Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 441

by phantomfive (#48028395) Attached to: Scientists Seen As Competent But Not Trusted By Americans

one guy says in a private email "In an odd way this is cheering news." re the death of a skeptic, and that is proof that scientists who believe in AGW are all assholes

It proves he is an asshole for sure

which proves that AGW is a hoax.

Now you're making stuff up and insulting people. That makes you an asshole.

Comment: Re:Is 10,000 your personal peak, perhaps? (Score 3, Insightful) 175

by phantomfive (#48025343) Attached to: New Research Casts Doubt On the "10,000 Hour Rule" of Expertise
No, Beethoven for example continued improving his skill until near his death. Long after he'd written pieces of great genius.

Gladwell's observation was that people who achieve greatness work 10,000 hours.....which doesn't mean that you will reach greatness if you work 10,000 hours, but that if you don't, you certainly won't. More interestingly, he observes that working 10,000 hours is a greater indicator of success than IQ.

I remember reading somewhere also, that it helps to have a master teacher who knows how to guide you through those 10,000 hours. Otherwise you might be swinging with the wrong golf club for half those hours.

Comment: Re:Science is not about trust (Score 1) 441

by phantomfive (#48025295) Attached to: Scientists Seen As Competent But Not Trusted By Americans

The concept of iterative experimentation is hardly anything new, but it wasn't until there was a shift in attitude of the scientific community from one of secrecy to sharing and cross examination

Well, that's not really true either.....certainly scholars throughout the dark ages and earlier were sharing their ideas. The thing that made science take off was the idea of experimentation as the test for ideas.

It's also helpful to think of science the method, as differentiated from science the institutions. Science the method is a way to get closer to the truth.

Comment: Re:Science is not about trust (Score 1) 441

by phantomfive (#48025065) Attached to: Scientists Seen As Competent But Not Trusted By Americans

Certainly it is - the very core of the scientific method is the peer review

Wow, you completely missed the core of the scientific method. Maybe you fell asleep in sixth grade when they taught the scientific method? You've developed a hypothesis of science that no one holds to, and no one thinks is science except yourself. So that's something, good job.

Comment: Re:Gladwell (Score 2) 175

by phantomfive (#48024355) Attached to: New Research Casts Doubt On the "10,000 Hour Rule" of Expertise

Unless you have a LOT of innate talent,

Problem is that no one can identify innate talent beforehand. The primary manifestation of 'talent' is that someone has become very good.

Your music teacher rejected you because you weren't improving. Instead of identifying your weakness and helping you overcome it, she judged you as incapable, not because you were incapable, but because you weren't improving.

Comment: Re:Science is not about trust (Score 1) 441

by phantomfive (#48020209) Attached to: Scientists Seen As Competent But Not Trusted By Americans
The LHC has trouble being reproduced because of the expense, and that's problematic. It's better than nothing, but we shouldn't fool ourselves that it's all good.

Even Richard Feynman worried about this problem, you can see his thoughts on the topic here, around paragraph 19.

If you're not careful, you're going to catch something.

Working...