Notices
Results 1 to 78 of 78
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By TheObserver
  • 1 Post By Halliday

Thread: Class Clown Becomes Scientist

  1. #1 Class Clown Becomes Scientist 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Hi. Hector Decimal here. I notice this editor is equation friendly a bit. Cool!

    How many pics can I upload to the attachment manager? Will it work to use text sized jpgs to supplement the text?

    Are there any waiting restrictions to link to artciles?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    I suppose I didn't elaborate on that I was a class clown. That hasn't changed a lot, but I occasionally have a serious moment. (Promptly slap myself back into silliness so I can handle all the ugliness of the world) I began as a Mechanical Engineer. Specifically an aircraft designer, then became an astrophysicist. I like meaningful conversation with respect, but so often I find it grows into an exchange of conflict where someone and I are accusing each other of being non-scientists. About that time I let Bozo loose.

    I truly hope that doesn't hapen here. I have my methods, whether rigidly scientific or a bit raq tag, they get results. Mostly I'm an inventor and when I actually get something prototyped, it may have enough duct tape and aluminum foil on it to make "Red Green" go bug eyed (PBS) but it usually works... at least for a while.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    You are not a scientist.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    I enjoy science as fun. I enjoy being independent. That way I'm away from the food chain and can carry out research without some megalomaniac in the picture and without the need to submit to reviewers who are unqualified to review my work. I find I get more accomplished that way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    I enjoy science as fun. I enjoy being independent. That way I'm away from the food chain and can carry out research without some megalomaniac in the picture and without the need to submit to reviewers who are unqualified to review my work. I find I get more accomplished that way.
    As DaBob said, that is not the description of a scientist. Team work, reviews, ... that is part of the scientific process.

    Who is the megalomaniac you are worried about? What "food chain"?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Which of the following are/were scientists?

    1. Albert Einstein
    2. Walt Disney
    3. Leonardo DaVinci
    4. John Dobson
    5. David Levy
    6. Robert Oppenheimer
    7. James C. Maxwell
    8. Michael Faraday
    9. Dr. David Charbonneau
    10. Dr. Dan Q. Posin
    11. Roger Penrose
    12. James Bridger
    13. Dr. Benjamin Franklin
    14. Nikola Tesla
    15. Dr. Philo T. Farnsworth
    16. Democritus
    17. Leon Lederman
    18. David Letterman
    19. Andy Koffman
    20. Holbrook L. Horton
    21. Thomas Edison
    22. Henry Ford
    23. Galileo
    24. Johnanes Kepler
    25. Niels Bohr
    26. Bertrand Russell
    27. Phil McGraw
    28. Sigmund Freud
    29. Darwin
    30. Dr. Leonard Susskind

    Select those you believe to be scientists. Explain briefly why, then of your choices, choose the one you favor as best and explain why.

    I'll give my opinions later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Which of the following are/were scientists?
    Why? What point are you trying to make?

    Also, I have no idea who half those people are.

    Is one of them The Megalomaniac?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    1. Albert Einstein
    6. Robert Oppenheimer
    7. James C. Maxwell
    8. Michael Faraday
    11. Roger Penrose
    17. Leon Lederman
    23. Galileo
    24. Johnanes Kepler
    25. Niels Bohr
    29. [Charles] Darwin
    30. Dr. Leonard Susskind

    Why? Because they do science!
    The best? Meaningless.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    I enjoy science as fun. I enjoy being independent. That way I'm away from the food chain and can carry out research without some megalomaniac in the picture and without the need to submit to reviewers who are unqualified to review my work. I find I get more accomplished that way.
    As DaBob said, that is not the description of a scientist. Team work, reviews, ... that is part of the scientific process.

    Who is the megalomaniac you are worried about? What "food chain"?
    He did not say "that is not the description of a scientist." The typical description of the scientific process is not scientific. Teamwork and reviews are beneficial, but imagine you are stranded on an island with a couple others that simply hate you for something you said on the vessel from which you are castaways. Let's say in civilization you hold a BSc in chemistry. The two who hate you hold degrees in business and another is a certified EMT. As a person trying to survive, you likely have the best chance. You know better, but the other two tell you are full of manure. Where's you team? You are obviously being reviewed by those unqualified to give you any critique at all. Worse yet, let's say the MBA has recovered a chest of reagents and glassware you claim was yours but the MBA says "Finders keepers."

    Are you a scientist on that island? Are all suddenly thrown into the role of discovery? The EMT is the first to recognize a food bearing tree or plant. The MBA has discovered a rock that appears to be flint. Who is now the scientist? Who has rights to their discovery?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    1. Albert Einstein
    6. Robert Oppenheimer
    7. James C. Maxwell
    8. Michael Faraday
    11. Roger Penrose
    17. Leon Lederman
    23. Galileo
    24. Johnanes Kepler
    25. Niels Bohr
    29. [Charles] Darwin
    30. Dr. Leonard Susskind

    Why? Because they do science!
    The best? Meaningless.
    You mentioned two astronomers.

    Dr. David Charbonneau is a noted astronomer.
    Leonardo DaVinci is the father of Scientific Perspective and many aspects of engineering. He used chemistry and created his own paints.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post

    You mentioned two astronomers.

    Dr. David Charbonneau is a noted astronomer.
    I would probably include him then.

    Leonardo DaVinci is the father of Scientific Perspective
    Is he? In what way?

    I would probably go for Francis Bacon as one of the first people to make major contributions to the scientific method.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post

    You mentioned two astronomers.

    Dr. David Charbonneau is a noted astronomer.
    I would probably include him then.

    Leonardo DaVinci is the father of Scientific Perspective
    Is he? In what way?

    I would probably go for Francis Bacon as one of the first people to make major contributions to the scientific method.
    DaVinci demonstrated the first step away from naive art by including the horizon, eye level, vanishing points, etc. into perspective drawing. We also see his studies of birds in flight, and the "Vesuvian Man" is the standard image that reflects anatomy in medicine. Of course we could debate whether the medical arts qualify MD's as scientists.

    MODERN scientific process is suffocating. Anything that stifles creativity, innovation and imagination can hardly be considered a definition of "scientific."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Or it weeds out the wackos...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    DaVinci demonstrated the first step away from naive art by including the horizon, eye level, vanishing points, etc. into perspective drawing. We also see his studies of birds in flight, and the "Vesuvian Man" is the standard image that reflects anatomy in medicine. Of course we could debate whether the medical arts qualify MD's as scientists.
    I don't really see changes in art as anything much to do with sceince.

    Anything that stifles creativity, innovation and imagination can hardly be considered a definition of "scientific."
    It is a good job that science doesn't do any of those things then.

    I assume it would be too stifling of your creativity, innovation and imagination to ask for evidence for this view?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Or it weeds out the wackos...
    Warning Science - Calif. HS student finds possible cancer cure


    Apparently it didn't weed out this wacko...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Or it weeds out the wackos...
    Warning Science - Calif. HS student finds possible cancer cure


    Apparently it didn't weed out this wacko...
    What is "wacko" about a young student doing some useful scientific research?

    Story here, if anyone interested: Calif. HS student devises possible cancer cure - CBS News

    Note that she built on previous work, cooperated with others and says that work will have to be tested and rviewed before it is shown to be useful. Quite scientific of her...
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    DaVinci demonstrated the first step away from naive art by including the horizon, eye level, vanishing points, etc. into perspective drawing. We also see his studies of birds in flight, and the "Vesuvian Man" is the standard image that reflects anatomy in medicine. Of course we could debate whether the medical arts qualify MD's as scientists.
    I don't really see changes in art as anything much to do with sceince.

    Anything that stifles creativity, innovation and imagination can hardly be considered a definition of "scientific."
    It is a good job that science doesn't do any of those things then.

    I assume it would be too stifling of your creativity, innovation and imagination to ask for evidence for this view?

    Not at all, but I think it deserves a thread of its own. Funny how a simple intro thread, where besically the subject is one scientist's personality, eccentric or otherwise, has already proved quite proliferous.

    How's about if we work through this and reason through this "weed patch" idea?

    Does the sceintific process involve following instruction?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Does the sceintific process involve following instruction?
    Partly. Doesn't everything?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Does the sceintific process involve following instruction?
    Partly. Doesn't everything?
    Not at all. Now I presented my elements of this discussion in 2 forms. A poll and an analogy. Would you want your potential projects reviewed and answered the same way you answered my examples? The list of scientists? You failed to follow the simple instructions. How would you grade a student who answered the questions like that?

    The analogy in post #9, you didn't answer at all. How would you grade your student on that treatment of the material given to discuss?

    Would you want your proposal reviewed by someone who managed to get by a class without doing the work? How is any of that different here?


    Are the Modern Scientific and Review Processes Killing INnovation and Maybe Even More Than That?

    There is a thread that offers some examples of how this type of review does harm to mankind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    BTW, Strange,

    Remember "confirmational bias?" Don't you think you have chosen to give the impression of siding with those who base their opinions on exactly such confirmational bias? They drew conclusions based upon what they decided was there instead of what really IS there. Would we define them as "professors" based upon such behavior?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Or it weeds out the wackos...

    Whoooooops!!! Missed another coupls wackos...

    As recounted on the blog Epidemix, the story starts with Godfrey Hounsfield, a researcher at EMI back in the 1950s. Although it's a (somewhat struggling) major record label today, EMI--which stands for Electrical and Musical Industries*--was once an industrial research company. Hounsfield did some pioneering work on computers, helping to build the first all-transistor computer, but the division wasn't profitable for EMI and the company sold its computer business in 1962...right when it signed The Beatles. His standing was good enough with the company that they let him conduct independent research with funding from the Beatles' string of massive successes in the 1960s. He went on to invent the CT scanner, which EMI first released in 1972, and shared the 1979 Nobel Prize for medicine for his invention.


    How the Beatles funded the CT scan | Digital Noise: Music and Tech - CNET News
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Just cause you are doing something scientific doesn't mean you are a scientist...

    I put books on my shelf, I'm not a librarian.
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    Just cause you are doing something scientific doesn't mean you are a scientist...

    I put books on my shelf, I'm not a librarian.

    What, in your opinion, defines a scientist? Is your opinon the only one that counts?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Ha, what have I started? I would apologize Hector, but it seems you are enjoying yourself, in your own scientific way.

    A scientist is probably someone who attempts to give meaning to the natural world through observation and experimentation. Kind of like religion.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    What, in your opinion, defines a scientist?
    Presumably it would be a person. Perhaps he would write it down in a book.
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Is your opinon the only one that counts?
    To me? Yes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB View Post
    Ha, what have I started? I would apologize Hector, but it seems you are enjoying yourself, in your own scientific way.

    A scientist is probably someone who attempts to give meaning to the natural world through observation and experimentation. Kind of like religion.
    DaBOB,

    I've always considered that amends are more important than apologies. What good is lip service to a wound? (Well... maybe a snake bite... )


    Although I think a true scientist is more than that, you have touched on an important aspect that defines many people as scientists. Why not work through that list? In fact let's add some to it.

    31. Isaac Asimov
    32. Michael Crichton
    33. Arthur C. Clark
    34. Andy Warhol
    35. Leo Teller

    Pleased to meet you. As for the thread? I'm just answering posts, getting to know people and hopefiully starting soem thought provoking discussions. I like to avoid flaming and the likes of such. If we are scientists, or science enthusiasts, we should be showing the planet that we are a little biit above the average blood thirst...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    What, in your opinion, defines a scientist?
    Presumably it would be a person. Perhaps he would write it down in a book.




    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Is your opinon the only one that counts?
    To me? Yes.


    Sounds like "Exanaplanatooch." On that planet sung about in "Hair," everyone's a scientist, philosopher, no government. Just happiness and love...

    Not so bad though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Earthmed.jpg RedRocksMur1med.jpg There are a couple examples of my projects from the 12 x 16 acrylic of the Earth to a 90 ft x 35 ft mural of the Red Rocks Amphitheatre.

    That's to say I have a good eye for depth and apply it to the stars and planets, yet do reasonably well without a team. Science is the same way. By science I mean simply that studies of knowledge and performing experiments in actually quite a few different areas. I am planning some work in the medical areas that involve electromagnetism. Most of it isn't that expensive materials-wise, but time consuming to make prototypes. At the same time I continue on with theoretical work and other small scale experiments to support or dismiss some aspect.


    Here's a question in simple physics:

    If I make 15 liters of Jello in a 10 ga stainless pot, pour 1 liter into smaller 10 ga stainless molds, ranging from .05 liter to .3 liter, and put all in the same cooler at the same time, which will turn into fully gelled Jello first? I would think this answer would be obvious. I've tested this. One needs a lot of whipped cream to do this experiment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    A little of my background was asked for so this is just that. It seems an intro thread is a good place for biography.



    MUR2.jpg Not any serious science, but this was the most practical solution to bricking in a window where a bucket would have been difficult to access in a bucket.

    MUR3.jpg At the sacrifice of expedience, this eliminated the need for a bucket.

    Current project is this

    cloud1small1.jpg This intends to use an optical system to either use in conjunction with that little gizmo in my avatar to produce power, likely backed up with wind power, at best, it will support some different research for a likely new concept in propulsion. At worst it will have a light amplification core optic system and a storage battery system. In that, much of it is off the shelf hardware. The legs in the picture are the outer sleeve of a telescoping support that can have a variety of options for the inner sleeve. The equipment is ultimately enclosed in a .30 aluminum cage to house equipment. That's on the front burner.


    I have some other prostheses and aid prototypes fro the medical industry going on, intended for further research and devcelopment.

    I've worked in a wide variety of contracted engineering positions in the past, rebuilt vans and street vehicles + paint, murals et al. A lot of military work I still hold sensitive in some ways. Studied gravity and the mechanics of stars for over 40 years. Painted, wired and erected signs for 20 years to fund my work. I've had some success with relatively low power applications deforming chaotic plasma arcs with magnetic fields. Some of that should be considered sensitive. Optical "magic"? It's all done with mirrors... and diodes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Oh! I designed a laser projection system for a soft drink manufacturer once intended to project and image from the ground on earth onto the new moon's surface. I think it would have failed or been very dangerous if successful. It would have been an interesting project, but to do it right, the projector would better be stationed in space.

    laserstation3g.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Honestly don't see an science in that artwork. Engineering perhaps.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Honestly don't see an science in that artwork. Engineering perhaps.
    Hmmm... I think I mentioned these were not really scientific in nature. The last is likely design engineering. Most of any work to date in science is either theoretical or modestlly documented image-wise. That will change this spring and spring seems to be on short order here. The cage is engineering, but there's science behind the design. Same as the last image. The laser station in space involves a balance of engineering from the material strengths issue, launch-ability perspective and science from the optics and thermodynamics perspective especially.

    I think, though, we are still begging to ask "What constitutes science?"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Which of the following are/were scientists?
    .
    Scientists:
    1. Albert Einstein
    6. Robert Oppenheimer
    7. James C. Maxwell
    8. Michael Faraday
    11. Roger Penrose
    23. Galileo
    24. Johnanes Kepler
    25. Niels Bohr
    29. Darwin
    30. Dr. Leonard Susskind

    Why? Because they practice or practiced science.


    Not Scientists:
    2. Walt Disney
    18. David Letterman
    26. Bertrand Russell
    28. Sigmund Freud
    Why? They didn't practice science.

    Never heard of them:
    4. John Dobson
    5. David Levy
    9. Dr. David Charbonneau
    10. Dr. Dan Q. Posin
    12. James Bridger
    17. Leon Lederman
    19. Andy Koffman
    20. Holbrook L. Horton
    27. Phil McGraw

    Engineers:

    14. Nikola Tesla
    22. Henry Ford
    21. Thomas Edison

    Why? It should be obvious, but I'll explain if required.

    Almost Scientists, but practicing too early or inappropriately to merit the title
    3. Leonardo DaVinci
    13. Dr. Benjamin Franklin
    16. Democritus


    In respect of your desert island analogy, it suffers the weakness of many analogies: it falls to pieces when confronted with the real world. Your hypothetical situation is not repeated in the real world and so does constitute an meaningful way of establishing or illustrating the constraints on science, or its definition.

    MODERN scientific process is suffocating. Anything that stifles creativity, innovation and imagination can hardly be considered a definition of "scientific."
    You need first to demonstrate that the modern scientific process is suffocating. Given that the rate of increase in knowledge and scientists increases year on year this will prove difficult for you. Secondly no definition of the scientific process that I am aware of makes mention of creativity, innovation or imagination. I wait with interest to see you produce defnitions that do.

    Were you claiming these individuals as scientists?
    31. Isaac Asimov
    32. Michael Crichton
    33. Arthur C. Clark
    34. Andy Warhol
    35. Leo Teller

    Azimov and Clark both were scientists at one point, but not through the bulk of their careers.
    Crichton may or may not have a science degree, but he certainly does not do science. some might consider him anti-science.
    and surely I do not need to comment on the No and Yes for the last two.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Not at all.
    What human activities don't involve rules of some sort?

    Now I presented my elements of this discussion in 2 forms. A poll and an analogy. Would you want your potential projects reviewed and answered the same way you answered my examples? The list of scientists? You failed to follow the simple instructions. How would you grade a student who answered the questions like that?
    Gosh. I didn't realise it was a test. I thought this was a discussion forum.

    But then you didn't answer my question ("what point are you trying to make?") so zero points.

    The analogy in post #9, you didn't answer at all.
    I didn't think it deserved any comment, to be honest. It seems to be about argument from authority and I couldn't see what it has to do with science.

    How would you grade your student on that treatment of the material given to discuss?
    Well, I suppose if I found myself with students I would know Hell was real.

    Would you want your proposal reviewed by someone who managed to get by a class without doing the work?
    What proposal? What are you talking about?

    How is any of that different here?
    Because it's a discussion forum and not your lecture hall?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Which of the following are/were scientists?
    .
    Scientists:
    1. Albert Einstein
    6. Robert Oppenheimer
    7. James C. Maxwell
    8. Michael Faraday
    11. Roger Penrose
    23. Galileo
    24. Johnanes Kepler
    25. Niels Bohr
    29. Darwin
    30. Dr. Leonard Susskind

    Why? Because they practice or practiced science.


    Not Scientists:
    2. Walt Disney
    18. David Letterman
    26. Bertrand Russell
    28. Sigmund Freud
    Why? They didn't practice science.

    Never heard of them:
    4. John Dobson
    5. David Levy
    9. Dr. David Charbonneau
    10. Dr. Dan Q. Posin
    12. James Bridger
    17. Leon Lederman
    19. Andy Koffman
    20. Holbrook L. Horton
    27. Phil McGraw

    Engineers:

    14. Nikola Tesla
    22. Henry Ford
    21. Thomas Edison

    Why? It should be obvious, but I'll explain if required.

    Almost Scientists, but practicing too early or inappropriately to merit the title
    3. Leonardo DaVinci
    13. Dr. Benjamin Franklin
    16. Democritus


    In respect of your desert island analogy, it suffers the weakness of many analogies: it falls to pieces when confronted with the real world. Your hypothetical situation is not repeated in the real world and so does constitute an meaningful way of establishing or illustrating the constraints on science, or its definition.

    MODERN scientific process is suffocating. Anything that stifles creativity, innovation and imagination can hardly be considered a definition of "scientific."
    You need first to demonstrate that the modern scientific process is suffocating. Given that the rate of increase in knowledge and scientists increases year on year this will prove difficult for you. Secondly no definition of the scientific process that I am aware of makes mention of creativity, innovation or imagination. I wait with interest to see you produce defnitions that do.

    Were you claiming these individuals as scientists?
    31. Isaac Asimov
    32. Michael Crichton
    33. Arthur C. Clark
    34. Andy Warhol
    35. Leo Teller

    Azimov and Clark both were scientists at one point, but not through the bulk of their careers.
    Crichton may or may not have a science degree, but he certainly does not do science. some might consider him anti-science.
    and surely I do not need to comment on the No and Yes for the last two.
    Wow! What I found amazing is that you basically followed directions. I did not mention DESERT island, still, realistic or not, the point is that the Chemist truly has the best chance at survival.

    Your opinions of the list of famous and not so famous people is interesting. I should have added Carl Sagan in there as well. Some of the ones you weren't aware of were David Levy of the Shoemaker-Levy Comet discovery, John Dobson is a well known astronomer, Faraday had no schooling to speak of, Dr. Charbonneau is an astronomer, Bertrand Russell is regarded as an important figure in pure mathematics. That last one is interesting because we could debate whether math is a science or pure math especially. My thoughts are that pure math stands alone, where science needs a host or it doesn't stand at all.

    The scientific process has different meanings to different scientific circles. Some would say, by the definition many accept of the scientific process, Einstein was not a scientist, but Oppenheimer was and for most of Oppy's career he worked as a scientific administrator at Los Alamos. Teller, considered the father of the hydrogen bomb, worked under him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Faraday had no schooling to speak of
    So what?

    That last one is interesting because we could debate whether math is a science or pure math especially.
    We could, but it isn't.

    Einstein was not a scientist
    Who on earth could say that?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Faraday had no schooling to speak of
    So what?

    That last one is interesting because we could debate whether math is a science or pure math especially.
    We could, but it isn't.

    Einstein was not a scientist
    Who on earth could say that?
    Strange,

    You need some charm.

    WHy would you take the comment about Einstein out of context like that? It is not Einstein as a scientist that is truly in question, but the scientific process in its definition.


    It is likely true that math is not a science, but what consitues science? The scientific process has almost as many definitions as there are net-users that care to postulate their opinions about it.

    As for Faraday, most don't consider him a scientist because he didn't jive with the "scientific process." I have encountered this opinion more than once. I see him as a genius whose work is a requirement for us to have even had the first Honeywell or IBM computers. We would not be exchanging views on this forum had it not been for his genius.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    I've never understood the meaning of "lip service." Is it like saying there is movement of the mouth, but it is without feeling? As in serving with the lips but not the heart?
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    WHy would you take the comment about Einstein out of context like that? It is not Einstein as a scientist that is truly in question, but the scientific process in its definition.
    I'm just curious who might claim he was not a scientist, and why. In context, what you said was:
    Some would say, by the definition many accept of the scientific process, Einstein was not a scientist...
    I'm who "some" are and what aspects of the scientific method they would use to justify this. As you made the statement, I hoped you might have some insight into this.

    As for Faraday, most don't consider him a scientist because he didn't jive with the "scientific process." I have encountered this opinion more than once.
    Again, I'm surprised bby that. A quick google brings up page titles like "super scientist" and "pioneer scientist", and even Wikipedia says, "one of the most influential scientists in history".

    So, again, I am curious about who says he is not a scientist and which bits of the scientific method they would use to justify this.

    I see him as a genius whose work is a requirement for us to have even had the first Honeywell or IBM computers. We would not be exchanging views on this forum had it not been for his genius.
    Indeed. And, of course, there is a straight line from his work to Einstein's development of relativity.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Wow! What I found amazing is that you basically followed directions.
    Just a 'heads up' for you: this statement and several others within this thread make you sound patronising. If that was not your intent you might wish to modify your style.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    I did not mention DESERT island, still, realistic or not, the point is that the Chemist truly has the best chance at survival.
    You may be being somewhat pedantic here. In cliche mode castaways are always stranded on desert islands. Given the unrealisitc nature of your analogy it seemed appropriate to include the cliche. The survival possibilities of the chemist have nothing to do with the practice of science.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Some of the ones you weren't aware of were David Levy of the Shoemaker-Levy Comet discovery, John Dobson is a well known astronomer,
    I had no idea (and even less interest) that Levy's first name is David. If Dobson was a well known astronomer then I would have heard of him. I'm guessing he was the inventor of the Dobsonian mount for astronomical telescopes.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Faraday had no schooling to speak of, Dr. Charbonneau is an astronomer, Bertrand Russell is regarded as an important figure in pure mathematics. That last one is interesting because we could debate whether math is a science or pure math especially. My thoughts are that pure math stands alone, where science needs a host or it doesn't stand at all.
    as others have noted Faraday's lack of schooling is irrelevant. Maths is not a science. I see little to debate. It it a tool of science, it is the language of science, but it is not science.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    The scientific process has different meanings to different scientific circles. Some would say, by the definition many accept of the scientific process, Einstein was not a scientist, but Oppenheimer was and for most of Oppy's career he worked as a scientific administrator at Los Alamos. Teller, considered the father of the hydrogen bomb, worked under him.
    Like Strange I would be interested to hear who these people are that do not think Einstein was a scientist. They would appear to belong to a class of individuals who are unable to distinguish between theoretical science and experimental science. On this basis are you claiming Hoyle was not a scientist? (Your comments on Teller and Oppenheimer do not have any obvious relevance, other than name dropping. If you intended a lesson be learnt from those comments you will need to expand on them.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Like Strange I would be interested to hear who these people are that do not think Einstein was a scientist. They would appear to belong to a class of individuals who are unable to distinguish between theoretical science and experimental science.
    The "theoretical vs experimental" argument occurred to me as I was running through all the reasons why Einstein was certainly a scientist. Some people do seem to think that if you can't perform a lab experiment then it isn't science (this argument is typically used by people with Creationism and similar mental defects).

    But then Faraday was almost entirely an experimentalist so you would have to turn the argument around at that point.

    I suppose it would have to be different groups claiming each was "not a scientist" - in one case because it was "just" theory, and in the other because it was theoretical enough. But I would have to assume that, in both cases, they were motivated by some other (non-scientific or anti-scientific) agenda.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB View Post
    I've never understood the meaning of "lip service." Is it like saying there is movement of the mouth, but it is without feeling? As in serving with the lips but not the heart?
    In a sense, yes. It means, generally, that a person can apologize easily many times and keep doing the same thing over and over, never changing. Yes, there is nothing that lasts in the heart.

    I was actually just trying to joke around by mentioning the snake bite thing...


    I suppose in these forums it relates to bullying. IO doubt if the net was around in 1900, that Einstein would have lasted very long. His ideas were so different, as were his methods, that he would have been bullied into a ban most everywhere he went.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    WHy would you take the comment about Einstein out of context like that? It is not Einstein as a scientist that is truly in question, but the scientific process in its definition.
    I'm just curious who might claim he was not a scientist, and why. In context, what you said was:
    Some would say, by the definition many accept of the scientific process, Einstein was not a scientist...
    I'm who "some" are and what aspects of the scientific method they would use to justify this. As you made the statement, I hoped you might have some insight into this.

    As for Faraday, most don't consider him a scientist because he didn't jive with the "scientific process." I have encountered this opinion more than once.
    Again, I'm surprised bby that. A quick google brings up page titles like "super scientist" and "pioneer scientist", and even Wikipedia says, "one of the most influential scientists in history".

    So, again, I am curious about who says he is not a scientist and which bits of the scientific method they would use to justify this.

    I see him as a genius whose work is a requirement for us to have even had the first Honeywell or IBM computers. We would not be exchanging views on this forum had it not been for his genius.
    Indeed. And, of course, there is a straight line from his work to Einstein's development of relativity.
    I couldn't agree with you ot even the google search more. I find the man a fascinating source of genius. He had a multi-dimensional mind and it could even be said that the "straight line" goes on from Einstein to string theory, but I tend to think the line fasiculates at that point.

    I've been to scientific forums and others where he is regarded as less than an engineer even. Many out there rigidly adhere to the mainstream idea of the scientific process. Not all scientists subscribe to it. It doen't make them any less of a scientist just because they don't belong to a team.

    As for teams, they can be nice. They can also divide the meaning of an idea beyond recognition to the origninal mind that came up with it. Sometimes they are very successful, sometimes thay fail miserably. An independent mind may consort, but in the end he or she will take full responsibility for success or failure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Wow! What I found amazing is that you basically followed directions.
    Just a 'heads up' for you: this statement and several others within this thread make you sound patronising. If that was not your intent you might wish to modify your style.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    I did not mention DESERT island, still, realistic or not, the point is that the Chemist truly has the best chance at survival.
    You may be being somewhat pedantic here. In cliche mode castaways are always stranded on desert islands. Given the unrealisitc nature of your analogy it seemed appropriate to include the cliche. The survival possibilities of the chemist have nothing to do with the practice of science.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Some of the ones you weren't aware of were David Levy of the Shoemaker-Levy Comet discovery, John Dobson is a well known astronomer,
    I had no idea (and even less interest) that Levy's first name is David. If Dobson was a well known astronomer then I would have heard of him. I'm guessing he was the inventor of the Dobsonian mount for astronomical telescopes.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Faraday had no schooling to speak of, Dr. Charbonneau is an astronomer, Bertrand Russell is regarded as an important figure in pure mathematics. That last one is interesting because we could debate whether math is a science or pure math especially. My thoughts are that pure math stands alone, where science needs a host or it doesn't stand at all.
    as others have noted Faraday's lack of schooling is irrelevant. Maths is not a science. I see little to debate. It it a tool of science, it is the language of science, but it is not science.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    The scientific process has different meanings to different scientific circles. Some would say, by the definition many accept of the scientific process, Einstein was not a scientist, but Oppenheimer was and for most of Oppy's career he worked as a scientific administrator at Los Alamos. Teller, considered the father of the hydrogen bomb, worked under him.
    Like Strange I would be interested to hear who these people are that do not think Einstein was a scientist. They would appear to belong to a class of individuals who are unable to distinguish between theoretical science and experimental science. On this basis are you claiming Hoyle was not a scientist? (Your comments on Teller and Oppenheimer do not have any obvious relevance, other than name dropping. If you intended a lesson be learnt from those comments you will need to expand on them.)

    Nothing patronizing at all was meant. Many many people do not follow instructions. I seek mentors as much as to mentor. Wouldn't you want to test the one's you choose to respect a bit for diving into their content boldly? Clowning around? Yes. Patronizing? No.

    The Dobsonian mount would be correct. He is on PBS periodically. Levy has quite a few books out on astronomy. He is, nonetheless, an amateur. Still, so was Chandler, the discoverer of the Chandler Wobble.

    The list was to see what you guys know a bit and to see if you guys could follow directionss. I'm told I'm from "the old school." I dont' deny that. It means quite a bit that I learned with books and turned in assignments on notebook paper, noit a laptop. I earned my BScME in 1974 through the Armed Forces Education Service (UNiv. of Maryland then, though they have most any college now from what I understand.) The island situation was from an older edition of Organic Chemistry by Morrison and Boyd. In my own words and with some relevant added characters, still not Gilligan...

    I've actually ended up being banned from places for essentially defending Einstein as a scientist to those who have the nerve to say he is meaningless. UNfortunately, I can't go back to those groups to show you guys the mess and even if I did, those are likely all deleted, and why would I want to? Occasionally some member emails me for soem information, usually about my flare predictions. I usually oblige. I have a thread in here that wants to discuss trolling and the personality disorders that accompany it. That's in Psychology and Behavior.

    By that token of comparison, Yes, I'm amazed. We are basically getting along here. I tease people a bit, but I rarely say anything intended to outright hurt someone's feelings. I don't like it when it's done to me, so why would I think anyone else would enjoy it?

    Post #29 has a faceted sphere I'm getting ready to build this spring. I hope to use it for some experimentation in fringe areas. At worst it will be a boat and generator combined, so if there is some really nasty flare, my electronics won't end up toast.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Like Strange I would be interested to hear who these people are that do not think Einstein was a scientist. They would appear to belong to a class of individuals who are unable to distinguish between theoretical science and experimental science.
    The "theoretical vs experimental" argument occurred to me as I was running through all the reasons why Einstein was certainly a scientist. Some people do seem to think that if you can't perform a lab experiment then it isn't science (this argument is typically used by people with Creationism and similar mental defects).

    But then Faraday was almost entirely an experimentalist so you would have to turn the argument around at that point.

    I suppose it would have to be different groups claiming each was "not a scientist" - in one case because it was "just" theory, and in the other because it was theoretical enough. But I would have to assume that, in both cases, they were motivated by some other (non-scientific or anti-scientific) agenda.
    In mentioning "agenda" I think you touched on a major point. Some are simply bullies.

    Not all creationist types in the world are proselytizing, but many are very far off. It is one thing to use science to prove or disprove ID or creationist views. It's another to do that in reverse. Remember that "confirmational bias?" One has to believe in something even to take it to experimental levels, unfortunately some dismiss what is correct to support that bias. I don't do that. Atheists are tougher to get to accept what is correct than some theists. Science, though, should be held in a "theo-anaesthetic" status. Atheism has been ruled in America to be a religion, so it can no longer hug science as its "savior."

    One thing... I have mentioned all that so you get an idea of some of the mindsets I've encountered. I come to a science forum to learn, to teach what I already know, discuss ideas and to socialize a bit. I certainly didn't join here to discuss religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Atheism has been ruled in America to be a religion, so it can no longer hug science as its "savior."
    How can that be? And ruled by whom? Have they also decided that not playing football is a sport?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    BTW, I found some of that paragraph very hard to follow (maybe I am being a bit slow as I have a cold)...

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Not all creationist types in the world are proselytizing, but many are very far off. It is one thing to use science to prove or disprove ID or creationist views. It's another to do that in reverse.
    What does "do that in reverse" mean? Use ID to prove or disprove science, or something else?

    One has to believe in something even to take it to experimental levels, unfortunately some dismiss what is correct to support that bias.
    I guess that is true. I have seen it argued that that is one reason why young scientists are more productive - they ahev the energy/enthusiasm to pursue new ideas. Those who are older have, perhaps, found out that the vast majority of new ideas don't pan out (apart from generally just getting set in their ways).

    But that is about individuals and, clearly, it often takes some time for all or most people to accept new ideas. Einstein never fully accepted all of quantum physics, despite being one of the founders. But the scientific method rolls on regardless.

    Atheists are tougher to get to accept what is correct than some theists.
    Is that just your impression or do you have any evidence? (It is sometimes hard to tell when you are stating "facts" and when opinions.)

    I'm not sure why that would be the case. I don't see why there should be any particular difference between theists and atheists in that regard. There are plenty of religious scientists and plenty of illogical atheists.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Maths is not a science. I see little to debate. It it a tool of science, it is the language of science, but it is not science.
    I understand what you mean when you state that maths is "the language of science" but, at the same time, I feel reluctant to say "maths is not a science".
    Maths certainly is "a tool of science" but it is also more than that because work/research, for its own sake, is carried out in the field of pure mathematics, and this may not have be relevant to any of the sciences or have any other practical applications.
    HectorDecimal likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Atheism has been ruled in America to be a religion, so it can no longer hug science as its "savior."
    How can that be? And ruled by whom? Have they also decided that not playing football is a sport?
    Best of my knowledge it involves the 1st Amendment. Yes, atheism was ruled a religion as in the "belief that there is no god." To some football is a religion. The difference is that religion is a belief, a sport with no believers is similar, the same as some believ that sports are not a good thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    BTW, I found some of that paragraph very hard to follow (maybe I am being a bit slow as I have a cold)...

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Not all creationist types in the world are proselytizing, but many are very far off. It is one thing to use science to prove or disprove ID or creationist views. It's another to do that in reverse.
    What does "do that in reverse" mean? Use ID to prove or disprove science, or something else?

    One has to believe in something even to take it to experimental levels, unfortunately some dismiss what is correct to support that bias.
    I guess that is true. I have seen it argued that that is one reason why young scientists are more productive - they ahev the energy/enthusiasm to pursue new ideas. Those who are older have, perhaps, found out that the vast majority of new ideas don't pan out (apart from generally just getting set in their ways).

    But that is about individuals and, clearly, it often takes some time for all or most people to accept new ideas. Einstein never fully accepted all of quantum physics, despite being one of the founders. But the scientific method rolls on regardless.

    Atheists are tougher to get to accept what is correct than some theists.
    Is that just your impression or do you have any evidence? (It is sometimes hard to tell when you are stating "facts" and when opinions.)

    I'm not sure why that would be the case. I don't see why there should be any particular difference between theists and atheists in that regard. There are plenty of religious scientists and plenty of illogical atheists.
    As for the creationists, I'm saying some are sceintists first, but believe a hand was needed to arrive at this place in evolution, but they don't insist that what is there absolutely proves such, but on the other hand I've seen the atheists refuse to accept some blatant evidence that challenges their belief in no deity. One team's interpretation of facts simply couldn't be wrong if the opposition is presented by a theist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    The Hot Topic: Anal Retentive Behavior vs AB Mixture and Its Manifestation on the Internet

    This is probably a better thread to talk about personalities, bullies on the net, and all the reasons why we so often (meaning net people) clash in how we interact with others.

    This is really my intro... 49 posts long now...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    uMMMM 52 posts
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Nothing patronizing at all was meant. Many many people do not follow instructions. I seek mentors as much as to mentor. Wouldn't you want to test the one's you choose to respect a bit for diving into their content boldly?.
    I hope i would not be so presumptuous as to expect people on a discussion forum to "follow my instructions". I als o hope I would not be guilty of seeking to manipulate people (except outlandish trolls and proven fools), which is what you seem to describe yourself as doing.


    I've actually ended up being banned from places for essentially defending Einstein as a scientist to those who have the nerve to say he is meaningless.
    So, you are basing your comments that some people don't think he was a scientist on the ramblings of anonymous people on a forum whose scientific credentials are wholly unknown. I suggest that no serious student of science would make such a claim. You seem implicitly to be agreeing with me.

    We are basically getting along here. I tease people a bit, but I rarely say anything intended to outright hurt someone's feelings.
    For me it's not a question of my feelings being hurt, more a matter of me thinking "who is this dickhead". I don't think that was the reaction you were hoping for. So I treated your question seriously, but so far I not convinced I should treat you seriously.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Nothing patronizing at all was meant. Many many people do not follow instructions. I seek mentors as much as to mentor. Wouldn't you want to test the one's you choose to respect a bit for diving into their content boldly?.
    I hope i would not be so presumptuous as to expect people on a discussion forum to "follow my instructions". I als o hope I would not be guilty of seeking to manipulate people (except outlandish trolls and proven fools), which is what you seem to describe yourself as doing.


    I've actually ended up being banned from places for essentially defending Einstein as a scientist to those who have the nerve to say he is meaningless.
    So, you are basing your comments that some people don't think he was a scientist on the ramblings of anonymous people on a forum whose scientific credentials are wholly unknown. I suggest that no serious student of science would make such a claim. You seem implicitly to be agreeing with me.

    We are basically getting along here. I tease people a bit, but I rarely say anything intended to outright hurt someone's feelings.
    For me it's not a question of my feelings being hurt, more a matter of me thinking "who is this dickhead". I don't think that was the reaction you were hoping for. So I treated your question seriously, but so far I not convinced I should treat you seriously.
    And of course I should take you seriously?

    It would seem the pot is calling the kettle black where manipulation is the subject. Jg, these are perceptions. I came here to discuss scientific subjects, not my personality or yours. Look at this whole thread. The first reponse was an insult. Seniority in a forum means nothing except the member has say 1000 posts. If by saying I'm a scientist, have research projects and want to talk about them in a reasonbly intelligent and amiable environmet then I'm manipulating, I would think anyone who comes here meets that label.

    I've often thought the issue of personality types could be discussed in a reasonable forum, but people avoid discussions that just might include them as a subject. It seems that many on the web wnat to put the member under the microscope instead of the subjects brought up to discuss. I certainly wouldn't want to think of myself as succumbing to that or acting like that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    I've seen the atheists refuse to accept some blatant evidence that challenges their belief in no deity.
    That sounds like you think there is evidence for a deity?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    I doubt if the net was around in 1900, that Einstein would have lasted very long. His ideas were so different, as were his methods, that he would have been bullied into a ban most everywhere he went.
    I don't know why you think that. His theories were well grounded in established theoretical physics, they made predictions that could be tested, and they passed these tests.

    That is at least three things that distinguish him from the sort of pseudo-science that gets promoted on the web.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    I've seen the atheists refuse to accept some blatant evidence that challenges their belief in no deity.
    That sounds like you think there is evidence for a deity?
    This is not the thread for that type discussion. In fact this is a scientific forum, not a religious forum. I'm simply pointing out there are arguments both ways. It may be better to depict the blatant fundamental atheist as being no different than the blatent fundamental theist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    I doubt if the net was around in 1900, that Einstein would have lasted very long. His ideas were so different, as were his methods, that he would have been bullied into a ban most everywhere he went.
    I don't know why you think that. His theories were well grounded in established theoretical physics, they made predictions that could be tested, and they passed these tests.

    That is at least three things that distinguish him from the sort of pseudo-science that gets promoted on the web.
    In 1900 Einsteins theories were out in left field. He endured opposition all the way till 1919 when his theory was proven at least in the relationship between light and gravity. He would have been viewed as a "bookkeeper" with little reference to that being a patent clerk. He would have been plagued with the bullying, anal retentive types who simply cannot be happy if they don't have their thumb on the other guy and likely would have turned aside to more meaningful things to do. One of his biographies describes him as a reader more than a note taker.

    Now I'm being courteous answering this in depth here when I've tried to direct it to a more appropriate thread. I think he would have become discouraged by bullying and perhaps abandoned the net for discussion purposes. There's a thread in the Behavior and Psychology area. Let's take this there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    In 1900 Einsteins theories were out in left field.
    Well, they weren't published until 1905 ...

    He endured opposition all the way till 1919 when his theory was proven at least in the relationship between light and gravity.
    Well, special relativity had experimental confirmation before that - before it was even published.

    But a new theory should be opposed. Strongly. And tested. and only accepted when it can no longer be argued against. It is that conservatism that makes the scientific method work.

    He would have been viewed as a "bookkeeper" with little reference to that being a patent clerk.
    Viewed by whom? He got his doctorate and published four ground-breaking papers in 1905, for one of which he got the Nobel prize; he was clearly a well-established scientist. I have ever heard of anyone making negative comments because he worked at the patent office.

    And he wasn't a clerk, he was an examiner.

    He would have been plagued with the bullying, anal retentive types who simply cannot be happy if they don't have their thumb on the other guy and likely would have turned aside to more meaningful things to do.
    What do you mean "would have been". He wasn't, so under what conditions would he have been? Why would the existence of the Internet (if that is what you are referring to) have made any difference? If anything it might have strengthened his case: he might have heard of the Michlson-Morley experiment and been able to use that as further experimental justification.

    One of his biographies describes him as a reader more than a note taker.
    And? so what?

    There's a thread in the Behavior and Psychology area. Let's take this there.
    Sorry, I don't know anything about psychology.
    Last edited by Strange; February 28th, 2012 at 04:48 PM.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    I'm told I'm from "the old school." I dont' deny that. It means quite a bit that I learned with books and turned in assignments on notebook paper, noit a laptop.
    Just for the record, I'm in university now, and I still hand in all my assignments on paper done with pencil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    My first programming project was handed in on punched cards and the results collected the next week (it didn't work).

    My most recent essays were submitted electronically. How times have changed...
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    I've seen the atheists refuse to accept some blatant evidence that challenges their belief in no deity.
    That sounds like you think there is evidence for a deity?
    This is not the thread for that type discussion. In fact this is a scientific forum, not a religious forum. I'm simply pointing out there are arguments both ways. It may be better to depict the blatant fundamental atheist as being no different than the blatent fundamental theist.
    We do have a Scientific Study of Religion section. If you think there is "blatant evidence" for the existence of deities, you may present it there. I think you will find most of us accept that such evidence exists, but not that it is unambiguous.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    I've seen the atheists refuse to accept some blatant evidence that challenges their belief in no deity.
    That sounds like you think there is evidence for a deity?
    This is not the thread for that type discussion. In fact this is a scientific forum, not a religious forum. I'm simply pointing out there are arguments both ways. It may be better to depict the blatant fundamental atheist as being no different than the blatent fundamental theist.
    We do have a Scientific Study of Religion section. If you think there is "blatant evidence" for the existence of deities, you may present it there. I think you will find most of us accept that such evidence exists, but not that it is unambiguous.
    Now that's a switch. I have been burned a few times in all that and try to steer clear. Let's see how far I get in the physics areas first. I'm still trying to get some response on query about DG tau B...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Is this still about whether or not Hector is a scientist?

    A little of everything in here. Have you done internet forums before Hector? Just curious.

    I feel like Einstein would ignore a lot of comments, as they are not worth replying to. I don't know much about him but it seems to me not much could bully him.

    I guess it's fun if you like to argue. Some people have it in their heads that everything is about choosing a side, making a point, and arguing it. Like writing papers. I remember writing a descriptive essay in school and was told that I needed an argument.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB View Post
    Is this still about whether or not Hector is a scientist?

    A little of everything in here. Have you done internet forums before Hector? Just curious.

    I feel like Einstein would ignore a lot of comments, as they are not worth replying to. I don't know much about him but it seems to me not much could bully him.

    I guess it's fun if you like to argue. Some people have it in their heads that everything is about choosing a side, making a point, and arguing it. Like writing papers. I remember writing a descriptive essay in school and was told that I needed an argument.
    I'm not certain what it's about anymore. Originally I did as one does in most forums and introduced myself. Asked a couple questions about the site. Those going unanswered although viewed quite a bit, I considered it needed a more interesting contnet.

    Then somebody (...I don't remember who exactly... ) leveled a one line insult at me, likely jabbing at some sore spot that I had brought up because, yes, as mentioned here somewhere, I've been to a few forums that are very abusive and insulting.

    God knows I have yet to member at a forum where I can discuss some idea, usually an experiment or engineering project addressing some need of humanity, and I don't get a bunch of flack.

    By your own definition, I qualify as a scientist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    My first programming project was handed in on punched cards and the results collected the next week (it didn't work).

    My most recent essays were submitted electronically. How times have changed...
    Wow, you must be as old as me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    I actually originally said you are not a scientist as a joke, but did not intend to back it up. I half thought that's what others were doing too, then... post #65. Anyways... I've been out of the hard science for a good number of years now so I usually only show up in the philosophy forum or trying to insert clever (annoying) comments in the more hard science sections. You may not see much of me... why am I telling you this??

    Welcome to the thescienceforum. Hope you enjoy!
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB View Post
    I actually originally said you are not a scientist as a joke, but did not intend to back it up. I half thought that's what others were doing too, then... post #65. Anyways... I've been out of the hard science for a good number of years now so I usually only show up in the philosophy forum or trying to insert clever (annoying) comments in the more hard science sections. You may not see much of me... why am I telling you this??

    Welcome to the thescienceforum. Hope you enjoy!

    Ahhh... you were only joking...

    Just for the record, you might consider an emoticon. When I am joking I usually follow it by a big grin or something to let the reader know that...


    Thanx for the welcome. So far, it's reasonably well behaved. I hesitate to name forums that are pretty much a "hell hole." I dabble in psych. That thread about anal retentive behavior with regard to internet trolling might be an interesting discussion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Serious query:

    I'm bringing this up because, although I've read the rules here, which are very similar to most forums, I am unclear about what we consider to be plagiarism. Most of us subscribe, these days to "reasonable use." I see many places where we post an image we know comes from another site. I try to be certain I'm using things that are public domain, such as wiki is public domain and states it. Often I will upload my own work. There are cases where I would snip a "blurb" from some site and accompany it with a link to the site, but I don't claim it as my own or post the entire work. Per this site, would that latter instance be considered reasonable use, or somehow defined as plagiarism? The reason I ask is one so-called scientific site sees this "selectively" as plagiarism, using it against a member they don't seem to like, others and myself included. I say it's within reasonable use, but I would follow the forum's rules.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    There are two issues here: copyright and plagiarism. Technically speaking any images that are truly public domain (and this is not necessarily true of all images in wikipedia) can be posted here with no problem from a copyright standpoint. Otherwise they should not be uploaded and even a link to an image on another site that is infiringing copyright may be an offence in some jurisdictions. (Though I doubt such a case would ever be pursued.) Short extracts from textbooks or papers are generally acceptable from a copyright standpoint as long as the original author and work are fully documented in the post.

    Plagiarism is taking the work of another an explicitly or implicitly claiming it as your own. Any time you include an extract from another's document, or even just reword what they have said and do not acknowledge that work then you are guilty of plagiarism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    There are two issues here: copyright and plagiarism. Technically speaking any images that are truly public domain (and this is not necessarily true of all images in wikipedia) can be posted here with no problem from a copyright standpoint. Otherwise they should not be uploaded and even a link to an image on another site that is infiringing copyright may be an offence in some jurisdictions. (Though I doubt such a case would ever be pursued.) Short extracts from textbooks or papers are generally acceptable from a copyright standpoint as long as the original author and work are fully documented in the post.

    Plagiarism is taking the work of another an explicitly or implicitly claiming it as your own. Any time you include an extract from another's document, or even just reword what they have said and do not acknowledge that work then you are guilty of plagiarism.
    Now that's the way I've always interpretted it. Save for always listing the credits, I generally work within the proper constraints of copyrights. I never claim someone else's work as my own. Some forums are not clear on their interpretation. Thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I just want to point out that I am not an admin or mod here, so I don't know for sure how they view the matter. That was my personal understanding of the situation and I have never run into any issues of any kind by following it: however caveat emptor.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I just want to point out that I am not an admin or mod here, so I don't know for sure how they view the matter. That was my personal understanding of the situation and I have never run into any issues of any kind by following it: however caveat emptor.
    As in...

    possibilis moderatum ad captandum vulgus?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Which of the following are/were scientists?
    Why? What point are you trying to make?

    Also, I have no idea who half those people are.

    Is one of them The Megalomaniac?
    It is easy enough nowadays to find out who they are and what they did- you just lazy, mon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Which of the following are/were scientists?
    Why? What point are you trying to make?

    Also, I have no idea who half those people are.

    Is one of them The Megalomaniac?
    It is easy enough nowadays to find out who they are and what they did- you just lazy, mon.

    As I said, it was to see who would simply follow directions if they wanted to try. I never expected this intro thread to get to #75 . That wasn't anything intentional. It's mostly just to get to know people around me who post a lot... show and tell...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Welcome, then. Some threads are like that, take on a life of their own and refuse to die, while others with more interesting premises wither, die, and rot.

    Usually robust threads have two or more conflicting personalities unloading on each other- it's great fun.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    Is it a coincidence that both "angler" and "troll" are words for fishing?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Welcome, then. Some threads are like that, take on a life of their own and refuse to die, while others with more interesting premises wither, die, and rot.

    Usually robust threads have two or more conflicting personalities unloading on each other- it's great fun.
    Thus trolling is sometrhing done to agrrivate.. like the Beggin Strips commercial...?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Help me decide what class I should take?
    By elegance in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 7th, 2010, 07:51 AM
  2. Science class...What do u think?
    By ceire in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 19th, 2009, 12:59 PM
  3. taxonomic class
    By godspanther in forum Biology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 18th, 2009, 12:52 AM
  4. The Oasis Class of ships
    By rick.taiwan in forum Mechanical, Structural and Chemical Engineering
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 25th, 2008, 04:02 AM
  5. class system
    By Kenny Klassen in forum Biology
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: April 11th, 2008, 07:10 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •