🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1316@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes:
[addressing me]
>
>I'm sorry, Mr. Encyclopedia Britannica, that I cast aspersions, implicit as
>they were, upon you.  Your articles had previously struck me as being rather
>broadminded, educated, and tolerant of discussion and yes, dissent.  That
>encouraged my reply, and I hardly expected the rebuff.  Recently what I am
>seeing (and not only here, but in sci.med) appears to be an increasing tone
>of skepticism almost for skepticism's sake, a Devil's advocacy, a Socratic
>method exposition.  If that's what you want to do, fine.....

	I don't mind any discussion as long as it stays within reasonable
limits.  The question is what are the reasonable limits. Physics is very
complex science and we "know" only so much. There is nothing wrong with
discussing even the wildest ideas in physics and its laws, because, as we
found many times in the past even the most elementary laws can be wrong.
But there are some rules for the discussion. You might not agree with me
about a particular law but we must ABSOLUTELY agree on the methods of
discussion. Also, we have to make sure that we know and are aware of the
possible differences between the real phenomena and their interpretations.
In the case of this posting, attempts were made to identify "flashes" as
result of a particular physical phenomenon. My objection is not that somebody
thinks its Cerenkov radiation. I'm saying that before we start to talk about
flashes in vacuum and Cerenkov radiation, we should find out if there really
was anything like that. Similarly you shouldn't speculate if my hair got gray
as a result of the stress during my work, or because it's natural at my age.
It's a wig...

The case of sci.med is even worse. The question if all the intelligence in
the brain is acquired or inherited is very old and still not resolved. Just
that and the fact that I like to play the Devil's advocate would make me
argue for the other side.
And when somebody says "it's inherited, there is an EVIDENCE..." Do you expect
me to say "Oh yeah, I believe it"?

	Yes, I am skeptical, sometimes for the sake of skepticism.
I always play the Devil's advocate. I have found that the systematic doubt
is extremely beneficial, especialy in the sciences.
You don't like Socrates and his methods of "systematic doubt and questioning
of another to reveal his hidden ignorance..."?  You believe that they are in
contradiction with being "broadminded, educated, and tolerant of discussion"?
Think about it.

>
>This will likely be the last reply I ever make to an article which you have
>joined in the discussion of.  I'd rather sit it out than have my face slapped.

Sometimes, I get really dismayed by the level of contribution to "sci".physics.
I don't mean the case when somebody asks an elementary question or even what
could be called a "stupid" question about physics. That's fine.
But when somebody "explains" a phenomenon by a theory that's equivalent to
considering little green dwarfs controlling the world, I don't consider that
to be beneficiary.  Especially for those, who can't tell...
As a matter of discouragement I often reply in rather rude way. Sorry.
The intent is not to discourage from posting, but rather to force people
to think before posting.

Once I started, one more apology. In my article about the "space elevator"
I made a joke about using digesting tract as a means of determining the speed.
The reason I posted it in sci.physics and not in sci.med was because I was
affraid in the latter they'd believe it. I didn't expect that despite the
fact that it was appended to a 4-page description of it's impossibility,
someone in the net.physics world would believe it....

zdenek

 zdenek@cs.columbia.edu  or 	...!seismo!columbia!cs!zdenek