Re: Scientific journals

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> 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 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I do.
>>>
>>
>> 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 experience of music) that paved the way for all forms
>> of harmony we are familiar with today.
>>
>
> I don't dispute that the aesthetics of music are enhanced by musicians who
> understanding harmony mathematically. I don't know that understanding the
> mathematical aspects of music unambiguously improves a listener's
> experience - it might, but seems unimportant.
>

It's not important and mostly even the contrary: because music
theoreticians can identify structures and classify them, they think they
"know" these structures and can distinguish in some absolute sense "trivial
music" from its opposite. This arrogance is common.


> My idea bout music and math is that math is not inherently musical, and
> that music is more than mathematics.
>

Mathematics is "more" than a reductionist view of it. Both math and music
seem to me infinitely vast and happen to correspond on many levels,
especially on number relations relating to other number relations.


> There is no question that math and music are intertwined, and that
> intertwining is significant to the point that it is worthy of a
> Platonic-divine esteem. My issue is that as intertwined as they are, there
> is no mathematical reason that math itself would generate any kind of
> aesthetic experience.
>

Simply: joy of relating infinite relations. No reductions, no
substitutions, no discount, offer available for infinite eternity only.


> Why would math enjoy itself as music?
>

Same as above.


> If it is the complexity and sophistication of the data which is being
> 'enjoyed' as music,
>

It isn't.


> why wouldn't that complexity be experienced just as effectively as it is,
> with no suddenly-appearing experiential abstraction layer on top of it?
>
>
In music, theoretical knowledge does not lead to "more effective
experience"; I just illustrated why somebody versed in music theory might
even have her/his capacity to enjoy music limited by that very knowledge.


>
>> You can verify this connection between number and beauty/aesthetic
>> experience by consulting Donald Duck, keeper of absolute truth and sense:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=YRD4gb0p5RM
>>
>> Donald makes a some good plausible points about this. Better than "I do",
>> in any case.
>>
>
> Haha, cool. I'm not disagreeing with you though about the mathematical
> nature of music, I am disagreeing that music can be generated purely by
> computation.
>

I cannot play a single note without counting or computing relative numbers
(be it formal music theory; or just intuitive numbers of frets, keys,
notes, buttons, steps, counting rhythm etc.).


> Once music exists, you can certainly use mathematics to enhance music (not
> as easy as it seems like it should be though...a lot of digital music seems
> pretty anesthetic to me. If music never existed, however, I do not think
> that you could create it using math alone. Math has something to offer to
> music - the formality of math and its structural insights in music theory
> certainly increases musical knowledge, intuition, appreciation,
> musicianship, etc. Maybe even songwriting too, who knows? What does music
> have to offer math though? What does math need from music?
>

It's a false problem imho because I don't take the domain specificity of
"Music" vs. "Maths" as literally as you. Not because I want to win an
argument with you, but because I couldn't play a single song, without
thinking in notes and their relations (intervals we say), key's, harmonies,
melodies, iteration of groove, tuning.

Now, you strip all the formal stuff away and assume I'm autodidact: I'll
still be forced to think, like I did as a beginner, "first note, 4th
string, 5th fret, 2nd finger to second note/chord with 2nd finger etc."
which will train my ear in time to distinguish finer and finer relations
and possibilities, even without formal training, so I might not be able to
name say a chord or analyze its function, but I will be able to communicate
to other musicians a complex formal arrangement by giving the sequence with
"first this sound with this rhythm then this like this, then 2 x this, then
repeat 1st part, then vary part 2 but with this transition"; which is still
full of numbers fundamentally, even without the jargon.

That's why I can't distinguish numeric relations from music as easily. No
culture could make music without agreeing on some rhythm counting- or pitch
system based on the fundamental tone and all tones around it. With most
music, there's A LOT of counting going on for the listeners' "aesthetic
experie

Re: Scientific journals

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 21 Apr 2013, at 16:41, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Bruno Marchal  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 experience of music) that paved the way for all forms
>> of harmony we are familiar with today.
>>
>> You can verify this connection between number and beauty/aesthetic
>> experience by consulting Donald Duck, keeper of absolute truth and sense:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRD4gb0p5RM
>>
>> Donald makes a some good plausible points about this. Better than "I do",
>> in any case.
>>
>> :) PGC
>>
>>
>>  Lovely :)
>>
>> Musinum, by Kindermann, also relates number, number sequences, and music:
>>
>> http://reglos.de/musinum/
>>
>> Like with the Mandelbrot set, simple number can generate "rich" music, if
>> I dare to say that to a guitar cowbow :)
>>
>>
> The "richest" I guess.
>
>
>> Baroc music is generated by numbers near power of 2.
>>
>> http://reglos.de/musinum/midi/aintbaroque.mid
>>
>> I find this one fascinating (generated with few ratio related numbers):
>>
>> http://reglos.de/musinum/midi/sphere4.mid
>>
>> Of course the instrument are bad, and the interpreter still a bit sleepy.
>> What is amazing is that the full melody is generated by very few bits.
>>
>>
> Thanks for these examples. I collect them, 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 more quickly.
> And peer reviewing might mean we have to wait for the peers' death to get
> the new news. Löbian, too much Löbian!
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
Wait a moment!

You did not, like proper logic police-machine* , ask what my blood-alcohol
levels were at the time I made the statement! Not fair!

It's Sunday Bruno, and I had too much wine this lunch + afternoon.
Sometimes hard drugs like alcohol make some machines wishfully think that
huge impact journal and Donald can be trusted to the same degree.

And before you start statements of the sort "I don't know if you'll
convince the judge": it is a minor offense, no harm in local platonia, the
judge will dismiss the case as trivial. PGC


>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Craig Weinberg]

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 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  wrote:

 


 > It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself 
> apparently.
>

 In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very 
 serious question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and make you 
 question how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother you to learn that 
 Craig Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of effort debating with, 
 would say things like  "embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary 
 rationalism symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius." 
 and "With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their 
 Moon and trining their Sun" and  "The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the 
 Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce" and  "There is nothing in 
 numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern 
 cosmology."  and  "Astrology is extremely rational" ?  I've got to tell 
 you 
 that finding out that I have misjudged somebody that massively bothers the 
 hell out of me.


 I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well before 
 this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that crank can 
 progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the correction. I know 
 that 
 some people cannot listen, but I keep hope, basically because that's my 
 job.

 His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in favor 
 of drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p->q and q->p. Everyday 
 that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on terrorism, drug, 
 religion, etc.  I can't help to denounce it wherever it appears.

>>>
>>> When have I ever argued in favor of drug prohibition? Are you confusing 
>>> me with one of the Right-Wingers?
>>>
>>>
>>> When and where did I ever argue that you were in favor of drug 
>>> prohibition?
>>>
>>> I as just saying that your argument in favor of astrology contained the 
>>> same logical mistake than the one which figure in basically all papers in 
>>> favor of prohibition. I did reply and explain at that time.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, sorry, I read it as 'my' argument for drug prohibition. Must be the 
>> drugs ;) 
>>
>>
>>> You do a lot of mistake in logic.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe. But that may not be important. That might be an irrelevant 
>> distraction to an underlying thesis which is sound.
>>
>>
>>
>> That is an argument per authority. It is obvious that the validity of 
>> argument is what count, if not it is only propaganda.
>>
>
>  Logic may not be able to realize the deeper issues of subjectivity. 
>
>
> Logic? Indeed. It can't.
> But logic can't realize the deeper issue of Turing universality either.
>

Even if they have the same depth, that doesn't mean they are in the same 
ocean. Why doesn't logic apply to Turing universality though? What room 
does a Turing emulation have to change from numbers into flavors?
 

>
>
>
> If logic is subtly bent in the right places (and I don't know that mine 
> is, but you accuse me of that), then it might illuminate important areas 
> which logic cannot reach. The intuition pump is exactly what you do want.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>> You take special sample and conclude from that. Today you said once 
>>> again: "No computer I have ever worked on has ever been conscious of 
>>> anything that it is doing. ...", like if that was an argument against the 
>>> idea that a computer *can* support some experience.
>>>
>>
>> The only reason that I argue that a computer cannot support experience, 
>> is because experience is not based on something other than itself.
>>
>>
>> This might be phenomenologically true in other theories, by justifiable 
>> reason. 
>>
>
> I am saying that it is ontologically true. 
>
>
> Then you stop doing science. (You might never have begun, to be sure).
>

Only if I'm wrong. If I am right, and experience is ontology itself, then 
science must adapt, not me.
 

>
>
>
>
> Not talking about our own experience, but the principle of experience in 
> general - it makes no sense as a function of any other phenomenon.
>
>
> As an extensional function? You are right. But computer science is mainly 
> the study of intensional function. Programs are not functions.
>

Whatever terms you like, but experience makes no sense as a consequence of 
a program or intensional arith

Re: Scientific journals

[Bruno Marchal]

On 21 Apr 2013, at 16:41, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:





On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Bruno Marchal   
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 experience of music) that paved the  
way for all forms of harmony we are familiar with today.


You can verify this connection between number and beauty/aesthetic  
experience by consulting Donald Duck, keeper of absolute truth and  
sense:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRD4gb0p5RM

Donald makes a some good plausible points about this. Better than  
"I do", in any case.


:) PGC



Lovely :)

Musinum, by Kindermann, also relates number, number sequences, and  
music:


http://reglos.de/musinum/

Like with the Mandelbrot set, simple number can generate "rich"  
music, if I dare to say that to a guitar cowbow :)



The "richest" I guess.

Baroc music is generated by numbers near power of 2.

http://reglos.de/musinum/midi/aintbaroque.mid

I find this one fascinating (generated with few ratio related  
numbers):


http://reglos.de/musinum/midi/sphere4.mid

Of course the instrument are bad, and the interpreter still a bit  
sleepy. What is amazing is that the full melody is generated by very  
few bits.



Thanks for these examples. I collect them, 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  
more quickly. And peer reviewing might mean we have to wait for the  
peers' death to get the new news. Löbian, too much Löbian!


Bruno








Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Bruno Marchal  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 experience of music) that paved the way for all forms
> of harmony we are familiar with today.
>
> You can verify this connection between number and beauty/aesthetic
> experience by consulting Donald Duck, keeper of absolute truth and sense:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRD4gb0p5RM
>
> Donald makes a some good plausible points about this. Better than "I do",
> in any case.
>
> :) PGC
>
>
>  Lovely :)
>
> Musinum, by Kindermann, also relates number, number sequences, and music:
>
> http://reglos.de/musinum/
>
> Like with the Mandelbrot set, simple number can generate "rich" music, if
> I dare to say that to a guitar cowbow :)
>
>
The "richest" I guess.


> Baroc music is generated by numbers near power of 2.
>
> http://reglos.de/musinum/midi/aintbaroque.mid
>
> I find this one fascinating (generated with few ratio related numbers):
>
> http://reglos.de/musinum/midi/sphere4.mid
>
> Of course the instrument are bad, and the interpreter still a bit sleepy.
> What is amazing is that the full melody is generated by very few bits.
>
>
Thanks for these examples. I collect them, not caring much if the author is
scientific journal with huge impact factor or Donald Duck :) PGC




> Bruno
>
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Bruno Marchal]

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 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  wrote:





> It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of  
oneself apparently.


In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very  
serious question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and  
make you question how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother  
you to learn that Craig Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot  
of effort debating with, would say things like  "embody the  
Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism symbolized by the  
Saturnian-Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius." and "With their  
interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and  
trining their Sun" and  "The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the  
Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce" and  "There is nothing  
in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as  
modern cosmology."  and  "Astrology is extremely rational" ?   
I've got to tell you that finding out that I have misjudged  
somebody that massively bothers the hell out of me.


I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well  
before this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that  
crank can progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the  
correction. I know that some people cannot listen, but I keep  
hope, basically because that's my job.


His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in  
favor of drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p->q and  
q->p. Everyday that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on  
terrorism, drug, religion, etc.  I can't help to denounce it  
wherever it appears.


When have I ever argued in favor of drug prohibition? Are you  
confusing me with one of the Right-Wingers?


When and where did I ever argue that you were in favor of drug  
prohibition?


I as just saying that your argument in favor of astrology contained  
the same logical mistake than the one which figure in basically all  
papers in favor of prohibition. I did reply and explain at that time.


Oh, sorry, I read it as 'my' argument for drug prohibition. Must be  
the drugs ;)



You do a lot of mistake in logic.

Maybe. But that may not be important. That might be an irrelevant  
distraction to an underlying thesis which is sound.



That is an argument per authority. It is obvious that the validity  
of argument is what count, if not it is only propaganda.


 Logic may not be able to realize the deeper issues of subjectivity.


Logic? Indeed. It can't.
But logic can't realize the deeper issue of Turing universality either.



If logic is subtly bent in the right places (and I don't know that  
mine is, but you accuse me of that), then it might illuminate  
important areas which logic cannot reach. The intuition pump is  
exactly what you do want.









You take special sample and conclude from that. Today you said once  
again: "No computer I have ever worked on has ever been conscious  
of anything that it is doing. ...", like if that was an argument  
against the idea that a computer *can* support some experience.


The only reason that I argue that a computer cannot support  
experience, is because experience is not based on something other  
than itself.


This might be phenomenologically true in other theories, by  
justifiable reason.


I am saying that it is ontologically true.


Then you stop doing science. (You might never have begun, to be sure).




Not talking about our own experience, but the principle of  
experience in general - it makes no sense as a function of any other  
phenomenon.


As an extensional function? You are right. But computer science is  
mainly the study of intensional function. Programs are not functions.











I don't take the fact that computers are not conscious as an  
argument that they can't be, only that it should be a clue to us  
that there is something fundamentally different about logic  
circuits then zygotes.


Racists says similar thing about Indians, black, etc.

But all races and racists will save their own children from a  
burning building before they save a computer...even a really nice  
supercomputer.


If the computer maintain the children or some ancestors alive, they  
might do.














I have gone over the reason why computers qua computers will never  
have experiences many times - it is because the map is not the  
territory. Computation is devoid of aesthetics and consciousness is  
100% aesthetic.


If you say so ...

I do.


I see.


Bruno






Craig


Bruno


It assumes awareness the wrong way around, as a product of nonsense 

Re: Scientific journals

[Craig Weinberg]

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 
> 
> > 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 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  wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> > It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself 
>> apparently.
>>
>
> In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very 
> serious question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and make 
> you 
> question how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother you to learn that 
> Craig Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of effort debating with, 
> would say things like  "embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary 
> rationalism symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-rulership of 
> Aquarius." 
> and "With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their 
> Moon and trining their Sun" and  "The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the 
> Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce" and  "There is nothing in 
> numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern 
> cosmology."  and  "Astrology is extremely rational" ?  I've got to tell 
> you 
> that finding out that I have misjudged somebody that massively bothers 
> the 
> hell out of me.
>
>
> I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well 
> before this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that crank 
> can 
> progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the correction. I know 
> that 
> some people cannot listen, but I keep hope, basically because that's my 
> job.
>
> His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in 
> favor of drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p->q and q->p. 
> Everyday that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on terrorism, 
> drug, 
> religion, etc.  I can't help to denounce it wherever it appears.
>

 When have I ever argued in favor of drug prohibition? Are you confusing 
 me with one of the Right-Wingers?


 When and where did I ever argue that you were in favor of drug 
 prohibition?

 I as just saying that your argument in favor of astrology contained the 
 same logical mistake than the one which figure in basically all papers in 
 favor of prohibition. I did reply and explain at that time.

>>>
>>> Oh, sorry, I read it as 'my' argument for drug prohibition. Must be the 
>>> drugs ;) 
>>>
>>>
 You do a lot of mistake in logic.

>>>
>>> Maybe. But that may not be important. That might be an irrelevant 
>>> distraction to an underlying thesis which is sound.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That is an argument per authority. It is obvious that the validity of 
>>> argument is what count, if not it is only propaganda.
>>>
>>
>>  Logic may not be able to realize the deeper issues of subjectivity. If 
>> logic is subtly bent in the right places (and I don't know that mine is, 
>> but you accuse me of that), then it might illuminate important areas which 
>> logic cannot reach. The intuition pump is exactly what you do want.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
  You take special sample and conclude from that. Today you said once 
 again: "No computer I have ever worked on has ever been conscious of 
 anything that it is doing. ...", like if that was an argument against the 
 idea that a computer *can* support some experience.

>>>
>>> The only reason that I argue that a computer cannot support experience, 
>>> is because experience is not based on something other than itself.
>>>
>>>
>>> This might be phenomenologically true in other theories, by justifiable 
>>> reason. 
>>>
>>
>> I am saying that it is ontologically true. Not talking about our own 
>> experience, but the principle of experience in general - it makes no sense 
>> as a function of any other phenomenon.
>>  
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't take the fact that computers are not conscious as an argument 
>>> that they can't be, only that it should be a clue to us that there is 
>>> something fundamentally different about logic circuits then zygotes. 
>>>
>>>
>>> Racists says similar thing about Indians, black, etc.
>>>
>>
>> But all races and racists will save their own children from a burning 
>> building before they save a computer...even a really nice supercomputer.
>>  
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have gone over the reason why computers qua computers will never have 
>>> experiences many

Re: Scientific journals

[Bruno Marchal]

On 20 Apr 2013, at 19:15, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:





On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 3:28 PM, 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 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  wrote:





> It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of  
oneself apparently.


In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very  
serious question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and  
make you question how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother  
you to learn that Craig Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot  
of effort debating with, would say things like  "embody the  
Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism symbolized by the  
Saturnian-Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius." and "With their  
interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and  
trining their Sun" and  "The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the  
Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce" and  "There is nothing  
in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as  
modern cosmology."  and  "Astrology is extremely rational" ?   
I've got to tell you that finding out that I have misjudged  
somebody that massively bothers the hell out of me.


I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well  
before this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that  
crank can progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the  
correction. I know that some people cannot listen, but I keep  
hope, basically because that's my job.


His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in  
favor of drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p->q and  
q->p. Everyday that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on  
terrorism, drug, religion, etc.  I can't help to denounce it  
wherever it appears.


When have I ever argued in favor of drug prohibition? Are you  
confusing me with one of the Right-Wingers?


When and where did I ever argue that you were in favor of drug  
prohibition?


I as just saying that your argument in favor of astrology contained  
the same logical mistake than the one which figure in basically all  
papers in favor of prohibition. I did reply and explain at that time.


Oh, sorry, I read it as 'my' argument for drug prohibition. Must be  
the drugs ;)



You do a lot of mistake in logic.

Maybe. But that may not be important. That might be an irrelevant  
distraction to an underlying thesis which is sound.



That is an argument per authority. It is obvious that the validity  
of argument is what count, if not it is only propaganda.


 Logic may not be able to realize the deeper issues of subjectivity.  
If logic is subtly bent in the right places (and I don't know that  
mine is, but you accuse me of that), then it might illuminate  
important areas which logic cannot reach. The intuition pump is  
exactly what you do want.









You take special sample and conclude from that. Today you said once  
again: "No computer I have ever worked on has ever been conscious  
of anything that it is doing. ...", like if that was an argument  
against the idea that a computer *can* support some experience.


The only reason that I argue that a computer cannot support  
experience, is because experience is not based on something other  
than itself.


This might be phenomenologically true in other theories, by  
justifiable reason.


I am saying that it is ontologically true. Not talking about our own  
experience, but the principle of experience in general - it makes no  
sense as a function of any other phenomenon.






I don't take the fact that computers are not conscious as an  
argument that they can't be, only that it should be a clue to us  
that there is something fundamentally different about logic  
circuits then zygotes.


Racists says similar thing about Indians, black, etc.

But all races and racists will save their own children from a  
burning building before they save a computer...even a really nice  
supercomputer.








I have gone over the reason why computers qua computers will never  
have experiences many times - it is because the map is not the  
territory. Computation is devoid of aesthetics and consciousness is  
100% aesthetic.


If you say so ...

I do.

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 experience of music) that paved the  
way for all forms of harmony we are familiar with today.


You can verify this connection between number and beauty/aesthetic  
experience by consulting Donald Duck, keeper of absolute truth and  
sense:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRD4gb0

Re: Scientific journals

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 3:28 PM, 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 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  wrote:

 


 > It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself
> apparently.
>

 In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very
 serious question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and make you
 question how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother you to learn that
 Craig Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of effort debating with,
 would say things like  "embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary
 rationalism symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius."
 and "With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their
 Moon and trining their Sun" and  "The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the
 Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce" and  "There is nothing in
 numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern
 cosmology."  and  "Astrology is extremely rational" ?  I've got to tell you
 that finding out that I have misjudged somebody that massively bothers the
 hell out of me.


 I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well before
 this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that crank can
 progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the correction. I know that
 some people cannot listen, but I keep hope, basically because that's my 
 job.

 His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in favor
 of drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p->q and q->p. Everyday
 that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on terrorism, drug,
 religion, etc.  I can't help to denounce it wherever it appears.

>>>
>>> When have I ever argued in favor of drug prohibition? Are you confusing
>>> me with one of the Right-Wingers?
>>>
>>>
>>> When and where did I ever argue that you were in favor of drug
>>> prohibition?
>>>
>>> I as just saying that your argument in favor of astrology contained the
>>> same logical mistake than the one which figure in basically all papers in
>>> favor of prohibition. I did reply and explain at that time.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, sorry, I read it as 'my' argument for drug prohibition. Must be the
>> drugs ;)
>>
>>
>>> You do a lot of mistake in logic.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe. But that may not be important. That might be an irrelevant
>> distraction to an underlying thesis which is sound.
>>
>>
>>
>> That is an argument per authority. It is obvious that the validity of
>> argument is what count, if not it is only propaganda.
>>
>
>  Logic may not be able to realize the deeper issues of subjectivity. If
> logic is subtly bent in the right places (and I don't know that mine is,
> but you accuse me of that), then it might illuminate important areas which
> logic cannot reach. The intuition pump is exactly what you do want.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> You take special sample and conclude from that. Today you said once
>>> again: "No computer I have ever worked on has ever been conscious of
>>> anything that it is doing. ...", like if that was an argument against the
>>> idea that a computer *can* support some experience.
>>>
>>
>> The only reason that I argue that a computer cannot support experience,
>> is because experience is not based on something other than itself.
>>
>>
>> This might be phenomenologically true in other theories, by justifiable
>> reason.
>>
>
> I am saying that it is ontologically true. Not talking about our own
> experience, but the principle of experience in general - it makes no sense
> as a function of any other phenomenon.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't take the fact that computers are not conscious as an argument
>> that they can't be, only that it should be a clue to us that there is
>> something fundamentally different about logic circuits then zygotes.
>>
>>
>> Racists says similar thing about Indians, black, etc.
>>
>
> But all races and racists will save their own children from a burning
> building before they save a computer...even a really nice supercomputer.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I have gone over the reason why computers qua computers will never have
>> experiences many times - it is because the map is not the territory.
>> Computation is devoid of aesthetics and consciousness is 100% aesthetic.
>>
>>
>> If you say so ...
>>
>
> I do.
>

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 expe

Re: Scientific journals

[Craig Weinberg]

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 Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17 Apr 2013, at 19:09, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013  Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> > It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself 
 apparently.

>>>
>>> In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very 
>>> serious question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and make you 
>>> question how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother you to learn that 
>>> Craig Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of effort debating with, 
>>> would say things like  "embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary 
>>> rationalism symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius." 
>>> and "With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their 
>>> Moon and trining their Sun" and  "The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the 
>>> Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce" and  "There is nothing in 
>>> numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern 
>>> cosmology."  and  "Astrology is extremely rational" ?  I've got to tell you 
>>> that finding out that I have misjudged somebody that massively bothers the 
>>> hell out of me.
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well before 
>>> this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that crank can 
>>> progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the correction. I know that 
>>> some people cannot listen, but I keep hope, basically because that's my job.
>>>
>>> His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in favor 
>>> of drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p->q and q->p. Everyday 
>>> that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on terrorism, drug, 
>>> religion, etc.  I can't help to denounce it wherever it appears.
>>>
>>
>> When have I ever argued in favor of drug prohibition? Are you confusing 
>> me with one of the Right-Wingers?
>>
>>
>> When and where did I ever argue that you were in favor of drug 
>> prohibition?
>>
>> I as just saying that your argument in favor of astrology contained the 
>> same logical mistake than the one which figure in basically all papers in 
>> favor of prohibition. I did reply and explain at that time.
>>
>
> Oh, sorry, I read it as 'my' argument for drug prohibition. Must be the 
> drugs ;) 
>
>
>> You do a lot of mistake in logic.
>>
>
> Maybe. But that may not be important. That might be an irrelevant 
> distraction to an underlying thesis which is sound.
>
>
>
> That is an argument per authority. It is obvious that the validity of 
> argument is what count, if not it is only propaganda.
>

 Logic may not be able to realize the deeper issues of subjectivity. If 
logic is subtly bent in the right places (and I don't know that mine is, 
but you accuse me of that), then it might illuminate important areas which 
logic cannot reach. The intuition pump is exactly what you do want.


>
>
>
>
>  
>
>> You take special sample and conclude from that. Today you said once 
>> again: "No computer I have ever worked on has ever been conscious of 
>> anything that it is doing. ...", like if that was an argument against the 
>> idea that a computer *can* support some experience.
>>
>
> The only reason that I argue that a computer cannot support experience, is 
> because experience is not based on something other than itself.
>
>
> This might be phenomenologically true in other theories, by justifiable 
> reason. 
>

I am saying that it is ontologically true. Not talking about our own 
experience, but the principle of experience in general - it makes no sense 
as a function of any other phenomenon.
 

>
>
>
>
> I don't take the fact that computers are not conscious as an argument that 
> they can't be, only that it should be a clue to us that there is something 
> fundamentally different about logic circuits then zygotes. 
>
>
> Racists says similar thing about Indians, black, etc.
>

But all races and racists will save their own children from a burning 
building before they save a computer...even a really nice supercomputer.
 

>
>
>
>
>
> I have gone over the reason why computers qua computers will never have 
> experiences many times - it is because the map is not the territory. 
> Computation is devoid of aesthetics and consciousness is 100% aesthetic. 
>
>
> If you say so ...
>

I do.

Craig
 

>
> Bruno
>
>
> It assumes awareness the wrong way around, as a product of nonsense or a 
> fixed uniformity of sense rather than the eternal fertility of aesthetic 
> sense. We do run on machines, and we run machines, but machines run on 
> sense.
>
>
>> That is not a valid argument.
>>
>
> I would agree, but that wasn't my

Re: Scientific journals

[Bruno Marchal]

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 17, 2013  Bruno Marchal  wrote:





> It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of  
oneself apparently.


In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very  
serious question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and  
make you question how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother  
you to learn that Craig Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of  
effort debating with, would say things like  "embody the Aquarian  
tension of revolutionary rationalism symbolized by the Saturnian- 
Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius." and "With their interesting  
combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their  
Sun" and  "The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter  
stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce" and  "There is nothing in  
numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern  
cosmology."  and  "Astrology is extremely rational" ?  I've got to  
tell you that finding out that I have misjudged somebody that  
massively bothers the hell out of me.


I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well  
before this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that  
crank can progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the  
correction. I know that some people cannot listen, but I keep hope,  
basically because that's my job.


His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in  
favor of drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p->q and q- 
>p. Everyday that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on  
terrorism, drug, religion, etc.  I can't help to denounce it  
wherever it appears.


When have I ever argued in favor of drug prohibition? Are you  
confusing me with one of the Right-Wingers?


When and where did I ever argue that you were in favor of drug  
prohibition?


I as just saying that your argument in favor of astrology contained  
the same logical mistake than the one which figure in basically all  
papers in favor of prohibition. I did reply and explain at that time.


Oh, sorry, I read it as 'my' argument for drug prohibition. Must be  
the drugs ;)



You do a lot of mistake in logic.

Maybe. But that may not be important. That might be an irrelevant  
distraction to an underlying thesis which is sound.



That is an argument per authority. It is obvious that the validity of  
argument is what count, if not it is only propaganda.








You take special sample and conclude from that. Today you said once  
again: "No computer I have ever worked on has ever been conscious of  
anything that it is doing. ...", like if that was an argument  
against the idea that a computer *can* support some experience.


The only reason that I argue that a computer cannot support  
experience, is because experience is not based on something other  
than itself.


This might be phenomenologically true in other theories, by  
justifiable reason.





I don't take the fact that computers are not conscious as an  
argument that they can't be, only that it should be a clue to us  
that there is something fundamentally different about logic circuits  
then zygotes.


Racists says similar thing about Indians, black, etc.






I have gone over the reason why computers qua computers will never  
have experiences many times - it is because the map is not the  
territory. Computation is devoid of aesthetics and consciousness is  
100% aesthetic.


If you say so ...

Bruno


It assumes awareness the wrong way around, as a product of nonsense  
or a fixed uniformity of sense rather than the eternal fertility of  
aesthetic sense. We do run on machines, and we run machines, but  
machines run on sense.



That is not a valid argument.

I would agree, but that wasn't my argument.

Craig


Bruno




Craig


Bruno





  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 receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Craig Weinberg]

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  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> > It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself 
>>> apparently.
>>>
>>
>> In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very serious 
>> question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and make you question 
>> how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother you to learn that Craig 
>> Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of effort debating with, would say 
>> things like  "embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism 
>> symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius." and "With 
>> their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and 
>> trining their Sun" and  "The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter 
>> stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce" and  "There is nothing in numerology or 
>> astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology."  and  
>> "Astrology is extremely rational" ?  I've got to tell you that finding out 
>> that I have misjudged somebody that massively bothers the hell out of me.
>>
>>
>> I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well before 
>> this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that crank can 
>> progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the correction. I know that 
>> some people cannot listen, but I keep hope, basically because that's my job.
>>
>> His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in favor 
>> of drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p->q and q->p. Everyday 
>> that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on terrorism, drug, 
>> religion, etc.  I can't help to denounce it wherever it appears.
>>
>
> When have I ever argued in favor of drug prohibition? Are you confusing me 
> with one of the Right-Wingers?
>
>
> When and where did I ever argue that you were in favor of drug prohibition?
>
> I as just saying that your argument in favor of astrology contained the 
> same logical mistake than the one which figure in basically all papers in 
> favor of prohibition. I did reply and explain at that time.
>

Oh, sorry, I read it as 'my' argument for drug prohibition. Must be the 
drugs ;) 


> You do a lot of mistake in logic.
>

Maybe. But that may not be important. That might be an irrelevant 
distraction to an underlying thesis which is sound.
 

> You take special sample and conclude from that. Today you said once 
> again: "No computer I have ever worked on has ever been conscious of 
> anything that it is doing. ...", like if that was an argument against the 
> idea that a computer *can* support some experience.
>

The only reason that I argue that a computer cannot support experience, is 
because experience is not based on something other than itself. I don't 
take the fact that computers are not conscious as an argument that they 
can't be, only that it should be a clue to us that there is something 
fundamentally different about logic circuits then zygotes. 

I have gone over the reason why computers qua computers will never have 
experiences many times - it is because the map is not the territory. 
Computation is devoid of aesthetics and consciousness is 100% aesthetic. It 
assumes awareness the wrong way around, as a product of nonsense or a fixed 
uniformity of sense rather than the eternal fertility of aesthetic sense. 
We do run on machines, and we run machines, but machines run on sense.


> That is not a valid argument.
>

I would agree, but that wasn't my argument.

Craig
 

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> Craig
>  
>
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   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 receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>  
>>  
>>
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>  
>  
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this

Re: Scientific journals

[Bruno Marchal]

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  wrote:





> It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of  
oneself apparently.


In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very  
serious question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and  
make you question how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother you  
to learn that Craig Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of  
effort debating with, would say things like  "embody the Aquarian  
tension of revolutionary rationalism symbolized by the Saturnian- 
Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius." and "With their interesting  
combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their  
Sun" and  "The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium  
in Neptune-ruled Pisce" and  "There is nothing in numerology or  
astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology."   
and  "Astrology is extremely rational" ?  I've got to tell you that  
finding out that I have misjudged somebody that massively bothers  
the hell out of me.


I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well  
before this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that  
crank can progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the  
correction. I know that some people cannot listen, but I keep hope,  
basically because that's my job.


His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in  
favor of drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p->q and q- 
>p. Everyday that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on  
terrorism, drug, religion, etc.  I can't help to denounce it  
wherever it appears.


When have I ever argued in favor of drug prohibition? Are you  
confusing me with one of the Right-Wingers?


When and where did I ever argue that you were in favor of drug  
prohibition?


I as just saying that your argument in favor of astrology contained  
the same logical mistake than the one which figure in basically all  
papers in favor of prohibition. I did reply and explain at that time.


You do a lot of mistake in logic. You take special sample and conclude  
from that. Today you said once again: "No computer I have ever worked  
on has ever been conscious of anything that it is doing. ...", like if  
that was an argument against the idea that a computer *can* support  
some experience.


That is not a valid argument.

Bruno




Craig


Bruno





  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 receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Craig Weinberg]

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 >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 whatsoever in their beliefs.  
>>>
>>  
>>>
>> > This is exactly what I and some others thought, and said, about your 
>> posts when you pretend to not understand, or to refute, the first person 
>> indeterminacy. 
>>
>
> I have no trouble understanding first person indeterminacy. I (the first 
> person) don't know with certainty (indeterminacy) what I am going to see 
> next and even if I did I wouldn't be certain what I would do next until I 
> did it. All that is crystal clear, however you claimed to have found a new 
> sort of indeterminacy unrelated to Quantum Mechanics or what Godel or 
> Turing found, and despite your repeated efforts I was unable to understand 
> that at all. With some embarrassment I admit that there have been times in 
> my life when I pretended to understand something when really I did not, but 
> I can honestly say that except maybe for a short time as a joke I can't 
> recall even one time that I pretended not to understand something when 
> really I did. Some would say I'm stupid enough as it is and don't need to 
> pretend to be any dumber than I am.   
>
>
> The FIP does not require neither Gödel, nor the quantum. It is a simple 
> consequence of the possibility of the duplicability of machine, and of 
> the definition of first person that I gave in the comp frame.
>
>
>
>
> > It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself 
>> apparently.
>>
>
> In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very serious 
> question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and make you question 
> how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother you to learn that Craig 
> Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of effort debating with, would say 
> things like  "embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism 
> symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius." and "With 
> their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and 
> trining their Sun" and  "The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter 
> stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce" and  "There is nothing in numerology or 
> astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology."  and  
> "Astrology is extremely rational" ?  I've got to tell you that finding out 
> that I have misjudged somebody that massively bothers the hell out of me.
>
>
> I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well before 
> this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that crank can 
> progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the correction. I know that 
> some people cannot listen, but I keep hope, basically because that's my job.
>
> His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in favor of 
> drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p->q and q->p. Everyday 
> that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on terrorism, drug, 
> religion, etc.  I can't help to denounce it wherever it appears.
>

When have I ever argued in favor of drug prohibition? Are you confusing me 
with one of the Right-Wingers?

Craig
 

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>   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 receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>  
>  
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Bruno Marchal]

On 17 Apr 2013, at 19:09, John Clark wrote:


On Wed, Apr 17, 2013  Bruno Marchal  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 whatsoever in  
their beliefs.


> This is exactly what I and some others thought, and said, about  
your posts when you pretend to not understand, or to refute, the  
first person indeterminacy.


I have no trouble understanding first person indeterminacy. I (the  
first person) don't know with certainty (indeterminacy) what I am  
going to see next and even if I did I wouldn't be certain what I  
would do next until I did it. All that is crystal clear, however you  
claimed to have found a new sort of indeterminacy unrelated to  
Quantum Mechanics or what Godel or Turing found, and despite your  
repeated efforts I was unable to understand that at all. With some  
embarrassment I admit that there have been times in my life when I  
pretended to understand something when really I did not, but I can  
honestly say that except maybe for a short time as a joke I can't  
recall even one time that I pretended not to understand something  
when really I did. Some would say I'm stupid enough as it is and  
don't need to pretend to be any dumber than I am.


The FIP does not require neither Gödel, nor the quantum. It is a  
simple consequence of the possibility of the duplicability of machine,  
and of the definition of first person that I gave in the comp frame.






> It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself  
apparently.


In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very  
serious question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and  
make you question how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother you  
to learn that Craig Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of  
effort debating with, would say things like  "embody the Aquarian  
tension of revolutionary rationalism symbolized by the Saturnian- 
Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius." and "With their interesting  
combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their  
Sun" and  "The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium  
in Neptune-ruled Pisce" and  "There is nothing in numerology or  
astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology."   
and  "Astrology is extremely rational" ?  I've got to tell you that  
finding out that I have misjudged somebody that massively bothers  
the hell out of me.


I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well  
before this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that crank  
can progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the correction. I  
know that some people cannot listen, but I keep hope, basically  
because that's my job.


His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in  
favor of drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p->q and q- 
>p. Everyday that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on  
terrorism, drug, religion, etc.  I can't help to denounce it wherever  
it appears.


Bruno





  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 receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 1:09:21 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013  Bruno Marchal >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 whatsoever in their beliefs.  
>>>
>>  
>>>
>> > This is exactly what I and some others thought, and said, about your 
>> posts when you pretend to not understand, or to refute, the first person 
>> indeterminacy. 
>>
>
> I have no trouble understanding first person indeterminacy. I (the first 
> person) don't know with certainty (indeterminacy) what I am going to see 
> next and even if I did I wouldn't be certain what I would do next until I 
> did it. All that is crystal clear, however you claimed to have found a new 
> sort of indeterminacy unrelated to Quantum Mechanics or what Godel or 
> Turing found, and despite your repeated efforts I was unable to understand 
> that at all. With some embarrassment I admit that there have been times in 
> my life when I pretended to understand something when really I did not, but 
> I can honestly say that except maybe for a short time as a joke I can't 
> recall even one time that I pretended not to understand something when 
> really I did. Some would say I'm stupid enough as it is and don't need to 
> pretend to be any dumber than I am.   
>
> > It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself 
>> apparently.
>>
>
> In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very serious 
> question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and make you question 
> how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother you to learn that Craig 
> Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of effort debating with, would say 
> things like  "embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism 
> symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius." and "With 
> their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and 
> trining their Sun" and  "The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter 
> stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce" and  "There is nothing in numerology or 
> astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology."  and  
> "Astrology is extremely rational" ?  I've got to tell you that finding out 
> that I have misjudged somebody that massively bothers the hell out of me.
>

I can see why astrological terms would frighten you, but they are no 
different from any other specialized language. I will try to translate if 
it will make you feel any better:

"embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism symbolized by the 
Saturnian-Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius."

= embody the inherent conflict within the rational futurist personality 
between its rebellious-pioneering-genius impulses and its reverent, 
intensely disciplined impulses.

"With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon 
and trining their Sun"

= They are guys who like open challenges, have issues with their emotions 
but also natural leadership skills. These are people who are emotionally 
reluctant to interact with the public, but excel in the public role that 
they play.

"The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled 
Pisces" 

= Strong themes of maturity and suffering. The personality here is like 
stones worn smooth by the ocean. Devotion, sacrifice, melancholy...heavy 
concerns, serious lives contributing to events with looong term 
consequences.

"There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as 
flaky as modern cosmology."  

= Numerology is simple. Things with four sides have a certain, shall we 
say, stability to them, do they not? Doors, walls, windows, tables... 
squares and rectangles are good for reliable, utilitarian purposes. 
Numerology takes these kinds of intuitions about numbers and refines them 
to a very specific degree, mapping them to the letters of the alphabet - 
which also have inherent personalities when you examine them intensely. 
This is nothing but a heightened appreciation for the qualities of numbers 
and a projection of that appreciation onto names and birthdates. The 
amazing thing is that, confirmation bias or no, doing this yields 
consistently insightful views on personality. Astrology is the same but 
using the geometric relations which arise from the periodicity of the 
planets. It could be tree rings or ice cores, or anything that has a long 
term history of repetition and variation, but the planetary motions are 
ideal because they lend themselves to these signifying configurations. The 
archetypes of the zodiac do not necessarily have anything to do with the 
planets, they just fall out naturally from intuitive reflection. The logic 
that makes 1 independent, bold, and creative and 4 orderly and utilitarian, 
makes this zodiacal sequence of action-reaction-transaction X 4 a perpetual 
resource for archetypal insi

Re: Scientific journals

[John Clark]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013  Bruno Marchal  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 whatsoever in their beliefs.
>>
>
>>
> > This is exactly what I and some others thought, and said, about your
> posts when you pretend to not understand, or to refute, the first person
> indeterminacy.
>

I have no trouble understanding first person indeterminacy. I (the first
person) don't know with certainty (indeterminacy) what I am going to see
next and even if I did I wouldn't be certain what I would do next until I
did it. All that is crystal clear, however you claimed to have found a new
sort of indeterminacy unrelated to Quantum Mechanics or what Godel or
Turing found, and despite your repeated efforts I was unable to understand
that at all. With some embarrassment I admit that there have been times in
my life when I pretended to understand something when really I did not, but
I can honestly say that except maybe for a short time as a joke I can't
recall even one time that I pretended not to understand something when
really I did. Some would say I'm stupid enough as it is and don't need to
pretend to be any dumber than I am.

> It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself
> apparently.
>

In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very serious
question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and make you question
how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother you to learn that Craig
Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of effort debating with, would say
things like  "embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism
symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius." and "With
their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and
trining their Sun" and  "The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter
stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce" and  "There is nothing in numerology or
astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology."  and
"Astrology is extremely rational" ?  I've got to tell you that finding out
that I have misjudged somebody that massively bothers the hell out of me.

  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 receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Bruno Marchal]

On 16 Apr 2013, at 17:36, John Clark wrote:


On Mon, Apr 15, 2013  meekerdb  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 Neptune Saturn  
conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce [...]  
Astrology is extremely rational,


>> You sir are a fool.

> Told you so.

OK OK I admit it, you were right. But 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 whatsoever in their beliefs.


This is exactly what I and some others thought, and said, about your  
posts when you pretend to not understand, or to refute, the first  
person indeterminacy.
It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself  
apparently.


Bruno




And now I am curious and a little worried about the people on this  
list, how many agree with Mr. Craig Weinberg and think that Uranus  
is in tension with rationalism because of the  Saturnian-Uranian co- 
rulership of Aquarius in their combination of Mars in Libra squaring  
their Moon and trining their Sun in the Neptune Saturn conjunction  
with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce? If anyone does  
agree with that they would do me a great favor by saying so now,  
that way I won't waste my time with you in the future.


> "Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel."

EXCELLENT!  I wish I'd said that.

  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 receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 11:36:39 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:

And now I am curious and a little worried about the people on this list, 
> how many agree with...
>

All witch hunts begin with this curious worry. I wonder who is curious and 
worried about people who agree with you? Maybe they need to be identified 
and singled out?

"In perfect isolation here behind my wall 
Waiting for the worms to come 
Waiting to cut out the deadwood 
Waiting to clean up the city 
Waiting to follow the worms 
Waiting to put on a black shirt 
Waiting to weed out the weaklings 
Waiting to smash in their windows 
And kick in their doors 
Waiting for the final solution 
To strengthen the strain 
Waiting to follow the worms " - Pink Floyd

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[John Clark]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013  meekerdb  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 Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in
>>> Neptune-ruled Pisce [...] Astrology is extremely rational,
>>>
>>
>> >> You sir are a fool.
>>
>
> > Told you so.
>

OK OK I admit it, you were right. But 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
whatsoever in their beliefs.  And now I am curious and a little worried
about the people on this list, how many agree with Mr. Craig Weinberg and
think that Uranus is in tension with rationalism because of the
Saturnian-Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius in their combination of Mars in
Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun in the Neptune Saturn
conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce? If anyone
does agree with that they would do me a great favor by saying so now, that
way I won't waste my time with you in the future.

> "Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel."
>

EXCELLENT!  I wish I'd said that.

  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 receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Craig Weinberg]

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 
> 
> > 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 Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in 
>> Neptune-ruled Pisce [...] Astrology is extremely rational,
>>
>
> You sir are a fool. 
>
>   John K Clark
>  
>
> Told you so.
>

I am very pleased to be held in low esteem by minds such as yours.

Craig
 

>
> Brent
> "Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel."
> --- Anonymous
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[meekerdb]

On 4/15/2013 9:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Craig Weinberg > 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
Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce 
[...]
Astrology is extremely rational,


You sir are a fool.

  John K Clark


Told you so.

Brent
"Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel."
--- Anonymous

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Craig Weinberg]

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 
> 
> > 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 Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in 
>> Neptune-ruled Pisce [...] Astrology is extremely rational,
>>
>
> You sir are a fool. 
>

That's your version of science in a nutshell. No curiosity, no reasoned 
argument, just name calling and cowardice.

Craig
 

>
>   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 receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[John Clark]

On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Craig Weinberg 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 Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in
> Neptune-ruled Pisce [...] Astrology is extremely rational,
>

You sir are a fool.

  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 receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Craig Weinberg]

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 
> 
> > 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 of 
>> families would show no meaningful patterns beyond what is expected by 
>> coincidence and confirmation bias. If you look at the actual charts and 
>> analyze them you will find an unfailing and obvious correspondence even 
>> subtracting out a generous confirmation bias. Look them up. See what 
>> Napoleon's chart looks like, and Hitler, and Einstein. 
>>
>
> Hitler's birthday was April 20, so was soul singer Luther Vandross and 
> actor George (Mr. Sulu) Takei. Einstein's birthday was March 14, so was Dr. 
> Seuss and Billy Crystal. Leo (War and Peace) Tolstoy and Honey Boo Boo were 
> both born on August 28, and Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin were both 
> born at exactly the same time, same day same year.   
>

First of all, it's not just the same day of the year, the exact location, 
year, and time factor in also - but even identical twins are not the same 
person. The themes involved are about polarity, so that twins often oppose 
each other as far as which extremes they express...and these are just 
themes, not controlling mechanisms. Astrology and numerology both are not 
supposed to be predictive sciences, they are reflective arts.

 As for Lincoln and Darwin, they are not a bad example at all. They were 
not born at the same time or place, but they still embody the Aquarian 
tension of revolutionary rationalism. symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian 
co-'rulership' of Aquarius.

(from 
http://www.prometheusbooks.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=461&zenid=rg6mgiba3utmerg3b69k0ci3u6)

"While the coincidence of these two men being born on exactly the same day 
might fill astrologers with glee, further reflection points to many 
parallels and intersections in their lives. In this unique approach to 
history and biography, historian David R. Contosta examines the lives and 
careers of Lincoln (the political rebel) and Darwin (the scientific rebel), 
and notes many surprising and illuminating points of comparison.


   - Lost their mothers in childhood and later lost beloved children at 
   young ages. 
   - Had strained relations with their fathers. 
   - Went through years of searching for a direction to their lives. 
   - Struggled with religious doubt. 
   - Were latter-day sons of the Enlightenment who elevated reason over 
   religious revelation. 
   - Suffered from severe bouts of depression. 
   - Were ambitious as well as patient, with sure and steady mental powers 
   rather than quick minds. 
   - Possessed an excellent sense of pacing that allowed them to wait until 
   the time was ripe for their ideas and leadership.

Looking at their charts:

[image: 
http://judecowell.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/lincoln-natal-assassination.jpg]

http://catalystastrology.com/images/charlesdarwin.jpg

With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and 
trining their Sun, it is unsurprising that they would share a lasting 
legacy which is both emotionally contentious and powerfully progressive. 
There are a ton of things there. The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the 
Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisces is very much about redemption and 
themes of devotion and duty...self-sacrifice. I don't know if I trust the 
time on Darwin's chart, but if it's in the neighborhood of right, then it 
would make sense that he put science first while Lincoln, with his Sun 
rising, put his leadership role first.




> > They are all readily available online. Look up the Moon landing and JFK 
>> assassination. If you are interested, then don't take my word for it. 
>>
>
> They would be a lot more impressive if these predictions had been made 
> before the moon landings and assassination not after. It's easy to make 
> predictions after the fact. 
>

The idea that astrology is about prediction is one which has been promoted 
by tabloid horoscope columns, but that is not a good way of using it or of 
understanding what it is really about. It can be predictive in the sense 
that meteorology is predictive, but overall, as with the weather, someone 
would be better advised taking their cues from their direct perception most 
of the time, and taking the astrological themes as a kind of supplemental 
source. Astrology is not about cause and effect, it is about archetypal 
themes.  
 

> And
> I stand by what I said before, after these embarrassingly stupid comments 
> I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig 
> Weinberg says seriously.
>

Astrology is extremely rational, which is why scientific development tends 
to begin with some form of astronomy-based divination. Your bigotry is well 
known on this list, so I welcome your seal of disapproval as a way to 
encourage na

Re: Scientific journals

[Bruno Marchal]

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  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  
seriously.


> That is not valid.

If it's not valid then I do see how somebody who values rationality  
can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. But no, I  
believe I'm a better judge of what i think than you are and I  
really think that  I don't see how anybody who values rationality  
can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously.


You can always go at the meta-level and ask yourself how could a  
machine asserts things like that.
The surprise here is that self-referentially correct machines can  
assert quite similar things than Craig, and of course this refutes  
his no-comp conclusion or prejudice.


So if  self-referentially correct machines can assert quite similar  
things that I do, what about the self-referentially correct machines  
can assert similar things to what Bruno asserts? If one machine  
claims that the other machine's reports are self-referential  
artifacts, then how can you say that self-referentially correct  
machines assert anything in particular? Where are you getting the  
sense of machine consensus when comp would mean that humans, often  
incapable of consensus, would contribute evidence to support or  
contradict any position or belief?


When a machine is self-referentially correct, it is always relative to  
some other universal machine. That is why in the formal theory we must  
start from one Turing universal system, like (N, +, *).


Also, a belief can be both self-referential and referential. In "I see  
the moon", there is a simultaneous reference and self-reference. Both  
can be correct.









About astrology, I suspect it was a kind of provocation only.

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 coincidence and confirmation bias. If you look at the  
actual charts and analyze them you will find an unfailing and  
obvious correspondence even subtracting out a generous confirmation  
bias. Look them up. See what Napoleon's chart looks like, and  
Hitler, and Einstein. They are all readily available online. Look up  
the Moon landing and JFK assassination. If you are interested, then  
don't take my word for it. If you aren't interested, then go on  
assuming that it is idiotic, it makes no difference to me.


Give me any date, and any program doing a chart from a date, and I  
will give you *many* examples which fits. To make your point, you must  
not look at the chart of a small sample of people by date, but on a  
rather large sample.


Now, if this has been done, give me the references. Because statistics  
can be misused very easily too.


And for someone seeming to dislike determinacy, what would that mean?  
A new way to discriminate people?


Bruno








Craig


Bruno






> It is not because a statement made by an entity is not correct  
that all statements (or all reasonings) made by that entity is not  
correct (or valid).


Given the fact that you are mortal and only have a finite amount of  
time to listen to anybody say anything if you knew that somebody  
passionately believed that the earth was flat would you really  
carefully listen to what he had to say about ANYTHING? Belief in  
astrology and numerology is just as bad as a flat earth.


> To be sure, I would not defend that precise statement made by  
Craig,


I would sincerely hope that you wouldn't defend a statement that  
was even approximately like the one made by Craig, otherwise I've  
been on the wrong list for over a year.


> Many scientists have rejected the existence of lucid dreams, only  
because it was published in a journal of parapsychology.


I have no trouble with the idea of lucid dreaming, even Feynman  
said he could do it in the 1930's when he was a student, but given  
their track record I wouldn't trust one word I read about anything  
in a journal of parapsychology, so there is no point in my reading  
them.


  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 receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
You received this message bec

Re: Scientific journals

[John Clark]

On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Craig Weinberg 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 of
> families would show no meaningful patterns beyond what is expected by
> coincidence and confirmation bias. If you look at the actual charts and
> analyze them you will find an unfailing and obvious correspondence even
> subtracting out a generous confirmation bias. Look them up. See what
> Napoleon's chart looks like, and Hitler, and Einstein.
>

Hitler's birthday was April 20, so was soul singer Luther Vandross and
actor George (Mr. Sulu) Takei. Einstein's birthday was March 14, so was Dr.
Seuss and Billy Crystal. Leo (War and Peace) Tolstoy and Honey Boo Boo were
both born on August 28, and Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin were both
born at exactly the same time, same day same year.

> They are all readily available online. Look up the Moon landing and JFK
> assassination. If you are interested, then don't take my word for it.
>

They would be a lot more impressive if these predictions had been made
before the moon landings and assassination not after. It's easy to make
predictions after the fact. And
I stand by what I said before, after these embarrassingly stupid comments I
don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig
Weinberg says seriously.

   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 receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Craig Weinberg]

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 >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 seriously.
>>
>>
>> > That is not valid. 
>>
>
> If it's not valid then I do see how somebody who values rationality can 
> take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. But no, I believe I'm a 
> better judge of what i think than you are and I really think that  I don't 
> see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig 
> Weinberg says seriously.
>
>
> You can always go at the meta-level and ask yourself how could a machine 
> asserts things like that.
> The surprise here is that self-referentially correct machines can assert 
> quite similar things than Craig, and of course this refutes his no-comp 
> conclusion or prejudice. 
>

So if  self-referentially correct machines can assert quite similar things 
that I do, what about the self-referentially correct machines can assert 
similar things to what Bruno asserts? If one machine claims that the other 
machine's reports are self-referential artifacts, then how can you say that 
self-referentially correct machines assert anything in particular? Where 
are you getting the sense of machine consensus when comp would mean that 
humans, often incapable of consensus, would contribute evidence to support 
or contradict any position or belief?


About astrology, I suspect it was a kind of provocation only.
>

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 coincidence 
and confirmation bias. If you look at the actual charts and analyze them 
you will find an unfailing and obvious correspondence even subtracting out 
a generous confirmation bias. Look them up. See what Napoleon's chart looks 
like, and Hitler, and Einstein. They are all readily available online. Look 
up the Moon landing and JFK assassination. If you are interested, then 
don't take my word for it. If you aren't interested, then go on assuming 
that it is idiotic, it makes no difference to me.

Craig


> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>> > It is not because a statement made by an entity is not correct that all 
>> statements (or all reasonings) made by that entity is not correct (or 
>> valid).
>>
>
> Given the fact that you are mortal and only have a finite amount of time 
> to listen to anybody say anything if you knew that somebody passionately 
> believed that the earth was flat would you really carefully listen to what 
> he had to say about ANYTHING? Belief in astrology and numerology is just as 
> bad as a flat earth.
>
> > To be sure, I would not defend that precise statement made by Craig,
>>
>
> I would sincerely hope that you wouldn't defend a statement that was even 
> approximately like the one made by Craig, otherwise I've been on the wrong 
> list for over a year.
>
> > Many scientists have rejected the existence of lucid dreams, only 
>> because it was published in a journal of parapsychology.
>>
>
> I have no trouble with the idea of lucid dreaming, even Feynman said he 
> could do it in the 1930's when he was a student, but given their track 
> record I wouldn't trust one word I read about anything in a journal of 
> parapsychology, so there is no point in my reading them.
>
>   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 receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>  
>  
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Bruno Marchal]

On 12 Apr 2013, at 20:09, John Clark wrote:


On Fri, Apr 12, 2013  Bruno Marchal  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  
seriously.


> That is not valid.

If it's not valid then I do see how somebody who values rationality  
can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. But no, I  
believe I'm a better judge of what i think than you are and I really  
think that  I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take  
anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously.


You can always go at the meta-level and ask yourself how could a  
machine asserts things like that.
The surprise here is that self-referentially correct machines can  
assert quite similar things than Craig, and of course this refutes his  
no-comp conclusion or prejudice. About astrology, I suspect it was a  
kind of provocation only.


Bruno






> It is not because a statement made by an entity is not correct  
that all statements (or all reasonings) made by that entity is not  
correct (or valid).


Given the fact that you are mortal and only have a finite amount of  
time to listen to anybody say anything if you knew that somebody  
passionately believed that the earth was flat would you really  
carefully listen to what he had to say about ANYTHING? Belief in  
astrology and numerology is just as bad as a flat earth.


> To be sure, I would not defend that precise statement made by Craig,

I would sincerely hope that you wouldn't defend a statement that was  
even approximately like the one made by Craig, otherwise I've been  
on the wrong list for over a year.


> Many scientists have rejected the existence of lucid dreams, only  
because it was published in a journal of parapsychology.


I have no trouble with the idea of lucid dreaming, even Feynman said  
he could do it in the 1930's when he was a student, but given their  
track record I wouldn't trust one word I read about anything in a  
journal of parapsychology, so there is no point in my reading them.


  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 receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Richard Ruquist]

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 Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:06 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 Russell Standish  wrote:
>
>  >> Science and Nature cannot publish every manuscript they receive and
>>> they shouldn't even 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 publishing, there are no resource
>> constraints in terms of the number of articles that can be published. That
>> is a consideration only for print journals.
>>
>
> And Nature and Science are print journals. Yes with electronic publishing
> everything is available including the insane ramblings of every crackpot on
> the planet, but if you want to get into Science or Nature you're going to
> have to convince the editors that your article is probably correct and
> probably important. And there is no reason in theory why in the future a
> electronic journal couldn't be just as good as Science or Nature and in
> fact I think that is likely to happen, but not if the journal decides to
> publish everything it receives just because it can.
>
>  >>> The thing about editorial rejection is that it is based on an editor
 deciding that the paper is not worth looking into.

>>>
>>>
>>  >> Exactly, but you almost make that sound like a bad thing.
>>>
>>
>> > Yes it is.
>
>
> That's what editors do that's their job, and if you disagree with their
> decision you can read the article someplace else because you can be certain
> it will end up somewhere.
>
> > It artificially creates a scarcity that is not there in practice.
>>
>
> What scarcity??? No matter how bad the article is you can always put it on
> the net at virtually no cost to you, and all 7 billion people on this
> planet can read it if they want to, just don't expect the editors of
> Science or Nature to say they think it is worth anybody's time to read.
>
> >> Would you publish experimental results from somebody that you know has
>>> performed sloppy experiments in the past showing that bees don't make honey
>>> and never have?
>>>
>>
>> > I'd still send it out to peer review.
>
>
> If I was one of those outside peer reviewers I'd be absolutely furious
> that you'd send me something like that and would ask why you couldn't
> figure out for yourself that is was crap; I mean, if you're the editor of
> the Journal of Bees you really should know something about bees. And if
> yours is a first rate journal I just don't understand where you're going to
> find all those outside first rate peer reviewers to examine the huge pile
> of manuscripts that you get every month, 95% of which are not just bad but
> comically bad. And how long are you going to be able to keep those first
> rate reviewers when you keep sending them insultingly bad articles? After
> all, being first rate scientists themselves the reviewers have research of
> their own to do and can't spend all their time reading the spam that you
> send them.
>
>   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 receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[John Clark]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 Russell Standish  wrote:

>> Science and Nature cannot publish every manuscript they receive and they
>> shouldn't even 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 publishing, there are no resource
> constraints in terms of the number of articles that can be published. That
> is a consideration only for print journals.
>

And Nature and Science are print journals. Yes with electronic publishing
everything is available including the insane ramblings of every crackpot on
the planet, but if you want to get into Science or Nature you're going to
have to convince the editors that your article is probably correct and
probably important. And there is no reason in theory why in the future a
electronic journal couldn't be just as good as Science or Nature and in
fact I think that is likely to happen, but not if the journal decides to
publish everything it receives just because it can.

>>> The thing about editorial rejection is that it is based on an editor
>>> deciding that the paper is not worth looking into.
>>>
>>
>>
> >> Exactly, but you almost make that sound like a bad thing.
>>
>
> > Yes it is.


That's what editors do that's their job, and if you disagree with their
decision you can read the article someplace else because you can be certain
it will end up somewhere.

> It artificially creates a scarcity that is not there in practice.
>

What scarcity??? No matter how bad the article is you can always put it on
the net at virtually no cost to you, and all 7 billion people on this
planet can read it if they want to, just don't expect the editors of
Science or Nature to say they think it is worth anybody's time to read.

>> Would you publish experimental results from somebody that you know has
>> performed sloppy experiments in the past showing that bees don't make honey
>> and never have?
>>
>
> > I'd still send it out to peer review.


If I was one of those outside peer reviewers I'd be absolutely furious that
you'd send me something like that and would ask why you couldn't figure out
for yourself that is was crap; I mean, if you're the editor of the Journal
of Bees you really should know something about bees. And if yours is a
first rate journal I just don't understand where you're going to find all
those outside first rate peer reviewers to examine the huge pile of
manuscripts that you get every month, 95% of which are not just bad but
comically bad. And how long are you going to be able to keep those first
rate reviewers when you keep sending them insultingly bad articles? After
all, being first rate scientists themselves the reviewers have research of
their own to do and can't spend all their time reading the spam that you
send them.

  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 receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Craig Weinberg]

On Friday, April 12, 2013 2:09:05 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013  Bruno Marchal >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 seriously.
>>
>>
>> > That is not valid. 
>>
>
> If it's not valid then I do see how somebody who values rationality can 
> take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. But no, I believe I'm a 
> better judge of what i think than you are and I really think that  I don't 
> see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig 
> Weinberg says seriously.
>

He is saying that your reasoning is not valid in jumping to conclusions 
about what constitutes a guarantee of irrationality...not about whether you 
are genuinely incredulous or not. 

>  
>
>> > It is not because a statement made by an entity is not correct that all 
>> statements (or all reasonings) made by that entity is not correct (or 
>> valid).
>>
>
> Given the fact that you are mortal and only have a finite amount of time 
> to listen to anybody say anything if you knew that somebody passionately 
> believed that the earth was flat would you really carefully listen to what 
> he had to say about ANYTHING? Belief in astrology and numerology is just as 
> bad as a flat earth.
>

Are you really so inundated with people wanting you to believe that the 
world is flat? Even though I find your views preposterously narrow on many 
things, I don't take that to mean that you cannot be right about some 
things. What you are defending has a name - it is "pre-judice". The idea 
that you need not actually consider other people's views before deciding 
that they are wrong.


> > To be sure, I would not defend that precise statement made by Craig,
>>
>
> I would sincerely hope that you wouldn't defend a statement that was even 
> approximately like the one made by Craig, otherwise I've been on the wrong 
> list for over a year.
>
> > Many scientists have rejected the existence of lucid dreams, only 
>> because it was published in a journal of parapsychology.
>>
>
> I have no trouble with the idea of lucid dreaming, even Feynman said he 
> could do it in the 1930's when he was a student, but given their track 
> record I wouldn't trust one word I read about anything in a journal of 
> parapsychology, so there is no point in my reading them.
>

The point was not whether or not you happen to deem lucid dreaming to be 
possible, it is that the scientific status quo was wrong in this instance 
and the journal of parapsychology was right. You don't seem to be able to 
generalize the implications of your prejudice. 

>
>   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 receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[John Clark]

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013  Bruno Marchal  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 seriously.
>
>
> > That is not valid.
>

If it's not valid then I do see how somebody who values rationality can
take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. But no, I believe I'm a
better judge of what i think than you are and I really think that  I don't
see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig
Weinberg says seriously.


> > It is not because a statement made by an entity is not correct that all
> statements (or all reasonings) made by that entity is not correct (or
> valid).
>

Given the fact that you are mortal and only have a finite amount of time to
listen to anybody say anything if you knew that somebody passionately
believed that the earth was flat would you really carefully listen to what
he had to say about ANYTHING? Belief in astrology and numerology is just as
bad as a flat earth.

> To be sure, I would not defend that precise statement made by Craig,
>

I would sincerely hope that you wouldn't defend a statement that was even
approximately like the one made by Craig, otherwise I've been on the wrong
list for over a year.

> Many scientists have rejected the existence of lucid dreams, only because
> it was published in a journal of parapsychology.
>

I have no trouble with the idea of lucid dreaming, even Feynman said he
could do it in the 1930's when he was a student, but given their track
record I wouldn't trust one word I read about anything in a journal of
parapsychology, so there is no point in my reading them.

  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 receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Craig Weinberg]

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 >wrote:
>
>  > Their admissions standards have already tanked
>>
>
> Can you give a example?
>  
>
> Does Craig have degree?
>

I have a degree, but my academic career was already over by the time I was 
10. In kindergarten I skipped a grade, and made the local newspaper for 
being the only kid in the school to have ever demonstrated Concrete 
Operation level skills at age 5. A year later I was tested with a 164 IQ on 
the Stanford-Binet scale and was transferred to a highly gifted school. By 
fourth grade I realized that public school in the U.S., even in the elite 
programs, was a waste of time...and I was right.

Craig


> Brent
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Bruno Marchal]

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  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  
seriously.


What about Schrödinger?

“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For  
consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for  
in terms of anything else.”



You just did the same error as John Clark.


Bruno





-Erwin Schrödinger

Craig


   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 receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Bruno Marchal]

On 11 Apr 2013, at 18:31, John Clark wrote:


On Wed, Apr 10, 2013, Craig Weinberg  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  
seriously.


That is not valid. It is not because a statement made by an entity is  
not correct that all statements (or all reasonings) made by that  
entity is not correct (or valid).


To be sure, I would not defend that precise statement made by Craig,  
indeed. What is true is that some astrologists can be more valid in  
their reasoning than some cosmologists, of course.


Many scientists have rejected the existence of lucid dreams, only  
because it was published in a journal of parapsychology. Eventually  
lucidity on dream was rediscovered by non-para-psychologist and then  
accepted by the mainstream.


Following authoritative argument, and giving importance to name and  
institution, are not a valid procedure. It can help the choice of the  
paper you will read, but it cannot help to judge the 'scientific  
value' of the paper.


Bruno




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Telmo Menezes]

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 activities that look good (becoming a
quasi-professional violin player, running a charity, etc.). I suspect
this filters out the intelligent free-spirits. Possibly by design?
Also, it subtly maintins the class system. Helping your parents run a
farm in the middle of nowhere isn't the sort of "extra-curricular
activity" that the Ivy League seems interested in. I feel very
fortunate that I could get a good quality higher education while still
geting away with doing all the stupid stuff that young people are
supposed to do.

In Europe, everyone who applies to University does a number of
standardised tests, and the people with the best grades get in. The
unlucky ones can try again next year. That's all. No cover letters, no
life stories, no extra-curricular activities. I think we're right on
that one.

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
> 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 affirmative action
> and full scholarships as well.
>
> I was at Union College as an undergrad on full scholarship as a runner.
> Back then Union was rated 6th in the nation for small colleges.
> But then they decided to go big time in ice hockey
> and their rating dropped right out of the top 25
> as they are now perceived to be a jock school.
>
> That will not happen to Harvard. But to get a top-rated team in any sport
> you have to drop your standards. MIT is the only school I know of that
> refuses to do that.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:33 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>> On 4/11/2013 10:15 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013Richard Ruquist  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 to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Richard Ruquist]

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 affirmative action
and full scholarships as well.

I was at Union College as an undergrad on full scholarship as a runner.
Back then Union was rated 6th in the nation for small colleges.
But then they decided to go big time in ice hockey
and their rating dropped right out of the top 25
as they are now perceived to be a jock school.

That will not happen to Harvard. But to get a top-rated team in any sport
you have to drop your standards. MIT is the only school I know of that
refuses to do that.


On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:33 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/11/2013 10:15 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013Richard Ruquist  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 to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[meekerdb]

On 4/11/2013 10:15 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013Richard Ruquist 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 to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Russell Standish]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 01:13:31PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013  Russell Standish  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 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 publishing, there are no resource
constraints in terms of the number of articles that can be
published. That is a consideration only for print journals.

I can understand prioritising papers going out to peer review, based
on some perceived importance, so that obvious scoops are not missed by
being clogged up in the peer review pipeline. I believe they already
have a fast track process to handle precisely this scenario.

> 
> 
> > > What is unimportant to one person, may be important to another.
> 
> 
> If you disagree with what the editors of Science or Nature judge to be
> important then read different journals, although I must say that
> historically their judgement has proven to be remarkably good; not perfect
> but damn good.

Pretty much what I already do - though not due to any cosncious
decision. The Nature articles I've actually read have been from the
'70s or earlier. I have ocasionally cited more recent Nature (and even Science)
articles, but mostly because I want to refer to a body of literature,
and that has been how other people have cited it.

Of course I do read journal articles (although I get most of my
information from arXiv preprints), but they tend to be the specialty
journals, not the general ones like Nature and Science.

Just saying.

> 
> > The thing about editorial rejection is that it is based on an editor
> > deciding that the paper is not worth looking into.
> >
> 
> Exactly, but you almost make that sound like a bad thing.
> 

Yes it is. It artificially creates a scarcity that is not there in practice.

> > If I was the editor of the (fictitious) Journal of Bees, then I would be
> > quite right in rejecting a paper about North Atlantic Salmon as being out
> > of scope.
> 
> 
> Would you publish experimental results from somebody that you know has
> performed sloppy experiments in the past showing that bees don't make honey
> and never have?

I'd still send it out to peer review. If its as obvious as that, it
won't take very long for the peers to reject the article. Presumably,
as editor, I'd feel able to be one of the peer reviewers in this case,
saving the other peers :).

> Would you publish results from a meticulously conducted experiment that
> scrupulously followed the scientific method proving that if bees are dunked
> into a bucket of blue lead based paint they take on a blueish hue and die?
> 

OK I missed that. Obviousness of the result is probably a valid reason
for rejecting an article (as it is in patents). Its different to
importance though.


-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Craig Weinberg]

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 
> 
> > wrote:
>
> >> 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 numerology or astrology which 
> is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology" nor did he say "I couldn't 
> have any more interest in astrology if I tried. I have been analyzing 
> charts since 1988. Astrology and numerology are by far the most interesting 
> and useful subjects that I have ever encountered in my life" and he also 
> didn't say "Most scientific papers I have looked at contain a huge amount 
> of mumbo jumbo."
>

I don't expect others to take astrology or numerology seriously. I didn't 
until I actually investigated them myself. What I found was interesting, 
partly because they point to an understanding of principles which are 
neither completely real nor completely unreal. It appears that these are 
the kinds of principles which are beneath and behind rationality itself.

As far as my comments on modern cosmology and scientific jargon, I would 
expect that more enlightened minds would be able to see our current belief 
system in the context of a history of belief systems which were each in 
their time considered the final truth but which eventually proved 
profoundly incomplete. 

It may not be obvious to you that the current system is taking on water, 
but it is to me. For every nugget of useful truth discovered in the current 
system, how much time is wasted weaving a web of perceived legitimacy?

Craig


>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 receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[John Clark]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>> 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 numerology or astrology which
is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology" nor did he say "I couldn't
have any more interest in astrology if I tried. I have been analyzing
charts since 1988. Astrology and numerology are by far the most interesting
and useful subjects that I have ever encountered in my life" and he also
didn't say "Most scientific papers I have looked at contain a huge amount
of mumbo jumbo."

   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 receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[John Clark]

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013Richard Ruquist  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 receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[John Clark]

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013  Russell Standish  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 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.


> > What is unimportant to one person, may be important to another.


If you disagree with what the editors of Science or Nature judge to be
important then read different journals, although I must say that
historically their judgement has proven to be remarkably good; not perfect
but damn good.

> The thing about editorial rejection is that it is based on an editor
> deciding that the paper is not worth looking into.
>

Exactly, but you almost make that sound like a bad thing.

> If I was the editor of the (fictitious) Journal of Bees, then I would be
> quite right in rejecting a paper about North Atlantic Salmon as being out
> of scope.


Would you publish experimental results from somebody that you know has
performed sloppy experiments in the past showing that bees don't make honey
and never have?
Would you publish results from a meticulously conducted experiment that
scrupulously followed the scientific method proving that if bees are dunked
into a bucket of blue lead based paint they take on a blueish hue and die?

   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 receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:31:08 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013, Craig Weinberg >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 seriously.
>

What about Schrödinger?

“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness 
is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything 
else.”

-Erwin Schrödinger

Craig


>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 receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[John Clark]

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013, Craig Weinberg  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 seriously.

   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 receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Russell Standish]

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 01:18:06PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> 
> > 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 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; but getting published is one thing getting read is
> something else. Space may not be a scarce resource but time certainly is,
> nobody can read everything so good scientist look to high ranked journals
> like Nature and Science to find the best stuff. It's true that you're
> relying on the judgement of the editors but history have proven their
> judgement is pretty damn good. And if you disagree with the editors
> decision just publish it someplace else, just don't expect Science or
> Nature to endorse it.
> 
>   >  papers should only be rejected for obvious scientific
> 
> 
> I agree, I can think of only 2 reasons for rejecting a paper, it's not
> important or it's not true.
> 

Lack of importance should not be a reason. What is unimportant to one
person, may be important to another. That is what abstracts were
invented for. The thing about editorial rejection is that it is based
on an editor deciding that the paper is not worth looking into.

Another good reason for rejecting the paper is that it has been done
before. Although, having said that, it could be worthwhile publishing
confirmations of experimental results by independent teams - I was
thinking more in terms of theoretical papers.

Another good reason is being out of scope. If I was the editor of the
(fictitious) Journal of Bees, then I would be quite right in rejecting a paper
about North Atlantic Salmon as being out of scope. Of course, Nature
and Science do have rather generous boundaries of scope, but even they
would be justified for rejecting a paper about creationist theory, for
example.

Physical Review has a stated policy that they will not consider papers
in the area of foundations of quantum mechanics. That's fine - its
quite clear, up front policy, about the scope of the journal. Other
journals exist to cover those areas.

> > Other papers, where there are doubts or confusion, should be subject to
> > the author adequately addressing the referees' criticisms.
> >
> 
> And that's how Nature dodged a bullet during the cold fusion fiasco. It's
> largely forgotten today but back in1989 soon after their notorious cold
> fusion press conference Pons and Fleischmann did submit a paper to Nature,
> and given that at the time Pons and Fleischmann were respected scientists
> and knowing the potential importance of it the editors put it on a fast
> track for publication; and In just a few days they received comments from
> the referees. They wanted more data confirming the cold fusion reaction,
> but even more important, they wanted clarification of the experimental
> setup. As described in the paper the experiment was so vague and nebulous
> it would be impossible for anyone to reproduce it. Pons and Fleischmann
> responded that they were busy and just did not have time to supply the
> requested data. They then withdrew the paper and got it published in a
> third rate journal few had heard of.
> 

This is an example of peer review working correctly. It is not an
example of the editorial rejection policy I was referring to.

> 
> 
> > > Furthermore, with Google, or Google Scholar, and arXiv, you don't need
> > the status of Nature or Science to make your article visible or cited.
> 
> 
> If you're satisfied with arXiv and don't want a endorsement from Nature or
> Science then what are you complaining about?
> 
>   John K Clark

Firstly, I'm not complaining about Nature and Science. I don't care
about them, and the status they supposedly confer. I'm complaining
about the editorial rejection policy (as opposed rejecting on the
basis of peer review), that seems to have crept into use in other
journals too.

Why am I not satisfied with arXiv? Mainly, because when peer review
works, it works well. The end result are papers that are improved over
the original draft published to arXiv, or are withdrawn from
publication because some fatal flaw has been discovered (or it was
thought of before, etc). I have always diligently acted as a peer
reviewer myself, when asked to, unless it was a paper completely out
of my area of expertise. A lot of academics don't do this, or do only
a lacklustre effort, because there is no credit for doing so, which is
a major part of the problem.

However, I have had recent experiences of sending papers to journal
after journal, and having them rejected with

Re: Scientific journals

[Craig Weinberg]

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 
> 
> > wrote:
>
> 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, so Nature and Science need to start publishing 
> some. 
>

There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky 
as modern cosmology. Our current understanding of nature is a way to make a 
lot of incompatible equations make sense by dismantling the reality of what 
those equations were supposed to describe.

 
>
>> > The same thing can be seen with universities, as the prestige brand 
>> institutions are elevated beyond the reach of anyone but the most 
>> overprepared students
>>
>
> Yes, Harvard Yale and Princeton need to start picking stupider students, 
> that will get the Enlightenment going again!
>

Being overprepared is not about being intelligent, it is about being well 
financed and well chaperoned. Just ask Yale alum, George W. Bush.

Craig

 

>
>   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 receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Richard Ruquist]

Their admissions standards have already tanked


On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:46 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> 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, so Nature and Science need to start publishing
> some.
>
>
>> > The same thing can be seen with universities, as the prestige brand
>> institutions are elevated beyond the reach of anyone but the most
>> overprepared students
>>
>
> Yes, Harvard Yale and Princeton need to start picking stupider students,
> that will get the Enlightenment going again!
>
>   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 receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[John Clark]

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

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, so Nature and Science need to start publishing some.


> > The same thing can be seen with universities, as the prestige brand
> institutions are elevated beyond the reach of anyone but the most
> overprepared students
>

Yes, Harvard Yale and Princeton need to start picking stupider students,
that will get the Enlightenment going again!

  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 receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[John Clark]

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

> 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 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; but getting published is one thing getting read is
something else. Space may not be a scarce resource but time certainly is,
nobody can read everything so good scientist look to high ranked journals
like Nature and Science to find the best stuff. It's true that you're
relying on the judgement of the editors but history have proven their
judgement is pretty damn good. And if you disagree with the editors
decision just publish it someplace else, just don't expect Science or
Nature to endorse it.

  >  papers should only be rejected for obvious scientific


I agree, I can think of only 2 reasons for rejecting a paper, it's not
important or it's not true.

> Other papers, where there are doubts or confusion, should be subject to
> the author adequately addressing the referees' criticisms.
>

And that's how Nature dodged a bullet during the cold fusion fiasco. It's
largely forgotten today but back in1989 soon after their notorious cold
fusion press conference Pons and Fleischmann did submit a paper to Nature,
and given that at the time Pons and Fleischmann were respected scientists
and knowing the potential importance of it the editors put it on a fast
track for publication; and In just a few days they received comments from
the referees. They wanted more data confirming the cold fusion reaction,
but even more important, they wanted clarification of the experimental
setup. As described in the paper the experiment was so vague and nebulous
it would be impossible for anyone to reproduce it. Pons and Fleischmann
responded that they were busy and just did not have time to supply the
requested data. They then withdrew the paper and got it published in a
third rate journal few had heard of.

The results were predictable, others tried to reproduce the experiment but
got no interesting results, Pons and Fleischmann said oh we forgot to
mention for it to work you must  do this and that. And so others would try
again with this new refinement and again they got nothing of interest and
again Pons and Fleischmann said oh we forgot to mention for it to work you
must also do that and this. After a few dozen iterations of this reputable
scientists, mindful that they were mortal and only had a finite number of
years to do science, grew tired of this silly game and moved on to other
more productive things. And now Pons and Fleischmann are no longer
respected scientists, but Nature is still a respected journal.


> > Furthermore, with Google, or Google Scholar, and arXiv, you don't need
> the status of Nature or Science to make your article visible or cited.


If you're satisfied with arXiv and don't want a endorsement from Nature or
Science then what are you complaining about?

  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 receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Russell Standish]

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 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 the first clause.

Secondly, it will take an enormous amount of effort to establish that
the research was in fact published first in Nature or Science, rather
than merely been cited there. It would involve reviewing all of the
thousands of journals out there (as historically, it is often the
second or third guy that thinks of an idea that gets the credit) to
see if anyone has published the idea in any form whatsoever. Its not
impossible - something like a Google Scholar scale of big data
computation will make it feasible, but it will require writing custom
tools, getting both of us to agree on the methodology, and well to be
frank - I have other things to do with my time.



> Those journals have not changed their policy in decades yet it's in them we
> first learned why the stars shine, that DNA contains the information in
> life and told us its shape and how it reproduced, told us about the
> existence of the neutron which led to nuclear bombs and power,  told us
> about the first animal to be cloned,  told us that continents moved, that a
> huge asteroid crashed into Mexico  66 million years ago, that most of the
> matter in existence is made of some strange invisible stuff, that neutrinos
> have mass and oscillate, that the universe is not only expanding but
> accelerating, that a quantum computer could factor numbers mush faster than
> a regular computer. All those big things were first published in Science or
> Nature, why is that going to change now that the world is awash in junk
> science articles?
> 

I don't know that your first claim is correct "Those journals have not
changed their policy in decades", but I do know that if "the world is
awash in junk science articles" now, and wasn't in the past, then it
is highly likely you'll need to change your policy to cope. Just like
we (almost) all use spam filters these days, but didn't 10 years ago.

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.

> 
> > > What's somewhat disturbing is that a lot of middle ranked journals are
> > now doing the same
> 
> 
> Because crappy articles vastly outnumber even mediocre articles, and there
> are not enough mediocre outside judges to read all the stuff that is sent
> to mediocre journals.
> 

Yes - and believe it or not, I've seen plenty of articles in Nature
that I would have rejected as obvious crap if I was refereeing the
papers. I don't recall having read much in Science, fo some reason,
and I don't recall having read a Nature article for about 10 years so
- most of the stuff I'm interested in appear in specialty journals,
although usually I read them from arXiv.  Peer review is hardly
perfect, but doing without it would probably be worse.

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 (which deals with most of the pseudo science rubbish,
actually), or for being off-topic (Science should quite rightly reject
humanities papers, for instance). Other papers, where there are doubts
or confusion, should be subject to the author adequately addressing
the referees' criticisms.

Furthermore, with Google, or Google Scholar, and arXiv, you don't need
the status of Nature or Science to make your article visible or
cited. Good science will get cited, no matter where it is published
(even arXiv articles get cited, where relevant). It does help for
visibility to "network, network, network", of course - present at
conferences, seek out scientific leaders and establish relationships,
and so on - all of which can be hard work, but I seriously doubt a
Nature or Science article will help.

Where it clearly does help is in applying for tenure. Universities
love the prestige that Nature or Science brings. But I don't think
that helps science as a whole to advance

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"E

Re: Scientific journals

[John Clark]

On Sun, Apr 7, 2013  Russell Standish  wrote:

> The top two journals have a policy of not even sending out half of their
> submissions to peer review.


Is it really only half? There are so many science articles written and so
many are crap I would have thought it was a lot higher than half; I guess
that by now most crackpots have learned not to even bother sending their
crap to Nature or Science.

> This editorial rejection rate reallmeans that the next big thing will
> almost certainly not be published in Science or Nature.


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.
Those journals have not changed their policy in decades yet it's in them we
first learned why the stars shine, that DNA contains the information in
life and told us its shape and how it reproduced, told us about the
existence of the neutron which led to nuclear bombs and power,  told us
about the first animal to be cloned,  told us that continents moved, that a
huge asteroid crashed into Mexico  66 million years ago, that most of the
matter in existence is made of some strange invisible stuff, that neutrinos
have mass and oscillate, that the universe is not only expanding but
accelerating, that a quantum computer could factor numbers mush faster than
a regular computer. All those big things were first published in Science or
Nature, why is that going to change now that the world is awash in junk
science articles?


> > What's somewhat disturbing is that a lot of middle ranked journals are
> now doing the same


Because crappy articles vastly outnumber even mediocre articles, and there
are not enough mediocre outside judges to read all the stuff that is sent
to mediocre journals.

  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 receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Scientific journals

[Craig Weinberg]

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 
> > 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; if you 
> > accept this bet before noon tomorrow on the east coast of the USA and if 
> > Science or Nature or Physical Review Letters publishes a positive 
> article 
> > about life after death before April 5 2014 I will give you $10,000, if 
> none 
> > of them do you only have to give me $100. But wait there's more! As a 
> > special bonus if you win not only will I give you $10,000 but I will 
> also 
> > kiss your ass and give you 10 minutes to gather a crowd. Operators are 
> > standing by, don't delay. 
> > 
>
> The top two journals have a policy of not even sending out half of 
> their submissions to peer review. This editorial rejection rate really 
> means that the next big thing will almost certainly not be published 
> in Science or Nature. Of course this leads to high impact factors for 
> those journals, as they're only publishing papers in established 
> "bandwagon" fields, with lots of people citing each other's papers. 
>
> What's somewhat disturbing is that a lot of middle ranked journals are 
> now doing the same 
>

This to me is revealing of the overall decline of science as tool of 
Enlightenment into it's corrupt, indulgence-selling era. The same thing can 
be seen with universities, as the prestige brand institutions are elevated 
beyond the reach of anyone but the most overprepared students from the 
wealthiest families, the value of a non-elite bachelor's degree level is 
falling beneath the level of the debt it incurs. The stage is now set for a 
kind of academic feudalism which is driven by careerism and accreditation 
rather than learning and understanding. The fallout of this is that no 
university can afford to support research outside of the bandwagon and 
science becomes little more than a clergy for corporate legal departments. 
Oh well, Western Civilization was a nice idea while it lasted.

Craig
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Scientific journals

[Russell Standish]

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 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; if you
> accept this bet before noon tomorrow on the east coast of the USA and if
> Science or Nature or Physical Review Letters publishes a positive article
> about life after death before April 5 2014 I will give you $10,000, if none
> of them do you only have to give me $100. But wait there's more! As a
> special bonus if you win not only will I give you $10,000 but I will also
> kiss your ass and give you 10 minutes to gather a crowd. Operators are
> standing by, don't delay.
> 

The top two journals have a policy of not even sending out half of
their submissions to peer review. This editorial rejection rate really
means that the next big thing will almost certainly not be published
in Science or Nature. Of course this leads to high impact factors for
those journals, as they're only publishing papers in established
"bandwagon" fields, with lots of people citing each other's papers.

What's somewhat disturbing is that a lot of middle ranked journals are
now doing the same - not sure about Phys Rev - articles from that
journal still appear on my to read list, but articles from Nature or
Science almost never do.

IIUC, PLoS One has a policy of peer reviewing everything that is
submitted to it, and publishing everything that passes basic
scientific principles. If a referee says "I think its wrong, but can't
figure out what is wrong", then it should still make sense to publish
it. Maybe someone else can figure out what is wrong. Possibly,
referees should be able to attach a comment to published papers
indicating potential problem with it, although usually that can be
handled by getting the author to add caveats and so on.

In my mind, this is a more mature approach to scientific
publishing. There is no need for scarcity of scientific publications,
it costs almost nothing to add the paper to the journal when its
online. And getting rid of the obvious rubbish does prove a benefit to
both the reader and the author. About 3-4 of my papers were rejected,
mostly because someone else published the same idea earlier, but in
one case was just plain wrong (whoopsies). And that's great. I can
just move on. When a paper is rejected for editorial reasons, however,
then I must then reformat and submit the paper for a different
journal, which gets plain tiresome. If I thought the paper was worth
publishing in the first place, then having a journal editor reject the
paper because it didn't satisfy er standards for being interesting,
does not change my initial opinion. Only someone pointing out flaws in
the paper, or pointing out that someone else got there first, can do that.
I'm starting to prefer sending my papers to journals that have that as
a policy. I haven't bothered sending articles to Nature or Science for
more than a decade, as its almost certainly just a waste of my time. I
wonder how many other scientists do the same.


So, yeah - I do think the next big thing will be published one of
these newer journals first with a low impact rating. Which one will be a bit
of a crap shoot, though :). Once it is recognised as a big thing, then
followup articles will start to appear in Nature and Science.

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.