Khazar-khum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Scientists are just as venal, petty, and greedy as
> everyone else. They've been corrupted by politics
> and money. You want grant money, you toe the line.
You need to stand out to get grants. You don't stand out by towing the line.
There are some who will cheat to stand out, yes. But they
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Laboratory
Khazar-khum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The editor makes the final decision on what to
> print, and you'd better be on their good side if
> you want to have anything even remotely
> controversial printed.
Yes, that is one of the näin Problems. Perr review and impact factor are the best we have to cut the weed from the chaff, but pers
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Laboratory
Khazar-khum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Peer Review is nothing more than Appeal to
> Authority, or what the Medieval scholars called
> 'auctorite' ie, the appeal to the masters.
'Peer'. It is not reviewed by your superioirs, but by peers. The point is to have several people of similar competence to have a critical review o
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Laboratory
Rick Baudé Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lee Olsen Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Rick Baudé Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Lee Olsen Wrote:
> > >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Laboratory
Ok,
It's gotten childish enough, count me out.
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Laboratory
Rick Baudé Wrote:
----------------------------------------------------
> Look at the pix I took. How did the tusk get
> shoved in the ground?
How do you know someting that far back was shoved? What gives you any degree of certainty of what happened?
Hominids were all around the
> world at the time. They weren't some obscure
> species in South Africa. They were in
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Laboratory
If I claim to know a stone on the ground got there, is it up to someone else to come with a better explanation,otherwise I am right.
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Laboratory
Rick Baudé Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And we play the old "burden of proof" card. So
> you don't have any viable alternative explanation
> as to how the tusk and the femurs got there?
>
God did it is as viable.Aliens,too.
In science, we do not explain how can some data be wrong. We need to explain why it is beyond re
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Laboratory
The burden of proof is not on the one saying a single incident is negative,but on anyone claiming it's positive.
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Laboratory
Lee Olsen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tommi Huhtamaki Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > The thing behind explanations that can sound
> > ridiculous is that if you have a very small
> number
> > of pieces of evidence,practically anything
> could
> > have caused these
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Laboratory
Rick Baudé Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lee Olsen Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Khazar-khum Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > > Making posts that ignore
> peer-reviewed
> > papers
> > > that
>
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Laboratory
Guys,
The discussion has drifted to a totally different topic from the opening post. Can you continue in an appropriate thread.
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Laboratory
Khazar-khum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You asked for examples, and he gave you some. Now
> you want studies--which will show the slant the
> grant writers want. Circular reasoning at its
> finest.
I asked for statistics of how the studies always favour the sponsors. That is not asking for examples, I am in no doubt that there are some ex
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Laboratory
> I did begin with the assumption that it made
> perfect sense within the premises of the authors.
Start with an assumption.
>
> But I expected these premises to be based on
> superstition and nonsense so was surprised they
> were consistent with science.
Consistency is itself not evidence of anything, especially as you get to adjust the meaning of the words i
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Ancient Egypt
> There's also solid support in the fact that the
> Pyramids Texts is internally consistent and
> consistent with the so called laws of nature.
It's a collection of texts made by human beings. There is no reason they must be internally consistent, or be consistent with the laws of nature. This is one of your made up rules that you try to force in, with no justifica
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Ancient Egypt
> What I am saying is that if you solve the word
> meanings by context then a different author intent
> emerges. This intent suggests not only that they
> made perfect sense but they had a different type
> of vocabulary that is still in use today. They
> had a different type of language that reflected
> what was established fact and known observational
> scienc
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Ancient Egypt
Rick Baudé Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What's silly about it? You can prove just about
> anything you want with statistics.
>
Statistics is nothing more than a way to deliver the message, similar to words. The actual study behind it is the point.
But I see no reason why you wouldn't share the actual informaation to back you
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Laboratory
Rick Baudé Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tommi Huhtamaki Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Rick Baudé Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > It does, and so what?
> >
> > So, do the statistics justify a statement
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Laboratory
Rick Baudé Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It does, and so what?
So, do the statistics justify a statement that the results would 'always favor the sponsor'? Which would mean that research would not help us in making any decisions, as all results would be biased.
I don't think so.
>
> You asked for statistics and references
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Laboratory
Rick Baudé Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh yeah, and Big Pharma knew that opioids were
> addictive but hid the information thousands of
> people have died and millions are addicted. But
> their 'studies' showed that they weren't
> addictive.
>
Maybe it's my lack of knowledge of the English language, but I thou
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Laboratory
---
>
> > It isn't about what is hard or not to
> believe, it
> > is about you asking people to believe.
>
> I am not asking anyone to believe anything.
>
> I am asking people to follow my argument and give
> me relevant and cogent input.
>
> I believe all people make sense in terms of their
> premises but I'm not asking anyo
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Alternative Geometry and Numerology
cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Essentially the problem is nobody will accept
> things that fall outside their belief systems.
It is hard to change a persons view when they thing they know something, sure. This is a bias we all share, to an extent that varies a bit.
But it is certain one won't change it by claiming 'Newton wa
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Alternative Geometry and Numerology
cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tommi Huhtamaki Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > If Occam's razor is taken to mean that the
> > argument with the least amount of assertions
> is
> > probably the correct one, I'd say you are
> shooting
> > for some kind
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Alternative Geometry and Numerology
Hans Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tommi Huhtamaki Wrote:
>
> >
> > If Occam's razor is taken to mean that the
> > argument with the least amount of assertions
> is
> > probably the correct one, I'd say you are
> shooting
> > for some kind of record for the wrongest
> argument
> > ever.
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Alternative Geometry and Numerology
cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nemtinakht Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > If anything is in fact under The Great
> Pyramid, it
> > is quite possible the actual burial place of
> King
> > Khufu. Herodotus did in fact mention that
> Khufu
> > was buried in
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Alternative Geometry and Numerology
Khazar-khum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Writing together is not the same as hiring
> someone. Writing is a finite thing. You will be
> finished in x amount of time. Often you never even
> talk to your 'collayborators'.
>
> Hiring means having that person around the office
> forever. You want someone who will be a '
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Laboratory
Rick Baudé Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've presented the facts. You've dismissed them
> with a wave of the hand.
>
> As usual, KK is absolutely right.
If there is a fact presented, it can be verified from independent sources, not just your words. And on topic, not jumping to gender roles or whatever else one might to try and di
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Laboratory
Rick Baudé Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's recast the experiment and instead of clovis
> vs. non clovis. Let's test the proposition is
> there a 'glass ceiling' that absolutely
> discriminates against women. The overwhelming
> majority of men will say there isn't, the
> overwhelming majority of women say th
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Laboratory
Do you mind sharing the statistics for the example you gave?
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Laboratory
Rick Baudé Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> C'mon now...I'm sure you recognize a bread and
> butter controlled experiment when you see it. You
> keep everything the same between two samples and
> change only one variable and then see what
> happens. In this case both candidates are
> identical even the defense for their respectiv
by
Tommi Huhtamaki
-
Laboratory