Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #360225 > unrolled thread

Junk Science

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Junk Science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-10 10:26 -0700
    Re: Junk Science Alan Baker <email@domain.com> - 2015-08-10 10:30 -0700
      Re: Junk Science djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-08-10 17:45 +0000
        Re: Junk Science Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-08-10 12:18 -0600
          Re: Junk Science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-10 11:29 -0700
            Re: Junk Science gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-10 15:48 -0500
              Re: Junk Science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-10 17:38 -0700
                Re: Junk Science gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-10 21:36 -0500
                  Re: Junk Science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-10 21:52 -0700
                    Re: Junk Science gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-11 19:13 -0500
        Re: Junk Science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-10 11:21 -0700
      Re: Junk Science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-10 11:15 -0700
        Re: Junk Science gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-10 22:39 -0500
          Re: Junk Science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-10 22:16 -0700
            Re: Junk Science gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-11 17:23 -0500
    Re: Junk Science Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-10 20:55 +0200

#360225 — Junk Science

How do you protect yourself from Junk Science?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#360226

On 2015-08-10 17:26:49 +0000, The Starmaker said:

> How do you protect yourself from Junk Science?

It starts with not paying any attention to you...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360229

In article <mqan2p$n9p$1@news.datemas.de>,
Alan Baker  <email@domain.com> wrote:
>On 2015-08-10 17:26:49 +0000, The Starmaker said:
>
>> How do you protect yourself from Junk Science?
>
>It starts with not paying any attention to you...
>

Wouldn't it be nice if nobody ever responded to the Starmaker?
Then I wouldn't see his silly posts at all.

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360232

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:

> In article <mqan2p$n9p$1@news.datemas.de>,
> Alan Baker  <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>On 2015-08-10 17:26:49 +0000, The Starmaker said:
>>
>>> How do you protect yourself from Junk Science?
>>
>>It starts with not paying any attention to you...
>>
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if nobody ever responded to the Starmaker?
> Then I wouldn't see his silly posts at all.

Me too.  That would be so cool...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360236

Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> 
> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> 
> > In article <mqan2p$n9p$1@news.datemas.de>,
> > Alan Baker  <email@domain.com> wrote:
> >>On 2015-08-10 17:26:49 +0000, The Starmaker said:
> >>
> >>> How do you protect yourself from Junk Science?
> >>
> >>It starts with not paying any attention to you...
> >>
> >
> > Wouldn't it be nice if nobody ever responded to the Starmaker?
> > Then I wouldn't see his silly posts at all.
> 
> Me too.  That would be so cool...



it seems  that the community is filled with 'wishful thinkers'...a source of junk science.



science fiction writers are another source...but that is to be expected.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360263

On 8/10/2015 1:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>>
>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>f nobody ever responded to the Starmaker?
>>> Then I wouldn't see his silly posts at all.
>>
>> Me too.  That would be so cool...
>
>
>
> it seems  that the community is filled with 'wishful thinkers'...a source of junk science.
>
>
>
> science fiction writers are another source...but that is to be expected.
>

the media, reporters who cannot understand basic science, because the 
reporters failed science and math courses and had to take a lower path 
into journalism, where subject knowledge is not needed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360289

gilber34 wrote:
> 
> On 8/10/2015 1:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> >>
> >> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> >f nobody ever responded to the Starmaker?
> >>> Then I wouldn't see his silly posts at all.
> >>
> >> Me too.  That would be so cool...
> >
> >
> >
> > it seems  that the community is filled with 'wishful thinkers'...a source of junk science.
> >
> >
> >
> > science fiction writers are another source...but that is to be expected.
> >
> 
> the media, reporters who cannot understand basic science, because the
> reporters failed science and math courses and had to take a lower path
> into journalism, where subject knowledge is not needed.


"basic science"??? 

https://www.google.com/#q=define+basic+science

You don't acutally believe members of the 'scientific community' understand...."basic science"????


Definition of BASIC SCIENCE. : any one of the sciences (such as anatomy, physiology, bacteriology, pathology, or biochemistry) fundamental to the study of medicine.



Why are you bring up ....the study of medicine???


Maybe You don't understand...basic science.


And certaintly 'science journalist' don't understand...any science!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360291

On 8/10/2015 7:38 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> gilber34 wrote:
>>
>> On 8/10/2015 1:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>> f nobody ever responded to the Starmaker?
>>>>> Then I wouldn't see his silly posts at all.


>> the media, reporters who cannot understand basic science, because
>> the reporters failed science and math courses and had to take a
>> lower path into journalism, where subject knowledge is not needed.
>
>
> "basic science"???
>
> https://www.google.com/#q=define+basic+science
>
> You don't acutally believe members of the 'scientific community'
> understand...."basic science"????
>
>
> Definition of BASIC SCIENCE. : any one of the sciences (such as
> anatomy, physiology, bacteriology, pathology, or biochemistry)
> fundamental to the study of medicine.
>
>
>
> Why are you bring up ....the study of medicine???

...... but thats' what druggies do too, study meds,

REM Google is recording all the sites you visit and redirects your 
search to what THEY think you want

>
>
> Maybe You don't understand...basic science.

I understand advanced science, but not "basic" science, the stuff
written in the BASIC programming language,

REM - it gives me a headace.

>
>
> And certaintly 'science journalist' don't understand...any science!

they, science journalists, are only required to have previously reported
on something that may have looked scientific, or someone told them it
was sciency like, or if it was in a movie, or could have been.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360303

gilber34 wrote:
> 
> On 8/10/2015 7:38 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > gilber34 wrote:
> >>
> >> On 8/10/2015 1:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> >>> f nobody ever responded to the Starmaker?
> >>>>> Then I wouldn't see his silly posts at all.
> 
> >> the media, reporters who cannot understand basic science, because
> >> the reporters failed science and math courses and had to take a
> >> lower path into journalism, where subject knowledge is not needed.
> >
> >
> > "basic science"???
> >
> > https://www.google.com/#q=define+basic+science
> >
> > You don't acutally believe members of the 'scientific community'
> > understand...."basic science"????
> >
> >
> > Definition of BASIC SCIENCE. : any one of the sciences (such as
> > anatomy, physiology, bacteriology, pathology, or biochemistry)
> > fundamental to the study of medicine.
> >
> >
> >
> > Why are you bring up ....the study of medicine???
> 
> ...... but thats' what druggies do too, study meds,
> 
> REM Google is recording all the sites you visit and redirects your
> search to what THEY think you want


Google is not in the search engine business, they are in the advertising business. 



> 
> >
> >
> > Maybe You don't understand...basic science.
> 
> I understand advanced science, but not "basic" science, the stuff
> written in the BASIC programming language,
> 

BASIC is not advanced programing.


> REM - it gives me a headace.
> 
> >
> >
> > And certaintly 'science journalist' don't understand...any science!
> 
> they, science journalists, are only required to have previously reported
> on something that may have looked scientific, or someone told them it
> was sciency like, or if it was in a movie, or could have been.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360406

On 8/10/2015 11:52 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> gilber34 wrote:
>>
>> On 8/10/2015 7:38 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> gilber34 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 8/10/2015 1:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>>>> f nobody ever responded to the Starmaker?
>>>>>>> Then I wouldn't see his silly posts at all.
>>
>>>> the media, reporters who cannot understand basic science, because
>>>> the reporters failed science and math courses and had to take a
>>>> lower path into journalism, where subject knowledge is not needed.
>>>
>>>
>>> "basic science"???
>>>
>>> https://www.google.com/#q=define+basic+science
>>>
>>> You don't acutally believe members of the 'scientific community'
>>> understand...."basic science"????
>>>
>>>
>>> Definition of BASIC SCIENCE. : any one of the sciences (such as
>>> anatomy, physiology, bacteriology, pathology, or biochemistry)
>>> fundamental to the study of medicine.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why are you bring up ....the study of medicine???
>>
>> ...... but thats' what druggies do too, study meds,
>>
>> REM Google is recording all the sites you visit and redirects your
>> search to what THEY think you want
>
>
> Google is not in the search engine business, they are in the advertising business.

True. they are into Junk Searches

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe You don't understand...basic science.
>>
>> I understand advanced science, but not "basic" science, the stuff
>> written in the BASIC programming language,
>>
>
> BASIC is not advanced programing.

BASIC is DOA.

>
>
>> REM - it gives me a headace.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And certaintly 'science journalist' don't understand...any science!
>>
>> they, science journalists, are only required to have previously reported
>> on something that may have looked scientific, or someone told them it
>> was sciency like, or if it was in a movie, or could have been.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360233

Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> 
> In article <mqan2p$n9p$1@news.datemas.de>,
> Alan Baker  <email@domain.com> wrote:
> >On 2015-08-10 17:26:49 +0000, The Starmaker said:
> >
> >> How do you protect yourself from Junk Science?
> >
> >It starts with not paying any attention to you...
> >
> 
> Wouldn't it be nice if nobody ever responded to the Starmaker?
> Then I wouldn't see his silly posts at all.


That is what I call "Junk Science", because that isn't how nature works.


It's what it is called in the 'scientific community'....wishful thinking.



And we need to be protected from the likes of the Dorthy's in the world...with
their wishful thinking junk science.


Get rid of all the wishful thinkers in the 'scientific community'...is that even possible????

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360231

Alan Baker wrote:
> 
> On 2015-08-10 17:26:49 +0000, The Starmaker said:
> 
> > How do you protect yourself from Junk Science?
> 
> It starts with not paying any attention to you...


Can you point to any item I posted that you would consider junk science?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360298

On 8/10/2015 1:15 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-08-10 17:26:49 +0000, The Starmaker said:
>>
>>> How do you protect yourself from Junk Science?
>>
>> It starts with not paying any attention to you...
>
>
> Can you point to any item I posted that you would consider junk science?
>

here is your post on 8/8/2015, REM ?

How God Created The Universe

Most people have
a misconception on
How God Created The Universe.
(including the 'scientific community')

I can explain
how God did it.

To create
the heavens and
the earth, in the
beginning...

He used sort
of a 3D printer...
I'm not sure
what type of
printer...could
be a hologram
printer...but
it is a 3D printer
type in order
to print...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360304

gilber34 wrote:
> 
> On 8/10/2015 1:15 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2015-08-10 17:26:49 +0000, The Starmaker said:
> >>
> >>> How do you protect yourself from Junk Science?
> >>
> >> It starts with not paying any attention to you...
> >
> >
> > Can you point to any item I posted that you would consider junk science?
> >
> 
> here is your post on 8/8/2015, REM ?
> 
> How God Created The Universe
> 
> Most people have
> a misconception on
> How God Created The Universe.
> (including the 'scientific community')
> 
> I can explain
> how God did it.
> 
> To create
> the heavens and
> the earth, in the
> beginning...
> 
> He used sort
> of a 3D printer...
> I'm not sure
> what type of
> printer...could
> be a hologram
> printer...but
> it is a 3D printer
> type in order
> to print...

It's how you take an idea..
and turn it into a solid form.

God had an idea 'in His mind'
to create the heavens and the earth..
but he needed to put that idea into
a solid visible form...

So He got behind His computer
turn on His 3D pinter
and press the print button.

He projected His idea
from the fourth dimension
into the 3D universe.


Did I leave something out?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360396

On 8/11/2015 12:16 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> gilber34 wrote:
>>
>> On 8/10/2015 1:15 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2015-08-10 17:26:49 +0000, The Starmaker said:
>>>>
>>>>> How do you protect yourself from Junk Science?
>>>>
>>>> It starts with not paying any attention to you...
>>>
>>>
>>> Can you point to any item I posted that you would consider junk science?
>>>
>>
>> here is your post on 8/8/2015, REM ?
>>
>> How God Created The Universe
>>
>> Most people have
>> a misconception on
>> How God Created The Universe.
>> (including the 'scientific community')
>>
>> I can explain
>> how God did it.
>>
>> To create
>> the heavens and
>> the earth, in the
>> beginning...
>>
>> He used sort
>> of a 3D printer...
>> I'm not sure
>> what type of
>> printer...could
>> be a hologram
>> printer...but
>> it is a 3D printer
>> type in order
>> to print...
>
> It's how you take an idea..
> and turn it into a solid form.
>
> God had an idea 'in His mind'
> to create the heavens and the earth..
> but he needed to put that idea into
> a solid visible form...
>
> So He got behind His computer
> turn on His 3D pinter
> and press the print button.
>
> He projected His idea
> from the fourth dimension
> into the 3D universe.
>
>
> Did I leave something out?
>

if the universe is infinite, you are going to need more printer ink.

is that Junk Science posted by Starmaker ?

a 3D printer printing itself and an infinite universe, how long is that 
going to take ?

Is God an Atheist ?
If yes, does he believe in himself ?
If no, does that make him a narcissist ?
         and is that good or bad?

     for THE God ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360243

Am 10.08.2015 19:26, schrieb The Starmaker:
> How do you protect yourself from Junk Science?

There are different types of 'junk science'.

You can have:

a) uneducated people that (falsely) believe, they had a good idea

b) there are 'scientists' that get money from one side and deliver junk 
to the other side

c) there are extremely smart people, who develop 'science' that does not 
really work (so called 'bullshit artist')

d) there are scientist, who teach what was already known by the ancient 
(but nothing newer)

e) some scientists are too lazy to conduct experiments properly, hence 
fake results

f) some scientist tell only, what is allowed by their superior

g) some scientists try something, but make mistakes.



In any case there is some kind of result and the general public could 
decide, what to do with it.


In case a) it would be wise, to give a few friendly comments and a few 
useful hints, but then move the person out the door.

Case b) is actually criminal.

c) is a difficult case, since intentional fraud is hard to identify and 
even harder to correct.

d) is one form of incompetence, that cannot be cured.

e) is a violation of certain ethics, what could eventually cost the job 
of such a scientist.

The problem f) is of general nature of the system called 'academia'.

In the case g) the experiments could be repeated, possibly with greater 
care.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web