Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by sculptor, Apr 12, 2016.
most likely "science" ain't an entity?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Then you found lies. It wasn't Nature, it was Science and Nature and Physical Review Letters. It wasn't a brush off, it was a serious investigation.
According to a 2002 Salon article, the concerns originated at Bell Labs and the seriousness of the investigation proceeded much faster than typical publishing rates:
The result of the Bell Labs investigation and Schön’s firing happened on September 25, 2002. Nature reported it the next day. All papers have been retracted at the request of all co-authors except Schön.
[Citation required.] Most of the evidence for older human habitation in the Americas than the Clovis culture appears to have appeared in the 21st century. So your claim that you bested this professor "long ago" does not show that 1) you made a credible claim backed by credible research, and 2) said research was available "long ago." Am I just old? I thought "long ago" still means prior to 2001-09-11.
[Citation required.] How do you know that stuff is fabricated? Why have you not demonstrated these claims to the appropriate ethics panels? Even granting for the sake of argument that you can divine scientific misconduct by looking at it, how are we supposed to judge your claims of being able to attribute it to specific motivation?
[Citation required.] This appears to be a very specific claim in a specific field, while the forum is one of General science.
That fault largely lies with sculptor. It was his burden to make articulate, well-supported points for the enlightenment of his potential audience. Also, what was the point of reporting a post without a cogent argument for why the post merited any moderator action? Just because you view the post through rose-tinted glasses doesn't make your love's beauty as blindingly obvious to the rest of us as your report would have us believe.
Except the period from the concerns being raised to the firing was April-September, so more like 6 months for consequences or two years if you count from the beginning of the flood, as Russ_Waters does. Other consequences, like his Ph.D. being revoked, happened later. The Salon article I quoted above came out even before the Bell Labs review was completed.
Quite an assumption, considering that I reported nothing about any " love's beauty "...
Post # 48, 49. And I do have to make a correction. Your compliment was for *exchemist*, but Russ voiced his agreement.
@ exchemist, please accept my apology. I also enjoy your posts and learn from your knowledge and insights.
Science cannot be self correcting ; since there is to much politics ; for funds ; which guided by a bunch of old foggies thinking ; egos and fear of old theories being outdated and wrong.
Science ; is no longer science ; it has become ; plain.
And that has prevented us from extraordinary discoveries and new methods of observing our natural environment? IMO, science is progressing at an exponential rate.
So...did you read the first page of the Thread?
Thanks, yes indeed, I had misread the article insofar as the timeline was concerned - in fact the unmasking and corrective action took place with commendable speed, it seems to me. Hence my lack of respect for the journalist, who I think was reporting in bad faith, to suit a preconceived agenda.
Well thanks for this, Write4U. As you know, I disagree with you about Tegmark/Shapiro, but otherwise I enjoy your contributions too.
And isn't it something to get a compliment from DMOE? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes I did, twice now. It did not tell me anything new about human behavior.
deleted for duplication.
Oh, even more most perfect puerile near almost kneel before as to paddo(err UNIVERSAL PERFECT)boy and more HAPPY HAPPY childish "EMOTICON"...so perfected of respectful to 20/20 hindsight of conspiracy of preconceived to denigrate all most perfect of science(KNEEL KNEEL)...
May I please oh near almost as perfect one wear ROSE COLORED GLASSES to see awesomeness of reporting conspiracy against near perfect of see all most not me perfect COMPLIMENT...
Genuflect before you and bow to your perfection oh great and almost near perfect exchemist
No ...CLICK... please oh super member of almostest perfectest except the one mostest perfectest, even more
Can you give me an example where I acted arrogantly or do you just see my ghost (MNN image) as arrogant?
Post # 67
Post 67 is your post. Do you consider calling someone arrogant an arrogant statement?
Sophist ; thinking
The term I used was *exponential*. If you are not familiar with that term, you may want to have a look at this lecture by Professor Emeritus Dr Albert Bartlett: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JRVijo65W0
If science has a growth of 1% per year, in 70 years we will have more than doubled our entire knowledge of scientific subjects.
Some times, parts of the discipline are very scientific.
However archaeology is an ever changing "science". One never knows what the next find, the next shovel, will turn up.
But very much not like physics and chemistry-------We have very little evidence of the distant past. Imagine trying to speculate the periodic table with only 25 known elements, then finding another one or two every decade or so.
He published under that title, and, I think, coined the phrase in 1923.
Yes, makes sense, I would hazard the guess that that is why it remained a strong paradigm for 9 decades.
However, one does not nee agriculture to have very large gatherings. eg: the Tsetsehese-staestse would gather together in winter camps numbering 4000(or more?)of the people.
If memory serves, Klaus dated the site by comparing tools found there to other tools found nearby in sites that had been radiocarbon dated.
That is a constant bias within the science. Many tend to see our forebears as not just primitive, but stupid. We doubt their art, architecture, and inventive natures. I suspect that when this bias prevails, we blind ourselves to the "truth".
Lots more digging to do there, but Klaus is dead.
As I posted above: option B).
Much is a guess, and some guesses are better than others.
(a little prayer)
May the funders keep funding, and the diggers keep digging and publishing.
Separate names with a comma.