The well rounded weirdo

"Postmodern winemaking."

Feels so '80s-ish and all Michael Graves.

dis.hdqtrs.dwarves.closeup.jpg
 
"I believe areas of fundamental mystery exist for which science can never provide useful answers. Theory can prescribe musical chords, but it cannot explain why a major chord is cheerful and a minor chord is melancholy."

Actually, science does a pretty good job here. It turns out it's arbitrary, learned, and cultural.
 
It makes him hard to read when he blandly asserts falsehoods.

"In addition, science has always relied heavily on the credentials and integrity of researchers. Heavy hitters are always taken more seriously. When Nobel prize-winning chemist Linus Pauling told us to take more Vitamin C, we simply took his word for it."

We, paleface?

"Not only does an interesting story boost marketing, but any actual quality improvements easily compensate for yield reductions."

Easily? Tell it to the guys in Beaujolais or Jasnieres or Muscadet.
 
It's almost every paragraph. Must stop reading, go back to work.

As usual, the nonsense is mixed in with with things that are incontestable, written in the same tone with the same emphasis.

Someone let me know how it turns out.
 
Faith= a belief that cannot be proven. The vast majority of the world has beliefs founded solely on faith.
SF Joe, I had a piano teacher who said listen to the chords do you envision white puffy clouds= major chord or do you envision dark clouds scudding along the horizon= minor chords. She was a graduate of Julliard and that's the best she could do as far as listening was concerned.
Oh by the way, I took the piano lessons as an adult for a couple of years and then recognized that without any doubt I had absoutely no talent and worked on my backhand for tennis.
 
The first paragraph made me throw up a little in my mouth.

The nail in the coffin of lucid thought: "At the core of true science is a sense of awe and wonder."
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
Someone let me know how it turns out.
Click to expand...
Won't be me. I made it up to this charming sentence:

"Finally, in some important areas, organized knowledge may be fundamentally unobtainable."

It is perfectly reasonable to say that we don't know this or that; it is altogether another to say that something is unknowable. I see no need to read any more of this unEnlightened prose.
 
I'm no scientist, but I gave up ever the remarks on Darwin, which were wrong in so many ways, in so few words, that it's hard to count. I also noted the appeal to authority line, but one could recuperate that, I suppose, by saying that the larger and more wide-ranging the theory in question, and the more it has been confirmed in various ways, the more it would take to overturn it. That's a different claim, but maybe he can't tell the difference.
 
originally posted by Lou Kessler:
PagansFaith= a belief that cannot be proven. The vast majority of the world has beliefs founded solely on faith.
SF Joe, I had a piano teacher who said listen to the chords do you envision white puffy clouds= major chord or do you envision dark clouds scudding along the horizon= minor chords. She was a graduate of Julliard and that's the best she could do as far as listening was concerned.
Oh by the way, I took the piano lessons as an adult for a couple of years and then recognized that without any doubt I had absoutely no talent and worked on my backhand for tennis.
Click to expand...
You offer this as your refutation of Science and the scientific method?
 
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
Has anyone NOT full of shit ever used the word "holistic"?
Click to expand...

David Bohm, for one. Douglas Hofstadter for another. It all depends on the circles you travel in, Otto. We in the physical sciences tend to not bend the meanings of English words too much, though there are some egregious exceptions to that observation.

Mark Lipton

p.s. I couldn't make it past the first two paragraphs. It made my head hurt just trying to make sense of his blather.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top