Actually I don't excuse that at all Chris. This is precisely the non- science world-view that has suckered itself into believing in spin. The layman is everywhere making decisions based on false assumptions and some scientists are no better. The levels of depravity are worse than you put forward, including examples of nuns collecting and misusing vast sums meant for cancer research. Most academic research is deeply flawed. I agree with your general position and think it simply doesn't go far enough. The levels of ignorance are almost unfathomable. Social research is usually worse in this respect than harder science, but we are now fundamentally corrupt across the board. I have probably been personally responsible for getting hold of millions in research and project monies that have been almost entirely wasted. There is almost no scientific world-view in practice. You have made up or projected my disdain for the layman. We are all lay outside of whatever tiny area we have expertise in. The system is the subject of my disdain, even hatred. I have seen much research money spent on private jets, dinners and worse. This is a system in need of disestablishment. The longest running sage is probably that of hot fusion, which strangely may now be about to come to fruition through wasting vast amounts at CERN which will develop relevant containment techniques as a by-product. If the layman needs disdain, it is at the point he pretends loads of knowledge. Apart from shuffling aspersions onto me, you are quite right.
On 25 Nov, 14:36, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > The problem with your perspective, Arch, is that you excuse the scientists > who are manipulating data to suit their world view. Climate change IS a good > example of this. Even if you buy that it was completely acceptable behaviour > for the scientists from East Anglia to collude to suppress data, alter it at > whim to fit their predetermined results, manipulate it to hide evidence of > cooling, and delete exchanges of emails when requested for them under FOIA > requests, it's not like that's an isolated incident. Scientists with a > political cause, and grant money hanging on the outcome of their studies, > will be quick to alter data, and just as quick to provide "reasonable" > explanations for their actions when caught. > > http://www.spokesmanreview.com/pf.asp?date=011702&ID=s1086438&cat=sec... > > <http://www.spokesmanreview.com/pf.asp?date=011702&ID=s1086438&cat=sec...>It's > difficult for a layman to know WHAT to believe, and this is problematic when > the layman is expected to vote on "Science Based" policies which are going > to cost trillions. Your disdain for the layman does a disservice to rational > exploration, given the all too human proclivities of the scientists in > question. > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:20 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Climate change is probably the best example of how a really dumb lay > > perspective on science flourishes. People scurry around trying to > > find the 'evidence' that fits their world-view instead of looking for > > material that may be discomforting and requires the establishment of a > > new view. Kyoto and Copenhagen demonstrate our leaders have no clue > > other than in the sense of politics Slip described using Mencken, The > > promises given are meaningless as the problem may be so severe that > > the answers lie in stuff like blotting out the Sun. Not far away from > > the hype the media encourages on this matter, we still seem to be > > hoping for 'economic recovery' on the old lines that have led to this > > and other problems. I hold out little faith in education - this needs > > disestablishment and new aims. > > > On 25 Nov, 01:03, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > “… Science as a world-view has not caught on.” – archy > > > > And, as far as I can see, this reality will only grow as education is > > > routinely dismantled in the west and the average of those in some > > > Islamic countries continues to decline, being, what, 23 or so now? Of > > > course, while ‘we’ see all of the hype and ‘advances’ when it comes to > > > education of females, I hold little hope for this on a large scale. > > > > On Nov 24, 4:06 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I would point out Francis, that stirring the shit is environmentally > > > > unsound (all that methane). At the back of this stuff is the madness > > > > of capitalism based on consumption and routine overbreeding. Science > > > > as a world-view has not caught on. > > > > > On 24 Nov, 23:29, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > In fact, I find nothing at all curious about the tactics (resistance) > > > > > to dealing with things ecological when it comes to China and the US. > > > > > As far as I can tell, in both cases the real power is to be found in > > > > > multinational organizations and not provincial local politics. This > > is > > > > > yet another example of the results of aspects of capitalism. > > > > > > And, regardless of cause, the effect of climate change is obvious. > > > > > Here I have little doubt as to the human component when it comes to > > > > > major aspects of the cause. As fran points out, even if it is just a > > > > > little ‘help’, unless one is so very skeptical and stolid as to > > reject > > > > > all efforts for change, perhaps even based on a belief in the need to > > > > > cull the herd, quick and committed action is needed quite soon, like > > > > > yesterday! > > > > > > While not literally true, the myth about putting a frog in cold water > > > > > and slowly bringing it to a boil is instructive. > > > > > > On Nov 24, 1:17 pm, fran the man <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On December 7 the climate summit in Copenhagen begins. Already, the > > > > > > chances of it achieving anything worthwhile seem to be slim. While > > the > > > > > > Europeans are pushing for concrete, binding levels of > > CO2-reduction, a > > > > > > curious Sino-US alliance (backed by other Asian-Pacific countries) > > > > > > seem intent on preventing the emergence of anything more than > > sonorous > > > > > > platitudes. > > > > > > > I'm well aware that regular posters here have sharply differing > > views > > > > > > on global warming, so I thought I might stir the s**t a bit :-) > > Here's > > > > > > a link to the latest press release of a group of experts which sees > > > > > > the situation as being even more dramatic than has been thought up > > to > > > > > > now (the link also contains a further link to a download of the > > full > > > > > > report in PDF-format). > > > > > > >http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/press.html > > > > > > > Of particular concern, it seems to me, are the figures relating to > > the > > > > > > melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets, as well as the > > > > > > Arctic sea ice and the consequent rise in sea-levels. If the > > prognosis > > > > > > is even half-right here, both Alan and Chris are going to soon have > > to > > > > > > put their houses on stilts! (Yes, Chris, I know you're not > > expecting > > > > > > it.) > > > > > > > Francis- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups > > .com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
