Originally posted by shadowmaster

logical positivism sucks

I know, right?

I got bt by a mosquito yesterday.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

False, this is not a fact it is your opinion.

This is not opinion, it is how science works and how scientists view Discover.

It is sad to see that you think you know better than scientists and think you have a better way to regulate science instead of peer review. Maybe things need to change. You should email the academy.

Also, if this is my opinion....why would I be laughed at if I cite a Discover article in my next paper or grant?

You still have yet to give an answer for this one.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

If you do not believe this is not true you simply have cite sources to dispute it.[i][b]

I am still waiting for you to cite the primary articles that lead you to conclude that the Earth is round and the the Earth revolves around the sun. You can't just say that they behave this way...you need to cite the study that let's us know this.

Originally posted by element771

This is not opinion, it is how science works and how scientists view Discover.

False, that is not how scientists view Discover. I can cite you fookish statement concerning SA and Discover again if you like. You will haedly find a reputable scientist that would share your rant.

It is sad to see that you think you know better than scientists and think you have a better way to regulate science instead of peer review. Maybe things need to change. You should email the academy.

Misrepresenting me again. I never said I think any thing of the sort. Your foolish rant concerning these magazines is witness enough of your distorted view of science.
By the way peer review does not regulate science. That is one more foot in mouth on your score card.

Also, if this is my opinion....why would I be laughed at if I cite a Discover article in my next paper or grant?

This is not the problem with your opinion. I never said that citing Discover was appropriate for a scientific journal. Your foolish distorted rant on the magazines, your promoting an anonymous source as an authority, and accepting 'what people say' are the major problems. Get this straight, my argument is against your misrepresentation of the magazines in your foolish rant, and promoting an anonymous authority as more qualified than others.

You still have yet to give an answer for this one.

I am still waiting for you to cite the primary articles that lead you to conclude that the Earth is round and the the Earth revolves around the sun. You can't just say that they behave this way...you need to cite the study that let's us know this.

You will have a long wait, because I do not respond to foolish meaningless requests. If there was a legitimate need behind this request, i would respond, but no there is none.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

False, that is not how scientists view Discover. I can cite you fookish statement concerning SA and Discover again if you like. You will haedly find a reputable scientist that would share your rant.

You really should stop pretending that you know what you are talking about, you are really starting to embarass yourself.

Please find me a scientist that think that Discover and SA are at the same standards as academic journals.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

By the way peer review does not regulate science. That is one more foot in mouth on your score card.

Then what does? What is the process by which data is reviewed and deemed fit for publication? You are a joke.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

I never said that citing Discover was appropriate for a scientific journal. Your foolish distorted rant on the magazines, your promoting an anonymous source as an authority, and accepting 'what people say' are the major problems.

If Discover was at the same standards as academic journals then you should be able to. That is the point. I understand that you have not literally said this. I am taking the next logical step in your views. I am also using senarios that would apply directly to what you are saying. These senarios show how ridiculous your ideas are.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Get this straight, my argument is against your misrepresentation of the magazines in your foolish rant, and promoting an anonymous authority as more qualified than others.

AGAIN. HOW AM I MISREPRESENTING THE MAGAZINES?

ARE THEY PEER REVIEWED? NO!

ARE THEY ACCEPTED IN THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY AT THE SAME LEVEL AS ACADEMIC JOURNALS? NO!

Also just by interaction and reading posts, everyone here is more qualifiied than you are. It is not like I just stumbled upon SM and thought this. It was from numerous interactions and posts, uncluding interactions with you.

SM knows science. You think you know science because of you opinions of how things should work....not how they actually work. You should really check your ego.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

You will have a long wait, because I do not respond to foolish meaningless requests. If there was a legitimate need behind this request, i would respond, but no there is none.

These requests are on the same level as asking me to cite an article that explicity states that the universe is finite.

Originally posted by element771

You really should stop pretending that you know what you are talking about, you are really starting to embarass yourself.

Please find me a scientist that think that Discover and SA are at the same standards as academic journals.

Again misrepresentation, I never said these magazines were the same as journals. I say they are reputable, accurate scientific magazines where scientific authors publish there articles based on their publications and research , and they are not pop science.

AGAIN. HOW AM I MISREPRESENTING THE MAGAZINES?

HERE!! And I will keep repeating it every time you ask.

Originally posted by element771

Scientific American and Discover are magazines that promote pop science. While interesting, there articles are designed to entertain as well as to inform. Most articles that I have read in discover and SA were absolutely riddled with assumptions and lacked any sense of reality in the field (these were biology articles, so I am an expert and am familiar with the research in the areas of the articles).

If you are using these two in the place of scholarly journals then it is you who only understand it on a popular level. There is no peer review in magazines. They can print anything they want without having to back it up with any rigor or subject it to peer reviews. Authors are published in these mags not scientists.

Again, the reason why they publish this far out ideas as virtual certainties is to sell magazines. No one would buy a magazine that had a story entitled "The Universe - Finite and All There Is" How boring is that?!?

Also just by interaction and reading posts, everyone here is more qualifiied than you are. It is not like I just stumbled upon SM and thought this. It was from numerous interactions and posts, uncluding interactions with you.

Again vague assertions, attempts at bullying, and opinions nothing to back it up.

SM knows science. You think you know science because of you opinions of how things should work....not how they actually work. You should really check your ego.

You have presented nothing to support your assertion that SM is anything more than a fellow poster on Tweb.

These requests are on the same level as asking me to cite an article that explicity states that the universe is finite.

Misrepresentation again, your consistent if nothing else. I never asked for an article that explicitly states that the universe is finite. I asked for sources in cosmology that support the view that the greater cosmos is finite. The greater cosmos may or may not be equivalent to our universe.

I have cited legitimate scientific journal sources that support the possibility of concepts of multi-verses and an infinite and eternal greater cosmos, and I will do so again and again.

Scientific American is largely a pop magazine like element said. It's just a popular science source for layman, much like Stephen Hawkins book Brief history of time. An actual scientific book on Physics however is along the lines of introductory to M-Theory and superstrings.

This is a scientific journal http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/apj

Originally posted by shadowmaster

A friend (a baha'i) told me that the Baha'i religion teaches that God has sent a series of prophets -- including Jesus. He specifically said that Bahá'u'lláh was the second coming of Jesus Christ. Is that true in your estimation?

Yes, but all prophets are not messiahs, and each on is the return of all that have come in the past. Christ fulfilled prophecies for the return of Zoroaster and Vedic prophecies for the return of Krishna. Specifically in Vedic traditions it refers to being nailed to a tree.

Originally posted by element771

You really should stop pretending that you know what you are talking about, you are really starting to embarass yourself.

I think it would help if we reviewed your statement again in how I feel you misrepresent science and these magazines. Your statement about the authors not being scientists is apparently retracted, but that is not the only problem. I have highlighted more.

Originally posted by element771

Scientific American and Discover are magazines that promote pop science. While interesting, there articles are designed to entertain as well as to inform. Most articles that I have read in discover and SA were absolutely riddled with assumptions and lacked any sense of reality in the field (these were biology articles, so I am an expert and am familiar with the research in the areas of the articles).

If you are using these two in the place of scholarly journals then it is you who only understand it on a popular level. There is no peer review in magazines. They can print anything they want without having to back it up with any rigor or subject it to peer reviews. Authors are published in these mags not scientists.

Again, the reason why they publish this far out ideas as virtual certainties is to sell magazines. No one would buy a magazine that had a story entitled "The Universe - Finite and All There Is" How boring is that?!?

What far out ideas are you referring to? Ther are of course bad articles that occasionall appear and the magazines are held accountable to these problems, and sometimes suffer embarrassment. Remember bogus, fraudulant, and some far out ideas like cold fusion (remember Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann in 1989) have been published in peer reviewed journals.

These generalizations do not describe the content of these magazines.

Originally posted by Sea of red

Scientific American is largely a pop magazine like element said. It's just a popular science source for layman, much like Stephen Hawkins book Brief history of time. An actual scientific book on Physics however is along the lines of introductory to M-Theory and superstrings.

This is a scientific journal http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/apj

Well it looks like another scientist agrees with my assertion that these magazines are mainly pop science.

Originally posted by element771

Well it looks like another scientist agrees with my assertion that these magazines are mainly pop science.

Of course I disagree with calling it pop science. Does he agree with you that the only purpose of the magazines is to sell and not present legitimate accurate science.

Maybe if each of you could say exactly what you mean by pop science, and why its bad or not?

My 2 cents, not everyone (myself included) can read or understand higher level bits on some sciences, so I gotta do the next best thing. If its not a reasonably accurate representation though, I'm kind of wasting my time.

So, is reading magazines below the level of pure science journals, that is to say, pop science, pointless or does it have some value? At what level of pop science is it worthless (example, popular science/mechanics) verse it being mildly useful or whatever.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Of course I disagree with calling it pop science. Does he agree with you that the only purpose of the magazines is to sell and not present legitimate accurate science.

I never said that the only purpose is to sell magazines. That is part of the reason but not the only reason. My problem is that because they are not peer reviewed, speculation and conclusions are not placed under the same rigor as peer reviewed articles. Therefore, scientist have more leeway to speculate and draw implications from their research that would never pass peer review.

Originally posted by Jaecp

My 2 cents, not everyone (myself included) can read or understand higher level bits on some sciences, so I gotta do the next best thing. If its not a reasonably accurate representation though, I'm kind of wasting my time.

It is reasonable and it does have plenty of value. I read Discover quite a bit. I just understand that the articles are not subjected to the same methods of review as scientific journals. It does not mean that they are pure fiction, just that the authors of the article are able to speculate and draw implications that they could never get away with in a peer reviewed journal.

Originally posted by Jaecp

So, is reading magazines below the level of pure science journals, that is to say, pop science, pointless or does it have some value? At what level of pop science is it worthless (example, popular science/mechanics) verse it being mildly useful or whatever.

I think it has immense value. It brings science to the lay person and may get people interested that would never be interested in the first place. But still, don't be under the illusion that these articles are peer reviewed and you will be fine. Because of this, you should just take these articles with a grain of salt (albeit a small one).

Keep in mind that the article is written by one person and represents their opinion / ideas only. If you know the difference between these articles and peer reviewed articles and are not under any illusions of their scientific rigor compared to peer review....you will be fine.

Originally posted by element771

I never said that the only purpose is to sell magazines. That is part of the reason but not the only reason. My problem is that because they are not peer reviewed, speculation and conclusions are not placed under the same rigor as peer reviewed articles. Therefore, scientist have more leeway to speculate and draw implications from their research that would never pass peer review.

Read you post I cited again. You present the view this dominates these publications.

Pop science is simply popular science. Why would you call Discover anything else?

Read about the science of fly swatting here:

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jun...s-fly-swatting

Wonder if that was peer reviewed.

Originally posted by shadowmaster

Pop science is simply popular science. Why would you call Discover anything else?

Read about the science of fly swatting here:

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jun...s-fly-swatting

Wonder if that was peer reviewed.

I am sure that it was reviewed by the fly swatting expert editorial board.