That's my point entirely. :)

I guess you missed this part: "he's right for the wrong reasons."

I don't know why you're so defensive of the language. C++ hasn't exactly improved over the years.

I don't even know why anyone would even bother with c++. If it's a good fit, just use c.

Torvalds is right about the language; even though he's right for the wrong reasons.

It's good because it has an interactive mode?

There are better beginner languages with an interactive mode, like BASIC and Logo.

There's tons of research. No, they can't write code. (See Jean Piaget)

They can do some code-writing like things. Papert, who had worked with Piaget, worked with Feurzeig's team to developed the logo programming language. There was some research done in the late 1970's- early 1980's with young students (and a bit more done with young deaf students).

The point is that we've got a perfectly good, well researched, language for teaching computer programming concepts to very young children. Why piss around with javascript or ruby?

Well, they are magicians. Cut 'em some slack.

Just look at this:

It's pretty clear that we're not dealing with rational people here. Which is fine, as they're entertainers, selling to an audience composed of irrational people.

This bit is particularly telling:

The amateur, outsider, the autodidact -- if they're only smart and clever enough -- can outwit or otherwise make a major contribution to a field they're interested in. It's their very standing as an uneducated amateur that imbibes them with insight far beyond that of the average expert.

It seems silly at first, but there's a lot of money to be made pandering to the egos of the scientifically illiterate science cheerleaders.

So relax. Their viewers don't care about silly details. The magicians don't care either. The audience doesn't want to question what they're told, and the performers don't want to bother fact-checking everything. It's just not that important to them.

Well, I can't argue with that. The first thing you learn in grad schools is that when an uneducated autodidact boldly asserts, in direct contradiction to all evidence, that you're wrong, you're clearly wrong. When faced with a wikipedia polymath, just bow humbly to their superiority.

Yes, as an example. A fairly good one, I thought.

You've clearly forgotten the entire point of that discussion! Go back and read. You'll puzzle it out.

Oh, yes there is. Your posts are positively loaded with jref nonsense!

There you are. Now the point:

YES. That actually IS an ad-hominem argument. I made it explicitly for you to point out.

See? It's not that complicated.

Yes, that's the point.

  Of course, he was supposed to catch that. I had hoped the thread was old enough that it would go unnoticed by every one else.

It's long and uninteresting story.

We're not talking about what I believe, or even about homeopathy. We're talking about your statement:

Which is obviously ridiculous.

I used the homeopathy example as I already knew that the "domain experts", as you call them, would disagree with what you were told by a second-rate magician. What I didn't count on was your resolve -- I had no idea you, in face of all the evidence, still think you were spot-on in the finger-print scanner thread. Well, what hope do I have to show you something, even as simple as this, that contradicts one of your unshakable beliefs!

I figured you'd at least retract this one ... :

... since you seem to completely disagree! But not you. You stick to it -- no matter what. Oddly enough, it's the statement which best helps make my point.

Now, I'm not so foolish as to think there was a way to "win" here or even enlighten you. But for a few minutes a day, it was a fun game. I know it's cruel, but I get a little bit of joy out of picking on autodidacts. It can be difficult, as many of them don't have the background necessary to even begin to understand why they're wrong, so they play fun rhetorical games. One fellow got really worked up because I refused to tell him what I believed. Imagine that! As if my personal beliefs mattered!

Why tell you that? Because you're starting to focus on what (you think I) I believe, rather than the issue at hand.

So says the guy with no scientific credentials what-so-ever.

Sure you can. The fact that they went to an art museum may be completely irrelevant. It could be as simple as students being singled out for special, positive, attention. It puts me in mind of Mayo's Hawthorne experiments.

Causality is hard, particularly in social research. I haven't read the paper, though the abstract doesn't suggest any attempt to control for rather obvious confounders. Of course, the abstract doesn't mention a causal relationship at all, so this could just be another case of bad science reporting.

When I read "Further research is needed to determine what exactly about the museum-going experience determines the strength of the outcomes" in the summary, I cringe a bit -- it ought to read "Further research is needed to determine if it was the museum-going experience at all".

Okay, so ... Wikipedia is the more trustworthy source.

Forget about peer-reviewed scientific journals, Wikipedia is where it's at.

Got it.

Still, that doesn't help me find the right domain experts. In the case, according to you, we're looking for: "The domain-experts on homeopathy are the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy."

Does Wikipedia have a list of reputable scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy? They are, according to you, the arbiter of such things.

Or are you finally ready to retract one of your earlier statements?

Here you go

Browse at -1