Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Praise for the RATE Group
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 82 (104221)
04-30-2004 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Loudmouth
04-30-2004 1:48 PM


Re: Publishing in Science and Nature...
If technology is a scientific field then I fit your definition. If chemistry is a scientific field I fit that definition by my IMS analysis.
I disagree in that engineers do have to use the scientific method. I would say that good technicians do also. I have received two awards for my "scientific approach to resolving..." issues that pop up.
What if someone publishes an article that adds knowledge to a majority but a minority already had that knowledge? Is that person a scientist just because his/ her findings were made public?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Loudmouth, posted 04-30-2004 1:48 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Loudmouth, posted 04-30-2004 5:06 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 47 of 82 (104228)
04-30-2004 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by John Paul
04-30-2004 12:41 PM


Re: Publishing in Science and Nature...
If it's not your picture, then why use it? Quite simply, you are a technician of sorts most likely with an engineering degree or some trade school experience. Your knowledge of science (or more importantly your lack of knowledge) comes through loud and clear everytime you post. For some reason, it bothers you a lot that you are not considered a scientist. It does not bother me that I am not an engineer. We do different things. You toot your own horn enough that if even 1/2 of what you say is true, then you are a good engineer. For some reason, you're seem unhappy with your lot in life.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by John Paul, posted 04-30-2004 12:41 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by John Paul, posted 04-30-2004 3:13 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 82 (104243)
04-30-2004 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Joe Meert
04-30-2004 2:48 PM


Re: Publishing in Science and Nature...
Meert:
If it's not your picture, then why use it?
John Paul:
Oh and that is YOUR picture for your posts?
Meert:
Quite simply, you are a technician of sorts most likely with an engineering degree or some trade school experience.
John Paul:
Yeah, right. That must mean you are quite simply a school teacher who looks at dirt and rocks.
Meert:
Your knowledge of science (or more importantly your lack of knowledge) comes through loud and clear everytime you post.
John Paul:
Nice anti-christian assertion (read- LIE). Anything to substantiate your claim?
I am considered a scientist by my employer and peers. That is enough for me.
If I appear unhappy it has to do directly with dealing with you and your ilk.
skl

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Joe Meert, posted 04-30-2004 2:48 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Joe Meert, posted 04-30-2004 3:20 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 50 by John Paul, posted 04-30-2004 3:21 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 04-30-2004 3:23 PM John Paul has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 49 of 82 (104246)
04-30-2004 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by John Paul
04-30-2004 3:13 PM


Re: Publishing in Science and Nature...
John Paul:
Oh and that is YOUR picture for your posts?
JM: No, it's a picture of a snowball earth, why?
John Paul:
Yeah, right. That must mean you are quite simply a school teacher who looks at dirt and rocks.
JM: No, I am a Ph.D. scientist at a research institution, but you knew that.
JP:If I appear unhappy it has to do directly with dealing with you and your ilk.
JM: Actually, it seems to really bother you that you are an engineer and not a scientist. Actually, we don't even know that for a fact since you hide behind a pseudonym. You could be a short-order cook for all we know. However, I tend to think you are being honest about your job even if you embellish a bit on the details.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by John Paul, posted 04-30-2004 3:13 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by John Paul, posted 04-30-2004 3:25 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 82 (104250)
04-30-2004 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by John Paul
04-30-2004 3:13 PM


Re: Publishing in Science and Nature...
BTW JM I will take my understanding of science over yours everyday of the week. All I see you do is present un-verifiable theoretical musings of the past. What I do helps people of today and people of the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by John Paul, posted 04-30-2004 3:13 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Joe Meert, posted 04-30-2004 3:30 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 51 of 82 (104251)
04-30-2004 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by John Paul
04-30-2004 3:13 PM


Re: Publishing in Science and Nature...
Hi, JP!
If you really don't care whether others believe you're a scientist, then why all this pleading? And if you do care, then do you really believe saying, in essence, "I am *too* a scientist, I really am," is going to be persuasive? Why not just start posting in manner which reflects your scientific knowledge and temperament?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by John Paul, posted 04-30-2004 3:13 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by John Paul, posted 04-30-2004 3:31 PM Percy has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 82 (104255)
04-30-2004 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Joe Meert
04-30-2004 3:20 PM


Re: Publishing in Science and Nature...
What makes you a scientist Joe? What knowledge have you increased? (and is it really knowledge if it can't be verified?)
Again, for the learning impaired, I am both a scientist and an engineer. What bothers me is you don't know the difference and obviously couldn't see the forest because the trees get in the way.
What details, seeing I leave those out, do I embellish on?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Joe Meert, posted 04-30-2004 3:20 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 53 of 82 (104258)
04-30-2004 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by John Paul
04-30-2004 3:21 PM


Re: Publishing in Science and Nature...
BTW JM I will take my understanding of science over yours everyday of the week.
JM: I don't doubt you believe that for a moment. However, that really does not say all that much other than you've convinced yourself of that fact. Here's the rub, if you want to convince anyone besides yourself of your scientific prowess and understanding, then you've got to do so by demonstrating that you actually know what you are talking about. I see much bragadoccio and very little substance coming from you. In the words of Clara Peller, "Where's the beef"?
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by John Paul, posted 04-30-2004 3:21 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 82 (104259)
04-30-2004 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Percy
04-30-2004 3:23 PM


Re: Publishing in Science and Nature...
What does a scientific temperment resemble? I have met some pretty strange scientists in my life. And while your jumping on my back try Meert's. All he says is "JP is not a scientist" without anything to substantiate it.
However you are correct and IF I were a biological scientist you would have a point (this being a biological debate with some re more scientific rad dating thrown in). The point being is my expertise is not used in these fields. Perhaps that is what you are referring to. However we all know that there are more scientific fields than those being bantered about on this board.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 04-30-2004 3:23 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Joe Meert, posted 04-30-2004 3:41 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 04-30-2004 4:02 PM John Paul has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 55 of 82 (104264)
04-30-2004 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by John Paul
04-30-2004 3:31 PM


Re: Publishing in Science and Nature...
JP:All he says is "JP is not a scientist" without anything to substantiate it.
JM: You're right. I apologize. I should more properly say that from what I've seen of your posts, you do not appear to be scientifically literate in the topics you choose to discuss. I should also say that we only have your word and your actions from which to base our conclusions. At present, the best conclusion we can make is that you are an engineer of sorts who dabbles in creation evolution debates. Now, how about returning to the scientific discussion at hand? Stop telling us you're a scientist and start showing us.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by John Paul, posted 04-30-2004 3:31 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by John Paul, posted 04-30-2004 4:08 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 56 of 82 (104274)
04-30-2004 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by John Paul
04-30-2004 3:31 PM


Re: Publishing in Science and Nature...
John Paul writes:
And while your jumping on my back try Meert's. All he says is "JP is not a scientist" without anything to substantiate it.
As Joe has said several times now, he has your posts to substantiate his claims. I think Joe and I are saying the same thing, but I like the way Joe put it: stop telling us and start showing us.
By the way, could you fix that avatar? People might get the wrong idea about your scientific temperament.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by John Paul, posted 04-30-2004 3:31 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by John Paul, posted 04-30-2004 4:06 PM Percy has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 82 (104276)
04-30-2004 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Percy
04-30-2004 4:02 PM


Re: Publishing in Science and Nature...
I have asked for specifics and all I get is "your posts...". As if his posts make him out to be a scientist. Some might while most do not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 04-30-2004 4:02 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 04-30-2004 4:40 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 82 (104278)
04-30-2004 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Joe Meert
04-30-2004 3:41 PM


Re: Publishing in Science and Nature...
Joe could you be more specific? All I can do is to think that just because I disagree with you is what makes you believe I am not a scientist. I am very positive if I were on your side you wouldn't say anything about me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Joe Meert, posted 04-30-2004 3:41 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 59 of 82 (104296)
04-30-2004 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by John Paul
04-30-2004 4:06 PM


Re: Publishing in Science and Nature...
John Paul writes:
I have asked for specifics and all I get is "your posts...".
I guess I don't understand the question, because this doesn't seem like something that has to be explained. People build up impressions of you from your posts, which don't seem to reflect a scientific background.
When I was more active in journals and conferences I guess it fed back into my non-professional correspondence, and I would every once in a while receive email replies asking, "Are you a scientist or something?" I guess I've toned it down over the years because this hasn't happened in a while (I don't want to consider the other possibility that rather than toning it down I have dumbed it down through loss of brain cells ), but it makes clear that what you write *does* leave an impression on people.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by John Paul, posted 04-30-2004 4:06 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 82 (104309)
04-30-2004 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by John Paul
04-30-2004 2:34 PM


Re: Publishing in Science and Nature...
JP,
Maybe I am being too picky. I guess I have a certain personal description of what I think of as a scientists vs. engineer/technician that doesn't actually fit the widely accepted definition. I probably have a bias towards biological research, which I will readily admit to. We'll see if I can't clarify my position a little.
quote:
disagree in that engineers do have to use the scientific method. I would say that good technicians do also. I have received two awards for my "scientific approach to resolving..." issues that pop up.
I agree with you here. The difference that I see is that engineering is more of a concrete science in that the answers are often black and white. For example, does the bridge take the expected load or not, can we get a certain bandwidth over this copper line or not. Engineers prove things, scientists only support or disprove hypotheses. This is the difference I see between the two. But again, maybe I am being to strict with the term "scientist". Perhaps I should use "research scientist" vs. scientist vs. engineer. Just to recap:
Research scientist: supports or disproves hypotheses, but never able to give concrete conclusions of fact.
Scientist: expert in a technical field, uses scientific methods to further a goal.
Engineer: uses knowledge gained through the prior two professions to build objects.
And I can also see how a person can move in and out of those divisions, depending on what part of a project they are working on.
quote:
What if someone publishes an article that adds knowledge to a majority but a minority already had that knowledge? Is that person a scientist just because his/ her findings were made public?
I would say that person is more of a scientist for exposing their findings to the public. Science doesn't belong to an individual, but rather to all of humanity. It is a mantra among researchers in the biological sciences that "if it isn't published, it never happened." For anyone to make a claim within my field, they have to publish it, or at least present it to their peers in a manner that is equivalent to a publication. It is also the peer review system that is important. The public relies on the peer review system to tell them what is and what isn't good science. Not everyone can be an expert in every field, so it is up to the experts to decide if a hypothesis has been sufficiently supported, both through the data and through the methodologies used. So yes, publication is key because no one else can test privately held data and methodologies.
And I am not looking down at engineers or other scientists who aren't involved in research. There are days when I wish I had gone into engineering, especially if things start to stagnate in the lab. Research that isn't going anywhere gets pretty frustrating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by John Paul, posted 04-30-2004 2:34 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Joe Meert, posted 04-30-2004 5:45 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024