« Back After 400 Years: The New Moon | Main | Rising Damp »

March 28, 2007

Comments

Michael_The_Rock

Those are pretty good pot odds. I would put in my $1 on each bet just to watch you do the research to prove your assertions. I thought your point was that Taranto was too lazy (intellectually and otherwise) to do any research.
Assuming that you would be doing this on your own time, I'd be surprised if you could get all that data on $3 worth of your time. You'd lose even if you won.

/I hire others to mow my lawn.
//Stopped subscribing to SA when it became more about the politics than the science.

Comment : What do you think about other than the cost of mowing your lawn ? The due diligence behind the odds is already a done deal.

Michael_The_Rock

"What do you think about other than the cost of mowing your lawn ?"

It would cost more than $3.00 of my time to answer this.

"The due diligence behind the odds is already a done deal."

Then you've already overspent on this wager, right?

Smart-assery aside, I find it difficult to understand what you intended by adding the reference to .......................

Boring comment continues interminably as they often do .

References are not provided for the readers convenience.

They must trouble themselves to read the damned things.

Michael_The_Rock

I suspected you might delete my comment. Good thing I kept a screen shot.

I used to enjoy this blog. Now you've just proven yourself to be a hack.

Go ahead, delete this too, so no one finds out.

But they will. Don't worry though, the only people who will begin to question your veracity are people with brains to think for themselves.

So much for discourse.

Where do we send the bill for editing the last one ?
Please see _ It Pays To Advertise_ , March 30.
The Management

philw

A pox on both your houses.
The Bush Admin is not pro science, and it's true that US science education continues to decline. But more on topic, Sci-Am has become more and more poli-sci as opposed to pure and applied science. Agenda science, be it anti-nuclear hysteria or the orthodoxy of anthropic global warming is really hurting the perception of science today. I only buy issues on occasion rather than support a scientifically biased publication.

Ben

I read that Seed article -- oh yeah, that was really>/i> bipartisan. Cheap shots at Bush and... not a word about the Dems or the left. Maybe Bush is "anti-science" in some respects, but certainly less so than Harvard's PC philistines who ran off Larry Summers.

And sorry, but accusing someone of being anti-science because he doubts the theory of anthropogenic global warming is simply absurd. The people who do such things are blatantly ignoring the work of eminent scientists who dispute the theory. Science is about debate and proof, both of which the GW alarmists are adamantly against.

Gekkobear

Ok, so the original article was good? And the poll was reasonable?

Interesting.

Can you do a poll regarding the movement of electrons around the nucleus of an atom? Atomic/Particle physics would be greatly simplified if we could get back to the "orbiting" theory.

Sure it doesn't match science, but a majority of polled Americans is now sufficient for Science... (which is what Taranto was mocking). Since you believe this, lets see if we can get a consensus to reset PI and e to 3 as well (that whole repeating decimal thing gets on my last nerve).

If you don't believe that public polls should decide scientific fact, then I can't see why you've spent all this time and effort attacking Taranto's mockery of the use of polls as a scientific basis...

Unless of course its political.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

.. .. Russell Seitz .. ..

  • search results
  • Consulting Services



  •  
    View blog reactions

  • Locations of visitors to this page

Lampreys , Lemmings , and Loons

The Last Post And Chorus