Quantiative Science Before Galileo

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jul 14, 4:23 am, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:

certainly if 97% of instutionalized climatolgists believe
that "global" warming is not an oxymoron, misnomer and/
or a nonsequiter, down to modelling a simple glasshouse
at some lattitude, I could infer a similar conclusion
about the Department of Einsteinmania -- the shelves
of your local library, or bookstore -- The Musical Dept.

Can't see much sense there. Too much smoke, obscuring any mirror
effect. Hmm, talk about greenhouse gases! Those up in the
stratosphere from jet engines are creating the bad effects, not that
the AlGores who fly high will ever notice. Only smoke, for them.

but trying to aver that e=mcc is not quite fundamental,

e=mcc is a big horrid lie based upon a possibly honest bungle.
http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/mmint.htm
The correct equation from fundamentals is e=0.5mVV(N-k)N, published in
print in Outlook India Science Section in 2003 and in Usenet in 2000.

and

also simply an extension of Liebniz's *vis-viva* -- which,
I think, was a sort of correction of Galileo's notion,
which was (algebraically) linear -- is some thing that
you don't seem to be able to demonstrate, in spite
of your technical experience with antennae.

blah-blah is what you enisteinians got, when you can be polite.

so, we're not exactly waiting with breath-baited
for your FTL drive etc.,

IFE, or Internal Force Engine. I'll bet you are not, but if I live
and am free that is what will happen. In due course.

til you can show us
some physical consequence of abandoning that,
and using this -- what ever it may be,
trade secrets to be held as necessary.

Lots of stuff in my unpublished book that will show what is what, but
first we gotta throw e=mcc out and my formula in. Dishonest
scientists who protect a bungle ane its horrid derivation e=mcc are no
use.

anyway, the real hoax has a pedigree,
teh 2nd Chruch of England, Secular -- Newtonianism,
not that his **** is wrong, algebraically.

Ptolemy's epicycles are a more obvious hoax, though,
given the broad knowledge of the equinoxes.

conspiracy, world has ever known. e=mcc is bollocks.
Actually, einsteinian relativity is about just that, somehow
maintaining the Aristotlian model of the Earth being the centre of the
universe. For when we make the Earth move, einstein's theories crash

--BP wants you in Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. Brit. quags;
les ducs d'oil, servicing the Gulf and Alaska for Californicators!http://tarpley.net

 

[Immortalist]

On Jul 14, 4:49 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:

In article
0210acfa-652b-4446-94c2-a8fe411b7...@u36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,



 Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 13, 5:31 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
(attributes lost - sorry!)
Yet you believe that those in the "soft sciences" are qualified to
comment on the "hard sciences"?  ...particularly those that are not
well understood?

I would offer one example of how the hard sciences absolutely require
the soft social sciences. Peer review, which is a social science based
upon various sociology methodologies

Peer review is not based upon any social science whatsoever. A person
chooses those to review an article.

Peer review is based upon social science methodology and statistics, a
soft science

You apparently are trying to abstract peer review into something it is
not in practice. You can study peer review and call the study part of
social science, but that does not change how peers are selected, nor how
the process works.

Actually peer review was only one of many examples of how hard science
depends upon soft science. Whether I can convince you or not that peer
review is social science doesn't do much to my original argument.

Peer review is a generic term that is used to describe a process of
self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving
qualified individuals with the related field. Peer review methods are
employed to maintain standards, improve performance, and provide
credibility.

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

Now if peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve
performance, and provide credibility, that doesn't sound much like
chemistry, it fits better with such things as the social science of
politics or other types of applied methodology.

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

See what happens when you try to fit your views into Copy/Paste material?

I don't try and try to fit my views into Copy/Paste material. I choose
materials that reflect my position and therefore have some more
evidence in the form of linked material. I don't know how you think
you know me but you appear to be a dumb ass.

 

[Immortalist]

On Jul 14, 4:43 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:

In article
0210acfa-652b-4446-94c2-a8fe411b7...@u36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,

 Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I can tell you don't know much about the "formal philosophy of
science" since you act like you can can just make shit up and pass it
off as smelling like flowers.

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

Hey, Mister Copy & Paste, you just blew a gasket.

What do you mean by this Mister Copy and Paste and how did I blow a
gasket? Are you imagining yourself in my position and realizing how
you would react and then attributing that to me? Maybe you do need a
little more training in social science if that's how you become
aroused by situations that would embarrass you. Me on the other hand
have a calm disposition because your not really providing any evidence
for your denial that peer review is a social science methodology and
hence is social science.

I am only relaying what I have recently been reading in general
philosophy of science books. Are you a girl?

 

[Immortalist]

On Jul 13, 6:03 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Or are you a conspiracy theorist who believes 98% of the scientists on
the planet are in on a conspiracy?
That's about the same percentage who held that the Sun went round the
Earth.

When did who believe that?

Bret Cahill

Anyway, anyhow, anywhere /they/ chose.

Please define "scientist."

Please don't.

I do not consider social "scientists", ie. political "scientists,"
sociologists, psychologists, etc. to be qualified to comment on issues
regarding the hard sciences.

Well, that is unwise of you. There are many issues "regarding th
hard sciences" that the hard scientists would be least qualified
to comment on.

Yet you believe that those in the "soft sciences" are qualified to
comment on the "hard sciences"?  ...particularly those that are not
well understood?

I would offer one example of how the hard sciences absolutely require
the soft social sciences. Peer review, which is a social science based
upon various sociology methodologies is a necessary part of a large
part of hypothesis testing and verification.

Just putting "hard" into quotes shows some dependency.

I use quote marks to quote someone and sometimes to "spotlight" a
phrase.

The issue wasn't _your_ use of quotes but just about everyone putting
those terms into quotes, and for good reason.

. . .

The only thing the wiki article below got right was hard science has
more sig figs.

Has anyone even bothered to precisely define or list the differences
between "hard" and "soft" sciences?

Its one of those distinctions so common and old that we forget that
new people have to learn it also.

Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms often used when
comparing fields of academic research or scholarship, with hard
meaning perceived as being more scientific,

A more "scientific science" . . .

That reasoning goes in a circular circle.

What the author should have said is hard science uses more explicit
calculations . . . that it is more _quantitative_.

rigorous,

Right now there are some physicists laughing at that one.

or accurate.

As stated before, more sig figs.

Fields of the natural or physical sciences are often described as
hard, while the social sciences and similar fields are often described
as soft.  

Examples ain't definitions or qualities.

The hard sciences are characterized as relying on
experimental, empirical,

Hard sciences are more theoretical and therefore  _less_ experimental
than "soft" sciences.

The most important "hard" science paper of the 20th Century required
no lab work.

Those meta studies in JAMA. . . there's your soft science.

quantifiable

See the header and below.  Before Galileo everything was treated as a
soft science.

data, relying on the scientific
method, and focusing on accuracy and objectivity.  Publications in the
hard sciences such as natural sciences make heavier use of graphs than
soft sciences such as sociology, according to the graphism thesis.

That should be true but it's probably not.  For one thing any idiot
can make a graph out of anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
I mentioned sig figs in "hard" vs epidemiological studies in "soft."

Before Galileo there was no distinction.

Some believe Galileo made science into a science.

 Bret Cahill

"The value of a calculation to humanity is inversely proportional to
the number of possible sig figs."

-- Bret's First Law of Tweaking

Embarrassing just reading the responses you made up there. So you
really don't know much about the philosophy of science, which you
replies indicate. Even your local library probably has four books of
the subject.

 

[John Stafford]

In article
<939dd223-1107-44f9-b1c6-1450a2bbf426@i19g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 14, 4:43 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
In article
0210acfa-652b-4446-94c2-a8fe411b7...@u36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,

 Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I can tell you don't know much about the "formal philosophy of
science" since you act like you can can just make shit up and pass it
off as smelling like flowers.

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

Hey, Mister Copy & Paste, you just blew a gasket.

What do you mean by this Mister Copy and Paste and how did I blow a
gasket? Are you imagining yourself in my position and realizing how
you would react and then attributing that to me?

No, I am not. That's your interjection and speculation.

Maybe you do need a
little more training in social science if that's how you become
aroused by situations that would embarrass you. Me on the other hand
have a calm disposition because your(SIC) not really providing any evidence
for your denial that peer review is a social science methodology and
hence is social science.

You did not supply a case study, either. I will point you in one
direction: look to the peer review processes (two actually) for Andrew
Wiles' general proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. There was no overarching
science to the choosing of the members of the review. A chairperson
chose them, and among themselves they reconciled the choice.

There is no social science that guides peer review. One may employ
social science to study peer reviews, but a study method is not the
thing studied.

 

[John Stafford]

In article
<09169636-eef7-45df-aac6-3d64b96491d8@u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

Actually peer review was only one of many examples of how hard science
depends upon soft science. Whether I can convince you or not that peer
review is social science doesn't do much to my original argument.

You may call the method by which you study peer review as a social
science, but that does not mean that peer review is a social science,
nor does it mean that peer review is guided by principles of social
science. Peer review can be as idiosyncratic as the discipline.

In mathematics the outcome of peer review is quite different from very
many disciplines. There is no room for interpretation, conjecture,
philosophy, or soft-sciences of any kind.

As I wrote, you may employ social science to study peer review, but peer
review is not social science, nor does it look to social sciences for
its performance, organization or method.

The map is not the territory.

 

[Bret Cahill]

Or are you a conspiracy theorist who believes 98% of the scientists on
the planet are in on a conspiracy?
That's about the same percentage who held that the Sun went round the
Earth.

When did who believe that?

Bret Cahill

Anyway, anyhow, anywhere /they/ chose.

Please define "scientist."

Please don't.

I do not consider social "scientists", ie. political "scientists,"
sociologists, psychologists, etc. to be qualified to comment on issues
regarding the hard sciences.

Well, that is unwise of you. There are many issues "regarding th
hard sciences" that the hard scientists would be least qualified
to comment on.

Yet you believe that those in the "soft sciences" are qualified to
comment on the "hard sciences"?  ...particularly those that are not
well understood?

I would offer one example of how the hard sciences absolutely require
the soft social sciences. Peer review, which is a social science based
upon various sociology methodologies is a necessary part of a large
part of hypothesis testing and verification.

Just putting "hard" into quotes shows some dependency.

I use quote marks to quote someone and sometimes to "spotlight" a
phrase.

The issue wasn't _your_ use of quotes but just about everyone putting
those terms into quotes, and for good reason.

. . .

The only thing the wiki article below got right was hard science has
more sig figs.

Has anyone even bothered to precisely define or list the differences
between "hard" and "soft" sciences?

Its one of those distinctions so common and old that we forget that
new people have to learn it also.

Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms often used when
comparing fields of academic research or scholarship, with hard
meaning perceived as being more scientific,

A more "scientific science" . . .

That reasoning goes in a circular circle.

What the author should have said is hard science uses more explicit
calculations . . . that it is more _quantitative_.

rigorous,

Right now there are some physicists laughing at that one.

or accurate.

As stated before, more sig figs.

Fields of the natural or physical sciences are often described as
hard, while the social sciences and similar fields are often described
as soft.  

Examples ain't definitions or qualities.

The hard sciences are characterized as relying on
experimental, empirical,

Hard sciences are more theoretical and therefore  _less_ experimental
than "soft" sciences.

The most important "hard" science paper of the 20th Century required
no lab work.

Those meta studies in JAMA. . . there's your soft science.

quantifiable

See the header and below.  Before Galileo everything was treated as a
soft science.

data, relying on the scientific
method, and focusing on accuracy and objectivity.  Publications in the
hard sciences such as natural sciences make heavier use of graphs than
soft sciences such as sociology, according to the graphism thesis.

That should be true but it's probably not.  For one thing any idiot
can make a graph out of anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
I mentioned sig figs in "hard" vs epidemiological studies in "soft."

Before Galileo there was no distinction.

Some believe Galileo made science into a science.

 Bret Cahill

"The value of a calculation to humanity is inversely proportional to
the number of possible sig figs."

-- Bret's First Law of Tweaking

Embarrassing

You wouldn't be so embarrassed if you got a Pell Grant and got some
book larnin'.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

certainly if 97% of instutionalized climatolgists believe
that "global" warming is not an oxymoron, misnomer and/
or a nonsequiter, down to modelling a simple glasshouse
at some lattitude, I could infer a similar conclusion
about the Department of Einsteinmania -- the shelves
of your local library, or bookstore -- The Musical Dept.

Can't see much sense there.  

Having him post here is better than having him out on the street.

And he can't possibly be crazier than the rightard winger dingers.


Bret Cahill

 

[John Stafford]

On Jul 12, 10:20 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a
scholarly process used in the publication of manuscripts and in the
awarding of funding for research. Publishers and funding agencies use
peer review to select and to screen submissions. The process also
forces authors to meet the standards of their discipline and thus
achieve scientific objectivity. Publications and awards that have not
undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by
scholars and professionals in many fields.

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

Here is something from Wikipedia for you: "Most educators and
professionals do not consider it appropriate to use tertiary sources
such as encyclopedias as a sole source for any information‹citing an
encyclopedia as an important reference in footnotes or bibliographies
may result in censure or a failing grade. Wikipedia articles should be
used for background information, as a reference for correct terminology
and search terms, and as a starting point for further research."

Enough copy/paste, already.

 

[Darwin123]

On Jul 12, 10:20 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 12, 7:04 am, "keith...@gmail.com" <keith...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Jul 12, 12:48 am, dorayme <dora...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

In article
o_r_fairbairn-D3BA6B.23394311072...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.n
et>,
 Orval Fairbairn <o_r_fairbairn@earth_link.net> wrote:

In article
76a4ae3a-0f1e-459b-99e6-6ec231a39...@k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
 Jeff Rubard <jeffrub...@gmail.com> wrote:


Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a
scholarly process used in the publication of manuscripts and in the
awarding of funding for research. Publishers and funding agencies use
peer review to select and to screen submissions. The process also
forces authors to meet the standards of their discipline and thus
achieve scientific objectivity. Publications and awards that have not
undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by
scholars and professionals in many fields.

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

Why not say English composition? Yes, communication skills are
important in science. No communication skills, no hard science. No
grammar, no hard science. No paragraph composition, no science. No
"communication science", not hard science.
One can go farther. No formal logic, no science. Therefore, no
logical philosophy, no science. Scientists have to work together with
each other and with society. So no political science, no hard science.
Hard scientists need good pictures and good diagrams. So no art,
no hard science. Artists and musicians pay for much of the technology
that scientists develop. So no art or music, no hard science.
So I acknowledge that scientists don't live in a social vacuum.
However, this is irrelevant to the point. People outside the science
field, who can not understand science as conventionally practiced, do
not have the judgment to tell hard scientists what is real in their
field.
If a chemist who doesn't like a form of art, then he has the
right to express it as his opinion. However, I don't think he would
have the right to tell other people "The Beatles had no talent".
"Pavorotti is just getting fat singing out of date music." "Mozart
wrote had too many notes." "Shakespeare was a moron, a plagerist, and
a thief." "Picasso isn't art." "Even I can draw better than
Rembrandt." "Square dance has no rhythm." Etc.
Better yet, think of the Rock and Roll Band that used fireworks in
a wooden barn. Does anyone remember that fire? They probably were good
musicians. Fireworks are a legitimate part of showmanship. However,
they had no right to make the judgment of what was safe in a barn.
Scientists know science, and musicians know music.

 

[spudnik]

a-hem; ** yours, bro, two. and, no;
it certainly is far from better.

mister Banerjee cannot take any criticism, such
as to bother to look anything up that is not immediately adjacent
to him in a googolplex or wookypoopeya search; oh, well, or
even that, I suppose.

but, what does his formula, mean --
e=mVV(N-k)N? (not "sumorial" .-)

Having him post here is better than having him out on the street.

--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net

--forsooth, the Queen of the quadrivium!
http://wlym.com

 

[Bret Cahill]

    One can go farther. No formal logic, no science. Therefore, no
logical philosophy, no science. Scientists have to work together with
each other and with society. So no political science, no hard science.

A lot of "hard" scientists are very politically astute.

    Hard scientists need good pictures and good diagrams. So no art,
no hard science. Artists and musicians pay for much of the technology
that scientists develop. So no art or music, no hard science.
    So I acknowledge that scientists don't live in a social vacuum.
However, this is irrelevant to the point. People outside the science
field, who can not understand science as conventionally practiced, do
not have the judgment to tell hard scientists what is real in their
field.

A populist might want as many as possible to contribute to any debate
but it would be batty crappy insane.to listen to someone without any
college level math comment on developing or active complex scientific
fields like AGW.

Giving AGW modeling source code to a libertarian, for example, would
be like handing a screwdriver to a chimp.

There's no such thing as a "cut taxes starve gummint and utopia will
break out" looneytarian who ever passed a college level linear algebra
course.

Not one.

This is easy to know because libertarianism consists of denying that
relationships exist. Not only are all equations linearly independent
in Libertaria, but variables in one equation never appear anywhere
else.


Bret Cahill


"Math is applied logic."

-- Nietzsche

 

[John Stafford]

In article
<2a28baaf-ec1f-46b7-b58c-e7bf49414f16@t5g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 15, 6:10 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
In article
09169636-eef7-45df-aac6-3d64b9649...@u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,

 Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually peer review was only one of many examples of how hard science
depends upon soft science. Whether I can convince you or not that peer
review is social science doesn't do much to my original argument.

You may call the method by which you study peer review as a social
science, but that does not mean that peer review is a social science,
nor does it mean that peer review is guided by principles of social
science. Peer review can be as idiosyncratic as the discipline.

In mathematics the outcome of peer review is quite different from very
many disciplines. There is no room for interpretation, conjecture,
philosophy, or soft-sciences of any kind.

As I wrote, you may employ social science to study peer review, but peer
review is not social science, nor does it look to social sciences for
its performance, organization or method.

The map is not the territory.

I am not talking about some map. I am claiming that the methodology is
either hard or soft science. I am claiming that the actual formulation
of peer review methods are social science not hard science.

You miss the point. Peer-review groups are not guided by social science.

 

[John Stafford]

In article
<5da8efa3-b90a-4f2a-b985-7e4417e0469f@b4g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 15, 6:05 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
In article
939dd223-1107-44f9-b1c6-1450a2bbf...@i19g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,



 Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 14, 4:43 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
In article
0210acfa-652b-4446-94c2-a8fe411b7...@u36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,

 Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I can tell you don't know much about the "formal philosophy of
science" since you act like you can can just make shit up and pass it
off as smelling like flowers.

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

Hey, Mister Copy & Paste, you just blew a gasket.

What do you mean by this Mister Copy and Paste and how did I blow a
gasket? Are you imagining yourself in my position and realizing how
you would react and then attributing that to me?

No, I am not. That's your interjection and speculation.

Maybe you do need a
little more training in social science if that's how you become
aroused by situations that would embarrass you. Me on the other hand
have a calm disposition because your(SIC) not really providing any
evidence
for your denial that peer review is a social science methodology and
hence is social science.

You did not supply a case study, either. I will point you in one
direction: look to the peer review processes (two actually) for Andrew
Wiles' general proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. There was no overarching
science to the choosing of the members of the review. A chairperson
chose them, and among themselves they reconciled the choice.

There is no social science that guides peer review. One may employ
social science to study peer reviews, but a study method is not the
thing studied.

I am not talking about some study method. I am claiming that the
actual formulation of peer review methods are social science not hard
science.

Get off that track. The study is not the studied.

 

[spudnik]

how about this (sorry, couldn't excerpt the PDF):
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Translations/Kepler_Aristotle.pdf

What do you mean about getting book learning?

thus:
anyway, this is the sum-total of the Bush and Obama policy
for energy, which should be called, Free-er Trade, although
referred to as Captain Tax by Murdoch's Climategateways,
the WSurinal etc.... surely, it'll work, as apparently Waxman's bill
of '91 worked for acid rain; so, Where's the beef on that?

the OP's citation seems to assume that cap&trade is the way to go,
whereas I have at least two sources that admitted that
good effect could be achieved by an actual, small, accountable tax
on carbon, instead of this "free trade" nostrum, which is already huge
in the USA (CCX and ICE e.g.; tens of bllions in hedging per year,
since 2003 and 2005, repsectively), but dwarfed by the mandatory EU
one.

Waxman's bill, just like his '91 bill, just like Kyoto, presaged
by Montreal, mandatorizes the voluntary system. however,
the main problem is the incoming "reform" bill,
which is a total sop to the derivatives freaks that causes the current
blow-out.

--the Queen of the sciences!
http://wlym.com

--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net

 

[Immortalist]

On Jul 15, 5:15 pm, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:

In article
5da8efa3-b90a-4f2a-b985-7e4417e04...@b4g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,



 Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 6:05 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
In article
939dd223-1107-44f9-b1c6-1450a2bbf...@i19g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,

 Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 14, 4:43 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
In article
0210acfa-652b-4446-94c2-a8fe411b7...@u36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,

 Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I can tell you don't know much about the "formal philosophy of
science" since you act like you can can just make shit up and pass it
off as smelling like flowers.

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

Hey, Mister Copy & Paste, you just blew a gasket.

What do you mean by this Mister Copy and Paste and how did I blow a
gasket? Are you imagining yourself in my position and realizing how
you would react and then attributing that to me?

No, I am not. That's your interjection and speculation.

Maybe you do need a
little more training in social science if that's how you become
aroused by situations that would embarrass you. Me on the other hand
have a calm disposition because your(SIC) not really providing any
evidence
for your denial that peer review is a social science methodology and
hence is social science.

You did not supply a case study, either. I will point you in one
direction: look to the peer review processes (two actually) for Andrew
Wiles' general proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. There was no overarching
science to the choosing of the members of the review. A chairperson
chose them, and among themselves they reconciled the choice.

There is no social science that guides peer review. One may employ
social science to study peer reviews, but a study method is not the
thing studied.

I am not talking about some study method. I am claiming that the
actual formulation of peer review methods are social science not hard
science.

Get off that track. The study is not the studied.

The methodology is either hard science or soft science. It is soft
science, social science. This is only one example of how the science
community depends upon social science to communicate an prove research.

 

[Immortalist]

On Jul 15, 8:21 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Or are you a conspiracy theorist who believes 98% of the scientists on
the planet are in on a conspiracy?
That's about the same percentage who held that the Sun went round the
Earth.

When did who believe that?

Bret Cahill

Anyway, anyhow, anywhere /they/ chose.

Please define "scientist."

Please don't.

I do not consider social "scientists", ie. political "scientists,"
sociologists, psychologists, etc. to be qualified to comment on issues
regarding the hard sciences.

Well, that is unwise of you. There are many issues "regarding th
hard sciences" that the hard scientists would be least qualified
to comment on.

Yet you believe that those in the "soft sciences" are qualified to
comment on the "hard sciences"?  ...particularly those that are not
well understood?

I would offer one example of how the hard sciences absolutely require
the soft social sciences. Peer review, which is a social science based
upon various sociology methodologies is a necessary part of a large
part of hypothesis testing and verification.

Just putting "hard" into quotes shows some dependency.

I use quote marks to quote someone and sometimes to "spotlight" a
phrase.

The issue wasn't _your_ use of quotes but just about everyone putting
those terms into quotes, and for good reason.

. . .

The only thing the wiki article below got right was hard science has
more sig figs.

Has anyone even bothered to precisely define or list the differences
between "hard" and "soft" sciences?

Its one of those distinctions so common and old that we forget that
new people have to learn it also.

Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms often used when
comparing fields of academic research or scholarship, with hard
meaning perceived as being more scientific,

A more "scientific science" . . .

That reasoning goes in a circular circle.

What the author should have said is hard science uses more explicit
calculations . . . that it is more _quantitative_.

rigorous,

Right now there are some physicists laughing at that one.

or accurate.

As stated before, more sig figs.

Fields of the natural or physical sciences are often described as
hard, while the social sciences and similar fields are often described
as soft.  

Examples ain't definitions or qualities.

The hard sciences are characterized as relying on
experimental, empirical,

Hard sciences are more theoretical and therefore  _less_ experimental
than "soft" sciences.

The most important "hard" science paper of the 20th Century required
no lab work.

Those meta studies in JAMA. . . there's your soft science.

quantifiable

See the header and below.  Before Galileo everything was treated as a
soft science.

data, relying on the scientific
method, and focusing on accuracy and objectivity.  Publications in the
hard sciences such as natural sciences make heavier use of graphs than
soft sciences such as sociology, according to the graphism thesis.

That should be true but it's probably not.  For one thing any idiot
can make a graph out of anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
I mentioned sig figs in "hard" vs epidemiological studies in "soft."

Before Galileo there was no distinction.

Some believe Galileo made science into a science.

 Bret Cahill

"The value of a calculation to humanity is inversely proportional to
the number of possible sig figs."

-- Bret's First Law of Tweaking

Embarrassing

You wouldn't be so embarrassed if you got a Pell Grant and got some
book larnin'.

Can you explain yourself a little more clearly? What do you mean about
getting book learning?

> Bret Cahill

 

[Immortalist]

On Jul 15, 6:10 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:

In article
09169636-eef7-45df-aac6-3d64b9649...@u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,

 Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually peer review was only one of many examples of how hard science
depends upon soft science. Whether I can convince you or not that peer
review is social science doesn't do much to my original argument.

You may call the method by which you study peer review as a social
science, but that does not mean that peer review is a social science,
nor does it mean that peer review is guided by principles of social
science. Peer review can be as idiosyncratic as the discipline.

In mathematics the outcome of peer review is quite different from very
many disciplines. There is no room for interpretation, conjecture,
philosophy, or soft-sciences of any kind.

As I wrote, you may employ social science to study peer review, but peer
review is not social science, nor does it look to social sciences for
its performance, organization or method.

The map is not the territory.

I am not talking about some map. I am claiming that the methodology is
either hard or soft science. I am claiming that the actual formulation
of peer review methods are social science not hard science. I sustain
my claim, with some evidence, that peer review methods are employed to
maintain standards, improve performance, and provide credibility, and
these methods a soft social science not hard physical science.

Peer review is a generic term that is used to describe a process of
self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving
qualified individuals with the related field. Peer review methods are
employed to maintain standards, improve performance, and provide
credibility.

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

 

[Immortalist]

On Jul 15, 6:05 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:

In article
939dd223-1107-44f9-b1c6-1450a2bbf...@i19g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,



 Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 14, 4:43 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
In article
0210acfa-652b-4446-94c2-a8fe411b7...@u36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,

 Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I can tell you don't know much about the "formal philosophy of
science" since you act like you can can just make shit up and pass it
off as smelling like flowers.

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

Hey, Mister Copy & Paste, you just blew a gasket.

What do you mean by this Mister Copy and Paste and how did I blow a
gasket? Are you imagining yourself in my position and realizing how
you would react and then attributing that to me?

No, I am not. That's your interjection and speculation.

Maybe you do need a
little more training in social science if that's how you become
aroused by situations that would embarrass you. Me on the other hand
have a calm disposition because your(SIC) not really providing any evidence
for your denial that peer review is a social science methodology and
hence is social science.

You did not supply a case study, either. I will point you in one
direction: look to the peer review processes (two actually) for Andrew
Wiles' general proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. There was no overarching
science to the choosing of the members of the review. A chairperson
chose them, and among themselves they reconciled the choice.

There is no social science that guides peer review. One may employ
social science to study peer reviews, but a study method is not the
thing studied.

I am not talking about some study method. I am claiming that the
actual formulation of peer review methods are social science not hard
science. Now your claiming that there is no methodology to the peer
review process. Plus you need to justify your claims about how much
evidence I must supply to make you happy. I sustain my claim, with
some evidence, that peer review methods are employed to maintain
standards, improve performance, and provide credibility, and these
methods a soft social science not hard physical science.

Peer review is a generic term that is used to describe a process of
self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving
qualified individuals with the related field. Peer review methods are
employed to maintain standards, improve performance, and provide
credibility.

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

 

[spudnik]

OK, anyone can see that it is Liebniz's *vis viva*,
which got rid of Galileo's notion, I think ... except
for the N and the k factors (and I forgot the factor of a half).

anyway, isn't that where e=mcc, comes from?

e=mVV(N-k)N? (not "sumorial" .-)
will put all that up in my domain website, as I promised to

--the Queen of the sciences!
http://wlym.com

--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net