Damage Control! Damage Control!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: superdeterminism rather than Darwin evolution for science theory discoveries Chapt 2 #160; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: Time shares the geometry of space's aether
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 17 Jun 2010 17:18 On Jun 17, 1:26 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Which physics classes did you take at Amherst? ------------------------------------- I went to the University of Washington in Seattle. Nice! A scientist should be judged by the quality of his/her ideas, rather than the diplomas, gold stars, number of sycophants who bound down to him/her, book sales, ... A more important question is: Why is the temple of science filled with so many philistines these days? RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert Higgins on 17 Jun 2010 20:33 On Jun 17, 5:18 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jun 17, 1:26 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > Which physics classes did you take at Amherst? > > ------------------------------------- > > I went to the University of Washington in Seattle. Nice! You mean where the sun never shines? Which physics courses did you take there? Better yet, which physics courses did you PASS there? Even better, if your training, such as it is, was from U Washington, why do you post from an Amherst email address? It's obvious you have no academic affiliation, since you list your home address on your manuscript in the place where scientists normally put their academic affiliation. > > A scientist should be judged by the quality of his/her ideas, Unfortunately, you have been. > rather > than the diplomas, gold stars, number of sycophants who bound down to > him/her, book sales, ... You snipped my post, where I listed training AND accomplishments as criteria for scientists. > > A more important question is: Why is the temple of science filled with > so many philistines these days? > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: eric gisse on 17 Jun 2010 21:29 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jun 16, 11:22 pm, eric narr wrote: >> >> It strikes me much like you don't function well with those who don't have >> the same opinion as you.- Hide quoted text - > ----------------------------------------------- > > As a scientist I do not like dogma and closed-mindedness. By what objective criteria are you a scientist? > > Do you have a problem with that? I have a problem with reflexive rejection of physics when the person doing it has absolutely no training in the field whatsoever. You are yet to demonstrate a functional understanding of anything past calculus, and you have no technical education in the field. I don't like clueless outsiders telling science how to do things when they couldn't handle a moderately complicated undergrad problem. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: eric gisse on 17 Jun 2010 21:31 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jun 17, 1:26 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Which physics classes did you take at Amherst? > ------------------------------------- > > I went to the University of Washington in Seattle. Nice! ....and what became of that? I walk down there on an infrequent basis to make use of their physics library. Did you ever do that? > > A scientist should be judged by the quality of his/her ideas, rather > than the diplomas, gold stars, number of sycophants who bound down to > him/her, book sales, ... The quality of your ideas tend to be lacking. > > A more important question is: Why is the temple of science filled with > so many philistines these days? ....and who are you to judge? > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 17 Jun 2010 22:14
On Jun 17, 9:29 pm, eric pisser wrote: The usual ad hominem monkey dung ---------------------------- Would you care to identify anything about Discrete Scale Relativity that conflicts with well-tested empirical knowledge? Is there anything specific in the logic or reasoning that you object to? |