| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Xavier Harkonnen" |
| Date: |
29 Sep 2006 01:49:13 PM |
| Object: |
ToBs: Contradictions in science |
PEERING down the microscope, the scientist jumped at what he saw.
“Eureka!” he shouted. And another great scientific discovery was made.
That is the sort of thing we are taught to believe about the triumphs of
science. Recall your elementary-school science class for a moment.
Remember the great heroes in science’s hall of fame? Men like Galileo,
Newton, Darwin and Einstein are extolled not only for their scientific
achievements but also for their virtues—objectivity, dedication,
honesty, humility, and so forth. The impression was that by the sheer
force of their superior intelligence and rational mind, the mysteries of
nature just unveiled themselves and the truth simply popped out in front
of them.
In reality, however, things are not quite that simple. In most cases,
scientists must spend months or years laboring in the laboratories,
struggling with results that often are confusing, puzzling and even
contradictory.
.
|
|
| User: "Vince E. Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Contradictions in science |
02 Oct 2006 10:38:29 PM |
|
|
"Xavier Harkonnen" <GeidiPrime@gamu.org> wrote in message
news:tv9Tg.1$Pk2.0@trnddc08...
is the dangerous sociopth Antonio L Santana aka Jabriol, Jehovah's Witness
net stalker of TN family. Mr Santana told all of usenet about the rapes of
Norma and Revis and blamed this TN family. He told us all his family dirt
and blamed others.
Antonio L. Santana aka Jabriol resides at:
1064 Everett Street, Camden, NJ, (856) 968-0004
He and Norma attend the Spanish Speaking congragation
of Jehovahs Witnesses in Camden NJ
Here's the proof Antonio L Santana, known stalker and sociopath wants his
victim Carol DEAD!
----- Original Message --- one of many similar messages:
From: "Jabriol" <jabriol1@excite.com> Antonio L Santana
news:9e9431eb.0408131047.227f1e7@posting.google.com
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 2:45 AM message inciting murder:
youre doomed.. you know it.
Help put this woman out of her misery (i.e. kill her)
(*Mr Santana then provides his victim's name, address and phone number to
anyone interested in his offer)
Call the FBI and the Police Antonio. Do it now and explain your endless
harassment, stalking, slander, threats, posting your victims PI on Usenet
and more.
You have no excuse Antonio, here's the numbers to call to report all the
murders, child-porn and prostitution you've accused this family of:
FBI Memphis
Suite 3000, Eagle Crest Bldg.
225 North Humphreys Blvd.
Memphis, Tennessee 38120-2107
memphis.fbi.gov
(901) 747-4300
Murfreesboro Police-Detectives
302 S Church St,
Murfreesboro, 37130
(615) 893-2717
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Henry Mankinna" |
|
| Title: Re: Contradictions in science |
02 Oct 2006 05:54:16 AM |
|
|
"Xavier Harkonnen" <GeidiPrime@gamu.org> wrote in message
news:tv9Tg.1$Pk2.0@trnddc08...
is the HOMOCIDAL netstalking Jehovahs Witness Antonio L Santana aka jabriol
and 100s of other nyms to hide behind from the Camden NJ Police. He attends
the Spanish speaking congragation of Jehovahs Witnesses in Camden NJ.
Call the Police and tell them your victim has your messages archived where
you tried to have her murdered. Here's one of your messages Antonio. You
were even helped by another vicious Jehovahs Witness to find your victim to
better terrorize the old couple. You know it's true that's why you do
nothing about their accusations you want them murdered. What a fine
"WITNESS" you and your JW friend give those on usenet.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zhavriol" aka Jabriol <zodriol@gmail.com>
Antonio L Santana/Camden NJ cong of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Subject: Carol Adamo Gulley -she is tired of living, please
help her
(This sounds like solicitation to murder someone!)
Maybe they are people out there who wants you to rejoined your loved
departed ones.
Let me help them find you so they can help you out:
Carolyn Adamo Gulley XXXX XXXX XXXXX
< XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX
(victim's phone #, address, maps to her home supplied by Mr. Santana
snipped).
Mr. Antonio L Santana then opines someone break in her home in the middle
of the night and slit her throat or kill her by suffocation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William December Starr" |
|
| Title: Re: Contradictions in science |
02 Oct 2006 08:48:32 PM |
|
|
In article <efq9i8$20t7$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Henry Mankinna" <mankinna93@gmail.com> said:
"Xavier Harkonnen" <GeidiPrime@gamu.org> wrote in message
news:tv9Tg.1$Pk2.0@trnddc08... is the HOMOCIDAL netstalking
Jehovahs Witness Antonio L Santana aka jabriol and 100s of other
nyms to hide behind from the Camden NJ Police. He attends the
Spanish speaking congragation of Jehovahs Witnesses in Camden NJ.
ObPetPeeve: HOM***I***CIDAL, dammit!
--
William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?R=F6berta_M=E4rie_Fern=E4ndez?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Contradictions in science |
02 Oct 2006 11:31:25 PM |
|
|
"William December Starr" <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote in message
news:efrtv0$oaj$1@panix1.panix.com...
In article <efq9i8$20t7$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Henry Mankinna" <mankinna93@gmail.com> said:
"Xavier Harkonnen" <GeidiPrime@gamu.org> wrote in message
news:tv9Tg.1$Pk2.0@trnddc08... is the HOMOCIDAL netstalking
Jehovahs Witness Antonio L Santana aka jabriol and 100s of other
nyms to hide behind from the Camden NJ Police. He attends the
Spanish speaking congragation of Jehovahs Witnesses in Camden NJ.
ObPetPeeve: HOM***I***CIDAL, dammit!
Maybe he's using the misspelling because Antonio is obsessed with his
victim's husband. Maybe Antonio is a bisexual.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ips-Switch" |
|
| Title: Re: Contradictions in science |
03 Oct 2006 05:39:13 AM |
|
|
"Röberta Märie Fernändez" <RMFern251@hotmale.com> wrote in message
news:efs7gi$c84$1@registered.motzarella.org...
"William December Starr" <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote in message
news:efrtv0$oaj$1@panix1.panix.com...
In article <efq9i8$20t7$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Henry Mankinna" <mankinna93@gmail.com> said:
"Xavier Harkonnen" <GeidiPrime@gamu.org> wrote in message
news:tv9Tg.1$Pk2.0@trnddc08... is the HOMOCIDAL netstalking
Jehovahs Witness Antonio L Santana aka jabriol and 100s of other
nyms to hide behind from the Camden NJ Police. He attends the
Spanish speaking congragation of Jehovahs Witnesses in Camden NJ.
ObPetPeeve: HOM***I***CIDAL, dammit!
Maybe he's using the misspelling because Antonio is obsessed with his
victim's husband. Maybe Antonio is a bisexual.
The way Antonio Santana keeps obsessing over Mr Gully, like he's got the
hots for the old man, I'd say Antonio is a HOMOcidal homosexual. <G>
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?R=F6berta_M=E4rie_Fern=E4ndez?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Contradictions in science |
03 Oct 2006 05:41:04 AM |
|
|
"Ips-Switch" <Ips794@spamnot.com> wrote in message
news:4521f91e$0$1350$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
"Röberta Märie Fernändez" <RMFern251@hotmale.com> wrote in message
news:efs7gi$c84$1@registered.motzarella.org...
"William December Starr" <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote in message
news:efrtv0$oaj$1@panix1.panix.com...
In article <efq9i8$20t7$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Henry Mankinna" <mankinna93@gmail.com> said:
"Xavier Harkonnen" <GeidiPrime@gamu.org> wrote in message
news:tv9Tg.1$Pk2.0@trnddc08... is the HOMOCIDAL netstalking
Jehovahs Witness Antonio L Santana aka jabriol and 100s of other
nyms to hide behind from the Camden NJ Police. He attends the
Spanish speaking congragation of Jehovahs Witnesses in Camden NJ.
ObPetPeeve: HOM***I***CIDAL, dammit!
Maybe he's using the misspelling because Antonio is obsessed with his
victim's husband. Maybe Antonio is a bisexual.
The way Antonio Santana keeps obsessing over Mr Gully, like he's got the
hots for the old man, I'd say Antonio is a HOMOcidal homosexual. <G>
You mean a closet "HOMO." Jehovahs Witnesses aren't allowed out of the
closet.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gene Ward Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Contradictions in science |
02 Oct 2006 10:35:45 PM |
|
|
William December Starr wrote:
ObPetPeeve: HOM***I***CIDAL, dammit!
Google gives 136000 hits to homocidal, including to a comic Jonny the
Homocidal Maniac. Is Google going to end up blurring distinctions on
the question of what counts as a word, I wonder?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: Contradictions in science |
29 Sep 2006 03:53:23 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:49:13 GMT, Xavier Harkonnen
<GeidiPrime@gamu.org> wrote:
PEERING down the microscope, the scientist jumped at what he saw.
“Eureka!” he shouted. And another great scientific discovery was made.
That is the sort of thing we are taught to believe about the triumphs of
science. Recall your elementary-school science class for a moment.
Remember the great heroes in science’s hall of fame? Men like Galileo,
Newton, Darwin and Einstein are extolled not only for their scientific
achievements but also for their virtues—objectivity, dedication,
honesty, humility, and so forth. The impression was that by the sheer
force of their superior intelligence and rational mind, the mysteries of
nature just unveiled themselves and the truth simply popped out in front
of them.
In reality, however, things are not quite that simple. In most cases,
scientists must spend months or years laboring in the laboratories,
struggling with results that often are confusing, puzzling and even
contradictory.
<PLONK!> yet another Antonio Santana sock puppet.
See ya, Jabbers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry Mankinna" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: Contradictions in science |
29 Sep 2006 04:35:08 PM |
|
|
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:9agqh2pk27strj5u5ekhjn7md8sisvo3bb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:49:13 GMT, Xavier Harkonnen
<GeidiPrime@gamu.org> wrote:
PEERING down the microscope, the scientist jumped at what he saw.
"Eureka!" he shouted. And another great scientific discovery was made.
That is the sort of thing we are taught to believe about the triumphs of
science. Recall your elementary-school science class for a moment.
Remember the great heroes in science's hall of fame? Men like Galileo,
Newton, Darwin and Einstein are extolled not only for their scientific
achievements but also for their virtues-objectivity, dedication,
honesty, humility, and so forth. The impression was that by the sheer
force of their superior intelligence and rational mind, the mysteries of
nature just unveiled themselves and the truth simply popped out in front
of them.
In reality, however, things are not quite that simple. In most cases,
scientists must spend months or years laboring in the laboratories,
struggling with results that often are confusing, puzzling and even
contradictory.
<PLONK!> yet another Antonio Santana sock puppet.
See ya, Jabbers.
Right! He changes his nym several times a day and when ignored replies to
one sock with another sock. LOL!!! He's starting to post a lot of either
Watchtower crap from their CD or information from Creationist websites to
get your replies now. It also hides his distinct posting style and poor
English. He gets time for proselytizing on his WT time card and never has
to leave his apartment.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Bednorz" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: Contradictions in science |
29 Sep 2006 02:19:36 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:49:13 GMT, Xavier Harkonnen wrote:
PEERING down the microscope, the scientist jumped at what he saw.
“Eureka!” he shouted. And another great scientific discovery was made.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, "hmm...that's
funny...." - Isaac Asimov
That is the sort of thing we are taught to believe about the triumphs of
science. Recall your elementary-school science class for a moment.
Remember the great heroes in science’s hall of fame? Men like Galileo,
Newton, Darwin and Einstein are extolled not only for their scientific
achievements but also for their virtues—objectivity, dedication,
honesty, humility, and so forth. The impression was that by the sheer
force of their superior intelligence and rational mind, the mysteries of
nature just unveiled themselves and the truth simply popped out in front
of them.
In reality, however, things are not quite that simple. In most cases,
scientists must spend months or years laboring in the laboratories,
struggling with results that often are confusing, puzzling and even
contradictory.
And eventually come up with an explanation that not only fits, it
makes successful predictions. I wonder when it was realized that
orbital mechanics explained the analemma:
"Have you ever seen this figure-8 on a globe
<http://www.analemma.com/Pages/Introduction/globe.html>
and wondered what it is? It is simply this: if you could record the
position of the sun in the sky at the same time every day, let’s say
sometime around noon and subtracting one hour if you are observing
daylight saving time, you would notice that the sun takes a rather
strange path.
"You might notice that at certain times throughout the year the sun's
position not only varies higher and lower (North and South) as you would
expect with the change of the seasons, but also slightly east and west.
This figure-8 path that the sun makes in the sky is called the analemma.
On some days you might notice that the sun is not in the sky where,
according to the time on your watch, you would expect it to be."
<http://www.analemma.com>
--
"It reads like something from a military Kama Sutra, exciting,
intriguing, but likely to have proved a good deal more difficult in
practice than it reads on the printed page." from "The Face of Battle",
by John Keegan, copyright 1976, ISBN: 0-88029-083-8
.
|
|
|
| User: "Duke of URL" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: Contradictions in science |
30 Sep 2006 01:11:25 PM |
|
|
Joe Bednorz @ invalid@invalid.invalid
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:49:13 GMT, Xavier Harkonnen wrote:
PEERING down the microscope, the scientist jumped at what he saw.
"Eureka!" he shouted. And another great scientific discovery was
made.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, "hmm...that's
funny...." - Isaac Asimov
The *truly* most "exciting phrase to hear in science" (for large values of
exciting) is rather: "Let's see what happens when I turn it on."
--
Moses Lambert PO1(SW) USN(ret)
Prothonotary Wibbler, Paleoconservative, Surface Warrior Squid,
Aristocidal Philosoph; When you give a war, it's always better to be on
the visiting team
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Schild" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: Contradictions in science |
29 Sep 2006 06:55:58 PM |
|
|
Joe Bednorz wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:49:13 GMT, Xavier Harkonnen wrote:
PEERING down the microscope, the scientist jumped at what he saw.
“Eureka!” he shouted. And another great scientific discovery was made.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, "hmm...that's
funny...." - Isaac Asimov
That is the sort of thing we are taught to believe about the triumphs of
science. Recall your elementary-school science class for a moment.
Remember the great heroes in science’s hall of fame? Men like Galileo,
Newton, Darwin and Einstein are extolled not only for their scientific
achievements but also for their virtues—objectivity, dedication,
honesty, humility, and so forth. The impression was that by the sheer
force of their superior intelligence and rational mind, the mysteries of
nature just unveiled themselves and the truth simply popped out in front
of them.
In reality, however, things are not quite that simple. In most cases,
scientists must spend months or years laboring in the laboratories,
struggling with results that often are confusing, puzzling and even
contradictory.
And eventually come up with an explanation that not only fits, it
makes successful predictions. I wonder when it was realized that
orbital mechanics explained the analemma:
"Have you ever seen this figure-8 on a globe
<http://www.analemma.com/Pages/Introduction/globe.html>
and wondered what it is? It is simply this: if you could record the
position of the sun in the sky at the same time every day, let’s say
sometime around noon and subtracting one hour if you are observing
daylight saving time, you would notice that the sun takes a rather
strange path.
"You might notice that at certain times throughout the year the sun's
position not only varies higher and lower (North and South) as you would
expect with the change of the seasons, but also slightly east and west.
This figure-8 path that the sun makes in the sky is called the analemma.
On some days you might notice that the sun is not in the sky where,
according to the time on your watch, you would expect it to be."
<http://www.analemma.com>
Thank you for posting that. Fascinating.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BullDozer" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: Contradictions in science |
29 Sep 2006 02:43:16 PM |
|
|
Joe Bednorz wrote:>
And eventually come up with an explanation that not only fits, it
makes successful predictions.
Sometimes, Idealistically, one might expect that the dedicated
scientist would press forward undaunted until the truth is found. But
the fact of the matter is that generally we know very little about what
goes on behind closed laboratory doors. Is there reason to believe that
those engaged in scientific pursuits are less influenced by the baser
human characteristics such as prejudice, rivalry, ambition and greed?
"Personal preferences and human emotions are said to be suppressed by
the scientist in the interest of securing truth," wrote Michael
Mahoney in Psychology Today. "However, the annals of both early and
contemporary science suggest that this portrayal is less than
accurate."
I wonder when it was realized that
orbital mechanics explained the analemma:
"Have you ever seen this figure-8 on a globe
<http://www.analemma.com/Pages/Introduction/globe.html>
and wondered what it is? It is simply this: if you could record the
position of the sun in the sky at the same time every day, let's say
sometime around noon and subtracting one hour if you are observing
daylight saving time, you would notice that the sun takes a rather
strange path.
I will never put a stick in the ground to tell the time again...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vince E. Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: Contradictions in science |
02 Oct 2006 10:38:44 PM |
|
|
"BullDozer" <geister@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1159540996.127494.316510@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
is the dangerous sociopth Antonio L Santana aka Jabriol, Jehovah's Witness
net stalker of TN family. Mr Santana told all of usenet about the rapes of
Norma and Revis and blamed this TN family. He told us all his family dirt
and blamed others.
Antonio L. Santana aka Jabriol resides at:
1064 Everett Street, Camden, NJ, (856) 968-0004
He and Norma attend the Spanish Speaking congragation
of Jehovahs Witnesses in Camden NJ
Here's the proof Antonio L Santana, known stalker and sociopath wants his
victim Carol DEAD!
----- Original Message --- one of many similar messages:
From: "Jabriol" <jabriol1@excite.com> Antonio L Santana
news:9e9431eb.0408131047.227f1e7@posting.google.com
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 2:45 AM message inciting murder:
youre doomed.. you know it.
Help put this woman out of her misery (i.e. kill her)
(*Mr Santana then provides his victim's name, address and phone number to
anyone interested in his offer)
Call the FBI and the Police Antonio. Do it now and explain your endless
harassment, stalking, slander, threats, posting your victims PI on Usenet
and more.
You have no excuse Antonio, here's the numbers to call to report all the
murders, child-porn and prostitution you've accused this family of:
FBI Memphis
Suite 3000, Eagle Crest Bldg.
225 North Humphreys Blvd.
Memphis, Tennessee 38120-2107
memphis.fbi.gov
(901) 747-4300
Murfreesboro Police-Detectives
302 S Church St,
Murfreesboro, 37130
(615) 893-2717
.
|
|
|
| User: "FireBirdGrey" |
|
| Title: Kook Alert Adjust your killfiles was Re: ToBs: Contradictions in science |
02 Oct 2006 10:34:36 PM |
|
|
Off Topic
Vince E. Edwards wrote:
"BullDozer" <geister@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1159540996.127494.316510@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
is the dangerous sociopth Antonio L Santana aka Jabriol, Jehovah's Witness
net stalker of TN family. Mr Santana told all of usenet about the rapes of
Norma and Revis and blamed this TN family. He told us all his family dirt
and blamed others.
What an obssed kook.
All beacuse we all know where this sick couple lives
and there is evidence of Randy's porn addiction.
http://tinyurl.com/r5lex
http://tinyurl.com/hywe3
Carolyn and Randy Adamo Gulley
3245 North Lamar Road Mount Juliet TN 37122-7806
Phone 615-459-9345
If you see this couple close to children
call her sheriff Dept.
Rutherford County Sheriff's Office
940 New Salem Highway
Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37129
615-898-7770
They have a rap sheet there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alice Buckner Greeves" |
|
| Title: Re: Kook Alert Adjust your killfiles was Re: ToBs: Contradictions in science |
02 Oct 2006 11:12:45 PM |
|
|
"FireBirdGrey" <Xabriol@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159828476.828388.284660@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
is the dangerous sociopth Antonio L Santana aka Jabriol, Jehovah's Witness
net stalker of TN family. Mr Santana told all of usenet about the rapes of
Norma and Revis and blamed this TN family. He told us all his family dirt
and blamed others.
Antonio L. Santana aka Jabriol resides at:
1064 Everett Street, Camden, NJ, (856) 968-0004
He and Norma attend the Spanish Speaking congragation
of Jehovahs Witnesses in Camden NJ
Here's the proof Antonio L Santana, known stalker and sociopath wants his
victim Carol DEAD!
----- Original Message --- one of many similar messages:
From: "Jabriol" <jabriol1@excite.com> Antonio L Santana
news:9e9431eb.0408131047.227f1e7@posting.google.com
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 2:45 AM message inciting murder:
youre doomed.. you know it.
Help put this woman out of her misery (i.e. kill her)
(*Mr Santana then provides his victim's name, address and phone number to
anyone interested in his offer)
Call the FBI and the Police Antonio. Do it now and explain your endless
harassment, stalking, slander, threats, posting your victims PI on Usenet
and more.
You have no excuse Antonio, here's the numbers to call to report all the
murders, child-porn and prostitution you've accused this family of:
FBI Memphis
Suite 3000, Eagle Crest Bldg.
225 North Humphreys Blvd.
Memphis, Tennessee 38120-2107
memphis.fbi.gov
(901) 747-4300
Murfreesboro Police-Detectives
302 S Church St,
Murfreesboro, 37130
(615) 893-2717
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "P. Perez" |
|
| Title: Re: Kook Alert Adjust your killfiles was Re: ToBs: Contradictions in science |
03 Oct 2006 05:36:17 AM |
|
|
"FireBirdGrey" (Antonio Santana aka jabriol) <Xabriol@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:1159828476.828388.284660@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Off Topic
What an obsessed homosexual kook Antonio Santana is.......................
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Xavier Harkonnen" |
|
| Title: Isaac Newton: cheated????????? |
29 Sep 2006 03:26:02 PM |
|
|
Isaac Newton is often called the father of modern physics for his
pioneering work on the theory of universal gravitation. The idea, when
published in his famous treatise Philosophiae Naturalis Principia
Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), was
strongly opposed by some contemporary scientists, including the German
mathematician Gottfried Leibniz. This resulted in an extended feud
between them that was not put to rest until the end of their lives.
Writing in Science, Richard S. Westfall asserted that, to strengthen his
position, Newton made some “adjustments” in the Principia so that his
calculations and measurements would more closely support his theory,
making it more convincing. In one example, accuracy of one part in 3,000
was claimed, and in another his computations were carried to seven
decimal places, something quite unheard of in those days. “If the
Principia established the quantitative pattern of modern science,” wrote
Westfall, “it equally suggested a less sublime truth—that no one can
manipulate the fudge factor so effectively as the master mathematician
himself.”
Newton allowed himself to be drawn into another controversy that
eventually got the better of him. To claim priority over Leibniz for the
invention of calculus, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, Newton,
as president of the esteemed Royal Society, “appointed an ‘impartial’
committee [made up mostly of his adherents] to investigate the issue,
secretly wrote the report officially published by the society, and
reviewed it anonymously in the Philosophical Transactions,” thus
crediting himself with the honor.
That a man of Newton’s stature would resort to such tactics is indeed a
paradox. It clearly shows that conscientious and honorable though a
scientist, or anyone, may be in other things, when his own reputation or
interest is at stake, he can become quite dogmatic, irrational, even
reckless, or take a shortcut.
“It seems a reasonable, not to say trite, thought that scientists are
human, subject to the same frailties as we all are, heroic, cowardly,
honest and sly, silly and sensible in about the same measure, expert in
some fields, but not in many,” writes consultant Roy Herbert in New
Scientist. Though this view may not be held universally in the world of
science, he adds, “I find no difficulty in accepting that.”
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Isaac Newton: cheated????????? |
29 Sep 2006 04:09:27 PM |
|
|
"Xavier Harkonnen" <GeidiPrime@gamu.org> wrote in message
news:eWaTg.201$3T2.133@trnddc06...
| Isaac Newton is often called the father of modern physics for his
| pioneering work on the theory of universal gravitation. The idea, when
| published in his famous treatise Philosophiae Naturalis Principia
| Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), was
| strongly opposed by some contemporary scientists, including the German
| mathematician Gottfried Leibniz. This resulted in an extended feud
| between them that was not put to rest until the end of their lives.
|
| Writing in Science, Richard S. Westfall asserted that, to strengthen his
| position, Newton made some “adjustments” in the Principia so that his
| calculations and measurements would more closely support his theory,
| making it more convincing. In one example, accuracy of one part in 3,000
| was claimed, and in another his computations were carried to seven
| decimal places, something quite unheard of in those days. “If the
| Principia established the quantitative pattern of modern science,” wrote
| Westfall, “it equally suggested a less sublime truth—that no one can
| manipulate the fudge factor so effectively as the master mathematician
| himself.”
|
| Newton allowed himself to be drawn into another controversy that
| eventually got the better of him. To claim priority over Leibniz for the
| invention of calculus, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, Newton,
| as president of the esteemed Royal Society, “appointed an ‘impartial’
| committee [made up mostly of his adherents] to investigate the issue,
| secretly wrote the report officially published by the society, and
| reviewed it anonymously in the Philosophical Transactions,” thus
| crediting himself with the honor.
|
| That a man of Newton’s stature would resort to such tactics is indeed a
| paradox. It clearly shows that conscientious and honorable though a
| scientist, or anyone, may be in other things, when his own reputation or
| interest is at stake, he can become quite dogmatic, irrational, even
| reckless, or take a shortcut.
|
| “It seems a reasonable, not to say trite, thought that scientists are
| human, subject to the same frailties as we all are, heroic, cowardly,
| honest and sly, silly and sensible in about the same measure, expert in
| some fields, but not in many,” writes consultant Roy Herbert in New
| Scientist. Though this view may not be held universally in the world of
| science, he adds, “I find no difficulty in accepting that.”
Produce the evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?B?fiBT5GJs6yB+?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Isaac Newton: cheated????????? |
29 Sep 2006 04:30:49 PM |
|
|
"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
news:XybTg.60082$wg.8875@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Xavier Harkonnen" <GeidiPrime@gamu.org> wrote in message
news:eWaTg.201$3T2.133@trnddc06...
| "It seems a reasonable, not to say trite, thought that scientists are
| human, subject to the same frailties as we all are, heroic, cowardly,
| honest and sly, silly and sensible in about the same measure, expert in
| some fields, but not in many," writes consultant Roy Herbert in New
| Scientist. Though this view may not be held universally in the world of
| science, he adds, "I find no difficulty in accepting that."
Produce the evidence.
You're replying to the nym-shifting JABRIOL illegally copying and pasting
Watchtower material here to get credit on his time cards for proselytizing.
It's a new way for them to get people to SEE and READ their literature
without the inconvenience and expense of leaving their homes. So expect
more Watchtower material appear as a reply.
--
SA
The Watchtower, January 15, 1983, p. 22
"Avoid Independent Thinking . How is such
independent thinking manifested? A common way
is by questioning the counsel that is provided by
God's visible organization."
The WTS/GB wants you to become a mindless automaton.
Do not question what they say.
Do not think about what they say, just accept it.
Do not read the bible on your own, always use their "Aids."
Accept that the Governing Body believes itself equal to God.
~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Isaac Newton: cheated????????? |
29 Sep 2006 05:06:56 PM |
|
|
"~ Säblë ~" <Sable666@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:451d4bde$0$1352$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
|
| "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
| news:XybTg.60082$wg.8875@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >
| > "Xavier Harkonnen" <GeidiPrime@gamu.org> wrote in message
| > news:eWaTg.201$3T2.133@trnddc06...
| > | "It seems a reasonable, not to say trite, thought that scientists are
| > | human, subject to the same frailties as we all are, heroic, cowardly,
| > | honest and sly, silly and sensible in about the same measure, expert
in
| > | some fields, but not in many," writes consultant Roy Herbert in New
| > | Scientist. Though this view may not be held universally in the world
of
| > | science, he adds, "I find no difficulty in accepting that."
| >
| > Produce the evidence.
|
|
| You're replying to the nym-shifting JABRIOL illegally copying and pasting
| Watchtower material here to get credit on his time cards for
proselytizing.
| It's a new way for them to get people to SEE and READ their literature
| without the inconvenience and expense of leaving their homes. So expect
| more Watchtower material appear as a reply.
Fuckwits have no place in sci.physics, but spam they will.
Unfortunately.
Androcles.
| --
| SA
| The Watchtower, January 15, 1983, p. 22
| "Avoid Independent Thinking . How is such
| independent thinking manifested? A common way
| is by questioning the counsel that is provided by
| God's visible organization."
|
| The WTS/GB wants you to become a mindless automaton.
| Do not question what they say.
| Do not think about what they say, just accept it.
| Do not read the bible on your own, always use their "Aids."
| Accept that the Governing Body believes itself equal to God.
| ~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*
|
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Salami Science |
29 Sep 2006 06:13:15 PM |
|
|
As for the effectiveness of replication in spotting fraud, there
appears to be a vast gap between theory and practice. In today's
highly competitive field of scientific research, scientists are more
concerned with breaking new ground than with repeating what someone
else has done. Even if a scientist's work is based on an experiment
done by someone else, the experiment is rarely repeated in exactly the
same form.
The problem of replication is further compounded by what is sometimes
called salami science. Some researchers deliberately 'slice up'
their experimental findings into small bits in order to multiply the
number of publishable works. This "affords an opportunity for
dishonesty," says a Harvard committee, "because such reports are
less likely to be verified by others." Researchers well know that
unless an experiment is really important, it is unlikely that anyone
will try to repeat it. It has been estimated that as much as half of
all published papers are "unchecked, unreplicated, and maybe even
unread
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Throop" |
|
| Title: Re: Salami Science |
29 Sep 2006 06:55:57 PM |
|
|
:
: The problem of replication is further compounded by what is sometimes
: called salami science. Some researchers deliberately 'slice up'
: their experimental findings into small bits in order to multiply the
: number of publishable works. This "affords an opportunity for
: dishonesty," says a Harvard committee, "because such reports are
: less likely to be verified by others." Researchers well know that
: unless an experiment is really important, it is unlikely that anyone
: will try to repeat it. It has been estimated that as much as half of
: all published papers are "unchecked, unreplicated, and maybe even
: unread
So let me get this straight. You're saying that the fact that unimportant
results which aren't read by anybody aren't replicated, but important
results that are widely read *are* replicated, is a shande and a scandal?
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Warren McLaughlin" |
|
| Title: Re: Salami Science |
29 Sep 2006 08:32:47 PM |
|
|
Bulldozer and "Xavier Harkonnen" are both jabriol sock puppets.
"Wayne Throop" <throopw@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:1159556157@sheol.org...
:
: The problem of replication is further compounded by what is sometimes
: called salami science. Some researchers deliberately 'slice up'
: their experimental findings into small bits in order to multiply the
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BullDozer" |
|
| Title: Re: Salami Science |
29 Sep 2006 07:27:31 PM |
|
|
Wayne Throop wrote:
:
: The problem of replication is further compounded by what is sometimes
: called salami science. Some researchers deliberately 'slice up'
: their experimental findings into small bits in order to multiply the
: number of publishable works. This "affords an opportunity for
: dishonesty," says a Harvard committee, "because such reports are
: less likely to be verified by others." Researchers well know that
: unless an experiment is really important, it is unlikely that anyone
: will try to repeat it. It has been estimated that as much as half of
: all published papers are "unchecked, unreplicated, and maybe even
: unread
So let me get this straight. You're saying that the fact that unimportant
results which aren't read by anybody aren't replicated, but important
results that are widely read *are* replicated, is a shande and a scandal?
Case in point: Viox. Fox_guarding_coop syndrome.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Salami Science |
29 Sep 2006 06:29:45 PM |
|
|
wrote:
As for the effectiveness of replication in spotting fraud, there
appears to be a vast gap between theory and practice. In today's
highly competitive field of scientific research, scientists are more
concerned with breaking new ground than with repeating what someone
else has done. Even if a scientist's work is based on an experiment
done by someone else, the experiment is rarely repeated in exactly the
same form.
The problem of replication is further compounded by what is sometimes
called salami science. Some researchers deliberately 'slice up'
their experimental findings into small bits in order to multiply the
number of publishable works. This "affords an opportunity for
dishonesty," says a Harvard committee, "because such reports are
less likely to be verified by others." Researchers well know that
unless an experiment is really important, it is unlikely that anyone
will try to repeat it. It has been estimated that as much as half of
all published papers are "unchecked, unreplicated, and maybe even
unread
Clearly some experiments are so much baloney...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Xavier Harkonnen" |
|
| Title: The economics of science research |
29 Sep 2006 06:47:33 PM |
|
|
cactus wrote:
geister@mailinator.com wrote:
As for the effectiveness of replication in spotting fraud, there
appears to be a vast gap between theory and practice. In today's
highly competitive field of scientific research, scientists are more
concerned with breaking new ground than with repeating what someone
else has done. Even if a scientist's work is based on an experiment
done by someone else, the experiment is rarely repeated in exactly the
same form.
The problem of replication is further compounded by what is sometimes
called salami science. Some researchers deliberately 'slice up'
their experimental findings into small bits in order to multiply the
number of publishable works. This "affords an opportunity for
dishonesty," says a Harvard committee, "because such reports are
less likely to be verified by others." Researchers well know that
unless an experiment is really important, it is unlikely that anyone
will try to repeat it. It has been estimated that as much as half of
all published papers are "unchecked, unreplicated, and maybe even
unread
Clearly some experiments are so much baloney...
This does not mean, however, that science, as an institution, is failing
or is not working. Quite to the contrary, a great deal of important
research is being done, and many useful discoveries are being made. All
of this is a credit to what is essentially an honor system—the ideal
that scientific advancement is based on mutual trust and the sharing of
knowledge within the scientific community.
What the recent cases of fraud in research have demonstrated is the
simple fact that this ideal has its limitations and that not all members
of the scientific community are equally ready to abide by it. The facts
show that within the self-policing and self-correcting mechanism of
science there are enough loopholes that anyone bent on beating the
system and who knows his way around it could do it.
As in everything else, economics plays a large role in the world of
science. The days of the self-supporting, inventive tinkerers are
apparently over. Scientific research today is big money, and much of it
is funded by government, industry or other foundations and institutions.
Yet the economic crunch and budget cuts have made grants harder and
harder to get. According to the National Institutes of Health, which
funds some 40 percent of all biomedical research done in the United
States on a yearly budget of about $4 billion, only about 30 percent of
applicants for NIH grants receive them, whereas in the 1950’s the figure
was about 70 percent.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Xavier Harkonnen" |
|
| Title: Re: Salami Science |
29 Sep 2006 06:33:29 PM |
|
|
Ethics go down the drain eh?
geister@mailinator.com wrote:
As for the effectiveness of replication in spotting fraud, there
appears to be a vast gap between theory and practice. In today's
highly competitive field of scientific research, scientists are more
concerned with breaking new ground than with repeating what someone
else has done. Even if a scientist's work is based on an experiment
done by someone else, the experiment is rarely repeated in exactly the
same form.
The problem of replication is further compounded by what is sometimes
called salami science. Some researchers deliberately 'slice up'
their experimental findings into small bits in order to multiply the
number of publishable works. This "affords an opportunity for
dishonesty," says a Harvard committee, "because such reports are
less likely to be verified by others." Researchers well know that
unless an experiment is really important, it is unlikely that anyone
will try to repeat it. It has been estimated that as much as half of
all published papers are "unchecked, unreplicated, and maybe even
unread
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Schilling" |
|
| Title: Re: Salami Science |
01 Oct 2006 08:36:31 PM |
|
|
On 29 Sep 2006 11:13:15 -0700, wrote:
As for the effectiveness of replication in spotting fraud, there
appears to be a vast gap between theory and practice. In today's
highly competitive field of scientific research, scientists are more
concerned with breaking new ground than with repeating what someone
else has done. Even if a scientist's work is based on an experiment
done by someone else, the experiment is rarely repeated in exactly the
same form.
That's a strength, not a weakness.
Science isn't a matter of discovering Magic Formulae, which if
repeated precisely will have precisely the same results. That
sort of nonsense is best left to alchemists, sorcerers, and other
charlatans. And fantasy-story wizards, where at least it can be
entertaining.
Science, is supposed to be more generally applicable. Discover
one thing, and from it figure out how to do many wonderful things.
So, when one scientist discovers something new, many other scientists
in today's highly competitive field, etc, etc, etc, figure they can
best get ahead by working out one of the many potentially useful
variations on the new discovery. To which end, they will perform
many variations on the original experiment, and report back on what
they find.
If what they find is, none of their variations on the original
experiment actually work, most of them will conclude that the
original experiment was bogus. But, some of them will first go
back to original experiment, perform it exactly as described, and
try to figure out what went wrong.
Nothing that matters, at least in science, is *ever* left at, "Well,
so-and-so said that his experiment proved X, and we're too busy to
double-check". And no new discovery, results in the rest of the
scientific community abandoning the field on account of their being
no "new ground" to be broken.
Quite the opposite. See, e.g., the response to the announcement of
cold fusion. Or, for something a bit less negative, high-temperature
superconductors.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schillin@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Throop" |
|
| Title: Re: Salami Science |
02 Oct 2006 01:07:56 AM |
|
|
: John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu>
: See, e.g., the response to the announcement of
: cold fusion. Or, for something a bit less negative,
: high-temperature superconductors.
Indeed. As pointed out in other threads in rasfw, high temperature
superconductors were supposed to beimpossible by BCS theory.
But did the discovery get suppressed by The Man, or the Global
Scientific Conspiracy? Nope. All you need to beat city hall
in science is a little help from the universe, and all the
academics won't stand against you.
And contrariwise, naict, what's holding down cold fusion
researchers isn't The Man, it's the whole universe.
So there is some heavy lifting involved.
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
