Junk Science

[The Starmaker]

How do you protect yourself from Junk Science?

[Alan Baker]

On 2015-08-10 17:26:49 +0000, The Starmaker said:

> How do you protect yourself from Junk Science?

It starts with not paying any attention to you...

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <mqan2p$n9p$1...@news.datemas.de>,

Wouldn't it be nice if nobody ever responded to the Starmaker?
Then I wouldn't see his silly posts at all.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

[The Starmaker]

Can you point to any item I posted that you would consider junk science?

[Joe Pfeiffer]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:

> In article <mqan2p$n9p$1...@news.datemas.de>,
> Alan Baker <em...@domain.com> wrote:
>>On 2015-08-10 17:26:49 +0000, The Starmaker said:
>>
>>> How do you protect yourself from Junk Science?
>>
>>It starts with not paying any attention to you...
>>
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if nobody ever responded to the Starmaker?
> Then I wouldn't see his silly posts at all.

Me too. That would be so cool...

[The Starmaker]

Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
> In article <mqan2p$n9p$1...@news.datemas.de>,
> Alan Baker <em...@domain.com> wrote:
> >On 2015-08-10 17:26:49 +0000, The Starmaker said:
> >
> >> How do you protect yourself from Junk Science?
> >
> >It starts with not paying any attention to you...
> >
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if nobody ever responded to the Starmaker?
> Then I wouldn't see his silly posts at all.

That is what I call "Junk Science", because that isn't how nature works.


It's what it is called in the 'scientific community'....wishful thinking.



And we need to be protected from the likes of the Dorthy's in the world...with
their wishful thinking junk science.


Get rid of all the wishful thinkers in the 'scientific community'...is that even possible????

[The Starmaker]

it seems that the community is filled with 'wishful thinkers'...a source of junk science.



science fiction writers are another source...but that is to be expected.

[The Starmaker]

gilber34 wrote:

> the media, reporters who cannot understand basic science, because the
> reporters failed science and math courses and had to take a lower path
> into journalism, where subject knowledge is not needed.


"basic science"???

https://www.google.com/#q=define+basic+science

You don't acutally believe members of the 'scientific community' understand...."basic science"????


Definition of BASIC SCIENCE. : any one of the sciences (such as anatomy, physiology, bacteriology, pathology, or biochemistry) fundamental to the study of medicine.



Why are you bring up ....the study of medicine???


Maybe You don't understand...basic science.


And certaintly 'science journalist' don't understand...any science!

[The Starmaker]

gilber34 wrote:

>
> On 8/10/2015 7:38 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > gilber34 wrote:
> >>
> >> On 8/10/2015 1:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> >>> f nobody ever responded to the Starmaker?
> >>>>> Then I wouldn't see his silly posts at all.
>

> >> the media, reporters who cannot understand basic science, because
> >> the reporters failed science and math courses and had to take a
> >> lower path into journalism, where subject knowledge is not needed.
> >
> >
> > "basic science"???
> >
> > https://www.google.com/#q=define+basic+science
> >
> > You don't acutally believe members of the 'scientific community'
> > understand...."basic science"????
> >
> >
> > Definition of BASIC SCIENCE. : any one of the sciences (such as
> > anatomy, physiology, bacteriology, pathology, or biochemistry)
> > fundamental to the study of medicine.
> >
> >
> >
> > Why are you bring up ....the study of medicine???
>

> ...... but thats' what druggies do too, study meds,
>
> REM Google is recording all the sites you visit and redirects your
> search to what THEY think you want


Google is not in the search engine business, they are in the advertising business.

>
> >
> >
> > Maybe You don't understand...basic science.
>

> I understand advanced science, but not "basic" science, the stuff
> written in the BASIC programming language,
>

BASIC is not advanced programing.


> REM - it gives me a headace.

>
> >
> >
> > And certaintly 'science journalist' don't understand...any science!
>

> they, science journalists, are only required to have previously reported
> on something that may have looked scientific, or someone told them it
> was sciency like, or if it was in a movie, or could have been.

[The Starmaker]

gilber34 wrote:

> here is your post on 8/8/2015, REM ?
>
> How God Created The Universe
>
> Most people have
> a misconception on
> How God Created The Universe.
> (including the 'scientific community')
>
> I can explain
> how God did it.
>
> To create
> the heavens and
> the earth, in the
> beginning...
>
> He used sort
> of a 3D printer...
> I'm not sure
> what type of
> printer...could
> be a hologram
> printer...but
> it is a 3D printer
> type in order
> to print...

It's how you take an idea..
and turn it into a solid form.

God had an idea 'in His mind'
to create the heavens and the earth..
but he needed to put that idea into
a solid visible form...

So He got behind His computer
turn on His 3D pinter
and press the print button.

He projected His idea
from the fourth dimension
into the 3D universe.


Did I leave something out?

[Thomas Heger]

Am 10.08.2015 19:26, schrieb The Starmaker:
> How do you protect yourself from Junk Science?

Depends on who 'you' is.

If you have authority assisted by military force, you could round up
'junksters' and send them to 'reedjucation.

If you are 'boss' of some sort and you have them in your staff, you may
eventually fire them.

But in both case you have a problem to identity 'junk science'. This is
because 'junk science' had to be distinguished from 'good science'. And
actually only scientists could do that (and not the boss).

These very same scientists are actually those, who produced that same
junk, hence would actually fire (or round up) 'good' scientists (because
of heresy).

This problem is called 'relativity' (of junkness) and shows, that you
cannot chose the same people as jury about the benefits of what they
have produced themselves.

Only there are no other people available. And those that had actually
been available are now silenced, because they have been burned at the
stake (for the crime of heresy).

This also wards off other potential heretics.


TH