|
Post by glennkoks on Oct 17, 2011 17:49:53 GMT
Thermostat, this does not reflect on you but the problem I have with many "PHD's" is that they are taught what to think instead of how to think. You do not have to have a higher degree to read peer reviewed papers and publications to have an informed opinion.
That being said it is clear that there are many on these boards who's opinion is so firmly set that no amount of peer reviewed science is going make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 17, 2011 18:51:20 GMT
Thermostat, this does not reflect on you but the problem I have with many "PHD's" is that they are taught what to think instead of how to think. You do not have to have a higher degree to read peer reviewed papers and publications to have an informed opinion. That being said it is clear that there are many on these boards who's opinion is so firmly set that no amount of peer reviewed science is going make a difference. maybe because peer review isn't what its been cracked up to be?
|
|
|
Post by justmeanu on Oct 17, 2011 19:06:51 GMT
I have come to the conclusion that humans have an inbuilt guilt mechanisim, whereby they continually apologise for their own existance. I think this may come from religeon. It has certainly been manipulated by the religeous fraternity. It's very difficult to change average Joe Bloes mind when they honestly believe something. I myself constantly question my own beliefs, but very few people do that. Have you ever wondered why it takes at least two elections to change a government? the individual has to change thier mind and they don't like to, simple reason they have to admit to themselves they were wrong. The amazing thing is, if you never change your mind you are admitting you have never learned anything. So concidering I'm a philosypher, I pose the question: have you ever wondered if your entire existence is a figment of your own imagination? if not why not? because you can never be absolutely certain, of course if you think the positive you may need help. just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 18, 2011 0:51:00 GMT
I have come to the conclusion that humans have an inbuilt guilt mechanisim, whereby they continually apologise for their own existance. I think this may come from religeon. It has certainly been manipulated by the religeous fraternity. It's very difficult to change average Joe Bloes mind when they honestly believe something. I myself constantly question my own beliefs, but very few people do that. Have you ever wondered why it takes at least two elections to change a government? the individual has to change thier mind and they don't like to, simple reason they have to admit to themselves they were wrong. The amazing thing is, if you never change your mind you are admitting you have never learned anything. So concidering I'm a philosypher, I pose the question: have you ever wondered if your entire existence is a figment of your own imagination? if not why not? because you can never be absolutely certain, of course if you think the positive you may need help. just a thought. have you ever wondered if your entire existence is a figment of your own imagination? No, but under the right altered state of mind, some think gravity is a figment of their imagination, they are Superman and can jump off tall buildings and fly. Turn on, Tune in, Drop out.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 22, 2011 4:16:32 GMT
Thermostat, this does not reflect on you but the problem I have with many "PHD's" is that they are taught what to think instead of how to think. You do not have to have a higher degree to read peer reviewed papers and publications to have an informed opinion. That being said it is clear that there are many on these boards who's opinion is so firmly set that no amount of peer reviewed science is going make a difference. glennkoks, This is a quite a fair question on your part and one the deserves to be discussed. Achieving the trophy of 'Ph.D' is what it is. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 24, 2011 1:18:13 GMT
Thermostat, this does not reflect on you but the problem I have with many "PHD's" is that they are taught what to think instead of how to think. You do not have to have a higher degree to read peer reviewed papers and publications to have an informed opinion. That being said it is clear that there are many on these boards who's opinion is so firmly set that no amount of peer reviewed science is going make a difference. maybe because peer review isn't what its been cracked up to be? Magellan, This is an interesting statement. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean. Magellan appears to suggest that the scientific method is ineffective. From my experience, and also looking at the impact of 'science' in my lifetime, I would beg to differ.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 24, 2011 3:06:28 GMT
Magellan appears to suggest that the scientific method is ineffective.From my experience, and also looking at the impact of 'science' in my lifetime, I would beg to differ.
If you had some experience in science you would know that peer review has absolutely nothing to with the scientific method.
Peer review is only so that magazines can ensure the publish what they want to publish nothing more nothing less.
The jury may be out as to whether journals are going to survive the internet era. Like all magazines they are hanging on by their fingernails. Government grants and subscriptions are no doubt necessary for their continued survival and the debate as to their necessity is already underway.
I have proposed in the past and will continue to work for science being open that is paid for by the taxpayer.
Obviously science is every bit as important as medicine, but it is not a necessary expenditure for the average citizen so here is an opportunity to take a look at profit taking in a vital industry where the benefits of a profit system do not directly accrue to those making the investment.
There are obvious benefits of improving salaries of top notch academics, rewarding them for whatever. But its becoming questionable if the reward is for good work for the public or work and results the journals want.
Since the public is the primary payor and not the primary consumer normal incentives of the private enterprise system are being channeled away from the public interest to the interests of academics and wealthy journal owners.
In many respects its like piracy. Taking what the public paid for taking it and selling it to a magazine not for the consumer benefit, actually contrary to it, but pretty much in a market among scientists.
Its like those Caribbean pirate movies where the pirates grab a ship and then go to a pirate port and have a big party, trading and exchanging their booty with other pirates and the local proprietors that have built the pirate safe haven.
You even see hoarding. They bury the treasure in FOIA avoidance. Either they share with other scientists sympatico with their political viewpoint or they try to keep it buried to avoid having folks "find something wrong with it". ("it" being the results of what they are selling).
Perhaps you see it differently but somehow I don't think you will discuss it and instead layback and depend upon ad hominems instead.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 26, 2011 1:50:54 GMT
Magellan appears to suggest that the scientific method is ineffective.From my experience, and also looking at the impact of 'science' in my lifetime, I would beg to differ.
If you had some experience in science you would know that peer review has absolutely nothing to with the scientific method. Peer review is only so that magazines can ensure the publish what they want to publish nothing more nothing less. The jury may be out as to whether journals are going to survive the internet era. Like all magazines they are hanging on by their fingernails. Government grants and subscriptions are no doubt necessary for their continued survival and the debate as to their necessity is already underway. I have proposed in the past and will continue to work for science being open that is paid for by the taxpayer. Obviously science is every bit as important as medicine, but it is not a necessary expenditure for the average citizen so here is an opportunity to take a look at profit taking in a vital industry where the benefits of a profit system do not directly accrue to those making the investment. There are obvious benefits of improving salaries of top notch academics, rewarding them for whatever. But its becoming questionable if the reward is for good work for the public or work and results the journals want. Since the public is the primary payor and not the primary consumer normal incentives of the private enterprise system are being channeled away from the public interest to the interests of academics and wealthy journal owners. In many respects its like piracy. Taking what the public paid for taking it and selling it to a magazine not for the consumer benefit, actually contrary to it, but pretty much in a market among scientists. Its like those Caribbean pirate movies where the pirates grab a ship and then go to a pirate port and have a big party, trading and exchanging their booty with other pirates and the local proprietors that have built the pirate safe haven. You even see hoarding. They bury the treasure in FOIA avoidance. Either they share with other scientists sympatico with their political viewpoint or they try to keep it buried to avoid having folks "find something wrong with it". ("it" being the results of what they are selling). Perhaps you see it differently but somehow I don't think you will discuss it and instead layback and depend upon ad hominems instead. icefisher, Wow! that was quite an inflamatory response!. whoa... bro... I'm not sure where to start. I would suggest, first thing, we tone it down a bit, icefsher my bro.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 26, 2011 1:53:53 GMT
Magellan appears to suggest that the scientific method is ineffective.From my experience, and also looking at the impact of 'science' in my lifetime, I would beg to differ.
If you had some experience in science you would know that peer review has absolutely nothing to with the scientific method. Peer review is only so that magazines can ensure the publish what they want to publish nothing more nothing less. The jury may be out as to whether journals are going to survive the internet era. Like all magazines they are hanging on by their fingernails. Government grants and subscriptions are no doubt necessary for their continued survival and the debate as to their necessity is already underway. I have proposed in the past and will continue to work for science being open that is paid for by the taxpayer. Obviously science is every bit as important as medicine, but it is not a necessary expenditure for the average citizen so here is an opportunity to take a look at profit taking in a vital industry where the benefits of a profit system do not directly accrue to those making the investment. There are obvious benefits of improving salaries of top notch academics, rewarding them for whatever. But its becoming questionable if the reward is for good work for the public or work and results the journals want. Since the public is the primary payor and not the primary consumer normal incentives of the private enterprise system are being channeled away from the public interest to the interests of academics and wealthy journal owners. In many respects its like piracy. Taking what the public paid for taking it and selling it to a magazine not for the consumer benefit, actually contrary to it, but pretty much in a market among scientists. Its like those Caribbean pirate movies where the pirates grab a ship and then go to a pirate port and have a big party, trading and exchanging their booty with other pirates and the local proprietors that have built the pirate safe haven. You even see hoarding. They bury the treasure in FOIA avoidance. Either they share with other scientists sympatico with their political viewpoint or they try to keep it buried to avoid having folks "find something wrong with it". ("it" being the results of what they are selling). Perhaps you see it differently but somehow I don't think you will discuss it and instead layback and depend upon ad hominems instead. Icefisher wrote, "If you had some experience in science you would know that peer review has absolutely nothing to with the scientific method" This is an example of the issue I am talking about.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 26, 2011 2:00:13 GMT
Magellan appears to suggest that the scientific method is ineffective.From my experience, and also looking at the impact of 'science' in my lifetime, I would beg to differ.
If you had some experience in science you would know that peer review has absolutely nothing to with the scientific method. Peer review is only so that magazines can ensure the publish what they want to publish nothing more nothing less. The jury may be out as to whether journals are going to survive the internet era. Like all magazines they are hanging on by their fingernails. Government grants and subscriptions are no doubt necessary for their continued survival and the debate as to their necessity is already underway. I have proposed in the past and will continue to work for science being open that is paid for by the taxpayer. Obviously science is every bit as important as medicine, but it is not a necessary expenditure for the average citizen so here is an opportunity to take a look at profit taking in a vital industry where the benefits of a profit system do not directly accrue to those making the investment. There are obvious benefits of improving salaries of top notch academics, rewarding them for whatever. But its becoming questionable if the reward is for good work for the public or work and results the journals want. Since the public is the primary payor and not the primary consumer normal incentives of the private enterprise system are being channeled away from the public interest to the interests of academics and wealthy journal owners. In many respects its like piracy. Taking what the public paid for taking it and selling it to a magazine not for the consumer benefit, actually contrary to it, but pretty much in a market among scientists. Its like those Caribbean pirate movies where the pirates grab a ship and then go to a pirate port and have a big party, trading and exchanging their booty with other pirates and the local proprietors that have built the pirate safe haven. You even see hoarding. They bury the treasure in FOIA avoidance. Either they share with other scientists sympatico with their political viewpoint or they try to keep it buried to avoid having folks "find something wrong with it". ("it" being the results of what they are selling). Perhaps you see it differently but somehow I don't think you will discuss it and instead layback and depend upon ad hominems instead. icefisher wrote. "There are obvious benefits of improving salaries of top notch academics, rewarding them for whatever. But its becoming questionable if the reward is for good work for the public or work and results the journals want." Indicating that icefisher believes that scientists get paid cash money to espouse certain hypotheses. Okay, got it icefisher. Understood. You think that. Good to know this.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 26, 2011 5:31:58 GMT
Indicating that icefisher believes that scientists get paid cash money to espouse certain hypotheses. Okay, got it icefisher. Understood. You think that.
Good to know this.
They get compensated Tstat in an identical manner that a corporate ladder climber gets compensated. Bringing money in the door is the best way to climb that ladder. Or are you too naive to know that?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 30, 2011 19:17:50 GMT
|
|
jimz
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by jimz on Nov 3, 2011 23:24:46 GMT
I read a book a couple years ago called the Monster of Florence. It was a nonfiction book by one of my favorite fiction authors, Douglass Preston. He visited Italy for an extended stay to prepare for a book. It turns out he was right next to a murder scene perpetrated by the serial killer they modeled Hannibal Lecter after. He met an Italian Journalist and they investigated the serial killer themselves only to find rampant incompetence. The prosecutor and judge learned of their efforts and charged them with planting evidence and he barely got out of Italy. It was the same prosecutor and judge as Amanda Knox and he described her case in the final chapter. As I was reading the book, I couldn't help but draw parallels between the Italian justice system and alarmists. They both used religious and faith rather than good science. They both were arrogant and thought they knew the truth.
|
|