|
|
| Author |
Message |
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 7:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
I forgot about these: |
Actually, I was more interested in which papers on which you were an author / co-author. Sorry, I wasn't very clear. |
I've written for the Journal of Insect Physiology, 1989 and 1992, as well as in the American Journal of Physiology - Cell Physiology as well. I've also written an article in 1983 as well as 1975 for the journal of Insect Physiology as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | RevJP wrote: |
By the way, are anthropology and archeology sciences? It would seem that history necessarily involves the two, doesn't it? |
They're so-called 'soft sciences'. |
My point is being well put here.....
They're Either Science or not. Nothing in the middle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | They're so-called 'soft sciences'. |
so-called? is this qualified in peer-reviewed scientific journal somewhere? |
Eh its nonsense is what it is. 'soft' Science is "I don't like it" in Evolution language. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theseldomscene
Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 7817
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| doc wrote: | | I've written for the Journal of Insect Physiology |
i like ants...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chocolate covered? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
My point is being well put here.....
They're Either Science or not. Nothing in the middle. |
This kind of extremism is inappropriate and also highly unusual in scientific discourse.
Most scientists realize that the world is not black and white, but rather that most measures can be better described using sliding scales.
Religious people, on the other hand, have a very absolute take on things. You are talking like a religious person, and not like a scientist.
The soft sciences ARE in the middle. They have aspects which are scientific, and other aspects which aren't. Sociology and archeology are good examples. They both use scientific methods at times, and at other times rely on methods which are not scientific.
It's not an either or, and in order to make the case that it is, you have to throw a lot of information away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
Eh its nonsense is what it is. 'soft' Science is "I don't like it" in Evolution language. |
What are you going on about? I am friends with a sociologist, and he is more than happy to refer to sociology as a soft science. It is not a pejorative term; it is a descriptive one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
My point is being well put here.....
They're Either Science or not. Nothing in the middle. |
This kind of extremism is inappropriate and also highly unusual in scientific discourse.
Most scientists realize that the world is not black and white, but rather that most measures can be better described using sliding scales.
Religious people, on the other hand, have a very absolute take on things. You are talking like a religious person, and not like a scientist.
The soft sciences ARE in the middle. They have aspects which are scientific, and other aspects which aren't. Sociology and archeology are good examples. They both use scientific methods at times, and at other times rely on methods which are not scientific.
It's not an either or, and in order to make the case that it is, you have to throw a lot of information away. |
Science is subjected to the Principles of Logic.
And the Principle of Excluded Middle is one of those Principles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
And the Principle of Excluded Middle is one of those Principles. |
This is perhaps the most fallacious application of the Law of Excluded Middle that I've ever seen.
Every sentence is either true or false, and therefore every subject either is or is not a science?!? Come on!
Next you're going to say that every food either does or does not taste good. Way to misapply logic! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5880
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, but I don't consider a rag that critically examines fiction for errors, for example, to be a reliable source of scientific news.
What a joke this topic turned into 
To put it quite succinctly: those of us who don't take your words as gospel truth don't give a lick about your credentials. Anyone can get credentials but they are judged by how they the knowledge behind them, and you certainly aren't doing a very good job. No real papers in 14+ years? Wow! I'm impressed by your credentials! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
I've written for the Journal of Insect Physiology, 1989 and 1992, as well as in the American Journal of Physiology - Cell Physiology as well. I've also written an article in 1983 as well as 1975 for the journal of Insect Physiology as well. |
You're not a researcher? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Grizzly Bear
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 716
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
When the evolutionists are done interviewing the Dr. could we discuss something that is scientific?
Joman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| joman wrote: | When the evolutionists are done interviewing the Dr. could we discuss something that is scientific?
Joman. |
That's what we've been asking for all along, but we won't be getting any science from this Doctor... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh... so now FFT is finally getting around to admiting that the Gnostic Gospels are flacious. Well... it is about time!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5880
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Oh... so now FFT is finally getting around to admiting that the Gnostic Gospels are flacious. Well... it is about time! |
I think you're missing the part where I think that all the Gospels are fiction, but that's not relevant. The fiction I was referring to was the DaVinci Code, not any of the stuff they referenced later in the article.
If it was actually a "scientific" journal, the article should have just been this part: | Quote: | | Brown says on page 8: ‘In this work of fiction, the characters, places and events are either the product of the author’s imagination or they are used entirely fictitiously.’ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
