"Bob Peterson" wrote...

Junk science is junk science.

Saying "it's too political so it must be wrong"
is the same as saying "it's wrong because it's
wrong." It's a completely conclusory, content-free
statement you're making.

I don't recall saying it too political so it
must be wrong.

What you said was, "Junk science is junk science, especially
when done for political reasons."

The reasons that science is done has *no bearing* on whether
it's done properly. Either it's good science or it's not,
independent of the state of mind those doing it.

you can make generalizations about information
when you know the source.

Not about whether or not it's 'junk science.' Such a stance
shows complete ignorance of the meaning of 'science.'

The information gathered from kooks is not
credible. It might even be accurate,
but the fact that it is dispensed by nut
cases is good grounds to question it.

Having grounds for questioning something is very different
from saying it's per se not credible. If you can't see *that*
difference you're creating strong grounds for questioning *your*
credibility.

To say it can be accurate but not credible makes no sense.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:23:13 -0800, "Rico X. Partay"
wrote:

"Bob Peterson" wrote...

Junk science is junk science.

Saying "it's too political so it must be wrong"
is the same as saying "it's wrong because it's
wrong." It's a completely conclusory, content-free
statement you're making.

I don't recall saying it too political so it
must be wrong.

What you said was, "Junk science is junk science, especially
when done for political reasons."

The reasons that science is done has *no bearing* on whether
it's done properly. Either it's good science or it's not,
independent of the state of mind those doing it.

you can make generalizations about information
when you know the source.

Not about whether or not it's 'junk science.' Such a stance
shows complete ignorance of the meaning of 'science.'

The information gathered from kooks is not
credible. It might even be accurate,
but the fact that it is dispensed by nut
cases is good grounds to question it.

Having grounds for questioning something is very different
from saying it's per se not credible. If you can't see *that*
difference you're creating strong grounds for questioning *your*
credibility.

To say it can be accurate but not credible makes no sense.


"Junk science" is identifiable because it has an "answer" and sets out
to prove that answer. All effort is toward proving the "answer" and
any evidence to the contrary is ignored, or worse, suppressed.
Science is supposed to begin with a theory and set out to prove or
disprove that theory.

The Christian Scientists are a glaring example of junk science.

Strider

"Rico X. Partay" wrote:

To say it can be accurate but not credible makes no sense.

You, sir, haven't dealt with anyone with an "agenda", then. That
phrase pretty much describes every "statistic" ever quoted.

ral

Isn't "Left wing kookiness" something to be dealt with by the
Department of Redundancy Department?


Claude

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:35:56 GMT, Strider wrote:
"Junk science" is identifiable because it has an "answer" and sets out
to prove that answer. All effort is toward proving the "answer" and
any evidence to the contrary is ignored, or worse, suppressed.
Science is supposed to begin with a theory and set out to prove or
disprove that theory.

The Christian Scientists are a glaring example of junk science.

Strider
Well defined. What does that have to do with politics?

K
For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:01:50 GMT,
(Babberney) wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:35:56 GMT, Strider wrote:
"Junk science" is identifiable because it has an "answer" and sets out
to prove that answer. All effort is toward proving the "answer" and
any evidence to the contrary is ignored, or worse, suppressed.
Science is supposed to begin with a theory and set out to prove or
disprove that theory.

The Christian Scientists are a glaring example of junk science.

Strider
Well defined. What does that have to do with politics?

Junk Political Science?

Strider

K
For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/