Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Oh and before I forget, the IEEE and Springer the dsitinguised journal published between them over 100 papers that were complete garbage, as in junk papers made by a program at MIT, which just grabbed bits and pieces from random papers on the internet.

All the researchers did was rewrite the abstracts, the papers were gibberish, junk. Over 100 of these junk papers got published, peer reveiw eh, the reviewers read the abstracts and agreed, and gave the papers the OK without ever checking the actual science.

#peerreview

 

Jebus, Einstein was a vocal hater of peer review Irony.

I guesss we should cancel Evolution, Darwin didn't have it peer reviewed.

Who peer reviewed Newton? Einstein? Who peer reviews anyone who does cutting edge science, they cannot be peer reviewed because they have no peers in their field

 

% is irrelevant, the fact a paper is not a fact is all you need to understand, it's even worse to cite a paper you don't understand.

 

Why are you so condescending to everybody about everything?

 

Maybe the result of a lack of social understanding but also often a symptom of chronic low self esteem, typically as a result of childhood trauma such as physical, sexual or mental abuse by a parent or teacher. A coping method is then sought, these are often self destructive eg drink,drugs, alternative worlds with a different persona including mild psychosis. The coping method may be viewed as a positive such as a drive and determination to achieve in sport or business, one alternative coping method is a system of double think whereby a person self portrays as superior around a false truth despite being aware of the truth. This can allow them a certain amount of resilience, however, as the self worth is based upon what the person may view as their only positive attribute, they are likely to display defensive behaviours whenever they sense a threat to their self perceived standing, this can include aggression, venting, refusal to accept reality, power struggles and avoidance.

Obviously not talking about anyone in particular just answering the question about condescending attitudes.

 

Top, top man I was in a general studies lesson at school and the teacher asked the question as to which single person changed the world more than any other, and I answered Darwin. That was the correct answer. When you really think about it in detail, it couldn't be anyone else.

 

Hmm. Nothing against Darwin and his achievements, but surely that's subjective?
How can you quantify the effect any single event or person has on the world? How can you weigh the importance of influence in one field against that in another?
Reminds me a bit of the portentous voice-overs in documentaries: " Then Came An Event That Would Change The World Of Science/Music/Cookery/Basket-Weaving Forever!!!"

All the scientists mentioned above have had huge influence in their fields and on the world in general, but so have many other people in many different walks of life. To pick one out as being more influential than any other is nothing more than expressing a personal preference, and not very scientific.

 

Evolution fundamentally changed our view on ourselves and the universe we live in. It pervades everything and makes the rest possible.

 

So how different would our lives be if we didn't understand evolution, compared with how different it would be if we hadn't, say, invented the wheel, discovered how to harness fire or realised the importance of sanitation to health?
Or any one of millions of discoveries and achievements that actually affect our lives.
Like I said, nothing against Darwin, but you've picked a favourite person in a favourite field and elevated him above everyone else in a way that is simply not possible.
It's all highly subjective. My candidate would be Fleming, because without him my personal world wouldn't exist.

 

Wish we hadn't given it away to the septics I take your point, saint. However, evolution pervades everything. That's where I'm coming from.

 

Depends how you look at it. Science has given the world bombs, weapons, war ships and fighter planes. The Bible has given the world the message to love one another, perform acts of charity and be at peace with the world and each other. So you could say the future of mankind rests on arms versus alms.

 

In theory anyone can publish data, not all journals are peer reviewed. Peer review sounds good, is flawed but is also all we have.

 

Behave. You're not saying there's no community, society, charity or love without religion, are you? And yes, science can be used for good or bad - for instance, Von Braun gave us the V2 and the Saturn V. The Bible gave the message of smiting your enemy, and science has merely been the tool to do that smiting.

 

In which case my selection is Mrs Audrey Owen, the midwife for my home birth at Finch Lane. I was born with my umbilical cord wrapped around my throat and had, evidently, been deprived of oxygen for several minutes. Trained professional knew what she was doing, and here I am today, without any brain damage. Sort of.

A side note of Darwin - my daughter was born exactly the same way 35 years later, but due to ultrasound and modern techniques they saw that coming, and they somehow (!) managed to unwrap the cord whilst she was still in the birth canal. Again, that was all the midwives. Didn't see one doctor throughout the whole process.

 

Science has also managed almost kill off polio and other disease that killed millions.

 

Are you more likely to read a journal article submitted by me without review or one that's been reviewed?

 

I'm not saying non-religious people can't be charitable or loving, no, far from it. I was merely pointing out that I don't think science alone will 'have more effect on the future of mankind' as you seemed to suggest. As for the science being the tool to do the smiting comment, what about the maxim guns don't kill people, people kill people? The gun might be the tool but it's redundant without the intent.

 

True. Religious people being a good example.

 

Yet did you ever get round to explaining the point that was raised/questioned by

n your point to Obama about the climate always changing (you are right on this) maybe you could us the chart labelled figure 16 from Mcshane and wyner 2010 showing a Backcast from Bayesian Model of Section 5. CRU Northern Hemisphere annual mean land temperature

@terrifictraore

 

Correct. I wasn't putting religion forward as a solution to all mankind's problems just suggesting that the messages of love and charity can be as powerful a force as anything science has created.