Re: We All failed (regarding the definition of a crackpot)


AllYou! wrote:
> "Joe Fischer" <efischer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:7uoft1h61pkfrqapb3rln49g6otrq9o2dg@xxxxxxxxxx
> > On Wed, "AllYou!" <Idaman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >>Well, when I first came to this forum, I came for a better understanding of
> >>the
> >>subject matter. In doing so, I quickly found that I was expected to accept
> >>answers given and not challenge them. That's when that attacks got personal.
> >
> > If you want a better understanding, read a textbook,
> > and/or read popular expositions like "Was Einstein Right"
> > by Will (I think) and "An Old Man's Toy" by Anthony Zee.
> >
> >>So I found other ways to amuse myself for quite a while, but when I returned
> >>and
> >>began to engage others here, one of the *regulars* made it a point to respond
> >>to
> >>seek me out and interject himself into my conversations by calling me a
> >>*crackpot* and advising others not to waste their time with me.
> >
> > There are regulars here that think a casual study gives
> > them the knowledge to evaluate, and the subject is so complex
> > (except for the aggravating SR challenges) that no amount
> > of casual study will make an expert.
>
> So what? Let them flail about if you must. And if, purely by accident, they
> stumble upon a subject worthy of reply, then do so. Otherwise, let them alone.
>
> The thing you and some others here don't get is that this is a PUBLIC,
> unmoderated NG. It's for the general public, and not just the so-called
> experts. If the experts wanted a forum just for themselves, there are plenty of
> places to get it. But what you and your ilk want is a place to show off for the
> general public, while attacking those who have the temerity to challenge
> conventional wisdom. You can't justifiably have it both ways, yet you insist on
> doing so.

That depends. Science *as a process* is fairly well established,
indepedent of the content. That's the reason why the scientific method
is taught pretty much the same way to students of biology, physics,
chemistry, cognitive psychology, environmental science, and so on.

I agree that there is ample room for discussion on the *content* of
physics, expect on matters of observational fact.

I disagree that there is ample room for discussion on the effectiveness
of *how* we do science.

Most of the fur that flies around here have to do with "challenges to
conventional wisdom" that have misfired into erroneous claims about
either matters of observational fact or matters of how science should
be done. In such cases, the fur rightfully flies, even in a public
forum. One does not have to be a content expert in science to have due
respect for the process.

PD

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: We All failed (regarding the definition of a crackpot)
    ... If the experts wanted a forum just for themselves, ... That's the reason why the scientific method is taught pretty much the same way to students of biology, physics, chemistry, cognitive psychology, environmental science, and so on. ... science that deals with the notion that no observer can claim any priory over any other observer. ... matter what other conversations in which I may engage with others, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Behe book review: Pa. scientist again attacks evolution
    ... the world which we can all read on this forum. ... If science is unable to explain it then it isn't science, ... often by the creationists on ... causes whatever we observe in the material world helps us control or ...
    (talk.origins)
  • PUBLIC OPINION PLEASE FORCE PENETTA TO RESPOND APPROPRIATELLY
    ... reflection in science and moreover given supervision over science ... public lplain nopinions. ... I NEED TO WORK THESE FROM THE OTHER FORUM BUT THIS ONE IS TEMPORARILY ... I HAVE PROPERLY REQUESTED ACCESS TO THE PROPER ...
    (soc.culture.usa)
  • Re: the scientist article
    ... of the biologists end up in plain old jobs that just don't need ... Wave, the career discussion forum, ... graduate school, never experienced the pipeline, never will. ... science and they cited at least half a dozen sources including NSF ...
    (sci.research.careers)
  • Re: We All failed (regarding the definition of a crackpot)
    ... If the experts wanted a forum just for themselves, ... > chemistry, cognitive psychology, environmental science, and so on. ... It is therefore a false generalization to say that relativity says there is *no* reality, *no* one truth, *no* single factual observation. ... to the point that there simply cannot be any dispute as to what they are is arrogance, and to extend this arrogance to the point of justifying stalking and silencing behavior is fanatical. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)