Richard P. Feynman articulated the foundation of scientific integrity
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Could Dark Matter be the Dirac Sea?
Next: dood, why did BP use the phrase "fossilized fuel TM" with a cartoon dinosaur-into-a-drop-of-oil?
From: hanson on 23 Jun 2010 21:10 "Sam" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> QUOTED & wrote: > 7:10 pm, Sam <sworml...(a)gmail.com> QUOTED & wrote: > SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MAGAZINE: When Scientists Sin Fraud, deception and lies in research reveal how science is (mostly) self-correcting http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-scientists-sin&sc=DD_20100623 > In his 1974 commencement speech at the California Institute of Technology, Nobel laureate physicist Richard P. Feynman articulated the foundation of scientific integrity: �The first principle is that you must not fool yourself�and you are the easiest person to fool.... After you�ve not fooled yourself, it�s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.� Unfortunately, says Feynman�s Caltech colleague David Goodstein in his new book On Fact and Fraud: Cautionary Tales from the Front Lines of Science (Princeton University Press, 2010), some scientists do try to fool their colleagues, and believing that everyone is conventionally honest may make a person more likely to be duped by deliberate fraud. > hanson wrote: .... and you, Sam, and other Einstein Dingleberries and/or Green Shits and Enviro Turds, do have the gall to call posters here as "cranks" & "crackpots"... The first & worst crank and crackpot was Albert Einstein, who under the wings of the Zionists DID *** "fool his colleagues, and believed that everyone is conventionally honest may make a person more likely to be duped by deliberate fraud.***. Einstein was successful. Look at all the Dingleberries he acquired,... hordes of them in these NGs... Thanks for shining a light on that, Sam.... aahaha... ahahahanson --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Mathal on 24 Jun 2010 01:21 On Jun 23, 6:10 pm, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > "Sam" <sworml...(a)gmail.com> QUOTED & wrote:> 7:10 pm, Sam <sworml...(a)gmail.com> QUOTED & wrote: > > SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MAGAZINE: When Scientists Sin > Fraud, deception and lies in research reveal how science is (mostly) > self-correctinghttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-scientists-sin&... > > In his 1974 commencement speech at the California Institute of > Technology, Nobel laureate physicist Richard P. Feynman articulated > the foundation of scientific integrity: The first principle is that > you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.... > After you ve not fooled yourself, it s easy not to fool other > scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after > that. > Unfortunately, says Feynman s Caltech colleague David Goodstein in his > new book On Fact and Fraud: Cautionary Tales from the Front Lines of > Science (Princeton University Press, 2010), some scientists do try to > fool their colleagues, and believing that everyone is conventionally > honest may make a person more likely to be duped by deliberate fraud. > > hanson wrote: > > ... and you, Sam, and other Einstein Dingleberries and/or Green Shits > and Enviro Turds, do have the gall to call posters here as "cranks" & > "crackpots"... The first & worst crank and crackpot was Albert Einstein, > who under the wings of the Zionists DID *** "fool his colleagues, and > believed that everyone is conventionally honest may make a person > more likely to be duped by deliberate fraud.***. Einstein was successful. > Look at all the Dingleberries he acquired,... hordes of them in these > NGs... Thanks for shining a light on that, Sam.... aahaha... ahahahanson > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- Science is a work in progress. You are the antithesis of a work in progress. You are a sloth in regress. Mathal
From: hanson on 24 Jun 2010 02:42 ahahahaha... look at that... a crank & crackpot who is an Einstein Dingleberry named "Mathal" <mathmusical(a)gmail.com> cranked himself grievously as he pseudo-melodiously wrote: "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: "Sam" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> QUOTED & wrote: > 7:10 pm, Sam <sworml...(a)gmail.com> QUOTED & wrote: > SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MAGAZINE: When Scientists Sin Fraud, deception and lies in research reveal how science is (mostly) self-correcting http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-scientists-sin&sc=DD_20100623 > In his 1974 commencement speech at the California Institute of Technology, Nobel laureate physicist Richard P. Feynman articulated the foundation of scientific integrity: �The first principle is that you must not fool yourself�and you are the easiest person to fool.... After you�ve not fooled yourself, it�s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.� Unfortunately, says Feynman�s Caltech colleague David Goodstein in his new book On Fact and Fraud: Cautionary Tales from the Front Lines of Science (Princeton University Press, 2010), some scientists do try to fool their colleagues, and believing that everyone is conventionally honest may make a person more likely to be duped by deliberate fraud. > hanson wrote: .... and you, Sam, and other Einstein Dingleberries and/or Green Shits and Enviro Turds, do have the gall to call posters here as "cranks" & "crackpots"... The first & worst crank and crackpot was Albert Einstein, who under the wings of the Zionists DID *** "fool his colleagues, and believed that everyone is conventionally honest may make a person more likely to be duped by deliberate fraud.***. Einstein was successful. Look at all the Dingleberries he acquired,... hordes of them in these NGs... Thanks for shining a light on that, Sam.... ahaha... ahahahanson > "Mathole", the Einstein Dingleberry, ANGRILY wrote: Science is a work in progress. You are the antithesis of a work in progress. You are a sloth in regress. > hanson wrote: AHAHAHA... So,"Mathole", you are one of those acquired Einstein Dingleberries I mentioned above. -- AHAHAHA.. Thanks for exposing yourself as such. ... ahahahaha... > ahahahaha... You sing about "progress" BUT you hang onto and defend the Einstein/Zio rel-con like a typical, fanatical Einstein Dingleberry that dangles in the warm, cozy breeze of Albert's farts & worships Einstein's sphincter ... and tries to hide that sorry fact. Some "progress" that is, you crackpot... Thanks for the laughs, though you, duped Dreidel... ahahahanson --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: BURT on 24 Jun 2010 15:47 On Jun 23, 10:21 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 23, 6:10 pm, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > > > > > > > "Sam" <sworml...(a)gmail.com> QUOTED & wrote:> 7:10 pm, Sam <sworml...(a)gmail.com> QUOTED & wrote: > > > SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MAGAZINE: When Scientists Sin > > Fraud, deception and lies in research reveal how science is (mostly) > > self-correctinghttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-scientists-sin&... > > > In his 1974 commencement speech at the California Institute of > > Technology, Nobel laureate physicist Richard P. Feynman articulated > > the foundation of scientific integrity: The first principle is that > > you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.... > > After you ve not fooled yourself, it s easy not to fool other > > scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after > > that. > > Unfortunately, says Feynman s Caltech colleague David Goodstein in his > > new book On Fact and Fraud: Cautionary Tales from the Front Lines of > > Science (Princeton University Press, 2010), some scientists do try to > > fool their colleagues, and believing that everyone is conventionally > > honest may make a person more likely to be duped by deliberate fraud. > > > hanson wrote: > > > ... and you, Sam, and other Einstein Dingleberries and/or Green Shits > > and Enviro Turds, do have the gall to call posters here as "cranks" & > > "crackpots"... The first & worst crank and crackpot was Albert Einstein, > > who under the wings of the Zionists DID *** "fool his colleagues, and > > believed that everyone is conventionally honest may make a person > > more likely to be duped by deliberate fraud.***. Einstein was successful. > > Look at all the Dingleberries he acquired,... hordes of them in these > > NGs... Thanks for shining a light on that, Sam.... aahaha... ahahahanson > > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- > > Science is a work in progress. > You are the antithesis of a work in progress. > You are a sloth in regress. > Mathal- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - But it is almost all wrong. The brief history of science is a legacy of mistakes. Give it millions of years and ask it what it knows. Mitch Raemsch
From: Koobee Wublee on 27 Jun 2010 02:57
Experimental results are not good enough. As anyone possessing any amount of intellectual reasoning should know that interpretations to the experimental results also play a crucial role in deciding whether a theory is supported by that particular experimentation or not. In the SR' case, there are two completely sets of mathematical models come in the scene. Larmor's transform (LaT) explains so, but the Lorentz transform (LoT) only does so in a very special case. While LaT does not satisfy the principle of relativity, LoT does seem so. On top of that, LaT is a more general case. You cannot worship LoT while using LaT as applications to explain all your observations. This is called fraud, stupid, and mysticism. <shrug> So, be a man or a true scientist and stop hiding under these silly excuses that throw out these very fucked up interpretations to certain experiments as the proof of divinity. Gee! Again, theory must agree with a proper interpretation to pertinent experimental results to justify a validity badge. Both SR and GR require shady, unsound, and stupid mis-application of math to achieve what is accepted so. <shrug> Allow the ever so humble Koobee Wublee to de-mystify you. <Amen> |