On 20 Apr 2013, at 15:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:46:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Apr 2013, at 17:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, April 19, 2013 9:49:35 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Apr 2013, at 14:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Apr 2013, at 19:15, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Then you're conception of aesthetics is more limited than that of old
Greeks who saw number relations giving rise to beauty ( = computing
results in aesthetic
On 21 Apr 2013, at 16:41, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 20 Apr 2013, at 19:15, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Then you're conception of aesthetics is more limited than that of
old Greeks who saw number
On Sunday, April 21, 2013 9:35:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Apr 2013, at 15:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:46:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Apr 2013, at 17:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, April 19, 2013 9:49:35 AM UTC-4, Bruno
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Apr 2013, at 16:41, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Apr 2013, at 19:15, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Then you're conception
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Saturday, April 20, 2013 1:15:02 PM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
wrote:
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
I do.
Then you're conception of aesthetics is more
On 19 Apr 2013, at 17:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, April 19, 2013 9:49:35 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Apr 2013, at 14:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, April 18, 2013 5:42:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Apr 2013, at 19:09, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Apr
On Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:46:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Apr 2013, at 17:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, April 19, 2013 9:49:35 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Apr 2013, at 14:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, April 18, 2013 5:42:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:46:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Apr 2013, at 17:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, April 19, 2013 9:49:35 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Apr 2013, at 14:01,
On 20 Apr 2013, at 19:15, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:46:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Apr 2013, at 17:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, April 19, 2013
On Saturday, April 20, 2013 1:15:02 PM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:46:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Apr 2013, at 17:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On 18 Apr 2013, at 14:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, April 18, 2013 5:42:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Apr 2013, at 19:09, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
snip
It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of
On Friday, April 19, 2013 9:49:35 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Apr 2013, at 14:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, April 18, 2013 5:42:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Apr 2013, at 19:09, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Apr 2013, at 19:09, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
it is disconcerting to learn that after trying to make logical
points with somebody for over a year to find out that there is not
the slightest possibility of logic making any change
On Thursday, April 18, 2013 5:42:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Apr 2013, at 19:09, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:wrote:
it is disconcerting to learn that after trying to make logical points
with somebody for over a year to
On 16 Apr 2013, at 17:36, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism.
symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-'rulership' of Aquarius.
[...] With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 1:09:21 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:wrote:
it is disconcerting to learn that after trying to make logical points
with somebody for over a year to find out that there is not the slightest
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism. symbolized
by the Saturnian-Uranian co-'rulership' of Aquarius. [...] With their
interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining
their Sun [...] The
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism. symbolized by
the Saturnian-Uranian co-'rulership' of Aquarius. [...] With their
interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining
On Monday, April 15, 2013 12:01:37 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism. symbolized by
the Saturnian-Uranian co-'rulership' of Aquarius. [...] With
On 4/15/2013 9:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism. symbolized by
the
Saturnian-Uranian co-'rulership' of Aquarius. [...] With
On Monday, April 15, 2013 3:48:17 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 4/15/2013 9:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism. symbolized
by the Saturnian-Uranian
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Astrology is interesting to me because if there were nothing to it than
the charts of important figures and events in history, and members of
families would show no meaningful patterns beyond what is expected by
On 14 Apr 2013, at 01:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, April 13, 2013 7:47:51 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Apr 2013, at 20:09, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even
remotely
On Sunday, April 14, 2013 1:39:06 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Astrology is interesting to me because if there were nothing to it than
the charts of important figures and events in history, and members
On 12 Apr 2013, at 20:09, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even
remotely as flaky as modern cosmology.
After several statements of this sort I don't see how anybody
who values
On Saturday, April 13, 2013 7:47:51 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Apr 2013, at 20:09, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:wrote:
There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely
as flaky as modern cosmology.
My best example is the Harvard basketball team
which is now getting players into the NBA.
I ran with the cross country team
when I was there as a grad student.
They all got in because of their running ability,
not their intelligence.
That was back in the early 1960s.
So athletes have always had
As an European, this is all a bit foreign (and terrifying) to me.
From what I read and hear from American friends I've worked with,
there's another disturbing aspect. Even if you don't get in through
sports, you have to essentially destroy your childhood by devoting all
of your free time to
On 11 Apr 2013, at 18:31, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely
as flaky as modern cosmology.
After several statements of this sort I don't see how anybody who
values
On 11 Apr 2013, at 18:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:31:08 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely
as flaky as modern cosmology.
After several
On Thursday, April 11, 2013 11:33:13 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 4/11/2013 10:15 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
Their admissions standards have already tanked
Can you give a example?
Does Craig have degree?
I have a
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as
flaky as modern cosmology.
After several statements of this sort I don't see how anybody who
values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says
On Friday, April 12, 2013 2:09:05 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:wrote:
There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely
as flaky as modern cosmology.
After several statements of this sort I don't see
The problem with electronic publishing is that for the most part such
papers are not peer reviewed. The one exception I know of is the Journal of
Cosmology- from personal experience. They rejected my paper because my
references were to the online arXiv.com rather than peer reviewed print
journals.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as
flaky as modern cosmology.
After several statements of this sort I don't see how anybody who values
rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Their admissions standards have already tanked
Can you give a example?
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
After several statements of this sort I don't see how anybody who values
rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously.
What about Schrödinger?
Schrödinger didn't say There is nothing in
On Thursday, April 11, 2013 1:27:44 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
After several statements of this sort I don't see how anybody who
values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 01:13:31PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Lack of importance should not be a reason.
That is ridiculous. Science and Nature cannot publish every manuscript they
receive and they shouldn't even if they
On 4/11/2013 10:15 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Their admissions standards have already tanked
Can you give a example?
Does Craig have degree?
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
The policy I'm referring to (editorial rejection based on perceived
interest or status) seems likely to be a reaction to the very junk
science problem you mention.
I don't know what that means.
What I am saying is
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
This to me is revealing of the overall decline of science as tool of
Enlightenment into it's corrupt, indulgence-selling era.
Yes, what's killing the Enlightenment is the lack of papers about astrology
and numerology,
Their admissions standards have already tanked
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:46 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
This to me is revealing of the overall decline of science as tool of
Enlightenment into it's
On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:46:09 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
This to me is revealing of the overall decline of science as tool of
Enlightenment into it's corrupt, indulgence-selling era.
Yes,
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 01:18:06PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
The policy I'm referring to (editorial rejection based on perceived
interest or status) seems likely to be a reaction to the very junk
science problem
On Sunday, April 7, 2013 7:24:12 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 11:38:24AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
But why do you agree with the odds? If a very low ranking journal got
astonishingly lucky and published a paper of HUGE transcendental
importance
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 01:55:22PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
You want to bet? I mean it, I'll bet you that there is a 50% chance that at
least one of the next Nobel Prizes will be for work first publised in
Science or Nature and a 0% chance it was for stuff published in PLoS
ONE.
I will not
48 matches
Mail list logo
