markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (03/03/88)
Read Omni instead of Scientific American. It's much better because it has all things Futuristic in it, be they science fact or science fiction (i.e. science yet-to-be-fact).
lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) (03/03/88)
>Read Omni instead of Scientific American. It's much better because it has >all things Futuristic in it, be they science fact or science fiction (i.e. >science yet-to-be-fact). Don't read Omni. On the science side, it's for people who want to think they are thinking. It doesn't want to confuse the issues with mere facts. On the science fiction side, it can be good, but I find paperbacks a better buy. Do buy Scientific American. A Harvard Lampoon editor once said: "The secret of a good lampoon is to have better writing than the original. That's why we never did a Scientific American." One reason it <<looks>> smaller is because they switched to thinner paper. -- Don lindsay@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu CMU Computer Science
ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) (03/03/88)
In article <5017@uwmcsd1.UUCP>, markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: > Read Omni instead of Scientific American. It's much better because it has > all things Futuristic in it, be they science fact or science fiction (i.e. > science yet-to-be-fact). I have read, and enjoyed many pieces of fiction in Omni. A few of them even had a note attached indicating that they were fiction. I have read Omni cover to cover a couple of times. I found *damn* little science. -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (03/04/88)
In article <5017@uwmcsd1.UUCP> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: >Read Omni instead of Scientific American. It's much better because it has >all things Futuristic in it, be they science fact or science fiction (i.e. >science yet-to-be-fact). ... particularily, this months issue had an interesting article discussing the research being done on a hot topic in Immunology : Growth Factors. Possible outgrowths of this up-and-coming medical revolution are: Fast healing (esp. for post-surgical treatment), Treatment of memory disorders, Controlling the white blood cell count (**already achieved**), Controlling male sterility/ male contraceptive Controlling cell growth - understanding biogenesis, how cells divide & differentiate, - understanding cancer, what triggers cell growth The list goes on. A Nobel prize has already been awarded in this field (1986). The magazine successfully deals with the issue of distinguishing between Pseudo-Science and Science by not making it. This is good for free-thinkers whose minds are not constrained by hypocritical attitudes about knowledge that they cannot go off on a random search into the unknown. As they (should) say, the only way to new knowledge is to improve a Pseudo- Science until it becomes established as a Science (e.g. Physics, Psychology). Omni provides a forum for that.
edk@gryphon.CTS.COM (Ed Kaulakis) (03/07/88)
In article <5017@uwmcsd1.UUCP>, markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: > Read Omni instead of Scientific American. It's much better because it has > all things Futuristic in it, be they science fact or science fiction (i.e. > science yet-to-be-fact). Omni, unlike Scientific American, erodes the scientific ethos, which I care about, and you should too unless you want to be Japanese vassals... Science is not facts. It's not theories. It's most certainly not pretty images. It's a world view based on a class of bullshit detectors... It has no place for democratic determinations of what is the case; thus, Omni's UFO "reportage" is, in the absence of convincing evidence, mere pandering, more comparable to the supermarket tabloids than to Sci Am. That's why I think Omni is a sort of Trojan Horse for the marching morons. (UFO believers please flame me in talk.bizarre or /dev/null!) Cheers, Ed
mmeyer@mips.csc.ti.com (Mark Meyer) (03/07/88)
In article <5017@uwmcsd1.UUCP> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: >Read Omni instead of Scientific American. It's much better because it has >all things Futuristic in it, be they science fact or science fiction (i.e. >science yet-to-be-fact). ...or fantasy (eg, the AntiMatter section). :-) -- Mark Meyer USENET: {ut-sally!im4u,convex!smu,sun!texsun}!ti-csl!mmeyer Texas Instruments, Inc. CSNET : mmeyer@TI-CSL (SET! TI-RESPONSIBLE-FOR-MSG? #!FALSE) "Would it save you all a lot of trouble if I simply gave up and went mad now?"
todd@uop.edu (Dr. Nethack) (03/08/88)
In article <2790@gryphon.CTS.COM>, edk@gryphon.CTS.COM (Ed Kaulakis) writes: > In article <5017@uwmcsd1.UUCP>, markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: > > Read Omni instead of Scientific American. It's much better because it has > > all things Futuristic in it, be they science fact or science fiction (i.e. > > science yet-to-be-fact). You should have added, "with no distinction between the two" > It's a world view based on a class of bullshit detectors... That is not a bad point. Those I know who read (and preach) Omni, advocate the removal of your common sense. > It has no place for democratic determinations of what is the case Another fine point, science, or shall I say, existance, does not modify itself due to our opinions. How we see it may change, how it is, apart from our looking is no different. (yes I know about quantum theory)- even those relationships were there prior to our finding them. > Omni's UFO "reportage" is, in the absence of convincing evidence, mere > pandering, more comparable to the supermarket tabloids than to Sci Am. > > That's why I think Omni is a sort of Trojan Horse for the marching morons. Indeed, I can't stand it's glossy national enquirer approach to the stuff it couches in scientific terms. Are we all going to be armchair scientific "experts" a-la-Omni? Lets hope to God NO! I spend more time trying to explain to friends why an article is not all that true, or mere speculation. They keep thinking I am nuts, since Omni prints what they like to believe in, then it must be true, and I am old hat. But let us distiguish between epistomology, science, and belief structures. The Omni-ites I know seem to want to beleive it, wheather it is true or not, so long as it is what they want to believe. This is a dangerous trend and I have seen it spreading! Perhaps this is not the place for *this* type of discussion, but the circular reasoning that it involves is down right manipulative and brain washing. Moreover, our schools are full of such garbage techniques. We've all heard how T.V. is geared to the 6th grade mind, and now Omni wants us to worship the thoughts and dillusions of the same frame of reference. (so does Dan Rather) :-) It is not so bad, *assuming* one is educated enough to catch all the crap, but lately, crap is all that is fed, (in many circles of influence) so some have become used to eating it, and have taken to recommending it to their friends as Gospel. And we wonder why American products and morale are down.. Some of us take pride in what we do, the rest seem not to care about anything but money. And the rest of us/life/truth/reality be damned. (hmm, suddenly I feel a soap-box under my feet, better get down before I catch cold up here) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- + uop!todd@uunet.uu.net + + cogent!uop!todd@lll-winken.arpa + + {backbone}!ucbvax!ucdavis!uop!todd + -----------------------------------------------------------------------
govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) (03/09/88)
> We've all heard how T.V. is geared to the 6th grade mind, and now Omni > wants us to worship the thoughts and dillusions of the same frame of > reference. (so does Dan Rather) :-) > It is axiomatic that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the (American) public. America is the land of LCD, so don't be surprised at the prolefeed in the media. To date, however, this LCD orientation has been the source of America's appeal around the globe. Just look at what, besides democracy, the US does export successfully: rock and roll, blue jeans, movies, and TV. These are targeted at the common Joe and Jose, so they are readily accessible. If you want more narrowly targeted (i.e., bell curve ghetto) information, you'd best look elsewhere. Don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking US culture because I believe that, for better or worse, it best reflects the tastes of the bulk of humanity. It may not be entirely to your or my liking, but it is undeniably appealing. The best way to please everybody it to democratize the media, which is just what technology is doing. That way, you need not be restricted to managed information from biased prettyboy newsreaders like Damn Rather. Anyway, think about this: Science and art no longer reflect the everyday experience of anyone. It's too abstacted from life. Don't be surprised that humans prefer something more in tune with their reality, with a dash of mystery thrown in. Humans are basically irrational, not rational.
res@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt, AT&T-DSG @ Indian Hill West) (03/09/88)
In article <2790@gryphon.CTS.COM|, edk@gryphon.CTS.COM (Ed Kaulakis) writes: | In article <5017@uwmcsd1.UUCP|, markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: | | Read Omni instead of Scientific American. It's much better because it has | | all things Futuristic in it, be they science fact or science fiction (i.e. | | science yet-to-be-fact). | | Science is not facts. It's not theories. It's most certainly not | pretty images. It's a world view based on a class of bullshit detectors... | It has no place for democratic determinations of what is the case; thus, | Omni's UFO "reportage" is, in the absence of convincing evidence, mere | pandering, more comparable to the supermarket tabloids than to Sci Am. | | That's why I think Omni is a sort of Trojan Horse for the marching morons. I agree. I cancelled my subscription to OMNI when I got fed up with the way they were covering pseudosciences. Unfortunately, contemporary exposure to the pseudosciences (astrology, UFO-ology, and a host of other dubious -ologies) and to the popular press's favorable treatment of charlatans like Uri Geller, has led to the attitude expressed in the first posting quoted above -- that there is no real difference between science and pseudoscience ("science yet-to-be-fact"). I urge the first poster to get ahold of a copy or two of the Skeptical Enquirer to get a different perspective on the pseudosciences. While the Skeptical Enquirer is sometimes a bit strident, it does attempt to expose the pseudosciences for what they are -- usually quackery, sometimes fraud. As to the futurism aspect, I feel that the future will NOT be based on the wishful thinking embodied in the pseudosciences (telepathic communications, the world saved by noble UFO pilots, ones future foretold by ones birthdate, etc.). Rather, the future depends on applying our knowledge to the problems at hand with undiluted vigor. Such problems as AIDS, world hunger, diminishing energy resources, and fundamental inhumanity of man toward one another, will not be solved by the Uri Gellers of the world, or by consulting the "predictions" of a Jean Dixon. They will be solved by the application of the sciences (both hard and soft) to these problems. The more energy is diverted into bogus "sciences" the longer it will take to solve these problems. Rich Strebendt ...!ihnp4![iwsl6|ihlpe|ihaxa]!res
lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) (03/09/88)
In article <2790@gryphon.CTS.COM> edk@gryphon.CTS.COM (Ed Kaulakis) writes: > Omni, unlike Scientific American, erodes the scientific ethos, which >I care about, and you should too unless you want to be Japanese vassals... > Science is not facts. It's not theories. It's most certainly not >pretty images. It's a world view based on a class of bullshit detectors... > >It has no place for democratic determinations of what is the case.. > >That's why I think Omni is a sort of Trojan Horse for the marching morons. "... Marconi, who discovered radio, because he had accidentally been working on the problem for years ..." [ Monty Python ] The trouble with gee-whiz slick-photography speculative science is that it supports the idea of effortless instant breakthroughs. Sure, penicillin was discovered accidentally, one day, when a scientist noticed some contamination on a slide. Sure. He only happened to have spent years becoming a trained researcher with a lab full of equipment, and able collaborators, and he only happened to spend the next several years of his life on the grubby details. It's this long-haul aspect that makes high standards necessary. An edifice constructed of a thousand contributions, can withstand only so many pieces containing bullshit. If the Royal Society had had Omni's standards, we would still be speculating about how migrating birds turn into toads. I suppose that Omni-bashers are accused of stuffiness, and lack of imagination. Hmm. Seems to me that the truly great leaps of imagination were by people like Einstein, and Darwin, and Curie, and Pasteur. No Joe Newmans in that crowd. -- Don lindsay@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu CMU Computer Science
markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (03/09/88)
In article <1221@uop.edu> todd@uop.edu (Dr. Nethack) writes: >In article <2790@gryphon.CTS.COM>, edk@gryphon.CTS.COM (Ed Kaulakis) writes: >> In article <5017@uwmcsd1.UUCP>, markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: >> > Read Omni instead of Scientific American. It's much better because it has >> > all things Futuristic in it, be they science fact or science fiction (i.e. >> > science yet-to-be-fact). > >You should have added, "with no distinction between the two" The only distinction between much science fiction and science fact is the distinction between past and future. Science without novelty is ... well another oxymoron. > >> It's a world view based on a class of bullshit detectors... > >That is not a bad point. Those I know who read (and preach) Omni, >advocate the removal of your common sense. This is really cute. Science demands the removal of your common sense in many ways. Another similarity? :-) The story of bullshit detectors is the story of people getting burned for saying never and then keeping others from disagreeing by unjustly using their authority to cover for their ignorance. Here are a few: (1) DeBroglie writes a two page thesis discussing the matter-wave duality. It gets flatly rejected Physicists who really were in no position to judge the paper's contents (with it being only the mid '20's and all.) It took Einstein having seen the paper for it to be rescued. DeBroglie goes on to win a Nobel Prize for his work. Even Einstein was never officially validated for his work in developing Relativity. No Nobel Prize here. And even today Physicists get around having to accept the implications of the theory by the old trick: "well Newton was right to a first approximation.", as if gun powder was a first approximation to a nuclear weapon; or "the engineers will never know the difference.", like computers are made with mechanical gears or something. (2) For two hundred years or so, historians rigidly maintain the stance that America has remained unknown to the old world until Columbus. They succeeded in ignoring perfectly valid evidence which they were in no position to evaluate (knowing nothing about old-world cultures or new world cultures, depending on which way they specialized.) This was true until the mid '70's when the scripts on this continent falsely attributed to the indigenous population were finally deciphered. This opened the floodgates and all the other evidence dismissed up to that time was finally given a proper evaluation. Many historians still maintain the stance that no longer has any support. Some have shown there to be racism and Euro-centrism here. One can see why many people just choose not to learn their history (I was not one, since it's one of my major interests) And they still go on denying that the cliff dwellings out in the Southwest could have the remotest connection to the virtually identical dwellings in North Africa ... and the Pima still sing Aesop's fables as they were learned by their ancestors from Alexandrian North Africa, (3) For all the time that the bio-medical paradigm has been dominant in the health fields, alternate methods were never considered. Since many of these originated in non-European medical traditions they were usually considered to be "primitive shamanism". One could include here Acupuncture, which is now finally accepted as a valid alternate method. It has taken an anti-trust lawsuit by the chiropractors to finally get it across that the medical establishment's arrogance is malevolent. A stigma had been attached for a long time to the notion that there could be a link between our mind and our immunity. This had gotten seriously in the way of an objective evaluation of this possibility, again by people who knew next to nothing about the human immune system. And now, we have the "Growth Factors", which have been shown to control the growth and specialization of cells, among other things. In particular, the white blood cell count can be currently controlled. The nature of the mind body link, as discussed by nobel prize winning researchers in this field, may lie in a communication that is mediated by growth factors. (4) Tesla. Need I say more. There's the famous story of the smear campaign by Edison to discredit his idea of AC power that makes me almost want to throw away my lamps and buy strobe lights (like they have in classrooms and institutions). (5) In the early '50's the best selling work "Worlds In Collision" was banned by hard-nosed astronomers who knew nothing about what the book was talking about, by their own admission. Yet they chose to initiate a slur campaign, solely because the man (Velikovsky) threatened the paradign of Gradualism and because he dared to question the Universal validity of Newton's law of gravity. Never mind whether his hypothesis (or paradigm) was tenable or not. It did not matter. One can easily see the prejudice that many specialists have when they laugh derisively just at hearing the very idea of worlds colliding. Never mind that the very same kind of hypothesis has been invoked to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs. There's quite a few others, I just don't have the time to go on like this. What they all have in common is specialists lashing out at those who are threatening the sanctity of what they have spent investing so much time in (training). Maybe if people would learn how not to learn so wastefully they would not need to focus their lifelong attention on one narrow field to the exclusion of all else. That's the problem: they've specialized, so they know practically nothing about anything else. Hence they utterly lack the capabilities to evaluate an outsider's claims on its own terms. Specialization is wrong, and also unnecessary. People just have to learn to learn more efficiently to overcome the so-called information explosion (which is really a communication breakdown.) Science is filled with bullshit detectors that have not used adequately on themselves. As the unwritten saying goes: "The current paradigm is never wrong, until a better paradigm overtakes it -- only after all of the old proponents die off." These are the underlying sentiments behind my postings. The only rule of science that I can accept is that: anything goes, subject to consistency with what actually is. Nothing less is acceptable. We may not know what actually is, but we sure know when it's consistent. >Another fine point, science, or shall I say, existence, does not modify >itself due to our opinions. How we see it may change, how it is, apart >from our looking is no different. One can go on endlessly speaking about the immutable "outer reality" that none of us have direct access to. It's irrelevant, because (1) It might not be there, (2) It does not NEED to be there, because we are doing just fine as it is. ... and because we have no direct access to it all of science reduces to convention. If our opinion changes, then so does reality. Remember that what is real to us consists of the technology that we construct based on our knowledge. As the opinions change, so does it ... then so does our reality. TV's, witness, did not exist until Tesla. >> That's why I think Omni is a sort of Trojan Horse for the marching morons. Then I must be the first of the bunch, which is very strange since I'm known to be highly gifted in many fields with knowledge that is both broad and deep. And I don't even read OMNI that much, but I find it good. Fact or fiction, they are both equally good. I'm really suprised at how much others are lashing out a magazine which I think is pretty cool. Here's one you did not know. Newton, spurred on by his success in Physics and Mathematics, then sought to probe into the realms of Astrology, Theology and other esoteric domains. The man never changed, but people's hypocritism made it seem like he did. I mean, what if he had failed in his Physics in his Calculus? Would he have been considered a crank for having investigated those Pesudo-Sciences (as they basically were then)? I think the question answers itself. The very question of Astrology itself may lie on the existence of seasonal mating cycles that are vestigal from our evolutionary ancestors. What kind of person one is may depend in part on what part of the seasonal cycle the mother is in during conception. And yet, despite the fact that this shows there to be nothing inherently absurd about Astrology, many scientists will scoff just at hearing the very idea. How dare they when most know next to nothing about biology as it relates to the possibility raised above. It's another case of prejudice leading one to inappropriately use his or her (but usually his) authority. >Indeed, I can't stand it's glossy national enquirer approach to the >stuff it couches in scientific terms. Are we all going to be armchair >scientific "experts" a-la-Omni? Lets hope to God NO! Pardon me for the analysis, but I see a specialist who feels threatened by outsiders impringing on his "Sacred" knowledge -- which is why he speaks of them with such unwarranted hostility. The mere fact that one specializes (an UNnecessary evil in this society) is the problem. > >I spend more time trying to explain to friends why an article is not >all that true, or mere speculation. They keep thinking I am nuts, .. maybe they share in my analysis. >And we wonder why American products and morale are down.. Some of us take >pride in what we do, the rest seem not to care about anything but money. >And the rest of us/life/truth/reality be damned. > >(hmm, suddenly I feel a soap-box under my feet, better get down before > I catch cold up here) Too late to worry about that now :-).
gadfly@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Gadfly) (03/09/88)
In article <2724@ihlpe.ATT.COM>, res@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt, AT&T-DSG @ Indian Hill West) writes: > ...I cancelled my subscription to OMNI when I got fed up with > the way they were covering pseudosciences... I share Rich's annoyance with Omni's obsession with the bizarre, but Omni does have a kind of insouciance that stodgy old SciAm has been sorely lacking ever since Martin Gardner left. For instance, a recent Omni had an entertaining and informative article on theories of how dinosaurs "did it". Well, haven't *you* ever wondered about that? *** *** J'EN AI RAS-LE-BOL ***** ***** ****** ****** 09 Mar 88 [19 Ventose An CXCVI] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-8042 ** ** ** ** ihnp4!ihlpa!gadfly *** ***
lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) (03/10/88)
This is getting ripe. In article <5143@uwmcsd1.UUCP> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: >The only distinction between much science fiction and science fact is the >distinction between past and future. No. Much of the speculation doesn't turn out, and much of reality turns out to be unexpected. > (1) DeBroglie writes a two page thesis discussing the matter-wave > duality. > It took Einstein having seen the paper for it to be rescued. Thank you for demonstrating that it is the scientists who are creative and who are open to new paradigms. > And even > today Physicists get around having to accept the implications > of the theory by the old trick: "well Newton was right to a > first approximation." Have you ever met a physicist ? Seriously ? > (2) For two hundred years or so, historians ... I thought we were talking about science. > (3) For all the time that the bio-medical paradigm has been dominant > in the health fields, alternate methods were never considered. Practically every aspect of modern medicine is an alternate method, compared to the way things were done a century ago. Or were you under the impression that laser surgery, x-rays, and vaccination date back to the Pharoahs ? > And now, we have the "Growth Factors" .. Discovered the hard way by people who are disciplined researchers. They would strongly resent your counting them as "alternate". They carry on the tradition of scientific integrity and of high standards of proof. > Yet they chose > to initiate a slur campaign, solely because the man (Velikovsky) > threatened the paradign of Gradualism and because he dared to > question the Universal validity of Newton's law of gravity. > Never mind whether his hypothesis (or paradigm) was tenable or > not. It did not matter. Velikovsky was self-evidently wrong, and he is still wrong. This can be shown in several independent ways, any of which is enough to constitute total disproof. The astronomers knew this. Velikovsky refused to modify his theories to fit the facts. (Facts which have since been reaffirmed, not refuted.) I don't find that admirable. > Never mind that the very same kind of hypothesis has been > invoked to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs. No, it hasn't. Try reading more carefully. > Science is filled with bullshit detectors that have not used adequately > on themselves. Crap. You try talking to some graduate students. They are looking for a hole in the current theories, which they can expose, thus becoming famous. Just how do you think weirdo stuff like quantam mechanics was discovered ? Because of a hidebound resistance to change, I suppose. >One can go on endlessly speaking about the immutable "outer reality" that >none of us have direct access to. It's irrelevant, because >(1) It might not be there, >(2) It does not NEED to be there, because we are doing just fine as it is. What a lousy scientist you'd make. We're interested: if you're doing fine without the knowledge we seek, why not shut up ? >Then I must be the first of the bunch, which is very strange since I'm known >to be highly gifted in many fields with knowledge that is both broad and deep. > You certainly haven't demonstrated that here. And by the way, it's not spelled "hypocritism". >And yet, despite the fact that this shows >there to be nothing inherently absurd about Astrology, many scientists will >scoff just at hearing the very idea. The idea that planets influence you is subject to calculation, and hence can be proved (and has been proved) absurd. On that count, they are fully justified. The idea that personality is correlated with birth season is subject to study by survey. It has been done, and has also been found wrong. (I won't say "proved" - I have standards. ) Maybe you need better BS detectors, or maybe a better acquaintance with fact. >Pardon me for the analysis, but I see a specialist who feels threatened by >outsiders impringing on his "Sacred" knowledge -- which is why he speaks >of them with such unwarranted hostility. Who said I'm a specialist ? I learn. I continue to learn. I dislike the pseudo because it wishes to avoid knowledge, while pretending to seek it. I suppose you think astrology has made headway in the last century ? And yes, I feel hostile. I don't like slander and insult and misinformation. I also don't like protracted debates, so I will not reply publicly to any rebuttal you may have. -- Don lindsay@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu CMU Computer Science
todd@uop.edu (Dr. Nethack) (03/10/88)
In article <25@avsd.UUCP>, govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) writes: > that humans prefer something more in tune with their reality, with a > dash of mystery thrown in. Humans are basically irrational, not rational. Oh I dunno, I find that science, (math and physics are what I am exposed to) does a very good job of explaining things and relating. The problem is the education of the masses, they don't seem to want to learn, and moreover prefer such foolishness to anything real. This creates a temporal dissonance, but the money will follow the masses because those out to make money, know the masses are too dumb to know they are being taken. I myself enjoy the beauty of order in chaos, and the whole picture of things. But then again, I am not like most people anyway!! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- + uop!todd@uunet.uu.net + + cogent!uop!todd@lll-winken.arpa + + {backbone}!ucbvax!ucdavis!uop!todd + -----------------------------------------------------------------------
todd@uop.edu (Dr. Nethack) (03/10/88)
There is a big difference between comparing the true genius of
men like Einstein, Newton, and Tesla--
With the foolishness of new age crystal worship, UFO-ology, and
psychological reletivisms.
Such comparisons are mere rhetoric, and perhaps this is why your
cross disciplinary interests were mentioned, to add weight to the
arguement.
It adds no weight to me, if Carl Sagan or some other "respected"
opinionator says something that is out to lunch, he/she/it better
back it up with persuasive arguments, or just go get his picture
on the cover of Omni or the Enquirer.
Time will tell, and experience has already told me the PREMISE of
Omni's approach is bad. If they were truely interested in Scientific
analyses, they would do it! Omni does not involve itself with that.
The system of Science is to tear down theories with other theories.
(i am aware this is a simplification, and i have no desire to write
about the scientific method, i presume you (collective) know what it is)
Omni's system is to say that since the concept is to be one of
editorialism and analyses, then that is what they will do.
And any form of editorializing is acceptable. Too bad.
Unfortunatly, it is approached as a rhetoric to the method, and not
with the emphasis on truely discovering the answers, by any real method.
This technique serves to stroke the brains of those who enjoy a mix
of real ideas with imagination.
I have found with the study of science, or history, (or life) that
what is really going on, outstrips fiction if you take the time to
look. The details of discovery and formations of opinions is far
better than Omni-esque attempts at mimickry... mimickry loaded with
psuedo reality.
Their argument is not one of science, but one of rhetorical epistomology
and it is done badly with bet-hedging where no expertise exists.
You want to find out? Read Physics Today, Physical Review Letters,
et. al. Professional Journals will tell you better what is going on
than anything off a newsstand, the trouble is, that is too much work
for *some* (most) people.
Maybe you like Omni, I see it as part of a growing problem of armchair
expertise in this country, that serves no other function than that of
making the truth harder to percieve.
Perhaps some might think that calling a spade, a spade is bad.
I have *had* it with the worship of thin-headedness.
And I mean worship. Such things are guarded with uninformed opinions,
and propagated by those who wish to conform to such models.
I see nothing to be proud of in such a system.
Understand, Omni, although it can be enjoyable is essentially a science
fiction rag, not a masterpiece of informative literature.
To compare "them" to Einstien's or Tesla's minds, and say that this
is the same as poor Joe pseudo-scientist struggling to prove something
is right there between the word "Bullshit" and the word "Crap" in my book.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
+ uop!todd@uunet.uu.net +
+ cogent!uop!todd@lll-winken.arpa +
+ {backbone}!ucbvax!ucdavis!uop!todd +
-----------------------------------------------------------------------sethg@athena.mit.edu (Seth A. Gordon) (03/10/88)
In article <5143@uwmcsd1.UUCP> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: > [a heck of a lot...] > > (5) In the early '50's the best selling work "Worlds In Collision" was > banned... Pardon? I thought the First Amendment prohibited that sort of behavior, even in the early '50s. (Was it banned because Velikovsky was a Communist? Improbable...) > ...by hard-nosed astronomers who knew nothing about what the > book was talking about, by their own admission. WIC was, if I'm not mistaken, a book about astronomy. Are you saying it was banned by astronomers who knew nothing about astronomy? > ...Yet they chose > to initiate a slur campaign, solely because the man (Velikovsky) > threatened the paradign of Gradualism and because he dared to > question the Universal validity of Newton's law of gravity.... Did he have any evidence, based on contemporary experiments, that Newton's law was not universal? > Never mind whether his hypothesis (or paradigm) was tenable or > not. It did not matter.... Carl Sagan, in _Broca's Brain,_ has a chapter on Velikovsky's book, with an appendix on the physics behind it. In the appendix, he says that the probability of some of the planetary maneuvers V. describes are so unlikely that the book should have been titled _Worlds In Collusion._ > Never mind that the very same kind of hypothesis has been > invoked to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs. The dinosaur-extinction hypothesis, as I understand it, is that dust raised by a large meteorite striking the earth caused climactic changes that the dinosaurs couldn't survive. Velikovsky's hypothesis, at least as Sagan tells it, is that thousands of years ago, a piece of the planet Jupiter was ejected into space, flew toward the Earth, and, through the influence of its gravitational force, parted the Red Sea so Moses could cross, stopped and restarted the Earth's rotation at the appropriate biblical points, did lots of other things I have neither memory nor space to recount, and then settled into a stable orbit as the planet Venus. Is that "the very same kind of hypothesis?" Not in my book. I have directed followups to talk.origins because that forum seems most appropriate for Velikovskia. > Specialization is wrong, and also unnecessary. People just have to learn > to learn more efficiently to overcome the so-called information > explosion (which is really a communication breakdown.) How? I'd like to know. Send a copy to Paul Gray, president of MIT, and the MIT Provost's Office; I'm sure they'd like to know, too. > Science is filled with bullshit detectors that have not used adequately > on themselves. Not surprising. Scientists are human. > > [re an immutable, objective, outside reality] >(1) It might not be there, >(2) It does not NEED to be there, because we are doing just fine as it is. It MIGHT AS WELL be there, because we are doing just fine assuming it is. That sort of assumption led to the technology that this discussion is being conducted with. Imagine it the other way: "Well, Joe, this particular set of chemicals isn't a semiconductor now, but I'm sure if I just BELIEVE it is for long enough, it will BECOME a semiconductor. And if I BELIEVE for a little longer, it will turn into a Cray supercomputer." > If our opinion changes, then so does reality. At one time, it was the opinion of a vast number of researchers in the Soviet Union, led by one Mr. Lysenko, that genetics was wrong and that organisms were *entirely* a product of their environment. Soviet researchers who disagreed lost their jobs, sometimes their lives. Joe Stalin made sure that the *opinion* of the Soviet scientific community was in line with Lysenko's. Reality didn't change. Reality won. Genetics is now accepted even in the Soviet Union. -- sethg%athena.MIT.EDU@mit-eddie.UUCP -- CONVERT me, CONTRA lovers! -- sethg%athena.MIT.EDU@mitvma.BITNET| talk.politics.latin-america: YES 22 / NO 3 sethg@athena.MIT.EDU -------------| I need **81** more YES votes by March 31.
dplatt@coherent.com (Dave Platt) (03/10/88)
In article <5143@uwmcsd1.UUCP> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: > > The very question of Astrology itself may lie on the existence of seasonal > mating cycles that are vestigal from our evolutionary ancestors. What kind > of person one is may depend in part on what part of the seasonal cycle the > mother is in during conception. And yet, despite the fact that this shows > there to be nothing inherently absurd about Astrology, many scientists will > scoff just at hearing the very idea. How dare they when most know next > to nothing about biology as it relates to the possibility raised above. > It's another case of prejudice leading one to inappropriately use his or > her (but usually his) authority. > I don't believe that scientists scoff at astrology because they believe it's inherently absurd. Rather, they scoff because they see people behaving in a very credulous fashion in the utter absence of any valid evidence that astrological analyses or forecasts have any predictive capability at all. I studied astrology (the Rosicrucian interpretation) for some time while I was in college. I cast a fully-detailed horoscope for myself, and looked up the interpretations of the various aspects, etc. in a number of the standard reference works. I was impressed at the degree of detail that the interpretations provided, and was struck by the "resonance" between what was written and my own view of myself... ... until I realized that I had made a substantial mathematical error at the beginning of my calculations... I had miscalculated my time of birth (in GMT) by several hours. My miscalculation had thrown all of the short-term angles completely out of whack, and about half of the interpretations I had looked up didn't apply to me at all. I looked up the correct ones, and once again was struck by how closely these interpretations seemed to match my personality. However, I was a bit suspious at this point, and I picked out a number of other interpretations from the books and random. Once again, the same "sense of rightness" arose... I felt that the interpretations applied to me, even though they were chosen at random. A wider reading of the references led me to the conclusion that most of the various personality characteristics, described as applying to people of specific signs and aspects, would actually apply to a large fraction of people in our culture. I also noted that different authors had _very_ different interpretations of certain aspects... there was little or no agreement on the details. Some studies I've read of in the years since this incident have tended to confirm my hunch. A few double-blind studies have failed to find any statistically-significant correlation between subjects' astrological forecasts and well-studied aspects of human personality as measured by (for example) the MMPI test. "Spoof" tests (in which people were provided with detailed astrological analyses that were allegedly derived from the subjects' actual birthdates/places but which were actually constructed at random) showed the same result that I achieved by accidental miscalculation... the subjects tended to identify strongly with the astrological analyses even though there was _no_ connection between these analyses and their actual birthdates. [I apologize for my inability to cite references for these studies.] I agree with your suggestion above... there may(!) be some connection between certain aspects of human personality and birthdate, seasonal mating cycles, climate-at-time-of-birth, and similar factors. Frankly, I wouldn't be greatly surprised if some such factor, of greater or lesser strength, were to be identified... humans are certainly subject to day-length and light-exposure influences, among others. HOWEVER: there's a _big_ leap between saying "a connection may exist" and saying "Astrology is scientifically valid"! I also agree that valid scientific theories have been rejected by the scientific establishment in the past due to inertia... it sometimes seems that an old generation of scientists must often die off, and a new generation mature into power, before a radical shift of viewpoint can occur. However... for such a shift of viewpoint to occur and have any validity at all, the new point-of-view/theory MUST achieve a certain degree of maturity... it must show itself to be _more_ able to make valid predictions and withstand attempted disproofs than the theories that it is intended to displace. It's important to remember that these two points are really at the base of the scientific method. In order for something to be considered as a scientifically-valid theory, it _must_ be able to make predictions (simply explaining what's already been seen isn't sufficient), and it _must_ be testable and capable of disproof (which is why the ability to make predictions is so important). If an idea is impossible to disprove, then it is _not_ scientifically valid. It may be an attractive idea, and it may very well be true(!), but it isn't a valid theory. To the best of my knowledge, astrology in its current state is really a set of beliefs that qualify in many ways as a religion. It has not achieved acceptance in the scientific community because solid, bias-free evidence simply hasn't been presented to justify this acceptance. There are many anecdotal reports of its usefulness, and many testimonials to its worth; there's no real evidence. Should someone perform a valid study (e.g. double-blind, with controls and a sufficiently large test population) that does show a statistically significant correlation between astrological analysis and human personality or fate, then I think that people (scientists included!) will sit up and pay attention. But, until such scientifically-valid evidence has been collected, people who believe in astrology have no right to claim that they're being ignored. Based on what I'm reading on the net, folks' major reason for disliking Omni's approach seems to be that Omni pushes popular and attractive hypotheses (psi, UFOs, etc.) in a credulous and uncritical manner; Omni takes a "Gee, look at what might be so" stance without having the intellectual honesty to ask "Well, if it's so, how can we test and prove it; if it isn't so, how can we test and disprove it; what's the REAL evidence?" I tend to agree. Some of the speculations published in Omni may turn out to be the truth... but I don't believe that Omni's uncritical and sensational attitude is doing ANYTHING to support an honest attempt to find out what the truth really is. I still read Omni occasionally... primarily for the fiction articles... but I treat the entire "Anti-matter" section as an example of the willingness of humans to accept ideas in an uncritical fashion as long as the ideas are attractive and fill a psychological need. -- Dave Platt UUCP: ...!{ames,sun,uunet}!coherent!dplatt DOMAIN: dplatt@coherent.com INTERNET: coherent!dplatt@ames.arpa, ...@sun.com, ...@uunet.uu.net
markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (03/10/88)
In article <1077@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) writes: >This is getting ripe. Thank you for your apology, because there is a lot for you to apologize for in your posting. >In article <5143@uwmcsd1.UUCP> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: > >> (1) DeBroglie writes a two page thesis discussing the matter-wave >> duality. .... >> It took Einstein having seen the paper for it to be rescued. > >Thank you for demonstrating that it is the scientists who are creative and >who are open to new paradigms. ... and who else would I have been talking about? Just what are you assuming anyway? > >> And even >> today Physicists get around having to accept the implications >> of the theory by the old trick: "well Newton was right to a >> first approximation." > >Have you ever met a physicist ? Seriously ? I am one. Some of the best workers in General Reletivity are here too. One was my thesis advisor. But none of that matters, because your ad-hominom's are logically invalid and dishonest ... and unprovoked. >why not shut up ? Try to remain coherent. >And yes, I feel hostile. I don't like slander and insult and misinformation. That's the problem. Your hostility has nothing to do with me, it was evidently already there. There was no slander in what I said, nor insult and certainly no misinformation, as you've tried to demonstrate with a dishonest style of argument. But there is plenty from what you are writing. If you haven't the intelligience to argue except though personal attacks, then don't waste your time on the net. I expected to see an intelligient evaluation from you of what was a perfectly rational debate. You apparently lack the experience to remain detached enough from what you are arguing about while still adequately expressing you sentiments coherently. I can understand your basic sentiments, but they are totally misguided. You can't just go lashing out at people just because they maintain what you believe is pseudo-science, simply because you are really in no position to determine that. The truth will make itself known through the requirement that we be consistent with it. There is simply no better way to know it since we do not have God's view of the world. Saying that you do is basically blasphemous: it amounts to saying that you are God and that other people who may have differrent means of accessing knowledge are inferior. This is where the racism creeps in, because other cultrues have typically used other means to access knowledge. Yes, there is a problem somewhere there. A nebulous one that has surfaced in the panicked postings concerning Sci. Am. It's the idea that Science is going to the dogs. Well, that is not the real problem. It is symptomatic of something else ... something much more serious: a total communication breakdown between the different specialists of the different fields of science. Not an information explposion, mind you. That's just the way it would seem when you have an increasingly fragmented science. What I am trying to get across here is that much of the lashing out by the scientists against the so-called pseudo-scientists is symptomatic of this very condition. Some of it has also been racially motivated and some by the arrogance of European ethnocentrism. The example I gave concerning history is such an example. One can tell that it is not the problem with the education of our people. Rather, the problem is simply that many scientists have lost much of their credibility in the eyes of the public, partly because of them having been burned so often while lashing out at people wrongly believed to be pseudo-scientists. ... and yes I do read Scientific American occasionally ... but think it is a little too superficial to really be an adequate forum for scientific discussion. Then again, my standards are very high.
ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) (03/10/88)
In article <5167@uwmcsd1.UUCP>, markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: > A lot of stuff which I will summarize as saying that most scientists have no imagination and that OMNI is a good science magazine. > Now my impression of this argument is that after Mark sang the praises of OMNI a lot of people wrote back and said that OMNI, whatever its virtues as a fiction magazine, was painfully credulous and promoted belief in pseudoscience. Mark then responded by saying that, in fact, he believes every piece of pseudoscientific drivel that has been popular some time in last fifty years. (I may be exagerating this point. I remember some praise of Velikovsky, Astrology, various forms of ESP belief, and a little New Age stuff.) It seems to me that he has conceded the main point. As far as scientists having no imagination, some don't. The very best must rely on a dynamic balance between being willing to entertain all kinds of ideas and a clear sense of the distinction between fantasy and reality. Mark seems to be attacking people for having the second attribute, one that OMNI magazine holds in low regard, but that is the attribute which makes science possible. No one has ever condemned creationists for having no imagination. > >Have you ever met a physicist ? Seriously ? > > I am one. Some of the best workers in General Reletivity are here too. > One was my thesis advisor. > If I were feeling hostile, I might say that this proves that it is possible to learn GR without knowing anything about science. Sadly, one can say the same about any particular discipline. Instilling a critical sense is the most difficult task facing a faculty member. It's one that we frequently fail to accomplish. Instilling imagination, while also important, is frequently superfluous, and when not, frequently impossible. Finally, > > One can tell that it is not the problem with the education of our people. > Rather, the problem is simply that many scientists have lost much of their > credibility in the eyes of the public, partly because of them having been > burned so often while lashing out at people wrongly believed to be > pseudo-scientists. > I would like to see an example of someone you think has been "wrongly believed to be pseudo-scientists" that is not such an obvious joke as Velikovsky et al. Alternatively, who has been "burned" by pointing out his errors? I agree that if the scientific community would refrain from making fun of the Velikovskys and Uri Gellers of this world that people would rarely get pissed off at scientists. I had no idea that avoiding popular anger was a criterion for a valid argument. > Then again, my standards are very high. I'm just quoting this part for fun. -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (03/11/88)
In article <1159@ut-emx.UUCP> ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes: >In article <5167@uwmcsd1.UUCP>, markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: >> >A lot of stuff which I will summarize as saying that most scientists have no >imagination and that OMNI is a good science magazine. Whether it is most or not remains to be discussed, as I never used that qualifier. >Now my impression of this argument is that after Mark sang the praises of >OMNI a lot of people wrote back and said that OMNI, whatever its virtues >as a fiction magazine, was painfully credulous and promoted belief >in pseudoscience. > >Mark then responded by saying that, in fact, he believes every piece of >pseudoscientific drivel that has been popular some time in last fifty years. >(I may be exagerating this point. I remember some praise of Velikovsky, ??????????? You can`t exxcuse yourself for lying. Another smear tactic, I suppose? >Astrology, various forms of ESP belief, and a little New Age stuff.) ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Persistent, aren`t we? > >It seems to me that he has conceded the main point. You mean to tell me that there is a point to all of your smearing and bickering? You just lost all your credibility in all your lying above. As far as my beliefs go, there is absolutely nothing that I have posted to indicate where I stand on the various pseudo-sciences. I`ve purposely done that to show right before your very nose what tactics one would go through to smear someone who SEEMS to be slightly sympathetic to any of the pseudo`s. I caught you and you seem to be screaming for having been caught in the act. This is my stand: nobody has the right to try to suppress one or show irrational hostility just because that person is working in a different paradigm. It is wrong and slanderous. Yet you persist. Stop it once and for all. I do not really read OMNI that much. I have a couple back issues, also of Sci.Am. and Discover. The irony of it all is that both magazines (Sci.Am. and OMNI) have the same kind of articles presented in much the same way. Actually, OMNI`s coverage of the Ozone Hole (which predated Sci.Am.`s by a month.) was a bit better. OMNI also had fairly decent articles in this month`s issue about Tesla and about the research in Growth Factors ... which I trapped other respondants into conceding are perfectly respectible scientific topics. The coverage was in no way superficial. So the question in my mind was whence the incongruity? Shannon would be badly insulted to know that some of you posters had called him a pseudo-scientist for his having been interviewed. The only thing that one could even call fiction or fantasy is whetever lies in the anti-matter sections and the fiction section. I would hardly call the Physicists` research into galaxy formation pseudo- science, yet many of you are guilty of that very thing. Obviously the hostility had nothing to do with me, as it was there in prior postings. So the only thing that leaves left is hypocriticism ... a defensive- ness at seeing one`s own paradigm crumble before himself. Such is to be expected of people still living in the twentieth century whereas it is nearly the twenty-first. None of the magazines mentioned would be very good for a good exchange of information on a deep level. The true armchair scientist is one who would not go to the library (which is exactly where I`m at) instead of buying one of those magazines. So my true stand on these magazines: I use the library, what`s your excuse?
edk@gryphon.CTS.COM (Ed Kaulakis) (03/11/88)
In article <1221@uop.edu>, todd@uop.edu (Dr. Nethack) writes: [elided good stuff] > > The Omni-ites I know seem to want to beleive it, wheather it is true or > not, so long as it is what they want to believe. This is a dangerous > trend and I have seen it spreading! > > Perhaps this is not the place for *this* type of discussion, but the > circular reasoning that it involves is down right manipulative and > brain washing. Moreover, our schools are full of such garbage techniques. > > We've all heard how T.V. is geared to the 6th grade mind, and now Omni > wants us to worship the thoughts and dillusions of the same frame of > reference. (so does Dan Rather) :-) > > It is not so bad, *assuming* one is educated enough to catch all the > crap, but lately, crap is all that is fed, (in many circles of influence) > so some have become used to eating it, and have taken to recommending it > to their friends as Gospel. > > And we wonder why American products and morale are down.. Some of us take > pride in what we do, the rest seem not to care about anything but money. > > And the rest of us/life/truth/reality be damned. One man's opinion: there are interesting and interesting mental tools, of great value to those that possess them and to their society, that simply will not pass through an Average Daily Attendance:Grade Point Average:Multiple Choice filter. In particular, interrelationships between pieces of knowledge or judgements about pieces of knowledge seem to be missing... It is time and past time we stole back our memetic heritage from the tenured high-school teachers (horse laugh, no smiley). (Followups to alt.flame, I'm getting off the sci.misc point here...) Luv, Ed
ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) (03/12/88)
In article <5183@uwmcsd1.UUCP>, markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: > A cogent explanation of his views regarding things he probably doesn't support and magazines he rarely reads. > I actually find that after reading Mr. Hopkins article that any commentary would be superfluous. I do, however, have a question. Your reference to galaxy formation intrigues me. Did you bring in that analogy because 1) you work in that field and wanted to mention your credentials? 2) you can't tell the difference between the use of observation and theory in that field and in astrology (as a random example)? 3) you were stuck for good analogy? 4) you wanted to show that you too could insult people if you chose (which of course would be beneath you). It would, of course, be libelous to impute any of these motives to you, but I couldn't think of another. Cheers -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
ronse@prlb2.UUCP (Christian Ronse) (03/17/88)
In article <5143@uwmcsd1.UUCP>, markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: [...] > The only distinction between much science fiction and science fact is the > distinction between past and future. This shows that the depth of this guy's ``science'' is at the same level as that of cheap paperback novels. [much chatter deleted] > That's the problem: they've specialized, so they know practically nothing > about anything else. Hence they utterly lack the capabilities to > evaluate an outsider's claims on its own terms. > > Specialization is wrong, and also unnecessary. People just have to learn > to learn more efficiently to overcome the so-called information > explosion (which is really a communication breakdown.) [...] > Pardon me for the analysis, but I see a specialist who feels threatened by > outsiders impringing on his "Sacred" knowledge -- which is why he speaks > of them with such unwarranted hostility. > The mere fact that one specializes (an UNnecessary evil in this society) > is the problem. We are no more in the Renaissance, where Pic de la Mirandole could know everything in every scientific subject. If one wants to have a deep knowledge, it must be in a restricted field. Just avoiding specialization is laziness, cultivating superficiality, knowing very few things on everything. Overspecialization is bad too, one should combine a deep knowledge in a specialized field with a broad general culture (a gaussian-shaped depth/breadth diagram). But who can say that every specialist in a field is ignorant in other ones? Specialists have the right to be angered when ignorants pretend to know their field better. Real science is hard work, there is no place in it for lazy superficial minds, and hard work deserves respect. [etc.] > >> That's why I think Omni is a sort of Trojan Horse for the marching morons. > > Then I must be the first of the bunch, which is very strange since I'm known > to be highly gifted in many fields with knowledge that is both broad and > deep. How modest he is! Real talented people don't have to boast about their gifts. Their achievements speak for themselves. ..... And then this guy continues in further postings his propaganda for Velikovsky... Velikovsky was a psychoanalist, he did not know anything about scientific astronomy. Did he try to verify if his elucubrations were consistent with the laws of celestial mechanics? Did Mark William Hopkins make the calculations? And I don't want to hear about the relationship of astrology to the obsevation of seasonal cycles, etc.. I have never heard about an astrologer doing that. They just repeat dogmas found in their books, which repeat, etc.. Next time someone tries to promote pseudo-science in sci.misc, he should first give his scientific credentials. Otherwise it is better to move to talk.religion.newage. Christian Ronse maldoror@prlb2.UUCP {uunet|philabs|mcvax|...}!prlb2!{maldoror|ronse} ``So goodnight, kids, and remember...everybody has a pointer in their heart, set to that special someone...don't keep yours set to nil...'' Basil Hosmer Kaptain Kloodge Saga
pax@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (03/18/88)
There has been a discussion about why teachers are so poorly paid and what is wrong with the schools etc in this notes string. I think the root of the problem is that while schools are popularly represented as places of education, their true mission is indoctrination. That is, just the opposite. I remember well a vidoeo tape I once saw on the news of a student crying that she wouldn't be so individualistic in the future in the course of being punished for being just that. The students invariably percieve the hypocracy; I certainly did. Consider such things as teacher selection and retention, textbook selection, and teaching methodology in light of this deception and suddenly what actually happens in our schools makes sense. The solution is simple: do away with the indoctrination--this is the exact philosophy of state schools of science and mathematics, magnet schools and the like, though it is never expressed so clearly.
markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (03/19/88)
In article <434@prlb2.UUCP> ronse@prlb2.UUCP (Christian Ronse) writes: This is almost even fun watching stuffed shirts getting their feathers ruffled ... Enjoy it. *In article <5143@uwmcsd1.UUCP>, markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William *Hopkins) writes: ... ** The only distinction between much science fiction and science fact is the ** distinction between past and future. * *This shows that the depth of this guy's ``science'' is at the same level as *that of cheap paperback novels. Cheap shot from cheap minds. <ABOUT OBTAINING EXPERTISE IN A MULTITUDE OF FIELDS>: *We are no more in the Renaissance, where Pic de la Mirandole could know *everything in every scientific subject. If one wants to have a deep knowledge, *it must be in a restricted field. Not true. In fact, it is very much the other way around. If one wants to fully master a field then one must also have deep background in other related fields. *Just avoiding specialization is laziness, Just specializing in only one field is lazyness if we are to accept your argument. *cultivating superficiality, knowing very few things on everything. Ditto. *Overspecialization is bad too, The "over-" is redundant. *one should combine a deep knowledge in a specialized field ... ... in a **variety** of fields ... *Specialists have the right to be angered when ignorants pretend to know their *field better. Read: Specialists have a right to arrogance when their work is challenged by people outside their fields. That is, they have a right to an enclave mentality. This is effectively what you have just said. * Real science is hard work, ... Read: Real arithmetic is performing 1000 digit multiplications by hand because one does not want to be "lazy". Real science is novelty followed up by perserverence in sticking it out to its conclusion and to its details. But NEVER forget that the whole process is driven by novelty and the desire to know. Real science is fun, that which some would call "hard work" is actually hard and INTENSE fun. One could spend DECADES at it, but this detracts none from the point. ** ** That's why I think Omni is a sort of Trojan Horse for the marching morons. ** ** Then I must be the first of the bunch, which is very strange since I'm known ** to be highly gifted in many fields with knowledge that is both broad and ** deep. * *How modest he is! Real talented people don't have to boast about their gifts. *Their achievements speak for themselves. ... and how envious you are! One has the right to be honest about themselves without feeling shame for doing so, especially when one's talent is a product of a long committment. I am who I am and I will make no qualms about saying so. *And then this guy continues in further postings his propaganda for *Velikovsky... Maybe when you grow up so that you come to learn how to read English better, then you'll come to realise that I am actually neutral in regard to V. *And I don't want to hear about the relationship of astrology to the obsevation *of seasonal cycles, etc ... Okay, I'm sorry. I did not mean to make you cry. * *Next time someone tries to promote pseudo-science in sci.misc, he should first *give his scientific credentials. "Next time someone tries to breathe, he should first prove he/she is human." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: This disclaimer is completely invalid.
erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) (03/21/88)
In article <2118@coherent.com>, dplatt@coherent.com (Dave Platt) writes: > I tend to agree. Some of the speculations published in Omni may turn > out to be the truth... Didn't one of the SciAm folks do some research that compared the validity of SciAm predictions/statements in articles with articles from our friend, the National Enquirer, and find that Nat'l Enq was more accurate? I remember an acquaintence (one I normally trust) telling me something about this, but I don't remember the details. It all has to do with how the publication presents its ideas: "Wouldn't it be neat if it worked like this..." vs "We've figured this out, and this is how it works.." > Dave Platt > UUCP: ...!{ames,sun,uunet}!coherent!dplatt DOMAIN: dplatt@coherent.com > INTERNET: coherent!dplatt@ames.arpa, ...@sun.com, ...@uunet.uu.net -- Just say NO to skate harassment. Girls play with toys. Real women skate. -- Powell Peralta ad J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007
csm@garnet.berkeley.edu (03/21/88)
> ... >I remember an acquaintence (one I normally trust) telling me something >about this, but I don't remember the details. It all has to do with > ... An acquaintance of mine, (one I never trust unless he's being honest), told be that the U.S has a Naval Base from which one can see Cuba regardless of atmospheric conditions. Brad Sherman Back in 1971, I was kicked out of a student council meeting at Case Western Reserve U. for being too vociferous in my opposition to spending funds to buy thousands of "Smiley-Face" buttons. They were to encourage intercourse --verbal, of course-- among the students. So let me state that the above comments may be sarcastic [{(`<\/>')}].
erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) (03/22/88)
In article <1236@uop.edu>, todd@uop.edu (Dr. Nethack) writes: > ... The details of discovery and formations of opinions is far > better than Omni-esque attempts at mimickry... mimickry loaded with > psuedo reality. Wait. If I never take into consideration really, truely ludicrous ideas -- how am I supposed to come up with new ideas? Many great theorheticians were laughed at, and some were made to revoke their original statements by an *uniformed* populace. Why not have a populace that is ready to accept new ideas, even if those ideas are semi-valid? If it's science fiction or science "fact" you're still going to have to get out to the populace some concepts that they may not be ready for. What better way than with science fiction, and trendy silly ideas and theories? Isn't that better than a nation of "I Love Lucy" watchers? (A sort of unrealted comment: My grandfather refuses to believe that a person has ever been into space. His logic: God would kill anybody that went up there, so NASA and all that must be a big fake. 1/4 :-) > You want to find out? Read Physics Today, Physical Review Letters, > et. al. Professional Journals will tell you better what is going on > than anything off a newsstand, the trouble is, that is too much work > for *some* (most) people. Ok, fine. Where do I find such wonderful purveyors of fact? Not at the 7-11 down the street. Univ of Houston library carries a few good things, but those are fought for tooth and nail. I have to subscribe, or hang out at some really esoteric places to get my hands on a copy. Once I find them, how do I understand them? True, Sci_Am is a good layman's mag, I've learned a lot from it... Many "professional" journals are difficult to read for us poor fools who aren't majoring in the sciences. > Maybe you like Omni, I see it as part of a growing problem of armchair > expertise in this country, that serves no other function than that of > making the truth harder to percieve. Again, the "I Love Lucy" watchers that have a 4th grade science education. I'd rather have some ill-informed, self-appointed experts than a completly ignorant, *apathetic* populace ready to take up the hue and cry of anybody with a good line of BS. > Perhaps some might think that calling a spade, a spade is bad. Nit pick: "Calling a spade a spade" is a racist cliche'. Like I said, it's picky, but valid. > And I mean worship. Such things are guarded with uninformed opinions, > and propagated by those who wish to conform to such models. Again, I'd rather have some people that are wrong, but trying, than people that couldn't care less. (Preferably, we'd all have "a computer with the power of 10,000 Crays and the size of a sugar cube stuck behind our ear." -- Tom Maddox, I think. :-) > Understand, Omni, although it can be enjoyable is essentially a science > fiction rag, not a masterpiece of informative literature. Yeah, this is true. It also points you in the right directions. I started out on s-f fiction and some other pulp crap. Then moved up to Omni, and now am into Sci_Am and a few other "factual" magazines. > + uop!todd@uunet.uu.net + > + cogent!uop!todd@lll-winken.arpa + > + {backbone}!ucbvax!ucdavis!uop!todd + -- ... They'll take the place apart -- Any minute now -- I've seen it happen before on Mercury where we put out a Cool Issue -- And the law is moving in fast -- Nova Heat -- Not locals, boss -- This is *Nova Heat* -- Well boss?" -- from _The_Ticket_That_Exploded_, William S. Burroughs J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007
pax@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (03/23/88)
> An acquaintance of mine, (one I never trust unless he's being honest), > told be that the U.S has a Naval Base from which one can see Cuba > regardless of atmospheric conditions. You will be surprised to learn that we have a Naval Base IN Cuba.
todd@uop.edu (Dr. Nethack) (03/24/88)
In article <472@flatline.UUCP>, erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) writes: > In article <1236@uop.edu>, todd@uop.edu (Dr. Nethack) writes: > > > ... The details of discovery and formations of opinions is far > > better than Omni-esque attempts at mimickry... mimickry loaded with > > psuedo reality. > > Wait. If I never take into consideration really, truely ludicrous ideas > -- how am I supposed to come up with new ideas? You could think for yourself, built on a solid knowledge base. > Many great theorheticians > were laughed at, and some were made to revoke their original statements by > an *uniformed* populace. Why not have a populace that is ready to accept > new ideas, even if those ideas are semi-valid? Why not just have an informed populace, instead of a half-assed awareness? > If it's science fiction or science "fact" you're still going to have to > get out to the populace some concepts that they may not be ready for. > What better way than with science fiction, and trendy silly > ideas and theories? It will take more effort to reteach them the truth, than it would to teach them the truth in the first place, that is a dismal excuse for a reason. > Isn't that better than a nation of "I Love Lucy" > watchers? Maybe that is what you watch, would you rather Omni make a T.V. show like NOVA, only just psuedo science and UFO-ology?? That is as bad as using Rambo as a roll model for international relations. > (A sort of unrealted comment: My grandfather refuses to believe that > a person has ever been into space. His logic: God would kill anybody > that went up there, so NASA and all that must be a big fake. 1/4 :-) Maybe you and your grandfather need to learn there are facts that exist apart from your own conclusions. > > You want to find out? Read Physics Today, Physical Review Letters, > > et. al. Professional Journals will tell you better what is going on > > than anything off a newsstand, the trouble is, that is too much work > > for *some* (most) people. > Ok, fine. Where do I find such wonderful purveyors of fact? > Not at the > 7-11 down the street. > Univ of Houston library carries a few good things, > but those are fought for tooth and nail. > I have to subscribe, or hang Thats right, do you subscribe to Omni?? You don't like having to really look for facts?? Look at Science News, it will help. > Once I find them, how do I understand them? Do what I did, *read* about them, and *ask questions* of people who will tell you. > Again, the "I Love Lucy" watchers that have a 4th grade science education. > I'd rather have some ill-informed, self-appointed experts than a completly > ignorant, *apathetic* populace ready to take up the hue and cry of anybody > with a good line of BS. Like Omni-- good line of BS. > > Perhaps some might think that calling a spade, a spade is bad. > > Nit pick: "Calling a spade a spade" is a racist cliche'. Like I said, > it's picky, but valid. It is invalid, you are assuming because I use an older euphemism that I am a racist, I am not a racist, you are bordering on foolishness. > > And I mean worship. Such things are guarded with uninformed opinions, > > and propagated by those who wish to conform to such models. > Again, I'd rather have some people that are wrong, but trying, than people > that couldn't care less. You assume I don't care, I *do* care, that is the problem, you are apathetic, you would rather tolerate error than not. > > Understand, Omni, although it can be enjoyable is essentially a science > > fiction rag, not a masterpiece of informative literature. > Yeah, this is true. It also points you in the right directions. I started With uniformed premise.. > out on s-f fiction and some other pulp crap. Then moved up to Omni, and > now am into Sci_Am and a few other "factual" magazines. Keep going, you'll get better at it... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- + uop!todd@uunet.uu.net + + cogent!uop!todd@lll-winken.arpa + + {backbone}!ucbvax!ucdavis!uop!todd + -----------------------------------------------------------------------
todd@uop.edu (Dr. Nethack) (03/24/88)
In article <472@flatline.UUCP>, erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) writes: > In article <1236@uop.edu>, todd@uop.edu (Dr. Nethack) writes: > Wait. If I never take into consideration really, truely ludicrous ideas Btw- If the ideas are *truely* ludicrous, by your own definition, then would you prefer to follow the white elephant? Somthing that is at the onset untrue? That is you seem to already know whats credible and what is not, and you have a preferance for the incredible perhaps for some superstious reason. > > Perhaps some might think that calling a spade, a spade is bad. > > Nit pick: "Calling a spade a spade" is a racist cliche'. Like I said, > it's picky, but valid. Earlier today I missed this trite crap.. but the term comes from cards, not racism, (where it was later attributed to). Whos a racist? Rereading your posting, it is full of double standards. You can keep them. "Whattya mean 'WE' whiteman???" -- Mr. Sixkiller ----------------------------------------------------------------------- + uop!todd@uunet.uu.net + + cogent!uop!todd@lll-winken.arpa + + {backbone}!ucbvax!ucdavis!uop!todd + -----------------------------------------------------------------------
jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt) (03/28/88)
In article <73600015@uiucdcsp> pax@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >> An acquaintance of mine, (one I never trust unless he's being honest), >> told be that the U.S has a Naval Base from which one can see Cuba >> regardless of atmospheric conditions. >You will be surprised to learn that we have a Naval Base IN Cuba. Yep. GITMO. Real name is something like "guatanamo", but nobody calls it that. Been there a few times: It is a training base. You know what? You can't see miami from there!!!!! (wrong side: check map, it's on the se facing south) Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5