Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Why is WikiPedia so slow?

[Vern Green <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Let me explain to you why I might have a little, or in some cases, a
lot of mistrust in scientists.

Lets take a look at the OJ Simpson case for example.

We have been told for years that DNA evidence is irreputable. If a DNA
report comes back that says there is a 99,9% match in DNA, then it
really cannot be argued differently.

So the prosecution has a DNA match for OJ Simpson in the case that OJ
Simpson's DNA was found at the crime scene from blood samples taken.
The defense "scientist" of equal or greater stature came in and argued
the exact opposite in the case. Now who was right? Which of these two
scientists had the story right?

You see here is the problem. You are very clear that you look at the
scientific community as the way things are, taking things from a
scientific approach and you want to claim that every scientist, your
statement, "Jon and I are scientists
and we have repeatedly contradicted your claims about what scientists are
like" is a broad generialization that is not true. You cannot claim to
know what every scientist is like, and there seems to be a case where
there is always a scientists, doctor or some other professional of
that ilk all too ready to argue the opposite of another scientist's
take on things claiming to have been proven theory.

In the OJ Simpson case, the defense DNA expert was Dr. Fredric
Rieders, here is a short biography on the man.

http://www.lawyersandjudges.com/contributorinfo.cfm?ContribID=1255&PC=1204

He has a lot of fancy names, awards and seems to be a well respected
scientist, his testimony was at least in part, responsible for getting
OJ off on the crime. Poor Dennis Fung on the other hand (prosecution
expert) was just a lowly crime lab scientist without all those fancy
names. Yet, Dr. Fung had the basis of many years of proven theory on
his side, for all the good it did him.

Look, I am not trying to make the point on the OJ case, since there
was a lot of other elements that went into that case. The point I am
making is that there are scientists out there that are not these
"ethical" people that you claim they are.

So for me I have to call into question the lot of you. Especially
those pompous, arrogant assholes that simply say "Look, I am a
scientist, I am right, you are wrong and you are an idiot for thinking
the way you do." What kind of scientist can you possibly be if you
just simply dismiss any argument that does not support your belief?

With your attitude, you are no different than those that claimed the
world was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth so many
years ago. Anyone that comes out in contradiction to your chosen
belief in theory, despite the act that there are still unproven
concepts and still questions about that very theory that need to be
answered.

As a scientist, I would think you would be interested in alternate
point of views and concepts, yet you simply dismiss them out of hand.
I feel this is caused by your involvement in academia. The fact that
you are a teacher and seem to have this internally perceived
self-importance since you are looked upon to impart knowledge. Your
search for truth is limited to those things you accept are truth, with
that mindset, I personally feel you are abandoning the scientific
method.


On 1/7/06, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Christian M. Cepel wrote:
>
> > There are no NAS or Nobelists because of those who commute those honors
> > do not hold similar beliefs and as a whole they are very abusive and
> > intolerant of those who do.  Take Mike as an example.  It's never been
> > enough for him to agree to disagree or to say I disagree with your
> > theories and/or beliefs, but still respect you as a person.  Quite the
> > contrary, you are told you are a fool, or stupid, and that you have no
> > value as a scientist and indeed have no right to claim the distinction.
>
> The reason that you have no value as a scientist is that you are not
> taking a scientific approach to the problem.  That isn't even a
> possibility for you.  You are a religious person trying to promote your
> religion.  When science and data conflict with your prior beliefs you
> fight it.  A scientist keeps an opened mind and tries to construct his
> views based on data, evidence and logic.  You can't do that if you feel
> that you must defend ancient creation myths.
>
> If you look at the way some of you approach me - Vern for example - they
> want to tell me what's what.  The attitude is "Here - look at this - tell
> me why this doesn't show that evolutionary theory is wrong."  In the email
> I'm responding to now you have told me once again how things are.  You
> claim to know what scientists and Nobelists are like but I'm not sure how
> many scientists you know.  I think you couldn't know very many.  I think,
> once again, that you are inventing a convenient defense of your religion
> and you don't really care what the facts are.  Jon and I are scientists
> and we have repeatedly contradicted your claims about what scientists are
> like, but you won't listen to us because it is not convenient for your
> argument in favor of your creation myth.  If you wanted to know about
> evolutionary science, you would not have to write to this list, you could
> just get some books and read them.
>
> For decades scientists made the mistake of engaging with people like you
> in a "constructive dialogue" intent on informing you.  It turned out that
> you didn't give a shit, so the new strategy has been mocking derision.
> You asked for it, you got it.  Many scientists who used to debate with
> Creationists have decided that it is counterproductive because it makes it
> seem like there is a controversy and some validity to the Creationist
> view, but it has no validity.  None.  You can't dismiss science for
> decades and expect to be taken seriously by scientists.
>
>
> > These people are certainly in the minority, and if you're in the
> > minority, the respected journals and such won't publish your research or
> > conclusions, and if you don't get published.  You don't get published,
> > you don't get grants, and you don't exist.
>
> This also is not true.  As Jon has said repeatedly, solid scientific data
> collection, analysis and writing will lead to publication, more so if it
> causes us to question well-established ideas.  Of course, we often say
> that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," so if the
> claim is going to be that Darwin was wrong, or somesuch, you'd better have
> some pretty excellent data or you will be laughed at, and rightly so.
> Everyone, me especially, would love to be the huge superstar who proved
> that Darwin was wrong -- they'd have my photo in every biology and history
> textbook forever -- but that is about as likely at this point as proving
> that Copernicus was wrong.  Physicists have been trying for decades to
> poke holes in Einstein's theories.  Science is not like religion.  We are
> not trying to maintain it as it is; we are trying to change it constantly
> and we are especially interested in detecting false beliefs and
> eliminating them.  The goal of religion is stasis - the maintenance of the
> status quo despite any evidence that might be presented.
>
>
> > Evolutionary theory is the Orthanc on which those who think a little
> > differently break their twiggy fingers on.
>
> And this would be because they are so biased by their religious views that
> they are unable to do good science?
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>


--
Thanks
F Vernon Green

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion