M
Mike Vandeman
Guest
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 07:31:39 GMT, "Jules Augley"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>> [...]
>>>> Has it ever occurred to Jules Augley that science and the scientific
>>>> method is vastly overrated. And there is nothing more overrated on the
>>>> face of the earth than the scientists themselves. But like all his
>>>> breed, he buries his head in meaningless research and hides behind his
>>>> degrees. My contempt for such types runneth over! Any old mediocre
>>>> politician could make mince meat out of him in a thrice!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Im glad I irritate you so much. As for you being a genius librarian, let
>>> me address your first 'point'. Yes it has occured to me that maybe we
>>> should be questioning scientific method, but guess what...that type of
>>> thinking is the essence of science...Hooray! And yes I have read Kuhn and
>>> Feyeraband. Please feel free to get as wound up as possible.
>>
>> My genius is not that of a librarian, but rather that of a man of the
>> liberal arts. I am your ultimate dilettante. I abhor all professionalism
>> and I love all amateurism. I know as much as I care to know about the
>> scientific method. After all, it is not rocket science.
>>
>> The sciences properly understood are as much a part of the liberal arts as
>> is art or music or literature. In fact, my college that graduated from at
>> the University of Minnesota was formerly designated the College of
>> Science, Literature and the Arts (SLA). They had that exactly right, but I
>> think they have since changed it to something else.
>>
>> What I don't like are scientists who pretend to a holier than thou
>> attitude due to their training. They are always putting down everyone else
>> who did not do the drudgery that goes with most scientific disciplines.
>> Intellect is intellect and there is nothing special about the scientific
>> intellect. It finally just reduces to a method of inquiry, but there are
>> many other methods of inquiry which are just as valid if not more so. You
>> parade your scientific credentials before me at your peril. I will respect
>> them but I am not in awe of them.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>> aka
>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>
>
>You are right about science and the arts, in fact Einstein said as much:
>'All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.' and 'The
>most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source
>of all true art and science.'
>
>
>
>
>And where did I ever have a holier than thou attitude? I have never said
>science is the pinnacle of intellectual achievement and I know, better than
>you I suspect, that the scientific method IS just a method of inquiry. The
>reason it has such popularity is because its so simple to understand and yet
>is also a powerful tool. Why not try reading Intellectual Impostures by
>Sokal and Bricmont. They exposed scientific and intellectual frauds at the
>highest level.
>
>
>
>No2: I have never expected ANYONE to be in awe of my work or degrees
I beg to differ. You proudly directed me to your "peer-reviewed,
published paper" as the only way to be. I don't have much use for
liars and phoneys. You are obviously prejudiced against mefor not
publishing the same way you do, when that is completely IRRELEVANT.
There is a lot of **** passing for science these days. I'm reading a
study on trail damage by Jeff Marion that is full of statistics, but
lacks the most basic controls necessary to draw worthwhile
conclusions.
I haven't heard you criticizing HIM here....
and I
>
>have met very few (a tiny fraction) people in the same field with multiple
>degrees and years of experience who have shown that type of arrogance. as
>much as it pains me to say it I think I have the same opinion as you do on
>that topic. Einstein again: 'Everyone should be respected as an individual,
>but no one idolized' On this point, please dont flatter yourself that you
>think I should feel the need to impress you, who, after all, are represented
>to the (small) world of these Usenet groups as some words on a screen. Feel
>free to clean up the punctuation and grammar, as I have noticed, is your
>wont.
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>> [...]
>>>> Has it ever occurred to Jules Augley that science and the scientific
>>>> method is vastly overrated. And there is nothing more overrated on the
>>>> face of the earth than the scientists themselves. But like all his
>>>> breed, he buries his head in meaningless research and hides behind his
>>>> degrees. My contempt for such types runneth over! Any old mediocre
>>>> politician could make mince meat out of him in a thrice!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Im glad I irritate you so much. As for you being a genius librarian, let
>>> me address your first 'point'. Yes it has occured to me that maybe we
>>> should be questioning scientific method, but guess what...that type of
>>> thinking is the essence of science...Hooray! And yes I have read Kuhn and
>>> Feyeraband. Please feel free to get as wound up as possible.
>>
>> My genius is not that of a librarian, but rather that of a man of the
>> liberal arts. I am your ultimate dilettante. I abhor all professionalism
>> and I love all amateurism. I know as much as I care to know about the
>> scientific method. After all, it is not rocket science.
>>
>> The sciences properly understood are as much a part of the liberal arts as
>> is art or music or literature. In fact, my college that graduated from at
>> the University of Minnesota was formerly designated the College of
>> Science, Literature and the Arts (SLA). They had that exactly right, but I
>> think they have since changed it to something else.
>>
>> What I don't like are scientists who pretend to a holier than thou
>> attitude due to their training. They are always putting down everyone else
>> who did not do the drudgery that goes with most scientific disciplines.
>> Intellect is intellect and there is nothing special about the scientific
>> intellect. It finally just reduces to a method of inquiry, but there are
>> many other methods of inquiry which are just as valid if not more so. You
>> parade your scientific credentials before me at your peril. I will respect
>> them but I am not in awe of them.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>> aka
>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>
>
>You are right about science and the arts, in fact Einstein said as much:
>'All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.' and 'The
>most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source
>of all true art and science.'
>
>
>
>
>And where did I ever have a holier than thou attitude? I have never said
>science is the pinnacle of intellectual achievement and I know, better than
>you I suspect, that the scientific method IS just a method of inquiry. The
>reason it has such popularity is because its so simple to understand and yet
>is also a powerful tool. Why not try reading Intellectual Impostures by
>Sokal and Bricmont. They exposed scientific and intellectual frauds at the
>highest level.
>
>
>
>No2: I have never expected ANYONE to be in awe of my work or degrees
I beg to differ. You proudly directed me to your "peer-reviewed,
published paper" as the only way to be. I don't have much use for
liars and phoneys. You are obviously prejudiced against mefor not
publishing the same way you do, when that is completely IRRELEVANT.
There is a lot of **** passing for science these days. I'm reading a
study on trail damage by Jeff Marion that is full of statistics, but
lacks the most basic controls necessary to draw worthwhile
conclusions.
I haven't heard you criticizing HIM here....
and I
>
>have met very few (a tiny fraction) people in the same field with multiple
>degrees and years of experience who have shown that type of arrogance. as
>much as it pains me to say it I think I have the same opinion as you do on
>that topic. Einstein again: 'Everyone should be respected as an individual,
>but no one idolized' On this point, please dont flatter yourself that you
>think I should feel the need to impress you, who, after all, are represented
>to the (small) world of these Usenet groups as some words on a screen. Feel
>free to clean up the punctuation and grammar, as I have noticed, is your
>wont.
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande