|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DZ (Dizzy)
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:21 pm Post subject: Giordano Brunos |
 |
|
There are two major types of modern Giordano Brunos supporting
dissident scientific theories, although a given bruno can be a
combination of (1) and (2):
(1) Pompous Kooks and Internet Science Iconoclasts. Those usually have
a favorite theory which they research as independent scholars, that
is, independent meaning oblivious to all of the peer science. In their
minds, there is a conspiracy, be it the big pharma, medical
associations, or some branch of food industry that is sponsoring the
mainstream bogus "research".
(2) Alice in Wonderland, aka Magpie in a Jewelry store (on PubMed, to
be more precise). These will support a wide variety of dissident
theories, for example those that oppose:
(a) The so-called HIV theory of AIDS.
(b) The so-called prion theory. It's actually the after-meltdown
radiation and nuclear tests, but all info is suppressed by the
govrmnts.
(c) The so-called "EFA" "theory" refuted by rigorous 1940 MIT
experiments, but of course suppressed, so they never made it through
peer review.
Alice in Wonderland can be a truly, let's say, a "wondering" person,
but more often it is a Ph.D. who hasn't succeeded as a scientist, or
someone who dropped from a Ph.D program at a master level: not for the
lack of persistence or abilities, of course, but after had becoming
disillusioned in the rotten ways the science is being mass-produced.
There is also (3). Someone who is actually right about something
fundamental, that goes against the common consensus. Due to the way
information sharing and science are operating these days, modern types
of these people eventually end up with the Hirsch index
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_number) that is well over 20,
meaning that they also crank out a lot of very well cited basic or
supporting research. My advice to an aspiring bruno: when in doubt,
check yourself on the scholar.google.com  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Google
Sponsor
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:21 pm Post subject: Advertisement |
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trigonometry1972@gmail.co
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:50 am Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos |
|
|
= On Feb 23, 11:21 am,
= DZ (Dizzy) <27...@2774126221.91114257.12115.31115.32275> wrote:
= There are two major types of modern Giordano Brunos supporting
= dissident scientific theories, although a given bruno can be a
= combination of (1) and (2):
= (1) Pompous Kooks and Internet Science Iconoclasts.
= Those usually have
= a favorite theory which they research as independent scholars, that
= is, independent meaning oblivious to all of the peer science. In
their
= minds, there is a conspiracy, be it the big pharma, medical
= associations, or some branch of food industry that is sponsoring the
= mainstream bogus "research".
-
= (2) Alice in Wonderland, aka Magpie in a Jewelry store (on PubMed,
to
= be more precise). These will support a wide variety of dissident
= theories, for example those that oppose:
= (a) The so-called HIV theory of AIDS.
= (b) The so-called prion theory. It's actually the after-meltdown
= radiation and nuclear tests, but all info is suppressed by the
= govrmnts.
= (c) The so-called "EFA" "theory" refuted by rigorous 1940 MIT
= experiments, but of course suppressed, so they never made it through
= peer review.
= Alice in Wonderland can be a truly, let's say, a "wondering" person,
= but more often it is a Ph.D. who hasn't succeeded as a scientist, or
= someone who dropped from a Ph.D program at a master level: not for
the
= lack of persistence or abilities, of course, but after had becoming
= disillusioned in the rotten ways the science is being mass-produced.
= There is also (3). Someone who is actually right about something
= fundamental, that goes against the common consensus. Due to the way
= information sharing and science are operating these days, modern
types
= of these people eventually end up with the Hirsch index
= (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_number) that is well over 20,
= meaning that they also crank out a lot of very well cited basic or
= supporting research. My advice to an aspiring bruno: when in doubt,
= check yourself on the scholar.google.com :-)
What I suggest that the web populated by the numerous
offspring of the Popes and Priests ( remember
these folks did their share with the wives and whores of other men)
that burned Bruno at the stake (in the great Roman tradition
going back to the Ceasars)
for imagining that there might be life on other planets and
earth might not be the center of the universe.
Recall the Roman pagans burned people at the stake when
the early Christians refused to burn incense to the
genius of Ceaser and where thus branded along
with Jews as being ungodly. Then in time, the Christians
became a new form of Paganism and the burning
continued this time of the dissident Christians
and Jews along with the odd pagan peasant
for good measure and dreamers like Bruno.
If you don't remember the history, you won't know it
is repeating itself 
Trig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Taka
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:15 am Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos |
|
|
On Feb 24, 4:21 am, DZ (Dizzy)
<27...@2774126221.91114257.12115.31115.32275> wrote:
| Quote: | There are two major types of modern Giordano Brunos supporting
dissident scientific theories, although a given bruno can be a
combination of (1) and (2):
(1) Pompous Kooks and Internet Science Iconoclasts. Those usually have
a favorite theory which they research as independent scholars, that
is, independent meaning oblivious to all of the peer science. In their
minds, there is a conspiracy, be it the big pharma, medical
associations, or some branch of food industry that is sponsoring the
mainstream bogus "research".
(2) Alice in Wonderland, aka Magpie in a Jewelry store (on PubMed, to
be more precise). These will support a wide variety of dissident
theories, for example those that oppose:
(a) The so-called HIV theory of AIDS.
(b) The so-called prion theory. It's actually the after-meltdown
radiation and nuclear tests, but all info is suppressed by the
govrmnts.
(c) The so-called "EFA" "theory" refuted by rigorous 1940 MIT
experiments, but of course suppressed, so they never made it through
peer review.
Alice in Wonderland can be a truly, let's say, a "wondering" person,
but more often it is a Ph.D. who hasn't succeeded as a scientist, or
someone who dropped from a Ph.D program at a master level: not for the
lack of persistence or abilities, of course, but after had becoming
disillusioned in the rotten ways the science is being mass-produced.
There is also (3). Someone who is actually right about something
fundamental, that goes against the common consensus. Due to the way
information sharing and science are operating these days, modern types
of these people eventually end up with the Hirsch index
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_number) that is well over 20,
meaning that they also crank out a lot of very well cited basic or
supporting research. My advice to an aspiring bruno: when in doubt,
check yourself on the scholar.google.com
|
Not hard to figure out who you are targeting DZ. Ever thought how the
peer review system may be flawed especially in the modern "copy-paste"
computer age?
1) Having the appropriate connections assures you are listed as the
publication co-author without actually doing anything
2) Money direct the research
3) In the narrow scientific fields your peers are your "family"
4) Most researchers do it for money or recognition and are not truly
interested in solving real problems
5) It's safer following dogmas that challenging them
That's why I prefer the "Open Source Science" when people are doing
experiments on themselves in a true effort to cure some disease,
improve physique like the bodybuilders or become immortal like the CR
crowd. Also just watching the people around who are subjected to the
big government experiments with refined synthetic foods and artificial
environment can tell a lot. The outcomes are never published in a
peer review journal or cited by some money-giving organization but if
you understand what you are looking for it can tell a lot. Also the
old experiments from the pre-computer age were more honest ...
Taka
===============
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
John P. A. Ioannidis
Summary
There is increasing concern that most current published research
findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may
depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the
same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships
among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this
framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the
studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are
smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of
tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs,
definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater
financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are
involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance.
Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more
likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many
current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be
simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I
discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and
interpretation of research.
Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent
evidence, with ensuing confusion and disappointment. Refutation and
controversy is seen across the range of research designs, from
clinical trials and traditional epidemiological studies [1-3] to the
most modern molecular research [4,5]. There is increasing concern that
in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the
vast majority of published research claims [6-8]. However, this should
not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research
findings are false. Here I will examine the key factors that influence
this problem and some corollaries thereof.
more at the source: http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124&ct=1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DZ
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:06 am Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos |
|
|
Taka <taka0038@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | DZ (Dizzy) wrote:
....
Not hard to figure out who you are targeting DZ.
|
"Targeting". Ouch! But I tried to be very subtle.
[unsubstantiated opinions on peer-review snipped]
| Quote: | Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
John P. A. Ioannidis
|
This paper, which I know well, has nothing to do with what we are
talking about.
So, could we get back on topic of rampant kookery please :-)
You won't see, BTW, "scientists" hissing at that paper. On the
contrary, it has been cheerfully cited 200 times since 2005.
One of the things this author is popularizing in the papers on this
topic is that a p-value around, say, 0.001 (even when it is that small
after a multiple testing correction) can be associated with a very
high probability of "no effect", given the data. That's because a
p-value is not measuring a probability of a hypothesis, given the
evidence.
Statisticians have been aware of that for a very long time. A nice summary -
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Testing+a+point+null+hypothesis%3A+the+irreconcilability+of+P-values+and+evidence%22 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Taka
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:26 am Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos |
|
|
On Feb 25, 1:06 pm, DZ <15...@1742430487.114202100.10694.9556.25546>
wrote:
| Quote: | Taka <taka0...@gmail.com> wrote:
DZ (Dizzy) wrote:
...
Not hard to figure out who you are targeting DZ.
"Targeting". Ouch! But I tried to be very subtle.
[unsubstantiated opinions on peer-review snipped]
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
John P. A. Ioannidis
This paper, which I know well, has nothing to do with what we are
talking about.
So, could we get back on topic of rampant kookery please
|
You sounded like all scholars not having an extensive peer publication
record or not listed on Google scholar are Kooks ... Being rampant is
sometimes necessary to open the eyes of people being blinded by the
official "research results" fed to them via the massmedia while they
don't have the slightiest idea what the experts are actually
experimenting. The peer review system is a kind of modern bible.
IMHO without the stimulatory Kooks there will be not much real
progress ... You knew the alchemy ...
Taka
| Quote: | You won't see, BTW, "scientists" hissing at that paper. On the
contrary, it has been cheerfully cited 200 times since 2005.
One of the things this author is popularizing in the papers on this
topic is that a p-value around, say, 0.001 (even when it is that small
after a multiple testing correction) can be associated with a very
high probability of "no effect", given the data. That's because a
p-value is not measuring a probability of a hypothesis, given the
evidence.
Statisticians have been aware of that for a very long time. A nice summary -http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Testing+a+point+null+hyp... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cormac
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:12 am Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos |
|
|
On Feb 23, 7:21 pm, DZ (Dizzy)
<27...@2774126221.91114257.12115.31115.32275> wrote:
| Quote: | There are two major types of modern Giordano Brunos supporting
dissident scientific theories, although a given bruno can be a
combination of (1) and (2):
(1) Pompous Kooks and Internet Science Iconoclasts. Those usually have
a favorite theory which they research as independent scholars, that
is, independent meaning oblivious to all of the peer science. In their
minds, there is a conspiracy, be it the big pharma, medical
associations, or some branch of food industry that is sponsoring the
mainstream bogus "research".
(2) Alice in Wonderland, aka Magpie in a Jewelry store (on PubMed, to
be more precise). These will support a wide variety of dissident
theories, for example those that oppose:
(a) The so-called HIV theory of AIDS.
(b) The so-called prion theory. It's actually the after-meltdown
radiation and nuclear tests, but all info is suppressed by the
govrmnts.
(c) The so-called "EFA" "theory" refuted by rigorous 1940 MIT
experiments, but of course suppressed, so they never made it through
peer review.
Alice in Wonderland can be a truly, let's say, a "wondering" person,
but more often it is a Ph.D. who hasn't succeeded as a scientist, or
someone who dropped from a Ph.D program at a master level: not for the
lack of persistence or abilities, of course, but after had becoming
disillusioned in the rotten ways the science is being mass-produced.
|
You are indeed dizzy when you associate Bruno with quacks and
charlatans.
Cormac. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrzej Rosa
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:29 am Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos |
|
|
Dnia 2008-02-25 cormac napisał(a):
| Quote: |
You are indeed dizzy when you associate Bruno with quacks and
charlatans.
|
What Giordano Bruno *invented*?
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cormac
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos |
|
|
On Feb 25, 10:29 am, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Dnia 2008-02-25 cormac napisał(a):
You are indeed dizzy when you associate Bruno with quacks and
charlatans.
What Giordano Bruno *invented*?
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
|
The issue is not about engineering. It is about science.
Cormac. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrzej Rosa
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:26 pm Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos |
|
|
Dnia 2008-02-25 cormac napisał(a):
| Quote: | On Feb 25, 10:29 am, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dnia 2008-02-25 cormac napisał(a):
You are indeed dizzy when you associate Bruno with quacks and
charlatans.
What Giordano Bruno *invented*?
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
The issue is not about engineering. It is about science.
|
So what he discovered?
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trigonometry1972@gmail.co
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:12 pm Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos |
|
|
On Feb 25, 2:29 am, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Dnia 2008-02-25 cormac napisał(a):
You are indeed dizzy when you associate Bruno with quacks and
charlatans.
What Giordano Bruno *invented*?
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
|
Sure Bruno was a quack and as were those who had him
killed. It was about power over others not truth.
And now too the issue is often about power over
others and controlling the masses and not truth.
The modern "quackbusters" have their own corporate
funders and hence a corporate (chamber of commerce type)
agenda. And they like Bruno are also likely motivated
by pride and the feeling of being important.
The names and social structures have
changed a bit but the much of the same game is
foot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrzej Rosa
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:42 pm Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos |
|
|
Dnia 2008-02-25 trigonometry1972@gmail.com | napisał(a):
| Quote: | On Feb 25, 2:29 am, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dnia 2008-02-25 cormac napisał(a):
You are indeed dizzy when you associate Bruno with quacks and
charlatans.
What Giordano Bruno *invented*?
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Sure Bruno was a quack and as were those who had him
killed. It was about power over others not truth.
And now too the issue is often about power over
others and controlling the masses and not truth.
|
How come USSR had pretty good science? If they were so suppressed (and
they truly were), how come they managed to publish so much useful
knowledge?
I say that science seems to be relatively immune to control.
| Quote: | The modern "quackbusters" have their own corporate
funders and hence a corporate (chamber of commerce type)
agenda. And they like Bruno are also likely motivated
by pride and the feeling of being important.
The names and social structures have
changed a bit but the much of the same game is
foot.
|
There is a politics in science, but science isn't politics. If you
(unlike Bruno) have good ideas, I'll listen. And if not me, somebody
will. If your ideas are scientifically useful, they will be used.
Once we started with Bruno - Copernicus was a man hired by church for
doing a calendar reform. Not knowing when there will be Easter sucked,
so they needed a more accurate way of predicting when they will earn all
those money in the years to come. Copernicus did a good job and they
liked his work. He even provided them with a convenient way of simplifying
calculations! You just assumed that Sun was in the center, and you
didn't need to even thing about all those difficult ptolemeian epicycles
(and there were plenty needed to make ends meet by this time). So all was
great, until Copernican theory was picked up by various Brunos to oppose
church. This they didn't want to tolerate.
But scientists by this time did different things already. They for
example invented telescope and looked at the Moon. They have seen there
similar mountains and plateaus as on Earth, so they started to think, if
maybe Moon is a similar world as ours, with people living there... Way
out of line, considering the official stance of the church. Somehow
putting "The Revolutionibus" on index didn't stop people from thinking.
Science has problems, like any other system, but as long as there are
data, there will be ideas. If you can control the access to data, you
can stop science, but to know which data needs to be controlled, you
need to understand the subject better than scientists themselves. ;-)
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DZ
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:15 am Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos |
|
|
trigonometry1972@gmail.com | <trigonometry1972@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Feb 25, 2:29 am, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dnia 2008-02-25 cormac napisał(a):
You are indeed dizzy when you associate Bruno with quacks and
charlatans.
|
They wish I did.
And they wish they were "Brunos"...
| Quote: | What Giordano Bruno *invented*?
Sure Bruno was a quack and as were those who had him
killed. It was about power over others not truth.
And now too the issue is often about power over
others and controlling the masses and not truth.
The modern "quackbusters" have their own corporate
funders and hence a corporate (chamber of commerce type)
agenda. And they like Bruno are also likely motivated
by pride and the feeling of being important.
The names and social structures have
changed a bit but the much of the same game is
foot.
|
.... but (continuing my sentence) there is no such thing as a
modern Giordano Bruno.
We should not confuse "unpopular" and "kooky". You can publish
unpolular "theories" quite easily. The problem for the kooky ones is
that they will not make it through review. The "system" is pretty good
at filtering them out. BTW, there are new trendy journals that require
that public access is granted to all editorial correspondence, which
would include names of reviewers as well as their remarks.
Peer review is not a part of anybody's job, and there is no official
record of that. For example, 2-3 papers a month that I do is a
completely voluntary activity, with no reward, or recognition. This is
very typical. There is no mechanism by which I can be persuaded to
write a biased review, or recommend junk for publication. In fields
like molecular biology, to be affiliated with industry is only going
to lower your chances for a successful publication. This is because a
stereotype is such that industry is a sink for those who are not smart
enough, or otherwise incapable to lead independent research. IOW,
reviewers you get will assume that your manuscript (well, and you too)
is second class, before even reading it.
Finally, check Figure 2 here
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508025
It shows that a typical Nobel-prize recipient in physics would have
such 40 papers that each of them would be cited at least 40 times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DZ
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:29 am Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos |
|
|
Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | There is a politics in science, but science isn't politics. If you
(unlike [****CENSORED***]) have good ideas, I'll listen. And if not
me, somebody will. If your ideas are scientifically useful, they
will be used.
|
Like pruno, it will leak out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrzej Rosa
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:32 am Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos |
|
|
Dnia 2008-02-26 DZ napisał(a):
| Quote: | Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is a politics in science, but science isn't politics. If you
(unlike [****CENSORED***]) have good ideas, I'll listen. And if not
me, somebody will. If your ideas are scientifically useful, they
will be used.
Like pruno, it will leak out.
|
I imagine, that it must have a bit of a foul smell (of fanaticism) to
it, but when times are tough, you thank for what's available. Bruno
or pruno.
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Taka
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:55 am Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos |
|
|
On Feb 26, 9:15 am, DZ <5...@182916209.510932127.1391.25482.1532>
wrote:
| Quote: | trigonometry1...@gmail.com | <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Peer review is not a part of anybody's job, and there is no official
record of that. For example, 2-3 papers a month that I do is a
completely voluntary activity, with no reward, or recognition.
|
Big mistake, you are not unknown to the editor when he chooses you.
And you do him a favor by accepting the job. Next time he will do a
favor to you, be it smooth acceptance of your own paper or
recommendation for your new position etc. Also you review the work of
your competitors and can thus delay the publication while picking up
on the their new findings before others know (it the stock market this
is called an insider trade) ... And finally, you don't have to do the
review by yourself, just order it to your students/postdocs in the
lab. And because it's an extra work with no reward for them they
don't do it properly and put off with it.
Taka
"Who understands it is doing it, who does not understand it is
teaching it and who knows completely nothing of it is writing about
it."
"The most famous scientists are those who master stealing the work and
ideas of others." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
