NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/med/nutritio/1712

Text File | 1992-12-31 | 4.6 KB | 106 lines

Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!destroyer!cs.ubc.ca!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!altar
From: [e-mail] (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:08:07 GMT
Lines: 94


Ted Wayn Altar writes:
>>Usually that "understanding" instantiated by a proven ability
>>to earn some credentials.

Steve Dyer replies:

>Well, I have credentials: I have a masters degree in computer science.

I sure you are fine computer programmer, but with respect to
evaluating Professor Moon as a "crank", you were simply out
of line.

>I made a choice early on that I wanted to do this; it's far more lucrative
>and equally as interesting as a career in pharmacology.  But I love pharma-
>cology, too, and keep up with it constantly.  I just prefer to make my
>living with computers.  But I'll let my record of posting on the topic of
>pharmacology stand on its own; anyone with a PhD in pharmacology or an MD
>would be proud to have the same record.

Steve, this is not an academic forum where proper peer review occurs,
this is not an scientific journal, it is merely an electronic
conference of intelligent laypersons, yourself included.


>>Hmm, for balance let us employ Mr Dyer's bad form and observe in turn
>>that churlish Mr. Dyer is ignorant of statistics, experimental
>>methodology, formal logic, philosophy of science, literature,
>>poetry, psychology, sociology, just for starters.

>Yeah, and my underwear is too tight, too.  You're really scraping the
>bottom of the barrel for insults, aren't you?  What an absurdity.

Let's not forget, as you have here conveniently edited out, that
the above remark is simply imitating your own specific paragraph that
was no more than a mere personal insults serving only to evade
the issue at hand.

Exactly, such insults are absurd!  Now, that I've shown you how absurd
this style of debate that you repeatedly laspse into, is
in point of fact, how about exercising some self-restraint and
forgo the personal insults and rude remarks?

>>He's good with
>>the bombast and can recite the prosaic information from general
>>textbooks on pharmocology.  Too bad parroting his unnamed textbooks
>>never cashed out in any degree in pharmacy or a single publication
>>in any scientific journal,

>I do not parrot textbooks, unlike Ted.  I've read them long ago and
>understand them.  He's unaware that there's a difference there.  And
>you don't need to have a publication in a scientific journal to under-
>stand a field; that would eliminate 90% of all of a journal's audience.
>Also, Ted: the field is spelled pharmacology and it's distinct from
>the practice of pharmacy.

90% you say?  This is merely a false statistic that you've reached
in the air to pull out.  Really, Steve, do you have a sociological
study of journal readership in hand?   Ok, no doubt many of the
readers of specialized scientific journals may themselves not yet have
published (e.g., grad students), and whether it is 10% or 90% is neither
here nor there.  What is at issue, if I may be permitted to remind you,
is that you rudely demeaned Professor Moon as a mere "crank" when
yourself had not even yet read his paper and when such a remark
serves no intellectual purpose except to stiffle intellectual
curiosity and open-mindedness.


>>nor has the spirit of intellectual
>>curiosity and humility rubbed off from such a parroting.

>Intellectual curiosity is no excuse for a weak mind.  And it's hard to
>appear humble when you've got Ted acting as a foil.

"Weak mind"?  Since when in contemporary psychology is the mind
to be liken to a muscle?   You really don't know about the human
"mind"    ;-)

Anyway, here you go again, you just can't seem to understand that the
abusive ad hominem is a fallacy of irrelevance, as well as,
a callow form of debate.

Look, we ALL here are lay persons, yourself included.  After all,
this conference cuts across a number of intellectual disciplines
of which no one person can be an accomplished expert in all.
A little humility and graciousness is in order.  To put down
readers for their efforts to honestly report upon some interesting
information they have learned in a class or in a journal article
is not in the spirit of what this conference is all about.  After
all, we are here to share information and help each other out and
to make this an interesting and friendly experience.  Resorting
to name-calling doesn't serve that purpose.