The Guardians of Dogma - Defenders of the New Religion

Keep in mind that this is coming from the same folks who consider Nostradamus a solid source of scientific information, have greeted every comet since Hale-Bopp as a harbinger of disaster, thought Phobos had left Mars orbit and was heading for Earth, and have been claiming that Yellowstone is about to erupt for a couple of years now.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Sounds like sour grapes to reconcile the mainstream's dismissal of their dogma to me. "End of the road?" .. in some respects, we are barely into our journey.

I was thinking the same thing: "'The mainstream is suppressing me' is the last defense of the incompetent scientist."

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I think we see that enough even around here. When someone with an off-the-wall idea is asked to provide evidence for their beliefs, the reaction is generally contempt rather than understanding and a willingness to discuss the issues, instead of being a straw man.

"The straw man is.."
by Quartermain.

.. strong on the stalk.
.. weak in the knees.
.. strong in the flock.
.. weak in the breeze.
.. strong in the sun.
.. weak in the rain.
.. strong on the run.
.. weak in the brain.

:wink:

__________________
"Patriotism is supporting your country all of the time... and your government when it deserves it." - Mark Twain

That was good Quartermain =D>

Weird site. What exactly do you suppose is the "Sagan Continuation Realy Site?" Probably something that would have the late skeptic spinning in his grave? I couldn't get the link to work.
Also think it's amusing to find a site professing to support science in any form that had a poll at the top asking if you like angels or not. :roll:

These folks strike me as being rather confused. They make no differentiation between issues of a metaphysical, spiritual nature and issues applicable to empirical science.

For example, If I'm going to ponder the existence and/or nature of God I probably wouldn't utilize empirical science. This sort of thinking is obviously faith based and metaphysical in nature. However, if I'm looking to find out if there's some mysterious planet heading towards the earth, or if some medication has any proof of efficacy, then I'm going to use empirical science.

The concept of prejudice seems to have been assigned to science itself. This is erroneous as well, people form prejudices, the scientific method itself is not prejudicial and does not "pre-judge" anything. This site is one big hodge-podge of contradiction. Not only is it "comparing apples to oranges" but it lacks for basic logical thinking as well.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

Whenever someone won't accept your crackpot theories, just call them close minded.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

It is here:

http://www.yowusa.com/SCP_relay/scp_relay.htm

Shudder. Should we tell them the link on their home page is broken?

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0....

No, no, and no. Why aid the lunacy? What point in participating in that project, when you could just join SETI@ home and not desecrate the memory of Carl Sagan?

And don't forget to equate yourself with Einstein and/or Galileo as often as possible.

I always reminds me of this scene from MONTY PYTHON and the HOLY GRAIL.


DENNIS: Well, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

ARTHUR: Shut up!

DENNIS: I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

ARTHUR: Shut up, will you? Shut up!

DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.

ARTHUR: Shut up!

DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!

DENNIS: Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?

Also mention that they laughed at <esteemed scientist X>. Take offence when it is pointed out that they also laughed at Bobo the Clown.

=D> well said.

I think these quotes are interesting.

"You could write the entire history of science in the last 50 years in terms of papers rejected by Science or Nature." – Paul C. Lauterbur, winner of the Nobel Prize for medicine, whose seminal paper on magnetic resonance imaging was originally rejected by Nature.

“An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning.” Max Planck.

“Over the years, sociologists and historians have often pointed out the glaring disparity between how science is supposed to work and what really happens. While scientists routinely dismiss these qualms as anecdotal, subjective or plain incomprehensible, the suspicion that there is something wrong with the scientific process itself is well founded. The proof comes from a rigorous mathematical analysis of how evidence alters our belief in a scientific theory.” Robert Mathews.

I find that crackpots in every field do this.

For example, there are fringes for every mainstream religion. I've wandered into some of these fringe churches of the Christian persuasion. When the mainstream calls them on the carpet, you know what they always, without fail, say?
--

--

--

They crucified Jesus too. #-o

__________________
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."

That's an obvious exaggeration. The DNA double helix paper was published in Nature. The original CMBR papers were published in Astrophysical Journal Letters without being previously rejected.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

"Originally rejected by Nature". That covers a whole multitude of sins.

Does anyone know why it was rejected? All sorts of things get sent back by sub-editors for fixing or the addition of further detail, without it necessarily meaning they've found a major fault in the science.

Not to mention the original papers on the J/Psi discovery in November 1974. Both were published almost immediately in Physical Review Letters and provided the impetus for the development of the current Standard Model of particle phsyics. The field changed so drastically after that discovery that even now physicists refer to it as the "November Revolution." Of course it helped that the signal was blatently obvious and immeditely reproducable.

I'm pretty sure that Lauterbur's initial rejection was very temporary. Once he was able to produce imagery he got published.

Edited once to fix a date.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan