"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:77hnb.33968$9E1.125612@attbi_s52...
> In article <vpr7cutepp2qe4@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
>
> > Hell Lloyd it was even on CNN last night, the story about the ice in the
> > Arctic melting, which, as they put it, is caused by warmer temperatures,
> > possible because of Global warming, although (their words) The CAUSE of
the
> > Global warming is still UNKNOWN.
> > For someone claiming to be a scientist you sure don't know much science.
> > Better learn some before you post here claiming to be one you lying
wannabe.
>
> He will now chastise you for getting information from CNN instead of
scientific
> journals.
>
> However, keep in mind that Parker believes Road and Track and Consumer
Reports
> over SAE papers and articles.... go figure.

I figure him for a clueless, closed-minded imbecile, so far he hasn't proven
me wrong. ;-)

>
>

 

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:77hnb.33968$9E1.125612@attbi_s52...
> In article <vpr7cutepp2qe4@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
>
> > Hell Lloyd it was even on CNN last night, the story about the ice in the
> > Arctic melting, which, as they put it, is caused by warmer temperatures,
> > possible because of Global warming, although (their words) The CAUSE of
the
> > Global warming is still UNKNOWN.
> > For someone claiming to be a scientist you sure don't know much science.
> > Better learn some before you post here claiming to be one you lying
wannabe.
>
> He will now chastise you for getting information from CNN instead of
scientific
> journals.
>
> However, keep in mind that Parker believes Road and Track and Consumer
Reports
> over SAE papers and articles.... go figure.

I figure him for a clueless, closed-minded imbecile, so far he hasn't proven
me wrong. ;-)

>
>

 

Approximately 10/27/03 14:48, The Ancient One uttered for posterity:

> "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:K3hnb.43148$Tr4.88475@attbi_s03...
>> In article <vpr6s32q4afc2d@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
>> >
>> > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> > news:bnjesk$b81$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <vpog8qgknohjbc@corp.supernews.com>,
>> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >> >news:bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> >a bunch of meaningless BS.
>> >> >
>> >> >I see you still won't tell us what peer reviewed journals you read
> Lloyd,
>> >> >nor where you have been published.
>> >> >You're no scientist, your a wannabe. Shutup and stop pretending to be
>> >> >something you will never be, you are embarrrassing the real scientist
>> > with
>> >> >your shameful behavior.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> Tell us your scientific credentials, oh cowardly one. Your degree,
> your
>> > field
>> >> of work. I won't hold my breath though.
>> >
>> > I asked you first, oh lying one.
>>
>> More than you wanted to know about Dr. Parker:
>>
>> http://www.oxford.emory.edu/Director...cfm?UserID=130

> Error Occurred While Processing Request
>
> Didn't work :-(

And here I always thought Microsoft webservers were stupid. Seems
that particular webserver knows something about the good Dr. and
is trying to give a hint.

--
My governor can kick your governor's ***

 

Approximately 10/27/03 14:48, The Ancient One uttered for posterity:

> "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:K3hnb.43148$Tr4.88475@attbi_s03...
>> In article <vpr6s32q4afc2d@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
>> >
>> > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> > news:bnjesk$b81$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <vpog8qgknohjbc@corp.supernews.com>,
>> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >> >news:bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> >a bunch of meaningless BS.
>> >> >
>> >> >I see you still won't tell us what peer reviewed journals you read
> Lloyd,
>> >> >nor where you have been published.
>> >> >You're no scientist, your a wannabe. Shutup and stop pretending to be
>> >> >something you will never be, you are embarrrassing the real scientist
>> > with
>> >> >your shameful behavior.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> Tell us your scientific credentials, oh cowardly one. Your degree,
> your
>> > field
>> >> of work. I won't hold my breath though.
>> >
>> > I asked you first, oh lying one.
>>
>> More than you wanted to know about Dr. Parker:
>>
>> http://www.oxford.emory.edu/Director...cfm?UserID=130

> Error Occurred While Processing Request
>
> Didn't work :-(

And here I always thought Microsoft webservers were stupid. Seems
that particular webserver knows something about the good Dr. and
is trying to give a hint.

--
My governor can kick your governor's ***

 

Approximately 10/27/03 14:48, The Ancient One uttered for posterity:

> "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:K3hnb.43148$Tr4.88475@attbi_s03...
>> In article <vpr6s32q4afc2d@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
>> >
>> > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> > news:bnjesk$b81$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <vpog8qgknohjbc@corp.supernews.com>,
>> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >> >news:bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> >a bunch of meaningless BS.
>> >> >
>> >> >I see you still won't tell us what peer reviewed journals you read
> Lloyd,
>> >> >nor where you have been published.
>> >> >You're no scientist, your a wannabe. Shutup and stop pretending to be
>> >> >something you will never be, you are embarrrassing the real scientist
>> > with
>> >> >your shameful behavior.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> Tell us your scientific credentials, oh cowardly one. Your degree,
> your
>> > field
>> >> of work. I won't hold my breath though.
>> >
>> > I asked you first, oh lying one.
>>
>> More than you wanted to know about Dr. Parker:
>>
>> http://www.oxford.emory.edu/Director...cfm?UserID=130

> Error Occurred While Processing Request
>
> Didn't work :-(

And here I always thought Microsoft webservers were stupid. Seems
that particular webserver knows something about the good Dr. and
is trying to give a hint.

--
My governor can kick your governor's ***

 

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pmhnb.42839$Fm2.17324@attbi_s04...
> In article <vpr85smbfn0e8f@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
> >
> > "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:K3hnb.43148$Tr4.88475@attbi_s03...
> >> In article <vpr6s32q4afc2d@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> > news:bnjesk$b81$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> >> In article <vpog8qgknohjbc@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> >> >a bunch of meaningless BS.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I see you still won't tell us what peer reviewed journals you read
> > Lloyd,
> >> >> >nor where you have been published.
> >> >> >You're no scientist, your a wannabe. Shutup and stop pretending to
be
> >> >> >something you will never be, you are embarrrassing the real
scientist
> >> > with
> >> >> >your shameful behavior.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> Tell us your scientific credentials, oh cowardly one. Your degree,
> > your
> >> > field
> >> >> of work. I won't hold my breath though.
> >> >
> >> > I asked you first, oh lying one.
> >>
> >> More than you wanted to know about Dr. Parker:
> >>
> >> http://www.oxford.emory.edu/Director...cfm?UserID=130
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Error Occurred While Processing Request
> >
> > Didn't work :-(
>
> Just shove his name into a google search, grab the link to emory... It's
the
> first one.
>

Got it, thanks.
He must have used a lot of crib sheets in collage, he sure didn't learn
much.

 

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pmhnb.42839$Fm2.17324@attbi_s04...
> In article <vpr85smbfn0e8f@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
> >
> > "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:K3hnb.43148$Tr4.88475@attbi_s03...
> >> In article <vpr6s32q4afc2d@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> > news:bnjesk$b81$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> >> In article <vpog8qgknohjbc@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> >> >a bunch of meaningless BS.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I see you still won't tell us what peer reviewed journals you read
> > Lloyd,
> >> >> >nor where you have been published.
> >> >> >You're no scientist, your a wannabe. Shutup and stop pretending to
be
> >> >> >something you will never be, you are embarrrassing the real
scientist
> >> > with
> >> >> >your shameful behavior.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> Tell us your scientific credentials, oh cowardly one. Your degree,
> > your
> >> > field
> >> >> of work. I won't hold my breath though.
> >> >
> >> > I asked you first, oh lying one.
> >>
> >> More than you wanted to know about Dr. Parker:
> >>
> >> http://www.oxford.emory.edu/Director...cfm?UserID=130
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Error Occurred While Processing Request
> >
> > Didn't work :-(
>
> Just shove his name into a google search, grab the link to emory... It's
the
> first one.
>

Got it, thanks.
He must have used a lot of crib sheets in collage, he sure didn't learn
much.

 

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pmhnb.42839$Fm2.17324@attbi_s04...
> In article <vpr85smbfn0e8f@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
> >
> > "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:K3hnb.43148$Tr4.88475@attbi_s03...
> >> In article <vpr6s32q4afc2d@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> > news:bnjesk$b81$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> >> In article <vpog8qgknohjbc@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> >> >a bunch of meaningless BS.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I see you still won't tell us what peer reviewed journals you read
> > Lloyd,
> >> >> >nor where you have been published.
> >> >> >You're no scientist, your a wannabe. Shutup and stop pretending to
be
> >> >> >something you will never be, you are embarrrassing the real
scientist
> >> > with
> >> >> >your shameful behavior.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> Tell us your scientific credentials, oh cowardly one. Your degree,
> > your
> >> > field
> >> >> of work. I won't hold my breath though.
> >> >
> >> > I asked you first, oh lying one.
> >>
> >> More than you wanted to know about Dr. Parker:
> >>
> >> http://www.oxford.emory.edu/Director...cfm?UserID=130
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Error Occurred While Processing Request
> >
> > Didn't work :-(
>
> Just shove his name into a google search, grab the link to emory... It's
the
> first one.
>

Got it, thanks.
He must have used a lot of crib sheets in collage, he sure didn't learn
much.

 

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Science is not a collection of facts to be parroted by rote, it is a
> process by which we refine our understanding of how various aspects of
> the Universe work. It's the height of arrogance to proclaim that one
> can authoritatively state that something is the TRVTH especially in
> light of the amazing changes that have come in our understanding of
> almost every scientific field over only the last few centuries.

This is the only post I will send out in this thread. However people need to know what science is
and what it is not. Science is the only tool we have for actually understanding how the world
around us works, because it is done by making rational, logical deductions based on unbiased
observations, _not_ by simply making up just-so stories and asserting that they are correct--nothing
can be learned that way, only proclaimed.

For science to work, the intent behind the making of observations must be to _find out_ how a
phenomenon of nature works, _not_ to support a preconceived notion. The observations must be made
with an open mind. Only after the observations are done is a hypothesis formed to explain the facts
that these observations have yielded. Experiments are done to test the hypothesis. If successful
(or even if not) the results and conclusion are submitted for publication. Additionally, everything
must be documented--the initial observations, and the exact methodology used for the experiments, so
the work can be repeated by others to test it. Also the hypothesis must be constructed so that it is
potentially falsifiable.

Those are the three most important aspects of the scientific process--verification, repeatability,
and falsifiability. The work must be able to be repeated by anyone with access to similar equipment
so that its honesty can be tested, as well as to find out if the process was somehow flawed (if
everyone else's results come out the same, but differently than those of the original researchers),
or if the hypothesis was too simple (differing results caused by additional variables not accounted
for by the original researchers), etc. Falsifiability is extremely important as well. The
hypothesis _must_ be potentially able to be disproved, otherwise nothing can be learned from the
research. In order for it to be regarded as correct, it must be able to stand up to the most severe
criticism that can be thrown at it, for as long as it exists. Scientific theories are designed so
that it is always possible for them to be proven wrong, and replaced with a better theory that can
stand up to the criticism that broke the older one. That is the only way knowledge can really be
advanced--by trying, and succeeding (or continually failing) to pull down other's ideas, with
_scientific_ work of your own. It also means that nothing in science can be absolutely proved, but
here's where a misunderstanding occurs: It doesn't mean that the scientific community in general
can't have a pretty good idea, maybe 99.9999999etc. %, that they are indeed correct in their
reasoning. There might always be a _chance_ that even the most concrete theory or law is incorrect,
but at some point the evidence becomes so overwhelmingly supportive (say, the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, and the ability to accurately predict (engineer) and build things like internal
combustion engines) that the chance of being wrong, sans any new information, which itself must pass
the same rigorous tests and inbuilt skepticism, becomes so small it isn't worth worrying about. Only
the best explanations survive, there is no room for the weak. And if it is not falsifiable it is
_not_ science.

The work is published in scientific journals so that it is subject to peer review, in order to have
that criticism thrown at it, so it has to stand up or fail, and also to make sure it is as unbiased
as humanly possible--the only way to do that is to have everything--data, methods, theories, set on
by a trained group of skeptical scientists. It isn't perfect, ego and the cherished work of a career
can get in the way of rational criticism--but that is poor science, and that's why there is a
_group_ of peers to review the published work. People accuse scientists of being skeptical, and not
open to alternate ideas or explanations. They _have_ to be skeptics, if they weren't they wouldn't
be scientists. Again they aren't perfect; sometimes new ideas, scientific as they may be, seem too
radical and are missed--for a time, until enough evidence is presented for the work to be deemed
worth publishing.


What science is _NOT_ is an explanation in the form of a just-so story asserted to be true by its
author. Nothing can be learned from that, it's just a fancy way of saying "because I said so, and
all who disagree with me are wrong". Science is also _NOT_ done by attempting to "prove" just so
stories _OR_ preconceived notions by gathering supporting data. That's particularly dishonest in
fact, because it ignores all of the data that doesn't support it, which it needs if it is to be
discussed scientifically. That makes it the _opposite_ of science, nonetheless people who don't
know any better can't tell the difference, and it is deliberately dressed up to make people think it
_is_ scientific, where science is not a tool used to _prove_ anything, but to _discover_, to get as
close as _rationally_ possible to the truth of, what actually goes on.

If you choose to accept an _idea_ over and above, if need be even contrary to, certain _established
facts_, than it is a belief, _not_ science. And it cannot be either proved or disproved, nothing
can be learned from it, and it can't be argued to any conclusion, because it simply is what you
decide it is, completely disconnected from the influence of anything else. This is not an attempt
to pass a moral judgment on it either (that also is outside the realm of science), however a belief
cannot be used to argue against science because no matter the truth of it, no matter how competent
the explanation it provides, it is designed so that it cannot be critiqued or even rationally argued
against, and thus nothing can be learned from it.

--Aardwolf.

 

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Science is not a collection of facts to be parroted by rote, it is a
> process by which we refine our understanding of how various aspects of
> the Universe work. It's the height of arrogance to proclaim that one
> can authoritatively state that something is the TRVTH especially in
> light of the amazing changes that have come in our understanding of
> almost every scientific field over only the last few centuries.

This is the only post I will send out in this thread. However people need to know what science is
and what it is not. Science is the only tool we have for actually understanding how the world
around us works, because it is done by making rational, logical deductions based on unbiased
observations, _not_ by simply making up just-so stories and asserting that they are correct--nothing
can be learned that way, only proclaimed.

For science to work, the intent behind the making of observations must be to _find out_ how a
phenomenon of nature works, _not_ to support a preconceived notion. The observations must be made
with an open mind. Only after the observations are done is a hypothesis formed to explain the facts
that these observations have yielded. Experiments are done to test the hypothesis. If successful
(or even if not) the results and conclusion are submitted for publication. Additionally, everything
must be documented--the initial observations, and the exact methodology used for the experiments, so
the work can be repeated by others to test it. Also the hypothesis must be constructed so that it is
potentially falsifiable.

Those are the three most important aspects of the scientific process--verification, repeatability,
and falsifiability. The work must be able to be repeated by anyone with access to similar equipment
so that its honesty can be tested, as well as to find out if the process was somehow flawed (if
everyone else's results come out the same, but differently than those of the original researchers),
or if the hypothesis was too simple (differing results caused by additional variables not accounted
for by the original researchers), etc. Falsifiability is extremely important as well. The
hypothesis _must_ be potentially able to be disproved, otherwise nothing can be learned from the
research. In order for it to be regarded as correct, it must be able to stand up to the most severe
criticism that can be thrown at it, for as long as it exists. Scientific theories are designed so
that it is always possible for them to be proven wrong, and replaced with a better theory that can
stand up to the criticism that broke the older one. That is the only way knowledge can really be
advanced--by trying, and succeeding (or continually failing) to pull down other's ideas, with
_scientific_ work of your own. It also means that nothing in science can be absolutely proved, but
here's where a misunderstanding occurs: It doesn't mean that the scientific community in general
can't have a pretty good idea, maybe 99.9999999etc. %, that they are indeed correct in their
reasoning. There might always be a _chance_ that even the most concrete theory or law is incorrect,
but at some point the evidence becomes so overwhelmingly supportive (say, the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, and the ability to accurately predict (engineer) and build things like internal
combustion engines) that the chance of being wrong, sans any new information, which itself must pass
the same rigorous tests and inbuilt skepticism, becomes so small it isn't worth worrying about. Only
the best explanations survive, there is no room for the weak. And if it is not falsifiable it is
_not_ science.

The work is published in scientific journals so that it is subject to peer review, in order to have
that criticism thrown at it, so it has to stand up or fail, and also to make sure it is as unbiased
as humanly possible--the only way to do that is to have everything--data, methods, theories, set on
by a trained group of skeptical scientists. It isn't perfect, ego and the cherished work of a career
can get in the way of rational criticism--but that is poor science, and that's why there is a
_group_ of peers to review the published work. People accuse scientists of being skeptical, and not
open to alternate ideas or explanations. They _have_ to be skeptics, if they weren't they wouldn't
be scientists. Again they aren't perfect; sometimes new ideas, scientific as they may be, seem too
radical and are missed--for a time, until enough evidence is presented for the work to be deemed
worth publishing.


What science is _NOT_ is an explanation in the form of a just-so story asserted to be true by its
author. Nothing can be learned from that, it's just a fancy way of saying "because I said so, and
all who disagree with me are wrong". Science is also _NOT_ done by attempting to "prove" just so
stories _OR_ preconceived notions by gathering supporting data. That's particularly dishonest in
fact, because it ignores all of the data that doesn't support it, which it needs if it is to be
discussed scientifically. That makes it the _opposite_ of science, nonetheless people who don't
know any better can't tell the difference, and it is deliberately dressed up to make people think it
_is_ scientific, where science is not a tool used to _prove_ anything, but to _discover_, to get as
close as _rationally_ possible to the truth of, what actually goes on.

If you choose to accept an _idea_ over and above, if need be even contrary to, certain _established
facts_, than it is a belief, _not_ science. And it cannot be either proved or disproved, nothing
can be learned from it, and it can't be argued to any conclusion, because it simply is what you
decide it is, completely disconnected from the influence of anything else. This is not an attempt
to pass a moral judgment on it either (that also is outside the realm of science), however a belief
cannot be used to argue against science because no matter the truth of it, no matter how competent
the explanation it provides, it is designed so that it cannot be critiqued or even rationally argued
against, and thus nothing can be learned from it.

--Aardwolf.