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
factor or Donald
Duck :) PGC
May be you should. It is easy to guess that there are less inadequate
statements made by Donald Duck than in the huge impact factor
journals. Huge impact factor means only that stupidities might spread
more quickly. And peer reviewing might mean we have to wait
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
, not caring much if the author
is scientific journal with huge impact factor or Donald Duck :) PGC
May be you should. It is easy to guess that there are less inadequate
statements made by Donald Duck than in the huge impact factor journals.
Huge impact factor means only that stupidities might spread
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
if they could because that would defeat the
entire point of having journals. There is only room for a few articles so
the editors pick the ones out of the pile they receive every month that
they judge to be the most important. I don't see what else they could do.
That's rubbish. With electronic
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
is in this wired world, where journal space is not a
scarce resource, papers should only be rejected for obvious scientific
reasons
In this wired world anything and anybody can get published, some online
journals will publish anything if you pay them, or hell you could post it
right here for free
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,
you mention.
I don't know what that means.
What I am saying is in this wired world, where journal space is not a
scarce resource, papers should only be rejected for obvious scientific
reasons
In this wired world anything and anybody can get published, some online
journals
before much higher ranked journals then it's just a matter of time
before
the much higher ranked journals catch on and start publishing articles
on
that subject of their own. But I'll tell you what, because I like you
for a
limited time only I'm willing to increase the odds to 100 to 1
will not be taking the bet, for the following reasons:
Firstly, we agree on the latter clause - there is an infinitesimal
chance that any particular named open-access journal (eg PLoS)
will scoop the Nobel prize - approaching zero in limit of an infinity
of journals, so the bet should only be about
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
before much higher ranked journals then it's just a matter of time before
the much
other referees to handle it. In February of this year, I have
submitted it to Journal of Theoretics, for two reasons:
i) It is an Internet Journal, with open access to its
archives. Philosophically, I am in favour of free open access to
journals since
a) scientists do not charge to write
Correction: the journal is called Foundations of
Physics.
not sure
about the general thema of the journal.
If you agree I can ask Vincenzo Fano and give you (or him) his mail
address (or the address of your paper).
Have you try the Journal of Philosophy, or ... (The journals which
come to my mind turn around philosophical logics, I will think
about
Dear Russell:
I agree with the objective but it seems to me we first need to provide such
forums with things like a rough map of the current acronym landscape and a
companion map of the suspected relative merit of current concepts both of
which must come from within the smaller group. Both
No - it has a different function. The FAQ is more like a review
article of the discussion on the email list, which in turn is like an
unrefereed journal. We do need to get articles into the refereed
scientific mainstream where we can. These form more solid islands
within the swampy peninsula of
54 matches
Mail list logo
