05:16 AM
Jurassic Park just doesn't interest me, I like Harry Potter best, read all the books and such. And I like how all the actors are not all holly wood ish. :3

TheAsterisk!
12-30-2008, 08:03 AM
I like Jurassic Park.
All though they were totally inaccurate about their dinosaurs.
Raptors have feathers.
You've seen a velociraptor!?!? My God, man! Was it a pocket of survivors in some remote locale you spotted or have you mastered time travel? Mr. Jenkins, fetch my pith helmet! Quickly! Show me the way to their lair!
Or is International Genetic Technologies of Palo Alto, California real? They do have a FaceBook page (http://www.facebook.com/pages/InGen-International-Genetic-Technologies-Incorporated/27135700089), after all; they must be legitimate! WHERE IS SITE B!?!? TELL ME!!!
It's all speculation what they looked like. Paleontology is not a very hard science. More like Sherlock Holmes in a quarry.
I say Jurassic Park, so long as you mean just that movie and not the humiliating franchise it was turned into. The first movie follows the novel pretty closely, but it omits well more than half of the really good scenes in the interest of time. The movie version of Lost World seemed like it was written by someone who hadn't read the second book at all. It was a terrible monster movie, while the book, I think, far exceeded Jurassic Park. The third movie is purely and without shame made to squeeze money from a non-existent franchise. They were so cheap they repackaged unused scenes from the first book rather than write new stuff.
Basically, the two Crichton didn't help write were pure crap and the two books were way better than the two movies based on them.

I hate Harry Potter. I've always resented "magic." I find the fantasy genre simply inane.

Pirates of the Caribbean is based on a boring, old ride at Disneyland/World with palsic animatronics that's only redeeming feature is the shorter line and the AC in the summer. That puts it in the same class as Small, Small World. Need I say more?

Mitchyru
12-30-2008, 08:12 AM
Harry Potter.

<3

SigmaSD
12-30-2008, 10:33 AM
I haven't watched any "Pirates of the Carribean" movie, and Harry Potter movies aren't that interesting, so I'll have to go with Jurassic Park. It was a really great movie for its time, since the cgi's were the best of their time.

ManTaip
12-30-2008, 10:45 AM
Ehm.. I didn't watch Jurassic Park, Harry Potter movies are going from awesome to disastrous, so i'll say that Pirates would be the best of these. [p.s. Johnny Depp IS my favourite actor ;D]

Perpetual Specter
12-30-2008, 06:44 PM
Whoa! I've actually watched all three of those movies. I say this, because I hardly ever watch movies. >>

Here's my list review.

1. POTC
2. Jurassic Park
3. Harry Potter

I'm not sure why I liked POTC the most, but it just really appealed to me. I enjoyed Jurassic park for the same reasons MP2k stated. And Harry Potter was decent too, but those kind of movies don't appeal to my interests much.

_Freddie_
12-30-2008, 07:10 PM
Never have liked Harry Potter.

POTC and JP were both entertaining.

Princely Dreaming Doll
12-30-2008, 07:40 PM
You've seen a velociraptor!?!? My God, man! Was it a pocket of survivors in some remote locale you spotted or have you mastered time travel? Mr. Jenkins, fetch my pith helmet! Quickly! Show me the way to their lair!
Or is International Genetic Technologies of Palo Alto, California real? They do have a FaceBook page (http://www.facebook.com/pages/InGen-International-Genetic-Technologies-Incorporated/27135700089), after all; they must be legitimate! WHERE IS SITE B!?!? TELL ME!!!
It's all speculation what they looked like. Paleontology is not a very hard science. More like Sherlock Holmes in a quarry.


Maybe you should watch some documentaries, then you won't sound so ridiculous at the moment.
They have found fossils with velicoraptors that have feather indications and they have for recent years found more and more evidence the raptor does have feather.

Eris
12-30-2008, 07:58 PM
Maybe you should watch some documentaries, then you won't sound so ridiculous at the moment.
They have found fossils with velicoraptors that have feather indications and they have for recent years found more and more evidence the raptor does have feather.

Well, actually, paleontology is pretty much speculation and guesswork. There are a lot of professors in it who sound real confident, but it really is a load of hogwash. The only conclusions you can come to and be certain of in paleontology are vague and general. The rough period dinosaurs existed, and roughly how they looked. Calling it science is wrong. It is purely a guessing game. There is no verification involved in this guessing, so it is not science. It is science fiction at best.

Moo-Moo
12-30-2008, 08:26 PM
for me the order would have to come in
1.Pirates
2.park
3.harry

Manhattan_Project_2000
12-30-2008, 09:38 PM
Well, actually, paleontology is pretty much speculation and guesswork. There are a lot of professors in it who sound real confident, but it really is a load of hogwash. The only conclusions you can come to and be certain of in paleontology are vague and general. The rough period dinosaurs existed, and roughly how they looked. Calling it science is wrong. It is purely a guessing game. There is no verification involved in this guessing, so it is not science. It is science fiction at best.

There's some science in it- various dating methods, all the geology garbage, most of the anatomy garbage. All of that stuff is pretty verifiable. It's just a very soft science when it tries to tell you that a velociraptor had feathers that didn't fossilize. It's worth is basically summed up as providing a great deal of supportive evidence to shove in creationist's faces at every opportunity.

wolfgirl90
12-31-2008, 04:35 AM
Well, actually, paleontology is pretty much speculation and guesswork. There are a lot of professors in it who sound real confident, but it really is a load of hogwash. The only conclusions you can come to and be certain of in paleontology are vague and general. The rough period dinosaurs existed, and roughly how they looked. Calling it science is wrong. It is purely a guessing game. There is no verification involved in this guessing, so it is not science. It is science fiction at best.

Science(noun): "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation"
Whenever someone tries to discover something in order to increase their knowledge, they using science in order to get it done. While there may be some guessing, these are very educational guesses and fields from biology to extragalactic astronomy involve a lot of knowledge, not just "guesses":rolleyes:.

While there is some guesswork involved in paleontology, there is a lot of science behind it. For example, while it may be a guess that the Velociraptor was a combination of brown and green, it is a proven fact that Velociraptors had feathers due to the presence of quill knobs found on its bones.

TheAsterisk!
12-31-2008, 09:04 AM
Science(noun): "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation"
Whenever someone tries to discover something in order to increase their knowledge, they using science in order to get it done. While there may be some guessing, these are very educational guesses and fields from biology to extragalactic astronomy involve a lot of knowledge, not just "guesses":rolleyes:.
While there is some guesswork involved in paleontology, there is a lot of science behind it.
Fine, I can accept that, but I make a distinction between hard science and Silly Putty science. Guesses/conjectures aren't so critical as is the ability to test hypotheses. In hard science, you can verify or refute anything you want by experiment. In Silly Putty science, it's more reasoned deduction without the chance to back it up with experimentation. Thus my description of paleontology as "Sherlock Holmes in a quarry." It's usually not quacky, but it also doesn't produce nearly as firm conclusions as hard science.
Physics, chemistry, and most of geology are the hardest sciences, usually followed by most of biology. Most others are softer sciences. Paleontology, one could argue, is almost entirely soft science. Sure, it makes use of some physics, geology and chemistry to help itself hobble along, but you can never actually test any of the conjectures about extinct living creatures that paleontologists sputter out excitedly on the Discovery Channel.

For example, while it may be a guess that the Velociraptor was a combination of brown and green, it is a proven fact that Velociraptors had feathers due to the presence of quill knobs found on its bones.
Well, I'd heard of a type of raptor, though not a velociraptor, fossil that was found with indentations that resembled feathers, but it's still conjecture. Fossils aren't photographs and can be distorted over time. You can't go confirm the idea by observing a living or freshly killed raptor, either, so it's still Silly Putty science.
Additionally, beyond very crude behavior dictated by anatomy, we have no way of knowing how extinct creatures behaved. It's all reasoned speculation.

Derrick Remon
12-31-2008, 10:00 AM
Thanks guys for your opinions. I think that these are all good movies and hope that this topic won
't start any fights in here.

Bulf
12-31-2008, 10:30 AM
None of these really have much to do with each other, but i'd say Harry Potter. JP was boring, and Pirates just wasn't my type of movie.

Eikoseisui
12-31-2008, 04:46 PM
I fell asleep during the first Pirates movie, and one of my friends tried to get me to watch the second one, but I stopped paying attention because I lost interest. The first Harry Potter movie managed to keep my interest, but I never did get around to watching the others. Jurassic Park was an all right movie.

I guess I would go with Jurassic Park, then Harry Potter, and then Pirates.

Infinita
12-31-2008, 06:25 PM
I loved all the movies from those series but Harry Potter was a series I can never really get into that much. I would have to say Pirates, Jurassic Park then Harry Potter. ^^

The Governator
12-31-2008, 07:00 PM
Jurassic Park, it has everything, guns, boobs, a fat man falling over, great one liners and the best, most stereotypical British game hunter in the history of man.

And FallenBabyDoll, don't believe documentaries like that, it is just speculation, you can believe WW2 documentaries, and documentaries about the modern world, but not about events were they can only speculate.

Oh, and FYI, the raptors on Jurassic Park are Utah Raptors.

[/thread]

Kawairashii hikari
12-31-2008, 07:04 PM
OMG!
This is totally a no brainer!
POTC ALL THE WAY!!!!! <3333
I love Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, and Kiera Knightley.
I've seen the other two series as well but not all of the movies like I've seen all the movies for POTC. I like it the most from how Johnny Depp plays Jack Sparrow, he's so funny and everything.
But second place goes to Jurassic Park.

Nanuq
12-31-2008, 07:42 PM
yeah i gotta admit Harry Potter has the best series and then the POTC and then Jurassic Park~

wolfgirl90
01-01-2009, 03:48 AM
Fine, I can accept that, but I make a distinction between hard science and Silly Putty science. Guesses/conjectures aren't so critical as is the ability to test hypotheses. In hard science, you can verify or refute anything you want by experiment. In Silly Putty science, it's more reasoned deduction without the chance to back it up with experimentation. Thus my description of paleontology as "Sherlock Holmes in a quarry." It's usually not quacky, but it also doesn't produce nearly as firm conclusions as hard science.
Physics, chemistry, and most of geology are the hardest sciences, usually followed by most of biology. Most others are softer sciences. Paleontology, one could argue, is almost entirely soft science. Sure, it makes use of some physics, geology and chemistry to help itself hobble along, but you can never actually test any of the conjectures about extinct living creatures that paleontologists sputter out exitedly on the Discovery Channel.

Well, I'd heard of a type of raptor, though not a velociraptor, fossil that was found with indentations that resembled feathers, but it's still conjecture. Fossils aren't photographs and can be distorted over time. You can't go confirm the idea by observing a living or freshly killed raptor, either, so it's still Silly Putty science.
Additionally, beyond very crude behavior dictated by anatomy, we have no way of knowing how extinct creatures behaved. It's all reasoned speculation.

Not every field of science is dependent upon experimentation. Physics is comprised of mostly theories and mathematical formulas. In Zoology, we know that wolves hunt in a pack based upon scientific observation, not some experiment in a lab. Paleontology uses both experimentation and observation in order to figure things about dinosaurs. For example, paleontologists know what quill knobs look like and what they mean from the observation of bird skeletons. When they saw that the skeleton of the velociraptor had quill knobs, they could make the reasonable deduction that it too had feathers.

Science is full of theories that are only true based upon our current view of things and our ability to observe things. Once we have a new way of observing things, those things that we believe to be the hard and fast truth could be found to be wrong. It was once "true" that the sun orbited the earth but we now that is not true. It was once "true" that the heart was on the left side of the body but we now know that it is not true. Just because Paleontology is based off of scientific observation does not mean that it is any less valid than the other branches of science:closedeye.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070920145402.htm
Here is the website that has the news release when a group of scientists found out that velociraptors had feathers.

TheAsterisk!
01-01-2009, 04:22 AM
Jurassic Park, it has everything, guns, boobs, a fat man falling over, great one liners and the best, most stereotypical British game hunter in the history of man.
If only Muldoon had had a handlebar mustache and a pith helmet... (sighs)

And FallenBabyDoll, don't believe documentaries like that, it is just speculation, you can believe WW2 documentaries, and documentaries about the modern world, but not about events were they can only speculate.
Well, that's 'cause they aren't documentaries. Documentaries are filmed on site as events happen. Seeing as the Flintstones isn't realistic, I don't see how some naturalist with a camera could have filmed dinosaurs when they lived.

Oh, and FYI, the raptors on Jurassic Park are Utah Raptors.
Are they? They did seem a little big for velociraptors (6' long vs. 6' tall)... Well, all I know is the book pegs 'em as velociraptors. I haven't watched the movie in a while.

[/thread]
Quite.


Not every field of science is dependent upon experimentation.
Hard science is. I seperate hard science from soft/Silly Putty science.

Physics is comprised of mostly theories and mathematical formulas.
Any of which you can prove or disprove by experimentation and/or observation. Accordingly, physics is a hard science. Traditionally, only hard science was science, but the standards have lowered over the last century or two.

In Zoology, we know that wolves hunt in a pack based upon scientific observation, not some experiment in a lab.
Experiments needn't be done in a lab with safety glasses to be experiments. Additionally, the only way to describe experiments is through observation. Observation itself is enough, but it must be done in the state described. You cannot decribe a living herd of dinos from fossils.

Paleontology uses both experimentation and observation in order to figure things about dinosaurs.
No, it doesn't. If you were to study living, behaving extinct creatures as is done with wolves, then it'd be observation. The fact that paleontologists describe behavior that has never actually been observed as if it were fact makes the whole field Silly Putty science.

For example, paleontologists know what quill knobs look like and what they mean from the observation of bird skeletons.
Which aren't dinosaurs. It's all very fascinating and even makes a good degree of sense, but they observed no feathers on raptors. They observed a fossil and yet descibed a living creature. It is mere deduction without observation and/or experimentation to back it up.

When they saw that the skeleton of the velociraptor had quill knobs, they could make the reasonable deduction that it too had feathers.
Yeah, it's very reasonable. It's still soft science, though.
Keep in mind, too, though, that both feathers and hair evolved from scales. It's possible they weren't feathers but a precursor to feathers. Just a thought.

Science is full of theories that are only true based upon our current view of things and our ability to observe things. Once we have a new way of observing things, those things that we believe to be the hard and fast truth could be found to be wrong.
Well, the only truths of science are methods. Logic, math, stuff like that. What changes are facts.
Still, you'll never have a way to actually observe the dinos. Think of the study of wolves as you decribed akin to reliable witness testimony in a court. They saw it with their own eyes. Continuing that analogy, fossils are closer to heresay, especially when scholars try to describe complex behavior based on such terribly limited information. The paleontologist(s) tell(s) us what the fossil hinted at about the dino.

It was once "true" that the sun orbited the earth but we now [know] that is not true. It was once "true" that the heart was on the left side of the body but we now know that it is not true. Just because Paleontology is based off of scientific observation does not mean that it is any less valid than the other branches of science.
I'm not sure all of those were scientific facts so much as popular beliefs, but whatever. Eventually, the methods of science correct them. Science is not fact, but a way to find facts. It never actually ends.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0920145402.htm
Here is the website that has the news release when a group of scientists found out that velociraptors had feathers.
Here (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070920145402.htm) is where some paleontologists made an entirely reasonable though mostly speculative claim that velociraptors had feathers.

http://www.brandchannel.com/images/FeaturesProfile/profile_img1_sillyputty.jpg
Does anyone have some newspaper comics?

The Governator
01-01-2009, 06:29 AM
Are they? They did seem a little big for velociraptors (6' long vs. 6' tall)... Well, all I know is the book pegs 'em as velociraptors. I haven't watched the movie in a while.

Yeah, its because the Velociraptor is a little midget and Dr. Grant could have kicked one over and curb stomped it back to the Cretaceous, so to make it more exciting to call much larger and more dangerous Utah Raptors Velociraptors, plus Utah Raptors aren't in the book.

wolfgirl90
01-02-2009, 12:43 AM
I
Experiments needn't be done in a lab with safety glasses to be experiments. Additionally, the only way to describe experiments is through observation. Observation itself is enough, but it must be done in the state described. You cannot decribe a living herd of dinos from fossils.

No, it doesn't. If you were to study living, behaving extinct creatures as is done with wolves, then it'd be observation. The fact that paleontologists describe behavior that has never actually been observed as if it were fact makes the whole field Silly Putty science.

Which aren't dinosaurs. It's all very fascinating and even makes a good degree of sense, but they observed no feathers on raptors. They observed a fossil and yet descibed a living creature. It is mere deduction without observation and/or experimentation to back it up.

You don't need a dinosaur in order to study a dinosaur. Can you figure out if a dinosaur lived in a herd just from it skeleton? Not really, no (actually you can, but that is a discussion in and of itself). Are there ways to figuring this out? Yes. Looking at the area where the dinosaur(s) were found. Are visible indentations of where a nest used to be (yes, some did survive through millions of years)? Are there more around? Are more skeletons of the same type of dinosaur close by? How many?

There are SO many things that can be found out by looking at bones and fossils; much more than you think (which is why I study them and take personal offense when somebody calls it "putty" science:closedeye). Are birds dinosaurs? No, they are not (they are phylogentically, but I am not going to explain phylogenetics here) but since they related, there are many things that we can learn about dinosaurs by looking at no only birds not reptiles too.

Testing a hypothesis using an experiment is not always possible, so observational study is the only only way to test something. Fields of science such as paleontology, astronomy, meteorology and political science are not able to use experiments since it is impossible to replicate what they are trying to prove. For example (and this is a popular example), we can not prove that the sun is made of clouds of hydrogen with an experiment, unless one wants to wait millions of years for some hydrogen clouds to form a sun (impossible, yes?).

OmegaAlpha
01-02-2009, 01:00 AM
Pirates and it's not even close.

Harry Potter is a decent set of movies thus far. (I don't know if they have any more coming out) It has everything you'd want from a fantasy movie. I think it falls short though because it gets stale and predictable.(
(I have not had a neg rep thus far but one may be coming for this one)
I also think Harry Potter appeals mainly to teenage girls, younger boys and safe soccer moms. (NOT that there is anything wrong with that)
I could be wrong.

Jurassic Park was a great, epic movie. The sequels were well... :banghead:


Pirates of the Caribbean had a great cast, a great, fun plot and awesome music to boot. Johnny Depp is probably the best "character" actor in the world. I will admit the sequels were weaker than the first one. They were still enjoyable though. I am a Star Wars guy personally but Pirates was awesome. Give credit where it's due :cool:

TheAsterisk!
01-02-2009, 05:10 AM
You don't need a dinosaur in order to study a dinosaur. Can you figure out if a dinosaur lived in a herd just from it skeleton? Not really, no (actually you can, but that is a discussion in and of itself). Are there ways to figuring this out? Yes. Looking at the area where the dinosaur(s) were found. Are visible indentations of where a nest used to be (yes, some did survive through millions of years)? Are there more around? Are more skeletons of the same type of dinosaur close by? How many?
I never said it wasn't possible to study dinosaurs, but isnce they cannot actually be observed it's all soft science. I even said it usually makes sense. The problem is not that academics cannot derive reasonable ideas that might apply to long extinct creatures but that without direct observation, the conslusions reached are nowhere near as firm as though reached through hard science.
We can find out some things, yes, like basic anatomy and extremely crude behavior (that which the anotomy dictated). We can even conclude with reasonable certainty creatures' general situation in evolution, but everything else is speculation. All of the soft tissues have gone, so we know little to nothing about them and how they might have affected crude and complex behavior. We also cannot begin to recreate these creatures' complex and social behaviors with anything near comfortable certainty. This is why I initially challenged the post claiming indignantly that velociraptors must have had feathers and anyone who thought otherwise was an idiot.
The only way to make paleontology a hard science would be to ressurect exinct animals and study them as we do living animals. I'm pretty sure that that isn't possible right now.

There are SO many things that can be found out by looking at bones and fossils; much more than you think (which is why I study them and take personal offense when somebody calls it "[silly] putty" science:closedeye). Are birds dinosaurs? No, they are not (they are phylogentically, but I am not going to explain phylogenetics here) but since they related, there are many things that we can learn about dinosaurs by looking at no only birds not reptiles too.
Hey, now, don't take it personally. This is an anime forum, for goodness' sake! Do you actually study them, professionally? Or is it a hobby?
Sure you can make sound hypotheses, but you can't actually test them. It's soft science.

Testing a hypothesis using an experiment is not always possible, so observational study is the only only way to test something.
1 - If testing isn't possible, it's Silly Putty Science or Star Trek Science. Choose whichever one offends you less, I guess, but I just like the sound of "Silly Putty Science."
2 - You aren't observing what you're describing; that's the problem. By observing a fossil you may legitimately describe a fossil, not a creature that's never been observed. The only thing scientific about the dead animal is that it existed and what its basic anatomy was.

Fields of science such as paleontology, astronomy, meteorology and political science are not able to use experiments since it is impossible to replicate what they are trying to prove.
1 - Social/political science isn't science. I don't care if it's in the name. They're sociology. Before you say, "...-ology is science..." either, -ology is "study of" not "science of." Astrology, for instance, isn't science.
2 - I still consider meteorology a Silly Putty Science. Perhaps once it's all growed up, it won't strike me as a game for nerds. If your science can't accurately predict anything well at all, it isn't a very good science. Almost every time they give us a forecast, their own hypotheses are proven wrong. How many times has a "10% chance of rain" ruined your picnic?
3 - You don't need to replicate events at will to observe directly. Mercury's orbit and solar eclipses can't be controlled or replicated but they can be used to support the general theory of relativity.
The assertion that a velociraptor had feathers, though, can't be observed at all. There are no raptors around to watch on Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom.

For example (and this is a popular example), we can not prove that the sun is made of clouds of hydrogen with an experiment, unless one wants to wait millions of years for some hydrogen clouds to form a sun (impossible, yes?).
Impossible? No! It is most certainly possible to prove! Remember, we say the sun is currently made of hydrogen, so current observations will do. We've no need to watch a star form, though we've started to do that, too, using many nebulae and stars at different stages viewed through satellite telescopes.
Spectrographic analysis, anyone? When stuff undergoes nuclear fusion, I'm pretty sure it gives off particular colors dependent on the elements involved. I'll look it up real quick to be sure (look down below teh empty line).
We've set off a few of our own H-bombs so we do know what fusing hydrogen looks like, large scale.
The observation of the sun happens in the present, too (well, 8 minutes ago, actualy, since lightspeed is finite), so we're not describing a state that has never been observed.

I've checked it, and I was right. We measure the wavelength, frequency, intensity, etc. of the light emitted and can determine what elements are present dependent on those data. We can make small scale fusion events (very short lived, mind, but long enough) to use as reference for how each element emits light under those conditions. I think the whole field is called spectroscopy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy), and it's used to identify all kinds of stuff. Think about it next time you watch CSI.
If we want, we can use other forms o radiation besides light, too.
To top it off, we can collect little bits of solar wind, bits of material 'blown' our way by the sun. It's what causes the northern and southern lights, along with the Earth's magnetic field.
The conclusions from all methods match up. It's true, the sun is mostly made of hydrogen and we can prove it.

Anything else?

ChibiVampKarin
01-02-2009, 05:20 AM
Hm, I would probably go with Jurassic Park. Only on these reasons:

Harry Potter has a great story and wonderful special effects, but the kids have HORRIBLE acting. If they had different actors, I'd say this one might be my favorite out of the three.

Pirates of the Carribean is great too, until the last movie. The whole crab thing and many, little Jack Sparrows made me feel like the creators were trying way too hard to be "metaphorical". Ending ruined everything. I seriously came out disappointed on some parts. It also dragged on. Hm, I think I would have preferred to have Kiera Knightley's character killed off in the 1st movie. She was kinda annoying.

As for Jurassic Park, "dinosaurs" -- nuff said. It had some pretty intense, suspenseful and scary moments.

Manhattan_Project_2000
01-02-2009, 10:13 AM
Have a problem with this part:


2 - I still consider meteorology a Silly Putty Science. Perhaps once it's all growed up, it won't strike me as a game for nerds. If your science can't accurately predict anything well at all, it isn't a very good science. Almost every time they give us a forecast, their own hypotheses are proven wrong. How many times has a "10% chance of rain" ruined your picnic?

I'm not arguing it's not a soft science, just this particular argument is a pet peeve of mine. Metorology is accurate at least as far as the three day forcast, because they are appropriately vague. "10% Chance of rain" actually means 100% chance of rain on 10% of the viewing area. 10% states nothing about the intensity of the rain, only the area effected. It's really misunderstanding the nature of statistics to argue that because you get hit by rain when the odds are 1/10 metorology must be broken. Now if you have a some records on the precentage of a given area broadcast to be hit with rain versus the actual area hit by rain, I'd love to see them.

SSDynamite
01-02-2009, 03:04 PM
I like all three, but in this order:
Park, Pirates, Potter.

For these reasons:
Awesomeness, Depp, Magic.

TheAsterisk!
01-03-2009, 08:25 AM
Have a problem with this part:

I'm not arguing it's not a soft science, just this particular argument is a pet peeve of mine. Metorology is accurate at least as far as the three day forcast, because they are appropriately vague. "10% Chance of rain" actually means 100% chance of rain on 10% of the viewing area. 10% states nothing about the intensity of the rain, only the area effected. It's really misunderstanding the nature of statistics to argue that because you get hit by rain when the odds are 1/10 metorology must be broken. Now if you have a some records on the precentage of a given area broadcast to be hit with rain versus the actual area hit by rain, I'd love to see them.
Yeah, MP2K is right, as usual. :rolleyes: Sorry. Thanks for not throwing a Wikipedia link at me, though!
Alternatively, I could have pointed out that modern meteorology is basically a futile attempt to model turbulence within turbulence interacting with turbulence on big computers, but the average miscellaneous poster probably just thinks turbulence is a bumpy flight. Such a method works fine over very short periods of time, but over a day or two in adavance the accuracy of forecasts becomes pitiful. That's why the forecasts are always revised so heavily a day or two ahead of time, but still aren't always right.
My point was more that NASA can predict and control the landing of spacecraft on Mars within meters and minutes accurately after a few months of travel (physics), but weathermen can't manage to predict the weather accurately a few days in advance (meteorology). It's a science, surely, basd on most of its methods, but the lack of accurate long-term prediction makes me think of it as Silly Putty.
The point was valid, but the argument was not. Sorry.

JudyT
01-03-2009, 08:41 AM
Its between jarassic and Potter for me POTC started and ended on the first film. 2 & 3 just don't excist as far as i'm concurned. They milked that one.

So i might have to say Potter wins for me.

Eris
01-03-2009, 09:39 AM
Science(noun): "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation"
Whenever someone tries to discover something in order to increase their knowledge, they using science in order to get it done. While there may be some guessing, these are very educational guesses and fields from biology to extragalactic astronomy involve a lot of knowledge, not just "guesses":rolleyes:.

The problem with paleontology is that there is no way of verifying these guesses. You can only disprove them, but never conclusively prove them -- and that is not enough.


While there is some guesswork involved in paleontology, there is a lot of science behind it. For example, while it may be a guess that the Velociraptor was a combination of brown and green, it is a proven fact that Velociraptors had feathers due to the presence of quill knobs found on its bones.

That is not proof. It is an indication. Just because something you found has four wheels, and you know experimentally that all cars have four wheels, does not make this something a car. It suggests that it probably is a car, since cars are very common four wheeled vehicles, but it is not proof. It might be a shopping cart or whatever.

In general, the problem with this sort of science is the fact that it largely assumes that all available data has been collected. If (to continue the car analogy) the only four wheeled vehicle you have ever observed is a car, and you find a skateboard, you will assume it is a car. The most sensible answer is only correct if you know you have evaluated all the possible options--which in this case is a very dubious assumption to make, it may in the case of paleontology be incollectible.

Derrick Remon
01-03-2009, 07:37 PM
SSDynamite -This is absolutely random to the topic in almost every way. I completely love your avatar and sig.

I know I'm not a good rolemodel, but everyone please stay on the topic. :[

wolfgirl90
01-04-2009, 02:13 AM
The problem with paleontology is that there is no way of verifying these guesses. You can only disprove them, but never conclusively prove them -- and that is not enough.



That is not proof. It is an indication. Just because something you found has four wheels, and you know experimentally that all cars have four wheels, does not make this something a car. It suggests that it probably is a car, since cars are very common four wheeled vehicles, but it is not proof. It might be a shopping cart or whatever.

In general, the problem with this sort of science is the fact that it largely assumes that all available data has been collected. If (to continue the car analogy) the only four wheeled vehicle you have ever observed is a car, and you find a skateboard, you will assume it is a car. The most sensible answer is only correct if you know you have evaluated all the possible options--which in this case is a very dubious assumption to make, it may in the case of paleontology be incollectible.

ALL of science is like that. The average person is not going to assume that an object with four wheels is a car, since they have other pieces of knowledge and common sense that will tell them if it is a car or not. However, if that person does not have that knowledge, they will be wrong until something (or someone) tells them otherwise.

All fields of science operate in the same way. If a biologist finds an animal he does not know, dissects it and finds an organ that looks like a heart and pumps blood like a heart, he can only assume that it is a heart, based upon his current knowledge. Is he wrong? Not until something proves otherwise. Even Newton's laws of gravitational motion are not universally true.

Science through the scientific method never actually "proves" anything. The scientific method only helps us to approach the truth. We don't know the definitive "truth" but we can disprove what we know not to be true through the scientific method. Also, the scientific method is different in every field of science. For example, you can't use the scientific method used in chemistry to research something in meteorology. There are different variables (more than I can safely name on an anime forum) in each field. It is true that NASA engineers can accurately predict a landing on Mars months ahead, while a meteorologist can only predict weather accurately a days in advance, however, these two groups have different variables to worry about. You really can not compare the two. While the conditions in space only change to a certain degree, the conditions of our atmsphere changes CONSTANTLY, to the point where even today's forcast might change within hours or even minutes. Just because today's forcast may wrong does not mean that the entire field of meteorology has no point. If a meterologist says that there is "10% chance of rain today" and it rains, he wasn't wrong. He said that there was a chance that it would rain and it did in fact rain.

Paleontologist found quill knobs on the bones of a velociraptor. Based on their current knowledge of non-avian dinosaurs (that do not have quill knobs on their bones AND don't have feathers), their knowledge of avian dinosaurs (some of which had feathers and quill knobs) and their knowledge of birds (which the very large majority have quill knobs), they can deduce that velociraptors have feathers. They found something that disproved previous knowledge: that velociraptors DID NOT have feathers. However, new evidence proves otherwise. There may be something that they do not know that will disprove this new "truth", but until they find it, this is the "truth".

TheAsterisk!: To answer a question in one of your previous posts, no, I am not in college to become a paleontologist. I am majoring in aerospace engineering. However, I have been studying paleontology for years and am taking classes on it while in college. While I took the whole "Silly Putty" thing personally, it did not hurt my feelings or anything. Just because I am offended does not mean that I am not more than willing to have an intelligent conversation on the subject. Like you said; it is a forum after all:p.

Diocletian
01-04-2009, 02:17 AM
They all destroyed dinos, butt pirates, & wizards for me so neither.

RayCaptain
01-04-2009, 02:22 AM
I choose Pirates. You just can't beat 'Captain' Jack Sparrow and his..."uniquness". Harry Potter was ok until Harry pull his little pony stunt and JP was a fun thing to watch but the story was just boring, IMO, in all of them.

little miss sunshine
01-04-2009, 03:09 AM
I'm a huge Pirates fan.
There's Johnny Depp, Keira Knightley AND Orlando Bloom!
Doesn't get any better than that!
Plus the mega cute Captain Barbossa's monkey, Jack makes it all worth while.
XD

Kinda got tired of the Harry Potter series.
Jurassic Park was something I watched as a kid, so I can't really recall much.

suzumi
01-04-2009, 03:26 AM
I would have to say:

1: POTC
It was good entertainment. At least I enjoyed it.

2: Harry Potter
What can I say? I loved the books. Sure they did ruin it a little, but it wasn't that bad.

3: Jurassic Park
Me no like dinosaurs. And I found the plot rather stupid.

Sister Nightroad
01-04-2009, 03:35 AM
Okay so...I didn't know what P.O.T.C stood for until half way through this thread ><

Harry Potter books were lovely ^.^ But the movies killed the whole thing I think.

I haven't seen Jurassic Park in years but what I remember of it, it was nice =D

1. Jurassic Park
2. Pirates
3. Harry Potter

Eris
01-04-2009, 04:42 AM
ALL of science is like that. The average person is not going to assume that an object with four wheels is a car, since they have other pieces of knowledge and common sense that will tell them if it is a car or not. However, if that person does not have that knowledge, they will be wrong until something (or someone) tells them otherwise.

But the problem with paleontology is that it is uncertain whether it is even possible to ever obtain all the relevant knowledge. Unearthing all the fossils on earth, there may still be some relevant data that was lost due to the destruction of some of these fossils during some previous calamity.



All fields of science operate in the same way. If a biologist finds an animal he does not know, dissects it and finds an organ that looks like a heart and pumps blood like a heart, he can only assume that it is a heart, based upon his current knowledge. Is he wrong? Not until something proves otherwise.
Even Newton's laws of gravitational motion are not universally true.


Of course science incrementally improves on itself. This really isn't what I'm opposed to,



Science through the scientific method never actually "proves" anything. The scientific method only helps us to approach the truth. We don't know the definitive "truth" but we can disprove what we know not to be true through the scientific method. Also, the scientific method is different in every field of science. For example, you can't use the scientific method used in chemistry to research something in meteorology. There are different variables (more than I can safely name on an anime forum) in each field. It is true that NASA engineers can accurately predict a landing on Mars months ahead, while a meteorologist can only predict weather accurately a days in advance, however, these two groups have different variables to worry about. You really can not compare the two. While the conditions in space only change to a certain degree, the conditions of our atmsphere changes CONSTANTLY, to the point where even today's forcast might change within hours or even minutes. Just because today's forcast may wrong does not mean that the entire field of meteorology has no point. If a meterologist says that there is "10% chance of rain today" and it rains, he wasn't wrong. He said that there was a chance that it would rain and it did in fact rain.


What you are listing is engineering, and not science. Both mars rover simulations and meteorology is done by stuffing some differential equations into a computer program that does the finite element method or something similar to solve it and then reading numbers off a computer screen. It really has nothing to do with the scientific method, at all.




Paleontologist found quill knobs on the bones of a velociraptor. Based on their current knowledge of non-avian dinosaurs (that do not have quill knobs on their bones AND don't have feathers), their knowledge of avian dinosaurs (some of which had feathers and quill knobs) and their knowledge of birds (which the very large majority have quill knobs), they can deduce that velociraptors have feathers. They found something that disproved previous knowledge: that velociraptors DID NOT have feathers. However, new evidence proves otherwise. There may be something that they do not know that will disprove this new "truth", but until they find it, this is the "truth".


It is still wrong to make the assumption. What they should say is that velociraptors have quill knobs. Not what they were for. Not whether they were for full blown feathers, some sort of proto-feathers with some other function, or something entirely different.

NorthOfTime
01-04-2009, 12:45 PM
Jurassic Park all the way.
Harry Potter? Yea thats like at the top of my all time not watch again movies.
POTC: Funny.. i will give it that i did laugh.