corruption of science
Dale Kelly
ALTHOUGH
science has become a faith and institution that INDEED has been corrupted
and pays no attention to even scientific philosophy itself
the scientific faith and institution has become an establishment with
vested interests in the past
the peer review process seeks to protect these vested interests and
ensure the institutions and leaders participation ON THEIR TERMS of
anything new or ANY progress
I have worked in the scientific community and I can say from experience
that they are in general victims of megolamania
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
Perplexed in Peoria
"Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote in message news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...
> I have worked in the scientific community and I can say from experience
> that they are in general victims of megolamania
I'm pretty sure megalomania has been less of a problem there since the time
when you worked in that community.
George
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:L8zUh.436$Yo2...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
I have serious doubts about his ever having worked in any scientific field.
George
Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality
> vested interests in the past
>
> the peer review process seeks to protect these vested interests and
> ensure the institutions and leaders participation ON THEIR TERMS of
> anything new or ANY progress
If this is so then please explain to me how so many unpopular theories
eventually became the standard? For example, people thought that the theory
of evolution was heresy, as well as bad science, not to mention
aesthetically displeasing. So, how did it become the standard model?
Shouldn't the scientific conspiracy have kept this unpopular theory down as
you suggest it does?
Thank you...
Kermit
Nasrudin was sitting in the shade of a tree, on the road to the main
gate in town. A traveler stopped near him and asked "Excuse me, could
you tell me what kind of people live here?"
Nasrudin asked "What kind of people live in the town where you come
from?"
"Oh, wonderful folk, on the whole," he replied. "Nice people, hard
working."
Nasrudin said "You're in luck! Those kind of people live here."
A short while later, another traveller stopped in the shade and asked
him the same question. Nasrudin asked "What kind of people live in the
town you came from?"
"Jerks!" he replied. "Lazy, self-serving, megalomaniacs!"
Nasrudin shook his head sadly. "I'm afraid the same kind of people
infest this town. You'd best continue looking for a decent place; you
won't find it here."
After the stranger moved on, Nasrudin's companion could contain
himself no longer. "Nasrudin! You told those two men completely
opposite answers to the same question. That's a cruel joke!"
"It's no joke," Nasrudin explained. "Those men - like all of us -
found only the mirror of their own nature reflected in others around
them. They are different men, and their true answers were different."
Kermit
Shane
Thanks so much for the illustrative examples you provided that
demonstrate the accuracy of your conclusions. Thank goodness you are
not one of those foolish, unethical people who make absurd claims and
provide not the slightest bit of evidence to substantiate them.
Dale Kelly
> I have serious doubts about his ever having worked in any scientific
> field.--
I worked for 10 years as an Imaging Systems Engineer for Eastman Kodak, I
reached the point in my career where I would represent technical
interests of the company with partners, customers, trade shows, etc.
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
Bloopen...@juno.com
Vague anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to back up accusations
against a broad community. Can you be more specific?
Bobby Bryant
Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> writes:
> science has become a faith
Every kook and con artist is now singing that song. Can't some of you
come up with something original?
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Bobby Bryant
Ah, we've met you before under another name, I think.
And like we told you then, and engineer cum sales rep is not a
scientist. A scientist is someone who does science.
Perhaps you did some science? There's no law that says engineers and
sales reps can't do any. Care to let us in on what you did?
eyelessgame
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:14:09 -0400, George wrote:
> > I have serious doubts about his ever having worked in any scientific
> > field.--
>
God this is fucking embarrassing. The longer I hang around
talk.origins the worse I feel about my profession. It's worse than our
well-known infestation of Randroids. Something about being an engineer
seems to pollute one's ability to understand anything about the real
world.
Dunno how I've escaped it (or whether, for that matter. I *think* I
have some amount of appreciation for actual science and knowledge. But
presumably I'd think that even if I were deluded. Maybe I just bow to
that particular dark god by being a space enthusiast and roleplaying
aficionado. If so, I'll highly recommend those particular vices...)
eyelessgame
Cemtech
says...
Really? So you published articles for any peer-review journals, like
say Optics?
If so, references please.
--
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
Perplexed in Peoria
Ok, your original statement was "I have worked in the scientific community and I
can say from experience that they are in general victims of megolamania". Yep,
I'm sure you came in contact with a lot of scientists in your work. Scientists who
didn't know much about the technical aspects of imaging systems, but definitely
knew what they wanted from an imaging system.
I personally don't know anything about imaging and almost nothing about scientists,
but I have also had some experience with customers. I can see how you might
have arrived at your conclusions.
George
"Bobby Bryant" <bdbr...@wherever.ur> wrote in message
news:WSzUh.442$Yo2...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
Well, to their, umm, credit, no one else has come up with the concept that
creationism is, umm, science. That's pretty original, if not idiotic.
George
George
Oh right. Couldn't get a real science degree, eh? And so being an imaging
systems engineer qualifies you to make scientific judgements about
evolution, how?
George
Dale Kelly
> Care to let us in on what you did?--
firstly I was hired into the Imaging Science Training Program (which
changed its name to the Image Science Career Development Program)
after two rotations working under different people, and over 25% of my
time in education
1) I led a project to remove formaldehyde from c41 film process,
formaldehyde at the time was needed for magenta dye stablization, but
required industry monitoring, I had to design experiments that covered
both of these areas
2) I was in charge of Professional interests over consumer interests in
c41 process
3) I designed and carried out process surveys for new professional films,
looking for which films were better for process sensivity
4) I did a benchmark study of Professional Photo CD, which included
looking at color rendering from the PhotoYCC color space, which led to a
career in color management for Professional systems
5) in my color management career, I was a systems engineer, and I
designed profiles for high end imaging devices, and participated in color
management strategy
in all of the situtations I traveled most of the United States and a
great deal of Canada and Europe representing technical interests with
partners, customers and at trade shows
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
Dale Kelly
> Really? So you published articles for any peer-review journals, like
> say Optics?
>
> If so, references please.--
I was very well known for avoiding the peer review process, and bring
products to market in quick time, that were HIGHER quality than the peer
review process could deliver
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
Dale Kelly
> Oh right. Couldn't get a real science degree, eh? And so being an
> imaging systems engineer qualifies you to make scientific judgements
> about evolution, how?--
I understand the process of science, from conception to market, VERY well
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> science has become a faith
That line is sooo old, it feels like when I first heard it I fell off my
dinosaur laughing.
And it's been debunked about 100 times a day for 100 million years (or so it
feels).
Seconding others in this thread: At least come up with some new bullshit!
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Perplexed in Peoria
In the category of "annoyed engineers are better breadwinners than mad scientists"
"Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote in message news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...
Kermit
I'm actually surprised to hear that the goal of science is to sell
products. I did not know that.
Kermit
George
Your posts here conflict with that claim in a big way.
George
George
What products did you bring to the market, Dale?
George<aside from the BS you post in this newsgroup>
George
I take it that something went terribly awry, and that's why you now spend
all your time posting drivel on talk.origins.
George
Timberwoof
Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
Scientific investigation is not the same thing as product marketing and
engineering. Being good at product development doesn't make you an
authoritative philosopher of science.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
Bobby Bryant
"George" <geo...@yourservice.com> writes:
>
> "Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...
>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:59:40 -0400, George wrote:
>>
>>> Oh right. Couldn't get a real science degree, eh? And so being an
>>> imaging systems engineer qualifies you to make scientific judgements
>>> about evolution, how?--
>>
>> I understand the process of science, from conception to market, VERY well
>
Flash from the past:
richardal...@googlemail.com
> the scientific process as a philosophy cannot be corrupted
>
> ALTHOUGH
>
> science has become a faith and institution that INDEED has been corrupted
> and pays no attention to even scientific philosophy itself
>
> the scientific faith and institution has become an establishment with
> vested interests in the past
>
> the peer review process seeks to protect these vested interests and
> ensure the institutions and leaders participation ON THEIR TERMS of
> anything new or ANY progress
>
> that they are in general victims of megolamania
>
I don't believe you.
Where have you worked?
What was you job?
What research have you published?
Can you offer any evidence to support this assertion, or are you
expecting us simply to take your word for it?
Bearing in mind that creationist sources are demonstrably and
systematically dishonest, why should anyone believe the unfounded
assertion of a creationist?
RF
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
wf3h
Dale Kelly wrote:
> the scientific process as a philosophy cannot be corrupted
>
> ALTHOUGH
>
> science has become a faith and institution that INDEED has been corrupted
> and pays no attention to even scientific philosophy itself
OK watch this...(drum roll)...
no, it hasn't.
see...you make meaningless assertions...anyone can do it.
>
> the scientific faith and institution has become an establishment with
> vested interests in the past
>
> the peer review process seeks to protect these vested interests and
> ensure the institutions and leaders participation ON THEIR TERMS of
> anything new or ANY progress
>
> I have worked in the scientific community and I can say from experience
> that they are in general victims of megolamania
gee aint that nice. i work in the scientific community NOW and i
disagree with you. if what you are saying is true, then american
science would be collapsing.
it aint.
wf3h
bringing a product to market aint necessarily science. you've got
business confused with research
>
> --
> Dale
> http://www.vedantasite.org
Ross Langerak
>
> ALTHOUGH
>
> science has become a faith and institution that INDEED has been corrupted
> and pays no attention to even scientific philosophy itself
Faith is belief without evidence. Science, including the theory of
evolution, is based upon evidence. No faith is required.
> the scientific faith and institution has become an establishment with
> vested interests in the past
>
> the peer review process seeks to protect these vested interests and
> ensure the institutions and leaders participation ON THEIR TERMS of
> anything new or ANY progress
The peer review process has two primary purposes. First, it weeds out
duplicate research. Journal space is expensive, so publishers would like to
avoid publishing the results of research that has already been done.
Second, peer review eliminates errors. Factual errors, mathematical errors,
and oversites can be corrected in the peer review process. The problem with
creationist submissions is that they either don't present any original
research or the writers are not familiar with the evidence. It seems
obvious to me that that the people who should check for errors are the ones
who are actually familiar with the errors. Can you suggest a better method
of eliminating errors?
> I have worked in the scientific community and I can say from experience
> that they are in general victims of megolamania
Can you give us an example?
Mike Dworetsky
Please don't do that. It hurts.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Ross Langerak
>
>> Care to let us in on what you did?--
>
> firstly I was hired into the Imaging Science Training Program (which
> changed its name to the Image Science Career Development Program)
>
> after two rotations working under different people, and over 25% of my
> time in education
How much of that education was in biology or paleontology?
> 1) I led a project to remove formaldehyde from c41 film process,
> formaldehyde at the time was needed for magenta dye stablization, but
> required industry monitoring, I had to design experiments that covered
> both of these areas
>
> 2) I was in charge of Professional interests over consumer interests in
> c41 process
>
> 3) I designed and carried out process surveys for new professional films,
> looking for which films were better for process sensivity
>
> 4) I did a benchmark study of Professional Photo CD, which included
> looking at color rendering from the PhotoYCC color space, which led to a
> career in color management for Professional systems
>
> 5) in my color management career, I was a systems engineer, and I
> designed profiles for high end imaging devices, and participated in color
> management strategy
>
> in all of the situtations I traveled most of the United States and a
> great deal of Canada and Europe representing technical interests with
> partners, customers and at trade shows
What makes you think that any of this qualifies you to criticize evolution?
Based upon your previous posts, you clearly do not understand evolution, and
you are not familiar with the evidence.
Suppose you were to go to a party, and after mentioning what you did,
someone at the party started ranting about all the problems with the
photographic film industry. It would quickly become quite obvious to you
whether or not they knew what they were talking about.
Evolutionists are in the same situation in this newsgroup. Creationists
come to this group all the time to tell us about all the problems with
evolution. But it quickly becomes quite obvious to us that they simply
don't know what they are talking about. And when we try to explain it to
them, they just don't listen. Are you listening?
Ross Langerak
I work in a materials test lab. Any report that is sent to a client is
checked by at least one person other than the author. I have written work
instructions to document proceedures used in the lab. These documents are
distributed for evaluation by people who will use them. These are forms of
peer review.
I assume that you had someone look over your work to ensure its accuracy? I
can't imagine your employer allowing you to submit any document without some
kind of review by your peers.
Ross Langerak
>
>> Oh right. Couldn't get a real science degree, eh? And so being an
>> imaging systems engineer qualifies you to make scientific judgements
>> about evolution, how?--
>
> I understand the process of science, from conception to market, VERY well
That sounds like engineering, not science. Engineering produces a product.
In science, the end result is the knowledge that results from the research.
Could you perhaps explain to us what you understand to be the process of
science? What is the scientific method and how did you use it in your job?
Ernest Major
<dale....@comcast.net> writes
In the foot and gun disease category.
>
>I understand the process of science, from conception to market, VERY well
>
--
Alias Ernest Major
George
"Ross Langerak" <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ciHUh.1401$j63...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Imagine him reviewing a problem with one of his "products" and writing in
his conclusions "God did it". I can imagine his boss rolling his eyes in
disbelief.
George
verulam
I have glanced through the first thirty odd postings on this thread
and, so it seems to me, Dale Kelly has two concerns in this claim.
The first of those is the claim that science is corrupt and pays no
attention to its own claimed methodology. I have to say I agree with
that claim.
My own web site "A Habit of Lies: How Scientists Cheat"
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.hewitt1/
elaborates just one of many example.
The second of his concerns will be whatever specific issue gives rise
to his claim about scientific cheating. He has not really elaborated
his concern on this thread but I have the impression that it concerns
evolutionary theory.
As I say, I am not sure where he is coming from on that one. The
evidence that evolution is a historic fact is hard to gainsay - one
cannot easily dispute the fact that evolution has occurred. On the
other hand I can agree that evolutionary theory, as a description of
the evolutionary process, is not a well constructed piece of theory.
John Hewitt (Verulam)
On Apr 16, 12:32 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> the scientific process as a philosophy cannot be corrupted
>
> ALTHOUGH
>
> science has become a faith and institution that INDEED has been corrupted
> and pays no attention to even scientific philosophy itself
>
> the scientific faith and institution has become an establishment with
> vested interests in the past
>
> the peer review process seeks to protect these vested interests and
> ensure the institutions and leaders participation ON THEIR TERMS of
> anything new or ANY progress
>
> I have worked in the scientific community and I can say from experience
> that they are in general victims of megolamania
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
Shane
> On Apr 16, 12:32 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> the scientific process as a philosophy cannot be corrupted
>>
>> ALTHOUGH
>>
>> science has become a faith and institution that INDEED has been corrupted
>> and pays no attention to even scientific philosophy itself
>>
>> the scientific faith and institution has become an establishment with
>> vested interests in the past
>>
>> the peer review process seeks to protect these vested interests and
>> ensure the institutions and leaders participation ON THEIR TERMS of
>> anything new or ANY progress
>>
>> I have worked in the scientific community and I can say from experience
>> that they are in general victims of megolamania
>>
>> --
>> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
>
> I have glanced through the first thirty odd postings on this thread
> and, so it seems to me, Dale Kelly has two concerns in this claim.
>
> The first of those is the claim that science is corrupt and pays no
> attention to its own claimed methodology. I have to say I agree with
> that claim.
Why, he offered no evidence for his case?
> My own web site "A Habit of Lies: How Scientists Cheat"
> http://freespace.virgin.net/john.hewitt1/
> elaborates just one of many example.
Care to elaborate here?
> The second of his concerns will be whatever specific issue gives rise
> to his claim about scientific cheating. He has not really elaborated
> his concern on this thread but I have the impression that it concerns
> evolutionary theory.
> As I say, I am not sure where he is coming from on that one. The
> evidence that evolution is a historic fact is hard to gainsay - one
> cannot easily dispute the fact that evolution has occurred. On the
> other hand I can agree that evolutionary theory, as a description of
> the evolutionary process, is not a well constructed piece of theory.
Thanks so much for all the detail you add to support your position.
Thank goodness you are not one of those who just posts absrd claims and
expects people to believe them just on your say-so.
> John Hewitt (Verulam)
Tpo posting is generally considered rude on t.o., hence the movement of your response.
Ye Old One
<dale....@comcast.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:14:09 -0400, George wrote:
>
>> I have serious doubts about his ever having worked in any scientific
>> field.--
>
>I worked for 10 years as an Imaging Systems Engineer for Eastman Kodak, I
>reached the point in my career where I would represent technical
>interests of the company with partners, customers, trade shows, etc.
It took you TEN years?
That really does say a lot about your inabilities.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<dale....@comcast.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
So you never did any real science.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<dale....@comcast.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:59:40 -0400, George wrote:
>
>> Oh right. Couldn't get a real science degree, eh? And so being an
>> imaging systems engineer qualifies you to make scientific judgements
>> about evolution, how?--
>
>I understand the process of science, from conception to market, VERY well
You can't do - you are a creationist.
--
Bob.
Michael R. James
Hmm, that's an interesting list but there's only one problem. Common Sense
tells us that's it's impossible for sunlight shining on film to create
order out of disorder (e.g. a picture). That would be a violation of the
Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, film photography is impossible.
I think I have just disproved your entire career.
mike
--
mrj...@swcp.com http://www.swcp.com/~mrjames/
"When you can measure what you are speaking about and express it
in numbers you know something about it; but when you cannot express
it in numbers your knowledge is a meagre and unsatisfactory kind"
- Lord Kelvin
verulam
I don't understand what you mean when you say that "Tpo posting is
generally considered rude on t.o." My posting was not intended to be
rude and it does not seem so to me.
Concerning "A Habit of Lies," you ask "care to elaborate here?" I can
only reply that the site elaborates in considerable detail. It would
be inappropriate to just copy parts here. I will answer any specific
questions.
In regard to my comments about the inadequacy of evolutionary theory
you reply to my comment
>On the
> other hand I can agree that evolutionary theory, as a description of
> the evolutionary process, is not a well constructed piece of theory.
"Thanks so much for all the detail you add to support your position.
Thank goodness you are not one of those who just posts absurd claims
and
expects people to believe them just on your say-so."
I presume this is intended to be sarcastic or ironic.
My views on evolutionary theory are described in considerable detail
on my other web site. http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk
I hold that a theory of evolution should be constructed on the basis
of data, rather than genes, which should, themselves, be perceived as
formatting part of the the data in DNA.
The advantages of that reconstruction are, in part, that it is much
more coherent with the rest of science and in part that it seems to be
more consistent with observations about humans. In particular, it
leads to theories of humor and sexuality which, I feel, work better
than anything in the scientific literature. It also leads to what
seems to me a more reasonable theory for the origin of life than is
normally proposed.
As I say, these things are on the site but, again, it is not
appropriate to just copy content from the web site. I will answer
questions directed to the topic.
Sincerely
John Hewitt (Verulam)
Shane
Top post moved further down.
> Dear Shane,
> I don't understand what you mean when you say that "Tpo posting is
> generally considered rude on t.o." My posting was not intended to be
> rude and it does not seem so to me.
Sadly for me, my words were slightly garbled. I meant "Top" posting,
which means adding your comments above what you are responding to. It
varies between newsgroups, but on t.o. (talk.origins) either bottom
posting---all comments underneath the previous post, or interspersed as
I am doing, is considered the polite method. Your post itself was not
rude, just its position wrt the previous comments.
> Concerning "A Habit of Lies," you ask "care to elaborate here?" I can
> only reply that the site elaborates in considerable detail. It would
> be inappropriate to just copy parts here. I will answer any specific
> questions.
O.k. would you care to give an example of habitual lying or scientific
cheating, by scientists.
Note: It is not inappropriate to cut and paste as long as you indicate
that you are doing so, and from where.
> In regard to my comments about the inadequacy of evolutionary theory
> you reply to my comment
>>>On the
>>> other hand I can agree that evolutionary theory, as a description of
>>> the evolutionary process, is not a well constructed piece of theory.
>
>> "Thanks so much for all the detail you add to support your position.
>> Thank goodness you are not one of those who just posts absurd claims
>> and
>> expects people to believe them just on your say-so."
> I presume this is intended to be sarcastic or ironic.
You indeed presume correctly, unless I completely missed all the
evidence you posted.
> My views on evolutionary theory are described in considerable detail
> on my other web site. http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk
> I hold that a theory of evolution should be constructed on the basis
> of data, rather than genes, which should, themselves, be perceived as
> formatting part of the the data in DNA.
That seems a rather idiosyncratic construction which, ISTM, fails rather
spectacularly to establich any of its major premises. Please don't be
shy, state you case, here, rather than just provide a link.
> The advantages of that reconstruction are, in part, that it is much
> more coherent with the rest of science and in part that it seems to be
> more consistent with observations about humans. In particular, it
> leads to theories of humor and sexuality which, I feel, work better
> than anything in the scientific literature. It also leads to what
> seems to me a more reasonable theory for the origin of life than is
> normally proposed.
The origin of life, is technically not a subject of evolution and is
highly unlikely to depend upon, or even be influence by either humour or
sexuality, given that there is scant evidence that either exist within
the lifeforms most likely to have been the first on this earth.
> As I say, these things are on the site but, again, it is not
> appropriate to just copy content from the web site. I will answer
> questions directed to the topic.
It is appropriate to cut and paste as long as you attribute correctly.
On newsgroups, it is actually less appropriate to just provide a link
instead of your argument.
But in any case. How do humour and sexuality have the slightest bearing
on the non-evolution subject of abiogenesis?
> Sincerely
>
> John Hewitt (Verulam)
>
Numerous
<dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
>the scientific process as a philosophy cannot be corrupted
>
>ALTHOUGH
>
>science has become a faith and institution that INDEED has been corrupted
>and pays no attention to even scientific philosophy itself
>
>the scientific faith and institution has become an establishment with
>vested interests in the past
>
>the peer review process seeks to protect these vested interests and
>ensure the institutions and leaders participation ON THEIR TERMS of
>anything new or ANY progress
>
>I have worked in the scientific community and I can say from experience
>that they are in general victims of megolamania
I couldn't agree more. I'm a great believer in science, but the way
it's being practised currently is a disgrace, IMO. Those who tale most
about being objective are often the most biased of all.
Numerous
wrote:
>And like we told you then, and engineer cum sales rep is not a
>scientist. A scientist is someone who does science.
Well, it's often the outsider that sees most clearly what's going
on...
Numerous
<rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>What makes you think that any of this qualifies you to criticize evolution?
The only thing that qualifies anyone to evaluate anything is the
ability to think and remain objective. That's ten times more worth
than even the most advanced education.The idea that education makes
people smarter is BS, it only makes them believe they're smarter.
Like Bertran Russell said:
"Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by
education."
Bloopen...@juno.com
What is science, in your view?
Numerous
wrote:
>On Apr 15, 5:36 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:14:09 -0400, George wrote:
>> > I have serious doubts about his ever having worked in any scientific
>> > field.--
>>
>> ... Engineer ...
>
>God this is fucking embarrassing. The longer I hang around
>talk.origins the worse I feel about my profession. It's worse than our
>well-known infestation of Randroids. Something about being an engineer
>seems to pollute one's ability to understand anything about the real
>world.
There are as many versions of "the real world" as there are humans.
Anyone's who's not aware of this certainly don't live in the real
world...
Numerous
<timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
>Scientific investigation is not the same thing as product marketing and
>engineering. Being good at product development doesn't make you an
>authoritative philosopher of science.
No, only the ability to think and remain objective makes you that. But
that has nothing to do with your education.
Ernest Major
<nume...@addr.invalid> writes
--
alias Ernest Major
Numerous
<unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 15, 8:02 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:59:40 -0400, George wrote:
>> > Oh right. Couldn't get a real science degree, eh? And so being an
>> > imaging systems engineer qualifies you to make scientific judgements
>> > about evolution, how?--
>>
>> I understand the process of science, from conception to market, VERY well
>>
>> --
>> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
>
>I'm actually surprised to hear that the goal of science is to sell
>products. I did not know that.
It's quite effective when it comes to marketing ToE though. It just
isn't all of us who buy it. :)
Kermit
> On 15 Apr 2007 18:13:16 -0700, "eyelessgame" <a...@surewest.net>
Are you claiming that our interpretations (or whatever you mean) of
the real world is completely arbitrary? If we are standing together in
the woods, and I see that we are surrounded by a forest fire, would
you agree that you would necessarily see a forest fire also, unless
one of us has a serious problem?
If there is an objective reality that places limits on our perception
of it, then that can be studied by scientific methodology. Please
explain, for instance, how you could see a fossil differently than I
would, or the readout from a mass spectrometer.
Perhaps I am a concrete, unimaginative thinker. But there seems to be
a difference between [you are an optimist, I am a pessimist] and [our
both measuring a fossil with a ruler]. The later is verifiable. The
former is a fit subject for Friday nights at the Panda's Thumb.
Kermit
TomS
<1176819795.3...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Kermit stated..."
People are driven to extremes in their need to deny the reality
of evolutionary biology.
Some find solace in a kind of solipsism. Others have other
techniques. Maybe it could be a taking cover in an interpretation
of the Bible. Maybe it could be dragging up some social/
political movements from the early 20th century.
What is sure is that they have to go to such extremes, so
overwhelming is the evidence and reasoning for evolutionary
biology. One can only speculate as to what the cause is for
this dread of evolution.
--
---Tom S.
"...when men have a real explanation they explain it, eagerly and copiously and
in common speech, as Huxley freely gave it when he thought he had it."
GK Chesterton, Doubts About Darwinism (1920)
Throwback
> "On 17 Apr 2007 07:23:15 -0700, in article
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/evolution_as_philosophy.htm
What is the attitude of the Catholic Church towards the theory of
evolution?
Considered strictly as a scientific theory, evolution starts with the
hypothesis or conjecture that higher forms of life have developed from
lower forms over a period of millions of years. The scientist then
tries either to prove or disprove this hypothesis by searching for
evidence to be found in the geological record. If he can show that
there is a record in the rocks which shows the development of some
lower form of animal into a higher form, he has proven his hypothesis.
Consequently, there has been a great effort among scientists to search
the geological record for evidence that modern man has indeed
descended from the lower animals like the ape. There are, however, too
many missing links in the record to allow any reputable scientist to
claim that evolution is a proven fact.
Since, however, the cultural elite of today have a strong bent towards
atheism or at least agnosticism, they push the theory of evolution as
a proof that the world has not been created by God and that man is
simply a higher animal without an immortal soul. In this propaganda
effort they have taken a scientific hypothesis and turned it into a
philosophy. They claim that their beliefs are somehow more rational or
scientific than the belief of Christians. A true scientist, however,
will recognize that physical science has nothing to do one way or
another with proving or disproving the existence of God or the
immortality of the soul. A true scientist will stick to his trade and
recognize that such matters are beyond his competence as a scientist.
If he is of the opinion that there is no God he will hold it as his
personal belief and not as a proven scientific fact.
Obviously, those who embrace evolution as a philosophy oppose
Christianity. Thus today there is a struggle in the public schools
between the "Creationists" and the "Evolutionists." The Creationists,
who are those Protestants holding for a strictly literal
interpretation of the account of creation in the Bible, oppose
evolution not only as a philosophy but as a scientific theory. Holding
the God created man directly from the earth, they insist that the
hypothesis of man descending from the apes must be wrong. Hence they
regard the teaching of evolution even as a scientific hypothesis as
anti-Christian.
The Catholic Church is united with these Christians in opposing
evolution AS A PHILOSOPHY. With the Protestants, the Church insists
that God created the world and that man has an immortal soul. The
Church, however, does not oppose evolution AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. The
reason is that she does not hold for an absolutely literal
interpretation of those chapters of Genesis. Thus the Church sees no
necessary conflict between the belief that God created the world from
nothing and the scientific hypothesis that the world has evolved over
millions of years. Again, the Church sees no necessary conflict
between the belief that God created directly the souls of Adam and Eve
and the scientific hypothesis that Adam and Eve descended from non-
human ancestors. Thus even if can be proven scientifically beyond a
reasonable doubt that man has descended from some lower animal like
the ape, the Church will not have to change its position. Thus the
Church is content to let the scientists go about their business and
will only react when some step beyond the limits of science in making
the claim that the theory of evolution has made Christianity
obsolete."
In the 1800s two huge philosophies emerged.
Both were atheistic.
One was communism.
The other evolution.
We all know what happened to communism ...
Bobby Bryant
Numerous <nume...@addr.invalid> writes:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:07:52 GMT, "Ross Langerak"
> <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>What makes you think that any of this qualifies you to criticize evolution?
>
> The only thing that qualifies anyone to evaluate anything is the
> ability to think and remain objective.
No, you also need to know the relevant facts.
> That's ten times more worth than even the most advanced
> education. The idea that education makes people smarter is BS, it
> only makes them believe they're smarter.
The idea that education makes people smarter isn't an idea that an
educated person would hold. Education makes you educated, not smart.
> Like Bertran Russell said:
>
> "Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by
> education."
You can be educated to stupidity by your friends as well as you
can by formal schooling. None of the militant creationist idiots
here got that way because they got a formal education.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Bobby Bryant
Often? What percentage of the time is that?
For example, how many advancements in chemistry have been made by
outsiders, and how many by chemists?
Likewise for biology, astronomy, mathematics, computer science,
archaeology, or agriculture?
Cory Albrecht
> The Catholic Church is united with these Christians in opposing
> evolution AS A PHILOSOPHY. With the Protestants, the Church insists
> In the 1800s two huge philosophies emerged.
> Both were atheistic.
> One was communism.
> The other evolution.
> We all know what happened to communism ...
Evolution as a philosophy is a strawman argument created by the
anti-science, Fundamentalist crowd..
While I'm sure that you can find many who accept the fact of evolution
and the validity of the theory of evolution who will say they live their
lives according to the dictates of Idealism or Skepticism or
Consequentialism or Catholicism or Buddhism, I seriously doubt that you
will find anybody who says they live their life according to the
dictates of Evolutionism.
Trying to do that would be like saying that you live your life by the
dictates of Electromagnetism.
Cemtech
nume...@addr.invalid says...
If you don't buy evolution, then be sure during your next infection to
NOT take all the anti-biotics given you. Just quit when the symptoms go
away. Ignore the warning label to do otherwise.
--
On creationists...
"They are stone cold...f*#!...nuts. I can't be kind
about this. Because these people watch The Flinstones
as if it were a documentary." - Lewis Black_Red, White & Screwed
Cemtech
throw...@gmail.com says...
Your ignorance of zoology is showing. We are apes.
> There are, however, too
> many missing links in the record to allow any reputable scientist to
> claim that evolution is a proven fact.
Your ignorance of evolution is showing. They are called transitional
fossils. And of human/chimp transitional fossils, there are about a
dozen species found between us.
Evolution is a fact. And those facts back up the theories of evolution.
Among them, the thousands of transitional fossils found.
/the rest deleted because he started out really badly.
Dick C
Oh, crap. First thing, the outsider has to know and understand what is going
on. And it is quite telling that you are supporting someone who has no idea
of what science is or what scientists do, especially in this age of great
advancements in science.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
Skitter...@yahoo.com
On 15-Apr-2007, "eyelessgame" <aa...@surewest.net> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 5:36 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:14:09 -0400, George wrote:
> > > I have serious doubts about his ever having worked in any scientific
> > > field.--
> >
> > ... Engineer ...
>
> God this is fucking embarrassing. The longer I hang around
> talk.origins the worse I feel about my profession. It's worse than our
> well-known infestation of Randroids. Something about being an engineer
> seems to pollute one's ability to understand anything about the real
> world.
I've got to ask: what's a Randroid? Yeah, I know I could Google it and
maybe find out, but I suspect your answer would be funnier.
BTW: One of my brothers was an engineer (a recently retired electrical, EE
with expertise in energy conservation management) and he is not a crackpot,
so that makes at least *two* of you.
> Dunno how I've escaped it (or whether, for that matter. I *think* I
> have some amount of appreciation for actual science and knowledge. But
> presumably I'd think that even if I were deluded. Maybe I just bow to
> that particular dark god by being a space enthusiast and roleplaying
> aficionado. If so, I'll highly recommend those particular vices...)
You must have made your save. Never underestimate the power of a Natural
Twenty.
Skitter the Cat
--
The Source For Premium Newsgroup Access
Great Speed, Great Retention
1 GB/Day for only $8.95
Skitter...@yahoo.com
On 17-Apr-2007, Throwback <throw...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/evolution_as_philosophy.htm
>
> What is the attitude of the Catholic Church towards the theory of
> evolution?
> Considered strictly as a scientific theory, evolution starts with the
> hypothesis or conjecture that higher forms of life have developed from
> lower forms over a period of millions of years. The scientist then
> tries either to prove or disprove this hypothesis by searching for
> evidence to be found in the geological record. If he can show that
> there is a record in the rocks which shows the development of some
> lower form of animal into a higher form, he has proven his hypothesis.
> Consequently, there has been a great effort among scientists to search
> the geological record for evidence that modern man has indeed
> descended from the lower animals like the ape. There are, however, too
> many missing links in the record to allow any reputable scientist to
> claim that evolution is a proven fact.
The theory (explanation) is generated from the data (evidence).
If you really think that there are " too many missing links in the record to
allow any reputable scientist to claim that evolution is a proven fact" then
I suggest you do some reading and study on the subject. The statement is
just silly when viewed in the light of reality. I suggest the T.O.
arvchives is a great place to start if you would like to learn. There are
plenty of people here who can help.
>
> Since, however, the cultural elite of today have a strong bent towards
> atheism or at least agnosticism, they push the theory of evolution as
> a proof that the world has not been created by God and that man is
> simply a higher animal without an immortal soul. In this propaganda
> effort they have taken a scientific hypothesis and turned it into a
> philosophy. They claim that their beliefs are somehow more rational or
> scientific than the belief of Christians. A true scientist, however,
> will recognize that physical science has nothing to do one way or
> another with proving or disproving the existence of God or the
> immortality of the soul. A true scientist will stick to his trade and
> recognize that such matters are beyond his competence as a scientist.
> If he is of the opinion that there is no God he will hold it as his
> personal belief and not as a proven scientific fact.
>
> Obviously, those who embrace evolution as a philosophy oppose
> Christianity. Thus today there is a struggle in the public schools
> between the "Creationists" and the "Evolutionists." The Creationists,
> who are those Protestants holding for a strictly literal
> interpretation of the account of creation in the Bible, oppose
> evolution not only as a philosophy but as a scientific theory. Holding
> the God created man directly from the earth, they insist that the
> hypothesis of man descending from the apes must be wrong. Hence they
> regard the teaching of evolution even as a scientific hypothesis as
> anti-Christian.
I'm sure what you mean, exactly, by "evolution as a philosophy". Your
position seems to ignore Theistic Evolution entirely-or am I
misunderstanding you?
>
> The Catholic Church is united with these Christians in opposing
> evolution AS A PHILOSOPHY. With the Protestants, the Church insists
> that God created the world and that man has an immortal soul. The
> Church, however, does not oppose evolution AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. The
> reason is that she does not hold for an absolutely literal
> interpretation of those chapters of Genesis. Thus the Church sees no
> necessary conflict between the belief that God created the world from
> nothing and the scientific hypothesis that the world has evolved over
> millions of years. Again, the Church sees no necessary conflict
> between the belief that God created directly the souls of Adam and Eve
> and the scientific hypothesis that Adam and Eve descended from non-
> human ancestors. Thus even if can be proven scientifically beyond a
> reasonable doubt that man has descended from some lower animal like
> the ape, the Church will not have to change its position. Thus the
> Church is content to let the scientists go about their business and
> will only react when some step beyond the limits of science in making
> the claim that the theory of evolution has made Christianity
> obsolete."
The Church (and by this I mean the overarching hierarchy of Christianity and
body of believers) has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the
modern world. Basically, the conflict between religion and science is over
cultural authority to determine what is true. Previous to the rise of
science, ultimate cultural authority to determine how and why the world
worked the way it does was the exclusive province of the church, by Divine
Mandate. With the rise of Science, evidence and reasoning have become the
determining factors and the priestly-class is pissed that it has to share
power and can't dictate what others accept as fact, truth and reality
anymore.
The battle between Science and Creationism is the struggle between the
Enlightenment spirit of freedom and discovery against and the Medieval
authority of Divine Right, played out on the stage of American politics.
Skitter the Cat
<snip the "evolution is philosophy" tag>
Skitter...@yahoo.com
On 15-Apr-2007, Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
> n Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:35:22 -0700, Cemtech wrote:
>
> > Really? So you published articles for any peer-review journals, like
> > say Optics?
> >
> > If so, references please.--
>
> I was very well known for avoiding the peer review process, and bring
> products to market in quick time, that were HIGHER quality than the peer
> review process could deliver
So the answer would be a resounding "No".
Proud you avoided doing things that were subject to peer review-...
Skitter the Cat
Skitter...@yahoo.com
On 15-Apr-2007, Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:59:40 -0400, George wrote:
>
> > Oh right. Couldn't get a real science degree, eh? And so being an
> > imaging systems engineer qualifies you to make scientific judgements
> > about evolution, how?--
>
> I understand the process of science, from conception to market, VERY well
I am puzzled over which of the words in the above you understand the best. I
suspect it is the pronoun, however, the article and prepositions are
possibilities. The nouns and verbs aren't really in the running as even
remote possibilities.
Ross Langerak
"Numerous" <nume...@addr.invalid> wrote in message
news:svi923pjvloo2553t...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:07:52 GMT, "Ross Langerak"
> <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>What makes you think that any of this qualifies you to criticize
>>evolution?
>
> The only thing that qualifies anyone to evaluate anything is the
> ability to think and remain objective. That's ten times more worth
> than even the most advanced education.
Pretty much everyone in science would disagree with you. If your statement
were true, there would be no need for experimentation is science. Theories
are based upon evidence, and you need to be familiar with the evidence
before you can evaluate a theory. Time and again, the history of science
has demonstrated that reason and objectivity are not enough.
> The idea that education makes
> people smarter is BS, it only makes them believe they're smarter.
Education makes people informed. But higher education does not
automatically make someone an expert in all fields of knowledge. A degree
in economics does not make someone an expert in physics, and a photographic
film engineer is not an expert in biology. If Dale Kelly wants to have
anything meaningful to say about evolution, he first needs to learn
something about evolution and the evidence that supports it.
Ernest Major
Skitter...@yahoo.com writes
>I've got to ask: what's a Randroid? Yeah, I know I could Google it
>and maybe find out, but I suspect your answer would be funnier.
An Objectivist, a follower of Ayn Rand. These are a form of
anarcho-capitalists; perhaps you could call the Objectivists the
Trotskyites of Liberatarianism, as the don't get on with other
libertarians.
There's also a strand of technocracy in Objectivism, which probably
explains why it appeals disproportionally to engineering students (they
know how things work, or at least think that they do, and conclude that
therefore they should be in charge).
Objectivism is a primarily USian phenomenon, so presumably there's
somethings else in US culture which cause it's popularity.
--
alias Ernest Major
TomS
<1176821205.9...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Throwback stated..."
Just another example of the extremes that people are driven to.
The anti-evolutionists must realize just how overwhelming the
evidence and reasoning is to back up evolution. They are driven
to retreat to a kind of solipsism, or to construct straw men to
attack.
Skitter...@yahoo.com
I have a slight knowledge of Objectivisim but hadn't heard the term before.
Your observation that they don't get along well with other Libertarians
rings true. I have decidedly strong streak of Libertarian thinking in me,
and one of the reasons I don't know as much about them as perhaps I should,
is that what I do know caused me to pretty much write them off as slightly
dangerous kooks.
Most of the time I concentrate on the *not* slightly dangerous kooks.
Thanks for the heads up.
eyelessgame
> On 15-Apr-2007, "eyelessgame" <a...@surewest.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 15, 5:36 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:14:09 -0400, George wrote:
> > > > I have serious doubts about his ever having worked in any scientific
> > > > field.--
>
> > > ... Engineer ...
>
> > God this is fucking embarrassing. The longer I hang around
> > talk.origins the worse I feel about my profession. It's worse than our
> > well-known infestation of Randroids. Something about being an engineer
> > seems to pollute one's ability to understand anything about the real
> > world.
>
> I've got to ask: what's a Randroid? Yeah, I know I could Google it and
> maybe find out, but I suspect your answer would be funnier.
Randroids are followers of Ayn Rand, the founder of Objectivism, an
atheist religion based entirely on a fallacy of equivocation that
permits people to act like adolescents and believe they're grownups.
(They assert that all behavior is inherently 'selfish', i.e. that you
do what you do because at some level it is what you want, and
therefore that selfishness cannot be bad. This fallacy of equivocation
causes them to act like dicks and think that everybody does.)
Since most of them are armed, I don't often refer to them in public.
>
> BTW: One of my brothers was an engineer (a recently retired electrical, EE
> with expertise in energy conservation management) and he is not a crackpot,
> so that makes at least *two* of you.
My father and brothers were/are engineers too, and not crackpots
either... well, one of them might be, but not in the creationist way.
> > Dunno how I've escaped it (or whether, for that matter. I *think* I
> > have some amount of appreciation for actual science and knowledge. But
> > presumably I'd think that even if I were deluded. Maybe I just bow to
> > that particular dark god by being a space enthusiast and roleplaying
> > aficionado. If so, I'll highly recommend those particular vices...)
>
> You must have made your save. Never underestimate the power of a Natural
> Twenty.
Or the luck of a natural 18 on INT. (Making up for it with about a 5
WIS, my wife would say.) True dat. :)
eyelessgame
eyelessgame
See, that's exactly the sort of crackpottery that engineers know
better than. An engineer knows better than to build a bridge that
only stands up in his own reality.
eyelessgame
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:57:19 +0000, Ross Langerak wrote:
>> The only thing that qualifies anyone to evaluate anything is the
>> ability to think and remain objective. That's ten times more worth
>> than even the most advanced education.
>
> Pretty much everyone in science would disagree with you. If your statement
> were true, there would be no need for experimentation is science.
I think the statement implies - indirectly, at least - just that.
For example, you have a proposed explanation of how some phenomenon comes
to be; how do you _objectively_ validate or invalidate it? You can think
about it all you want, but even so you're applying a subjective standard,
based on your thoughts, your education, your prior experience, rather than
an objective one of saying "never mind what I think, what's _really_ going
on?"
About the only way to achieve that is to test the explanation - to
experiment. The ability to remain objective - not in the passive sense of
reserving judgment without reason, but in the active sense of actually
seeing if something holds up - rather implies one actually needs to
perform such testing.
--
Do not contact me at kbjar...@ncoldns.com
Jim Willemin
news:8b5tf4-...@spanky.localhost.net:
I dunno. Seems to me Aristotle could think pretty well, and was pretty
objective, yet if I understand properly his avoidance of experiment and
reliance on reason alone let him make some pretty egregious errors about
natural laws and processes. I kinda think you should make skill in testing
hypotheses important too.
Another thing, as I think about it: in my personal experience, one of the
unlooked-for benefits of advanced education is an improved ability to
identify subjectivity within oneself. Identifying and compensating for
one's own biases ain't all that straightforward, or obvious, and it seems
to me that such identification and compensation is the only way to approach
anything like objectivity.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 01:37:00 +0200, Jim Willemin wrote:
> I dunno. Seems to me Aristotle could think pretty well, and was pretty
> objective, yet if I understand properly his avoidance of experiment and
> reliance on reason alone let him make some pretty egregious errors about
> natural laws and processes.
Where did those errors come from? From failing to apply a properly
objective approach, relying instead on his own subjective views.
Even the best can be led astray by their prior experiences and the like;
the notion of objectivity, to my thinking at least, requires that one deal
with this problem - which generally means testing.
> I kinda think you should make skill in
> testing hypotheses important too.
One could make it explicit; I simply think it's implicit.
> Another thing, as I think about it: in my personal experience, one of
> the unlooked-for benefits of advanced education is an improved ability
> to identify subjectivity within oneself. Identifying and compensating
> for one's own biases ain't all that straightforward, or obvious, and it
> seems to me that such identification and compensation is the only way to
> approach anything like objectivity.
To, as much as possible, remove one's own biases - even unrecognized ones
- out of the equation. To be sure. We don't disagree on the
requirements; we simply disagree on which needs to be explicitly stated; I
think the testing is a fall-out of the requirement for objectivity, you
think it should be explicitly stated. Six on one, half a dozen on the
other.
wf3h
'tis true. ancient superstitions seem to be far more convincing to
most americans than science could ever be....
Bobby Bryant
But if you look back up-thread, you'll see that "Numerous" was explicitly
arguing that critical thinking is _all_ you need, and that being educated
on the topic isn't important.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 01:36:56 +0000, Bobby Bryant wrote:
> But if you look back up-thread, you'll see that "Numerous" was explicitly
> arguing that critical thinking is _all_ you need, and that being educated
> on the topic isn't important.
>
Actually, where I got involved was after this:
"The only thing that qualifies anyone to evaluate anything is the ability
to think and remain objective."
I actually agree with this - and with the subsequent discussion. It just
seems to me that the former leads to the latter, that one cannot think
[critically] and remain objective _without_, of necessity, realizing one's
inherent subjectivity and thus taking steps to eliminate it.
The other aspects - testing, for example - are results, even inevitable
results, of the former; the former are the only fundamental requirements.
Try it this way: assume all you start with are critical thinking an an
ability to remain objective. Your critical thinking tells you your
objectivity, as good as it is, is going to be less than perfect; your
objectivity allows you to see alternatives which would work better.
Between them, you - being both a critical thinker and objective - adopt
those alternatives.
Net result? Testing and verification.
One could argue testing as a requirement; there's nothing wrong with such
a view, and it generally doesn't hurt to make some things explicit; I just
think that, strictly speaking, it is not technically necessary to make
this explicit, that it is implied by the others.
Bobby Bryant
Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjar...@ncoldns.com> writes:
> [snips]
>
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 01:36:56 +0000, Bobby Bryant wrote:
>
>> But if you look back up-thread, you'll see that "Numerous" was
>> explicitly arguing that critical thinking is _all_ you need, and
>> that being educated on the topic isn't important.
>
> Actually, where I got involved was after this:
>
> "The only thing that qualifies anyone to evaluate anything is the
> ability to think and remain objective."
>
> I actually agree with this
I don't. For non-trivial topics you also need knowledge.
Dale Kelly (the thread starter) isn't any more competent to evaluate
the theory of evolution than I am to evaluate the way a blacksmith
does his work.
Kelsey Bjarnason
> In article <b5jtf4-...@spanky.localhost.net>,
> Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjar...@ncoldns.com> writes:
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 01:36:56 +0000, Bobby Bryant wrote:
>>
>>> But if you look back up-thread, you'll see that "Numerous" was
>>> explicitly arguing that critical thinking is _all_ you need, and
>>> that being educated on the topic isn't important.
>>
>> Actually, where I got involved was after this:
>>
>> "The only thing that qualifies anyone to evaluate anything is the
>> ability to think and remain objective."
>>
>> I actually agree with this
>
> I don't. For non-trivial topics you also need knowledge.
Sure. However, again, that is another derivative of the initial
requirements. If you can think critically and remain objective, you know
damned well that you can't discuss, say, nuclear plant design without some
actual information. It's only when you cease thinking critically, or fail
to remain objective, that you can convince yourself that you're actually
an expert despite no knowledge.
It's simply a question of different perspectives: you see X as a
fundamental requirement; I see the same X as a requirement but not a
fundamental one: the fundamental ones, in my view, are much as expressed -
critical thinking and objectivity. The others - education, testing and so
forth - are definitely required, but they, IMO, are an inevitable result
of the fundamental requirements.
wf3h
verulam wrote:
> Dear All,
> I have glanced through the first thirty odd postings on this thread
> and, so it seems to me, Dale Kelly has two concerns in this claim.
>
> The first of those is the claim that science is corrupt and pays no
> attention to its own claimed methodology. I have to say I agree with
> that claim.
> My own web site "A Habit of Lies: How Scientists Cheat"
> http://freespace.virgin.net/john.hewitt1/
> elaborates just one of many example.
well i guess this is what we expect from someone who's never done
science
yes, scientists cheat. no, it's not common. if it was, computers
wouldn't work and planes wouldn't fly. science is tested against the
real world. cases of fraud are readily detected.
so his general analysis is faulty and wrong.
>
> The second of his concerns will be whatever specific issue gives rise
> to his claim about scientific cheating. He has not really elaborated
> his concern on this thread but I have the impression that it concerns
> evolutionary theory.
> As I say, I am not sure where he is coming from on that one. The
> evidence that evolution is a historic fact is hard to gainsay - one
> cannot easily dispute the fact that evolution has occurred. On the
> other hand I can agree that evolutionary theory, as a description of
> the evolutionary process, is not a well constructed piece of theory.
>
well, he said it so it must be true. after all, he said it...\
wf3h
verulam wrote:
> >
> The advantages of that reconstruction are, in part, that it is much
> more coherent with the rest of science and in part that it seems to be
> more consistent with observations about humans. In particular, it
> leads to theories of humor and sexuality which, I feel, work better
> than anything in the scientific literature.
earthworms don't have humor. nor do plants. nor do bacteria
IOW your 'theory' doesn't fit about 99.99999% of life on earth
and you say it's MORE useful than evolution??
wf3h
verulam wrote:
>
>>
> My views on evolutionary theory are described in considerable detail
> on my other web site. http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk
> I hold that a theory of evolution should be constructed on the basis
> of data, rather than genes, which should, themselves, be perceived as
> formatting part of the the data in DNA.
>
> The advantages of that reconstruction are, in part, that it is much
> more coherent with the rest of science and in part that it seems to be
> more consistent with observations about humans. In particular, it
> leads to theories of humor and sexuality which, I feel, work better
> than anything in the scientific literature.
it seems carl sagan's observation that 'yes, they laughed at galileo
but they also laughed at bozo the clown' applies here. those who
disagree with evolution often have their own agenda, and john just
told us his. he finds science inadequate because it doesn't support
HIS view of evolution! go figure.
his view is useless...being highly restricted to sentient beings with
a sense of humor...
and here's what he says about scientists:
What the scientific establishment do is
Ignore their critics.
Resist the publication of critical views.
Give irrelevant, meaningless replies to inquiries.
Abusively insinuate that the critic is stupid or ignorant.
Tell third parties that the critic's work is of "poor quality," that
it is pseudoscience or junk science.
Invent "quality control" procedures so structured as to ensure that
any work they chose to ignore is labeled as of "poor quality"
regardless of its true merit.
this is kind of like saying all black people smell and are
ignorant...after all...everyone KNOWS it!!
he offers no proof. he offers no citations. he offers NO rebuttal to
the very fact that he's on the internet courtesy of the work of
scientists.
he says:
I am certainly not part of the British scientific establishment.
but then contradicts himself by saying HIS theory of evolution works
better than anyone else's.
proof of his assertion that scientists lie?
uh..they IGNORE him!! go figure.
he's made an ironclad case...for the justification of him being
ignored, that is.