scott_harpell

Shit man! as i read the first sentence I totally was about to reply the same as your 2nd sentence! tru nuff. at least the music remains the same. Mabe we will see another revolution like the one of the last generation. Or mabe no-one cares anymore. We are all content with our SUV's and soy mocha lattes. or whatever they are called.

Damn man! Nice!

faq-it! jump-awn-it!

We are heading over there in an hour or two. If you wanna come and have a lil pub club session afterwards lemme know.

Not the case. Scientists have a responsibilty to not only challenge accepted theories, but to consider new theories as well. Indeed they do, but do they do it?

Does science have its own dogma? Is Christianity about dogma? Is scienca ABOUT dogma? neither are about dogma, but bastardizations of both have led to protocol. Christianity's started during the creeds (calcedon etc). Science's started when the Church started persecuting those who had the gall to say that the earth was round. As much as you would like to distinguish the two DoctorB, they have a lot in common. Pure Christianity is something beautiful: helping the poor, being self-less etc. Pure science is also beautiful: learning about our environment in an attempt to better understand it and increase the quality of life. Both are noble pursuits. The evil deeds of some does not diminish the good though. I will not say all scientists are bad nor all Christians are bad. In fact, most are trying their best to fullfil their way of life to the best of their ability. The two are not incompatible.

yeah that is the album i have. 11 good ol' boys on the porch on the back?

there's the problem. you cannot think of science as religion. it is empirical. religion is based on faith. as soon as you make science a religion, you are going to distort it and i think that is what whirlwind was saying. you are a scientific heretic is you say something against evolution.

sure it does. here because it is a step in the right direction. a pro-active measure to limit the amount of fraudulent research going on... though $270,000 is shit comared to the budgets of these multi-national pharmaceutical companies. and those two german brothers that created a fraudulent physics system and that other guy that... on and on... that is the point paul.

here here exactly what i wanna see... here

Picked up The Ozark Mountain Dare Devils LP at Krazy Bob's skeptical, but damn good tunes. Me and my boys are currently drinking rye to some good ol' boy music. Mike says "its good... I like it."

greg lougainus auto-bio?

so what makes a scientist a scientist? A PH.D? he's got one. Just because it looks badly upon scientists, doesn't mean he is not a scientist. Ever heard of a vita ? I'm not trying to convince anyone of your dumbassery, but I can say for sure that anyone that is involved in real research who happens to read your rant will immediately be able to tell you don't know shit about how research works. It's just obvious. regardless, 5-10% are producing faslified results. granted some are like this but some are like Sir Cyril Burt's story... a noted PH.D scientist who purposefully falsified his findings to suport his theories about IQ.

For a discipline priding itself on empiricism, I would think that the tolerance would have a slightly lower threshold. Also, just because someone else's transgressions are worse, does not make them any less succeptable to scrutiny. Also, inverstors are not charged with the seeking of truth in an attempt to understand the world and to also enhance/save lives.

I am seeing that up here friday is the begining of some sun. I have friday through sunday... mabe a weekday if it is real nice. lemme know your thoughts.

A scientometric study estimating the percentage of fabricated experimental data in biomedical scientific literature somewhere at 5-10 % food for thought

So why do you say you are? Because it is where i live. It is where i have spent a little over 1/2 of my life. If i said that living here did not shape me, I would be a liar. The other 1/2 of the equation is that I feel that anyone who will treat anyone differently based on their nationality will continue to do so until their bluffs are called. I was accosted in Ukraine because i spoke russian in the wrong city, but i do not speak ukrainian, so i had little recourse. I feel that they were as wrong as the people who persecute Americans adn as wrong as the Americans that persecute other nationalities. Its that simple. Persecution is wrong and if you just let it happen, you are not only doing nothing, you are contributing to the problem. Obviously, if you life is seriously in danger, do whatever it takes, but lying about who you are just to be more accepted is ridiculous.

I wil not deny even a part of who I am in order to feel safer from the .0000001% chance of me getting into shit. Conversely, I will not proclaim loudly (or however you put it) that I am an American. Being an American comprises a very tiny fraction of who I am, but I am not going to volunteer to relenquish any part of me unless it is necessary. I am not even just an American, (citizenship wise or ethnically) in fact quite the opposite.

1) Very Few 2) No 3) No 4) Me too 5) Me too 6) Tone? What tone? 7) Didn't say you did. 8) Nope, but saying i "said" something i didn't does.

that's awesome CBS and that is the kind of forward criticism that i am talking about. I feel, personally, that some scientists are using this feature in the scientific community to aid them in evil pursuits. The brother physicists come to mind as do the aforementioned geneticist.

I agree murray, but when I see the prevalence of conflicting evidence, it leaves my confidence in the system lacking. There is evidence, such as the case with this cloning thing, which somebody had to lie to create. Either the scientist who said that we have reached a blockade in human genetic research is lying or the one that 'created' a human has. If this was an isolated incident i would chalk it up to one of them being a wacko, but I have seen study after study especially in the dieting industry, the pharmaceutical industry and the environmental field end up in directly conflicting evidence. I agree with the arguing which ends up progressing the science, but it seems that this constructive argumentation is giving way to arguements based on profits and attempted notoriety (as is the case with this geneticist). I guess it just comes down to the difference between constructive cricism and using the guise of it to secure profit or notoriety that I am trying to point out.

That's right Paul. Never refute anything. Just find some pictures or gremelins to do you bidding ad nauseum.

The cloning scientist has a PH.D. no? He has also spent his life doing research. Please keep this civil lad. so what makes a scientist a scientist? A PH.D? he's got one. Just because it looks badly upon scientists, doesn't mean he is not a scientist. Here's some perspective for ya kiddie. He is a scientist and miring this topic in sematics over 'what is a scientist' doesn't refute my statements. and neither does this.

What are the sciences deemed most important? Viagra and acid reducers for conditions that dont exist... Science can save the world, but instead mires it.

this is the only one that matters... and who did that? Pasteur... I dont consider him to be a modern scientist. I loved science, but the modern bastardization has turned me away. The search for truth has yeilded to pursiut of margins and profits... and you wonder why so many are feeling that modern science is merely snake oil...