THE "CHATBOX"

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
Posts: 803
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by SacredCowSlayer » Thu Apr 08, 2021 3:51 pm

Dear Flabbergasted,

I have changed your group status to that of Administrator.

:)

Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 989
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:41 pm

SacredCowSlayer wrote:
Thu Apr 08, 2021 3:51 pm
I have changed your group status to that of Administrator.
Oh boy, that´s quite an honor (and responsibility) to live up to!

I guess there is no way around it now: I will have to unravel that administrator toolbox! :)

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7040
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by simonshack » Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:37 pm

*
Today my Swedish "partner in crime" Patrik sent me a message regarding the meaning of the name "Tycho":

"The name Tycho is a boy's name of Greek origin meaning "hitting the mark".
https://nameberry.com/babyname/Tycho

Patrik's message reminded me of this alternative meaning of the word "shack" - which I had stumbled upon some time ago:

"shack - n. a direct hit on a target by a bomb or missile."
https://www.waywordradio.org/shack/

I just had to laugh... :D

Kopfhoerer
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:42 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Kopfhoerer » Thu Apr 22, 2021 7:29 am

Best Wishes to all Cluesforum-Members.

I once read a post on this board about the "Peer-Review-Process" and its errors/self filtering. I´m not sure, but i think Simon wrote it.
I am not able to find it. Is anyone able to point me to this post?
Thanks for reading this and...maybe...a helpful Link.

Greeting from Germany

SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
Posts: 803
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: THE CHATBOX

Unread post by SacredCowSlayer » Thu Apr 22, 2021 5:34 pm

Dear Kopfhoerer,

I’m not sure if this is what you’re looking for—as we have numerous posts over the years that include a discussion of the “peer-review” process. In any event, the following quote by our member ICfreely hits this process (as we see it often used) hard.
ICfreely wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:20 am
Bill Nye on Conspiracy Theorists: NASA's Moon Landing, Vaccines, Astrology, and Tarot Cards

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFLtTK13G2w
Big Think
Published on Apr 4, 2017

Denial comes in all flavors. Some think the moon landing was staged, some think Tupac is alive, and others reject vaccines. If the United States learnt anything in the 2016 election, it's that social bubbles need to be broken down — so how do you reason with someone who ignores evidence or bends it to fit their worldview? This has been on Bill Nye's mind more and more since climate change denial has become a political issue rather than a scientific one. People can't change their minds instantly when their beliefs are ingrained, so it's not a matter of convincing them on the spot. Nye suggests working together towards scientific understanding by tactfully pointing out that perhaps this person is rejecting evidence because the alternative makes them uncomfortable. Understanding is a process, not a flip switch. Bill Nye's most recent book is Unstoppable: Harnessing Science to Change the World.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFLtTK13G2w

Again with the "D" word? :rolleyes:

Bill Nye is scientism personified! He and his ilk are, under the guise of “science,” trying to usher in a Global Scientocracy founded on pseudo-science. They, in fact, are the true “anti-science” minded ones that they accuse their skeptics of being. That’s the irony of it all.

For the record:

1) I don't believe in astrology or tarot cards and have no reason to believe that Tupac or Elvis are still alive.
2) I do believe that the "moon landings" were staged.
3) I don't believe in the efficacy of ANY vaccines.
4) I haven't the slightest clue what "Climate Change" is.
1:35 “…but when it comes to moon landings, just ask the person how you would generate all that paperwork. The warehouses full of documentation that NASHA – NASA created…uh…to make landings on the moon would overwhelm any- anybody trying to do it on the side. You’d just- it’d just be very difficult to print all that.”
'K, Bill. If you say so.
"Nye suggests working together towards scientific understanding by tactfully pointing out that perhaps this person is rejecting evidence because the alternative makes them uncomfortable."
What makes me uncomfortable is the FACT that the IPCC started out promoting alarmist "Global Cooling" nonsense. Claiming that sun-blocking pollution would lead to a new "Ice Age" by the year 2000. That obviously never came to fruition. So they casually shifted to "Global Warming" which they claim is also due to pollution and will lead to rising ocean water levels. When the Climategate $chitt hit the fan in 2010 they settled on "Climate Change."

The Climategate Emails - Lavoisier Group
...
Introduction: Why Climategate is so Distressing to Scientists

The most difficult thing for a scientist in the era of Climategate is trying to explain to family and friends why it is so distressing to scientists. Most people don’t know how science really works: there are no popular television shows, movies or books that really depict the everyday lives of real scientists; it just isn’t exciting enough. I’m not talking here about the major discoveries of science—which are well-described in documentaries, popular science series, and magazines—but rather how the week-by-week process of science (often called the “scientific method”) actually works.

The best analogy that I have been able to come up with, in recent weeks, is the criminal justice system—which is often depicted in the popular media. Everyone knows what happens if the police obtain evidence by illegal means: the evidence is ruled inadmissible; and, if a case rests on that tainted evidence, it is thrown out of court. The justice system is not saying that the accused is necessarily innocent; rather, that determining the truth is impossible if evidence is not protected from tampering or fabrication.

The same is true in science: scientists assume that the rules of the scientific method have been followed, at least in any discipline that publishes its results for public consumption. It is that trust in the process that allows me, for example, to believe that the human genome has been mapped—despite my knowing nothing about that field of science at all. That same trust has allowed scientists at large to similarly believe in the results of climate science.

Until now.

So what are the “rules” of the scientific method? Actually, they are not all that different from those of the justice system. Just as it is a fundamental right of every affected party to be heard and fairly considered by the court, it is of crucial importance to science that all points of view be given a chance to be heard, and fairly debated. But, of course, it would be impossible to allow an “open slather” type of arrangement, like discussion forums on the Internet; so how do we admit all points of view, without descending into anarchy?

This question touches on something of a dark secret within science—one which most scientists, through the need for self-preservation, are scared to admit: most disciplines of science are, to a greater or lesser extent, controlled by fashions, biases and dogma. Why is this so? Because the mechanism by which scientific debate has been “regulated” to avoid anarchy—at least since the second half of the twentieth century—has been the “peer review” process. The career of any professional scientist lives or dies on their success in achieving publication of their papers in “peer reviewed” journals. So what, exactly, does “peer-reviewed” mean? Simply that other professional scientists in that discipline must agree that the paper is worthy of publication. And what is the criterion that determines who these “professional scientists” should be? Their success in achieving publication of their papers in peer-reviewed journals! Catch-22.
...

https://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/g ... ails.pd...

Kopfhoerer
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:42 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Kopfhoerer » Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:10 pm

Dear SCS,

that was not the post i was looking for. :D

But thank you anyway for your effort! ^_^

Greets

Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 989
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:54 pm

Democratic congressman and United Methodist pastor Emanuel Cleaver said the opening prayer (the Aaronic Blessing from Numbers 6:24-26) on the first day of the US Congress in January 2021. He finished it by saying “amen and a-woman”. When criticized for his mockery (he is a pastor after all), he said he had “concluded with a lighthearted pun in recognition of the record number of women who will be representing the American people in Congress during the term" and that his critics had proved themselves to be "soiled by selfishness, perverted by prejudice and inveigled by ideology”.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd69AX4M_DI

Cleaver's words are muffled behind the muzzle, but before his “amen and a-woman”, he asks for peace "in the name of the monotheistic God, Brahma, and the god known by many names, by many different faiths.” By the whiskers of Saint Maimonides of Calcutta, a politically correct and theologically insightful Methodist like that is all we need.

Post Reply