iowa61 wrote:
Mark Allen M wrote:
I don't know about this Iowa61 character but it sounds like he may be 'punking' a few of you guys. Ironic of a new member to show up on WIX with his only contributions being that of a "cheerleader" for a Doctor who thinks he has the AE thing all figured out. I have not seen, read or heard even as much as a sliver of any concrete evidence that's either logical or scientifically valid concerning the alleged bones of AE. Science is not, nor is it ever, exact science when infused with theory and speculation. Even if you are a leading expert in your scientific field, you still can't make 2+2=5. This Doctor should know that at a minimum. To state that this is "most likely" the bones of AE is neither scientific nor concrete. It's irresponsible and incorrect. A "scientific background" or "AE savvyness" is not required to practice common sense.
1) I am not a "cheerleader" for anybody. I most definitely am a cheerleader for the Scientific Method. I am not interested in "punking" anyone and don't know how any of my postings could be interpreted as such.
2) If you need to read "concrete evidence" that's "scientifically valid" about ANY subject, the definitive resource is in peer-reviewed scientific papers published in respected scientific journals.
3) The Scientific Method is, by design and process, the only way to remove "theory and speculation."
4) Rigorous review and critique by scientists of equal stature to Dr. Jantz, AND an esteemed scientific journal affirm Jants's findings as both "scientific and concrete."
5) "Common sense" has no place in the Scientific Method WHATSOEVER.
1) You sure your not the good doctor himself in alter-ego? Starting to come across as such. And if not, is he aware that your trying way too hard to defend him?
2) The only Scientific Method you've been trying to defend is one that has zero basis for concrete factual truth. And yes that's correct ... zero!!!!. Nothing that you have stated or presented to this conversation has proven a thing, other than the fact that you are vigorously attempting to defend a method without concern for facts or truth. And I'm sorry but your doctors paper just doesn't cut it until he has concrete proof to add to it. It's really that simple, without concrete proof your Scientific Method is no more than a Scientific Theory presented by Dr. Jantz. The truth is all that matters and without the truth you only have theory and speculation.
3) The Scientific Method is, by design and process, the only way to remove "theory and speculation."? really? apparently that hasn't worked in this case.
4) "scientific and concrete."? I've been reading your Scientific remarks without the Concrete proof added. I'm an Architect and Developer and if I built a home with one and not the other I'd be neck high in a lawsuit, if not worse.
5) "Common sense" has no place in the Scientific Method WHATSOEVER ... neither does proof or truth and you certainly have proven that correct as your only concrete proof positive, I'll give you that.
The bottom line is you're trying way too hard to defend what cannot be defended. Scientific Method is not based on fact, truth or evidence, it's based on systematic observation, measurement, experiment, and the formulation of questions or hypotheses, it does not include concrete factual results but rather a scientists determination of whether his results are true or false to himself and his peers. There's a big difference there.
I suppose a question to you would be if your convinced that most of us (WIX members) cannot hold a candle to you and your fellow "Scientific Methodites" (yes I know that's not a word lol) then why are you bothering to post here. I would think after your second or third post you would have learned all you needed to know about our lack of scientific methodology .... or so you think
.... Worthless conversation, yet entertaining on your part I'll admit.