John Doe

Yes you are quite right, I stand corrected. What was I thinking . Sorry Peace, but without gatekeepers, we go back to the dark ages. Is that what you really want?

Talk about pot, kettle, black. Again, you are still missing the point. There is no argument, and certainly no need for ad hominem attacks. I am simply trying to point out the differences between scientific and philosophical theories. I am sure that if we look at some of the points you raise they might be quite interesting, but until you read and understand "the scientific method", there is no common frame of reference upon which to base discussion of these "theories" that you keep dropping into the thread. This is the basis of modern science. This is what separates real science from pseudo science. http://en.wikipedia....ientific_method Once you have understood this, we can continue to discuss any theory you wish. PS The scientific method has been the cornerstone of scientific training for a few hundred years. So, it wouldn't matter if my training was 1 year ago or 100 years ago, it would not be obsolete today, nor in another 1000 years. It is what separates real science from quack science. That will never change.

Nice try WB, but it appears that Dr B can't see text in any colour except black . Wow, that's amazing, it’s exactly what everyone said before the millennium! What happened? Oh, that's right, nothing Yes, Einstein was indeed a very clever guy, probably one of the most bright minds in recent history. Yet, he wasn't right about everything. (If you don't believe me, then just look at his reaction to quantum theory). It's actually quite ironic that, of all his amazing work, he received The Nobel Prize for his work studying the photoelectric effect, an effect that turned out to be a quantum mechanical phenomena, the same quantum mechanics he just did not want to accept, even in the face of overwhelming (actual, repeatable) evidence. Perhaps that was because he trusted his intuition a little too much? Who knows? One things for sure though, he would turn in his grave if he knew some of the nonsense that people use his name and his quotations to try and legitimise.

Perhaps you should read up on the scientific method before talking about science? Just to note, that is not a dig, but an honest request, as you seem to be missing the basic premise of what is scientific, and what is philosophical. For example, a good start is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Exactly. Sheldrake (biologist) says "that laws of nature are not immutable and fixed but are rather like "habits" which evolve and change over time" Whereas the scientists (physicists) studying this "reported possible evidence of a change in the fine structure constant" with Murphy going on to say "And the evidence, though strong, is not yet extraordinary enough." Note the differences?

Now there is an old chesnut, so I'll reply with one. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Or, the less polite version "Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa)." If something as profound as this was real, it would have been tested (as per the list offered earlier) repeated by 1000's of labs, all around the world and would have been the lead srtory on every news channel. Or did I miss it? So, just like ghosts, and Lourdes, and cold fusion, and the memory of water and.......... However, he should have written up his results in great detail, so if you like, maybe you could test the theory and let us know how it goes? A large part of scientific learning is being taught not to just accept what others say (even the greats of science), but rather, to do (repeat) the experiments and draw you own conclusions. Best sellar eh, must be true then. Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code was a best seller too, as was State of Fear by Michael Crichton (who was actually invited to speak to congress about global warming during the Bush presidency). Each had elements supported by science, does that make them accepted scientific theories? Er no Dr B, you've misunderstood, it wasn't actually meant to be an argument. I was trying (very nicely I thought) to explain the difference between an idea, which we can all have, and a scientific theory which has to stand up to rigours testing. Perhaps that is half the problem. Scientists used to explain their theories to the masses (and actually became the stars and celebs of the day). As the theories became more complex, this became more difficult, so that today you really need a physics degree just to start to understand some of the theories. As such, I think most just gave up trying to explain them, leading to all the misunderstanding that arise today. Yes I agree he makes better arguments than Icke, as does my 4 year old

Many scientific theories can be (and often are) used to support almost any idea (crazy or not). I guess all you need to know is 1) Is it testable? 2) If so, is there an experiment devised to test it? 3) If so, is it repeatable (i.e. the same test gives the same result each time, or at least to a 3, or maybe 5 sigma** level of certainty)? 4) If so, is there enough detail that other people can repeat the test and get the same result? 5) Can it predict outcomes of further tests or observations? If the answer to these questions is no, then the "theory" has no basis in science, but might still in philosophy. ** Just in case CMJ is reading this, I feel I must point out that this sigma is not, in any way, related to the Sigma cartel of the Alpha Centauri Star System , but rather a test, based upon a number of standard deviations, that is used to measure the odds that an experimental result is real or chance .

Perhaps I can help? After having tried to explain the difference several times before, I couldn’t agree more. There is a world of difference between a testable scientific theory, and an idea that someone has to explain something. For example, some time back there was a thread relating to the holographic universe theory put forward to explain one aspect of quantum entanglement (spooky action). The post sited the Nature paper from Grobalcher et al (which didn’t actually mention anything about the holographic universe theory), but rather used a repeatable testable experiment to suggest that realism and locality are not linked. With this intriguing result, one possible explanation put forward was that we might be in a holographic universe, as has been suggested by Bohm and others. The response from one poster (whom I will not name) was along the lines of “Well, yes, David Icke has been saying this for years”. Needless to say, as a scientist, I was a little miffed by this comment, and said as much at the time. However, in hindsight I realised that perhaps instead I should have explained that the work of Grobalcher et al was built upon decades (if not centuries) of previous, testable, repeatable work, from which they formulated a theory (after Bell et al) and then devised an experiment to test this theory, (itself an adaptation of similar previous experiments ). I read the full paper, followed their reasoning and then saw examples of their experimental arrangements, fully explained so that I (or anyone else) could repeat it. The results of these tests did imply that, in certain conditions at certain size scales, there is indeed a violation of the Legget inequality. The authors then go on to say “Our result suggests that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned” As such, this could be taken as potential evidence to support an element of the holographic universe theory. But this is a long long way from saying “The Universe is a Hologram”. Conversely, when David Icke was asked how he came up with his “theory”, the response was “The lizard people told him.” Need I say more. (Except perhaps that perhaps this thread should be on the fringe section, where it belongs).

I had a premonition you were going to say that

Could well be. Just discovered that Nationwide will lend me 4.5 x earnings! (3.69% fixed for 5 years) I told them I thought that had all stopped, but it’s apparently all based on affordability now. Or perhaps just back to the real good old days, when they only lent you money if you didn’t really need it I'm going to hang on for a bit, to see if I can get better than this currently in the US. Mortgage Rates in U.S. Fall to Record Low

And if QE3 targets long dated bonds, as is widely expected, the fixed long term mortgage rates will be falling further too. Low rates look like they are here to stay for quite a long time. Osborne: 'Low Interest Rate Is Key To Economy'

If you are mortgage free, as many UK households are, then yes.

And houses? As the great Julian Beck said to Tubbs and Crockett.... "Money is a commodity!"

Exactly, then we sell our gold and pay off all our debts! Loveley jubeley Yep, we won the race to the bottom and now the others are trying to catch up.

Yes, but that is a very long way off, and getting further by the minute. OECD Warns Of 'Sharp Economic Slowdown'

I had an upgrade and sensed something strange on my astral plane Back to earth, the latest scores on the board are Savers 0 : Borrowers 1 Yes, thanks to the BoE and the ultra low rate policy, savers loose £43B while mortgage holders benefit to the tune of £51B! As a saver and borrower, I guess I'm even (unlike a few odd people here ).

NE is not a problem unless you have to move. With IR's so low, not many have to move. When IR's rise (and it could be a long time yet), then NE will be a problem. Until then, it's too early to get excited.

Did they never watch "The War of The Roses"? Last time I checked (few weeks back), you could get a 5 year fix at ~3.8%, 10 year fix at just under 5%. Trackers are about BoE base +2% (HSBC).

Not at all, still looking for a job in my sector, but in sunnier climes Not sure about pick up, but I think they will level out after about 5 or 6 months of falls (nominal). Between 5 and 10% down before the nominal low is in was my guess from this time last year, and I'm still sticking to it (currently about 2% down on the most bearish reading).

House prices drop 1.2 percent in August Right on que Or as one of the media put it Indy

Because they only account for a small part of the market and do not include cash purchases etc (which there have been a larger percentage of over the last few years)? Land reg would be the most accurate, albeit with a 3 month(ish) lag (though even they are not perfect as they don't include <20k or >1m properties).

Talking of thigs to do with free money for the next ten years.... I'm sure everyone here thinks Germany is in a better position than the UK, yes? So, how about shorting the FTSE and going long the Dax? (Over the last decade or two, the Dax isn't often at a similar price to the FTSE, as it is now) http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EGDAXI&t=5y&l=off&z=l&q=l&c=%5EFTSE Oh, and the 100% motgage is back , with a twist. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-2033878/Aldermore-launches-100-deposit-guarantor-mortgage.html

Hehe yes, they could reduce them even further I guess, especially with all the slowdowns being reported around the world and the EU with their heads up their butts still, but, at some point, they will be going up again. While you are correct, the (real/nominal) price doesn't really concern those in my (admittedly fortunate) position, as we are very happy in our home, and could essentially be mortgage free within a year or two if we wanted. If we sold, we would still have to rent somewhere, the price of which would undoubtedly rise during those 10 years, whilst our savings would be eroded by inflation. However, the chance of nearly free money for 10 years (i.e. a fix at say <4%) has it's attractions, especially if one expects inflation to rear up sometime during those years, does it not? I should point out that, before I get accused of being an EA again, this is just a possibility for us, in our position, and I am by no means suggesting it would be a good idea for anyone else. I was just trying to find a good reason why it wouldn’t make sense for us?

So, it seems QE3 will be all about bringing long term interest rates down. That has got to end up being inflationary, has it not? So, the question is, when do I go for the 10 year fix rate. Now, or wait a few months for the once in a lifetime rate (which I thought we were already close to)? Decisions, decisions.

No I won't because I agree with you As I have said before, nice family homes in nice areas are far cheaper to rent than buy (and I listed several reasons why this tends to be the case). However, nice houses in nice areas adds up to only a small percentage of all homes in the UK and it's all the rest that are cheaper to buy than rent.