 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / September 2005The "Net-Loon Index"
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove/net-loon_index.html Funny site. Anybody want to take a gander at scoring _our_ resident loon? > http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove/net-loon_index.html > > Funny site. > > Anybody want to take a gander at scoring _our_ resident > loon? Amazing... this is a spoof right? You put that together specifically taylored for _our_ resident loon, right? He's off the chart. -:) -Quick >> http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove/net-loon_index.html >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >specifically taylored for _our_ resident loon, right? He's >off the chart. -:) I promise I had nothing to do with its creation, but you're right: fits like a glove! It came across on a bicycling newsgroup this morning :-) Wow-- these describe Otis to the max! Here's some particularly pertinent ones! 3) Commonly forces their hypothesis into discussion threads that are discussing other topics. (+ 40 points). 7) Makes a statement that is widely agreed on to be false. (+10 points per statement)* 8) When asked, they subsequently cannot (or will not) provide a published reference that backs up their statement in #6 or #7. (+ 40 points).* 14) Shows (or admits) no/little knowledge of other people's previous work on the subject. (+ 40 points). 15) Prefaces (or ends) their statement with a comment about how misguided/shortsighted/brainwashed/delusional the professional scientific community is. (+ 40 points). 16) Consistently uses quotes from only one book/paper/article/TV-show as the sole external support for their theory. (+ 20 points). 17) Is not aware of the widely published evidence that contradicts his/her hypothesis. (+ 10 points). 18) Repetitively "forgets" (or ignores) factual information, provided by others in earlier discussion thread(s), that disproves (or is strong evidence against) their hypothesis. (+ 30 points).* 22) Claims that the professional science community is trying to silence him/her because the professional science community is trying to cover up the "truth". (+40 points).* Although I agree with most of the Net-Loon Index--and some posters fit the profile perfectly--no names please :-) I disagree with numbers 7, 8 and 22. The fact that a claim may be widely viewed as false in no invalidates the claim. There are *many* examples in science of a hypothesis that was at first widely viewed as false, but later proved to be true. If someone proposes a truly *original* hypothesis, how can you ask him to provide a published reference that backs it up? Although claims that the scientific community is trying to silence him/her are nonsense in probably 99% of cases, it definitely does occur. If you don't think so, read about how the scientific community went after astrophysicist Louis Frank for his hypothesis on water-bearing comets. http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/wp.html Of course, the vast majority of fringe science is nonsense, but the following sites make the argument that excessive scepticism can be bad for science: http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/wbelief1.html http://www.alternativescience.com http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/ . Dear Friends, Certainly the concept that the natural eye is a sophisticated system, and controls its refractive state -- to its average-visual environment -- is difficult to "accept". For those who can not "accept" it -- then I regret that. But that is what DIRECT experimental data tells us about the behavior of a population of natural eyes, when correctly tested on an "input" versus "output" basis. This analytical process is at the core of fundamental science. But enjoy these analytical conversations. Some additional commentary: "The important thing is to not stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing". Albert Einstein "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday, is the hope of today, and the reality of tomorrow. Robert H. Goddard >Although I agree with most of the Net-Loon Index--and some posters fit >the profile perfectly--no names please :-) I disagree with numbers >7, 8 and 22. > > The fact that a claim may be widely viewed as false in no invalidates >the claim. An important corollary to that concept, though is: continually asserting a claim that has no established basis in fact in no way increases the validity of that claim ;-) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.