Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Double down (Score 1) 534

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?

Comment Re:Double down (Score 1) 534

At first, I took you at your word:

The domain-experts on homeopathy are the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy.

Then you said:

A journal called "Homeopathy" is not a reputable scientific journal.

I don't know what else you'd call a "scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy" -- all of the one's I found had that objectionably word right in the title. So I've got to ask: What are your criteria for identifying a reputable scientific journal?

Comment Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. (Score 1) 710

Really? This is controversial? There are foundational assumptions in mathematics yet no one seems bothered by that. Point out the obvious when it comes to science and the uneducated science cheerleaders come out of the woodwork to "defend science" against ... what exactly?

Stop tilting at windmills for a moment and go read Hume and Popper.

Comment Re:In the USA (Score 4, Funny) 398

Willfully ignorant? That's not fair. Have you considered that perhaps they're simply global warming supporters?

Progressive climate advocates aren't afraid of change, unlike you right-wing climate conservatives. Change is good.

"But ... But Florida will be under water!" cry the anti-climate change zealots. I can live with that. There's nothing but retirees, crazies, and scientologists down there anyway.

Bring on the heat!

Comment Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. (Score 1) 710

The whole concept of a scientific system is that it makes no assumptions, beyond being able to attain accurate and true measurements.

Nonsense! Science requires a plethora of foundational assumptions.

Once you "presuppose" a specific world view, you've negated any concept of science.

Science necessarily presupposes a specific "world view".

Yet I'm a scientist [...] One is a structure of strict mathematics and logic

Yet you have this bizarre idealized concept of science that, while it plays to the Slashdot wannabe scientist crowd, is obviously a non-starter. Didn't they teach philosophy of science anywhere you studied?

Comment Re:Double down (Score 1) 534

Right. So you admit you've presented no evidence of your belief that Homeopathy works.

Did you forget what this was about? As laypersons, according to you, we must defer to the "domain experts" as you put it:

It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts

Why waste time with arguments and evidence when you believe that:

It's irrational for non-experts to form a opinion contradicted by the consensus of domain experts.

Best to skip the bickering and head straight to the library!

The only bit missing was how to figure out who the domain experts were. Fortunately, you have the "answer" for us -- at least for this specific topic:

The domain-experts on homeopathy are the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy.

So I find a few well-established peer-reviewed scientific journals from reputable publishers on the subject and upon reviewing a sample of recent articles, quite to my surprise, a clear consensus emerged: homeopathy was effective. This was great, as it might just show you why your pronouncement sounds so ridiculous to educated people!

But like the finger-print scanner farce, you just double down. Now you tell me:

A journal called "Homeopathy" is not a reputable scientific journal.

Apparently, you can tell from just the title alone! Can I assume that no scientific journal is reputable if it is named after the subject?

Tell me, what criteria a layperson should use to determine which journals are "reputable scientific journals" when looking to identify the "domain experts" in a given subject?

Comment Re:Double down (Score 1) 534

It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts

The domain-experts on homeopathy are the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy.

That is a lie. The clear scientific consensus on homeopathy is that it works no better than placebo.

A survey of the relevant peer-reviewed journals shows otherwise. The data do not support your claim. I'm afraid that, according to you, it would be "irrational for non-experts to form a opinion contradicted by the consensus of domain experts". The domain experts being "the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy"

I have of course confirmed for myself what the scientific consensus is. By consulting reputable sources,

What sources are more reputable than "peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic"? Do you want to revise your earlier statement?

Who are the domain-experts if not those publishing "peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic"?

not by reading your links which I have not and will not be clicking on.

You won't be clicking on them because they don't exist. You're imagining things.

So, do you still agree with the following?

It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts

The domain-experts on homeopathy are the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy.

Comment Re:Double down (Score 1) 534

Thereby proving that you missed the phrase "the consensus".

You'll discover, by reviewing the relevant journals, that "The domain-experts on homeopathy", which you'll know as, "the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy.", are in broad agreement. There is a clear consensus on the issue of the efficacy of homeopathy.

At no point did I say that non-domain experts should be swayed in any way by singular links that their opponent claims came up at the top of an unspecified web search.

No one is claiming that at all. All I offered was an example to show you what you'll find in the relevant "peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy." The one i offered was was from the most recent edition of the journal Homeopathy You seemed to be somewhat misinformed as to what the relevant journals were actually publishing, likely because you've never looked for yourself, so I thought an example would be helpful to you. As always, I urge you to check for yourself.

Take your time. I'll wait ....

Now that you've taken some time to examine the relevant journals and discover what the consensus is yourself, I have to ask: Do you still believe that "It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts"? Do you still believe that "It's irrational for non-experts to form a opinion contradicted by the consensus of domain experts. You are wrong if you think otherwise."?

Comment Re:Haven't we heard this before? (Score 1) 209

What?

Of your examples, the first comes closest to reality. It's wrong, of course, but you could make a good argument.

The original iPhone browser wasn't (and still isn't) good enough for high-quality web apps. Of course, at the time, neither was any browser. If you'll recall, Apple didn't seem interested in third-party apps at the time. They were much more interested in controlling what apps were on the platform. (The ability to local/offline local/offline web app with a nice icon on the home screen icon was little more than a vague promise as late as October 2007.) Really, it's difficult to say that it had web apps at all.

The release of the SDK looked more like an attempt to regain some control over the iOS software market, as intrepid hackers had already developed native third-party applications. Jobs couldn't stop it, and the endless exploits were an embarrassment. The world would not let him have his completely closed platform. The SDK let them have some control those nasty third-party apps.

Palm never released a native SDK. The closest they came was the PDK, which isn't quite the same thing. I'm not sure who was complaining, as even the internet doesn't seem to remember. Today, new standards like webGL and the web audio api negate the need that Palm's PDK intended to fullfill.

RIM has always had a native SDK. Nor do I recall anyone complaining about webworks, not that it would matter if they did as there has always been an NDK.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Little else matters than to write good code." -- Karl Lehenbauer

Working...