Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
> No wonder the Gohde "contribution" is up for Wikipedia deletion.
You were looking at an older version of an article at Wikipedia.
Here perhaps is a more concise version.
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Scientism
"Finally, scientism can also refer to the attitude and method of the
typical natural scientist. (Source: The American Heritage? Dictionary
of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
(
http://www.bartleby.com/61/75/S0147500.html))
This viewpoint is typified by comments, such as "there is one and only
one method of science" or "there is one and only one way to conduct
valid scientific research" as well as by attempts to limit intellectual
debate to the hegemony of the established position of the scientific
community. Medical scientism defines the term scientism in this sense
of how valid medical research is supposed to be conducted."
> > Now boys and Girls, kindly show me how babbling away on these science
> > ngs. And, or attacking Quackery on these science ngs is a valid part of
> > the scientific method for health/nutritional research.
>
> Did anybody claim it was?
>
> Those who want to claim the validity of other methods than the
> scientific method for establishing knowledge in a given scientific
> field (such as nutrition), have to do so. The burden of proof or
> argument is on them, since by now in the modern age, the scientific
> method is more or less the default when it comes to how we can search
> for demonstrable knowledge in any area.
And, I am stating that the burden of proof for science want-a-bees
engaging in in slime-bucket tactics on theses ngs is up to them to
prove that they are NOT street trash.
So far, you are proving my point entirely that babbling away on these
ngs has nothing to do with the scientific method.
For the benefit of the mentally challenge on these ngs, supporting
science or the basic sciences is NOT at all what counts.
Benjamin Rush, the Allopath
http://pages.hosting.domaindirect.com/naturalhealthperspective.com/tutorials/allopathy.html#Benjamin
Rush, the Allopath
"Benjamin Rush (1745-1813) was a member of the Continental Congress, a
signer of the Declaration of Independence, a combater of yellow fever,
the founder of psychiatry in America, and an obstinate believer in
miasmas and bloodletting. Rush was arguably the most famous and
influential American doctor of his time. He is, also, the classic
example of everything that is wrong with allopaths."
"Some allopaths, like Rush, used science, but none of them used the
scientific method in their practices."
To repeat, anybody can claim that they believe in science. I am sure
that Adolf ****** could make such a claim since he believed in bringing
genocide into the new millennium on the mass scale using science.
The only thing that counts, dear morons, is applying the scientific
method.
You Geeks most certainly are NOT engaging in the scientific method, nor
are you furthering the noble high road of the scientific method.
You morons are engaging in slime-bucket tactics, that actually mocks
the high road of the scientific method.
Just my opinion, but even Steve Harris, MD has unwittingly support my
position.
You have my condolences.