How To Keep Nut Jobs Off Your Threads

[Bret Cahill]

Eureka!

I found a way to exclude morons from my posts!

Just top post this onto every future thread.

This post frightens away the nut jobs.

Not true.

Then why did you dodge the issue?

Here, we'll try again:

InnoCentive found that “the further the problem was from the
solver’s expertise, the
: more likely they were to solve it,” often by applying specialized
knowledge or
: instruments developed for another purpose.
Interdisciplinarity is the act of drawing from two or more academic
disciplines and integrating their insights to work together in pursuit
of a common goal. "Interdisciplinary Studies", as they are called, use
interdisciplinarity to develop a greater understanding of a problem
that is too complex or wide-ranging (i.e. AIDS pandemic, global
warming) to be dealt with using the knowledge and methodology of just
one discipline.
Interdisciplinary programs sometimes arise from a shared conviction
that the traditional disciplines are unable or unwilling to address an
important problem. For example, social science disciplines such as
anthropology and sociology paid little attention to the social
analysis of technology throughout most of the twentieth century. As a
result, many social scientists with interests in technology have
joined science and technology studies programs, which are typically
staffed by scholars drawn from numerous disciplines (including
anthropology, history, philosophy, sociology, and women's studies).
They may also arise from new research developments, such as
nanotechnology, which cannot be addressed without combining the
approaches of two or more disciplines. Examples include quantum
information processing, which amalgamates elements of quantum physics
and computer science, and bioinformatics, which combines molecular
biology with computer science. In a sense, those who pursue
Interdisciplinary Studies degrees or practice interdisciplinarity in
their lives are seen as pioneers (and even risk-takers) at the cutting
edge of scholarship, science, and technology. In this way,
interdisciplinarians are able to acknowledge and combat the present
and future problems of humanity.
At another level, interdisciplinarity is seen as a remedy to the
intellectually deadening effects of excessive specialization. On some
views, however, interdisciplinarity is entirely indebted to those who
specialize in one field of study--that without specialists,
interdisciplinarians would have no information and no leading experts
to consult. Others place the focus of interdisciplinarity on the need
to transcend disciplines, viewing excessive specialization as
problematic both epistemologically and politically. When
interdisciplinary collaboration or research results in new solutions
to problems, much information is given back to the various disciplines
involved. Therefore, both disciplinarians and interdisciplinarians
must work complementary to each other in order to solve problems.
However, French sociologist and interdisciplinary scholar, Mattei
Dogan has criticized the widely held view that interdisciplinarity,
despite its etymology, involves merging two traditional disciplines.
As demonstrated in his article “The New Social Sciences: Cracks in the
Disciplinary Walls,” interdisciplinary research does not, in fact,
entail crossing whole disciplines, but in crossing specialties. In
Dogan’s view, by attempting to cross disciplines so vast as political
science and sociology, for example, the research can only become lost
in an ocean of literature. In this sense, any researcher seeking to
cross whole disciplines is doomed from the outset. For him, the true
meaning of interdisciplinarity lies in crossing specialties within
disciplines, or the hybridization of disciplinary fragments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdisciplinarity
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/science/22inno.html?em&ex=121695840...
Several reasons for all the upstaging by those outside their fields
including:
1. The field jumper will often focus on issues eitirely overlooked by
those who do not stray from their field.
2. The field jumper brings fresh insights from his own field.
3. The field jumper isn't going to have the same prejudices of those
stuck in their field.
4. The field jumper will naturally be a little brash. ("Waddya mean
we can't do it?")
A prof told us about crosspollination/cross training years ago, I've
heard it several times since and I've posted about it several times
over the years.
My favorite example was MRI, invented by a chemist who for some reason
had to work with physicists.
DOE would do well to have a program which paid scientists and
engineers to switch fields for 6 months - year.
Most of the breakthroughs come in the first 6 months.

This time, no dodgin'

This time, no dodgin'


Bret Cahill

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:50:08 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Eureka!

I found a way to exclude morons from my posts!

---
Even if no one replies to your posts you won't have excluded them all.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:34:03 -0700 (PDT), kevirwin
<kevirwin@comcast.net> wrote:

On Jul 31, 5:29 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:50:08 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill

BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
Eureka!

I found a way to exclude morons from my posts!

---
Even if no one replies to your posts you won't have excluded them all.

JF

not taking sides, but that's actually funny.....(falls under the
category of: "if you're going to insult someone, **at least** be
clever about it)....

just a thought,
K e v

---



JF

 

[kevirwin]

On Jul 31, 5:29 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:50:08 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill

BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
Eureka!

I found a way to exclude morons from my posts!

---
Even if no one replies to your posts you won't have excluded them all.

JF

not taking sides, but that's actually funny.....(falls under the
category of: "if you're going to insult someone, **at least** be
clever about it)....

just a thought,
K e v

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:11:43 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
<reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 31, 11:50 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
Eureka!

I found a way to exclude morons from my posts!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8Pk1UYkB3I

Interdisciplinarity is the act of drawing from two or more academic
disciplines and integrating their insights to work together in pursuit
of a common goal. "Interdisciplinary Studies", as they are called, use
interdisciplinarity to develop a greater understanding of a problem
that is too complex or wide-ranging (i.e. AIDS pandemic, global
warming) to be dealt with using the knowledge and methodology of just
one discipline.

...Because the guides of human nature must be examined with a
complicated arrangement of mirrors, they are a deceptive subject,
always the philosopher's deadfall. The only way forward is to study
human nature as part of the natural sciences, in an attempt to
integrate the natural sciences with the social sciences and
humanities.

Some bright person recently observed that any field fs study that
includes the word "science" in its name isn't one.

John

 

[John Fields]

Some bright person recently observed that any field fs study that
includes the word "science" in its name isn't one.

---
"fs"?

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:40:30 -0400, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:50:08 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:


Eureka!

I found a way to exclude morons from my posts!


---
Even if no one replies to your posts you won't have excluded them all.

JF


http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"

---
Ugh.

JF

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Immoralist wrote:

Can you elaborate on what you think that means? If in all cases of
some area of study and research having some sort of peculiarity in the
title are always cases where they are not something else? Trying to
judge the strength of such an argument form.

If you need it explained you will never understand the answer you
seek.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

 

[Jamie]

John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:50:08 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:


Eureka!

I found a way to exclude morons from my posts!


---
Even if no one replies to your posts you won't have excluded them all.

JF

http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"

 

[bigfletch8@gmail.com]

On Aug 1, 7:34 am, kevirwin <kevir...@comcast.net> wrote:

On Jul 31, 5:29 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:50:08 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill

BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
Eureka!

I found a way to exclude morons from my posts!

---
Even if no one replies to your posts you won't have excluded them all.

JF

not taking sides, but that's actually funny.....(falls under the
category of: "if you're going to insult someone, **at least** be
clever about it)....

just a thought,
K e v

Or perhaps "please give me your cv befor I acknowledge your
insult"

BOfL

 

[Sevenhundred Elves]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:30:06 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
<reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 31, 5:22 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:11:43 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist



reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 31, 11:50 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
Eureka!

I found a way to exclude morons from my posts!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8Pk1UYkB3I

Interdisciplinarity is the act of drawing from two or more academic
disciplines and integrating their insights to work together in pursuit
of a common goal. "Interdisciplinary Studies", as they are called, use
interdisciplinarity to develop a greater understanding of a problem
that is too complex or wide-ranging (i.e. AIDS pandemic, global
warming) to be dealt with using the knowledge and methodology of just
one discipline.

...Because the guides of human nature must be examined with a
complicated arrangement of mirrors, they are a deceptive subject,
always the philosopher's deadfall. The only way forward is to study
human nature as part of the natural sciences, in an attempt to
integrate the natural sciences with the social sciences and
humanities.

Some bright person recently observed that any field fs study that
includes the word "science" in its name isn't one.

John

Can you elaborate on what you think that means? If in all cases of
some area of study and research having some sort of peculiarity in the
title are always cases where they are not something else? Trying to
judge the strength of such an argument form.

I guess it's just an empirical statement. Whoever made that
observation must have thought of things like "natural science",
"social science", "materials science", and "rocket science", and held
these fields of study to an arbitrary standard of what he, personally,
thought was required of a science, and found them lacking. Maybe he
compared them to physics. Anyway, the moment physics gets renamed to
"physical science", that argument will fall flat on its face. So it's
not a particularly strong argument.

On a tangent, I actually believe that materials science really is a
science, and if I'm right about that, then the bright person who came
up with the idea is wrong already.

Maybe he just meant it as a joke.

Astrology, antropology, scientology, technology, geology, entomology
all end in "ology". Do they have some common quality? Could we say
that nothing that ends in "ology" is a science? Or that every such
thing is a science? No, it's not very likely that the structure of the
name reflects the structure of the thing, unless there is a strict
nomenclature, tailor-made for that purpose, as is the case in
chemistry, where a name such as
1-chloro-4-phenyl-3-(p-toluenesulfonamido)-2-butanone is an accurate
description of the structure and constituents of the molecule of that
name.

S.

 

[Immortalist]

On Jul 31, 11:50 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

Eureka!

I found a way to exclude morons from my posts!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8Pk1UYkB3I

Interdisciplinarity is the act of drawing from two or more academic
disciplines and integrating their insights to work together in pursuit
of a common goal. "Interdisciplinary Studies", as they are called, use
interdisciplinarity to develop a greater understanding of a problem
that is too complex or wide-ranging (i.e. AIDS pandemic, global
warming) to be dealt with using the knowledge and methodology of just
one discipline.

....Because the guides of human nature must be examined with a
complicated arrangement of mirrors, they are a deceptive subject,
always the philosopher's deadfall. The only way forward is to study
human nature as part of the natural sciences, in an attempt to
integrate the natural sciences with the social sciences and
humanities. I can conceive of no ideological or formalisric shortcut.
Neurobiology cannot be learned at the feer of a guru. The consequences
of genetic history cannot be chosen by legislatures. Above all, for
our own physical well-being if nothing else, ethical philosophy must
not be left in the hands of the merely wise. Although human progress
can be achieved by intuition and force of will, only hard-won
empirical knowledge of our biological nature will allow us to make
optimum choices among the competing criteria of progress.

The important initial development in this analysis will be the
conjunction of biology and the various social sciences-psychology,
anthropology, sociology, and economics. The two cultures have only
recently come into full sight of one another. The result has been a
predictable mixture of aversions, misunderstandings, overenthusiasm,
local conflicts, and treaties. The situation can be summarized by
saying that biology stands today as the antidiscipline of the social
sciences. By the word "antidiscipline" I wish to emphasize the special
adversary relation that often exists when fields of study at adjacent
levels of organization first begin to interact. For chemistry there is
the anridiscipline of many-body physics; for molecular biology,
chemistry; for physiology, molecular biology; and so on upward through
the paired levels of increasing specification and complexity.

In the typical early history of a discipline, its practitioners
believe in the novelty and uniqueness of their subject. They devote
lifetimes to special entities and patterns and during the early period
of exploration they doubt that these phenomena can be reduced to
simple laws. Members of the anridiscipline have a different attitude.
Having chosen as their primary subject the units of the lower level of
organization, say atoms as opposed to molecules, they believe that the
next discipline above can and must be reformulated by their own laws:
chemistry by the laws of physics, biology by the laws of chemistry,
and so on downward. Their interest is relatively narrow, abstract, and
exploitative. P.A.M. Dirac, speaking of the theory of the hydrogen
atom, could say that its consequences would unfold as mere chemistry.
A few biochemists are still content in the belief that life is "no
more" than the actions of atoms and molecules.

It it easy to see why each scientific discipline is also an
antidiscipline. An adversary relationship is probable because the
devotees of the two adjacent organizational levels-such as atoms
versus molecules-are initially committed to their own methods and
ideas when they focus on the upper level (in this case, molecules). By
today's standards a broad scientist can be defined as one who is a
student of three subjects: his discipline (chemistry in the example
cited), the lower amidiscipline (physics), and the subject to which
his specialty stands as antidiscipline (the chemical aspects of
biology). A well-rounded expert on the nervous system, to take a
second, more finely graded example, is deeply versed in the structure
of single nerve cells, but he also understands the chemical basis of
the impulses that pass through and between these cells, and he hopes
to explain how nerve cells work together to produce elementary
patterns of behavior. Every successful scientist treats differently
each of the three levels of phenomena surrounding his specialty.

The interplay between adjacent fields is tense and creative at the
beginning, but with the passage of time it becomes fully
complementary. Consider the origins of molecular biology. In the late
i8oos the microscopic study of cells (cytology) and the study of
chemical processes within and around the cells (biochemistry) grew at
an accelerating pace. Their relationship during this period was
complicated, but it broadly fits the historical schema I have
described. The cytologists were excited by the mounting evidence of an
intricate cell architecture. They had interpreted the mysterious
choreography of the chromosomes during cell division and thus set the
stage for the emergence of modern genetics and experimental
developmental biology. Many biochemists, on the other hand, remained
skeptical of the idea that so much structure exists at the microscopic
level. They thought that the cytologists were describing artifacts
created by laboratory methods of fixing and staining cells for
microscopic examination. Their interest lay in the more "fundamental"
issues of tine chemical nature of protoplasm, especially the newly
formulated theory that life is based on enzymes. The cytologists
responded with scorn to any notion that the cell is a "bag of
enzymes."

In general, biochemists judged the cytologists to be too ignorant of
chemistry to grasp the fundamental processes, while the cytologists
considered the methods of the chemists inappropriate for the
idiosyncratic structures of the living cell. The revival of Mendelian
genetics in 1900 and the subsequent illumination of the roles of the
chromosomes and genes did little at first to force a synthesis.
Biochemists, seeing no immediate way to explain classical genetics, by
and large ignored it.

Both sides were essentially correct. Biochemistry has now explained so
much of the cellular machinery on its own terms as to justify its most
extravagant early claims. But in achieving this fear, mostly since
1950, it was partially transformed into the new discipline of
molecular biology, which can be defined as biochemistry that also
accounts for the particular spatial arrangements of such molecules as
the DNA helix and enzyme proteins. Cytology forced the development of
a special kind of chemistry and the use of a battery of powerful new
techniques, including electrophoresis, chromatosraphy, density-
gradient centrifugation, and x-ray crystallography. At the same time
cytology metamorphosed into modern cell biology. Aided by the electron
microscope, which magnifies objects by-hundreds of thousands of times,
it has converged in perspective and language toward molecular biology.
Finally, classical genetics, by switching from fruit flies and mice to
bacteria and viruses, has incorporated biochemistry to become
molecular genetics.

Progress over a large part of biology has been fueled by competition
among the various perspectives and techniques derived from cell
biology and biochemistry, the discipline and its antidisclpline. The
interplay has been a triumph for scientific materialism. It has vastly
enriched our understanding of the nature of life and created materials
for literature more powerful than any imagery of prescienrific
culture.

I suggest that we are about to repeat this cycle in the blending of
biology and the social sciences and that as a consequence the two
cultures of Western intellectual life will be joined at last. Biology
has traditionally affected the social sciences only indirectly through
technological manifestations, such as the benefits of medicine, the
mixed blessings of gene splicing and other techniques of genetics, and
the specter of population growth. Although of great practical
importance, these matters are trivial with reference to the conceptual
foundation of the social sciences. The conventional treatments of
"social biology" and "social issues of biology" in our colleges and
universities present some formidable intellectual challenges, but they
are not addressed to the core of social theory. This core is the deep
structure of human nature, an essentially biological phenomenon that
is also the primary focus of the humanities.

It is all too easy to be seduced by the opposing view: that science is
competent to generate only a few classes of information, that its
cold, clear Apollonian method will never be relevant to the full
Dionysian life of the mind, that single-minded devotion to science is
dehumanizing. Expressing the mood of the counterculture, Theodore
Roszak suggested a map of the mind "as a spectrum of possibilities,
all of which properly blend into one another ... At one end, we have
the hard, bright lights of science; here we find information. In the
center we have the sensuous hues of art; here we find the aesthetic
shape of the world. At the far end, we have the dark, shadowy tones of
religious experience, shading off into wave lengths beyond all
perception; here we find meaning."

No, here we find obscurantism! And a curious underestimate of what the
mind can accomplish. The sensuous hues and dark tones have been
produced by the genetic evolution of our nervous and sensory tissues;
to treat them as other than objects of biological inquiry is simply to
ami too low.

The heart of the scientific method is the reduction of perceived
phenomena to fundamental, testable principles. The elegance, we can
fairly say the beauty, of any particular scientific generalization is
measured by its simplicity relative to the number of phenomena it can
explain. Ernst Mach, a physicist and forerunner of the logical
positivists, captured the idea with a definition: "Science may be
regarded as a minimal problem consisting of the completest
presentation of facts with the least possible expenditure of
thought."

On Human Nature - Edward O. Wilson 1978
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067463442X/qid=1036537594/

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:30:40 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Some bright person recently observed that any field fs study that
includes the word "science" in its name isn't one.

---
"fs"?

JF

I suppose I shouldn't look forward to careers as a sectetary or a
typesetter.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 10:55:23 +1000, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

"John Larkin"


Some bright person recently observed that any field fs study that
includes the word "science" in its name isn't one.


** You mean like:

" Computer Science "

" Climate Science "

" Rocket Science"


etc.......


..... Phil

Political Science.

Social Science.

Library Science.

Veterinary Science.

Nanoscience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_science

John

 

[Immortalist]

On Jul 31, 5:22 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:11:43 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist



reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 31, 11:50 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
Eureka!

I found a way to exclude morons from my posts!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8Pk1UYkB3I

Interdisciplinarity is the act of drawing from two or more academic
disciplines and integrating their insights to work together in pursuit
of a common goal. "Interdisciplinary Studies", as they are called, use
interdisciplinarity to develop a greater understanding of a problem
that is too complex or wide-ranging (i.e. AIDS pandemic, global
warming) to be dealt with using the knowledge and methodology of just
one discipline.

...Because the guides of human nature must be examined with a
complicated arrangement of mirrors, they are a deceptive subject,
always the philosopher's deadfall. The only way forward is to study
human nature as part of the natural sciences, in an attempt to
integrate the natural sciences with the social sciences and
humanities.

Some bright person recently observed that any field fs study that
includes the word "science" in its name isn't one.

John

Can you elaborate on what you think that means? If in all cases of
some area of study and research having some sort of peculiarity in the
title are always cases where they are not something else? Trying to
judge the strength of such an argument form.

 

[Immortalist]

On Jul 31, 5:30 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Some bright person recently observed that any field fs study that
includes the word "science" in its name isn't one.

---
"fs"?

"Farts!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eda1KAT9-hc

> JF

 

[Immortalist]

On Jul 31, 5:37 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

Immoralist wrote:

Can you elaborate on what you think that means? If in all cases of
some area of study and research having some sort of peculiarity in the
title are always cases where they are not something else? Trying to
judge the strength of such an argument form.

If you need it explained you will never understand the answer you
seek.

Actually you must be a knee jerk reactor since I was questioning the
quantification of "all" such cases. I was trying to get a confirmation
that the poster meant by "any" - all, thats all.

Note on "Distribution";

....A categorical proposition joins together exactly two categorical
terms and asserts that some relationship holds between the classes
they designate. (For our own convenience, we'll call the term that
occurs first in each categorical proposition its subject term and
other its predicate term.) Thus, for example, "All cows are mammals"
and "Some philosophy teachers are young mothers" are categorical
propositions whose subject terms are "cows" and "philosophy teachers"
and whose predicate terms are "mammals" and "young mothers"
respectively.

Each categorical proposition states that there is some logical
relationship that holds between its two terms. In this context, a
categorical term is said to be distributed if that proposition
provides some information about every member of the class designated
by that term. Thus, in our first example above, "cows" is distributed
because the proposition in which it occurs affirms that each and every
cow is also a mammal, but "mammals" is undistributed because the
proposition does not state anything about each and every member of
that class. In the second example, neither of the terms is
distributed, since this proposition tells us only that the two classes
overlap to some (unstated) extent.

Quality and Quantity

....The quality of a categorical proposition indicates the nature of
the relationship it affirms between its subject and predicate terms:
it is an affirmative proposition if it states that the class
designated by its subject term is included, either as a whole or only
in part, within the class designated by its predicate term, and it is
a negative proposition if it wholly or partially excludes members of
the subject class from the predicate class. Notice that the predicate
term is distributed in every negative proposition but undistributed in
all affirmative propositions.

The quantity of a categorical proposition, on the other hand, is a
measure of the degree to which the relationship between its subject
and predicate terms holds: it is a universal proposition if the
asserted inclusion or exclusion holds for every member of the class
designated by its subject term, and it is a particular proposition if
it merely asserts that the relationship holds for one or more members
of the subject class. Thus, you'll see that the subject term is
distributed in all universal propositions but undistributed in every
particular proposition.

Combining these two distinctions and representing the subject and
predicate terms respectively by the letters "S" and "P," we can
uniquely identify the four possible forms of categorical proposition:

A universal affirmative proposition (to which, following the practice
of medieval logicians, we will refer by the letter "A") is of the
form

All S are P.

Such a proposition asserts that every member of the class designated
by the subject term is also included in the class designated by the
predicate term. Thus, it distributes its subject term but not its
predicate term.

A universal negative proposition (or "E") is of the form

No S are P.

This proposition asserts that nothing is a member both of the class
designated by the subject term and of the class designated by the
predicate terms. Since it reports that every member of each class is
excluded from the other, this proposition distributes both its subject
term and its predicate term.

A particular affirmative proposition ("I") is of the form

Some S are P.

A proposition of this form asserts that there is at least one thing
which is a member both of the class designated by the subject term and
of the class designated by the predicate term. Both terms are
undistributed in propositions of this form.

Finally, a particular negative proposition ("O") is of the form

Some S are not P.

Such a proposition asserts that there is at least one thing which is a
member of the class designated by the subject term but not a member of
the class designated by the predicate term. Since it affirms that the
one or more crucial things that they are distinct from each and every
member of the predicate class, a proposition of this form distributes
its predicate term but not its subject term.

Although the specific content of any actual categorical proposition
depends upon the categorical terms which occur as its subject and
predicate, the logical form of the categorical proposition must always
be one of these four types.

http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e07a.htm

--http://improve-usenet.org/index.html


Most of the people who post to Usenet via
the clunky Google Groups web interface are
lusers or lamers. Because of their use of a clunky
Usenet web interface (and all Usenet web interfaces
suck - Usenet wasn't designed for webification
and does not need webification), they have no
idea what Usenet is, how it works, or how to use
it properly. And, generally, they don't want to learn.

Thats funny and partly wrong. I just post to txt groups with google
and download hefty files with my account on the newsreader. Only
stupid duesch bags give out that info by posing in heres.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account:http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm_n76Dsl0c

 

[THE BORG]

Or in your case it would be more a question of how to keep absolute BORES
off your threat.
Better an interesting nutcase than an incessant and terminal bore like
yourself.
THE BORG

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e38d10b0-789a-437a-8b3e-b32a1454f9a2@a8g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Eureka!

I found a way to exclude morons from my posts!

Just top post this onto every future thread.

This post frightens away the nut jobs.

Not true.

Then why did you dodge the issue?

Here, we'll try again:

InnoCentive found that “the further the problem was from the
solver’s expertise, the
: more likely they were to solve it,” often by applying specialized
knowledge or
: instruments developed for another purpose.
Interdisciplinarity is the act of drawing from two or more academic
disciplines and integrating their insights to work together in pursuit
of a common goal. "Interdisciplinary Studies", as they are called, use
interdisciplinarity to develop a greater understanding of a problem
that is too complex or wide-ranging (i.e. AIDS pandemic, global
warming) to be dealt with using the knowledge and methodology of just
one discipline.
Interdisciplinary programs sometimes arise from a shared conviction
that the traditional disciplines are unable or unwilling to address an
important problem. For example, social science disciplines such as
anthropology and sociology paid little attention to the social
analysis of technology throughout most of the twentieth century. As a
result, many social scientists with interests in technology have
joined science and technology studies programs, which are typically
staffed by scholars drawn from numerous disciplines (including
anthropology, history, philosophy, sociology, and women's studies).
They may also arise from new research developments, such as
nanotechnology, which cannot be addressed without combining the
approaches of two or more disciplines. Examples include quantum
information processing, which amalgamates elements of quantum physics
and computer science, and bioinformatics, which combines molecular
biology with computer science. In a sense, those who pursue
Interdisciplinary Studies degrees or practice interdisciplinarity in
their lives are seen as pioneers (and even risk-takers) at the cutting
edge of scholarship, science, and technology. In this way,
interdisciplinarians are able to acknowledge and combat the present
and future problems of humanity.
At another level, interdisciplinarity is seen as a remedy to the
intellectually deadening effects of excessive specialization. On some
views, however, interdisciplinarity is entirely indebted to those who
specialize in one field of study--that without specialists,
interdisciplinarians would have no information and no leading experts
to consult. Others place the focus of interdisciplinarity on the need
to transcend disciplines, viewing excessive specialization as
problematic both epistemologically and politically. When
interdisciplinary collaboration or research results in new solutions
to problems, much information is given back to the various disciplines
involved. Therefore, both disciplinarians and interdisciplinarians
must work complementary to each other in order to solve problems.
However, French sociologist and interdisciplinary scholar, Mattei
Dogan has criticized the widely held view that interdisciplinarity,
despite its etymology, involves merging two traditional disciplines.
As demonstrated in his article “The New Social Sciences: Cracks in the
Disciplinary Walls,” interdisciplinary research does not, in fact,
entail crossing whole disciplines, but in crossing specialties. In
Dogan’s view, by attempting to cross disciplines so vast as political
science and sociology, for example, the research can only become lost
in an ocean of literature. In this sense, any researcher seeking to
cross whole disciplines is doomed from the outset. For him, the true
meaning of interdisciplinarity lies in crossing specialties within
disciplines, or the hybridization of disciplinary fragments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdisciplinarity
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/science/22inno.html?em&ex=121695840...
Several reasons for all the upstaging by those outside their fields
including:
1. The field jumper will often focus on issues eitirely overlooked by
those who do not stray from their field.
2. The field jumper brings fresh insights from his own field.
3. The field jumper isn't going to have the same prejudices of those
stuck in their field.
4. The field jumper will naturally be a little brash. ("Waddya mean
we can't do it?")
A prof told us about crosspollination/cross training years ago, I've
heard it several times since and I've posted about it several times
over the years.
My favorite example was MRI, invented by a chemist who for some reason
had to work with physicists.
DOE would do well to have a program which paid scientists and
engineers to switch fields for 6 months - year.
Most of the breakthroughs come in the first 6 months.

This time, no dodgin'

This time, no dodgin'


Bret Cahill

 

[THE BORG]

Incidentally as regards who you term nutcases or nut jobs - humans are
seriously considering research into these kind of people.
The view on illness such as "schizophrenia" is that they can see and hear
and sense far more than the ordinary human.
In some societies they are revered as Shaman - teachers - Medicine Men.
There has even been talk of "evolution" in that those who have this illness
are some kind of improvement or higher level of human - and this is actually
evolution in progress toward a higher level of human.
So do not knock nutcases!
THE BORG

 

[Bret Cahill]

Eureka!

I found a way to exclude morons from my posts!

Even if no one replies to your posts

That appears to be the case here.

It was cut sniped

you won't have excluded them all.

At least you admit you supplied the proof.

But that just proves my point.

The morons are afraid of this article.

They'll try to dodge it every time.

This post frightens away the nut jobs.
Not true.
Then why did you dodge the issue?

Here, we'll try again:

InnoCentive found that “the further the problem was from the
solver’s expertise, the
: more likely they were to solve it,” often by applying specialized
knowledge or
: instruments developed for another purpose.
Interdisciplinarity is the act of drawing from two or more academic
disciplines and integrating their insights to work together in pursuit
of a common goal. "Interdisciplinary Studies", as they are called, use
interdisciplinarity to develop a greater understanding of a problem
that is too complex or wide-ranging (i.e. AIDS pandemic, global
warming) to be dealt with using the knowledge and methodology of just
one discipline.
Interdisciplinary programs sometimes arise from a shared conviction
that the traditional disciplines are unable or unwilling to address an
important problem. For example, social science disciplines such as
anthropology and sociology paid little attention to the social
analysis of technology throughout most of the twentieth century. As a
result, many social scientists with interests in technology have
joined science and technology studies programs, which are typically
staffed by scholars drawn from numerous disciplines (including
anthropology, history, philosophy, sociology, and women's studies).
They may also arise from new research developments, such as
nanotechnology, which cannot be addressed without combining the
approaches of two or more disciplines. Examples include quantum
information processing, which amalgamates elements of quantum physics
and computer science, and bioinformatics, which combines molecular
biology with computer science. In a sense, those who pursue
Interdisciplinary Studies degrees or practice interdisciplinarity in
their lives are seen as pioneers (and even risk-takers) at the cutting
edge of scholarship, science, and technology. In this way,
interdisciplinarians are able to acknowledge and combat the present
and future problems of humanity.
At another level, interdisciplinarity is seen as a remedy to the
intellectually deadening effects of excessive specialization. On some
views, however, interdisciplinarity is entirely indebted to those who
specialize in one field of study--that without specialists,
interdisciplinarians would have no information and no leading experts
to consult. Others place the focus of interdisciplinarity on the need
to transcend disciplines, viewing excessive specialization as
problematic both epistemologically and politically. When
interdisciplinary collaboration or research results in new solutions
to problems, much information is given back to the various disciplines
involved. Therefore, both disciplinarians and interdisciplinarians
must work complementary to each other in order to solve problems.
However, French sociologist and interdisciplinary scholar, Mattei
Dogan has criticized the widely held view that interdisciplinarity,
despite its etymology, involves merging two traditional disciplines.
As demonstrated in his article “The New Social Sciences: Cracks in the
Disciplinary Walls,” interdisciplinary research does not, in fact,
entail crossing whole disciplines, but in crossing specialties. In
Dogan’s view, by attempting to cross disciplines so vast as political
science and sociology, for example, the research can only become lost
in an ocean of literature. In this sense, any researcher seeking to
cross whole disciplines is doomed from the outset. For him, the true
meaning of interdisciplinarity lies in crossing specialties within
disciplines, or the hybridization of disciplinary fragments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdisciplinarity
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/science/22inno.html?em&ex=121695840...
Several reasons for all the upstaging by those outside their fields
including:
1. The field jumper will often focus on issues eitirely overlooked by
those who do not stray from their field.
2. The field jumper brings fresh insights from his own field.
3. The field jumper isn't going to have the same prejudices of those
stuck in their field.
4. The field jumper will naturally be a little brash. ("Waddya mean
we can't do it?")
A prof told us about crosspollination/cross training years ago, I've
heard it several times since and I've posted about it several times
over the years.
My favorite example was MRI, invented by a chemist who for some reason
had to work with physicists.
DOE would do well to have a program which paid scientists and
engineers to switch fields for 6 months - year.
Most of the breakthroughs come in the first 6 months.

This time, no dodgin'

This time, no dodgin'


Bret Cahill