[FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Larry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not anti-science - - I am suggesting that much of the intellectual findings of science don't impact me - - - for example, I know the earth is round, but for 99.9+% of my daily life activities, it makes no difference whether the world is flat or round. The issue of the flatness or roundness of the earth was historically of great importance to the pro and anti science peoples, and some lost their lives because of their positions - - but for the billions of average Joes like myself, the controversy doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Likewise, quantum mechanics may claim that the banana I had for breakfast is mostly empty space, but that fact has little bearing on the banana's comings and goings . . . I am not talking about the application of science in technology - but the intellectual discovery or resulting knowledge of the scientific process. It has little impact for most people, then there are a few who appreciate science for its entertainment value - then there are the very few scientists themselves who are actually engaged in the research. Well, yes and no. Research on things like quantum mechanics has little effect on me. String theory debunked? Interesting, but only casually so. But some people are drawn to the language of science and certain scientific principles and use them incorrectly (pseudoscience). This can result in people making wrong decisions in their lives or justifying decisions they already made. When I was a college student I used help study blood pressure in mice and mechanisms that could result in enlarged hearts. None of it had immediate effect on anyone's life. However, what was learned there could result in lines of blood pressure drugs being developed. So what was pure science becomes applied but really is of no interest to the general public until it is applied. Familiarity with how the scientific method works is important in order to evaluate science claims in real life. Of equal importance is understanding a bit how psychology works. It is in our nature to want answers even if no answers are yet apparent. Interestingly, you will find out a lot about scientific methodology by studying psychology 101. Ruth (who formerly did autopsies on mice)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nice contribution! I studied the philosophy of science a bit. In my personal life I am trying to find a balance in how I relate to beliefs. It seems to be a dance between trying to be rigorous in my thinking and still being open to what is not known. I am still finding that balance. I don't spend much time with the spiritual stuff anymore, but sorting out the growth of health beliefs draws my attention. I end up being a bit ping ponged by the latest studies. So now for the question: how do you apply these principles in choosing own personal beliefs? Good question, one for which I have had a sustained interest. I'll take a stab at this -- if for anything, to clarify my own thinking on it. First, there is a distinction between a phenomenon in-itself, or further, interaction of things, which by their very existence are true . However, what one believes about the phenomenon or interactions is based on shades of knowledge -- some lighter and some darker. There will always be a chasm between objective reality and a subjective appreciation or knowledge of that. Some would argue that the former does not exist -- but thats another story, for another day. I hold, at least for myself, that none of my beliefs are 100% true or false. Subjective knowledge (of relative phenomenon and interactions) will always be evolving, changing, refining, and be re-integrated into larger wholes. Thus I look at all of my beliefs probabilistically. Per Turq's questions about self-evident, I suggest nothing is self-evident -- as in my belief in this thing has 100% probability of being true. (And I perhaps don't always practice such -- though this is a good exercise to root out core assumptions and axioms). In regards to peer-reviewed processes, as an example, not a hard and fast set of rules, I might use this probabilistic framework to assess degrees of truthiness revealed by various intensities of research and findings. Example: 5% Non-published, not peer-reviewed study by those with a vested (material and emotional) interest in the outcome. This type of finding may be a good exploratory first step -- lending justification for more rigorous studies. 10% above but by independent researchers 20% above, but 1-3 studies published in a third tier peer reviewed journal. 30% above, but 3-5 studies published in a first tier peer reviewed journal. 40% above, but 10 studies, 76% supporting the premise. And vigorous subsequent debate and challenging of the research in in journals and at conferences. 50% above, but 30 studies in first tier journals, with 15 pro, 5 con. Lots of buzz in scientific circles and high interest among many scientists to get involved with research on such, find funding, get published, etc. 60% above, but 50 studies across five separate, looking at the issue with different methodologies and technologies. etc. I view a lot of the TMO research hovering around the first three or so categories. My belief in the findings of such is in the 5-20% range.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
We can compare notes then. I once did surgery on dogs.
- Original Message
From: ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 7:56:32 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Larry [EMAIL PROTECTED] . wrote:
I am not anti-science - - I am suggesting that much of the
intellectual findings of science don't impact me - - - for example, I
know the earth is round, but for 99.9+% of my daily life
activities, it makes no difference whether the world is flat or round.
The issue of the flatness or roundness of the earth was historically
of great importance to the pro and anti science peoples, and some lost
their lives because of their positions - - but for the billions of
average Joes like myself, the controversy doesn't amount to a hill of
beans.
Likewise, quantum mechanics may claim that the banana I had for
breakfast is mostly empty space, but that fact has little bearing on
the banana's comings and goings . . .
I am not talking about the application of science in technology - but
the intellectual discovery or resulting knowledge of the scientific
process. It has little impact for most people, then there are a few
who appreciate science for its entertainment value - then there are
the very few scientists themselves who are actually engaged in the
research.
Well, yes and no. Research on things like quantum mechanics has little effect
on me. String theory debunked? Interesting, but only casually so. But some
people are drawn to the language of science and certain scientific principles
and use them incorrectly (pseudoscience) . This can result in people making
wrong decisions in their lives or justifying decisions they already made.
When I was a college student I used help study blood pressure in mice and
mechanisms that could result in enlarged hearts. None of it had immediate
effect on anyone's life. However, what was learned there could result in lines
of blood pressure drugs being developed. So what was pure science becomes
applied but really is of no interest to the general public until it is applied.
Familiarity with how the scientific method works is important in order to
evaluate science claims in real life. Of equal importance is understanding a
bit how psychology works. It is in our nature to want answers even if no
answers are yet apparent. Interestingly, you will find out a lot about
scientific methodology by studying psychology 101.
Ruth (who formerly did autopsies on mice)
!--
#ygrp-mkp{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;}
#ygrp-mkp hr{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#ygrp-mkp #hd{
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0px;}
#ygrp-mkp #ads{
margin-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad{
padding:0 0;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad a{
color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
--
!--
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
font-family:Arial;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
--
!--
#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;white-space:nowrap;}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:uppercase;}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;margin:2px 0;}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-right:.5em;}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-vital a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color:#999;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{
padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
text-decoration:none;font-size:130
[FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We can compare notes then. I once did surgery on dogs. I sure hope your dogs lived, my mice sure didn't. Gave their lives to science.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
Ruth (who formerly did autopsies on mice)
I am still looking for my perfect headstone epitaph. I think you
nailed yours!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We can compare notes then. I once did surgery on dogs.
- Original Message
From: ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 7:56:32 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Larry inmadison@ . wrote:
I am not anti-science - - I am suggesting that much of the
intellectual findings of science don't impact me - - - for example, I
know the earth is round, but for 99.9+% of my daily life
activities, it makes no difference whether the world is flat or round.
The issue of the flatness or roundness of the earth was historically
of great importance to the pro and anti science peoples, and some lost
their lives because of their positions - - but for the billions of
average Joes like myself, the controversy doesn't amount to a hill of
beans.
Likewise, quantum mechanics may claim that the banana I had for
breakfast is mostly empty space, but that fact has little bearing on
the banana's comings and goings . . .
I am not talking about the application of science in technology - but
the intellectual discovery or resulting knowledge of the scientific
process. It has little impact for most people, then there are a few
who appreciate science for its entertainment value - then there are
the very few scientists themselves who are actually engaged in the
research.
Well, yes and no. Research on things like quantum mechanics has
little effect on me. String theory debunked? Interesting, but only
casually so. But some people are drawn to the language of science
and certain scientific principles and use them incorrectly
(pseudoscience) . This can result in people making wrong decisions in
their lives or justifying decisions they already made.
When I was a college student I used help study blood pressure in
mice and mechanisms that could result in enlarged hearts. None of it
had immediate effect on anyone's life. However, what was learned
there could result in lines of blood pressure drugs being developed.
So what was pure science becomes applied but really is of no interest
to the general public until it is applied.
Familiarity with how the scientific method works is important in
order to evaluate science claims in real life. Of equal importance
is understanding a bit how psychology works. It is in our nature to
want answers even if no answers are yet apparent. Interestingly, you
will find out a lot about scientific methodology by studying
psychology 101.
Ruth (who formerly did autopsies on mice)
!--
#ygrp-mkp{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px
0px;padding:0px 14px;}
#ygrp-mkp hr{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#ygrp-mkp #hd{
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0px;}
#ygrp-mkp #ads{
margin-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad{
padding:0 0;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad a{
color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
--
!--
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
font-family:Arial;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
--
!--
#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica,
clean, sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;margin:25px
0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;white-space:nowrap;}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:uppercase;}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;margin:2px 0;}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-right:.5em;}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-vital a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text
[FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Larry inmadison@ wrote: I am not anti-science - - I am suggesting that much of the intellectual findings of science don't impact me - - - for example, I know the earth is round, but for 99.9+% of my daily life activities, it makes no difference whether the world is flat or round. The issue of the flatness or roundness of the earth was historically of great importance to the pro and anti science peoples, and some lost their lives because of their positions - - but for the billions of average Joes like myself, the controversy doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Likewise, quantum mechanics may claim that the banana I had for breakfast is mostly empty space, but that fact has little bearing on the banana's comings and goings . . . I am not talking about the application of science in technology - but the intellectual discovery or resulting knowledge of the scientific process. It has little impact for most people, then there are a few who appreciate science for its entertainment value - then there are the very few scientists themselves who are actually engaged in the research. Well, yes and no. Research on things like quantum mechanics has little effect on me. String theory debunked? Interesting, but only casually so. But some people are drawn to the language of science and certain scientific principles and use them incorrectly (pseudoscience). This can result in people making wrong decisions in their lives or justifying decisions they already made. When I was a college student I used help study blood pressure in mice and mechanisms that could result in enlarged hearts. None of it had immediate effect on anyone's life. However, what was learned there could result in lines of blood pressure drugs being developed. So what was pure science becomes applied but really is of no interest to the general public until it is applied. Familiarity with how the scientific method works is important in order to evaluate science claims in real life. Of equal importance is understanding a bit how psychology works. It is in our nature to want answers even if no answers are yet apparent. Interestingly, you will find out a lot about scientific methodology by studying psychology 101. That is the methods that the Neocons, Fox News, and the anti-science crowd here on FFL life uses: If you don't like the results of science ignore it and use your own interpretation to refute it. OffWorld Ruth (who formerly did autopsies on mice)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
No, those dogs were killed. The surgery didn't kill them, but they were
radio-active, and you couldn't let radio-active dogs run around. I was in my
teens back then, and got to assist my mom who was doing the surgeries. I was
told that this was all for the greater good, but to me the good wasn't great
enough. I never got used to that first incision, but after that, it was pretty
academic.
- Original Message
From: ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 9:07:02 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander
mailander111@ ... wrote:
We can compare notes then. I once did surgery on dogs.
I sure hope your dogs lived, my mice sure didn't. Gave their lives
to science.
!--
#ygrp-mkp{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;}
#ygrp-mkp hr{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#ygrp-mkp #hd{
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0px;}
#ygrp-mkp #ads{
margin-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad{
padding:0 0;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad a{
color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
--
!--
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
font-family:Arial;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
--
!--
#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;white-space:nowrap;}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:uppercase;}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;margin:2px 0;}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-right:.5em;}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-vital a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color:#999;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{
padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #nc{
background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad{
padding:8px 0;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-size:100%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
margin:0;}
o{font-size:0;}
.MsoNormal{
margin:0 0 0 0;}
#ygrp-text tt{
font-size:120%;}
blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
.replbq{margin:4;}
--
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
Ruth wrote: May I ask, what is the posting format here? It's best, Ruth, to be a top-poster and to include the line you're responding to. That way, respondents don't have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the messages just to read a silly, one-liner sentence. It best also, not to change the subject line, like a lot of informers do here, attempting to hijack threads instead of starting their own threads. Several posters like to use the enter key to format their messages by making sentences short for easy reading later. Judy and Barry like to do this: I always enjoy reading their well-formatted messages. They learned through years and years of posting to Usenet the proper form for messaging. Some other helpful hints: 1. Do not insult, flame, or otherwise abuse a TMer. 2. Do not bait, troll, or lurk on FFL with intent to trip. Baiting is defined as posting with a clear intent to provoke anger. Trolling is posting incendiary messages with intent to form hostility. Lurking is behavior that results in trolling and baiting, then flaming. Tripping is laying your trip out, instead of getting on the TMer trip. Flaming is an attempt to cause a forum war or riot. 3. Avoid redundant posts and always insure data integrity. Redundancy means do not post the same post over and over and over. Data integrity means using a spell-checker and a dictionary and making sure all hypertext links are current and valid. 4. Spamming You are not supposed to spam a TMer. Spam includes, but is not limited to, the following: Excessive off-topic threads Posting nonsensical messages 'Flooding' the forum with similar meaning messages Post-count farming mail listservs Blatant advertising and self-promotion Messages without content or subject line Using a persons name in the subject line Posing as another using their handle 5. Privacy You are not supposed to post any form of real life information of a TMer unless they permit it by express consent. Examples of real life information include name, address, IP addresses, and phone numbers, place of employ, or Dome badge number. 6. Miscellaneous You are not supposed to post negative messages and discussions with no other purpose than to disrupt TMer conversation and discussion. If you feel the need to say something, say it once and then move on or start your own thread. Avoid making every post begin with RE: and end on one line. e.g.: liar; you're nutso; wasssup; yo jackass; LOL; ROTFL; or ROTFLMAO; or Hey Tex, you asshole. Don't make up stuff. You are not supposed to bash the Maharishi - if you do, you will be taken to task. All TMers already know that Mahesh Prasad Varma was born on January 18, in the year 1917. Try to provide news that TMers can use, not information about how you visited another saint, swami, guru, or older woman named Ma or Fred.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ruth wrote: May I ask, what is the posting format here? Ruth, Willytex (Richard J. Williams) is this forum's very own troll. Don't pay any mind to what he says in his reply to you; he's just making it up. Since you're a newbie here, he thinks he can put one over on you. For the authentic FairfieldLife guidelines, see the group's home page on the Web: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife As to top versus bottom posting, Willytex is right about one thing: If you have only a short comment on a long post, better to post it at the top. And better still, just leave a few lines of the post you're responding to and snip the rest. But if you want to comment on various parts of the post individually, quote the part you want to comment on and put your response underneath. Quote just enough of the post you're responding to to give an idea of the context, and snip everything else. (The above is my advice, not the rules of the forum.) And welcome! Glad you joined us.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And welcome! Glad you joined us. Thank you for the welcome. And here I started a whole new thread because of the prior post on thread rules! I kind of figured out what you are saying, but one never knows until they ask. Ruth
[FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How many people in this forum Pseudo-science.?? And how many are Anti-science.?? How do you define both.?? I recently moved to town and found this forum. I signed up mostly to discuss this question. :) The first question really is what is science. The Merriam Webster dictionary definition works for me: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/science 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study the science of theology b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge have it down to a science 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science 4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws cooking is both a science and an art My favored and the most specific definition which pertains to how science is acquired is #3 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. Of key importance is that you acquire science through the scientific method of research. (Briefly, principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.} Pseudoscience is also defined as a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pseudoscience If the scientific method is misused or conclusions misinterpreted, that could result in pseudoscience. For example, you develop a hypothesis, do an experience, and do not disprove your hypothesis. This does not mean that your hypothesis is now science. Maybe after many experiments it might become science, but relying on one experiment could very well result in pseudoscience. Also, problems with how you use the scientific method could also result in pseudoscience. Say the researcher had a strong bias or a financial interest. This could lead to erroneous conclusions and development of a pseudoscientific theory. Antiscience in my mind is the basic disbelief in the scientific method as the way to develop knowledge about the physical world. For example, some creationists believe that the world is only a few thousand years old, despite all the science to the contrary. They do not believe in carbon 14 dating or other scientific evidence. Nice to meet y'all. ruth
[FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
You have hit the nail right on the head. Pseudo-science is basic disbelief in the scientific method. ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:30:38 - Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science I recently moved to town and found this forum. I signed up mostly to discuss this question. :) The first question really is what is science. The Merriam Webster dictionary definition works for me: http://www.m- w.com/dictionary /science 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study the science of theology b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge have it down to a science 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science 4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws cooking is both a science and an art My favored and the most specific definition which pertains to how science is acquired is #3 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. Of key importance is that you acquire science through the scientific method of research. (Briefly, principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. } Pseudoscience is also defined as a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific. http://www.m- w.com/dictionary /pseudoscience If the scientific method is misused or conclusions misinterpreted, that could result in pseudoscience. For example, you develop a hypothesis, do an experience, and do not disprove your hypothesis. This does not mean that your hypothesis is now science. Maybe after many experiments it might become science, but relying on one experiment could very well result in pseudoscience. Also, problems with how you use the scientific method could also result in pseudoscience. Say the researcher had a strong bias or a financial interest. This could lead to erroneous conclusions and development of a pseudoscientific theory. Antiscience in my mind is the basic disbelief in the scientific method as the way to develop knowledge about the physical world. For example, some creationists believe that the world is only a few thousand years old, despite all the science to the contrary. They do not believe in carbon 14 dating or other scientific evidence. Nice to meet y'all. ruth - Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
Nice contribution! I studied the philosophy of science a bit. In my personal life I am trying to find a balance in how I relate to beliefs. It seems to be a dance between trying to be rigorous in my thinking and still being open to what is not known. I am still finding that balance. I don't spend much time with the spiritual stuff anymore, but sorting out the growth of health beliefs draws my attention. I end up being a bit ping ponged by the latest studies. So now for the question: how do you apply these principles in choosing own personal beliefs? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: How many people in this forum Pseudo-science.?? And how many are Anti-science.?? How do you define both.?? I recently moved to town and found this forum. I signed up mostly to discuss this question. :) The first question really is what is science. The Merriam Webster dictionary definition works for me: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/science 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study the science of theology b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge have it down to a science 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science 4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws cooking is both a science and an art My favored and the most specific definition which pertains to how science is acquired is #3 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. Of key importance is that you acquire science through the scientific method of research. (Briefly, principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.} Pseudoscience is also defined as a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pseudoscience If the scientific method is misused or conclusions misinterpreted, that could result in pseudoscience. For example, you develop a hypothesis, do an experience, and do not disprove your hypothesis. This does not mean that your hypothesis is now science. Maybe after many experiments it might become science, but relying on one experiment could very well result in pseudoscience. Also, problems with how you use the scientific method could also result in pseudoscience. Say the researcher had a strong bias or a financial interest. This could lead to erroneous conclusions and development of a pseudoscientific theory. Antiscience in my mind is the basic disbelief in the scientific method as the way to develop knowledge about the physical world. For example, some creationists believe that the world is only a few thousand years old, despite all the science to the contrary. They do not believe in carbon 14 dating or other scientific evidence. Nice to meet y'all. ruth
[FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nice contribution! I studied the philosophy of science a bit. In my personal life I am trying to find a balance in how I relate to beliefs. It seems to be a dance between trying to be rigorous in my thinking and still being open to what is not known. I am still finding that balance. I don't spend much time with the spiritual stuff anymore, but sorting out the growth of health beliefs draws my attention. I end up being a bit ping ponged by the latest studies. So now for the question: how do you apply these principles in choosing own personal beliefs? May I ask, what is the posting format here? Do people typically have what they are quoting from a prior post at the bottom or top of their post? Or does it matter? Anyhow, I look at new studies as not answering questions but as providing intriguing questions for further study. Patience is required. Unfortunately, the press doesn't help, with each new study presented as if a new rule is discovered. How do I apply these principles in choosing my personal beliefs? This is tough; I don't know how much choice is really involved. I love mystery. The universe is filled with mysteries we have not begun to explore or answer. I am amazed by the human ability to come up with structures for examining the world. I am amazed and humbled by the underlying cohesiveness of it all; the way the physical world works, from the simple (for every action is a reaction), to the complex, to the impossible to comprehend. I am awed. So, I am religious but without a religion. I also believe that one of the strongest characteristics of mankind is the ability to question. But one of the most problematic characteristics is the need to justify or rationalize. This characteristic can lead to pseudoscience, the original topic. Ruth -
[FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: How many people in this forum Pseudo-science.?? And how many are Anti-science.?? How do you define both.?? I recently moved to town and found this forum. I signed up mostly to discuss this question. :) The first question really is what is science. The Merriam Webster dictionary definition works for me: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/science 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study the science of theology b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge have it down to a science 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science 4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws cooking is both a science and an art My favored and the most specific definition which pertains to how science is acquired is #3 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. Of key importance is that you acquire science through the scientific method of research. (Briefly, principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.} Pseudoscience is also defined as a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pseudoscience If the scientific method is misused or conclusions misinterpreted, that could result in pseudoscience. For example, you develop a hypothesis, do an experience, and do not disprove your hypothesis. This does not mean that your hypothesis is now science. Maybe after many experiments it might become science, but relying on one experiment could very well result in pseudoscience. Also, problems with how you use the scientific method could also result in pseudoscience. Say the researcher had a strong bias or a financial interest. This could lead to erroneous conclusions and development of a pseudoscientific theory. Antiscience in my mind is the basic disbelief in the scientific method as the way to develop knowledge about the physical world. Hi Ruth, yes that is exactly what Curtis and TurquoiseB said in another thread. They tried to throw out the scientific method altogether in favor of their own opinion. The traits of Fox News the Neocons and the anti-science crowd: 1. Attack the person not the argument. 2. Attack the concept of science itself 3. Use science to back up their agenda when it suits them. 4. Shout until the argument is lost in non-related BS. These are typical traits of an anti-science fundamentalists such as Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Ted Haggard, George Bush, Osama Bin Laden, Billy Graham, Fox News, The Pope, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Rielly and... Curt, Turq, Lurk, Vaj, Sal, Larry, Shemp, Peter, Boo, Bhairitu, and others. PREDICTION: Their next move will be to try to proove their point with a peer-reviewed study, after insisting such things are not valid ! ...which I think I saw VAJ just trying to do ! ! ! ! ! LOL ! ! ! The 21st century will be about research published in respected peer- reviewed scientific journals. OffWorld For example, some creationists believe that the world is only a few thousand years old, despite all the science to the contrary. They do not believe in carbon 14 dating or other scientific evidence. Nice to meet y'all. ruth
[FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The 21st century will be about research published in respected peer- reviewed scientific journals. OffWorld There is a danger in equating peer review with certainty. Mistakes and innapropriate motivations can occur even if a study is peer reviewed. One published study is not the end of the story and conflicting views coexist and compete. Often one peer reviewed paper will say one thing, and another peer reviewed paper will say something else. However, at the end of the day, when study after study is replicated by others, maybe some real science will result. Ruth
[FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Nice contribution! I studied the philosophy of science a bit. In my personal life I am trying to find a balance in how I relate to beliefs. It seems to be a dance between trying to be rigorous in my thinking and still being open to what is not known. I am still finding that balance. I don't spend much time with the spiritual stuff anymore, but sorting out the growth of health beliefs draws my attention. I end up being a bit ping ponged by the latest studies. So now for the question: how do you apply these principles in choosing own personal beliefs? May I ask, what is the posting format here? Do people typically have what they are quoting from a prior post at the bottom or top of their It is completely random, and Rick tried to fix it once, but to no avail. You get used to it. Welcome to the board. post? Or does it matter? Anyhow, I look at new studies as not answering questions but as providing intriguing questions for further study. Patience is required. Unfortunately, the press doesn't help, with each new study presented as if a new rule is discovered. the strongest characteristics of mankind is the ability to question. But one of the most problematic characteristics is the need to justify or rationalize. This characteristic can lead to pseudoscience, the original topic. That is why it is so important to save and bolster the peer-review process, which the anti-science people want to throw out the window in favor of their own prejudices. If we don't save and improve upon the peer-review process. then I believe the human race is doomed. Even if they survive, it is part of what makes a human a human ...to test and re-test and make conclusions based on tests. The Baconian method. (Aside: Francis Bacon, called the 'Grandfather of Modern Science', was a close councillor of Queen Elizabeth, and her reign led to the Puritians - your 'Pilgrims' - leaving Britain because they were not allowed to practice oppression and sectarianim in their towns and villages. Queen Elizabeth was very much against that kind of fundamentalism, and fought the catholic Empire for that reason. A fight which ended up, centuries later, with the British once again defeating the Catholic regimes of France and Spain at the end of the 18th century - a war in which the US war of independence was an insignificant little side battle, when the US sided with the oppresive Papist regimes. Fortunately for the world, the Celts (the British) won that centuries old struggle, and brought in the age of freedom and reason - without which the Americans would have been annihilated by France and Spain Catholicism if it were not for British succes and protection - which is one reason the British wanted the Americans to pay taxes, because they were in the middle of a vast cultural struggle and ongoing war of epic proportions ever since Queen Elizabeth's reign against the oppressive fundamentalist regimes of the Papists.) OffWorld Ruth -
[FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: The 21st century will be about research published in respected peer- reviewed scientific journals. OffWorld There is a danger in equating peer review with certainty. Mistakes and innapropriate motivations can occur even if a study is peer reviewed. One published study is not the end of the story and conflicting views coexist and compete. Often one peer reviewed paper will say one thing, and another peer reviewed paper will say something else. However, at the end of the day, when study after study is replicated by others, maybe some real science will result. . I think the 3 replications ( as a minimum) should be made under strict accepted methods. To me that is my religion, if you will. After that, we must agree as humans that we only have one way to agree on reality. We test it, we test it again, and a third test gives us good confidence (10 or 20 tests is best though) With this the 21st century will be about research published in respected peer- reviewed scientific journals. But anti-science crowd here will not agree to such tests because they, like Fox News and the Neocons, want their own prejudice to win over science. OffWorld Ruth
[FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: The 21st century will be about research published in respected peer- reviewed scientific journals. OffWorld There is a danger in equating peer review with certainty. Mistakes and innapropriate motivations can occur even if a study is peer reviewed. One published study is not the end of the story and conflicting views coexist and compete. Often one peer reviewed paper will say one thing, and another peer reviewed paper will say something else. However, at the end of the day, when study after study is replicated by others, maybe some real science will result. Off, are you understanding any of this? I tried to express this to you and failed. Did Ruth penetrate that noggin of yours Off? I hope you stick around Ruth. You are laying down some great stuff. Ruth
[FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
I am not anti-science - - I am suggesting that much of the intellectual findings of science don't impact me - - - for example, I know the earth is round, but for 99.9+% of my daily life activities, it makes no difference whether the world is flat or round. The issue of the flatness or roundness of the earth was historically of great importance to the pro and anti science peoples, and some lost their lives because of their positions - - but for the billions of average Joes like myself, the controversy doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Likewise, quantum mechanics may claim that the banana I had for breakfast is mostly empty space, but that fact has little bearing on the banana's comings and goings . . . I am not talking about the application of science in technology - but the intellectual discovery or resulting knowledge of the scientific process. It has little impact for most people, then there are a few who appreciate science for its entertainment value - then there are the very few scientists themselves who are actually engaged in the research. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: How many people in this forum Pseudo-science.?? And how many are Anti-science.?? How do you define both.?? I recently moved to town and found this forum. I signed up mostly to discuss this question. :) The first question really is what is science. The Merriam Webster dictionary definition works for me: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/science 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study the science of theology b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge have it down to a science 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science 4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws cooking is both a science and an art My favored and the most specific definition which pertains to how science is acquired is #3 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. Of key importance is that you acquire science through the scientific method of research. (Briefly, principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.} Pseudoscience is also defined as a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pseudoscience If the scientific method is misused or conclusions misinterpreted, that could result in pseudoscience. For example, you develop a hypothesis, do an experience, and do not disprove your hypothesis. This does not mean that your hypothesis is now science. Maybe after many experiments it might become science, but relying on one experiment could very well result in pseudoscience. Also, problems with how you use the scientific method could also result in pseudoscience. Say the researcher had a strong bias or a financial interest. This could lead to erroneous conclusions and development of a pseudoscientific theory. Antiscience in my mind is the basic disbelief in the scientific method as the way to develop knowledge about the physical world. Hi Ruth, yes that is exactly what Curtis and TurquoiseB said in another thread. They tried to throw out the scientific method altogether in favor of their own opinion. The traits of Fox News the Neocons and the anti-science crowd: 1. Attack the person not the argument. 2. Attack the concept of science itself 3. Use science to back up their agenda when it suits them. 4. Shout until the argument is lost in non-related BS. These are typical traits of an anti-science fundamentalists such as Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Ted Haggard, George Bush, Osama Bin Laden, Billy Graham, Fox News, The Pope, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Rielly and... Curt, Turq, Lurk, Vaj, Sal, Larry, Shemp, Peter, Boo, Bhairitu, and others. PREDICTION: Their next move will be to try to proove their point with a peer-reviewed study, after insisting such things are not valid ! ...which I think I saw VAJ just trying to do ! ! ! ! ! LOL ! ! ! The 21st century will be about
[FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
--right...most of what people do, and why; is based on the subconscious: concealed impulses deeply hidden within the psyche that emerge spontaneously given the stimulating input. I could read out reams of peer reviewed articles to my coworkers about any subject but the response would be the same: z - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Larry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not anti-science - - I am suggesting that much of the intellectual findings of science don't impact me - - - for example, I know the earth is round, but for 99.9+% of my daily life activities, it makes no difference whether the world is flat or round. The issue of the flatness or roundness of the earth was historically of great importance to the pro and anti science peoples, and some lost their lives because of their positions - - but for the billions of average Joes like myself, the controversy doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Likewise, quantum mechanics may claim that the banana I had for breakfast is mostly empty space, but that fact has little bearing on the banana's comings and goings . . . I am not talking about the application of science in technology - but the intellectual discovery or resulting knowledge of the scientific process. It has little impact for most people, then there are a few who appreciate science for its entertainment value - then there are the very few scientists themselves who are actually engaged in the research. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: How many people in this forum Pseudo-science.?? And how many are Anti-science.?? How do you define both.?? I recently moved to town and found this forum. I signed up mostly to discuss this question. :) The first question really is what is science. The Merriam Webster dictionary definition works for me: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/science 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study the science of theology b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge have it down to a science 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science 4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws cooking is both a science and an art My favored and the most specific definition which pertains to how science is acquired is #3 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. Of key importance is that you acquire science through the scientific method of research. (Briefly, principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.} Pseudoscience is also defined as a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pseudoscience If the scientific method is misused or conclusions misinterpreted, that could result in pseudoscience. For example, you develop a hypothesis, do an experience, and do not disprove your hypothesis. This does not mean that your hypothesis is now science. Maybe after many experiments it might become science, but relying on one experiment could very well result in pseudoscience. Also, problems with how you use the scientific method could also result in pseudoscience. Say the researcher had a strong bias or a financial interest. This could lead to erroneous conclusions and development of a pseudoscientific theory. Antiscience in my mind is the basic disbelief in the scientific method as the way to develop knowledge about the physical world. Hi Ruth, yes that is exactly what Curtis and TurquoiseB said in another thread. They tried to throw out the scientific method altogether in favor of their own opinion. The traits of Fox News the Neocons and the anti-science crowd: 1. Attack the person not the argument. 2. Attack the concept of science itself 3. Use science to back up their agenda when it suits them. 4. Shout until the argument is lost in non-related BS. These are typical traits
