gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (03/24/86)
In article <489@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?) writes: >I've been reading a book called "Velikovski Reconsidered" which includes >a great number of examples of how leading scientists have effectively >shown "contempt" for what could be a very valid theory. The interesting >thing is that the facts, as they come in, are in Velikovski's favor. To the contrary, Velikovsky's theories are in direct contradiction to many known facts, orbital mechanics prime among them. Let's not rehash this tired old debate, please. >Another interesting example - August Dvorak devloped a keyboard which >unlike the one you're probably typing on now, was designed to speed up >rather than slow down typists. Because of economic considerations, >scientists have gone to great lengths to prove that Dvorak's claims >are not valid. Would you believe there are people who still believe >that the Sholes (QWERTY) keyboard was designed to help them type FASTER! >Most studies of ergonomics for keyboards do not even include studies >using a Dvorak or modified Dvorak keyboards! Interestingly enough, >the ergonomics for a Dvorak keyboard (key travel, spacing, tactile >feedback,...) are dramatically different. Your description of the Dvorak keyboard is wrong on several counts. Observe: many (most) speed typing records were attained on a Dvorak keyboard (or its close relative, ASK); the state of Oregon requires that its typists be given a choice of keyboards; SCM has made ASK available as an option for years; the Apple //c has a switch to change between the two keyboards. The main reason most keyboards are still QWERTY is that that is what the vast majority of touch typists were trained on; retraining appears to be just expensive enough that it is hard to sell businesses and manufacturers on the idea. I have NEVER heard of any scientific study pooh-poohing the Dvorak keyboard arrangement as an alternative to QWERTY. >These are two examples where, because of contempt on the part of scientists, >improvements on flawed but valid theories have been ignored in preference >to justifying even more flawed theories. You have not only not proved your point, you have exhibited the very behavior that you are chastising scientists about.
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (03/24/86)
In article <489@ccivax.UUCP>, rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) writes: > > Now that we've all shown our contempt for the 'paranormal' > how about some other examples. > > I've been reading a book called "Velikovski Reconsidered" which includes > a great number of examples of how leading scientists have effectively > shown "contempt" for what could be a very valid theory. The interesting > thing is that the facts, as they come in, are in Velikovski's favor. > Now this is bullshit. If you want to discuss Velikovsky then take it to net.origins. There's a real enthusiast there who seems unable to understand anything about physics, astronomy, geology, biology or math, which is about what it takes to take Velikovsky seriously. If you can't resist setting me straight, please do so by private mail. I don't see why this newsgroup has to get victimized by this stuff. -- "Ma, I've been to another Ethan Vishniac planet!" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU Department of Astronomy University of Texas
carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) (03/24/86)
In article <489@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?) writes: > >I've been reading a book called "Velikovski Reconsidered" which includes >a great number of examples of how leading scientists have effectively >shown "contempt" for what could be a very valid theory. The interesting >thing is that the facts, as they come in, are in Velikovski's favor. > Hohoho. Not true. >Another interesting example - August Dvorak devloped a keyboard which >unlike the one you're probably typing on now, was designed to speed up >rather than slow down typists. Because of economic considerations, >scientists have gone to great lengths to prove that Dvorak's claims >are not valid. Would you believe there are people who still believe I hope you mean "scientists" employed by typewriter companies. Otherwise, I've been unable to find ANYBODY who believes thatn Dvorak is slower than qwerty. >These are two examples where, because of contempt on the part of scientists, >improvements on flawed but valid theories have been ignored in preference >to justifying even more flawed theories. There ARE decent examples, but in general they involve infighting among enemies within a tight community ( e.g. nuclear physics in 1900-1930). the examples cited above are junk.
ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin) (03/28/86)
In article <489@ccivax.UUCP>, rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) writes: > > I've been reading a book called "Velikovski Reconsidered" which includes > a great number of examples of how leading scientists have effectively > shown "contempt" for what could be a very valid theory. The interesting > thing is that the facts, as they come in, are in Velikovski's favor. > Velikovski has been considered at length in sections of major conferences. The problems really are that his *theory* changes as soon as someone shows parts of it categorically false. It's also hard to deal with a piece of work which shows contempt for normal standards of discussion. But it has been tried. Who can blame some for getting exasperated? > scientists have gone to great lengths to prove that Dvorak's claims > are not valid. Read, engineers, marketing managers and economists. For example, from whom did you find out the Dvorak keyboard tests better? It was probably someone who investigated it with care. And what do we call such people? > These are two examples where, because of contempt on the part of scientists, > improvements on flawed but valid theories have been ignored in preference > to justifying even more flawed theories. This is very much open to question. Isn't *flawed but valid* a somwhat contradictory property? Peter Ladkin
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (03/29/86)
In article <855@lanl.ARPA> jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes: > >In article <489@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?) writes: >> >>I've been reading a book called "Velikovski Reconsidered" which includes >>a great number of examples of how leading scientists have effectively >>shown "contempt" for what could be a very valid theory. The interesting >>thing is that the facts, as they come in, are in Velikovski's favor. > >This is not really true: Mars has no carbohydrates, the greenhouse effect >is in operation on Venus, the red spot on Jupiter is a perfectly ordinary >cyclonic storm not a cometary exit hole, etc.. In science, the failure of >a theoretical prediction is the same as the failure of the whole theory. >Velikovski supporters conveniently ignore the failures of their theory. If I was at the library the other day, and happened to be looking up some things in the Encyclopedia Brittanica (sp?), and while flipping through the micropedia (?), I noticed they had a biography of Velikovski. Guess what? The Brittanica is about as acurate as the first posting above! None of the failures mentioned by Jim Giles in the second posting above are mentioned. In fact, no failure of his theories are mentioned! I know one encyclopedia I shall never purchase... -- Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim