Restoring the unmarked snip you made from the post to which you are - petulantly - reacting.
"Why would I need to? I've been pointing out where you've gone wrong here for years, and I've had a bunch of comments published in Rev.Sci. Instrum. pointing out where their authors (and - by implication - their referees) have got it wrong.
On that basis, I was practising wrongology long before you had this forum to parade your favourite delusions."
On the other hand, your idea of practicising scientific scepticism is to be sceptical about anthropogenic global warning on the basis of denialist propaganda gleaned - perhaps at second hand - from the website of the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine"
formatting link
d_Medicine
In effect, you've buried *your* head in something rather less salubrious than sand, but still want to tell us about the right way of practising scepticism. You need to grow up.
You keep insisting that I am somehow influenced by propaganda. That's silly. I may as well accuse you of being snowed by warmingist propaganda.
My position is:
In the history of science, nearly every theory that cannot be experimentally verified has turned out to be wrong.
Many common observations, measurements, and apparent causalities turn out to be wrong.
To do non-trivial electronic design, and get it right, you have to be brutally skeptical: of datasheets, of measurements, of board layouts, of your own design skills. Design it today, assume it is wrong, and check it tomorrow and the day after.
Once you acquire a routine attitude of skepticism, you see all sorts of stuff that's suspect in daily life. And a lot of it turns out to be plain wrong. And a lot of authorities and experts turn out to be wrong. The idea that science continuously ratchets in the proper direction, adding decimals of precision, is a fairy tale.
Is margerine healthier than butter? It used to be.
Do multivitamins make you live longer?
Why are billions made selling drugs that aren't effective but kill people?
Is low-dose aspirin good for the average person?
Does environment affect genetics?
Do genes move between species and kingdoms? How does that affect molecular anthropology?
Is string theory useful?
Is economics useful?
Can history teach us anything, when we are faced with forces and technology that have never before existed?
Nobody can predict weather a month in advance, so can we predict climate?
If I live to be 200, I'll never be as old as you are now.
Did Slowman _really_ say that ?:-) ...Jim Thompson
-- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at
formatting link
| 1962 |
The Ground Zero Mosque IS Appropriate When Renamed... The Obama Monument to American Impotence
It was silly behaviour by you, but your collections of specious counter-arguments, including the priceless "we are just restoring the earth's CO2 levels to waht they were a few hundred million years ago" coincided uncomfortably exactly with the rubbish being pedalled by "The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine". Would you like to produce an alternative explanation for this coincidence that doesn't involve you being influenced by propaganda?
You could try, but the Proceeding of the (US) National Academy of Science are not usually seen as a source of warmingist propaganda.
Like the theory of evolution?
Some - not that many - and since you fail to cite examples, this is more contentless hand-waving than a statement of a defensible position.
Perfectly true. Now you need to elarn to apply this discipline outside electronics.
I'm the one that has published a number of sceptical comments in the Review of Scientific Instruments - you merely pose as a sceptic while failing to detect that your anti-global warming arguments are content- less propaganda coming out of a denialist web-site.
Since I've been moved off low-dose asprin onto wafarin, that question is of immediate interest to me, but - since I've just had a new heart valve - I'm not an average person. Neither is anybody else. The plus side of low dose asprin is that it reduces the chances of blood clots blocking arteries in the heart and in the brain. The minus side is that it makes small leaks from these arteries more likely, and the balance of risk varies from patient to patient.
Not yet.
To fat cats who want to find an economic theory that can justify tax breaks for them - absolutely.
Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" is instructive on precisely that question. The answer is that the ruling class is almost certainly going to continue playing their power games while society collapses around them. Exxon-Mobile's reaction to anthropogenic global warming is a fairly obvious example.
Climate is averaged-out weather. Farmers have been predicting it for millenia It is constrained by conservation of energy in a way that day- by-day weather isn't. More CO2 in the atmosphere changes the way these constraints work.
Yup. I thought of it myself. I've never heard of the OISM folks. You never have original ideas, so you can't imagine that other people can imagine.
Actually, they are.
It's still fuzzy. I'm sure it will turn out to be much more interesting than most biologists (like my daughter) think.
I apply it to everything. It works all over the place.
Oh, quit it. I think for myself. You obviously don't.
Accurately? With supercomputers?
It is constrained by conservation of energy in a way that day-
Parts of me are, by design. I worry about losing the ability to design as I get older, like musicians and mathematicians taper off after the age of 30 or so. It hasn't happened so far, but I think you have to work at not getting rigid.
Yes he did say that. I think that given that he has been likely practicing wrongology longer than anyone on this forum, we should declare him (without even an election) the grand poo-bah of wrongology.
Some real academes and a lot of nutty faux academes cling to "Peer Review" as if it is a religion to them.
A few years ago one University of Iowa professor was ridiculed vociferously about his theory that part of earth's water had actually fallen into our atmosphere from space.
The science community was BRUTAL toward him.
Then astronauts on a Shuttle observed and recorded it taking place.
In the softer sciences like Social Science, one Doctor Professor Sir Roy Meadows was found to have LIED (committed perjury) in court cases regarding SIDS death called Cot Death in the UK.
He had basically CREATED the Munchausens By Proxy diagnosis that became standard in every textbook and diagnostic manual for psychology.
Munchausens By Proxy became basically a COTTAGE INDUSTRY for Meadows.
MBP got to be a trueism in every text book about psychology or social work.
NBC and ABC dramatic Movies of the WEEK were based on MBP.
After his dishonesty about SIDS/Cot Death was revealed somebody tried to look into the MBP research which was Ground Breaking and historical, should have been in some university library, but Meadows had SHREDDED it.
You'd think that since it was PEER REVIEWED, that one of the PEERS would have a copy of these historical and famous research results.
Other people could not replicate the kind of results that Meadows got.
What made it worse was that CPS caseworkers in several countries accused parents of MBP on a large scale as if it was common place. Children were removed from families forever based on this garbage diagnosis done by qualified hacks or totally unqualified morons.
Something like it does exist, but is extremely rare, not hiding behind every door.
Something about the diagnosis, perhaps the dramatizations of it, SOLD the concept for decades as if it was commonplace.
The Diagnostic manuals had to remove the diagnosis though it remains in a way under some other terminology and in a less prominent form.
HOW is it that every copy of the original research on Munchausens By Proxy, supposedly PEER REVIEWED, was destroyed rather than being enshrined in a university library as they usually are?
This is not to say that peer review is not a good idea. I know of some (biased) research on spanking where the biased researcher got told by the peer reviewers about GLARING FLAWS and the methodology of their research and findings because peer review caught them at corrupt, contaminated or bad practice.
What happens if 5 peers all share the same bias though?
The hard science community reaction to the theory about extra terrestrial water for example?
You produced a matched set of nosnese arguments. One you might have though of for yourself, but the collection had to come from OISM, perhaps via some idle journalist filling an inside page of a newspaper by cut and paste.
I've got a couple of patents, so I've evidently managed to have at least a couple of original ideas. I'm sure that you could have dreamed up some of the nonsense that you posted, but claiming that you duplicated OISM's package all by yourself isn't actually credible.
--
While, of course, your attempt at acerbic, tongue-in-cheek criticism
is noted, you're wrong, once again.
It's clear that neither of us is an idiot, so it seems to me that our
debate is more about abrogation of responsibility for errors made
during the course of several discussions than it is for the inability
of either of us to see the errors.
YMMV, of course, in that if you're presented with incontrovertible
evidence that you've made an error, your penchant seems to be to
vehemently deny it and generate any number of irrelevant side issues
designed to derail the discussion and move the focus away from your
foibles.
--
Context, of course, meaning that you'd like what you were thinking
about when you made the statement to be what the reader experiences,
as well, when he reads it.
Unfortunately, the context was compromised by your unwitting
introduction of the ambiguity, an _error_ a competent author might
rectify by a critical re-read before posting.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.