"Independent Thinking" vs Appeal To Authority In Science
in [Math]
|
Prev: Benford's Law
Next: where we have a new understanding of what factorial means in 254! = 10^500 #648 Correcting Math
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 4 Aug 2010 09:43 Wed 04 Aug 2010 09:29:51 AM EDT http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_frm/thread/be41cfeb1b8e5f75/024908c50b425e88#024908c50b425e88 On Aug 4, 3:24 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Aug 3, 11:52 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> > > Actually, no. But that's only because I prefer a manifold system > (especially if it is a manifold system that is replete with vortex > dampers) as the primary means to achieve stablilization. Self > correction is, in my mind, a bit of a pipe dream. Especially after > the experiments by Hollywell. The most relevant link I can find is http://www.flintshirechronicle.co.uk/flintshire-news/local-flintshire-news/2010/06/03/new-members-wanted-for-holywell-group-set-up-to-respond-to-climate-change-51352-26572744/ which is not what you are cryptically communicating. Then too I find http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=7144057 but this is an accurate portrayal of your style of communication. I feel pretty sure that your position is flawed, otherwise you would expose more clean information. I am forced to such inference because there is no actual information in your position, other than roughly four keywords that lead me only very short distances from this thread, and in one case zero distance. Please, if you are coherent, then be coherent. - Tim
From: Andy F on 4 Aug 2010 11:26 On 17/07/2010 17:26, Marvin the Martian wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 07:27:03 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote: > >> When the general public hears about a nearby prison break they don't >> have or need the time to research all the court documents to verify for >> themselves that the escapees are in fact actually violent murderers and >> not just some wrongfully convicted innocents. >> >> The public is aware of itself, the judicial process, the established >> institutions and the media and various authorities to be sure enough to >> lock the doors, etc. >> >>>> Something similar goes on in science. Scientists are familiar with >>>> the peer review process and established institutions and >>>> personalities and can draw conclusions and take action on work that >>>> is completely outside of their field. >>> >>> If the persons in question are outside the field, then they are not >>> peers. >> >> Is the peer review process different for different fields? > > Yes. In most fields, a paper comes in, the editor of the journal take a > look at the abstract, and sends it to people who are doing similar work > or in a related field. The reviewers look for errors and check citations > and make a judgment on how interesting a paper is for the journal's > target readership. > > In climatology (and apparently anthropology) the "editor" reads the > abstract, decides if the paper supports the paper's conclusion (AGW). If > it does, it is published. If it isn't, it is sent to "reviewers" who > slander it, the author, the author's mother, and the author's dog and > hand it back to the author as rejected. > > Then, peer review is claimed to be part of the scientific method, which > it most certainly is not. > And apparently this happens in every journal in every university in the world.
From: Claudius Denk on 4 Aug 2010 13:35
On Aug 4, 6:43 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Wed 04 Aug 2010 09:29:51 AM EDThttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_frm/thread/be41c... > On Aug 4, 3:24 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > On Aug 3, 11:52 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> > > > Actually, no. But that's only because I prefer a manifold system > > (especially if it is a manifold system that is replete with vortex > > dampers) as the primary means to achieve stablilization. Self > > correction is, in my mind, a bit of a pipe dream. Especially after > > the experiments by Hollywell. > > The most relevant link I can find is > > http://www.flintshirechronicle.co.uk/flintshire-news/local-flintshire... > which is not what you are cryptically communicating. Then too I find > http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=7144057 > but this is an accurate portrayal of your style of communication. > I feel pretty sure that your position is flawed, otherwise you would > expose more clean information. Well, it depends on whether you've discombobulated the fragostad. (Either that or you need to install a fragostad inhibitor.) In my experience this is where most people drop the ball. But you aren't providing me enough information to tell for sure. > I am forced to such inference because > there is no actual information in your position, other than roughly > four keywords that lead me only very short distances from this thread, > and in one case zero distance. Please, if you are coherent, then be > coherent. I apologize if the terminology I use is outside your realm of experience. You might try contacting a gentleman by the name of Michael Tobis. (He's associated with realclimate.org. Try searching for him in Google or Bing.) I think he speaks your language. |