Re: Anecdotes Do Not Make A Science
Posted by Skywise on July 21, 2006 at 17:51:45:

"Appreciate your reference to Wikipedia. I didn't know that. However, as you must know, these articles are written by folks like you and me."

As if to imply that the article is not correct? Ok, fine. Google (or whatever search engine you prefer) on the phrase "netiquette all caps" and you'll find ten's of thousands more references. As another data point, I've been on the 'net since '97, and BBS'ing longer than that. All caps has ALWAYS been interpreted as shouting or yelling.

"Meanwhile, I see that you have a problem thinking outside of the box. Please send a note to yourself: "I must think for myself.""

Trust me on this one, my "outside the box" thinking has gotten me into more trouble than I care to relate.

"You continue to cite others' work but you seem to lack originality."

I cite other's work because it says what I want to say. Also, in case you didn't know, science builds on the works of others. Ever notice the long lists of references at the end of papers?

Is everything you write completely researched from scratch on your own? No, you reference the work of others. You're book on JOB does that. Should I complain about you're constant references in that book to the work of others and claim that "you seem to lack originality"?

As for your remarks about science and health, you obviously haven't the first clue about how science works.

"And, I can't resist this one. In disaster films ever notice how the underdog or the scientist who is a maverick always is right? Brian, often fiction mirrors real life."

And fiction is often just that, fiction. You think a work of fiction is a good reference to base an argument on? It's a story. It's not real life. It's FANTASY.

Now I'm going to test your patience some more.....

Heresy Does Not Equal Correctness

They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at the Wright brothers. Yes, well, they laughed at the Marx brothers. Being laughed at does not mean you are right. Wilhelm Reich compared himself to Peer Gynt, the unconventional genius out of step with society, and misunderstood and ridiculed as a heretic until proven right: "Whatever you have done to me or will do to me in the future, whether you glorify me as a genius or put me in a mental institution, whether you adore me as your savior or hang me as a spy, sooner or later necessity will force you to comprehend that I have discovered the laws of living" (in Gardner 1952, p.259). Reprinted in the January/February 1996 issue of the Journal of Historical Review, the organ of Holocaust denial, is a famous quote from the nineteenth-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, which is quoted often by those on the margins: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident." But "all truth" does not pass through these stages. Lots of true ideas are accepted without ridicule or opposition, violent or otherwise. Einstein's theory of relativity was largely ignored until 1919, when experimental evidence proved him right. He was not ridiculed, and no one violently opposed his ideas. The Schopenhauer quote is just a rationalization, a fancy way for those who are ridiculed or violently opposed to say, "See, I must be right". Not so.

History is replete with tales of the lone scientist working in spite of his peers and flying in the face of the doctrines of his or her own field of study. Most of them turned out to be wrong and we do not remember their names. For every Galileo shown the instruments of torture for advocating a scientific truth, there are a thousand (or ten thousand) unknowns whose "truths" never pass muster with other scientists. The scientific community cannot be expected to test every fantastic claim that comes along, especially when so many are logically inconsistent. If you want to do science, you have to learn to play the game of science. This involves getting to know the scientists in your field, exchanging data and ideas with colleagues informally, and formally presenting your results in conference papers, peer-reviewed journals, books, and the like.

[From Micheal Shermers book, "Why People Believe Weird Things"]

Brian


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: Skywise and Chickens - cal  18:24:17 - 7/21/2006  (39459)  (0)
     ● Re: To Anti-Chicken Man - cal  18:23:43 - 7/21/2006  (39458)  (0)
     ● Re: To Anti-Chicken Man - cal  18:23:01 - 7/21/2006  (39456)  (1)
        ● ad hominem - Skywise  18:46:05 - 7/21/2006  (39461)  (2)
           ● What science are you involved in? - Glen  21:15:34 - 7/21/2006  (39465)  (1)
              ● Re: What science are you involved in? - Skywise  00:42:33 - 7/22/2006  (39473)  (1)
                 ● Sound well rounded - Glen  12:05:08 - 7/22/2006  (39484)  (0)
           ● Re: P.S. Triple Posts. and Tunnel Vision - cal   20:25:13 - 7/21/2006  (39463)  (1)
              ● Re: P.S. Triple Posts. and Tunnel Vision - Skywise  00:30:37 - 7/22/2006  (39472)  (1)
                 ● Re: P.S. Triple Posts. and Tunnel Vision - Callie  10:26:32 - 7/22/2006  (39482)  (2)
                    ● Re: P.S. Triple Posts. and Tunnel Vision - Skywise  15:56:01 - 7/22/2006  (39486)  (1)
                       ● Re: P.S. Triple Posts. and Tunnel Vision - cal  17:22:43 - 7/22/2006  (39487)  (1)
                          ● Re: P.S. Triple Posts. and Tunnel Vision - Skywise  20:25:37 - 7/22/2006  (39490)  (0)
                    ● Re: P.S. Triple Posts. and Tunnel Vision - Roger Hunter  12:02:52 - 7/22/2006  (39483)  (0)