Lies, defamations and insults of me are not “the issues”. So, I said I would refuse to debate with ‘Boris’ because his postings consist of defamations, infantile lies and insults. And for the same reason I will not debate with ‘Jeb’ (who may be the same person).
Again you shift the debate away from the evidence presented to your perception of the character of those presenting it. This is becoming a tiresome pattern. I have said before and am saying again I am in do way related to Boris (check with the sys admin if you doubt this).
Again, I have yet to insult you, though you are trying my patience.
I have pointed out flaws in your argument, misleading use of citations, and misleading use of lists of scientists. These are challenges to your arguments, not personal criticisms which to this point I have not leveled against you despite your personal insults directed against me.
Please actually respond to the substance of the critiques rather than whining about perceived tone.
I divided 30 by 9000 and came up with a decimal value of .0033. Is this statistically significant enough to make a judgment about this list?
Certainly not, and the sample was haphazard rather than random as well. I invite you and everyone else to check as many names as you have patience for. I do find it odd that none of the names I encountered was in any related scientific field (a mathematician, a couple of engineers, some medical doctors, and several people with no web presence or presence in ISI databases. I looked at another 10 or 15 since with much the same results. An independent verification of the list and listing of signatories by field would be interesting, but is not likely forthcoming.
Most skeptics are REAL scientists (engineers, chemists, physicists, statisticians, etc.) who use established scientific methods to do research with unaltered data (fudge factors are used sparingly and with great reluctance).
Sadly no. Most people on both sides of this debate have little or no knowledge of the subject and are not scientists nor do they have much contact with scientists, particularly not scientists in this specialized field. The debate on this subject and indeed on most issues that have become politically contentious involves precious rational weighing of evidence pro and con.
I have as much respect for phrenologists as I do for climatologists.
There seems to be an intensification of distrust and outright hostility directed against scientists and other intellectuals. Much of the same venom in the climate debate seems to be mirrored in the ID/evolution kerfuffle, largely by the same people on both sides and the same distrust and hostility directed at the scientists involved. I don’t intend to conflate the two issues (which have little overlap other than the people arguing each side in forums like this one), but the pattern is interesting to me.
Yes, I have read from the Royal Society, NAS, Nature, Scientific American. I am troubled and saddened that these once-fine institutions and publications have become so politicized and overcome by special interests, that they have lost what it means to scientifically objective and now have become advocacy entities.
Why would you say this? What evidence can you marshal in support of this bold and unfounded assertion? Do you think you have the same opinion of Science and the New England Journal of Medicine?
Boris….haven’t seen you posting on CA or TRF recently.
What are CA and TRF?
