I take this board tongue in cheek...  and yes, I was a member of the "league of condescending scientists/academicians"!  I am in recovery now... 12 steps and all that!  And some of you may wonder about my rants against academia... and say to yourselves... what got that guy's bee in a bonnet - or who twisted his knickers....

I would tell you that it is a variety of things.  What really is funny, that if I point out statistics... I am chided by some for failure to provide specific incidents to demonstrate that harm was actually done.... If I point out specific incidents that demonstrate harm, I am chided by some who say, that is rare.  Below is a former post of mine, that provides a look at global warming... with a number of "factoids" in it, as well as the assertion that we need to find solutions that are acceptable economically, politically and will work technically.  Why the academic community does not take responsibility and provide these types of real analysis, rather than "modeling" (sheese I hate that word... unless you are talking about runnin around at the AVN awards show...) which is really a very fancy way of guessing.  so, here are the facts as I know em.
Scientists are condescending.  often starting conversations by ascerting "this will be difficult for you to understand..."
Well, if you do not believe this theory, you must be uneducated (hey stupid - a theory is an unproven guess!)
This is true because the great Dr. Pubah says so...  
I proved that back in aught 8!
and my favorite (actually said to me)
"Who are you?  I have over 100 publications in the Journal of yada yada yada."  funny thing was, I had never heard of the guy who said that, but I had worked with a Nobel Prize winner - whose name I actually did know! lol

With respect to data analysis, below is a post - which I would love a climatologist to address!  or not with respect to climatic change.  You see, even scientists are prone to anthrophmorphic comparisons...  and making the analysis of date "mankind centric" that is, for the most part, the predictions that we (mankind) are causing a warming trend (if there is one) starts with the assumption that we (humans) are causing it.  I would wish a more universal analysis... that is - what do we know?  What else contributes to the system?  are there controls that we can examine?  What if... what if... what if...  I do not see that.  Instead - I see assertions of fact, and the "assertion" is derived from the output of mathematical models which are built on "what" assumptions?  Clearly is environmentalists... and the elitist scientific snobs wish this guy to buy in, they are gonna have to spell out the models better, and they are gonna have to provide the assumptions that they started with - period.  Below is one of my better rants.  

With respect to Global warming stuff and scientific analysis in general...

try sitting in an international hearing to determine what, if anything, data mean.  lol!  I have done this on more than one occasion.  It is, at best, frustrating.  That is why, when I look at data, I look at how that data were gathered, the controls that were provided as a comparator and who did the gathering and whether or not they are inclined to have a bias... yea yea, I know, scientists are "supposed" to be objective.... but are they?  

Here are the simple things that we know, it is getting cooler in the SE US?  why?  there is evidence that the polar ice caps and alpine glaciers are decreasing... in some places - not all, why not all?  To attribute that warming trend to human-made greenhouse gasses alone is a bit quick... for example - there seems to be an increase in solar intensity... what role does that play?  evidence would suggest, that our energy policy, fossil fuel burning, and the Hindus love of cows are directly attributable to planetary warming... I mean, after all, Mars too is undergoing a climate warming trend....   Why is  this not discussed as part and parcel of our solar system... You know - a control planet!  hey, why didn't the geniuses at the Goddard center think of that?! You see, the earth does not sit in a "vacuum" (lol, well, it does, but one that is filled with everything from virtual particles to radiation to who knows what - "dark matter"?)   So the influence of solar radiation and "other" perhaps as yet undefined factors may play a role in what we see as "global warming"!    As I say, we just do not, as it now stands, have enough data... those that pretend we do, well - they may be right - but they also may be wrong... as is the strange case of the Montreal Protocol.... ha ha ha, scientists replace ozone depleting compounds with greenhouse gases!  lol - those "scientists" what a hoot!  they are so FUN to hang with!  and remember, they all belong to the "league of condescending scientists"! lol  Seriously, they were freaking guessing... and did not want to admit it with the disclaimer... "this may cause more harm than good, but it is our best guess."

"Although the Montreal Protocol does phase out the worst ozone depleting substances (CFCs, HCFCs, halons, methyl bromide), unfortunately it allows ozone depleting chemicals to be replaced with two greenhouse gases, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Both of these chemicals are among the six global warming gases to be controlled under the Kyoto Protocol."
http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol5/v5n08ozone.html

With respect to my "solutions"  - bub, not everyone will survive, but if you want to know how I think that "mankind" will survive... solution #2 looks pretty good to me.  Not every one goes... Eugenics?  'member - even in the US eugenics was practiced - yes practiced.... prior to WWII.  As far as understanding the need for a species to survive, think of it this way, we are the first species to have the capability to know that we are becoming extinct... the only question is - will we?  

This doom and gloom enough for ya?  When you have the leader of a country that has the potential to unite half the world in a war on western civilization and is seeking nuclear weapons - (Iran and the Muslim world) out there crying that the end is here... well!  like I say - option #2 is looking pretty good.  

Solution, what I also believe is that nature tried an experiment with AIDS - and with the Bird flu... believe me, we are due for an epidemic... and our political correctness will prevent the quarantine necessary to protect the bulk of humanity.  

Right wing is this... perhaps.  Fascist.... perhaps.  but know this, I am not advocating any of this, I am merely saying that if you want solutions, they are there... now.  if you want politically acceptable solutions, please do not reject mine... and they go and cry reduce C emissions... reduce C emissions... come up with a plan... a real plan  = one that is economically, politically and technically acceptable... ALL of the proposed solutions are unacceptable from where I sit.  

This is why when the Hollywood bunch gets on TV or Radio... I am always amused... universally, they are ignorant - and do not understand the complexity of the problem... they are reduced to slogans and one liners.  Remember - if you make people think - they will hate you, if you make them think they are thinking they will love you!!!

and yea, when someone posts... e-mail me... answer me...etc, that is a bit much... as far as an answer it is in the original thread and post.  



-- Modified on 1/22/2007 8:41:34 PM

I constantly run afoul of that and have to butcher some of my most inspired prose.

What gives?

me on that.  Humans and our activity are not causing any global warming.  It's just a natural cycle like night and day or the earth rotating around the sun.  Getting a little bit milder---no biggie---just enjoy it.  There will soon be a bunch of years that are really cold so it balances out.  And freon doesn't hurt the ozone layer neither.  We have the ability to make ozone.

That Kyoto treaty was dumb.  How come China didn't have to comply?  They're the biggest polluters and so are all the rest of the dumbass stupid commie/socialist countries.  Why, cause they don't have competition.  

competition is good.  People/things get better when competing against others.  Pollution is waste and when you waste, you waste MONEY!

So, don't worry about global warming.  You can trust me on that.  Case closed.

(Yes, I'm shamelessly  name-dropping, lol!)

I've known him since the 80's when he was one of those hippie-turned-highschool teachers that I grew up under...

zinaval was rather frustrated that I seemed to dismiss his arguments so easily, and treat them like an old hat... Which they are! That tripe has been around for years! Sadly, zin devolved to that "scientific-commuity ego" that you mentioned in your post... Whereas I should just believe it because he said it's true! I intended to fight that fight on facts only, so I purposed to NOT name-drop in those thread, but ultimatly zin resorted to name-calling, then taking his bat&ball and going home... Strangely, zin never seemed to care HOW it was I may have known all his arguments were just old recycled eviro-wack talking points... I know the author of most of that dribble! He's my neighbor! LMAO! (although Will's house is a pain in the ass to get to via water, My cabin is within 20 miles of his, and when he's not out climbing glaciers and taking pictures for Gore's slideshow or writing Gore's talking-points, he's a man like any other up here in Ely. He's very accessable and quite friendly, and LOVES to talk about global warming/CO2 outgassing issues, lol!

I WILL GET HIM TO READ WHAT YOU WROTE!

He's been out on the slide-show tour quite a lot, and I know he's planning another glacier-crossing trip with his dog-team, but I'll try and wrestle him down before he leaves and make him read your common sense! I'll report back when I do...

I also run up against the global-warming panic alot in "real-life" and it's amazing how little people know, and how eager they are to believe... that's ok, "fear" is good for business! LMAO-all the way to the bank!)

-- Modified on 1/23/2007 2:56:37 PM

like much else in human endeavor to power and wealth.  It is "politically correct" to support both the concept of global warming (as opposed to global climate change) and human contribution to global warming.  I do not doubt that we are playing a role in global climate change... but global climate is anything but static... so why would scientists interpret the data a certain way?  Funding - to "drum up" support for funding.

The "guilt" that they live under is what drives them to self-blame [ie., "blame humans first/blame America first"] that prefaces any and all reasonings that they engage in...

Without a conscept of "sin" or of the "fallen nature", athiests and liberals are left with pagan-values by default... And it's these out-gassings of thought that result...

(Together, you and I can change the world, we both seem to grasp the truth, even though neither of us seem to be able to live it out, lol!)

Ben, when you talk to your neighbor ask him who is paying him and how much to be a promoter for Al Gore's global warming fraud. He is doing all this costly travelling and promotion and I doubt he is making much sitting in his cabin unless he has a printing press there rolling out Bens.

Actually, the shit slides down the hill, from Steger's ass to Gore's open mouth... but that's another story...

Gore is independantly wealthy, sitting on a $46,000,000 fortune left to him by his "humble tabbaco-farming father" [ie., "PLANTATION-OWNER"] So we know why Gore don't need to hold a job and is free to roam around with a slide-projector under his arm... But, what about Will Steger, where does he get his funding??

Actually there is a multi-million dollar endowed "Steger-Foundation" that guilt-burdened liberals and liberal-corporations can dump cash to ease their emotions and buy forgivness from Mother-earth... He's ROLLING in cash! (Don't let the humble appearance fool you!)

Thirdly, these men are also on the "speaking circut" and are hansomly "sponsored" when they go from liberal-campus to liberal-campus across this country which mostly is funds skimmed off of tuition and a thousand other points-of waste within academia! (Just like hundreds and hundreds of others in the speaking racket!)

That's a brief over-view, I'm alot more "aquainted" with the finer details than I'll put forth on a public forum... I somewhat expose myself locally if I get too graphic...

kind of an "I'm the only one here, so I must have made the mess."  Odd that this is the thinking that drove the church to thinking that the earth was the center of the universe! lol!  

Change the world?  truth?!  probably not.  I just want to change the mind of one particular porn star to spend a night with me! lol!

these "opinion leaders" talk for free!  they don't!  Even sometimes when they are singled out for some honor, they insist on a fee just to show up! Heck, I paid to go to the AVN awards show....  I did not "GET PAID!"

If I measure infinitely to my left, then infinitelyto my right, well as up and down and forward and back, then calculate the median-distance between all points... I end up with the very spot in which I stand as the "center" of the universe, That seems like a solid argument, LMAO!

Well, we probably will change the world about as much as the tailpipe of my truck changes the earth's climate, lol! But it's fun to think "idealisticly" isn't it? (It also "feels" really good,,, hahaha!)

Yes, I stand by my statement of "truth"... of which there is only one, and it's easy to see you have a row of hewn-stone in your foundation that's cut from that same rock... Perhaps even your corner-stone... (wink,nod)

As to your porn-star of desire... She can be had by you... The only question is for how MUCH, lol! (And careful analysis needs to be applied to determine if the benefits out-weigh the costs in your quest... Which is a lost-art on both rhe RIGHT and LEFT side of our government! LACATST!) [Laughing-And-Crying-At-The-Same-Time!]

A line of (doubly) infinite length HAS no center, Ben.  There is also no point on the periphery of a circle that is its "center", either.

Grants are provided (paid for by guess who's tax dollars) to find the center of the circumference of the circle! lol!  So while it might not exist... that does not prevent some academic math prof. from looking for it.

There is no reason to assume that a linear infinite line is in any way cyclical, nor is there any reason to assume the universe is spherical, lol! And the circle-argument fails on that, because as soon as you establish the starting-point, you've also set the end-limit, thus ¶*diam./2 is as easy it gets...

But since you like to ponder math... Would an infinite number of monkeys typing at random eventually produce the entire works of Shakespeare?

To try to make it clear: if the length of a line is infinite, the distance from ANY point on the line to at least one of the ends is infinite (if it is a doubly infinite line there ARE no end points). The distance from the beginning of a singly infinite line to the other "end" is infinite.  Half of that distance is infinity, as well.  Perhaps you need to learn a little more about mathematical infinities, no?

I gave the circle example as a SECOND example, Ben.  You overlook the fact that there IS no fixed "starting point" on the perimeter of a circle.  ANY point can be a starting point; hence ANY point could be a "center" of the circumference.  This means that there is NO fixed "center".  The geometric center of a circle is NOT on the circumference, in case you didn't know --- unless the circle is degenerate with a radius of zero.  (In that case, the whole question of "center" is moot.)

With regards to your question, the probability that such a group of monkeys would eventually produce the entire works of Shakespeare is asymptotically 1 as time increase.  That is NOT to say that it would HAVE to happen; there is always the possibility that it would never happen --- even if that possibility has probabiliy 0.

You are looking at both from the perspective of outside-inwards...

First, the "halfway point" of a double-infinate line is where ever you are standing when you declare it!  As the line extends equally in both directions infinately...

as to the circle issue... without a starting-point a circle cannot be created, thus the is no circle to research the center-point of until the starting point is "fixed" when the circle is initiated and the ending point I'd dermined upon the circle's completion, thus exactly 360deg. past the start.

In two dimensions, if the completion  of the circle were to extend beyond the start-point, then "two circles" would exist, then three, unto an infinate conclusion...

If this were done in three dimensions, then it could be argued that no circle ever exists, but rather each time the start-point is passed a "coil" is added to a stack, reguardless of how compact the loops of the coil are piled, there is no absolute that the medium in which the circle exists is melded back to the start-point... Even in each loop of the coil passed perfectly internally into the start-point, and thus never stacking in the third dimension, it still exists as an infinate-prosses...

Yes, we here on earth ARE in the center of the infinate-universe, and so is the furthest most detectable point at the end-reach of Hubble's telescope... in any direction it is aimed, lol!

The fact that YOU declare a point on a doubly infinite line to be THE center doesn't make it so; I might similarly declare another point as midpoint.  Consequently, EACH point on the line would end up being a midpoint --- which reduces the use of the term to nonsense.

As to the circles, you are confusing the mathematical object known as a circle with the act of drawing a representation of a circle.  The circle as such exists independently of any act of drawing it.  Tracing a circle repeatedly does not create multiple circles; it simply retraces it.

Since a circle is a planar figure, and three-dimensional space contains lots and lots of planes, your claim that no circle ever exists is absurd.

I wonder if you ever took geometry in high school (or thereafter).  If so, it is pretty obvious that you retain little, if any, of what you should have learned there.

I merely applied an ontology-perspective to your circle-jerking and dismissed your entire premise, yet you'd rather argue "rules" that theory, which is fine, but I'm not in your math class and your rules don't apply to my reasonings...

What you are failing to consider is you are only looking at these things from within the confines of your own perspective, you are "limiting" your results by the rules you were taught! You self-impose their use to guide you to what you think is the only possible conclusion, You have found ONE possible solution, but how pompus to conclude it's the ONLY solution...

You are short-changing yourself [which you are free to do], but worse is that you are also attempting to limit and short-change ME! [which you are NOT free to do!] By telling me, and infact DEMANDING of me that I measure according to your yard-stick and I reason within the confines of the mathamatics you were taught in some school, somewhere...  This is YOUR bondage, not mine! Your ultimate end-arguing-points always results in you claiming that I must not be "educated" to your level, thus my opinions are inferior to yours... typical acedemia/left/self-rightous tripe!

As to the order of things, if I first declare the "center-point" on an infinate plane or line, then you cannot come along and declare a second center-point, since one has already been established, and "center" is monotopic! So as soon as you declare a "second" center, we enter into a dispute, not an automatic dismisal of "my" center which pre-dates yours! (This could result in a war, and if you are successful in "removing" my center, then your's becomes the new refrence-point-of-center, but if I am successful in defending my staked-claim, then the center remains as was, prior to your assult.)

Again, you limit the contemplation of a circle to a "mathiematical-object"... And while I can also grasp the abstract existance of such a circle, I don't LIMIT myself to one, especially when contemplating a universe, which isn't abstract, but infact an infinate enviroment in which I can interact and percieve... The universe is NOT merely mathematical, if it were limited to ONLY a mathematical-existance, then your argument holds, however we all can percieve mathematics is only a COMPONENT of a whole, and not even exclusively the full measuring insturment by which it can be rationed and contemplated... Again you are short-changing your beliefs with your rules!

My claim is NOT absurd! But your response is predictable, short-sighted, and absurdly pompus!! Unless you define a means by which the creation of anything in three dimentions "exists", then it does not exist! Your math-object argument holds better in two dimentions, than three, but still falls short...

If a three-dimentional circle "exists" to be measured (like the universe does) then order must be established to HOW it exists! And without a rule establishing the creation-point of the circle, a rule for how the line re-attaches to the start-point to create the circle, a circle NEVER leaps into existance! No exixtance = no measured-center...  

What always suprises me about athiests is how willing they are to contemplate things that do not exist and opperate mathematically as though they do, yet they use the "God doen't exist" argument to dismiss any claimes of creation or a creator...

It's mathematically improbable that an athiest will ever smell his own shit! All Scientific studies seem to support this, lol!

I guess we have found the center-point to the circle... R*R*creamPi=U! LMAO!

constructs to predict matter and energy interactions - knowing that one could never observe the interaction directly.  In biology - it is reduced somewhat to modeling... a bit closer to observable phenomena... but still only a predictive tool... rather than a certainty.  

and remember....  NIH funded studies have conclusively demonstrated that biological research (of any sort) is 100% lethal to mice and rats.  lol-  Seriously, sometimes it is the quest for an answer and the thought that goes into it that is more important than the specific answer itself.  So while I was joking about the circle jerk argument above... imaginative answers to very complex problems are what is needed in most of our messes we are in now - Iraq, Iran, N Korea, energy alternatives, education, justice, immigration, and other troubled issues.  What we have are arguments that resemble the "circle jerk" discussion - thinking in a constrained set of predictable algorithms.  Solutions... as I have said, we need to start thinking differently if we really want to solve the problems.  cause the answers we got, ain't working.

(I'm tellin' you, we CAN save the world, lol! As soon as we figure out what it is the world needs saving from,,,, hahaha!

Your and BizzaroSuperDude's "take" on circles and geometry have a late-night LSD flavor about them that reminds me of the good old days of the 60's.  It all reminds me of the Caterpillar's comment in Alice in Wonderland: (paraphrasing) "A word means exactly what I make it mean --- no more, no less.  It is only a question of who is the master."  I obviously made a mistake in taking you seriously.  Dream on, guys, dream on.

Maybe alittle LSD would have done you good in your development years, perhaps tempered that poindexter edge of yours... You're still missing the point... mainly because ypou are more intrested in protection you ridged-protocals of life, than in life it'self... (Nice pocket protector! What do you use all those pencils and pens for anyway?? I get by fine with one...)

My take on circles was that if it squared up like a circle, turned on itself like a circle and had circular arguments, it must be a circle jerk!  lol!  seriously, I am from the 60s - but not that 60s....  and for all that wonder the 60s seem to engender in some, they were not particularly good to me... friends went off to die in Nam, or worse - were murdered here, in the US.  Good men were called baby killers, because somehow the incredibly bright news dudes could not get the story correct.  We are in a new era of warfare.  If we fight in Europe - we fight by "western rules of engagement."  EVERYWHERE else and I do mean EVERYWHERE else  they fight wars by a different set of war rules... we obviously failed to learn that lesson in Nam and that makes me wonder - what they teach in the senior staff colleges in the services.  

So, now we are being invaded from our southern border, and we face an enemy that is composed of fully 1/2 the population of the earth... and on top of that our energy resources are geopolitically constrained, we are torn apart by internal squablings about moot points of law... and I still cannot get Jenna Jamison to throw me a pity date LOL!!!!

Take me seriously?! dude - Take the loonies "out there" and in the country seriously - cause know what, they take you very seriously.

I be 67 years old.  I don't romanticize the 60's that much, either; I, too, lost friends in Viet Nam, I was near the area in Detroit where the riots took place, and I was ashamed by the treatment that Viet Nam veterans received from so many Americans (using the term a little loosely).

I also know a little about the '"loonies", in particular, the anti-scientific, anti-intellectual "religious" right.  I have been conducting a course in the complex where I live (here in Atlanta) discussing evolutionary theory and spirituality, trying to show how, rather than being opposed to one another, they actually complement each other in many ways.  I started out with 70 people; within a month it was down to 20.  Eventually, it came down to 5 people, one of whom was there to try to make me "see the light".  In retrospect, I probably took too academic an approach, but the fact is that most people here are totally closed minded when it comes to doctrines that "ain't in the Bible".

Unfortunately, this is only one manifestation of the increasing dullness of the American populace.  Looking back at the intellectual skills and vision of our founding fathers, it is very clear that our educational institutions have grossly failed to produce inquiring, analytical, educated minds.  When is the last time you saw a leader in this country that thoroughly understood not only the Constitution, but the philosophy and logic underlying it?  As you well know, much of what passes for "argumentation" is the screaming of personal (and often uninformed) opinions or just plain old name-calling.  Or, even worse, cleverly constructed sophistries whose purpose is to obfuscate and evade.

When I began my studies for a Master's degree in Mathematics, I was advised to avoid the more difficult courses, because it was the faculty's experience that American students couldn't do well in them.  Fortunately, I had a strong background in undergraduate mathematics, so I was able to do well in all my courses.  But I also saw that many other American students did, indeed, more poorly than the foreign students.  Furthermore, during my years of teaching, I and my colleagues observed a steady decline in the level of preparation and skills of our students.  As one person put it, he knew that if he gave his current class an exam like the ones he had given ten years ago, he would fail the entire class.

It would seem as though the educational system has devolved into a "feel good" exercise that is designed to make good consumers and followers of the students, and to keep them happy and coming back.  Given the enormous proliferation of educational institutions in recent years, schools are finding themselves competing for students to a much greater degree than ever before.  In economic terms, a dissatisfied student is a departed student and a loss of desperately needed revenues.  Hence the pursuit of academic rigor seems to be a luxury that many schools now cannot afford --- or at least they THINK they can't.

In closing, I agree with your points --- sadly.

or realized the problems as clearly as you have described them.  Oddly, I too have tried to explain my scientific position and square it with my strongly held religious position.  Only to be scoffed by both the religious right - and the PC left.  So sadly, I sit in the middle and try to give my kids some moral guidance and at least exposure to my thoughts.  But I must admit - I am not my parents - they were exceptional people and started me on a unique path.

While I taught, I had few students who could debate, write a concise declarative sentence or for that matter, do the work.  After I left the university and had to hire the products that Universities produced.... I was appalled.  People may find my stance on the universities and educational system a tad harsh.  But would they rather I blame the hapless students who have been systematically deluded into thinking that "they have an education?"

This summer, due to a complete dissatisfaction in the reading assigned to my son during the year, I decided that "dad school" was in order - the reading assignments?  To kill a mockingbird, the diary of Ann Frank, A brief history of time, The Foundation trilogy. well - you get the picture...  I also had him calculate the cost of owning a car - he is 12 and wants a car when he is 16 - so I figure, he can determine how much it will cost.

Sadly, my script for curing the woes start with the  institution that is oldest, and most resistant to change - the universities.  Thank you for taking the time to state what should be on every congressman's mind, but clearly isn't.

-- Modified on 1/24/2007 11:02:25 PM

-- Modified on 1/24/2007 11:18:00 PM

I was born in the late 60's (a true "product" of the era, lol!) And I was pushed around acedemia until I walked out the door several times, after several attempts, often several credits short of serveral of the degrees I persued... I've lost all faith in the sheep-building institutions of higher learning... (I've been ALOT more successful out here in the "real-world" then I ever was trapped behind all those bricks and wrought-iron fences...)

You'll find a supporter in me for your evolution/Bible comparative... I hope you bring those thoughts to the board some day...