Posted on 12/20/2005 12:10:57 AM PST by neverdem
Wow, for a guy who's educated beyond his ability to relate peaceably with his fellow man, you sure didn't learn any communication skills when you got your Piled Higher and Deeper.
So you're one of them, naturally you're pissed when people don't genuflect before Your Wisdomness.
See how angry WW is that some of us aren't lining up to take communion from his hand. We're committing the new form of blasphemy.
If I'm a high priest, where's my high priestess??
The other silly thing about this commercial is that if polar bears did drink cola, they would be brown.
They are white because they eat snow, just like flamingos are pink because they eat shrimp.
If the truck is registered in Mexico, then watch out for the axles and tires!
>>>>For me, "I can't get none" is a whole more serious category!>>>>>>>
Well, it useta wuz but the passing years make it a much more benign condition, unless of course you are referring to sleep or lemon meringue pie and then it could be serious.
Will let you know; thanks for your patience.
They've been classified into four, by the ancients:
1. Imperfect senses
2. Tendency to make mistakes
3. Tendency to cheat
4. Subject to be in illusion
Everyone, other than perfected saints, has these defects, therefore any knowledge, plans, actions or motives are tainted by the above four.
(Just expanding on your comment.)
Of course, some people have more of one, a little less of another, but no one (other than enlightened perfect souls) is free of them.
"So you're one of them, naturally you're pissed when people don't genuflect before Your Wisdomness."
The thing that pisses me off is ignoramuses who mouth off on subjects they obviously know nothing about.
But you ARE entitled to your own opinion.
Yes, I admit I have no entrance in the holy world of science, and should humbly admit my deficiency, bow before my betters, and apologize for my apostacy.
You are mischaracterizing what i said - I never suggested that scientists are "above temptation"...my point was that Science is a human endeavour and therefore like any other endeavour engaged in by humans there will be 'bad apples' in Science too...what I doubt is that there are any more 'bad scientists' per capita than 'bad butchers', 'bad bakers', 'bad candlestick makers' or any other profession...and whether any increase in bad science is anything more than a simple correlation to the increase in scientific endeavour generally; i.e if 5% of apples in a bushel are bad and one harvests twice the number of bushels of course it will appear and be true there are more bad apples...but that doesnt point to any flaw in apple harvesting methodology any more than an increase in bad science by bad scientists when there is more science being done overall necessarily indicates any flaw in Scientific method or the present system under which Scientific endeavour is organized.
You are referring to the afterword in Chrichton's "State Of Fear?"
Point taken.
There have been hundreds of studies in which it has been repeatedly proven that scientists generally find what they expect to find. This is without any ideological, political or monetary incentives to find X rather than Y.
Chrichton makes an excellent suggestion that scientific financing, at least for critical projects that might influence public policy, should be "double-blind." This would mean that those doing the research donwouldn't even know where the money is coming from, nor the results that those providing the funding would like to see.
Yes people can sometimes become invested emotionally in their own ideas to the point of not wanting to consider other 'not invented here' possibilities...and not only scientists are subject to that basic human failing.
Perhaps 'General Order Six' from Hal Clement's book "Half Life" might be useful eh?
General Order Six [GO6]
Northern Research Force
1. In view of the common human tendency, when seeking to explain observations, to favour the first speculation which comes to mind, the following procedures will be observed by all ranks:
[a] No speculation by any member of the Services will be reported to higher-ranking personnel unless accompanied by [i] a comparably plausible alternative speculation, or [ii] a detailed preocedure for testing the one proferred.
[b] If the said speculation occurs during a general discussion, either formal or informal, then [i] or [ii] may be delayed until after the end of said discussion. Alternative ideas contributed by participants other than the originator of the speculation will be regarded as satisfying 1[a][i] above.
2. This rule is not intended to discourage speculation, which is recognized as a necessary first step in developing any body of knowledge, but to help preserve objectivity as far as possible in both private reasoning and public debate.
3. The Commmander of any research unit, whether of observer or theoretician grade, is authorized and advised to use discretion in the detailed enforcement of this regulation.
4. No punishment more serious than reprimand is to be inflicted for violation of this rule.
Addenda: Rule X
This is not a formal regulation, and cannot be stated with real precision, but reference to "rule X" in conversation or inferred thought of any person is pejorative. It may be used by anyone to anyone else regardless of rank involved. The rule is to the effect that "I told you so" is unacceptable language. It presumably evolved in the hope of keeping scientific debate as free as possible from, or to delay as long as possible, the use of 'personalities'.
Hal Clement - "Half-Life"
I saw that ad. I thought it was going to end with the polar bears washing down a few penguins with a coke. Had me on the edge of my seat. And left me truly disappointed.
Yeah! I want one of those High Priestesses too ;-) LOL
whoops that should have been "...but the percentage wouldnt have changed so that doesnt point to any flaw in apple harvesting methodology any more than an increase in bad science by bad scientists when there is more science being done overall necessarily indicates any flaw in Scientific method or the present system under which Scientific endeavour is organized."
Sorry.
Yes that's an interesting suggestion isn't it? I wonder what the scientific 'Establishment' has to say about that.
But wouldn't such a system have to be a public system? some kind of CENTRALIZED 'Science Council' deciding on where and to who to dole out the research dollars to? On what basis?
What kind of mechanism then prevents politicization of whatever system is set up to fund research in that double blind manner?
And if scientists didn't know where the funding came from would they ever know whether their funding was cut off because some hidden agent decided to suppress a certain line of research, possibly for some vested interest rather than the general good?
Seems to me there is possibly for mischief biasing results in such a 'double blind' funding system too.
Quis custodiet ipses custodes is a hard nut to crack anywhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.