This thread has been moved from the Science section to separate it from the meaningful thread there.

Occam

From Analytic:
Dr. Joe - 27 November 2009 04:41 PM

This is an excellent way to assist with real science.

There is a fundamental difference between “real science” (BASIC RESEARCH consisting of experiments to determine the probability of an observation being reproducible),

and “TECHNOLOGY” (application of scientific discoveries to improve or develop new technology, eg, to produce a new tool for making more definitive observations; the history of microscopy is an apt EXAMPLE).

From Occam:
Anything which increases our knowledge and understanding of our universe is “real” science.  To think otherwise usually indicates supercillious egotism.  For example, some of the biochemists i’ve worked with feel that biologists are just technicians one step above psychologists, since it was the chemists who had to identify the structure of genes so the biologists could go back to their classifying.

Occam
Wirdoad

From Analytic:

Occam - 16 July 2010 10:58 AM
Anything which increases our knowledge and understanding of our universe is “real” science.

Yeah, for example, the “increasers of our knowledge and understanding” led to many decades of understanding that the earth was flat, and that the sun rotated around earth!! Until a few “real” scientists, including Galileo, disposed of those “egotistical” pseudo-scientists.

“To think otherwise usually indicates supercillious egotism

.

God forbid Occam could possibly suffer from “supercillious egotism”. Perhaps he meant “supercilious”. Whereas, at every opportunity Occam labels me a “troll”, I wonder if he has considered the distinct possibility that indeed HE IS THE “TROLL”.

“For example, some of the biochemists i’ve worked with feel that biologists are just technicians one step above psychologists, since it was the chemists who had to identify the structure of genes so the biologists could go back to their classifying.”

Three people were involved in the elucidation of the double-helical structure of the DNA of which genes are made.

Watson - PhD Zoology, Biochemistry.

Crick - PhD, X-Ray diffraction of polypeptides and proteins.

Wilkins - PhD Biochemistry

All three were awarded the Nobel Prize in “Physiology or Medicine” (NOT physics NOR Chemistry) in 1962 for their co-discovery of the structure of DNA (NOT the structure of genes).

Rosalind Franklin provided x-ray diffraction images of crystalized DNA without which the structure of DNA would not have been possible in the 1950s.

She was unaware that her x-ray crystalograms were sent to Watkins/Crick. And they did not confess to her nor the Nobel committee. She died at age 38.
——————————————————————————

Occam fancies himself a genuine scientist although his scientist credentials are unknown ... at least to me.

Why he crawled out of his mouse hole to throw another ad hominem at me is KNOWN to me - he is extremely envious.

[ Edited: 16 July 2010 12:19 PM by Analytic ]

From Occam:
Since we don’t list our personal data on the Internet, I and most of the members here question your claims of being a scientist, especially since you have made quite a few statements in regards to various aspects of biology that were shown to be false in subsequent posts.  In contrast, over the last few years I’ve demonstrated a knowledge of chemistry that could only be achieved by many years working in the field and an advanced degree in chemistry.  No one here, and some are also chemists, have ever found any technical statement I’ve made, incorrect.  I assure you, that by your posts you have nothing of which I should be envious.

Most of us have ignored your many typos over the period you’ve been posting, however, I realize you need to traduce as often as possible by spotting those very minor errors.  You missed my other typo, “Wirdpad” instead of “Wordpad.”

Ad hominum means “at the person” or a personal attack.  If you read my post you’ll see that I didn’t attack you, merely your claims. My “usually indicates supercilious egotism” was describing some who see their field as superior to other scientific fields, not attacking you personally.  Please be more precise when you are trying to find fault.  Otherwise someone who wasn’t too objective might see your comment as motivated by paranoia.

The best sources for identifying troll behavior are the members of the forum.  Would you like to set up a poll asking each member to vote on whether s/he sees you or me as the troll?

Occam

[ Edited: 17 July 2010 01:56 PM by Occam ]

From Jackson:

Analytic - 16 July 2010 06:50 AM

Dr. Joe - 27 November 2009 04:41 PM
This is an excellent way to assist with real science.

There is a fundamental difference between “real science” (BASIC RESEARCH consisting of experiments to determine the probability of an observation being reproducible),

and “TECHNOLOGY” (application of scientific discoveries to improve or develop new technology, eg, to produce a new tool for making more definitive observations; the history of microscopy is an apt EXAMPLE).

what is your problem?  Of the various BOINC choices was there another one you wanted to suggest?
A discussion of “what is science” should be a separate thread. I disagree with your definition but this is not the place for the discussion.

I agree, Jackson.  That’s why I’ve moved this discussion away from the main one.

From Analytic:
OK, Occam,

Calm yourself.

Give your definition of a troll and then ask the Forum if “Analytic” is a troll BY YOUR DEFINITION: yes or no responses only, please.

From Dead Monky:
Cap’n, that’s unfair.  Trolls come in numerous varieties.  The only thing they have in common in their penchant for disrupting the peace of a board.

From Asanta:
Yes You rarely add anything substantive to any discussion in progress. Most of your comments are either self aggrandizing, condescending, or ad hominum. Unlike you, Occam’s claimed credentials are supported by his comments, as are most others here claiming to have any.

Signature
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, where does that leave God?
                        -George Daacon

I’m a deeply religious nonbeliever….This is a somewhat new kind of religion.
                        -Albert Einstein

From Analytic:

Dead Monky - 17 July 2010 04:43 PM
Cap’n, that’s unfair.  Trolls come in numerous varieties.  The only thing they have in common in their penchant for disrupting the peace of a board.

Is that how “Occam” defines a “troll”?

In rigorous debate, how is “disrupting the peace” even assessed? Has that anything to do with your stating that “Trolls come in numerous varieties?”

It is my humble opinion that I have a “penchant” for ‘afflicting the comfortable’ - and believe it or not - ‘comforting the afflicted’.

The former seem to have formed a social clique here.

Thus, they see my mostly ‘educational’ comments as personal affronts according to the peurile “political correctness” scheme with which they’ve saddled themselves.

From Dead Monky:
How the hell should I know how Occam defines it?  I can’t read his mind.

And don’t give yourself more credit than you’re due.  You don’t go in for the whole “rigorous debate” thing and you know it.  As Asanta said, all you do is make arrogant proclamations and attack everyone for having a different point of view.  When you do get pulled into a debate—or fall into one—you avoid actually debating things in favor of angrily decrying everyone for being sheeple while carrying on about your great credentials and insight and how you know the TRUTH about things.  Or some such rubbish.

But I guess I should shut up.  After all….

[Sorry, D-M. I couldn’t figure out how to transfer the image.]

From Occam:
Wikipedia - In Internet usage, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

PC Magazine - Posting derogatory messages about sensitive subjects on websites to bait users into responding.

Indiana University Knowledge Base - The content of a troll posting generally falls into one of several categories. It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge, a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of a forum, or a broad request for trivial follow-up ostings. The result of such postings is frequently a flood of angry responses. In some cases, the follow-up messages posted in response to a troll can constitute a large fraction of the contents of a website for as long as several weeks. These messages are transmitted around the world to thousands of computers, wasting network resources. Troll threads also frustrate people who are trying to carry on substantive discussions.

People post such messages to get attention, to disrupt discussion, and to make trouble. The best response to a troll is no response. If you post a follow-up message, you are contributing to the resulting clamor and most likely delighting the troller.

I strongly suggest that everyone put our resident troll on “Ignore” so he’ll get bored and go elsewhere.  I shall certainly no longer respond.
Occam

[ Edited: 17 July 2010 07:04 PM by Occam ]

From Asanta:
Rats!... have to learn to stop feeding the trolls…...

Signature
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, where does that leave God?
                        -George Daacon

I’m a deeply religious nonbeliever….This is a somewhat new kind of religion.
                        -Albert Einstein

From Dead Monky:

The best response to a troll is no response. If you post a follow-up message, you are contributing to the resulting clamor and most likely delighting the troller.

Unless you’re trolling the trolls.

It would have been interesting to have an actual poll with radio buttons, but lacking that I vote: Analytic is a troll.

And I agree for the call on ignoring him. When he gets hungry he’ll slink off elsewhere.

Occam,

Since I don’t seem to be able to find a single comment in which I could be recognized as being a troll by your - or PC Mag - definition, I will take your advice and ignore you completely.

Goodbye, and good riddance!