What is Science?

[Sam]

What is Science?

Here's one definition:
"Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the
operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the
scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its
phenomena."
Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster,
Inc.

Here's another one:
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental
investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to explaining a limitied class of natural
phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary

Both from:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science

Also interesting is:
The Scientific Method:

"The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration
considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation,
generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a
hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the
truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates
or modifies the hypothesis."
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition

From:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=scientific%20method

[goozlefotz]

Sam wrote:

> Also interesting is:
> The Scientific Method:
>
> "The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration
> considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation,
> generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a
> hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the
> truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates
> or modifies the hypothesis."
> Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
> Fourth Edition
>

Science is the application of the scientific method. Period.

[Travis Michel]

> Science is the application of the scientific method. Period.

The word is also used to describe somebody of knowledge derived from
the scientific method.

-- travis.

[goozlefotz]

I'm aware of that, but I think it is a misuse of the word. Knowledge
is knowledge, from whatever source. Science is a method for obtaining
knowledge. I said it strongly because I think that using "science" to
describe a body of knowledge is one of the main reasons that the
general public gets confused about it.

[zinnic]

Which is a refining of trial and error towards more probable knowledge
and, hence, greater utility.

[Sam Carana]

Interestingly, "The Answers" gave a slightly different definition in message:
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/40bb779455d10305
This appeared to come from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed) and adds three more points to the definition I gave earlier, specifically:
- Methodological activity, discipline, or study;
- An activity that appears to require study and method; and
- Science Christian Science.

The first two additions seem to focus on the scientific method, while the latter dates back to 1866 and refers to Mary Baker Eddy's  (Protestant) system emphasizing spiritual healing.

The religious aspect is an interesting addition in the light of the current Dover trial, which is to determine whether 'Intelligent Design' can be taught next to evolution as part of science.

 

We'll follow the case with interest, but we must also acknowledge that this raises the following question:
Who defines what science is? Politicians, priests, teachers, publishers of dictionaries and textbooks, judges, the people, linguists, educational institutions, scientists, philosophers, epistemologists or ... a 'naturalist'?

Sam

On 11/28/05, Sam <sam.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

What is Science?

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental
investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to explaining a limitied class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science

On 11/28/05, Sam <sam.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

What is Science?

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental
investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to explaining a limitied class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary

from:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science

[zinnic]

Sam Carana wrote:
> Interestingly, "The Answers" gave a slightly different definition in
> message:
> http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/40bb779455d10305
> This appeared to come from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English
> Language (4th ed) and adds three more points to the definition I gave
> earlier, specifically:
> - Methodological activity, discipline, or study;
> - An activity that appears to require study and method; and
> - Science Christian Science.
>
> The first two additions seem to focus on the scientific method, while the
> latter dates back to 1866 and refers to Mary Baker Eddy's (Protestant)
> system emphasizing spiritual healing.
> The religious aspect is an interesting addition in the light of the current
> Dover trial, which is to determine whether 'Intelligent Design' can be
> taught next to evolution as part of science.
>
> We'll follow the case with interest, but we must also acknowledge that this
> raises the following question:
> Who defines what science is? Politicians, priests, teachers, publishers of
> dictionaries and textbooks, judges, the people, linguists, educational
> institutions, scientists, philosophers, epistemologists or ...
> a 'naturalist'?
>

> Sam .

It seems to me that all of the above define science. That is, a
consensus of the people define what science is, just as they define
what politics, religion, education, philosophy, epistemology or
naturalism is.
As these fields are refined and advanced, new insights require
progressive modifications of definitions that are then recorded in
re-editions of dictionaries and textbooks
Restricting ourselves to the approximations embodied in these changing
consensuses, we can engage in meaningful communication. However, IMO,
deconstructional analysis and a demand for 'absolute' definitions
reduce a discussion into a semantic argument, in which the 'sense'
of the discussion is lost. I believe this is analogous to the present
incommutability of general relativity and quantum mechanics in science.
Zinnic
.

[goozlefotz]

What interests me is that there are two sides to science: Analysis and
synthesis. The scientific method does the analysis part very well. It
is a well documented and understood procedure for analyzing hypotheses.
However, the synthesis side is completely non-linear. The creation of
a hypothesis is something like magic. Only the mind of man is capable
of generating new hypotheses, and the method is mysterious. Normally,
a scientist will learn as much as possible about a problem and then go
fishing or sailing or something. The mind works on it and is likely to
pop up with a solution in the shower or while asleep.

[krishna praveen]

"Every theory predicts its own down fall"- so neither the analysis nor the synthesis are complete and 'perfect'. The major constraint is however as Heisenberg upholds is in the language. The number of 'ideas' for a perticular problem's solution are infinite but man tries to synthesize the one which he in someway feels right and, if lucky, the solution survives for sometime before its 'downfall'. Comprehension of the problem, the first step, starts from hearing the problem (also in the mind) in a particular language. And language cannot tell us things which we dont know. Language cannot tell us how beautiful the 'surfeit and the seista' was, we can only feel and cherish it. 'Daffodils'- William Wordsworth- "The Inward Eye". So the ultimate aim of human evolution would be to develop an ultimate language which gives 'absolute' solutions dodging the 'dichotomies' (also vice versa!)!!!
                                                                               krishna praveen

---

Yahoo! Personals
Skip the bars and set-ups and start using Yahoo! Personals for free

[goozlefotz]

krishna praveen wrote:
> "Every theory predicts its own down fall"- so neither the analysis nor the synthesis are complete and 'perfect'. The major constraint is however as Heisenberg upholds is in the language. The number of 'ideas' for a perticular problem's solution are infinite but man tries to synthesize the one which he in someway feels right and, if lucky, the solution survives for sometime before its 'downfall'. Comprehension of the problem, the first step, starts from hearing the problem (also in the mind) in a particular language. And language cannot tell us things which we dont know. Language cannot tell us how beautiful the 'surfeit and the seista' was, we can only feel and cherish it. 'Daffodils'- William Wordsworth- "The Inward Eye". So the ultimate aim of human evolution would be to develop an ultimate language which gives 'absolute' solutions dodging the 'dichotomies' (also vice versa!)!!!
> krishna praveen
>

I agree. That is why different cultures tend to perceive different
solutions. Each of us has a concept attached to each word.
Unfortunately, these concepts are not identical.

[Sam Carana]

 

Indeed! Some people take some axiom or dogma and falsely present it as the ultimate principle, and subsequently seek to enforce such views upon others. They live in denial and the sad truth is that many scientists also operate on this basis. They choose to follow specific "truths", without bothering to even wonder whether there was any substance behind such claims.

Sam

 

[goozlefotz]

Sam Carana wrote:
>
> Indeed! Some people take some axiom or dogma and falsely present it as the
> ultimate principle, and subsequently seek to enforce such views upon others.
> They live in denial and the sad truth is that many scientists also operate
> on this basis. They choose to follow specific "truths", without bothering to
> even wonder whether there was any substance behind such claims.
>
> Sam

Sam, you have made several specific assertions. Yet, I have never seen
any evidence that what you say is anything more than your own
prejudices, having no identifiable basis in fact. What experience do
you have that leads you to to these conclusions? Who are these "some
people"?

[Sam Carana]

On 12/3/05, goozlefotz <gran...@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

Fact is that some people demand and receive public funding under the false pretence that they had found some absolute truth. If it later turns out that their "truth" wasn't absolute after all, do we get out money back? No! In fact, they will typically demand even more funding on the basis that they had been doing so much research. Meanwhile, that funding is taken from common people who, through hard work in an honest job, have made some real results. Those are the facts. Don't worry about me,  goozlefotz, I never asked you for money, focus on the ones who do, just follow the money-trail...

 

Sam
 

[Souvik]

Sam Carana wrote:
> Fact is that some people demand and receive public funding under the false
> pretence that they had found some absolute truth.

Give an example, like Goozlefotz asked you to instead of saying 'Fact
is... '.

-Souvik

[Sam Carana]

Don't most scientists live in the expectation/illusion that their work had some absolute truth behind it? Part of the 'scientific method' (as in the above definition) is "experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis".

 

But of course, not all (if any) of such hypotheses will turn out to be "true". Yet, the respective scientist doesn't draw the conclusion that it was a wrong idea to demand the public to fund all this research. I have yet to hear the first scientist admit to have been wrong and therefore deciding to refund the taxpayer from their own pocket. No, these guys turn out to be mistaken, habitually, yet they put themselves on a pedestal of Truth.

 

Scheme? Decpetion? You tell me what it is! Of course, if YOU are working on another basis, let us know! I'm all ears!

 

Sam
 

[goozlefotz]

Sam Carana wrote:
> Don't most scientists live in the expectation/illusion that their work had
> some absolute truth behind it? Part of the 'scientific method' (as in the
> above definition) is "experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness
> of the hypothesis".
>
> But of course, not all (if any) of such hypotheses will turn out to be
> "true". Yet, the respective scientist doesn't draw the conclusion that it
> was a wrong idea to demand the public to fund all this research. I have yet
> to hear the first scientist admit to have been wrong and therefore deciding
> to refund the taxpayer from their own pocket. No, these guys turn out to be
> mistaken, habitually, yet they put themselves on a pedestal of Truth.
>
> Scheme? Decpetion? You tell me what it is! Of course, if YOU are working on
> another basis, let us know! I'm all ears!
>

A good scientist does not think in terms of "absolute truth". S/he
knows that all truth is temporal so that todays truth is tomorrows
fantasy.

Also, "experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the
hypothesis" is not consistent with the scientific method. Only the
falsness of a hypothesis can be shown.

[Sam Carana]

So, do you think that this definition of the 'scientific method' was wrong? What would be a better definition? Surely, it cannot be something like 'scientists demanding to be funded for looking for something they know in advance was half-true', can it? If scientists didn't claim to be looking for truth, then what distinguishes them from any odd person who does research  daily by entering keywords at Google search?

 

Sam

[goozlefotz]

Religion looks for truth; science looks for self-consistency.

[Sam Carana]

On 12/4/05, goozlefotz <gran...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Religion looks for truth; science looks for self-consistency.

 

Interesting point... consistency! Self-consistency is pretty easy. Any fool can believe to be self-consistent within their own closed litle fantasy world. Any idiot can run a scheme and call it a religion to be tax exempt. But in how far is science consistent with reality? So, what the reality of science? Don't scientists typically look for funding through schemes in which common people working hard in honest jobs are forced to part from this hard-earned money, which is then handed over to scientists even if those scientists turn out to be wrong? Is that the truth? Or does truth play no role at all in science? And, what kind of consistency is there in science? The "hand over your money"-kind and the "don't question me how I choose to spend it"-kind of practices?  That's a jolly convenient way of being consistent, isn't it? Can people who fund their own research perhaps be scientists too? Or is that too inconsistent with the scientific tradition and too inconvenient for the existing guild? 
 

Sam

[zinnic]

Sam Carana wrote:
> Don't most scientists live in the expectation/illusion that their work had
> some absolute truth behind it? Part of the 'scientific method' (as in the
> above definition) is "experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness
> of the hypothesis".
>
> But of course, not all (if any) of such hypotheses will turn out to be
> "true". Yet, the respective scientist doesn't draw the conclusion that it
> was a wrong idea to demand the public to fund all this research. I have yet
> to hear the first scientist admit to have been wrong and therefore deciding
> to refund the taxpayer from their own pocket. No, these guys turn out to be
> mistaken, habitually, yet they put themselves on a pedestal of Truth.
>
> Scheme? Decpetion? You tell me what it is! Of course, if YOU are working on
> another basis, let us know! I'm all ears!
>

>

I have yet to meet a scientist who claims any "absolute" truth is
found in or by science. Even if scientists are religiously inclined
they do their best to compartmentalise their objective scientific goals
and their subjective spiritual needs. They may claim that they found
Christ through revelation but would never dream of claiming a
scientific discovery on the same basis.
You have a very strange concept of how scientific research is
conducted. MOST research results in the accumulation of negatives that
serves to narrow the investigative area until the right individual (or
team) at the right time makes a crucial observation that leads to a
significant advance in our understanding. These individuals are often
exceptionally gifted scientists but not necessarily so.
Serendipity is a familiar term to all who 'do' (or have done) science.
My taxpayer funded research primarily contributed to the 'accumulation
of negatives'. Rather than 'despite' this (your jaundiced view) but
'because' of this, I am proud that I made a small contribution to the
advance of biological science.

Sam, how does any hypothesis "turn out" to be untrue. By experimental
testing of course. You seem to be naively demanding that only 'true'
hypotheses be tested! As an "epistemologist" would you please instruct
scientists how to test only those hypotheses that "turn out' to be
true?

Your idea that tax payers be repaid by a scientist whose hypothesis
"turns out" to be untrue, is nonsensical (NB this is not a personal
attack). It is a well established fact that investment in scientific
research, especially basic research, shows an enormous return in
benefits to the tax payer. These benefits extend thru' almost every
aspect of human health, comfort and business enterprise.
DNA research is a prime example of the benefits that accrue from
funding a 'search for knowledge fo the sake of knowledge'! Early work
in this area was almost totally funded by government taxes. Business
had little interest in funding a field in which they saw no
opportunity for profit. We now know better!

Sam says- "I have yet to hear the first scientist admit to have been

wrong and therefore deciding to refund the taxpayer from their own
pocket".

Zinnic says- Welcome to Sam's world of evil scientists! I have yet to
hear of a financial consultant admit to being wrong (honest but
incorrect advice) and deciding to refund the investor from his/her
own pocket. Also, I have yet to "hear' that Sam is ever wrong anyway.

[Sam Carana]

On 12/5/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

 

..MOST research results in the accumulation of negatives that

serves to narrow the investigative area until the right individual (or team) at the right time makes a crucial observation that leads to a significant advance in our understanding.

 

 

Ahhh... yet another definition of science!!! But... who decides whether a suggestion narrowed or widened the "investigative area"? And, who decides whether an observation was crucial, respectively trivial? Who decides whether it did advance any understanding? This scientific cartel that only accepts new members who pledge to collaborate within the scheme? You know, this Pledge for Scientists that every scientists has to commit to, when pledging allegiance to the truth by producing a supposedly irrefutable "thesis"?

 

..My taxpayer funded research primarily contributed to the 'accumulation of negatives'. Rather than 'despite' this (your  jaundiced view) but 'because' of this, I am proud that I made a small contribution to the advance of biological science.

 

 

Again, who decides whether it was an advance, or alternatively a disruption or a misleading deception? And again, who decides which deception was more devious than another?

 

BTW, I made not so much a judgement regarding any specific individual research project, whether yours or anyone else's. Instead, my focus is on the process used to decide which projects get funding.

 

 

Sam, how does any hypothesis "turn out" to be untrue. By experimental testing of course. You seem to be naively demanding that only 'true' hypotheses be tested!  

 

 

"Seem" is the operative word here, indicating that zinnic is well aware that he's putting words into my mouth. The "naively" is an all too familiar addition, which once more proves the pattern that I earlier pointed out in zinnic's replies. 

 

 

As an "epistemologist" would you please instruct scientists how to test only those hypotheses that "turn out' to be true?

Your idea that tax payers be repaid by a scientist whose hypothesis "turns out" to be untrue, is  nonsensical (NB this is not a personal attack).

 

 

Not a personal attack? It's the second personal attack in one post, again trying to put words into my mouth, in an effort to subsequently and falsely accuse me of making no sense. I never told any scientist to repay funding. I question the process. Who gets funding to start with and on what basis? If there is one very specific political view behind this process, then why don't scientists speak out about this? Because they feel so comfortable with this specific political view? Doesn't this compomise science's claim of objectivity, making a search for truth into a hypocritical smokescreen that was put up merely to make it easier to impose a specific political system onto society? Those are the epistemological questions before us, and scientists who claim there was no such issue merely confirm their tactics of seeking to suppress such questions. The more they also use offensive language in the process, the more we can be convinced to be on the right track.

 

 

It is a well established fact that investment in scientific research, especially basic research, shows an enormous return in benefits to the tax payer.

 

 

If it was such a good investment, then why should people be forced to "invest"? Is this like Saddam saying that all people liked him and that he therefore should be in charge?

 

 

These benefits extend thru'  almost every aspect of human health, comfort and business enterprise. DNA research is a prime example of the benefits that accrue from funding a 'search for knowledge fo the sake of knowledge'!  Early work
in this area was almost totally funded by government taxes. Business had little interest in funding a field in which they saw no opportunity for profit. We now know better!

 

 

Does zinnic claim to be a better investor here than business people? Is zinnic seeking to run all businesses as well, appointing scientists to manage all companies!

 

 

Sam says- "I have yet to hear the first scientist admit to have been wrong and therefore deciding to refund the taxpayer from their own pocket".

Zinnic says- Welcome to Sam's world of evil scientists! I have yet to hear of a financial consultant admit to being wrong (honest but incorrect advice) and deciding to refund the investor from his/her own pocket. Also, I have yet to "hear' that Sam is ever wrong anyway.

 

 

Indeed, Sam turns out to be right all the time, proving zinnic to be wrong all the time. In the real world, consultants who give bad advice will go out of business quickly. Scientists, on the other hand, can fail to produce useful results for a lifetime without getting stripped of their titles! And, who again decided what "good" results were in the first place, remember? ...other scientists, hm? Government bureacrats? So, who was right and who was wrong? QED.

[zinnic]

Sam Carana wrote:
> On 12/5/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:
>
> >
>
> ..MOST research results in the accumulation of negatives that
> > serves to narrow the investigative area until the right individual (or
> > team) at the right time makes a crucial observation that leads to a
> > significant advance in our understanding.
>
> Ahhh... yet another definition of science!!! But... who decides whether a
> suggestion narrowed or widened the "investigative area"? And, who decides
> whether an observation was crucial, respectively trivial? Who decides
> whether it did advance any understanding? This scientific cartel that only
> accepts new members who pledge to collaborate within the scheme? You know,
> this Pledge for Scientists that every scientists has to commit to, when
> pledging allegiance to the truth by producing a supposedly irrefutable
> "thesis"?

Again you demonstrate your lack of integrity. You know very well that
no one suggested that "suggestions" narrow the "investigative area".
What narrows the field are experimental observations that demonstrate
a hypothesis is invalid. This deliberate distortion does you no
credit !
Who decides? No one person decides. A consensus is adopted. This
stands until new observations reveal a better alternative (please do
not insult your readers by asking who decides what is better!).
Finally, provide examples of scientists that are commited to producing
an "irrefutable thesis". Put up, or shut up! .

> > ..My taxpayer funded research primarily contributed to the 'accumulation
> > of negatives'. Rather than 'despite' this (your jaundiced view) but
> > 'because' of this, I am proud that I made a small contribution to the
> > advance of biological science.
>
> Again, who decides whether it was an advance, or alternatively a disruption
> or a misleading deception? And again, who decides which deception was more
> devious than another?

You are gabbling! Better remain silent when you have nothing to say.

> BTW, I made not so much a judgement regarding any specific individual
> research project, whether yours or anyone else's. Instead, my focus is on
> the process used to decide which projects get funding.
>

Peer review by other scientists is the current process. It has problems
which should be corrected, but I know of no other process that is
superior. Do you think that "non-peer" selection should be instituted?
How would non-scientists judge the scientific merit of competing
projects. Vox populi? Funding for Clairvoyance and Astrology?

> > Sam, how does any hypothesis "turn out" to be untrue. By experimental
> > testing of course. You seem to be naively demanding that only 'true'
> > hypotheses be tested!
>
>
>
> "Seem" is the operative word here, indicating that zinnic is well aware
> that he's putting words into my mouth. The "naively" is an all too familiar
> addition, which once more proves the pattern that I earlier pointed out in
> zinnic's replies.

Please address the topic rather than demonstrating your
hypersensitivity to any and all critiscm of your ideas.
I used "seem" to soften my critiscm of your statements. Let me be more
direct. You are scientifically naive. Your critiscm of science and
scientists is motivated by political views that you try to camoflage
under repeated non-sequiturs that represent the antithesis of
epistemology.

> > As an "epistemologist" would you please instruct scientists how to test
> > only those hypotheses that "turn out' to be true?
> > Your idea that tax payers be repaid by a scientist whose hypothesis "turns
> > out" to be untrue, is nonsensical (NB this is not a personal attack).
>
>
> Not a personal attack? It's the second personal attack in one post, again
> trying to put words into my mouth, in an effort to subsequently and falsely
> accuse me of making no sense. I never told any scientist to repay funding. I
> question the process. Who gets funding to start with and on what basis? If
> there is one very specific political view behind this process, then why
> don't scientists speak out about this? Because they feel so comfortable with
> this specific political view? Doesn't this compomise science's claim of
> objectivity, making a search for truth into a hypocritical smokescreen that
> was put up merely to make it easier to impose a specific political system
> onto society? Those are the epistemological questions before us, and
> scientists who claim there was no such issue merely confirm their tactics of
> seeking to suppress such questions. The more they also use offensive
> language in the process, the more we can be convinced to be on the right
> track.

No! It is not a personal attack. You, poor dear, regard all criticsm
offensive.This is to be expected from one who claims never to be in
error (see below).

> > It is a well established fact that investment in scientific research,
> > especially basic research, shows an enormous return in benefits to the tax
> > payer.
>
>
> If it was such a good investment, then why should people be forced to
> "invest"? Is this like Saddam saying that all people liked him and that he
> therefore should be in charge?

No it is not like Saddam! Another gross non-sequitur!

> > These benefits extend thru' almost every aspect of human health, comfort
> > and business enterprise. DNA research is a prime example of the benefits
> > that accrue from funding a 'search for knowledge fo the sake of
> > knowledge'! Early work
> > in this area was almost totally funded by government taxes. Business had
> > little interest in funding a field in which they saw no opportunity for
> > profit. We now know better!
>
>
>
> Does zinnic claim to be a better investor here than business
> people? Is zinnic seeking to run all businesses as well, appointing
> scientists to manage all companies!

No to both questions! I could claim that you are putting words in my
mouth, but that would be really nonsensical !!

> > Sam says- "I have yet to hear the first scientist admit to have been wrong
> > and therefore deciding to refund the taxpayer from their own pocket".
> >
> > Zinnic says- Welcome to Sam's world of evil scientists! I have yet to hear
> > of a financial consultant admit to being wrong (honest but incorrect
> > advice) and deciding to refund the investor from his/her own pocket. Also, I
> > have yet to "hear' that Sam is ever wrong anyway.
>
>
>
> Indeed, Sam turns out to be right all the time, proving zinnic to be wrong
> all the time. In the real world, consultants who give bad advice will go out
> of business quickly. Scientists, on the other hand, can fail to produce
> useful results for a lifetime without getting stripped of their titles! And,
> who again decided what "good" results were in the first place, remember?
> ...other scientists, hm? Government bureacrats? So, who was right and who
> was wrong? QED.

What was to be demonstrated? That you are oblivious to the process of
reasoning? I guess you were home schooled, or an unthinking product
of the public education system that you so excoriate? .
Test you reasoning capability by providing examples of scientists who
fail to produce "useful results for a life time". Be sure to identify
who has judged their results as not useful.
Other scientists? Of course not! All scientists are disqualified by
your 'reasoning'! So who then? Surprise, suprise! It can only be you
-- Sam, the self-appointed immaculate Epistemologist.

[Sam Carana]

On 12/7/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

Sam Carana wrote:
> On 12/5/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net > wrote:
>
> >
>
> ..MOST research results in the accumulation of negatives that
> > serves to narrow the investigative area until the right individual (or
> > team) at the right time makes a crucial observation that leads to a
> > significant advance in our understanding.
>
> Ahhh... yet another definition of science!!! But... who decides whether a
> suggestion narrowed or widened the "investigative area"? And, who decides
> whether an observation was crucial, respectively trivial? Who decides
> whether it did advance any understanding? This scientific cartel that only
> accepts new members who pledge to collaborate within the scheme? You know,
> this Pledge for Scientists that every scientists has to commit to, when
> pledging allegiance to the truth by producing a supposedly irrefutable
> "thesis"?

Again you demonstrate your lack of integrity. You know very well that no one suggested that "suggestions"  narrow the  "investigative area". What narrows the field are experimental observations that demonstrate a hypothesis is invalid. This deliberate distortion does you no credit!

 

 

Again, zinnic lacks the integrity of focusing on the issue and instead prefers to accuse me and personally attack me. That shows character and it proves a pattern. The issue is not who came up with a suggestion or a hypothesis. The issue is that someone somehow decides that "the field was narrowed" and that there was "better understanding", and subsequently allocates more funding to the respective research.

 

 

Who decides? No one person decides.

 

 

Well, someone somewhere does decide who gets funding, in the sense that someone's signature approves the funding.

 

 

A consensus is adopted.

 

 

Your perception of "consensus" is in fact fabricated by the method used to decide who gets funding and the mindset behind that. Those who walk in line get funding. Dissidents don't get funding. Those who say such consensus is fabricated get no funding. Moreover, the latter are personally attacked by the footsoldiers of the system in a way that not only constitutes defamation, but that is clearly and obviously in breach of the terms set for groups like this, showing the character of those who claim to represent the system. 

 

This stands until new observations reveal a better alternative (please do not insult your readers by asking who decides what is better!).

 

 

Better? Who says that whatever was there previously was good in the first place? Who decides whether there are lines of progression? Of course, people are not allowed much of a say in this. The one who allocates the funding decides that - in other words, the government bureaucracy, the educational-scientific-industrial complex, as represented by the people who put their signatures under funding allocation, e.g. politicians who want things to be organized this way.

 

In reality, some scientists may draw specific conclusions from observations, but there is no consensus. Primary school teachers may get away with indoctrinating their captive audience with the idea that there was scientific consensus, but it would be an insult to readers to act as if there was such consensus in reality.

 

Finally, provide examples of scientists that are commited to producing an "irrefutable thesis".

 

 

To get scientific degrees within the education system, doesn't one need to produce something like that? Are we now educating each other how the education system works?

 

Put up or shut up!

 

 

Zinnic asks for examples and just provided the perfect example, i.e. zinnic himself. With this remark, he concludes his calls for proof and unless one can provide such "proof", one is supposed to shut up. That's the exact method used by the educational establishment to silence dissidents, without ever providing any initial proof itself. 

 

Again, the system decides whether or not the field was narrowed and whether there was better understanding, and the method used to decide whether this was the case is by favoring specific scientists in the allocation of funding,  i.e. those who are the best mouthpieces for the system. The system cements its own position, to the detriment of people with dissident views, who are forced to pay taxes in order to fund the very views they oppose.

 

 

> > ..My taxpayer funded research primarily contributed to the 'accumulation
> > of negatives'. Rather than 'despite' this (your  jaundiced view) but
> > 'because' of this, I am proud that I made a small contribution to the
> > advance of biological science.
>
> Again, who decides whether it was an advance, or alternatively a disruption
> or a misleading deception? And again, who decides which deception was more
> devious than another?

You are gabbling! Better remain silent when you have nothing to say.

 

 

What are you trying to say? That you have nothing to say and should therefore remain silent?
 

 

> BTW, I made not so much a judgement regarding any specific individual
> research project, whether yours or anyone else's. Instead, my focus is on
> the process used to decide which projects get funding.
>
Peer review by other scientists is the current process. It has problems which should be corrected, but I know of no other process that is superior.

 

 

Typical. Here, zinnic acts as if he knew of no better process, but he does so because he doesn't want to hear about any better process. In reality, I've explained numerous times what's wrong with the current process. Time and again, zinnic seeks to twist my words, because he just wants the current process. Zinnic, like most scientists, doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds him. Moreover, zinnic foolishly and naively believe that by attacking me, he may be fed more. In reality, of course, zinnic just proves my point.

 

Do you think that  "non-peer" selection should be instituted?
How would non-scientists judge the scientific merit of competing projects. Vox populi? Funding for Clairvoyance and Astrology?

 

 

People should decide what happens with their earnings, e.g. whether this should go towards funding of a particular research project. When people want to spend their earnings on a new car, they go and have a look which one fits them best. Science currently follows the Trabant model, i.e. government takes people's money and produces a single car that's supposed to fit all.

 

> > Sam, how does any hypothesis "turn out" to be untrue. By experimental
> > testing of course. You seem to be naively demanding that only 'true'
> > hypotheses be tested!
>
>
>
> "Seem" is the operative word here, indicating that zinnic is well aware
> that he's putting words into my mouth. The "naively" is an all too familiar
> addition, which once more proves the pattern that I earlier pointed out in
> zinnic's replies.

Please address the topic rather than demonstrating your
hypersensitivity to any and all critiscm of your ideas. I used "seem" to soften my critiscm of your statements.

 

 

The truth is that I addressed the topic numerous times. I don't start with a scientific hypothesis. I start with the facts. Fact is that some projects do get funding and other projects don't. Those are the facts about science.
 

 

Let me be more direct. You are scientifically naive. Your critiscm of science and scientists is motivated by political views that you try to camoflage under repeated non-sequiturs that represent the antithesis of epistemology.

 

 

You may believe that by saying that I was scientifically naive, you can further insult me. But clearly, it's merely further proof that you completely misunderstand what epistemology is about. Epistemologists are not engaged in scientific research. Epistemologists look into questions such as what is science. I'm not trying to hide anything, especially not the fact that I look into such questions. Your remark that this was the antithesis of epistemology further proves my points. You are fundamentally wrong and refuse to admit this. What's behind that attitude is something a psychologist might feel interested in, but as far this group is concerned, it's just rubbish with malicious intent.

 

> <snip>..And, who again decided what "good" results were 

> in the first place, remember? ...other scientists, hm?
> Government bureacrats? So, who was right and who
> was wrong? QED.

What was to be demonstrated?

 

 

That zinnic is wrong and keeps personally attacking me out of malice. Whether zinnic represented the sterotypical scientist is another question (see below).

 

That you are oblivious to the process of reasoning? I guess you were home schooled, or an unthinking product of the public education system that you so excoriate? Test you reasoning capability by providing examples of scientists who fail to produce "useful results for a life time". Be sure to identify who has judged their results as not useful. Other scientists? Of course not!  All scientists are disqualified by your 'reasoning'! So who then? Surprise, suprise!  It can only  be you -- Sam, the self-appointed immaculate Epistemologist.

 

 

Again, a typcial reponse that normally would be described as hysterical, but in this case, where it comes from soneone claiming to represent scientists, it's indicative, hence some QED is again appropriate here. 

 
But of course, as explained numerous times before, e.g. in the topic The Trabant Model Of Science, people should decide what happens with their earnings, e.g. funding a particular research project. When people want to spend their earnings on a new car, they go and have a look which one fits them best. Science currently follows the Trabant model, i.e. government takes people's money and produces a single car that's supposed to fit all.

 

Whether zinnic likes this or not, this is an aspect of science that should be discussed and by continuing to personally attack me and adding hysterical claims that such a discussion was inappropriate in an epistemology forum, zinnic just proves how desperate scientists are to suppress the facts.

 

Sam

[goozlefotz]

Sam Carana wrote:
>
> Again, zinnic lacks the integrity of focusing on the issue and
> instead prefers to accuse me and personally attack me. That shows character
> and it proves a pattern. The issue is not who came up with a suggestion or a
> hypothesis. The issue is that someone somehow decides that "the field was
> narrowed" and that there was "better understanding", and subsequently
> allocates more funding to the respective research.
>

Sam, zinnic attacks you because you don't make any sense. You present
no issues that can be discussed. You know absolutely nothing about
science and babble on endlessly about problems that exist only in your
mind.

[Sam Carana]

On 12/7/05, goozlefotz <gran...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Sam Carana wrote:
>
> Again, zinnic lacks the integrity of focusing on the issue and
> instead prefers to accuse me and personally attack me. That shows character
> and it proves a pattern. The issue is not who came up with a suggestion or a
> hypothesis. The issue is that someone somehow decides that "the field was
> narrowed" and that there was "better understanding", and subsequently
> allocates more funding to the respective research.
>
Sam, zinnic attacks you because you don't make any sense.  

 

If anyone said something that didn't make sense, then it's a good idea to point out what does. Personally attacking other group members, that doesn't make sense. It's also against the terms set for groups like this and persistent attacks form a pattern that justify banning.

You present no issues that can be discussed.  

 

Hey, I started this topic! People like you and zinnic have got absolutely nothing to say. I haven't seen any useful contribution from either of you to any topic raised here at the group. To me, it seems that both of you are only here to abuse other members.

You know absolutely nothing about science

 

Even if members here know little about science, that's still no reason for them not to participate in discussions. This is an epistemology group, not a science group. If you want to show off whatever scientific expertise you claim to have, go and do so at a science group, but don't post your rubbish here. Quite frankly, I don't believe you and zinnic know much about science either, but that doesn't worry me. What worries me is the constant abusive language in your posts. You're like two little children and there's really no point for you two to keep going on like that. You're simply not welcome.

and babble on endlessly

 

Trying to belittle me is yet another example of your abusive posts and I will once more draw the attention of the groupowner(s) on this.

about problems that exist only in your
mind.

Well, why don't we look at the facts for a change. How do you suggest funding for science is budgetted for. Does it come from the good fairy? Get real and face the facts.

 

Sam

[zinnic]

No! The issue is that observations made in scientific tests narrows
the field. Not untested hypotheses or suggestions. If you truly believe
that the validity and significance of experimental observations is
better assessed by non-scientists then say so directly.

> > Who decides? No one person decides.
>
>
> Well, someone somewhere does decide who gets funding, in the sense that
> someone's signature approves the funding.

Pathetic! The signature is an administrative formality following
stringent review and recommendation by a committee made up of
scientific peers of the project proposer.

> Your perception of "consensus" is in fact fabricated by the method used
> to decide who gets funding and the mindset behind that. Those who walk in
> line get funding. Dissidents don't get funding. Those who say such consensus
> is fabricated get no funding. Moreover, the latter are personally
> attacked by the footsoldiers of the system in a way that not only
> constitutes defamation, but that is clearly and obviously in breach of the
> terms set for groups like this, showing the character of those who claim to
> represent the system.

You are babbling! "walk in line, dissidents, footsoldiers,
defamation, breach of terms, groups like this, character? None of this
has to do with the epistemological definition of science. It has to do
with your virulent, political attack on government funding of science.
It is apparent that neither science nor philosophy motivated your
initiation of this thread.

> This stands until new observations reveal a better alternative (please do
> > not insult your readers by asking who decides what is better!).
>
>
>
> Better? Who says that whatever was there previously was good in the first
> place? Who decides whether there are lines of progression? Of course, people
> are not allowed much of a say in this. The one who allocates the funding
> decides that - in other words, the government bureaucracy, the
> educational-scientific-industrial complex, as represented by the people
> who put their signatures under funding allocation, e.g. politicians who want
> things to be organized this way.
>
> In reality, some scientists may draw specific conclusions from observations,
> but there is no consensus. Primary school teachers may get away with
> indoctrinating their captive audience with the idea that there was
> scientific consensus, but it would be an insult to readers to act as if
> there was such consensus in reality.

Sam now takes it on herself to speak for "readers" . Such arrogance!

> Finally, provide examples of scientists that are commited to producing an
> > "irrefutable thesis".
>
>
>
> To get scientific degrees within the education system, doesn't one need to
> produce something like that? Are we now educating each other how the
> education system works?

No! One does not "need to produce something like that"!

> > Put up or shut up!
>
>
> Zinnic asks for examples and just provided the perfect example, i.e. zinnic
> himself. With this remark, he concludes his calls for proof and unless one
> can provide such "proof", one is supposed to shut up.

I take this as an admission that you do not have proof .

>That's the exact method used by the educational establishment to silence dissidents, without ever providing any initial proof itself.

Huh! Initial proof of what? You are rambling again.

> Again, the system decides whether or not the field was narrowed and whether
> there was better understanding, and the method used to decide whether this
> was the case is by favoring specific scientists in the allocation
> of funding, i.e. those who are the best mouthpieces for the system. The
> system cements its own position, to the detriment of people with dissident
> views, who are forced to pay taxes in order to fund the very views they
> oppose.

Dissident views? Scientific or political? So Flat Earthists have the
right to demand that their taxes not support research in Astronomy?
Would you extend this right to all scientifically deviant groups?

> > > > ..My taxpayer funded research primarily contributed to the
> > 'accumulation
> > > > of negatives'. Rather than 'despite' this (your jaundiced view) but
> > > > 'because' of this, I am proud that I made a small contribution to the
> > > > advance of biological science.
> > >
> > > Again, who decides whether it was an advance, or alternatively a
> > disruption
> > > or a misleading deception? And again, who decides which deception was
> > more
> > > devious than another?
> >
> > You are gabbling! Better remain silent when you have nothing to say.
>
>
>
> What are you trying to say? That you have nothing to say and should
> therefore remain silent?

Ooh! You sure turned the table on me here. What an insightful
rejoinder.

>
> > > BTW, I made not so much a judgement regarding any specific individual
> > > research project, whether yours or anyone else's. Instead, my focus is
> > on
> > > the process used to decide which projects get funding.
> > >
> > Peer review by other scientists is the current process. It has problems
> > which should be corrected, but I know of no other process that is superior.
>
>
>
> Typical. Here, zinnic acts as if he knew of no better process, but he does
> so because he doesn't want to hear about any better process. In
> reality, I've explained numerous times what's wrong with the current
> process. Time and again, zinnic seeks to twist my words, because he just
> wants the current process. Zinnic, like most scientists, doesn't want to
> bite the hand that feeds him.

I await agog to "hear about any better process". All I get from you are
numerous assertions (not explanations) of "what's wrong with the
current process".

>Moreover, zinnic foolishly and naively believe that by attacking me, he may be fed >more. In reality, of course, zinnic just proves my point.

And your point is? That the mechanism of government funding of science
projects is totally corrupted by evil scientists and their
"footsoldiers"? That the merit of scientific projects to be funded
should not be assessed by scientists but by science illiterates?

> Do you think that "non-peer" selection should be instituted?
> > How would non-scientists judge the scientific merit of competing projects.
> > Vox populi? Funding for Clairvoyance and Astrology?
>
>
>
> People should decide what happens with their earnings, e.g. whether this
> should go towards funding of a particular research project.

People? Even people devoid of all expertise in science and the
"particular research project"? Science by popular vote? The
pseudo-sciences (Astrology, ESP, palm-reading etc) would be strngly
favored for funding. Good luck!

>When people want to spend their earnings on a new car, they go and have a look >which one fits them best. Science currently follows the Trabant model, i.e. government
> takes people's money and produces a single car that's supposed to fit all.

Inform me as to what particular model of science suits you best. A
non-Trabent model of science? Meaningless!

> > > Sam, how does any hypothesis "turn out" to be untrue. By experimental
> > > > testing of course. You seem to be naively demanding that only 'true'
> > > > hypotheses be tested!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Seem" is the operative word here, indicating that zinnic is well aware
> > > that he's putting words into my mouth. The "naively" is an all too
> > familiar
> > > addition, which once more proves the pattern that I earlier pointed out
> > in
> > > zinnic's replies.
> >
> > Please address the topic rather than demonstrating your
> > hypersensitivity to any and all critiscm of your ideas. I used "seem" to
> > soften my critiscm of your statements.
>
>
>
> The truth is that I addressed the topic numerous times. I don't start with a
> scientific hypothesis. I start with the facts. Fact is that some projects do
> get funding and other projects don't. Those are the facts about science.

Let me see if I can conjure up something equally as
UNsightful...hmm...'fact is that some products do get sold and other
products don't. Those are the facts about commerce'. How's that ?
Right off the top of my head, no less! How privileged readers must
feel to have access to two great thinkers, such as thee and me !!.

> > Let me be more direct. You are scientifically naive. Your critiscm of
> > science and scientists is motivated by political views that you try to
> > camoflage under repeated non-sequiturs that represent the antithesis of
> > epistemology.

> You may believe that by saying that I was scientifically naive, you can
> further insult me. But clearly, it's merely further proof that you
> completely misunderstand what epistemology is about.

> Epistemologists are not engaged in scientific research. Epistemologists look into >questions such as what is science. I'm not trying to hide anything, especially not the
> fact that I look into such questions. Your remark that this was the antithesis of
> epistemology further proves my points. You are fundamentally wrong and
> refuse to admit this. What's behind that attitude is something a
> psychologist might feel interested in, but as far this group is concerned,
> it's just rubbish with malicious intent.

Another blatent distortion (or lack of reading comprehension). The
question as to "what is science" is indeed epistemology. I stated
that your non-sequitors are its antithesis (as anyone can see from
above). An apology is in order!

> > <snip>..And, who again decided what "good" results were
> > > in the first place, remember? ...other scientists, hm?
> > > Government bureacrats? So, who was right and who
> > > was wrong? QED.
> >
> > What was to be demonstrated?
>
> That zinnic is wrong and keeps personally attacking me out of malice.
> Whether zinnic represented the sterotypical scientist is another question
> (see below).

Ok. You admit that your motivation is personal animosity rather than an
epistemological discussion on "What is Science"

> That you are oblivious to the process of reasoning? I guess you were home
> > schooled, or an unthinking product of the public education system that you
> > so excoriate? Test you reasoning capability by providing examples of
> > scientists who fail to produce "useful results for a life time". Be sure to
> > identify who has judged their results as not useful. Other scientists? Of
> > course not! All scientists are disqualified by your 'reasoning'! So who
> > then? Surprise, suprise! It can only be you -- Sam, the self-appointed
> > immaculate Epistemologist.
>

> Again, a typcial reponse that normally would be described as hysterical, but
> in this case, where it comes from soneone claiming to represent scientists,
> it's indicative, hence some QED is again appropriate here.

I claim to represent only myself. Do you claim to represents
Epistemologists? I would be interested in their opinion of your
performance as their spokesperson.

> But of course, as explained numerous times before, e.g. in the topic The
> Trabant Model Of Science, people should decide what happens with their
> earnings, e.g. funding a particular research project. When people want to
> spend their earnings on a new car, they go and have a look which one fits
> them best. Science currently follows the Trabant model, i.e. government
> takes people's money and produces a single car that's supposed to fit all.

A memory lapse? You are repeating yourself (see above). Or do you
repeat yourself deliberately when you have nothing more constructive to
offer?

> Whether zinnic likes this or not, this is an aspect of science that should
> be discussed and by continuing to personally attack me and adding hysterical
> claims that such a discussion was inappropriate in an epistemology forum,
> zinnic just proves how desperate scientists are to suppress the facts.

A personal and politically motivated tirade against scientists and the
administration of government funding of their research clearly is not
epistemology. A discussion of what constitutes science is. Let us
restrict our discussion to that.
IMO you are consumed by your paranoia that Government administration is
essentially corrupt. You are incapable of being objective and accuse
malicious intent in all who disagree with your views.
A little moderation and more evidence for your assertions would go a
long way towards establishing more meaningful discussions. However, be
assured that, even if you persist in making a mockery of epistemology,
by including politics and the kitchen sink within its purview, I would
never dream of demanding that you be banned from posting to this group.
I tend to be more tolerant than some others in this respect.
Zinnic

[Sam Carana]

On 12/8/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

No! The issue is that observations made in scientific tests narrows the field. Not untested hypotheses or suggestions. If you truly believe that the validity and significance of experimental observations is better assessed by non-scientists then say so directly.

 

 

No! The issue is that someone somehow decided that certain projects do get funding and other projects don't. The issue is the process behind this. Should common people be forced to hand over their earnings, without having much of a say in how this is to be spend? Should their own earnings be used against them, e.g. in publicly-funded research projects that unfairly compete with private research? Or to fund teachers who seek to indoctrinate their children with values they oppose? Or in military projects they oppose? If you truly believe all that, then say so directly!
 

 

> > Who decides? No one person decides.
>
>
> Well, someone somewhere does decide who gets funding, in the sense that
> someone's signature approves the funding.

Pathetic! The signature is an administrative formality following
stringent review and recommendation by a committee made up of scientific peers of the project proposer.

 

 

Peers? What do scientists know about moral values? What do scientists know about educational ethics? What do scientists know about politics? Some turn out to be more equal than others, don't they? Scientists take such very political decisions, while even seeking to exclude politicians from the decision-making process. Worst of all, they seek to exclude the view of the people who have to pay for all of it! It's an insult and the attitude of people like zinnic, goozlefotz and souvik shows that there appears to be some hostility in many scientists that makes them BY DEFINITION unfit to participate in, say, certain military projects. A Pledge for Scientists would be appropriate here, just like there are terms set for participating in groups like this.

 

 

> Your perception of "consensus" is in fact fabricated by the method used
> to decide who gets funding and the mindset behind that. Those who walk in
> line get funding. Dissidents don't get funding. Those who say such consensus
> is fabricated get no funding. Moreover, the latter are personally
> attacked by the footsoldiers of the system in a way that not only
> constitutes defamation, but that is clearly and obviously in breach of the
> terms set for groups like this, showing the character of those who claim to
> represent the system.

You are babbling!  "walk in line, dissidents, footsoldiers,
defamation, breach of terms, groups like this, character? None of this has to do with the epistemological definition of science. It has to do with your virulent, political attack on government funding of science. It is apparent that neither science nor philosophy motivated your initiation of this thread.

 

 

The process of allocating funding to specific projects is what shapes science. These are facts we can trace and verify.

 

Your preferred definition of science may reflect your wishful thinking of what you'd like science to be, but at closer look it reveals a specific political system that you seek to enforce upon society with no other justification than that this is the way you want things to be. There's a word for that in politics, it's called dictatorship. Fortunately, you keep exposing your character time and again, I don't even need to explain it much further.

 

Yes, I do think that people are entitled to have more of a say in how their own earnings are to be used. And yes, grow up and face the fact that there are political aspects to science.

 

 

> This stands until new observations reveal a better alternative (please do
> > not insult your readers by asking who decides what is better!).
>
>
>
> Better? Who says that whatever was there previously was good in the first
> place? Who decides whether there are lines of progression? Of course, people
> are not allowed much of a say in this. The one who allocates the funding
> decides that - in other words, the government bureaucracy, the
> educational-scientific-industrial complex, as represented by the people
> who put their signatures under funding allocation, e.g. politicians who want
> things to be organized this way.
>
> In reality, some scientists may draw specific conclusions from observations,
> but there is no consensus. Primary school teachers may get away with
> indoctrinating their captive audience with the idea that there was
> scientific consensus, but it would be an insult to readers to act as if
> there was such consensus in reality.

Sam now takes it on herself to speak for "readers" . Such arrogance!

 

 

Just following your lead when you decided it was an insult to my readers to ask who decides what is better. 

 

> Finally, provide examples of scientists that are commited to producing an
> > "irrefutable thesis".
>
>
>
>  To get scientific degrees within the education system, doesn't one need to
> produce something like that? Are we now educating each other how the
> education system works?

No! One does not "need  to produce something like that"!

 

 

OK, perhaps you never needed to produce anything.. I'm sure many other scientists never had a clue either...

 

> > Put up or shut up!
>
>
> Zinnic asks for examples and just provided the perfect example, i.e. zinnic
> himself. With this remark, he concludes his calls for proof and unless one
> can provide such "proof", one is supposed to shut up.

I take this as an admission that you do not have proof .

 

 

I just provided the very proof you asked for. You said consensus was adopted. I say consensus is fabricated by people like you who seek to bully other people into accepting their narrow-minded view and who accuse any dissident of not having "proof".

 

>That's the exact method used by the educational establishment to silence dissidents, without ever providing any initial proof itself.

Huh!  Initial proof of what? You are rambling again.

 

 

Fruther proof of the same. You are full of visions of "advancing" science, but for any observation to be identified as an advance, one needs at least one earlier reference point. Don't accuse anyone of rambling, if you lack the epistemological background to understand it, zinnic, and stop insulting people for the sake of it, because you're testing your privilige to post here to the very limits.

 

> Again, the system decides whether or not the field was narrowed and whether
> there was better understanding, and the method used to decide whether this
> was the case is by favoring specific scientists in the allocation
> of funding, i.e. those who are the best mouthpieces for the system. The
> system cements its own position, to the detriment of people with dissident
> views, who are forced to pay taxes in order to fund the very views they
> oppose.

Dissident views? Scientific or political? So  Flat Earthists have the right to demand that their taxes not support research in Astronomy? Would  you extend this right to all scientifically deviant groups?

 

 

Stop belittling things that you politically oppose, zinnic! The political aspects of science are so obvious that your denial of it must reflect a degree of desperation. It's not so much me, but it is you who keeps twisting this discussion into a political one. You simply have a specific political view, something along the lines that people should have little or no say in how their earnings are to be used. In political terms, that's called dictatorship. No only do you seek to belittle and attack any dissent against your view, you seek to define science on your political terms. It doesn't take rocket-science to conlude that you're so obviously wrong in all respects, not just epistemologically wrong, but ethically and morally you are profoundly wrong.

 

> > > Again, who decides whether it was an advance, or alternatively a
> > disruption
> > > or a misleading deception? And again, who decides which deception was
> > more
> > > devious than another?
> >
> > You are gabbling! Better remain silent when you have nothing to say.
>
>
>
> What are you trying to say? That you have nothing to say and should
> therefore remain silent?

Ooh! You sure turned the table on me here. What an insightful
rejoinder.

 

 

Well, you're the one who is wrong, so if you have nothing further to say, we'll leave it with that, that's fine with me.

 

>
> > > BTW, I made not so much a judgement regarding any specific individual
> > > research project, whether yours or anyone else's. Instead, my focus is
> > on
> > > the process used to decide which projects get funding.
> > >
> > Peer review by other scientists is the current process. It has problems
> > which should be corrected, but I know of no other process that is superior.
>
>
>
> Typical. Here, zinnic acts as if he knew of no better process, but he does
> so because he doesn't want to hear about any better process. In
> reality, I've explained numerous times what's wrong with the current
> process. Time and again, zinnic seeks to twist my words, because he just
> wants the current process. Zinnic, like most scientists, doesn't want to
> bite the hand that feeds him.

I await agog to "hear about any better process". All I get from you are numerous assertions (not explanations) of "what's wrong with the current process".

 

 

It's been explained to you ad nauseum, zinnic, don't act as if you haven't seen it. A car made by government organizations cannot be expected to be superior than cars made by private enterprise. Such as government car is typically kept on the road by denying people to buy another car. It's all about people having a greater say in what happens with their earnings. Science currently follows the Trabant model and it's time things are changed for the better.

 

>Moreover, zinnic foolishly and naively believe that by attacking me, he may be fed >more. In reality, of course, zinnic just proves my point.

And your point is? That the mechanism of government funding of science projects is totally corrupted by evil scientists and their "footsoldiers"? That the merit of scientific projects to be funded should not be assessed  by scientists but by science illiterates?

 

 

You prove that some people will keep denying the obvious. Perhaps you lack a background in moral and ethical values. Perhaps you're just blinded by envy or whatever. Quite frankly, I'm not really interested in what's wrong with you, but you are the evidence that some scientists will hang on to their over-privileged position against the better epistemological argument.

 

> Do you think that  "non-peer" selection should be instituted?
> > How would non-scientists judge the scientific merit of competing projects.
> > Vox populi? Funding for Clairvoyance and Astrology?
>
>
>
> People should decide what happens with their earnings, e.g. whether this
> should go towards funding of a particular research project.

People? Even people devoid of all expertise in science and the
"particular research project"? Science by popular vote? The
pseudo-sciences (Astrology, ESP, palm-reading etc) would be strngly favored for funding. Good luck!

 

 

People should decide what happens with their earnings. That doesn't mean that everyone should put on white coats and act like lab-rats to go out and do research. Take off the blindfold, zinnic, and accept that people should rightfully decide what happens with their earnings!

 

>When people want to spend their earnings on a new car, they go and have a look >which one fits them best. Science currently follows the Trabant model, i.e. government
> takes people's money and produces a single car that's supposed to fit all.

Inform me as to what particular model of science suits you best.  A non-Trabent model of science?  Meaningless!

 

 

Isn't zinnic acting just like the people who were working on the Trabant before the wall came down? They couldn't imagine any alternative to the Trabant to ever be allowed on the roads. They were so indoctrinated with a specific political view that it was meaningless talking sense into them. Wake up, zinnic and face the facts!

 

> The truth is that I addressed the topic numerous times. I don't start with a
> scientific hypothesis. I start with the facts. Fact is that some projects do
> get funding and other projects don't. Those are the facts about science.


Let me see if I can conjure up something equally as
UNsightful...hmm...'fact is that some products do get sold and other products don't. Those are the facts about commerce'.  How's that ? Right off the top of my head, no less!  How privileged readers must feel to have access to  two great thinkers, such as thee and me !!.

 

 

Indeed, in the real world, some producst get sold and other producst don't. It's customers who decide that. In the ivory towers of science, though, there's only one shop in town and staff select what products customers wanted. Good work, zinnic, I think you're slowly getting the message, I see progress....

 

Another blatent distortion (or lack of reading comprehension).  The question as to "what is science"  is indeed epistemology.  I stated that your non-sequitors are its antithesis (as anyone can see from above). An apology is in order!

 

 

So, you define what epistemology was and what its antithesis was, proving once more what kind of dictatorial attitude is behind your posting, as well as your lack of background in epistemology?   

 

> > <snip>..And, who again decided what "good" results were
> > > in the first place, remember? ...other scientists, hm?
> > > Government bureacrats? So, who was right and who
> > > was wrong? QED.
> >
> > What was to be demonstrated?
>
> That zinnic is wrong and keeps personally attacking me out of malice.
> Whether zinnic represented the sterotypical scientist is another question
> (see below).

Ok. You admit that your motivation is personal animosity rather than an epistemological discussion on "What is Science"

 

 

It's the proper reply to someone like you who fails to accept the facts and who keeps denying the obvious problem with the way science is currently organized.

 

I claim to represent only myself. Do you claim to represents
Epistemologists? I would be interested in their opinion of your
performance as their spokesperson.

 

 

You were the one who was bragging about your background in biology, but you failed to demonstrate any grasp of epistemology until now. Any epistemologist, as well as any other person, will conclude that you denigrate science as a profession with your continuing insults. By contrast, I'm merely stating the facts and exposing your denial to face the facts. If such a denial is typical for scientists, then indeed you do represent scientists.

 

> But of course, as explained numerous times before, e.g. in the topic The
> Trabant Model Of Science, people should decide what happens with their
> earnings, e.g. funding a particular research project. When people want to
> spend their earnings on a new car, they go and have a look which one fits
> them best. Science currently follows the Trabant model, i.e. government
> takes people's money and produces a single car that's supposed to fit all.

A memory lapse? You are repeating yourself (see above). Or do you repeat yourself deliberately when you have nothing more constructive to offer?

 

 

Ahh, so you did take notice? You are finally starting to admit the facts? or, do I need to explain it to you another time?

 

> Whether zinnic likes this or not, this is an aspect of science that should
> be discussed and by continuing to personally attack me and adding hysterical
> claims that such a discussion was inappropriate in an epistemology forum,
> zinnic just proves how desperate scientists are to suppress the facts.

A personal and politically motivated  tirade against scientists and the administration of government funding of their research clearly is not epistemology. A discussion of what constitutes science is. Let us restrict our discussion to that.

 

 

Fact is that science is shaped by the allocation of funding. It's so obvious that your suggestion that we should turn a blind eye to that goes to the heart of the problem. Some people don't want to face the truth, because they personally benefit from the status quo and don't want their over-privileges situation to be exposed.

 

IMO you are consumed by your paranoia that Government administration is essentially corrupt. 

 

 

Corrupt? Corruption occurs in secrecy. What happens with funding for science takes place in the open and is enforced with the full power of the law. Your defamatory rhetoric is in blatant violation not only with the terms set for groups like this, but with virtually any court in the world. How deep can some people sink! By adding IMO, you don't get away from the fact that this is an isult that goes much further than your earlier remarks about conspiracy. What more is necessary before someone is banned from this group?

 

You are incapable of being objective and accuse
malicious intent in all who disagree with your views.

 

 

I'm stating the facts. You're only exposing your character by continuing to add insults and deliberate twisting of the facts.

 

A little moderation and more evidence for your assertions would go a long way towards establishing more meaningful discussions.

 

 

While banning would be most appropriate, I have also asked the groupowner(s) for closer moderation. Some people should be kept on a very short leash.

 

However, be assured that, even if you persist in making a mockery of epistemology, by including politics and the kitchen sink within its purview, I would never dream of demanding that you be banned from posting to this group. I tend to be more  tolerant than some others in this respect.
Zinnic

 

Zinnic is such a good person, is he? If you had any decent bone in your body, you would turned yourself inside out to apologize for the numerous insults you have so deliberately, knowingly and unnecessarily thrown at me. Your only contribution to this group has been to provide an example of what is wrong with scientists, over and over again. If you now finally see that you have provided enough example of how morally wrong scientists can be, then stop sabotaging this group and allow people with better views to contribute to the discussion.
 

Sam

[goozlefotz]

Sam Carana wrote:
>
> Zinnic is such a good person, is he? If you had any decent bone in your
> body, you would turned yourself inside out to apologize for the numerous
> insults you have so deliberately, knowingly and unnecessarily thrown at me.
> Your only contribution to this group has been to provide an example of what
> is wrong with scientists, over and over again. If you now finally see that
> you have provided enough example of how morally wrong scientists can be,
> then stop sabotaging this group and allow people with better views to
> contribute to the discussion.
>
> Sam
>

Zinnic, as well as the rest of us, has tried by every means possible to
enlighten you. But you refuse to be enlightened. What you are seeing
is the frustration of reasonable people who just happen to know
something about the process of science and who would be happy to help
you to understand that process. Your response, in essence, is: "Don't
bother me with facts, my head is made up!" I, for one, am totally
frustrated by your nonsensicle babbling. I invite you to report us to
the owner of this group, but be advised that I reported to that site
several days ago that you are crazy.

[Sam Carana]

On 12/9/05, goozlefotz <gran...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Sam Carana wrote:
>
> Zinnic is such a good person, is he? If you had any decent bone in your
> body, you would turned yourself inside out to apologize for the numerous
> insults you have so deliberately, knowingly and unnecessarily thrown at me.
> Your only contribution to this group has been to provide an example of what
> is wrong with scientists, over and over again. If you now finally see that
> you have provided enough example of how morally wrong scientists can be,
> then stop sabotaging this group and allow people with better views to
> contribute to the discussion.
>
> Sam
>
Zinnic, as well as the rest of us, has tried by every means possible to enlighten you.  But you refuse to be enlightened.  

 

 

What light? Where? Is this a religious thing?

 

What you are seeing is the frustration of reasonable people who just happen to know something about the process of science and who would be happy to help you to understand that process.  

 

 

The "process of science"? Government bureaucrats and courts determine what is taught as "science" at school. Science is largely controlled by government, which follows a specific process for the funding of scientific research. The military budget alone is huge and it funds many scientists. Furthermore, the education budget is huge. Education and the military work hand in hand, and together with their private suppliers, they form an educational-military-industrial complex in which science constitutes the glue that holds it together. Those are the facts! The decision-making process in science is similar to the way the Trabant was once manufactured and kept on the road. There is the argument! The Trabant wasn't a good idea! So, are you trying to "help" me "understand" that this was somehow the way to go? Praise the almighty Trabant and be enlightened? Is that the drill?

 

Your response, in essence, is: "Don't bother me with facts, my head is made up!"  

 

 

Hey, I'm just about the only one here who does come up with facts and arguments! I've responded to every silly little comment you guys could come up with here. Don't make it look as if I refused to discuss things and as if didn't start with the facts!

 

I, for one, am totally frustrated by your nonsensicle (sic) babbling.  

 

 

Just saying that something was nonsensical babling, without having any argument, that is nonsense. It's the typical behavior of someone who is frustrated because he doesn't have any argument, and who resorts to offensive language and insults to hide his lack of argument. But stop blame me for the fact that you've lost the plot! I doubt that you ever had a plot in the first place. The more you fail to come up with something of substance, the more your posts illustrate your lack of argument and your character.

 

I invite you to report us to the owner of this group, but be advised that I reported to that site several days ago that you are crazy.

Good that this is now on record here, in case anyone gave you the benefit of the doubt regarding your character. I hope that some notice is taken of the fact that your intent appears to be to insult, rather than discuss.
 

Sam

[zinnic]

I am not familiar with how internet discussion groups are administered.
Is it significant that one cannot crosspost to or from this
Epistemology group?. Who are the "owners" apart from Google" and is it
a general practice for owners to post to their own groups?
I am curious because of Sam's threats to have posters banned on the
grounds of what she regards as personal insults but which any
reasonable individual accepts as disagreements that arise in any
discussion.
Her arrogance evinces a propriety interest. Several of my posts
responding to her threat to have me banned did not appear. Is it
possible that she is an immoderate moderator?
Regards
Zinnic

[Sam Carana]

On 12/9/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

I am not familiar with how internet discussion groups are administered.

 

 

That's no excuse to disrespect common netiquette. I have some experience with moderating groups and I'm always happy to share it and help out, but I believe that zinnic is faking naivity. He habitually changing the subject line, with the sheer intent of ridiculing other members. That's not the kid of behavior one can expect from a novice. 

 

For those interested in how groups work, let me explain that there can be multiple moderators for a group, which makes a lot of sense, because not everyone has the time every day to check if there are messages awaiting moderation. There can also be multiple owners. Owners appoint moderators and can (and will) take away moderating privileges at their discretion. After all, the g roup owner is responsible for content, so it's not just common sense that owners want some moderation, there is actually an obligation on owners to maintain and monitor groups like this. Terms for using groups state what members agree NOT to do, and it starts with defaming, abusing or harassing others.

http://groups.google.com/intl/en/googlegroups/terms_of_service.html 

 

 

Is it significant that one cannot crosspost to or from this
Epistemology group?.

 

 

I'm not sure what zinnic means with crossposting? Does anyone have a clue?

 

 

Who are the "owners" apart from Google" and is it
a general practice for owners  to post to their own groups?

 

 

Normally, the one who creates the group is the owner, but ownership can be transferred to other members. Also, an owner can appoint co-owners. Typically, owners do post at their groups, but I actually wouldn't recommend doing that, for various reasons. One reason is that groupowners are often targeted by people who have no interest in making any real contributions to a group. Google has taken several measures to help out with this, but it remains a problem.

 

 

I am curious because  of  Sam's threats to have posters banned on the grounds of what she regards as personal insults but which any reasonable individual accepts as disagreements that arise in any discussion.

 

 

Anyone can (and should) speak out when messages are posted that violate the terms. Also, anyone can post messages directly to the owner(s). Moderators have no way of preventing this, nor would I want to prevent that. I've shown my good faith by giving the URL from where messages can be posted directly to the owner(s) of this group. I do it again, it's at:

http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/post?sendowner=1

(make sure to include the part behind the questionmark) and I invite everyone to comment, so that people who may have problems finding out how to do that, can do so. Also, I don't like to complain about people behind their back. I am open about my disgust for people who habitually resort to insults and abuse, and who have no intent to contibute anything useful to groups in a more positive way. I note that zinnic quickly started a new topic, at:

http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/browse_thread/thread/77e289c7e532a851/476cddf59f66a509#476cddf59f66a509

Zinnic must be feeling the heat and he now seems anxious to give the impression that he was really interested in discussing epistemological matters. If he's so desperate not to be banned, why doesn't he show any respect for the term?

 

 

Her arrogance evinces a propriety interest.

 

 

Her (sic) arrogance? I was just pointing out Google's terms, which are the same for all groups. Yes, I've been involved with moderating this group and I've mentioned this in posts in the past. I would like to see the owner(s) allow me to moderate this group in future, but I can understand that where a moderator appears to be involved in a conflict, such moderating privileges can be temperorily suspended, until the conflict is resolved. That's why I'm anxious to see this conflict resolved quickly and I restate that, in this case it should be clear that the insults came from zinnic, whereas I have restrained myself to exposing the fact that zinnic's conduct violates the terms.

 

Several of my posts responding to her threat to have me banned did not appear.

 

Ahhhh! So, zinnic must have posted messages that were even more insulting! That shows character! And zinnic still refuses to abide by the terms set for groups like this? Doesn't that  constitute reason enough for zinnic to be banned! In fact, I see no other way to resolve this than by banning zinnic, because I see no prospect that zinnic plans to change conduct.

 

Is it possible that she is an immoderate moderator?
Regards
Zinnic

 

Zinnic has posted so many messages in the past that I regard as abusive and insulting... Had I been moderating messages for this group all the time, I wouldn't have allowed them to be posted in the first place. Zinnic has shown a pattern that indicates his intent to continue to insult and abuse, without showing any remorse at all, nor any attempt to apologize, so as far as I see it, zinnic simply refuses to abide by the terms of this group. Since Google obliges owners to make members do so, banning zinnic seems the only way to resolve this problem that you have created. Or, does anyone see any alternative?

 

Sam

[goozlefotz]

zinnic wrote:
>
> I am not familiar with how internet discussion groups are administered.
> Is it significant that one cannot crosspost to or from this
> Epistemology group?. Who are the "owners" apart from Google" and is it
> a general practice for owners to post to their own groups?
> I am curious because of Sam's threats to have posters banned on the
> grounds of what she regards as personal insults but which any
> reasonable individual accepts as disagreements that arise in any
> discussion.
> Her arrogance evinces a propriety interest. Several of my posts
> responding to her threat to have me banned did not appear. Is it
> possible that she is an immoderate moderator?
> Regards
> Zinnic
>

I am the owner of one Google group: "Nostradamus_Moderated". I do post
to it; I think that group owners commonly post to their own groups.
This group, however, is not a moderated group, so I do not know how Sam
could interfere with posting to it. His threats to report us to the
owner seem to me to be pissing in the wind. If one wants to report
someone, you go to "options" and There is a button for reporting spam.
Otherwise, nobody gives a shit on unmoderated groups.