Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2014 Ripper Conference In The U.K.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • nouns and verbs

    Hello Paul. Thanks.

    "He made a mistake of interpretation."

    He did, indeed. But surely such a mistake is not science? Insofar as science is a noun, it must be a set of propositions.

    For biology, such a set might include:

    1. Most plants reproduce asexually.

    2. Carnivores, to adapt, must have good teeth.

    and so on.

    Now, given that this set of propositions are true (and remembering that science is scientia [episteme] "exact demonstrable knowledge"), when one makes a mistake in reasoning about science, one is clearly NOT doing science. So I ask again, what was he doing when he made this mistake in reasoning? We can't say 'science.' If he were doing biology, then I am convinced that the set of true propositions in biology are NOT pseudo-science. But what he did cannot be placed in this set.

    Now, perhaps you take science as a verb. Very well. To "do" science includes:

    1. Extracting molecules from a cloth.

    2. Pouring liquids from a beaker or Ehrlenmeyer flask.

    3. Examining slides under a microscope.

    But you will notice that such activities are neither true nor false. So, true and false depend upon the "noun" of science--a set of propositions. And that set of propositions MUST be true--else it is not science.

    To put it succinctly, he was NOT doing science when he made his mistake.

    If you dislike "pseudo," that's fine. And I admit that it is easily conflated (as you and a couple others have done) with disciplines which are not really science.

    My alternative suggestion for reasoning about science that includes one or more mistakes is "science." What do the quotes indicate? Something that is called X, but is really Y. In other words, false. So "false" science or, to employ the Greek, pseudo.

    In logic, we have an object language, meta language and strict definitions to obviate such confusion. Sadly, not every discipline can boast that.

    Cheers.
    LC


    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
      I am Tom.

      I was hoping youd get the dig of it being an Epiphany. Or maybe you did.

      Anyhoo...if its not vanity press....what is it called these days? "Independant publisher"? "Hipster press"? "Non Aligned Publishing"?

      p
      Self publishing.

      Early days, but probably the way publishing will go, especially for niche or specialist books, which Tom's arguably is. And it is or can be financially more remunerative than traditional publishing. Unfortunately, it also means that there is a lot of dross published and the average reader has no real way of assessing the book's worth before purchasing. Amazon reviews are one way, but they're open to manipulation and can't always be trusted. Things will no doubt settle down in due course.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
        Mrs Poster,

        I have had a look through my Casebook posts concerning the shawl and can't see anything that I would classify as bile.
        .
        Sorry Mr B...I dont know where i got the Mrs from.

        Heres a few random quotes, not even the choicest, about a man you dont know.

        So, Dr Loopylou, what was it that first attracted you to multimillionaire Russell Edwards?

        OK, let's play the ball. Why would a respected scientist be keen to help a wheeler dealer businessman construct a case for Kosminski being JTR when the science could never support such a claim?

        That's something I would really like to know. I can think of only two possibilities: naivety or venality (the latter might not involve cash changing hands, the opportunity to self publicise would be just as attractive and potentially just as financially rewarding in the long run).


        You were even warned about it at another point and thats a bit odd given where it was all happening:


        "I don't think it is any way helpful to describe JL as being venal. He is, I am sure, like most scientists, interested in seeking out the truth of the matter, whatever he is engaged in. To imply that he has engaged himself upon this project because he is open to some form of bribery, as the phrase you used does suggest, steers awfully close to libelous defamation."


        Then more of it from you...

        Now you know why Jari doesn't answer. He's too busy down his local, The Shawl and Semen Stain, practising Bat Out of Hell on the karaoke machine.

        and theres ever so much more. From you and others. About someone you dont know but then are outraged when they wont answer your questions.

        I wont bother with Lynn Cates stuff as its a step too far through the looking glass for me.

        Cogdinibus or whatevers indignant accusation of charlatanry is here on thes epages somewhere.

        I mean .... are ye proud of all this? About a man you dont know, never met and who has done you no personal harm?

        p

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
          Hello Paul. Thanks.

          "He made a mistake of interpretation."

          He did, indeed. But surely such a mistake is not science? Insofar as science is a noun, it must be a set of propositions.

          For biology, such a set might include:

          1. Most plants reproduce asexually.

          2. Carnivores, to adapt, must have good teeth.

          and so on.

          Now, given that this set of propositions are true (and remembering that science is scientia [episteme] "exact demonstrable knowledge"), when one makes a mistake in reasoning about science, one is clearly NOT doing science. So I ask again, what was he doing when he made this mistake in reasoning? We can't say 'science.' If he were doing biology, then I am convinced that the set of true propositions in biology are NOT pseudo-science. But what he did cannot be placed in this set.

          Now, perhaps you take science as a verb. Very well. To "do" science includes:

          1. Extracting molecules from a cloth.

          2. Pouring liquids from a beaker or Ehrlenmeyer flask.

          3. Examining slides under a microscope.

          But you will notice that such activities are neither true nor false. So, true and false depend upon the "noun" of science--a set of propositions. And that set of propositions MUST be true--else it is not science.

          To put it succinctly, he was NOT doing science when he made his mistake.

          If you dislike "pseudo," that's fine. And I admit that it is easily conflated (as you and a couple others have done) with disciplines which are not really science.

          My alternative suggestion for reasoning about science that includes one or more mistakes is "science." What do the quotes indicate? Something that is called X, but is really Y. In other words, false. So "false" science or, to employ the Greek, pseudo.

          In logic, we have an object language, meta language and strict definitions to obviate such confusion. Sadly, not every discipline can boast that.

          Cheers.
          LC


          Stop trying to avoid the fact that you were called on your guff.

          P

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
            Hello Paul. Thanks.

            "He made a mistake of interpretation."

            He did, indeed. But surely such a mistake is not science? Insofar as science is a noun, it must be a set of propositions.

            For biology, such a set might include:

            1. Most plants reproduce asexually.

            2. Carnivores, to adapt, must have good teeth.

            and so on.

            Now, given that this set of propositions are true (and remembering that science is scientia [episteme] "exact demonstrable knowledge"), when one makes a mistake in reasoning about science, one is clearly NOT doing science. So I ask again, what was he doing when he made this mistake in reasoning? We can't say 'science.' If he were doing biology, then I am convinced that the set of true propositions in biology are NOT pseudo-science. But what he did cannot be placed in this set.

            Now, perhaps you take science as a verb. Very well. To "do" science includes:

            1. Extracting molecules from a cloth.

            2. Pouring liquids from a beaker or Ehrlenmeyer flask.

            3. Examining slides under a microscope.

            But you will notice that such activities are neither true nor false. So, true and false depend upon the "noun" of science--a set of propositions. And that set of propositions MUST be true--else it is not science.

            To put it succinctly, he was NOT doing science when he made his mistake.

            If you dislike "pseudo," that's fine. And I admit that it is easily conflated (as you and a couple others have done) with disciplines which are not really science.

            My alternative suggestion for reasoning about science that includes one or more mistakes is "science." What do the quotes indicate? Something that is called X, but is really Y. In other words, false. So "false" science or, to employ the Greek, pseudo.

            In logic, we have an object language, meta language and strict definitions to obviate such confusion. Sadly, not every discipline can boast that.

            Cheers.
            LC


            Hi Lynn
            The mistake was a product of science. It was not a product of pseudo-science. Something grounded in science is science even if it is incorrect. It is not the product of fals or pretend science. Outside of that, I am a simple wordsmith with my trusty OED at my side, and the OED defines pseudo-science as a spurious or pretended science. Mistakes don't seem to come into it. can't say much else.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
              Of course I got the 'dig'. It wasn't a very good one. There are vanity presses, of course. Those are where an author pays a bunch of money to have copies of their book printed and shipped to them. That's more in line with how traditional publishing works in this day and age. What I did was different, I publish print on demand through createspace and then on Kindle, both via Amazon. So it costs me nothing, I retain full control, make way more in royalties, and Amazon mails out the paperbacks for me. I'm going to generously assume you know how Kindle works so I won't explain that. If you still don't see the difference, feel free to say so.

              Yours truly,

              Tom Wescott
              Ah I see.....its vanity press but you dont have to pay anything and you dont get any printed copies.

              p

              Comment


              • Mr P,

                It does look rather damning when placed in a pile like that.

                In my defence I would first say that I used venal in the sense of mercenary, rather than corrupt. I still believe there must have been something in the arrangement for Jari. And he must have been aware to what use his work would be put. Either that, or he was naive.

                I bought the book. I feel I was conned.

                Perhaps the peer review of the science will change my mind.

                Gary

                Comment


                • Hello Mr B.

                  To be fair, I didnt think there was malice in your comments. Some were quite funny.

                  The really nasty ones are the ones from certain quarters with the word expert or Dr. In inverted commas and so. They were both nasty and unimaginative.

                  And lets remember that the real stinkers were on the thread that was so bad it had to be closed over on the other site.

                  But it demonstrates that while individual posters may have a funny comment or two, if you were faced with literally hundreds of them on page after page by many different posters calling every aspect of your professional life into question and all from people you never met.....would you want to engage with that community?

                  I wouldnt.

                  P

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
                    Ah I see.....its vanity press but you dont have to pay anything and you dont get any printed copies.

                    p
                    No, Mr. P. You DO get printed copies. That's what a 'paperback' is. And if I'm not paying to print the copies, it's clearly not a 'vanity' press. Do you know what the word means?

                    Yours truly,

                    Tom Wescott

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Paul View Post
                      Self publishing.

                      Early days, but probably the way publishing will go, especially for niche or specialist books, which Tom's arguably is. And it is or can be financially more remunerative than traditional publishing. Unfortunately, it also means that there is a lot of dross published and the average reader has no real way of assessing the book's worth before purchasing. Amazon reviews are one way, but they're open to manipulation and can't always be trusted. Things will no doubt settle down in due course.
                      Hi Paul, that's a fair version. But what's the way of assessing a book's worth before purchasing it in regards to 'traditionally published' books that's not available to self-published?

                      Yours truly,

                      Tom Wescott

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                        No, Mr. P. You DO get printed copies. That's what a 'paperback' is. And if I'm not paying to print the copies, it's clearly not a 'vanity' press. Do you know what the word means?

                        Yours truly,

                        Tom Wescott
                        I know I get a printed copy, I meant YOU dont get them and have to distribute them.

                        P

                        Comment


                        • Tom personally sent signed copies out, so obviously he had copies of his own to distribute.

                          JM

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                            Hi Paul, that's a fair version. But what's the way of assessing a book's worth before purchasing it in regards to 'traditionally published' books that's not available to self-published?

                            Yours truly,

                            Tom Wescott
                            Thats easy. Certain publishing houses have good reps for certain genres and if they are publishing a book theres a better than even chance of it not being crap.

                            You may get a crock occassionally but in general you know you have a good chance of getting a decent well edited book if its a good publishing house.

                            Self published books seem to be a bit of a lottery.

                            P

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JMenges View Post
                              Tom personally sent signed copies out, so obviously he had copies of his own to distribute.

                              JM
                              He said that amazon distributes for him. So while he may have copies of his own to send to friends, he doesnt appear to have piles of books round his house.

                              P

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
                                I know I get a printed copy, I meant YOU dont get them and have to distribute them.

                                P
                                I can if I want. I'm thinking of getting a stack and doing some public book signings. There's authors groups in my area that organize these, but it'd have to be profitable for me to sit at a table all day fielding questions about shawls and royal conspiracies and why Paul Begg loves himself some academics. You know, the usual questions.

                                Yours truly,

                                Tom Wescott

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X