Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

From: Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue Sep 06 2005 - 11:32:44 EDT

janice matchett wrote:

> Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 19:40:02 -0700
> From: Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
>
> janice matchett wrote:
>
>> At 04:33 PM 9/4/2005, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>>
>>> ....*dila813 on http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1473915/posts
>>> explained it quite well*
>>>
>>> What's your conclusion Janice?
>>
>>
>> ## My conclusion? Follow the money. Money, power, and approval
>> from their peers is what motivates those who engage in *junk *science
>> and the *religion* of scien*tism*. They outnumber *serious
>> scientists* 99 to 1. Many of them teach their *religion *of
>> scien*tism* in science classes in the public schools.
>
>
> *Pim: * /Nice unsupported foundations.
>
> /*Janice: * Since I don't see you submitting a scientific paper
> showing supported foundations for all the just-so statements you make,
> I didn't think you'd expect one from me.
>
Unsupported assertion. But I assume the 99 to one was just your own guess?

>> If children come out of the tax-payer funded schools believing that
>> man will "destroy the planet" unless the USA signs the Kyoto
>> "treaty", they have not learned "science" in science class. That is
>> going to stop.
>
>
> *Pim:* /Global warming is quite well established.
>
> /*Janice: * Don't change the subject - especially with "just-so"
> statements.
>
Irony alert.

> Of course "global warming" is quite well established --- so is "global
> cooling". *It's the natural order* of things.
>
> *([ *As an aside - have you put your money where your mouth is, yet?
> *Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world *
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1552092,00.html ]*)
> *

Global warming can indeed lead to local cooling. But that's not the
issue. Global warming has been quite well established.

> *Pim: And do you consider ID or YEC to be part of this junk science
> as well, motivated by what?
>
> Janice: *You may find what I believe on the subject, here:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/~matchettpi/
>
> <http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ematchettpi/>*Pim:* /Your view of
> science is quite sad. It explains a lot though.
>
> /*Janice: * Is your misrepsentation of my "view of science" deliberate
> or did you make that assertion because you don't like the fact that I
> object to the religion of scient*ism* being taught to children in
> tax-payer-funded science classes?

No such thing is happening Janice.

>
> I will reiterate my opinion: Junk scientists outnumber *serious
> scientists* *99 to 1 -- and much of it is because they wouldn't get
> any funding for research unless they conform to the conventional
> wisdom -- which is the religion of scientism as promoted by revered
> icons of incoherency and illogic such as:
>
> Dawkins:* http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_dawkinsfallacies.htm
> *Sagan: * http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/science/saganand.htm
>

That's two out of several tens of thousands of scientists or more. Your
assertions, especially lacking much supporting data, are quite insulting
to scientists.
Received on Tue Sep 6 11:34:40 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 06 2005 - 11:34:40 EDT