Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Florian Stirs the Pot

(Trackin' the Sackin')

2013-02-13  : Too Funny

Having been banned from the discourse because I was deemed not to be engaged in reasonable and rational debate, but nevertheless tracking the gladiatorial contest between the Greatest Scientific Achievement since Sliced Bread with Jamonit, and poor old unscientific Earth expansion, I couldn't help noticing this funny one today by one of the Pteros -  :-

"I imagine about the same time you realize that posting on a web forum that is dedicated to far far more than your silly version doesn't provide you any protection from having it pointed out that if this insanity held any merit it could be published in a major geology journal. Get it?
... to which the obvious reply (which would get me banned again for sure) (as being a remark offensive to the forum) would be that a lot of insanity *is* published in major geological journals, even insanity that has *no* merit (acknowledging however that some of the greatest expressions of human intellect have been deemed 'insane' until Jo Blog dinosaurs "get it", whereupon it overnight becomes pedestrian,  swamp-squelching, commonplace cud-munching for the tribe).

You can swear to your heart's content, abuse contributions in the vilest invective - provided you use cuss-words and don't attempt anything more literary.  Literary merit would be deemed offensive to the forum these days of mis-spelling and tortured syntax masquerading as acceptable scientific communication.  The above point would be deemed, not to be replying to what's said, but to be being offensive to the forum at large, namely, .. it would be referred to general cogitation and they all would throw a tissy fit, feel diminished and squeal.

 (How 'science' purports to conduct itself ) (giggle and point).  Which of course is why judgement is anonymous.

And that's not even mentioning the content of the rest of the forum he's taking about.  This one has now gone to P429, and looks like it might even get to P430, when Florian gets back.  I wouldn't even bother to check what the rest of them have gone to, given the claim of skepticism.  They're certainly a very skeptical bunch on this one, even when it comes to the simplest observation, like the crust collapsing BIGTIME (bigtime) .. mountains resulting from erosion of the dirt, and mountain belts resulting from collapse of the crust.  Evidently they find collapse in the mantle is ok, but not in the crust, even though it's the collapse in the crust we *can* see, and collapse in the mantle that we *can't*.

Nothing like some home 'pseudoscience' truths is there?  (about not offending the forum or the sobriety of science.)

(Bunch of fixers)  ...  Here (trumpeting one of those truths again), .. save you googling :-

Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that "The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."   

I think some of these guys hold themselves to be Earth scientists  .. 'Hold'  (amongst other things like venerating 'subduction' /"sucking-and-pulling" and oh-yes, mantle wind) being the operative word.

(Oh dear, .. Banned again..)



Stephen Hurrell said...

Yes you probably would get banned again for pointing out they are all sheep following the flock, afraid to think for themselves!

don findlay said...

.. chewing crud, .. I mean curds, I mean cud. Whatever it is it all comes to the same thing in the end.

Yeah, .. It is an interesting point, .. that the arbiters of value in science *are* the cud-munchers. (The wikipedia keeps pointing that too, in its own way.) And rightly so too I guess .. because who else is going to do the colouring in, when consolidation needs teams of colouring-in-ers?

By the sound of things they'd be happier with the robust direct observations of gluons and mesons and quarks and other sundry traces of particles in ionised gas (i.e., not the particles themselves)as 'evidence' for expansion, than with the empirical evidence presented by the global geology - the extrusion of the ocean floors and their accommodation in the planet's structure.

A graphic illustration indeed, .. Clearly they're all earmarked for nobel prizes in this matter of seeing what's staring them in the face.

Post a Comment