Scientific American Gives Up

Ms. (Dr.?) DLowan

While I have never previously addressed you on this forum or (knowingly) anywhere else, I wish to do so now, since you address me, and wish to enquire:

Are you or are you not an alleged professional of the psychobabble persuasion? If so, kindly be advised that your entire line of business is a prime candidate for complete elimination under the "cargo cult" criterion:

_____________________________________________________________

I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head to headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.html
_____________________________________________________________

May I add in that connection - since you seem to be posting from Australia - that I had the honor of working with the late New Zealand Prime Minister Robert Muldoon and supported (to the infinitesimal degree that my then position in DC afforded) his motion to unite NZ with AU in order to avoid having the NZ population overwhelmed by primitive savages?

To the point: our government's "religious" stance on issues is not repeat NOT the problem here; the political correctness exhibited in the UN, Kyoto, the appalling ignorance on overpopulation as the primary source of world pollution, (and yes I DO have satellite backup on that one), IS the problem.

In the circumstances, and since you seem to subscribe to all those aforementioned cargo cults, I don't believe that you should ever wish to address me again; I certainly do not wish to reciprocate your favor in that regard, which is acknowledged here with thanks. I trust the foregoing was clear and thank you in advance.

P.S.
Correction: I did once address DLowan on another thread concerning her apology on something or other, which I accepted.

This discussion is at an end as far as I'm concerned - in an office on Saturday, still with lots of things to do before I leave on vacation next week. Happy Easter, all.

I for one am curious as to what satellite data provides evidence of population being the primary cause of pollution and not the industrial processes used by that population.


Maybe Scientific American will have the science for this in their April issue.

.............

Wow.
I didn't think this thread would get any funnier than the first post.
Boy, was I wrong.

Sheer genius.

I made a mistake just one time. I thought I was wrong but I wasnt.
Sometimes the point of satire needs to be further explained, ? why is that?

As I recall there were many cargo cults for a period of time throughout New Guinea. Their general logic was that Americans soldiers must be in good standing with their ancestors which is the reason the ancestors sent them goods (cargo) from "heaven." Many "prophets" emerged during the war period, each telling their "constituents" that if they made certain moral changes in behavior (including, I presume, the good treatment of the prophet) they would, like the Americans, receive goods from their ancestors. The building of model airports was part of the required magic in some of the cults, but the changes in moral behavior was the deeper rationale for the cults.

Me too........I was ready to give up. That last line was a wonderful surprise, even though I should have seen it coming. Very good. Funny.

I am going to have to make a little trip to Borders for breakfast tomorrow - I certainly hope they have copies of it. Ah, I don't presently live in the home of scientific americans (hey, we just got Borders last year and the rest of our bookstores sustain the pre-owned book folk like me), and I haven't subscribed to S.A. for, er, decades now. Maybe I'll get a latte with that..

Pulling up a chair for DLowan's response.

Actually, HofT, you addressed dlowan, oh, some half a dozen times at least - in almost uniform rudeness, I may add. Easy to find by doing an A2K search for "dlowan" by "hoft".

Nah - no response to that sort of thing. I did find it amusing, though.

It is odd though, that particular outburst.

Hoft appears to have taken an absolutely straight question, where I was very curious about what more I might be able to do (I feel quite helpless re what is happening re science in the US - here they are just starving it of funds - not trying to destroy aspects of it) and hoping for some good ideas. My concerns re the US are re creationism, and the birth control stuff.

Blimey - makes you wonder what on earth would have happened if I had meant to be unpleasant.

I wrote quite an extensive repast on my own experience with H of T, and then chucked it. I see a lot of teeth knifing and rudeness is part of that.

Let it knife itself out.

Actually, the reaction of someone above about this making them want to subscribe to Scientific American is true for me, as well - I receive their updates and have limited access - but this editorial makes me love them!

I don't remember if the someone above was me or someone else, but I will def connect to the magazine.

Actually - apropos of that - does anyone on the thread have ideas as to the best of the general science magazines to subscribe to?

I have very limited funds.

Dlowan, Osso and everyone else, I would recommend for good reading the FREEBIE, www.aldaily.com put out by The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Thank you, JL, I'll look to it now. I am also tempted to just wail ahead and subscribe to Sci Am. Need to check the amount. You all could be surprised what amount makes a difference. Speaketh she who puts off her New Yorker subscription each year. Who happens to need it to live.

even when Tina took over.

JL, serious people subscribe to that, maybe DLow does. I have somehow not glommed on. I'll try again.

>trying to be serious<

Ok, Ok, I'll listen to you.