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


"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1138285855.213357.220690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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.

Funny you'd say that in a forum dedicated to the pursuit of the specific part of science that deals with the notion that no observer can claim any priory over any other observer. IOW, there is no reality, no one truth, and therefore, no single factual observation.

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


Even to the point of slandering those who disagree with you?


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.

You forget that this is a PUBLIC forum. Interesting that you didn't want to touch the following:

I go to the town square which is to be enjoyed by everyone, and I claim that
time isn't physical.  Someone walks by, takes issue with that comment, and
begins to debate me.  Are you saying that it's justifiable to slander me to the
person who engages me in a debate?  Are you saying that it's ethically
acceptable to attempt to convince that person not to talk to me because I'm not
qualified to make the statement I did?  Are you saying that if on the next day,
I'm speaking to someone about football, that because of what I said about time,
it's justifiable to slander me on that occasion as well?

Certainly, because it's a public forum, you can also make whatever comments you
wish about what I've said.  You can even give your opinion about my
qualifications.  But to tell others who wish to engage me that I'm not serious
in my beliefs and that I'm just trying to be argumentative, and to stalk me no
matter what other conversations in which I may engage with others, even if it's
not at all related to science, for the simple purpose of stifling me is not
morally or ethically justifiable.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SR theory is simplistic
    ... Science deals with observable, verifiable, identifiable phenomina. ... source and the observer and as it is impossible for the observer to ... the +/- operator when you are computing speeds as seen in the other FoR. ... Lorentz for the aether that Lorentz was trying to recessitate after MMX ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A preliminary look at Spoonerisms
    ... ethos of this 'science' as his ideology. ... forces on the observer a kind of bureaucracy of observation. ... What did Skinner ... Stimulus and Response." ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Does expansion predict a maximum redshift?
    ... Science has progressed beyond Leibniz what passed for science then ... science has been catching up to Leibniz: ... Frames of reference simply say "This is what the observer sees". ... That is true for Monadic hypothesis. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Bareknuckles Behaviorism
    ... >>peoples' habits. ... Behaviouralism in my view has less to do with science, ... about this observational judgment which detaches the observer from ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: A preliminary look at Spoonerisms
    ... ethos of this 'science' as his ideology. ... forces on the observer a kind of bureaucracy of observation. ... What did Skinner champion as the most important dependent variable? ... Discuss this in terms of his paper "On the Generic Nature of Stimulus and Response." ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)