On 17 Jun, 20:35, "I'm not Farrel you retard" <ErnstPri...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On Jun 17, 10:55=A0am, ernie...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Ernie Primeau) wrote:
>
> > was impeded by criticism.
>
> =A0 No scientists' research is "impeded by criticism," in fact, science
> thrives on criticism. It's called "critical thinking." If everyone
> simply accepted people's unproven theories without asking for data,
> then science wouldn't be science, it would just be "who can yell the
> loudest."
>
> > It was incited by 3 unfavorable perceptions.
> > First, the scientific concensus formed in the second half of the
> > twentieth century held that key to understanding cancer would be found
> > in studying cancer cells, not healthy blood vessels.
>
> =A0 That's simply reflecting how science develops. Earlier theories are
> studied until the weight of data indicate that a new, updated theory
> or approach is needed. Older ideas are built on previous evidence
> until new evidence requires older ideas be updated.
>
> > =A0Second, his research was driven by intuition, not solid scientific
> > evidence.
>
> =A0 =A0That doesn't make sense - Dr. Folkman's research was driven by
just=
> that - *research*. He published his first scientific paper when he was
> an undergraduate student. He was winning awards for scientific
> achievement even before he became a doctor - Judah Folkman had a
> talent for science that people recognized long before he went to
> medical school (source:http://www.helenmoss.org/FolkmanCV.pdf)
>
> > And third, Folkman was a surgeon, an occupation that was not
> > held in a high esteem by the scientific community.
>
> =A0 =A0Says who? Laboratory science and medicine are closely linked, and
> have been since the 1900s in the United States. In addition, Folkman
> was publi****ng scientific research long before he ever became a
> surgeon, and published research long after he became a surgeon.
>
> > He had no training in
> > molecular biology or biochemistry.
>
> =A0 =A0Wrong - knowledge of chemistry, biology, and physics have been
long=
> required of college students as a condition of even being *accepted*
> to medical school, and has been a feature of medical training at top
> schools such as Harvard and Johns Hopkins since the early 1900s.
>
> > His job was to remove tumors from
> > patients, not follow a hunch why they did what they did.
>
> =A0 =A0Again, says who? Medicine has been recognized as an applied
science=
> in the United States since the 1900s. Doctors follow "hunches" all the
> time - they perform systematic clinical evaluations and experiment
> with their patients, and then do***ent what they did. That's called
> "clinical science."
>
> > That was the
> > province of scientists, who built years of data to prove their
> > hypotheses before they unleashed them on unsuspecting and naturally
> > conservative scientific community.
>
> =A0 =A0Physicians and scientists are the same thing in this country,
> Ernie. Physicians are trained as applied scientists, while (for
> example) physicists are involved in pure research.
>
> > =A0What is to be learned from this.
>
> > 1. If it had not been for assholes like farrel criticizing him and his
> > work, his cure would have been available many years ago, saving many
> > lives.
>
> =A0 =A0Folkman was not "criticized by assholes like farrel" - his
theories=
> and research were criticized, and Folkman responded not by simply
> idiotically restating his intuitions, but by unlea****ng years of data
> upon the scientific community (as can be clearly seen by perusing his
> CV).
>
> > 2. To scientists, if they didn't think about it, they don't want to
hear=
> > about it. If you are not trained in any scientific field, you will not
> > be listened to about anything.
>
> =A0 =A0There is no evidence Folkman was ever denied a forum for his
> publications, even when he was an undergraduate with nothing but a
> high school degree to his name.
>
> =A0 =A0In fact, he was apparently listened to whenever he submitted a
> research article for publication - sure, his data and conclusions were
> criticized, but he was well-prepared for their criticism, and he also
> expected criticism - that's how science works and he succeeded because
> he practiced science well.
>
> > 3. Scientists are paid to gather data, not think.
>
> =A0 =A0 No, lab technicians are paid to gather data. Scientists are
indeed=
> paid to think, as well as write, and publish, and teach, and
> experiment.
>
> > 4. They are the most close-minded people in the world. Ernie
>
> =A0 =A0 Science is by nature a conservative discipline - as well it
should=
> be, Ernie. If one could simply be recognized as having a correct
> theory simply by just stating one's intuitions and beliefs over and
> over again (as Ernie Primeau does), then we would still believe that
> the sun rotates around the earth and that volcanoes are caused by
> monsters.
>
> =A0 =A0 Instead, science requires one thing, and one thing only - PROOF.
> No, not "I offered people Scott's phone number" or "Maisie Dowell and
> Tyrone Z said my theory works," but instead it requires people to do
> experiments, and clearly do***ent what was done, and how it was done,
> and have one's writing be vetted by the scientific community prior to
> publication.
>
>
>
> > Remember Dr Folkman, surgeon
>
> =A0 =A0My God, Ernie, you don't even remember him.
>
> =A0 =A0How much of this post of yours was copied and pasted, Ernie?
Hahahahahahahha! Asshole Farrel posts babble due to her frustrations,
and her drunken inability to understand Ernie's erudite post.
|
