Post by rjb on Jul 30, 2011 11:27:14 GMT -8
WingedWishes:
Sorry that my writing appears arrogant. I certainly don't feel arrogant, but scientists are notorious for being poor communicators.
You have stated:
"I think this because the things that I have read and are presented by others are cogent and qualified to speak about it. Thise things are publically available to read."
I consider it very difficult to distinguish true from false, and it seems unrelated to how well a thing is verbally presented. There is much literature written on how to tell good science from pseudoscience. One of the first things to look for is the citations. I just failed by not putting in a citation in the previous sentence. I am writing something that I read in the Skeptical Enquirer a few years ago but am too lazy to look up the reference so you could check me.
Any peer-reviewed paper of any worth has lots of cites explaining every sentence so you can check on the authors. I once published a paper on the chemistry of silicon manufacture and it was 11 pages long with 45 citations. The reader must be able to check the history of everything I am proclaiming.
If some web-site tried to argue, for example, that the release of toxic gases during the industrial revolution should be in the model, then they should have added the cites to the published
literature demonstrating how they knew it was important, and how they knew it was ignored in the model. That is how you check that the writer is not feeding you BS. Otherwise, they can say anything that sounds good but it will likely be wrong.
So whether on the web or in print the question is how many times did they back up their writing by citing previous work.
Then you have to be careful because the more savvy liars like many creationists who criticize evolution realize it looks scientific to provide citations so they cite irrelevent material which sometimes even contradicts their own point.
This last statement of mine really needs a citation. Lacking any citation, you can assume that I made this all up until proven otherwise.
Anyway, peace to you Wingedwishes, I'm sorry to sound so arrogant, but I lived my life immersed in science and so many of your statements sound like you misunderstand how science works that it brings out the worst in me.
If I said I am a Soccer expert, for example I know everything about Home Runs, Touchdowns and High-sticking Penalties, then you would question if I were from another planet and you would be sure I didn't know soccer. That is you and science.
Rick
Sorry that my writing appears arrogant. I certainly don't feel arrogant, but scientists are notorious for being poor communicators.
You have stated:
"I think this because the things that I have read and are presented by others are cogent and qualified to speak about it. Thise things are publically available to read."
I consider it very difficult to distinguish true from false, and it seems unrelated to how well a thing is verbally presented. There is much literature written on how to tell good science from pseudoscience. One of the first things to look for is the citations. I just failed by not putting in a citation in the previous sentence. I am writing something that I read in the Skeptical Enquirer a few years ago but am too lazy to look up the reference so you could check me.
Any peer-reviewed paper of any worth has lots of cites explaining every sentence so you can check on the authors. I once published a paper on the chemistry of silicon manufacture and it was 11 pages long with 45 citations. The reader must be able to check the history of everything I am proclaiming.
If some web-site tried to argue, for example, that the release of toxic gases during the industrial revolution should be in the model, then they should have added the cites to the published
literature demonstrating how they knew it was important, and how they knew it was ignored in the model. That is how you check that the writer is not feeding you BS. Otherwise, they can say anything that sounds good but it will likely be wrong.
So whether on the web or in print the question is how many times did they back up their writing by citing previous work.
Then you have to be careful because the more savvy liars like many creationists who criticize evolution realize it looks scientific to provide citations so they cite irrelevent material which sometimes even contradicts their own point.
This last statement of mine really needs a citation. Lacking any citation, you can assume that I made this all up until proven otherwise.
Anyway, peace to you Wingedwishes, I'm sorry to sound so arrogant, but I lived my life immersed in science and so many of your statements sound like you misunderstand how science works that it brings out the worst in me.
If I said I am a Soccer expert, for example I know everything about Home Runs, Touchdowns and High-sticking Penalties, then you would question if I were from another planet and you would be sure I didn't know soccer. That is you and science.
Rick
