Re: Are There Any Actual Physicists/Scientists Here?

In article <majif11kfa7k1nc3n2vgn8fgjrir57rqmu@xxxxxxx>,
Paul Stowe <ps@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:51:58 +0000 (UTC), glhansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Gregory
>L. Hansen) wrote:
>
>>In article <0q9gf1tgcn809cmpid384unmh50gion9jh@xxxxxxx>,
>>Paul Stowe <ps@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>On 8 Aug 2005 21:00:23 -0700, "Aydin" <gereka@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> I'll ask you a question, why does 'science' need protection?
>>> Is it not, by definition of its methods, self correcting? Thus
>>> self protecting. The world needs less thought police.
>>
>> Science doesn't need protection from scientists following the
>> methods of science.
>
> Right...
>
>> But then there's plenty of young Earth creationists, etc., that
>> go beyond scientific methods. And things like homeopathy that
>> has a direct impact on people's health, and various Hydrogen
>> Initiatives with economic and environmental impacts.
>
> As P.T. Barnum once said, "there's a sucker born every minute".
> And, IIRC, "a fool & his money are soon parted" etc., etc., etc...
>
> I'm sorry, but if you're of legal age, you have the right to
> make decisions for yourself. If you choose to think that God
> 'created' the universe in six days, or, that homeopathic medicine
> will cure your ills, well, more power to you, that IS your right.
> Nature & the facts won't bend to suit beliefs. If you're wrong
> then there are personal consequences that may arise. No-one has
> the right or a duty to decide that something should not, or must not,
> censored. And it is censorship more than anything else that is the
> ultimate in anti-science!

On the other hand, no one has the right or duty to decide that rebuttals
of irate scientists to cranks should be censored, either.

You haven't had any police men knocking on your door threatening to throw
you in jail if you keep writing about that aether stuff, have you? No?
Then don't talk to us about censoring. You haven't been censored. You've
been argued with. It's not the same thing.

>
>> In a sense that's more about protecting people than science.
>
> From what? Beliefs, ideas?

>From themselves or those in their care dying of curable diseases. From
tax dollars spent on initiatives that do more harm than good. From the
health hazards of certain foods and vices that people can't choose to do
something about if they don't have the information. From people that not
only choose to decide that God created the Earth in six days, but that
every school kid in the country should be taught so.

People buy magnets because they're told that they do everything from
curing arthritis to improving gas mileage. That's their own choice, but
they might make a different choice if someone reputable told them it
doesn't work.

>
>> And, perhaps, scientific funding.
>
> Ah, the bottom line, "follow the money"... True science is NEVER!
> about money.

That's a fine opinion from someone that can go to the library and get
other people's research for free. True science is NEVER! about the money,
except for the true science that wouldn't have been done without the
money. I'll bet you can think of a lot of examples. We all can. But, in
contrast to the magnet peddlers, that money was solicited by explaining
the virtues of the true science to people that care about true science
(e.g. taxpayers that are willing to fund a space telescope), and not by
spreading falsehoods and fraudulent promises.
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong."
-- Henry Louis Mencken
.