🚀 go-pugleaf

On 20 Oct, 17:06, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 12:43 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> > "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1192809104.684180.165920@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > : Pentcho Valev just discovered the scientific method, again!
> > :
> > : He issues another one of his upper-case announcements
> > : breathlessly shouting about his discovery!
> > :
> > : Too bad in a day or two he'll forget again, and issue
> > : another pronouncement which once again confirms that
> > : science follows the scientific method!
> > :
> > Is it the scientific method when buses take longer to stop than cars
> > because DOT says so?
>
> It is the scientific method to believe data rather than
> theories pulled out of your rectum.
>
> When you ignore data and prefer the products of your
> rectum, that has another name. Whatever it is, it isn't
> science.

Absolutely correct Randy Randy. If Bryan Wallace were alive, he would
agree with you and even elaborate on your definition:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
"There is a popular argument that the world's oldest profession is
sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely that the
oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is still
alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that long
before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used
their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political
power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious
politicians of our time do. So in a sense, I tend to agree with
Weart's argument that the earliest scientists were the prehistoric
shamans, and the argument of Feyerabend that puts science on a par
with religion and prostitution. I also tend to agree with the argument
of Ellis that states that both science and theology have much in
common, and both attempt to model reality on arguments based on
unprovable articles of faith. Using the logic that if it looks like a
duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, it must be a duck:
I support the argument that since there is no significant difference
between science and religion, science should be considered a religion!
I would also agree with Ellis' argument of the obvious methodological
differences between science and the other religions. The other
dominant religions are static because their arguments are based on
rigid doctrines set forth by their founders, such as Buddha, Jesus,
and Muhammad, who have died long ago. Science on the other hand, is a
dynamic religion that was developed by many men over a long period of
time, and it has a flexible doctrine, the scientific method, that
demands that the arguments change to conform to the evolving
observational and experimental evidence. The word science was derived
from the Latin word scientia, which means knowledge, so we see that
the word, in essence, is just another word for knowledge. An associate
of mine, Prof. Richard Rhodes II, a Professor of Physics at Eckerd
College, once told me that students in his graduate school used to
joke that Ph.D. stood for Piled higher and Deeper. If one considers
the vast array of abstract theoretical garbage that dominates modern
physics and astronomy, this appears to be an accurate description of
the degree. Considering the results from Mahoney's field trial that
showed Protestant ministers were two to three times more likely to use
scientific methodology than Ph.D. scientists, it seems reasonable to
consider that they have two to three times more right to be called
scientists then the so-called Ph.D. scientists. I would agree with
Popper's argument that observations are theory-laden, and there is no
way to prove an argument beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt, but at
the very least, the scientist should do more than pay lip service to
the scientific method. The true scientist must have faith and believe
in the scientific method of testing theories, and not in the theories
themselves. I agree with Seeds argument that "A pseudoscience is
something that pretends to be a science but does not obey the rules of
good conduct common to all sciences." Because many of the dominant
theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should
more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe
more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories,
and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in,
should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the
extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status,
wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific
prostitutes."

Pentcho Valev