People Don't Need 'Science People'

[The Starmaker]

People Don't Need 'Science People'
by The Starmaker

This is my essay on "People Don't Need 'Science People'"...

I probably can list a billion reasons why

People Don't Need 'Science People'


and why it would be a much much better world without them...

just stop giving them money and everything will be fine.

No more government grants for the sciences.

Let them get a job flipping buggers..

maybe they'll make somethin of themselves.



The Starmaker


They might discover Life on Earth.

[Will in New Haven]

On Jan 5, 2:30 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> People Don't Need 'Science People'
> by The Starmaker

People need you to die. Not for practical reasons but it would be so
aesthetically pleasing.

--
Will in New Haven

[Alan Baker]

In article <50E87F...@ix.netcom.com>,

The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> People Don't Need 'Science People'
> by The Starmaker
>
> This is my essay on "People Don't Need 'Science People'"...
>
> I probably can list a billion reasons why
>
> People Don't Need 'Science People'
>
>
> and why it would be a much much better world without them...
>
> just stop giving them money and everything will be fine.
>
> No more government grants for the sciences.
>
> Let them get a job flipping buggers..
>
> maybe they'll make somethin of themselves.

So nobody important to you has ever taken antibiotics for an infection,
or needed an X-ray...

...or a blood transfusion...

...or traveled by plane...

...or car...

...or drank milk...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

[The Starmaker]

7 wrote:

>
> The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > People Don't Need 'Science People'
>

> Doh!!!!!!!
>
> People need science people's and their technology


"their technology"???

You couldn't even name one, dummie.

[The Starmaker]

Alan Baker wrote:
>
> In article <50E87F...@ix.netcom.com>,
> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > People Don't Need 'Science People'
> > by The Starmaker
> >
> > This is my essay on "People Don't Need 'Science People'"...
> >
> > I probably can list a billion reasons why
> >
> > People Don't Need 'Science People'
> >
> >
> > and why it would be a much much better world without them...
> >
> > just stop giving them money and everything will be fine.
> >
> > No more government grants for the sciences.
> >
> > Let them get a job flipping buggers..
> >
> > maybe they'll make somethin of themselves.
>
> So nobody important to you has ever taken antibiotics for an infection,
> or needed an X-ray...
>
> ...or a blood transfusion...
>
> ...or traveled by plane...
>
> ...or car...
>
> ...or drank milk...
>

you forgot ...spinach.

[The Starmaker]

Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> On Jan 5, 2:30 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > People Don't Need 'Science People'
> > by The Starmaker
>
> People need you to die.

Nobody has ever came up to me and say, "You need to die."

I didn't even know it was considered ...a need.


Of course, I don't live in New Haven...

[The Starmaker]

Randy L wrote:
>
> Didn't humans try that whole "People Don't Need 'Science People'" thing
> already? Oh yeah, now I remember! It was called "The Dark Ages". Look how
> well that turned out for us...
>
> Randy L.


It is the inventions of the 'Science People' that will bring us back to the Dark Ages...


“I do not know how the third world war will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the fourth... rocks."” -- Albert Einstein


http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html


The Starmaker

[Saimhain Moose]

On Jan 5, 6:46 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Will in New Haven wrote:

> > People need you to die.
>
> Nobody has ever came up to me and say, "You need to die."

You need to die.

Glad to be of service.

[Alan Baker]

In article <50E8B9...@ix.netcom.com>,

The transistor.

[The Starmaker]

You're sooooo dumb.

I think about what I need..
I might need to buy milk
I need eggs
I need a loaf of bread..
but, I don't come around
also thinking
on the way to the grocery store..
"Oh, I forgot, I need to die."

It is not a *need* a person has.

But, 'science people' invent
atomic bombs because they don't
like German people. So they feel
a need to kill them all.


The Starmaker

Right now, at this very momment..
the 'science people' are creating
a new atomic-like bomb
that will be unleashed on the world..

it might be very well be "an accident" of theirs..
a...technology accident, ...
like The Internet..

and you people are going to feel the effects of it.

In fact, you cannot even imagine what it is..

The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

The transistor was not a technology of the science people, it was not an
invention of theirs...it was a discovery.


You got a whole bunch of girls in China making transistor radios..you
had to press it against
your ears to hear the music.


" I grew up in the household of the head of Bell Labs, so I knew that
there was something strange about the
transistor because I knew Bill Shockley, and Bill Shockley was
something of a witless buffoon. There's no way he could have invented
the transistor.



The symbol for the transistor is made up of three pieces: positive,
positive and negative; or negative, negative and positive...silicon
dioxide doped with arsenic and boron, in 1947. Now, in 1947, doping
things with boron was not easy. It required the sort of equipment that
even Bell Labs in 1946 did not possess. They had this type of equipment
at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories, but it would have taken thousands and
thousands and thousands of man-hours to invent the transistor."

[Quadibloc]

On Jan 6, 2:27 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> quoted, in
part:

> "They had this type of equipment
> at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories, but it would have taken thousands and
> thousands and thousands of man-hours to invent the transistor."

Okay, so what did they do? Capture it from a crashed flying saucer?

Of course, somebody *did* write a book making just that claim. Just
like the Bible is a book.

Unfortunately, the Book of Mormon, the Quran and the Bhagavad-Gita are
*also* printed books. As is the Talmud, the Mishnah, and, for that
matter, The Origin of Species.

For that matter, Chariots of the Gods, Worlds in Collision, Atlantis:
The Antediluvian World, The Lost Continent of Mu, In My Soul I Am
Free, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, The Sleeping
Prophet, and From India to the Planet Mars are all printed books too!

You know, just maybe you can't believe everything you read. Even when
it's in the non-fiction section.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Jan 6, 2:00 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Right now, at this very momment..
> the 'science people' are creating
> a new atomic-like bomb
> that will be unleashed on the world..
>
> it might be very well be "an accident" of theirs..
> a...technology accident, ...
> like The Internet..

Oh, no! Clearly, since the Internet has resulted in people like you
being able to inflict their postings on the world, another invention
like that would be a horrible disaster!

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Jan 6, 2:00 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> But, 'science people' invent
> atomic bombs because they don't
> like German people. So they feel
> a need to kill them all.

Funny, I missed the part in my history books where some group, filled
with hatred for German people just because they were German, rounded
them up in concentration camps and killed millions of them under
horrible circumstances.

Instead, what I read was that when the atomic bomb was invented, the
German government had started a world war, and as much of the initial
work on quantum mechanics and related subjects was done in Germany,
there was a real possibility of Germany developing an atomic bomb
during that war.

So there was no question of people hating German people for being
Germans. In fact, if anyone was operating on that basis, it was the
German government, that went around trying to kill all the Jews - for
being Jews.

A Nazi world conquest would basically have turned the whole world,
maybe forever, into what North Korea is today. It doesn't take hatred
to be willing to use lethal force in order to prevent that from
happening.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

I forgot to mention

5/5/2000
Ice: The Ultimate Disaster

even though that book was brought back to my mind on December 21st,
2012.

John Savard

[Rod Speed]

"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:0b95e264-5f07-4948...@10g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

Nope, occupied France was nothing like that and
they wouldn't have conquered their allies either.

> It doesn't take hatred to be willing to use lethal
> force in order to prevent that from happening.

True.

[The Starmaker]

Let me makes this clear...

it was not an invention of theirs...it was a discovery, a discovery by *accident*...meaning, no one intentionally set out to make the transistor.

[Howard Brazee]

On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 16:52:02 -0800, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>> The symbol for the transistor is made up of three pieces: positive,
>> positive and negative; or negative, negative and positive...silicon
>> dioxide doped with arsenic and boron, in 1947. Now, in 1947, doping
>> things with boron was not easy. It required the sort of equipment that
>> even Bell Labs in 1946 did not possess. They had this type of equipment
>> at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories, but it would have taken thousands and
>> thousands and thousands of man-hours to invent the transistor."
>
>
>Let me makes this clear...
>
>it was not an invention of theirs...it was a discovery, a discovery by *accident*...meaning, no one intentionally set out to make the transistor.

Every discovery has some background that was discovered by accident.
The first transistor was built on purpose after Bardeen & Braittain's
discovery.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[Hunter]

On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 13:27:43 -0800, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>> In article <50E8B9...@ix.netcom.com>,
>> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> > 7 wrote:
>> > >
>> > > The Starmaker wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > People Don't Need 'Science People'
>> > >
>> > > Doh!!!!!!!
>> > >
>> > > People need science people's and their technology
>> >
>> >
>> > "their technology"???
>> >
>> > You couldn't even name one, dummie.
>>
>> The transistor.
>>
>> --
>> Alan Baker
>> Vancouver, British Columbia
>> "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
>> to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
>> sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
>
>
>The transistor was not a technology of the science people, it was not an
>invention of theirs...it was a discovery.

-----
So, you think a transistor was just laying around somewhere after it
grew organically?

>
>You got a whole bunch of girls in China making transistor radios..you
>had to press it against
>your ears to hear the music.

----
And what does that has to do with the invention of the transistor?

>
>" I grew up in the household of the head of Bell Labs, so I knew that
>there was something strange about the
> transistor because I knew Bill Shockley, and Bill Shockley was
>something of a witless buffoon. There's no way he could have invented
>the transistor.
>
>The symbol for the transistor is made up of three pieces: positive,
>positive and negative; or negative, negative and positive...silicon
>dioxide doped with arsenic and boron, in 1947. Now, in 1947, doping
>things with boron was not easy. It required the sort of equipment that
>even Bell Labs in 1946 did not possess. They had this type of equipment
>at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories, but it would have taken thousands and
>thousands and thousands of man-hours to invent the transistor."

-----
It is amazing that you don't cite your sources for quotes. Here is the
part of the article you are quoting from:

"Who really invented the Transistor? Other claims to the invention...

This article first appeared in Radio Bygones magazine,

www.radiobygones.com

Reprinted here by permission from the author, Andrew Emmerson

Andrew Emmerson uncovers conflicting claims and some revisionist
history.

[edit]

However, an entirely different origin has been proposed by Jack
Shulman, president of the American Computer Company. Frankly, his
theory is pretty fantastic but it makes a rattling good read if
nothing else. Here's what he says...

I grew up in the household of the head of Bell Labs, so I knew that
there was something strange about the transistor because I knew Bill
Shockley, and Bill Shockley was something of a witless buffoon.
There's no way he could have invented the transistor.

The symbol for the transistor is made up of three pieces: positive,
positive and negative; or negative, negative and positive...silicon
dioxide doped with arsenic and boron, in 1947. Now, in 1947, doping
things with boron was not easy. It required the sort of equipment that
even Bell Labs in 1946 did not possess. They had this type of
equipment at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories, but it would have taken
thousands and thousands and thousands of man-hours to invent the
transistor.

If you look back at it historically, what AT&T was claiming was that
one day this "genius", William Shockley, was working with a rectifier;
he looked at it and he noticed it had unusual propensities, and there,
bingo, he invented the transistor! He figured it out right there!

Anybody believe that story? Me neither. And I knew, because the
administrative head of the transistor project was Jack Morton-the man
at whose house I was staying to go to school and whose sons I was
friends with. He often commented on the fact that it was really a
shame that those three idiots got responsibility for the transistor
and he didn't.

Mr Shulman goes on to claim that the transistor's real origin lies in
technology recovered by the US Air Force from an alien spacecraft
recovered at Roswell, New Mexico in 1947.

It's extremely controversial stuff and contrary to all received
wisdom-but quite amusing of you don't take it too seriously. Let's
move on rapidly, back down to earth and to minerals in particular."

[edit]

http://tinyurl.com/bfldv3l

Now reader mind you the article overall does NOT say that alien beings
invented the transistor. Its point is that Bell Labs and Shockley
built on other people's previous work going back decades and
re-invented it but didn't give the previous people credit. But even if
that is true it was still invented by building on the work of previous
scientist and engineers.

The entire article makes a good case that Bell Labs was given too much
credit historically for one of the greatest inventions of the 20th
century. The alien claim was made in a bit of a tongue in cheek spirit
as the excerpt shows by the author of the article. He doesn't believe
it but he used it because Shulman was anti Shockley. Personally it
diminishes the argument of the otherwise interesting case made by the
article. Makes it seem like the author was in part motivated in
attacking Shockley by including the belief of that crazy guy.

But Starmaker chose the part in which a person claims that the
transistor was alien technology to back up his argument so I guess
Starmaker believes it. Ironic since he doesn't believe in planets
orbiting other stars.

------>Hunter

"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."

-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

[Quadibloc]

On Jan 6, 5:06 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Quadibloc" <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:
0b95e264-5f07-4948...@10g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

> > A Nazi world conquest would basically have turned the
> > whole world, maybe forever, into what North Korea is today.
>
> Nope, occupied France was nothing like that and
> they wouldn't have conquered their allies either.

Well, I really didn't think I was exaggerating.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Jan 6, 6:17 pm, Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote:

> But Starmaker chose the part in which a person claims that the
> transistor was alien technology to back up his argument so I guess
> Starmaker believes it. Ironic since he doesn't believe in planets
> orbiting other stars.

But there's a simple way to resolve that dilemma.

Those flying saucers: they're not really flown by aliens. They're
flown by demons (fallen angels who rebelled with Lucifer) who are
pretending to be aliens in order to decieve people. Just like the
familiar spirits that pretend to be deceased people - or, now,
sometimes, aliens - who decieve people by speaking through
"channelers".

So the transistor was obtained from demons! I guess we should have
burned its inventors for witchcraft!

I mean, isn't it obvious that this is the direction in which Starmaker
is heading?

John Savard

[Rod Speed]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote

>>> A Nazi world conquest would basically have turned the
>>> whole world, maybe forever, into what North Korea is today.

>> Nope, occupied France was nothing like that and
>> they wouldn't have conquered their allies either.

> Well, I really didn't think I was exaggerating.

You were tho. It would have been nothing like North Korea.

I don't believe he was even interested in world conquest either,
particularly if Britain had just agreed to stay out of what he was
doing in europe.

[Hunter]

On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 13:00:49 -0800, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Saimhain Moose wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 5, 6:46 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > Will in New Haven wrote:
>>
>> > > People need you to die.
>> >
>> > Nobody has ever came up to me and say, "You need to die."
>>
>> You need to die.
>>
>> Glad to be of service.
>
>
>You're sooooo dumb.
>
>I think about what I need..
>I might need to buy milk
>I need eggs
>I need a loaf of bread..
>but, I don't come around
>also thinking
>on the way to the grocery store..
>"Oh, I forgot, I need to die."
>
>It is not a *need* a person has.
>
>But, 'science people' invent
>atomic bombs because they don't
>like German people. So they feel
>a need to kill them all.

-----
Wow. I guess World War II and Hitler threatening to overrun all of
Europe had nothing to do with it according to you?

>
>
>The Starmaker
>
>Right now, at this very momment..
>the 'science people' are creating
>a new atomic-like bomb
>that will be unleashed on the world..

----
What is it?

>
>it might be very well be "an accident" of theirs..
>a...technology accident, ...
>like The Internet..

-----
No it wasn't, it was invented. The scientist didn't figure it would be
in the form it is now, but the basic idea of computers instantly
sharing data around the country via a network was a deliberate
invention.

>
>and you people are going to feel the effects of it.
>
>In fact, you cannot even imagine what it is..
>
>The Starmaker

-----
And you can?

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/6/13 1/6/13 2:52 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <50E8B9...@ix.netcom.com>,
> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> 7 wrote:
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> People Don't Need 'Science People'
>>> Doh!!!!!!!
>>> People need science people's and their technology
>> "their technology"???
>> You couldn't even name one, dummie.
>
> The transistor.

That's rather parochial and short-sighted; better answers are: Fire, the wheel,
clothing, agriculture, etc. Without science and technology, >99.9% of the people
alive today would be dead, and those who were alive would not be discussing such
nonsense.


Tom Roberts

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jan 6, 10:57 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

> That's rather parochial and short-sighted; better answers are: Fire, the wheel,
> clothing, agriculture, etc. Without science and technology, >99.9% of the people
> alive today would be dead, and those who were alive would not be discussing such
> nonsense.

Starmaker most likely meant the part of science that went forth with
faulty mathematics. Do SR and GR come in mind? <shrug>

[Hunter]

----
Ask the Poles, the Dutch, the Scandinavians, The Russians, and the
Ukrainians etc. And their allies like Romania and Hungary would've
been satellite states of Nazi Germany just like Poland and East
Germany were to the Soviet Union after the war.

But even in Occupied France the only real difference between North
Korea and what the Nazis did in France is that the Germans had state
controlled capitalism (as opposed to truly free capitalism as known in
the US, Great Britain etc.) and North Korea is communist. Otherwise
the control of the Press, the threat of being sent to a concentration
camp for real or imagined opposition to the regime was the same. Hell
Nazi Germany itself was exactly like that. The only real difference
was the people weren't periodically starving to death.
(snip)

[Rod Speed]

"Hunter (Hunter)" <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:50ea7a24...@news.optonline.net...

> Ask the Poles, the Dutch, the Scandinavians,

None of those got anything like North Korea.

> The Russians, and the Ukrainians etc.

They didn�t get anything like North Korea either.

> And their allies like Romania and Hungary
> would've been satellite states of Nazi Germany

Sure, but that was nothing like North Korea.

> just like Poland and East Germany
> were to the Soviet Union after the war.

Again, nothing like North Korea.

> But even in Occupied France the only real difference
> between North Korea and what the Nazis did in France
> is that the Germans had state controlled capitalism

Quite a bit of it wasn�t, particularly with agriculture.

> (as opposed to truly free capitalism as known in the
> US, Great Britain etc.) and North Korea is communist.
> Otherwise the control of the Press, the threat of being
> sent to a concentration camp for real or imagined
> opposition to the regime was the same.

But if you did not oppose the regime, things
were completely different to North Korea.

> Hell Nazi Germany itself was exactly like that.

Nothing like North Korea in fact.

> The only real difference was the people
> weren't periodically starving to death.

Mindlessly silly on all sorts of other stuff.

> "No man in the wrong can stand up against
> a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."

> -----William J. McDonald
> Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

Even sillier.

[Hunter]

-----
I get what you are saying but those things youdon't need scientist and
engineers-at least not as we know them today and whom Starmaker is
taking about-for that. Those things were developed by trial and error
over hundreds of years, not by trained scientist working methodically
to uncover the laws of how a natural phenomena works and/or applying
those laws to make a new theorectical technological object operate.

A better answer would probably been the light bulb, or the telephone,
or the steam engine.

------>Hunter

[Veronica Milton]

In article <50E87F...@ix.netcom.com>, star...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>People Don't Need 'Science People'

>by The Starmaker
>
>This is my essay on "People Don't Need 'Science People'"...
>
>I probably can list a billion reasons why
>

>People Don't Need 'Science People'

Science is a LIAR, sometimes.

Don't be history's BITCH!

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Jan 5, 2:30 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> People Don't Need 'Science People'
> by The Starmaker
>
> This is my essay on "People Don't Need 'Science People'"...

This is my essay on "People Who Hound Other People."

Would you believe there's another kooky woman from that group over
there bugging me on other networks?

[thepinkpantsuit]

She's on FB friending her way thru the department and on linkedin
trying to friend my relatives. I don't know her. Thought you'd enjoy
that.

[thepinkpantsuit]

She friended the guy I worked with, professors in that department,
then she went to linkedin and tried to connect to a relative which put
Skip in the network. Then she went back to facebook to friend writers
of war stories. Maybe he knows her?

[thepinkpantsuit]

You know how he loves those old bottled blondes.

SKIP?

[thepinkpantsuit]

And she is also friends with a former classmate who dyed her hair red
and held a retriever while simultaneously blogging about weight
watchers. Now she's friending hispanic women.

Yes, time for you guys to move to facebook. Everyone wants to be me
there.

[Hunter]

----
And they "discovered it" by experimenting in the laboratory unless you
mean some dude could somehow find it in the forest or something.

Did someone "discover" the telephone too? How about the integrated
circuit?

All those things are examples of applied science, things engineered
from the understanding of nature through experimentation in
laboratories of some sort or another.

You may hate it but virtually every thing you see that goes beyond
some sort of lever are examples of engineering using science,
including the very computer in front of you now, unless you believe it
was discovered by "accident" by some guy walking in the desert.

[thepinkpantsuit]

If you liked it over on group, you will love it! Men screaming and
competing for my attention and women copying everything I do.

P.S. Enough with Einstein.

[news.virginmedia.com]

"The Starmaker" <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:50E87F...@ix.netcom.com...

> People Don't Need 'Science People'
> by The Starmaker
>
> This is my essay on "People Don't Need 'Science People'"...
>

> I probably can list a billion reasons why
>

> People Don't Need 'Science People'
>
>

> and why it would be a much much better world without them...
>
> just stop giving them money and everything will be fine.
>
> No more government grants for the sciences.
>
> Let them get a job flipping buggers..
>
> maybe they'll make somethin of themselves.
>
>

Good luck when you need antibiotics mate...
Or Dentistry.
Or fuel for your home / your transport.
Or an Internet to troll.
Or gas to cook the burggers your're flipping.

Dave H. (the other one)

[Alan Baker]

In article <50EA1C...@ix.netcom.com>,

Actually (and as usual), you're quite wrong.

[The Starmaker]

Two cans and a string...come on already!

What was the name of the three year old who invented the telephone?

[The Starmaker]

Is it possible for me to tie my shoelaces without Science?

[Michael Stemper]

In article <50EC71...@ix.netcom.com>, The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>news.virginmedia.com wrote:
>> "The Starmaker" <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:50E87F...@ix.netcom.com...

>> > People Don't Need 'Science People'
>> > by The Starmaker
>> >
>> > This is my essay on "People Don't Need 'Science People'"...
>> >
>> > I probably can list a billion reasons why
>> >
>> > People Don't Need 'Science People'
>> >
>> > and why it would be a much much better world without them...
>> >
>> > just stop giving them money and everything will be fine.

>> Good luck when you need antibiotics mate...
>> Or Dentistry.
>> Or fuel for your home / your transport.
>> Or an Internet to troll.
>> Or gas to cook the burggers your're flipping.
>
>

>Is it possible for me to tie my shoelaces

Probably not.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Economists have correctly predicted seven of the last three recessions.

[The Starmaker]

If there is a paralell universe, with another person who looks like me
exactly..
Who is it? Is it me, or is it somebody else??

[Hunter]

----
Yes. You can go live like the Unabomber but even he had to rely on
some gadgets.

[Howard Brazee]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 09:20:26 -0800, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>If there is a paralell universe, with another person who looks like me
>exactly..
>Who is it? Is it me, or is it somebody else??

That's the *real* you. This you is just a copy.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[The Starmaker]

Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 09:20:26 -0800, The Starmaker
> <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >If there is a paralell universe, with another person who looks like me
> >exactly..
> >Who is it? Is it me, or is it somebody else??
>
> That's the *real* you. This you is just a copy.

So, when light splits in two one is a copy?

[gaby de wilde]

On Jan 7, 2:17 am, Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 13:27:43 -0800, The Starmaker

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Alan Baker wrote:
>

> >> In article <50E8B9E4.1...@ix.netcom.com>,

> >>  The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> > 7 wrote:
>
> >> > > The Starmaker wrote:
>

> >> > > > People Don't Need 'Science People'
>

> >> > > Doh!!!!!!!
>
> >> > > People need science people's and their technology
>
> >> > "their technology"???
>
> >> > You couldn't even name one, dummie.
>
> >> The transistor.
>
> >> --
> >> Alan Baker
> >> Vancouver, British Columbia
> >> "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
> >> to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
> >> sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
>
> >The transistor was not a technology of the science people, it was not an
> >invention of theirs...it was a discovery.
>

> -----
> So, you think a transistor was just laying around somewhere after it
> grew organically?

>
> >You got a whole bunch of girls in China making transistor radios..you
> >had to press it against
> >your ears to hear the music.
>

> ----
> And what does that has to do with the invention of the transistor?

>
> >" I grew up in the household of the head of Bell Labs, so I knew that
> >there was something strange about the
> > transistor because I knew Bill Shockley, and Bill Shockley was
> >something of a witless buffoon. There's no way he could have invented
> >the transistor.
>
> >The symbol for the transistor is made up of three pieces: positive,
> >positive and negative; or negative, negative and positive...silicon
> >dioxide doped with arsenic and boron, in 1947. Now, in 1947, doping
> >things with boron was not easy. It required the sort of equipment that
> >even Bell Labs in 1946 did not possess. They had this type of equipment
> >at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories, but it would have taken thousands and
> >thousands and thousands of man-hours to invent the transistor."
>

> -----
> It is amazing that you don't cite your sources for quotes. Here is the
> part of the article you are quoting from:
>
> "Who really invented the Transistor? Other claims to the invention...
>
> This article first appeared in Radio Bygones magazine,
>
> www.radiobygones.com
>
> Reprinted here by permission from the author, Andrew Emmerson
>
> Andrew Emmerson uncovers conflicting claims and some revisionist
> history.
>
> [edit]
>
> However, an entirely different origin has been proposed by Jack
> Shulman, president of the American Computer Company. Frankly, his
> theory is pretty fantastic but it makes a rattling good read if
> nothing else. Here's what he says...

>
> I grew up in the household of the head of Bell Labs, so I knew that
> there was something strange about the transistor because I knew Bill
> Shockley, and Bill Shockley was something of a witless buffoon.
> There's no way he could have invented the transistor.
>
> The symbol for the transistor is made up of three pieces: positive,
> positive and negative; or negative, negative and positive...silicon
> dioxide doped with arsenic and boron, in 1947. Now, in 1947, doping
> things with boron was not easy. It required the sort of equipment that
> even Bell Labs in 1946 did not possess. They had this type of
> equipment at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories, but it would have taken
> thousands and thousands and thousands of man-hours to invent the
> transistor.
>

> If you look back at it historically, what AT&T was claiming was that
> one day this "genius", William Shockley, was working with a rectifier;
> he looked at it and he noticed it had unusual propensities, and there,
> bingo, he invented the transistor! He figured it out right there!
>
> Anybody believe that story? Me neither. And I knew, because the
> administrative head of the transistor project was Jack Morton-the man
> at whose house I was staying to go to school and whose sons I was
> friends with. He often commented on the fact that it was really a
> shame that those three idiots got responsibility for the transistor
> and he didn't.
>
> Mr Shulman goes on to claim that the transistor's real origin lies in
> technology recovered by the US Air Force from an alien spacecraft
> recovered at Roswell, New Mexico in 1947.
>
> It's extremely controversial stuff and contrary to all received
> wisdom-but quite amusing of you don't take it too seriously. Let's
> move on rapidly, back down to earth and to minerals in particular."
>
> [edit]
>
> http://tinyurl.com/bfldv3l
>
> Now reader mind you the article overall does NOT say that alien beings
> invented the transistor. Its point is that Bell Labs and Shockley
> built on other people's previous work going back decades and
> re-invented it but didn't give the previous people credit. But even if
> that is true it was still invented by building on the work of previous
> scientist and engineers.
>
> The entire article makes a good case that Bell Labs was given too much
> credit historically for one of the greatest inventions of the 20th
> century. The alien claim was made in a bit of a tongue in cheek spirit
> as the excerpt shows by the author of the article. He doesn't believe
> it but he used it because Shulman was anti Shockley. Personally it
> diminishes the argument of the otherwise interesting case made by the
> article. Makes it seem like the author was in part motivated in
> attacking Shockley by including the belief of that crazy guy.

>
> But Starmaker chose the part in which a person claims that the
> transistor was alien technology to back up his argument so I guess
> Starmaker believes it. Ironic since he doesn't believe in planets
> orbiting other stars.
>

> ------>Hunter
>
> "No man in the wrong can stand up against
>  a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
>
>                -----William J. McDonald
>            Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

Yes but...

Morray invented the first transistor-type valve in 1925. His patent
application was filed on July 13, 1931 + many eye witnesses + he
wrote a book about it.

Tesla got patents 723,188 and 725,605 in 1903.

[gaby de wilde]

He cleverly lumped you in together with the SR and GR people into a
unfied science people ~ who share credit.

Your science is enabling RS and GR in that you are actively trying to
make the general science thing look like something real.

Don't you think if it was something real they would have listened to
you by now?

You see what I did there?

[Quadibloc]

> Yes but...
>
> Morray invented the first transistor-type valve in 1925. His patent
> application was filed on July 13, 1931  + many eye witnesses + he
> wrote a book about it.
>
> Tesla got patents 723,188 and 725,605 in 1903.

Yes, and then there's the Crystodyne... but shh! If Starmaker hears
that the transistor wasn't an invention of the Devil, spread by demons
piloting flying saucers, he'll start using his computer again and post
here some more.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

Special Relativity is true, having been verified countless times by
experiment.

General Relativity may still be *somewhat* on the frontiers of
knowledge - but the mathematics behind it, tensor calculus, is not in
any way "faulty"; it has more prosaic uses, in which it serves
admirably. Before Einstein came along, it was a solid trusted part of
the mathematical toolkit of analysis along with calculus, differential
equations, and so on and so forth.

John Savard

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:gfednV4RkON...@giganews.com:

> That's rather parochial and short-sighted; better answers are:
> Fire, the wheel, clothing, agriculture, etc. Without science and
> technology, >99.9% of the people alive today would be dead,

ITYM "would never have existed."

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[The Starmaker]

Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> On Jan 6, 10:57 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
>

> > That's rather parochial and short-sighted; better answers are: Fire, the wheel,
> > clothing, agriculture, etc. Without science and technology, >99.9% of the people

> > alive today would be dead, and those who were alive would not be discussing such
> > nonsense.
>
> Starmaker most likely meant the part of science that went forth with
> faulty mathematics. Do SR and GR come in mind? <shrug>

Not only that I don't know what a SR or GR is, but what is a shrug?

[Wayne Throop]

:: Starmaker most likely meant the part of science that went forth with

:: faulty mathematics. Do SR and GR come in mind?

There's no reason they should.
And self-styled-starmaker most likely meant "Schmott guys is eeeeevile!",
just as usual. Or as put in Cold as Ice, "smart is stupid".

: Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
: Special Relativity is true, having been verified
: countless times by experiment.

And the math needed to state the concepts is
no more difficult than analytic geometry.
Hyperbolic analytic geometry in particular.

The most common criticisms I've seen are variations on claims of
the self-contradictory nature of SR math. However, it's easy enough
to see that IF SR (which is basically just hyperbolic geometry) is
self-contradictory, THEN so is euclidean geometry. So there's far more
than just "somebody made a mistake in the early 1900s"; it's "Some greek
made a mistake, and we've been wrong for a couple thousand years".

: General Relativity may still be *somewhat* on the frontiers of

: knowledge - but the mathematics behind it, tensor calculus, is not in
: any way "faulty"; it has more prosaic uses, in which it serves
: admirably. Before Einstein came along, it was a solid trusted part of
: the mathematical toolkit of analysis along with calculus, differential
: equations, and so on and so forth.

Well, it was considerably more recent mathematics than for SR. Less
"solid and trusted". But yes, non-Euclidean geometries in general,
and metric tensors in particular, pre-existed GR by decades.

[Michael Black]

I've never seen a lot of story on why those early efforts disappeared.
Maybe they were't feasible as products at the time, maybe the inventor
couldn't get interest (money), maybe they just fell by the wayside like
lots of things.

There is that book, "The INvention That Changed the WOrld" (I think that's
the title, I read it out of the library about fifteen years ago) about the
wok on RADAR during WWII. It caused a lot of peripheral advances, pushing
to higher frequencies and the need for better tubes. But it said that
they were having problems with receiving tubes for the needed frequencies,
so they dropped back to "cat's whiskers", though in a more formalized
form, as the mixer in receivers, the antenna feeding the mixer without nay
amplification. So that was a new look at the early days of radio, when
the cat's whisker was so common. And in returing to it, they surely had a
new vantage point. So out of WWII there were those fancy microwave mixer
diodes, the 1N21 and such. And the book made the point that the
resurgence in interest in such things was the foundation for the work at
Bell on the transistor after the war, though I don't know if that was
interpretation or reality.

It does make sense. I've seen things treated like black boxes, and people
just build on what was done before, forgetting details. But if you go
back to the beginning, you get new insight, and can then do soemthing new
with it.

Michael

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Michael Black" wrote in message
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org...

==============================================================
Transistors come in two distinct forms for two distinct functions: a
switching device, on or off, used in digital computers, and as an amplifier,
used in analogue radio receivers and similar applications. The first
transistors were more suited to switching, it wasn't until the MOSFET (metal
oxide silicon field effect transistor) came along in the early 70's that a
transistor behaved like a vacuum tube amplifier (no electrical connection
between base and collector or emitter same as the grid of a tube had no
connection to the anode or cathode) , but long before that some very clever
engineers had worked around the problem and in the 60's every teenager had a
"tranny", a portable battery operated radio, just as today's teenagers all
own a smart phone.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.

[Quadibloc]

On Jan 10, 3:57 pm, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> I've never seen a lot of story on why those early efforts disappeared.

My understanding is that the official invention of the transistor
followed advances in solid-state physics. People playing with cat's
whisker diodes could have made transistors by accident, but because
they couldn't explain _why_ they should work, they couldn't attract
investors; there was no basis on which to expect the transistor could
be developed into something capable of mass manufacure without a
theory.

John Savard

[The Starmaker]

Okay, if there is a twin of me in another paralell universe, I don't know who is he.

He's not me. I'm me. He's somebody else I don't know.


The Starmaker

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Okay, if there is a twin of me in another paralell universe,

: I don't know who is he. He's not me. I'm me.
: He's somebody else I don't know.

However, since you say he's your twin, your mother is his mother.
So presumably you know his mother, which is often good enough for
most social circumstandes, and she can introduce the two of you.

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Alan Baker wrote:
> >

> > In article <50E8B9...@ix.netcom.com>,

> > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 7 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > People Don't Need 'Science People'
> > > >
> > > > Doh!!!!!!!
> > > >
> > > > People need science people's and their technology
> > >
> > >
> > > "their technology"???
> > >
> > > You couldn't even name one, dummie.
> >
> > The transistor.
> >
> > --
> > Alan Baker
> > Vancouver, British Columbia
> > "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
> > to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
> > sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
>
> The transistor was not a technology of the science people, it was not an
> invention of theirs...it was a discovery.
>

> You got a whole bunch of girls in China making transistor radios..you
> had to press it against
> your ears to hear the music.
>

> " I grew up in the household of the head of Bell Labs, so I knew that
> there was something strange about the
> transistor because I knew Bill Shockley, and Bill Shockley was
> something of a witless buffoon. There's no way he could have invented
> the transistor.
>

I don't need no stinky transistor radio playing the same song over and over
because the record company pays the dj to play it over and over. I don't
even listen to the radio..

I don't need a transistor!


I don't need the stuff that contains transistors...

I don't need *anything* that the 'Science People" come up with..


Maybe you're misunderstanding me..
When I go to the store to buy milk, or eggs, or shoes...I don't think about,
"Where is the "Science Store"? There are no Science stores with science people selling their science stuff.
If I tell someone, "I'm going to the Science store, they are going to ask, What the hell is a Science store?!!!!

We had the Sone Age, we had the Ice age, we had the Industrial age, but we never had The Science Age.

Why? Because there is no such thing as Science. (whatever that word means)


The Starmaker









The Starmaker

[Michael Black]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013, Quadibloc wrote:

That makes sense, I've seen some of the stories of those early devices,
and one letter about 1971 told about an oscillating "cat's whisker" where
it's almost like he didn't believe decades before that he'd had anything
useful.

Michael

[The Starmaker]

The operative word is "me".

I am a product of my environment.


I don't know who is she.

[Alan Baker]

In article <50F055...@ix.netcom.com>,

So stop posting.

>
>
> Maybe you're misunderstanding me..
> When I go to the store to buy milk, or eggs, or shoes..

...which are all only in that store because of science...

>.I don't think about,
> "Where is the "Science Store"? There are no Science stores with science
> people selling their science stuff.
> If I tell someone, "I'm going to the Science store, they are going to ask,
> What the hell is a Science store?!!!!
>
> We had the Sone Age, we had the Ice age, we had the Industrial age, but we
> never had The Science Age.
>
> Why? Because there is no such thing as Science. (whatever that word means)
>
>
> The Starmaker
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Starmaker

[Michael Black]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013, The Starmaker wrote:


> Maybe you're misunderstanding me.. When I go to the store to buy milk,
> or eggs, or shoes...I don't think about, "Where is the "Science Store"?
> There are no Science stores with science people selling their science
> stuff. If I tell someone, "I'm going to the Science store, they are
> going to ask, What the hell is a Science store?!!!!
>

Often, these are the gift shops of planetariums and science museums. They
sell books and a wide variety of science related kits and the like for
learning. The Vancouver Aquarium, for instance, likely has some science
related kits in their gift shop. Likewise the Ontario Science Centre, or
the Sciecne Centre in Ottawa or here in Montreal at the Old Port. Not the
perfect "science shop" but better than nothing. I used to buy fossils and
rock specimens at the local "natural history museum".

I don't know whether they still exist, but in the eighties there was one
or two (I can't remember if they were separate stores or connected to each
other) science stores in some of the malls in Toronto. All kinds of neat
science things, a larger stock than a museum gift shop. For that matter,
for a while there was an Edmund Scientific outlet in some mall way up the
subway system in a suburb of Toronto in the eighties. It was conencted to
the Edumund Scientific store in the US, which was like a mecca (and did
mail order) even though some prices were way too high for common parts.

For a while in the eighites, there was a standalone science store here in
Montreal, but business wasn't so great so he packed up and moved to
Burlington Vermont.

Teelscope stores would be "science stores" but likely limited to Astronomy
related items. Some indepdent toy stores often carry a lot of "scientific
toys".

I have no idea if they still exist, but there used to be places where one
could order biological samples and biology tools. If you go far back
enough, Ed Ricketts (yes John Steinbeck's friend) ran such a business in
Monterey California, but certainly forty years ago they still existed (and
likely still do, I just don't know where). Wait. "Carolina Biological
Supply Company" is still around.

Probably parents who home school their children know about places full of
scientific toys and the like.

Keep in mind, I got my microscope and chemistry sets when I was a kid in
the "toy department' of a department store, Eatons, but plenty of toy
stores and hobby stores carried the same sorts of things. Of coruse, one
cold also buy "science supplies" at the hardware store and the pharmacy,
though I think that's less the case nowadays.

Just because it's not always called a "Science Store" doesn't mean they
don't exist.

Michael

[Quadibloc]

On Jan 11, 11:12 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> I don't need the stuff that contains transistors...

But although you don't _need_ a computer for posting to the Internet,
it's still an activity you enjoy, right?

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Jan 11, 8:06 pm, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> Just because it's not always called a "Science Store" doesn't mean they
> don't exist.

I bought a few eyepieces from this place:

http://www.thescienceshop.ca/index.htm

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Jan 5, 12:30 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> People Don't Need 'Science People'

No more hunger and thirst...

but first,

http://www.sciconnect.com/

John Savard

[Alan Baker]

In article <50F05E...@ix.netcom.com>,

I don't think there is a self-respecting environment that would admit to
having produced you.

>
>
> I don't know who is she.

[Michael Black]

And in Cnaada, too. I will look it over later, it's more expensive
ordering in Canada, but a lot of small places in the US don't particularly
like to send things across the border.

Michael

[Michael Black]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013, Quadibloc wrote:

The Simpsons parody the thinking well. A comet "threatens" the earth and
the good townspeople rush to the observatory with torches and pitchforks.
That's happened more than once, the mob rushing to do away with the
messanger.

Michael

[The Starmaker]

Alan Baker wrote:
>
> In article <50F05E...@ix.netcom.com>,
> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Wayne Throop wrote:
> > >
> > > : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
> > > : Okay, if there is a twin of me in another paralell universe,
> > > : I don't know who is he. He's not me. I'm me.
> > > : He's somebody else I don't know.
> > >
> > > However, since you say he's your twin, your mother is his mother.
> > > So presumably you know his mother, which is often good enough for
> > > most social circumstandes, and she can introduce the two of you.
> >
> >
> > The operative word is "me".
> >
> > I am a product of my environment.
>
> I don't think there is a self-respecting environment that would admit to
> having produced you.

How about The Three Stooges on Tv?

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> news.virginmedia.com wrote:
> >
> > "The Starmaker" <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:50E87F...@ix.netcom.com...

> > > People Don't Need 'Science People'

> > > by The Starmaker
> > >
> > > This is my essay on "People Don't Need 'Science People'"...
> > >
> > > I probably can list a billion reasons why

> > >
> > > People Don't Need 'Science People'
> > >
> > >

> > > and why it would be a much much better world without them...
> > >
> > > just stop giving them money and everything will be fine.
> > >
> > > No more government grants for the sciences.
> > >
> > > Let them get a job flipping buggers..
> > >
> > > maybe they'll make somethin of themselves.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Good luck when you need antibiotics mate...
> > Or Dentistry.
> > Or fuel for your home / your transport.
> > Or an Internet to troll.
> > Or gas to cook the burggers your're flipping.
> >
> > Dave H. (the other one)
>
> Is it possible for me to tie my shoelaces without Science?


The Science People would have you believe...that..
you cannot Act or Think without their sciences.

You Eat because they alow you to eat
You Breathe because they allow you to breathe
You Think because they tell you how to think

You cannot even tie your own shoelaces without them...

They probably already connected you to one of their ...machines.


Watch out, they'll pull the plug on you.


The Starmaker

[Alan Baker]

In article <50F1AA...@ix.netcom.com>,

I think even they would be embarrassed, but...

...how do you even know they exist given that you want nothing to do
with science?

[The Starmaker]

Alan Baker wrote:
>
> In article <50F1AA...@ix.netcom.com>,
> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <50F05E...@ix.netcom.com>,
> > > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wayne Throop wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
> > > > > : Okay, if there is a twin of me in another paralell universe,
> > > > > : I don't know who is he. He's not me. I'm me.
> > > > > : He's somebody else I don't know.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, since you say he's your twin, your mother is his mother.
> > > > > So presumably you know his mother, which is often good enough for
> > > > > most social circumstandes, and she can introduce the two of you.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The operative word is "me".
> > > >
> > > > I am a product of my environment.
> > >
> > > I don't think there is a self-respecting environment that would admit to
> > > having produced you.
> >
> >
> > How about The Three Stooges on Tv?
>
> I think even they would be embarrassed, but...
>
> ...how do you even know they exist given that you want nothing to do
> with science?
>

There are over 100,000 newsgroups...are they all related to science one
way or another?

[Quadibloc]

On Jan 12, 2:53 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article <50F05ED5.4...@ix.netcom.com>,

>  The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> > I am a product of my environment.
>
> I don't think there is a self-respecting environment that would admit to
> having produced you.

But that's not how the scientific method works. It doesn't wait
politely for the environment to tell it the things that it wishes to
tell the scientist.

(Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find the infamous feminist
deconstruction of the scientific method as an assault on Mother Nature
to quote it here.)

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Jan 12, 3:58 pm, I wrote:

> (Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find the infamous feminist
> deconstruction of the scientific method as an assault on Mother Nature
> to quote it here.)

I've found out the _title_ of the book I saw it quoted in: "Hogher
Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science".

John Savard

[Cryptoengineer]

This one?
Regarding Mary Shelley's Frankenstein:
http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Articles/mellor1.html
"The novel thus calls into question the gendered metaphor on which
much Western scientific theory and practice is founded. The attempt of
science to penetrate, possess, and control Mother Nature entails both
a violation of the sacred rights of nature and a false belief in the
"objectivity" or "rationality" of scientific research. When it
construes nature as a passive and possessable female, Western science
encodes a sexist metaphor that has profoundly troubling implications,
not only for women but for human survival. As Frankenstein's monster
tells him, "Remember that I have power; . . . I can make you so
wretched that the light of day will be hateful to you" (F, p. 165).
Like Victor Frankenstein, modern scientists have too often treated
nature as the "other," to be exploited rather than understood and
served through detailed, loving, and noninterventionist description.
In their search for the truth about the workings of the physical
universe, they have ignored the possibility that their manipulations
of nature might harm her. Too often, they have failed to take
responsibility for the predictable consequences of their research,
failed to care for their own technological progeny. As Mary Shelley
first perceived, a scientific method founded on the gendered
construction of nature as the female other, as the passive object of
desire, hence possessable and exploitable, can produce monsters, even
monsters of biological, chemical, and nuclear warfare capable of
destroying civilization as we know it."

[Alan Baker]

In article <50F1E7...@ix.netcom.com>,

Wow. You may actually be as dumb as you portray.

[David DeLaney]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:

> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> How about The Three Stooges on Tv?
>
>I think even they would be embarrassed, but...
>
>...how do you even know they exist given that you want nothing to do
>with science?

Given who you're talking to, I'd go with "direct gnostic revelation".

Dave, archetypal role models
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Michael Stemper]

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> writes:
>On Fri, 11 Jan 2013, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 12:30=A0pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>>> People Don't Need 'Science People'
>>
>> No more hunger and thirst...
>>
>> but first,
>>
>> http://www.sciconnect.com/
>>
>The Simpsons parody the thinking well. A comet "threatens" the earth and
>the good townspeople rush to the observatory with torches and pitchforks.

And, moving back towards SF, there's a similar scene in Asimov's "Nightfall".

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.

[Michael Black]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Michael Stemper wrote:

> In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> writes:
>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Jan 5, 12:30=A0pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>>> People Don't Need 'Science People'
>>>
>>> No more hunger and thirst...
>>>
>>> but first,
>>>
>>> http://www.sciconnect.com/
>>>
>> The Simpsons parody the thinking well. A comet "threatens" the earth and
>> the good townspeople rush to the observatory with torches and pitchforks.
>
> And, moving back towards SF, there's a similar scene in Asimov's "Nightfall".
>

I was thinking of an available example.

The whole pitchfork mob goes back to at least Frankenstein (the movie if
not the book, I've never gotten around to the book), the mob wanting to
destroy what they don't really know. The thing about The SImpsons is
they've done it a few times, and it's clearly not "science should be
destroyed" but "look at those fools who think sciece should be destroyed".

Michael

[Quadibloc]

On Jan 10, 12:27 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Not only that I don't know what a SR or GR is, but what is a shrug?

It's something you wouldn't want Atlas to do.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Jan 12, 8:31 am, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 12:30 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> People Don't Need 'Science People'
>
> > No more hunger and thirst...
>
> > but first,
>
> >http://www.sciconnect.com/
>
> The Simpsons parody the thinking well.

I'm just surprised my reference was not noted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPlQ6EtArSc

John Savard

[William December Starr]

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,

Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> said:

> The Simpsons parody the thinking well.

Is that anything like a wishing well?

-- wds

[Quadibloc]

On Jan 15, 6:26 pm, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1301121030200.2...@darkstar.example.org>,

> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> said:
>
> > The Simpsons parody the thinking well.
>
> Is that anything like a wishing well?

Time flies like an arrow.

John Savard

[David DeLaney]

"I didn't say there was nothing BETTER. I said there was nothing LIKE it."

Dave

[Walter Bushell]

In article <slrnkfdj3...@gatekeeper.vic.com>,

d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 19:33:00 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >On Jan 15, 6:26 pm, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> >> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> said:
> >> > The Simpsons parody the thinking well.
> >>
> >> Is that anything like a wishing well?
> >
> >Time flies like an arrow.
>
> "I didn't say there was nothing BETTER. I said there was nothing LIKE it."
>
> Dave

'You must have excellent eyes to see Nobody at such a distance.'

Ah,Odysseus would have scored an easy Homer if he had been content to
remain Norman.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx