Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: noncommie
Agreed. I omitted the "peer review" because my point was that I want to be one of the peers to review it.

Some people are smarter than others; there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But it's frankly appalling to me how many people alive today don't have a CLUE how technology works. 500 years ago, there would be an excuse for this kind of confusion, but not in this day and age.

Personally, I think everyone should have to pass p-chem to get a bachelors degree. :)

155 posted on 05/23/2006 12:43:37 PM PDT by MilesVeritatis (War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things...." - John Stuart Mill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies ]


To: MilesVeritatis
Personally, I think everyone should have to pass p-chem to get a bachelors degree.

I've often thought that anyone aspiring to a PhD in any subject should have to pass math up through differential equations, just to prove that they are smart enough for the title "Doctor".

That would sure clean out the ranks of mush science experts running around.

164 posted on 05/23/2006 1:07:54 PM PDT by lafroste (gravity is not a force. See my profile to read my novel absolutely free (I know, beyond shameless))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies ]

To: MilesVeritatis
Personally, I think everyone should have to pass p-chem to get a bachelors degree.

That's not necessary at all. "Debunking" something as silly as this should not require specific knowledge of the field involved (although of course that's always nice.) And it shouldn't require a college degree. People should be taught the basics of scientific methodology before graduating high school.

It's entirely possible that someone might invent a combination universal solvent and perpetual motion device someday. But if that happens it won't be "proved" by a demonstration on TV; it will be submitted as a testable theory and the phenomenon will be duplicated by people all over the world.

I omitted the "peer review" because my point was that I want to be one of the peers to review it.

Anyone who wants to can review a paper or try to replicate results. They only call it a "peer review" to limit the cacophony of 10,000 voices all chiming in at the same time.

That's something a lot of people don't understand. Science is fundamentally different from any other endeavor. If someone like God, the homos who appoint themselves the "Academy," the plastic-haired freak on the Nightly News, or any other Ultimate Authority says that a work of art is good, then it is good -- end of story. And the millions of idiots who pay hard-earned money to see something else are all "wrong."

That's how liberal arts work. But science is utterly different. If some bozo off the street nobody's ever heard of shows that Einstein's pet theory is a load of crap, then EVERYONE with an understanding of the subject matter will be able to see that he is right and Einstein is wrong. And it could not possibly matter less how gloriously "authoritative" the proponents happen to deem themselves.

189 posted on 05/23/2006 5:25:19 PM PDT by noncommie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson