Wil Cali start again as a newbie under new RDF forums?

[SevenOfNine]

Cali never cited his own scientific work - but cited and commented the work of oodles of other respected scientists, from respected journals. Who he is doesn't matter. The quality of the material he's brought to the table does.

Also, Richard credited many non-scientists and non-specialists for aiding him with research or helping him in other ways. My working hypothesis is that your hypothesis is balls, and you're once again trying to garner negative attention.

My point, transparently, was that in a discussion forum, or indeed any kind of publication, there is more that matters than being right or wrong.

It doesn't seem to bother Richard that Darwin never even got a degree...

Huh? A master of Arts degree, I believe! Its on the title page of "Origins".

[Blondie]

Indeed

Qualifications are a useful indicator prior to production, of the likely value of said product.

If for example you wished to employ someone to teach science, then qualifications are a useful indicator of the person's knowledge and ability.

However in situations like this where the product is freely available for you to accept or reject, then the qualifications of the person producing it are entirely irrelevant t the value of the piece, and in some cases might actually be detrimental as you are more likely to accept without checking the assertions of the more qualified writer.

I agree, I was just dismissing his assertion that what Cali said invalidates 'qualifications' globally - which is just silly hyperbolic nonsense.

[Blondie]

Qualifications get you in the door, but once inside, you have to perform.

Where I come from to get those qualifications you have to go through years of schooling/training.. Are you seriously suggesting the process of earning a degree (bachelors, masters, Ph.d, etc..) is entirely irrelevant/worthless, outside of 'opening the door'?

Sure there are some examples of remarkable autodidacts, but I won't swallow the line that a formalized education is 'pointless' or 'worthless' (barring the partying, cheating, or rich twats who buy or cheat their way through). Without a systematized body of knowledge, such as we have in the modern day, we'd be no better than the presocratic philosophers supposing the essential nature of the "elements" is chaos - neat thought. But not scientific.


edit - grammar police politely knocked on my door. Then the spelling gestapo busted in.

[HrothgirOD]

Back in the day, Astronomy was a hot bed of the amateur scientist... Will Hay, comic actor, was a prime example of the breed. He trained briefly as an engineer, but dropped it all for acting.
Patrick Moore is a living example. Done a lot of work on Lunar Transients, but doesn't actually have a bit of paper... Not sure how common the 'gentleman amateur' producing publishable obersevations actually is, these days. I think cometry is popular still.

[Mysturji]

Actually, the claim that I would make with respect to forum material is that it does not matter who is posting that material, but whether that material is correct. Just because someone happens to be an amateur does not mean that they are incapable of making a contribution in an arena such as a forum. Indeed, if that contribution happens to be a particularly exquisite one, does it matter ultimately whether or not the poster in question is a tenured scientist or a dustman? If a dustman posts content that happens to be well structured, lucid, contains well-constructed valid arguments, and illuminates a topic, why should that individual not receive due credit for this? To state otherwise, with respect to forum content, is snobbery plain and simple. What matters, at bottom, is that valid ideas are being presented in such a manner that people realise those ideas are valid. The identity of the author, ultimately, matters not one jot, except for the proper purpose of dispensing credit where it is due for excellent work.

Oh, can I have a little time with respect to the material I've cited? Only I'm currently adding Imodium supplements to my meals because I woke up today with a fulminating case of the trots, and I'm at the stage now where I need to curl up with a hot water bottle for a few hours before continuing. Doubtless Dev will find something amusing to say about this, though if he posts this:



then I'll tell him he can come round and clean up any mess.

Have you seen my shit diary thread?
It's not like private property or anything. Feel free to post your experiences and observations, even the results of any experiments you think of.
But I ask you: No derails please. Not like what happened at TAF.

[FedUpWithFaith]

As a sign of solidarity, I would suggest that ANYONE who goes back to the new RD forum put a "_2" or "v2" at the end of their old user name.

[Boadacia!]

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought all old ID's were somehow going to be transferred to 'the new improved science and serious only, forum?' Similar to how they are now linked to the Front Page?

[Calilasseia]

Right, I'm back, after 24 hours of intestinal fun and frolics of the sort that none of you here ever wish to experience, I've taken screenshots of the relevant E-Mails, and if someone here at Rationala (Gawdzilla?) will provide somewhere secure to save it so it can be linked to (this is NOT the sort of thing I would trust to ImageShack) then I can send it over, and it can be displayed here, so that everyone can see that I have indeed played some small part in RD's latest tome. Oh, and since I've included a screenshot of the mail listing, at least one of the Ratz will recognise two of her E-Mails appearing in that list, intermingled with RD's, and at least one by Per Ahlberg on the Ventastega paper (yes, that Per Ahlberg, as if anyone here thinks of any other!). So, you'll realise I've been swimming with some big fish on occasions, a metaphor that appeal to me enormously as an aquarist.

So, if someone amongst the mod team here can find somewhere safe for the JPEG (it's a bloody huge one, it's around 1,024 × 5,000 pixels!), host it somewhere safe, then pop a link here, everyone can have fun viewing this monstrosity of a JPEG and perusing the contents.

Oh, and before anyone asks, no, I'm NOT having a secret affair with the Ratzmaiden in question.

[Salviati]

A label like "zoologist" is inappropriate in real life, just like "non-PhD" is inappropriate, if you really believe in your own words that it's the contents that matters.

For anybody who really wants to erect the crass assertion that only ideas presented by a PhD have any validity, I invite you to research one James Croll, former caretaker of Anderson's University (now Strathclyde University).

As goes without saying, these are, in view of my prior posts, nothing more than juvenile misrepresentations.

Once again, it is trivial that a person's qualifications don't in any way impinge upon the truth value of his or her claims. Also I wouldn't dream of restricting scientific dialogue to people carrying PhDs. I don't even (yet) own a PhD myself; surely though I wouldn't consider my own opinions worthless.

My point was one about credibility. Wikipedia is a great place to learn about almost anything, and generally excels in quality as well as quantity. Nevertheless, I don't think you have to be an anal-retentive curmudgeon to question whether Wikipedia is a reliable source. Much the same applies (at least at first pass) to random posters on the Internet who don't possess noteworthy qualifications and haven't produced original scientific work.

I thought this was important to stress given some of the remarks on this thread. Sure, Calilasseia wrote a lot of instructive and interesting posts, and apparently knows quite a lot about science. However, I deny that by himself he should be a big enough term in the equation to give Richard and Josh second thoughts with respect to the proposed forum changes.

Anyway, I won't talk about this anymore. I'm mainly interested in the claim that Richard didn't give Calilasseia due credit.

[Calilasseia]

Stand by everyone ...

Huge JPEG file showing relevant screenshots. Yes, my default colour scheme for my Windows desktop consists of lurid green. Bite me.

Have fun reading that lot everyone.

[95Theses]

I appreciate you've got a bee in your bonnet over this Cali, and it's clear that you were helping him with valuable research.

However perhaps you shouldn't have just publicised his personal email address on the intertubes.

Could you maybe blank it out perhaps?

[hackenslash]

I appreciate you've got a bee in your bonnet over this Cali, and it's clear that you were helping him with valuable research.

However perhaps you shouldn't have just publicised his personal email address on the intertubes.

Could you maybe blank it out perhaps?

That's not his personal e-mail, but his university e-mail, which is freely available to anybody who knows he's a professor at Oxford.

Of course, it could be argued that most of the people who might send him abuse are pretty brainless, but nonetheless...

[Psi Wavefunction]

I appreciate you've got a bee in your bonnet over this Cali, and it's clear that you were helping him with valuable research.

However perhaps you shouldn't have just publicised his personal email address on the intertubes.

Could you maybe blank it out perhaps?

+1

Esp Josh's... that's a disaster waiting to happen

[Calilasseia]

Oh bloody hell ... give me a break, I've just spent 24 hours shitting myself practically to death here, which means I'm doing this on 4 cylinders instead of 12.

Give me some time and I'll fire up a revised version.

EDIT: Done. Mailing it to Gawdzilla now.

[Salviati]

Calilasseia, I don't understand what you've done to feel entitled to a special footnote in Richard's book. I have the work right in front of me, and I fail to see how you have achieved anything more than saving Richard a bit of time Googling a few half-lives.

There were numerous people from whom Richard received actual creative input (not just a few references easily obtained by anyone who knows how to use Google). There were people such as Lisa Bauer who put in many hours of labour. Are you suggesting that by compiling a simple spreadsheet (unnecessary, in any case), you earned a special thanks that would put you on the same footing as these people who contributed to the book in a substantial way?