Scott Russell wrote:
>> In article <318E9B47.285B at indirect.com>,
> "John E. Kuslich" <johnk at indirect.com> wrote:
> >Bert Gold wrote:
> >> <<<<SNIP>>>
> >> And yet, this week, fully 18 years after the memorable talk by
> >> Szent-Gyorgyi which I just described, the Vitamin C RDA for men
> >> has been adjusted three-fold upward.
> >> It makes me wonder at the brazen inefficiency of the research
> >> 'establishment'...
> >> Bert Gold
> >> San Francisco
> >> References
> ><<<further SNIP>>
> >Just look at research on "Cold Fusion", "Global Warming", and "The Ozone
> >Hole" for further examples of the poor quality of some recent so-called
> >scientific research.
> >Chaos theory eliminated any hope of long term weather prediction, and
> >yet we still have "researchers" at major universities doing computer
> >simulation of weather.
> >Modern science has gone "politically correct"; look at the reaction to
> >that book entitled "The Bell Curve". It was widely renounced by many
> >so-called scientists who never took the time to read it!!!
> >Oh well...
> >John E. Kuslich
>> Now wait a minute.
>> (1) None of the topics in the first paragraph have been eliminated as
> possibilities, the first two are just not supported by sufficient evidence to
> warrant the conclusions that were made.
I think you effectively illustrate attitudes that lead us to accept conclusions of and act upon
"junk " science. I believe that if you examine the case for all three of the topics
mentioned, you will be led to the inescapable conclusion that "Junk" science is alive and well.
Some of these nutty ideas only gain popular acceptance because of the tendency for the liberal
media to publicize them - they fit well into the environmentalist agenda.
"Possibilities" don't necessarily merit action which will cause serious economic dislocations.
The "Carbon Tax" comes to mind.
>> (2) That weather is ultimately unpredictable does not mean that extending
> forecasts is not useful. Chaos theory indicated that predicting the behavior
> of self-iterating systems using incomplete data can be expected to be
> unsuccessful over the course of a certain amount of time.
You misstate my point.
Chaos theory indicates quite convincingly that there are severe limits on the ability of
computers to make long term weather predictions because we simply 1) can never model the
physical weather interactions adequately, 2) we can never have enough knowledge of initial
condidtions to put into our model to get long term results. We might as well put research
money into perpetual motion. That was my point.
> (3) "The Bell Curve" received almost unanimous negative reviews from
> scientists because measuring intelligence was treated as if: (a) we knew what
> intelligence was; (b) we could measure it reproducibly and accurately; and (c)
> that it is possible to any of this in a culturally neutral manner. Most were
> unimpressed by the numerous charts and graphs because underlying them, the
> science was weak and the "parameters" were meaningless. If the IQ test
> measures anything, it measures the ability of people to take IQ tests, and it
> is not even entirely reliable for that. Given the absence of compelling data,
> the book has a pernicious effect on society and its conclusions ignore
> too many societal effects on those measured. The use of "science" to achieve
> social ends based on race should doomed to fail because, this approach like
> Nazi "science," is not based on a single uncontested fact.
Gees. The point I was making is perfectly illustrated by your paragraph above.
Real research and real science do not question the political implications of the truth. I
don't know if the conclusions of this book are good ones or not. The point is, this kind of
subject matter is avoided by science for politcal reasons. That can hardly be a method that
will lead us to the truth!! It is like the Vatican criticizing fertility research based on
it's position on birth control. If you don't do birth control research, you won't arrive at
the truth as to which methods are effective. Similarly, if you cannot state certain hypothyses
and examine the implications of such an hypothyses because they are not politically correct,
then you are not doing science. Nazi science is as bad as un-Nazi science, or Vatican science
or Zionist science or Environmentalist science.
If it is limited in scope or subject for political reasons, it is not science. That was my
John E. Kuslich WPcrak for Wordperfect
johnk at indirect.com WDcrak for MS Word
Password Recovery EXcrak for MS Excel
602 863 9274 voice QPcrak for Quattro Pro
602 548 1993 fax LOcrak for Lotus 123
Password Removal QWcrak for Quicken
Our WEB Site http://www.indirect.com/www/johnk/
>>>>>>>>You Hack'em, We CRAK'em<<<<<<<<<<<<<