From: email@example.com (Badwater Bill)
Subject: Re: Dear Bill jjjjjjjjjjjjjjssssssssss
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 04:47:58 GMT
On Mon, 03 May 1999 18:25:12 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Let me ask you a question Sydney. The Aristotelian doctrine was
adopted by the catholic church and anyone, no matter what their
credentials was surpressed , killed etc. for nearly 1300 years. Even
Gallileo spent his later days in jail because he didn't believe the
Earth was the center of the solar system in accordance with the church
and Aristotle's dogma. What I think is tragic in science is a
negative contribution. As you know, there have been many ideas that
have been adopted by society that have set all mankind back hundred
and sometimes in the case of Aristotle, a thousand years.
Any idiot can publish nowadays and the peer review process is highly
flawed because the fields are too specific. Once a publication gets
out there and it's wrong, it can take decades and hundreds of other
publications to rebuke it. Physics is filled with this type of
charlatanism on a grand scale. I watched a medical doctor go to
Russia after Chernobyl and do bone marrow transplants on human being
while not knowing the dose of radiation they received in the accident.
In this case if you got too little dose, your immune system is not
sufficiently depressed and the transplant causes a serious infection
and results in death where the person would have recovered just fine
on their own. Everyone thought this asshole was a real saint and he
killed everyone he transplanted.
I think it's very important "Early On" in science to be very cautious
about what you believe. Sure, time will tell, but how many will die
to do it. A good idea may eventually win out but there are those of
us who are impatient and want the truth in the beginning. It's like
this helicopter, the Mini-500. I wonder how many wives out there and
how many families would like to roll the clock back and ask some
serious questions of Mr. Fetters and what his technical qualifications
are in designing and presenting a new concept helicopter to the public
with very little testing?
You can believe what you want, but I agree with Carl. Who you are and
what your qualifications are, has a lot to do with how much I listen
to you. This guy Jim Shorts mouths off about my ability to negotiate
with the Russians and the extension of the "Cold War" because of my
illiteracy in this field. He knows nothing of me but he holds ME
responsible for every word I post and takes shots at things he has
absolutely no data on. See, that's what you can do if you don't
identify yourself. He want's me to be accountable-accountable to this
ng, the builder's association, the pilots, and him. But he can ramble
on about anything including some negotiation with the Soviet Union
which he knows nothing about. But, that's okay?? O don't think soI
can't hold him accountable for his bull shit because he's unknown.
Nope, it doesn't work both ways. If I'm accountable to him, he's
going to be accountable to me or the conversation is off.
>I think actually your example illustrates my concern nicely. Was
>it Lyshenko's lack of qualifications or personal identity which
>were the problem? Or was it the fact that his ideas did not stand
>up to experimental proof nor to the scrutiny of his peers, and the
>fact that his goverment actively suppressed experimental results
>and discussion which contravened Lyshenko's ideas (and didn't suit
>their political agendas)? AFAIK, the problem was the latter, not
>What were Gregor Mendel's qualifications? A gardening Monk of no
>particular education, not? Yet his ideas have stood the test of time.
>Why? Because they can be experimentally verified, and because
>vigorous discussion and experimental results validated his ideas.
>If we went by background and education, perhaps his ideas ought to
>have been immediately dismissed.
>For an example which is topical here, consider the Wright brothers.
>Weren't Orville and Wilbur Wright considered "under qualified" by
>their peers (of greater formal education and scientific stature)?
>Didn't they have difficulty initially obtaining just recognition
>for their accomplishments because of this? They are recognized now
>because their experimentally validated ideas have stood the test of