America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Trust me, I've taken many science classes...

This is semantics, but your use of the word "believe" in the first paragraph is significantly different than "relying on my beliefs". Do you see the difference?

If two instruments are giving me two different readings, I can believe that a particular one is accurate vs the other (based on maintenance history, calibration, age of the instrument etc etc). That does not make it a "belief". that is closer to an assumption. (Yes, I know this is semantics, but how one phrases things is very important).

You did not rely on your beliefs ... you believed your instincts. Your instincts are not "beliefs" they are an undefined feeling one gets, which may or may not have a basis in reality. For the purpose of our discussion, the validity of instincts is irrelevant... you believed in your instincts.

For your "beliefs to save your life" statement to be accurate would require one of the following: Divine intervention from whatever deity you believe in; non-divine intervention from an individual who saved your life because they approved of one of your beliefs; or a happy coincidence where your belief that all gauges in the world are faulty caused you to refuse to board a plane which subsequently crashed.

.... I get hung up on details, I have to admit.

Clearly you need to find a deeper belief in your instinct to believe. A greater belief will allow you to validate your instinctive intangibles to a greater degree of reliability, I believe.

I have always considered myself a man of science. Best facts over best wishes. I can't even enjoy Lord of the Rings because it's too mystical. If the hero had a plasma rifle in the 40 watt range, he would've need some flakey ring to rule 'em all . . . .


Just say'n

'Belief' is kind of a weasel word. All it really means is that you hold some idea to be true.
People always seen to assign more meaning to it though . . . .

Global Warming? That's code for UN commissars telling Americans what the temperature's going to be in our outdoors. I say let the world warm up. Let's see what Boutros Boutros Ghali Ghali has to say about that. We'll grow oranges in Alaska!

I'm still in shock that we have 10 people that stupid.

As a recovering scientist, I can honestly say it's a bunch of bovine scatology. I really don't give a schnidt about it....

Daaaammmmmn J.....

Racist rubby Georgetown touchy-feely outrage.

Why...an institution for higher learning being prostituted for monetary gain?!? GASP! Who would dare to think of such a thing? Who in their right mind would institute it first? Now...those shady certifications are a corporate boon to the bottom line but bastions of higher learning?

OH THE HUGE MANATEES!!!!

If I sound frustrated potts, it's because I'm tired of rehashing this seriously retarded argument. You bitch about the stupidity of scientists, and your own quote: "You want to see one of the biggest group of brain-dead lemmings? They usually have a PhD next to their name." and then as an example of this you pull up fluff majors like black studies... you complain about the english language skills of a computer scientist... what's next, are you going to complain about the multivariable math skills of an english major?

Arguing with you is like eating jello with chopsticks, but not because you are being in any way clever. Your arguments are not based on facts and statistics, you judge the entire science output of our country based on your interactions with some computer programmers... why would you do that? Why would any intelligent person say that, given the rigors of our science programs? I would think that an intelligent person would take any subset of our career population (scientists, historians, electricians) and understand that as the education track of an individual in that field moves forward, the number of barriers increases. To get past that barrier usually requires a number of steps, whether that is completing a test, publishing a paper, or whatever. Yet your assumption is that as a group of people successively passes each of these barriers, the ones who succeed are actually dumber. That is so illogical that I seriously lose respect.

You can think individual scientists/Phd's are idiots all you want. But to actively disparage the act of gaining knowledge, or of further education as well as the activities involved in trying to understand the workings of our world... I find that disgusting, and anyone who holds that view to be actively reducing the capability of our species.

Ummm...Victor? When is comes to developing software and systems, language is sorta important. Which, if that all of a sudden becomes one of those things that you can simply discount because it is a "hard science" then it only further underscores my point.



You don't read very well Victor.

I have, in the past, dealt with scientists.

Furthermore, I have no idea where you think they get their modeling for stuff like "Climate Science," but I guarantee you it isn't done with a pen and a pad of paper. In fact, I've interviewed quite a few of the people who wrote some of those climate models that these "eminent" scientists had developed. And, to be honest, I wouldn't let those dolts wash mt car or polish my shoes.

Your scientific high ground stands on a foundation of computers and software...which is my domain. They days of Einstein's written correspondence back and forth while sitting in that patent office are well over. And the people who work with these scientists are people like me.



Pffth!

Most of the data used in those climate models has to be massaged, and those smoothing algorithms are often arbitrary to make the data fit the trend, not the trend to the data (which actually occurs more often than not). I'd give you specific examples, however, you'd just dismiss them as being anecdotal.

And you say that they are anecdotal for one of two reasons. The first is that you can't accept the truth. The other is that you think I'm full of sh*t. There have been a lot of people in the past that have called me out on my "bullsh*t." I generally have no problem telling people when I'm jerking their chain on this, that or the other. And then there are the people I like to make twist in the wind before I unload on them. Even then, I'm not believed. So, frankly, it's not worth the effort.

So you either believe me or you don't. Honestly Victor, I don't care. But half of your frustrations you create yourself.

Oh yeah, and as a guy who claims to know about statistics - and I have no doubt that you do - you know full well how any idiot can fudge stats to say pretty much whatever they want, and there are people who are already have a pre-conceived notion about what those statistics should say. This is the reason why we get research studies whose stats stay, basically, nothing.

So spare me the lecture about stats and "rigor". I know how that game is played.



That's your assumption. That's not what I've said.

The fact is, you walk into any endeavor, you're going to get two sets of people: those who rise to the challenge, and those who don't. And the ones who do rise to the challenge are often reviled by some of those that don't. They usually tend to be smarter than the average bear (the people who rise to the challenge, that is). The deciding factor is not what they have been taught, it is how they apply what it is that they know. That's what separates the men from the boys.

The problem with science is the same problem that plagues the human condition. The mediocre still rule the roost because they concentrate more on looking intellectual, promoting themselves as intellectuals, then actually being intellectual. And a large chunk of them run straight for a PhD because that gives them instant credibility, with next to no effort.

Yeah, getting a PhD is a task. It is nowhere near a difficult a task as producing new things year, after year, after year for decades on end.

Again, I could relate a number of stories where I've had to educate that crowd about the rigors of the private marketplace (and they were both revealing and funny), but you'd simply exclaim that these are anecdotal, and dismiss them right away.

My grandfather worked in the Redstone Rocket project. He was one of those guys who also put men into space. He also had correspondence degree (which, back then, was about a relevant as my stupid Associates degree). The man was an engineering genius. The fact is that guys like him don't come from a PhD program. They often come right out of the blue. And they often upset the apple chart.

The minute we start making something like a PhD become the end-all-be-all seal of approval for intelligence and intellect, the world will descend in to an age of darkness. Because that will give the bonafide morons control of everything. Just like the Inquisition priests of old.

So, I hope that clarifies thing for you Victor.

Is global warming real? Who cares...it is a gold mine.

for what it's worth Vic I had to give props to both SAS and some dude named Herb that worked in the IT department. I guess every time someone gets a degree Herb does too.

Still waiting on this potts:


You seem to just want to continue providing meaningless anecdotes however....

Man, where do I start with this nonsense.



You've got to be kidding me. You have either gone utterly nuts, or you're just flailing to try and prove a point.

You want to sit there and tell me that you can take a Masters or a PhD class in a prestigious US university, pass, and not know how to write English?

Nice try.



That's good to know. If in an Excel table your formula of 2+2 ands up equaling 5, you submit a paper with that crap, it gets peer reviewed, and them published...well...that's all that I need to say.

What mindless drivel you've started to spout.



Ok, I'm going to assume that you're talking about climate science here.

You want me to provide statistical data to rebut statistical data where neither can accurately predict the outcome of weather, and whose models are in no way complete? If THIS is what you call "science," your science is a complete and total fraud. It is akin to selling snake oil.

A model is only worth something where all of the inputs and variables are known, and the process is documented and complete. Otherwise, it is nothing more than a shamanism, where some guy with a feathered headdress and a bone through his node kills a chicken and tries to divine the future by looking at its liver.

Again, if this is what you call science, your science is a fraud. Period.

In my line of work there are no assumptions (I know a lot of your statements make huge leaps in logic from affecting the genes of flatworms to doing the same thing with primates...which are NOT flatworms). The climate modeling as it exists today relies on a mountain of assumptions (like percipitation or the lack thereof) whose inputs and variables are neither proven, and whose processes are not fully understood and known. That is not a model. It's academic masturbation at best.

So, again, nice try.



Yes, I said that PhDs are full of mediocre people. I did not say they are unilaterally mediocre. And the world "unilateral" came from you, not me. I didn't even come close to that. End of discussion.

You need help looking up that word, Victor?



Anecdotes are evidence. That's why they call it "anecdotal evidence."

I frankly don't know what business you're in, but when I see rejects writing climate models for a major university, that there is a BIG red flag to me.

But obviously not to you. Because it is pretty clear to me, given your staunch position that because someone has an advanced degree they somehow cannot be a moron, that you are so horribly blind and ignorant to reality. You've gone out of your way to stake your ground at that point. All that's left to conclude is that your bias is so extreme, that you're beyond being rational.



Unilaterally, or not unilaterally? Because the person who seems to have a hard time staying on target here is you.

I've already given examples, Victor. You dismissed them. If this is your glorious vision of science, then it is a total sham and a fraud.

I actually kept some of those resumes and cover letters, Victor. They were so funny, I thought I'd keep them around for a laugh. They're in storage.



Maybe you're so exhausted because you're doing a lot of excessive running around plugging holes in your arguments. I mean, the holes you're leaving behind are actually so massive that I could drive a truck through them.



First, most pain medication doesn't work on me. So you've basically failed in that area.

Second, I love this comment, because it is so illustrative:

" I don't know much about the other fields, but I can guarantee you..."

So, let me see if I get this straight: you have no frickin' clue as to the populations of other groups of PhDs, yet you defend them, and challenge me to prove my point? Is THIS that type of discipline and rigor you use in your work? Because, if so, it's crap.

You try that BS working for me, in my line of work, after the third time your application crashed (and it would crash), I'd replace your sorry a**.

Did I specify PhDs in the biotech field? Did I make that exclusive claim anywhere?

The answer would be: no.

So this really boils down to a couple of things at this point: first, you are utterly delusional. Your reasoning, and your ability to discriminate facts, given what I've see, is beyond suspect. You accuse me of making unilateral statements - which the record here shows that I haven't - then try and weasel your way around that fact when I call you to the carpet.

Then - as laughable as that is thus far - challenge me to prove my assertions when you yourself have no clue as to whether they are correct or not. And you basically admit as much.

I hope you're not expecting anyone to be impressed by this. Seriously. I personally have lost a lot of respect for you and your abilities on all of this.



You have alredy said I'm full of sh*t. And you've already proven - and stated as such - that you'll simply dismiss anything I'd post. So even if I did have irrefutable evidence, you'd call it BS, ancedotal, irrelevant, and move on.

As for your ability to discriminate facts and to reason things out given the evidence, well, you've proven to be a total frickin' whackjob.

So there's no point. You've already soiled that bed.

Again, nice try Victor.

Hey, that's a good one! Remember it for next time.

You'll still owe me copyright fees.

For me, the ribbon goes to Victors “Standard disclaimer”.
An open and prideful disregard the future of his children or anyone else’s. I guess we are all supposed to desire his level of ‘coolness’ – if only we could regress that far. It reminds me of a punk kid who spit on the streets because he is just so tough . . . .

Not to offend the religious right, but Victor is proof that a man can have no soul . . . .

Victor started it!

Let me summarize your entire above statement:
I don't want to try to provide you with any of the information you requested so I'm gonna say "you summarily reject anything I provide" (ever stop to think that I reject it because it is not what I requested?...)

There is no running around or multiple arguments here. I asked for one simple thing: evidence to back up the following wild claims:










You haven't provided a shred of validatable evidence for any of the bs you've spouted, just anecdotes. All you need to do is get off your lazy ass and find a study which shows that PhD's or Masters degreed individuals are dumber or lazier or in some way more useless than your average person. I'm sure someone out there has regressed IQ against academic achievement. Or use any other damn measure of intelligence you can find.

You've tried to deflect my request over and over. Now you go and type up some point by point argument that never actually provides the simple final request, but yet again deflects.

Back up your dumbass statements or at least put your @ss where your mouth is.

Brew... I don't have children, nor do I intend to have children. Is there a reason I'm supposed to care about your children? I haven't even met them. What if I don't like them, or think they're idiots? What if they're ugly?

Ethics, Victor, Ethics.
Something you blow past with your afterburners on because you are so very, very cool.

Not just my children, not just your children, but all children, as in the future of our race. We all have a responsibility to each other, a duty to support and care for the young. Even those of us whom are terminaly hip - you smug misanthrope.

I never had children of my own, I got them by marriage. And even though I never much liked kids, I love them.

And I am honored to pay school taxes. Even to educate the ugliest of them. It is a matter of principle.