Scientific American and Science censorship...
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Definitely Demolition - Proven FACT, 9/11 could not possibly have been other than an inside job.
Next: [Guardian] 'Climategate' debate: less meltdown, more well-mannered argument
From: Benj on 15 Jul 2010 15:04 I'm sure you all know that the censored forum supported by Scientific American, Physics Forums, has taken over "moderation" of Sci.physics.research. Or should I say taken over censorship of it. Censorship for the "control" of science has been a major function of the popular science press like Scientific American for a very long time as has been "peer review" and censorship of scientific journals been a major "control" pathway in science. For example holowarmer shills like "Sam Wormely" greatly depend upon the popular science press to provide myriad "cites" that support their current promotions. Of course, just as "democracy" depends upon the electorate being informed and the major media has been performing a "control" function on information, similar "controls" exist in science. While the talking heads on TV's "60 Minutes" have developed their self-styled "reputation" for "trust" and "integrity", it takes but one program dedicated to "gun control" to prove how purposely biased and untrustworthy they all are. But one EXPECTS lies and "points of view" such as "my party is always right and yours is always wrong" in politics. The problem is when such censorship and propaganda invade science. sci.physics.research being a prime example of such subversion of real science. What happens is that science turns into religion. Evolution is "fact". AGW is "beyond question". UFOs observations are suitable only for ridicule. Nothing exists in science beyond "official" positions and advancements are allowed ONLY after they have been approved and granted blessings by the famous great men in positions of science "leadership" and authority. The bottom line is the clever destruction of any "real" science with science "journalism" leading the way. Especially hideous is the way in which censorship occurs in secret behind the scenes. There are never any opposing views because opposing views are stripped out BEFORE anything appears. The public never learns that that there even WAS an opposing viewpoint. Hence if Scientific American tells the science layman that CO2 causes "climate change" or that letting blood removes your "bad humours", the public has no choice but to believe it. Even the EXISTENCE of other points of view are censored out of existence. How wonderful it is that we in "science" can still count on this herd of "leaders" to make sure that doctors never wash their hands when operating or examining patients. Ain't science great? But what do I know? I'm just a crackpot! I need to go read a freshman textbook! (We'll cover censorship in the textbook industry next)
From: Don on 15 Jul 2010 16:10 On Jul 15, 3:04 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > I'm sure you all know that the censored forum supported by Scientific > American, Physics Forums, has taken over "moderation" of > Sci.physics.research. Or should I say taken over censorship of it. > > Censorship for the "control" of science has been a major function of > the popular science press like Scientific American for a very long > time as has been "peer review" and censorship of scientific journals > been a major "control" pathway in science. For example holowarmer > shills like "Sam Wormely" greatly depend upon the popular science > press to provide myriad "cites" that support their current > promotions. > > Of course, just as "democracy" depends upon the electorate being > informed and the major media has been performing a "control" function > on information, similar "controls" exist in science. While the talking > heads on TV's "60 Minutes" have developed their self-styled > "reputation" for "trust" and "integrity", it takes but one program > dedicated to "gun control" to prove how purposely biased and > untrustworthy they all are. > > But one EXPECTS lies and "points of view" such as "my party is always > right and yours is always wrong" in politics. The problem is when such > censorship and propaganda invade science. > > sci.physics.research being a prime example of such subversion of real > science. What happens is that science turns into religion. Evolution > is "fact". AGW is "beyond question". UFOs observations are suitable > only for ridicule. Nothing exists in science beyond "official" > positions and advancements are allowed ONLY after they have been > approved and granted blessings by the famous great men in positions of > science "leadership" and authority. > > The bottom line is the clever destruction of any "real" science with > science "journalism" leading the way. Especially hideous is the way in > which censorship occurs in secret behind the scenes. There are never > any opposing views because opposing views are stripped out BEFORE > anything appears. The public never learns that that there even WAS an > opposing viewpoint. > > Hence if Scientific American tells the science layman that CO2 causes > "climate change" or that letting blood removes your "bad humours", the > public has no choice but to believe it. Even the EXISTENCE of other > points of view are censored out of existence. How wonderful it is that > we in "science" can still count on this herd of "leaders" to make sure > that doctors never wash their hands when operating or examining > patients. Ain't science great? > > But what do I know? I'm just a crackpot! I need to go read a freshman > textbook! > (We'll cover censorship in the textbook industry next) Benji, keep in mind there is "science" and what is popularly known as "junk science". The public doesn't know the difference, which is essentially that real "science" makes testable predictions, while "junk science" consists only of conjecture. Don
From: Androcles on 15 Jul 2010 16:24 "Don" <don.duck99(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f012bce8-5168-4cfe-a719-88d02632e9ef(a)b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... On Jul 15, 3:04 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > I'm sure you all know that the censored forum supported by Scientific > American, Physics Forums, has taken over "moderation" of > Sci.physics.research. Or should I say taken over censorship of it. > > Censorship for the "control" of science has been a major function of > the popular science press like Scientific American for a very long > time as has been "peer review" and censorship of scientific journals > been a major "control" pathway in science. For example holowarmer > shills like "Sam Wormely" greatly depend upon the popular science > press to provide myriad "cites" that support their current > promotions. > > Of course, just as "democracy" depends upon the electorate being > informed and the major media has been performing a "control" function > on information, similar "controls" exist in science. While the talking > heads on TV's "60 Minutes" have developed their self-styled > "reputation" for "trust" and "integrity", it takes but one program > dedicated to "gun control" to prove how purposely biased and > untrustworthy they all are. > > But one EXPECTS lies and "points of view" such as "my party is always > right and yours is always wrong" in politics. The problem is when such > censorship and propaganda invade science. > > sci.physics.research being a prime example of such subversion of real > science. What happens is that science turns into religion. Evolution > is "fact". AGW is "beyond question". UFOs observations are suitable > only for ridicule. Nothing exists in science beyond "official" > positions and advancements are allowed ONLY after they have been > approved and granted blessings by the famous great men in positions of > science "leadership" and authority. > > The bottom line is the clever destruction of any "real" science with > science "journalism" leading the way. Especially hideous is the way in > which censorship occurs in secret behind the scenes. There are never > any opposing views because opposing views are stripped out BEFORE > anything appears. The public never learns that that there even WAS an > opposing viewpoint. > > Hence if Scientific American tells the science layman that CO2 causes > "climate change" or that letting blood removes your "bad humours", the > public has no choice but to believe it. Even the EXISTENCE of other > points of view are censored out of existence. How wonderful it is that > we in "science" can still count on this herd of "leaders" to make sure > that doctors never wash their hands when operating or examining > patients. Ain't science great? > > But what do I know? I'm just a crackpot! I need to go read a freshman > textbook! > (We'll cover censorship in the textbook industry next) Benji, keep in mind there is "science" and what is popularly known as "junk science". The public doesn't know the difference, which is essentially that real "science" makes testable predictions, while "junk science" consists only of conjecture. Don =============================================== Let's fill the atmosphere up with CO2 and test the prophecy that it makes the whole world warmer. It doesn't seem to have done much for Mars... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars Annual mean temperatures at the surface are currently less than 210 K (-63 �C; -82 �F), 95% CO2. I'd call that cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey.
From: PD on 15 Jul 2010 16:51 On Jul 15, 2:00 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > I'm sure you all know that the censored forum supported by Scientific > American, Physics Forums, has taken over "moderation" of > Sci.physics.research. Or should I say taken over censorship of it. > Moderation is not censorship, though anyone on the wrong end of the stick could equivocate. If it is your belief that ALL ideas should have a venue to be aired, then you have it. It is called a blog, and you can publish yourself on the web in a completely unconstrained, unmoderated, unfiltered way. There is, however, a market of subscribers who DESIRE to have content moderated before being delivered to them. The covenant between the publisher or venue-moderator and his market, then, is that the publisher will in fact exercise certain standards of moderation before making the content available to his subscribers. Remember that this is what this market DESIRES. A successful venue will be one who seems to apply moderation at the level most appealing to his market. Now, what it is you seem to be ranting about is that you want access to the market of subscribers who specifically want to exclude content that you would offer. This you cannot have, and there is no reason to whine about it.
From: Darwin123 on 15 Jul 2010 17:12
On Jul 15, 4:24 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Don" <don.duc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > =============================================== > Let's fill the atmosphere up with CO2 and test the prophecy that it > makes the whole world warmer. It doesn't seem to have done much > for Mars... > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars > Annual mean temperatures at the surface are currently less than 210 K (-63 > °C; -82 °F), 95% CO2. > I'd call that cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey. The atmosphere of Mars is not as dense as the atmosphere of the earth. Compare the partial pressure of CO2 on earth with the partial pressure of carbon dioxide on Mars. If the partial pressure of CO2 is far less on earth than on Mars, then you may have a point. I doubt it, however. You did take chemistry, so you do know what "partial pressure" means. Right? |