10 of 13
10
Robert Price & Chris Mooney - Must Atheists Also Be Liberals?
Posted: 09 July 2010 12:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 136 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2010-07-09
Analytic - 09 July 2010 12:22 PM

That was easily identifiable sarcasm.

Since that statement was made with the exact tone and bluster of all your other statements on this thread, I think I have to conclude that everything you’ve stated is sarcasm.

Odd to have a troll out himself, but it sure makes life easier.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2010 12:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 137 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7576
Joined  2007-03-02
DarronS - 09 July 2010 11:57 AM
LawnBoy - 09 July 2010 11:51 AM

When Analytic was given the “evidence that homosexuality is genetic, or biologically determined” that he asked for, he declares it’s insufficient because it doesn’t prove “that homosexuals would really rather be heterosexuals”.

Just in case you haven’t noticed, Analytic’s strong suit is strident ideology, not logic. He uses arrogance as a trump suit.

Ideology is right.  He reeks of Fundamngelicalism.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2010 12:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 138 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  260
Joined  2010-05-18
bimston - 09 July 2010 08:41 AM
Analytic - 09 July 2010 06:31 AM

The Science articles were dated 1991, 1992 and have NOT been reproduced.

A quick note on this:
When you’re doing a literature review, it’s expected and appropriate to start with early articles in the field to establish background and early experiments on your position.  It’s also frequently the case that somebody made an observation in a study, the relevance of which wasn’t apparent until many years later.  When I’m writing an introduction section, it’s likely - especially if referencing anatomy or histology - that I’ll include a few papers from the 1960s or older.  This is because a lot of good, basic research was done then and the findings haven’t changed in the intervening years (and we shouldn’t expect them to).  There have often been numerous studies to corroborate the findings of older papers, but it’s convention to cite the oldest unambiguous reference to the data you’re discussing.  Anybody who’s interested can look up the old article you’ve referenced and do a library search to see what more recent papers cite this article (PubMed even does the work for you to some extent).  This is pretty much straight out of research writing 101.

In a scientific PUBLICATION versus an undergraduate thesis, editors of the better journals demand that you be as brief as possible. Printing excess wording costs money.

So mostly publications within the recent past and germane to the subject should be the only necessary citations. Because hard scientist writers KNOW that the EARLIER literature, if worthy, would be cited by EARLIER writers.

You will not find extensive citations in science publishing. The exception could be deep reviews, and they are not frequent, but even they limit citations to the recent past.
————————————————————
Thus, I take attempted “snow jobs” by non - or pseudo-scientists with a ... stick of dynamite. snake

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2010 12:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 139 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2008-04-05
Analytic - 09 July 2010 11:36 AM

Why is it that someone as misinformed - and grateful for it - as yourself would even dare take on the question of animal models standing in for humans?

There are no CELL CULTURES or computer programs that could be used to study a single ORGAN system relevant to human health.

Sorry, but your zealotry doesn’t even begin to dent my armor. In fact, I’ve heard it all before from equally untutored people.

But my 4 decades of material - not theoretical - research using animal models has taught all interested something they could NEVER have learned using your tinker toys.

Now before you take umbrage at what you may feel are abrasive comments, try to use REASON to belittle me.

Good luck. cool grin

This is fun. I want to see RG21 and Analytic talk to each other. They have so much in common. They could talk about appeal to authority, varieties of ad hominem, ignoring evidence, ignoring questions, moving goal posts, reverse appeal to antiquity- they could talk about how impervious their “armor” is to the challenges of others- which is a great disposition for a supposed scientist… oh wait… maybe they aren’t actually aware of these things… And that was too smooth of a baton passing…  I CALL SOCK PUPPET!!  And the only thing underneath is a shivering, angry bird.

Answer the questions Analytic!!!

 Signature 

“Mary is the Yoko Ono of the Holy Family… and Satan is the Ringo.  It wouldn’t be the same without him- sometimes they even let him sing”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2010 01:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 140 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  27
Joined  2010-07-04
Analytic - 09 July 2010 12:32 PM

In a scientific PUBLICATION versus an undergraduate thesis, editors of the better journals demand that you be as brief as possible. Printing excess wording costs money.

So mostly publications within the recent past and germane to the subject should be the only necessary citations. Because hard scientist writers KNOW that the EARLIER literature, if worthy, would be cited by EARLIER writers.

You will not find extensive citations in science publishing. The exception could be deep reviews, and they are not frequent, but even they limit citations to the recent past.
————————————————————
Thus, I take attempted “snow jobs” by non - or pseudo-scientists with a ... stick of dynamite. snake

I’m not sure what field you’re publishing in, but it must not be biology.  Either that, or somebody trained you wrong as a joke.  I guess either one is possible.  Since the specific discussion is on biology and/or psychology, these are the standards we go by.  Recent references generally go in the discussion section, whereas the introduction has a mixture of old and new references to establish the scope of the study.  It isn’t uncommon for an ~8-page paper to have 100+ references with 40 or so of those cited in the introduction.  Also, you keep on changing the focus of your attacks.  I assume this means you concede the previous points?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2010 01:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 141 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7576
Joined  2007-03-02
bimston - 09 July 2010 01:12 PM
Analytic - 09 July 2010 12:32 PM

In a scientific PUBLICATION versus an undergraduate thesis, editors of the better journals demand that you be as brief as possible. Printing excess wording costs money.

So mostly publications within the recent past and germane to the subject should be the only necessary citations. Because hard scientist writers KNOW that the EARLIER literature, if worthy, would be cited by EARLIER writers.

You will not find extensive citations in science publishing. The exception could be deep reviews, and they are not frequent, but even they limit citations to the recent past.
————————————————————
Thus, I take attempted “snow jobs” by non - or pseudo-scientists with a ... stick of dynamite. snake

I’m not sure what field you’re publishing in, but it must not be biology.  Either that, or somebody trained you wrong as a joke.  I guess either one is possible.  Since the specific discussion is on biology and/or psychology, these are the standards we go by.  Recent references generally go in the discussion section, whereas the introduction has a mixture of old and new references to establish the scope of the study.  It isn’t uncommon for an ~8-page paper to have 100+ references with 40 or so of those cited in the introduction.  Also, you keep on changing the focus of your attacks.  I assume this means you concede the previous points?

I agree with you, bimston and along with that long paper are generally that stats that were involved in the testing.  New or same findings must have something previous to base the current findings.  Either past findings are supported or they are not and in each case we showed, old findings were supported.  Add to that evaluations of postmortem studies are usually conclusive with each new observation.  If each new corpse show similar findings, then there is something to what is found with autopsies.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2010 02:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 142 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3028
Joined  2010-04-26

Fundamngelical

How do you pronounce that?

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2010 03:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 143 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7576
Joined  2007-03-02
Dead Monky - 09 July 2010 02:27 PM

Fundamngelical

How do you pronounce that?

LOL  Just as it looks- fun-damn-gel-e-cal

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2010 03:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 144 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3028
Joined  2010-04-26

Gotcha.  Me am are read poor.  Word things hurt brainhead.

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2010 04:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 145 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7576
Joined  2007-03-02
Dead Monky - 09 July 2010 03:42 PM

Gotcha.  Me am are read poor.  Word things hurt brainhead.

Sorry didn’t mean to hurt your head.  I like creating new words, esp when flat out saying it is several times longer.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2010 04:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 146 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3028
Joined  2010-04-26

Sorry didn’t mean to hurt your head.  I like creating new words, esp when flat out saying it is several times longer.

I’m just messing around.  I just failed to notice that “damn” was inserted in the middle of it.  I make up words all the time.  Like “douchetacular” and “donkeyfied.”

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2010 04:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 147 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  66
Joined  2007-08-11
Logan - 05 July 2010 01:51 PM

I stand for the vast majority of atheists when I say that it is more paradoxical to be a socially conservative atheist than to be an atheist who believes in ghosts.

You and others are equating atheism with morality (not everyone here). Atheism is the lack of a belief in the supernatural/gods. If you put “humanism” where you wrote atheism, you may have something (depending on how you define humanism).

My beef with the episode was that it was only 30 minutes long. It seemed to me, listening to the show that Mooney just said “well, we’ve been talking for a bit, lets stop”.

[ Edited: 09 July 2010 04:37 PM by KevinISlaughter ]
 Signature 

“Our world was brutal, immoral, smug and conventional. We had unbounded contempt for all those who did not sin as we sinned.” Jim Tully Circus Parade

“Books are not absolutely dead things, but do contain a potency of life in them to be as active as that soul whose progeny they are; nay they do preserve as in a vial the purest efficacy and extraction of that living intellect that bred them.” - John Milton Aeropagitca

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2010 04:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 148 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3028
Joined  2010-04-26

Atheism is the lack of a belief in the supernatural/gods.

No it’s not.  Atheism is merely the lack of belief in a god.  One can be an atheist and still believe in the supernatural.  Most don’t though.

If you put “humanism” where you wrote atheism, you may have something (depending on how you define humanism).

Still not a proper fit.

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2010 04:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 149 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7576
Joined  2007-03-02
Dead Monky - 09 July 2010 04:13 PM

Sorry didn’t mean to hurt your head.  I like creating new words, esp when flat out saying it is several times longer.

I’m just messing around.  I just failed to notice that “damn” was inserted in the middle of it.  I make up words all the time.  Like “douchetacular” and “donkeyfied.”

LOL  Those are good.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2010 04:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 150 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3028
Joined  2010-04-26

Those are good.

Thanks.

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
   
10 of 13
10