On Thursday 25 April 2002 14:22, Anon. Coward wrote:
Again, I do not care about the bully orthodoxy, to prove anything.
Have you read any books by Martin Gardner? If you haven't let me recommend to you (and others) Fads and fallacies in the name of science. Another is Science - good bag and bogus. While they're not strictly on topic here they do make a brilliant read, and give an insight into the mind of the pseudo-scientist. One thing you'll learn from reading those books is how the pseudo-scientiscs handle themselves in an argument. A common feature is that their arguments consist of two parts: one true, moderately easily checked and verifiable, thus lending credence to the other part which is generally filled with very complex, frequently made-up, technically sounding words that don't mean anything. Another feature is when the opponent refuses to believe the - ofter preposteruous - conclusions, and that is screaming about "orthodoxy". This word, outside the religious world, is most frequently used by pseudo-scientists to characterize their opponents. The idea is to compare themselves in the minds of the laymen unqualified to look through their arguments to such scientific rebels such as Einstein and Galileo; after all, weren't those greats also ridiculed by their contemporaries. The big difference of course is that Einstein and Galileo backed up their arguments by falsifiable statements and were prepared to admit if they were wrong (it happened). For examples of this in the current computer world see Steve Gibson - and Mr. Coward. regards Anders