[SA previously]
> > Have other scientists at other schools done
> > studies to support or oppose these Princeton
> studies? You can't take the word of one school in
the
> world. These studies have to be repeated. That's
> science.
[Platt]
> Most of science doesn't want to study psychic
> phenomena. They consider it
> bogus in advance. Yet it is the contrarians, like
> Jahn at Princeton and
> Einstein in Swwitzerland who make science advance.
Well, maybe Jahn research will go global like
Einsteins did. Whether one is an Einstein or a Jahn,
the scientific process goes on. Therefore, unless
others do research that validates or invalidates
Jahns' research, Jahn will be left out in the cold.
Science can be like that. Science does has
scientists, which value certain topics of study.
That's why these scientists go to school for such and
such a topic of study. Not because Jahn demands them
to study his work, but because students are interested
in certain topics, find schools that teach them, and
go there. Jahns' research may have to wait on his
interested students, and that's only if some join
areas in society that provide an atmosphere of
research. This is how anthropology spread throughout
the U.S. I believe it was Franz Boas who was the
first PROFESSOR (capitalized for those that may be
wondering about the other anthropologists that even
studied Amerindians before reservations, well, at the
time I don't think they were called anthropologists
and some of these people may have been from Europe) in
the U.S. teaching anthropology, and then some of his
students eventually became professors and taught at
different schools, and the rest is history so to
speak. You see what I mean. Science is a difficult
and challenging process.
[Platt]
> I don't think good science relies on counting heads
> to establish scientific facts. History is replete
with examples
> of scientific consensus that turned out to be wrong.
That's my
> answer.
Yes, it is important for science to count heads
so the info. gets into the textbooks and students
learn. Right now students are learning about global
warming. You see, I told you, you are not following
the scientific process, as you said you were earlier.
There is nothing wrong with that, unless you think you
are being scientific, now that would be a false
impression that your giving off. The scientific
process needs data, and you don't show any specific
data to support your line of reasoning. You do
however try to point out the uncertainty of ANY line
of thinking, which I can accept and agree with.
[Platt]
> The scientists I referred to have evidence for their
> views just as those who think we're responsible for
global warming
> do.
You see, I learned in school the evidence for
global warming. I didn't have to seek it, only by
default since I enrolled in school. I never heard of
global warming until teachers and textbooks told me
about it. So, therefore my mind didn't have the
chance to decide one way or the other on its' own. I
was given the information before I was able to think
about global warming on my own. Where did you learn
about global warming and why did you decide to not
agree with it? Is it, as you stated above, just
because science has been wrong in the past that
science is wrong now? That's what I keep asking. I
must not be articulate enough on each of these posts
for you to know exactly what I'm asking, my fault.
[Platt]
> You are free to read the evidence on both sides just
as I am. If
> you don't choose
> to do so, fine. Just don't expect me to do your
> research for you. And, if
> you think I have "trust issues," whatever that
> means, so be it. Insinuating
> a defect of my character doesn't do your argument
> any favors.
You said some posts back that you were arguing
science with science, but to argue science with
science you have to provide evidence in opposition to
global warming. So, your exactly not arguing against
the science of global warming with science. Your
arguing against the science of global warming because
of trust issues. I didn't bring up the trust issues.
You did. You even stated above that science has been
wrong in the past so science is wrong now. Therefore
you are NOT arguing against the science of global
warming with science. You are arguing against the
science of global warming with philosophy, maybe a
more correct term might be history. Your pointing out
a wrong about science in the past to support your line
of reasoning. Your not supporting your line of
reasoning with evidence (thus, following the
scientific process). Your supporting your line of
reasoning with history. Now, I do see Ian is arguing
your history that supports your line of reasoning.
So, either your history is wrong or right and if wrong
then you don't have anything else to support your line
of reasoning, unless, you provide us with evidence.
If your history is correct, then you have history on
your side to support your line of reasoning, but
remember that is still not following the scientific
process, which will only listen to arguments that have
evidence to support ones line of reasoning.
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
The fish are biting.
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
