Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by Neal Hughes:
When one checks the credentials of erstwhile "creation experts" one usually finds either a discredited mainstream scientist expelled from the academy for the promotion of non-scientific ideas or else a "theologian". Many of the degrees of these persons are "suspect" to say the least, their endeavors are too obvious to be stated but I shall for rhetorical purposes: they exist to separate the gullible from their money and to feed themselves well. They award one another advanced "degrees" and then publish in a circle. They hide behind the magical mystical power of the title "Doctor" and try to intimidate the peasants with their soi-disant "expertise" and that holy title.
In the acadeic world, there are doctorates and then there are "real" doctorates. You know, a 150 pp long study that is presented as a dissertation and those that are three or four tested fields and a book length contribution to original research and the academy at large. One is for money making purposes and vanity, the other for teaching credentials. One requires you to master the both the literature and research techniques of the field and be an expert as defined by one's peers in your area(s); the other to baffle those who do not have a graduate degree. A huge component of a PhD is the teaching burden for the student: for cause, it is a teaching degree! The PhD is, by definition both a mentor for others, a colleague to his peers, all while being an original researcher. She is not a money-maker per se. That is for an MBA.

Hi Neal,

You say, When one checks the credentials of erstwhile 'creation experts' one usually finds either a discredited mainstream scientist expelled from the academy for the promotion of non-scientific ideas or else a "theologian".

Obviously, you would not make a statement just to hear yourself talk -- so, please enlighten we poor unknowing peasants with the source of this great knowledge. Where did you go to check the credentials of these people? Which Creation Scientist did you check? Please give us the source and the list of these folks you have discredited so that we mere peasants will know whom to ignore.

While you are at it; since you so readily discredit these folks -- perhaps you can share your credentials in the wacky, wonderful world of science and theology so that we know that you are qualified to discredit these folks.

It's a world of laughter, a world or tears
Its a world of hopes, its a world of fear
Theres so much that we share
That its time we're aware
Its a small world after all

CHORUS:
Its a small world after all
Its a small world after all
Its a small world after all
Its a small, small world

There is just one moon and one golden sun
And a smile means friendship to everyone.
Though the mountains divide
And the oceans are wide
It's a small small world

Just thought I would share one of my favorite songs with you.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Friends_TiggerToo_Bear_Piggy_On-Limb
Actually, Bill, I study, teach and write about scholary communication. By virtue of my professional training, I qualified to judge the credentials of a "scholar" and advise on or against anyone consulting them.
Those four little letters after my name say so: MLIS. My academic appointments have been based on my ability to judge authors and sources.
I don't need a PhD in mammilian biology to smell a dog turd under my shoe -- a simple internet search and a survey of the sources suffices for me, but then again, I am not so gullible as some or awed by any title under the sun -- some of the biggest morons I have ever met have the most prestigious degrees in the world, but at least they came by them through sweat and years of toil and hundreds of thousand pages read and digested, not from an unaccredited diploma mill that caters from a select group of self-selected cohorts and then cite the guys who gave them their soi-disant credentials and publish in the two or three "journals" that cater to the same crowd.
I actually parsed an article from the Insane Creation Posse or whatever it is out of Texas and shall find it and reveal the results of the sourcing to a "candid world" as Jefferson said.
quote:
Originally posted by Neal Hughes: Actually, Bill, I study, teach and write about scholary (scholarly) communication. By virtue of my professional training, I qualified to judge the credentials of a "scholar" and advise on or against anyone consulting them.

Those four little letters after my name say so: MLIS. My academic appointments have been based on my ability to judge authors and sources.

I don't need a PhD in mammilian (mammalian) biology to smell a dog turd under my shoe -- a simple internet search and a survey of the sources suffices for me, but then again, I am not so gullible as some or awed by any title under the sun -- some of the biggest morons I have ever met have the most prestigious degrees in the world, but at least they came by them through sweat and years of toil and hundreds of thousand pages read and digested, not from an unaccredited diploma mill that caters from a select group of self-selected cohorts and then cite the guys who gave them their soi-disant credentials and publish in the two or three "journals" that cater to the same crowd.

I actually parsed an article from the Insane Creation Posse or whatever it is out of Texas and shall find it and reveal the results of the sourcing to a "candid world" as Jefferson said.


Hi Neal,

Golly, I am familiar with Ph.D., MD, and a few others -- but, I am not familiar with MLIS. Please forgive my ignorance as I ask what it means. I am familiar with TGIF (Thank Goodness It's Friday) and even So Happy It's Thursday -- but not MLIS.

This reminds me of an engineer I worked with at Ramo Wooldridge (before it was TRW) some years ago. He was so proud, as he should have been, to be an engineering graduate of MIT. But, this was ten years after college and he still had MIT book covers on all the books in his office. And in every conversation, he always managed to bring in, "Well, at MIT we did it this way."

One day, one of our coworkers, who had grown tired of hearing of Bob's MIT, told him, "Bob, did I ever tell you where I graduated? It was Sam Houston Institute of Technology -- good old S * * *!" Bob never forgave him.

By the way, you never told me the source of your information by which you have discredited the Creation Scientist, nor the names of those so discredited. It would certainly help us so that we will know who not to believe. We know we can believe you; but, how about all those discredited Creation Scientists? Where did you say you obtained this list?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Sylvester-Cat-2
quote:
Originally posted by CrustyMac:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Y'all,

While I know that you look down your very knowledgeable noses at those guys who have only the title "Philosopher of Science" or the title of "Philosopher of Biology" and such; I wonder if you know what that means. Have you ever wondered, or cared, what the letters Ph.D. mean? Well, to be sure you have a well rounded education -- Ph.D. means: "Doctorate of Philosophy" in different fields, i.e., a person with a Ph.D. in Biology can also be called a "Philosopher of Biology" -- or a "Doctor of Philosophy in Biology" as a person chooses.

A list of advanced degrees taken from a college web site:

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology:
Doctor of Philosophy

Biology :
Master of Science
Master of Science (Research)
Doctor of Philosophy

Biomedical Engineering:
Master of Science
Master of Science (Research)
Doctor of Philosophy

Chemistry:
Master of Science
Master of Science (Research)
Doctor of Philosophy (Integrated & Applied Sciences)

But, I guess these do not match your Ph.D. in BS. Or as one of our Used Car Salesmen Duo likes to say, "It's only MIT. What do they know?"

Y'all come back now, ya heah?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill


Thanks for the explanation, Bill. I'm a total moron, and appreciate being talked down to.

However, having never heard any of my Ph.D. friends refer to themselves as philosophers of biology or philosophers of physics, I was obviously confused. Usually, these people call themselves biologists or physicists.

Thanks for setting me straight... oh, wait, when I look up philosophy of biology, I get this explanation:

"Philosophy of biology

Main article: Philosophy of biology

Philosophy of biology deals with epistemological, metaphysical, and ethical issues in the biological and biomedical sciences. Although philosophers of science and philosophers generally have long been interested in biology (e.g., Aristotle, Descartes, and even Kant), philosophy of biology only emerged as an independent field of philosophy in the 1960s and 1970s. Philosophers of science then began paying increasing attention to developments in biology, from the rise of Neodarwinism in the 1930s and 1940s to the discovery of the structure of Deoxyribonucleic acid in 1953 to more recent advances in genetic engineering. Other key ideas such as the reduction of all life processes to biochemical reactions as well as the incorporation of psychology into a broader neuroscience are also addressed."

They aren't scientists at all, just philosophers. I'm pretty sure your Ph.D. friends will be pretty irked that you are comparing them to philosophical hacks.

Duke offers a degree in Philosophy of Biology. I notice that it is through the philosophy department and requires a couple of 200 level courses in biology. Hardly makes these people biologists. However, they will earn a Ph.D., so my calling them "hacks" is probably unkind, unless they are misrepresenting themselves as scientists, which you were.

Hi Crusty,

When I look at the list of "Doctor of Philosophy" degrees offered in the list above, it does not say Philosopy Dept -- but, instead: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Biology, Biomedical Engineering, and Chemistry. Sounds pretty much like a Ph.D. in these schools of science. Of course, you can tell them their Ph.D. does not mean anything to you because you know much better than their university -- but, I do believe they would take offense.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Three-Monkeys_Speak-See-Hear_NoEvil-4
Have you ever noticed how people will seek out information that will only validate what they have already made up there minds to believe and discount everything else? Interesting huh? Whatever happened to the concept of the open mind? Oh well.... somebody once told me to be open minded but not so open minded that your brains fall out. So, guess it is good to find a happy medium, huh.
Some Problems with Random Samples of Creationist Literature:
Circular Citation Meets the Words “May and Could”

Neal M. Hughes, MLIS

While some of the prominent creationist scientists, as self-described, use portions of the scientific method and contemporary standards of charts and illustrations in their work, the abstracts, reference lists, and introductions often reveal a great deal behind the graphs, formulae and formal tone.

For example, let us consider first a work by D. Russell Humphreys, “The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields, Creation Science Research Quarterly 21:3, Dec. 1984. Dr. Humphreys offers the reader an abstract that starts with an amazing statement: “God could have started magnetic fields in the solar system in a very simple way: by creating the original atoms of the planets with many of their nuclear spins pointing in the same direction. The small magnetic fields of so many atomic nuclei add up to fields large enough to account for the magnetism of the planets.”

Indeed, God could have, might have, and perhaps even should have done so, but does that even hint at objectivity? Using Humphreys’s device, one could start out with a premise along the lines of “The sky goddess, when sad, causes the rain to fall upon the earth, then it is absorbed by the atmosphere from the sea and enables her to cry when sad once again, perhaps.”

In each statement we find the lexicon of science oddly juxtaposed alongside the “perhaps” and “could” of divine intervention - the latter which cannot be proven to any means recognized as reasonable or scientific. My dog might have psychic powers which only other dogs recognize, why there are studies that dogs exhibit strange behaviors before an earthquake or a volcanic eruption, and now I shall next start to write about earthquakes and volcanoes and ignore the elephant in the room, my claim of psychic power to canis familiris. That would be the Humphreys method.

But the method of erstwhile scholarly communication exhibited in the above article is not the only flaw which one finds in the field. Let us now note the “circular citation” incumbent in these writers’ works. One example is the paper “Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth” by Vardiman, et al. In this example, the above cited example of supernatural intervention is endorsed as a necessary mechanism for the science to “work.”

The introduction once again contains a rather odd statement seldom found in any scientific communication in which society at large is familiar: “Scripture talks of at least two major events which occurred after Creation, the Judgment in the Garden of Eden and the Flood. It would seem appropriate to consider at least that an original distribution of elements could have been mixed, and radioactive processes speeded up during one or both of these events.” Scripture as well talks of Joshua commanding the sun to stand still for continued slaughter. One is surprised to learn not of a study that presupposes that the earth was once stationary and the sun around it revolving, until some supernatural event then occurred to fix the heliocentric model with which we have been long familiar, might this author suggest the final capture of the Ark of the Covenant by the Babylonians? That might be far-fetched, but no more than Vardiman’s prose.

Vardiman, et al. might aptly be termed a “creation posse.” While the two branches of the school of creationism is divided into the “Old Creation” v. “Young Earth” camps, they apply the same circular citations to and for one another’s reading and research enjoyment. In the above cited paper, the following citations occur in verbatim facimile:

[1]Baumgardner, J.R., Snelling, A.A., Humphreys, D.R. and Austin, S.A., Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Editor, 2003, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, this volume.
[2] Chaffin, E.F., Theoretical Mechanisms of Accelerated Radioactive Decay, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling and E.F. Chaffin, Editors, 2000, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, MO, pp. 303-331.
[3] Chaffin, E.F., Accelerated Decay: Theoretical Models, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Editor, 2003, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, volume.
[4] Davies, J.H. and Stevenson, D.J., Physical Model of Source Region of Subduction Zone , Journal of Geophysical Research, 97(1992), pp. 2037-2070.
[5] Gamble, J.A., Wood, C.P., Price, R.C., Smith, I.E.M., Stewart, R.B. and Waight, T., A Fifty Year Perspective of Magmatic Evolution on Ruapehu Volcano, New Zealand: Verification of Open System Behaviour in an Arc Volcano, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 170(1999), pp. 301-314.
[6] Gentry, R.V., Glish, G.J. and McBay, E.H., Differential Helium in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Management, Geophysical Research Letters, 9:10 (1982), pp. 1129-1130.
[7] Giem, P., Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon, Origins, 51(2001), pp. 6-30.
[8] Humphreys, D.R., Accelerated Nuclear Decay: A Viable Hypothesis?, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling and
E.F. Chaffin, Editors, 2000, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, MO, pp. 333-379.
[9] Humphreys, D.R., Austin, S.A., Baumgardner, J.R. and Snelling, A.A., Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Editor, 2003, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, this volume.
[10] Snelling, A.A., Radioactive “Dating” in Conflict! Fossil Wood in Ancient Lava Flow Yields Radiocarbon, Creation Ex Nihilo, 20:1(1997), pp. 24-27.
[11] Snelling, A.A., Stumping Old-Age Dogma: Radiocarbon in an “Ancient” Fossil Tree Stump Casts Doubt on Traditional Rock/Fossil Dating, Creation Ex Nihilo, 20:4(1998), pp. 48-51.
[12] Snelling, A.A., The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-Argon “Ages” for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand and the Implications for Potassium-argon “Dating”, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, R.E. Walsh, Editor, 1998, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 503-525.
[13] Snelling, A.A., Dating Dilemma: Fossil Wood in Ancient Sandstone, Creation Ex Nihilo, 21:3(1999), pp. 39-41.
[14] Snelling, A.A., Geological Conflict: Young Radiocarbon Date for Ancient Fossil Wood Challenges Fossil Dating, Creation Ex Nihilo, 22:2(2000), pp. 44-47.
[15] Snelling, A.A., Conflicting “Ages” of Tertiary Basalt and Contained Fossilized Wood, Crinum, Central Queensland, Australia, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 14:2(2000), pp. 99-122.
[16] Snelling, A.A., Geochemical Processes in the Mantle and Crust, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling and E.F. Chaffin, Editors, 2000, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, MO, pp. 123-304.
[17] Snelling, A.A., Radiohalos, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling and E.F. Chaffin, Editors, 2000, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, MO, pp. 381-468.
[18] Snelling, A.A., The Relevance of Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb Isotope Systematics to Elucidation of the Genesis and History of Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Radioisotope Dating, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Editor, 2003, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, this volume.
[19] Snelling, A.A., Whole-Rock K-Ar Model and Isochron, and Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd and Pb-Pb Isochron, “Dating” of the Somerset Dam Layered Mafic Intrusion, Australia, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Editor, 2003, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, this volume.
[20] Snelling, A.A. and Armitage, M.H., Radiohalos-A Tale of Three Granitic Plutons, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Editor, 2003, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, this volume.
[21] Snelling, A.A. and Woodmorappe, J., The Cooling of Plutons on a Young Earth, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, R.E. Walsh, Editor, 1998, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 527-545.
[22] Snelling, A.A., Austin, S.A. and Hoesch, W.A., Radioisotopes in the Diabase Sill (Upper Precambrian) at Bass Rapids, Grand Canyon, Arizona: An Application and Test of the Isochron Dating Method, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R.Ivey, Editor, 2003, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, this volume.
[23] Tatsumi, Y., Formation of the Volcanic Front in Subduction Zones, Geophysical Research Letters, 13(1986), pp. 717-720.
[24] Vardiman, L., Introduction, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling and E.F. Chaffin, Editors, 2000, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, MO, pp 1-25.


This is the most egregious instance of “incestuous citation and publication” that can be imagined. Firstly, the same few names appear again and again as co-authors or else editors of journals in which they also publish and present. How can there be a normal “blind” peer review when Vardiman , as only one example, wrote note 24 and then edited the journal along with Snelling and Chaffin in which it appeared?

In fact, the Creationists have not merely turned the standards for scholarly communication askew, but have inverted its intent: the promotion of new knowledge. Instead of the normal process of identification of problem, literature search for existing research on the problem or that which touches upon it, formulation of research plan, carrying out of research, presentation of results to peers in a working paper or at a conference [this step is optional], then after criticism and feedback both positive and negative, presenting the same to an academic journal for blind peer review, then following comments from reviewers, making editorial changes as needed and then publication under the name of the author once accepted by the editorial board.

Instead of identification of a problem as the first step in research, the Creationists seem to jump to the answer to the problem first in claiming divine intervention, then posing the anomalies within the literature and current research and then reiterating the answer of the divine as conclusion. Nota bene, these men seem to have a modicum of scientific discourse still left within them and are not adverse in positing their thesis statements with the words “could have” or “might have,” having had the techniques of scholarly communication drummed into their heads in former lives as legitimate scholars.

In short, other than examples in how not to conduct scholarly communication, the works of the various creation institutes and quarterlies ought to be avoided, lest one fall into a life of ridicule and righteous small circle intellectual incest.
Hi Neal,

When you would not respond to my question about your MLIS designation; I went to Google and found it. I am not sure why you would not just answer my question; for I greatly admire Librarians. From my earliest childhood, I practically lived at the Sheffield Public Library -- and in high school, one of my favorite teachers was Mrs. Berryman, our librarian. Having left Sheffield when I was seventeen, just out of high school in 1955 -- and not being able to visit during the school year for thirty-five years; I was greatly surprised when I did visit to find Mrs. Berryman still remembered me. She was the only teacher still at SHS from my time; so, I went to her office to say hello. When I went in, I said, "Hi, Mrs. Berryman, you don't remember me; but, I just wanted to come by and say hello." Her reply shocked me, "Hi Billy, we were just talking about you last week." Those were her exact words -- and I have to admit that I was very surprised. I did not tell her my name; she instantly recognized me, after thirty-five years, and knew my name. It still amazes me -- but, then, Librarians have to be special people.

Anyway, when I Googled, I found this web page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Library_and_Information_Science and it tells us:

The Master of Library and Information Science (MLIS) is the masters degree that is required for most professional librarian positions. The MLIS is a relatively recent degree; an older and still common degree designation for librarians to acquire is the Master of Library Science (MLS), or Master Science in Library Science (MSLS) degree.

The MLIS or MLS degree is usually acquired from an accredited library school. The American Library Association accredits programs across the U.S. and Canada.


As I said, next to knowledgeable pastors, theologians, and Creation Scientists -- the people I admire most would be authors and librarians. To me, books are life blood. Without books, life would be empty. People who write books and people who tend our libraries are very special people -- for they help influence the minds of children and adult alike.

And, without my own personal home library, it would be like life without food.

Now, to get to a statement in your recent post, "In short, other than examples in how not to conduct scholarly communication, the works of the various creation institutes and quarterlies ought to be avoided, lest one fall into a life of ridicule and righteous small circle intellectual incest."

You are not a scientist; yet, you pass judgment upon scientists -- even those who have attained the pinnacle of a Ph.D., or multiple Ph.D.s in their chosen fields. This does make me question your motive and your judgment; it also makes me question your objectivity. It appears to me that you have taken the atheist stance, "Don't bother me with facts. My mind is made up!"

And you accuse those of us who believe in the Bible of circular reasoning. Yet, you, Fish, Deep, and all the other atheist make bold statements -- and then attribute them to Dawkins, Hitchens, and Darwin, your bible writers. While pointing your finger at us and accusing us of circular reasoning -- you then do exactly what you accuse us of doing. I know, you are just hoping that no one will notice -- that you fellows have a wee bit of the intellectual incest bug within your own religion.

Yet, you do allow me an opportunity to share the Gospel with our Forum Friends. And, for that, I thank you.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill Gray
billdory@pacbell.net

Alabama bred,
California fed,
Blessed by God to be a Christian American!

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 9th-Circuit-Court-1
Bill, I never once addressed the science behind the papers I offered. I addressed the method, the incest within the Creationist circles and the lack of blind peer review -- all of which I assure you I am qualified to judge. I did not address the science in particular for one reason: indeed, I am not qualified to judge it, by definition.
I would not advise any student seeking material on biological evolution to consult with any creationist website or journal. In fact, the journals are so obscure that an in depth search on standard academic databases would not reveal them as even existing. Would I recommned them for a liberal arts class on evolution and religion? Most certainly.
As a rule, people do not offer for print what they also edit, save as an editorial voice or a reply to the editor from a letter writer. People also largely refrain from citing themselves again and again, either as co- or single author of another treatment.
The normal method of scientific resarch and communication was as I communciated to you above. I do not see this in evidence at creationist websites or in their journals. For that reason, I reject them as advisable to any audience save for those researching creationism or as the antipodes of how not to form a scholarly paper.

A scholar who edits the work in which his own works appear has lost the respect of the academy. This is exacerbated by the format of the various papers: state conclusion then form a bunch of others' or original research that seems to introduce doubt in others' past work, then explain away all problems as divine intervention. It is considered normative for one to go where the evidence leads and then form the conclusion, not conclusion then citations to refute the existing canon/explain away any problem by a liteal deus ex machina.
quote:
I addressed the method, the incest within the Creationist circles and the lack of blind peer review


Scientific "incest." Good word, Neal. That aptly describes the following methodology cited in Bill's link:

"The ICR team began an exploration of changes in mitochondrial DNA by collecting and culling publicly-available human DNA records ( . . ) . From this, they constructed a consensus sequence called Eve 1.0. They continued their analysis by modeling human mitochondrial genetic history using Mendel's Accountant, a numerical program developed at ICR that can be used to mimic the accumulation of mutations in a population over time

So, in essence, they cherry picked some mDNA research, perverted it to their liking, ran it through their Creationist software and found the exact results they were looking for. Man, that's some good science.

Incestuous indeed!
I am working on an article right now on scholarly communication and how some soi disant scholars are actually stooges who cite one another, publish one another and even pay one another through various institutes, foundations, and other perversions of the terms.

Some people will lower themselves to money and their training to have their faces on the televisors, it seems, and nothing is too outrageous for them to claim with "science" backing them up.

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" -- Bob Dylan

"You only need a nose to know when you step on a fresh dog turd" -- Neal Hughes

"Follow the money" -- Deep Throat
Who said I was a Bigot? Why do you say that? All I stated is that your philosophies and intellect came from your influence in living in Hollywood. Obviously you took that as a negative. I guess your true colors came shining through. So........with you comment of referring to be as a BIGOT proved you believe off the wall philosphies and crazy intellectual thoughts do come from Hollywood.

I guess the old saying is true.......

"The bit dog barks"..
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:


When I look at the list of "Doctor of Philosophy" degrees offered in the list above, it does not say Philosopy Dept -- but, instead: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Biology, Biomedical Engineering, and Chemistry. Sounds pretty much like a Ph.D. in these schools of science. Of course, you can tell them their Ph.D. does not mean anything to you because you know much better than their university -- but, I do believe they would take offense.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill


Twist and turn, Bill, twist and turn. I don't dispute that a PhD in Biology is a degree in scientific discourse. I dispute that someone who calls themselves Philosophers of Biology are scientists.

This isn't even apples and oranges. As I showed you Duke University has a PhD program in Philosophy of Biology. This would make those people, "Doctors of Philosophy" in Philosophy of Biology. Doesn't make them biologists. According to Duke's description, a person with a BS in Biology has more biology than a PhD in Philosophy of Biology.

Under your argument, a PhD in English makes a person a Philosopher of English. Not so.
The philosophy of science addresses paradigms and their shifts and the interplay between our understanding of the world and how we view science. It is a lot like the history of science -- it uses science as an auxillary for the main study. It is to science per se as literary criticism is to belles lettres. The two are not the same, although a piece of criticism can be presented in exactly the same frame as is belles lettres.
It's a lot like history: history is a branch of very specialized literature that uses chronology and both primary and secondary sources for its sourcing to make it "non-fiction." In many ways, history is actually closer to philosophy than it is mere laundry lists of events. Many students who think they want to become history majors soon figure this out and switch to education after their first historiography course. It is what separates the antiquarians from the historians.

A person writing on the history of science would address how the paradigm shift came about from Ptolemey to Kepler. A philosopher of science would address the ramifications on European society from this shift. An astronomer would use the current or evolving paradigms for further research in situ for heavenly bodies.
Hi Mandomama,

About fifteen years ago, I was at the Comdex Computer Conference in Las Vegas. At that convention, a sharp marketeer gave a talk and in it he used a new phrase, "We have developed a new paradigm in computer technology!"

Immediately after that, every single marketeer in the industry had a new "paradigm" of this or that. It got to the point that I would rather eat shoe leather than hear about a new "paradigm." Nothing creates growth like a new cliche in marketing.

I wonder if Neal was at that computer conference? He certainly has a few "paradigms."

Sorry, Neal, it is just that cliches drive me crazy.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Confused
quote:
I wonder if Neal was at that computer conference? He certainly has a few "paradigms."


Uhh, "paradigm shift" is a very accurate phrase for the type of shift in knowledge Neal was talking about. Its not even a "big word," Bill.

Keep it up Neal. Obviously not all of forum participants can keep up but those of us who can find meaning in your posts.
quote:
Originally posted by GoFish:
quote:
I wonder if Neal was at that computer conference? He certainly has a few "paradigms."


Uhh, "paradigm shift" is a very accurate phrase for the type of shift in knowledge Neal was talking about. Its not even a "big word," Bill.

Keep it up Neal. Obviously not all of forum participants can keep up but those of us who can find meaning in your posts.

No kidding, Fish? Yes, I know that there are those who cling to every cliche mouthed or written by clever marketeers. We call them sheep, followers.

You follow your leaders. You are his sheep.

We follow our Leader. We are His sheep. Our sheepfold is eternal. But, then, so is yours; only much more tropical in temperature.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1_-_Great-Shepherd_Sheep_2d-R
"Paradigm" is not French but Greek that has entered English. The French is just funny song lyrics from the song "Psycho Killer" by the Talking Heads. It means: "That's what I did that night, that's what she said that night. Finally doing what I hoped for, I throw myself towards glory. OK." The "je me lance" also has the connotation of "making a name for oneself."

There have been large and rather violent paradigm shifts in history: the triumph of heliocnetricism over Ptolomey's astronomy for example, and also Einsteinian physics over classical Newtonian. The invention of the scientific method over rote acceptance for ancient wisdom is the best known. Such shifts can occur within any discipline.

Add Reply


Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×