Perhaps Vortex-L is a formative-science based discussion group. ;-) Harry google --> define: formative
*Research done to help create or improve a process or product. Contrasts with summative and process evaluation. www.audiencedialogue.org/gloss-eval.html *susceptible to alteration by development and experience; "formative years" *forming or capable of forming or molding or fashioning; "a formative influence"; "a formative experience" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Keith Nagel wrote: > Jed Writes: >> Since this is a science-based discussion group I wish that Revtec >> would do a little fact checking before posting messages -- even off >> topic ones -- that have gross factual errors. > > Talk about gross factual errors! Jed, this list is _not_ a science > based discussion list. I used to be under the same impression, until > I tool the time to actually read Bill's mission statement. Here's > the link, for your perusal. > > http://www.amasci.com/weird/vmore.html > > The document starts as so.. > > ************************************************************** > To put it bluntly, Vortex-L is a forum for "true believers." > ************************************************************** > > Regarding your comments about revtecs statement, consider this passage. > > *************************************************************** > So, on Vortex-L we intentionally suspend the disbelieving attitude of > those who believe in the stereotypical "scientific method." > *************************************************************** > > Nowhere in the document do I find language which clearly states > that this is a science oriented discussion list. What I do find > are specific passages such as > > **************************************************************** > Vortex-L is for those who see great value in removing their usual mental > filters by provisionally accepting the validity of "impossible" phenomena > in order to test them. > > So, on Vortex-L we intentionally suspend the disbelieving attitude of > those who believe in the stereotypical "scientific method." While this > does leave us open to the great personal embarrassment of falling for > hoaxes and delusional thinking, we tolerate this problem in our quest to > consider ideas and phenomena which would otherwise be rejected out of hand > without a fair hearing. > ****************************************************************** > > If I'm off base here, perhaps the moderator needs to clarify some things. > But his writings here seem pretty clear to me. > > K. >
