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

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Vern Green wrote:

> 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.

By the way, the fact that Rieders testimony helped to get OJ off the hook 
doesn't mean that Rieders did anything wrong.  I don't know.  I would 
testify to *facts* on either side of any case.

The main strategy of the OJ defense was to instill doubt in the jurors. 
They succeeded partly by presenting a lot of real facts -- lots of science 
that made heads spin.  In the end the jurors just didn't know what to 
think.


> 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.

Did someone claim that scientists are "ethical people."  I didn't.  I 
don't think they are more ethical than most people.


> 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."

This is what we call a "straw man argument" because you have created the 
person you are arguing against.  There is no such scientist.  This does 
not mean that you are not an idiot!  ;-)


> What kind of scientist can you possibly be if you just simply dismiss 
> any argument that does not support your belief?

That's not something I ever run into.  But I wouldn't expect that Average 
Joe should be able to wander from the street into the office of a 
prominent professor at Harvard, say, tell the guy that he is wrong because 
of what it says in the Bible, and have the professor waste his time 
listening to that rubbish.


> 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.

As a non-scientist, religious ideologue, I would expect that you are not 
interested in alternative points of view, and that is what I have been 
seeing.

Mike

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